1999-11-263914SENATE1079101999-11-26The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Business1079110791Motion (by Senator Troeth, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) proposed: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 Allowances) Bill 1999New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 2) 1999 .09:31:0010791Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I understand that this is the motion relating to the tax bills.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—That is correct.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you. I am opposed to exempting the New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 1999 and New Business Tax System (Income Tax Rates) Bill (No. 2) 1999 from the cut-off. This cuts right across the provision that the cut-off entails. It was brought in by senators some years ago to ensure that there was adequate time not only for parliamentary and Senate scrutiny but for public scrutiny of legislation of just this nature. This legislation will involve a fundamental change in Australia's taxation system and it will involve changes that redistribute wealth in this country. There is still a big public debate taking place about the legislation. It is exactly the sort of legislation that the cut-off was meant to apply to.My former colleague, Senator Christabel Chamarette, fought very hard to ensure that the cut-off legislation was available so that there could be adequate scrutiny of complicated legislation like this. If she were here, she would be fighting tooth and nail to ensure that we do not go back to the cavalier approach to legislation where the government comes up with complex legislation like this, zots it through the House of Representatives and then straight to the Senate without any further ado, and it then becomes a priority in the Senate and goes through—the whole thing, from go to whoa—in one parliamentary session, without the public scrutiny which it warrants.I ask: why can't this wait until February? Is it not healthy for the democratic process that this legislation gets the scrutiny over the coming two months that it ought to have under Senate provisions as they stand? Why should the Senate agree to the government setting aside the rules to allow this legislation through? It is not urgent legislation in the real sense of the word. If it were, of course, we would have seen it long ago. This is being put through at this time for political reasons, not for the good of the average Australian. That surely must be the measure of how we treat these things.I have from ACOSS, which represents a wide cross-section of the Australian community, a summary of what halving the tax rates on capital gains would mean. The new rates offer huge windfall gains for high income investors, they leave many middle income investors and retirees worse off, they inspire a resurgence of tax avoidance schemes and they undermine public support for progressive income tax by opening up a yawning gap between the top marginal rate of pay-as-you-earn taxpayers at 47 per cent and the top rate for capital gains of 24 per cent. Also, this legislation encourages speculative investment in property and shares financed by debt, which would overheat asset markets and worsen the boom-bust cycle. That is one point of view that at least requires evaluation.I do not believe senators can give adequate acknowledgment, let alone analysis, to the very real public concerns that there are on this legislation if we simply exempt it from the cut-off, bring it on for debate and push it through this place in the next fortnight. That is what this move is about. I do not believe we should be party to that.Just two nights ago, while watching the ABC News, up came an extraordinary item to say that a deal had been struck with the opposition as far as this tax package is con cerned. Here we are 18 hours later being asked to exempt it from the cut-off, which means exempt it from proper public scrutiny, and saying, `Let's debate it and put it through.' I am not going to be party to that. We do not have a full analysis of what differences, if any, Labor has had in its negotiations with the government. I do not know what the Democrats' position is on this. What I do know is that they have been involved in a long and, it would seem, very sincere negotiating process with the government to achieve some benefits as far as the wider populous is concerned. It is not just the wealthy people in Australia whom we should be looking to when we are in the business of changing fundamental tax policy in this country.I do not believe, and I do not accept, that 76 senators in this place are well enough acquainted with this package, following the government-Labor deal, to be able to adequately represent the feelings of the wider Australian electorate because I do not believe that the wider Australian electorate knows what the ramifications are yet. There has not been a full and proper debate in the public arena, and when you do not have a full and proper debate in the public arena, you cannot expect it to occur here in this chamber. Democracy is about representing the feelings and the informed point of view of the voters. Are members of this chamber going to get up and tell me that that is going to be the case if this is rushed through in the next fortnight? Of course not.On the other hand, I put this to the government: is there no other legislation important enough for us to deal with in the next two weeks that we have to fill a gap? Of course that is not the case either. There are crucial pieces of legislation lined up for debate in this place. All that is being sacrificed for political expediency, to satisfy the wishes of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer that their `baby', so to speak, their tax policy, gets through this place so that they can go home feeling happy for Christmas. There are a lot of other Australians who are not going to feel happy for Christmas because they are going to be on the losing end of this formula for increasing the gap between the wealthy and the poor in our country.This has not been scrutinised. This has not had public debate. The ramifications are not known. I do not believe senators can be informed because we have not had time to discuss this with our electorates. The provisions for ensuring there is a sensible and reasonable delay in this Senate were hard won. Those provisions are there to stop this process of legislation being rushed through this place without proper public, and therefore parliamentary, scrutiny. So I object to this process and I oppose this motion.09:40:0010792Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I am in the odd situation of both agreeing and disagreeing with Senator Brown. I agree with him that such legislation needs as much scrutiny as possible by senators because of its complexity. Strangely though, it has actually had very wide scrutiny by non-senators.ZF4CROWLEYSenator Crowley—By elites.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY—In other words, it is a process that has been going on for 12 to 15 months by people like ACOSS. I heard an interjection—the good senator seems to think they are an elite. You might not know ACOSS, but they are not an elite. People like ACOSS have been very much involved in this situation. Small business associations have been very involved in the review. But I agree with Senator Brown—most senators have not had either the time or the opportunity to get across it. It is a pity more senators could not have attended the hearings, but hopefully they have been able to read the report and some of the material that is in the Senate Hansard record.The difficulty we face is that there is such a crowded implementation program coming up for every level of business and every level of the community with the various tax reform packages going through that there is a real danger that, if this was delayed until February, we would have great difficulty as a country with the implementation of this package. It is the opinion of the Democrats that the Ralph package is, overall, in the interests of Australia, but it is also our opinion that it does need modification and amendment. There are both unintended and intended consequences that need proper scrutiny and proper management in the Senate process. However, the great difficulty we face is the need for certainty in the implementation and the arrival of these matters.There is a further issue, which is one the Scrutiny of Bills Committee deals with continually—I sit on the Scrutiny of Bills Committee—and that is the issue of legislation by press release. As we know, it is the practice of Treasurers to put down decisions to end practices which are contrary to the good interests of revenue collection. They announce that, from such and such a date, such and such a practice will end. Then, if the parliament supports that view, that becomes law retrospective to that date. It is very important that that date is not too far from the date when legislation is dealt with, particularly because of the way in which clever and capable professional accountants and lawyers will then go on to new tax avoidance schemes or readjust their affairs so that they are not affected detrimentally by these changes and these announcements.So in all, on balance, Senator Brown, I would prefer us to take your view and take a little more time on it but, because of the need for certainty, because of the difficulties that we will have if we delay this overmuch, I think it is wise to deal with it at this time. I must say that I am probably working from a position of advantage, which is that I have read the Ralph report and I have been through all the hearings and I am probably better informed than many of the 76 senators. That gives me an advantage in dealing with it. But I appreciate the points you have made.I also have the view that these first bills establish the main principles of the proposals to go through, but there will subsequently be amending bills. I see absolutely no chance whatsoever that this package of bills will be complete and final. There will be many opportunities to revisit these issues. I heard Senator Brown read out ACOSS's views, and we will be putting some amendments to try to meet their concerns on the capital gains tax cuts side. In the sense of numbers, you would be aware that that battle is lost because of the agreement between the Labor Party and the government. That does not mean to say that we should not have a proper debate and flesh out the arguments and put the amendments, but in that sense not much hangs in the balance.On the balance of considerations, Senator Brown's points are good and should normally be adhered to, but in this instance, on the grounds of delivering certainty and immediacy to the implementation of a package which otherwise would cause great problems in the community if it were delayed through to February or March, it is the view of the Democrats that we should agree with the cut-off. With an implementation date of 1 July, a delay will have a major effect on systems and business implementation—and I do not mean big business, I mean all business entities: partnerships, small business, trusts and companies.09:46:0010793Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I listened carefully to what Senator Brown and Senator Murray said. I have been a strong supporter of standing order 111 for the reasons that have been outlined. On this particular matter—that is, the legislation following the Ralph report—it cannot be said that we have been kept in the dark. The matter has been discussed over many years, subsequently we got the Ralph report and, of course, the matter was dealt with by our Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee, to which there were about 35 or 40 formal submissions. There were a number of hearings, although they were truncated. As Senator Murray said, there is a good deal of material and information available through the official sources of this Senate.Nonetheless, I would have been inclined to vote against this exemption, but I am persuaded by what Senator Murray has said. In the areas of taxation, you do need this certainty before the law for the reasons outlined, not only for business but shareholders and the community in general. It is important to have these matters in place as quickly as possible so as to avoid the further opportunities for certain unscrupulous organisers or business people to establish structures to avoid tax and get around things.The main reason I rise in this debate is to get, hopefully, an understanding and a guarantee from the government that they will not be moving the exemption in the East Timor case. If the bill on Timor—the additional 0.5 and one per cent income tax levy—comes in, I would hope that they would not attempt to exempt it from the cut-off. It is very important that that particular issue is dealt with with the fullest examination that this Senate can give. Yes, if one raises objections to the form of that proposal, one may well be criticised as not being in support of East Timor and that would be very unfortunate, given the fact that quite a number of us have had links with the people of East Timor for many years and with the people who have been in the forefront of assisting the East Timorese. The proposal of the government, as it has been suggested in the East Timor matter, will discriminate against one income families—I do hope the government is listening—as compared with two income families. This matter does need to be examined.In addition, there is a very strong argument that suggests that defence issues should have one of the first calls on the budget. This is expenditure mainly on defence, although there are some other aspects, so it should be dealt with through the normal budget processes. I do now request the government to give the Senate an undertaking that, if this East Timor tax levy proposal does come before us this session, the government will not propose to exempt it from standing order 111 in attempt to push it through by Christmas. That would not be appropriate at all. That certainly would not give the public an opportunity to provide information to the Senate or its committees on such an important matter. I do hope the government can give some sort of undertaking on that.09:52:0010794Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—The opposition supports the motion for the exemption of the cut-offs for these tax measures. Senator Brown has indicated his concerns about the processes by which agreement has been reached around these matters, and that is one issue. There is the question, however, of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, which Senator Murray and Senator Harradine have raised. I think that there has been extensive discussion of these measures, stemming from the publication of the Ralph report, and quite widespread public comment about the effectiveness of the measures. There have been some issues raised concerning the equity of such arrangements. Of course, these have all been subject to extensive parliamentary review through the parliamentary inquiry.The issue of tax avoidance is one of some importance and opportunities ought to be taken to close down the tax avoidance industry wherever it is possible to do so. The measures we have before us, as has been indicated, have been the subject of agreement within this parliament and we as a party have indicated a commitment to support those measures.The opportunities that Senator Brown seeks to consider the matters in detail will be provided, of course, through due process in this chamber. The question of the exemption of the cut-off does not preclude that, given the level of public debate that has occurred to date and the measures that have been taken through the parliamentary inquiry from which, as we are aware, a report was brought down earlier this week. So for those reasons the opposition will be supporting the government's motion and I look forward to the comments to be made in the chamber about the nature of the package itself.09:54:0010794Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Harradine specifically asked for some commitments about exemptions for any bills that may relate to the announcements by the Prime Minister on the funding of Australia's involvement in INTERFET and Timor. I think Senator Harradine was referring to my comments about potential contingencies. I know that the opposition had sought from me a guarantee that the bills on the list would not be expanded and Senator Carr had used the words `only extraordinary circumstances'.I did not want to be pinned down to the word `extraordinary', I wanted to broaden the definition slightly and I wanted to assure the Senate, at the time that we rearranged the sitting schedule, that it was not our intention to add bills to the list but that from time to time there were circumstances where administrative matters and others needed to be dealt with. I used the Kosovo example which occurred in a previous sitting. At the time that we were rearranging the sitting schedule, the Prime Minister had just made announcements about Timor and I said, `For example, there may be legislative measures flowing from those announcements.' Quite frankly, I do not know that there will be, although obviously there will be appropriation bills and other bills.Senator Harradine has asked that we not seek to exempt any such bills. I do not even know if it is likely there will be any; it is probably less likely than more likely, which is my assessment at the moment. But, in the event that there were such bills on Timor or on any other matter, we would seek, of course, an exemption from the cut-off. We would need to if we wanted them dealt with prior to the turn of the century.Ultimately, as Senator Harradine knows, that would be a matter for the chamber. It would be a matter for the majority of senators to determine. As Senator Harradine has expressed a very clear interest in these matters, I will ensure that, as soon as I have information about any bill that might come before us on anything related to Timor or any other matter, he will be informed at the very earliest possibility. But I do not have any special knowledge about any bills relating to Timor, Senator Harradine. I was using that as a hypothetical example of what might need to occur.I appreciate the sentiments expressed by all senators about parliamentary scrutiny. I think it is fair to say that, with the committee consideration of bills in this and the previous parliament, there is more committee scrutiny of government legislation under this government and in this Senate and in the previous Senate than ever in the history of Australia. There are more bills being sent to more committees and spending more time in com mittees than in any other parliament in Australian history, as far as my statistics show.Although that may be frustrating to the government at times, I think generally—as long as that scrutiny is not designed to frustrate, obstruct or elongate the legislative process—that is a healthy thing. The government always constructively considers committee reports. We sometimes think that the committee process takes a lot longer than it needs to take but I do not think anyone can criticise parliamentary scrutiny of government legislation during this government's term. We see it as a constructive process, if not at times one that takes longer than it needs to. We appreciate the indications of majority support for these business tax reforms, these historic reforms, so they can move through the parliament prior to the end of this session.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills10795r68910795Consideration resumed from 25 November.The bill.09:59:0010795Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 25 November 1999.10:00:0010795Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—At the outset, I will indicate the position of the opposition with respect to the amendments that have been circulated. I think that might assist the proceedings of the committee. I have to say, however, that I am disappointed that more prior notice of the government amendments was not forthcoming. We saw yesterday evening that when this legislation came on it had to be adjourned. The reason was that it was only at approximately 7.45 p.m. that the opposition was provided with the government amendments that appear on sheet EU315. Whilst those amendments are not extensive in length and are fairly straightforward, I would submit, nevertheless it did alter the understanding that we had about the way in which this bill was to be progressed. Up until that time there were no amendments to be moved by the government and we were expecting to proceed straight into committee on that basis.That was disappointing because, as was acknowledged during the brief debate on the bill in the second reading stage yesterday, this legislation has been on foot for somewhere in the vicinity of 12 months. Indeed, the second reading debate had occurred and been adjourned back in April this year. So there has been plenty of time for the government to advise the Senate if it was intending to move some amendments to its own legislation, particularly when it had given the clear indication that it was not intending to do so.We apprehend, indeed we understand, that what has occurred is that there has been an internal struggle between the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and that that has been the cause of some of this delay. It appears that the minister for the environment believes that he and/or his department should have some greater influence and role in quarantine related issues. We note that in the Nairn report, which had been commissioned by the previous Labor government, significant comment was made about the importance of environmental and economic considerations in relation to quarantine decisions. There is no doubt, as I am sure Senator Brown is going to remind us, that decisions relating to quarantine can have environmental and economic consequences. We do not deny that. Indeed, the Nairn report highlights that very fact.We support ensuring that quarantine decisions and quarantine investigations should always have in their purview and in their consideration issues related to possible environmental consequences. Of course, they inherently have within their consideration possible economic consequences. However, we also want to stress that ensuring a rigorous quarantine assessment process is an issue in its own right. It is one that stands on its own important foundations and is not something that should, in our view, be compromised by other considerations that may be relevant. That is particularly the case with respect to the importance of agriculture to the economic and social wellbeing of this country and its people.We have considered the amendments that the government is proposing, and we will be supporting them. Those amendments relate to two areas. Firstly, the amendments seek to bring Christmas Island within the operation of the legislation. We have no problem with that. Secondly—and I apprehend this may be the focus of some more attention in the committee stage—it provides for a role for the environment minister with respect to the risk assessment process and with respect to decisions taken by the Director of Quarantine.We are prepared to support the propositions that are put forward in the amendments. We believe they are reasonable. We do so on the basis that they do not tip the balance, if I can use that phrase, so far with respect to the operations or the responsibilities of the environment minister that they would restrict or hamper the proper decision making processes of the Director of Quarantine and the minister for agriculture. We do, however, wish to draw attention to the fact that there is a reference in paragraph 11C to significant risk of harm to the environment. The section is entitled:Requirement to seek from Environment Minister advice about proposed decision involving significant risk of environmental harm.The section goes on to state:(1) Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must comply with the requirements of this section.Those requirements are then set out in subsection (2), which reads:The Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister:(a) stating that consideration is to be given to the making of such a decision; and(b) requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the risk assessment process that is proposed to be followed in assessing the risk of harm to the environment.As I said, the proposed new section refers to a significant risk of harm to the environment. I am conscious that the term `significant risk' is a matter of some debate.We just want to put on the record that, as well as some debate within the community, it may lead to potential legal debate over compliance with that section and the meaning of the words `significant risk'. That is a matter, ultimately, for the government, and I suppose we will just have to wait and see what transpires once the section is implemented. But we wish to draw attention to that because there is no doubt that, once we have established a system here whereby issues that relate to risk to the environment on the one hand and quarantine risk on the other, we should clearly recognise the potential for situations where those two risks may not necessarily be compatible—indeed, they may be in conflict.The only other point I wish to make about the government amendments is to note that there is a requirement on the Director of Quarantine to give written notice to the environment minister. Further, if the Director of Quarantine gives to the environment minister a notice requesting advice as to a particular matter such as the adequacy of a risk assessment process, as it says in the proposed amendment, the environment minister `may give written advice to the Director about that matter'. It appears there is no obligation on the environment minister. He may choose to give such written advice if he feels it is appropriate or necessary to do so. It then goes on in section 11E with a requirement for the Director of Quarantine to take that advice into account in making the relevant decision and to inform the environment minister in writing as to how his advice was taken into account.We wish to make the point that, whilst we support these changes—and they are important and they do recognise a role for the environment minister, and advice from the environment minister with respect to the decisions and responsibilities of the Director of Quarantine—it must still remain the case that the ultimate responsibility will rest with the Director of Quarantine. We cannot in any way undermine, undercut or compromise that duty and that responsibility.With those comments, I indicate that the opposition is prepared to agree to these amendments. We note that, whilst what has come out of this is appropriate amendments, it nevertheless also represents another situation where the responsible minister, the minister for agriculture from the National Party, has been rolled by one of his Liberal colleagues, the minister for the environment. It is a pity that it has taken so long for this situation to be finalised. There has been plenty of time and it should not have been at the eleventh hour that these amendments were brought into the parliament. The government needs to get its act together with respect to these very important issues.10:15:0010797Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (5):(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of Australia , substitute: Australia , when used in a geographical sense: (a) includes the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; but (b) so long as this Act or a part of this Act does not extend to the Territory of Christmas Island, does not include that Territory or that part of that Territory, as the case may be.(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 5 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of Commonwealth , substitute: Commonwealth , when used in a geographical sense: (a) includes the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; but (b) so long as this Act or a part of this Act does not extend to the Territory of Christmas Island, does not include that Territory or that part of that Territory, as the case may be.(3) Schedule 1, item 62, page 16 (line 4), omit the heading to the item, substitute:62 Section 6AB(4) Schedule 1, item 62, page 16 (line 5), omit "sections", substitute "section".(5) Schedule 1, item 62, page 16 (lines 6 and 7), omit section 6AA.I thank Senator Forshaw for his comments. I will briefly comment on the first set of government amendments. A number of provisions in the bill which are dealt with under amendments (1) to (5) address the coverage of Christmas Island by the Quarantine Act 1908. Christmas Island—an external territory of Australia—is presently covered by a separate quarantine regime under the Christmas Island Act. The bill as it stands seeks, in particular, to remove the enabling mechanism by which the Quarantine Act 1908 could be extended to Christmas Island by regulation. As the government is currently reviewing the quarantine arrangements on Christmas Island, it has been decided that, pending the outcome of this review, it is sensible not to close off this option in the Quarantine Act. At present, the quarantine regime for Christmas Island is based on a Singapore ordinance.Amendments agreed to.10:16:0010798Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I withdraw my amendment No. 1 on sheet 1349 revised, because circumstances have changed since I wrote that amendment.10:17:0010798Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—In that case, I move government amendment (6):(6) Schedule 1, item 86, page 24 (line 8) to page 25 (line 2), omit sections 11C, 11D and 11E, substitute:11C Requirement to seek from Environment Minister advice about proposed decision involving significant risk of environmental harm (1) Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must comply with the requirements of this section. (2) The Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister: (a) stating that consideration is to be given to the making of such a decision; and (b) requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the risk assessment process that is proposed to be followed in assessing the risk of harm to the environment. (3) After preliminary findings have been made as a result of the risk assessment process, the Director of Quarantine must give written notice to the Environment Minister requesting the Environment Minister to give advice to the Director as to the adequacy of the preliminary findings in relation to the protection of the environment.11D Provision of advice by Environment Minister (1) If a Director of Quarantine gives to the Environment Minister a notice in accordance with section 11C requesting advice as to a matter, the Environment Minister may give written advice to the Director about that matter. (2) Any such advice is to be given within 28 days after the notice was given.11E Director of Quarantine to take advice into account If the Director of Quarantine receives any advice from the Environment Minister within 28 days after the notice requesting the advice was given to the Environment Minister in accordance with section 11C, the Director must: (a) ensure that the advice is taken into account in making the relevant decision; and (b) inform the Environment Minister in writing as to how the advice was taken into account.Again, I appreciate Senator Forshaw's comments. This amendment requires the Director of Quarantine to seek the advice of the environment minister before making a decision `the implementation of which is likely to result in a significant risk of harm to the environment'. The government has decided that in its present form part 11A does not adequately involve the environment minister in the risk assessment process leading up to the decision. The amendments will remedy this by imposing an obligation on a director of quarantine to seek and to take into account the advice of the environment minister on the adequacy and the preliminary findings of the risk assessment process. The amendments will also oblige the environment minister, if he provides the advice, to give it within 28 days.I would like to reply to Senator Forshaw's comment. The reason that the word `significant' is in the amendment is because we did not wish to seek to require the involvement of the minister for the environment in all decisions involving risk of harm. Obviously, there will be a gradation of risk of harm, and that is why that word `significant' is in there. Otherwise, he could be involved in every single decision. I do assure Senator Forshaw that the amendments and the bill preserve the role of the Director of Quarantine but, obviously, involve the environment minister as well.10:19:0010799Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Before I move my amendments Nos 2 to 5 on sheet 1349 revised, I would like to know if any member in the chamber is going to vote differently on those four amendments. That will help me. If not, then I will move them together.10:19:0010799Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I would vote differently on some of them.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You can move them together, and I can put the questions separately.10:19:0010799Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (2) to (5):(2) Government amendment (6) on sheet EU315, item 83, subsection 11C(1), omit "significant".(3) Government amendment (6) on sheet EU315, item 86, subsection 11D(1), omit "may", substitute "must".(4) Government amendment (6) on sheet EU315, item 86, section 11E, omit the colon and paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute " omit subsection (2), substitute "ensure that the advice is implemented".