1999-11-253914SENATE1064101999-11-25The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.1064110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:1064157JX4Minchin Sen NickTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.We the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that:Australia's Westminster system of government relies on the "separation of powers". Part of that separation is the convention that judges do not become involved in political issues of the day, in order to preserve the impartiality of the courts. Under this convention, judges seeking a political voice would resign their commission and stand for parliamentSeveral Australian judges have broken this important convention in recent times in one case there was a public perception that the judge was campaigning for change in legislation where he would personally benefit from such a change. Such conduct warrants severe censure.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate will:censure those judges who, by their public involvement in political issues, compromise the neutrality of the courts.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Senator MinchinJX4Senator Minchin(from 57 citizens)Petition received.Business1064110641Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to.That the following government business orders be considered from 12.45 p.m. till not later than 2 p.m. today.No. 6— Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 No. 7— Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999No. 8— Electronic Transactions Bill 1999National Residue Survey Levies Regulations (Validation and Commencement of Amendments) Bill 1999 subject to its introduction.10641Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(a) general business order of the day no. 63 (Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999); and(b) consideration of government documents.10641Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67, be postponed till 29 November 1999.Notices1064110641Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 be extended to 1 December 1999.09:33:0010641Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move that the Health Insurance (1998-99 Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 219 and made under the Health Insurance Act 1973, and the Variation of Instrument Fixing Charges to be Paid to APRA made under paragraph 51(1)(a) of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998, be disallowed. I seek to incorporate in Hansard the committee's concerns with these instruments.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Health Insurance (1998-99 Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3)Statutory Rules 1999 No.219The purpose of these Statutory Rules is to impose a deadline of 11 October 1999 for medical practitioners to complete a statutory declaration to ensure that any diagnostic imaging services that they provide on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Equipment will be eligible for Medicare benefits. The Explanatory Statement notes that the deadline is 2 pm on 11 October, but the Regulations themselves state the deadline as 11 October 1999. This deadline expired 20 days after the Regulations were made and there is no indication in the Explanatory Statement whether medical practitioners were given notice of this deadline.Yours sincerelyVariation of Instrument Fixing Charges to be Paid to APRA made under paragraph 51(1)(a) of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998The purpose of this instrument is to provide for an increase in two of the charges levied by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. One charge is increased from $310 an hour to $400 an hour, an increase of 29% since the charge was initially fixed on 1 July 1998, while the other increase is from $20 to $50, an increase of 150%. The Explanatory Statement notes that subsection 51(2) of the enabling Act requires these charges to be reasonably related to the costs and expenses incurred, and must not be such as to amount to taxation. While the Statement goes on to provide the assurance that these requirements have been met by this variation, the Committee has written to the Minister seeking further advice on the basis for the increases than is provided in that Statement.10642An item of business was postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 380 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to child labour, postponed till 29 November 1999.Miscellaneous1064209:35:0010642Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I move:That, in relation to the World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Seattle, the Senate supports: (a) an environmental and social impact assessment of proposed new areas of liberalisation;(b) a reinterpretation of WTO rules and dispute procedures to allow for legitimate action to protect the environment;(c) the removal of environmentally-harmful subsidies; and(d) clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and eco-labelling.Question resolved in the negative.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Madam President, I ask that my single voice, as I heard it, in support of that motion be recorded.Committees106421064210642Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to: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.1064210642Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Crane) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the management of airspace and the decision to terminate the Class G airspace trial be extended to 16 March 2000.1064210642Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy)—as amended by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office be extended to 9 December 1999. Bills10643r92210643Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1064309:38:0010643Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The purpose of this bill is to correct an inconsistency between the starting dates of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998 and amendments made to these regulations by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 182.As a consequence of this inconsistency sheep traders liable to pay a `per head' National Residue Survey levy on sheep transactions were unintentionally liable for a higher levy rate than that collected from 1 August 1998. Similarly, lamb traders were technically liable for a lower `per head' National Residue Survey levy rate than that collected.The National Residue Survey implements residue monitoring programs for agricultural products under the National Residue Survey Administration Act 1992, the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998, and the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998. These acts also provide for recovery of the costs of National Residue Survey programs from participating industries.These programs form the basis for documentation enabling the Australian Government to certify that food is not contaminated by chemical residues.This documentation is a requirement for access to the European Union, United States and Japanese markets, and is also a requirement for access to Australian domestic markets for all meat products under the Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand health standards.It is therefore very important that the National Residue Survey programs operate smoothly and that its funding base is secure.The financial impact on levy payers has been nil as the levy was collected at the rate specifically requested by industry.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.Bills10643r92510643Debate resumed from 23 November, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.09:39:0010643Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—The amendments before us in the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 relate to what is called `forum shopping'. The opposition is going to support this bill as it is now amended. In the House of Representatives, the opposition suggested a whole range of amendments on this proposal. The government has proposed its own schedule of amendments which I understand include the significant amendments proposed by the opposition and adopted by the government. Therefore, with those amendments, we believe that the proposal now before us is acceptable to the Australian people. We also believe that these are quite sensible arrangements and are acceptable in terms of our international standing.We had the debate yesterday about people smugglers and how they were abusing the system and trading in people. Clearly there is evidence emerging that forum shopping is about how people, with the assistance of people smugglers, try to make arrangements to end up in the country of their first desire, where they think would be the nicest place for them to go, and the place that would provide the best facilities and the best future. We cannot blame people for having that view; that is a natural human reaction. But when it gets to the stage where, in one form or another, the international and national procedures for dealing with refugees are being, if not abused, at least bent, so that countries like Australia are unnecessarily targeted, we have every right as a nation to make laws in respect of those arrangements.I know that this debate has been coupled with the debate we had yesterday on the disallowance of the government's regulations. With the support of the opposition, the move by the Democrats to disallow the new three-year refugee restricted visa was rejected by the Senate. The opposition made it quite clear yesterday that we supported the government's position to oppose the disallowance. In doing so, I made it clear that this is a position that the government has brought on itself. In many cases, it has more to do with what we believe is a cynical political approach. There is no doubt that there is a very good argument to ensure that people do not queue jump. That is a very strong argument in favour of what we did yesterday on the regulations and why we supported the government in opposing the disallowance.My colleague Senator McKiernan, who is now in the chair as Acting Deputy President, is one of the people on the opposition side who has made a considerable and significant contribution on immigration matters over many years in this place as the chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. He made it very clear that, from his experience, if you allow people to queue jump the whole issue unravels. We certainly agree with that view: you have to protect the system from people queue jumping when they are being promoted by people smugglers. That was a very strong point.I also made the point yesterday that the way the government has handled the debate on immigration and refugees has more to do with a political agenda in Australia than to actually deal with the issue of how it is best to handle the so-called boat people, the illegal immigrants, coming to Australia with the assistance of these so-called people smugglers. I do not think—as I said yesterday, and I will say it again today—that the present minister for immigration, Mr Ruddock, has added to his reputation as a minister, as a longstanding member of Amnesty in this parliament and as one who has championed in a very small `l' liberal way human rights issues. He has, in some senses, fanned the fear of illegal boat people in the Australian community. In our view, he has completely overstated the problem—though there is a problem—for narrow-minded political advantage within the Australian community. As I said yesterday, he bears the responsibility for doing that. He will have to be judged accordingly over the next couple of years in respect of the policy he put forward yesterday.Again, we emphasise: once you grant these people a temporary visa for three years as a refugee, they move into the Australian community. The question we ask: after three years is up, are they going to be sent back to their original country? Are we going to send people out? Are we going to have police forces and immigration department officers out there? Are we going to find them in the Australian community? How do we detect them to say, `Your visa has now run out. You have to return to your country of origin'? I do not think those people are going to come forward and volunteer themselves to the immigration department and say, `My three years is up. I am now willing to return to Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan or some other part of the world where there are dreadful human rights abuses and political oppression.' That is just demonstrably not going to happen.So, as we said yesterday—despite the minister promoting it as such—this three-year visa is not going to be the be-all and end-all that is going to solve the boat people problem. In fact, there is a very good case to say it will encourage more boat people to come. Three years in Australia—even for a temporary limited period—provides for a much better life than sitting in a camp or living under oppression in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Why wouldn't people smugglers say, `We can give you at least three years in Australia. Then at the end of that, when you have disappeared into the Australian community, it will be very difficult for the Australian authorities to find you to say that your visa has run out and return you'?That will not happen. I said yesterday that will not happen. If it did happen, I cannot imagine a more graphic image that could be flashed all around the world of Australian immigration officials or Federal Police putting somebody—a family, a young woman, a young man, an old man, an old woman—after three years in Australia on a plane with a ticket to return to Iraq saying, `You are on your own,' and the person screaming and shouting. It will be a variation of that famous photograph of the Petrovs in the fifties when they were being bundled onto the plane to return to the Soviet Union. The Australian government did that for other reasons; they were not illegal immigrants. But they were pulled off the plane in Darwin, because in Sydney they had been forcibly put on the plane.That is a variation of what we are going to get if the immigration department is collecting people, actually finds them and puts them back on the plane, with all the attendant publicity and people claiming they are going back to face penalties in the countries from which they fled. That is what we find extremely cynical of the minister and the Prime Minister in the proposal. It will not solve the problem of illegal boat people.On this particular forum shopping, as it is called, I have to say that we are pleased that the minister in the House of Representatives has put forward amendments that accepted the thrust of what the opposition raised. That was a bipartisan approach that actually worked. But there was no bipartisan approach on the three-year visa for refugees. The minister and the Prime Minister were not in favour of a bipartisan approach; they wanted to divide the Australian community. They wanted the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens, Senator Harradine—all those so-called `bleeding hearts'—to be trapped into looking like they were soft on illegal immigrants. There was no sense in the proposal yesterday that the government wanted a bipartisan approach and was willing to have sensible discussions with the opposition to see whether that proposal for a three-year refugee temporary visa could be addressed in ways which, in the wider sense of the word, would deal with the problem of illegal entries of people into Australia. But on this one the minister has accepted opposition amendments. Therefore, we have a better bipartisan approach.Representing Mr Sciacca, the shadow minister for the opposition on immigration matters, I can assure the people of Australia and the government that we want overwhelmingly a bipartisan approach on immigration matters. You will not get consistent immigration policy in this country, you will not get consistent population policy in this country, unless there is a bipartisan approach. When Arthur Calwell in the late forties, as the first minister for immigration, established the postwar immigration program, which has been such an outstanding success, it was accepted by the then opposition—by the Menzies opposition—in a bipartisan way and supported.When the Menzies government came in 1949 and continued it, the opposition did not immediately oppose it for the sake of opposing; we continued in opposition all through the fifties and the sixties in supporting that immigration program. The Labor Party used its influence, for example, to ensure that the trade union movement did not oppose it. It was explained to them that this was not about bringing in cheap labour to undermine the living standards and the working conditions of existing Australian workers. So that immigration policy had the support of the Australian trade union movement. When there were issues to be dealt with, they were dealt with in a balanced way.But it seems to us we now have a government that is not interested in having a bipartisan or a balanced discussion on immigration. Immigration is to be used as a wedge into the Australian community, to appeal to unnecessary fears and uncertainties in the Australian community. Unfortunately, the present Prime Minister has a track record on this that means we cannot be confident that he will ever accept having a bipartisan approach and open discussion on immigration issues in this country. In this area he will appeal to base politics or what can be done to best affect the Australian people, to make a political point.John Howard, as Prime Minister of this country, is much more interested in getting an extra one per cent of the vote across Australia than he is in the international reputation of this country or in maintaining a cohesive view within the Australian community about immigration and the importance of immigrants to this country. In 1987, he made those famous remarks—or now I should say infamous remarks—that we should restrict Asian immigration to this country. Then, when he became Leader of the Opposition again in 1995, he admitted that maybe those remarks were a bit extreme, that they were unfortunate and he apologised, but he had let the genie out of the bottle. The way he handled the emergence of One Nation in 1996-97 only gave succour to those in our community who believe that they want a racially based immigration program.Remarks made by Senator Harradine yesterday and others, including I think Senator Bartlett, were that the biggest overstayers are actually from Great Britain. Some of them are here for only a few extra days or a few extra weeks—they overstay their visitors visa. They are the biggest percentage. No-one gets whipped up about them. The minister does not go around saying that this is a major problem, because it is not a major problem. It is dealt with properly and fairly. We as the opposition do not go around whipping up the fact that there are many tens of thousands of overstayers any day of the week, any day of the year, within Australia. We do not go around whipping that up and trying to create an impression that we have a massive problem. We do not.We do not want to overstate the impact of the number of boat people coming in, which may be 1,000 or 2,000 a year, illegally arriving at Ashmore Reef or at a beach near the Kimberleys. People say it is as though we are about to be flooded. We know we are not about to be flooded. There may be several thousand over a period of time who come, and I refer the Senate to the success that Senator Bolkus had in 1994 in returning the Chinese illegal people who arrived from South China and some Vietnamese. By agreement with the UNHCR and with the Chinese government, they were returned because they were not genuine political refugees, but it was handled diplomatically. It was handled carefully; it was not created as an inflamed internal domestic debate.But not this minister and not this Prime Minister. I can see them in the Prime Minister's office, with the latest research from Liberal Party headquarters, saying, `Go for this. We can put a wedge into the opposition. We can inflame fears here and the so-called Prime Minister's battlers will be upset about this. We may be able to crib back some votes from One Nation.' You can try that for a while but it is not going to work, because, in the end, a large majority of Australians will see what this government is doing. It is attempting to divide Australians on immigration matters and promote it for base political end.We do not believe that the three-year visa will work. It will not keep people out of this country. They will all probably stay. They will not be kicked out at the end of the three years, and there will be such a fuss over those we attempt to kick out that they will be allowed to stay. That is not going to work. But, in this bill before us, we have a proposal where the opposition is able to put forward proposals. I emphasise that, on this basis, the minister accepted the thrust of the opposition's amendments to make it clear that we are not in favour of forum shopping but we are able to deal with it properly and sensibly and in a way that does not create division in our community over our immigration policies and how we handle it.Therefore, the opposition is happy to support this proposal. We only wish that, in the future, the minister would accept that we want a bipartisan policy on issues of immigration and refugees and not seek to divide the community and make base political points. The example of what happened in this bill ought to be the example that he uses on other issues of immigration and refugees, other than what he did yesterday in the Australian parliament.09:57:0010647Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to speak on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 and, in doing so, convey the support of Pauline Hanson's One Nation for the initiative of the government to make provision for what is clearly a substantial increase in the number of people attempting to illegally enter this country. Senator Schacht commented that we cannot blame people for wanting to reside in the best place in the world, and I think that is one of the greatest compliments that he could hand to Australia and to the Australian people.It is because of Australia's living standard and its stable government that these people view Australia as their preferred place of residence. However, we need to send a very clear message to these people that it is tough love. We need to be tough but we also need to extend compassion to the same people. The government's legislation does go a long way to addressing the issues that need to be addressed. With regard to the three-year visa, a very clear assurance should be given to the people who attain one that it does not give them an automatic assurance of permanent residency.The bill itself picks up a very important issue, particularly in North Queensland—that of non-commercial aircraft coming into Australia. It gives the Customs officers the ability to require the pilots of aircraft to land. It allows the same officers the power to board, enter and search ships without clear nationality indicated, and that can be carried out on the high seas. It also gives the Australian government, or the Australian departments, the power to destroy a ship that is unseaworthy. The people smugglers are only one part of this process, but it will send a very clear message to them that Australia is no longer a soft touch.It also gives automatic forfeiture of vessels, vehicles and equipment used in people smuggling. So the protection legislation does go a long way to addressing the problems, although I do not believe it goes far enough. It has taken politicians a long time to realise that Australia is a very attractive location for illegal immigrants—and I stress `illegal'—and that our laws have previously acted as a positive inducement, not a deterrent. I am not moved by the argument used by some that Australia's problem is small in comparison with other countries in the world. I am concerned about what is happening here in Australia.My main criticism of the government's proposal to allow the illegal entrants to remain in Australia for three years is that it is unfair to the other refugees who are attempting to follow the correct process. I listen to people wherever I travel throughout Queensland, and all of them want illegal immigration and rorting to stop. I was in Stanthorpe a little over two weeks ago and was informed by one of the local residents that they had been in the western area of Queensland—in an area called Miles—where a group of illegal immigrants had been picked up.The only reason they were picked up was that the vehicle they were driving had broken down. Just last week, these illegal immigrants were picked up because of the astuteness of a service station proprietor in that area, who realised that there were some inconsistencies with the people he was serving. That proprietor was able to maintain their attention long enough while somebody called the police to find that these people, again, were illegal immigrants. These are illegal immigrants driving around Australia in a motor vehicle, obviously heading down through the back blocks of Queensland where they believe they have a greater chance of not being intercepted.This demonstrates that the problem of illegal immigration is not limited to north Western Australia or Cape York, as we saw earlier in the year, or to our capital city areas. Ordinary Australians cannot understand how thousands of foreigners can land on our shores, come in illegally—through other means—and immediately access free medical and legal aid and welfare while we have difficulty providing it for our own Australian population. We, as Australians, have achieved the most favourable nation status to the world's people smuggling gangs. Doing nothing is never an option.Other countries in the world have toughened laws to stop people smuggling and forum shopping. I believe one of the criteria that should be looked at by the government when assessing these people is that, if they pass another area of safe haven, their application for residence in Australia should be demerited in relation to those who live closer to Australia and have only Australia as their single option. The EU has changed its laws to stop forum shopping, and that in itself has contributed to Australia being a more attractive destination for illegal immigrants.Illegal immigrants seem to fall into one of two groups. They either try to evade capture by arriving in Australia undetected and blending into the population at large, or they want to be detected in order to access Australia's general health, welfare and legal benefits. They have been known, on arrival on the extremities of our waters, to actually sink the boats they have come in. I do not believe an overseas education program can, by itself, stop the problem. These people are astute. They know only too well of the freebies once they arrive here, and they will not be deterred by a government brochure.Negotiating agreements with other countries for the returning of illegal immigrants is a good idea, but this will take a very long time in the case of countries such as Iraq. In the meantime, we have no choice but to tighten the laws and, in particular, to stop refugees bypassing safe havens in order to rort our system and exploit our generosity. Something the minister said in one of his press statements caught my eye. He said:We've even had them putting orders to us. I think one group asked for Pert 2-in-1 shampoo—and I hope that's not an ad for somebody. Another sought orthodontic treatment for a child—they have high expectations. Many are middle class, some come with quite large amounts of money.In those cases, the Australian people are being had. We have displayed strength, integrity and pragmatism during the strife in East Timor and the emerging immigration crisis is another chance for Australia to demonstrate that we will not tolerate the flouting of our domestic laws or goodwill by unscrupulous people trying to rip us off. These changes will not contravene Australia's treaty obligations, according to the United Nations. Australia does more than its fair share in looking after the displaced people of the world and we have nothing to feel guilty about. I would also like to point out that the two-year sentence that was handed down to people smugglers in Darwin this week was manifestly inadequate. The legislation allows for a maximum penalty of 20 years.These criminals should be given hard labour and, if they are not Australians by birth, they should be immediately deported on completion of their sentence and their assets confiscated and forfeited to the state to defray the cost of their imprisonment. Our legal system is no deterrent to these sorts of people and locking them up in our plush jails is akin to locking up the members of this chamber in the Mirage Resort at Port Douglas. I commend the government for acting decisively in this matter—it is at least a good start—and I urge the Senate to support these initiatives for the good of the country.10:09:0010648Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This bill goes very much to the procedure by which people are to be arrested or stopped rather than setting up a substantive law. There is some concern about it because it allows, for example, arrests to be made and ships to be stopped without warrants. I concede that it is very difficult to get warrants, but we should be apprehensive about this legislation in that context. It is going to give Australian forces the ability to impound ships and arrest people on ships on the high seas and within Australian waters without there being a system of obtaining warrants. It is said that there is great difficulty in getting warrants and going through the proper process, or what I call the proper process—that is, due process—because you are out at sea and it is all a bit hard. But we do have provisions in other legislation which say that officers of the Australian Federal Police, for example, can get warrants by phone and I would have thought there was not a great deal of difficulty for a person on an Australian ship that is about to accost or confront an other ship to get permission from a magistrate.Why do we do those sorts of things? We do them because we are a civilised country. We do them because we say that the power to go ahead and arrest, under armed forces if needs be, is a very powerful one and that there ought to be at least some restraint upon that. The way we do that is to get warrants—to have somebody say, `Yes, on the affidavit or material that you have put forward, something can be done about it.' This bill is really not about the sorts of things that have been discussed so far—although they are very much in the background—that is, the issues of migration and illegal migrants coming to Australia. But since they have been raised, I would put this issue of queue jumping in context because it has been used again and again to justify legislation—not only this legislation but legislation that was brought forward yesterday.If I can take a little of the Senate's time to read from an article in the West Australian—a paper known to you, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan—from Thursday, 8 October 1992 which sets in the context of those times what was meant by queue jumping. The article reports on a statement by Mr Hand, a man I used to proudly share offices with in Melbourne. He was talking about Europe and the headline was `Europe must let more in—Hand'. The article stated:Berlin: Europe needed to open its doors to immigration or it would continue to be swamped by hundreds of thousands of people seeking refugee status, Australian Immigration Minister Gerry Hand said yesterday.Mr Hand, nearing the end of a European tour, focusing on the refugee problem, said most European countries had found it economically and socially difficult to cope with the latest wave of Asian, African and eastern European asylum seekers.The article went on to say:Aspects of Australia's immigration system were superior to those of most other countries.Mr Hand spoke strongly for repatriating people who couldn't prove their refugee status."You are either a refugee or you aren't. If you aren't and you want to stay . . . at best you can be described as a queue jumper," he said. A slide in the argument has taken place and the concept that Mr Hand—an outstanding minister—put forward about people who were not refugees has now been applied to refugees.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—How long since you talked to him, Barney? Did you talk to him on Friday?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I always accept without doubt what Senator Patterson says. May I say, Senator Patterson, that I make no condemnation of you or Mr Ruddock, who is a man tortured by these questions. It is very lonely being a minister in this area. I understand you are saying that the change might be made. I am sure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would say that the West Australian is a very honourable paper—although you might want to deny that—but what it reported Mr Hand saying in 1992 when this got going—and this is the start of the queue jumping argument—is that queue jumping did not apply to refugees. If he has changed his position, so be it. All I am saying is that this is how the argument started. I say this on the basis of the West Australian article. In any event, this in effect is not so much about people trying to come to Australia as migrants or refugees but about getting more power. That is not an unusual thing in policing activities.I have an article from the Age of 14 October—Senator Patterson would have read this local paper—by Professor Martin Schwartz, a criminologist at the University of Ohio. He is an academic, like the parliamentary secretary was. He heads the article with: `Why are we so afraid? If you are concerned about rising crime, turn off the TV'. This article talks about how fear is inculcated to obtain more policing power. Some would use language that would be consistent with that proposition of looking for more power. What I mean by more power is that, if we are going to go out onto the high seas, we do not have to get warrants. There is an extension of power here. In fact, that is the very thrust of this bill. All I am saying is that we have got to be careful when looking for more power that we do not use the arguments that are often used to get more policing power. When I talk about policing power, I do not necessarily mean the police force but other bodies such as the NCA saying that there is a crisis and that, unless we do something about it, then disaster is going to strike.Minister Ruddock is a man in a lonely position. He has got lots of decisions to make and they involve questions of life and death and of justice. He has got to do that on his own in the end. As Senator Schacht said, Minister Ruddock has a proud record in this area. In the second reading speech, the language he has used is consistent with the witch-hunt language. Witch-hunting did not go away with the end of the Salem episode; it is still with us. What I mean by that is that you can use language in a situation to obtain the end you want. The opposition is supporting this legislation, but it would be good if the argument to obtain this legislation was put in more measured terms.The second reading speech has this to say:The people being smuggled are, in most cases, not refugees seeking haven in the first safe country available. They are instead young migrants from less developed countries who are seeking to work in developed countries.That is a statement; that is an allegation. It is an assertion not supported by evidence. It might be right or it might be wrong—but when you are trying to get extra powers, you would hope that some evidence would be forthcoming. Is this a grab for more policing powers or is this an attempt to get legitimate powers that are needed?The other thing about this second reading speech—and I would have thought this was the main reason you might want the extra powers—is the problem in the fisheries area. There are problems, from what I can gather. There is evidence of people doing the wrong thing in fishing grounds, but very little attention is given to that. It would have made more sense if you had talked about the crisis in fisheries or if you had talked about Customs and narcotics smuggling, and what have you. But in this second reading speech there is very little attention given to that; most of it is given to the migration stuff. It goes on:Australia is increasingly a preferred destination and unwilling recipient of the attention of these people. Where is your evidence? You do not go into that in this case. You talk about the United States:The United States of America for example has announced its intention to broaden the scope of its border enforcement powers beyond its territorial waters. Canada is also reviewing its laws to combat this criminal activity.That is a good statement. It gives you an idea that worldwide there seems to be a lot of evidence that there are some great difficulties with this flow of migration. Why not put that in? Why not tell us about that?Why not tell us what is happening there and give us facts and figures instead of going into something that is of some concern? For example, you could say, `There has been a dramatic increase in the number of people from Iraq who are arriving illegally by boat.' You might well imagine that people would come here from Iraq, given the fact that we have sanctions against Iraq. We think Saddam Hussein is so bad that we have sanctions against him and, even though these affect the lives and health of children, we keep the sanctions against him. So you might expect that people would arrive here from Iraq.There have been allegations that this legislation could be seen as picking on particular groups. I think that is an unfortunate statement. Instead of presenting arguments which are available to support this, which are legitimate, we go into the emotional stuff, we go into the area occupied by people trying to get more power locally who say that elderly people are at risk and that murders are happening everywhere, which is just not true. A little bit of evidence, a little bit of balance and a proper approach to this issue would have been a better way of getting the legislation that is needed to properly enforce the laws that we pass.Another point is that we are now going to arm Customs officers because that is needed. There is no provision in the bill and there is no sign here in the second reading speech of how much we are going to spend on training people who are going to take on ships on the high seas, which, unless handled very sensitively, could be the origin of real international incidents. If you look at how our troops have conducted themselves in East Timor, you can see that they have done well because they are highly trained, they know how to go about their tasks and they have a sensitivity to the situation. They have been training for years. How much training are you going to give Customs officers? You are going to give them some training because they are going to be trained by some of the police forces, but what is their training going to be? Are you going to have Customs officers, who until now have not been armed sailing around the high seas with power, without any sanction from a judicial officer or any other officer being able to stop ships on suspicion? If they are carrying out illegal activities, that is a good thing. If they are not, then all sorts of problems are going to occur. So what sort of training are we going to give these people?Another issue I want to raise—and this goes to the way this has been presented rather than the bill itself—is that there has been an emotional underpinning to this legislation, with statements such as, `We have hoards coming.' That is the effect that has been given, that thousands of people are coming and therefore we need all these powers to combat this. It is a classic argument in this area—people say, `All these murders have been committed. We have all this armed robbery.' I am old enough now to remember all these arguments over the years: `Let's give more power to the police. Let's not necessarily train them more. Let's cut out the courts.' This second reading speech specifically refers to getting rid of a lot of the sanctions that the courts might otherwise apply. This is a classic argument to get more power.Those powers are necessary and that has been supported, but the arguments that you use are the old witch-hunt arguments that have been used again and again over the years. There is no indication of the training that you are going to give these people. Are you going to give them more wages for the extra work they have to do? I that think needs some revelation. But as a parliament we could have gone about this with a lot more reasoned argument than we presently have heard.I think it is important, as I said before, that fisheries be protected under the fisheries act. I think it is important that Customs officers are kept in a position where they do not have to put their lives at risk. I can understand all that. But what is needed in this debate is some reasoned arguments, some understanding of what the policing needs are, what the education needs are, and also, in light of modern technology, the necessity for people exercising these powers to get the sanction of a judge or a magistrate—we have a new Federal Magistrates Service coming on—otherwise the whole rule of law starts to be prejudiced.10:29:0010651Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—On behalf of the Australian Democrats, I rise to speak to the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The Democrats support this legislation as it stands at present. The bill, which has been around for more than a month now, is quite a comprehensive piece of legislation and, in some ways, quite significant in what it aims to do.It is important to look at the bill in the context of the current political debate. Indeed, the government is using the legislation as part of its response to the increasing numbers of boat people arriving in the country and the general phenomenon of people smuggling. There are a couple of points that need to be made in terms of that context.The bill has the potential to address a number of problems beyond people smuggling because it is also specifically targeted, which I think is particularly desirable, at illegal fishing. Illegal fishing is an area that presents a lot of problems for Australia, economically and environmentally. It is appropriate that powers be provided to enable that particular activity to be curtailed where possible. Similarly, it will be relevant for assisting in the control of smuggling—people trying to smuggle not only drugs but also other illegal materials into Australia.This bill does not simply amend the Migration Act; it also amends the Fisheries Act and the Customs Act. I think that is an indication of the wide-ranging use that the bill is originally aimed at. Of course, the government has almost exclusively focused on the bill as a tool and a weapon in the so-called war against people smuggling. However, a significant component of that is not in the bill as yet. Those tools are contained in amendments that the government circulated in this chamber just yesterday, relating to interpretations of and modifications to how Australia exercises its protection obligations, as well as amendments to address the issue of forum shopping.I will not address those amendments now because they are not actually in the bill we are speaking to; I will address those amendments and seek some responses and clarifications from the government about those amendments when we get to the committee stage of the debate. At this stage I will confine my comments to the bill as it stands now, as it was passed by the House of Representatives on Monday of this week. I am not sure why the government chose not to introduce its amendments at that stage. In any case, the foreshadowed amendments have been circulated to us now, and we can deal with those when they are formally moved.Turning to the content of the bill, Senator Cooney has outlined some of the potential concerns with it in terms of increasing powers. I think it is appropriate for parliamentarians to closely scrutinise any attempt to increase police powers or the exercise of force by governmental officers, and this bill does that quite significantly. It increases powers to pursue ships in international waters, to board ships and to require planes to land. It also increases the power to search and provides powers for Customs officers, and I think fisheries officers, to carry firearms where they believe it necessary. These are quite significant `enforcement provisions', as they are often called, and it is appropriate that they be closely scrutinised. It also provides the power for fisheries officers, among others, to detain people when there is a reasonable suspicion that they are operating illegally in Australian waters or intending to commit a crime such as smuggling, whether it is people, drugs or other goods. So there are significant increases in powers.The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee examined these provisions of the bill in close detail. I think it is worth taking this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that that committee does. It is a committee that is rarely recognised in the work it does in the parliamentary system. It is completely apolitical—or as close as you can get in this place—running a very close check, ensuring that bills do not trespass unduly on personal rights and civil liberties as well as ensuring that they follow good legislative procedures. I think this committee plays a very important role.In this case, the committee has provided a fairly comprehensive insight into some of the potential concerns with this legislation, which the minister has responded to and, in my view, justified adequately. There is always some cause for concern when people are able to board vessels to search, to seize property and to detain without full judicial warrants. But, in the context of what people are tackling and also where they are operating—out on the high seas and even outside Australia's own territorial boundaries in international waters—then some of the practical difficulties become apparent.That makes it all the more important to ensure that ongoing monitoring into how these powers are put into force is carried out. In agreeing to anything like this, there is always some degree of faith being put by the parliament in the judgment of the relevant officers to exercise their powers appropriately. Certainly, if evidence comes to light that that is not occurring, then the issue would need to be revisited. But the Democrats believe it is appropriate to place that faith in those officers in this context, given the problems they are trying to tackle and confront and the situations in which they have to operate.The same issues apply in relation to empowering officers to carry firearms and other personal defence equipment. The customs minister has given assurances on that and has provided advice on the training and accreditation that will be provided to people before they can carry firearms. The advice is that the carrying of firearms will not be a routine occurrence; it will happen only when there is an operational need. Again, monitoring of how that operates in practice is important. The Democrats believe that that assurance is satisfactory, as long as it is actually acted on.Similarly, and perhaps most significantly from the Democrats' point of view, the power to detain people on suspicion is always a controversial one. It needs to be monitored closely. This one is, in many ways, more specifically directed not at people smuggling but at extending the power of fisheries officers to increase their ability to tackle illegal fishing. The committee judged that, after the minister's response, the assurances were such that they did not feel the need to make further comment on the issue. Again, it is one that will need to be monitored closely.The provision in this legislation does not just give fisheries officers the power to detain illegal foreign fishermen for up to seven days until they are charged with a Fisheries Act offence; it also addresses some of the cross-over issues with the Migration Act. It provides for the automatic issuing of what is called an enforcement visa. Part of this increase in power is the creation of a new visa class. Again, from the Democrats' point of view, it appears to be a workable way of addressing some of the difficulties that have arisen in terms of how the Migration Act affects people who have been detained. The aim is to detain them if they commit offences due to illegal fishing. It is worth while giving them a go. The Democrats certainly will not be opposing them.Nonetheless—and this has been reflected in the speeches on the second reading to date and in the speeches in the House of Representatives when the bill was debated there on Monday—there is a lot of focus on the bill. This is partly because of the amendments tabled just yesterday. They relate specifically to people smuggling and the boat people issue, which we debated at some length in this chamber yesterday in respect of a different legislative instrument. Because that is the context in which the bill operates and in which the bill is being sold, if you like, to the Australian public, it is appropriate to try to ensure that it is done in a reasoned, measured and factual context. It should not be another weapon in a political campaign to generate exaggerated fears in the Australian community. Given how this issue of boat people has been portrayed and orchestrated through the media, I am not surprised that the Australian community is quite concerned about it. It is the responsibility of parliamentarians to not try to use an issue to generate unnecessary community division. It would be much more helpful if all of us, as political leaders, if you like, tried to put the debate on a more factual basis.I have to address a few of the comments that have been made in the debate to date. We have the suggestion that somehow or other Australia has achieved most favoured nation status in the world in relation to illegal migrants. We are seen as the soft touch, putting people up in Port Douglas Mirage style accommodation. Illegal migrants are flocking here because of the great welcome and resources we provide to them. As I indicated yesterday in a debate on a separate matter, the number of people Australia has to deal with pales in comparison with the number of people that many other nations around the world have to deal with. That is partly because of geographic issues. Our advantage of being surrounded by water means that Australia is a bit harder to get into. As the world shrinks in practical terms, it is an issue that Australia is going to have to deal with in the same way that countries around the world have had to deal with it.Whilst the Democrats will continue to highlight that the problem for Australia is nowhere near the size or severity of the problem a number of other countries have, that is not in any way suggesting that we should ignore it. For a whole host of reasons, we are as willing as any other party to support measures that address movements of illegal migrants. In that context, it is worth going back to the second reading speech of the minister on this bill when it was first introduced some time back and a couple of statements he made. One of them was that the people being smuggled are, in most cases, not refugees seeking a haven in the first safe country available. They are instead young migrants from less developed countries who are seeking to work in developed countries. The minister himself stated that, in most cases, boat people are not refugees.I do not want to revisit yesterday's debate, although we will have to in the committee stage because the amendments address similar or related issues. The minister, in his speech on this bill, said that the majority of people being smuggled are not refugees. That being the case, it is worth emphasising many of the things that Senator Harris was suggesting we should not be doing for these people, such as providing them with medical assistance and putting them up in plush jails. He argued that we should be detaining them, deporting them and confiscating their property. We already do a hell of a lot of these things to people who are not genuine refugees, and that will continue to occur. It is important to once again emphasise that Australia already has a lot of measures in place that address illegal migrants who arrive in this fashion. As has been stated a number of times about this issue, the much greater problem regarding illegal migrants is those who arrive here legally and then overstay. Those numbers are, according to the department's figures, up around the 50,000 mark.Another quote from the minister's speech which is worth highlighting, because it is a credit to one of the other more constructive ways the government has sought to tackle the issue of people smuggling, is:These figures—that is, the number of unauthorised arrivals—do not include the much larger number of persons detected and deterred by our overseas posts.That is a crucial point to emphasise and support in terms of how best to go about this. It is not the only mechanism, but it is one of the most effective. It is not so effective in terms of short-term political gain to say, `We're working with the Australian community by getting the message out overseas.' That does not sound as good and does not make people feel as good as the government going around saying, `We're going to lock them all up and throw them all back where they came from.' Everyone thinks that is great; it sounds like the government is doing something about the problem straightaway.But if you do that, all you are doing is detecting people when they get here, and that goes to the core of this bill as a whole. It is obviously important to detect people but, as Minister Vanstone said in question time this week, many of these people want to be detected. I think it is helpful to detect them before their boat sinks in the ocean so they do not drown, but it is far more important to stop people getting on boats in the first place. That obviously reduces the cost to the taxpayer, it reduces the risk of people coming to grief in the seas and it also reduces the cost to those who are not genuine refugees who spend a lot of money so they can come here for the pleasure of being detained for a period of time and then sent back to where they came from, significantly in debt. It does highlight, in the minister's own words, that a much larger number of people and a much larger proportion of the problem are being addressed by our overseas posts detecting people and deterring them from getting on boats in the first place. Our overseas posts are getting the message out to them about the reality they face—which is not that, when they get here, they will get work, get Medicare, get treatment for their kids, get Pert shampoo and get all those things.I congratulate the government for that and I encourage them to keep doing that because that is a constructive approach. It is long term. It is never going to address every single person everywhere because of the reality, as I said yesterday, of the number of people around the place. It is a different story for genuine refugees, and that is something I believe we need to simply accept and address rather than think we can deal with by some sorts of get tough measures.In the time left available, I will re-emphasise the concern the Democrats have about the political context in which this debate has occurred. That will perhaps resurface a bit more when we get to the committee stage of the bill, but we do need to put a spotlight on the political context and really get the alarm bells ringing. A lot of people have expressed a lot of concern over recent years about what was happening to Australian society with the division and community unrest which was occurring in relation to migration and indigenous issues, et cetera.We had some painful, but sometimes in the long term helpful, debates throughout the community about what we were really like as a people and as a nation. I for one am very concerned that we may slip easily back into some of that debate and reignite some of the negative and divisive aspects of it. I think everyone in this chamber would be aware of the impact it had on many members of our community, particularly migrants, refugees and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. They certainly felt much less welcome and they reported many cases of increases in abuse.I have circulated a second reading amendment, which simply seeks in a matter of fact way to highlight one reality of the issue as it has been addressed and attempted to be resolved by the government to date. I would urge the Senate, and parliamentarians more generally, in the course of this issue—which will not go away; it will be going on over many years—to try to ensure we do not slip back into some of the turmoil we have gone through as a community in recent years. I move this second reading amendment:At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate notes:(a) the government's claim that this Bill is part of a number of measures aimed at `cracking down' on boat people;(b) that another measure the government claims will reduce the numbers of boat people is the provision of only a temporary three year visa to people who are assessed to be genuinely in need of protection under the provisions of the Refugee Convention;(c) that the One Nation party advocated a policy prior to the last federal election of giving refugees only five year temporary visas;(d) that One Nation's policy of only giving refugees temporary visas was roundly condemned by the major political parties at the time it was released; and(e) that both major political parties have now demonstrated support for the principle underlying the One Nation party's policy on the treatment of refugees".10:49:0010655McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—It is somewhat of a joy to be speaking when we are all in unison on a matter which is of extreme importance to this country and to the people of this country—that is, the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . The government, the opposition and the minor parties in this chamber and the parliament have to be commended for the bill that is in front of us at the moment.This is a government bill, but there has been a lot of input into the bill and into the clauses in the bill from many others around the place, and tribute has to be given to them. Tribute is not always given, particularly from that side of the chamber, and credit is often claimed from this side of the chamber. This is one bill where there has been quite a large amount of input from all sides of the parliament. I think that process has improved the measures that are contained in the bill; measures which will go some way to protecting Australia from a very real problem that we are confronted with at the moment.There are some in our society who do not accept that we have got a problem. There are some who seek to use figures and comparisons with other countries of the number of refugee claimants they have. Had I continued on in school and not left before I was 14, I might have been able to do a proper analysis of the figures. I know, for example, there are figures quoted that there are some 800,000 asylum seekers or refugee claimants in the United States. I would like to measure the number of claimants against the population of the United States of over 270 million people and compare that with the 8,000 or so in Australia last financial year and our population of 19 million. I have an awful, sneaking feeling that the proportions are not in Australia's favour.Germany is a country we have heard quite a deal about because of refugee claims there. I would like to be able to make a comparison of the number of refugee claimants in Germany as opposed to the number in Australia on a proportional basis, on a per capita basis. I might just ask the Parliamentary Library to do that for me, because I would have great difficulty doing that myself.We have a very real problem with this at the moment. It is a problem which the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Commit tee was told about on Monday this week during the course of a very extensive inquiry into the operations of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program. I want to quote just a small part of what Mr Metcalfe had to say in the statement that he delivered early on Monday morning. He put forward an argument about why the changes are made. He said:In the calendar year—that is, this calendar year, 1999—to 19 November, 2,631 people have arrived in Australia illegally by boat, along with 179 crew. This compares with 200 in the whole of 1998. In the short period 1 November to 19 November, 872 people arrived in 10 boats. Last week four boats arrived in three days carrying 155 persons. More boat people have arrived this calendar year than did for the entire six-year period of Vietnamese boat arrivals from 1975 to 1981.I think that should put it in some form of perspective.If we need further indications of just what that perspective is, I will seek leave in a moment—after I show this to Senator Bartlett; I have shown it to the parliamentary secretary—to incorporate into the Hansard DIMA fact sheet No. 81, which details unauthorised arrivals by air and sea during the years 1998 and 1999. I want people to examine it, particularly the figures for 1999.Whilst yesterday's debate, which I do not want to repeat, concentrated just on Iraqis leaving Iran, I want to point out that in those figures and details for 1999 persons came from Iraq, Kazakhstan, Papua New Guinea, Afghanistan, Algeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Sri Lanka, India, Iran, Kurdistan, Syria, Bahrain, Myanmar, Indonesia, China and others unidentified from the Middle East. It is not just an Iraqi issue, and I do not believe Australia or the government is focusing on the Iraqis. What I am seeking to incorporate into the Hansard are facts. I think the debate will benefit by having many facts available to the community. I now seek leave to incorporate the fact sheet into the Senate Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—DIMA Fact Sheet 81Unauthorised Arrivals by Air and Sea Boat ArrivalsSymbols Usedbaby* = baby bornafter boat's arrival;children = under 18, at boat's arrival;refugee status = entry through refugee status(protection visa);humanit = entry on humanitarian grounds;entry = entry on other grounds;bridging visas = visas giving temporary lawful status;release = release into community pending appeal;departures = departures from Australia;detention = in detention/custody (that is, under investigation/awaiting repatriation to safe third country/having been refused refugee status/with application, appeal or litigation pending.Note: the italicised boat name used below is the code name used by DIMA to identify each boat. It is not the real name of the boat.199874. 4 January 1998, Torres Strait (Zostera) 30—20 adults, 10 children (30 Irian Jayan—Indonesian Province). 30 departures.75. 23 January 1998, Darwin (Archer) 22—20 adults, 2 children (Afghans). 22 refugee status.76. 7 February 1998, Ashmore Reef (Barcoo) 4 adults (1 Algerian, 1 Moroccan, 2 Senegalese). 3 departures, 1 refugee status.77. 19 February 1998, off NW Kimberley Coast(Clyde) 11—10 adults, 1 child (11 Chinese). 11 departures.78. 21 February 1998, off NW Kimberley Coast (Diamantina) 7 adults (Chinese). 7 departures.79. 9 April 1998, Ashmore Reef (Eyre) 6 adults (Bangladeshi). 6 departures.80. 9 May 1998, Gove (Fitzroy) 9 adults (Bangladeshi). 9 departures.81. 27 May 1998, Ashmore Reef (Glenelg) 7 adults (Bangladeshi). 7 departures.82. 5 June 1998, Ashmore Reef (Hawkesbury) 10 adults (Bangladeshi). 10 departures.83. 3 July 1998, Ashmore Reef (Indulkana) 5 adults (4 Bangladeshi, 1 Indonesian). 5 departures.84. 6 July 1998, off NW Kimberley Coast (Jardine) 3 adults (2 Bangladeshi, 1 Indonesian), 3 departures.85. 4 September 1998, off NW Kimberley coast (Kiewa ) 6 adults, (Bangladeshi). 6 departures.86. 9 September 1998, Torres Strait (Lachlan ) 4 adults, (1 Bangladeshi, 3 Indians). 1 refugee status, 1 departure, 2 detention .87. 11 September 1998, Ashmore Reef (Murrumbidgee ) 2 adults, (Bangladeshi). 2 departures . 88. 24 November 1998, Ashmore Reef (Namoi) 7 adults (Sri Lankan). 7 departures .89. 30 November 1998, Ashmore Reef (Ord) 15 adults (4 Iraqi, 11 Turks). 14 detention, 1 departure.90. 24 December 1998, Coburg Peninsula NT, (Paroo) 52 adults (Chinese). 52 departures.199991. 4 January 1999, off NW Kimberley coast (Queen) 9—5 adults, 4 children (Iraqi). 9 refugees.92. 4 January 1999, Coburg Peninsula, NT (Roper) 3 adults (Iraqi). 3 refugees.93. 4 January 1999, Townsville,QLD (Snowy) 2 adults (1 Kazakhstani, 1 Papua New Guinean). 2 departures.94. 12 January 1999, Port Hedland (Tumut) 4 adults (Chinese). 4 departures.95. 3 February 1999, Hammond Island (Uriarra) 5 adults (Afghan). 5 refugees.96. 15 February 1999, Ashmore Reef (Vanrook) 10 adults—9 adults, 1 child (5 Afghan, 3 Algerian, 1 Iraqi, 1 Pakistani). 2 detention, 7 refugees, 1 departure.97. 21 February 1999, Ashmore Reef (Warrego) 32 adults (Turkish). 18 refugee status, 2 detention, 12 departures.98. 21 February 1999, Christmas Island (Xavier) 13 adults (9 Iraqis, 4 Algerians). 13 refugees.99. 24 February 1999, Cockatoo Island, NW Kimberley coast (Yarra) 3 adults (Bangladeshi). 3 departures.100. 10 March 1999, off NW Kimberley Coast (Zetland) 12—5 adults, 7 children (Afghani). 12 refugees.101. 11 March 1999, Gove (Ainslie) 57—51 adults, 6 children (Chinese). 57 detention.102. 12 March 1999, Holloways Beach, Cairns (Bogong) 26 adults (Chinese). 26 departures.103. 26 March 1999, Ashmore Reef (Constantine) 8 adults (2 Iraqis, 2 Kuwaitis, 3 Afghans, 1 Bangladeshi. 5 refugee status, 3 detention.104. 10 April 1999, Scott's Head, Macksville, NSW (Dandenong) 60 adults (Chinese). 60 departures.105. 13 April 1999, Broome (Essendon) 10—9 adults, 1 child (Afghani). 10 refugee status.106. 16 April 1999, Cape Leveque (Franklin) 3 adults (Bangladeshi). 3 departure.107. 21 April 1999, Ashmore Reef (Gambier) 3 adults (Turkish). 3 detention.108. 24 April 1999, Ashmore Reef (Hotham) 15 adults (1 Bangladeshi, 2 Pakistani, 12 Iraqi). 11 refugee status, 2 detention, 2 departures. 109. 7 May 1999, Ashmore Reef (Isa )—53 adults, 1 child (43 Turkish, 6 Iraqi, 4 Afghani, 1 Kuwaiti). 32 detention, 17 refugee status, 5 departures.110. 12 May 1999, Christmas Island (Jagunal )—18 adults, plus 1 baby* (12 Sri Lankan, 4 Pakistani, 2 Indians, 1 Iranian). 15 detention, 4 departures.111. 17 May 1999, NSW coast, adjacent to Port Kembla (Kosciusko )—83—81 adults, 2 children (Chinese). 83 departures.112. 19 May 1999, Christmas Island (Lofty )—20 adults (Iraqi). 19 refugee status, 1 detention.113. 20 May 1999, Ashmore Reef (Majura )—7 adults (Bangladeshi). 6 detention, 1 refugee status.114. 24 May 1999, Ashmore Reef (Nelson ) 10 adults (6 Iraqi, 4 Afghans). 10 refugee status.115. 27 May 1999, Doughboy River (Ossa ) 78—77 adults, 1 child (Chinese). 78 departures.116. 1 June 1999, Cape Leveque (Pinnacle ) 9 adults (Bangladeshi) 9 departures.117. 4 June 1999, Broken Bay (Quinn ) 108-103 adults, 5 children (108 Chinese) 1 detention, 107 departures.118. 7 June 1999, Ashmore Reef (Roe ) 10 adults (Afghani). 10 refugee status.119. 11 June 1999, Christmas Island (Selwyn ) 8—7 adults, 1 child (Afghani). 8 refugee status.120. 12 June 1999, Ashmore Reef (Tabletop ) 76 adults (57 Turkish, 10 Afghani, 9 Iraqi). 25 detention, 28 departures, 23 refugee status.121. 13 June 1999, Yam Island (Urah ) 3 adults (3 Chinese). 3 departures122. 22 June 1999, Saibai Island (Vigors ) 2 adults (Sri Lankan). 1 departure, 1 detention.123. 25 June 1999, Ashmore Reef (Weddin ) 12 adults (Afghani). 12 refugee status.124. 29 June 1999, Ashmore Reef (X-Keten ) 53—50 adults, 3 children (40 Iraqi, 12 Afghan, 1 Algerian). 48 refugee status, 5 detention.125. 12 July 1999, Ashmore Reef (York ) 6 adults (Indian). 5 departures, 1 detention.126. 12 July 1999, Ashmore Reef (Zeil ) 16—11 adults, 5 children (Afghani). 16 refugee status.127. 20 July 1999, Christmas Island (Augustus ) 5—4 adults, 1 child (Sri Lankan). 5 detention.128. 21 July 1999, Ashmore Reef (Buller ) 7 adults (5 Afghani, 2 Iranian). 6 refugee status, 1 detention.129. 28 July 1999, Ashmore Reef (Calder ) 14 adults (Turkish). 14 departures.130. 31 July 1999, Ashmore Reef (Druitt ) 44 adults (30 Iraqi, 6 Afghani, 5 Kuwaiti, 2 Iranian, 1 Sri Lankan). 42 detention, 1 refugee status, 1 departure. 131. 11 August 1999, Ashmore Reef (Eliza ) 16 adults (11 Afghan, 4 Sri Lankan, 1 Pakistani). 13 detention, 3 departures.132. 14 August 1999, Christmas Island (Fox ) 140—126 adults, 14 children (137 Iraqi, 2 Kuwaiti, 1 Kurdish). 139 detention, 1 departure.133. 23 August 1999, Ashmore Reef (Grenfell ) 8 adults (Iraqi). 8 refugee status134. 26 August 1999, Ashmore Reef (Hawthorn ) 12 adults (Afghan). 12 detention.135/136/137. 3 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Ida, Jagged, Kembla— boats were located and intercepted together) 145—129 adults, 16 children (70 Iraqi, 56 Afghan, 9 Iranian, 4 Syrian, 3 Sri Lankan, 2 Kuwaiti, 1 Bahrainian). 145 detention.138. 14 September 1999, Bonaparte Archipelago (Leura ) 14 adults (Afghan). 14 detention.139. 17 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Macedon ) 6 adults (4 Iraqi, 1 Bangladeshi, 1 Myanmar). 6 detention.140. 19 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Nebo ) 8 adults (Turkish ). 8 detention.141. 21 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Owen ) 6 adults (Pakistani). 6 detention.142. 24 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Panorama ) 49—47 adults, 2 minors (30 Iraqi, 10 Bangladeshi, 7 Afghans, 1 Syrian, 1 Indonesian). 48 detention, 1 departure.143. 26 September 1999, Ashmore Reef (Quaker ) 8—7 adults, 1 minor (6 Indian, 2 Indonesian). 8 departures.144. 2 October 1999, off NW Kimberley Coast (Richmond ) 21 adults (Afghan). 21 detention.145. 5 October 1999, off NW Kimberley Coast (Stromlo ) 24 adults (Afghan). 24 detention.146. 7 October 1999, Scott's Reef (Tamborine ) 62—56 adults, 6 minors (51 Afghan, 6 Iraqi, 3 Sri Lankan, 2 Syrian). 62 detention.147. 11 October 1999, Ashmore Reef (Unbunmaroo ) 110—95 adults, 15 minors (101 Iraqi, 9 Afghan). 110 detention.148. 13 October 1999, Kuri Bay, off NW Kimberley coast (Victoria ) 12—10 adults, 2 minors (Afghan). 12 detention.149. 18 October 1999, Broome (William ) 24—22 adults, 2 minors (Afghan). 24 detention.150. 22 October 1999, Ashmore Reef (Xarag ) 3 adults (2 Sri Lankan, 1 Pakistani). 3 detention151. 22 October 1999, Ashmore Reef (Yule ) 140—136 adults, 4 minors (126 Afghan, 14 Iraqi). 140 detention152. 24 October 1999, off NW Kimberley Coast (Zephyr ) 25 adults (Afghan). 25 detention 153. 1 November 1999, Ashmore Reef (Adelong ) 352 adults (299 Iraqi, 46 Afghan, 4 Iranian, 2 Algerian, 1 Palestinian). 352 detention154. 5 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Bogabilla ) 75 (63 Afghan, 12 Iraqi). 75 detention155. 7 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Cootamundra ) 82 (Middle East). 82 detention156. 8 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Dapto ) 25 (Afghan). 25 detention157. 9 November 1999 , Christmas Island (Eumungerie ) 159 (Middle East). 159 detention 158. 10 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Finley ) 22 (Afghan). 22 detention 159. 17 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Goodoonga ) 31 (27 Afghan, 4 Iraqi). 31 detention 160. 18 November 1999 , Christmas Island (Ivanhoe ) 62 (Asian). 62 detention 161. 18 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Henty ) 33 (Middle East). 33 detention 162. 19 November 1999 , Ashmore Reef (Jerilderie ) 23 (Middle East). 23 detention The Department operates a national telephone inquiry line on 131 881, for the cost of a local call anywhere in Australia. Overseas, please contact your nearest Australian diplomatic office. 1999 Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA), Australia.Last update: 22 November 1999 Disclaimer. 