(5) Government amendment (6) on sheet EU315, heading to section 11E, omit the heading, substitute "Director of Quarantine to implement advice ".I thank Senator Woodley for that. There are four Greens amendments here. These are to protect Australia's environment. It is as simple as that. We all know the impact of exotic organisms coming into Australia in terms of both the environment and the economy. I spoke about that last night at some length. We have before us terminology which is far too vague to deal with this important matter. The first is the requirement for the minister dealing with quarantine to seek from the environment minister advice about proposed decisions involving a significant risk to Australia's environment. As Senator Forshaw indicated again this morning, that word `significant' should be spelled `e-l-a-s-t-i-c'. It means whatever the minister wants it to mean. It is a weasel word. That is why my amendment says drop it. Then we would have a clear unambiguous piece of legislation. That is what all legislation should aim to be. So the relevant clause would become: (1) Before making a decision under this Act, the implementation of which is likely to result in a risk of harm to the environment, a Director of Quarantine must comply with the requirements of this section.That is, amongst other things, they should go to the minister for the environment for advice. If there is a risk to the environment, the minister for the environment should be able to assess that risk and give advice on it. In my book, this whole matter should be under the purview of the minister for the environment. It is that important.Every year in this country not thousands, not millions but billions of dollars of damage is done to the economy because of feral organisms, plants, animals and fish. You can see this damage right across the board. If you walk down to Constitution Dock in Hobart on a beautiful morning like today when the temperature is going to get up to 15 degrees, I understand, and look at the display board at Salamanca about what you can see when you peer off the wharf, you will see a list of feral, introduced, environmentally and economically destructive species. The floor of the ocean there is littered with Japanese starfish, carnivorous and ultimately cannibalistic, eating out the whole of the local ecosystem and therefore damaging the fisheries industry as well. When are we going to get past the stage of putting up display boards to show the exotic species for visitors and take real action to prevent this being compounded?There are millions of species around the planet which could impact on the Australian environment which have not got here yet, but we are in an age of extraordinary, unprece dented and rapid transit of both people and cargo to and from this country which can carry these pestilences with them. We need tougher legislation than this to deal with that, but we need the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the environmental amenity of government to be involved in this at all stages.I feel terribly frustrated at how quarantine is taken for granted and almost left on the shelf. I do not know how quarantine officers feel about this, but I feel frustrated for them too. Let me give an internal example of how lax the whole attitude is in this country. Just two years ago the tail of a fox was noted on a shipment of goods going to Tasmania, which does not have foxes and therefore has the most robust marsupial complement anywhere in Australia. Species which are extinct or close to extinction on the mainland are running all over the place in Tasmania because we do not have foxes. A hunt was made for that fox, which escaped on the Burnie wharf, for some months with no result. There was some concern it could be a pregnant vixen, who could then give rise to a whole breeding fox population with total disaster for the Tasmanian environment and its economy because it depends upon tourists coming to see the wildlife.What was the source of that fox? It was the Melbourne wharves. What do we know about the Melbourne wharves? There are hundreds of foxes. What else do we know about that? They can be eliminated. We therefore know that we can protect Tasmania's environment from a proven disastrous agent. What action has been taken? So far as I know, none. So you have some commonsense action which can be taken to prevent a massive impact on Tasmania's environment and economy but, because the environment is treated in such a cavalier fashion by the national government and the Tasmanian state government, nothing is happening. In a sense that same shrugging of the shoulders and a little increment in environmental legislation like we have today is the national lot as well. It is just not good enough.So here is a little amendment I am putting forward to say, `Let's have all risk to the environment involved in quarantine matters assessed by the proper agency, which is the minister for the environment.' `Oh, no,' says the government, `Let's put in the word "significant"'—the weasel word, so the minister for the environment and the minister responsible for quarantine never at any stage have to really take this seriously.I would imagine that if there was an obvious and significant risk of harm to the environment, as stated in this clause, you do not have to go to the minister for the environment; you do not entertain any matter which is going to involve a significant risk to the environment. The government would have to move to stop it. In a way, putting that word in there makes the whole section redundant or unnecessary. My first amendment is to remove the word `significant' and therefore have the government properly deal with any risk of harm to the environment in a matter of quarantine.Section 11C(2)(b) says that the Director of Quarantine must give written advice to the minister for the environment requesting the environment minister to give advice to the director as to the adequacy of the risk assessment process that is proposed to be followed in assessing the risk of harm to the environment. What this means is that the environmental assessment is going to be done by AQIS, the quarantine authority, not the minister for the environment. That is why my amendment is there, because this environmental risk assessment should be done by the minister for the environment. That is plain logic.Section 11D is about the provision of advice by the minister for the environment. It says that if the Director of Quarantine gives to the environment minister a notice in accordance with section 11C—which I have just been talking about—requesting advice on a matter, the environment minister may give written advice to the director. In other words, the environment minister might respond if he is not too busy—if he is not at Kyoto increasing Australia's ability to release greenhouse gases or if he is not in Tasmania earmarking another valley for destruction of forests. Or the minister for the environment might re spond if he is not spending Telstra money, $40 million of which he set aside to destroy native woodland ecosystems to put in agroforestry, or if, as he did last year, he is not diverting $12 million of environmental funds to shore up the Hume Reservoir, which was in need of repair.If the minister for the environment is not busy with those things, and if he feels like it, he `may' give an answer to the request from the Director of Quarantine on an environmental matter. What irresolution! What failure to be clear! What poor legislation is this! I would substitute for the word `may' the word `must'. If the Director of Quarantine notifies the minister for the environment that there is a concern about a quarantine matter as far as Australia's environment goes, then of course the minister for the environment must give a response. That is commonsense. So that is amendment No. 3.Finally, we get down to the section dealing with the Director of Quarantine taking advice into account when he or she gets it. I have proposed an amendment to that to ensure that not only does the advice have to be taken into account but something also has to be done about it. These are all weasel words—environmental fluff with no muscle. It is way short of the mark and, even given the government's terminology, it needs tightening up.The proposed amendments are necessary, and I commend them to the house. In so doing, I commend the Launceston Environment Centre and David Obendorf in particular. He is a fount of information on matters quarantine and has given good advice on this matter—and I hope that the committee takes it.10:32:0010801Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I firstly compliment the government, in that there seems to be in the amendments that are being moved some new commitment to the environment. I need to say that certainly, prior to these kinds of amendments—which I hope do signal a new commitment—the attention given to the environment has been very inadequate. I want also to note that Senator Murphy some months ago circulated amendments along these lines. I was very pleased at that time to see them. I note that they were not proceeded with in terms of any support from Senator Murphy. He did not proceed to introduce them here. I would have been very pleased to have dealt with the amendments which he mooted. I commend the government, in that they have been prepared to pick up some of the intention of his amendments.Let me illustrate why these amendments are so important. I have not only a commitment to the environment but also a commitment to the whole process of quarantine and I support what Senator Brown has said in terms of the disasters that we have introduced into this country, particularly through many of the imports that we have had which have proved to be disasters. Some of them have been involuntary imports; others, deliberate. I can illustrate that. At the moment, we are having a debate about salmon imports, and the Senate committee has certainly taken on board the environmental disaster which could occur if, through the importation of Canadian salmon—where there are some terrible diseases present—we then introduce those diseases into our own fish stocks here.Another example was cooked chicken meat, where finally the Senate had to hold an inquiry into that issue and discovered that the science upon which AQIS was relying was extremely faulty, and so the government had to turn around and redo the science. This was an environmental issue as well as a scientific one: not only were our own chicken flocks at risk from such diseases as newcastle disease but also newcastle disease itself can spread from chicken flocks into the native bird population. So, again, that was a very large issue. I am glad that the Senate committee was able, through the inquiry it conducted, to get the government to redo the science and thereby to put in place much stricter protocols which have, in effect, stopped the importation of chicken meat into this country.Another illustration is the papaya fruit fly, where in the end we spent millions of dollars to clean up that whole issue. Not only did we have to spend millions of dollars to eradicate the papaya fruit fly—and we believe we have done that; I certainly hope we have—but what was not taken into account was, for example, the cost of that incursion to organic fruit growers in North Queensland, who had no defence. Not only were they attacked by the papaya fruit fly but they could not use the chemicals to neutralise any fruit fly in their own fruit—because, of course, being growers of organic fruit they could not use chemicals. I do not think that that issue has been sufficiently taken into account. These are up-to-date examples of the problem that we face if the science that we use in AQIS is inadequate.I believe that too often in our quarantine considerations we take too much account of our trade obligations. I believe that this amendment by the government is a very good counterpoint to that issue. I believe that trade issues should be way down the bottom. But certainly the scientific and environmental issues are critical in all this.Having said that and having commended the government, let me just address briefly—I will be supporting the government's amendments—Senator Brown's amendments, which were put on behalf of the Australian Greens. I cannot support the second, fourth or fifth amendments to the government amendments because I agree with Senator Forshaw to a certain extent that you are forever trying to get a balance. There are quarantine and scientific issues to be considered. The problem of omitting the word `significant' is that you actually tip that balance. As I have pointed out in the example of salmon, cooked chicken meat and the papaya fruit fly, there were avenues open to the Senate to define that issue of significant risk. I believe that by putting in the word `significant' we are simply opening up the whole issue. As Senator Brown has eloquently said, this is negating the government's amendment. I believe that the government amendment is helping to strike a balance between the environmental and scientific issues which must be considered.I agree with Senator Brown about amendment No. 3. What the government amendment does at that point is quite contradictory. It says that if the Director of Quarantine gives to the environment minister a notice, obvious ly the Director of Quarantine is concerned. Surely we are not going to say that the environment minister can please himself. That seems to be a contradiction. If the Director of Quarantine is concerned enough to give a notice to the minister, surely the minister must give a written advice to the director about that matter.Even the government might like to take that on board. Surely if the Director of Quarantine feels that there is an environmental risk in this and he or she wants advice about it, we would expect the environment minister to take it seriously and give that advice. I do not think we ought to be giving some kind of discretion to the environment minister not to give that advice. I will support the amendment moved by Senator Brown that substitutes `must' for `may'.In terms of amendments Nos 4 and 5, I think Senator Brown has made a good case. Again, there is the problem of balancing the responsibility between various departments and interests. What the government has moved gives a strong direction to the director. When the amendment says that the director must ensure that advice is taken into account and must inform the environment minister in writing as to how the advice was taken into account, that adequately addresses the issue of the advice being taken seriously. I support amendment No. 3 to the government's amendment as moved by Senator Brown, but not the others.10:41:0010802Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—We will not be supporting the amendments moved by Senator Brown. In saying that, I have to say that we do not regard the matters raised by Senator Brown as ones that do not need some consideration. Indeed, as I said in my opening remarks, we are quite happy to support the proposed amendments from the government because they recognise a role for the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in the consideration of these quarantine issues. In that way they pick up comments within the Nairn report.As I pointed out and as Senator Woodley has acknowledged, we have to remember that this is a quarantine bill. This is quarantine legislation; it is not just environmental legislation. It is therefore important that we strike the right balance in that consideration. Senator Brown's comments and proposals tip the balance too far, in our view, and unduly restrict or tie the hands of the Director of Quarantine. It is a matter of balance, as Senator Woodley has said. I note that he has picked up my remarks in the consideration he gave to most of the amendments moved by Senator Brown. One instance is the use of the words `significant risk'. We accept that there is always the potential, as I said earlier, for debate, including legal debate, about what that term may mean in a particular set of circumstances.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—What does it mean?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—We note, for instance, that in your view any risk would be a significant risk. Further, as you said yourself, you believe that the matter should be so open that it involves any risk whatsoever. In our view, you have to look at the purpose of the legislation.The purpose of the legislation is quarantine. I think you may have misunderstood when you referred to the reference in the amendments to the risk assessment. The risk assessment process that is referred to here is the quarantine risk assessment process that is conducted by AQIS. It is not an environmental risk assessment process. Those processes are ones that come under the control of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, are conducted under the relevant environmental legislation and may be totally removed from quarantine issues. Therefore, the whole primary purpose of this legislation is risk assessment in respect of quarantine.Therefore, whilst we acknowledge that people may have different views—as you certainly do—on what may or may not be significant, it would not be appropriate to just open it up to open slather. I think this is the point Senator Woodley was making: you have to strike the appropriate balance and, in this legislation, it is with respect to quarantine. We cannot usurp, weaken or tie the hands of the Director of Quarantine and the quarantine agency unduly by imposing requirements that give the role of quarantine to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Senator Brown, you yourself made the point that, in your view, you feel all of this should be looked after by the Department of the Environment and Heritage. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage is in the chamber; I am not sure whether he wants that task.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I didn't mean this minister necessarily and exclusively.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—On that, I will agree with you. The problem is that these issues are the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, of AQIS and of the Director of Quarantine. We are just flagging the fact that, in allowing a complementary role of interaction between the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the quarantine assessment process—which we support—we have to make sure that we do not undermine that quarantine process in any way. That is essentially the reason why we cannot support your amendments. In our view, they weaken the responsibility of the Director of Quarantine.I do not think I need to add anything more. We will not be supporting Senator Brown's amendments for those reasons, and we believe the government's amendments can be supported. As Senator Woodley has pointed out, we have had some recent examples—such as the newcastle disease issue and, clearly, also the argument over the importation of salmon. There, we see these issues being raised first-hand. These amendments are appropriate and will give us scope to look at the environmental considerations as well as the quarantine issues. On that basis, we will not be supporting Senator Brown's amendments.10:49:0010803Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I want to briefly participate in this debate because the amendments before the committee are, in my view, of major importance. They were policy that we took to the Australian people at the last election, specifically set out in the environment policy document, and I am pleased that—although they were not obviously included in the first draft of this bill—they have been picked up by the agriculture minister, Mr Truss, and are therefore before the Senate today.They will give greater public confidence in relation to importations that may have a detrimental effect upon the environment. There is no doubt that traditionally, in dealing with AQIS matters, the concentration has been on public health issues. There is also no doubt that the community now expects greater attention to be given to broader environmental consequences. Many importations into Australia have had a significant detrimental effect upon our broader environment and, with the wisdom of hindsight, it occurs to us that we need different processes that can give greater confidence that such mistakes will not be made again.As Senator Forshaw said—and I commend his interest also in this particular matter; I know of it from discussions we have had over a significant period of time—this is not an attempt to usurp the responsibility of the Director of Quarantine or of AQIS. Quarantine decisions continue to be made by that body, and that is what the Australian people would expect. Rather, it attempts to ensure that the process that is adopted by AQIS in risk assessment, the ultimate decision that is made by AQIS and any conditions that are attached to that are made with the best possible broader environmental advice and the best possible broader information base in relation to potential consequences to the environment of the importation.Thus, these amendments have been structured to require AQIS to give information to the environment minister of the day about the proposed risk assessment process to which the issue is intended to be subjected in relation to any matter that may have significant environmental consequences in order that the environment minister, obviously with the advice of his or her department, can comment thereon. No doubt such advice would be taken up. I think people can have greater confidence that the risk assessment process itself will properly take into account broader environmental risks. Also, once that process has been completed, it gives the environment minister the opportunity to then advise upon the ultimate decision that might be made and conditions that should be attached to it.The ultimate decision continues to be made by the Director of Quarantine, and that is why we do specifically include the expression `may take the advice'. We do not seek to usurp that responsibility, but it would be unusual for a director to ignore the advice of the environment minister—advice which has obviously been given on behalf of the broader constituency—about the broader environmental consequences of the decision that would be made. It would almost be incomprehensible that such advice would not be properly taken into account and, I might say in passing, be accepted by the Australian community.Yes, it is a mix. It is not, as I said, seeking to take the role of AQIS. It is an important role that that body has. It is important that it maintains public confidence. But it is a reform that I believe will ensure that AQIS, in the implementation of its responsibility, is better informed of broader environmental consequences. As such, I think it will be a significant contribution to safeguarding the public interest in relation to the potential detrimental consequences of specific importations. That is why `may' rather than `must' is the right expression in relation to advice that has been given.In relation to the other point that Senator Brown made that referred to `significant' environmental consequences, the word is inserted because practically every activity, let alone importation, has some environmental consequence. We are interested in those that may potentially have a serious detrimental consequence. We will obviously need to develop protocols with AQIS to ensure that we are fully aware of the matters that come before that body for consideration, but we can be confident that the proper test is being applied as to potential serious detrimental consequences. I am sure that we can develop such a protocol and that it will work effectively in practice. Upon the implementation of the extra reform that we are adding to the bill, I think the public can have enhanced confidence that the full environmental consequences of proposed imports will in future be properly taken into account.10:56:0010804Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I have listened carefully to what the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has said and agree with most of it, but, Minister, you have the cart before the horse, as they say. It is not the environment minister giving advice to the Director of Quarantine which may be taken into account; it is the other way around. If you look at 11D in the government's amendments, it says: (1) If a Director of Quarantine gives to the Environment Minister a notice in accordance with section 11C . . . the Environment Minister may give written advice . . . The problem we are having is: surely the environment minister would respond and therefore it should be `must'. You were talking about the director taking advice from the environment minister. It is the other way around. We believe the `may' is inappropriate where the Director of Quarantine asks the environment minister for advice.10:57:0010805Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—While the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is looking at that, let me take the opportunity to go to the fundamentals here—particularly for the Labor Party, which seems to still languish somewhere back in the century in believing that the environment is not all encompassing. At least the minister has acknowledged that to some degree. If you look at the Quarantine Act itself—and this is 1908—the definitional section entitled `Scope of quarantine' says:In this Act, Quarantine has relation to measures for the inspection, exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, protection, treatment, sanitary regulation, and disinfection of vessels, installations, persons, goods, things, animals, or plants, and having as their object the prevention of the introduction, establishment or spread of diseases or pests affecting human beings, animals, or plants.That is the whole natural domain. That is 1908. When you get to the legislation before us at the moment, the `Scope of quarantine' section says:. . . quarantine includes, but is not limited to, measures:(a) for, or in relation to, the examination, exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, protection, treatment and regulation of vessels, installations, human beings, animals, plants or other goods or things; and— the words `or other goods or things' have been added, and here is the further explanation—(b) having as their object the prevention or control of the introduction, establishment or spread of diseases or pests that will or could cause significant damage to human beings, animals, plants, other aspects of the environment or economic activities.It says here that this is all about the environment.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It's not all about it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, it is.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—No, tell the truth. It extends to those things, Bob.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Forshaw, if you wish to participate you will get the call.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is going to be difficult with Senator Forshaw. As that interjection shows, he simply cannot even read this legislation and understand it.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—I have read it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Quarantine is about the environment of Australia.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It is not solely about that.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is solely and wholly about Australia's environment.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—What about public health?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is the environment, Senator Forshaw. The problem is that Senator Forshaw believes the environment is trees and maybe a koala or two. He has no comprehension of a respect for the global ecosystem, let alone the national ecosystem. I doubt whether he knows that human beings are part of the natural domain and part of the environment itself. We are not separate from it. While ever we have this ancient idea that the environment is something out there and is not something of which we are part, then there will be a failure of not only the imagination but of the ability to properly come to grips with what the environment is and why we as a society in 1999 are handling it so badly. There will be enormous ramifications for this nation and for future generations.That is why I say that the matter of quarantine is critical to the environment of this nation and has flow-on economic ramifications which are huge. Every aspect of quarantine is environmental. Yet the weasel words in here say that the minister may do this or that and quarantine has to refer to the minister only if there is a significant risk—`significant' is not defined, `may' is not defined. It says, `Let's leave it to somebody's judgment,' instead of being clear about it in this legislation. Quarantine is an environment matter. It ought to be under the environment portfolio. It is not because it has always been seen as an economic matter.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—It is a matter of public health.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator Forshaw, that was not the definition in 1908. You are back somewhere prior to 1908, let alone in 1999. The problem is that there is this narrow view that the environment is separate from everything else, including the economy, and you are wrong. That is why the Labor Party has a lot of homework to do if it is going to genuinely tackle environmental issues. When you tackle environmental issues, you are doing the right by the economy down the line.I have brought forward some very minor amendments here to strengthen this timid legislation. Labor says that we cannot even change the word `may' to `must'. So if the quarantine authorities write to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for advice, Labor goes along with the government and says that the environment minister does not have to write back. If he or she sees it is significant, they may write back. As Senator Woodley said, in those circumstances, there has to be a response.The Minister for the Environment and Heritage says that no doubt such advice, when it was given, would be taken up. Well, why don't we say so? The advice must then be implemented. But neither Labor nor Liberal can rise to that occasion either. It shows just how far behind public sentiment the government and the opposition are in matters to do with the environment. It is because they have a mind-set that the environment belongs to a few environment groups or people concerned about the wild environment and does not involve the habitat, the lifestyle and the economic wellbeing of every Australian. It is not until that is recognised that we are going to have governments coming to grips with the real environment imperatives as we move into the third millennium.As the minister is here, I want to come to a matter of supreme quarantine and environmental importance. This coming week, the World Trade Organisation is meeting in Seattle and there are massive ramifications for the environment in the negotiations there. There is a big Australian contingent going to Seattle, including, I understand, eight people from the business community to help advise government, although nobody from the environment movement. There will be Australian environmentalists there, including people from the Australian Conservation Foundation and no doubt from Greenpeace, but they are not accredited by the government in the way that business is.The negotiations will include discussions towards a global forest agreement. As I told the chamber earlier this week, the United States' predictions are that this will lead to an increase in logging output in Australia by some nine per cent to 10 per cent by the year 2010. Where do those figures come from? What is it that is being negotiated in Seattle that is going to lead to that outcome? What can the government tell us—and by telling this chamber, the people of Australia—is actually being negotiated in this global forest agreement, about which there has been zero discussion here in Australia?Australians are mightily involved and concerned about what is happening to their forests. What does this free trade move in terms of world forest products mean for Australia and for quarantine? Those people who are concerned about European house wasps, which are marauding the Australian environment, including the urban environment and the living environment of millions of Australians, can know that they were introduced to this country via New Zealand, in a consignment of timber, as best as is known. So in matters of quarantine, Senator Forshaw, you have a very real environmental impact in that instance.What we are having negotiated in Seattle is an acceleration of the whole process, a removal of barriers. I ask the Minister for the Environment and Heritage whether he would inform the House what this global logging agreement means to Australia in terms of quarantine, if nothing else, and moreover, if he can explain why it is that unlike the United States and the European Union, Australia is not pushing for an environmental assessment of the outcome of any further global agreement as far as trade is concerned.This is a quarantine matter. What is being negotiated in the World Trade Organisation is the further abolition of the national ability to control what comes in and out of the country. The minister, Senator Hill, knows that the matter has been taken to world courts—that is, the impact of the World Trade Organisation on the ability of countries to protect their environment or the world environment amenity—and the environment has lost. For example, shrimp imports to the United States were banned where there was the involvement of a by-catch of turtles, which was leading towards the elimination of turtles from the ocean. The relevant court authorities said, `In those circumstances the United States is wrong. It cannot levy such an embargo. The environment comes second; the free flow of—'BH4HILLSenator Hill—That is not what it said at all.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There we are—we have raised the environment minister's interest, and for the first time we are going to get his opinion on this. The environment minister has been absent from this place throughout the whole recent debate on forests. Earlier this week I was not able to get a response from him to my motion on the World Trade Organisation procedures, but now that he is here I would like him to inform the chamber as to why Australia is not going to push for an environmental assessment of the impact of these World Trade Organisation negotiations in Seattle, unlike other comparable countries such as Canada, the United States and Europe.11:09:0010807Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I want to respond to Senator Woodley because I concede that I could have expressed the matter better. There are, as he said, two separate issues. The one that I was particularly referring to was the advice that is given by the environment minister to the Director of Quarantine. It is true that the director must take it into account, but he may not accept it, and that was the point that I was seeking to make. I was therefore saying that we are not seeking to usurp the director's ultimate responsibility, but we are ensuring that the director is making decisions on the basis of best information.The other point that Senator Woodley was apparently specifically referring to was that the amendment before the Senate provides that, after notice is given to the environment minister of the director's interest in a particular matter because it might have a serious detrimental effect and advice is sought, the environment minister may give written advice to the director about that matter. I want to inform the committee that the amendment was drafted in that form because we were seeking to ensure that the environment minister was provided with the opportunity to contribute. A concern that has been expressed in the past is that there has not been a formal process that would ensure that the environment portfolio has the opportunity to contribute advice upon matters of importation that might have a serious, broader environmental consequence. This opportunity is the emphasis that we wanted to make within this legislation, and that is why the expression `may' was used.It would be disappointing to me, as it no doubt would be to Senator Woodley, if, having been given that opportunity, an environment minister did not take it up. I am sure that in such circumstances appropriate political pressure would be brought to bear, including questions in this place. So the reason for drafting it in this way was simply to give emphasis to ensuring that the opportunity was given for what we think is proper participation by the environment portfolio in the decision that is ultimately to be made by the Director of Quarantine.11:12:0010808Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—I have to rise to respond briefly to the comments of Senator Brown, and I hope I do not have to do it again. Senator Brown is guilty of that age-old debating trick of sophistry—false argument. You put up a proposition that you say is advanced by your opponent and then you seek to destroy it. The problem is that you put up the proposition of your opponent incorrectly. And you have done that, Senator Brown, and you do it consistently. For instance, you try to suggest that because a person says that public health is an essential feature of quarantine, somehow that person has no regard for any of the other aspects that are important. Senator Brown, you referred to what is in the bill. I want to take the Senate back to the bill, because the very issues on which Senator Brown has just given us a philosophical lecture are encompassed in this legislation. This bill seeks to update, following the recommendations of the Nairn committee, legislation that, I accept, goes back to 1908 and has been on the statute books unamended for some time. The initiatives of the Labor Party in setting up the Nairn committee have led to this bill—albeit introduced by this government.The bill before us, that you should go back to and read again, Senator Brown, does take substantial and significant account of the concerns that you have raised. It is never going to take account of all your concerns because your view is that the only thing that matters is the environment. I have not heard from Senator Brown in any of this debate so far one mention of the issue of public health—not one. You have talked about trees, foxes potentially being a problem in Tasmania and the Japanese starfish and its impact on the ecosystem in the waters around Tasmania. They are important issues. I have been to the CSIRO facility there and seen the evidence that they have of the damage the starfish are doing. If you go back to the bill, you will find that one of the things this bill does is recognise that problem and insert a definition of ballast water for the first time, recognising that ballast water carted in ships around the world and released into waters, for instance, off Tasmania, can do substantial damage to the environment, the marine life and the economic activity of the shellfish industry of that particular state—a very important industry in the state you represent.These are all issues that are important, so do not come in here and falsely argue that none of us have a concern for the environment, which you in your world view regard as all encompassing. We recognise that it is important, and so does this bill. You, Senator Brown, read out from the bill some of the extended definitions that include, now, consideration of `other aspects of the environment or economic activities'. That is the definition of quarantine. The bill also inserts a new definition for `environment'. It states:Environment includes all aspects of the surroundings of human beings, whether natural surroundings or surroundings created by human beings themselves, and whether affecting them as individuals or in social groupings.The point I am making is that the Labor Party does not have some old-fashioned view of the environment at all. We are supporting this bill because, following our initiative, it actually starts to come to terms with recognising the environmental concerns that can result from the importation or illegal entry of pests and diseases into this country. But it is not exclusively that, and we are trying to say to this Senate and to Senator Brown this: let us not in the process of picking up those vitally important concerns just ignore other extremely important issues, such as public health, that are involved in quarantine.Senator Brown's approach to the environment is summed up in his view that these issues of quarantine should be looked after by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. We do not agree with that. We believe that a division of responsibilities is appropriate at the moment. It is not just about foxes in Tasmania; it is about ensuring that people do not suffer illness or maybe die from salmonella or some other food complaint. It is about ensuring that our agricultural industries survive—that our wildlife and marine life and our industries based upon cattle, chicken, beef and lamb thrive. It is a broad issue and I object strongly to Senator Brown taking people's comments out of context and building straw men. He tries to verbalise people by insinuating that they are arguing one thing when they are actually arguing the opposite, simply to advance his own world view of the environment.I remind the committee that we are supporting the bill. There is a lot in this bill. We may have focused on the government's amendments this morning, but there is a lot in this bill that picks up the concerns that emanated from the Nairn committee and that addresses the concerns that Senator Brown has raised this morning. It seems to me that you may have forgotten what is in the bill in your attempt to advance your arguments for your amendments.11:21:0010809Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the bill and I am trying to improve it. This is a very healthy debate. People who may be listening to the debate will have heard that in this chamber there is still some discussion about public health and the environment as being separate entities, and will recognise the importance of this debate, because they are not separate entities. We have to get past this idea that, somehow or another, human beings are separate from the environment. The definition of the environment that Senator Forshaw read out is correct except in one respect, and that is that human beings are part of the environment; they are not separate from the environment.I see the eyes of senators on both sides of the chamber rolling around but let me go back to the definition in this legislation. Senator Forshaw read out the part of the definition that says that quarantine means certain things and `other aspects of the environment or economic activities'. No, Senator Forshaw, the definition is that quarantine includes measures:. . . having as their object the prevention or control of the introduction, establishment or spread of diseases or pests that will or could cause significant damage to human beings, animals, plants, other aspects of the environment . . . The definition means it is not human beings, plants, animals and then the environment. The definition means human beings, animals and plants are all part of the environment but it goes on to include other aspects as well. This is the very point I am making. It is a very important educative process which we still have to go through.The environment is this planet and everything on it and everything beyond it and while legislators ever see it as an add on to, a minor part of or somehow separate from the major role of human affairs, which appears in the 1990s to be economic affairs, without recognising that the environment includes every aspect of life, the mistake is going to be made that the environment is put in a shoebox or put in a box aside from other considerations. As a result we do not really get to understand that rigid quarantine is about protecting this nation's environment and its economy and we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, like the import of pilchards into this country in 1995 and 1998 which has devastated fisheries off our coastline.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—There is no evidence of that. That is typically you. There is no evidence.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—There is no evidence, says Senator Calvert; he is going to come up with the alternative to that one. But that is a clear example of how the environment and the economy are interrelated. They are not only interrelated, they become part of the same thing.656FORSHAWSenator Forshaw—Read the definition of environment in this bill. If you have that view, then you should move to amend it, but we won't support you.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Forshaw, Senator Brown has the call.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—For those who could not hear that, Chair, what Senator Forshaw said—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Nobody should be hearing it—it was an interjection, Senator Brown. Address the chair, thank you, and Senator Forshaw and Senator Calvert will cease interjecting.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Chair, for those who could not hear that: the senator was saying that I should be taking note of the definition here, that if I believe that human beings are part of the environment I should change the definition, but then he added that they would not support it. At least we are getting to the point where he recognises that there is potential for changing the definition but, as with my other amendments here, Labor says, `Well, when it gets down to taking real action for the environment, we'll stick with the weasel words.' That is the problem.Finally, I want to put on the record that I asked the minister for the environment a minute ago about the supreme quarantine issue of the World Trade Organisation: its ramifications for the Australian environment and to what degree we are throwing away sovereignty in being able to protect our environment and therefore our economic wellbeing down the line. When I asked him what is going on as far as a global logging agreement was concerned, which will remove our sovereign right to determine what happens with our own forests, and why Australia, unlike comparable countries in the Northern Hemisphere, is not doing—and requiring—an environmental assessment of the impact of such World Trade Organisation agreements, not only did he say nothing but he left the chamber. That is an absolute dereliction of duty. The minister for the environment of this country is a disgrace.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I would urge caution that you not reflect upon members of this place or of the other place, thank you.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The minister for the environment in this country is a disgrace.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—I rise on a point of order, Madam Chair. The remark by Senator Brown does reflect on a senator in this place and I ask that he withdraw it.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, please withdraw.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—No, I will not, Chair.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—On the same point of order: Madam Chair, we know that today is broadcast day and we know Senator Brown likes to create and perform stunts to get publicity—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order!5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—but in this particular case I do not believe we should give him any currency. 10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I stand by those words because they are accurate. When we have a minister who, on matters of supreme importance for this country's environment, not only will not debate them but flees the chamber, you get a measure of the dereliction of duty by that minister.This legislation before this chamber is extraordinarily important to this country and the events in Seattle are extraordinarily important. Just a couple of weeks ago, the President of the United States, Mr Clinton, signed an executive order saying that there will be an environmental assessment of any treaty arrangements coming out of Seattle, or of any other treaty arrangements that the United States enters into, to ensure that the United States environmental amenity is assured. But, when it gets to the Howard Government in Australia, we are second rate because, unlike the aspirations of the Australian people to protect the environment, this government does not give a damn. It will not even emulate the United States, Canada or the European Union, and instead of action for the environment we get absence.Robert Hill, the minister for the environment, will go down in history as having abandoned his responsibility in that high office to defend this nation's environment, at least in measure with other nations, and to be an environmental advocate in cabinet. He is nothing of the sort. That needs to be put on the record because that reflects the feelings of so many people in our community. At the end of this century we should be doing better as far as the environment in this country is concerned. No wonder so many young people in Australia feel disillusioned about the future, when we have not only a cavalier attitude and a failure to understand what the environment means, as we have heard in this chamber this morning, but also this attitude that the economy is all, that somehow or other the environment does not rate, and that the economy is master, not the good of the people, in the wider sense for the future of this country.Just because the minister for the environment flees the chamber because he cannot answer questions about the nation's environ mental responsibilities and because he has been so good at taking the environment off the agenda and making the economy, and indeed greed, the measure of what is good in government does not mean that those of us who are in this chamber who feel differently should be coerced into silence. I for one will not; the matter is too important. It does affect every Australian, and that has to be understood. Here we have the opportunity to simply say such things as: if the quarantine services in this country approach the minister for environment, Robert Hill, for advice he must give a response.What we are hearing here is Labor and the government saying to the Greens and Democrats, `We wouldn't tie the minister down to that. His cavalier record might be in danger. He doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to.' Before he left, the minister said, `Well, I am certain that in those circumstances someone in the parliament would ask a question.' What a way to approach legislation, which always should be in plain, simple, direct, indisputable terms. What we have got here is weasel words—a hallmark of the way this government treats the environment.I would have thought that the Labor Party could have done better. I would have thought that the Labor Party, seeing the record of this minister, would have said that he must respond to a request for advice on matters of quarantine. But, no, they are happy to go along with `may respond' and leave it at that. What sort of opposition is that? It is time the Labor Party woke up to itself on matters like this and took it up to the government with constructive amendments like this and at least moved a little further ahead of the government. If it did, it would get the thanks of the Australian people.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I will divide the question, as was agreed before, into Green amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5 and Green amendment No. 3. The question is that Australian Green amendments Nos 2, 4 and 5 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000Brown, Sen BobThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Australian Green amendment No. 3 be agreed to. 11:38:00The committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West)7Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J.Bourne, V. *Brown, B.Greig, B. A. Ridgeway, A. D.Woodley, J.41Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Bishop, T. M. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G.Carr, K. Conroy, S.Coonan, H. Cooney, B.Crossin, P. M. Eggleston, A.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P.Kemp, R. Ludwig, J. W.Mackay, S. Mason, B. J.McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P.McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Quirke, J. A. *Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.Question so resolved in the negative.Amendment not agreed to.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendment No.6 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.10811Bill (on motion by Senator Troeth) read a third time.Bills10811r61110811Consideration resumed from 22 November.The bill.11:43:0010812Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 22 November 1999.11:43:0010812Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I want to take this opportunity to indicate that the opposition, with the Democrats and, I believe, Senator Brown as well have quite a number of amendments. In fact, we have over 180 amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998 . By moving those amendments during the debate, I indicate we will not in any way be trying to change the fundamental structure of the bill. We are accepting the government's structure to some extent, but we recognise that in a whole range of areas there needs to be a radical rewrite of some of the provisions that the government has incorporated in its legislation.It has been an extensive job putting together the amendments from the opposition side, and I just want to take this opportunity to thank the number of people who have been involved in that process with us. Drafting legislation when in government is a much easier job than when in opposition, particularly when we are dealing with legislation such as this, which is intricate and detailed and where just a word or two can have enormous implications. We have been fortunate on the opposition side to have not only staffers like Mike Megaw but also a degree of support from non-government organisations and from the community Aboriginal sector, which has once again been strong.It has to be said also that the quality of work provided by these people has to be recognised. They do come from a non-government sector. They are not highly paid, but they are highly skilled. They do have, of course, a commitment which carries them through these arduous tasks. So I take this opportunity to thank people on staff like Mike Megaw, as I said, who has been involved with this. From the Aboriginal community side, I thank Chris Athanasiou from the Central Land Council; Krysti Guest from the Kimberley Land Council; Chris Charles from ALRM, South Australia; David Cooper from ANTaR; Mick Gooder from the Western Australian Aboriginal Legal Service; David Ross from the CLC, who has been quite pivotal in all of this, together with Pat Dodson and Peter Yu, both from the KLC; Parry Agius from the National Indigenous Working Group and ALRM, South Australia; John Roberts from the Northern Land Council; and, Michael O'Donnell from the Western Australian Indigenous Working Group.Of course, people from the Parliamentary Library are always invaluable to the workings of this place. We have relied on work from people like Sean Brennan and Kirsty Magarey, who have provided advice to all members of parliament. I take this opportunity to thank those people and also to thank one person who is not with us in this debate but whose advice and inspiration has carried much of this debate over the years, and that is Ron Castan QC, who passed away a few weeks ago. Ron would obviously have been here had he not passed away. But in terms of ideas and spirit he still has an enormous role and impact on the direction that we are taking in this debate this afternoon.11:47:0010812Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I might just respond very briefly. We do acknowledge that there is before the chamber a bloc of amendments—and I use the word `bloc' in the sense that there is a unity ticket on the other side here: the Australian Democrats and the ALP. I am not sure about Senator Brown. I think he has gone home or somewhere.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—He wouldn't have been supporting us, that's for sure.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—No, he does not support us, by definition. The point is that there are nearly 200 amendments put by the ALP and the Australian Democrats. I acknowledge what Senator Bolkus says to the extent that it certainly does not change the framework of the legislation. But, if they are carried—and I expect they will be because, whilst I will do my best to persuade the other side to the contrary, the numbers are such that they are all likely to be carried—the bill that will come through this process, with the framework it had at the beginning, will, nevertheless, be a substantially different package.Just speaking generally, not having heard Senator Bolkus's arguments and Senator Woodley's argument as yet, on the face of the amendments, on our perusal of them over the last few days—because we have only had them for a couple of days—they are not such that the government would be inclined to accept. Therefore, after passage in this place, I anticipate that the bill will largely become the bill of the ALP and the Democrats rather than the bill of the government, and we will have to treat it that way after it leaves here. Nevertheless, I will have a go at persuading the other side on the many matters that they are going to put to the chamber today.I accept what Senator Bolkus said about the important role that is played by committed individuals and organisations from an opposition perspective in contributing to the legislative process, particularly the comment he made about the late Mr Castan. To get the process moving, there are three government amendments—to clauses 36, 43 and 75. I can give an explanation for them if necessary, but I think it is self-evident. I seek leave to move government amendments (1) to (3) together:Leave granted.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—I move:(1) Clause 36, page 26 (after line 13), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The independent reviewer is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the independent reviewer in the capacity of independent reviewer.(2) Clause 43, page 31 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The independent reviewer is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the independent reviewer in the capacity of independent reviewer.(3) Clause 75, page 62 (line 2), after "Court", insert "of Australia". 11:50:0010813Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I indicate—and I am probably starting the debate in the way the minister anticipated—that the opposition will not be supporting the government amendments. The government amendments basically deal with the role of an independent reviewer. We will find during the course of this committee stage that the opposition has a different approach to providing independent advice. That is not through this concept of an independent reviewer, a concept which we believe allows a minister to go forum shopping in one sense and a concept which we believe does not provide the degree of independence that is necessary to instil the confidence in this process that is necessary. We believe that our independent agency concept, which we will be moving during the committee stage, is a better way to do it. As a consequence, we will not be supporting these three amendments, all of which basically, as I say, go to the role of the independent reviewer.11:51:0010813Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The third one changes the reference—and I accept Senator Bolkus's point in relation to the first two, which certainly—XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—If you split the third one off, we will support that.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Okay.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that government amendments (1) and (2) to clauses 36 and 43 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.11:52:0010813Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I am pleased to hear that the third amendment, which relates to the change to clause 75 to correctly refer to the Federal Court by its full title, will be supported by the opposing parties in this place.11:52:0010813Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—When they were all put together we were not in a position to support the third one, but the third one is distinctly different from amendments (1) and (2) and we are supporting it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the Senate agree to government amendment (3).Question resolved in the affirmative.11:53:0010814Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The next set of amendments is mine. They go to a pretty fundamental aspect of this legislation. Following on from what the minister said initially, it seems like we are going to go down a road where the bill will be amended by the Senate, possibly in a way that at this stage the government will not find acceptable. We say to the government that we would be very keen to participate in a process over the Christmas break and early next year to see if we can find some common ground in respect of this legislation. During the course of this debate, we would like to explain the amendments, anticipating the government opposition to them, and maybe even ask the government to not send the bill back to the House of Representatives at this stage for its rejection next week or the week after, but rather to try and reduce the temperature in respect of this legislation and spend some time considering the amendments before it takes them back to the House of Representatives for acceptance or refusal. I put that request in at this particular stage of the debate.As I stated during the second reading debate, we should not be in any doubt as to the gravity of the task before us in debating this legislation. The effective protection and transmission of a living cultural heritage is fundamental to the survival of indigenous peoples as distinct social groups. Cultural heritage is an integral aspect of the way in which indigenous people's identity is continued in the context of non-indigenous economic and social development that is often ignorant or overtly hostile to indigenous culture. That is the environment in which we are debating this legislation in Australia today.Let us be clear that the alternative to effective and comprehensive indigenous heritage protection is indeed, as I said in my speech on the second reading debate, cultural genocide. The opposition-Democrat amendments to the bill avoid this alternative. They are designed to commit the Commonwealth to implementing its constitutional and international obligations to effectively protect indigenous heritage. Our amendments are divided into five main groups: firstly, objects and definitions, which these particular amendments relate to; secondly, the establishment of the indigenous heritage protection agency; thirdly, accreditation process and minimum standards; fourthly, application for Commonwealth protection orders; and, fifthly, a batch of amendments which can best be described as `miscellaneous'.Senator Woodley and I will be speaking to these amendments in turn. I start by making a point which I think is fundamental to this legislation. There has been a lot of discussion in the different committees considering this bill that the bill fails to deal with the broader concept of cultural property—both its protection and the intellectual property rights associated with cultural property. This is unfortunate, as both Justice Evatt and subsequently Frankel, in Our culture: our future—report on Australian indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights 1998, identified many concerns of indigenous people, including the appropriation of cultural property and intellectual property rights and unauthorised use of secret or sacred material. These are areas which are quite critical to any debate on Aboriginal indigenous Australians' heritage.This is a matter that has been crying out for action on the part of government. We believe there should be a commitment by government to deal with this issue. The first bracket of amendments, on objects and definitions, leads us to the first two critical questions legislators always confront in dealing with any bill. We must now ask ourselves, as we do on every occasion: why are we legislating and what are we aiming to achieve? We turn to the objects of the bill and we find that the objects in the government's legislation are both evasive in intent and, it has to be said, limited in their scope. This is the last attempt in the 20th century to address an issue that is, I think, accepted by most as having blighted the history of Australia since European settlement. All Australians, indigenous and non- indigenous, had every right to expect better of the government in respect of this legislation.What we have presented to us is a bill limited in scope—with limits set in defiance of the Evatt and Frankel reports; not in ignorance of them because we know the government is fully aware of them—which leaves many aspects of indigenous culture and heritage no better protected at the beginning of the 21st century than they were at the beginning of the 20th century. Indeed, in 1900, areas such as, for instance, Arnhem Land, the Pilbara and Central Australia had yet to feel the impact of later incursions for activities as diverse as mining, tourism and weapons testing. This means that many people and many places would be worse off than at the start of this century.We think this bill reeks of avoidance and defeatism. Its subtext is the withdrawal or, indeed, the limitation of a Commonwealth role in the protection of indigenous heritage. If we accept—and I think we should—a desire on the part of those opposite to have indigenous heritage protected, then we must see that they have failed and we must conclude that the task has been beyond them. I suppose my fear is that, not in respect of Senator Hill but in respect of others in the government, they may have never really tried.Despite the Commonwealth's lawful, constitutional responsibility to do so and despite it being party to treaties and covenants committing this nation to do so, this bill has the Commonwealth ducking, diving, hiding behind vague drafting and ultimately, it has to be said, abandoning the field. It consistently puts forward definitions that limit the scope of the bill and creates doubts that infect the entire bill with a tendency to Commonwealth inaction.So our first task has been to broaden its objects and expand its definitions. In respect of that, our amendments Nos 1 and 2 and 3 to 12 are quite pertinent. For us, the bill unreasonably qualifies the objects of the act to `certain' significant indigenous areas and significant indigenous objects. Our amendment No. 1 removes the word `certain' from paragraph 4(a), to put beyond doubt that the intention of the legislation is the protection of significant indigenous areas and significant indigenous objects. There is no reason that the legislation should deviate from the protection of indigenous heritage—protection which is inextricably linked to significant indigenous areas and objects.We also include two further main objects: firstly, the regulation of the purchase, sale and exhibition of significant indigenous objects; and, secondly, the promotion of the development of indigenous culture and heritage. We believe that these are legitimate objects which should guide the administration of the act, based on established precedents. For example, in relation to the regulation of indigenous objects, failings in the current federal system were recently exposed at the auction of a number of Strehlow articles in New South Wales. The auction occurred in Sydney, simply because the laws of that state enable such an event.In relation to the second object, the promotion of indigenous culture, recommendation 3.1 of the Evatt report strongly argued that the promotion and development of Aboriginal culture and heritage should be the subject of national policy. We insert new definitions in the bill to reflect new concepts and instrumentalities: the Indigenous Protection Heritage Agency, the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council, the Heritage Registrar, native title representative bodies and national interest. In respect of national interest, our definition is to put beyond doubt that national interest includes, but is not limited to, Australia's compliance with its obligation to protect indigenous heritage as a signatory to international agreements, conventions and covenants. This is important in the context of the matters which the minister must consider in making a long-term protection order under section 38. The definitions reflect our insertion later on in this debate of amendments relating to independent agencies and also reflect an important consideration which needs to be taken into account when the minister makes a decision on national interest grounds.I could go on in respect of some of these amendments, but a lot of them are self-explanatory. I need to mention that amendments Nos 9 and 10 are amendments to definitions of `significant indigenous areas' and `significant indigenous objects', in order to resolve what we think is an important failure in the legislation: a failure to ensure the protection of areas and objects which are significant in terms of archaeology, anthropology or history. Whilst the bill rightly deals primarily with the issue of significance in terms of indigenous tradition, these amendments augment that principle by acknowledging that the disciplines of archaeology, anthropology and history may be of assistance. It has to be noted by the government that this definition is not a radically new one: it is consistent with section 3 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 of South Australia. That is the explanation for this particular part of the committee process. The area of objects and definitions is one which is not just technical but also has some fairly important ramifications and implications that go to what we think is the Commonwealth's responsibility in this matter and to independence being an important part of the consultative and deliberative process. Also on behalf of Senator Woodley, I seek leave to move amendments Nos 1 to 12 together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(1) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 17 to 20), omit "certain" (wherever occurring).