1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—I thank my colleagues and the Senate. There were also some concerns expressed last Monday morning about what might happen in the future. Again, to get that into perspective, I go back to the debate about the Iraqis. Mr Metcalfe, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, told the committee in his opening statement:. . . the United Nations estimated that there are approximately four million Iraqi nationals living outside Iraq and, of these, some 500,000 are estimated to be living in Iran. An analysis of some 180 of the recent Iraqi unauthorised boat arrivals indicates that over 60 per cent claim to have been resident in Iran, 39 per cent of these for over 10 years.The Senate was told yesterday about Iraqi nationals in Iran being told to get out of that country by the early part of next year. If that is true, the world has a problem. Not just Australia but the world has a problem, because these people are moving to other parts of the world. This matter must be addressed by the international community. Australia must be in the forefront because we are experiencing it now, and we call for the international community to address those concerns. That may be at some cost to Australian taxpayers, but we should be proud to do that because we are a developed country that can afford to help those who are in greater need.I think what I have just suggested is the proper course of action to address the problem, not allowing for just those individuals of Iraqi nationality who are currently enjoying sanctuary in Iran. Those who have the money, and only those who have the money, will be able to buy passage to Australia. That should not be allowed to continue, not just because of the problem it presents to Australia and the people of Australia but because of the unfairness of the situation. If people are deserving of protection because of the political views they hold, they should be provided with that protection, and it should not matter whether they have money or not.I got upset yesterday and resisted the temptation to intervene in the debate. I think the message I was trying to convey yesterday was turned around somewhat by my colleague Senator Harradine, who said: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.I am not seeking to set up any division between those people at all. I very firmly said yesterday that, if people come to our shores illegally, we have a right and an obligation to process their claims. What I am concerned about is the divisions that have been set up by others—divisions where if you have got money you can come to Australia and claim protection, but if you have not got money you languish in a queue for years and years at the overseas posts. You languish in a queue to get into the UNHCR stream and then, after you have been in the UNHCR stream, you get in a further queue in order to get the papers processed. I tried to illustrate yesterday the successes we have had in getting some of those unfortunate people into Australia, and they were but small examples. I did incidentally, during the course of my contribution yesterday, acknowledge that many other parliamentarians did the same thing. I would add, however, that I very rarely go to the minister's office. We use proper process, because proper process is laid down. That is not to say that I never go to the minister's office, as those in the minister's office would know. I hope that that straightens out the record somewhat.I want to make a quick comment about a matter that Senator Bartlett referred to yesterday afternoon in talking about people sitting on a boat for weeks on end and needing shampoo at the end of it. Indeed, if you did sit on a boat for weeks on end, you probably would need shampoo. But what is happening at the moment is not boat people sitting on rickety, shaky boats for weeks on end. It is a skip and a jump from Roti to Australia and no great journey at all from Indonesia to the Ashmore Reef. That is where they are coming in and that is where we are rescuing them from. It is not a revisiting of Australia's experience with the Chinese people and the Sino-Vietnamese coming out of China or the Vietnamese boat people earlier: they are coming very quickly and they are very well organised. They are coming because they have got the money to pay their passage to come.I wish to refer very briefly—because I do not want to delay the Senate in the passage of this bill that we are all agreed upon—to Senator Harris's comments about the conviction of some people-smugglers earlier this week in Darwin and the sentences that were handed out to them. I am not going to comment on the sentences, because I have not read the judgment. It is important that, before public figures make any comment on the decisions of the judiciary. they at least read the judgment and, as the judge or magistrate has done, take all the circumstances into account and understand why the judge or magistrate arrived at the decision that they did. Certainly, the penalties are there to provide for 20 years jail for convicted people-smugglers. The sentence that was handed out was two years, with a parole period of one year—which appears light, on the surface. It is my understanding that the people who were convicted were merely the people who guided the boat in—people who got just a few hundred dollars for undertaking the passage on behalf of others, not the people who benefited by the vast amounts of money that have been paid by the unfortunates for their smuggling. They are the people that we have got to target.Unfortunately, it would seem that most of the organisers of these smuggling rings—at least, if we believe some of the media comment—are not present in Australia and therefore may be immune from Australia's laws. We have to seek international cooperation to target those people-smugglers, and not just target the poor old fishermen—many of whom are on a subsistence living and, when they are given a charter for a boat to come to Australia, grab it with both hands because of the economic difficulties that beset their lives back home. We have to take those things into consideration, and I would hope that perhaps these were the matters that the judge or magistrate in Darwin earlier in the week did take into consideration in arriving at the level of sentence. More, indeed, needs to be done. The bill is a further step in the protection of Australia by giving the system more streamlined conditions.I conclude my remarks perhaps on a downside because of what I heard on the radio this morning, reported firstly in the news very early in the morning and later on in the ABC's AM program. It was a statement by President Wahid of Indonesia that the current problem of people smugglers was Australia's problem. That was a very unfortunate comment. I am receiving a message from the reported statement by the president—I believe his voice was actually used in the AM program later—that he is going to wash his hands of the problem and is going to allow his country to be used as a transit point for illegal activity.I know that diplomatic relations between Australia and Indonesia are somewhat strained at the moment because of events around the place, but that is not to say that we have not got to keep trying with them. The report this morning indicated that the Foreign Minister, Mr Downer, would be going to Indonesia next month and that President Wahid said he would meet him and that this matter would probably be up for discussion. That is welcome, but it is not enough. It is certainly not enough on the basis of his earlier remarks referring to people-smuggling and the fact that their transit through his nation was not his concern but Australia's.We have to go further: not only has Mr Ruddock got to make early plans to go to Indonesia but also our Prime Minister has to make those plans and go up there and get every diplomatic movement put in place to assist us on this. There was—and it has been recognised—great cooperation between the two nations during the course of the Vietnamese boat people experience, and there was cooperation with the introduction of a comprehensive UNHCR plan of action to deal with the problem of Vietnamese boat people in the past. It can be done and it has to be done again. Indeed it will be done again, because Australia is the end of the chain, and we are the ones that have to be proactive in getting that cooperation up and moving yet again.I will conclude my remarks by welcoming the cooperation from around this place for the passage of the bill. I again put on the record that the Australian Labor Party, the opposition in this place, made an enormous contribution to the details contained in the bill, and I hope that can be seen as a message that there can be a bipartisan approach to dealing with this difficulty. Certainly, we have to play politics across the chamber from time to time. But when we are acting for the good of Australia, sometimes the bipartisan approach is a better way of dealing with a problem than the scoring of a few cheap political points that may or may not be reflected in the polls.11:08:0010660Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I was not going to speak in this second reading debate because I did not think it would serve any use whatsoever. I did not know that Senator Cooney would be speaking in this debate but I heard some of what he said. It is extremely important that some of the issues that he raised are considered—particularly by the Labor Party. Where it is going in all of these matters one will never know. It seems that, at this particular stage, fear is one of the emotions that appear to be influencing policy outcomes on this matter.I apologise that I was not here for Senator Bartlett's speech. I would have liked to have heard his speech but, unfortunately, as we all know in this place, we have got an enormous number of other commitments. Before I came into the chamber I heard Senator McKiernan allege that I had accused him of creating a division between those who come in by boats and those who are processed through the UNHCR system. I invite any honourable member to have a look at what Senator McKiernan said yesterday. I defy any honourable member to suggest otherwise than that he was actually establishing a division between those two groups of people.You are making an assumption that persons who come in by boat have less of a claim to the protection of Australia than those who come in by other means, through the UNHCR system. That is not what we should be all about. We should be providing a system which will enable a proper judgment to be made as to the protection of their basic human rights. I thought that was what the whole process was supposed to be about. But what we had yesterday was a situation whereby a temporary visa is given to some, whereas others—for example those who bought their passage to Australia, coming out here very comfortably in aircraft—do not need to go through that situation. They are not given the three-year temporary visa.Now it appears to come down to whether people have paid money to get here. I come back to the point that I made yesterday. What about all of those people who got here in modern aircraft—they took a taxi to the airport and boarded an aircraft—because they had papers? Honourable senators will realise that many persons who are trying to escape persecution in dictatorial countries are not able to get travel documents. There is no use going over this time and time again.I was very interested in an article in The Australian this morning by The Australian's political editor, Mr Shanahan, and I believe it is worth quoting from. It reads:AUSTRALIA is under siege from criminally manipulated, disease-carrying, job-stealing, tax-avoiding, illegal economic refugees arriving by boat in northern Australia.Waves of these illegal aliens are threatening the fabric of our society to such an extent the Federal Parliament is introducing draconian laws to impose longer jail sentences on the crews of these ill-fated fishing vessels than applied to some of Australia's most notorious rapist-murderers.Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock has described the fight against boat people as "a high priority for the Government" which is both "urgent and ongoing". He's visited China and Thailand to spread the word and Australia's harried ambassador to Jakarta, John McCarthy, in the middle of a diplomatic disaster, has been given "a high priority" task to combat boat people using Indonesia as a corridor.The Labor Party has concurred with the Government's rhetoric and tough measures to show politicians are "doing something" to protect health and jobs.Yet all of this energy and hysteria is directed towards a pitifully few, albeit increasing, number of boat people.Then he goes into the number of arrivals:In 1997-98 there were 157 boat people arrivals, in 1998-99 there were 921 and so far in this financial year there have been 1789. That's 2867 boat people in the past three years.This "flood" is mostly East Asians but an increasing number of people are being smuggled from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.But, as he says:Now consider this: last year, in just 12 months there were 12,890 illegal immigrants who broke the law, stole jobs, didn't pay tax, could have been carrying diseases, jumped refugee queues, were definitely economic refugees and some of whom will stay forever.These illegals outnumber the boatpeople by more than six to one, even with the recent rise in the rate of boat arrivals, and are not an obvious wave but an insidious rising tide.If caught they face "forced departure", taxpayer-funded return airfares, and are refused entry to Australia for three years. Why no outcry? Why no draconian laws? Where's the top-priority ministerial trips to the countries of origin?I raised this yesterday and I raised it in a committee meeting on Monday. I asked how many illegals were in Australia. There are 52,000, and most are British. As the political editor of the Australian goes on:The explanation may be that these illegals are the plane people—they simply arrive on a nice shiny jumbo from a background comfortable enough to have proper passports, visas and money for an airfare and walk through Customs to melt into Australian society.Most of them come from the UK and the US. There are currently at least 50,000 illegal "plane people" in Australia who are working, not paying tax, claiming social security and using taxpayer-funded health and other services.And one quarter of them, more than 12,000, have been in Australia for nine years or more, comfortably settled into society after never having to face an immigration examination or sit in a queue anywhere.Surely, if the Government's concerns are to remove people in Australia on an unlawful basis because of criminality or because they threaten Australian jobs, avoid tax and use services, then the biggest group should be the priority.Of course, the Government has to juggle more than one ball at a time and fighting the perpetrators of people-smuggling and trying to ensure refugees are brought to Australia properly are correct.Shanahan obviously says that the government is correct in that task of trying to clamp down on people smuggling. He continues:But the undue emphasis on the smaller category of boat people smacks of discrimination.Later in his article he says:And since we know, from Immigration Department apprehensions, that between 15 and 20 per cent of visa overstayers admit to working, it is reasonable to assume that some of them fall victim to extortionists and tax avoiders in the labour market just as boat people do.How many are carrying unchecked diseases and may make demands on our health system?Yet, while there are more than 10,000 British and American visa overstayers in Australia and only 3000 Indonesians, the next highest category, the largest number detected and returned comes from Indonesia. Americans detected don't even rate in the top 10.All of this begs two questions: Why aren't we concentrating on well-heeled illegals from Britain and America and, if 60,000 illegal plane people can be absorbed without destroying the fabric of our society, why can't we do the same for less than 3000 boat people?I thought I would read that into Hansard in full, but there were a couple of paragraphs that I did not. This was the article in the Opinion page of today's Australian newspaper. I think that the government has something to answer for. Why is it whipping up this hysteria amongst the public? And it is hysteria; you need only speak to people about it. When you explain the situation to them, they say, `Oh, we had not thought about it along that line.' The unfortunate part about it is fear makes bad policy. This policy is generated by an irrational fear, and is bad policy.11:21:0010662Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the second reading debate on the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 . I have a number of comments I would like to make on what people have said. It is clear that people seeking a migration outcome in a developed country have identified Australia as a target. Numbers of people arriving without authorisation by boat and by air are at record levels. Despite what Senator Harradine and Senator Cooney have said, we have seen an unprecedented increase in the number of people who are arriving.I will just go back through some figures. In 1989-90, there were 224; in 1990-91, 158; in 1991-92, 78; in 1992-93, 194; in 1993-94, 194; 1994-95, 1,071; in 1995-96, 589; in 1996-97, 365; in 1997-98, 157; and, in 1998-99, 926. In the first 4½ months of this year, we have seen 1,814, and it is increasing each month. As I have been advised, we have not even seen the numbers coming possibly from China with the seasonal arrival that we get from there.Senator Schacht said yesterday that we were doing nothing and that the minister needed to go to China. Senator Schacht needs to catch up. If he was interested in the area, he would demonstrate an interest and maybe check the Internet or look at some press releases. Mr Ruddock issued a press release indicating that he had been to China and what he had done there to try to involve China in assisting us, and there has been cooperation at that level. I think the minister had been there before that and the First Secretary to the department was there addressing that issue. There have been various measures put in place to try to address the issue either in source countries or in transit countries through diplomatic efforts, through increasing compliance officers and through various other diplomatic measures.So for people to come in here and say that we are doing nothing other than something about the borders is totally untrue and does not give credit to the enormous effort that DFAT officers are putting in and the enormous effort that the minister personally and his staff are putting in—travelling long distances overseas in very short timeframes—to address this issue. Credit should be given where credit is due. To say that nothing else is being done is unacceptable.The government has also responded in five areas to this unprecedented increase. We have seen changes to coastal surveillance and detection; the prosecution of people smugglers, the seizing of their boats and the increasing of penalties for that. We have an international information strategy directed at both the smugglers and those they seek to exploit. We are addressing the factors that encourage those who select Australia as a target, and we are working internationally, as I just mentioned, with the UNHCR, the IOM, the countries of first asylum, the transit countries and other destination countries to generate cooperative action against people smuggling and durable protection solutions.Senator McKiernan has indicated that it is not just a problem for Australia, and I commend his approach to this. It is not just a problem for Australia; it is a problem for the world. It is a problem that has to be dealt with on an international front, and that is another area in which Australia has a responsibility, and it is working towards that.The last thing people want to do is leave the country of their birth not by choice. Some people, like Senator McKiernan, choose to leave. When I visit his country I sometimes think it is a beautiful country, but I can see why he chose Australia. But to be forced to leave your country must be one of the worst things that can happen to you. It behoves the international community to work assiduously and tirelessly to reduce the problem at the source, because many of those people do not want to actually leave their countries.This bill will give our officers new powers to board, search and detain vessels in international waters that they suspect are involved in people smuggling. At the moment, our officers are constrained by the 12-mile rule, which means they are unable to investigate any vessel that lies beyond our own territorial waters. This year alone we have seen at least three Chinese vessels attempt to exploit this loophole in our border policing. They have used a new modus operandi and been able to avoid detection by sailing through international waters east of Papua New Guinea and staying in international waters while waiting for speedboats to arrive to ferry their human cargo ashore before returning to China. The new legislation will allow us to crack down on increasingly sophisticated people smugglers like these by ensuring they are not beyond the reach of Australian domestic law.Other powers in the bill include detention, forfeiture, seizure and disposal of ships and aircraft used in people smuggling operations. Vessels found to be unseaworthy, a risk to safety or navigation or a threat to the environment will be removed and destroyed appropriately in accordance with the environment protection act. To ensure the safety of officers, changes to the Customs Act will allow Customs officers to carry and use approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence equipment in certain circumstances for personal defence. The government has responded quickly and unequivocally to the growing criminal activity of people smuggling, and this bill will further enhance Australia's ability to combat people smuggling.Senator Cooney asked questions about the training of the Customs officers. The Customs officers will be trained by the Australian Federal Police in the use of the firearms under the rules, regulations and training that the Australian Federal Police use. There will be a six-week training course for initial certification and then two to three days per annum for re-certification. As I said, it is the same training given to the AFP.Senator Bartlett in his speech talked about fishery officers having the same powers to use firearms. Under the federal Fisheries Management Act, fishery officers do not have the power to use firearms, but Customs officers who are exercising the powers as fishery officers will be able to use these powers but will be trained because they are Customs officers, as I just mentioned in response to the question that Senator Cooney raised. Hopefully that clarifies that issue.Senator Cooney mentioned Mr Gerry Hand and his views about people queue jumping. It was a comment that Mr Hand made in 1992. Senator Cooney commented on his ability as a minister. Mr Hand has kept abreast of these issues and is on the External Reference Committee appointed by Minister Ruddock. He has looked at these matters very carefully, and he has said:I would urge everyone in Parliament to support this, because if they don't they will be giving succour to international people smugglers. There is a right way to come here and a wrong way, and unless we do something, the situation will just run wild.He also indicated—and I cannot remember the exact quote—that it is the minister who ought to be in the driving seat controlling the immigration program, not the people smugglers. That indicates that Mr Hand has responded to the current situation where some people have not been accepted by the UNHCR as refugees. Some may have applied, and—as Senator McKiernan said—because they have the assets to pay people smugglers, they have been able to speed up the process. But those who do not have those assets or connections can lie languishing, waiting to be accepted through the UNHCR and then the Australian resettlement process.It is not fair to say that the government is just being alarmist. Some people have accused the Labor Party of being alarmist as well. There is a significant increase in people smuggling. There is a significant increase in the number of people who are coming to Australia through this method. Australia needs to do something to protect its borders and to send a message that there are methods of coming here and of being resettled in Australia. Australia is one of the most generous countries in the world.I will not take issue with some of the things Senator Bartlett said, but, Senator Bartlett, the department and the minister would be prepared to give you a briefing just on those figures you used last night, comparing Australia with Canada. We are not comparing apples with apples, and we should get those figures straight. But I will not go on with that today. It is difficult to compare the figures, because you are comparing onshore with offshore, and in some countries people are not given permanent resettlement. Australia has a permanent resettlement program. It also has one of the most effective resettlement assistance programs, and other countries visit us to see how we do that.We need to be making sure that we are comparing apples with apples. We are comparing onshore with offshore; we are comparing those people who have got permanent residency with those people who have been given temporary residency in other countries. We need to get those figures and look at them carefully. The sorts of figures that Senator Bartlett was bandying around yesterday were not quite correct. I commend the bill to the chamber. I thank Senator McKiernan, who indicated that we need a bipartisan approach on this particularly difficult issue.I accept the comment that Senator Cooney made—that Minister Ruddock has a very lonely life. I have likened the responsibility that an immigration minister has to the wisdom of Solomon to the power of a million. You have to cut the baby into many parts, and it is a very difficult and onerous task. For someone who is compassionate and has the best interests of these people at heart—and has always had, since he has been in parliament—it is a very difficult call. I appreciate the bipartisan support; I appreciate the support of senators who have indicated they will be supporting the bill. Question put: That the amendment (Senator Bartlett's ) be agreed to.11:38:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)12Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Harradine, B.Harris, L. Lees, M. H.Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D.Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J.43Bishop, T. M. Calvert, P. H.Campbell, G. Carr, K.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crane, W. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Evans, C. V.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.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.Newman, J. M. O'Brien, K. W. K. *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.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I would like my no vote recorded, please.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Certainly, Senator Brown.10665The bill.11:42:0010665Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I would like to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to the bill—this memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 24 November 1999—and I move government amendment (1):(1) Schedule 1, page 45 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 6—Amendments to prevent forum shopping 65 At the end of section 36 Add:Protection obligations (3) Australia is taken not to have protection obligations to a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently and however that right arose or is expressed, any country apart from Australia, including countries of which the non-citizen is a national. (4) However, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear of being persecuted in a country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, subsection (3) does not apply in relation to that country. (5) Also, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear that: (a) a country will return the non-citizen to another country; and (b) the non-citizen will be persecuted in that other country for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the first-mentioned country.Determining nationality (6) For the purposes of subsection (3), the question of whether a non-citizen is a national of a particular country must be determined solely by reference to the law of that country. (7) Subsection (6) does not, by implication, affect the interpretation of any other provision of this Act. 66 Paragraph 46(1)(d) After "91K (temporary safe haven visa),", insert "91P (non-citizens with access to protection from third countries),".67 After Subdivision AJ of Division 3 of Part 2 Insert:Subdivision AK—Non-citizens with access to protection from third countries91M Reason for this Subdivision This Subdivision is enacted because the Parliament considers that a non-citizen who can avail himself or herself of protection from a third country, because of nationality or some other right to re-enter and reside in the third country, should seek protection from the third country instead of applying in Australia for a protection visa, or, in some cases, any other visa. Any such non-citizen who is an unlawful non-citizen will be subject to removal under Division 8. Note: For protection visas, see section 36.91N Non-citizens to whom this Subdivision applies (1) This Subdivision applies to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time, the non-citizen is a national of 2 or more countries. (2) This Subdivision also applies to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time: (a) the non-citizen has a right to re-enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently and however that right arose or is expressed, any country (the available country) apart from: (i) Australia; or (ii) a country of which the non-citizen is a national; or (iii) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—the country of which the non-citizen is an habitual resident; and (b) the non-citizen has ever resided in the available country for a continuous period of at least 7 days or, if the regulations prescribe a longer continuous period, for at least that longer period; and (c) a declaration by the Minister is in effect under subsection (3) in relation to the available country. (3) The Minister may, after considering any advice received from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees: (a) declare in writing that a specified country: (i) provides access, for persons seeking asylum, to effective procedures for assessing their need for protection; and (ii) provides protection to persons to whom that country has protection obligations; and (iii) meets relevant human rights standards for persons to whom that country has protection obligations; or (b) in writing, revoke a declaration made under paragraph (a). (4) A declaration made under paragraph (3)(a): (a) takes effect when it is made by the Minister; and (b) ceases to be in effect if and when it is revoked by the Minister under paragraph (3)(b). (5) The Minister must cause a copy of a declaration, or of a revocation of a declaration, to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 2 sitting days of that House after the Minister makes the declaration or revokes the declaration.Determining nationality (6) For the purposes of this section, the question of whether a non-citizen is a national of a particular country must be determined solely by reference to the law of that country. (7) Subsection (6) does not, by implication, affect the interpretation of any other provision of this Act.91P Non-citizens to whom this Subdivision applies are unable to make valid applications for certain visas (1) Despite any other provision of this Act but subject to section 91Q, if: (a) this Subdivision applies to a non-citizen at a particular time; and (b) at that time, the non-citizen applies, or purports to apply, for a visa; and (c) the non-citizen is in the migration zone and has not been immigration cleared at that time; neither that application, nor any other application the non-citizen makes for a visa while he or she remains in the migration zone, is a valid application. (2) Despite any other provision of this Act but subject to section 91Q, if: (a) this Subdivision applies to a non-citizen at a particular time; and (b) at that time, the non-citizen applies, or purports to apply, for a protection visa; and (c) the non-citizen is in the migration zone and has been immigration cleared at that time; neither that application, nor any other application made by the non-citizen for a protection visa while he or she remains in the migration zone, is a valid application.91Q Minister may determine that section 91P does not apply to a non-citizen (1) If the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may, by written notice given to a particular non-citizen, determine that section 91P does not apply to an application for a visa made by the non-citizen in the period starting when the notice is given and ending at the end of the seventh working day after the day that the notice is given. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the matters that the Minister may consider include information that raises the possibility that, although the non-citizen satisfies the description set out in subsection 91N(1) or (2), the non-citizen might not be able to avail himself or herself of protection from the country, or any of the countries, by reference to which the non-citizen satisfies that description. (3) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised by the Minister personally. (4) If the Minister makes a determination under subsection (1), he or she is to cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a statement that: (a) sets out the determination; and (b) sets out the reasons for the determination, referring in particular to the Minister's reasons for thinking that his or her actions are in the public interest. (5) A statement under subsection (4) is not to include: (a) the name of the non-citizen; or (b) any information that may identify the non-citizen; or (c) if the Minister thinks that it would not be in the public interest to publish the name of another person connected in any way with the matter concerned—the name of that other person or any information that may identify that other person. (6) A statement under subsection (4) is to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after: (a) if the determination is made between 1 January and 30 June (inclusive) in a year—1 July in that year; or (b) if the determination is made between 1 July and 31 December (inclusive) in a year—1 January in the following year. (7) The Minister does not have a duty to consider whether to exercise the power under subsection (1) in respect of any non-citizen, whether he or she is requested to do so by the non-citizen or by any other person, or in any other circumstances.68 At the end of section 198 Add: (9) An officer must remove as soon as reasonably practicable an unlawful non-citizen if: (a) the non-citizen is a detainee; and (b) Subdivision AK of Division 3 of this Part applies to the non-citizen; and (c) either: (i) the non-citizen has not been immigration cleared; or (ii) the non-citizen has not made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone; and (d) either: (i) the Minister has not given a notice under subsection 91Q(1) to the non-citizen; or (ii) the Minister has given such a notice but the period mentioned in that subsection has ended and the non-citizen has not, during that period, made a valid application for a substantive visa that can be granted when the applicant is in the migration zone.69 Paragraph 475(2)(e) After "91L,", insert "91Q,".70 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Part apply to applications, or purported applications, for a visa made after the commencement of this item.I would like to put on the record the government's appreciation for the cooperation received from the opposition on this matter. In particular, the government would like to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Denison, Mr Duncan Kerr, and his staff for their input in formulating the amendment and willingness to address the serious issues surrounding this amendment in a cooperative manner. Senator McKiernan indicated the importance of a bipartisan approach on an issue of such importance to Australia. I also want to place on the record that the government has an unequivocal and continuing commitment to not either directly or indirectly refoule a refugee.I also have a tabling speech, which I have circulated to the opposition, the Democrats, Senator Harradine, Senator Harris and Senator Brown, and I seek leave to incorporate this document into Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—On behalf of the government, I would like to move amendments to the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.The amendments that I place before the chamber today are part of a package of tough new measures that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs announced on the 13th of October 1999.These measures are aimed at curbing the growing number of people arriving illegally in Australia, often through people smuggling operations.The Refugees Convention and Protocol have, from inception, been intended to provide asylum for refugees with no other country to turn to.Increasingly, however, it has been observed that asylum seekers are taking advantage of the convention's arrangements.Some refugee claimants may be nationals of more than one country, or have rights of return or entry to another country, where they would be protected against persecution.Such people attempt to use the refugee process as a means of obtaining residence in the country of their choice, without taking reasonable steps to avail themselves of protection which might already be available to them elsewhere.This practice, widely referred to as "forum shopping", represents an increasing problem faced by Australia and other countries viewed as desirable migration destinations .It also imposes unnecessary costs on the taxpayer and represents an often organised attempt to subvert immigration and border controls.But most importantly, it directly undercuts the ability of countries, such as Australia, to offer international resettlement to people on a needs basis.Domestic case law has generally re-inforced the principle that Australia does not owe protection obligations under the refugees convention, to those who have protection in other countries.It has also developed the principle that pre-existing avenues for protection should be ruled out before a person's claim to refugee status in Australia is considered.Under current arrangements the question of whether a person has protection in another country can only be considered as part of the decision-making process for a protection visa application.This increases the time and cost associated with reaching a decision and, for unsuccessful applicants, opens up the right to seek administrative reviewFor unauthorised arrivals, it extends the period of time that they are detained and adds to the current pressure on our detention centres.For those who have a right of re-entry to a safe third country, it also raises the risk that, by the time the application has been finally determined, and avenues for judicial review have been exhausted, their rights of re-entry will have expired.This has occurred in a number of recent cases, with the result that Australia was found to owe protection obligations to people who had voluntarily forsaken countries of first asylum.The amendments will introduce into the Migration Act a new subdivision which will apply to non-citizens who are dual or multiple nationals, or who have a right to re-enter and reside in a third country.A statutory bar will prevent such non-citizens while onshore from making a valid application for a protection visa if they have been immigration cleared, or, if they have not been immigration cleared, from making a valid application for any visa.The statutory bar will be accompanied by discretionary provisions for ministerial intervention to lift the bar in the public interest.In conjunction with ministerial guidelines to provide guidance to departmental staff on cases that are to be brought to the minister's attention, this will ensure that Australia meets its protection obligations.This will ensure that where a person may not have protection in a third country, the statutory bar would be lifted to allow them to make an application.The amendments also include an interpretative provision to make it clear that Australia does not owe protection obligations to non-citizens if they have not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a country other than Australia.However, this will not apply in relation to countries in respect of which non-citizens have a well-founded fear of being persecuted, or of being returned to another country in which they may be persecuted.Finally, these amendments insert a definition of "nationality" into the Migration Act, to make it clear that nationality or citizenship is to be determined solely by reference to the domestic law of the country in question.These measures will ensure that only those who most need our assistance—those with no other country to turn to are able to enter our protection system.The amendments in no way diminish the government's commitment to the refugees convention, and to providing humanitarian assistance to those most in need.Indeed they work to support the fundamental framework of protection for refugees in the face of increasingly sophisticated attempts by smugglers and "forum shoppers" to exploit this framework.I understand that the opposition shares our concern to combat the surge in people smuggling and abuse of the protection system.look to them to support these necessary measures against exploitation of Australia's generous refugee protection arrangements.I ask that all non-government parties allow the passage of these amendmentsI commend the amendments to the chamber.11:44:0010669Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Earlier this morning I circulated a couple of proposed amendments to the government amendment, but I will not move these straightaway. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary some questions first, which may obviate the need for me to move them. I think it is important to examine fairly closely the actual content of the amendment and get on the record from the parliamentary secretary and the government exactly how it will work and what the legislative intent is, et cetera.When you are dealing with protection obligations and particularly amendments that seek to constrain, or put in place definitions that may be perceived to be constraining, the implementation of protection obligations, then it is very important to get as clear as possible what the intent is of them. I am sure that all members of this chamber would be very keen to ensure that we did not inadvertently support something that was going to lead to Australia being in a position where we refoule someone, because refoulement is obviously the fundamental component of our protection obligations to prevent that from happening and to prevent Australia from being a party to sending somebody back to face persecution, torture or death.Let me say at the start with respect to the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , which is actually about quite a lot of different matters, that the Democrats are willing to give support to measures which we believe will constructively assist in tackling people smuggling or address issues that need an appropriate response to the worldwide problem. My contributions on this issue yesterday and today have emphasised that this is a problem around the world and a bigger problem in many other countries than it is in Australia. But it is one that Australia is linked into, and I think it is not inappropriate for us to examine how best we fit into the enactment of our obligations under the refugee convention.The minister's tabling speech in relation to the amendments, as well as the explanatory memorandum, his statements and his original press release, I have gone through. I think the basic principle that the minister has indicated, which is what these amendments are reputedly meant to be about, is ensuring that people who have nationality of more than one country or have protection rights in a third country should take those up. I and the Democrats do not have a problem with that in principle. We need to try to ensure that countries around the world share the load of the huge problem of the number of people seeking protection. The Democrats are quite willing to support the principle that other countries share the load equitably and that people who have protection or citizenship in a safe country should be required to take that up rather than jump across to Australia and engage protection obligations here. That principle is fine. What I would like to have clarified from the government is how these amendments will operate. I will go through the tabling speech from the parliamentary secretary. One paragraph reads:Some refugee claimants may be nationals of more than one country, or have rights of return or entry to another country, where they would be protected against prosecution.In the very next paragraph, the parliament secretary says:Such people attempt to use the refugee process as a means of obtaining residence in the country of their choice, without taking reasonable steps to avail themselves of protection which might already be available to them elsewhere.I think that word `might' is a fairly important one, as well as the word `would' in the paragraph above. What we need to ensure, if we are going to uphold our obligations, in my view, is that people do already have protection available to them or will clearly have protection available to them, not that they might—because they might or they might not. If we are going to send them somewhere where they do not, then we will be potentially a party to their being refouled, in my view. That is something that we should not be a party to.A few paragraphs further down the tabled speech says:Domestic case law has generally re-inforced the principle that Australia does not owe protection obligations . . . to those who have protection in other countries.And that is quite unequivocal: people who have protection, not people who might have protection. Another paragraph further down reads:Under current arrangements, the question of whether a person has protection in another country can only be considered as part of the decision-making process for a protection visa application.These amendments seek to change that, but surely the question is still there: does a person have protection in another country? These amendments prevent people, if they are seen as having protection in another country, from being able to make a valid application. Basically their application is not received, as I read it. In that case, I would like an indication from the government about how that question will be determined. If we are not going to receive people's applications, how are we going to clearly and confidently determine that people do have protection in another country? I think that needs to be spelt out clearly because it is not clear to me. Further down, the tabled speech reads:The amendments will introduce into the Migration Act a new subdivision which will apply to non-citizens who . . . have a right to re-enter and reside in a third country.Again, re-entering and residing is very different from having protection. They may be able to reside but for how long are they able to reside? Are they able to reside for a week before they get forcibly removed and deported to yet another country? Or will they be able to reside for as long as they choose under the protection of that country? That needs to be made very clear as well.The amendments contain a provision which is becoming quite common in the Migration Act now and which gives the minister discretion to intervene and lift the statutory bar on people being able to submit an application for a protection visa. That is seen as the safeguard. The next paragraph says:In conjunction with ministerial guidelines to provide guidance to departmental staff on cases that are to be brought to the minister's attention, this will ensure that Australia meets its protection obligations.It is specifically saying that this discretionary provision for ministerial intervention is there to ensure that Australia meets its protection obligations. Two questions come out of that: firstly, if we are not going to receive the person's application in a legal sense, then, again, how does it get into the system that departmental staff are considering their situation anyway? I am sure there is a system, but I would like to have it clarified.Perhaps, more importantly, as with many other components in the act where the minister has discretion to intervene, he cannot be compelled to intervene—there is no compulsion, it is a non-compellable discretion. How can a non-compellable discretion be a mechanism that can ensure that something has happened if there is no way that a minister can be pressured to ensure an outcome? It is totally in the minister's hands. I am sure the government will say, `This minister is top stuff. He knows what he is doing. He will not get it wrong.' They may be right. But who knows whether a future minister in a future government of whatever party will be as competent.I would like clarification of how a non-compellable provision, a non-compellable power, can be seen as something that will ensure that Australia meets its protection outcomes, and how the fact that that discretionary provision exists at all can be seen to be part of ensuring that we meet our protection obligations. When I first saw that provision I thought it was more. As it says in the parliamentary secretary's tabling speech, it is `in the public interest'. The minister may think it is in the public interest. He may have humanitarian grounds or broader compassionate grounds to want to lift the bar on people applying. That is very different from lifting the bar to ensure that we meet our protection obligations.I know I am reeling off a lot of questions at once, but I am trying to get as many of them out of the way as I can. Again, at this stage I am just working from the parliamentary secretary's tabling speech and interconnecting that with bits in the explanatory memorandum and the amendments. I have two questions relating to the statement in that speech that `Australia does not owe protection obligations to non-citizens if they have not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a country other than Australia'. The first question goes to the issue of whether entering and residing equates to receiving protection under the refugee convention or whether it just means they will be let in for a while and what happens to them after that is some other country's problem, not ours.The second question goes to the issue of taking `all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter'. If someone has to take `all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside' in another country, depending on your definition of `reside' in another country, that could be read to mean—and I imagine this is not the intent—that they have to make application for visitor visas to every other country on the planet before Australia to follow all possible steps to see whether or not they have a `right to enter and reside in a country other than Australia'. That is perhaps an extreme interpretation. But I think it would be helpful to get on the record from the government that that is not the meaning of that relevant section within the amendment, that `all possible steps' does not mean we are last in the queue, if you like, and people have to go to every other country on the planet before they can apply in Australia. They are some initial questions which I seek clarification from the government on.11:56:0010671Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Bartlett has gone through the tabling speech that I incorporated into Hansard . I think to go through that statement word by word as if that is the actual legislation is not helpful. When I said, `Such people attempt to use the refugee process as a means of obtaining residence in the country of their choice, without taking reasonable steps to avail themselves of protection which might already be available,' that is in the sense that we are talking about a large group of people, a generic group of people. Some might have protection in another country; some may not have protection in another country. That is why the word `might' is used there: we are talking about a group of people—some might have protection and some might not.You asked how people get into the system so the minister can actually exercise his power to lift the bar. Well, they attempt to make an application. The department does not throw the application in the bin. It actually has to go through the application and assess it, and that process of assessing it can indicate that the only way this person could be considered further is for the minister to lift the bar. So that is in response to that issue.You asked how we know what ministers will do in the future. We give various powers to ministers and we put those powers in acts. If ministers abuse those powers, then I suppose the legislation has to be reviewed. But in piece after piece of legislation we pass here ministers are given various powers to do various things. I am sure if the minister were not using his power appropriately the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would also respond. Further to your question, I have been advised that ministers are officers of the Crown and are charged to act in the public interest.I have tried to deal with all your questions. There were a series of them, Senator Bartlett. If you do not think I have dealt with them, then can you quickly and succinctly reiterate those that you do not think I have dealt with?11:59:0010672Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will do that. Perhaps I will go to the actual wording of the amendments rather than to the speech. My understanding is that the contents of speeches, particularly ministerial speeches, do have some importance in terms of what they may imply. So I thought that was where I would start.It might seem like nitpicking about words, but words are what end up in the law, and it is the words in the law that end up being interpreted by the courts. So I think the words are fairly important. A question I asked towards the end concerned the first part of your amendment. Paragraph (3) of item 65 reads:Australia is taken not to have protection obligations to a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in, whether temporarily or permanently—a third country basically, to use the shorthand. Firstly, I acknowledge this may be an extreme interpretation but I would like to get an interpretation from the government about this phrase `all possible steps to avail himself or herself of a right to enter and reside in'. I hope it does not mean that they have to apply to enter every other country other than Australia. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, together with `enter and reside in' go the words `whether temporarily or permanently'. I would have thought that being able to reside somewhere, particularly temporarily, was not the same as having a protection obligation from that country.I thought I heard in the statements from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, about this measure that those countries would have to be ones that were signatories to the refugee convention, so people already had a right to enter them and then they could seek to get their protection obligations assessed by that third country. But I might be misquoting him.I can see that as making some sense because at least it requires that third country to be one that is a signatory to the convention and will test their protection entitlements. However, I do not see that in this amendment and that causes me concern because, firstly, we are putting a very broad provision on what people have to do before we will even look at their application or accept it as valid. Secondly, if we are not even going to accept an application as valid if people can stay somewhere else temporarily, that seems to me to fall far short of someone who has engaged the protection obligations of a third country. That was my understanding of the main intent of what the forum shopping problem was about.I emphasise that I am not doing this to make life difficult for the government. The Democrats support the principle that a person has a right to go to third countries whether as a citizen or as a person having protection obligations. But I am concerned that we do not pass something that goes way beyond that principle or, at least if we do so, it should be made very clear that that is what we are doing. And if that is what we are doing, then I think the Democrats would have a bit more trouble supporting it.12:03:0010672Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—Senator Bartlett, again I would suggest to you that it would be very helpful in this debate if you would like to sit down at some stage—I think I could benefit, too, because I am still on a steep learning curve in this area—and have a briefing from the department on this issue to clarify some of the questions you have asked.I have been advised that it is not that we expect people to apply to every country that is a signatory to the convention before they can apply here; it is if they have an existing right to enter a country. I have been advised there are some countries that are signatories to the convention where we would not expect them to exercise that right because of the human rights record of that country. However, there are some people who have an existing right to go to a country that would protect them but, when they are advised by our posts to go and apply for a visa, they refuse to do so. In that situation, we expect them to use that right first before applying to Australia. That is what that means—I will check I have said the right thing—for onshore applicants, if I can just qualify that.12:05:0010673McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I rise very briefly to draw Senator Bartlett's attention to the government amendments. I make the point that I do not think his series of questions were nitpicking, because this is the proper avenue to ask those questions and to seek a clarification of what the amendments mean. I draw his attention to the provisions contained both in proposed section 91N(3) and in the whole of proposed section 91Q. Senator Bartlett would be aware that the non-compellable ministerial discretion appears in a number of areas throughout the act. It is a particularly important provision dealing with the matters that we are discussing in this particular instance.If Senator Bartlett examines the content of 91Q—it was an initiative of the opposition in the dialogue and discussion that went on between our offices, the minister's office and departmental officers—he will see the extension that has been put on the ministerial discretion in that provision. I ask Senator Bartlett to take that into consideration as well as those provisions contained in 91N(3) which deal with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. These are savings devices inserted into the amendments, which we on this side of the chamber are happy with at this point in time. I trust that, now it has been pointed out to Senator Bartlett, that will satisfy the Democrats' concerns.12:07:0010673Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I follow on from what Senator McKiernan and Senator Bartlett said. Senator Patterson told Senator Bartlett to look at the legislation rather than the second reading speech. The second reading speech has led to a lot of difficulty that it should not have. The second reading speech does not address the legislation. This legislation, if you look at it, is mainly about the detection of crime, the apprehension or even arrest of suspects and detention. It is about powers of stopping ships inside and outside Australian waters and on the high seas. It then goes into the fisheries and what have you.The contents mention chasing and boarding ships and aircraft. That is a policing procedure. Forfeiture is a matter of process, if you like, where, in certain circumstances, you forfeit what you have. The enforcement visa comes somewhere near the Migration Act. There are amendments relating to fish stock agreements and technical amendments. Schedule 2 of the Customs Act deals with chasing and boarding ships and aircraft. Part 2 deals with the transfer of goods into and out of coasting trade. Schedule 3 deals with the Fisheries Management Act 1991. Customs officers are to be fisheries officers. It then deals with suspected illegal foreign fishers. It all has to do with process.The second reading speech seeks to justify a change in process and an increase in policing powers by saying that it was disturbing to hear reports of some of those arrivals asking for Pert shampoo immediately upon their arrival. I am not terribly sure what someone asking for Pert shampoo has to do with due process. When you say that Senator Bartlett should not look at the second reading speech, you are absolutely right. This has been a very interesting debate, because it is a debate that has at no stage addressed the issues contained in the legislation. It has contained all sorts of things about migrants, snake heads and whether they come from Iraq or Afghanistan or what have you. What has that to do with the process of hot pursuit? What has it to do with whether you can board a boat? What has it to do with the fact that you do not have to ask for a warrant?We are talking about the processes that can be used against Australian citizens—Australian boats are concerned—and foreigners on the high seas. It is also about the use of weapons by customs officers. It is about all those sorts of things, none of which have been addressed. I am afraid that there is a lot of merit in what Senator Harradine said before, when he said that you use an emotional argument to achieve a purpose. It is a classic process in the courts. You try to get some more power by saying that there is a rash of paedophilia, there are murders being committed or there is a rash of burglary. I am so old now, unfortunately, that I remember these various campaigns over the years.This is just another campaign. I am not saying that it is not justified; I am voting for the measures. However, why can we not get to the point where we address the issues involved rather than go through a second reading speech which does not address due process but which tries to create an emotional flood so that we put up our hands for anything that anybody wants to suggest? Why should a person about to board a boat not have to get a warrant by telecommunications centres? Is six weeks training for customs officers in firearms sufficient? It is not simply about being able to use the arms; it is about having them in a way which is not likely to create an international incident with the United States or somebody else. That is what we should be addressing.In the old days, when I was young—that is how long ago it was—the police did not even carry revolvers. They do now because things have changed. But the police are trained not just in using them but in the philosophy of how you should go about the process of using them. To carry on from what Senator Bartlett is saying, and to endorse what Senator Harradine said, why use arguments that have nothing to do with the issue or the legislation and which are based purely on emotion and are even approaching an appeal to prejudice?12:12:0010674Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I think Senator Cooney and I are slightly at cross-purposes. Senator Bartlett and I were discussing the tabling speech that I put down. He was hanging on the word `might'. If I imply that he should not be looking at the speech in that detail, I apologise. I was saying that that is taking a word like that out of context when we are looking at a generic group of refugees, some of whom might have a claim on another country and some of whom might not. Using the word `might' does not mean that everyone might have a claim in that country. This tabling speech, although used as an explanatory memorandum in interpreting the law, has to be seen in context. The context of that paragraph is that we were talking about a generic group of people, some of whom might have claims to other countries and some of whom might not. That is why the word `might' was used.I do not know that I can go into everything Senator Cooney talked about. In talking about the training of officers on the use of firearms, the briefing note refers to their training on not only the use of firearms but also on the safe storage of firearms and in using negotiation. It says that the training is of six to seven weeks duration. The main emphasis is on conflict resolution and incident de-escalation so that potentially dangerous situations can be resolved without the need to resort to any level of force.We ought to leave the AFP, which is more expert at this than us, to train the customs officers in the way that AFP officers are trained. It is not just about how to put bullets in a gun and shoot. The emphasis is on conflict resolution and incident de-escalation. I have been working as a principal patron for the safe havens. I have been very impressed with the officers working in those safe havens. There has been an obvious cultural change in the defence forces in dealing with conflict resolution and incident de-escalation. They have used their skills enormously well. We have also seen that with the troops in East Timor. That is the sort of culture that exists. It is the sort of culture that is engendered in the AFP and which will be passed on to the customs officers who are being trained.12:15:0010674Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I would like to press the issue a bit further. Noting the comments of the parliamentary secretary about the value of a briefing from ministers' staff or departmental staff, I certainly have always found it valuable to get information from those sources, whether through briefings or committee hearings. But I think it is also important to get on the record in the parliament the operation of these measures. Again I emphasise that the princi ple that the minister has stated these measures are able to address in the amendment is one that the Democrats support, but the question is how it will operate in practice.Senator McKiernan said to look at other sections of the amendment. I am trying to look at this as a package and not just pull one line out of context. But, in relation to those sections, the minister may, after considering advice from UNHCR, declare various countries, and he may determine that section does not apply to a non-citizen—non-compellable, non-reviewable, non-appealable. It is difficult to see how that is a sufficient guarantee that Australia as a nation will act in a way that meets its obligations. Senator Patterson said that parliament acts all the time to give various powers to ministers to do various things. That is fine but here we are giving power to a minister that he is not obliged to use, and no-one can do anything about it if he does not. That gives me some concern.Linked to that I would like to get further clarification of the operation of this amendment. As I understand it, linking to section 91N(3), the minister can declare that specified countries provide access or protection to people who meet relevant human rights standards or he can revoke such a declaration. Is that meant to indicate that only those countries that have been declared by the minister as specified countries that meet those standards will come into play in the overall operation of this amendment?12:18:0010675Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I have been advised, Senator Bartlett, that if a person comes from a third country the bar does not operate unless the minister has made a declaration that the country is safe. That is the only answer I can give you. We could sit here all day debating whether or not the minister will use his power appropriately or not. I am sure that if it were not appropriately used you, if you were here, Senator McKiernan, if he were here, or whoever else were here, would ensure that the minister addresses that issue. I do not know what else you can do. You want it to be a compellable power. I suppose that is what you are asking for.12:19:0010675Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I am trying to get on the record exactly how these provisions will operate to ensure that we do not leave ourselves open to the risk of being party to refoulement. I will move away from the issue of ministerial discretion—I think that point has been made as much as it needs to be made and will not be progressed further.Another question, though, that I would like to ask goes to the foreshadowed first amendment that I have circulated: the issue of the non-citizen having a well-founded fear that a country will return them to a place where they will be persecuted. In that circumstance the bar does not operate. I foreshadowed an amendment to insert `directly or indirectly' in the provision so that it is clear that that well-founded fear does not relate just to the third country shunting them straight back to Iraq or wherever it is but also to moving them out of their borders and leaving them to the vagaries of fate, in which case they may end up eventually being shuttled back. There are cases of people who get shuffled from one country to the next. They are deemed to be illegal in one place, they are sent back to the last port of call and then they are bounced all the way back down the chain. That happens now.I would like, firstly, to get clarification of that potential problem. As I read the amendment, it seems to mean that the return would have to be direct from the third country back to the problem country—Iraq or wherever—rather than just sending them away so that they become someone else's problem, which means that they lose those chains of protection.12:21:0010675Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—In relation to the first point, if you look at amendment 91N(5), it says:The Minister must cause a copy of a declaration, or of a revocation of a declaration, to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 2 sitting days of that House after the Minister makes the declaration or revokes the declaration. I think the other point you are making about direct or indirect return goes to the heart of your amendment and the amendment in which you are proposing to add to the existing wording in the government's amendment. It is clearly Australia's intention to fully meet its convention obligations not to refoule refugees. I made that point specifically and clearly in the speech I made before I tabled the amendments. I did that on purpose to reiterate that that was the government's obligation and commitment. The amendment that the Democrats are proposing would add words that create uncertainty in the meaning. What constitutes `indirectly' would create a field day for litigants seeking to undermine the legislation. It would be a complicating and retrograde step which would make the reading of the government's amendment unclear. The government wording fully meets Australia's convention obligations. We have made the commitment that people will not be refouled.12:23:0010676Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's continual reiteration that it is Australia's intention to meet our obligations. What I am concerned about is that we do not enact legislation that provides inadequate safeguards or loopholes where those obligations are met. Good intentions are always wonderful but, if you are just saying that it is the government's intention to uphold our obligations, you are basically asking everybody to just trust us and saying, `This is our intention. We're going to uphold our obligations.' If that is all we are going to have, we may as well scrap the legislative provisions for a refugee review tribunal and all that and say, `Look, it's our intention. We're going to uphold our obligations. That is what we're going to do, and we don't need all these complicating legislative requirements to guarantee that not just the government meet our obligations but future governments meet our obligations.' I do not think we can rely on good intentions. To progress things, I will formally move the Democrat amendment to the government amendment. Then I am sure Senator McKiernan can stand up and tell me what is wrong with it. I move:Item 65, paragraph 36(5)(a), after "will", insert ", directly or indirectly,". 12:25:0010676McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Never miss an opportunity when you are given the call. The opposition do not support the Democrat amendment. We are satisfied from the series of negotiations that have been undertaken, which I have referred to before, and also from a more detailed examination of the government amendment as it appeared before us that the provisions contained here in the amendment will alleviate the concerns expressed by Senator Bartlett. We have those concerns, but we are satisfied that the words here overcome those concerns. I keep reading it, and I cannot see why the addition of the words `directly' and `indirectly' after `return the non-citizen to another country' will help in any way. Were they to do so, we would most seriously look to supporting them, but unfortunately we cannot see our way through, and we cannot see that your suggested amendment is adding any safeguards that are not there already to the government's amendment. For those reasons, we will not be supporting them.12:26:0010676Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I want to explain a bit further for the record the reason behind the Democrats first amendment: it is to ensure that there is that extra protection. My understanding of the principle of non-refoulement is that a country has an obligation to ensure not just that someone does not get returned directly to a place where they face persecution but that that country is not a party to that person ending up back there. The fact that they go through two or three other countries in the process does not remove Australia's obligation to not be a party to them ending up back in a place where they face persecution.The government may well say that that is the intention of the way this amendment is going to operate. It will ensure that people are not returned indirectly via third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh countries to a place where they face persecution. This is simply intended to put that beyond doubt. However, it appears that the Senate is not of a similar view, so I will not specifically elaborate further on that point.12:28:0010676Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am supporting this amendment. I do not see for the life of me why the government or the opposition does not. It recognises that countries do place considerable pressure on returning refugees to go back to their previous country. This pressure could take the shape of a whole range of different measures. I really have not heard anything stated by Senator Patterson or Senator McKiernan to suggest otherwise. Here we have the words:(5) Also, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear that: (a) a country will return the non-citizen to another country . . . All Senator Bartlett is proposing is that after the `will' there should be `directly or indirectly'. What we are interested in, of course, is safety. What we are interested in as a country is our obligations not to refoule. If this refoulement takes place directly, we are presumably covered by the wording here. If it occurs indirectly, are we covered? That is the simple question that I am asking the minister.In the event of there being an indication or a valid suspicion that the country will indirectly return the non-citizen to another country, what then? Is the minister saying on behalf of the government that, if there is a well-founded fear that the country to which we are returning the asylum seeker will ultimately and indirectly influence that person's transfer to another country, this wording—without Senator Bartlett's amendment—covers that situation? That is all I am asking. I do not think I have heard an explanation from the parliamentary secretary on that. Have I made it clear? Does this mean that, if the non-citizen has a well-founded fear—and a well-founded fear can be tested—that a country will indirectly return that non-citizen to another country, that is covered? Is that what the wording means?12:32:0010677Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I do not know that I am going to be able to convince Senator Bartlett or Senator Harradine. At the minister's request, prior to tabling the speech regarding the amendments, I specifically and very clearly stated that the government would not refoule refugees. One of the problems that arises out of the use of the words `directly or indirectly' is that it can create mischievous litigation. The legislation has to be considered in conjunction with administrative arrangements. There are clear intervention powers and there are public guidelines being prepared, and the convention does not say how countries deliver on their obligations.The key to the debate is that we have indicated that we will do that. One can never speak for future governments, but it has been a tradition of Australian governments of both persuasions to deliver on those obligations. To put those words in makes it difficult in terms of whether there is a time limit: there are all sorts of interpretations that can be put on it. The government's preferred position is not to have the words `directly or indirectly' in that clause.12:34:0010677McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—I do not know what words can be used in this debate that would put to rest the concerns that Senator Harradine has raised. I have been pondering in my mind previous circumstances where persons who came into Australia and claimed refugee status failed in their claim, but where the government, together with the embassies of other nations, was able to make arrangements for the individual not to return to their country but to go to a different country. For example, I can recall that, with the Vietnamese boat people, a number of people who failed to get protection here in Australia actually ended up getting a visa to go to the United States. You could end up with the scenario where that individual, while they had failed to get protection in Australia, had, after they had removed themselves to the United States, come across some difficulties which caused the United States to remove them out of the United States.I cannot see where Australia's obligations under the refoulement provisions of the refugee convention and protocols would be brought into play in this scenario, for two reasons. Firstly, we are dealing with the laws of the United States—and I say that in the hypothetical sense, because we have had experience in that, as I indicated. Secondly, because the individual had failed in a protection visa application within Australia, I would have thought that would have relieved Australia of its obligations, certainly under the refugee convention and the subsequent protocols.Amendment (Senator Bartlett's) not agreed to.12:37:0010678Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I also have some further questions for the government. Again, one of the issues in relation to this whole government amendment—and it perhaps goes a bit to what Senator McKiernan was just saying—is that we are not dealing with people whose protection visa applications have been considered and rejected. Under this amendment, we are dealing with people whose protection visa applications we are not going to accept. I think that puts a different onus on the situation.I appreciate Senator Patterson's guarantees that the government is going to ensure that no-one is refouled—that is always useful and handy to know. But you do not want to leave in place legislation that enables a future government to not uphold that commitment. I think all of us know that politics is a lot more volatile now, whether you are looking at government policy changing or public opinion changing or, indeed, political parties changing. Coming from Queensland, I can assure people that political parties can appear out of nowhere and suddenly gain a lot of seats in the parliament. And if they have the opportunity to utilise legislation that has gaps in it, then that leaves us in a dangerous situation and turning to previous government assurances does not really help people very much.I have a couple more specific questions for the government. Firstly, I assume the way this amendment as a whole will operate is that, because people's applications will be deemed as not valid—and some form of determination will be made by someone in the department that they do not meet the exemptions in this amendment that may make that application valid—there will be no opportunity for any appeal against that determination made by the department. I assume that is the case but I just want that clarified.I understand these amendments will operate when the legislation as a whole gets royal assent, but I just want to clarify that they will commence operating from then. The parliamentary secretary said something about these amendments being relevant only to people's onshore applications for protection visas. I think offshore applications come through a different process. I wanted to clarify that these apply only to onshore applications. That would help me in the context of how these will function.12:40:0010678Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thought that we had actually finished with that. I thought we were now on amendment No. 2. Your second amendment seeks to add the words `together with a copy of any advice received from the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to the declaration or the revocation of the declaration'. UNHCR advice is customarily provided in confidence to protect not least the aid efforts in countries in which there are human rights concerns or about which there is an international concern about their record on human rights but also the safety of the UNHCR workers in those countries. An obligation to table such advice could result in the UNHCR being reluctant or not forthcoming in providing full advice because of the constraint of protecting the workers in those countries. That would limit the amount of information we would get if we were to do that.With regard to the question you asked: attempted applications are to be assessed against the minister's guidelines. People whose applications are not valid have access to judicial review by the courts but not access to merits review by the tribunals. The amendments apply from the date of proclamation.12:42:0010678Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I had another question about whether this relates to only onshore applications.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—The answer is yes.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Thank you. I would like to speak to the amendment I have moved. I can understand the potential problem it may present to the UNHCR, but I think it is important to outline the intent of that amendment and possibly to see whether the intent of it may be able to be reflected in practice. Under the Migration Act the minister has to table various declarations that he has made in relation to deportation or assessment of character or other aspects of the act. They are very light on detail—possibly necessarily—and it is often presented as a wonderful accountability measure that the minister has to table these things, but they do not give much information at all in terms of the reasons behind it. It is a fairly inadequate accountability measure.The Democrats believe that, if one is not able to actually assess what led to particular declarations, the minister is basically doing little more than reporting that he has done it, which is good, but it is not sufficient in our view, particularly in relation to advice from the UNHCR. There is a requirement that the minister considers advice, but there is obviously no requirement that he pays any attention to it. Nonetheless, he will make those declarations saying he is declaring them after considering advice from the UNHCR. This really puts the UNHCR in a position where the implication is being made that the minister is following that advice, yet that is not necessarily the case.Progress reported.Bills10679r829Billsr828Billsr83010679Consideration resumed from 24 November.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The committee is considering three social security bills. It has completed consideration of the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 . It will now consider the Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 .SOCIAL SECURITY (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1999Bill agreed to.SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1999The bill.Amendment (by Senator Chris Evans) agreed to:(1) Schedule 4, page 38 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Subsections 107(1), (2) and (3) Repeal the subsections.Note: The heading to section 107 is altered by omitting "time limits and ".12:48:0010679Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The opposition will oppose schedule 4, item 1, page 38 (lines 5-13).12:49:0010679Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I just want to say that the government will not be supporting the approach put by Labor, because it will delete a clause from the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, which was passed with this clause by the Senate in June of this year. The clause which Labor wants to delete provides for a 52-week time limit for internal review for the new family assistance law. The new family assistance law takes effect on 1 July 2000 to commence with the new tax system. As I mentioned earlier, the Senate has previously agreed to this clause, and I do not know why the Labor Party wants to revisit the issue. The government will oppose these amendments in the House of Representatives and return the Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 to the Senate for reconsideration. 12:49:0010680Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I just want to indicate why the amendment has been moved to rescind that decision of the Senate back in June. As senators would recall—or would realise if they checked the Hansard of that time—I think it was actually initially a Democrats amendment, supported by the opposition, to ensure that the 52-week period not apply. I have to confess on this one that I had the understanding that the government would not resist on that occasion. By the time I had realised that they had resisted, and the call had gone in their favour, we were on to the next item and I did not call a division. So perhaps it is my fault for not calling a division. But then I know how much people hate divisions, so I was probably trying to be helpful. I just need to pay more attention. That is probably why we are revisiting this now.I also emphasise that this amendment to rescind that previous decision of the Senate would ensure consistency. In the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 that we debated yesterday we also removed that 52-week limitation that the government was attempting to put in. So it would—as I understand it, anyway—ensure consistency, which I think also is beneficial in that regard, even if the government would prefer that the consistency was that the time limit operate across the board, rather than no time limit across the board. So the Democrats are in agreement with the opposition on this item.12:51:0010680Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will just briefly speak to my proposition. I did not realise we were going to debate this, given that we had agreed to treat it as noncontroversial. But, as other people have put their position on the record, I will do so for the Labor opposition. I just indicate, as Senator Bartlett did, that this measure went through in June or July when we were dealing with the ANTS legislation. It was an oversight in the sense that it was carried. Now that we have had the in-principle debate about whether or not the 52-week limitation ought apply, it seemed sensible to make this decision here as well, to provide consistency in approach. We have opposed the 52-week limitation for the reasons out lined in the debate earlier. I do not want to repeat those, but we thought it useful to make this adjustment as well. I commend it to the committee.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—The question is that schedule 4, item 1 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.Bill, as amended, agreed to. Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 reported with amendments, Social Security (International Agreements) Bill 1999 reported without amendment; report adopted.10680Bills (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills10680s22710680Debate resumed from 23 September, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:54:0010680Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 is being dealt with in the non-controversial component of the program. I do not wish to depart from that, but I do wish to take this opportunity to express some views. The main provisions of this particular legislation go to the extension of the current regime for the statutory self-regulation of migration agents through the Migration Agents Registration Authority, known as MARA.The existing regime or regulation has been in place since 1997. The intention of the government is to move in a staged process to a new system of self-regulation. However, the government has quite rightly judged that the industry is not yet ready for this. There are still far too many migration agents who are not members of the Migration Institute of Australia, the MIA. This is the body that is legally empowered to act as the MARA, the regulatory body. I note, however, that those particular bodies can take responsibility for regulation only of those that are registered. This is an example that might be laughable if it were not so serious.The fact is that the government has noted that only 24 per cent of people offering their services as migration agents are members of the association, the MIA. Therefore, fewer than a quarter of the migration agents submit themselves to the ethical and other forms of scrutiny via the MARA. Only 24 per cent are, in an important sense, directly subject to the ethical rules and the guidelines formulated and promulgated by the MIA. This bill extends the period of statutory self-regulation for a further period until the year 2003. This means that it will allow the industry to have more time to clean up its act, more time than is, I suggest, clearly needed.There are provisions in this bill to give more effective publicity to the deregistration of agents who act unethically or illegally or who prey upon unsuspecting and unfortunate people who want to come to this country or want to stay in this country. This means that the MARA can produce and promulgate information in a form that will actually warn the public about the unscrupulous activities of unethical and dubious agents. This change is long overdue and quite apparently needed in the current environment.We have active in the education export industry a considerable number of persons claiming to be immigration agents or education agents. We have seen the activities of unscrupulous and crooked agents in the field of migration carry out the potential not only to fleece unfortunate individuals and potentially ruin their lives but also to act as a serious threat to Australia's international reputation in other areas.I want to turn to an example in the education export industry. I want to remind the Senate that this industry is worth some $3.5 billion per year to this country. It is our fourth largest export industry. I have extensive and detailed evidence of so-called migration agents operating in this country in conjunction with providers of educational services in the international education sector. The attention of the Senate has been drawn to these various operations and the practices in many contexts. The cases that have been highlighted indicate to me the continuing need for urgent action to strengthen and to extend the government's powers over people purporting to represent themselves as migration agents.I detailed in the Senate on a previous occasion a series of advertisements that appeared in the foreign language press published and distributed in this country, advertisements which clearly identified persons purporting to offer students, or persons wishing to be students, services in return for very large sums of money, visas and other provisions which are quite clearly outside of the law. For example, attendance records could be fixed. The sum of $1,200 over a six-month period could arrange a two-year visa or a four-year visa for the payment of certain so-called tuition fees. A particular enterprise here is offering three-month student visas for $600. For $1,100 to $1,200, six months of tuition fees were being proposed in return for a two-year visa. Various other fees have been listed, as I said. Of course, these are quite prominent. These agencies are quite well known, and they are clearly identified in these advertisements.The department was advised of these advertisements back on 28 August. I understand that these matters were drawn to the attention of officers of DIMA, and I am told that the officers in Education know nothing of them. I am advised that these matters have been drawn to the attention of the government. I have asked questions about these matters, and I have been provided with advice from the department of education to the effect that these matters are not for Education to consider, that these were non-registered agencies offering services.The penalty for an unregistered agent offering services in immigration is up to 10 years jail. I want to know how many of these people are facing prosecution at the moment. I understand there has not been one prosecu tion for breaches of the ESOS Act involving these types of activities. I want to know how many prosecutions this government has launched against persons advertising and claiming to be education agents and offering immigration services and facilities and visas but who are clearly not official registered agents.An advertisement placed in the Korean community magazine, the Woori magazine, on 22 October this year said that advice from the Korean agents was that they should no longer place all of their information out in the public arena in the way they have been to date. They were told that they are only to advertise immigration assistance if they have an immigration licence and number. They are not to mention money lending for bank balances—as the previous advertisements had done. `We can fix up your bank balances,' was a statement made in the previous advertisements. They were told that they are not to mention their offer to fix up attendances. They are not to mention visa extensions and fixing extra course lengths—for instance, the payment of six months to get a two-year visa. They are not to mention instalment papers. They are not to advertise false or misleading information. They are not to offer discount fees.Many of the things they say in this advertisement are in response to the questions I have raised in the Senate; they are not necessarily in response to the actions taken by the government. I wonder about that. Perhaps this is an indication of the value of parliamentary proceedings—it does allow for these sorts of concerns to be placed on the public record and it does clearly identify the failure of the government to act in these areas.I also have an example whereby another non-registered agent—Sendai, Australian Services Centre—offer information, and the document I have before me is headed `Visa information'. They are located at Suite 7, Level 8, 250 Pitt Street, Sydney. They list a series of prices in return for services that they will perform. For example, for a de facto visa, it is $285 for a student nomination. They will charge $500 for the provision of various services. Then there is a list of 10 items, which I am told is what you will get for the payment of your money. I understand it could be represented that these are the things that the students are required to do, but it has been put to me that these are the things that will be provided to you in return for the provision of certain money—for example, rental agreements, bills, letters to prove the relationship is over 12 months, original AA forms, joint account receipts, medical insurance receipts and various other documentation.I am advised that it then goes on to say that, for a business visa, for the charge of $6,000 to $10,000, you will receive an education certificate, job skills experience, work experience and two photographs. If you have an attendance problem of over 70 per cent, you pay a fee of $500 and these documents will be provided; for a 50 to 70 per cent attendance problem, you will pay $800; and for 50 per cent or under, you will pay a fee of $1,000.It goes on to say, I understand, that for a permanent resident's visa for marriage the charge is $1,895 and an application fee of $1,595. For that, they will get relationship letters, love letters, letters from friends and families, booking registers, marriage certificates, photos, a lease and various other bills—Telstra and gas—and joint accounts. It has been said to me that this is the price list for the provision of documents which will assist in a visa application.In the answer the department of education provided to me when I raised these questions, they failed to identify that the International Academy of Education, which is promoting itself through the Korean newspaper and whose director, Mr Jeomg Hoom Eom, also represents himself as a director of Lloyds International College, is also a major supplier of students to Skywell and to Lloyds International College. Lloyds, as we know, is owned and operated by Caprock International. Caprock's directors are registered migration agents—Kofi Osei and Liba Osei. These are people who apparently both run and direct the financial interests of this particular college for international students at the same time as being active migration agents—that is, assisting people to enter Australia on student visas or to extend their stay in Australia through the use of student visas.To me this is clearly a major conflict of interest. There is a conflict of interest in so far as the students are permitted to work for a limited number of 20 hours a week but, under the regulations attached to the Migration Act, they are required to attend at least 80 per cent of their classes at these colleges. The colleges are required by DIMA to keep attendance records, to monitor attendance and so on. It seems to me that, if people are seeking to bring people here and receive payment to do so, there is a conflict of interest in their actions when they are also running colleges or are directly associated with colleges, as we have seen in these particular cases.Skywell is a college that I have named in the past. My understanding is that 3,000-odd students have been through its books in recent times, but it has a CRICOS registration of only 350. I understand that it is providing discount fees of substantial proportions and that it is paying kickbacks to agents in the range of 45 per cent of those student fees. People will say that this is not economic. The whole point is that it is economic when the students do not actually attend. The whole point of this exercise is to bring students into these colleges who do not attend. The purpose for which these colleges are operating is for securing a visa, not the provision of a high quality education.We hear that Skywell are now moving to Melbourne. So it is not just a problem, as I have said in the past, confined to one city. I understand that in an advertisement in the latest Woori magazine the proud boast is made that this college is moving to Melbourne and that the students will be provided with their air fares if they are prepared to move to Melbourne. This is clearly stated in public records. What is the government doing about these sorts of things? What action does the government take to monitor foreign language publications? What action does the government take to ensure that persons claiming to be immigration agents are operating within the law? What action does the government take to protect the quality provi sions of Australian education from unscrupulous unethical operators?I have examples of other colleges, such as the Australian National College—ANC—whose CRICOS registration, I understand, is something like 350 students. But according to the records I have in my possession there have been over 1,100 students on the books. How many of those students are actually attending classes? What action is the government taking to ensure that those persons involved with that college are acting within the law?We have seen the case of the National College of Australia—NCA—and the various questions I have put on notice in regard to that. The government, at the time of the collapse of the college, did not know how many students were involved with that college, how many students were attending. The college had a capacity, I am told of, some 2,000 students. But the government indicated that it did not know the exact numbers of students who were enrolled at the time of the collapse. It now says that only 321 for sure were there, but it also says that 735 are believed to have been enrolled at that time. But it did not know at the time of the collapse itself. DIMA admits that, prior to its closing, electronic and paper student records were all destroyed. You have to ask yourself: what is the level of monitoring, what is the level of regulation, that is occurring within this industry?It strikes me that many people will claim that I have misrepresented them in the course of the work I have undertaken. The information is flooding in. The Sydney International College of English, referring to the advertisements I have quoted today, says that it was not responsible for the placing of the advertisements on its behalf. It says in a letter that I have received `that the agent who advertises in this paper was misleading the public in the worst possible way.' What an extraordinary discovery! It says that the agents, unfortunately, were `dishonest agents trying to recruit business and out of desperation resorted to falsifying the price structure of a college such as ours, as well as telling blatant falsehoods regarding the requirement of the department of immigration.'I trust that the Sydney International College of English is now prosecuting those persons. I trust also that the department of immigration have been advised of these matters. I trust that they too are prosecuting these persons claiming to represent education. But to date the evidence is very disappointing. In recent times the department of immigration have launched a number of investigations into a number of colleges. They go into the college with their eyes wide shut. They do not ask for documents. They do not ask to look under the counter, where everyone knows the records are kept of persons who are `in attendance', who are walking in, signing on and walking out again. They do not ask to look at the documentation about the confirmation of enrolment forms. They do not ask to look for the attendance records at the college. They do not ask to identify the number of students who are not meeting the attendance requirement.We have a regime that is predicated on the assumption that people tell the truth. Clearly, only 25 per cent of agents are actually registered with them. This is the regime that is currently functioning under this government. The department of immigration has very big responsibilities. The department of education also has big responsibilities. The problem at the moment is that Immigration says to Education: `It is your problem.' Education says to Immigration: `It is your problem.' Both say `It is the states' problem.' The government seeks to vilify persons seeking refugee applications to this country. The government tries to build up public hysteria around the issue of people smuggling. Yet there is clear evidence that there are maybe as many as five times the number of persons coming into this country misusing student visas than there are coming in on leaky old boats.The hypocrisy of the government ought to come to an end. It ought to be taking further action. The minister for education—I hold him primarily responsible in this regard—and the minister for immigration should ensure that this government acts and takes the neces sary provisions, using the existing powers it has, to protect the reputation of Australia's educational export industry. That is not the case at the moment. I am sure this department knows only too well the number of persons involved in this racketeering. It is now time for this government, if it is genuinely concerned about people smuggling, to stop these people acting as illegal immigration agents and seeking to draw students into this country on the false premise that they are here for an education when they are not; they are here for the purposes of securing a visa.If operations like Skywell want to come to Melbourne, they ought to be subject to the full and complete rigours of the law. They ought to be monitored effectively. They ought to be regulated properly. The Senate ought to be provided with an explanation from the government as to the actions the government is taking to protect this country's reputation from these unscrupulous operators.13:14:0010684Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I indicate the Democrats' support for the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 and indicate that we are prepared to continue to monitor the operation of the Migration Agents Registration Authority in the important task they do and also the ongoing issue of the costs of registration and the impact of that on non-profit community legal centres in particular. This bill is a necessary measure. We are always keen to indicate when we are able to reach agreement with the government on a measure. We certainly agree with this bill in that regard.13:14:0010684Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—We might not have known from Senator Carr's contribution what the Migration Legislation Amendment (Migration Agents) Bill 1999 is going to do, so I would like to remind honourable senators that the bill seeks to extend and improve the current statutory self-regulation framework for the migration advice industry. The relevant part of the Migration Act has a sunset clause and ceases to operate on 21 March 2000.I appreciate the cooperation of honourable senators in assuring that this bill goes through so that we can meet that deadline. The government has reviewed the operation of the current arrangements and has found that the industry is not yet ready to move to full voluntary self-regulation. In particular, the government has significant concerns about the vulnerability of the client group to exploitation and the ethics and conduct of a small group in the industry. The review found the Migration Act Institute of Australia, acting as the Migration Agents Registration Authority, has demonstrated its commitment to the objectives of consumer protection in its capacity to undertake industry regulation.I know we have an agreement that this is a non-controversial bill and, as Senator Carr says, it does not stop you from talking on the bill; it means that we will not have divisions on it. I just want to correct something that Senator Carr said. He indicated that only 24 per cent of agents were registered with MARA. That is not right. All agents must be registered with MARA. Twenty-four per cent belong to the Migration Institute of Australia, but all agents must be registered with MARA.MARA is responsible for lifting the standards of ethics in consumer protection. It has a rigorous disciplinary process which applies to all people registered. If they are unregistered, of course the force of the law applies. They can refuse to register or re-register. They can suspend or cancel registration. It is a criminal offence to act as an agent without registration, and all such cases should be referred to DIMA. If any individual or person has a complaint against an agent or is being offered services by persons who are not registered agents, they should notify DIMA. That is now clearly stated on the front of all application forms for visas. We have tried to ensure that it is on every appropriate web site. We have tried to make sure that people are fully aware of their rights and of the fact that they should only go to registered agents and that MARA has the power to deal with registered agents if they are behaving in a way which is not ethical or which does not follow the code of conduct.There were some issues that Senator Carr raised which, as he indicated, fall within the responsibility of the minister for education. Since we are discussing an immigration bill at this stage, I will confine my comments. I am sorely tempted to launch into a response. I am being very controlled in not responding to the issues associated with education. On some instances raised by Mr Carr, he really ought to go back and see his namesake in New South Wales and discuss why some of those institutions are in crisis. This is not, as I said, the appropriate place or the time to be discussing this here. We can have that debate at another time.In response to the vulnerability of migration advice industry clients, MARA has adopted a very pro-active approach to removing misleading or deceptive advertising. I have been advised that it has audited advertising material in web sites and in a number of publications, including Chinese, Indonesian, Korean and English speaking communities and publications. The code of conduct is highly prescriptive in relation to advertising. An agent must not engage in false or misleading advertising, guarantee the success of an application, imply he or she has a special relationship with the department, the authority or the minister. Additionally, the code requires all advertising material to include the agent's registration number.Of the advertisements audited over the past 12 months that contained a breach of the Migration Act and/or a code of conduct, more than 30 per cent indicated a special relationship with the government and nearly 60 per cent failed to include the agent's registration number. The authorities highlighted these matters to eight agents who had implied a special relationship with the government. The authority wrote to these agents indicating the breach and sought corrective advertising. Only one agent did not comply and he is being investigated by the conduct advisory panel. Repeat offenders will be required to demonstrate to the authority compelling reasons as to why they should not be sanctioned by the authority.MARA has taken action on those issues. If Senator Carr has evidence of people who are acting as migration agents outside the code of conduct, it is his responsibility to advise the department or MARA. If they are not registered, it is his responsibility to advise the department. It is any member's or senator's responsibility to do that to protect those people who could be exploited. We cannot expect MARA to monitor every single publication in which an advertisement might appear. If Senator Carr has received copies of advertisements, he ought give them to the minister, the department or to MARA, particularly the department so it can pass them on to the appropriate authority.It is his responsibility to do that. He can come in here and make allegations, but unless he provides the material an action cannot be taken. One would then have to question his motives. But, if he is genuine, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, in ensuring that inappropriate practices are rectified, then I ask him to make sure that information is passed on. He can be assured that it will be dealt with. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10686The bill.13:21:0010686Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have noted the minister's remarks and I want to ask a simple question. You would no doubt be aware that these advertisements have been tabled in this chamber. It is all very well to ask people to come forward and present information to various officers. You would also be aware of the provisions of the various legal codes in this country whereby persons doing so are not exempted from prosecution, whether the claims made in such complaints are false or accurate. Minister, given the fact that these are documents that have been tabled in this chamber, I ask what action has the government taken in regard to those advertisements lodged and which were the subject of questions on notice to Senator Ellison? What action has the department of immigration taken in regard to investigations of those advertisements?13:23:0010686Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thought Senator Carr had additional information apart from the information that had been tabled before. If he has additional information, then he ought to present it. The information that has been presented is being investigated by the department. I do not think it is appropriate in the middle of those investigations to respond to what is happening. There is a commitment there. There is a code of conduct. If it is a registered agent, then MARA deals with it through the code of conduct. If the person is an unregistered agent, then it will be a criminal offence if they are parading as an agent.13:23:0010686Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have one final question, Minister. I understand the nature of this particular session. If you cannot answer me now, I would ask you to take this on notice and respond in the normal provisions: how many persons have been prosecuted operating as unregistered agents in the education industry?13:24:0010686Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—It is not within my portfolio responsibility to look at education agents. I will make a commitment to give as much information as I possibly can regarding the allegations that you have raised. You have to understand that investigations may be under way and it is not appropriate to comment on them. You have raised issues legitimately and they will be addressed, but some of them do not come within my minister's portfolio responsibility.13:24:0010686Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The point is that these are matters relating to persons operating as immigration agents. That is quite clearly within the province of this bill and quite clearly within the province of the portfolio which you are representing here today. I have asked a question that relates to the prosecutions of persons acting as unauthorised or unregistered immigration agents who happen to be operating in the education industry. That is the particular bit I am interested in. It goes directly to the question of your responsibilities and your department's responsibilities. 13:25:0010687Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—As I said to you, Senator Carr, MARA has the responsibility for investigating those agents who are registered. The department has the responsibility of dealing with those people who are claiming to be agents who are not registered. If they are acting as agents when they are not registered, that is a criminal offence and they will be dealt with in that way.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.10687Bill (on motion by Senator Patterson) read a third time.Bills10687r87210687Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.13:26:0010687Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—The Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 is based on the recommendations of the electronic commerce expert group or the ECEG which reported to the government in March 1998. This group's recommendation included the need for the Commonwealth to enact legislation based on the United Nations Committee on International Trade Law or the UNCITL model law on electronic commerce of 1999 with some modifications.The bill is based on two principles: functional equivalence, also known as media neutrality; and technological neutrality. The term `functional equivalence' means that transactions conducted using traditional mediums should not be treated any differently by the law than those conducted in an electronic environment. Technology neutrality means that the law should not discriminate between different forms of technology—for example, by specifying technical requirements for the use of electronic commerce that are based upon an understanding of the operation of a particular electronic communication technology.The bill establishes the validity of electronic transactions and contains specific provisions which state that electronic communication is a satisfactory medium for the writing, signing, production and retention of documents under Commonwealth law. Contrary to the recommendation of the ECEG, the bill only applies to transactions under Commonwealth law. Complementary state and territory legislation is also required to ensure the equality of electronic commerce with respect to transactions. The government claims that it has adopted this approach for what it claims are constitutional reasons, and the ECEG has criticised the government's failure to show stronger national leadership on this issue.The Labor Party will be supporting this bill. However, I note that a stronger national approach to the bill may have been more effective. I know that we will have the opportunity to consider this in a forthcoming amendment. Two of the areas in which the bill could have been strengthened are that of the government legislating to the maximum extent possible under the constitutional heads of power and the government seeking a referral of power from the states on a national uniform scheme in relation to those matters for which the Commonwealth's constitutional authority is uncertain, in particular, the power to regulate transactions with state governments. However, it is more than obvious that the national interest clearly favours the enactment of a scheme to regulate electronic communications, even if that scheme is far from perfect. Accordingly, having noted our concern, we will not be opposing the bill.There are a number of other matters in relation to the bill that I think are definitely worthy of note. One of them is confidence in electronic communications. Electronic commerce depends on business and consumers having the confidence in the people and the organisations with which they are dealing. Verification of identity is fundamental to this. Whilst legislation alone would be insufficient to address the technically more difficult area of ensuring that business and consumers can verify whom they are dealing with, it is disappointing to note that the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 does not specifically address this concern. Subject to ensuring reasonable access for law enforcement, appropriate recognition of the role that encryption plays is fundamental to addressing this issue.Those who see the ability to exchange information securely on the Internet as a right have long advocated cryptography, or the scrambling of electronic data to make it confidential, for privacy reasons. The level of cryptography regulation in Australia is currently more stringent than the recommendations of the Waasenaar arrangement, which offers guidance to participating countries on the permissible level of encryption within that jurisdiction. Connected citizens and business want to have confidence in the Internet—this is the medium we are primarily talking about here—and I believe they are demanding access to secure levels of encryption. The recent changes to the Waasenaar arrangement loosened the approach to exporting encryption associated with financial institutions in response to this pressure, but as yet Australia is to act to reflect this shift.On 19 August 1998 the National Office of the Information Economy released a discussion paper on the establishment of a national authentication authority. The aim of the authority was to administer a national public encryption key authentication scheme. This scheme would entail a single-purpose national framework for a national infrastructure that would enable strong authentication of users involved in electronic transactions. The system would provide for the unequivocal identification of an individual or entity. It would not provide specific assistance for a user who wished to use encryption to reduce or prevent unauthorised access to data or information. This is in line with activities both in Australia and overseas to separate authentication techniques from encryption techniques.The problem faced by corporations and governments is to provide an infrastructure that will provide the necessary service and enable benefits to be gained. Public/private key cryptography is widely recognised as one of the enabling technologies for authentication within a globally dispersed environment. Not only does this technology exist today but also there is a need to provide some supportive framework to allow a trusted infrastructure and the education of users and potential users. By addressing only authentication, public/private key systems sidestep many of the difficult regulatory issues with the use of encryption. However, this really just puts off addressing the broader issue, which is that encryption needs to be fundamentally addressed as part of online transactions.The NOIE discussion paper is in direct opposition to the recommendations of the Attorney-General's Electronic Commerce Expert Group, which argued that a detailed legislative regime which specified an operating framework or the use of a particular technology could seriously impede Australia's ability to participate in international electronic commerce. The Labor Party generally prefers an approach that will allow the market to determine the most effective means for transactions to be verified, as governments should not be in the job of predicting the level of satisfaction the market will require. What is actually happening in that marketplace is that new technologies are being created all the time. Even in the last few months we have seen significant progression in how the providers of services online are offering solutions to consumers online in the hope of gaining their confidence with respect to transactions. Whichever approach the government adopts, it needs to do so quickly and in line with international practice. It also needs to provide appropriate sanctions against the use of encryption technology in the commission of a crime, as such conduct should attract significant criminal penalties.Secondly, the legislation, as does the UNCITRAL model law, fails to address issues of appropriate consumer protection law. By default, the legislation applies the consumer protection law that applies in the relevant jurisdiction. Given that consumers and business will often not consider or appreciate the differences that exist across jurisdictional boundaries, the failure to address this issue will become more and more important. It is disappointing that the government did not try to use this bill as a mechanism to help nationalise some of Australia's consumer protection laws.The current Australian consumer protection provisions prohibit unfair practices such as misleading and deceptive conduct, false representations, misleading statements, harassment and coercion, bait advertising, referral selling and pyramid selling. There are also provisions relating to unsolicited goods and credit cards. Consumer and many business transactions are automatically given warranty protection by the law, whether or not suppliers give their own warranties or guarantees. This protection includes the right to refund if goods are defective. The government could have taken the opportunity in this legislation to ensure these same protections are afforded to all Australians in their conducting of business-to-business or business-to-consumer transactions in an online environment.Thirdly, the bill contains a blanket exemption in relation to dealings with Commonwealth entities in connection with applications for the grant of permission, certificate or similar thing where the permission, certificate or thing is of a kind that is not capable of being granted to an Australian citizen. This provision is expressly stated in the explanatory memorandum as preventing the application of the bill to applications made under the Migration Act 1958 or the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. Given that the specific provisions can otherwise be exempted by regulation, it is unclear why this exemption has been included in the legislation. Whilst the provision is not of itself objectionable, the Labor Party would prefer that this matter be dealt with by way of regulation in whatever way is required, as I have discussed.Finally, I note that paragraphs 9(1)(d), 9(2)(d), 10(1)(d), 11(1)(e) and 11(2)(e) have been inserted into the bill. These paragraphs ensure that an electronic transaction can be validly engaged in only with a person who is neither a Commonwealth entity nor a person acting on behalf of a Commonwealth entity if that person consents to the use of electronic communication as a means for the purposes of the transaction.We support this approach, as those people or businesses that do not want to engage in electronic transactions should not be forced to do so. With respect to the government's provision of service—and I will refer in a short while to a recently released Australian National Audit Office report which looks at the depth to which governments are transferring their services online—there is a question of equity. At the moment, 22 per cent of Australians have Internet access. So to try to mandate the provision of a service via electronic commerce or online services in that way through this bill would be a cause for grave concern. Also, during a period of great transition in the way in which governments deliver services, it is absolutely essential that electronic transactions by way of engaging citizens with the government not be mandated. We need to have a choice and the government still needs to be able to work with citizens in a more traditional way. However, given that the use of e-commerce by Australians is increasing at an exponential rate—from 409,000 up to 650,000 users in just the last 12-month period, according to ABS statistics—it will increasingly be in both consumer and commercial interests to participate in the electronic framework.Some general reflections about the growth in electronic commerce underlie the significance of legislation of this type and how it positions Australia in the global economy. Forrester Research have identified that, in Australian dollar terms, in 2003 there will be $2 trillion worth of trading in an electronic commerce environment in business to business transactions alone. Business to consumer transactions are also increasing at a phenomenal rate. In terms of the actual ratio, we know that business to business electronic transactions are still sitting at a rate which is about 10 times that of business to consumer. We can anticipate, however, in the context of the trend growth in Internet usage and the changing way in which consumers are starting to access the Internet for the purposes of purchases, that that ratio will close as time moves on and the number of electronic transactions that people are conducting online will increase phenomenally.Back in February 1998 alone, with respect to EFTPOS transactions, and including the broadest definition of electronic transactions—so this is certainly far more than just the number of people purchasing off the Internet and businesses transacting on the Internet—there was $1.6 trillion being exchanged in that regard, involving 116 million individual transactions. So the impact of electronic commerce on our society as time moves on is becoming more and more prevalent.What does all this mean? The most important point to remember here is that, in a global economy—and as Australia finds its place, as many other economies are doing, in that space—how we manage electronic commerce in the context of everything from our taxation framework, our international trade agreements, our capacity to participate in the international bodies that set regulations and laws about how privacy is managed to how security and encryption standards are managed will become increasingly important to Australia, because all those issues will start to define what our economic identity is.We hear so much concern and trepidation expressed about the impact of globalisation on Australia, particularly on our economy and certainly on our cultural identity. I believe that how we manage electronic commerce will continue to define what our economic identity is in a global economy. We have to take great care as a parliament as to how we participate, through the support of bills like this, in establishing the environment that will, in turn, serve to create Australia's economic identity in a global economy. I believe that taxation framework conditions and trade agreements will be a significant part of that.One of my main concerns in that regard relates to the taxation framework conditions that we are currently preparing for in this country with a goods and services tax. I know that I have mentioned this before in this place, but jurisdictional issues and the capacity to derive revenue through a consumption tax are going to come under significant and increasing challenges in a global economy. The reasons for this relate to the tracking of tangible products like books purchased over the Internet to what I call digital intangible products, which may be travel services, applications, other kinds of software or, indeed, creative content. These all present significant jurisdictional challenges for the purposes of deriving some sort of consumption tax. Both the World Trade Organisation, through their electronic commerce working group, and the OECD, through their taxation framework conditions and their finance working group, are grappling with these challenges now.To date, many of these issues have been handled in either bilateral or multilateral tax arrangements. But the magnitude of growth of electronic commerce exchanges is starting to put a great deal of pressure on countries that do rely on deriving their internal revenues from consumption based taxes. This, more than ever, highlights the point that the GST is a tax for times past. It is not a tax that suits a global economy. It is not a tax that suits a country that is trying to position itself in the best way it knows how to benefit from the changes that are taking place with the Internet and our role in being able to capitalise on what is a fundamental benefit that electronic commerce and electronic transactions will bring to our economy.For the first time, if it has not dawned on the government as yet, if you think about digital intangible products or anything that can be circulated, distributed, transacted or exchanged online, suddenly our geographic location is irrelevant. This is a significant export opportunity apart from anything else. So any taxation framework that inhibits that growth and any law that relates to the regulation of content on the Internet, like the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Act as it is currently on the books in this country, undermine Australia's capacity to derive benefit that we should be deriving from the growth of electronic commerce in that global economy. It does go both ways, however. How we establish before our economic identity in the globalised world is an incredibly important thing.This bill is a bit of a starting point. It is covering off a few bases that I believe the government could have covered off a long time ago. I certainly look forward to watching with very close interest continuing developments from a regulatory perspective and also how the government comes to terms with this process of transition. Australia's economic identity is metamorphosing from something that has been quite definable in the past, where we have defined ourselves as a nation primarily around our economic identity, to defining ourselves in a globalised society where globalisation is really a symptom of what the Internet has enabled in economic, social and cultural terms.13:46:0010691Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—On behalf of the Democrats, I rise to speak briefly on the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . Firstly, let me state that the Democrats, like the opposition, will be supporting the legislation. Like the opposition, we have expressed a number of concerns about the legislation. Some of those are laid out in the second reading amendment standing in my name, which I will move shortly.Broadly, there are two main areas of concern. The first of these relates to the comprehensiveness of the scheme created under this legislation. The primary purpose of the bill is to make a series of changes to evidence law to ensure the legitimacy of electronic transactions. The bill also provides a fairly broad right for Australian citizens to use electronic transactions in their dealings with the Commonwealth government. While we quite strongly support the legislation, the Democrats are concerned that these changes alone are not enough.Electronic transactions will not be adopted until a range of other concerns are addressed by this government. These concerns relate to privacy for personal information, communications, transactions, authentication and security more generally. We believe these issues have been swept under the carpet by both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. We believe the behaviour surrounding the Walsh report and its withdrawal from circulation will continue to embarrass our Attorney-General until there is wider public debate and action on ensuring that we have communications privacy. There are approaches that could be adopted to freeing up the availability and use of encryption that deserve further consideration. I have put those on record in this place on other occasions. I note that we are due to discuss amending legislation regarding ASIO fairly shortly. I will be addressing some of those issues under that legislation as well.I am also concerned that the continuing lack of an effective regime for protection of personal information held by the private sector is a major impediment to the adoption of electronic commerce in Australia. We are still awaiting the release of the government's private sector privacy proposals, which seem to be taking rather a long time to reach some kind of legislative form. At the same time, I would like to thank the Attorney-General and his office for the comprehensive consultation process in which the government has been engaged.The Australian Democrats are also concerned that the list of exceptions to the new electronic transactions rights is not broadened. While we can support the exception of certain documents for forensic purposes, we do not want to see this grow beyond these document authenticity concerns. In particular, we do not want to see expansions due to the unwillingness or inability of government to provide the necessary electronic transactions framework. There is also a need to ensure that electronic transactions are made available in an equitable way. By this, I mean that we need to provide resources to both government and citizens to encourage and enable the use of electronic transactions.The other broad area of concern for the Australian Democrats relates to the need for national and international uniformity. A number of academics and commentators have drawn attention to the limited jurisdictional reach of this legislation. The previous speaker has certainly referred to that. Despite the need to ensure that electronic transactions are subject to a uniform legal framework nationally, if not internationally, the government intends only to cover transactions with the Commonwealth or under laws of the Commonwealth.The government has opted for a uniform national scheme instead of a single piece of legislation as was recommended by the Electronic Commerce Expert Group. This is despite the apparent availability of constitutional powers allowing a national framework using trade, telecommunications and corporations powers. The government approach was adopted after advice from the Solicitor-General indicated that a single national piece of legislation would infringe a range of constitutional provisions. This argument is based on the problem created by Commonwealth laws which would prescribe evidence interpretation provisions in other jurisdictions.While we accept the constitutional limitations on the establishment of a national scheme based on Commonwealth legislation, we are also painfully aware of the jurisdictional problems created by electronic transactions. The government intends to rely on the implementation of a nationally uniform scheme through the enactment by the states of uniform legislation using the Commonwealth model. The Attorney-General's office has indicated that there is already agreement from the standing committee of Attorneys-General to adopt the Commonwealth model nationally. It is unfortunate that this has not been formalised or made more public. That is perhaps the key concern that we have outlined in the Democrats' second reading amendment: for Australian states and territories to immediately enact complementary legislation to create a uniform national framework for electronic transactions.The Australian Democrats call on governments of Australian states and territories to immediately enact this legislation. The importance of that cannot be overemphasised. We look forward to a genuine commitment from this government to the scheme outlined in the legislation and hope that it can be implemented in a comprehensive, fair and equitable way.I understand that Senator Patterson will provide answers to some of the queries that have been raised in the second reading debate speeches. To facilitate debate, I move:At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate:(a) calls on the government to: (i) implement a comprehensive, effective and rights based privacy framework covering the private sector; and (ii) continue to address encryption policy in Australia, including safeguarding the right of citizens to engage in secure and private communications and transactions; and (iii) assist in the creation of a national authentication framework, to reduce the likelihood of authentication becoming a speculative commercial activity; and(b) calls on the governments of the Australian States and Territories to immediately enact complementary legislation to create a uniform national framework for electronic transactions; and(c) recognises the need for a small range of transactions to be excepted from the framework for document forensics purposes while reaffirming the comprehensive nature of this legislation at the Commonwealth level; and(d) recognises the important work done by the Electronic Commerce Expert Group".13:52:0010692Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thank honourable senators for their contributions to the debate on the Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 . The government is well aware of the wide range of important issues raised by the development of electronic commerce in Australia. Honourable senators should know that we are, in fact, addressing these issues. I refer honourable senators to the government's strategic framework for the information economy which was issued in December 1998 after an extensive period of public consultation. The strategic framework identifies 10 strategic priorities that the government is addressing to ensure the smooth and rapid development of the information economy in Australia. More importantly, the framework addresses these priorities in the context of the government's clearly stated vision for the development of the information economy in Australia.It is neither possible nor desirable to deal in this bill with all the legal issues raised by electronic commerce, which does not affect a discrete area of law but touches on everything we do. In that context, the aim of this bill is simple: it is to ensure that the community in general, and business in particular, will be free to use electronic communications to satisfy existing legal requirements in a way that is consistent with international developments.Senator Lundy raised a number of questions, a couple of which were covered also by Senator Stott Despoja. One of them asked why the government does not use the full extent of the Commonwealth's constitutional powers, as recommended by the expert group, to enact a law that applies to all of Australia. Some comments have been made—I think by Senator Stott Despoja—about the Commonwealth's constitutional power to apply the Electronic Transactions Bill to states and territories. There is some doubt about whether the Commonwealth has a power to apply such electronic transactions legislation to the laws of the states and territories.Before I seek to incorporate some of these answers into Hansard, I will just mention this. In 1991 I was at a Constitutional Centenary Foundation meeting, where we were discussing constitutional reform. I have to say that the republic was not one of the most important issues in that debate, but one of the major issues was whether our Constitution could sustain us through enormous changes in globalisation. After that debate, even though it may not be totally behind us, maybe it is appropriate for us now to think about other issues of the Constitution, like the ones that were raised by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation. That debate was railroaded—I will not be provocative and say how it was railroaded—onto a debate about the republic when there were issues like this that need to be addressed, as this debate highlights.I have four questions that were posed, not directly but in essence in the form in which Senator Lundy proposed them, and quite extensive answers. I seek leave to incorporate those answers into Hansard.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Issue 1: constitutional scope of the BillWhy doesn't the Government use the full extent of the Commonwealth's constitutional powers, as recommended by the Expert Group, to enact a law that applies to all of Australia?Some misguided comments have been made about the Commonwealth's constitutional power to apply the Electronic Transactions Bill to the States and Territories. There is doubt that the Commonwealth has power to apply a law like the Electronic Transactions Bill to the laws of the States and Territories. There would be real concerns about the validity of a Commonwealth law that sought to directly govern the interpretation and effect of State legislation.It is the Government's view that a constitutional challenge to a comprehensive Commonwealth scheme for electronic commerce would create enormous uncertainty.The Government prefers to take a cooperative approach with the States and Territories to develop the appropriate legal framework for electronic commerce. Relying on the full extent of the Commonwealth's constitutional powers in this area to achieve national policy goals is not the preference of this Government. Indeed, this area of national law reform has seen considerable cooperation from the States and Territories. Everyone recognises the need for swift and uniform action. In such a situation it is not necessary for the Commonwealth to use the Constitution as a coercive instrument.Of course, in the appropriate circumstances the Commonwealth will rely upon all its constitutional powers. For example, a range of constitutional powers are recited in section 12 of the Year 2000 Information Disclosure Act 1999. However, that legislation is a special case. The inexorable approach of the year 2000 meant there was considerable urgency in the need for its enactment and for it to have national application.In addition, that Act operates for a limited time. The Electronic Transactions Bill will continue to shape the interpretation of all Commonwealth legislation for the foreseeable future.In such a situation, a cooperative approach with the States and Territories is clearly more desirable.Issue 5: need for digital signature lawsWhy hasn't the Government developed special laws for digital signature technology?The Government has recognised that the confidence of Australian businesses and other users in the security and authenticity of their online transactions can be increased by facilitating the use of, and access to, authentication and encryption technology and systems.The Bill adopts a generic principled approach to electronic signatures, setting minimum technology neutral standards for an electronic signature to be legally equivalent to a hand written signature. These standards are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce.The Electronic Commerce Expert Group recognised that it is not appropriate for legislation to `lock in' particular forms of electronic signature technology, particularly when there are no internationally agreed rules for laws on electronic signatures. While a number of jurisdictions internationally have developed legislation, it is still too early to tell whether it impedes or assists business. Legislation that was too prescriptive in this area would run the risk of stifling business innovation and investment in electronic commerce. The Government has balanced the need for certainty against the need for flexibility in achieving this result, and this balance has been generally supported by public comments we have received. However, if the market indicates that there is a clear need for more prescriptive legislation in this area in the future then it will be considered. To date, however, there is no compelling evidence of a need to adopt this approach. Concerns about the need for a legal regime for digital signature are often based on uncertainty about the trustworthiness and security of electronic transactions. It is these kinds of concerns that the National Electronic Authentication Council has been established to deal with.The Council is a new peak body that will oversee the development of a national framework for electronic authentication of online activity and enhance business and consumer confidence in systems for authenticating electronic commerce transactions. The Council will provide a national focal point on authentication matters.Issue 6: protection of consumersWhy doesn't the Bill contain any provisions to protect consumers involved in electronic commerce?The Government is committed to enhancing online consumer protection. The Minister for Financial Services & Regulation announced the establishment of an Expert Group on Electronic Commerce on 17 September 1999. The Expert Group will provide advice on a range of consumer issues related to electronic commerce and promote innovative policy initiatives.The establishment of the Expert Group was one of the initiatives contained in the detailed exposure draft Policy Framework for Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce which Minister Hockey released on 26 May 1999. The framework outlines the Government's objective of creating a world class consumer protection environment for electronic commerce in Australia. The initiatives proposed under the Policy Framework include a Model Code of Conduct for traders on the Internet. Work on the development of the Model Code of Conduct has now begun and a draft will be released for public comment later in the year.This is in addition the protection offered to consumers by the existing legal framework including the Trade Practices Act 1974 and State and Territory fair trading legislation.Australia is playing a significant role in international work to ensure adequate protection for consumers online. Australia is working with other OECD countries in drafting Consumer Protection Guidelines for Electronic Commerce. The guidelines will be finalised during 1999 and will provide a framework for future multilateral cooperation between governments.Australia's principal consumer protection enforcement agencies, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission have been active in enforcement in online commerce.Issue 8: Exemption from clause 11, production of documentsWhy is the exemption in subclause 11(5) for the activities of the Department of Immigration in the Bill rather than in regulations?It is particularly important that clause 11 which allows the production of documents in an electronic form, should not apply to the legislation administered by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The production of original documentary evidence in support of visa or citizenship processes is of fundamental importance to maintaining the integrity of the visa and citizenship processes.The Bill has a two-step implementation process and, during the period until 1 July 2001, the Bill will only apply to specified laws of the Commonwealth. During this implementation period, regulations will be used to specify the laws of the Commonwealth to which the Bill will apply. After 1 July 2001, the Bill will apply to all laws of the Commonwealth unless specifically exempted. It is the Government's view that any permanent exemptions from the application of the Bill should appear on the face of the Bill. When the implementation period ends, the regulation making powers will be used primarily in situations where an exemption is required as a matter of urgency—for example, where an agencies IT systems fail for a considerable period of time and it is appropriate for that agency to stop accepting information electronically.The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs identified the need for an exemption from this provision early on in the process of developing this law. It was appropriate to insert the exemption into the Bill when it was developed.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I thank honourable senators for their contributions. I commend the bill to the House and indicate that the government will be supporting the Democrats amendment.Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills10695r92210695Debate resumed.13:57:0010695Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I do not think I have time to put my intended comments on the record. In view of the time difficulties I will just indicate on behalf of the opposition that we do not object to the passage of the National Residue Survey Levies Regulations (Validation and Commencement of Amendments) Bill 1999 . I do, however, draw attention to the remarks which the shadow minister, Mr O'Connor, made in the other place yesterday on behalf of the opposition. I endorse those remarks and indicate that we do not oppose the passage of this bill.13:58:0010695Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I thank Senator Forshaw for his comments. I wish simply to indicate that the government puts forward the National Residue Survey Levies Regulations (Validation and Commencement of Amendments) Bill 1999 to correct an inconsistency between the starting dates of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998 and amendments made to those regulations. I seek leave to incorporate my summing-up in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—This Bill corrects an inconsistency between the starting dates of the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998 (the National Residue Survey Levy Regulations) and amendments made to these regulations by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 182.The purpose of Statutory Rules 182 was to make a last minute amendment to the rate of the National Residue Survey sheep and lamb transactions levy. The request for this change came from industry. The new `per head' levy rate was to have commenced on the 1st of August 1998, at the same time as the National Residue Survey Levy Regulations.However, following a request for clarification from the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, the Chief General Counsel delivered a legal opinion on 6 May this year that Statutory Rules 182 had been validly made, but had failed to commence at the same time as the Regulations.This opinion meant the `per head' National Residue Survey levy rate for sheep and lamb transactions first struck in April 1998 has technically been the operative levy rate until now, not the rate proposed by Statutory Rules 182.The sheep and lamb industry has recently reconfirmed its commitment to the levy rates provided for in Statutory Rules 182.The impact on levy payers of this technical anomaly will be nil once this Bill has been passed, as the levy has been collected since the 1st of August 1998 last year at the rate requested by industry.This rate was established to meet industry's commitment to its National Residue Survey residue-monitoring program. There has been no adverse impact on the operation of this very important program, a program that underwrites the residue-free status of Australia's sheep and lamb meat products, as a result of the technical error that passage of this Bill will correct.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Questions Without Notice106951069510695West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Can the minister inform the Senate why staff of her department are contacting disability employ ment service providers in Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, informing them that `employer payments have now ceased for any further new applicants to Supported Wage'? Is the minister aware that this scheme saw 3,188 people with disabilities in 1998-99 reduce their reliance on the disability support pension and enter into employment? How can the minister justify shutting down this obviously successful incentive while, at the same time, maintaining `many people with a capacity to work needlessly stay on disability payments for a long time'?10696Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have no idea about that at all, and I will chase it up as soon as I can. Senator West, I hope I might get an answer for you before the end of question time.10696West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I have copies of three letters that the department has sent to organisations in the three states. Can the minister confirm that, according to departmental correspondence from New South Wales, the supported wage system approved over 1,200 new applications in 1998-99, putting it 20 per cent over the annual target? Is the minister aware that the manager of the department's New South Wales Economic and Social Participation branch dubbed this increase `unsustainable'? Can the minister inform the Senate why a scheme that offers an annual average subsidy of just $1,600 to each worker, thousands of dollars less than what the Commonwealth would be paying out in disability support pensions, is unsustainable?10696Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—No. I will get that information as part of the information Senator West has already asked me for.1069610696Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate of the details of the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook released today? What are the prospects for continued strong economic growth, increasing job opportunities and greater prosperity for Australian families?10696Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Watson, for that important question. I am very happy to inform the Senate about the release today of the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook . The forecast for economic growth in 1999-2000 has been revised upward from three per cent to 3.5 per cent. Growth the following year is expected to be higher, at 3.75 per cent. This is an excellent outlook for the Australian economy, particularly given the Asian crisis over the last two years. The underlying cash surplus is expected to be $3.4 billion in 1999-2000, and surpluses are expected to continue through the forecast period.Perhaps the most significant news from today's press release is that employment growth is expected to be stronger than forecast at budget time. The budget forecast unemployment of 7.5 per cent by June 2000. This has now been revised downwards to 6.75 per cent. The predicted reduction in the unemployment rate builds on the almost 600,000 more jobs that now exist than existed when this government came to office in March 1996. The good news is that employment growth is expected to remain at two per cent in 2000-01, raising the prospect of further declines in unemployment.Growing job opportunities and increasing prosperity for Australian families did not happen by luck. They happened through sound management of the economy and good governance, which have been the hallmarks of the Howard government. We have put into place the economic fundamentals to weather the Asian financial storm and to continue to grow our economy while others in our region have floundered. It is also important to remember how the transparency of fiscal policy has been improved through our charter of budget honesty.Under this government, the government Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook is a detailed report providing a clear statement of the current budgetary and economic position of the nation. Compare that with our predecessors, the Keating government. In their final year, they produced as their mid-year review this document—a two-page summary of forecast and then a tax press release. Compare this with what the Treasurer has released today. This is what being fiscally responsible and transparent is all about. This government does have sufficient achievements in the economy to fill a book this size whereas, as we remember all too painfully, Labor's achievements were very few and far between. That is the contrast. The mid-year review today confirms that the government is running an economy with increasing employment, low inflation, low interest rates, high growth and a surplus budget, with a new and modern, fairer tax system to come.1069710697Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. It also concerns the supported wage system for people with disabilities and the minister's department's decision to cut back the program's growth. Can the minister inform the Senate why her department considers it to be fair and equitable to limit the wage subsidy to just 45 per cent of those workers with disabilities who require job placement in 1999-2000? Just what are the other 55 per cent of disabled people supposed to do without that important wage support? Given her seminal speech on welfare reform, does she consider this to be good enough?10697Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have already told Senator West that I will get her an answer to her questions. Senator Evans's question directly relates to these, except that he chooses to be political about people with disabilities. I have made it very clear that I do not believe the existing system—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—You said that you wanted them off DSP.