(2) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 20), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the regulation of the purchase, sale and exhibition of significant indigenous objects; and (ab) the promotion of the development of indigenous culture and heritage; and(3) Clause 5, page 2 (line 24) to page 6 (line 19), insert: Agency means Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency. ATSIC means the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission established by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989 . Council means Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council. Heritage Registrar means the Heritage Registrar appointed under section 20. Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council means the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council established under section 83 of this Act. Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency means the Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency established under Division 1 of Part 2. national interest includes but is not limited to Australia's compliance with its obligations to protect indigenous heritage as a signatory to international agreements, conventions and covenants. native title representative body means a representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body that is the subject of a determination under subsection 202(1) or that is recognised under section 203AD of the Native Title Act1993 . Registrar means the Heritage Registrar.(4) -(5) Clause 5, page 3 (line 14), after "water", insert ", an area of water beneath an area of land".(6) Clause 5, page 4 (line 21), omit "and beliefs", substitute ", beliefs and cultural practices".(7) Clause 5, page 4 (line 23), omit "or beliefs", substitute ", beliefs or cultural practices".(8) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 19 and 20), omit the definition of Register , substitute: Register means the Register of Claims for Protection or the Register of Agreements established under Part 2A.(9) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 4 to 10), omit the definition of significant indigenous area , substitute: significant indigenous area means: (a) an area of land situated in Australia or situated in or beneath water in Australia or Australian waters; or (b) an area of water in Australia; or (c) an area of Australian waters; being an area: (d) of particular significance to indigenous persons in accordance with indigenous tradition; or (e) that is of particular significance to indigenous archaeology, anthropology or history.(10) Clause 5, page 6 (lines 11 to 14), omit the definition of significant indigenous object , substitute: significant indigenous object means an object (including indigenous human remains), situated in Australia or in Australian waters, that is: (a) of particular significance to indigenous persons in accordance with indigenous tradition; or (b) that is of particular significance to indigenous archaeology, anthropology or history.(11) Clause 5, page 6 (line 23), omit "or".(12) Clause 5, page 6 (line 24), after "waters", insert "or an area of water beneath land in Australia".12:03:0010817Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—Obviously, the Democrats support all of these amendments. I want to make a couple of introductory remarks. I certainly endorse what Senator Bolkus said about Mr Castan. I also want to underline that in fact these amendments moved by the Democrats and the Labor Party do not come out of the ether but are in fact based on very long consideration of this matter. I draw attention to the report from Justice Evatt to the government—most of which was ignored by the government. I draw attention to the two parliamentary committees which gave quite an exhaustive examination of these matters.The amendments which we bring you now are based on these considerations. The government ought to take note of that. I would hope that, in any discussion which we may have in a roundtable, that will be acknowledged because it is critical to the reason we propose these amendments, which radically change the government's bill while preserving the framework for the bill. I would hope that the government would, in the end, come to the understanding that these amendments are in fact a great improvement on the government's proposals, and would in fact take that on board and realise that. I would hope that, in any consideration of the legislation at a future time, that would also be their starting point.The other thing I want to say is that so often, in considering cultural heritage, one gets the impression that some people believe that indigenous cultural heritage is something that exists in a museum—that you collect objects and perhaps other artistic expressions of culture and somehow or other they are either to be seen in a museum or presented for tourists as a corroboree or some kind of dance. That is not so, and it ought not to be so for people other than indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians see their culture as something which is living, not dead. It is not something to be seen in a museum but something which is continuous. Indigenous people do not in any sense see their culture as something which existed some time ago and which you can go and look at now, in a museum sense. They do not recognise the disjunction between history, today and the future. They see culture in a continuous sense. So even though some objects may be ancient in terms of their age, they still have great significance for people today and are seen as expressing and outlining that culture today. I need to make that point clear.There is such a thing as tribal memory. Although some of the atrocities committed against Aboriginal people may have happened one, two, three or more generations ago, those atrocities are something current to indigenous people. They are not seen as history in our sense but rather as a memory which affects how they live today. That is one of the problems in the relationship between police and indigenous people today. It relates to the attitude that may have existed and some of the actions of police in generations gone by: Aboriginal people nevertheless see these as present in terms of that tribal memory.In a positive sense, in the same way—it is quite different from the way we understand culture—they have a connection to and responsibility for the past, the present and the future. They do not see the past, the present and the future as being in any way disjointed or disconnected. They see them as continuous and continuing. That understanding is part of what lies behind the amendments which we bring to this chamber for consideration today.12:09:0010817Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This first debate, which deals with objects and definitions, reinforces what I said at the outset, which is that although the framework of the government's legislation has been left intact, the changes proposed by the Labor Party and the Australian Democrats will have the effect of providing a substantially different regime of protection. I guess it starts from the object of the government as opposed to the object of the other parties.The government has accepted that there are significant deficiencies in the current Commonwealth legislation, which is designed to protect indigenous heritage sites. These deficiencies have been shown up in practice and in litigation. All parties acknowledge that the current regime can be significantly improved. That is the approach the government has taken. It is amending the existing legislation so that it can operate more effectively and can withstand the judgment of the courts, which have rendered at least some parts of the current system very difficult to operate.The Labor Party and the Australian Democrats have really approached the issue differently, starting from not so much wanting to improve the current legislation but looking for a new and distinct form of protection. In particular, they are looking for a significantly enhanced Commonwealth role. As we see the changes to the objects, for example, they are consistent with the opposition's objective of attempting to impose blanket protection at the Commonwealth level. That is distinct from the government's position: we are looking for a system that much better reflects federal responsibilities.Because the Commonwealth scheme is based on the making of applications, what follows is not a blanket protection regime. The opposition starts—I will abbreviate it by saying the opposition, if Senator Woodley will excuse me for doing so—by omitting reference to `certain' within the definition of significant indigenous areas. The government's position has been that it relates to significant indigenous areas. The opposition seeks to broaden it.We find that somewhat surprising. As I understand it, when in government, the Labor Party considered 49 applications under the existing Commonwealth legislation, but only four declarations were made. Trying to impose a blanket regime is a very different approach from what exists under the existing system, which is the system that the government is seeking to make more effective. The trend of the opposition in this regard flows through in changes to the definitions, particularly if you look at amendments (9) and (10), which seek to extend the definitions of significant indigenous areas to include indigenous archaeology, anthropology or history. Whilst I do not want to unduly delay the Senate in considering these matters, we argue that most of those issues are adequately dealt with under other existing legislation.That philosophical difference is one of the major roadblocks between the government and the other parties on this issue. If you are seeking to achieve a fundamentally different objective through the legislation, it becomes very difficult to work out how to find common ground. It is demonstrated again not only by changing the objects from certain significant indigenous areas and certain significant indigenous objects but also by the additions that have been made in relation to the sale and exhibition of significant indigenous objects and, in particular, the promotion of the development of indigenous culture and heritage. Whilst I am the first to be prepared to stand here and say that that is a laudable objective and something we should encourage and support, we do not see it as specifically the responsibility of this act, which is a responsibility of protection for an asset under threat.My case, I would argue, is reinforced by the fact that, although the opposition include the promotion and development of indigenous culture and heritage in the objects, when you look at their amendments as a whole, they do not follow through and implement that through the alternative scheme they have put to the Senate today. It is a feelgood statement that they wish to see within the objects but, by not following it through in their own amendments, they are in effect acknowledging that they are seeking to provide a legislative scheme that goes far beyond what was ever intended.I refute what was said by Senator Bolkus in relation to the Evatt report. The government found that report, and the reports and assistance that it has received from the two parliamentary inquiries that have contributed to this process, particularly useful. It is true that the government has not taken up all of the recommendations. It would be unusual for that to be the case. Nevertheless, the processes of scrutiny and advice from both within and without the parliament have been helpful to us in getting to the point that we have reached to date.However, to demonstrate the government's good faith in relation to this debate, we will accept amendments Nos 5 to 8. We could easily stand here and quibble about them, but we believe they can be accepted without significantly affecting the scheme that the government brings to the chamber. As a sign of goodwill at this early stage of the proceedings, I will indicate that we will accept those. The others, up to and including amendment No. 12, we oppose.12:17:0010819Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I suppose the Minister for the Environment and Heritage wants us to be grateful for small mercies, but I do not think we will be at this stage. I note the amendments that the minister has seen fit to accept, but they still do not—as indicated—do anything like what needs to happen to this legislation to ensure that it has the ambit that Evatt, Frankel and others, and parliamentary committees, would wish this legislation to have.It is not just a matter of feelgood statements. It is a matter of issues that have been considered for a long time in the process both within the parliament and also externally. They are issues considered by Justice Evatt, the joint parliamentary inquiry, the Senate committee and so on. We urge the minister to think again. Unless we can get some movement from the government on some of these most fundamental issues, this nation will lose an enormously important opportunity to advance from where we were some 90 years ago.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—Senator Bolkus, you have moved the amendments together but, given the debate, it may be better if we deal with amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 and then, as a separate vote, amendments Nos 5 to 8. Are you happy with that?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I am happy with that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I put the question to the Senate that opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now put the question that opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 5 to 8 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.12:19:0010819Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—Also on behalf of Senator Bolkus, I move:(13) Heading to Part 2, page 9 (lines 2 and 3), omit the heading, substitute:Part 2—Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency(14) Heading to Division 1, page 9 (lines 4 and 5), omit the heading, substitute:Division 1—Establishment, purpose and way of operating(15) Clause 9, page 9 (lines 6 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:9 Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency There is established by this Act an Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency.(16) Clause 10, page 9 (line 9) to page 10 (line 5), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(17) Clause 10, page 9 (line 11), omit "advise", substitute "make submissions to".(18) Clause 10, page 9 (line 26), omit "or", substitute "and".(19) Clause 10, page 10 (after line 3), after paragraph (g), insert: (ga) to initiate prosecutions for offences arising under this Act; (gb) to seek injunctive relief under this Act; (gc) to carry out research for the purpose of performing its functions; (gd) to act in the interests of indigenous people in recovering and repatriating significant indigenous objects (including indigenous human remains) to the appropriate indigenous persons;(20) Page 10 (after line 5), after clause 10, insert:10A Agency's way of operating Objectives (1) The Agency must pursue the objective of carrying out its functions in a fair, just, economical, informal and prompt way.Concerns of Indigenous people (2) The Agency, in carrying out its functions, must take account of the cultural and customary concerns of indigenous people. Agency not bound by technicalities etc. (3) The Agency, in carrying out its functions, is not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence.(21) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 6 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1A—Membership of the Agency11 Membership of the Agency The membership of the Agency is as set out in the following table:Membership of the Heritage Protection AgencyMemberNumber to be appointedClass of memberPersons who may be appointedPrincipal memberOnePrincipalA person who satisfies subsection 11A(2) and who is: Deputy Principal memberAny number or noneA person who has been for at least 5 years enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or TerritoryOther memberAny numberNon-principalA person who satisfies subsection 11A(2) and has, in the opinion of the Governor-General, special knowledge in relation to: (a) the archaeological or anthropological significance of areas or objects; or (b) dispute resolution; or (c) any other class of matters considered by the Governor-General to have substantial relevance to the duties of such a member.11A Appointment of members of Agency (1) The members are to be appointed by the Governor-General on such terms and conditions, subject to this Act, as are specified in the instrument of appointment. The principal member must be appointed on a full-time basis and the members may be appointed on a full-time basis or a part-time basis. (2) A person is not qualified to be appointed unless the Governor-General is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner. (3) If a member is appointed on a part-time basis, he or she may not engage in any paid employment that, in the opinion of the Governor-General, conflicts with the proper performance of the member's functions. (22) Clause 12, page 10 (lines 18 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:12 Terms of appointmentPeriod for which office held (1) A member is appointed for the period (not longer than 5 years) specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for reappointment.Terms and conditions (2) A member holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are prescribed.(23) Clause 13, page 10 (line 22) to page 11 (line 5), omit the clause, substitute:13 Remuneration and allowances (1) A member is to be paid such remuneration as is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (2) If no determination of that remuneration by the Remuneration Tribunal is in operation, a member is to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed. (3) A member is to be paid such allowances as are prescribed. (4) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .(24) Clause 14, page 11 (line 7), omit "the Director", substitute "a full-time member".(25) Clause 14, page 11 (line 10), omit "the Director", substitute "a full-time member".(26) Clause 15, page 11 (lines 13 to 27), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(27) Clause 15, page 11 (line 14), omit "Minister", substitute "Governor-General".(28) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "The Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "A member".(29) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Governor-General".(30) Clause 16, page 11 (line 28) to page 12 (line 11), omit "Director's" (wherever occurring), substitute "member's".(31) Clause 16, page 12 (line 7), omit "Director", substitute "a member".(32) Clause 16, page 12 (line 10), omit "Director", substitute "member".(33) Page 12 (after line 11), after clause 16), insert:16A Conflict of InterestMember to disclose conflict of interest (1) A member who has a conflict of interest in relation to an application under Part 4 must disclose the matters giving rise to that conflict: (a) if the member is the Principal member—to the Commonwealth Minister and the parties; or (b) in any other case—to the Principal member and the parties.Requirement for consent (2) The member must not take part in the inquiry or exercise any powers in relation to the application or the inquiry unless: (a) if the member is the Principal member—the Commonwealth Minister and the parties consent; or (b) in any other case—the Principal member and the parties consent. Meaning of conflict of interest (3) For the purposes of this section, a member has a conflict of interest in relation to an application under Part 4 if the member has any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions in relation to that application or inquiry. (4) Without limiting subsection (3), a person has a conflict of interest at a particular time in relation to an application under Part 4 if: (a) at that time, the person is employed by, or engaged as a consultant or a lawyer to, an organisation or a person that has an interest in the subject matter of the application; or (b) at any time in the 12 months immediately before that time, the person was so employed or engaged.(34) Clause 17, page 12 (lines 12 to 14), omit the clause, substitute:17 Resignation A member may resign by writing signed by him or her and sent to the Governor-General.(35) Clause 18, page 12 (lines 15 to 31), omit the clause, substitute:18 Termination of appointment Misbehaviour or incapacity (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of a member if an address praying for the termination of the member's appointment on the ground of proved misbehaviour or of physical or mental incapacity is presented to the Governor-General by each House of the Parliament in the same session of the Parliament.Termination for other reasons (2) The Governor-General must terminate the appointment of a member, if the member: (a) becomes bankrupt; or (b) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (c) compounds with his or her creditors; or (d) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors.Retirement—incapacity (3) The Governor-General may, with the consent of a member who is: (a) an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; or (b) a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; retire the member from office on the ground of incapacity.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1976 (4) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a member who: (a) is an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) has not reached his or her retiring age within the meaning of that Act; is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of Part IVA of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 2 has given a certificate under section 54C of that Act.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1990 (5) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a member who: (a) is a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) is under 60 years of age; is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 1 has given a certificate under section 13 of that Act.18A Suspension of members—misbehaviour or incapacityMisbehaviour or incapacity (1) The Governor-General may suspend a member from office on the ground of misbehaviour or of physical or mental incapacity.Statement of grounds (2) If the Governor-General suspends a member from office, the Commonwealth Minister must cause a statement of the ground of the suspension to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 7 sitting days of that House after the suspension.Resolution by a House of Parliament (3) If such a statement has been laid before a House of the Parliament, that House may, within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the statement has been laid before it, by resolution, declare that the member's appointment should be terminated.Member's appointment to be terminated (4) If each House of the Parliament passes the resolution, the Governor-General must terminate the member's appointment.Termination of suspension (5) If, at the end of 15 sitting days of a House of the Parliament after the day on which the statement has been laid before that House, that House has not passed the resolution, the suspension terminates.Suspension not to affect entitlements (6) The suspension of a member from office under this section does not affect any entitlement of the member to be paid remuneration and allowances.18B Outside employmentConsent of Commonwealth Minister required (1) Except with the consent of the Commonwealth Minister, a full-time member must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office.Service in Defence Force (2) The reference in subsection (1) to paid employment does not include service in the Defence Force.18C Member not personally liable A member is not personally liable in an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the member in the capacity of member.(36) Page 12 (after line 31), after clause 18, insert:Division 1B—Organisation of Agency(37) Clause 19, page 13 (lines 1 to 4), omit the clause, substitute:19 Arrangement of businessPrincipal member may give directions (1) The Agency must be constituted by a member for the purposes of the conduct a particular inquiry, the conduct of mediation in a particular proceeding, or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act. (2) Where the Agency has been constituted by a particular member for the conduct of mediation in a particular proceeding, or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act, the Agen cy must be constituted by a different member for the conduct of an inquiry for the purposes of making findings and preparing a report under this Act. (3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2), the Principal member may give directions as to any of the following: (a) the arrangement of the business of the Agency; (b) the member who is to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act; (c) the member who is to prepare a report for the Minister, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act; (d) the places at which the Agency is to conduct a particular inquiry; (e) the procedure of the Agency generally; (f) the procedure of the Agency at a particular place; (g) the procedure of the Agency in the receiving and considering of representations by a member in preparing a report for the Minister; (h) procedures relating to the protection from disclosure of culturally sensitive information.Factors to be considered (4) In giving a direction as to the member who is to conduct a particular inquiry, the Principal member must have regard to the degree of public importance or complexity of the matters to which that inquiry relates.19A Replacement of a memberWhen section applies (1) This section applies if a member (the unavailable member ) who has responsibility to conduct a particular inquiry, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act: (a) stops being a member; or (b) for any reason is not available for the purpose of the inquiry, mediation or negotiation.Where unavailable member constituted Agency (2) In the event there is an unavailable member, the Principal member must direct another member to conduct a particular inquiry, to conduct mediation in a particular proceeding or to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act.Member who is reappointed (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a member who stops being a member and at a later time becomes a member again is taken, from that later time, to be another member.Agency may have regard to previous proceedings (4) The Agency, as constituted in accordance with a direction under subsection (2), must continue and finish a particular reporting process or mediation in a particular proceeding or continue to provide assistance in making or negotiating agreements under this Act and may, for that purpose, have regard to any record of the proceedings of the reporting process, mediation or negotiation made by the Agency as previously constituted.19B Places of sitting Sittings of the Agency are to be held from time to time as required at the places at which the registries of the Agency are established, but the Agency may sit at any place in Australia or to which this Act extends.(38) Clause 20, page 13 (lines 5 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1C—Heritage Registrar20 Appointment of RegistrarRegistrar (1) There is to be a Heritage Registrar.Appointment by Governor-General (2) The Heritage Registrar is to be appointed by the Governor-General.Qualifications (3) A person is not to be appointed as Heritage Registrar unless: (a) the person is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (b) the Governor-General is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.20A Powers of Registrar—assisting the Principal memberPowers, when assisting Principal member (1) The Registrar may do all things necessary or convenient to be done for the purpose of assisting the Principal member under section 21A.Acting for Principal member—administrative affairs (2) In particular, the Registrar may act for the Principal member in relation to the administrative affairs of the Agency.Principal member may give directions (3) The Principal member may give the Registrar directions regarding the exercise of the Registrar's powers under this Part.20B Powers of Registrar—applications The Registrar has the powers set out in Part 4 in relation to applications.20C Powers of Registrar—registers The Registrar has the powers set out in Part 2A.20D Delegation by Registrar The Registrar may by signed instrument delegate to one or more of the Deputy Registrars or of the members of the staff of the Agency all or any of the Registrar's powers under this Act.20E Remuneration and allowancesDetermination by Remuneration Tribunal (1) The Registrar is to be paid the remuneration and allowances determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If there is no determination in force, the Registrar is to be paid such remuneration as is prescribed.Prescribed allowances (2) The Registrar is to be paid such other allowances as are prescribed.Appropriation (3) Remuneration and allowances payable to the Registrar under this section are to be paid out of money appropriated by the Parliament for the purposes of the Agency.Subject to Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 (4) Subsections (1) and (2) have effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .20F Terms and conditions of appointmentPeriod for which office held (1) The Registrar holds office for the period (not longer than 5 years) specified in the instrument of appointment, but is eligible for re-appointment.Terms and conditions (2) The Registrar holds office on such terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not provided for by this Act as are determined by the Principal member.20G Leave of absenceRecreation leave (1) The Registrar has the recreation leave entitlements determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.Other leave (2) The Principal member may grant the Registrar leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on such terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise as are determined by the Principal member with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Principal member may make written determinations granting leave of absence, other than recreation leave, to the Registrar on such terms and conditions as the Principal member, with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister, considers appropriate.20H Resignation The Registrar may resign by giving a signed notice of resignation to the Governor-General.20J Termination of appointmentMisbehaviour or incapacity (1) The Governor-General may terminate the appointment of the Registrar for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity.Termination for other reasons (2) The Governor-General must terminate the appointment of the Registrar if: (a) the Registrar: (i) becomes bankrupt; or (ii) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or (iii) compounds with his or her creditors; or (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of his or her creditors; or (b) the Registrar is absent from duty, except on leave of absence granted by the Principal member, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or (c) the Registrar engages in paid employment contrary to section 20K; or (d) the Registrar fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 20L. Retirement—incapacity (3) If the Registrar is: (a) an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; or (b) a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; the Governor-General may, with the Registrar's consent, retire the Registrar from office on the ground of incapacity.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1976 (4) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a Registrar who: (a) is an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 ; and (b) has not reached his or her retiring age within the meaning of that Act; is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of Part IVA of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 2 has given a certificate under section 54C of that Act.Retirement—invalidity—Superannuation Act 1990 (5) In spite of anything contained in this Act, a Registrar who: (a) is a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990 ; and (b) is under 60 years of age; is not capable of being retired from office on the ground of invalidity within the meaning of that Act unless the Commonwealth Superannuation Board of Trustees No. 1 has given a certificate under section 13 of that Act.20K Outside employmentConsent of Principal member required (1) Except with the consent of the Principal member, the Registrar must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office.Service in Defence Force (2) The reference in subsection (1) to paid employment does not include service in the Defence Force.20L Disclosure of interests by Registrar The Registrar must give written notice to the Principal member of all direct or indirect pecuniary interests that the Registrar has or acquires in any business or in any body corporate carrying on a business.20M Appointment of acting RegistrarPrincipal member may appoint acting Registrar (1) The Principal member may appoint a person to act as the Registrar: (a) if there is a vacancy in the office of Registrar; or (b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Registrar is absent from duty or absent from Australia or is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office. A person appointed to act during a vacancy is not to continue so to act for more than 12 months.Qualifications (2) A person is not to be appointed to act as Registrar unless: (a) the person is enrolled as a legal practitioner of the High Court, of another federal court or of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (b) the Principal member is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Validation (3) Anything done by a person purporting to act under an appointment under this section is not invalid merely because: (a) the occasion for the appointment had not arisen; or (b) there was a defect or irregularity in, or in connection with, the appointment; or (c) the appointment had ceased to have effect; or (d) the occasion to act had not arisen or had ceased. Note: Section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 has additional rules that apply to acting appointments.