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Clearly, Senator Evans does not want to hear the answer. I made it very clear in my National Press Club speech, and I have made it clear in other fora, that over the years people with disabilities have not been as well served by Australia as they might have been. Certainly, if we are going to do better by people with disabilities to help them become more self-reliant and have an opportunity to be in the work force, the government has to provide better assistance and provide it earlier. I have not cut their assistance, but I will get you a detailed answer on the specifics of your question.1069710697Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate how the government's changes to business taxation will help create jobs and provide tax relief to small investors?10697Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—There is no doubt that one of the key aims of the overhaul of business taxation has been to help Australian businesses create more jobs. This government already has a strong record on job creation, with more than 570,000 new jobs created since we were first elected. Last month alone, an additional 47,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate fell from 7.4 per cent to 7.1 per cent. The low interest rate and low inflation environment we have created has helped Australian businesses to grow and employ more people. As we have already heard from the Assistant Treasurer earlier in question time, the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook has revised growth for the Australian economy up from three per cent to 3.5 per cent this year, with growth expected to be 3.75 per cent the following year.But we acknowledge that more always needs to be done. That is why we pushed through our reforms to the income tax system earlier this year, and that new tax system will benefit businesses and our farmers in many ways, including by reducing the cost of transport and ensuring that all exports are GST free. The next logical step is to reform our business tax system. Under our changes, the company tax rate will fall to 30 per cent in two stages. This will be among the lowest company tax rates in our region, making Australia an attractive place for overseas investors to do business. At the same time, the package will reduce the compliance burden for 95 per cent of businesses and about 99 per cent of our primary producers. Businesses and farmers will spend less time and money on doing their books and more time and money on creating wealth and providing jobs.The changes to the capital gains tax system, which have now been agreed to by the Labor Party, are also important for business and small investors and make our capital gains tax system internationally competitive. Under the changes, individuals will pay tax on only 50 per cent of the capital gain. This will encourage investment and savings and should also see more Australians investing in Australia's equity markets. It is worth remembering that, under this government, Australia has arguably become the greatest share owning democracy in the world. For example, the recent Telstra 2 share offer attracted more than 400,000 new investors. And these are not high rollers—77 per cent of individuals paying capital gains tax have taxable incomes under $50,000. In addition to this, all Australians with superannuation will benefit from the reduction in the capital gains tax burden on superannuation funds.Once these changes are implemented, we will see more business confidence, more investment, more savings, more growth and, most importantly, more jobs. I congratulate the Labor Party on finally coming up with a policy—even if that policy was to support the government's tax policy. I would suggest to them that, when they look at our alternatives in social security, Aboriginal affairs, environment and regional development, they will see further alternatives to devising their own policies, which has obviously been too difficult. They can do what they did yesterday in these areas as well and support our policies, and the nation will be better off.1069810698Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—My question is also to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer the minister to his recent announcement of funding to voluntary conservation organisations. Can the minister confirm that the average grant has decreased by some 30 per cent over the last five years? Isn't it a fact that the minister has politicised the funding process by, first, increasing funding—in some cases by over 50 per cent over the last two years—to those organisations that have supported the government and, second, by decreasing funding to those organisations that have criticised government, in some cases by over 70 per cent during the same period? Doesn't such decision making represent the triumph of spite and vindictiveness over democratic decision making?10698Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I congratulate Senator Bolkus. He is now averaging one environment question every 50 days, which is certainly an improvement on the beginning of this week when it was one environment question every 150 days. I would only suggest to him that, if he now starts doing a bit of hard work in the area, he might be able to come up with some difficult questions as well.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, I draw your attention to the question.BH4Senator HILL—If he researched this matter seriously, he would find that basically funding has been maintained by this government at the rates—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—That is a lie.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Withdraw that, Senator Bolkus.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I withdraw. It is an untruth.10698Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Basically, funding has been maintained at the same rates as those of the previous government. I will check it, but I think you will find that that is right. We will put down the specific figures and we will see who is misleading the Senate. Basically, funding has been maintained; basically, the same guidelines that Senator Faulkner had have been maintained. The major difference is that we are giving money to more environment groups, and we are spreading it more fairly across Australia. The major distinction is that we are not just backing the favourites, which of course was what Senator Faulkner did. We are giving a fair distribution to groups across Australia that can contribute in both advocacy and performance on the ground. By and large, those groups are making a very worthwhile contribution to better environmental outcomes and certainly a much better contribution than that being made by Senator Bolkus.10698Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Maybe the minister ought to spend a bit more time researching answers than trying to make cheap points that do not work. Isn't it also the case that the Howard government has reneged on public commitments it made regarding the Olympics and today has withdrawn funding for Green Games Watch 2000, the independent environment watchdog of the Olympic Games? Has the minister actually forgotten John Howard's 1996 commitment to uphold every funding commitment made by Labor to the 2000 Games? Where is the common sense in withdrawing the Commonwealth's 50 per cent funding for this watchdog 10 months before the games are being held? Given that the cutting of funding leaves New South Wales to fund 100 per cent of independent environmental audits of the 2000 Games, isn't this just another example of this Prime Minister's spiteful payback to New South Wales for being forced off the official opening ceremony?10699Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Unfortunately, once again the question is asked without having done the basic research. When Senator Bolkus researches the issue, he will find that this organisation was funded in an overseeing role in relation to the construction of facilities. Those facilities are now constructed. They came back and said they wanted to be funded in a new and continuing role of overseeing other matters including the carrying out of the games themselves. That was never the original purpose. They received very substantial public funding from both the Commonwealth government and the New South Wales government to do the job they were entrusted to do, and that has now been completed.1069910699Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade. Is the minister aware of the US proposal for a working group on trade and labour to consider issues such as the `examination of the extent of forced or exploitative child labour in industries engaged in international trade' at the WTO? Is the minister also aware of the British government move to put discussion of child labour and the enforcement of ILO convention 182 on the WTO meeting agenda, or is this government still determined to avoid a discussion of general labour standards at the WTO meeting in order to avoid alienating other members of the WTO? Will the minister give us a commitment to raise these issues at the WTO?10699Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In answer to this question without notice—a bit of notice might have helped to give a better answer—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—What's that brief you've got in front of you?656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—How come you've got a written answer?AW5CARRSenator Carr—A new standing order, is it? Is this what you are coming to expect?BH4Senator HILL—In this instance, actually, Senator Stott Despoja put down a notice of motion. That was the source of some of the guidance that I have received.This issue arises out of the establishment of a WTO working group to carry out analytical work on trade and labour standards. Whilst the US is proposing that labour standards, generally, be placed on the agenda of the WTO, the government understands that the US is not seeking any specific reference to exploitative child labour. Furthermore, the government was not aware that the United Kingdom may be supporting the US proposal. Putting child labour on the WTO agenda would lead to unnecessary and inefficient duplication, with more than one international body examining the specific problem of child labour. The government believes that the ILO should continue to have prime responsibility for international labour matters. The ILO is already doing significant work relating to child labour by providing technical assistance to those countries with a demonstrated problem. The ILO has also established minimum international labour standards dealing with the subject. Most recently, in June 1999, the ILO Conference adopted a new convention on the worst forms of child labour. Australia strongly supported the adoption of this new standard and, furthermore, played a significant role in the development of the convention, helping member states reach an agreed position.The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has commenced the process of consulting with other relevant government agencies, including the state and territory governments as well as relevant representative employer and worker organisations—the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions—addressing compliance with the provisions of ILO convention 182. This process is a prerequisite for considering ratification of the convention. Australia already complies with the principles of the abolition of child labour as espoused in the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work adopted by the ILO in 1998. Relevant federal, state and territory legislation dealing with compulsory education, child welfare, occupational safety and health and an industry specific minimum age for employment ensures compliance with the principles.10700Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer but, given that ILO convention 182 is the only ILO convention ever to have been adopted unanimously by the 174 countries—including Australia—doesn't the minister agree that the prohibition of exploitative child labour is a rare issue of international concurrence which the Australian government should and could raise at the WTO forum next week? I clarify for the minister that this government is deliberately avoiding the issue at the WTO forum. Given that the minister has just boasted about the role Australia has played in relation to the signing of that convention and the announcement in June this year, will the government ratify that convention to give it international effect, and will it incorporate it into Australian law to give it domestic effect?10700Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I agree with the honourable senator that this is a vitally important matter, and that is why Australia has been so active. We obviously have our own domestic response, which renders illegal such behaviour. But we also look to encourage and support other countries in adopting similar standards and, particularly in this instance, we are doing it through the appropriate international body, which is the ILO. So in terms of using such opportunities as present to further advance that case, I think the honourable senator will get a sympathetic hearing from this government. But in terms of trying to convert the WTO into an ILO, we say that that is a fundamental mistake. There is a mechanism internationally to pursue that matter and that is the correct way and the most effective way in which to do it.1070010700McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Does the minister believe that High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson is correct when he said that the Howard Government's cutbacks to legal aid are causing problems of `substantial practical dimensions' which are threatening the efficiency of Australian courts and their ability to deliver justice?10700Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator McKiernan for his question. Even though I think we have very different views on this, I understand that we both have a longstanding interest in this issue. The brief that I have does not refer to any comments made by the Chief Justice, but it is on the point of legal aid funding. It is not a long answer and I am not trying to distract from the issue. I will ask the Attorney if he has anything to say about the comments you have referred to, but let me give you the following information. In response to calls from the Law Council for an additional $126 million over three years for legal aid, we think it is far too early to be talking about the final level of Commonwealth funding to each state and territory. We will be renegotiating the legal aid agreements that will take effect in July next year. While we cannot talk about the funding levels at this point, it is fair to note that there has not been any suggestion that the Commonwealth's national contribution to legal aid will be cut. In fact, while the final level of funding has not yet been determined, the Commonwealth has already indicated in forward budget estimates that the overall amount of Commonwealth legal aid funding will be maintained, and the Attorney is now in the process of negotiating new legal aid agreements with the states and territories. Future funding levels for individual jurisdictions will be determined through that process.Senator McKiernan, as you well understand, the cut to legal aid funding made by this government some time ago was in fact a call to the states to pay their fair share. The Commonwealth is paying for legal aid in relation to Commonwealth matters and has said to the states that it is their responsibility to pay for legal aid for state matters.10701McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for part of the answer that she gave me. By way of background prior to asking the supplementary question, in Chief Justice Gleeson's statement he indicated that 28 per cent of the litigants were unrepresented at hearings before single judges of the High Court of Australia. Can the minister indicate whether all of those unrepresented litigants were dealing in matters of state law or Commonwealth law and why they were unrepresented? Will the minister concede that cutbacks to legal aid are compromising the delivery of justice and are creating an unnecessary expense to the community through inefficiency, waste and overburdening of the court lists?10701Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator McKiernan, I will endeavour to get some information—if I cannot, we will get it at estimates next week—in relation to those people who appear before the High Court unrepresented, whether they do so by choice, whether they are state or federal matters or what. So we will get some answers in relation to that. Do I concede that the commitment to ensure that the states pay their fair share is leading to inefficiencies? Quite the opposite, Senator McKiernan. With some pressure on the purse strings I think you can make the case that it is in fact forcing the administration of legal aid in the states to look for more efficiencies and to find them for the benefit of people who need to use legal aid.1070110701Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Does the minister recall commit ments that he gave on 19 March this year as a result of the Blue Sky High Court decision that the government will ensure that foreign access to Australian television local content quotas will be explicitly confined to New Zealand, thus confirming there will be no flow-on to other international treaties, and that the government will ensure that Australia's cultural objectives to the audiovisual sector are taken into account in negotiating all future trade agreements? If so, will the government back up the minister's promises and ensure that in the upcoming round of World Trade Organisation negotiations cultural industries are explicitly excluded from any further trade liberalisation?10701Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yes, I do recall the general thrust of what Senator Bourne refers to on 19 March. Certainly it was our concern at the time to ensure that there was no slippage in relation to that essentially one-off arrangement with New Zealand. I am not familiar with the precise detail of what case the Australian government might be arguing at the WTO in Seattle, but I think it is fair to say that there is an awareness that, whilst countries like France and Canada are pushing very hard for increased protection for their own cultural diversity programs, we are disinclined to support them or to move in the opposite direction. My understanding is that we will simply be supporting the status quo. We have no intentions of going beyond our commitments, but I will check with the Minister for Trade and see whether I can get a more detailed answer for Senator Bourne.10701Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer. Can he tell me if I am correct in assuming then that we do not intend to explicitly protect our cultural industries in any future trade liberalisation and that the government just intends to let things float as they are without that protection?10701Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am not sure what Senator Bourne means by our taking action to protect our own industries. We can state our position; we can adhere to it when the multilateral negotiations are taking place; we can ensure that we always put our own interests first and that we do not deviate from that in the course of those negotiations. I have no reason to think that we are proposing to move away from the publicly announced position and the arrangements to which you refer. But I will see if I can get some more explicit commitments on that front.1070210702Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister confirm that the ad hoc committee, established by the Commonwealth and the states and chaired by the departmental officer Mr Gallagher to look into the credentials of Greenwich University, has concluded that Greenwich is not a bona fide Australian university? Can the minister further confirm that the committee has found against Greenwich on a range of grounds and criteria? Will the minister now detail those grounds?10702Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am not aware of where that ad hoc committee is at the moment. But can I say that this has been a thorough inquiry by an ad hoc committee which the Commonwealth recognised needed to be established and one which Senator Carr tried to beat up into something which it was not. But I will make inquiries to see where that committee is at.10702Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I take it that the minister is taking that question on notice. I would ask him further: does the minister agree that there are already several unaccredited universities like Greenwich operating on the Internet and passing themselves off as bona fide Australian higher education institutions by various means? Does the minister further agree that the government at the moment has no regulations or legislation in place to stop a flood of these dubious providers from passing themselves off as properly established Australian universities? When will the government act to protect this highly important export industry by moving to require accreditation of private higher education providers?10702Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Carr well knows the great reputation that Australia enjoys internationally in relation to its higher education sector, and that is evidenced by people who want to come to this country and study here. I think it is unfortunate that Senator Carr beats up on the higher education sector in this way. This government is ensuring that the higher education sector delivers both to domestic students and to those students who come here. It is time that Senator Carr looked to the advantages and the positives rather than trying to create something which does not exist.1070210702Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister inform the Senate of the latest crime statistics from the Australian Institute of Criminology, and what do these statistics reveal about the causes of crime?10702Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Mason for his question. Yesterday the Australian Institute of Criminology did release its Facts and Figures 1999 booklet on Australian crime. Crime statistics are never entirely good news. But, unfortunately, yesterday the shadow minister for justice and customs could not help himself and threw himself further in the gutter than he has ever done before. He said in a press release that the crime figures show:. . . a growing anti-social response by people who feel that they have been left out, left behind and are not a part of Australia's economic success.So let us be clear and make no mistake about what Mr Kerr was saying. He was saying that under this government there is a widening gap between rich and poor and he was going further by saying that the poor are turning to crime.It is a shameful exercise for the Labor Party to ever let one of its shadow ministers blame the poor for rising crime trends. It is a disgrace! This press release is a disgrace to the nation. It is a shameful thing for the Labor Party to be putting out a release saying, `Oh, well, it is more poor. Let's blame the poor.' You people should be sacking him. You should be marching off to Beazley's office, knocking on the door and saying, `Get rid of this bloke.' It is an outrageous claim to be making. But let me let the genie out of the bottle.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise has become unacceptably high.7E4Senator VANSTONE—The GINI coefficient is the accepted measure of income inequality. Between 1982 and 1988, under Labor, the GINI coefficient, which measures the gap between rich and poor, grew dramatically. So the gap between rich and poor grew dramatically when you people were in government. However, between 1996 and 1997, under this government, the coefficient has increased by what? A half a per cent. So, yes, these people created the gap between rich and poor, and we have not been able to close it. But we certainly have not dramatically increased it, as they did.What is true is that Australia is moving forward as a whole. The ABS income survey shows that the degree of inequality in income distribution remained almost unchanged between 1994-95 and 1997-98. So it is the Bureau of Statistics which says that the degree of inequality in income distribution has remained, relatively speaking, unchanged. So there is the story: those people created the gap; we have not closed it, but we certainly have not widened it. Under this government the economic growth rate is leading the developed world.Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—Madam President, I will have to go to a supplementary if I cannot get this out.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Labor senators will stop shouting. It is making it difficult to hear, certainly for those who are listening.7E4Senator VANSTONE—I can understand Labor wanting to shout about this. They would not want everybody to know that the gap between rich and poor was created under their government and that their shadow minister is blaming the poor for any increase in crime. I would be embarrassed about it too. I would try to shout it down. I would not want everybody to know that. Let us turn to the question of poverty and crime. Duncan Kerr wants to say that it is the poor people. Perhaps he has not recognised the dollar value of Alan Bond's one fraud—(Time expired)10703Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister expand on the relationship between crime and poverty?10703Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—You do not know how much I would like to expand on it. Just consider this: the dollar value of Alan Bond's one fraud is equal to all the household burglaries committed in Australia for 84 weeks. One big white-collar crime can add up to all the burglaries in Australia over 84 weeks. If Mr Kerr wants to do something about crime, he should stop blaming all the poor people in Australia and start focusing a bit on some white-collar crime. He should start getting it properly in perspective. He should start mentioning that drugs play a part in it. Why didn't he tell us that homicide has decreased over the last year? Why didn't he tell us some good news, such as that sexual assault and motor vehicle theft are not on the increase? Why didn't he tell us that armed robbery with firearms decreased by 12.6 per cent and that most of the increase in armed robberies was where? In New South Wales. Why does this man come out when the only thing he can do is blame the poor? It is a disgrace, and you should get rid of him.1070310703Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation. Is the minister aware of the Prime Minister's speech to Nelson Mandela in South Africa on 15 November? Is it not the case that the Prime Minister in his speech celebrated the moral leadership, moral depth, compassion and capacity for forgiveness and reconciliation that Mandela has given to the world as an example? Will the Prime Minister now exercise the same qualities he recognises in the former President of South Africa and sincerely apologise on behalf of the Australian government to the stolen generation in an act of true moral leadership, moral depth, compassion and reconciliation? Is this not exactly what Nelson Mandela was suggesting to the Prime Minister, or is John Howard too stubborn to act on Mandela's example to lead an effective reconciliation process?10704Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Crossin for the question. Senator Crossin would also recognise that Nelson Mandela described Mr Howard as a great man. Nelson Mandela recognised him.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are far too many people shouting and interrupting.10704Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Prime Minister awarded Nelson Mandela a Companion of Australia. There is no question that all of us hold Nelson Mandela in very high regard as a leader in the world.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw and Senator George Campbell, I have just called the Senate to order.VW4Senator HERRON—I refute the suggestion that the Prime Minister has not shown leadership in this regard. It was the Prime Minister who moved a joint—from both sides—motion of reconciliation on 26 August. It was carried in both houses. We now have Senator Crossin trying to politicise reconciliation. If there is one thing I am against, it is politicising reconciliation. As I have said on previous occasions, once you get into this category of starting point scoring about reconciliation, you drag us all down. Reconciliation is in the hearts and minds of all of us. We either have it or we haven't. If we have not got it, we start politicising it. We start trying to point score. We start trying to drag it down into the gutter. We get to gutter politics. That is what Senator Crossin is doing with this. She has to recognise that reconciliation is something that should be done by each and every one of us. Once she starts politicising, as she is trying to do today, she denigrates it. She does us all harm. I am not going to reply in a politicised manner in relation to this question.The Prime Minister has taken a leadership role and we as a government have taken a leadership role with regard to the Council of Reconciliation. The Council of Reconciliation has produced a draft document which is going out to all Australians to reply to. They will report back in May next year as a result of their consultations. I expect that that will be acted on in a spirit of reconciliation by all members of parliament.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Where were you all? You are a bunch of hypocrites.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator George Campbell, withdraw that.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—I withdraw.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I invite senators to read and think about the standing orders and to think about their behaviour.10704Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Besides the fact that great men are often good leaders and lead effectively, does the minister agree that the Prime Minister was absolutely wrong in his long history of personally criticising the use of economic and sporting sanctions against the former apartheid regime in South Africa? That is another trait he blindly shared with Margaret Thatcher. Why can't Australia's own backward looking man consider his own past and admit that he was wrong if he is such a great leader? Why could he not say sorry to Nelson Mandela for his own part in opposing sanctions against the apartheid regime?10704Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—John Howard will be shown to be one of the greatest Prime Ministers of this country. When you consider the present Prime Minister against the likes of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, the man who nearly destroyed the country in two years—your previous leader, who now appears to be a Labor icon—John Howard will be regarded by history as the greatest leader of this country since Sir Robert Menzies.1070410704Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The government's deregulation of the telecommunications market is delivering better services and reduced costs to Australian consumers. Will the minister inform the Senate of the developments in the telecommunications pricing arrangements and the benefits that these are delivering? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches? If so, what would be the impact if these were implemented?10705Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—It is a very good news story. But you don't need to take my word for it. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu released a review this week which said it all. It said that deregulation of the telecommunications industry was having a marked effect on Australia's leading corporations, that many of them had taken advantage of increased competition, that 69 per cent of the companies surveyed had realised savings of at least 10 per cent and that the magnitude of the savings seemed to be getting even bigger. If 69 per cent doesn't impress you, it certainly impresses me. You can keep running that furphy as long as you like, Senator Bishop, but it won't wash. It hasn't washed in the past and it won't wash in the future. The important thing is that this has all come about because of the deregulation we embarked upon, which resulted in full and open competition, on 1 July 1997. Ever since that time we have had absolute competition on world's best practice standards. In Australia now we have without doubt the most competitive and dynamic telecommunications regime in the world. The pace of change is obviously making some people on the other side of the chamber feel a bit dizzy. The most they can do is ignore it, rather than embrace it as something that is contributing to increased levels of productivity, generating a lot more jobs around Australia and making Australia much more internationally competitive.One of the most significant advances in recent times has been the fact that we now have two carriers offering rates of 15c for local calls and two offering 17c and 17.5c. Who are they? RSL, AAPT, OneTel and Primus. Telstra no doubt will have to follow them down as well. The significance of that is that we now have very vigorous competition in the last area, where previously there had been some fairly cosy arrangements. Now it is all happening at the local loop level. That is because there have been declared services, and players are taking advantage of it.This removes the last fig leaf for Labor. Mr Stephen Smith's attitude to privatisation is, `We cannot embark on that just now because we want to ensure that we have a fully competitive telecommunications market.' Now we have. So in principle Labor now supports the privatisation of Telstra. It is a historic moment. Now you will want to clear the decks, you will want to try to ensure that there are no policy impediments around other than a GST. You think you will be able to win an election simply by being negative and getting out there and pointing a few fingers. When people say, `What are you going to do about it?', you say, `We are not going to repeal any of it. We will probably have a review, though. We will give it a big long think when we get to government.' That is the strategy. If you think that is going to work, then why don't you bite the bullet? Why don't you recognise—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should direct your remarks through the chair, not across the chamber.LD4Senator ALSTON—I will indeed, Madam President. Why won't the Labor Party recognise that the privatisation of Telstra has been a very important component in the full deregulation of the market? It has led to dramatically lower prices and better quality of service. Here is your opportunity. Clearly it doesn't changes votes because no-one believes for a moment that you wouldn't go down precisely the same path if you were in government. It clearly would provide you with an opportunity to fund any promises that you might eventually come up with. It is a very good opportunity to demonstrate your policy credentials. We should all rejoice in the fact that we now have competition in every sector of the market. There is therefore no impediment to Labor coming out and supporting the full privatisation of Telstra. The only impediment is the trade union movement. There is your big chance to show a bit of independence for a change.1070510705Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the coalition government's re-election promises included a commitment to increase funding for in-home respite care for older people suffering from dementia by an additional $82.2 million over four years? Can the minister confirm that these funds are now being directed towards a much broader target group, with the administrative guidelines explicitly excluding consideration of dementia specific services? Who made the decision to broaden the eligibility criteria, and when was this decision made?10706Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Gibbs for the question. Wait till I get the briefing note!4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—Is it under `D' for dementia or `S' for stupid?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, that is totally disorderly.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Madam President, I take a point of order. I find what Senator Schacht said totally offensive. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have reprimanded Senator Schacht for his behaviour and his breach of the standing orders. I do not believe that what he said was unparliamentary, but what he said was unacceptable.10706Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I cannot confirm the figures that Senator Gibbs has put to me but, knowing Senator Gibbs, I am sure that she has done her research and has got them from a document of some kind or other. But I would not venture to confirm the correct figures.Senator Forshaw interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw, your behaviour is unacceptable.VW4Senator HERRON—It is true that the present government have put more funds into aged care funding in our period of government in the last three years—and will for the next three years—than the Labor government did in the preceding three years before we took over. We inherited a shambles in relation to aged care in this country. We have been correcting that over that period of time and we will in future budgets. In relation to dementia care, we have addressed it by funding for dementia and for relevant associa tions. In relation to the specifics, I will see if the minister has anything further to add to the answer that I have already given.10706Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In particular, could the minister take on notice these questions: who made the decision about the eligibility criteria, and when? Under the reviewed guidelines, how many of the estimated 130,000 days of in-home respite care per year will now be allocated to the carers of people suffering dementia? Why has the government failed to meet the Prime Minister's election commitment to people suffering dementia when, according to his press release of 20 September 1998, `the incidence of dementia is increasing as our population ages'? Minister, if you cannot answer, if you do not have a brief, could you please take these questions on notice? I really would like a detailed answer.10706Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—As I said, I will take any further questions to the minister. But I think it is important to point out that the government has published its A National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. We have produced documents on matters in relation to ageing, particularly healthy ageing, which examine the issues for the individual and the community on how best to improve the physical and emotional health and wellbeing of older people and their mental health. We are doing precisely that. As I said to Senator Gibbs, in relation to the specifics I do not have an answer in the briefs. I will go to the minister and ask for her response.1070610706Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister please inform the Senate of progress in the government's Rural Transaction Centre Program? What has been the reaction to the program to date from local communities and other groups?10706Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am pleased to be able to tell Senator Tierney that the Rural Transaction Centre Program has been overwhelmingly endorsed by people in rural and regional Australia. In fact, I am getting a lot of letters from different communities thanking me for the work the government has done in returning to them services that left the bush during the term of the Labor government. Right across the board there has been very solid and almost unanimous support for the Rural Transaction Centre Program. I must say the only voice I have heard opposing the program and criticising it and whingeing and nitpicking is that of Senator Sue Mackay—the shadow minister for regional services, I understand. Senator Mackay apparently runs around the country—when she can get out of Tasmania; she moves occasionally into regional Australia and criticises the program. Whereas communities are supportive and very grateful that some services are being returned, Senator Mackay simply nitpicks and criticises. I appreciate the Labor Party have no policies in the regional services area; they have no policies in any area at all. All they want to do on something that is so positive is criticise and nitpick. I do not need to remind senators that Labor had 13 years to try to arrest the decline of rural and regional Australia. They did absolutely nothing.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The Senate will come to order. There is far too high a level of noise in the chamber.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—Labor did absolutely nothing. In fact, most of the services that Senator Mackay now complains are leaving the bush are services which left under the joint impact of state and federal Labor governments. Senator Tierney has asked me about the progress of the Rural Transaction Centre Program. I must say I thank Senator Tierney for his ongoing support, and all the rest of my colleagues. The Senate would know that, since we last met, the Prime Minister opened the very first rural transaction centre in Eugowra. I can do no more than quote the headline in The Land , which says `Eugowra's triumph'. That says it all. It was a great day. All the community were out there. We had the local children's marching group there. There were bands. It was a great day. It showed the support that that rural community has. A few days later I was able to open the second RTC at St Mary's in Tasmania. We issued invitations to all Tasmanian members of parliament. Regrettably, Senator Mackay, who is a Tasmanian senator, found that she was not able to come along and help the St Mary's community celebrate this great event. The last bank had left town. Centrelink did not have anywhere to go. A rural transaction centre went into St Mary's. It is a great little town, Senator Mackay. You should visit there sometime. Nobody there knew you, I might say. But I was pleased to be there, to go down to the local pub and have a look at the coffee shop. It is a great town and they are very positive now because they have their rural transaction centre. Tomorrow, Tim Fischer, my parliamentary colleague, will open the third rural transaction centre in a place called Urana, in his electorate. Very shortly after that the RTC in Welshpool in Victoria will open. (Time expired)10707Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15NSWLP10—I have a supplementary question. Minister, how important are these rural transaction centres in ensuring that regional and rural Australia continues to share in the benefits of economic growth that are being generated by this government?10707Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again Senator Tierney identifies a very important aspect. We all know that Australia has been booming ahead in recent times under the good management of the Howard government, but there have been pockets of Australia that have not benefited quite as much. The government is doing something about that. We have had the Rural Summit, which had a very positive outcome, even supported by Mr Ferguson on behalf of the Labor Party. It was a great initiative, and a lot of work is being done.The RTCs are simply part of that program, Senator Tierney, whereby the government is trying to spread the benefits that the broader Australian community gets from the good management of our economy. The government has put $70 million into this. I think that Senator Mackay, in one radio interview she did on this, derided that and said what a little bit of money that was. Of course, the Labor Party have promised nothing. They have no policy. All they did was to preside over the removal of services from the bush.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Miscellaneous107081070815:01:0010708Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yesterday I answered a question from Senator Bishop and I undertook to get him some additional information on the Western Australian scene. I seek leave to incorporate this in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—On Wednesday 24 November 1999, Senator Bishop asked me, as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women:1) Is the Minister aware of a recent study `The future is bleak: Enterprise bargaining and gender wage equity' by Associate Professor Crockett and Dr Preston? Is the Minister aware of the study's finding 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 type of policy measures that have already been implemented by the Howard government or are planned in Mr Reith's second wave?2) 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 the study is wrong in starting 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'?I have provided the following answer:1) Yes I am aware of the conference paper, which was based on the report `Pay Equity for Women in Western Australia'. I note that the conclusion that Senator Bishop refers to is not actually the conclusion of the report in ques tion. The report on gender wage gap research conducted in Western Australia (WA) did not conclude that the higher gender wage gap is the result of the Court government's industrial relations reforms.2) The most significant decline in the gender earnings ratio that has occurred in WA since 1991 took place between August 1992 and August 1993. Over this period the gender earnings ratio (AWOTE) fell by 3.5 percentage points. However, this fall preceded the WA legislation, which did not come into effect until December 1993. The gender earnings ratio in WA is currently at the same level as it was in December 1993. This clearly undermines the assertion that widening in the gender pay gap since 1991 may be related to the WA legislation, when the Act did not even come into force until December 1993.3) The following quote from the Executive Summary of the report, in relation to the August 1992—August 1993 period is clear: "It is difficult to explain why female earnings have deteriorated so rapidly over this period. While female industries may have been slower than male industries to adopt enterprise bargaining (and hence fell behind in their earnings) sensitivity analysis suggests that the deterioration in female relative earning is not as a result of strong gains in male earnings over the period. Nor may we attribute the deterioration to Workplace Agreements. The Workplace Agreements Act 1993 (WA) did not come into effect until December 1993."4) Additionally, there are significant differences between the Government's Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs Better Pay) Bill (MJBP Bill) and the Workplace Agreements Act 1993 (WA). For example, the MJBP Bill contains a range of provisions directed to promote equal remuneration that are not present under the Western Australian legislation.1070815:01:0010708Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I told Senators West and Evans that I would try to come back before the end of question time with an answer to the questions they asked today. My department has advised me that the two questions were so blended in covering two separate programs in my department that they would not be able to be answered before the end of question time. I am afraid it appears that the opposition was confused.1070915:02:0010709Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Yesterday Senator Lundy asked me a question without notice regarding the relationship between Advantra and Wizard Computer Training, and I undertook to provide additional information. The role of the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is to monitor the industry development side of the outsourcing contracts, to ensure that industry development outcomes are delivered by companies. This takes place in an environment where the contracts make provision for substitutions and variations which may arise from changed commercial arrangements. This includes situations where supplier relationships break down for one reason or another.My department was advised by Advantra, after the contract had been signed, that agreement could not be reached with Wizard on pricing of training services. Discussions were held with both Wizard and Advantra at that time. Advantra proposed to substitute another Australian SME to provide training. This substitution was agreed on the basis that it would deliver an equivalent industry development outcome, one SME replacing another. As it transpired, the replacement company ceased trading shortly thereafter. I understand this was not related to the Group 5 contract. Advantra has submitted a further substitution proposal more recently. Again, it involves another SME as the training provider.Further information has been sought by my department to allow it to complete its consideration of the matter. If it is assessed as offering an equivalent outcome, agreement will be given for the substitution. I understand that Wizard enjoys a good reputation in the training field, and it is regrettable that it finds itself in this situation. However, my department is not in a position where it can insist upon Wizard being reinstated on industry development grounds. It does have the ability to guard against the diminution of industry development outcomes and it is doing that. The government's industry development policy is directed towards encouraging Australian firms and, in particular, SMEs. It is not directed towards any one particular Australian firm.1070915:04:0010709Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Yesterday Senator Faulkner asked me some questions regarding APEC Technomart III which I took on notice, and I now seek leave to incorporate those responses in HansardLeave granted.The document read as follows—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?AnswersNo economy formally approached the Federal Government indicating a preference for Australia to fully fund their participation and available officers do not recall any informal approaches to this effect.China and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) approached officers of my Department suggesting that their delegates be given a reduced rate to participate in the event. My Department explained that it was a private sector event and suggested that these economies approach the private sector organisers regarding their request.These very economies, together with Russia, provided the largest delegations to APEC Technomart III.Will the Minister advise the Senate which countries did not participate in APEC Technomart III but which had participated in Technomarts I and II?AnswersOn the basis of participation by means of an exhibition stand, the following economies participated in APEC Technomart I and not in APEC Technomart III: Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Korea.On the same basis, the following economies participated in APEC Technomart II and not in ALEC Technomart III: Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Korea and Indonesia. On the basis of paid exhibition stands (excluding free APEC economy booths), the following economies participated in APEC Technomart I and not in APEC Technomart III: Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Korea, the United States and Chile.On the basis of paid exhibition stands (excluding free APEC economy booths), the following economies participated in APEC Technomart II and not in APEC Technomart III: Canada, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Korea, Indonesia, the United States, and Chile.The Department does not have complete records of participants in Technomart III. This information is in the hands of the provisional liquidator. From the information it does have, the Department understands there were participants from 18 economies attending aspects of APEC Technomart III. There is only one economy, Singapore, which had participants in the earlier Technomarts but none in Technomart III.1071015:04:0010710Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—During question time Senator Carr asked me about an ad hoc committee looking at Greenwich University. My enquiries have revealed that this committee is still considering its review and that it hopes to have an interim report by the end of this year.1071003:NaN:0010710Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Yesterday Senator Harradine asked a question about private health insurance and the waiting periods for supplementary benefits. To that question I have an answer which I undertook to find for Senator Harradine, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—SENATOR HARRADINE—Madam President, I have a brief supplementary question. Could the minister please assess what other funds have done in this particular regard as well?This was a supplementary question by Senator Harradine to Senator Herron on 24 November 1999. This question refers to whether health funds change their waiting and notify their members in advance of any changes which affect them.The Government recognises the need for health fund members to be fully aware of any changes to health fund products to reassure themselves that they have the product that best suits their needs. The Government recently agreed to amend the National Health Act 1953 to ensure that health funds notify members in plain English of any change to their products including waiting periods, before the change takes effect. This legislation has now been passed. It means that members should always be aware of any changes to waiting periods that affect them.Health fund members are able to approach the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman if they have any complaint against their health fund about waiting periods or any other matter. Data on the number and nature of complaints received is included in the Ombudsman's annual report.Waiting periods for hospital tables have to be within the maximum limits set under the National Health Act 1953, that is:12 months for pre-existing ailments;12 months for obstetric conditions; and2 months for any other condition.Health funds are free to vary their waiting periods within these limits for different health treatments on each of their hospital products. The Act does not set maximum waiting periods on ancillary products. The waiting periods for each currently available product are shown in health funds' brochures.Miscellaneous107101071015:05:0010710Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Pursuant to standing order 74(5)(a), I ask the Assistant Treasurer for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to questions on notice Nos 1557, 1569, 1574 and 1576, which I asked on 23 September 1999.15:05:0010710Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I got notice seconds ago that this question was going to be asked of me. The normal courtesy extended is that contact is made with the office and we then find out what the particular problem is and try to make sure that the answers are supplied as promptly as possible. Seeing that you have raised this question, I shall find out what the particular problem is and try to ensure that the questions are answered as quickly as possible.15:06:0010711Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I think that the normal courtesy is to actually answer the questions, Minister. I move:That the Senate take note of the explanation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Do you wish to speak to the motion?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Only to say that I have heard the explanation from the minister. He has promised to get back to me. I just want the Senate to take note that he will.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous107111071115:07:0010711Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The day before yesterday, Senator Woodley raised with me the certified air-ground operator service at Yulara. In adding to the answer that I gave to Senator Woodley, I announce that the trial that CASA was undertaking and the evaluation have now been completed. I am pleased to announce that the trial was successful and that, as a result, a permanent staffed radio service will be established at Yulara during peak periods. The trial was extremely valuable and, as a result of the trial, CASA will be able to make a number of improvements to the original version of the operating procedures. The government is keen to see the widespread adoption of staff radio services, but of course we do not want to see a repetition of the class G airspace demonstration. We are not going to rush into new arrangements without proper preparation and proper trials. I can tell Senator Woodley that a second trial is now being conducted at Jandakot airport.1071115:08:0010711Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I have some further information in answer to a question asked of me yesterday by Senator Stott Despoja relating to the WTO, biosafety and a proposed working group on biotechnology. This information has been given to me by the Minister for Trade. I seek leave to have it incorporated. It basically supports what I said yesterday.Leave granted.The information read as follows—Australia has not been amongst the group of countries formally supporting a Canadian proposal to establish a Working Party on biotechnology in the WTO. However, if a consensus emerges that there is a need for a Working Party, we could accept its establishment provided there is a clear terms of reference.Australia nevertheless supports discussion in the WTO of issues related to trade in agricultural biotechnology products. We do not favour the inclusion of other biotechnology products such as pharmaceuticals, for which the existing international and domestic approval processes are working well.Other aspects of biotechnology are under consideration in other forums, with, for example,Codex examining issues related to human health and safety, andthe negotiations in the Biosafety Protocol looking at issues related to preserving biodiversity.Australia's view is that existing WTO Agreements cover trade in biotechnology products.The SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) Agreement allows countries to prohibit imports of any agricultural good based on a scientific assessment of risks to human, animal or plant life or health.It also provides for provisional measures to be adopted while an assessment is carried out.There is no obvious reason why discussion in a WTO Working Group on Biotechnology, if it were established, should have any effect on negotiations to conclude the Biosafety Protocol.The Biosafety Protocol is aimed at establishing a regime for science based assessment of potential risks to biological diversity from transboundary movements of living modified organisms.This is entirely consistent with WTO rules that also require science based assessment of potential risks.Labelling of products to provide consumers with information about whether a food contains genetically modified organisms falls under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement).This agreement does not prevent countries from requiring labelling of foods produced using gene technology if this is to meet legitimate objectives, such as the prevention of deceptive practices.However, the agreement requires that such labelling not be applied in a manner which would constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustified discrimination between countries or is a disguised restriction on international trade.We would not expect the establishment of a working group on biotechnology in the WTO to constrain countries from adopting national labelling schemes for such products under the TBT Agreement.As you will be aware, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council has decided that all food produced using gene technology and sold in Australia and New Zealand should be labelled accordingly.1071215:08:0010712Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Vanstone) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKiernan today, relating to funding for legal aid.In asking this question, Senator McKiernan raised an issue which, although not of immense importance to the government it seems, is of immense importance to ordinary Australians, and that is access to their rights, access to the system of law and access to the courts of law through Australia's legal aid system. Senator McKiernan raised in his question a reference to the current Chief Justice of the High Court and his concerns on the question of this government's cutbacks to legal aid.It has to be said that some three years ago we warned the Attorney-General that his approach to legal aid in his unresearched and unscientifically developed cuts to the legal aid system was going to cause problems that the system could not handle. Now it has to be said, three years later, that this Attorney-General will not be remembered for much, but he will be remembered for what he has done to Australia's legal aid system.What he has done to that system has been essentially twofold: he has decreased the funding and he has crippled the national nature of it. He has essentially made a mess of it. He has made a mess of it because he cut back without consultation, without research and without any planning at all. At the time, it was not just the opposition that said the Attorney-General's policies were going to backfire on him and the system. The courts themselves—quite unprecedently in those days—from High Court judges to lower court judges all warned the government. And it was not just the courts, it was the profession, it was groups representing Australian veterans, it was groups working in the field with lower income earners in our community, and it was so many people who had access, and who needed to have access, to our family court system. They all warned the government, and the government ignored all their warnings.We have had another warning in recent days. We have had another warning from the Chief Justice of the High Court, following on from the previous Chief Justice of the High Court and his warnings as well. Chief Justice Gleeson suggested, just a few days ago, that the costs of delays and inefficiencies caused by unrepresented litigants rivalled the costs of providing legal aid. What we said to the government was that, if you take away assistance to legal aid, then you will bog the system down because more and more people will have to appear before the courts without representation and, in doing so, would clog the system up. This is exactly what Chief Justice Gleeson said just a few days ago. He said:Providing legal aid is costly, so is not providing legal aid.He went on to say:What is real and substantial is the cost of the delay, disruption and inefficiency that results in the absence or denial of legal representation.In essence, what you have is a situation now where, more likely than not, self-represented litigants will cross-examine on irrelevant issues. They will raise matters which are not pertinent. They will ask leading questions. They will not put propositions fairly to witnesses. As a consequence, those people who are uneducated in the system of law will be basically left to pursue cases in the way that they know best and do damage to the process.What is happening is that damage is being done, as was stated by Australian Law Re form Commission spokesman Dr Kathryn Cronin in this current debate. The Law Reform Commission's research shows that, in cases of self-litigation, there was a significant correlation between having a lawyer and getting a settlement on a case. The Law Society of NSW also said that it took up to three times longer for courts to deal with cases where there are unrepresented litigants. Such delays, said Ms Margaret Hole of the NSW Law Society, affected other parties to cases because they had to pay their legal representatives for the costs associated with the delays. But it is not just the other legal representatives that pay; the system pays. The Chief Justice of the High Court said that, at the moment, because of this government's cuts, `28 per cent of litigants were not represented in the last financial year in appearances before single judges of the High Court'. I must say, worse still, in respect of the Family Court—a court where you do need to have a quick and efficient system—more than one-third, in fact, 41 per cent, of litigants, are unrepresented. This is the mess that this government has got the legal aid system into. Previously, we had a national system; a system which was recognised as best practice worldwide. But now, because of this Attorney-General, his lack of vision, his lack of strength and his lack of planning, we have a mess. (Time expired)15:13:0010713Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Of course, everything Senator Bolkus said has the air of a beat-up about it. He said Attorney-General Daryl Williams will not be remembered for very much. Daryl Williams was a very distinguished president of the Law Council of Australia and, during that time, he introduced things like video conferencing so that people from distant states, like Western Australia, did not have to expend huge amounts of money travelling to the cold capital Canberra in the east to appear before the judges of the High Court.To say that somebody like Daryl Williams, who also contributed very much to the reform of law in Western Australia, was somebody who would not be remembered for very much is really quite nonsensical. He contributed to the Law Reform Commission, both in West ern Australia and nationally, in a very substantial way and for those contributions was awarded an Order of Australia. To claim that somebody like that, who is perhaps one of the more distinguished people who have held the office of Attorney-General of Australia, will not be remembered for very much simply underlines the hollowness the comments that Senator Bolkus made today.Legal aid funding was cut because the federal government believed—quite rightly—that the states should be contributing more to the cost of legal aid funding and because people were seeking legal aid for matters which really were not appropriate. As I said, it was the view of the federal government, firstly, that the states should contribute more to the costs of legal aid and that the focus of the issues which legal aid was provided for should be narrowed to matters where legal aid was genuinely appropriate.When it came to office in 1996, the federal government was concerned that the existing legal aid agreements no longer served the needs of the funder governments. Those agreements were concluded at a time when the Commonwealth's position and responsibilities were governed by circumstances different from those which now apply. The funding provided by the Commonwealth for legal aid is based on the level of Commonwealth matters assisted by legal aid commissions in the period 1995-96. This was agreed with all states and territories prior to the implementation of the new agreements.Funding for Commonwealth matters has been preserved. The subsidy for state and territory matters of $33.158 million per year has been removed. I think that is a very fair and proper thing for the Commonwealth to have done. The Commonwealth should only be providing legal aid for Commonwealth matters. It is not a Commonwealth responsibility to provide legal aid for matters which are essentially within state jurisdictions. I find it curious that Senator Bolkus should not recognise that point. His point of view seems to be that the Commonwealth should be providing a bottomless pit of money to anybody who wants to claim legal aid for any kind of matter whatsoever. Quite clearly, that is an absolutely unacceptable principle upon which to operate. The Commonwealth quite clearly has a responsibility to provide money for Commonwealth issues, and that is what under this government the Commonwealth is doing.Under the current legal aid funding arrangements there is sufficient funding available for Commonwealth law matters. The focus has shifted away from funding criminal law matters, which tend to arise under state law, at the expense of family law matters, which for most of the Commonwealth, but not in Western Australia, are of course a Commonwealth matter. Consequently, the quarantining of Commonwealth legal aid dollars means that family law is no longer subsidising criminal law. I think that is a perfectly reasonable situation. (Time expired)15:18:0010714McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—In speaking to the motion moved by Senator Bolkus let me firstly commend Senator Eggleston for his defence of the indefensible. But I guess it is easier defending the indefensible if you are doing it from a position of ignorance, if you do not know what you are talking about. Clearly, those last comments by my good friend and colleague from Western Australia indicate that he is talking from a position of ignorance. Senator Eggleston either does not know or fails to recognise that now 35 per cent of the people in the Family Court are self-represented. They cannot get access to legal aid. Family law is a Commonwealth matter, as defined by the Commonwealth, yet one-third of the litigants in the Family Court do not get representation. The reason for that is your good friend and colleague, the man who will be remembered for slashing legal aid, the Hon. Daryl Williams AM. So you have learned a little bit now.Let me just draw Senator Eggleston's attention to the `agreements' that were negotiated. They were not agreements in the traditional sense of the word. The Commonwealth made a decision in cabinet—a budgetary decision—and said to the states, `This amount of money is going to go to legal aid, based on this formula. That is what you are going to get,' and the states had to agree to that. When some states hung out for it, the funds were just withheld. The situation went into real crisis, a greater threat of crisis than thankfully we have at the moment.In our state of Western Australia, Senator Eggleston, let me just tell you how it worked out and how well we were done for. On a proportional basis, from the agreements the Northern Territory got 12.91c per dollar. Western Australia fared worse than any other state. The Law Council of Western Australia will not be commending the Hon. Daryl Williams for making the good citizens of Western Australia—his own state—the poor relations in the whole deal.Let me just use this opportunity to deal with another matter—that is, the matter which the Legal and Constitutional References Committee raised in its report which was tabled in June of last year. We said, and this is a unanimous statement:The Committee notes that it took the Government 14 months to respond to the single, unanimous, recommendation in the—legal and constitutional—Committee's First Report —on legal aid—and 11 months to respond to the recommendations in its Second Report . The Committee considers that this delay is unacceptable.They were preliminary reports, a prelude to the third and main report of the committee. This report, together with its 22 recommendations, was presented to the parliament in June last year—some 17 months ago. In that 17 months, the Attorney-General, our good friend from Western Australia, the Hon. Daryl Williams, has either been sleeping or sitting on the report because we have not got a response.There is an understanding in this place that the government will respond to committee reports within a period of three months. He has had six times that amount of time to respond, and there is no response to the recommendations in this report. He is treating the people and organisations who made submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee's inquiry into the legal aid system with contempt, and it just is not good enough. It particularly is not good enough now as those agreements in brackets are about to be renegotiated.The agreements were to run for a three-year period, and that expires in June next year. Hopefully the negotiations on the agreements will start soon. They will have to start from a basis of knowledge, and they have to start from a basis of understanding, not from what Senator Vanstone, representing the Attorney-General, said here in response to my question that the government cannot talk about legal aid. The government has to talk about legal aid. The government has to recognise that there is a crisis in the delivery of justice in this nation, and the reasons for that crisis lie clearly and squarely at the doorstep of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams.15:24:0010715Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too rise to speak on this particular motion moved by Senator Bolkus and acknowledge the importance of this issue. But I also want to try to correct some of the propositions that have been put before us here today. We saw Senator Bolkus consistently play the man, as he does, rather than address the issue. Senator Eggleston dealt with that, so I am not going to dwell on it other than to say that at least Senator Bolkus stayed true to form in terms of the way he deals with issues. It is probably because he does not understand or knows little about the issues.At least Senator McKiernan did try to address the issues that he sees with his eyes and that he thinks are the failure of the government. When we came to government, a whole range of areas in terms of legal aid was not being addressed. A number of the states failed to meet their responsibilities. There was also a failure by the previous government—and I can run through the failure list like anybody else—to deal with rural and remote areas. The previous government failed to deal with the issues concerning women in our society. It is a matter of balance between your allocation of resources and what you do.In the time I have available, I want to deal with some of the initiatives that the Hon. Daryl Williams has brought in to the legal aid system to deal with some of the holes that existed there after the previous government. I do not think it does a lot of good in terms of debates for us to stand up here and say, `You failed on that.' It does not really achieve anything at the end of the day, and Senator McKiernan knows that well.1I4McKIERNANSenator McKiernan—That's what you're doing now.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—I will start where I have a self-interest. We have allocated a further $12.4 million over the next four years in order for us to meet the increased needs for financial assistance of respondents such as farmers to native title claims. That is just one that you people could not even address.Let us go a little further. The coalition will provide $27.9 million over three years to establish the Federal Magistrates Service. The Federal Magistrates Service will have a less formal judicial culture than the existing courts and will reduce costs and delays for litigants. Once again, it is a very necessary reform in terms of the allocation of resources. Let us look at women in the law—another area that you people failed to address but the Hon. Daryl Williams has picked up. We have held a national domestic violence summit with the states and territories and provided $25.3 million over 3½ years to fund initiatives to assist victims of domestic violence and educate those involved in committing such crimes.Senator Eggleston also mentioned the fact that we have dealt with the issue of new legal aid agreements to ensure there is a fair balance between the Commonwealth and the states in funding legal aid. It is rather interesting that Senator McKiernan, in his contribution, said that, in effect, we held a gun to the head of the states. The only reason firm action had to be delivered in this particular area was the previous government had failed to do so. They had let the state governments get away with not accepting their responsibilities, and they were draining the Commonwealth purse in terms of those particular issues. At least the Hon. Daryl Williams was prepared to deal with some of those issues before us at that time.Let us look a little bit further. This year the coalition allocated an additional $3.6 million over three years to fund five additional community legal services at high need regional centres as well as to enhance the outreach services. The new services will be established in Broken Hill in regional New South Wales, in the Gippsland area in Victoria, in Kalgoorlie in our own state of Western Australia and in Mount Gambier and the riverland in South Australia—another very necessary initiative in terms of dealing with some of the particular problems.I do not think anybody in this Senate would not like to be able to do more. We would all like to be able to contribute more, but at least we now see in terms of the allocations a much fairer spread of the services provided through legal aid across the board under this particular government. The state governments are at least starting to address and pick up their responsibilities as far as the issue is concerned. So in my contribution I hope I created a little bit of balance to this debate and a little bit of fairness in terms of how it is perceived. (Time expired)15:29:0010716Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—We are now talking about legal aid. Legal aid is not an issue of social security. Legal aid is an issue of how we run the third arm of government—that is, the judicial arm. That is the point I want to make. If you look at the second reading speech to a bill that is to come on in this chamber, the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , the government states:Law enforcement is not a secondary issue—a secure and prosperous society fundamentally relies on it.That is right: you have to have a legal system which requires enforcement, which requires proper interpretation and which requires proper treatment. There is no doubt that those things are lacking. It is not this side that says it; it is not that side that says it; it is the Chief Justice of the High Court who says it. He said it again after the previous Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, said it, and it is said by many other judges—for example, the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Justice Alistair Nicholson. No matter how much we argue here today, the reality is that the legal system is not running as it should, the legal system is broken down and the legal system must be brought into a state where we can all live according to the law. Clearly, there are cases where matters are fought as they ought to be fought. Whether they should be fought in the first place is another matter. Look at the case now going on in the Northern Territory court, the stolen generation case. I notice Michael Schaefer, a person I knew well in Melbourne and still know well, is conducting that case on behalf of the plaintiffs. The stolen generation case is costing lots and lots of money, and the government is spending lots and lots of money on that, as it should, because the law should be carried out.But if you look at the government's own spending on the matters that it deals with—another one that comes off the top of my head is the Melbourne Voyager disaster—you will see that it runs them very expensively, in one sense—expensively in terms of the amount of money involved, not expensively in terms of trying to get justice done. The way the government conducts its own cases, the sorts of things it says in its own second reading speeches and the way it approaches its own situation indicate that the system has gone. By that I mean that many people in Australia cannot get justice, because they are unable to have their cases properly presented in the courts. It is not me saying that; it is not the other side saying that; it is nobody in this chamber saying that. I keep coming back to it. The last two chief justices of the High Court—the present one and the one immediately before—have said that. Other judges have said that. This is not plea from this side of the chamber; this is a plea from the people whom we have entrusted the interpretation of our Constitution to.On the issue of legal aid, a senator from the other side said that they had an interest to declare. I do have a daughter-in-law who works in a legal aid office. She does splendidly; she does not get enough money, of course. She will be working there for another month until she happily presents me with my first grandchild. Her name, may I say, is Emma Hunt. 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator Cooney. We are all delighted that you are going to be a grandfather for the first time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business107171071715:34:0010717Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I move:(1) That the order of business to be considered for the remainder of today be as follows: (i) government business order of the day no. 1—Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999; (ii) commencing no later than 5.15 pm, general business order of the day no. 63 (Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999); (iii) consideration of government documents; (iv) consideration of committee reports and government responses; (v) tabling of documents; and (vi) government business.(2) That the time limits provided in the standing orders apply to general business, consideration of government documents and consideration of committee reports and government responses.The government have the agreement—at least informally, at this stage—of all senators, or at least their leaders and whips, to vary the routine of business to ensure that the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 can be considered by the Senate and sent to another place before that other place adjourns. We have given an undertaking to all honourable senators that whatever time is taken up by consideration of the Border Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 —which will eat into general business, including the time generally provided on Thursday afternoons for opposition business—will be made up at the conclusion of that time. I am putting on the record that the government guarantee that we will make up each and every minute and second that is lost during consideration of border protection at the end of that. I appreci ate very much the cooperation of the opposition and all other senators in facilitating the passage of this important piece of legislation.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10717r92510717Consideration resumed.15:37:0010717Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The committee was previously considering the government's amendment, which was a fairly sizeable one, running to a few pages. I had circulated and moved one amendment on a separate sheet and was talking about the issues behind a second amendment, which related to a proposal that the minister table a copy of any advice received from the UNHCR in relation to a declaration or copy of any revocation of that declaration that he may have made following that advice. As I have said a number of times throughout this debate, sharing the load with protection visas around the globe and people following up on the protection entitlements they might have in other parts of the world—where these have been recognised or where they have dual citizenship and can go to a second country—is a principle that the Democrats support, but the obvious issue is how this is to be implemented.To demonstrate how cooperative we are attempting to be, I will not move the second amendment that was on that sheet, but I will speak a little more on the issues that it was pertaining to. To recap, the minister is able to declare in writing that a specified country basically provide adequate protection for people in the sense of refugee obligations and can also revoke that declaration—and the requirement is there that the minister may make that after considering any advice from the UNHCR. The concern of the Democrats is that that advice may well be contrary to what the minister has finally decided to do. I am not saying that that would occur, but it could occur. There would be an obvious implication every time the minister declared that a particular country provided adequate protection that that was based upon and consistent with—at least in a broad sense—advice provided by the UNHCR.The UNHCR is frequently used as a cloak of respectability for many decisions and actions of the government, sometimes appropriately and sometimes, I think, a trifle misleadingly. In the interests of accountability, the Democrats believe that it would be helpful to have an indication of what the UNHCR advice is around that country. I can understand some of the difficulties that might result if the full details of the advice were tabled, so I will not proceed with the foreshadowed amendment. But I would ask the government to take on board the intent behind that amendment—which is at least to provide some indication, as part of the tabling of a ministerial declaration, as to the thrust of the UNHCR advice. My experience in looking at the various ministerial declarations that are tabled in this place is that they really do not provide any background at all as to the reasoning of a decision or the rationale behind it.Since most of those declarations relate to individual cases or individual people that may be understandable, but these relate to what will in effect be government policy or practice on a particular application. It may affect a whole number of people in a particular country, and I think a little more information to back up and justify the ministerial declaration would be desirable. I think it would also be helpful in terms of accountability for the UNHCR, but it is possibly not the role of this chamber to require extra accountability measures and openness on the part of the UNHCR. People may scrutinise their advice and I think that is a matter for other bodies, so that aspect is perhaps less important.Given the government's desire and the opposition's willingness to support this amendment going through, regardless of any other amendments that may be moved, I will not press on with the many other issues that may be raised as a consequence of the various components of the government amendment. But, again, I would like to get on the record, in a little more detail, how this new amendment and this new section will operate. I still have a difficulty in seeing how there will be adequate safeguards for people who put in protection visa applications which this amendment will deem to be invalid. So I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could just go through how it would be likely to work in reality when a person is detained—using the boat people example, as that is the current political context. When a person is detained, they may indicate that they seek to engage their protection obligations in Australian and they fill in their form—they would not be paying the $30 if they were detained—and that form then, presumably, goes to a departmental officer.My question is, firstly, whether it would be the same level and type of departmental officer assessing that case as assesses other protection visa applications and, secondly, what requirements, in terms of the degree of investigation that officer will need to do to assess that person's possibility of being able to pursue protection obligations in a third country and what degree of information seeking they will be able to do. As part of that, particularly given the parliamentary secretary's previous indication that these decisions could be appealed judicially, what time frame would there be—particularly given the other aspect of this amendment that a detainee must be removed as soon as reasonably practical? So, as soon as that departmental officer makes the determination that the protection visa application cannot be received, does that automatically mean that clause 68, part (9) comes into play straightaway and the person then has to be removed as soon as reasonably practical? What scope is there for the minister in that sort of circumstance to exercise their discretion, if they so desire?15:44:0010718Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I indicated before that there will be a set of guidelines published. With regard to the issue of protection and transparency, if the person has protection rights in a third country, the bar applies only to those countries that are declared safe. Every time the minister intervenes to lift the bar, the reasons he uses will be tabled. As I said before, the guidelines will be tabled and there will be a requirement to bring the minister's attention to cases where refoulement could possibly occur, and the decisions of the minister can be challenged in court. I have just been advised that the obligation is on the applicant to at least try to access the bar for protection, unless the minister intervenes to lift the bar.15:44:0010719Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—It was indicated that the applications of these amendments will come into being upon royal assent of this border protection bill. I would like to clarify whether that will apply only to people who attempt to lodge protection visa applications after that date; whether it will come into play for those who already have visa applications in the pipeline but are perhaps wanting to appeal through the tribunal; and whether people who are able to reapply from scratch as a result of the minister exercising a section of the act will be affected. I cannot remember what the section is, but I know it is there. It refers to people who have been through the system and the minister says, `We're not going to grant you, but we will let you go back and reapply, and we will reassess you.' I would like to clarify whether those people will now be caught by these amendments.15:47:0010719Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I thought I had answered the question earlier about when the act comes into force, but I will reiterate it. New applications, after the date of proclamation, will be dealt with under this legislation. All those who apply before the date of proclamation—and there are some cases that may be in that situation—will be dealt with under the current legislation before the amendment.15:47:0010719Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Just to clarify again: will those people who have applied before, who have been through system, who have been refused and whom the minister gives leave to apply again be caught under this bill?15:48:0010719Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—If they apply before the proclamation and their application is in order, then the legislation as it will stand at proclamation will not apply to them. The current legislation will apply to them. I think it is the East Timorese to whom the minister has given an offer of applying within seven days. I have been advised that that seven-day period is almost over. I think the due date is next week some time. If they apply then, they will be under the current legislation—not the legislation as it will be amended and proclaimed.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.10719Motion (by Senator Patterson) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.15:50:0010719Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I will not speak for long on the third reading stage. Given the importance of the issue, I think it is worth putting a few more remarks on the record. In terms of the context surrounding this legislation, the answers provided by the government throughout the committee stage of the debate indicate the risks of the road that we are going down, particularly as some of those changes are obviously driven by political forces rather than a basis of good policy. When you combine legislative loopholes or inadequacies with political forces, you can get failings in outcomes. I think it is worth emphasising the risks of this particular path.To put it in a broader context, the parliamentary secretary did outline in some detail in her second reading speech in reply a lot of the work that the government is doing overseas. As I said previously, that is something that the Democrats support and encourage and believe is perhaps the crucial area of activity. It is not the only area of activity but it is the crucial area of activity whereby the problem of people smuggling can be best dealt with. It is obviously much more important to tackle an issue at source rather than addressing people when they get here. The issue causing concern is the number of people arriving here.Again, it is worth putting this into context. Senator McKiernan incorporated one of the department's fact sheets from their web site of figures of unauthorised arrivals by air and sea from 1998 through till now. It is an interesting document. I noted the number of people who were detained or detected and then departed, as in `sent back'. Quite a significant percentage of those people were sent back. Those people will not be affected by any of the measures we have talked about in the last few days because they do not come under the refugee convention or engage our protection obligations. It is those people who do engage our protection obligations who clearly will be affected by what we failed to disallow yesterday and potentially by what we pass now. I think it is in those areas that we need to be particularly vigilant. Whilst I accept the government's assertions that they will ensure that our non-refoulement obligations are upheld, again I emphasise that refugees need more protection than just government assurances.Senator McKiernan pointed to the indication that some people who had had asylum for a number of years in Iran are about to be pushed out. He went on to say that if that situation is true then the world has a problem. I agree: this is a problem not just for Australia but for the world. But it is the biggest problem and the most immediate problem for those refugees who will be pushed out. It is a very big problem for them—quite immediate and quite severe. To suggest to them that the only way of dealing with this is for them to sit back and hope that the world gets its act together and operates cooperatively to address that particular problem I think is expecting a bit much. We do need to keep the reality of the situation that individual people are facing in perspective.I re-emphasise that it was pleasing to see today's debate on this particular legislation was rather more free of some of the more exaggerated claims and evocative references that have been so damaging in unnecessarily increasing community concern. I hope we can continue to pursue this issue and continue this debate in that sort of vein.I do call on the government and the minister in particular to take that seriously. I also indicate that the Democrats will be watching closely to assess the operation of these provisions that have come into operation, not just in terms of their impact on people smuggling because quite clearly, as the Labor Party themselves acknowledged yesterday, the temporary visa measure will have no impact at all. This other measure may do, but clearly an underlying concern that cannot be ignored is the impact that it may have on genuine refugees. In some respects, if we do not keep a close eye on the inadequacies or the potential flaws within the measures that were just passed now, the new amendment, then the potential outcome could be far worse for the people than the temporary visa measure which we discussed yesterday.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills10720s23810720Debate resumed from 24 November, on motion by Senator Chris Evans:That this bill be now read a second time.15:56:0010720Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to speak today on the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 , which is a private member's bill brought into this place by Senator Chris Evans, the shadow minister with responsibility in this very important area. It is very interesting that we would even have need for such a piece of legislation. We have heard from the government over the last few years a huge amount of rhetoric about the importance of planning. Their comments were always that this was necessary because the previous Labor government never had any planning in place and never did any planning and got it wrong on child care. That is certainly not the truth and it is not the story out there in the community.It is important to recognise that child care is in desperate need of stability. It is actually reeling under the sustained attacks of this government's cutbacks in funding for child care, and it is reeling under changes of policies that leave the industry floundering: they have no clear idea of what is the intention of the government about child care this year, next year or in three years time. Many people in the industry, certainly in the community based area but also now equally strongly voiced in the private child-care industry, are asking, `Where are we going? What is the point? What is the intention?' They are getting closer to giving up. Indeed, the story of child care under the coalition government is: how many centres have closed, have gone to the wall, and how many thousands of parents and families are hurting very significantly because of the loss of their usual child care?The most important thing that needs to be said about child care is that it looks after and provides care for our youngest and most vulnerable in the community, our nought to five-year-olds—all of those precious years before school. We have heard lots said by the coalition about the importance of this area. Isn't it interesting that, although they claim it is the most important area, it is the area to which they give least funding and reducing funding—there have been very significant cutbacks in this area. It is important to recognise that nought to five are the most important ages for our developing young people. Any amount of evidence—psychological, educational, developmental—will say that what happens to our children between nought and five is critical to how they advance through primary and secondary school and how they cope with the world as adults.What on earth does the government mean when it mouths platitudes about the family out of one corner of its mouth but cuts funding to this important sector out of the other corner of its mouth? The government actually does not mean what it says: it does not care for the industry of child care; it does not care for the people working in it; and, most importantly, it does not care for the families who so critically depend on child care for their own work, for their own study, for their own support and for the care of their children.More than 300 child-care centres have closed over the last couple of years, and over $800 million has been taken out of child care by this government. That is now beyond dispute, although I am absolutely sure that my coalition colleagues will make sure that they disagree with it during their contributions. But it is beyond dispute that 300 child-care centres have closed over the last couple of years. Those closures have disrupted the children, the families, the child-care businesses and the staff.The announcement in July this year by the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Newman, that she now plans to abandon needs based planning control has left the whole sector of child care reeling and dumbfounded. After all the high rhetoric about the need for planning and the importance of putting it in place and the abuse of the Labor government for failing to do so—and I will come back to the misinformation about the Labor government's failure to introduce any planning—that Minister Newman went on with, now she has decided not to proceed with her own needs based planning control. I wonder what on earth has changed in a mere 12 months that got Senator Newman so easily into planning and now so easily out of it.The answer for most of the people in the sector and anybody looking coldly and critically at child care is that this government is not seriously committed to child care. It would much rather encourage families—and read here `women'—to stay at home and look after the children.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—You know that is rubbish.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—It is absolutely the truth. I am interested in Senator Patterson's interjection. It is not rubbish. If it were the case, then why have you withdrawn your planning for the funding which you have been so loud in promoting? Why have you withdrawn it? Why have you pulled it? Because you seriously do not truly commit to funding for child care.Those opposite are the people who have taken about $850 million out of child-care assistance, and about $100 million of that sum has been taken out of the system by the abolition of the operational subsidy for community based child care. But the biggest cuts have come from your cuts to child-care assistance and have impacted equally on families who are using private and community child-care centres. These cuts have hurt families deeply.Some people would say that the average increase in child-care fees is about $20 to $25, and some families would tell you it is much more than that. Some centres may have managed with an increase that is slightly less, but on the whole families are now paying up to $25 on average more per place. It is this increase in costs that forced so many families either out of child care or into part-time use of child care. It has also led to the adoption of other patchwork mixtures of child-care support that they can find within their own family. Many families are now resorting to unqualified child care because they no longer get access to the previous quality child-care centres that were available to them.However, let us get to the planning issue. Under the previous government, all public sector child care was provided in a planned, needs based way.Senator Knowles interjecting—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I do not know why you snort with laughter, Senator Knowles, because you would suggest by that snort that that was a lie. And it is absolutely not.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—You said it, not me.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—But if I should say that you were telling lies, you would say I was being unparliamentary. So I am glad you say that I have got your drift from a snort. That was a derogatory, put-down suggestion that we did not do planning.All public child care was delivered in a planned, needs based way. It was the private sector care that was not provided in a planned way. We have never disagreed with that. We see the importance of it and that is why we supported your proposals. You were not the first to try it but you were the first to actually introduce it. Senator Knowles is wrong to suggest that the public child-care centres were not provided in a needs based and planned way. They were.There were committees in all regions of Australia that assessed needs in terms of a number of criteria, such as: numbers of working families, numbers of children, numbers of people travelling through the areas, numbers of jobs and so on. That planning was done. And, what is more, in the last few years of the Labor government that planning information was provided on a region by region and state by state basis to private centres so that they could have the benefit of all that planning information when they made decisions about where to put their own centres. Some centres may have taken that up; many did not. One of the big disappointments was that so many private operators rushed into child-care centres before they had clear evidence of the ongoing viability of those centres because of continuing parent and child demand.For the record, once again, all public sector child care was planned in a needs based way and, to my understanding, still is. I do not know whether this government has withdrawn the needs based planning proposals for long day community based child-care centres, for outside school hours care, for after school care or for occasional care. However, given this government's performance, it may indeed have done that. All I understand is that Minister Newman has abandoned the needs based planning control for the child-care sector. After all her claims about the importance of it, one is left wondering at what is going on in the policy development of this government.The government froze the indexation of child-care assistance and the rebate for two years—1997 and 1998, restricted the number of hours to be funded and reduced the income tax test concessions for larger families. The average out-of-pocket costs of parents have risen by more than $20 a week as a result. The other terrible thing is that the evidence is slowly becoming incontrovertible that the cost pressures are forcing parents to pull out of regulated child care and that lower income families are having to withdraw from that regulated care altogether. As I have said, some families are managing by reducing their hours; other families are finding the only way they can cope is by withdrawing from the regulated child-care system altogether.Families are now resorting to a stressful patchwork of care arrangements; some are with families, some are with neighbours and some are here and there. We all know that that kind of care for children is much less optimal than having one or two continual carers over the whole of the child-care week. We also know—there has been dispute about this by the government; I do not know why they keep on disputing it because it is now beyond dispute—that many centres have closed. As child care has become harder and less affordable for low and middle income families, the centres have struggled to stay in business. As the fees go up, families withdraw because they cannot afford the fees. As families withdraw, the fees have to rise higher for the families who are left. The fees become less and less affordable until, in the end, sufficient families withdraw, the centre is no longer viable and the centre has to close.There have been at least 282 child-care closures since 1996, with centres closing in areas where the average family income is $32 per week lower than the average for those in areas where new centres have opened. It is said again and again that it is the low to middle income families that are hurting the most. They are the ones that are least able to afford the child care and are most likely to have to withdraw because of the pressures of increased costs. As a result, not only are they not getting the child care but the centre has closed—it is out of existence—in their neighbourhood. Any amount of data now shows conclusively the drop in the number of places and centres in both the community and private areas.It is interesting to wonder why this government is not giving some serious thought to the social impact of the closure of so many of these centres. It is simply not sufficient to say, as the minister does, that these shutdowns are nothing more than the normal hazards of the market. That is just simply not true. It may be true in some small areas of Australia, where there have been a very large number of private child-care centres. Examples are south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales. But for many other places it is simply not true that the hazards of the market are forcing child-care centres to close. It is about the withdrawal of government money, the reduction in child-care assistance, the consequent increase in charges and costs and the withdrawal of families who simply cannot go on affording those increased charges.For many people, there is now a major disruption in their family life. As I have said, they have to look for the more stressful patchwork of child-care provision. I know many women who have had to withdraw from the work force. We have had letters come into my office and I have had people come and tell me. It is particularly the case for single mothers, who are the very people I would have thought we should be supporting. We should be encouraging them even further to develop their independence. If they have got into the work force and they are studying, why should we be providing obstacles to their continuation? They are finding that they have to withdraw from their work in particular because of the closure of child-care centres.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Give statistical evidence. There is none.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I can give you the evidence, but it does not matter because, wherever we give you evidence, you simply insist that it is not true.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Where is it?ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—We absolutely know there is evidence. We have it documented here.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Where is it?ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Read the welfare volume that Senator Evans has. It was released today and shows conclusively the reduction in child-care centres and the number of families and parents who are now withdrawing from formal child care and using, as I have said before, a patchwork of care arrangements to try to accommodate their needs.Many people are actually withdrawing from child care and the work force altogether. They are hoping to return to the work force in a few years when their children are older and they will not have the same challenge of these child-care problems. It interrupts their continuity of work. It puts them back out of the work force and their social network. It affects their confidence building and income gaining work force pattern. They are set back by all this.The Labor opposition feel very passionately that, if you are serious about caring for families and children, you do not put these sorts of hurdles or obstacles in their way. You do not withdraw child-care facilities and continuity of care for children. You do not take out a community resource that is proving again and again to be invaluable for families who use it. We look at the human cost of closure as well as the dollar cost of closure.I believe it is absolutely vital that this piece of legislation be passed and that the government revert to its commitment to needs based planning. It is not so much that it will therefore have to close centres but that it will maintain a commitment to centres continuing to be available across all regions of Australia. One reason that the Labor government introduced the operational subsidy in the first place was to help with centres going into areas that were less likely to be immediately viable. Those places were areas of lower income. They were regional and rural areas. They were tougher neighbourhoods where the private sector child-care centres were not going and, indeed, are still not going. There is not the same opportunity for them to create and maintain a viable small business of a child-care centre there. This is where the community based centres went. As those community centres are closing, they are not being replaced.There is a huge social loss for the community with child-care centre closures. There is a loss for the children, who no longer have access to that child care and its social benefits. There is a loss for the families, who do not have the support and confidence of the child-care centre and all its backup. There is also the loss of a facility with a community focus, where people gathered. Parents, for instance, could drop in and get somebody who would say hello and give them support. They could get some support and encouragement about how they were doing with the little kids. They provided somebody to talk to if the parents were having a problem or difficulty with the children. That facility is now gone. Who knows what cost you could put on that. Certainly the Labor Party put a very high value on community services and resources of that sort.We have been gaining evidence from listening to people, talking with the community and reading letters that come into the office. Despite what Senator Knowles shouts across the chamber, there is significant, growing evidence that the community is very unhappy about this disruption of child care and the loss of child-care centres and places.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—Provide us with the evidence.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—The government was going to introduce needs based planning, but I am very surprised at why, in such a short time, it has so readily withdrawn from it. It says that all the problems have been solved in a short time. I would certainly like to see the evidence of that.The problem is that the government is retreating from child-care funding across the board. Apart from parents, the child-care operators are also providing significant evidence to the opposition about just how disruptive this process is and just how significant the funding withdrawals are. The private centres, in particular, were looking forward to the stability of that planning process being set in place and staying there. Now the rug has gone. Those child-care operators are absolutely confused and flummoxed about what the intention of this government is for child care.It becomes clearer and clearer that the intention of this government is to withdraw funding and to reduce child care so that only a few can get it. More and more, it is encouraging a parent—one parent—to be at home with the children. It is social engineering by allocation of service dollars. There is no doubt about it. It is creating a great wave of annoyance and anger amongst the private child-care operators, let alone anybody else such as the families, the parents and the community base. The private operators were looking forward to that stability, that commitment to needs based planning, and it has gone.So the opposition takes the opportunity through this legislation to put it back, to continue the planning and to try to provide for the child-care community that continuity of commitment, that continuity of planning and that expectation that next year you will still have a business and you will still be able to provide child care because child-care assistance will not be so wound down that your centre will close and go out of existence. For the many small business operators in child care, that is a significant commitment. The changes in the government's policy in this area have completely astounded and flummoxed the operators of private child care.In summary, we have seen this government cut child care across the board. We have seen so many centres close. We have seen families now learning to live without child care. For those families in the lower income areas and rural and remote areas the community based centres were critical. Those child-care centres and that certitude of the continuing presence of child care have gone. The families do not like it, the operators do not like it and at the first opportunity at the next election I am sure the community of Australia will tell the government what they think about it.16:17:0010725Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—The contribution by Senator Crowley is nothing short of breathtaking. As a former minister who had responsibility for child care, she should hang her head in shame. To have endured 20 minutes of a contribution from a person who was so thoroughly unable to deliver a sustainable child-care policy for this country is breathtaking. I continually interjected and asked for Senator Crowley to provide evidence for the claims she made. She is now, presumably, going to leave the chamber, having been unable to do so. It is positively disgraceful that this opposition comes in here and makes claims about centre closures, about place reductions and about fee increases. There goes Senator Crowley, waltzing out of the chamber because she is unable to provide the evidence as to what has taken place since 1996.Since this government came to office and discovered that there was an unregulated, unplanned system put in place by the Labor Party, it has done something about it. This former minister made sure that centres were opened in areas that were not areas of need. They were areas of political need in marginal seats and they were good publicity stunts, but they were not areas of need where children actually lived and needed child care. Since 1996 around 570 child-care centres have opened and around 340 have closed. Anyone with basic mathematical skills—which, unfortunately, Senator Crowley did not demonstrate when she was a minister and is unable to demonstrate now in opposition—would tell you that that is a net increase of 230 new centres and around 15,000 additional places associated with their opening. I will be interested to note whether subsequent speakers repeat the wrong assertion of the Labor Party that the net number of centres and the net number of places have been reduced, because it is plainly wrong.Also plainly wrong is that the government somehow sets the fees. The government does not set the fees for child care; the centres do. So for Senator Crowley, Senator Evans or anyone else to come in here and claim that the government has set the fees and is somehow responsible for fee increases is, once again, plainly wrong. Senator Crowley says that the coalition government inherited a fantastic planned system but that there was a need for closures. Somehow that is contradictory. She then claims that women have had to withdraw from the work force. I consistently asked her for evidence to substantiate that claim. There is no evidence.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—There is.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I hope, Senator McLucas, that you provide the evidence. I have here the labour force participation rates. They are the official participation rates, not some Labor Party manufactured list from a few phone calls to their mates. These are the official labour force participation rates for women over the past three years. In the first instance, for women with children under 15 the participation rate has been stable, at around 58 to 59 per cent. There has been no decrease at all since we came into office. But since June 1996—this is the interesting one, when the opposition is talking about women walking out of the work force—the participation rate of mothers with children aged under five has actually shown an increase, from 47.4 per cent to 48.2 per cent to June 1998.There is absolutely no evidence for the Labor Party claims that mothers are reducing their hours of work. The average weekly hours worked by mothers has been steady since 1996. They are the official figures. I would be interested to know the source of the figures being quoted by the Labor Party. Let us see the empirical evidence, because I do not think there is any. It is all hearsay.It is interesting to note that, under the Labor Party, one of the disincentives for people to go back into the work force was that they actually ended up with less money in their pockets if they did so. We have turned that around; Minister Newman has clearly turned that around. It is now advantageous for parents—they are not necessarily women—to go back into the work force or into study and pay child care. They end up better off. More importantly, under the new tax plan, as of July next year they will be better off than they are now.I did these figures not so long ago for a constituent who has a child who is nearly five and will be going to school for a few hours next year. That mother was of the opinion that she would be worse off by heading back into the work force or back to study. I was able to produce the figures to show that she would be better off from now until 30 June by returning to work and even better off from 1 July next year.The Labor Party comes in here and claims that mothers are worse off. It is simply not true. The Labor Party claims that the number of children using child care has decreased. Why is it then that the figures on those using child care coming through from the formal sources, not the informal coke can and piece of string of the Labor Party, show that the number of children using child care has increased significantly, from 460,300 in 1994-95 to 544,700 in 1996-97? The Labor Party is saying that fewer children have been using child care since 1996.The opposition is equally claiming that centres in poor areas are closing. As I have said before, the number of child-care services and places has increased since this government came to office. There has been a net increase in the number of long day care centres of 230 and out of school hours care of 1,180. From June 1996 to June 1998, the government funded over 93,000 extra child-care places for families to access. Therefore, I come back to the question and challenge that I put to the Labor Party: provide your empirical evidence, not hearsay evidence, to show that these things are not so.The other thing that they conveniently forget is the child-care rebate. Anyone serious about this subject would know that the child-care rebate provides an increase in assistance for most families. It is estimated that the maximum rate of assistance for the new child-care benefit will be $120 a week, an increase of $7.50 a week for low income families paying average fees for one child in centre based care. It is estimated in the official departmental figures, not by some magic stroke of a pen, that under the child-care benefit the average gap between what people will get and what they were getting will be exactly the same as it was in 1996. It is not what the Labor Party is saying. Once again, these are the figures.No-one disputes that in community based centres fees have gone up—that is their decision, not the government's decision—but they only provide 30 per cent of the care. So for 70 per cent of the care given by community based child-care centres, there has been a much lower fee increase—but, once again, that was set by them and not by the government.What the Labor Party forget is how much more disposable income families have since this government came into office. Because interest rates have been at record low levels families actually have considerably more income. The Labor Party do not seem to worry about that. Real disposable income has increased markedly. The Labor Party do not worry about that either. It is interesting, because they keep on referring to the fact that fees have gone up. If they are so worried about fees going up why do they not go and speak to the centres and ask them why they are increasing their fees, instead of coming in here and blaming the government, because the government does not set the fees?Senator McLucas sits over there and shakes her head. Why does she not do something about it? Go and speak to the centres. Do not come in here and blame the government for setting fees for which the government is not responsible. It is absolutely and utterly outrageous. It does not matter. Let us face it: the Labor Party have never been long on fact, they have been very long on fiction. This is no exception.It is important to understand exactly what the government has been doing. The national planning system, which was announced in 1997, was designed to improve the distribution and location of new child-care places nationally. The aim of this measure was to assist in controlling growth in future child-care development, contain previously unsustainable growth in child-care assistance outlays and bring about stability to the sector.Do you know what the Labor Party did when they were in government? They paid parents for child-care hours that were not even used. They did not bother to decide what hours a parent actually used for their child. They said, `Here is a bucket of money. You have it. Go away and spend it as you wish.' A lot of those hours simply were not used. Evidence which demonstrated that that was clearly the case was given to a Senate inquiry last year. It is not just the facts that are there, but there is evidence from parents who said, `Yes, we were paid for hours we did not use.' That ended up being a burden on taxpayers. It did not free up the centres for other people to use them, but that did not seem to worry the Labor Party either.For years, the Labor Party simply did not have the will or the capacity to do anything about the out-of-control growth in child-care centres. It is a situation for which the sector itself has paid ever since. New child-care centres, as I say, grew next to each other; they grew in marginal seats and they grew where a few votes were needed. But the growth was based primarily on poor market research and was certainly, to a degree, pumped up by some of the financial industry institutions. Incredibly, this was an environment where the number of children aged between zero and four years had stabilised—if it was not actually dropping—yet Labor remained irresponsible and inactive by opening centres just for the sake of good press.They did not bother to take into account what was actually happening with requirements or with the demographics of an area. They opened centres here, there and everywhere. It could have been the oldest section of an electorate but, because it was the oldest section of an electorate, they needed to have the headline in the local newspapers, `New child-care centre opened', so that people across the electorate would actually hear of a new child-care centre being opened.Under the coalition government, a number of measures were implemented at this time, and the immediate goal was targeting all growth in new child-care places to areas of greatest need for care, where parents were working, looking for work, studying or training. So there is a great emphasis shift in a whole range of these areas. Senator Newman, quite frankly, is to be congratulated for so many of these reforms, because it was Senator Newman also who decided that the Labor Party policy of paying people more to be out of work than to study was simply outrageous, and that is why she changed that policy. She also changed this child-care policy to make sure that people who really wanted to go to work or get training or more education would actually have the facilities available to them to do so.This process of the planning system included the strengthening of the planning advisory committees, which have representation from child-care services in each state and territory. The planning advisory committees advise government on child-care needs at the local level. In addition, the 50-hour limit on work related care and the 20-hour limit on non-work related care further target new growth to where it is really needed by families. The introduction of the legislated supplier controls was therefore just one part of the national planning system. It is important to reiterate that the supply limit was instigated as a short-term measure, only following extraordinarily high levels of growth over the previous years. It was never intended to bring about long-term regulation—although government recognises that it may be useful again at some time in the future.We need to look at what the National Planning Advisory Committee key components are. The national planning system manages a variety of strategies to ensure that all new child-care places are targeted to the areas of greatest need, and the advisory committees in each state and territory play the important role of identifying that need. The committees analyse relevant child-care supply and demand data, including demographic and employment trends, state and local government planning information, and any other relevant local research. That was never done under Labor. It is hard to understand why it was never done, but it was never done. The committees identify areas of greatest need for work related child care, and this information informs decisions on child-care places.Thus the national planning system is underpinned by detailed child-care needs assessments, undertaken locally in full and frank consultation with key players in the industry. People interested in developing child-care services now have access to much greater and more effective information than ever before to assist them in assessing demand for child care in their region. The department's hugely popular Planning to Succeed in Child Care kit, now into its fourth publication and with its own web site, has dramatically increased information available for services.One of the other problems, as I said before, is that the financial institutions were actually recommending that people go and open child-care centres. They did not much care where. The financial institutions could not have cared less. All we are saying is that the department is now providing people with accurate information about the future viability of opening such centres, and that ensures that the centres are not going to go broke because they are opening in the wrong area, and that they are going to be financially viable.The also hugely successful Child-care Access Hotline helps parents, families and services find out easily about services available in the area, and therefore helps to much more effectively put together the child-care services and the families who actually need them. There is a meshing of the information between the centres and the parents and, as a result of the government's initiatives, growth in the child-care sector has stabilised significantly over the past two years. It is clear now that the child-care sector is better informed and more sophisticated about demand and need, and surely that is the best news possible for parents primarily, investors, community organisations, the staff, and families generally.There is so much more that can be said on this subject, and I know that Senator Tchen will certainly do so. It must be recognised that the Labor Party had a woeful record on the supply of child-care centres, and the assertions that they are now making are not based on fact. If they are, I challenge them yet again to provide the evidence—not Chinese whispers, but evidence—as to where they are getting information about participation rates, fewer places, and increases in prices, which they are blaming the government for, and all the other assertions they are making. It is simply not proper or moral for anyone to come into this place and make wild claims. I have stated the sources of the information that I have provided today. I challenge the Labor Party to do the same.16:37:0010728Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Along with all those concerned with the private and community long day care sectors, the Democrats were devastated when we heard that the Minister for Family and Community Services was not intending to extend the current planning system for child-care places after it finishes on 31 December this year. Instead, the minister has said she will simply monitor the sector closely while retaining the capacity to reintroduce a supply limit on long day care places after July 2000 if it becomes clear that that is appropriate.This means that, whether or not the government reintroduces planning after July 2000, the long day care sector will be left without any planning mechanism for at least six months. At first glance, this might not sound all that devastating—in fact, that is pretty much how the government seems to see it. But the reality for those children, parents and child-care workers, and for small business people who operate many child-care centres, the picture is quite different. In fact, for some the picture may be very different. This is because, without some form of planning mechanism, the child-care industry will most likely fall back into its previous state of oversupply, with the consequent closure of centres and upheaval for the children who attend centres in those areas.The Democrats have long supported an appropriate planning mechanism for long day care places. In fact, as I recall, we were the first party to really recognise the need for such a measure. This chamber will recall that my leader, Senator Meg Lees, when she had this portfolio, constantly pressed the need for planning on the previous government. To that end, we spent years calling on the Labor government to introduce some form of planning, but it was to no avail. We were therefore pleased when this government introduced a cap on child-care places and, in the longer term, we are very keen to see something along these lines continue, although it is not the only mechanism, and I recognise that.However, the minister has now made it very clear that this government's long-term intention is not to regulate growth in the child-care sector because it does not want to stifle competition. The Democrats believe this is a very irresponsible move considering the already very fragile position the industry is in as a result of this government's approach to child care. The minister's office have told us that it is their view that continuing with a planning system based on capping place numbers would lead to higher child-care costs for families. This is because, in the government's view, those within the long day care sector who are lobbying for the cap to continue have a vested interest in reducing competition because that would allow them to raise their prices. What this view fails to recognise is that, as a result of policies al ready introduced by the government, many child-care providers are making lower profits now than they ever have before, and many are really struggling just to keep their doors open.Senator Knowles asks for the evidence. I cannot table all of the evidence I have—it is in my office. But certainly next week I will table some of the statistical evidence collected by the sector itself. It is not made up; it does not come out of the air; it is not anecdotal. It is, in fact, specific statistical evidence of what is happening within the sector. I will also table for the senator the number of centres that I personally have visited, which is in the dozens, and the number of centres that my child-care adviser has visited, which is in the hundreds, trying over the last couple of years to get a hold on exactly what is happening. The other thing I think I will do is refer Senator Knowles's speech to a number of the child-care peak bodies so that they can see what the government is saying and perhaps provide the Senate with the answers to some of the questions she is asking. I think it is fair to ask those questions, but I trust she will admit she is wrong when she gets those answers.I cannot deny what I see with my own eyes. I have spent a lot of time over the past few years visiting child-care centres in every state of the Commonwealth, and there is a familiar and common theme running through all of the centres that I visited. I must say that my adviser and I were deeply disturbed by what we saw and heard during those visits. By the time we had finished visiting the centres—they were mostly the private sector centres but some community centres as well—we had no doubt that the changes introduced by this government during its first term were having a very negative impact on both families and child-care providers. We saw that in many centres occupancy rates had fallen to between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the places they were licensed for. We saw the empty rooms; we saw the number of children; and we were shown the enrolments for the period prior to the introduction of these changes. You could not deny that the number of children was significantly reduced in the centres that we visited. A number of centres had already closed—we went to see the centres that had closed—and many others were on the point of being no longer viable. We were told by child-care operators and parents that they really were at crisis point. We took notes and, if necessary, I can go and find those notes and table them. They answer the question Senator Knowles was asking, although I am not sure they would convince her.The crisis in these centres was undoubtedly due to falling occupancy rates caused by a reduction in the subsidies payable to parents. Many of the long day care centres we visited had already had to retrench staff, cut specific services and, in some cases, close altogether. Quite frankly, unless every single one of the operators, up and down every state in this Commonwealth, simply told us lies when they showed us the number of people they had employed at a particular time and then how many they employ now, the figures were quite incontrovertible. They were there, and we were shown them.Some of the centre owners we met were working up to 80 hours per week just to keep their businesses operating. Others had sold other assets, including their family homes, to keep their businesses afloat. In some cases the pressures associated with this had led to family breakdown and ongoing depression. In a number of centres—as you know, I am a professional counsellor—I took off one hat and put on another, because people were in tears. We listened to the stories they told us. I do not think they were lying. If they were, then I can tell you they were pretty good actors.In our dealings with the coalition on child care the Democrats have been disappointed to find that the government has largely refused to acknowledge the impact that its policies have had on families and on the child-care sector. Ironically, it has instead chosen to blame current problems on the former Labor government's failure to introduce appropriate planning mechanisms and the uncontrolled growth of centres which occurred as a consequence. I believe it is hypocritical then that this government now seems to be moving down the same path.I want to use this debate today to put on the record the fact that very little has improved in the long day care sector since the Democrats' visits prior to the last election. This was confirmed a couple of weeks ago by my child-care adviser, who spent a week—Monday to Friday—travelling around every day, visiting centres and holding meetings with those involved in the sector. The story was exactly the same. They were not dry statistics collected by ABS or some statistics that rarely, in a very general sense, reflect what is happening. Rather, this involved specifically visiting people every day for a week, in as many centres as possible, up and down the state of Queensland—Senator McLucas, even as far as Cairns, which I know you have a particular concern about.It must be noted that, rather than raising the cost of child care for parents, many of the centre operators we spoke to have absorbed most cost increases, including increases in wages, over the past two years. They have done this because it has been the only way to keep their centres open. The fact is that very few centres have raised their fees at all. Many of the child-care operators we have spoken to recently have told us that they have tried to keep child care affordable for families by offsetting reductions in subsidies to parents, even though their running costs have gone up. While the whole industry—both private and community—is in such a fragile state, surely removing the cap on child-care places, even for six months, is complete madness.Many of the problems now being experienced throughout the sector are the result of changes introduced in the 1996 budget. The following measures, which the Democrats voted against, are primarily to blame: the capping of child-care assistance at 50 hours per week, the abolition of additional income allowed for dependent children when assessing a family's eligibility for child-care and the freezing of child-care assistance and the child-care rebate from indexation for two years.Let us give some credit. The Democrats welcome the changes which will be introduced in July 2000. But these are still not going to fix all of the industry's problems. Too much damage has already been done. Too many parents have been forced to turn to cheaper and often less formal forms of care, even though in many cases these offer an environment which is not as safe or secure as more formal forms of care.Contrary to government arguments, the long day care sector is as one in its opposition to the removal of planning for long day care places. Both the community sector and the private sector strongly support the continuation of planning mechanisms, whether through a cap or some other means. What needs to be understood here is that in an area of oversupply up to four or five centres will be seriously affected if even one centre opens. Contrary to the government's claims that the industry is now much `smarter' and therefore capable of locating centres only where they are most needed without the need for formal planning, I know there are already developers in areas of oversupply which are gearing up to build new centres. That is crazy.Child care is not something that can be compared to a fish and chip shop or a car yard—that is, it does not necessarily equate that more competition is better. Why? Because children have needs that consumers of fish and chips and cars do not. Unlike those who purchase cars and eat fish and chips, children need familiarity, security and stability. Clearly, it is the children using child care who will suffer most if the removal of the current cap on child-care places leads to the closure of yet more child-care centres. It will be to the detriment of these children. They will be forced to leave the things that are familiar to them and that offer them security. They will be forced to change centres and leave child carers they have grown to love. Is this really what the government wants for Australia's children? I can assure you that it is certainly not what the Democrats want.16:51:0010731McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—In supporting the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 in the Senate today I want to congratulate Senator Evans for responding to the calls from the child-care sector, who know that the future of quality affordable child care, especially in long day care, in Australia depends on sound planning. When the coalition came into government in 1996 they inherited a child-care system which was recognised as one of the best in the world. The principles underlying the provision of child care by Labor were based on the community's desire for the provision of quality and affordable care for Australian children. The principles included an understanding of the need for families to be able to make choices about the type of care that best suited their child. It was a policy focused on the needs of families and children, not on competition and market forces.Labor in government had implemented a degree of planning controls, and were considering further controls when we lost government in 1996. Labor has supported the government's planning measures, implemented in 1997, recognising that good planning controls removed speculative behaviour from the sector which was undermining the viability of some services. These planning controls were supported by the sector for the same reasons, and they were supported by families using existing services who knew that, if their service was functioning well financially, the care provided to their child would be of a better quality than if the service had financial difficulties. Can I also say that the planning measures are also supported by industry associations, and I have a copy of press statements from the National Association of Community Based Children's Services and from the Australian Early Childhood Association supporting Senator Evans's bill.So when we had the child-care centres, the child-care workers and the families using child care happy with the planning regime of the government, it is easy to understand their disbelief when, in July 1999, Minister Newman announced that the controls were to be removed. It is important to note that the minister announced the removal of the planning controls with a press release entitled `Government strengthens national planning system for child care'. No wonder the sector reacted with confusion. How could the government be improving planning for the sector by removing the control over growth? This announcement, I might say, was misleading and mischievous, confused child- care providers and provided no direction to the sector and to other levels of government involved in child-care planning.The planning controls implemented though the national planning system required that any prospective long day care centre would establish the need for that service in the area that it was processed for. A national assessment of need allowed for 7,000 places to be allocated in 1998 and 1999 in areas where need was established. This provided a level of certainty to existing services allowing those services, whether community based or privately owned and operated, to continue to invest in their operation and to maintain and improve on the quality of the care provided.As we have heard today, the sector has suffered over the past four years through the removal of about $850 million from child-care expenditure. The changes to supported care arrangements—limiting the supported care to non-working parents to 20 hours per week and capping the supported care to 50 hours per week—impacted significantly on long day care services. These changes should have been implemented over a period of time, if at all, allowing child-care providers to accommodate the changes in the operation of their services. The increases in fees that services have had to pass on to families have resulted in the removal of children from services and, ultimately, the closure of almost 300 long day care centres nationally—30 long day care centres have closed in Queensland in the last financial year.Centres across our state have had to restructure their operations. Some centres have closed rooms and others have had to amalgamate age groups in order to cut their wages bill, disrupting the continuity of care for children. The sector is suffering enormous ongoing instability and a lack of direction and, if the government is successful in removing planning controls, will suffer even further.But the one policy that this government implemented which received unanimous support from the long day care sector was the national planning system, and apparently this too is to go. In response to the requests from the child-care sector, state governments and the Labor Party for the retention of the na tional planning system, Minister Newman has responded by saying that her department will continue to provide a planning system but with different strategies. Unfortunately, though, she has not provided the community clear advice on how the government will deliver a planning mechanism that will in fact manage growth in the sector.In a letter responding to my representations from child-care operators in Queensland, her office said that the government hopes to achieve this—and the important word there is `hopes'—through a range of strategies targeted at industry, local government and local communities. These strategies have, quite rightly, been rejected by the sector as ineffective and in fact naive. Minister Newman's plans for the management of the sector rely on a notion that child-care operators will have too much business sense to open a service in oversupplied areas. In the letter from her office, I was advised that the department will target oversupplied areas to ensure prospective operators are aware of the risks inherent in further development. I am sorry, this is just naive. It shows no understanding of the reality facing the child-care sector. It shows no understanding of how residential property developers use child care.Residential property developers, especially in Queensland, have continually tried to construct child-care centres in new residential estates simply as a marketing tool to attract prospective new home owners to invest in their developments. These residential property developers have no ongoing commitment to the viability of the service that they have established or, more importantly, to the potential impact that their new service may have on services located in the vicinity.The minister is poorly advised if she really thinks that the provision of information to prospective child-care operators will deflect them away from establishing a service, especially in a new residential estate. Of course they will establish that new service and take the risk of success or failure, and at the same time risk the pre-existing centre's viability and, consequently, its service levels. In a media release from the AECA, Ms Whitaker, who is the President of that association, said:Property developers are becoming new players in the industry and centres are disappearing from high needs communities. There is a strong public interest in managing the supply of child care places.I am also interested that the minister seems to think that local government will be the saviour of child-care planning. Local government is increasingly playing a role in managing the child-care sector in Queensland, but there are dangers in relying on local government to singularly manage growth.In Queensland, only a few local authorities have adopted planning instruments that can be used to approve or refuse an application for a child-care centre on the basis of whether the need for the service has been established. These planning instruments are expensive to develop and they take a lot of time. Time is not what the sector has plenty of. In fact, the Cairns City Council undertook to develop a local planning policy in 1994, and it took over four years to have it adopted as a policy.If the long day care sector has to wait three or four years for planning instruments to be developed, we may as well forget about managing the growth in child care in the long day care sector in Queensland. I congratulate local authorities in my state which have undertaken local planning policies for the establishment of child-care centres, and I also congratulate the state government through Minister Anna Bligh for her work in developing state planning processes. The bill introduced today by Senator Evans will support the work of the state government in managing the growth of child care responsibly.Having a planning instrument that does require the applicant to prove that need for the service exists does not necessarily provide certainty for the long day care sector. The sector will have to rely on the commitment of that local authority to defend its planning processes in the courts. As I am sure you are aware, local councils are continually having to make decisions about whether to defend their decisions through, in Queensland, the Planning and Environment Court in the knowledge that they carry the cost of the action.Without a properly constituted planning document, local councils have no ability to refuse an application on the basis of lack of need, otherwise there is a certainty that they will end up in the Planning and Environment Court with absolutely no chance of success. The federal government is shifting the responsibility of managing planning for long day care to local government without ensuring that the local authorities have the skills to undertake the specialist planning required for this unique area of service and without the resources to develop the planning instruments or the resources to defend the decisions.In her letter to me, the minister also said that her department will target local communities in her strategies for planning for the sector. I am very interested in this notion of local communities. I would be very interested in the minister's comments about how this strategy and its effectiveness may be measured. However, my greatest concern in the letter from the minister's office is her assertion that the removal of supply controls will lead to greater levels of market competition with—according to the letter—a better quality of child care and more choice for families. I have to tell the minister that not one leading advocate of child care or child-care expert in early education or the child-care sector agrees that competition in child care will improve quality. Child care is not a commodity which responds to competition. The children of Australia and their families do not deserve a system of child care the quality of which will move with market forces. I refer to Senator Woodley's comments about fish and chips. One bad meal of fish and chips might give you a stomach ache, but one year of poor child care will have effects on children that cannot be measured.Over the last five months, I have received representations from child-care providers across Queensland, particularly in North Queensland. They have been begging for the retention of the cap on growth. Their requests cannot be described as feathering their own nests. They are truly concerned about the loss of quality of child care across the sector and the effect of the loss of quality on children's safety and development. I quote from one these letters:The removal of all planning controls in January 2000 on new places will mean more closures, more disruption and a breaking down of our high quality, affordable and stable industry.Another says:A planning system must be implemented to ensure the responsible growth of the child care industry. With child care assistance only being granted to areas of need not greed.These services are privately operated. The owners are small business people with a commitment to the children in their care. These concepts are not in conflict. They are good small business operators who know their business depends on the quality of the service they can provide. Without sound planning for their sector, the impetus for ongoing investment in their business will diminish. Senator Evans's private senator's bill provides long day care centre operators like these in North Queensland the certainty they have been unable to get from the minister. They, along with all child-care providers across our nation, will welcome Senator Evans's understanding of the needs of the sector and his commitment to the children who will be supported by this bill.17:05:0010734Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVicLP10—I rise to speak on the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 , Senator Evans's private senator's bill, which extends the period allowed to put a planning system in place for a further two years. As I look at this particular topic and as I listen to the contributions made by other senators, I am rather puzzled. Perhaps I am naive, but it seems to me that child care is one of those things, like apple pies—and, of course, it is directly related to motherhood—that no-one would actually disagree with. This seems to have been borne out in the debate so far.All we have heard, both from the opposition and from our side, is a commitment to providing child care. More interestingly, we heard from Democrat Senator Woodley, who said in summary that, when the Labor Party were in government, they did not much care about child care and that this government have done much better since we came into office. It was suggested that, now Labor are out of office, they have suddenly become very expert about and very conscious of a need for child care and that the ideas they have come up with this time are excellent and should be supported. That is a bit confusing.Let me first look at what the Labor Party actually said. In presenting the bill, Senator Evans said that when the coalition came into government in March 1996, we inherited a child-care system that was acknowledged to be one of the best in the world. I am not sure whether we live in the same world; maybe Senator Evans lives in a different world. Certainly according to Senator Woodley, the Labor Party did not care much for planning for child-care centres.From our experience, when we came into government, the child-care scene was a mess—and both the industry and the public thought so as well. In presenting his bill, Senator Evans said—Senator McLucas interjecting—86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—And Senator McLucas just echoed his point—that there has always been some degree of planning in child care. In government, Labor had planning in place for its community day care centres. Plans were always in place. I was not around at the time the Labor government was planning for child care—at least not in this chamber—and my children were grown-up, so I never had to participate in child-care programs.However, Senator Woodley also claims expertise on behalf of the Democrats. He stated that, from his experience, the Labor government did not care about child-care planning. He said that the Democrats spent great effort in trying to persuade the Labor government to actually do something about child care, but they did not.