(39) Clause 21, page 13 (lines 9 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:Division 1D—Management of the AgencySubdivision A—Management responsibilities of Principal Member and Registrar21 Management of administrative affairs of AgencyPrincipal member responsible for administrative affairs (1) The Principal member is responsible for managing the administrative affairs of the Agency.Powers of Principal member (2) For that purpose, the Principal member may do all things that are necessary or convenient to be done, including, on behalf of the Commonwealth: (a) entering into contracts; and (b) acquiring or disposing of personal property.Powers are additional to other powers (3) The powers given to the Principal member by subsection (2) are in addition to any powers given to the Principal member by any other provision of this Act or by any other Act.Limits on powers (4) Subsection (2) does not authorise the Principal member to: (a) acquire any interest or right that would constitute an interest in land for the purposes of the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 ; or (b) except with the approval of the Commonwealth Minister—enter into a contract under which the Commonwealth is to pay or receive an amount over $250,000 or, if a higher amount is prescribed, that higher amount.21A Heritage Registrar In the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency, the Principal member is to be assisted by the Heritage Registrar.Subdivision B—Other officers, Agency staff and consultants21B Deputy Registrars and staff of the AgencyDeputy Registrars and staff (1) In addition to the Registrar, there are to be such Deputy Registrars and staff of the Agency as are necessary.Appointment of Deputy Registrars and staff (2) The Deputy Registrars are to be appointed by the Principal member and the staff are to be appointed by the Registrar.Employment etc. under Public Service Act 1999 (3) The Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency are to be persons appointed or employed under the Public Service Act 1999 . Secondment (4) The Registrar may, on behalf of the Principal member, arrange with the Secretary of a Department of the Australian Public Service, or with an authority of the Commonwealth, for the services of officers or employees of the Department or of the authority to be made available for the purposes of the Agency.Understanding of indigenous culture (5) The Registrar must not appoint a member of staff unless he or she is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Powers etc. (6) The Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency have such duties, powers and functions as are given by this Act or by the Principal member21C Powers of Registrar regarding Deputy Registrars and Agency staff In relation to the branch of the Australian Public Service consisting of the Deputy Registrars and the staff of the Agency, the Registrar has the same powers as if that branch were a Department of the Australian Public Service and the Registrar were the Secretary of that Department.21D Principal member may engage consultants (1) The Principal member may engage a person as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation that the Agency provides under any provision of this Act.Consultants to have relevant skills or knowledge (2) The Principal member may only engage a person under subsection (1) if: (a) the person has, in the opinion of the Principal member, particular skills or knowledge in relation to matters of substantial relevance to the assistance or mediation; and (b) the Principal member is satisfied that the person has an understanding of indigenous culture and heritage and an ability to deal with indigenous persons in a culturally sensitive manner.Engagements to be in writing (3) An engagement under subsection (1) must be made: (a) on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) by written agreement.Consultant subject to Principal member's direction (4) A consultant engaged under subsection (1) is subject to directions given by the Principal member under subsection 19(3).Liability (5) If: (a) a person is engaged as a consultant under subsection (1); and (b) the Principal member determines, as part of the terms and conditions of the engagement of that person, that this subsection applies to the person; the person is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the person in the capacity of such a consultant.21E Disclosure and conflict of interestsConsultant to disclose conflict of interest (1) A person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency who has a conflict of interest in relation to the assistance or mediation must disclose the matters giving rise to that conflict to: (a) the Principal member of the Agency; and (b) the persons to whom the Agency is providing the assistance or mediation.Requirement for consent (2) The person must not perform his or her duties as a consultant in relation to the assistance or mediation unless the Principal member and the persons to whom the Agency is providing the assistance or mediation consent.Meaning of conflict of interest (3) For the purposes of this section, a person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency has a conflict of interest in relation to the assistance or mediation if the person has any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, that could conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties as a consultant in relation to the assistance or mediation.Conflict of interest at a particular time (4) Without limiting subsection (3), a person engaged under subsection 21D(1) as a consultant in relation to any assistance or mediation being provided by the Agency has a conflict of interest at a particular time in relation to the assistance or mediation if: (a) at that time, the person is employed by, or engaged as a consultant or a lawyer to, an organisation or a person that has an interest in the matter in relation to which the assistance or mediation is being provided; or (b) at any time in the 12 months immediately before that time, the person was so employed or engaged.21F Registrar may engage consultants (1) The Registrar may engage persons having suitable qualifications and experience as consultants to, or to perform services for, the Registrar.Services include research (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the services that a consultant may be engaged to perform include carrying out research under subsection 10(gc).How engagement to be made (3) An engagement under subsection (1) must be made: (a) on behalf of the Commonwealth; and by written agreement.Liability (4) If: (a) a person is engaged as a consultant under subsection (1); and (b) the Registrar determines, as part of the terms and conditions of the engagement of that person, that this subsection applies to the person; the person is not personally liable to an action or other proceeding for damages in relation to anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the person in the capacity of such a consultant.Subdivision C—Miscellaneous administrative matters21G Annual report (1) As soon as practicable after 30 June in each year, the Principal member must prepare and give to the Commonwealth Minister a report of the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency during the year. (2) The report must include: (a) the financial statements required by section 49 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 ; and (b) an audit report on those statements under section 57 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 . (3) The Commonwealth Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament as soon as practicable.21H Proceedings arising out of administration of Agency Any judicial or other proceeding relating to a matter arising out of the management of the administrative affairs of the Agency under this Part, including any proceeding relating to anything done by the Registrar under this Part, may be instituted by or against the Commonwealth, as the case requires.(40) Heading to Division 2, page 14 (line 2), omit the heading, substitute:Part 2A—The Registers of Claims for Protection and Agreements[Register](41) Clause 22, page 14 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(42) Page 14 (after line 7), after clause 22, insert:22A The Register of Agreements (1) There is established by this section a register to be known as the Register of Agreements. (2) The Register is to be maintained by the Registrar. (3) The Register may be kept by the use of a computer.(43) Clause 23, page 14 (line 9), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".These amendments create the Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency. This agency is being premised upon the Commonwealth having a greater role in heritage protection than the protection that was envisaged by the Evatt report. That role is one of providing effective heritage protection where states and territories have failed to seek accreditation of their heritage laws and last resort protection where states and territories have accredited heritage laws. These recommendations, I would point out, were supported by the minority report of the 11th joint parliamentary inquiry and the minority report of the Senate legal and constitutional committee.The government's bill creates a director of heritage to carry out its constitutional obligations and international responsibilities to provide heritage protection. Unfortunately, the director is not independent. He or she is a ministerial appointee who can come and go in the manner of all ministerial appointments. In keeping with the Commonwealth's intention to avoid most of its responsibilities, the director's role in heritage protection is not significant. This is reflected in the following processes in the government's bill.The director has no ability to act unless all remedies have been exhausted in accredited or unaccredited state and territory regimes. The Commonwealth has avoided its last resort role, which is a very important one, where there are accredited state and territory regimes. In these instances, the director has no effective role due to the national interest exclusion by the minister in section 39. Even if an application of LPO makes it through the section 31 and section 39 hurdles, the minister can bypass the director by adopting the findings of the accredited state or territory regime. Even when an accredited regime application has negotiated all of these obstacles, the minister can reject the director's report on significance and threat to an area or object and appoint an independent reviewer. That is in section 43.There is also scope for the director to defer the findings of unaccredited regimes when preparing reports on significance and threat to an area or object. The directorate represents a fundamental flaw in the government's policy and is one of the real problems with the government's legislation—that the Commonwealth is not intended to have a real role in heritage protection. Rather, it is an exercise in tokenism. This is most clearly stated with its effective denial of last resort protection where there are accredited state or territory regimes.The opposition and Democrats proposal is that the IHPA and the amendments that create that agency will take on a significant role where an unaccredited regime is concerned and a last resort role where an accredited regime is concerned. As recommended by Evatt, the IHPA's members will be responsible for the production of reports on significance of and threat to an area or object and other interests affected and will carry out these functions independently. Those members will have a full-time or a part-time status and have appropriate qualities and experience. They may be regionally located and will have secure tenure, as proposed by Evatt. The IHPA will be responsible for making emergency and interim protection orders, as well as preventing the breach of those, and long-term orders through injunctions. It will also be responsible for the recovery and repatriation of significant indigenous objects, for initiating prosecutions for the breach of protection orders and for a general research function.I believe the government really needs to look very carefully at this proposal. I think it is the centrepiece of the amendments which we have moved today. It will replace something that is simply ineffective and will not work with an agency that will be effective and will deliver what the government says are its aims in its legislation. Certainly, the aim of the Labor Party and the Democrats is to provide adequate and proper protection for indigenous culture.12:25:0010829Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I rise to support Senator Woodley's amendments and indicate that what we are about on this side of parliament is trying to provide for effective benchmarks and effective protection, particularly where states and territories have failed. As a consequence, we endorse the concept of the protection agency. We also recognise the failings, as Senator Woodley said, in respect of the director's roles and responsibilities. They are major and significant failings in the way the government is anticipating they will operate. As Senator Woodley indicated, we are about improving the role of the director by inserting four additional functions which were omitted by the government. They appear in our amendments Nos 17, 18 and 19, and are functions to initiate prosecutions, to seek injunctive relief, to carry out research and to recover and repatriate significant indigenous objects.The other amendments go to: the way the IHPA will carry out its functions, the membership of it, the conditions of appointment, the question of acting principal members, disclosure of interests and conflicts, resignation and termination, and the organisation of IHPA. The amendments that Senator Woodley has moved embody the concept of a heritage registrar—a registrar which is responsible to the direction of the principal member for the administration of the IHPA and a registrar which we think is fundamentally important for both transparency and confidence in the system.We think these amendments—together with amendments that go to the register of applications, agreements and management of the IHPA—are important in developing not only the concept of independence but also effective heritage protection. States often fail in this area. They often fail to seek accreditation for their heritage laws and last resort protection. We are providing the benchmark and the capacity for the Commonwealth to act as a last resort—in a meaningful last resort role—where accredited state and territory agencies fail in their functions. We find these amendments quite integral to any effective going forward in this area, and we urge the government not to reject them blindly. We are trying to put some teeth into the government's legislation. The government should look at it in that context rather than in the context of an ideological state versus Commonwealth battle.12:28:0010829Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—If these new structures, the Commonwealth Indigenous Heritage Protection Agency and the Heritage Registrar that goes with it under the opposition's alternative scheme, are to implement the protective regime that we are setting up, then we think that they are unnecessarily elaborate and expensive. In other words, setting up a new agency that has to include at least two members and the registrar to deal with the workload that has been the historical experience is simply over the top.We are talking about a current workload of about 10 cases a year, administered by fewer than two staff. Setting up this new, elaborate body for that purpose seems to us unnecessary. It seems to us that what we propose in the bill, which is the establishment of a director of indigenous heritage protection as a statutory office holder, provides a sufficient degree of independence from government and also obviously a sufficient degree of capability to deal with the workload that would be anticipated. Therefore, one suspects that what the opposition in this place has in mind is more compatible with its goal of a blanket Commonwealth protective regime that might, in due course, justify a much more elaborate mechanism for administration and enforcement.We think the scheme that has been put before the Senate is unnecessary. It does not provide any further protection. It would simply result in more cumbersome administration and increased cost. Similarly, establishing two separate registers instead of the single register that is in the government's bill would have the same effect. It serves no useful purpose, in the view of the government—it is proposed in amendments Nos 40 to 43. If you apply it to what the government has in mind in terms of a protective regime, it is simply unnecessary cost and administrative complexity. We will oppose it. If, however, it is really an administrative framework for something that the opposition has in mind which is much more elaborate, then we will oppose it for that reason as well. Certainly, as it stands at the moment, the alternative administrative structure set-up being proposed by the opposition in this instance is not satisfactory to the government.Amendments agreed to.Sitting suspended from 12.31 p.m. to 1.15 p.m.13:15:0010830Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—We now come to that part of the debate which relates to the accreditation process and minimum standards. I hope that the government shows a bit of interest in this legislation before we go too far. The minister is not here and, looking around, there is no-one at all here from the government side. This is one of those rare moments in history where we could probably stop supply, if it were on the list. That would have a very direct effect of getting some government interest in what is before the chamber.We are dealing here with an important aspect of this debate. I would like to think that Senator Hill, when he gives a commitment that he will look at this legislation over the Christmas break, means that he will give it more than just a token going over. I cannot stress too much that what we have here is a critical piece of legislation which goes not only to what is before the chamber but to legislation which has implications in terms of not just how this country sees itself but also how it is seen by the rest of the world. We are trying to get a reconciliation process—some of us more than others—with indigenous Australians. We are going to be on show for the next 12 months in the lead-up to the Olympics. How the government handles an issue like this will impact directly on those two important aspects and reflections on Australia and on the Australian way of life.There is a fundamental failure in this legislation. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill accepts that some states have no effective heritage protection legislation and then makes no convincing effort to have them do so. Having set ineffective and inadequate criteria for a state-based heritage protection regime, the bill then compels those who would seek to protect indigenous heritage to work with those same state-based schemes, even when they fail to meet those minimal standards. So the government fails to set adequate standards and then even fails to implement those weak standards.These issues are fundamental. We do not call into question—as Senator Hill might have inferred before lunchtime—the desirability and necessity of involving the states in heritage protection, for it is the states and territories which issue interests in land, make planning decisions, authorise exploration and mining, run the museums and share with the Commonwealth the confusing and nationally inconsistent laws which regulate or fail to regulate dealing in objects and artefacts. It is the actual regulatory framework and the principles underpinning that framework that puts us at variance with the government.In its present form, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill has to be acknowledged as being incapable of bringing about or even maintaining a system of uniform and decent protection of heritage in each of the states and territories. The bill fails again in that it fails to set clear, comprehensive and enforceable standards. It fails to ensure that independent advice on heritage is heard in state deliberations. It fails to ensure that the minister is in receipt of and required to give competent non-partisan advice in accrediting a state regime. It fails to guarantee effective and appropriate sanctions for those who destroy, desecrate or abuse indigenous heritage.Whatever its legislative intent is, it delivers nebulous legislative effect and needs to be amended. As I said to Senator Hill through Hansard, just before he arrived in the chamber, we hope the commitment he gave to us earlier to have a look at this legislation and at our amendments over the Christmas break is more than a token commitment. It has to be. For those of us on this side of the chamber, it is going to take a change of heart by this government to do the right thing in this area, not just the right thing for indigenous Australians but the right thing for the nation.Our amendments Nos 44 to 60 and consequential amendments Nos 58 and 59 relate to standards for accreditation in part 3 and the scheme for accreditation of state and territory heritage protection. Once again, we look at the Evatt report which recommended that the accreditation of state and territory heritage regimes, in accordance with minimum standards, could—I stress `could'—be an effective mechanism to achieve indigenous heritage protection.Let us put on the record that the Evatt report makes clear that this result will be achieved only by the development of robust standards with which the state and territory laws must apply. So the standards for accreditation are the foundations on which the integrity of the whole accreditation process will be built. In that context, it is imperative that these standards are strong, credible and comprehensive. The Evatt report reflects those requirements, but if such robust standards are not achieved, accreditation will essentially do one thing: it will only result in the handover of Commonwealth responsibilities in relation to heritage protection to the states and territories. That has been this government's agenda in Aboriginal affairs, as in so many other areas, from the time it has been in office. This has been Mr Howard's agenda from the time he has been in parliament. It is that agenda that this government, in the interests of this area and of the nation, has to debunk for this particular debate. We cannot afford to do that. The Commonwealth has national and international responsibilities which it must meet. In directly handing over such responsibilities, this result of the legislation is directly contrary to the Commonwealth's constitutional and international responsibilities towards indigenous people.Unfortunately, our reading of the bill and the reading of most independent commentators is that the handover of responsibility to the states will be the result of this legislation. The standards in the bill are little more than vague, generalised statements. Many of the standards are, in effect, watered-down versions of strong proposals in the Evatt report. Of equal concern to us is the fact that many of the standards proposed in the Evatt report have simply been ignored. It is unacceptable for us to propose a regime which professes to grant the Commonwealth primary responsibility for the determination of accreditation standards whilst making those standards so vague and minimal that the states and territories will have considerable scope to manipulate the substance of those standards. We think it is a clear abrogation of Commonwealth constitutional and international responsibilities to go down the road the government is proposing.Our amendments are designed to remedy these deficiencies by ensuring that the relevant expert bodies have input into the process of determining whether a state or territory heritage protection regime complies with the minimum standards for accreditation; by providing for tighter scrutiny of amendments to an accredited heritage regime to ensure that such an amended regime continues to comply with the standards for accreditation. The minister has to acknowledge that this issue is causing immense problems at the moment under the Native Title Act, and our amendments seek to remedy these deficiencies by strengthening the minimum standards with which a state or territory must comply before it is granted accreditation.Our amendments (44), (45) and (46) go to the question of applications for accreditation. Subclause 25(3) of the bill provides:In determining whether the laws of a State or self-governing Territory meet the minimum standards required for accreditation, the Minister may seek the advice of the Director and of any other person . . .We believe that this provision fails to ensure that the minister must consider the views of expert bodies. Further amendments go to the question of the process for revocation and variation of accreditation. The bill provides that the minister may make determinations to revoke or vary the accreditation. It is a disallowable instrument. Our amendments go very much to ensuring that there is greater security in relation to the amendment of accredited heritage protection regimes. For instance, if a state or territory changes its regime, then it must seek accreditation again and it again becomes a disallowable instrument.We have standards for accreditation which go to the level of protection—amendments (46) to (59). Under clause 26 minimum standard (a) goes to the level of protection. Minimum standard (b) goes to the question of indigenous persons as a primary source of information regarding significance and threat. That is a very glaring gap in the legislation. Minimum standard (c), to which our amendment seeks to insert paragraphs (ca) and (cb), goes to the process of ministerial decision making and integration of heritage and planning laws. We are about ensuring that people are notified early in the process and the indigenous voice is heard early in the planning process. This is to ensure greater certainty in the process and to ensure that those planning to develop are not caught flat-footed halfway down the process.Minimum standard (d) goes to the provision of advanced work area clearances, once again to ensure greater security and certainty for all players in the process. Minimum standard (e) ensures binding agreements. Minimum standard (f) provides minimum standards for restriction of culturally sensitive information. Minimum standard (h) goes to effective deterrence. In our view, there is insufficient deterrence in this legislation. There are also standards going to the reporting of indigenous human remains, the independent heritage protection body, judicial review, interim protection and access to significant areas. We are concerned that the interim protection provisions in the bill are not adequate. We are also concerned that provision be made to ensure access to significant areas for indigenous Australians to exercise their customary access to the areas. It should be put on the record that Justice Evatt also recommended that minimum standards should address this issue of access.Our amendments focus on the inadequacies of the government legislation. They basically give us a Commonwealth regime which sets benchmarks and standards, and ensures that those standards are maintained—not just for tomorrow but, in the event that states change their regimes, into the future as well. I urge the minister to take a real and honest look at the amendments, not to dismiss them in the way that he dismissed the two batches before lunch but to see them for what they are: a constructive attempt from this side of the parliament to ensure that we have teeth in this legislation. Mr Temporary Chairman, also on behalf of Senator Woodley, I seek leave to move opposition amendments (44) to (60) together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(44) Clause 25, page 15 (lines 19 and 20), omit "meet the standards for accreditation", substitute "comply with the standards for accreditation in section 26".(45) Clause 25, page 16 (lines 5 to 8), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Before making the declaration under subsection (1), the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) notify: (i) all native title representative bodies for the State or Territory concerned; and (ii) ATSIC; and (iii) any other indigenous body with responsibilities in the State or Territory concerned in relation to indigenous cultural heritage; of the proposed determination; and (b) invite submissions from them about the proposed determination; and (c) consider any submissions made in response to the invitation.(46) Clause 26, page 16 (line 10), after "are", insert "requirements to be satisfied as".(47) Clause 26, page 16 (lines 14 to 18), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) that those laws protect from injury or desecration all significant indigenous areas and significant indigenous objects;(48) Clause 26, page 16 (line 23), after "objects", insert ", and the threat of injury or desecration to those areas or objects,".(49) Clause 26, page 16 (after line 25), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) that, upon finding that an area or object is a significant indigenous area or significant indigenous object and that area or object is under threat of injury of desecration, the decision to protect must be made unless it is not in the interest of the State or Territory; (cb) that those laws require the integration of processes for the protection of significant indigenous areas into planning and development laws and processes and contain appropriate procedures for notifying: (i) indigenous persons who may be affected; and (ii) the relevant native title representative body for the area; and (iii) the independent heritage body; of a development, mining or other proposal;(50) Clause 26, page 16 (lines 26 to 29), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) that those laws provide for persons to obtain the advance approval of indigenous persons to an activity in relation to significant indigenous areas;(51) Clause 26, page 16 (line 30), after "negotiated", insert "and binding".(52) Clause 26, page 16 (line 33), at the end of paragraph (e), add "and include, in respect of agreements covering significant indigenous areas, provision for the registration of agreements upon State and Territory land titles". (53) Clause 26, page 17 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph (f), substitute: (f) that those laws protect culturally sensitive information from disclosure and do not require indigenous people to provide information where to do so would be contrary to indigenous tradition;(54) Clause 26, page 17 (line 9), after "deterrents to", insert ", and remedies for,".(55) Clause 26, page 17 (line 12), omit "and penalties", substitute ", penalties which equate with the penalties provided under this Act and include the revocation or suspension of grants, licences or permits and compensation to affected indigenous persons".(56) Clause 26, page 17 (line 13), omit "provide for", substitute "require".(57) Clause 26, page 17 (line 14), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (k) that those laws create an independent heritage protection body: (i) controlled by indigenous members representative of indigenous communities with provision for gender balance, adequate and suitable staffing, expertise and resources; and (ii) that includes persons enrolled for at least 5 years as legal practitioners of the High Court, another federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory; and (iii) responsible for the determination of the significance of areas and objects, and the threat of injury or desecration to those areas or objects in accordance with paragraph (c); and (iv) with responsibilities, powers and functions in relation to the matters contained in paragraphs (d) to (j) (inclusive) and (m); (l) that those laws must provide for the provision of reasons for a decision and judicial review, equivalent to that provided by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 , of a decision not to provide heritage protection; (m) that those laws protect areas and objects that are significant to indigenous persons in terms of their indigenous traditions whilst an application for protection is being determined; (n) that those laws must provide access to indigenous people in relation to areas that are significant to those persons in terms of their indigenous traditions.(58) Clause 26, page 17 (line 18), omit "(h)", substitute "(n)".(59) Clause 26, page 17 (line 23), omit "and (h)", substitute "(h), (j), (k), (l) and (m)".