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—It is about planning.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Senator McLucas said that it is about planning. That is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The Labor Party is very proud of its record of providing child care without planning. That is my interpretation of what Senator McLucas said, and that is the crux of this argument.Senator Woodley said some rather strange things. I have already pointed out that his speech can be summarised as saying that the Labor Party did not do much good and that this government did do some good—but that we should turn around and listen to the Labor Party, rather than letting the government continue providing good child-care services to the community! Senator Woodley raised a few points which I would like to clarify before I come back to what the government has done and what we are trying to do—I want to put that on the record so that we know exactly what Senator Evans's bill is attempting to do.Senator Woodley said that his concern is not so much that this government has not done a good job but that there is a sunset clause in the planning provision in the legislation and that in due course, when the sunset clause is enacted, there will no longer be a planning provision and the child-care industry will then go back to the condition it was in under the Labor government. It is a fair concern. We have visited that period once already and we do not want to revisit it. However, the situation is not, perhaps, as grim as Senator Woodley has suggested because in the legislation—and in the government's intention—there is provision for a further planning system to be put in place should it be needed. However, if there is no need for such planning, if there is no need for government intervention, it is this government's belief—and it is this nation's experience—that we should leave the provision of services to the intelligence and choice of the community.Senator Woodley was concerned about whether provision of child care could be left to the free market. He again quoted examples of closures of child-care centres since this government's policy came into place. We have heard a great deal about child-care centres being closed and services running down. However, in reality—and these are hard figures—since July 1996, when this government took office, about 570 child-care centres have opened around the nation and 340 centres have closed. That is a net increase of 230 centres, providing some 15,000 additional places. These closures principally resulted from previously unplanned growth, with many areas having too many services, and from poor financial management in some centres so that they could not compete in the market. So we are not looking at a case of centres closing; we are looking at a case of centres opening.I was talking about Senator Woodley, but that brought to mind the particular example that Senator McLucas gave us about how centres could open without regard to market requirements. She said that Queensland is full of examples of property developers providing places for child-care centres, to which they then attract operators. Concerning that, she said there was no consideration about whether those centres would actually operate properly and whether, should they come into operation, they would risk endangering pre-existing centres. I think I quoted Senator McLucas correctly, since she is nodding. She raised two problems there, but they are contradictory. If you leave it to the free market, a reasonably intelligent market, it does not matter what a developer is prepared to provide because no-one will take it up if they are properly informed.This is what the government's planning program is about. We are encouraging the development of an industry that is intelligent and well informed. There is no better information for a private sector operator than to know that there is a high degree of risk to go into an area. They must do their homework. There is, of course, a hidden agenda in the Labor Party's case. Under the Labor Party system, everything will be paid for by the government. So if you put in a centre and it does not work, the government will come in and pay for it. But in a free market operation, no matter how attractive a site a developer provides for a child-care centre, no operator will use it.Senator Crossin interjecting—86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—It is common sense, Senator Crossin. If the developer is providing a site in a new development, it is presumably a new development. How can there be a pre-existing child-care centre? I think we should probably let Senator McLucas's example collapse under its own weight. Senator Woodley came up with an example that Senator McLucas took up, which is that child-care centres cannot be compared with other commercial undertakings. Why not? They are businesses.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—We are looking after children.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Yes. Senator McLucas has made the point that we are looking after children: if you go to a fish and chip shop and you get a bad piece of fish or bad chips, you go to hospital and you will be okay the next day, but if you send a child to a poorly run child-care centre, then the child may sustain long-term psychological and physical damage. Yes, true.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—Children have died in unregulated care.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Yes, but this government, unlike the former Labor government, has introduced quality control. Instead of letting child-care centres grow, we have introduced quality control and a necessary standard within the industry.Opposition senators interjecting—86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—We will operate them better.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)—Will you address your remarks through the chair and ignore the interjections.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Yes. Nevertheless, the reality is that child-care centres are operated like businesses, and they should take risks, and each of them should take business planning as business. There is no reason to say, from the business angle, that they are not like other businesses. Perhaps that is the point which is hard for Senator McLucas to understand.We have had some very vague complaints that this government has reduced child-care provisions. One of the examples which seems to have been raised a number of times is that this government capped child care at 50 hours a week. Fifty hours a week is 10 hours a day per working day. Seeing that standard working hours are just under eight hours, how many hours do we need for a working mother to leave a child in care? Child care is to assist families to carry out their business, to go to work and so on. It is not a place to dump their kids for nothing, so there is someone to look after them.TH4KNOWLESSenator Knowles—The Labor Party proposed 20 hours when they were in government, and we knocked it off.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—I thank Senator Knowles for giving me this bit of history. That was something else which I thought I might ask about later, but perhaps I should get on to it now since I have got only five minutes left. The reality is that the national Child Care Planning System was introduced by this government in 1997. I was not in this chamber at the time, and I must confess I did not pay a great deal of attention to it. But I have been informed by a reliable source that the Labor opposition fought tooth and nail against the introduction of this system. Do I get a contradiction? No. Now what we are seeing is that the Labor opposition is very quickly making a flip-flop to try to strengthen this system, which was introduced with the intention of it being a temporary measure to bring the child-care industry into line and to regulate it until it could get a proper start. And now we see the Labor Party supporting a bill which they opposed in the first place.Under this government, we have implemented a number of measures. The goal of these measures was to target all growth in new child-care places to areas of greatest needs for parents who are working, looking for work, studying or training. I will say that again: for parents who are working, looking for work, studying or training. None of this is going to be a permanent thing. Places, people and families change, and child-care needs also change. Therefore, we need a planning system in place to start with.84LMCLUCASSenator McLucas—That is why you need a planning system.86YTchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN—Yes, quite right, and we have one. In due course, it can be left to an informed industry to provide those facilities, rather than for a government to regulate it. The process we have introduced initially includes the planning advisory committees but, as I have said, the planning committees are only needed because the industry is not yet up to speed. Once it is up to speed, there is no need for them. The industry should be able to regulate itself, like many other industries do very successfully.Let me turn to another point: what happens if things do not go right, if the planning system is still needed? Let me assure senators on the other side, if they are so concerned about the need for a planning system, that the government has seriously considered the effect of the expiration of this limit on 31 December 1999. It is our firm belief that the industry would have stabilised sufficiently and supply limits will no longer be necessary. There is an option provided for the limit to be imposed if it becomes necessary. The capacity to introduce the supply limit is contained in the family assistance legislation which, once passed, would take effect from 1 July 2000. Under the provision contained in that legislation, the minister would be able to limit growth of new child-care places both in actual numbers and locations if considered necessary. So the concern senators on the other side and Democrat senators may have is actually not a real concern, and this bill is unnecessary.Talking about whether this bill is necessary brings me to a curious feature of this particular bill: it is a private member's bill; it is not a bill presented by the Labor Party as a formal party proposal. It does not represent Labor Party policies. It is just as well it does not represent Labor Party policy because, if it did, it would be the first and only policy the Labor Party have presented to this parliament. Ever since the last election the Labor Party have not come up with a single policy in any policy area. This bill does not reflect Labor policy either because it is a private member's bill, so it does not bind the Labor Party to continue to support the child-care planning system or to commit to anything in the child-care area. That is very understandable too because we have seen the Labor Party bending backward not to release any policy. Recently we heard that the Labor Party were going to release an employment policy, but what happened? (Time expired)17:25:0010737Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—The purpose of the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 is to ensure that this government extends its current system of needs based planning regulations which was due to finish on 31 December this year and ensures that this area of need and planning in the child-care sector continues well into the next century.The bill seeks to amend the Child Care Act 1972 to require the Minister for Family and Community Services to make a determination to continue needs based planning of child care throughout the calendar years of 2000 and 2001. It ensures that in making these determinations and guidelines a system will continue which ensures that the high need allocation for the child-care sector in the next two calendar years is still part of the planning requirements for this sector.The parts of the Child Care Act whose retention is necessary for the continuation of the current planning system are due to be repealed when the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Act comes into operation from 1 July next year. The bill also amends the Family Assistance Act by delaying until 1 January 2002 the commencement of those items, repealing the relevant sections of the Child Care Act. So let me give a bit of background about how the child-care assistance works.Except in very wealthy areas, long day care centres—that is, centres that are based on care of babies and preschool children—are usually not economically viable unless the children are enrolled or ineligible for child-care assistance. Perhaps Senator Tchen, with his comments about the business sector and where it develops child-care centres, may be interested to hear about this. Centres are funded to a certain number of child-care assistance places, and a place is an entitlement for the fees of a child enrolled in a long day care centre to be reduced by the payment of child-care assistance to that centre. So the parents then pay a gap fee—that is, the centre's fee minus the child-care assistance. Of course there are those who do not qualify for child-care assistance and they of course are liable for the full fee that that centre charges.Child-care assistance was introduced by the Hawke government in 1984 for community based child care and extended to privately owned child-care centres in 1991. While the child-care assistance funding for the community sector was subject to needs based planning controls, this was not the case with the private sector, which was only required to conform to local and state government regulations—staff-child ratios, for example. The extension of child-care assistance to the private sector without planning controls occurred at a time of high unmet need for child care. The policy allowed a rapid expansion in undersupplied areas such as the outer suburbs of capital cities but at the cost of oversupply in some areas such as the Gold Coast. When Labor lost office in 1996 we were considering proposals then to extend planning controls to the private child-care sector.As nearly all centres need child-care assistance funding to be viable, the ability to control where child-care assistance may be accessed allows the Commonwealth to influence the supply of child-care services. In 1998 this government made a determination under the Child Care Act that no more than 7,000 new child-care places would be funded between April 1998 and December 1999 and that these could be taken up only by centres located in high need areas—that is, areas of high demand for work related care. That period of supply limitation or the cap on new places, as it is called in the industry, finishes on 31 December this year.In July this year Senator Newman announced that the government did not intend to make a new determination to continue the system beyond the end of the 1999 calendar year. She stated that the government would monitor the situation in the first half of the year 2000 and that it might introduce new planning controls then, if it seemed necessary to do so. In her press release of 7 July she stated:. . . the Government intended to monitor the sector closely after the legislated supply limit finished on 31 December 1999.She never mentioned or indicated exactly how that was intended to be done. Her press release goes on to say:In many areas, demand for long day care places has now been met. We expect to see only steady growth in the next few years.The government believes that the sector is more skilled in business planning and will make use of the information provided by the department and the advisory committee. The release also goes on to say:It has ensured that the new Child Care Benefit Legislation to take effect 1 July 2000 will allow the Government to re-introduce supply limits at any time.But you have to ask yourself: what is the purpose of planning? Surely, by the words or the intent of Senator Newman's press release, you would be quite unsure about how child-care assistance will be targeted and how it will be measured by this government.The purpose of planning is to ensure that future child-care places are targeted in areas of need rather than in areas of oversupply. When this government introduced a cap on child-care places, the planning was not designed to slow growth at all; it was designed to better target where money was being paid to parents using child-care services through child-care assistance.How is this government now going to guarantee the measures to be undertaken to ensure appropriate numbers of child-care places are put in appropriate locations around this country? We may fall back into an oversupply situation that previously occurred—in fact, before some of this planning regulation was put in place—which results in huge numbers of child-care places and even centres in some areas and then the closure of centres in areas of genuine need. There is a need to stabilise the sector.The minister claims that the sector has now settled down and that there is no further need for planning. I put it to the Senate that that belies the fact that, if the government does not have some sort of regime in place to look at where there is a need for child-care places rather than just basing decisions on demand or oversupply, you would never know why or when there was no further need for planning. How do you target the places where assistance is needed and where child-care centres need to be built?Let me now spend some time talking about some of the comments we have heard today in the debate. I turn first to Senator Knowles's contribution this afternoon. The first thing she mentioned was the cap on child-care assistance being raised from 20 hours to 50 hours. There is no evidence that it was raised from 20 to 50. It was this government that limited child-care assistance to 50 hours of care per week per child on 1 April 1997. Those working families who were able to show they had a genuine need for care in excess of 50 hours per week were exempted from the limit. But it was put in place—let us not forget—because this government was looking at saving $30 million in 1997-98 from this expected measure.Senator Knowles also said there were no hard facts or no hard evidence for some of the statistics that Senator Crowley raised in her speech this afternoon. But, in fact, the statistics and the hard evidence were contained in the Australia's Welfare 1999 report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare which was launched today by the minister herself. There is a paragraph in that report which proves categorically that funding to child care has been cut or reduced by some 10 per cent for the period 1996-97 to 1997-98. It is ironic that Senator Knowles could stand here less than two hours ago and refute evidence that Senator Crowley gave in her speech today when that evidence was in the report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that was launched today by that very minister herself.I would also like to draw the Senate's attention to the report by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee tabled in December 1998, entitled Child Care Funding. It is interesting to note that one of its first two recommendations goes to planning. Recommendation No. 2 from chapter 3, `Use of child care in Australia', reads:The Committee recommends that the Department of Family and Community Services expedite the processing of results from future surveys and census collections so that up-to-date information is available for policy development and planning purposes.So this report reiterates the need for policy development and planning services and calls on the Department of Family and Community Services to expedite the processing of results from their surveys.It is also interesting to note that there is a minority report from Senator Sue Knowles—interestingly enough—and Senator Marise Payne in the back of this major report, and, in relation to recommendation No. 2 of chapter 3 concerning policy development and planning purposes, there is no dissent. This minority report states:The Government Senators—of the committee, which were Senator Sue Knowles and Senator Marise Payne—are, as stated earlier, in agreement with some recommendations, but wish to elaborate on others and challenge the validity of a few.The ones they want to elaborate on and the ones they want to challenge are not out of chapter 3 and are not those relating to policy development and planning purposes. So one would assume that, because they have made no mention of that, they endorse that recommendation. Yet here we have Senator Knowles today standing up and telling this chamber that she approves of the fact there will be no future planning requirements or determinations by this minister after 1 January next year.In a question during question time on 30 September this year, a colleague of my mine, Senator Forshaw, asked the minister about her intentions in relation to the planning of child care. His question was:. . . does the minister stand by her often-stated view that planning of new places can avoid oversupply in particular areas and that such local oversupply is one of the main causes of child-care centres closing down?In her response, the minister said:. . . we have had far too many centres opening in some areas and not enough in others.So why, then, was there an announcement some weeks ago that there is no need to continue with planning regulations and determinations in the child-care sector when the minister herself, in response to an answer to a question without notice in the chamber less than a couple of months ago, admitted that there are too many centres opening in some areas and not enough in others?One would have thought that the planning needed, particularly in relation to where child-care assistance should be targeted, would assist in that process. She went on to say:That is a pretty important issue, because we must make sure that there are sufficient child-care places to ensure that the fees to parents do not go through the roof because of the pressure on a restricted number of places.The child-care industry has been characterised in the last three years by 300 centre closures and enormous ongoing instability. This is one such further case. The government has made much of the fact that it introduced planning controls. It has claimed loud and clear—unsubstantiated, of course—that we allowed unchecked growth. The minister is on the record as saying that our policy was destructive and contributed to closures.For reasons which will remain unclear, the government has decided to discontinue its planning system. It still has not provided not only this chamber but also the child-care sector, which is most concerned about this, with any reasons for doing so. The government argues that this is essentially the only worthwhile initiative in child care to date. The planning system is strongly supported by both the private and community-based sectors of the industry, which are totally mystified by the minister's decision to abolish the planning controls. The minister justifies the decision not to continue with planning controls on the grounds that the government believes they are no longer necessary as the growth in child care is slowing. There is a view that child-care operators have too much business sense, as opposed to what Senator Tchen was saying before, to open new centres in oversupplied areas. The government will use information campaigns to discourage inappropriate growth.We believe that all these three claims are irrelevant to this debate about planning. Planning is necessary. There is no evidence that the growth in child care is slowing. Without planning, how do we know where to best target that growth and the child-care assistance?The child-care lobby groups have been critical of this decision. They have warned that planning controls remain necessary as oversupply is still a problem in some areas, such as the expanding outer suburbs of Brisbane, some areas of Adelaide and the northern suburbs of Perth. They maintain that property developers are already moving to establish new areas in such centres and that developers are unlikely to be deterred by information campaigns, as they make money before the centre opens for business. They also argue that, even if regulations are reimposed after July next year, it will be too late, as centres will have already been established in oversupplied areas and the decision is likely to lead to a new round of closures of child-care centres.In closing, let me add a number of points. My colleague Senator McLucas has already put on the record the views of the National Association of Community Based Children's Services. They have applauded Senator Evans's move to introduce this bill into the Senate today. They say that the child-care industry is in crisis. It is unfortunate that this government is not listening to national bodies such as this one. They say that it is in crisis because families in low and middle income areas can no longer afford formal care. The restricted growth of child-care centre places is essential to protect infrastructure and to ensure that new places go to those areas most in need.The National Association of Community Based Children's Services convenor has said that a pure market economy does not work in essential service areas such as child care. The child-care sector has suffered at the hands of the coalition in the last three years. We have had over 280 centres close as a result of the government's cutbacks. Its latest plan to walk away from needs based planning is the most serious decision in a series of acts that this government has taken. It has destabilised and threatened the viability of this sector.The sector is generally depressed. Despite this, local oversupply is still occurring in some regions. This unchecked growth can only worsen if the minister walks away from any commitment to needs based planning. Senator Newman's staggering doublespeak in relation to this mirrors her statements about strengthening child care on the one hand but cutting funding by $850 million on the other. There is now an attempt to walk away from the planning issue.The problem is that this government really has no commitment to the child-care industry in this country. Senator Tchen, prior to my speaking, talked about it being a business. In some respects, it is a business, because you cannot afford to run a child-care centre at a loss. But it has never been seen by this government as an essential service. There has never been any thought given to the fact that there needs to be a range of child-care centres and places available to accommodate the different needs of families in society at this time and the needs of women. Women may or may not juggle work, but they still need child care at some point in their lives.There is no debate being led by this government in relation to child care in this country. There are no new initiatives coming forward that benefit the sector. There are only initiatives such as this. The government is walking away from needs based planning, further depressing a sector that has already been severely affected by the policies and actions of this government since it came into power in 1996.17:45:0010741Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—I am pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of the government in the debate on the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Regions) Bill 1999 . Before I address the substance of the bill, I should note that what it purports to be is the Child Care Legislation Amendment (High Need Region) Bill 1999. It has been introduced by Senator Evans as a private member's bill. In his second reading speech, tabled at the introduction of the bill, Senator Evans said: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.There is a little giveaway in Senator Evans' speech. He said:I acknowledge that the Bill may not be technically perfect and is not the best way of achieving our objective.That begs the very question: what is Labor's objective in having Senator Evans introduce this bill? I think that is really the key to this debate. I suggest that Labor's motivation is certainly not to ensure a continuation of needs based planning, because child-care planning is proceeding on a very sound basis, whether or not there is an instrument to provide for it. This is entirely political grandstanding and a diversion from what are some quite serious issues that should be debated in the child-care area. It is an interesting acknowledgment on behalf of Senator Evans that, at least from his point of view, he does not think that this is the best way of achieving Labor's objective. In any event, it is the subject of this afternoon's general business, and debate it we must.Senator Evans made a couple of breathtaking claims in his second reading speech. First, he said that child care in Australia is in desperate need of stability and that child care in Australia suffers grievously. Then he said that the government inherited a child-care system that was acknowledged to be one of the best in the world. It seems that most of the speakers this afternoon on Labor's side appear to be under this misapprehension. In fact, Senator Crossin repeated it not a few minutes ago. Senator Crossin certainly was not a member of the former Labor government and I was not in opposition at the time the Labor government was in office, but we can do our research. This claim is simply to deny the facts. It denies the evidence. It flies in the face of anything that could be claimed factual.The coalition government inherited a child-care system which was both unchecked and unsustainable. To refer to Labor's child-care policy as a system is putting it a bit high, I think; it flatters reality. Some areas had an oversupply while others had no places at all. There was no formal planning system. Labor's operational subsidy was focused on community based centres—and there is a place for community based centres—but they supplied only 27 per cent of centre based child-care places. It resulted, on the figures, in some 77,000 families, many on low and middle incomes, failing to benefit from any assistance at all. It was a dreadful mess because there was no planning for remote regions and no planning for children with disabilities. Certainly there was a concentration in trendy areas where Labor got a lot of brownie points for providing a glut of centres. That is not the way to approach proper planning for child care.What we inherited in 1996 was hardly a system that was the best in the world. We inherited a system in absolute chaos. We inherited a system of child care that had no direction and was unconcerned with delivering quality child care or child-care facilities where the needs actually were. We inherited a system with no planning and no thought given to where the greatest need was.The government's national care planning system announced in 1997 has improved both the distribution and location of new child-care places nationally. The coalition has good reason to be proud of its record. The coalition has allocated a record $5.3 billion over four years, with $600 million in additional funding. This kind of magnitude of dollars was something that the Labor Party did not breast up to when they had the opportunity. Since 1996, 570 child-care centres have opened—a net increase of 230 new centres. It is a bit difficult to follow what Senator Crossin was talking about when she said that the closures were having a real impact. From June 1996 to June 1998 the government has funded 93,000 extra places for families to access child care. Senator Evans said in his second reading speech that there have been closures and this was repeated by Senator Crossin. There is no evidence that those closures have occurred in needs based areas. That is really the crux of the argument. According to the ABS index, the majority of closures have not been in poorer areas. Any closures have been evenly spread and in response to the specific needs of local communities, which is the way it has to be.The government has committed $7 million to assist community centres restructure. As I said before, there is a place for community centres and the government recognises that despite all the wailing about it from those on the opposite side. Some $6.8 million a year is now available for disadvantaged area subsidies for community centres in rural and remote communities. That was where the needs were, and have subsequently been identified to be, and they were totally unmet under Labor.The government is also working towards developing appropriate quality assurance systems for family day care and outside school hours care, which is another area of great, previously uncatered for, need. Labor failed the child-care sector dismally while in government and is now playing politics, not really seeking solutions at all. That is why the fact that this bill is before the chamber this afternoon is a disappointment. First of all, Labor supported the child-care legislation and then ran a scare campaign in relation to the changes. Labor backflipped and now supports operational subsidies for community based long day care centres. The government's national child-care planning system has improved the distribution and location of new child-care centres nationally.A private member's bill—Senator Evans's bill—to maintain planning controls for centre based child care is simply not necessary. In the time remaining to me I want to outline why. A brief review of the national planning system, including the new family assistance legislation, explains why it is not necessary and why this is yet another opportunistic political stunt by the opposition—one that shows how little they really care about the child-care sector and the Australian families who use it, in particular those Australian families whose needs were not catered for under the previous Labor government.The national child-care planning system was announced in 1997 to improve both the distribution and location of new child-care places nationally. The aim of this measure was to assist in controlling growth in future child-care development, to contain the previous unsustainable growth in child-care assistance outlays that I mentioned and to bring stability to the sector. For years, Labor had not had the will to do anything about the out-of-control growth in this sector, a situation for which the sector has paid ever since. New child-care centres grew up next to each other because of poor market research, pumped up by some in the financial industry who saw some financial advantage to themselves. Incredibly, this was in an environment where the number of children aged nought to four years had stabilised—so you could plan for them—and was dropping. Labor remained irresponsible and inactive. I suppose opening centres gave good media opportunities; as I said, they are a soft target. But Labor certainly did not show that there was any thought and planning attached to it.Under the coalition government a number of measures were implemented at this time. The immediate goal was targeting all growth in new child-care places to areas of greatest need for care by parents who were working, looking for work, studying or training. Interestingly enough, claims that mothers are dropping out of work due to rising child-care costs are not substantiated. Over the past three years, labour force participation rates for women with children under 15 have been stable at around 58 or 59 per cent. Since June 1996 participation rates of mothers with children aged under five have shown an increase from 47.4 per cent to 48.2 per cent in June 1988. There is no evidence at all for media claims or claims by Labor that mothers are reducing their hours of work. Average weekly hours worked by mothers have been steady since 1996. They are interesting statistics and belie the fact that child care is any impediment to mothers working.The process that we embarked on included the strengthening of planning advisory committees which have representation from child-care services in each state and territory. These planning advisory committees advise government on child-care needs at the local level. In addition, the 50-hour limit on work related care and the 20-hour limit on non-work related care further targeted new growth to where it really is needed by families. The introduction, as proposed, of legislated supply controls was therefore, at the time, just one part of the national planning system. It is important to state again that the supply limit was instigated as a short-term measure only, following extraordinarily high levels of growth over previous years. It was never intended to be set in concrete. It was never intended to bring about long-term regulation, although the government recognise that it may be a useful device again at some time in the future. But you have to remain flexible in your approach to these matters.The key components of the planning advisory committees are something that I think would be of interest to the Senate in this debate. They manage a variety of strategies to ensure that all new child-care places are targeted to the areas of greatest need. In each state and territory they play an important role in the identification of new child-care places. Led by the Commonwealth, they comprise state, territory and local governments, the child-care industry and small business. The committees analyse relevant child-care supply and demand data, including demographic and employment needs and trends, state and local government planning information and any other relevant local research. The committees identify areas in greatest need for work related child care. This information informs decision on child-care places.Thus it can be concluded that the national planning system is underpinned by detailed child-care needs assessments that are undertaken locally in full and frank consultation with key players in the industry. People interested in developing child-care services now have access to much greater and more effective information to assist them in assessing demand for child care in their region than ever before. The department's hugely popular `Planning to Succeed in Child Care' kit, now into its fourth publication and with a website to go to, has dramatically increased information available to services. The also hugely successful Child Care Access Hotline helps parents, families and services find out easily about services available in their areas and helps put child-care services and families who need them together much more effectively; it means it is not such a lottery trying to see if there are any facilities and what might be available.As a result of these initiatives, growth in the child- care sector has stabilised significantly over the last two years. It is clear now that the child-care sector is better informed and more sophisticated about demand and need. This is good news for all involved in the child-care industry, most importantly for families and for children but also for community organisations, for staff and for those who invest.There is, of course, a review of the supply limit; and I would like to tell the Senate a bit about that. Under the supply limit, the number of new centre based places eligible for child-care assistance has been restricted to 7,000 places per year from 27 April 1998 and in 1999. During this period, new centre based places can only be approved in high need areas identified by the committees in each state and territory. The supply limit has not been met in either of the two years, with only around 5,000 new places being approved to date. So it is interesting that not even the limit is being reached. This also includes transitional operators with developments planned before the supply limit began.Analysis by the Department of Family and Community Services estimates that demand for long day-care is 111 per cent met nationally, and all indications are that the supply limit has served its initial purpose. The government believes that the child-care sector will be better served by a national planning system that focuses on the development and dissemination of useful and accurate information—information that is actually informed by a bit of research and a plan. We believe that investors and local planners will be better served by this approach rather than through continued regulation and a bureaucracy which creates inflexibility both for families and services.There are planning safeguards in new legislation. The government has in fact seriously considered the effect of the expiration of the supply limit on 31 December this year. While it is clear, and it has been made clear this afternoon, that the government's view and the evidence is that growth has stabilised significantly and that a supply limit is no longer necessary, we have certainly retained the option to use a supply limit instrument in the future if deemed necessary. The capacity to introduce a supply limit is contained in the family assistance legislation which, once passed, will take effect from 1 July 2000. Under provisions contained in the legislation, the minister will be able to limit growth of new child-care places, both in actual numbers and locations, if considered necessary.There are national planning system strategies for the year 2000, and the Commonwealth has a commitment to continue to work proactively with all levels of government and industry in developing sustainable and effective mechanisms for addressing child-care needs. On 7 July this year, Senator Newman announced changes to the national planning system, including reaffirming that the supply limit for centre based long day-care would expire on 31 December. Under these announced changes, a range of strategies was designed to promote growth of new child-care places in areas of greatest need, particularly rural and remote areas. These strategies include continued annual Planning Advisory Committee meetings to identify those areas of high need and oversupply, regular advertisements outlining areas where there is a high need for new child-care places, close monitoring strategies in collaboration with the industry in areas of oversupply, a range of information strategies to assist local government and key industry sectors in these areas and, of course, the continuation of the very successful `How to Succeed' child-care strategy.The government is in fact doing many things to manage areas of oversupply. Unfortunately, I am not able to detail them at all, because my time is about to expire. Suffice it to say that the government's positive reforms have been highlighted in the Community Affairs References Committee's report on its inquiry into child-care finding, which it tabled last December. The government is working towards developing appropriate quality assurance systems for family day-care and outside school hours care. The government makes a significant financial contribution to the child-care costs of low and middle income families through child-care assistance and the child-care rebate.In conclusion, the bill to maintain planning controls for centre based child care is not necessary. The Commonwealth's role in assisting families that work with child-care assistance is being managed well. The government will continue to build on its initial work and move on to enhance our first-class quality child-care sector. (Time expired)18:04:0010745Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Like so many of the then Labor government's programs, one that they failed miserably in was child care. I, like many of my colleagues, particularly colleagues of my vintage, do not have a great professional knowledge of child care per se; but I do have a knowledge of some of the programs that were introduced by the then Labor government that, in retrospect—and, at the time, predictably—failed. Of course, child care was one of those.I think that everyone, even those on the other side, would agree that the greatest asset this nation has—with nothing coming even in second place—is our children. I have no doubt that, in all sincerity, those on the other side that had an interest in children—and most of them would—would have believed that what they did was the correct thing for the children, for this great national asset that we have. In fact, of course, it was wrong; and it was incumbent upon the portfolio holders of the time to try to cover that up. I must say that some of those ministers of the time had a very difficult task.That was brought about not because they did not have a genuine interest in trying to do something with the very important area of child care running to all ages, but because the budget—which was running amok and out of control and was left in 1996 with a $10 billion black hole—was supposed to be in balance or in surplus, in fact, but was just the opposite. It was known right down from the top of the Labor hierarchy to the bottom, most junior person on the back bench that the policies that had brought that about had not worked, that the very system of tax collection had not worked. And one of the areas that had to pay for that was the child-care area. When this was compounded with the inept handling of that, by not studying the demographics of children and the enormous change that had taken place in the last decade or so with respect to where the children were, then of course we were heading for an area that was going to be little less than catastrophic.I guess it was timely that a government which had some considerable amount of expertise in this area was able to take over the reins that had been dropped some years before by the Labor government. As I said, this was compounded by the fact that there was really no money to spend. You can put so much on the plastic-fantastic but, at the end of the day, you have to be accountable. There is no question that the Labor Party cannot be trusted with the national till. They were not good accountants, and this affected every area of their portfolios. So it is just as well that, when this government came in in 1996, it had as a priority—and one that was not misguided at all—our children, our national wealth. Our children are going to grow up one day to manage this country. One would hope that the propaganda that was often used by the Labor governments of the day in order to survive will have more substance to it by the time that those children are ready to take their place in Australian society.When the Howard coalition government came into this place and took over the reins, one of the areas that had to be rectified was child care. For instance, child care had been totally neglected in rural and remote areas, which is where most of this country's wealth comes from. There was no policy for child care in rural and remote areas. There was none in the Pilbara, the Goldfields, or other major regional and rural areas. This government took cognisance of that fact and we have turned around those appalling inept and unplanned areas of child care. That is not to say that the Labor Party did not open up areas of child care. But they took advantage of the fact that child care was a good picture opportunity, that it was good propaganda, that it was good press to have the media come along even if the child-care centres were worthless or were not planned properly. You had child care centres being opened up side by side, juxtaposed with each other. Some of the centres opened were not appropriate for children, or for babies up to four years of age. Some of the centres were painted in the most garish colours. I would be very surprised if some of the children in these centres who had spent time staring at these painted buildings that the Labor government had approved— they in fact flourished and were splattered all over the media as a progressive step forward in child care—had not grown up with some sort of psychological problems.There was inadequate fencing around some of these areas that were put aside for these gems of our society. And competition meant that some of these areas had to go broke. But other areas were totally neglected. It was not just rural and remote areas that were totally neglected. Other areas that contributed to the national coffers were totally neglected. Child-care centres were nonetheless opened up in the inner city areas where the demographics had changed over the years. I do not know how you could expect that a child-care centre for babies up to four-years-old could be located in an area populated by aged retirees. No demographic or statistical study was ever done on these areas. I found the whole situation absolutely and totally appalling.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Maybe they were grandchildren-care centres.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Maybe that is what they should have been, as Senator Ian Campbell has said, and that would have been good. They could have been perhaps more utilised by the grandparents themselves. Certainly this was out of control.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—As long as they were colourblind.H15Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—There were some problems. I do say seriously that the areas were not well planned. Houses were quickly converted over a weekend with a little a busy-bee, some step ladders and some garish paints. It did not matter whether the bathroom facilities were good enough, that the centre was located on a corner of a busy intersection, or that it was in an area where there were no children. The government was there dishing out money. This was money, incidentally, that had been put on the plastic-fantastic. This government had to come in and take control of the runaway situation with respect to the national debt; but it was money nonetheless ticked up. It was just as well that there are people like members of the Liberal and National party government who can come in and wrest the controls of this runaway debt position. And, of course, this situation was reflected in what happened to our children.For years the Labor Party did not even look at this area. When we started to rectify it, what happened? When we started to improve it, when we started to say that this is an area on which the government had to concentrate because of the necessity of looking after these gems, these jewels of our society, the Labor Party then came out and said that we were bereft, that we did not have an understanding, that we were closing child-care centres. More propaganda.The fact is that there has been a net gain of 230 child-care centres throughout Australia since the inception of this government. Based on correct studies, based on the demographics of the areas, based on opening them up in a correct, proper and studied fashion, these are centres that we can be proud of, where our children do not have prolonged psychological effects from the colour of some of these awful things that were masquerading as child-care centres—with unbelievable names, I might say, to them. We did this.Just as we now have the fastest growing economy in the OECD—about four per cent—just as we have the lowest rates for decades here in Australia, just as we have the lowest home loan rates in Australia, just as we have created nearly 600,000 jobs in the short three years that this government has been here—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—How many full-time jobs?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I am glad you interjected on me, because it gives me food for thought—not that I was running out of ammunition.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Lightfoot, you might address the chair. I think we can ignore other comments.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I do appreciate that. In fact, that is another good point for me too. I should get back to the point.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—They are trying to make child-care centres politically correct.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator McGauran, stop interjecting on Senator Lightfoot's speech.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—It is a serious subject. I will not be put off the nub of the subject, the crux of what I want to say. But I must say that Senator Conroy's interjection on the job situation was how many of those jobs were full-time. The fact is that there are 600,000 jobs that we did not have before this administration took office. That means that the economy is in a robust state. That gives us the edge that the Labor Party did not have when in government. That gives us the edge, because of the correct planning. That gives us the edge, because we can now establish child-care centres where they are needed.Do you know what we are doing? We have even committed heresy. We are putting child-care centres in rural and remote areas. That is a heretical act for the Labor Party. `Don't put them there. Even if you don't need them, whack them into the universities, whack them into the inner city suburbs, whack them into the inner cities, but don't do anything for the rural and remote area people.' That is what we are doing. We are seeing these things spring up now. As I said, there are 230 more than when we came into government in 1996. In all truthfulness, how can the Labor Party say with a straight face that we are closing down child-care centres? I find that preposterous.Not only that, some of the lackeys in the media are prepared to believe it. They come in in the morning at 11 or 12 o'clock, just before lunch, find a press release on their desk, whack it over to a secretary saying, `Get this in,' and go off to a long lunch. That is how these things are perpetuated. That is how they are done—lazy journalists. Lazy journalists have a lot to answer for with respect to this government.But it is unarguable that this government cares about quality child-care centres for the children of Australia. This government cares not just about quality child care centres but about our children.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—The children are our future. WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Yes they are. What I want to do, if I can, is—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You have six minutes to go, Ross.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—This is the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal-National parties here. Senator Conroy says that I still have about 10 minutes to go. I have news for him: we always have contingencies. This government always has a contingency plan or two up its sleeve. Do you think that I would come in here and have to speak like this for the next 10 minutes if I did not have a contingency? I have some big guns here. I have Senator Ian Campbell here. If Senator Ian Campbell falters—which he won't—if he climbs out of the trench and takes an unscheduled bullet, then I have Senator McGauran also as a speaker. We always have a contingency plan. That has been the problem with the Labor Party—no contingency plan. `If it falls over, let us try to fudge it; let us try to cover it.'H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—You have to have a plan in the first place to have a contingency plan.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—You do. You have to get them down into the trenches, too, to have a contingency plan, and they are never in the trenches, these fellows.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Four minutes to go, Ross.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—No, it is not a matter of that at all. But what is indisputable is that this is a caring and sharing government. I must say that on analysis the government seems to be able to do everything without doing anything wrong.But I do want to say this: you know that the immediate goal of those measures that were implemented by our government was a targeting of all growth and new child-care centres. We were not going to target new child-care centres in areas which do not have children. We did not expect mothers to spend inordinate amounts of time travelling in order to bring their children to child-care centres, some of which were juxtaposed but not needed. What we did was study the situation and bring about a correct plan—which the Labor Party has never had—where the centres were put in areas where they were most needed. That is what we did.And, yes, we did close child-care centres. But if we had not closed them, they would have gone broke anyway. There has been a net gain. That is what the Labor Party did not tell you. They did not tell you that there was a net gain in what this government did—230 more child-care centres. We did close them down. Let me say that. I concur with you on that point. But what you did was misleading. Because the Labor Party are satraps in this place for the ACTU, it is very difficult for you to be your own man. I say that in a sexless sense.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—In a generic sense.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I am not suggesting that you are sexless, Senator Conroy.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I think you should withdraw that.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—I did not say that he was, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think you should withdraw it.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—If you want me to withdraw it, of course I withdraw it, and unreservedly too.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Thank you.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—What we did not do is close down child-care centres without correct planning. We have quality centres out there.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—One and a half minutes left!WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—Mr Acting Deputy President, I guess you can hear Senator Conroy rattling on over there, but it really does not affect me. It just gives me some food for thought. Actually, I have just thought of more because Senator Conroy has given me some breathing space.I want to mention this in closing. This government's commitment to child care is demonstrated in this fashion: the allocation of a record $5.3 billion over four years to 2002-03, including $600 million in additional funding with the introduction of a simpler and more generous child-care benefit. Expenditure is expected to reach $1.5 billion annually. That is infinitely greater than whatever those on the other side could manage, and they have the temerity to tell the public of Australia that we are closing down child-care centres.Overall, half a million children are in formal care, the greatest number ever in this nation's history. The government's reform has resulted in improved affordability for low and middle income families using outside school hours services through the child-care benefit. There will also be better planning to ensure child-care services will be established in areas of greater need. (Time expired)18:24:0010748Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I congratulate my Western Australian colleague on his contribution to this debate. I must say I did not know that Senator Ross Lightfoot had taken such an interest in child care during his career. It might surprise some members opposite that I too have taken a close interest in child-care policy since I read an excellent book by a former and distinguished senator who used to sit on this side, the Senator the Hon. Peter Walsh, as he was then. He was a great Labor finance minister. Had former Senator Peter Walsh been the finance minister for a longer period of time in the previous Labor government, I doubt they would have had the dubious distinction of running $10 billion deficits in 1999 dollars year after year for nine out of their 13 years.The impact of those deficits that Labor inflicted upon Australia's people was one of the worst forms of child abuse ever seen in this nation's history. It hit young Australians through massive interest rates and massive debts of government and was the cause of economic dislocation that this country had not seen since the Great Depression—the economic policies of Keating and Hawke! Part of the economic dislocation was caused because they got child care so wrong, and I refer any honourable senator opposite—and I specifically refer Senator Chris Evans—to read The confessions of a failed finance minister, that excellent book by Peter Walsh, and to particularly read pages 224, 225, 226 and 227.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Read them to us. Read them into Hansard .H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I wish I did have time. It is worth just noting one bit. That is, throughout the 1980s, the Labor Party—10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The time for the debate has expired.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I seek leave to incorporate these pages from Peter Walsh's book.Leave granted.The pages read as follows—To my surprise, Neal Blewett brought in a proposal to extend child care fee relief entitlement, which was income tested and paid up to $85 a week, to parents using privately owned centres. The private sector was deliberately discriminated against by the denial of fee relief and in two other ways. It did not get either the $15 per place per week operating subsidy or the free capital which public sector centres received. Throughout the 1980s, the Labor Party had allowed child care policy to be determined by a self-serving, symbiotic coalition of feminist `networkers', non-market sector service providers and early childhood service `educators', who were ideologically hostile to the existence of a private sector. Consequently, it was cost ineffective and internally inconsistent, with an income distribution outcome somewhere between random and regressive. For four years I had fought without success to have fee relief extended. The ideologues and their political puppets stridently asserted the private sector had failed to meet the demand, and that extending fee relief would cost a great deal of money without providing one extra place. Any spare money therefore, must be directed into capital and operating subsidies for the public sector.In 1988 I got ERC approval to fund an ABS survey of the private sector which was then providing about 19,000 places. The survey showed an average vacancy rate of 17 per cent. Contrary to ideological assertion, there was no supply-side `failure', just short-fall of effective demand caused by the absence of fee relief. This strengthened my position, but in the 1989 Budget the ERC was still not willing to `roll' Blewett and Staples. Child care policy was the one major exception to the ideological consistency noted by US Government Accounting Office officials in the Labor Governments of the 1980s. The ERC knew, because I kept telling it, that we were sanctioning policies which provided subsidies of up to $100 per week ($15 operating subsidy, $20 free capital, $65 cross subsidy for the higher cost of providing care for kids under two) to some parents regardless of how high their income was, while the great majority of women with pre-school kids who plucked chooks at Inghams for less than $300 a week got nothing. Any old-fashioned Labor men or women should find that offensive, but apart from Dawkins, no one on the ERC supported me. Apart from the income distribution question, Government discrimination in favour of the less efficient public sector, contradicted Government policy on structural efficiency.I do not know what suddenly persuaded Blewett to propose fee relief extension. It may have been associated with a belated realisation that his bureaucrats played their own policy game. In 1988 the ERC approved the extension of fee relief subsidies for the much cheaper out of school hours care provided in schools for school age kids. I did not oppose it, but insisted the States, which controlled regulations and therefore costs, must pay 50 per cent of the cost. Without such a provision, the States, especially Victoria and South Australia, would cave in to union pressure for overstaffing, as they had already done in nursing homes. Just as Blewett was leaving, he said what about 30 per cent? I said at least 30 per cent. Hawke said OK. A year later Blewett casually mentioned in Cabinet that the States had agreed to pay 20 per cent. I told him that was in conflict with the Cabinet decision and that I would pursue it.I rang him about an hour later and said, `Neal, I always thought you would try and welch on that decision, but I did not expect you would do it in such a sleazy way'. He was a bit upset, but pleaded innocence, saying he thought the Cabinet decision said `up to 30 per cent' and that his officials had advised him the 20 per cent agreements signed by him were consistent with the Cabinet decision. I promptly told him, reading from the decision, that it said `at least 30 per cent' and asked whether the advice had been tendered orally or in writing. He claimed he did not know, but I suspect he had been deliberately misinformed by his Department officials who believed the Federal Government should pay all the costs and that they, not Cabinet, should make child care policy. A few weeks later, I privately humiliated Blewett by freezing the finance warrants for funding the program, effectively putting that division of Community Services into Finance Department receivership and preventing it from making financial commitments without my knowledge and approval. Blewett, I think, had by then realised that the people he had allowed to run policy were in fact subversives.He plucked up the courage to do what his intellect had always told he should do—defy the subversives and recommend the fee relief extension. His proposal did, however, include of a National Accreditation System and linking accredi tation to fee relief eligibility. This was a subterfuge by the old coalition, which wanted clones of themselves making subjective assessments of private sector quality. Having failed to kill the private sector by financial discrimination, and lost the fight about fee relief, the attack on the private sector was shifted to `quality' and accreditation. This was transparent to me. I accepted their silly accreditation proposal but insisted no linkage to fee relief eligibility. I won, but the subversives, not all of whom were in Community Services, managed to work into Hawke's policy speech a form of words which were ambivalent.After the election they tried to get Cabinet endorsement for linking accreditation to fee relief eligibility but, after a good deal of shouting and table thumping by John Dawkins, they were beaten. But they kept trying. I was afraid they would slip it in to the speech on child care and other issues that Keating was due to make on 10 February 1993. I rang John Dawkins, asking him to tell Keating that if his speech committed the Government to linkage, I would publicly bucket Keating, election campaign or no. `Don't worry, comrade,' he replied, `I have already won that battle for you.' He had shouted and banged on the table again, and kept it out of Keating's speech. But the memo ostensibly recording the proceedings of the ad hoc Cabinet committee set up to determine election policy was doctored, either by people in the Department or Keating's office. (It has already been demonstrated by the `no pensioner will pay' tax statement, that Keating had little control over his office, and sometimes no knowledge of what it was doing.) That memo and a few dozen others recording ad hoc committee decisions were then endorsed en bloc on 6 April, after the 13 March election, by a Cabinet which had no idea what it was doing. The new Minister, Rosemary Crowley, a complete prisoner of the ideologues, introduced regulations in November 1993 to make eligibility for fee relief condition on accreditation. The Opposition tried to disallow regulation but failed. She also tabled an accreditation `handbook' comprising 30,000 words of instruction on how to run politically correct child care centres. When the instructions were justifiably lampooned and ridiculed, even Quentin Bryce, backed away, saying they were only `guidelines'. That is not true. The eligibility for fee relief is to be subjectively determined ether by the very people who wrote the handbook, or clones of them, the same old coalition. The Government may yet come to its senses and drop the whole silly idea—especially because the timetable is such that thousands of parents would be losing eligibility on the eve of the next election.Two years after fee relief was extended to the private sector—which allegedly would not produce `one extra place'—the number of private sector places trebled from less than 20,000 to 60,000. It is now bigger than the Government mollycoddled `community based' sector.Miscellaneous107501075018:27:0010750Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 7 of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:New Business Tax System (Capital Gains Tax) Bill 1999New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 2) 1999 .I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 SPRING SITTINGSNEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (CAPITAL GAINS TAX) BILLNEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (INCOME TAX RATES) BILL (NO. 2)Purpose of the bills:The bills will implement important Government reforms to Australians Business Tax system, in particular capital gains tax (CGT) reductions.Reasons for urgency.The Government's CGT reforms will benefit individuals, companies and superannuation funds. It is important that the reforms are legislated to provide certainty to taxpayers.Result if bills not dealt with in these sittings:A large number of taxpayers, including individuals, companies and superannuation funds, are affected by these measures. They will face uncertainty in managing their business affairs if the legislation is not passed as soon as possible.(Circulated by the Treasurer) Committees107511075110751Motion (by Senator McGauran, at the request of Senator Watson)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 be extended to 30 November 1999.Miscellaneous10751107511075118:28:0010751McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—On behalf of Senator Parer, I present additional information received by the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee relating to the 1998-99 additional estimates hearings.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Documents1075110751The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Report—Format of the Portfolio Budget Statements: Second report. Motion of Senator Calvert to take note of report agreed to.Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Business taxation reform. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator George Campbell) to take note of report agreed to.Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Proposals for changes to the welfare system. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Crowley) to take note of report-and on the amendment moved by Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) —At the end of the motion, add:"and that the Senate does not accept the claim of public interest immunity made by the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman) in respect of certain documents ordered by the Senate to be produced, or the grounds for making that claim"— Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put and passed.Main question, as amended, put and passed.Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Report—Deregulation of the Australian dairy industry. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Woodley) to take note of report agreed to.Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—Report 371—Aviation security, planning for aged care, costing of services—Review of the Auditor-General's reports, first half, 1998-99. Motion of Senator Gibson to take note of report agreed to.Corporations and Securities—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 1998 . Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Chapman) to take note of report agreed to.Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee—Report—Jobs for the regions: Inquiry into regional employment and unemployment. Motion of Senator Mackay to take note of report agreed to.Committees10751107511075119:32:0010751Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I present the government's response to the advisory report of the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization on its inquiry into the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—ISL99/1443The Hon. David Jull, MPPresiding MemberParliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence OrganizationParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Mr JullIn my letter to you of 11 May 1999 I indicated that I would write again setting out the Government's response to the Committee's report on the Austral ian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999.I am pleased to inform you that the Government has decided to implement almost all of the Committee's recommendations.There are only two recommendations that the Government will not be immediately implementing. The first is the recommendation to abolish existing restrictions on membership of the Committee (paragraph 2.28). It is undesirable to deal with this recommendation in haste and solely in the context of the membership of your Committee since a similar restriction applies to other Parliamentary Joint Committees. The Government, therefore, will examine and consult on the full implications attached to this recommendation before making a final decision.The Government has decided not to accept the recommendation that the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (the FTR Act) be amended to require the Director of AUSTRAC to include, in AUSTRAC's annual report, certain information in relation to ASIO's access to FTR information (paragraph 6.20).As noted in the Committee's report, the proposed amendment is modelled on reporting obligations given to the Commissioner of Taxation under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (the TAA Act). That Act permits the Commissioner of Taxation to disclose tax information in certain circumstances. It is consistent with the disclosure provisions of the TAA Act that the Commissioner should report in respect of disclosures the Commissioner has made. The FTR Act, however, authorises the Director of AUSTRAC to give specified agencies access to FTR information. It is not consistent with the legislative scheme of the FTR Act to require the Director of AUSTRAC to report on the frequency or type of use of FTR information by an agency that is given access. Also, I can see no justification for singling out ASIO as the only Commonwealth or State agency with access to FTR information to be reported on in this way.On the Committee's recommendation in relation to adding, deleting or altering data (paragraph 3.57), I have accepted advice from the Australian Government Solicitor that the relevant provisions in the Bill are sufficiently clear and do not require amendment to address the Committee's concern. However, the explanatory memorandum will be amended in line with the Committee's recommendation. In addition, I have approved a Government amendment to the wording of Item 16, paragraph 25A(4)(a) to clarify further that a person executing a computer access warrant may not modify the target data. This should assist to allay some of the concerns expressed to the Committee on this issue. I wish again to express my appreciation to the Committee for their Report and for the expeditious way it carried out its task.Yours sincerely(signed)DARYL WILLIAMSBills10752r88410752Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.19:33:0010752Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I am pleased that we have got back onto government business, because I was keen to expedite matters. I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Disposal of Assets) Bill 1999 . Labor will be opposing this bill because we believe it is mean spirited, it is not supported by the community groups who represent older Australians and the government has not made out the case for the bill. The bill would reduce from $10,000 to $5,000 the free area for gifting of assets. The free area is the maximum value of the assets that may be given away each year without affecting pension entitlements.Any gifts in excess of the free area are subject to the assets test or the income test for five years after the gift. Under the Social Security Act, the department applies whichever test would result in the greater nominal gain—that is, whichever would reduce the pension by the greatest amount. The current regulations allow pensioners to dispose of or give away up to $10,000 per annum without any effect on their pension entitlement. Assets beyond this threshold which are disposed of have income assessed at the deeming rate or, in cases where the asset was income producing, at the actual rate if it is higher than the deeming rate.The bill would apply this change equally to single pensioners and to couples. The bill is expected to reduce the entitlements of some 3,400 age pensioners and 200 disability pensioners, with savings to the Commonwealth rising to an estimated $4 million by about 2002-03. The government intends that the changes to the gifting rules made by the bill would apply to pensioners who, between 1 July 1999 and royal assent, made gifts in excess of $5,000. Any reduction of pension payments is supposed to apply after royal assent. In other words, the department would not regard as overpayments the pensions paid prior to royal assent. I note that the government has responded to the drafting error we raised in the Community Affairs report. It has circulated an amendment regarding the transitional period error, and that is obviously useful.The free area has changed in the last 10 years. Prior to 1991, it was $4,000 for couples and $2,000 for singles. In 1991, the Keating government changed the free area to $10,000 for both couples and singles. This was justified by the government as both a reasonable improvement to pensioners' benefits and a simplification of the rules. The coalition government has sought to justify this bill on the grounds that it is inequitable for pensioners to be able to gift without penalty more than the annual maximum single pension, that the current free area rules are at odds with the principles underlying a needs based social security system, that only a small number of pensioners will be adversely affected and that abuse of the $10,000 free area is widely promoted by financial advisers as a pension maximisation technique.The government maintains, though, that its policy is based on the assumption that some free area gifting—that is, gifting without loss of pension entitlement—is reasonable. There has been a political consensus in Australia for many years that some amount of gifting by pensioners is a legitimate practice. Essentially, the opposition is not convinced that the government has made the case for the bill's basic premise—that is, that the current free area of $10,000 is too generous to pensioners.The opposition was more impressed by the evidence from seniors groups that a $5,000 free area would impose an excessive penalty on gifts of assets to a family member and that the $10,000 limit remained the more appropriate level. The government's main justification for the bill appears to be that it is inherently inequitable for a pensioner to be able to give away without loss of pension more than the annual rate of the maximum single pension, which is currently about $9,4000 per annum. This argument appears to be a recently discovered and hastily prepared rationale for what would otherwise be seen as an unadorned savings measure.No evidence has been produced by the government to prove that the maximum single pension has ever been used as an upper limit for the free area. The government has simply asserted this principle, which is generally rejected by the groups representing older Australians. In reality, the perceived inequality could never occur because, according to the department, no-one in receipt of the full pension of $9,400 could have sufficient assets to be subject to the assets and income tests. Labor was impressed by the evidence submitted to the bill inquiry that a free area of $10,000 was more appropriate than $5,000 given the cost of living and the demands placed on families.For example, the Welfare Rights Network argued that the proposal was merely a mean spirited savings measure, that, in their experience, the $10,000 for gifting was adequate and that to reduce it to $5,000 seemed to be harsh and unnecessary. The decision to set the free area at $10,000 was made eight years ago. Based on CPI increases since then, about $11,600 is now needed to purchase goods and services which would then have been the equivalent of $10,000. Over time, the real value of the current concession is falling. The government's proposal is less generous than any arrangement in the last 10 or 15 years under governments of either persuasion.Labor believes the bill does not adequately recognise that gifting of assets by part pensioners is generally legitimate and socially beneficial. Having heard the evidence put before the inquiry, Labor considers that objections to the bill by seniors organisations are reasonable and based on their understanding of how the gifting rules are actually used by most retirees. Labor believes that the bill would penalise attempts by older Australians to assist younger or less fortunate members of their own families. This aspiration was noted in the 1994 Strategic review of the pension's income and assets test. The review report stated:Many pensioners with few assets have indicated that at points where they have realised those assets, usually on the sale of the family home, they would like to be able to assist their children.This point was also made in submissions to the bill inquiry. The Council on the Ageing deplored the notion that:. . . where somebody is in a family crisis there is a penalty on the older person for assisting the other family member at that time.Representative organisations have argued that pensioners generally gifted assets to meet family need rather than to maximise pensions. In fact, the value of the gift is always much greater than the pension gain.Throughout Australia, COTA is aware of the increasing pressures placed on older Australians as a result of family breakdown and other problems such as unemployment. Many older people are called upon to assist family members in times of crisis and financial need. This includes assisting with the deposit on a home when there is a marriage separation, with family illness and with the onset of a disability, et cetera. Limiting the annual gifting to $5,000 was seen by COTA as being mean spirited and in contrast to the willingness of parents to assist other family members when misfortune strikes. Other seniors organisations agreed that it was common for gifts to be made to assist younger family members with major purchases, such as a mortgage deposit or education fees. In many cases, gifting assets helps the younger family members concerned but is also of wider social benefit.The bill inquiry was given examples of how assistance from older relatives could prevent younger family members from having to use publicly funded programs and social security support. Asset gifts can also be of social value, even when the public benefit is less immediate. Pensioners who help younger relatives with mortgage deposits are assisting them to enjoy a better standard of living during their working lives and in retirement. In fact, home ownership contributes to the self-reliance in retirement which is one of the stated principles informing this bill. Unfortu nately there is evidence that home buyers are going to find it more difficult to purchase their first property. There is clear evidence that young families on low and middle incomes already experience difficulty in buying a first home and this problem is likely to be intensified by the introduction of the GST next year. Given these conditions, Labor is concerned that the bill would penalise attempts by older relatives to help first home buyers secure a mortgage deposit.Labor recognises the concerns of seniors groups that the bill would discourage retirees from helping other family members, despite the government's insistence that families should take a greater role in supporting themselves and, particularly, their younger members. The bill would be particularly harsh on modest income families that are supporting young people who are studying or unemployed. Since the introduction of Youth Allowance in 1998, families are now generally required to support unemployed young people to the age of 21 and students to the age of 25. Youth Allowance has effectively shifted the burden of youth unemployment onto families. At 22.9 per cent, the youth unemployment rate is more than three times the national average for all workers. In such an environment, assistance provided through the generosity of the extended family is one way of relieving the financial impact that the introduction of the Youth Allowance has contributed to. The government has reduced public assistance for families and, with this bill, it is penalising social assistance within families.The opposition is aware that some concerns were expressed by witnesses at the committee inquiry about the bill's lack of flexibility. The bill fails to recognise that pensioners whose family circumstances compel them to make a substantial gift in a particular year may not necessarily engage in what the department calls `serial gifting' over several years. Other options could have been taken to accommodate legitimate gifting while addressing any problems of serial gifting for pension maximisation. The Strategic review of the pension's income and assets tests in 1994 canvassed a number of options for reconciling flexibility and revenue protection. The review report stated:Questions of Balance present an option for cumulative gifting to apply. It was suggested that pensioners be allowed to build up a credit so that at particular times, eg at retirement and/or on the sale of the family home, they could give away greater amounts than is presently allowed.Witnesses such as the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation supported the need for a more flexible approach.Labor is of the view that the government should give serious consideration to innovative proposals for making the gifting rules more flexible while retaining the principles of a needs based social security system. Much of the government's rhetoric has concerned the practice of financial advisers encouraging retirees to maximise their pensions by repeatedly gifting assets with the main purpose of maximising their pension. The Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation argued that, if—as the government claims—the behaviour of the financial planning industry is causing these problems, the difficulty should be attacked at its root rather than by penalising pensioners and taking away what they see as legitimate flexibility within the current rules to assist needy family members.Labor accepts that pension maximisation through gifting does occur, but the government has failed to convince us that the practice is so widespread that the free area should be reduced to $5,000 in order to make such pension maximisation more difficult to achieve, that the bill would prevent the kinds of schemes that the government has rightly criticised or that pensioners who legitimately gift between $5,000 and $9,999 should be penalised.Again, there is a gap between the government's insistence that the bill would close down a major area of unethical pension maximisation and its concessions that many pensioners gift legitimately, that the bill would only affect less than 2.2 per cent of age pensioners and 0.3 per cent of disability pensioners and that the bill would result in modest savings to the government. Labor was convinced by the evidence of the seniors group that the reduction of the free area as proposed in the bill is, as has been described by others, mean spirited.We are not satisfied that the government has made the case for the bill. If the government is concerned at the action of financial planners, it should address those concerns in the appropriate area rather than penalising the legitimate use of gifting by part-pensioners. Labor will support any reasonable measure to address the abuse of gifting, but we are not convinced that this bill deals with the problem in an appropriate way. On balance, we have been convinced by the evidence of the community groups that the bill is unfair and misconceived, and we do not accept the government's arguments that it is equitable. For these reasons, Labor will be opposing the bill.19:46:0010755Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—This legislation is a fairly small and straightforward piece of legislation which, as Senator Evans has outlined, in effect seeks simply to reduce the amount of the free area for gifting for pensioners, reducing it from $10,000 to $5,000. It is an issue that, in the overall scheme of things, is a small one; nonetheless, it is one that the Democrats have given a fair degree of consideration to. There was a Senate committee inquiry and a degree of community input into that inquiry. There is, of course, a committee report as well in relation to it.The basic issue here is whether or not that free area of $10,000 is overly generous. It has been in place for a number of years now. In its own explanatory memorandum, the government uses the illustration of the maximum single pension rate being less than the free area, at $9,400 per annum. That does seem rather closer to $10,000 than $5,000 and, with further increases in the pipeline, I think it will get even closer to $10,000, if not over it. That is a bit of a curious example to try and use as justification for dropping it by such an extent. From the Democrats' examination of the issues and our discussion around it, it was felt that the deliberate usage of the gifting provision to maximise pension, whilst obviously existing to some extent, would not be addressed to such a significant extent as to be worth the disadvantage or negative impact on those people who do not use the provision for specific pension maximisation purposes.It seems fairly straightforward that it is basically a savings measure. I do not blame the government for looking for a savings measure. I imagine all departments—the social security department more than most—have to spend their time looking for savings measures, and this one will be saving in a few years time over $4 million per year, which, when you have to find savings measures everywhere, provides an ability for the department to demonstrate its willingness to maximise savings wherever possible. Nonetheless, as I say, following discussion amongst the Democrat senators and consideration of the issue, we are not convinced that it is sufficiently justified to support at this time.19:49:0010756Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am astonished at two parties who would see themselves as believers in social justice taking exception to a measure which, in its essence, means that people with reasonable assets cannot give them away rather than then use them for self-support and then ask their neighbours to support them through the tax system even more than would otherwise be necessary.I find that amazing. I thought our social security system was essentially means tested: payments according to need. Only the other day, the opposition and the Democrats both made noises that they believed that the discussion paper that I released this week on trusts and companies and the ability of people to access social security even though they had substantial assets was right and proper. The principle is exactly the same. It is amazing that these two parties would endorse people giving away, in one year, more than they can receive by way of a pension. It is quite incredible.They talk about the evidence that was given to the committee. I am very interested in that because, quite logically, the people they have been quoting who have given evidence in this matter have a close vested interest in it. I wonder how many taxpayers were asked to give evidence to this committee. They also have a close interest in it because they are funding it. They are being asked to fund it, in this case, less than they currently do. Why? Because there are people who have the means to support themselves more who are maintaining their entitlement to the taxpayers' help by giving away their assets.It is a nonsense. If you believe that what we are doing about trusts and companies is right and that people with means should not be able to access social security through those devices, surely you should be consistent and believe that action should be taken about the device of giving away $10,000 each year or any year to keep yourself within the limits of the social security means test.I am just curious as to why in 1994 when Labor had the report they did not act on it if they believed truly, as Senator Evans is indicating, that it should be implemented. Labor did not act on it. I would say to Labor: you can give as much as you like to your family or to whomever you please provided you do not ask your neighbour to keep you in exchange. I think it was Senator Evans who mentioned Welfare Rights—maybe he did not say `Welfare Rights' but said `the welfare community'. But I well remember that when I was given the job of minister for social security Welfare Rights sent me a publication, the title of which had something to do with welfare yachts. The point of it was the loopholes which allowed people with means to be able to access the social security system, and Labor had not taken action. Welfare Rights came to me and said, `This is meant to be a means based system. There is only so much money to go around, and we need to make sure that it is there for the people who really need it.' I think we must keep the money to help people who cannot help themselves.It is extraordinary that Labor and the Democrats are not prepared to support this legislation. I cannot understand how you can contemplate allowing this to continue knowing that it is in fact being used as a device now, that financial planners are recommending it as a mechanism for maintaining help from your neighbour. There were violins and soft music from one of the senators about the crises in families and how people should be able to help their families. I think that was from Senator Evans.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—It was a Welsh harp actually.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Was it a Welsh harp? Whichever it was, I reassure you that under this measure you are perfectly able still to deal with family crisis. You can lend your family, say, $10,000 if you want. It still remains an asset. You can even give them an additional $5,000 because that will not remain an asset. So you can give them $5,000 and lend them $10,000 and that $10,000 stays as your asset. They can pay it back to you as and when they can, and it might be quite quick if it is a short-term emergency. But there is nothing in this legislation to stop family members helping other family members; they just cannot divest themselves of more than $5,000 each year. So we have heard the Welsh harps and violins and whatever else, but the welfare yachts sail on thanks to the Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party, both parties that I thought talked a lot about social justice and the needs of the poor. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:00The Senate divided. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid)28Abetz, E. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I.Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A.Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J.Tchen, T. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W.32Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. *Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Murray, A.Quirke, J. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Schacht, C. C. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.Alston, R. K. R. Faulkner, J. P.Boswell, R. L. D. Allison, L.Chapman, H. G. P. Lundy, K.Ellison, C. Murphy, S. M.Hill, R. M. O'Brien, K. W. K.Minchin, N. H. Sherry, N.Vanstone, A. E. Ray, R. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Bills10757r68910757Debate resumed from 22 April, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.20:04:0010757Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to get from the government during the committee stage the cost of the pestilences which trouble the Australian economy, let alone the Australian environment where it is not counted, from those items which have escaped quarantine. I must take this opportunity to express utter alarm at the exposure of Australia to every foreign and exotic organism on the planet in this day of mass rapid transit. Our quarantine expenditure is nowhere near what is warranted to keep this island continent free from that onslaught.I was recently in the foothills of the Himalayas and noted vast areas of that region, which is under huge population pressures, given over to a plague of lantana. We have the same pest here in Australia from when it was brought into New South Wales by somebody wanting to adorn their garden. It now effectively takes out of Australia's productive land millions and millions of dollars worth of productivity each year.Things have somewhat changed but we are still in a country where every plane and every ship bring with them the possibility of new organisms which not only will cost the economy dearly in the future but also will invade this nation's special environment. I will also be asking the minister to give an account of how the government goes about officially giving a stamp of approval to the importation of such things as grasses, trees, plants and amphibians—including pets—into this country. I am very alarmed that we allow such things at all. According to my information, in recent decades the CSIRO, of all people, the pinnacle of scientific excellence in this country, has been the responsible agent for bringing new pests into the country.I have read recently about the trialling of new plants in Australia that can survive in a hypersaline environment. You do not have to be very clever to know that, if you bring in plants which can exist in a saline environment because of environmental degradation in Australia, you are asking for those plants to spread into natural ecosystems that are naturally saline. In other words, you are asking for the disruption of fragile ecosystems by invasive species.This thinking still prevails in this country, hence the release of a virus a couple of years ago which was supposed to kill the rabbit population. Instead of a controlled release, it was an escape release. Even where there is an effort to control exotic agents coming into this country, it is quite clearly shown that we do not have prudent precautions which ensure that we keep control of toxic agents coming into the environment. You only have to look at the invasion of the European house wasp, the bumblebee, a range of carp into our streams and the spread of tropical plants invading tropical river systems. Indeed, you only need go back to the 1930s and the invasion of the cane toad, its legions heading towards Sydney, the Olympic city, to know how devastating bringing agents like those into the country can be. Yet this still persists. We still have people in authority and people in the field of science who have not learnt the lessons of the past. They are prepared to risk economic and environmental damage to this country through experimentation.I take my hat off to those people working in the quarantine services. They are understaffed and underfunded. They have a much bigger job to do for Australia than successive governments have been prepared to enable them to do. A change in philosophy is required. We need not only to take the precautionary principle in relation to deliberately introduced agents in our Australian environment but also a much greater policing effort provided by government to prevent the spread of so-called accidentally introduced organisms through this rapid and unprecedented commerce of people and goods between our country and the rest of the world.It is an enormous problem. Once an organism gets into our environment, it is wellnigh impossible to eradicate it. The damage is huge in terms of the economy, and the damage is everlasting in terms of the environment. It is an extremely important matter which gets far too little regard. I congratulate the government on any measure it takes to improve quarantine protection for Australia. I recommend that the issue be given a far greater priority by both the government and the opposition if we are not to see the onslaught by exotic organisms on Australia's environment in the 20th century, which has been to the detriment of our economy, continue into the 21st century almost unabated.20:12:0010758Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 is a major advancement, ensuring that Australia has an appropriate regulatory framework into the next century. This bill is essential for the protection of our vital agricultural industries and our environment from the introduction of diseases and pests and for the sustained growth in competitiveness of our agricultural exports. The bill provides a framework for tighter border controls to reflect the extreme importance of quarantine. New powers include the power to order the re-export of goods to ensure that quarantine risks remain offshore and a more appropriate emergency power to ensure a rapid response to the entry of new diseases and pests.The bill provides a more efficient approach to the performance of quarantine by providing a more flexible and updated approach to the treatment of imported goods. The bill replaces the prescriptive approaches to treating goods and allows for the selection of the most appropriate treatment for an import. It also provides a better framework for properly monitored industry involvement in quarantine activities undertaken on a commercial basis by the private sector.The delegation powers have been rewritten in a more modern style, but these new provisions do not have a significantly different effect from the current delegation provisions in the act. They are also not significantly different from other delegation provisions used elsewhere in Commonwealth legislation. The rewritten provisions do not change the doctrine of responsible government, which is that a minister of the Crown is answerable for the actions of the department of state for which he or she has ministerial responsibility.Australia has traditionally followed a highly conservative approach to the management of quarantine risk. In its response to the Nairn review of quarantine, the government said that Australia must continue to practice a managed risk quarantine policy. The bill introduces the concept of level of quarantine risk. The introduction of the concept of level of quarantine risk explicitly into the legislation makes it clear that the implementation of our quarantine policy is risk based. We have international obligations as a member of the World Trade Organisation to base our quarantine measures on an objective scientific analysis of the risk.The bill has been subject to scrutiny by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Both committees support the Senate's passage of the bill.Debate on this bill was interrupted on 22 April this year. In the intervening months, the government has reviewed a couple of aspects of the bill. As a result, I foreshadow some amendments: firstly, on the referral by the Director of Quarantine of certain decisions to the environment minister; and, secondly, on the position of Christmas Island. I understand that the amendments have not been circulated early enough for honourable senators to properly consider them. As a result, I am happy for the debate on this bill to be adjourned so that those amendments can be considered in a proper time frame. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills10759r76610759Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.20:17:0010759Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, I think it was both you and the shadow Attorney-General who advised us that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 is directed at ensuring that ASIO, Australia's peak national security agency, remains capable of providing timely intelligence to government. The amendments arise from a periodic internal review of the ASIO Act, the Walsh report, changes in ASIO's operational environment and, in particular, the impact of technological developments on intelligence gathering.The bill has several purposes. One of them is to amend existing warrant provisions for a number of purposes, including: to reword the basis for the granting of search warrants; to lengthen their maximum duration; to expand the range of warrants which the Director-General of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, an eminent Australian, may grant on an emergency basis without prior ministerial approval; to clearly authorise concealment of the fact that anything has been done under the warrant; to extend ASIO's function of collecting foreign intelligence within Australia beyond means authorised by warrant—that is, by the use of human agents; to provide new special powers such as a capacity under warrant to use tracking devices to track people and objects and also a capacity under warrant to hack into computers and gain access to computer information, with an accompanying power to add, delete or alter data in the target computer; to provide for direct communication of security assessments to state agencies until 31 December 2000 in relation to the year 2000 Olympics security issues; to provide for access by ASIO to AUSTRAC information about significant and suspect financial transfers; to provide for access by ASIO to tax information, with a limited capacity to pass it on to third parties; and to make other relative minor amendments to the ASIO Act and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986.This bill was referred to the Joint Statutory Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization for consideration on 13 April this year. The committee reported on 6 May. My information from the shadow Attorney-General is that Labor supported this referral because we believe it is important to encourage community debate about the role of, and ultimately community confidence in, ASIO.It is worth noting at this stage that the committee's report was unanimous. A common criticism made by the committee and witnesses concerned the short time allowed by government for the committee's consideration of the bill. Because of the lack of knowledge and suspicion in the community about the operation of bodies like ASIO, the short time provided for consultation has not assisted the process of rational debate. Instead, what has happened is that the government has fuelled concern that this bill serves purposes ulterior to those stated in the Attorney-General's second reading speech. This is an unfortunate impression that has been created. It is the opposition's view that Australia does need a body like ASIO. We need an organisation that can help us protect our national security, and we acknowledge that such organisations, of necessity, operate in an environment where secrecy is vital. It has to be said that secrecy does breed suspicion. That has always been the case in respect of this organisation. Therefore, it behoves all governments to be as honest and as open as they can about the powers, functions and operation of bodies like this and to encourage sensible and rational debate about these issues.The government's limitations on the committee's deliberations did not do that. The limitation was unnecessary, especially as the government had indicated that it merely wished that this be legislation passed before the end of the year. I think it has been four or five months that this legislation has been waiting at about No. 21 on the list of bills to be debated by the Senate. We could have spent more time in the analysis period.While the Labor Party do believe that many of the criticisms of the bill are misplaced, we are not critical of those who raised them. The concern expressed in many of the submissions I think reflects the genuine desire in the Australian community that organisations like ASIO not be allowed to infringe the rights of ordinary Australians. A fundamental starting point has to be that such organisations do not become an instrument by which the state suppresses genuine and legitimate expressions of dissent by the people.We believe that the Australian Labor Party are in a good position to assess these matters. We have recently been in government and through those processes we became very familiar with the work ASIO did about three years ago. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to and does receive uncensored reports and regular briefings about its operations. This is a process that helps to ensure that ASIO is not used for partisan political purposes. In reality, I believe the community concern about the role that ASIO performs comes quite often from false impressions of what ASIO does rather than, it has to be said, actual knowledge of its operations.As I mentioned, the committee was unanimous in its recommendations on the bill. The Labor members of the committee supported those recommendations in full. I am advised that the government proposes to implement eight of the 10 recommendations immediately. Two will not be implemented at all, and those two relate to the membership of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization and the reporting of access to financial transaction reports information.In relation to that first question, the membership of the joint parliamentary committee, the committee recommended repealing paragraph 92B(7)(d) of the ASIO Act so as to allow the Deputy President of the Senate and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives to be eligible for appointment to that committee. This issue arose out of the present government's desire to appoint the current Deputy Speaker, Mr Nehl, to the committee. Labor does support this change in principle. However, the government has indicated that this issue has ramifications for the membership of other parliamentary committees and wishes to further consider the issue in that context. We are happy for that consideration to take place and, accordingly, we support deferral of the implementation of this recommendation.The other issue, as I mentioned, relates to the access to financial transaction reports information. The committee reported and recommended that the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 should be amended to require the Director of AUSTRAC to include in AUSTRAC's annual report information on the following: the number of occasions on which ASIO officers interrogated the AUSTRAC database, the number of occasions on which the Director-General of Security requested access to information on parameters wider than those available through ASIO's authorised online access and the number of occasions on which access requests, described just above, were granted.In this case, the government has advised that it does not propose to proceed with this recommendation because, if implemented, it would mean that ASIO was the only agency whose use of the AUSTRAC database would be reported on in this way. Of course, that follows, and that is no real argument as to why the government should not accept this recommendation, but in the meantime the Labor Party can accept this view and in doing so note that under the bill the information referred to will have to be supplied to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who is obliged to report to the government, the Leader of the Opposition and the parliament about both the use and misuse of ASIO's powers.During the committee's consideration of the bill, a number of concerns were raised about its operation. I do not propose to discuss them all today. However, a number do warrant some explanation so that the Labor Party's position is understood. These relate to the test for the issuing of warrants and who may issue them; access to, and alteration of, data stored on a computer; and access to information held by AUSTRAC and the ATO.In respect of the first issue, concern was expressed that the new formulation of the test to gain a warrant does more than simply simplify the test. Rather, there was a concern that the new formulation makes it significantly easier for ASIO to obtain a warrant. In particular, it was argued that the new test merely requires the Attorney to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for issuing a warrant. With respect to those who submitted that opinion, the shadow Attorney-General believes the test proposed in section 25(2) is higher than that. While it is true that the Attorney need be satisfied only on the basis of reasonable belief, the belief must be that the issuing of the warrant `will substantially assist the collection of intelligence in accordance with this act in respect of a matter that is important in relation to security'.I am advised that the true import of this provision is to change the test from a negative one to a positive one. Currently, the Attorney, for instance, must be satisfied that `without access' security `would be seriously impaired'. While semantically it may be true that these two tests do not overlap precisely, the real question is whether the test proposed is reasonable and whether it creates greater certainty. My advice is that the proposed test is not significantly different from that currently in the act, that it is appropriate and that it has clarified the degree of satisfaction needed for the Attorney to issue a warrant. In this regard, it should be noted that the committee recommended that the explanatory memorandum to the bill be amended to show that the proposed text is not intended to change the test applied by the Attorney. I think this in itself will help ensure that that occurs in practice.In respect of the issue of who may issue a warrant, some submissions to the committee called for the replacement of the present system of issuing warrants with judicially determined warrants. While such an approach is not opposed by Labor—and it has to be recorded that it has been proposed by Labor in the past in other areas—the reality is that the present government will not support judges being given the power to issue warrants. The government specifically opposed the issuing of telecommunications interception warrants by judges in the last parliament. They did so for what they claim to be constitutional reasons because the issuing of these warrants, they claim, involved an exercise of admin power by judicial officers in possible contravention of the separation of powers. That is a concern that they have put to us, and it is a concern that was raised by community discussion. This is particularly so in the case of ASIO, which, in protecting national security, is not solely concerned with the investigation of criminal offences, though of course ASIO's investigations may indeed disclose criminal offences.The real protection for the Australian community from the wrongful issuance of warrants comes from the subsequent scrutiny conducted by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and in the uncensored report furnished to the Leader of the Opposition. It is the opposition's view that an Attorney would be foolish in the extreme if he or she improperly issued a warrant, knowing that he or she could be the subject of adverse comment both from the independent watchdog and from his political opponents. We are of a view that there is no evidence that the current system of warrants is being abused. Indeed, no submission to the inquiry raised in any credible way such a suggestion. In those circumstances, while the Labor Party would be prepared to consider more generally the appropriateness of judicially issued warrants, we believe that the safeguards currently built into the system are adequate to prevent its abuse.There is the issue of the ability to alter and access data on a computer. ASIO has sought to modernise its powers to access and alter data on computers, and this enhancement is sought as a result of the increasing use of electronic communication, including encryption technology, by organisations of national security interest. Evidence was provided to the committee that if ASIO were not given the power to monitor these forms of communication this would result in a substantial diminution of ASIO's ability to protect Australia's national security interests.However, concern was expressed in some submissions about the ability of ASIO, by remote means, to alter and access data stored on computers. It is important to note that ASIO already has the power to intercept computer related communications. However, ASIO must currently place a physical interception device on a computer for this to occur. It is the view of the government that such operations necessarily place ASIO agents at risk of discovery, as the agent is required to have physical access to the premises on which the computer is located.A more particular concern expressed in the submissions was that ASIO might use the power to manufacture evidence against a person. ASIO indicated that they did not intend to use the power in this way. Rather, they propose to use it simply to conceal their access to the computer. Accordingly, the shadow Attorney has accepted, and Labor supports, an amendment to the power to alter data on a computer, specifically limiting the power to that necessary to conceal access by ASIO to the computer. An amendment has been circulated in my name to that effect.I now turn to the last issue, and that is that the increasing sophistication of groups who may act contrary to the interests of Australia's national security means that monitoring their financial dealings is becoming an increasingly vital part of understanding their operations. Indeed, evidence was provided to the committee that almost all significant acts of terrorism were preceded by a substantial transfer of money for the purpose of financing the operation. The Labor Party therefore supports ASIO having access to this data and notes that access to the information held by AUSTRAC and the ATO will be subject to the memoranda of understanding agreed to between those parties.In conclusion, despite the concerns raised in the submissions and the bill, and subject to the comments I have made, Labor has determined to support this legislation as an appropriate extension and update of the powers of Australia's peak national security organisation.20:33:0010763Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I rise on behalf of the Australian Democrats to discuss the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. I will speak briefly, partly because I was of the understanding that this bill had been taken off the legislative agenda for this evening. Nonetheless, the Australian Democrats have on a number of occasions raised concerns about some of the provisions contained in this legislation. In fact, we have expressed our concern more broadly in relation to increased and often intrusive powers being granted to security and intelligence organisations in Australia and elsewhere but not necessarily being matched with increased powers that ensure the security or protection of people's personal information.This debate has, we find, much in common with a number of other debates but specifically with the debate about the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights—because, at the end of the day, we have been given reasons for the extension of powers of ASIO that rely on some opaque notion of national interest on specific activities rather than the broad base of activities, and on the basis of intense secrecy. None of these aspects necessarily increases my confidence, or that of my party, in the process behind these amendments or in the report of the committee or in the level of accountability to which ASIO is subject.The Democrats have a number of concerns with the changes proposed to the ASIO legislation. These broadly relate to the expansion of powers granted to ASIO. Perhaps one of the more concerning is the government's move to implement some of the recommendations contained in the Walsh report, the 1996 review of the policy relating to encryption technologies, without consultation. The government has yet to make that report publicly available. That is something that I have commented upon previously and in another debate today when we were debating the electronic transactions legislation. Despite its inadvertent release of the Walsh report, that has still not formally been made available. Once again I call upon the Attorney-General and his department to make available that document. Since the report was originally intended to be available for public consultation, it is unfortunate that the government is now hoping to give ASIO extra powers under the cloak of national security and without extra scrutiny.Another of our main concerns is with the legalisation of computer hacking performed by ASIO, providing additional powers to add, modify or delete data held in computers. The Democrats do not believe that the proposed amendments provide an appropriate framework for the use of such sweeping powers—and they are sweeping. The concern always exists that these sorts of provisions could be used, for example, to plant evidence—and that is certainly something that we have put on record before. It is particularly unfortunate that a number of recent proposals to increase investigative powers, specifically in this case for ASIO, have been linked with the Olympic Games. The government has found quite a convenient excuse for significant new excursions into personal surveillance. These range from proposals to legitimately hack into computers, through to a comprehensive national genetic fingerprinting system.The Democrats remain concerned that a curious and hushed bipartisanship on national security issues might be short-circuiting a meaningful debate in Australia on issues of privacy, human rights and freedom. There are a number of issues raised in this legislation and by this bill. Certainly they have been referred to in some detail by the previous speaker, but they range from foreign intelligence, the basis for warrants, tracking devices, financial transactions, access to taxation information, concealing activities, immunity from civil proceedings, et cetera. So we are talking about quite considerable issues and broader powers.I think perhaps the Bills Digest sums it up quite nicely when, in the concluding comments, it states:Discussion of ASIO inevitably raises a dichotomy between the protection of privacy and civil liberties on the one hand and protection of national security on the other.That is certainly a dilemma with which we are all confronted, but certainly one that the Democrats take to heart. We are looking at a term that has been coined as `function creep'—it is certainly something that we have heard about on many occasions before the hearings of the Joint Committee of the National Crime Authority—which is the idea of increasing the powers, and sometimes very intrusive powers, of an intelligence, police or security organisation. This is presumably to meet changing times and changing crime techniques. But, at the same time, we are just wondering if it is self-serving and self-perpetuating the idea of providing these extra powers. Whether or not they are legitimately held or whether they are required is a debate that perhaps we have not had in meaningful detail.I am sorry that we cannot have it tonight in some respects, but we were not told this legislation was due for debate this evening; we were told it had been taken off the program. With those concerns on record, I look forward to perhaps a broader debate on this and other matters of security issues, especially as we confront a report that the National Crime Authority committee will be looking at soon, which is the issue of undercover policing which raises many of these similar issues.20:39:0010764Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—I would like to—AW5CARRSenator Carr—It is the ghost who walks!C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—Yes, that is me—the ghost who walks! I would like to thank honourable members for their contributions and interjections which warm the night up. In addition, I would like to thank also the Joint Committee on the Australian Security Intelligence Organization for its fair and constructive report on the bill. I have written to the presiding member of the committee, advising him of the government's response to the committee's recommendations. The government has accepted all but one of the committee's recommendations. There is also one further recommendation not related to the content of the bill which will require further examination.In relation to Senator Bolkus's comments about the search warrant provisions, I would like to say that the new wording is simply intended to express the test in plain English. I suggest that any person who attempts to apply the present test would quickly recognise the difficulty involved. This is largely because the present test is formulated in a negative way. The minister is required to be satisfied that intelligence collection by ASIO would be seriously impaired if ASIO cannot access records or other things in the subject premises. This is one of the few, if not the only, test for the issue of a search warrant expressed in the negative. The revised test is in a more positive form, which allows the minister to issue a warrant if satisfied that access to records or other things in the subject premises would substantially assist the collection of intelligence.All the other elements of the present test are retained. For example, there must still be reasonable grounds for believing and the intelligence must be in respect of a matter that is important in relation to security.8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—This is a novel event.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—It is. All the other elements of the present test are retained. For example, there must still be reasonable grounds for believing. The argument that the amendment would weaken the present test seems to be based on the assumption that the meaning of the words `substantially assist' is significantly different from the meaning of the words `seriously impair'. You might care to go to Fyshwick!XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I want to draw to your attention that there is a stranger in the House.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lightfoot)—There is no point of order.C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—The government says that `assist' is simply an antonym of `impair' and that `substantially' expresses the same idea as `seriously'. It is not grammatically possible to use the expression `seriously assist'. The government has implemented the recommendation of the parliamentary joint committee and issued a supplementary explanatory memorandum indicating that the amendment is not intended to weaken the present test.This is an important bill. It represents an enthusiastic response from the opposition. It is the first substantial overhaul of the ASIO act since 1986. ASIO has crucial responsibilities for national security and the government has a duty to review the adequacy of its powers to carry out these responsibilities.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—God, it is speaking!C16Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNAN—Here I am. The amendments do not involve an unreasonable inappropriate extension of ASIO's powers. Rather the bill will enhance ASIO's ability to carry out its statutory responsibilities in a sensible and balanced way, for example, by allowing ASIO to make better use of modern technology.In other areas, the amendments do no more than give ASIO access to certain information already available to the Commonwealth and state law enforcement agencies. Not only are the proposals reasonable in themselves but they are also effective safeguards. The additional special powers given to ASIO will normally be exercisable only under a warrant issued by the minister. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will ensure that warrant provisions are rigorously followed. The bill expressly extends the authority of the inspector-general to carry out periodic inspections of ASIO and other intelligence agencies. Other existing safeguards, including scrutiny by a dedicated parliamentary joint committee, will continue to apply. I believe the bill achieves the right balance to fulfil community expectations that ASIO can operate with full and adequate powers and that civil liberties will be properly protected. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10765The bill.20:44:0010765Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I would like to go through the bill with the parliamentary secretary, but I will just start on clause 23, which inserts section 26A and which refers to unlawful and lawful uses of tracking devices. Given the parliamentary secretary's knowledge of tracking devices around parliament, I ask him to give us an assurance that those tracking devices contemplated by section 26A do not include any that he may be used to using.20:45:0010765Heffernan, Sen BillSenator HEFFERNANC16NSWLP10—Thank you very much, Senator Bolkus. You will recall that yesterday, as you were sitting in the front row, I gave you a bit of advice about doing the drawback. I suspect you should.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I am suitably intimidated.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.10765Bill (on motion by Senator Heffernan) read a third time.Bills10765r91210765Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.20:46:0010766Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 is a bill to weaken the Affirmative Action Agency. Set up by the Labor government in 1986, the Affirmative Action Agency represents one of the earliest moves by government in this country to address issues of equality and opportunity for women in the workplace. Under the changes proposed by the government this agency is now to be substantially weakened, at a time when we all know that there is still much work to be done.The bill before us today is a salutary example of this government's attitude to women. This government has a complete lack of any service commitment to women and women's issues and the ongoing struggle that women continually face in the workplace. Worse than that, this bill is part of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs' broader agenda to knock down every structure that has been put in place over the years to guarantee security of employment and conditions for Australian women. At the moment he is pushing to abolish the AIRC and further undermine the systems that exist in this country to protect working conditions and the workplace environment.This government does not see any value in an affirmative action agency. In fact, we believe this government would actually like to repeal this legislation. But they know that they would not be able to get away with it. They would not get away with it because the issue of affirmative action and real equality is of critical importance to every Australian woman. So it is being done by stealth. The amendments that have been proposed substantially weaken the powers of the Affirmative Action Agency to perform its task of promoting equality of opportunity for millions of working women in Australia.The act as it stands encourages and allows for the monitoring of progress made by large private firms in the promotion of equality of opportunity for women. It is aimed squarely at upholding and enhancing the right of women to work. It aims to ensure that women are treated fairly in the workplace. It aims to ensure that women are not penalised in recruitment or in promotion. It aims to ensure that employers and firms are required to think about how women fare in their workplace and to address any systemic barriers that exist.Under the current provisions of the act large employers—that is, firms with more than 100 employees—must put in place an affirmative action program for women and report on their progress in providing equality of opportunity for women in the workplace. A senior manager within each firm must oversee the development of the program and ensure that there is wide consultation in its development. They must report to the government on their progress through the Director of Affirmative Action every year.Since 1994 employers have been rated on a scale of one to five, with five being the optimum result. Failure to submit a report or failure to provide evidence of the establishment of a program means that the employer is named as a noncomplying employer in the annual report of the agency tabled in parliament. Those firms named for noncompliance may be ineligible for Commonwealth government contracts and some forms of industry assistance. The reporting requirement is waived for firms who do the right thing by complying with the act for three consecutive years.The agency has been very successful in helping to build fairer workplaces. Since 1986 we have seen the number of women in the work force increase from 39.3 per cent of the total work force to 45 per cent. This has coincided with the rise in the number of organisations that have an equal opportunity policy in place. Drawing from the report of the independent review committee—the committee that was set up to review the agency and the act—57 per cent of private sector workplaces had an equal opportunity policy in place in 1995, up from 45 per cent in 1990. But, of course, there is still a long way to go, something the agency itself acknowledges.The checks and safeguards provided by the agency are needed now as much as they have ever been. I want to give some figures that starkly outline the situation. Just 11 per cent of senior management positions in Australia are held by women. Women remain massively overrepresented in part-time and casual labour, with 73 per cent of part-time jobs being held by women. Women earn just under 84 per cent of what men earn on a comparable average weekly earnings basis. The proportion of women participating in the work force has remained stuck at around 53.7 since 1996, and there are signs that women are starting to leave the work force. The latest figures show a reduction in the number of married women with full-time jobs.It is in this environment that the minister for employment has begun destroying the supports and protections that women have relied on under the industrial relations system. The undermining of the award system will deal a strong blow to women in the work force who are still battling with the more obvious obstacles that they must face.What is now required is consolidation of the gains made for women in the work force to this point and strengthening of our resolve in pursuing the goal of equality of opportunity for women in work. But, unbelievably, this government sees this as a time to in fact destroy the structures in place and weaken the Affirmative Action Agency. It suits the purpose of the government, of course. Deregulation of the labour market requires abolition of all of the institutions that play some role in regulation.The government commissioned a review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 by an independent committee in order to examine the cost of the act to business, the community and the Australian economy as a whole. The terms of reference did not include whether the act needed strengthening to further improve women's opportunities in the workplace. That was obviously something that did not concern the government.The bill before us today is the government's selective response to the recommendations of that committee. They have picked the bits that suit their plan best and ignored the rest. So what does the minister tell us he is doing? He says these amendments are actually aimed at `achieving genuine equality of opportunity for women in Australian workplaces'—presumably just like his attack on worker conditions in this country are aimed at providing greater choice and greater opportunity. I do not think that is correct. This is a worryingly familiar scenario.When this particular minister starts talking about fair employment act practices, women in this country brace themselves for the worst. For Mr Peter Reith, fairness is a euphemism for poorer pay and longer hours, and he will not hesitate to apply these constraints to women, who are already struggling against any number of barriers upon entering the work force.Before I address those amendments directed at the watering down of the role of the Affirmative Action Agency, I will outline briefly those minor amendments that we believe do not pose a threat to the agency and that the opposition can, therefore, support. The first amendment proposed is simply a name change, and we support that. We believe the name change is an appropriate one and will more accurately reflect the role that the agency has played. We also support the broadening of the definition of `employment matters' covered by the act to include the termination of employment, work organisation and arrangements for dealing with sex based harassment of women in the workplace, although we would like to see this extended even further.We also believe the establishment of an advisory board is an appropriate step. In his second reading speech, the minister acknowledged the substantial gains made by the Affirmative Action Agency. He indicated that the agency should pursue an increased educative role and, as my colleague in the other chamber Ms Macklin noted, the idea of workplace visits—recommendation 12 of the committee—would be an appropriate way forward to give the agency an enhanced educative role and to provide a supplement to reporting. This would give greater information to the agency when it came to organisations seeking a waiver from the ongoing reporting requirements of the act. However, this recommendation seems to have been overlooked by the minister.How does the minister propose to pursue this recognised need for an increased educative role? This is surely not possible while staffing has been reduced to 19 under this government and overall funding has been reduced by $900,000. In light of the minister's comment, it is difficult to understand the amendments, which I will turn to, which are all aimed at reducing the role of the Affirmative Action Agency and its ability to pursue the fundamentally important goal of equality for women in the workplace.Given we have a long way to travel before equal opportunity in the workplace is achieved for women, now is not the time to weaken this legislation. Labor will oppose those sections of the bill that reduce the capacity of the act to improve employment opportunities for women. There are a number of areas of the bill that weaken the current act. The bill will weaken the requirement of employers to `promote equal opportunity'. Employers will now simply have to `contribute to the achievement of' equal opportunity. In the objects clause, the bill states that it is `to promote' merit based employment for women and the elimination of discrimination against women in the workplace, and yet there will now be no requirement for employers to promote among their workplace these objects as part of their equality for women in the workplace program.The bill also removes the requirement that employers consult with both their employees and the relevant trade union. There is a surprise! For an equality of opportunity program to be genuinely effective, it surely must bring all members of the workplace together behind it. It cannot exclusively be the province of management to work out what is right and what is wrong. In larger workplaces where this act comes into play, as I have outlined previously, unions represent many workers. It is a fact. They are important players in the dissemination of information and providing advocacy, advice and representation to their workers, their members, who in turn rely on them for support when vulnerable.The independent review recommended that the consultation arrangements continue but, of course, the minister has chosen to ignore this particular recommendation. There are no surprises there. The legislation also seeks to remove the requirement that a senior manager within a firm coordinate the development of the affirmative action program. This means that the program can now be held in the hands of a junior officer of the company without authority and without the skills and knowledge of the workplace to actually ensure results emanate. Again, this downgrades the importance of compliance with the act within an organisation. The bill also reduces the requirement to report from one year to every two years. This will reduce the scrutiny applied to the program in individual workplaces.The explanatory memorandum also makes reference to the abolition of the one to five rating system, which measured the level of success in implementing affirmative action measures in a workplace—one being the worst, five being the best—and replaces it with a simple pass or fail, complying or non-complying. This is very unfair to the private sector because it draws no distinction between those companies with a very good affirmative action program and those with a simply adequate affirmative action program. It is not an appropriate way to provide businesses with an incentive to improve. If a simple `complied' is all that is required, why would a business strive for more? It is just not fair to the private sector.The extension of the granting of waivers to firms is a matter of concern to the opposition. The act, as it stands, provides for waivers to be granted to those firms that have complied for three years, as I have outlined previously. I count that as a fair amount of time in which to assess a firm's commitment to implementing real and appropriate programs. The bill, as it stands, would have waivers granted purely on the basis of the discretion of the agency. It relies on an assessment of every waiver request and, given that the agency has experienced significant budget cuts under this government—$900,000—that assessment procedure in itself is going to be difficult to say the least.It amounts to the government lowering the benchmark for compliance and at the same time giving firms carte blanche to evade reporting. The submission by the agency to the committee of review stated that `there was anecdotal evidence that, in a minority of waived organisations, resources have been directed away from the program following the agency's decision to waive that organisation's reporting requirements'. This would be of considerable concern under an expanded system of waivers.At the moment, an employer must submit a confidential report on top of the public report after the first year to establish and set out the means of implementing the employer's affirmative action program and then every year thereafter to spell out the development of the program. Under the bill before us, employers need to lodge such a confidential report only if they have not covered matters of self-assessment in the public report. This is again a neutering of the previous reporting regime under which employers were required to attend to the details of their program at the start of the program and to report confidentially by way of self-assessment of their programs every year thereafter.Labor will be moving a number of amendments to this legislation, and I will cover those briefly. We will be moving amendments to extend the definition of employment matters to include arrangements for dealing with pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees; to ensure that compliance with guidelines developed under the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act should be admissible as evidence in cases brought before HREOC; to clarify coverage under the Sex Discrimination Act of federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament; to remove the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state; and to remove the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy.Labor further seeks to move amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to implement the recommendations and the intent of the HREOC report, Pregnant and productive. The government has been sitting on this report. It was presented at the end of June and now in November, five months later, we have no response. The report made 46 recommendations covering pregnancy in the workplace. The evidence in the report of the treatment that some pregnant women have to endure in workplaces means that we must act quickly.We have called for the government to introduce the recommended amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that the HREOC report outlined. We have told them that we will support these amendments. When this bill was introduced into the house a month ago, we outlined our commitment to introducing the recommendations. Five months after the release of the report and one month since Labor affirmed our commitment to acting on this, we have heard nothing. We ask, somewhat rhetorically: what does this say about the government's commitment to women and women's issues? Let us remember that this is a government that sees little value in the Affirmative Action Agency and has further failed women empirically by its failure to respond to these recommendations.It is left to Labor to act on this issue, and act we will. We will therefore move amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act empowering HREOC to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; inserting a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions, whether orally or in writing, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about whether or when a woman intends to become pregnant and/or her intentions in relation to meeting her current or pending family responsibilities; clarifying the unlawfulness of discrimination based on medical examinations of pregnant women during the recruitment process; allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for receipt or written complaint; including breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination; enabling the award of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages; removing the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; ensuring coverage of unpaid workers; and removing the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state.The opposition will pursue its commitment to women and not allow this important report to languish on some shelf in some minister's office. We firmly believe that these are sensible amendments to the act and that, coupled with a well-planned education campaign, they can make a concrete difference to the everyday lives of Australian women.The Sex Discrimination Act celebrated its 15th birthday in October