(60) Clause 27, page 17 (line 31) to page 19 (line 2), omit the clause, substitute:27 Minister may revoke or vary accreditation (1) Where the laws in force in a State or Territory have been declared to be an accredited heritage protection regime (the original declaration ) in relation to one or more of the following matters (the accredited matter or accredited matters ): (a) the protection of areas situated within the jurisdictional limits of that State or Territory; or (b) the protection of objects (including indigenous human remains) situated within those jurisdictional limits; or (c) the reporting of findings of indigenous human remains situated within those jurisdictional limits; those laws may be amended by a State or Territory and, subject to subsection (3), become accredited under this Act. (2) A State or Territory must notify the Commonwealth Minister of all amendments to an accredited heritage protection regime it proposes to make. (3) If the Commonwealth Minister is satisfied that the proposed amended accredited heritage protection regime complies with the requirements in subsection 26(2), he or she must make a declaration in writing to that effect. (4) Before making a declaration under subsection (3), the Commonwealth Minister must: (a) notify: (i) all native title representative bodies for the State or Territory concerned; and (ii) ATSIC; and (iii) any other indigenous body with responsibilities in the State or Territory concerned in relation to indigenous cultural heritage; of the proposed determination; and (b) invite submissions from them about the proposed declaration; and (c) consider any submissions made in response to the invitation. (5) The Commonwealth Minister must revoke the original declaration in writing if a State or Territory amends its laws in relation to an accredited heritage protection regime without complying with this section.13:28:0010834Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to support these amendments. I thought it might be useful to the chamber to have a practical illustration of why these amendments are important. It is a coincidence of timing that a couple of days ago some indigenous people from Queensland contacted my office with concerns about cultural heritage protection at the site of a proposed power plant and coal mine near Millmerran, west of Brisbane. The plant is sponsored by InterGen, an international power generation company. A cultural impact study by the University of Queensland found that the power plant would impact on areas of very high scientific interest as an Aboriginal archaeological site. The report recommended a major archaeological dig at the site, which would answer questions about prehistoric trading networks on the Darling Downs. The place has been identified as having a high quantity and density of artefacts, including axes with ground edges and grinding stones. The study also identified highly prized ochre quarries, suggesting that the area was a centre for the trade of pigments.Development of the power station and coalmine has now commenced and InterGen has hired indigenous cultural monitoring officers to ensure that sensitive areas of cultural heritage are not damaged. By this I do not want to say that nothing has been done. In fact, I think we should compliment the company for what it has tried to do. However, there is some conflict at the site.Unfortunately, indigenous people have contacted the Democrats believing that the company is not taking the cultural monitoring process seriously. They claim they have not been given the resources to monitor adequately and are literally running behind bulldozers picking up artefacts, putting them in bags and sending them away for study. Indigenous people from the local language groups Gumbuwal and Kumbuwal say they do not have adequate materials to pack artefacts. They do not have grid paper to grid the areas for clearance, and they do not have soil testing equipment. They say they have to deal with junior intermediaries and cannot discuss their concerns with senior managers. They say the rules and regulations of cultural heritage monitoring are not being observed. The indigenous people feel the whole process is blatant tokenism, and they fear their rich cultural heritage is in jeopardy.A representative of InterGen says that many of these complaints are unfounded. The company says that considerable time has been spent negotiating and consulting with all the indigenous groups who lay claim to the land and that there has been a long program of inclusion, communication and negotiation, but it concedes that communication with indigenous people could be improved.The Democrats welcome the company's assurances that indigenous people's concerns about the InterGen project will be addressed. We welcome assurances that cultural monitoring officers will be given access to senior managers at the project from now on. We are informed that the Australian project manager, Mr Jim Driscoll, has volunteered to be an extra point of contact. We look forward to hearing from our indigenous contacts about how this works out, and I am glad that some of the intervention on our part certainly seems to have brought the two parties closer together.Whether this is a case of communication problems and mismanagement or whether the indigenous people's fears are unfounded, it is clear that the traditional owners greatly fear that a rich mine of their cultural heritage is being threatened by an open-cut coalmine. This is not a desirable situation. The Democrats are concerned that the federal government's proposed cultural heritage protection legislation could exacerbate these problems by not having adequate standards for accreditation for state based heritage protection regimes.I have already indicated that even where there is a desire on the part of both parties to protect cultural heritage there are still problems. Any idea that we should lower the standards or have available too low a standard gives us great concern indeed. If it is the case at Millmerran that there is not proper support—and I am not saying that it is; I have not been there; I have only got two interviews with the two sides—and that a site of such high archaeological significance, which is not in doubt, were being treated in a cavalier fashion, it would be an outrage. We cannot afford to take the risk. That is why it is critical that the opposition-Democrat amendments are supported.13:33:0010835Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—We are dealing at the moment with the parts of the bill that deal with accreditation. First, the states and territories may apply for accreditation. The bill then sets out the standards that would apply for accreditation, the power to withdraw accreditation and the application of laws not relevant to accreditation.Listening to Senator Bolkus, the philosophical divide between the government and the opposition was apparent. The emphasis, as I interpreted Senator Bolkus, was not only that this should be a primary responsibility of the Commonwealth in principle but that the protection should be implemented by Commonwealth administration. To us, on the other hand, the most effective administration of protection is through the states. If states wish to be accredited, though, we expect that they meet the quite demanding standards that we set out in this bill. If they meet those demanding standards and their legislative scheme is accredited, the circumstances of Commonwealth intervention under our scheme will be really quite restricted.Even if they do not meet the standards of accreditation or they do not seek accreditation, we still believe, in the first instance, that the application of the state regime is a better way to go. Again, we provide for a Commonwealth opportunity in less restricted circumstances in the case where the state either does not have legislation that would meet these accreditation standards or has not chosen such accreditation.With that philosophical divide, it is not surprising that we see in the amendments before the chamber a significant difference in emphasis. Although I concede that, in this part of the bill, the opposition has not sought to take a fundamentally different direction, it nevertheless seeks to bring amendments that have been drawn from the background of an overall different philosophical approach to the bill.They have sought to achieve that objective, which is a very difficult objective to achieve, by including many more requirements for accreditation, and the other differences that Senator Bolkus has outlined between amendments Nos 44 and 60. Consistent with the spirit that I outlined earlier, there are some that we do not think significantly and detrimentally affect the bill that we have put before the chamber and we are prepared to agree to those. They are amendments Nos 44, 46, 48, 51 and 56. But we believe the balance of the amendments fundamentally change the application of the bill that we have brought in. In some instances we think that they are unreasonably demanding of the states. In some instances we think they are actually unworkable and that is where we get this hint from the opposition of what its real objective is in this. That is to move towards a Commonwealth dominated scheme rather than one that can be effectively implemented by the states.For each of those reasons we are unable to accept the balance of amendments Nos 44 to 60. I could go through each of them. I could debate each of the additional standards that the opposition is seeking to impose and explain our objection to each and every one of them if that were deemed to be helpful or constructive but it might not be so today.We are certainly prepared to look at these issues. If we take for example the opposition's amendment No. 45, which deals with the issue of processing of applications, we provided in the existing bill that, in determining whether the laws of a state or self-governing territory meet the standards for accreditation, we may seek the advice of the director and of any other person or body that the minister might consider appropriate. We think that more than adequately covers what is needed. However, the opposition has brought a much more prescriptive provision that sets out a whole range of parties which the minister must notify. He must invite submissions from them and must consider those submissions. We actually see nothing to be gained at all from including a more prescriptive provision of that type.Similarly, I could go through each of the amendments. The bulk of them do in fact relate to standards, in some instances replacing standards that we have included within our bill; in many instances adding additional standards that we think are either unnecessary or unworkable. In the case of the power of the minister to revoke or vary accreditation, the opposition has brought an alternative scheme for doing that and I am quite happy, if it is the wish of the Senate this afternoon, to go through our reasons for concern over the opposition's approach and the arguments why we think our alternative is the stronger.But what I am saying in principle is that there is obviously room for debate on issues of standards. We are looking at them in another legislative and administrative context at the moment—under the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act, where we are seeking to settle standards for accreditation of state processes—and we understand it is not an easy debate but that reasonable outcomes can be achieved from people with goodwill. We are sure that we will be able to do it in that instance and I see no reason why it could not be done in this instance as well. It is a similar case with the first issue I mentioned about the parties that need to be consulted and the differing regime for withdrawal of accreditation. So there should not be in this instance a problem if the opposition were prepared to come more towards the philosophical basis of the government scheme, which is more towards making the existing Commonwealth scheme work better and giving what we would regard as a proper responsibility to the states in administration.If the opposition were prepared to come to us a little on that then I am sure we could have a debate on the detail of such things as standards and have a fair chance of reaching an accommodation. But at the moment, whilst the opposition is philosophically seeking to achieve something that is so fundamentally different from the scheme that the government has brought to the Senate, it is not surprising that the way in which it has addressed, in its amendments today, such issues as standards is so significantly different from what the government has put before the chamber. We are realistic enough to realise that accommodation is not going to be reached on the floor today unfortunately.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Minister, during your address you indicated that the government was prepared to accept Nos 44, 46, 48, 51 and 56. Senator Bolkus has moved all of the amendments Nos 44 to 60 together. When we get to the issue of putting this to a vote, will you be wanting those amendments to be separated or are we to take them in one block?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Either way, Mr Temporary Chairman, all of the amendments will get up because that is the way we are debating it today: the ALP and the Democrats are voting aye for every amendment and therefore they will get up. But I think that, from the perspective of the record, it might be better if they were put separately.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—All right. Thank you, Minister.13:44:0010837Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I want to say a few things in response to the minister. The first thing to say is that if we really wanted to we could stretch this debate out for about four, five or six days. I am sure the minister understands that, with 184 amendments, with all the issues raised, this could be a very long debate. But we are not doing that because in a sense we do not see this debate as being the most critical part of the process. We would like to think that this debate is the precursor to some discussions around the table, not just between the opposition, the Democrats and the government but also with some of those indigenous leaders who have been quite pivotally involved in this debate. We would like to be able to get people like Pat Dodson, David Ross and others together with the minister to sit down and try and work some of these issues out. So in one sense we do not want the minister to lock himself into a position today on so many of the conceptions or misconceptions that we think he has in respect of these amendments.The important underlying text in all this is that both Senator Woodley and I can stand here and say that we fear this is what you are going to do. I would claim that I have got some legitimate grounds to fear that what the Howard government wants to do is to flick this off to the states. The minister says that there is a hint from the opposition that we want to keep the states out altogether. I am sure that is not our starting position and I would like to think that is not the government's end position on this. I would like to think that we can constructively address what is before us despite the fears we have about each other with respect to this issue.In that context, I say to the minister that I do not think there need necessarily be a philosophical divide on this legislation. We accept that there is a role for the states but we also accept that there is a role for the Commonwealth. The government claims to also accept that there is a role for the Commonwealth. Our legitimate question to the government is: if you accept that there is a role, what is that role? If that role is to ensure that there are standards set and standards maintained, let us address the adequacy of the standards and how they are maintained. That seems to be the critical issue in this particular area.Listening to the minister on so many of the issues he has raised, I think he has a misconception born of fear of what we want to do and does not have a real appreciation of the fact that there needs to be a balance. Can I point him to, for instance, the reports from his own colleagues—the Liebermann report and the Senate committee report. Can I point him to the works of Justice Evatt and the writings of Frankel. Can I point out to him that what they have all said, probably with one voice, is that there needs to be a higher set of standards and a higher standard of locking-in.We are prepared to sit down with you, Minister, and try and work these things through, and put aside the fears we may have with respect to what your government's agenda is, if you are prepared to do the same with us. That is the challenge over the next couple of months, before we come here early next year to hopefully once again debate this legislation. In that context, I say to the minister that it would be a real sign of good faith by the government if they were not to send this legislation back to the House of Representatives to have it send it back to the Senate and maybe set off a double dissolution trigger in a constitutional sense. I do not think we need the upping of the ante that would be involved in doing that. At the end of this discussion it may even be appropriate for the Senate not to determine on the third reading and to leave the legislation to lie on the table until we come back early next year. I ask the minister to consider that as an option.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—The question is that the Senate agree to opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 44, 46, 48, 51 and 56 together.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will now put the rest of the amendments that Senator Bolkus moved. The question is that the Senate agree to opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 44 to 60 on sheet 1367.Question resolved in the affirmative.13:49:0010838Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I move opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 61 to 116:(61) Clause 29, page 20 (line 17), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(62) Clause 29, page 20 (line 29), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; (g) a notice: (i) of confidential material in the application that is not to be disclosed; and (ii) which includes a short description of the material and the reason for its confidential or secret nature.(63) Clause 29, page 20 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add: (5) An application may be amended at any time prior to its publication under section 33. (6) At any time, one or more of the indigenous persons to whom an area or object is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition may apply to the Agency to replace the original applicant on the grounds that: (a) the original applicant is unable to deal with matters arising in relation to the application due to illness, infirmity or death; and (b) the person or persons applying are authorised to be the applicant by the indigenous persons to whom an area or object is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition.(64) Heading to clause 30, page 21 (line 1), omit "Director ", substitute "Registrar ".(65) Clause 30, page 21 (line 2), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(66) Clause 30, page 21 (line 3), after "application", insert "or an amended application".(67) Clause 30, page 21 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(68) Clause 30, page 21 (line 26), omit "Director", substitute "applicant".(69) Clause 30, page 21 (line 29), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(70) Clause 30, page 22 (line 1), omit "Director's decision not to disclose", substitute "non-disclosure of".(71) Clause 31, page 22 (lines 3 to 19), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(72) Clause 31, page 22 (line 5), after "laws", insert "of an accredited heritage protection regime".(73) Clause 31, page 22 (line 11), at the end of subclause (2), add ", or such further period permitted by the Registrar".(74) Clause 31, page 22 (after line 19), at the end of the clause, add: (5) All remedies are exhausted for the purpose of subsection (1) if all administrative processes available to applicants for protection under the laws of an accredited heritage protection regime of the State or Territory are exhausted.(75) Clause 32, page 22 (line 21) to page 23 (line 2), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(76) Clause 32, page 23 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) If it appears to the Registrar that an application has been dismissed in error, the Registrar may, on the application of the applicant, or on the Registrar's own initiative, reinstate the application. (77) Clause 33, page 23 (line 9) to page 24 (line 15), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(78) Clause 33, page 23 (line 20), omit "by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region", substitute "by notice in writing to the appropriate native title representative body and by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region".(79) Clause 33, page 23 (line 31), omit "30", substitute "60".(80) Clause 33, page 24 (line 17), omit "Director", substitute "applicant".(81) Clause 33, page 24 (line 20), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(82) Clause 33, page 24 (line 23), omit "Director's decision not to disclose", substitute "non-disclosure of".(83) Heading to clause 34, page 25 (line 3), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency ".(84) Clause 34, page 25 (line 5), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(85) Clause 34, page 25 (line 6), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(86) Heading to clause 35, page 25 (line 10), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency ".(87)(88) Clause 35, page 25 (line 12), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(89) Clause 35, page 25 (line 15), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(90) Clause 35, page 25 (line 18), omit "Director's", substitute "Agency's".(91) Clause 35, page 25 (line 19), after "area", insert ", or part of the area,".(92) Clause 35, page 25 (line 31), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(93) Clause 36, page 26 (lines 1 to 13), TO BE OPPOSED .(94) Clause 37, page 26 (lines 14 to 22), omit the clause, substitute:37 Binding nature of reports (1) The Minister is bound by the finding of the Agency as to the matters referred to in paragraphs 35(3)(a), (b) and (d) as set out in the Agency's report. (2) If the Minister is satisfied that fresh evidence that would affect the outcome of the application has not been considered by the Agency, the Minister may remit the Agency's report to the Agency with directions that the Agency assess and make findings in relation to such repre sentations as the Minister considers constitute fresh evidence. (3) For the purpose of subsection (1) and section 38, the Agency's report constitutes its findings under subsection 35(3) and subsection 37(2).(95) Clause 38, page 26 (line 30) to page 27 (line 2), omit all words from and including "the Minister may" to the end of the clause (but not including the note), substitute: the Minister must, after having regard to the report of the Agency, make such an order in respect of the area or object unless it is in the national interest not to make the order.(96) Clause 39, page 28 (line 3) to page 29 (line 5), TO BE OPPOSED .(97) Clause 40, page 29 (lines 6 to 20), TO BE OPPOSED .(98) Clause 41, page 29 (line 21) to page 30 (line 15), omit the clause, substitute:41 Minister may require report from Agency In relation to an AR application, the Minister must, subject to section 42, require the Agency to make a report, in accordance with Division 6, which must: (a) contain a finding as to whether or not the area, or part of the area, or object concerned is a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object in relation to the applicant; and (b) contain a finding as to whether or not the area or object concerned is subject to the threat of injury or desecration; and (c) outline the processes involved in reaching the findings referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) advise the Minister on the effect that the making of an LPO would have on the proprietary and pecuniary interests of persons other than the applicant and provide a summary of the representations made in respect of that matter; and (e) advise the Minister of any other matters considered by the presiding member to be relevant to the claim for protection.(99) Heading to clause 42, page 30 (line 16), omit "Director ", substitute "Agency .(100) Clause 42, page 30 (line 19), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(101) Clause 43, page 30 (line 23) to page 31 (line 6), TO BE OPPOSED . (102) Clause 44, page 31 (lines 7 to 15), omit the clause, substitute:44 Binding nature of reports (1) The Minister is bound by the findings of the Agency as to the matters referred to in paragraphs 41(1)(a), (b) and (d) as set out in the Agency's report. (2) If the Minister is satisfied that fresh evidence that would affect the outcome of the application has not been considered by the Agency, the Minister may remit the Agency's report to the Agency with directions that the Agency assess and make findings in relation to such representations as the Minister considers constitute fresh evidence. (3) For the purpose of subsection (1) and paragraph 45(e), the Agency's report constitutes its findings under subsections (2) and 41(1).(103) Heading to clause 45, page 31 (line 16), omit "may ", substitute "must ".(104) Clause 45, page 31 (line 18) after "area" insert ", or part of the area,"(105) Clause 45, page 31 (line 23), omit "may", substitute "must".(106) Clause 45, page 31 (line 29), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(107) Clause 45, page 31 (lines 31 and 32), omit paragraph (e), substitute: (e) the views of the applicant in relation to any representations made to the Minister under paragraph (c), which representations must be provided to the applicant on a confidential basis; and(108) Clause 45, page 32 (line 2) after "area" insert ", or part of the area,".(109) Clause 45, page 32 (lines 2 and 3), omit "if the Minister is satisfied that the making of such an order is in the national interest", substitute "unless it is in the national interest not to make the order".(110) Clause 46, page 33 (line 5), after "period", insert ", being a period of not less than 10 years,".(111) Clause 46, page 33 (line 9), omit "in relation to", substitute "that ensure".(112) Clause 46, page 33 (line 10), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; and (c) provide for access to the area by indigenous persons to whom the area is of particular significance in accordance with indigenous tradition.(113) Clause 46, page 33 (line 15), omit "in relation to", substitute "that ensure". (114) Clause 47, page 33 (line 30), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(115) Clause 47, page 34 (line 1), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(116) Clause 47, page 34 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Not less than 6 months before the expiration of an LPO, the Registrar must notify the appropriate native title representative body in writing, and affected indigenous people by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region where the area or object is situated.This section of the amendments—amendments Nos 61 to 168—goes to the application for Commonwealth protection. I will speak specifically on amendments Nos 61 to 116. The broader block of amendments is to do with obtaining Commonwealth protection orders.Part 4, applications for Commonwealth protection, provides for the third fundamental aspect of this bill, the system of application for Commonwealth protection orders. For the Commonwealth to uphold its constitutional and international obligations to assume primary responsibility for indigenous heritage protection and remain a real option of last resort for indigenous people, it is imperative that this bill provides for fair and just processes to obtain Commonwealth protection orders. The bill's purported object of preserving and protecting indigenous heritage will be rendered meaningless if, in fact rather than in form, it is virtually impossible to access Commonwealth protection orders. However, consistent with other aspects of the Commonwealth's proposals, this vacating of the field is precisely the result of this bill.Although the bill provides the appearance of establishing a system for protection orders, this system is little more than a shell. The bill's processes for access to long-term interim and emergency protection orders are riddled with extremely steep requirements, mechanisms to undermine independent assessment of applications and inappropriate levels of ministerial discretion. It would be rare that an application for protection would succeed in negotiating its way through this administrative minefield. Similarly, although there are mechanisms in this bill for mediation, these provisions are token and will not encourage settlement of disputes.Finally, the bill fails to appropriately differentiate between applications from accredited and unaccredited regimes. This leaves indigenous people in unaccredited regimes in unacceptably vulnerable positions and fails to encourage state accreditation. The opposition-Democrat amendments (61) to (168) provide for a significant strengthening of this part of the bill and the proposals are in accordance with the clear principle that the Commonwealth must remain a real option of last resort for indigenous people.Specifically, I will speak to the block of amendments which I am moving—(61) to (116). Firstly, the system for obtaining long-term, interim and emergency protection orders has been simplified and is appropriately differentiated between applications from accredited and unaccredited regimes. An appropriate evidential onus has been placed on the minister's decision as to whether or not to grant a long-term protection order, and our amendments provide that if the agency reports that an area or object is significant and under threat, then the minister must make the protection order unless it is in the national interest to allow injury to a significant area. This is a proper balancing of heritage protection and development concerns, and I trust that these amendments will be supported.13:54:0010841Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The opposition does support these amendments. As we canvassed in previous parts of this debate, our concern is for the Commonwealth to uphold its constitutional and international obligations. We are concerned that they are vacating the field. We are concerned at the extremely steep requirements and technicalities that riddle the legislation. We are concerned at mechanisms to undermine independent assessment. We are concerned that there is insufficient differentiation between applications from accredited and unaccredited regimes. We are concerned that we maintain the Commonwealth as a real option of last resort in this process.These amendments that go to the actual nature of the application, that go to issues such as the rejection of applications in certain circumstances, that go to the power of the registrar to extend the time period for receiving further information, go to the technicalities. There needs to be, we think, a capacity to reject vexatious and frivolous applications, but we need to ensure that that is not open to abuse. We are concerned that the registrar have a capacity to invite other applications. Notice requirements are also important, and the question of confidentiality is also extremely important.Senator Woodley's amendments go to the capacity for an agency's report, and also to the question of the independent reviewer that the minister wants to appoint. As I said in the earlier part of the debate, we have a particular problem with this because it does allow the minister to go off and choose his or her own judge and we do not think that is appropriate in these circumstances. We are also concerned, as I also mentioned earlier, that the concept of national interest needs incorporates the consideration of indigenous issues.The accredited regime mechanism is one that is covered by these amendments. As I said earlier, we have problems with the government's proposed accreditation regime and, as a consequence, we feel these amendments remedy most, if not all, of the problems with the government's regime. There are issues, for instance, such as the minister's capacity to adopt a state or territory finding as to significance and threat. We find that the bill in this respect does not provide sufficient access to the range of stakeholders that should be involved in this part of the process.A minister, for instance, has a capacity to make long-term protection applications. The opposition-Democrat amendment in this respect strengthens the proposed provisions by proposing that the applicants have the right to comment on the representations of the state or territory and that these comments are also considered by the minister to ensure equity in the process.I do not need to speak much more at this particular part of this debate, other than to say that in many respects we are trying to overcome technical difficulties thrown up by the government's proposals but at the same time we want to ensure that equity and security in the process is entrenched. We believe that the amendments developed between the opposition and the Democrats do that in the way that the government should be doing it.13:58:0010842Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The government will accept amendments 62, 63, 91, 104, 108 and 116. We are not prepared to accept the balance. As was said, this part of the bill deals with applications for protection. It commences with procedural matters in relation to the receipt and registration of applications. It then sets out the regime for dealing with unaccredited applications, then the separate regime for dealing with accredited, and then matters of content, notification, effective long-term protection, protection orders, negotiation and mediation.Senator Woodley has moved a number of amendments on the running sheet, right up to amendment No. 116, which go to clauses 46 and 47. Some of the matters are procedural and simply pick up the different administrative bodies that the opposition already has been successful in introducing into the bill in this debate so far. But, beyond those, there are also issues of substance and, for us, significance. Again, the differences largely relate to what the real object of the opposition is, what the real scheme is that it is seeking to implement, and the divide that there is currently between the government's approach to this matter and that of the opposition.To raise the spectre of a double dissolution is somewhat unfortunate. I can say to Senator Bolkus that that is the last thing on my mind at the moment. What the government is interested in doing is what all parties, I think, have accepted, and that is to reform the existing Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act in a way that is fair and effective. We are really debating what the opposition wants to do beyond that, which is to give to the Commonwealth much greater responsibility in both principle and, as I said also earlier in the debate, application.We on this side of the chamber still strongly believe that implementation through state based systems will lead to the best outcome, and that is what should be encouraged. Where that fails, we do see Commonwealth responsibilities. As I said earlier, we distinguished between state based schemes that have met certain standards that entitle them to accreditation and those that do not achieve those standards or where the states have not sought such accreditation. Really, the detail of the implementation of the processes in relation to both accredited and unaccredited schemes and the differences that flow through in terms of the amendments that the opposition is putting to the government's scheme here today again reflect that philosophical divide.I pick up Senator Bolkus's point. If he is wanting