this year. This act has been pivotal to the changing position of women in this country and, specifically, of women in the work force. Many women now have the confidence to challenge the discrimination they experience in the workplace. We have made some very significant advancement upon the foundation of this landmark legislation that has helped to achieve so much for women. But, as my colleague in the other chamber pointed out, there is no room for complacency. We need to be steadfast, particularly when the government and this minister are showing their true colours in relation to women's issues.Mr Reith sells the bill before us as cutting red tape and streamlining procedures, but we on this side can see that it is clearly about removing accountability measures. This government has already dramatically reduced opportunities for Australian women through attacking their rights in the workplace by introducing draconian industrial relations legislation, weakening the ability of women to seek adequate redress for discrimination, failing to involve and consult with women, economic policies that see women most disadvantaged and defunding women's organisations—and we have heard a lot about that.This bill continues this trend, and we in the ALP are completely opposed to the position of the government in this respect. At a time when Australian women have stopped making progress and now face the full brunt of harsh economic and industrial measures, we need to strengthen, not diminish, those institutions that advocate a better deal for women so that women can move ahead and continue, as the minister says, to `make significant gains' in the workplace. The Labor Party will oppose the bill if these amendments are not accepted.21:04:0010770Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—Many of the changes proposed in the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 are concerning and disappointing. These changes are concerning and disappointing because they are likely to wind back some of the tremendous gains made by women in the work force in the past few decades. The bill is likely to diminish some of those gains by weakening the Affirmative Action Agency. If implemented, these changes would be another nail in the coffin for female workers in Australia—another nail in the coffin hammered in by a workplace relations minister who seems intent on destroying the good work done by and for women in recent decades.The past 20 years have produced hard fought gains and better conditions for women in the work force. A substantial number of these gains happened under the previous Labor government. They happened because the ALP had a commitment to working with women, working with business and working with unions. The ALP had a commitment to sitting down with these groups and finding ways of helping women achieve some sort of equality in the work force. The ALP did that in a conciliatory manner that could work in the best interests of all parties involved. That commitment was made reality in 1986 with the establishment of the Affirmative Action Agency.Unfortunately, there is little evidence of a similar commitment from the current government. As I mentioned, many of those achievements came about following the establishment of the Affirmative Action Agency under the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. The Affirmative Action Agency is responsible for overseeing the development of affirmative action programs by businesses with more than 100 employees. The current legislation has been extremely successful in helping build fairer workplaces. Since 1986, the number of women in the workplace has increased signifi cantly, coinciding with a rise in the number of organisations that have an equal opportunity policy in place. But there is still a long way to go.The affirmative action programs facilitated by the agency are designed to remove discriminatory employment barriers and take action to promote equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Many of these programs are good and, if history is anything to go by, many of them work. Many of these programs have been responsible for significant achievements in various workplaces around Australia. The Affirmative Action Agency has, for more than 10 years, been helping, guiding, goading and shaming companies into providing programs to help women achieve a better existence in the workplace. My concern is that the changes proposed in this bill would erode some of the authority of the Affirmative Action Agency and, in eroding the authority and operations of that agency, of even greater concern is that many of the achievements made by women in recent years might be wiped away.To ground this debate, we need to put to the forefront the reality that faces working women today. Despite the progressive and long overdue results achieved under the existing legislation, there is still a long way to go. Indeed, my biggest concern with the proposed changes to the legislation is the possibility of the hard won changes being eroded. Only 11 per cent of senior management positions in this country are held by women, 73 per cent of part-time jobs in Australia are held by women and women earn only 84 per cent of what men earn, on a comparable weekly earnings basis. There are also concerning signs that women are leaving the work force. Since the Howard government came to power, the proportion of women participating in the work force has been stagnant at 54 per cent.Those few facts and figures, I think, indicate the continuing need for the agency's existence in its current form. As it currently stands, large employers must produce an affirmative action program and report to the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency, who then reports to the government. For the past five years employers have been rated on a scale of 1 to 5. That system is set to be abolished and replaced with a pass/fail system. This change will work as a disincentive for continuous improvements by business—but I will speak further on that later.If an employer fails to submit a report or provide evidence of a program, they are named in parliament through the agency's annual report—with 55 such organisations being named last month. In being named, they may also face certain restrictions on accessing various government benefits.There are parts of this legislation that we support. Firstly, we support a change of name for the agency: from the Affirmative Action Agency to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency. I believe that that change properly reflects the role of the agency but not, unfortunately, the impact of this legislation. Following on from this, the title of the agency's director will be changed to the Director of Equal Opportunity in the Workplace Agency.The opposition also supports the widening of the definition of `employment matters' to take in the termination of employment and the establishment of an advisory board. It is quite timely that we are having this debate now. The Affirmative Action Agency tabled its 1998-99 annual report in parliament just one month ago and I spoke on the report at that time. The annual report highlights a number of things about the treatment of women in the workplace that emphasise the need to oppose many of the changes to this bill that will impact on the agency. This bill should be opposed because it will eat away at the improvements that have already taken place for women in the work force and make it harder to combat the discriminatory practices that are still in place.The Director of the Affirmative Action Agency identified a number of continuing problems facing women in the work force. These include the fact that Australia has one of the most gender segregated work forces of any OECD country, women in management figures remain low and achieving pay equity is still a long way off. There are also concerns that, while there has been a steady increase in the number of best practice agencies, we might now be approaching a plateau and that some industries, as a whole, are struggling with affirmative action. Further, 70 per cent of all people who live in poverty are women and their dependent children; there has been a dramatic increase in the casualised work force; the fastest growing area of employment is in contracting; and, in countries where women are not given a choice to balance their work and family commitments, they are choosing to not have families and remain in the paid work force.The agency acknowledges that reports made to it by various groups show incremental improvements to practices. Unfortunately, the agency has adopted a recommendation from the review committee and not provided a rating scale of organisational compliance. Reports from employers are now being assessed simply on whether or not they comply with the provisions of the act. This is unfortunate because it robs the community of the chance to see which organisations are doing particularly well in promoting equal opportunity for women in the work force. The government's amendments seek to enshrine that change in the legislation. That change means that an organisation that has gone out of its way to help women achieve their full potential in the work force by providing a range of innovative and effective programs is seen as doing just as well as one that has done the bare minimum needed to comply with the act.That does not sound to me much like the incentive based schemes Mr Reith keeps saying will do wonders for workers. Mr Reith goes on and on about incentives for workers, but what he is saying to businesses is, `Look, all we want is a bit of a wink from you that you are doing the absolute bare minimum.' Where are the incentives for businesses to perform better in this area, Mr Reith? Where are the incentives for the companies that are already performing to keep performing? Where are the incentives to improve for companies that are doing the absolute minimum they need to under the act?Mr Reith also says that the changes in this bill are about cutting red tape and streamlin ing procedures. The people on this side of the Senate are not so easily fooled. Many of these changes are part of the continuing campaign by the workplace relations minister to weaken workers' rights. He has attacked the unions, he has attacked the award system and now he is attacking women. This time, however, he is not coming head-on; he is trying to creep around the back way, hitting out at worker's rights when he thinks nobody is looking. Mr Reith tried the same tactic of sneaking through bit by bit changes to workers' rights using the Federal Magistrates Bill. He failed with that ploy and he will fail with this one too.The opposition is moving a number of amendments to this bill designed to keep it working. Our amendments seek to achieve several things. They extend the definition of employment matters to include arrangements for dealing with pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees. We also want to take the reasonable step of ensuring that compliance with guidelines developed under the act is admissible as evidence in cases brought before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. We seek to remove the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state and the exemption of educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy.Further to that, the opposition is also moving amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to implement recommendations from the recent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report entitled Pregnant and productive: It's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant. The report highlights the major problems faced by pregnant women in the work force. The report documents the terrible treatment endured by some pregnant women in the workplace. The changes it recommends to the Sex Discrimination Act that our amendments cover include: empowering the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the workplace; inserting a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about pregnancy; clarifying the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during recruitment; allowing referrals by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to the Industrial Relations Commission of discriminatory awards or agreements without the need for a written complaint; including breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination; enabling the awarding of punitive as well as compensatory damages; ensuring coverage of unpaid workers; removing the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state; removing the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy; and clarifying federal coverage for federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and members of parliament.The fact that the government has left the Pregnant and productive report lying on the shelf is an absolute disgrace. The community is still waiting for the government's response to this report—we all are. The government has a responsibility to respond to this report sooner rather than later. Maybe the government think the problem will go away. Maybe they think that in nine months time there will be no more problems. Well, they are wrong. Women who work will continue to become pregnant and the opposition will continue to support them. The ALP will move the amendments necessary for women in work who become pregnant to continue to play an active role free from discrimination.This legislation makes some substantial changes to the mechanisms that exist to protect women and increase their legitimate role in the work force. My concern is that the changes proposed by the government, whether made out of malice or not, will wind back the clock for working women in Australia. When proposing any changes of this type, the government should be able to show in concrete terms how those changes will benefit women down the track. No matter how hard I look, I cannot see those benefits.In conclusion, as my colleague in the other house Mr Martin Ferguson said:An understated feature of the labour market of recent decades is that, while women from wealthier backgrounds have made great leaps forward, those at the bottom have not been as fortunate.For this reason we must not further erode conditions which will disadvantage those who do not have the bargaining power or the educational advantages to stand up to unfair practices. A fair and just society believes in equal opportunities for all. This government has already introduced draconian industrial changes which have weakened women's rights in the workplace and this bill does nothing to reverse that trend. This bill cannot possibly be supported.21:20:0010773Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise tonight to give some contribution to the debate regarding the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . As we are all too well aware, this bill comes about as a result of the government's response to a report that was undertaken as part of the regulatory review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. That report tabled in June last year is titled Unfinished business . This bill seeks to change references to affirmative action in the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act to references to equal opportunity for women in the workplace and to give employers greater latitude when devising their workplace programs under the legislation, including changing the reporting period for employers from one year to two years.I would like to provide the Senate with some background to this act and perhaps an explanation about what affirmative action is and why it was first introduced in this form through the agency some years back. The principal act was set up to require private sector companies, community organisations, non-government schools, unions, group training companies and higher education institutions with 100 or more employees to establish affirmative action programs. Affirmative action programs are meant to be designed to remove discriminatory employment barriers and take action to promote equal opportunity for women in the workplace. If an employer does not comply with the requirements of the act, they are named in parliament in the Affirmative Action Agency's report. Just recently that report has been tabled in parliament, and a number of businesses and organisations are named in this year's report. I also want to place on record that the annual report of the Affirmative Action Agency also names those organisations or institutions that have best practice affirmative action programs, and they are also named in this year's report.An affirmative action program generally consists of a strategic plan that addresses specific issues relevant to that workplace and usually includes about eight steps. These are: the issuing by management of a policy statement notifying employees of the commencement of an affirmative action program; conferring responsibility for the program on a person with sufficient authority—such as the equal employment officer within the workplace, for example—and status within the management to enable proper development and implementation of the program; consulting with trade unions that have members in that workplace; consulting with employees, especially women; collecting and recording statistical and other relevant information on the program—in other words, where you have identified strategies for overcoming discriminatory practices in the workplace they are measured against targets and performance indicators; reviewing policies and practices of the employer to identify any discriminatory policy or practice or to identify any patterns of lack of opportunity relating to women; setting objectives and making forward estimates; and monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the program to assess the achievement of the objectives and forward estimates.I have been involved in developing affirmative action programs for a number of years, having been involved with organisations that employ 100 or more employees. In early 1998 I was also involved in the review of the affirmative action act. It has been my experience that affirmative action programs that have been established by and large have at least sought to improve those situations in the workplace and at times there has been demonstrable improvement and at times that task has been quite difficult. But I think it would be fair to say that for those people who were involved in the review of this act, to the credit of the team that was set up to review it—and I will go to that in a moment—it was quite a comprehensive review, led by Ms Deanne Bevan, who was at the time the Director of Employee Relations for McDonalds. I think, by and large, people were quite happy with the substantive report that was produced. But I do not think for one minute that people who were actually involved and committed to affirmative action programs in the workplace for women ever thought that the end result would be almost this bottom line, minimalist approach by the government in the way in which these amendments have now come before the parliament, in the way in which the review of the act has been seen to have watered down the commitment that organisations and businesses have under this act and will not have if these changes are passed.The Affirmative Action Agency has commented on the definition of the term `affirmative action' in that affirmative action is the term for a range of measures for eliminating direct and indirect discrimination and for implementing positive steps to overcome the current and historical causes of lack of equal opportunity for women; that affirmative action for women is compatible with appointment and promotion on the basis of merit; that an affirmative action program is a strategic program designed to achieve equal employment opportunity for women; that affirmative action is not about quotas and has never been about quotas, and it is not about discrimination in favour of women; and that affirmative action is about merit. Nevertheless, the term `affirmative action' has been the subject of some criticism.We should note that the first recommendation of the review was to change the name of the affirmative action act, the director and the agency in order to distinguish Australia's affirmative action definition from the United States' former system of quotas and preferential treatment. In response to Unfinished business, which the government produced in December of last year, they said that they supported a name change which will adopt the following title and terms: the `Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act', the `Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency' and the `Director of Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace'. This is a change that the Labor Party will endorse in this legislation.The main legislation has remained largely unchanged over the course of its 13 years. Amendments have extended the range of employers covered and introduced provisions regarding the waiving of reporting requirements. It should be noted that there was a non-legislative change to the impact of the legislation in 1993 when, under Labor, we decided that employers who failed to comply with the requirements of the principal act would not be eligible for consideration for government contracts for goods and services and specified industry assistance.However, the position of women in Australian workplaces is still identified as unsatisfactory, with the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency commenting that the following problems persist: Australia still has one of the most gender segregated work forces of the OECD countries, the number of women in management still remains low, and achieving pay equity still remains a significant challenge. While there has been a steady trend showing an increasing number of best practice organisations, are we now reaching a plateau, and how do we move off that? Some industries are struggling with affirmative action. Seventy per cent of those who live in poverty in this country are women and their dependent children. In countries where women are not given a choice to balance their work and family commitments, they are choosing not to have families and to remain in the paid work force. There is a dramatic increase in the casualisation of the work force, and the fastest growing area of employment is in the contracting-out industry.As I mentioned before, the affirmative action act underwent a comprehensive review conducted by Ms Deanne Bevan during 1998. The objects of the review were: to assess whether the benefits to the community from the legislation and/or the regulation out weighed the costs; to assess whether the objectives of the legislation and/or the regulation could not be achieved more efficiently through other means; to have regard to the effects on welfare and equity, economic and regional development, consumer interests, the competitiveness of business and efficient resource allocation; and to ensure compliance costs and the paperwork burden to small business could be reduced where feasible—not totally eliminated as is the proposal here.The review recommended that, while central parts of the legislation should remain intact, various changes were desirable. We have noted that. This government has agreed to many of the review's recommendations, and an advisory board along the lines of the review's recommendation No. 4 has already been established. The chair of this Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Board is Ms Deanne Bevan. A number of others have been appointed to the board, including a representative from the National Council of Women of Australia—what a surprise, after they received such a large amount of funding this year—the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Council for Equal Opportunity in Employment.There was an article written by Stephen Long in the AustralianFinancial Review on 27 October this year about a number of members of the advisory board. He makes the following very accurate comments about Reg Hamilton of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Brendan McCarthy of the Western Australian chamber who are now members of this advisory board on equal employment opportunity for women: Now, there is a clear policy rationale for "linking the agency to its client base", in Peter Reith's words, by appointing these employer representatives. On the other hand, their organisations have been less than fulsome in support of women's rights at work when this involved a financial impost on business.And that is true. The article goes on:ACCI opposed granting mothers a right to a year's unpaid leave in the maternity leave test case. It opposed the extension of parental leave to men. More recently, it opposed the granting of paid carers' leave to employees. But, lo and behold, under this government not one but two people from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, one from the WA branch, get a guernsey, believe it or not, to sit on this government's advisory board—the very organisations that are opposing any kind of fairness in respect of women and their participation in the work force are now advising this government on what they should be doing under their agenda for equal employment opportunity for women.The government has also rejected some of the review's recommendations. The more significant of these included a recommendation that a system for workplace visits be introduced to assist in confirming waived status and supplementary reporting and a recommendation that there be an explicit requirement for self-identification of relevant employers in the act.This bill represents the implementation of many of the other recommendations of the report, although within this implementation of the recommendations there is still divergences between the review's recommendations and the government's response, in particular with respect to the proposed legislative implementation of recommendations Nos 2 and 11. Recommendation 2 was the review's suggestions for the insertion of a clearly articulated objects clause. The review's recommendation specified that the legislation should `promote consultation between employers and employees and their representatives'—that is, unions—`in addressing equity issues in the workplace'.The committee also recommended that the objects should include the key principle: `to apply sanctions when employers disregard their responsibilities under the act'. But these recommendations were summarised by the government in the following manner—of course, we are not going to be surprised that the word `union' has dropped off the agenda:The objects clause would also: emphasise the merit principle; replace the old union consultation requirement with a general statement of support for consultation; and clarify the new emphasis on an incentive-based, educative and conciliative approach to compliance. The government's response was given as follows:The Government agrees that the objects of the legislation should emphasise merit, replace the old union consultation requirement with a general statement of support for consultation and emphasise a facilitative rather than punitive approach to compliance.This response would seem to have endorsed its own summary rather than the actual recommendations of the review.The review did recommend the replacement of the previous system of reporting with a more flexible system of reporting. However, it recognised the role unions could play through its reference to employees' representatives. In fact, far from recommending against union consultation, the review's main reference to unions was a discussion of the workplace data analysed by the Centre for Research in Employment and Work which showed:. . . unionised workplaces have better equity performance than non-unionised workplaces, and the higher the level of union density the more likely the workplace is to have higher equity performance.The review's reference to the need for sanctions to deal with non-complying employers also seems to have been lost—or perhaps misplaced—rather than endorsed in the government's reference to a `facilitative rather than punitive' approach to compliance.The second divergence between the review's recommendations and the government's response concerns recommendation No. 11. This recommendation suggested that a more flexible approach should be taken to the waiving of reporting requirements but that a waiver should be able to be revoked. There are no provisions made regarding the agency's power to revoke a waiver if, after investigation, the agency believes an employer is not taking reasonable steps to eliminate discrimination or that progress towards achieving equity has faltered. The new provision simply allows the agency to specify how long the waiver is to operate when it first grants the waiver.Perhaps the major recommendation of the review and the major change that will be effected by the legislation is a change of terminology from the principal act from `affirmative action' to `equal employment'. The term `affirmative action', as I have said before, in a generic sense can simply refer to any special measure taken which may have a different impact on men and women and which is designed to address social conditions that have resulted in systemic discrimination. However, the term `affirmative action' has now taken on connotations of quota-based systems and reverse discrimination. The review quotes several sources identifying the confusion regarding the term `affirmative action'.There are a number of proposals in this legislation which, as my colleagues have said, the Labor Party will be supporting. They go to a new name for the act and the broadening of the definition of employment matters covered by the act to include the termination of employment, work organisation and arrangements for dealing with the sex-based harassment of women in the workplace. They also go to the need to establish an advisory board, although I have made my comments known about who I think should be on that board and who perhaps does and does not qualify to be on that board.As my colleagues have also said during this debate, we will be seeking to make a number of changes and move a series of amendments to take up and implement the recommendations from the recently issued report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on pregnancy in the workplace entitled Pregnant and productive. The changes proposed to the Affirmative Action Act need to be seen in the context of other developments regarding women's participation in the work force. These include recent developments in issues of family friendly practices in the workplace, pregnancy discrimination and changes to the Workplace Relations Act. The Pregnant and productive report is a comprehensive report that has been completed most thoroughly and professionally by HREOC. It should be at least recorded in our speeches tonight that there are women in Australia who appreciate the work that Susan Halliday, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and her office are undertaking. The report made numerous recommendations on how to deal with this widespread discrimination. These recommendations include several which touch on the role of the Affirmative Action Agency and the principal act.In conclusion, we will be seeking to at least implement the recommendations from the national pregnancy and work inquiry. We will be seeking to pursue a proactive role in this regard and not a role the government has yet seen fit to respond to.21:40:0010777Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—This bill, entitled the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , seeks to amend and in fact replace the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986. Equality in the work force has come a long way since 1986. Whether this proposed bill will improve the current situation is to be debated in the chamber. There is no doubt that the bill passed in 1986 has done a great deal for equality in the workplace on the grounds of sex.The author of the 1986 act deserves a lot of credit, and I would like to give it to her. Former senator the Hon. Susan Ryan, the then minister for education, got this act up in the parliament when it was down the hill in 1986. She had to do it against a great deal of opposition. I pay tribute to her tonight for the work she did then. The work was not only in the area of obtaining equality for women in the workplace. Generally, she was a great minister for education. She retired from parliament, in my view too early, and then went on to a very successful career in the private sector. She has recently written a book, which I commend to everybody to read. Her autobiography illustrates the struggle that women have had and how successful they can be. Women are now treated quite equally. Look at the clerks at the table; one is a man and one is a woman. Both are great sources of wisdom. It illustrates how far we have come.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—What about me?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator Conroy is a great man, and Senator Denman balances him well. Senator Crossin and those before her have criticised this bill. That criticism may well be right; it is yet to be seen. I have been looking through the second reading speech. Certainly the intention of the bill is that things should improve. However, there is not much evidence to indicate that it will. There are allegations and statements of intent and no doubt aspirations. Whether they are based on solid ground remains to be seen. For example, the first sentence on page 2 starts with the words `this bill proposes'. The second sentence states:It—meaning the bill—puts workers and businesses first, not institutions; it is relevant to modern Australia; it builds on the common interests which exist in the workplace; and it provides for fair and productive outcomes reflecting our national economic and social goals.There is no explanation of how that is to be done. No doubt the minister is to be commended for his aspirations, but he may be asked for some evidence that what he says there is correct.The second reading speech puts a lot of the workings of this bill into the hands of the employer rather than giving both the employer and the employees equality in obtaining outcomes and putting into effect what is needed. There seems to be a paucity of words in this second reading speech about an equality of input from both employers and employees. If that is to be the situation then there is a real problem facing us. Senator Crossin mentioned the issue of waiving arrangements. The second reading speech reads:The bill introduces a revised waiving arrangement. The agency—Senator Crossin has discussed that—will have the power to waive reporting requirements, for a specified period, where it is satisfied that the employer has taken all reasonably practicable measures to address the issues relating to employment matters that affect equal opportunity for women in their workplace.There will always be problems where an agency and an employer have the ability—a case is not on the board in this particular instance—to decide whether the act is running in accordance with what is intended. That is going to be a very difficult program for employers to carry out because employers, by the very nature of things being one side of the equation, are going to have an interest or at least a perceived interest in making sure that the bill works in their favour.In this bill there ought to be a set of rules, a protocol, guidelines—whatever you want to call them—to ensure that there is going to be equality in the workplace and that there is going to be an ability to judge whether or not the intent of the bill or the act can be carried out. In other words, there ought to be some objective criteria against which the degree to which people comply with the requirements of the act are met. That is not presently in the bill. We have a high risk that the work done by Senator Ryan will be undone to a much larger degree than is anywhere near desirable. I adopt the matters set forth in the eloquent and learned speech by Senator Crossin.This bill seeks to replace an act that deals with rights. It is part of the rule of law that operates in Australia that sets out a requirement that must be met in the interests of fairness and justice in society. This piece of legislation might better be put in a comprehensive bill of rights. I think there are problems, as the recent referendum showed, in putting a bill of rights into the Constitution. This parliament has the ability to set up a bill of rights at a legislative level. In the last couple of days, we have been debating issues that illustrate what I mean. First of all, there was the issue of refugees, the rights of people before the law courts, whether they should have those rights and what sorts of rules ought to apply to people coming to Australia illegally but claiming to be refugees that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, so eloquently argued. Today we are dealing with legislation which deals with the position of women in the workplace. It seeks to overcome the prejudice that is still there, although not to the extent that it used to be by any means. It is all piecemeal.It is time for this parliament, and this chamber perhaps in particular, to think about setting out a bill of rights or similar instrument which protects people's civil rights. That has been done in Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and now in England. The United States Constitution contains a bill of rights and has done so for a couple of centuries now. It is interesting to note that Australia stands alone amongst countries with English speaking backgrounds and a common law tradition without a bill of rights.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—England has not got one.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—England now has a bill of rights, Senator McGauran. I invite you to look at that and the efforts it has made to comply with its European brothers and sisters. I think you will find that England has legislation that accomplishes the purpose of a bill of rights. You might check that with the advisers. Until I am corrected, and I do not think I will be, I come back to the point that Australia alone is without some sort of bill of rights.The difficulty is that, unless you have an overarching set of rules and laws, you have to rely on bills like this. Australia has some good legislation in this area. There is the Racial Discrimination Act, the act that deals with discrimination on the grounds of race. There is one that deals with discrimination on the grounds of disability. There is one that deals with discrimination on the grounds of sex. But they are limited to a very precise range of affairs, as this one is. The one now before us talks about women in the workplace and makes the profound statement that women in the workplace should be treated on the grounds of merit. It is hardly revolutionary to say that people should be treated in the workplace on the basis of their ability and merit. If we have to rely on this sort of legislation to get into operation what should be there by virtue of the very nature of our society, then we have some problems.Discrimination in the workplace can take all sorts of forms. The various tribunals around Australia that deal with sexual discrimination and equal opportunity have dealt with a whole variety of things. You might get discrimination in the place where people go to have their morning tea. You might get it, say, in schools, where there is discrimination against a particular person because she is a woman: she has to take particular classes, conversations are conducted about her in a particular way, she is asked to do certain things and so on. Oftentimes they are very hard to identify, and oftentimes they come around because of a clash of cultures. If you get a man who is 55, has played his football and has been almost trained to regard women in a chauvinist way, it is pretty hard for him to—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—That is stereotyping football.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I am not stereotyping football. I am talking about actualities, Senator McGauran. It is actually quite a sympathetic statement to the man involved—not an actual figure but the one I am creating—because it is saying that, because of his background and culture, he discriminates against a woman who is much younger and who has grown up in a different culture. I am using that as an illustration, but what I am saying about this legislation is this: it is not simply a matter of passing legislation; it is a matter too of requiring employers to educate those people who are employed by them and who have the ability to act in a way that is discriminatory to women. It should not be simply a matter of an employer giving a report each year; it should also be a matter of that employer educating its staff—I say `it' because it is usually a company that is involved—to ensure that they understand that merit is the order of the day and that respect for other members of the work force within their factory is correct, and that is it.I will finish on this point. I have been using the word `it' because companies are usually the employers in these situations. Companies have to realise that they have not only a duty to return high dividends on shares and to conduct their businesses so that there is a good return to the directors and the shareholders but also a duty as citizens of the community to see that the workplace they conduct is fair. They can do that only by making sure that the culture in the company and amongst those who are employed is a culture that respects merit, people and differences in sex, race and health. Disability is also a factor that often attracts discrimination. I think this legislation should be looked at and examined not only in terms of the aspirations it expresses but also in what it says about what com panies have to do to inculcate into the workplace a fairer system.Debate (on motion by Senator Herron) adjourned.Adjournment10780Motion (by Senator Herron) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.1078021:51:0010780Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—In recent weeks I have drawn to the attention of the Senate some exciting new Tasmanian agribusinesses. Tonight I wish to acknowledge the achievements of families associated with the Tasmanian tulip bulb industry. On picturesque Table Cape in north-west Tasmania is the Table Cape Tulip Farm operated by Van Diemen Quality Bulbs. Every year in spring, the Roberts-Thomson family and their dedicated team open their farm gates to lots of curious visitors who, camera in hand, walk through hectares of shimmering colour in Australia's largest area of tulips open to the public. About 20 hectares of the farm is devoted to flower bulb production, primarily tulip bulbs, with approximately three hectares of dutch irises, two hectares of daffodils, and two hectares of liliums.The history of tulips is quite fascinating. They have been cultivated for over 400 years. The word `tulip' originates from the word `turban'. It was thought that the flowers resembled the brightly coloured turbans worn in Turkey. Tulips mostly originate from the mountains of Iran and Turkey, where there are quite cold winters and hot, dry summers. Symbolically, tulips are said to represent fame. Mother bulbs are planted in autumn, when ground temperatures are cooling. Each bulb contains from two to five daughter bulbs. After flowering, the energy produced by the leaves feeds and enlarges the daughter bulbs. By harvest time in late November to late December, the combined weight of the daughter bulbs is approximately twice the original weight of the mother bulb.After harvest, the bulbs are lifted, harvested, dried, separated and cleaned. They are graded into sizes measured in centimetres circumference, and the large bulbs are prepared for sale. The smaller bulbs of sizes less than 10 centimetres are stored until they are replanted in May. There are approximately 300,000 saleable bulbs per hectare. Bulbs are very busy during storage. As soon as they are nice and warm in their stores, at temperatures between 20 degrees centigrade and 25 degrees centigrade, they start developing their flower for the next season. Bulbs in storage need a lot of fresh air and high airflow.Holland, synonymous with tulip flower and bulb production, grows in excess of 7,000 hectares of bulbs. Tasmania has a long way to go, of course, before it achieves such a huge production. The vision to put Tasmania on the map as a large tulip bulb producing area was the late Peter Gilham's in 1990. The pioneer of the Tasmanian onion industry, Peter passionately believed in the richness of the red basaltic soil of the north-west coast and in its enormous capacity to grow exceptional produce. Peter also needed an alternative seasonal source of income and work to reduce reliance on, and risk of, the traditional onion crop.His company, Vecon, undertook extensive research on tulip production in Holland and France, sourced its planting stock from Holland and acclimatised and grew-on the bulbs. In 1995 my research officer, Sally Chandler, who was managing the marketing company Vecon Europe at the time, sold the first 20-foot sea container of bulbs to customers in Holland for forcing tulip flowers. This was a time of great joy for the company but, sadly, Peter Gilham died of cancer just as the tulip bulbs arrived in Holland in March 1996. Peter Gilham, incidentally, has been nominated as `Tasmanian of the Century' in a poll being conducted by the Tasmanian newspaper, the Examiner.Tasmanian bulbs enable tulip flower production in Holland from July to November, at a time when the high cost, inferior, low-priced dutch ice tulips are produced. Ice tulips have been frozen especially for flower production in September through to November, but the bulbs are smaller and lighter in colour and have a shorter vase life than do flowers from fresh bulbs. Tasmanian bulbs have more energy than comparable bulbs grown in the Northern Hemisphere. The higher light intensity due to latitude, the lack of dust in the air and the low humidity enable the bulbs to assimilate more reserves. Additionally, the red volcanic soils are very high in minerals and provide an optimum supply of nutrients, especially trace elements.The high energy level of the Tasmanian bulbs means that the bulbs show a higher tolerance to extreme conditions during flower production and the flowers have a brilliant colour. The importers prefer to see the bulbs growing in the fields before purchase. The bulbs must be virus free, firm and have a good skin. They must be clean, with no soil. Bulbs are dispatched from Tasmania from mid-January to mid-April and are shipped in reefer containers with the temperature set at 20 degrees to 23 degrees centigrade, unless specified differently by the purchaser.Competitors growing bulbs for Dutch early flower production include the south of France, with small quantities from the south island of New Zealand, South Africa and South America. A lot of the French and Southern Hemisphere tulip bulbs are bought by Dutch bulb exporters, who sell the sizes greater than 10 centimetres to growers in Sweden, Finland, Norway, Germany and the UK; and the 11- and 12-centimetre bulbs are sold to Dutch flower growers. In all cases, the flowers are used for early flower production. The tulip flowers which are produced in October and November from the Southern Hemisphere bulbs are mainly exported to Asia, Japan and America. The European market for tulips starts in December. So the flowers forced in Holland from Tasmanian bulbs could actually compete with cut tulip flowers being exported from Australia during this time. Thus it can be seen that accurate forward planning is vital for good marketing.Forty hectares were planted to tulip bulbs in Tasmania this year. There are four enterprises involved: three on the north-west coast and one in the south. Three of these enterprises export, and this year eight sea containers were sent to Europe—all to Holland. In total, 12 million tulip bulbs were either exported or sold as dry sales on the Australian market. The market for tulip bulb exports to the USA is just opening up, and it is an exciting market, so there is potential for increased Northern Hemisphere sales volume. Exciting expansion is also being made into the growing of lily bulbs and, this year, Tasmania will see the planted area for export grow from zero to 20 hectares.The pioneers of the tulip bulb export industry in Tasmania are to be congratulated for their vision, their risk taking, their hard work and their dedicated commitment in establishing yet another market in the Northern Hemisphere for an out of season product. I congratulate them.1078122:07:0010781Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Tonight I would like to raise the issue of welfare reform. Since this government came to office, Australia has repeatedly seen huge declines in our social services. This government has let those people in our community who cannot afford decent provisions, who are unemployed or who are on the lowest incomes sink. It has completely ignored those in need in Australia. It simply does not care, and that has been shown across the board of all social services. Social policy has struggled to keep up with the pace of economic change, and today the principle of competition reigns in the Australian economy. The outcome: those who cannot compete lose out.All our welfare system provides now is a meagre income for those who get left behind. It does not help them move forward. The result: more than 800,000 children are being raised in jobless families and more than 230 suburbs have double-digit unemployment rates. It has become much worse, particularly in the last three years. Labor believes welfare reform should be focused on reconstruction, not wreckage. To assist the skills of people so that real opportunities can be created for people to move forward, Labor believes in giving people support so they can get whatever help they need to achieve a better life.The delay in the Minister for Family and Community Service's welfare reform paper being tabled in the Senate was quite prepos terous and was canvassed extensively in this chamber. Senator Newman's grounds for refusing to table her original discussion paper were simply not valid. The Clerk of the Senate had not even heard of a number of the grounds on which the minister was claiming public interest immunity. It was simply a cover-up for the bad policies contained in the minister's reform paper. It is a reform that will affect over five million people. If the public need to be protected from what is in the minister's original welfare reform paper, it must be truly scary.The minutes of the Coalition Expenditure Review Committee detail savage cuts to welfare in excess of $2 billion. The government have been hiding the fact that their new social policy will equal cuts to welfare and have instead been pushing the agenda of euphemistic welfare reform. This is not welfare reform. This is the wrecking of the welfare system and reducing the government's role. This is a vacation of the field by the government in terms of the provision of welfare. Yet we were assured by the Prime Minister that this was a government for all Australians. Clearly that is becoming a cruel joke.Even more disgraceful is that the wrecking of our welfare system is happening at a time when the government has admitted that the real effect of GST prices will be an inflation rate of 5.25 per cent. As has been pointed out repeatedly by the opposition and others, this means that the four per cent increase in pensions and benefits will be utterly swallowed up by inflation. This government can no longer deny that low income Australians will be worse off under a GST. They will not only have the added burden of the GST; they will also have a disastrous welfare policy from this government, one that offers no support for their future but rather one that takes away any future they might have had. For example, when low and middle income families lose their fortnightly parenting payment when their child turns 12, all of their tax cuts will be completely wiped out.Let us have a look at the rest of these cuts in detail, as listed in the coalition ERC minutes: only pay the sole parent pension to a parent with children up to the age of six years—as opposed to currently 16 years—to save, as detailed in the minutes, $1 billion; cut child care to save another $100 million; make women aged between 60 and 65 work for the age pension; scrap the current wives' pension to save $350 million; formulate a tougher eligibility test for the invalid pension to save $10 million; place a nine-month limit on unemployment benefits; cut unemployment benefits for 18- to 25-year-olds to save from $300 million to $400 million; have a two-week qualifying period for unemployment benefit to save $90 million; make those who have never been employed eligible only for the lower rates of unemployment benefit to save $40 million; tighten up eligibility for the sickness benefit to save $70 million; abolish the Australian Institute of Family Studies to save $2.7 million; and outsource property management to save $26.5 million—a total of $2.24 billionThis is not welfare reform; it is a cost cutting measure in social security by the government dressed up in language to make it appear like it is welfare reform. The GST, of course, is the icing on the cake for the inequality and deprivation that will follow. But these are obviously not the only cuts this government has had on the agenda, despite protestations from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson. Along with services that have been cut from all public sectors and all services, billions of dollars from the future surplus have been disbursed—but not on services, not on education and not on labour market programs. Those have all been slashed.Senator Newman is a senator for Tasmania, as am I, as is Senator Calvert, and as is Senator Brown. I would like to talk about how her reforms will affect Tasmania. More than a third of the Tasmanian population is dependent upon welfare payments. At almost 40 per cent, it is the highest level in the country. Tasmania is more dependent on our welfare system than any other state per capita, with 37 per cent of all Tasmanians relying on welfare payments—the highest percentage in the country.Surely the minister, who is a Tasmanian senator, should realise what these cuts will mean for these people in her home state. Of course, Tasmania unfortunately still has the highest unemployment rate in the nation at 9.4 per cent which, fortunately, is coming down. Low income Tasmanians have a great deal to lose with further welfare cuts. The cuts to labour market assistance programs have already removed the opportunity for many Tasmanians to get off welfare, and this is a further slap in the face for a state that universally voted Labor in the last federal election. No wonder, when you look at this.So what hope do Tasmanians have if they have been rejected by their own government social security system and are unable to find employment as there is no longer any support mechanism? The government's Job Network has failed, and that is clearly reflected in the Tasmanian situation. Long-term unemployment figures released by the ABS last week revealed that six out of every 10 long-term unemployed people have been out of work for more than two years. The root causes of long-term unemployment need to be tackled, especially in Tasmania.Tasmania is a state that has areas and pockets of poor families and low income earners. We therefore need a flexible welfare policy that looks at social resources that go into particular communities and gives local communities a role to play in how the money is spent, which is something they have been asking for.A further disgrace in respect of the record in Tasmania is that there are now concerns that further cuts will be made to Centrelink due to a lack of funding that has left many Centrelink offices in Tasmania overbudget. The minister, in answer to a question from me the other day, indicated that it was because employment was falling. In fact, it is because cuts to Centrelink have occurred in Tasmania.I would now like to take the opportunity to refute the minister's allegation, which was that this information came from the CPSU. It did not come from the CPSU. We have discovered that every single Centrelink office in Tasmania is now $300,000 overbudget. We are advised that a number of draconian meas ures are being countenanced in relation to how to address this situation, including the amalgamation of regional offices in Tasmania and 30 redundancies—we are not sure whether voluntary or non-voluntary—of which 19 are in her home town of Launceston.The minister has now had close on two days to provide a response to this question, which she substantially took on notice. We have not received anything today, although I notice that she did provide answers to questions that a number of other senators asked yesterday in relation to matters within her portfolio. Obviously, we wait. We will give her some more time. We will give her until Monday to provide that information, because it is fair that we do so. But, if we do not get it, then we will be publicising this situation. That is a clear undertaking from Tasmanian Labor senators.This sorry situation further outlines that delivery of social services by this government has been pathetic, particularly in the state of Tasmania. Centrelink workers in Tasmania now have to face the uncertainty that their jobs may be cut. Many of them are now, of course, casuals. We, of all states, cannot afford any further cuts to jobs or any further cuts to services. We cannot afford, because of the unemployment rate, a substantially diminished or further downgraded service by Centrelink. The government has not provided adequate funding in the first place. Once again, those reliant on welfare in Tasmania will lose out.I would like to finish with a quote from the government's Petro Georgiou, who has rejected his colleagues' view of those reliant on welfare:They are not dependent from desire, but from a genuine lack of opportunity and the structures through which they can contribute.I ask Senator Newman to please do Tasmania the courtesy of providing answers to the questions that I asked in the chamber two days ago. I assure the minister and the chamber that we will be following these matters up assiduously. 1078422:16:0010784Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—On the morning of 16 July 1991, a Vietnam veteran, Joe Gilewicz, was shot and killed by the Special Operations Group of the Tasmanian police force. The circumstances of the death of this Vietnam veteran have been a matter of disquiet ever since. Following the presentation to the Tasmanian parliament of a document called Disquiet: the police killing of a Vietnam veteran by author Paul Tapp very recently, the Tasmanian authorities have moved to set up an internal review to look again at the matter. The Tasmanian House of Assembly has turned down moves by Green MP Peg Putt to have a royal commission, which would give full authority to an investigation, allowing subpoena of witnesses, protection of witnesses and the most thoroughgoing investigation of this sorry matter that is possible.There is a very important national component of what happened on that night in July 1991. The authority for the police to enter Joe Gilewicz' premises did not come from a Tasmanian statute but from the Australian Commonwealth law, section 85ZE of the Crimes Act 1914, which states that it is an offence to use a telecommunications service to harass another person. Under provisions of that act a justice of the peace in Tasmania gave the Special Operations Group of the Tasmanian police force the authority to enter the premises of the Vietnam veteran. So the events were consequent upon the use of that federal law.The Tasmanian parliament has variously failed to allow the fullest exposure of evidence available, which has led to public disquiet and an enormous amount of anxiety for the wife of Joe Gilewicz and, indeed, for his family and friends.I not know the exact facts. I doubt any member of the public does, although I know members of the Special Operations Group do. However, I have been through the facts as best I can, and a number of them leave me with great disquiet. It is only a just and fair thing for Joe Gilewicz' family and friends that the matter be given the fullest possible canvassing and the speculation and feeling that there is a cover-up be brought to an end. That is also an important thing for the Special Operations Group of the Tasmanian police force—a police force, I might add, which has an enviable reputation amongst police forces around the world.I am concerned that even the current inquiry in Tasmania, because of its internal review nature, is not going to lead to satisfaction and the matter will drag on. I have seen this process so often before. I think other members of the chamber will have as well. It is important that the facts should be available and the matter put to rest as soon as possible. Therefore, as a contribution to that, I want to, with the permission of the Senate, table the document from Mr Tapp, who has put more than six months' effort into investigating the circumstances of the killing of Joe Gilewicz back in 1991.The facts should have been a matter of public availability a long time ago, as from this author. There is an internal review, but there is not a court case or royal commission taking place. The matters that are available here are, of course, available to many other people as well. In the future I will be canvassing this matter again, so I want members of this chamber to be acquainted with as much information as possible. Therefore, I seek the concurrence of the Senate to table these documents. I ask that members of the Senate take note of the questions that have arisen from this very sorry affair and consider whether or not the form of investigation that has taken place so far is satisfactory to end the doubt that hangs over both the family and those members of the police force who were present.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to table the documents referred to by Senator Brown?5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—No.Leave not granted.1078422:23:0010784Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I will be brief. I just want to refer to a matter that in fact Senator Brown would be well aware of—that is, a result that came from the full bench of the Supreme Court just recently. Lenah Game Meats took action against the ABC, who filmed an illegal video of the processing of possums for export to China. Senator Brown, along with me and other members of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, actually viewed the operations there and, not long after that, persons unknown placed video cameras in there illegally, videoed the processes and leaked them to the ABC. The ABC showed them. Lenah Game Meats took action in the courts and were successful, which has now set a precedent in case law that TV stations may not profit from the illegal activity of a third party. That is quite significant.Lenah Game Meats have been pioneers in the killing of wild game and exporting into lucrative markets in China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Currently, they employ 15 people full time. If they are successful in their application through the federal government's Supermarket to Asia program, they can increase that full-time employment to 39. I have had a look at their proposal. They intend to sell sheep, wallabies and possums, all with their skins on. These go to people of Cantonese origin who, as we all know, are responsible for the Chinese food that is known worldwide.The Chinese have a saying that Beijing people will say anything because they love to talk, Shanghai people will wear anything because they love their fashion and Guangzhou people, Cantonese people, will eat anything because they love their food. Within Cantonese food culture is a cuisine type, the name of which I cannot pronounce—it is written in the Chinese language—but it roughly translates as `happy food'. They believe that, when they eat these types of food during winter, it keeps their bodies warm and helps them cope with the rigours of winter. We have been told that, if they eat these native meats during the summertime, it makes their noses bleed. Whether that is true or not I do not know, but the fact is there is a very lucrative market there. There are many millions of dollars to be made and quite a few jobs to be had in Tasmania.Currently, Lenah Game Meats have arranged for a wide range of meats to be used in this particular type of cooking, including snake, ostrich and wild boar. Just recently, Lenah Game Meats, for example, sold over 40 tonnes of ostrich gizzard, sourced from South Africa, to Guangzhou. The largest volume trade at the moment is 4,000 tonnes per year of skin-on goat bodies from Australia, worth $16 million.I find it quite fascinating that they are proposing to take their possum exports to 30 tonnes a year this year. As we know, if possums are killed directly and exported, that solves two problems. It reduces an overpopulation of these animals in Tasmania. They do cause a lot of damage to gardens and young trees, and it is the same with wallabies. Currently, on Flinders Island, for instance, wallabies are being killed with 1080 and, if we can find a lucrative market for skin-on wallabies—and they are proposing to sell 20 tonnes of them by the year 2002—it is a way of getting rid of vermin, instead of poisoning them, that are affecting the environment and eating young plants and young plantation timbers.The same goes for lamb. As an alternative to our lucrative meat export market, they are forecasting that, by the year 2002, they will be exporting some 250 tonnes of lamb with the skin on. I do not think it is something that I would want to eat, Madam President, but, then again, you travel a lot and you may have eaten this food without knowing.I wish them well in their ventures. I am pleased to see that they were successful in their action against the ABC because I think it was disgraceful the way these unknown persons obtained the illegal videos and leaked them to the ABC, and I do not think showing them did the ABC any credit. The fact that the Supreme Court found against the ABC shows that there is some justice left in the world, and I hope it continues.1078522:30:0010785Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I rise briefly in this adjournment debate to respond to a very misleading little speech that was made in the Senate yesterday by Senator Woodley. Responding to a personal explanation that I made earlier in the Senate yesterday, he made this comment: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.That is the first part of Senator Woodley's contribution, at 7.41 p.m. last night, that I want to respond to. First of all, it was really because I drew attention to the fact that the Procedure Committee report was on that Senator Greig—who I knew was concerned and wanted to make a contribution—had his attention drawn to the fact that the Procedure Committee was having its report presented by Senator Denman. Senator Greig did make a contribution. I was surprised by Senator Greig's contribution. I thought if he did not agree with what was contained in the Procedure Committee report, he himself would have moved an amendment.He did not move an amendment, but he spoke first, because I drew his attention to the fact that the Procedure Committee debate was on and I knew that he genuinely had a strong interest in this matter. He did not speak in opposition to my amendment at all. In fact, I moved my amendment after Senator Greig sat down. Senator Greig did not move any amendment to the report. I looked very carefully when the vote was on, because I know Senator Greig has a particular interest in this matter of pecuniary interests registration of same sex partners. So I did look very carefully to see how Senator Greig was voting. Senator Woodley said that Senator Greig called no when the Labor amendment was put.I suppose I could be deaf and everyone else in the chamber could be deaf. I did not hear him vote no, and no-one else heard him vote no. Perhaps he is a ventriloquist, because his lips did not move. But if Senator Woodley says that he voted no, I am willing to listen to that. But let us be absolutely clear: no-one in the chamber heard him, I did not hear him and no division was called. Perhaps this is because Senator Bourne—who is a member of the Procedure Committee—supported the original proposal that came before this cham ber from the Procedure Committee, which I, on behalf of the opposition, tried to improve by moving the amendment that I moved earlier.That is just a fact of life, and I am not critical of Senator Bourne or any other member of the committee. We had advice from the Clerk, which may not be known. The proposal the Procedure Committee adopted was one which benefited from advice of the Clerk of the Senate. It was that particular Procedure Committee report that provoked Senator Greig to write to all senators in the chamber pointing out what he thought were inadequacies in the Procedure Committee report's recommendation, which I seriously attempted to address.No division was called on this, and no voice was heard by anyone, and I have checked with senators around the chamber. Senator Calvert, you were here; I think you would acknowledge that no voice was heard. But I would be the first to acknowledge Senator Greig's position, and I accept that he opposed the amendment. I accept his bona fides in this. I genuinely do, and I have said this on a number of occasions. I do not think Senator Woodley does himself any credit by making those statements in the chamber.I then go to the next issue in Senator Woodley's speech. Let me quote Senator Woodley briefly again: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.Senator Woodley's statement there is not right. I have just had drawn to my attention that Senator Woodley made such a contribution. I had taken advice from the Clerk of the Senate in relation to the registration of senators' interests. It is a brief note, and I have handed it to all parties in the chamber. Senator Greig is here as a representative from the Australian Democrats, and I might ask if he could quickly peruse this too—in accordance with the normal courtesies—because I would like to incorporate it. I have shown this to the government and to Senator Brown. I would like to incorporate this particular letter in the Hansard because that statement made by Senator Woodley is not right. And, regard less of its accuracy, that is certainly not the intention of the Labor opposition, as I think you are very well aware, Madam President. I would hope it is not the intention of any senator in this chamber. It is important to correct the record on this matter. Senator Woodley goes on to say: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.That is a very unfortunate and very inaccurate slur from Senator Woodley and one that I am not willing to allow pass unchallenged. In this part of my contribution, given that all senators from other parties have had an opportunity to peruse this brief note from the Clerk of the Senate, I would seek leave to incorporate that one-page letter in the Hansard .Leave granted.The letter read as follows—25 November 1999Senator the Hon John FaulknerLeader of the Opposition in the SenateThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator FaulknerREGISTRATION OF SENATORS' INTERESTSYou asked for a note on the effect of the amendment made by the Senate on 22 November 1999 to the order of the Senate relating to the registration of senators' interests.Prior to the amendment, the order required a senator to register the registrable interests of the senator's spouse, in so far as such interests were known to the senator, and the term "spouse" was defined to include a de facto spouse, that is, a person of the opposite sex living with the Senator on a bona fide domestic basis.The effect of the amendment is to require senators to register the interests in so far as they are known to the senators, of their spouses and partners. The term "spouse" reverts to its normal meanings and the term "partner" is defined to mean a person, of either sex, living with a senator in a bona fide domestic relationship.Thus, a senator who has a same-sex partner, as defined by the order, is now required to register the registrable interests of that partner, in so far as those interests are known to the senator, in accordance with the terms of the other parts of the order. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance in relation to this matter.Yours sincerely(signed)(Harry Evans)5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I thank all senators present for granting that leave. I think it is important to note the key element of this advice, and we need to get this absolutely clear. Let me draw attention to those crucial paragraphs:The effect of the amendment is to require senators to register the interests, in so far as they are known to the senators, of their spouses and partners.. . . . . . . . .Thus, a senator who has a same-sex partner, as defined by the order, is now required to register the registrable interests of that partner, in so far as those interests are known to the senator, in accordance with the terms of the other parts of the order.That is what has occurred. All I want to do is ensure, in this very brief contribution, that we accurately record the events that took place in this chamber. I say again that I do not question for one moment the bona fides of Senator Greig on this issue; I have not previously and I do not tonight. I reject the slur that is contained in Senator Woodley's speech. I think it is unfortunate, as well as being wildly inaccurate and misleading. Nevertheless, it has not gone unchallenged by me on behalf of the opposition.Let me say that, while I do not believe Senator Greig was loud enough or clear enough in voting no, if he did not support the amendment, I absolutely accept that he is against it, as I have said before. I acknowledge that. But I do think, if we are going to be fair, we should let the record stand and show what occurred in this chamber and outside this chamber in the Procedure Committee, as is appropriate on a matter of very significant public interest and, I think, a matter of very significant reform that we have all been part of. (Time expired)Senate adjourned at 10.40 p.m.Documents1078710787The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Child Care Act—Childcare Assistance Immunisation Requirements Amendment Direction (No. 1) 1999.Social Security Act—Social Security (Declaration of Visas as Approved Visas) Determination No. 1 of 1999.Workplace Relations Act—Rules—Statutory Rules 1999 No. 276.10788The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 1 December 1998:Public servants—Accountability, rights and responsibilities—Statements of compliance—Department of the Environment and Heritage.Answers to Questions on Notice10789The following answers to questions were circulated:10789(Question No. 1511)151110789Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Ministers representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue among others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies provided the training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3)10789Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade have provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's questions:See answers to Questions 1493 and 149810789(Question No. 1493)149310789Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Ministers representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue among others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4)10789Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade have provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's questions:The Department and agencies within the Portfolio have had on-going programs of courses on staff development since March 1996. They are described in broad terms in annual reports tabled in Parliament. It would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to provide further details sought by the questions. Officers whose predominant responsibility is the management and processing of freedom of information requests regularly attend courses and workshops on freedom of information organised by the Australian Government Solicitor.