a constructive outcome to this debate, I can assure him that we do likewise. We accept that the current act should be amended. We accept its deficiencies. We are seeking to remedy those deficiencies. We are not doing this only because we think it is in the interests of indigenous Australians. If it is in the interests of indigenous Australians it is in the interests of Australians, and is therefore our responsibility. So there might be room to come closer on some of the detail of this matter.Obviously, the issue of national interest—and, in particular, when it should apply—is a critical one. It is an example where the distinction of approach of both the government on the one hand and the opposition on the other is at its starkest. That will be a difficult gulf to bridge, I suspect. But other parts of this piece of the bill would be open to at least a closing of the gap in some subsequent discussions. But at this time, in any event, the government is not prepared to accept the balance of the amendments up to amendment No. 116 that have been put by the opposition and the Democrats.14:04:0010842Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—In that context I ask the minister: is he prepared to say whether he is going to make himself available over the break for, as I said earlier on, not just Labor and the Democrats but some of those Aboriginal leaders—including Pat Dodson, Peter Yu and others—whom indigenous communities might want to represent them to come together with him to try to work some of these issues out? We are not talking about a meeting that would need the MCG to accommodate it; we are talking about a small group to meet with the minister and work through the technical details and some of the `philosophical issues' the minister may be concerned about.14:05:0010843Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—That question should be unnecessary. I did not know that we were having a break. That must be something that applies to Senator Bolkus. But if Senator Bolkus is talking about the desirability of setting up some meetings during January, I will accommodate him, provided he is in the country. I would like to do it in Australia. As to who attends, I do not mind that either—anyone who can offer a constructive contribution.But I think that we will only build the bridge if the opposition parties are prepared to come close to the government in the government's objective with the legislation. The government has a responsibility to govern. As I said, it has recognised the deficiencies in the existing piece of legislation and is seeking to remedy them. The opposition, however, is seeking to introduce a new scheme of heritage protection. When the day finally comes that it is back in government, that is the appropriate time for it to seek to govern. But if the opposition is prepared to address the government's proposal, then that is a different thing and we might be able to make progress.14:06:0010843Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I do not reckon, Minister, there is a better place to be in January than Henley Beach, so I will be very much at home. And it is close to your home. So, if the prerequisite is that we are in Australia, I can make a further prerequisite that we can make it in Adelaide—or we can even go up to the Kimberleys, I am sure, to meet with Pat Dodson and others.From opposition, we analyse the government and we recognise there are different tendencies within it. Basically, in this debate we are saying to you, Minister, that this is a real opportunity for you to show that you are different in the way that you handle these indigenous issues from, for instance, your colleague the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. We had a long, arduous and tortuous process with him with Wik and, at the end of the day, I think it is fair to say that there is still an unease in the community and more than unease in indigenous communities about the outcome there. So, working on the basis that we have been told for quite some time that there are differences between you and Senator Minchin in the way that you handle social issues, we have a greater degree of optimism when working with you.14:08:0010843Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I must respond and point out to Senator Bolkus that the government is of one in these matters. His attempts to draw divisions might be good fun but he misunderstands Senator Minchin, who is actually much closer to me on these matters than he might appreciate. I think there is a major distinction between this debate and the Wik debate. The parliament had to respond to the Wik situation. I think everyone would acknowledge that. The ambiguities and so forth that resulted from the uncertainties that were left after the court decision left the parliament with no alternative but to respond in a legislative form and that response was never going to please everyone.This debate is fundamentally different because the parliament does not have to respond. We can continue to operate under what is certainly, I acknowledge, an unsatisfactory piece of legislation in that it is certainly capable of being improved and therefore should be improved. But it is workable and I continue to administer it from a ministerial perspective on a day-by-day basis. That is why I said that we have come here to try and overcome some of those weaknesses within that particular piece of legislation. If the opposition is prepared to look at it from that perspective and if we can, with the opposition, Democrats and indigenous leaders, work through what is necessary to overcome existing deficiencies in the current legislation, then we can get an outcome that is in the national interest.We can then leave aside for another day a debate as to whether there needs to be heritage protection legislation of a different style that covers the field and is assumed to be a Commonwealth responsibility both in principle and practice, which I think is really the ultimate goal of the opposition. If the opposition is prepared to distinguish between that debate for the future and the current debate, which should be dealing with the practical, day-to-day deficiencies in the existing Commonwealth law, then I see no reason why we should not be able to achieve a positive outcome.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition-Democrat amendments Nos 62, 63, 91, 104, 108 and 116 moved by Senator Woodley be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Putting the remaining amendments as a block separately, the question is that opposition-Democrat amendments 61 to 82, 83 to 86, 88 to 90, 92, 94, 95, 98 to 100, 102, 103, 105 to 107, 109 and 110 to 115 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that clauses 36, 39, 40 and 43 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We move on to clauses 48 to 55.14:12:0010844Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—The amendments that we are discussing in respect of these clauses are also within the broad category of the amendments moved by Senator Woodley. They deal with the broad subject area of applications and the handling of applications. Amendments 118 to 141 go to mediation. It has to be put on the record that the Evatt report identified mediation and negotiation as fundamental requirements of heritage protection at both state and Commonwealth levels. She also recommended that mediation should be offered to parties before a reporting procedure leading to a declaration is considered, should be voluntary, that mediation and negotiation procedures should be flexible and capable of minimising the disclosure of restricted cultural informa tion, that protection from injury or desecration should be available while mediation takes place, and that the act should provide for the registering of agreements and that they should be binding and subject to civil liabilities for breaches.Division 5 has already been amended to provide for the authority's greater role in heritage protection and, in particular, that agency's emphasis on resolving applications through effective mediation. In these amendments, we are talking about replacing the existing section 48, 48A, 48C. The new section 48 sets out parameters and processes for mediation conferences, establishes the power of the agency to initiate and provides for a member to preside over them, provides for maintenance of confidentiality of information provided and actions taken during a mediation process, and allows for procedures to be agreed between the parties as to how negotiation should be conducted, including the restriction of disclosure of information.Section 48(6) is intended to prevent conflicts of interest arising and 48(7) provides for flexibility in the process. Section 48A is simply a slightly amended and renumbered form of section 48 in the bill to handle the institution of an agency, an amendment which was picked up earlier on. Sections 48B and 48D will provide for conferences to be held in private and for presiding members to disclose information in certain circumstances.Subdivision 5(b) talks about how assistance or mediation is to be provided, and that is covered by amendments Nos 118 to 135. Once again, confidentiality is an important aspect here. I say to the minister that, in respect of that, we are prepared to engage in meaningful discussions as to how to handle this most sensitive of issues, and our starting point is in those amendments.Amendments Nos 136 to 149—part 4, division 6—go to the question of the making of reports. Report making is a function vital to the delivery of effective protection. The amendments that we propose essentially realign this legislation with the recommendations of the Evatt report. The role of preparing the report rests with the authority as carried out by its members. A presiding member for a report must not be a member who carried out the mediation. We go to issues of natural justice and the role of the agency and the processes to be dealt with in the making of reports.The next area, the batch of amendments Nos 151 to 163, deals with emergency and interim protection orders. They are what the name implies: orders to provide emergency protection for areas and objects. They are intended to protect areas and objects in the event of serious confrontation—as we had, for instance, in the Noonkanbah dispute. Under the bill, we believe that the availability of an emergency interim protection order is seriously curtailed. For instance, in the case of a state or territory with an accredited regime, section 62(3)(c) of the bill provides that such orders can only be made if the minister is satisfied that the protection of the area or object would be in the national interest. Basically, it is an effective bar on Commonwealth protection. We are concerned about the distinction between, once again, accredited and unaccredited regimes not being sufficient. As I say, all these amendments go to this particular part of the process.We are concerned that orders be made in such a way that natural justice does apply but, at the same time, a major consideration is the urgency of the moment and the urgency for protection. Once again, in the spirit of the previous part of this debate, I suggest to the minister that he not close off his options here. We obviously will not and do not; but we would like, once again, to see him go through a thorough process of assessment and consultation with respect to them.In the last part of this particular batch of amendments, amendments Nos 165 to 168 go to the question of multiple applications. We insert a new paragraph to clarify that each applicant must have agreed to any agreement affecting their application, where multiple applications are concerned. This is, once again, one of those difficult issues and one where we want to ensure that we do not have a lowest common denominator outcome for indigenous people in the process. We are concerned that the way the legislation is currently drafted can very clearly and directly lead to that. I seek leave to move amendments Nos 117 to 141 together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—Also on behalf of Senator Woodley, I move:(117) Clause 48, page 35 (lines 3 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:Subdivision A—Mediation conferences and negotiation48 Mediation conferencesPresiding member to direct conference to be held (1) Where mediation is provided under this Act, the Agency may hold such conferences of the parties or their representatives as the Agency considers will help in resolving the matter.Member must preside (2) A conference must be presided over by a member of the Agency.Assistance for presiding member (3) The member presiding at a conference may be assisted by another member of the Agency or by a member of the staff of the Agency.Statements etc at conference are without prejudice (4) In a proceeding before a Court, or any other proceeding, including the making of reports to the Minister, under this Act relating to the proceeding subject to mediation, unless the parties otherwise agree, evidence may not be given, and statements may not be made, concerning any word spoken, act done or document produced at a conference.Assistance includes procedures for non-disclosure (5) Assistance provided by the presiding member may include assisting the parties to agree on the procedures to be followed in the course of negotiation, including procedures that will restrict the disclosure of: (a) information that, under indigenous tradition, is confidential or subject to particular disclosure restrictions; or (b) commercial information that is provided in confidence for the purposes of the negotiation.Member not to take further part in relation to a proceeding (6) Unless the parties otherwise agree, a member who presides over, or assists at, a conference in relation to a proceeding may not, in any other capacity, take any further part in the proceeding.Participation by telephone etc. (7) The presiding member may allow a person to participate by: (a) telephone; or (b) closed-circuit television; or (c) any other means of communication.Division applies as if consultant were a member (8) If a consultant is engaged under subsection 21D(1) to conduct mediation in relation to a particular matter under this Division, this Division applies in relation to that matter as if the consultant were a member of the Agency.48A Parties to negotiation and mediation processes (1) If the Agency is required under Division 2 or 3 to attempt, by the use of negotiation or mediation processes in accordance with this Division, to facilitate an agreed outcome in relation to the area or object to which an application relates, the Agency must use its best endeavours to identify the parties appropriate to participate in those processes. (2) For the purposes of this section, the parties appropriate to participate in negotiation or mediation processes: (a) must include the applicant and any other persons identified by the Agency as having a direct proprietary or pecuniary interest in the area or object concerned (the core parties ); and (b) may include any other person who has an interest in the area or object concerned and who the Agency identifies as a party appropriate to participate in those processes. (3) A failure by the Agency to identify a person as a party appropriate to participate in negotiation or mediation processes does not prevent the registration of an agreement reached between the parties who are so identified.Limiting parties at conferences (4) The presiding member may direct that only one or some of the parties appropriate to participate in the negotiation or mediation processes may attend, and be represented, at a conference. Parties may be represented (5) A party may be represented by a barrister, a solicitor or another person.48B Conferences to be held in private A conference must be held in private, unless the member presiding directs otherwise and no party objects.48C Presiding member may permit disclosure of informationIf the parties agree, the presiding member may direct that: (a) any information given, or statements made, at a conference; or (b) the contents of any document produced at a conference; may be disclosed.(118) Page 35 (after line 21), after clause 48C, insert:Subdivision B—How assistance or mediation is to be provided(119) Clause 49, page 35 (line 22) to page 36 (line 10), omit the clause, substitute:49 Regulations about assistance or mediation (1) The regulations may make provision in relation to the way in which: (a) any assistance is to be provided by the Agency under any provision of this Act; or (b) any mediation, that the Agency is requested to provide, is to be provided under any provision of this Act.Regulations must be consistent with this Act (2) Such regulations must not be inconsistent with any provision of this Act.(120) Clause 50, page 36 (line 14), omit "30", substitute "60".(121) Clause 50, page 36 (line 18), omit "30", substitute "60".(122) Clause 50, page 36 (line 26), omit "Director", substitute "Principal member".(123) Clause 51, page 36 (line 29), omit "the area or object", substitute "all or part of the area or in relation to the object".(124) Clause 51, page 37 (line 2), omit "Director", substitute "presiding member".(125) Clause 51, page 37 (line 2), after "register", insert "particulars of".(126) Clause 51, page 37 (lines 3 to 5), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If the presiding member is satisfied that the agreement is consistent with the purposes of this Act, he or she must direct the Registrar to enter particulars of the agreement on the Register.(127) Clause 52, page 37 (line 21), at the end of subclause (4), add "or seek injunctive or other relief in respect of such a breach".(128) Clause 52, page 37 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Registration of an agreement under subsection 51(2) over part of an area subject to an application does not prevent the applicant proceeding with the application in relation to the area which is not covered by the agreement.(129) Clause 53, page 37 (line 22) to page 38 (line 26), omit the clause, substitute:53 Termination of formal negotiation and mediation processesPresiding member may order mediation to cease (1) The presiding member may, of his or her own motion, at any time in a proceeding, order that mediation is to cease in relation to the whole or a part of the proceeding if the presiding member considers that: (a) any further mediation will be unnecessary in relation to the whole or that part; or (b) there is no likelihood of the parties being able to reach agreement and neither the negotiation nor mediation processes between the core parties have any prospect of success within a reasonable time.Party may seek cessation of mediation (2) Paragraphs (1)(a) or (1)(b) are satisfied if one or more of the core parties to a proceeding, at any time after the expiration of 3 months after the start of mediation, notifies the presiding member that that party or those parties do not wish to proceed with mediation in relation to the whole of the proceeding or a part of the proceeding.Where presiding member must order mediation to cease (3) If paragraphs (1)(a) or (1)(b) are satisfied, the presiding member must, by notice in writing to all of the parties concerned, inform them: (a) that he or she is so satisfied; and (b) that formal negotiation and mediation processes are no longer available. (4) The cessation of mediation under this section does not prevent core parties from entering into an agreement under this Subdivision or the Agency from continu ing to provide mediation or negotiation assistance to those core parties.(130) Clause 54, page 38 (line 29) to page 39 (line 6), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Registrar".(131) Clause 54, page 39 (lines 7 to 13), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The Registrar must not register an agreement to which subsection (1) relates unless the presiding member or, if there is no presiding member, the Principal member, is satisfied: (a) that the parties to the agreement included, or if negotiation or mediation processes had been undertaken would have included, the core parties within the meaning of section 49; and (b) the agreement is consistent with the purposes of this Act.(132) Clause 54, page 39 (line 14), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(133) Clause 54, page 39 (line 16), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(134) Clause 54, page 39 (lines 18 to 20), omit paragraph (3)(b).(135) Clause 54, page 39 (line 23), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(136) Clause 55, page 40 (line 3) to page 41 (line 27), omit the clause, substitute:55 Procedures to be followed by Agency in preparing report (1) The Agency must, in respect of an application for which a report is required under Division 2 or 3, by notice in writing to the appropriate native title representative body and by notice published in a newspaper circulating in the region and in indigenous media outlets in the region in which the area or object concerned is situated: (a) inform persons of particulars of the application in the same terms, and subject to the same limitations, as apply for the purposes of subsections 33(3) and (4); and (b) invite persons to make, within a period specified in the notice, representations concerning: (i) the significance of the area or object concerned to the applicant; and (ii) the threat to the area or object concerned posed by any proposed activity; and (iii) the effect that the making of an LPO in respect of that area or object would have on the proprietary and pecuniary interests of persons other than the applicant. (2) If, in relation to a UR or AR application relating to an object, the Agency is satisfied that public comment on the application would not be necessary or appropriate, the Agency may prepare a report without giving public notice as required by subsection (1). (3) The Agency must, at the request of the applicant, receive representations made in accordance with, and the manner provided by, indigenous tradition. (4) A notice under subsection (1) must also be accompanied by a statement of the kinds of matters that might be dealt with if an LPO is made in relation to the area or object concerned.(137) Clause 56, page 41 (line 28) to page 42 (line 17), omit the clause, substitute:56 Agency may adopt State or Territory findings In relation to an AR, if after: (a) examining the procedures followed by the independent body established under an accredited heritage protection regime of State or Territory; and (b) hearing submissions of the parties who gave evidence or made representations to the independent body in relation to the evidence given or representations made by those parties; the presiding member is satisfied that the procedures followed and the evidence and representations considered by the independent body were sufficient to provide a reliable basis for the finding, the presiding member may adopt one or more of the independent body's findings for the production of the Agency's report.(138) Clause 57, page 42 (lines 21 and 22), omit "Director, and, where appropriate, an independent reviewer,", substitute "Agency".(139) Clause 57, page 42 (line 24), at the end of the clause, add "and the Agency must make an assessment of the significance, and the threat to this significance, based on the degree of intensity of the belief and feeling of indigenous people in relation to the area or object".(141) Clause 59, page 43 (lines 22 and 23), omit "Director or to an independent review", substitute "Agency".14:18:0010848Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to indicate that there is another amendment moved in my name on sheet 1581. As long as these amendments are carried, which I expect they will be, I will not proceed with that. The brief explanation is that my colleague Senator Andrew Murray was approached by indigenous people in his state on this particular issue, and I should have been more careful in making sure that this was covered. I believe that it is covered under amendment No. 119 now, but the amendment still proceeded because Senator Murray had placed it into the system in order to make sure that this issue was dealt with. He was very concerned about it. I indicate again that, as long as these amendments that we have moved are carried, I will not proceed with the amendment on that sheet.14:19:0010848Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I can confidently say that they will carry, Senator. I have not won too many so far in this bill.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—My sympathy, Senator Hill.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—Yes, when you are in a minority you have to learn to live with these things. You might have noticed that I have not even thought it worth while calling divisions. The government will agree to amendments Nos 123, 127, 128, 162 and 183. We are dealing here with negotiation and mediation and also the making of reports. In this instance it is the government's view that, wherever possible, mediated solutions are better and so, in this instance, if that is the way the opposition wishes to see it, then in principle we would not disagree. So then it largely becomes an issue of detail of a process that will work fairly and effectively.In relation to the balance of the amendments in this part that we disagree with, in some instances they are largely language flowing from changes that the opposition have already made to the bill earlier in the debates. In other instances, we think that they are unduly cumbersome and unnecessary. In other instances, we simply prefer the approach that we have set out in the bill that we have put before the Senate. So, with the exception of those that I mentioned a moment ago, we will oppose the balance of the amendments in this part. But again, this area should, in many ways, be an easier area to talk through to a constructive outcome than some other parts of this bill.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—Senator Bolkus, do you want to clarify which extra amendments you will move?14:22:0010849Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—As the minister said, quite often we are talking about consequential amendments. It may seem like a lot of amendments. I will go up to and including amendment No. 168 in this batch of amendments. I seek leave to move those amendments together.Leave granted.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—I move:(142) Clause 59, page 43 (line 26), omit "Director or independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(143) Clause 59, page 43 (lines 27 to 31), omit subclause (2).(144) Clause 60, page 44 (lines 2 to 9), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(145) Clause 60, page 44 (lines 10 to 14), omit subclause (2).(146) Clause 60, page 44 (line 16), omit "or (2)".(147) Clause 60, page 44 (line 17), omit "Director or independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(148) Clause 60, page 44 (line 21), omit "or (2)".(149) Clause 61, page 44 (line 24), omit "Director or of an independent reviewer", substitute "Agency".(150) Clause 61, page 44 (line 30) to page 45 (line 3), omit subclause (2).(151) Clause 62, page 46 (line 5), omit "Minister", substitute "Principal member".(152) Clause 62, page 46 (line 6), omit "subsection", substitute "section".(153) Clause 62, page 46 (line 6), omit "the Minister's", substitute "his or her".(154) Clause 62, page 46 (line 9) to page 47 (line 9), omit subclauses (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (2) A person may apply to the Principal member in writing or orally for an EPO. (3) If an EPO will affect an area in a State or Territory where there is no accredited State or Territory regime, the Principal member must make an EPO if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that: (a) the area or object concerned appears to be a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object; and (b) the area or object appears to be under immediate threat of injury or desecration. (4) If: (a) an application for emergency or interim protection has been rejected, or is not available, under an accredited State or Territory regime; or (b) an application for an LPO has been rejected under subsection 31(1), the Principal member may make an EPO if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that: (c) the area or object concerned appears to be a significant indigenous area or a significant indigenous object; and (d) the area or object appears to be under immediate threat of injury or desecration; and (e) the protection under the EPO should be available at that time.(155) Clause 62, page 47 (lines 16 to 26), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(156) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 2 to 18), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute (Principal member".(157) Clause 63, page 48 (line 5), omit "may", substitute "must".(158) Clause 63, page 48 (line 9), omit "is satisfied", substitute "has reasonable grounds to believe".(159) Clause 63, page 48 (line 14), omit "and".(160) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 15 to 18), omit subparagraph (iii).(161) Clause 63, page 48 (lines 19 to 32), omit subclause (3).(162) Clause 63, page 49 (line 1), omit "4", substitute "5".(163) Clause 63, page 49 (line 3), omit "Minister", substitute "Principal member".(164) Clause 64, page 49 (line 17) to page 50 (line 2), omit "Minister" (wherever occurring), substitute "Principal member".(165) Clause 65, page 51 (line 8), omit "Director", substitute "Registrar".(166) Clause 65, page 51 (line 10), omit "Director", substitute "Agency".(167) Clause 65, page 51 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (3) No agreement may be registered under Subdivision 5B which relates to multiple applicants and applications, deemed to be joined pursuant to subsection (1) and negotiated pursuant to subsection (2), unless the agreement is entered into, executed and lodged for registration by each of the individual applicants so joined.(168) Clause 66, page 51 (line 30) to page 53 (line 3), TO BE OPPOSED .10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—To clarify for the purposes of the chamber and to ensure that we get the correct outcome, the amendments I will put, firstly, are those that the government has indicated its support for. The question is that amendments Nos 123, 127, 128 and 162 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now put the question that amendments Nos 117 to 122, 124 to 126, 135, 136 to 139, 141 to 150, 151 to 155, 156 to 161, 163, 164, and 165 to 167 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I put the question that clauses 58 and 66 stand as printed.Question resolved in the negative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will now deal with clause 67, which deals with offences.HX5WOODLEYSenator Woodley—I understand that I should seek leave to withdraw the Democrats amendment on sheet 1581.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No. It is okay. You have not moved it. You are in the clear.14:24:0010850Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—by leave—Also on behalf of Senator Woodley, I move:(169) Clause 67, page 54 (line 4) to page 55 (line 4), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(170) Clause 68, page 55 (lines 5 to 29), omit "Director" (wherever occurring), substitute "Agency".(171) Clause 69, page 56 (line 6), at the end of the penalty, add "and a fine of $200,000".(172) Clause 69, page 56 (line 9), at the end of the penalty, add "and a fine of $100,000". (173) Clause 70, page 56 (line 23), omit "did not know of", substitute "had no reasonable grounds for suspecting".(174) Clause 75, page 62 (line 2), omit "Commonwealth Minister's", substitute "Agency's".(175) Clause 77, page 64 (line 10), omit "subsection 27(2)", substitute "subsection 27(3)".(176) Clause 77, page 64 (line 10), omit "or revoking".(177) -(178) Clause 77, page 64 (line 13), omit "an LPO under Part 4 or".(179) -(180) -(181) -(182) Clause 80, page 67 (lines 3 to 21), omit the clause, substitute:80 Delegation (1) The Principal member may, by written instrument, delegate to a Deputy-principal member any of his or her powers under this Act. (2) The Principal member may also, by written instrument, delegate to the Registrar, a Deputy-Registrar or an SES employee or acting SES employee of the Agency the Principal member's powers in relation to an EPO (other than the Principal member's power to make an EPO under subsection 62(4)). (3) The Minister must not delegate his or her powers in relation to the following matters: (a) the Minister's powers in relation to the accreditation of the laws of a State or Territory as an accredited heritage protection regime under Part 3; (b) the Minister's powers in relation to an LPO.(183) Page 67 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add:81A Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 Nothing in this Act, or any laws of the Northern Territory of Australia accredited under this Act, affects section 69 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act1976 , or its operation, so as to diminish heritage protection provided to indigenous people under that section.(184) Page 67 (after line 26), at the end of the bill, add: 81B Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council (1) There is established by this Act an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Advisory Council. (2) The functions of the Council are: (a) to advise the Agency and the Commonwealth Minister on: (i) issues arising under the Act; and (ii) appropriate procedures for dealing with indigenous people in the performance of functions under this Act; and (iii) the making of regulations under this Act; and (b) to liaise with, and the promote the views of, indigenous people in relation to heritage protection issues; and (c) to carry out research for the purpose of carrying out its functions. (3) The members of the Council will consist of indigenous people from each of the States and Territories of Australia who will appoint a chairman and deputy chairman. (4) The Council will employ staff to assist it in carrying out its functions. (5) The Governor-General may make regulations in relation to the Council. (6) The Commonwealth Minister must confer with all native title representative bodies and ATSIC and take account of their submissions for the purpose of drafting regulations in relation to the Council.We are now down to the miscellaneous provisions. All these can be handled in one basket. We are talking about amendments Nos 169 to 184 here. They cover seven areas. The first ones, Nos 169 and 170, are consequential amendments in respect of handling the issue of the discovery and disposal of indigenous human remains. We essentially replace `director' with `agency' to follow on from the establishment of an agency and the functions we think that agency should have.Amendments Nos 171 and 172 deal with long-term protection order offences. We are inserting high maximum fines under section 69 to bring the penalties in line with current values and to provide guidance to the court for the contravention of a protection order. Amendment No. 173 is an amendment to limit the defence available to a defendant in section 70 cases where a defendant has contravened a protection order. We go to the issue of injunctions in our amendment No. 174. This amendment seeks to replace the minister with the authority in section 75(1) as the body responsible for making application to the Federal Court for injunctions to prevent proposed or actual conduct that would contravene a protection order. There is a delegation provision in amendment No. 182.One issue which underscores the point made by the opposition in this debate and the Democrats arises once again in respect of amendment No. 183. We are proposing that a new section 81A be inserted in the bill to preserve the level of indigenous heritage protection offered by section 69 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. We are concerned here that existing levels of protection are not undermined by this legislation, as we are advised they are. The clear legal advice to us is that you will not be able to maintain the level of protection already in existence in the Northern Territory under the NT act once this legislation is passed. The final amendment, No. 184, refers to section 81B to establish an indigenous cultural heritage advisory council. Once again, this is in accordance with the Evatt recommendations in this case, especially recommendation 11.16.They are miscellaneous provisions, but ones that have an important impact. Amendment No. 183 does more than the others, given the nature of not just that legislation but also the nature of the population in the Northern Territory.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—I understand, Minister, that you indicated previously that you were willing to agree to amendment No. 183?BH4HILLSenator Hill—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I will put it separately.14:27:0010851Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—As I said before, we will agree to amendment No. 183. It was specifically mentioned by Senator Bolkus. He must have been very persuasive in that instance, except for the fact that I had indicated we would agree to it before he put the persuasive argument.We do not agree with the balance of the amendments for varying reasons. We think amendments Nos 169 and 170 are unnecessary. Again, they build an unwieldy bureaucracy. The next one deals with prescribed fines. Fines are not prescribed because there are automatic penalties laid down under the Crimes Act. I could go through the balance and give our reasons for not being prepared to agree to the amendments, but it is probably unnecessary at this stage. As I said, No. 183 is the only one of this batch that we can agree to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I put the question that amendment No. 183 relating to the Northern Territory legislation be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.14:29:0010852Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—This might be an appropriate time to make just one more point in this debate. This is the last amendment that we are dealing with. I want to make a few points about Senator Hill's concern about philosophical differences. He states that these revolve around the notion that we are seeking to provide blanket protection and that, in doing so, we fail to recognise the role of the states and territories.Can I assure Senator Hill that this is not the right assessment to make and that that assertion is not true. To the extent that you think we do not meet the objective of our amendments, there is room there for us to discuss it. Our amendments are specifically chosen not to provide for a mechanism of Commonwealth blanket protection, even though we recognise that, by failing to do so, we will in some circumstances leave indigenous people in unaccredited states and territories vulnerable to the worst abuses against their heritage.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Sorry, say that again?XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—We are concerned that, for instance, in respect of unaccredited regimes, by not choosing to provide blanket protection we will leave open avenues for abuse in respect of protection of heritage.BH4HILLSenator Hill—But if it is unaccredited, under our bill, you will always be able to come to the Commonwealth once you have exhausted the state's processes.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUS—And, once again, that is why we have sought to amend the Commonwealth provisions to provide enhanced protection. The point I want to make is that you suggested our approach to the minimum standards suggests that we are seeking to impose Commonwealth blanket protection. In essence, we are seeking to ensure that there are strong and credible standards with which the states and territories must comply for accreditation. The government has to realise that those standards are completely consistent with the Evatt report. The suggestion that somehow these standards are contrary to the process of accreditation or are philosophically opposed to your bill puts you in direct conflict with the principles in Evatt.If, for instance, you do want to pursue Evatt—and you say you do—and you use Evatt as a guiding document, you have to acknowledge that what we are suggesting, and what your parliamentary colleagues have acknowledged should happen, is that the sorts of benchmarks we are talking about should be put in place. Finally, in relation to the process of Commonwealth application orders, we are concerned that you have suggested that the fact that we have proposed to strengthen the regime for Commonwealth protection orders is also an indication of our lack of support for an accredited process.The inference that one can draw from that argument, Senator Hill, is that there is an incompatibility between minimum standards at state level as well as a credible and accessible regime for Commonwealth protection orders. We believe one complements the other. We believe you do not have to necessarily be in conflict when you are pursuing those two objectives. I am sure you understand that—and any reading of Evatt would underscore any understanding of this area—this is an objective that can be achieved in a complementary way rather than in a way that, as you might suggest, shows a lack of support for an accredited process. We want the ac credited processes to work, but we believe they can work only if the standards for accreditation are adequate to instil confidence in the system.14:33:0010853Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—I want to make a couple of very brief comments in line with Senator Bolkus's comments because it is important that we have a starting point for future negotiations. I understand the need within a federation for an appropriate balance between the responsibilities of states and the responsibilities of the Commonwealth. Quite clearly, we have not opposed outright the Commonwealth handing over its powers to the states because there are issues—particularly with heritage legislation—that are the appropriate province of the states, and we should not put anything in the way of their appropriate operation and the states operating in the areas which are their responsibility.In the amendments we have moved today, we believe the balance is appropriate. The Commonwealth has a special responsibility in the area of indigenous affairs. We cannot say this often enough: that was clearly given to the Commonwealth by the 1967 referendum, and that referendum has never been rescinded. So in the area of state and Commonwealth relationships and in the area of indigenous affairs, there is a special responsibility that pertains to the Commonwealth.With the amendments we have moved today, that appropriate balance between the responsibilities of the states and the Commonwealth has been kept. If we proceeded on the basis of the government's legislation as originally put before us, that balance would be destroyed. We believe the Commonwealth's legislation unamended tips that balance too far in the direction of the states and does not preserve the appropriate balance. I would like that to be part of the starting point.On my movements during December and January, I would be available to meet anywhere in the Commonwealth. But between Christmas Day and probably the first week of January, I would rather be somewhere else, even though I enjoy your company, Senator Hill and Senator Bolkus. Outside those times, this is such an important issue that I would be willing to go anywhere to try to reach some accommodation.14:36:0010853Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—In concluding the debate, we are obviously disappointed that we have not been able to have the scheme put before the Senate today accepted. It has been the product of literally years of work and, as we have heard mentioned here, extensive consideration through parliamentary inquiries and inquiries beyond the parliament. It is not an easy area. It is, in fact, an area where the Commonwealth has joint constitutional responsibility with the states, but we do not seek, Senator Woodley, to avoid the part of that joint responsibility which is ours.Whilst we believe that what we brought to the Senate encouraged the states to put in place legislation that would achieve high standards—and we did that through the incentive of accreditation and the benefits that flowed from accreditation as far as what might be loosely referred to as the potential for Commonwealth interference or involvement is concerned—we do not apologise for that approach because we think it is the correct approach. But, as I said, there is within that a shared responsibility—Senator Woodley refers to it as a special responsibility—that we accept for the Commonwealth.It is a matter of finding a formula that can put that into effect not only in a way that is conceptually sound but, just as importantly, in a way that works well in practice. If the opposition and the Democrats in this place are critical of what they see as an undue emphasis on our part on responsibility to the states, it is really because we suspect that these matters are dealt with more effectively at a state level and therefore we encourage the resolution of them at a state level. We encourage the resolution of them through a negotiated or mediated process as well. If there was a prejudice in the approach that we brought to the Senate today, that was it.Now we have a bill which is really the opposition and Democrats bill for dealing with these matters at a Commonwealth level. We will therefore be considering the changes that have been made. As I said, we are happy to engage in further consultation because we would like to see an improvement to the existing Commonwealth legislation, and that is really why we brought the bill forward in the first place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bartlett)—The Senate having given leave, I put the question that the remainder of the opposition-Democrat amendments be agreed to. They are amendments Nos 169 to 176, 178, 182 and 184.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.10854Bill (on motion by Senator Hill) read a third time.Bills10854r945Billsr943Billsr946Billsr944Billsr964Billsr96310854Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.1085414:41:0010854Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 1999 and move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (INCOME TAX RATES) BILL (No. 1) 1999Today, I am introducing the first tranche of Bills which will implement a New Business Tax System for Australia. The Government's landmark reforms to business tax will build on the significant reforms that the Government has already legislated in relation to indirect tax and personal income tax.As a result of the Government's vision and commitment, Australia will indeed have a world class tax system for the next century.The business tax reforms that I announced on 21 September are the culmination of 12 months of consultation with the Australian business community. In August last year, the Government established the Review of Business Taxation which was lead by three businessmen—Mr John Ralph AO, Mr Rick Allert and Mr Bob Joss. The Review was given broad terms of reference to consider reforms to Australia's business tax system. Over the 12 month period, the Review consulted extensively with small, medium and large businesses, rural and farming businesses and other interested organisations.A number of detailed information and options papers were prepared, including one which compared Australia's business tax system with those of other countries. Following the publication of these papers, the Review received public submissions (376 in all) and conducted public seminars and focus groups around Australia. This open and consultative process was welcomed by business and made a significant contribution to the comprehensive recommendations of the Review. Indeed, business has been very supportive of the reforms the Government has announced and this is due in part to the extensive and inclusive consultative process that the Government established.The Government's response to the recommendations of the Ralph Report is in two stages. On 21 September I announced a range of measures with phased implementation. Today I am introducing the first package of legislation to implement the New Business Tax System. Further legislation will be introduced later this year and early next year. The Government is currently consulting with business on the remaining Ralph recommendations. This consultation is consistent with the approach taken to date and interested organisations have been encouraged to make submissions. The Government will announce its response to the remaining recommendations next month.The New Business Tax System will give Australia internationally competitive business tax arrangements including the lower company tax rates included in this Bill. This, combined with the reforms to indirect and personal income tax, will create the environment for higher economic growth and more investment. This in turn will mean more jobs and improved saving.Under the Government's reforms to capital gains tax, individuals will only pay tax on 50 per cent of any gain that they make on the disposal of assets. That means that the highest rate for individuals will effectively be 24.25 per cent. For 80 per cent of Australians, the effective rate will be 15.75 per cent, after income tax rates come down on 1 July 2000. In addition, superannuation funds will only be taxed on two thirds of their capital gains. These cuts in capital gains tax together with scrip-for-scrip rollover relief will give Australia an internationally competitive capital gains tax regime and therefore encourage investment.Other Government reforms to capital gains tax will particularly encourage investment in venture capital and in Australian small businesses and farms.The Government will legislate to make capital gains earned by Australian superannuation funds through pooled development funds exempt from capital gains tax. Similarly, investments in venture capital projects in Australia by non-resident tax exempt pension funds, such as UK and US pension funds, will also not be subject to capital gains tax.The Government has already legislated to provide small businesses with capital gains tax rollover relief or exemptions where they use the funds to purchase another business or to retire. Under the reforms announced on 21 September, these provisions will be extended and simplified. As a result, individual operators of small businesses will not have to pay capital gains tax on 75 per cent of any gain made on the sale of active business assets. The remaining 25 per cent will be subject to significantly expanded and simplified rollover provisions and retirement exemption provisions.In addition, the Government is introducing a new capital gains tax exemption. Where taxpayers dispose of an active asset, the asset was held continuously for at least 15 years and the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire or is incapacitated, no capital gains tax will be payable. Small businesses will also benefit substantially from the implementation of a simplified tax system. The simplified tax system will dramatically reduce compliance costs and maintain small business access to existing concessions.I now turn to a key aspect of business tax reform and that is the reduction in company tax rates. This Bill amends the income tax law to substantially reduce company tax rates. The company rate will fall from 36 per cent to 34 per cent for the 2000-2001 income year and to 30 per cent thereafter. This will make our company tax rate more competitive than many developed nations and amongst the lowest in our region.Our rate will be lower than in the United States, New Zealand, Japan, and Korea and on par with rates in Germany and the United Kingdom. As a result, Australia's attractiveness as an investment location will increase, strengthening Australia's prospects for investment and economic and jobs growth.Today I am also introducing three other Bills which implement the Government's business tax reforms. These Bills deal with capital allowances, capital gains tax reductions and anti-avoidance measures. Given the substantive reforms that the Government has announced, it is our intention to legislate the reforms quickly so as to provide certainty to Australians in their taxation affairs.I commend this Bill.NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (CAPITAL ALLOWANCES) BILL 1999This bill introduces fundamental reforms to the capital allowances system as part of the New Business Tax System. This system enables certain expenditures to be written off over time for income tax purposes.These reforms, which represent a key element of the Review of Business Taxation's recommendations to reform the way in which depreciating assets are taxed, partly fund the lowering of the company tax rate from 36 per cent to 30 per cent.In essence the reforms introduced by this bill:. replace accelerated depreciation with effective life depreciation, except for small business taxpayers;. allow taxpayers, except small business taxpayers, to reassess the effective life of a depreciable asset;. remove depreciable assets from the capital gains tax regime;. remove the option to offset the balancing charge upon disposal of a depreciating asset, except for small business taxpayers or involuntary disposals; and . allow indefeasible rights to use to be depreciated.These changes apply from 11.45 am on 21 September 1999.Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend this Bill.NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (INTEGRITY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 1999This bill will implement a number of the measures arising from the Review of Business Taxation which form part of the New Business Tax System I announced on 21 September 1999.The measures include the introduction of reduced capital gains tax rates for individuals and superannuation funds as part of the Government's new, internationally competitive capital gains tax regime. They also include integrity measures that will improve the fairness of the tax system.A new internationally competitive capital gains tax regimeThe reductions in capital gains tax rates for individuals and complying superannuation entities introduced by the bill are a central part of the Government's policy to improve incentives to save and invest. From 21 September 1999, individuals will have the choice of working out their capital gains tax by either reducing their nominal gain by half (with the result that the highest rate for individuals would effectively be 24.25 per cent) or using an indexed cost base frozen as at 30 September 1999. Complying superannuation entities will be able to reduce their nominal gains by one third.This tax treatment applies to assets held for at least one year.The bill also reduces complexity of the capital gains tax provisions by freezing indexation as at 30 September 1999.Tightening the 13 month prepayment rule for advance expenditureUnder the current law, advance expenditure incurred in respect of services to be completed within 13 months is generally deductible immediately. The bill improves the tax treatment of such expenditure by spreading the tax deduction over the period to which it relates. This measure, which generally applies to expenditure incurred after 11.45 am on 21 September 1999, does not apply to small business taxpayers, nor to non-business expenditure. Transitional arrangements phase in the initial impact of this measure over five years.Lease assignmentsThe bill addresses, from 22 February 1999, the tax avoidance opportunities relating to lease assign ments which were highlighted in the Review of Business Taxation discussion paper A Platform for Consultation. It does this by ensuring the full consideration received from assigning leases is taxed. It also includes an amount in assessable income where an interest in leased plant is disposed of, including by disposal of an interest in a partnership or by disposal by a wholly-owned group of a majority interest in a subsidiary that holds leased plant.Tax payable under this measure by certain members of a wholly-owned company group is imposed by a related bill, the New Business Tax System (Former Subsidiary Tax Imposition) Bill 1999 which I am also introducing today.Loss duplication and value shiftingThe bill protects the integrity of the company tax system by removing current defects and anomalies in the treatment of entity losses and value shifting. In particular, the bill:. removes the multiplication of revenue losses through loss transfers occurring on or after 22 February 1999;. prevents artificial losses arising from the forgiveness of debts between commonly-owned companies on or after 22 February 1999;. prevents, from the date of introduction of the bill, the multiplication of losses where loss assets are transferred within a wholly-owned company group, and the use of losses realised by the transfer of loss assets within a majority-owned company group or from a majority-owned company group to a connected trust or individual;. removes defects in the continuity of ownership test that applies to companies' tax losses, net capital losses and bad debt deductions claimed in relation to an income year ending after 21 September 1999;. applies the same business test to a company's unrealised net losses where there is a change in the company's ownership or control after 21 September 1999; and. repeals the excess deduction rules for mining operations from the 1999-2000 income year.Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend this Bill.NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (FORMER SUBSIDIARY TAX IMPOSITION) BILL 1999This bill forms part of the New Business Tax System measures to address, from 22 February 1999, the tax avoidance opportunities relating to lease assignments which were highlighted in the Review of Business Taxation discussion paper A Platform for Consultation.It imposes a tax on certain members of a wholly-owned company group. This tax is assessed under provisions introduced by the New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999.Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend this Bill.NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (CAPITAL GAINS TAX) BILL 1999Today, I am introducing the second group of bills which will implement a New Business Tax System for Australia. More legislation will follow later this year and in the New Year. This bill introduces a range of CGT reform measures and builds on those CGT measures already introduced into the House on 21 October 1999.The key measures included in this bill are:. the streamlining of the existing CGT concessions for small business taxpayers;. the introduction of a CGT exemption where a small business taxpayer sells an active asset which has been held for at least 15 years and the taxpayer is at least 55 years of age and intends to retire or is incapacitated;. CGT rollover relief for shareholders in a company, or unitholders in a fixed trust, who exchange shares and units during a takeover of the company or fixed trust; and. an exemption for certain non-resident tax exempt pension funds in relation to gains they make on venture capital investments.The government's CGT reforms are an important aspect of the New Tax System and are consistent with the government's objective of making Australia's taxation system more internationally competitive and reducing compliance costs through simplification.I commend this bill.NEW BUSINESS TAX SYSTEM (INCOME TAX RATES) BILL (No. 2) 1999This bill contains a measure to remove averaging of capital gains for individuals.This measure is part of a package of fundamental changes to the Australia's CGT regime that will remove impediments to efficient asset management, improve capital mobility and make the regime internationally competitive. Other significant parts of the CGT reform package are included in the New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999, introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 October 1999, and in the New Business Tax (Capital Gains Tax) Bill 1999.I commend this bill.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Bills10857r941Billsr938Billsr940Billsr937Billsr84910857Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.Bills read a first time.1085714:43:0010857Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—TRADEX SCHEME BILL 1999 [No. 2]This bill, along with the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 will implement the Government's new Tradex Scheme.The purpose of these bills is to implement a new tariff export concession scheme to be called Tradex. The Tradex scheme was a key initiative in the Government's Investing for Growth industry statement. Investing for Growth highlighted that a key driving force behind the growth of world trade in manufactures is an increasing globalisation of corporate production strategies. As a result, various components of final goods tend to be traded several times, with value adding occurring in a number of different locations around the world. This phenomenon is fostering investment in `hub' activities. Our proximity to the Asia Pacific region and other advantages such as low outbound cargo costs, makes Australia well placed to attract this type of investment and to become a regional base for distribution and manufacturing operations.The Government's industry statement recognised that the competitiveness of Australia's customs regime is an important factor in fostering hub activities. In relation to this, it is necessary to take account of the internationally recognised principle that goods should be taxed only in the country in which they are consumed. There is also a need to ensure that compliance costs incurred by companies in importing and exporting goods are minimised.The objective of Tradex is to streamline and improve those programs aimed at providing relief to businesses that currently pay customs duty and sales tax on imported products which are re-exported or incorporated into other goods that are exported. It will replace the previous Tariff Export Concession Scheme (TEXCO) and allow many duty drawback users to gain up-front exemption from import duties and sales tax.The Tradex initiative follows a review of the existing TEXCO and Duty Drawback Schemes which showed that excessive access and compliance costs are denying businesses the chance to recover unnecessary duty and sales tax and impacting on their international competitiveness.In essence, the Tradex Scheme is designed to address problems associated with the existing TEXCO and Duty Drawback Schemes. In particular, the low utilisation rates and high compliance costs associated with these schemes. It has been estimated that the current levels of utilisation of these schemes is approximately 50 per cent. This equates to over $100 million in customs duty and sales tax that is unclaimed by Australian exporters with the consequential detrimental impact on their international competitiveness.Under present arrangements, imported goods generally incur a duty liability when they are landed in Australia, and before being used in a manufacturing process prior to export or re-exported in the same condition at a later time. In circumstances where the goods are re-exported the producer uses duty-drawback provisions to claim the import duty and sales tax back. These arrangements for handling temporary imports represent a signifi cant cost and burden for domestic manufacturers who use imports in their exported production.Exporters who undertake industrial processing of imports prior to export may currently be eligible for up-front exemption from import duties and wholesale sales tax under the TEXCO scheme. However, the TEXCO scheme makes no allowance for imports that are exported in the same condition or that do not fulfil the `industrial processing' requirement.Tradex will remove the requirement that goods must undergo an industrial process and enable exporters to gain up-front exemption from duty and sales tax for goods exported in the same condition.Tradex will improve the effectiveness of existing arrangements by:. moving primarily to an exemption based system, thereby reducing compliance costs for users. A drawback facility will still be available for instances where, at the time of import, it was not known that goods would be re-exported or used as inputs to exports.. adopting a more light handed approach to access and compliance requirements, and stronger reliance on self assessment and periodic settlement; and. relaxing some regulatory arrangements relating to eligibility, registration and on-going compliance requirements.In particular, the legislation for Tradex will:clearly spell out eligibility criteria so that potential applicants have a degree of certainty as to the conditions they must meet in order to participate in the scheme;. enable unsuccessful applicants to have a right of review of the relevant adverse decision;. provide the administrators of the scheme with the appropriate audit and recovery powers and penalty provisions to help ensure compliance.SummaryThis bill, and the three associated bills provide for the introduction of new, streamlined arrangements for Australian exporters who import goods for further processing prior to export or re-export goods in the same condition.Tradex is an acknowledgment of the increasing globalisation of the world economy and will help to improve Australia's attractiveness as an investment destination.Tradex will provide real benefits to Australia's exporters, and together with the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax, will improve our international competitiveness as a trading nation.I commend the bill to the Senate. TRADEX DUTY IMPOSITION (CUSTOMS) BILL 1999This is the second of three Tradex Duty Imposition Bills, that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill mirrors the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999 and gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex Duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex Scheme. The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex Duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty.This bill imposes the liability in so far as the tax is a duty of customs within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the Senate.TRADEX DUTY IMPOSITION (EXCISE) BILL 1999This is the third of three Tradex Duty Imposition Bills, that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill mirrors the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999 and the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 and gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex Duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex Scheme. The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex Duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty.This bill imposes the liability in so far as the tax is a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the Senate.TRADEX DUTY IMPOSITION (GENERAL) BILL 1999This is the first of three Tradex Duty Imposition Bills, that accompany the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999.This bill gives the Department of Industry, Science and Resources the ability to recover Tradex Duty where participants fail to export goods in accordance with their undertakings under the provisions of the Tradex Scheme. In particular, Tradex Duty becomes payable when goods imported under the scheme are:. consumed or used by the Tradex Order Holder in Australia;. disposed of by the Holder to another person in Australia for the purposes of being consumed or used;. unable to meet the requirements of the Drawback Regulations under Section 168 of the Customs Act 1901; or. not exported within one year after importation.The Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 sets out the circumstances in which Tradex Duty becomes payable to the Commonwealth and the process for recovering the duty. This bill imposes the liability in so far as the tax is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.I commend the bill to the Senate.CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TRADEX) BILL 1999This is one of five bills designed to give effect to the Government's new Tradex Scheme, a key initiative in the Investing for Growth industry statement.The other bills which comprise the Tradex package, and which were introduced into the House of Representatives on 14 October 1999, are the Tradex Scheme Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (General) Bill 1999, the Tradex Duty Imposition (Customs) Bill 1999 and the Tradex Duty Imposition (Excise) Bill 1999.The effect of this particular bill is to provide a "free" rate of duty for goods imported under a tradex order.I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Senator Quirke) adjourned.Bills10859r854Billsr85310859Messages received from the House of Representatives returning the Federal Magistrates Bill 1999, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 2, 13 and 14 made by the Senate, disagreed to amendments Nos 3 to 12 and 15, requesting the reconsideration of the amendments disagreed to by the House, returning the Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999, acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendment Nos 1 to 7, 16 to 18, 21 and 22 made by the Senate, disagreed to amendments Nos 8 to 14, 19, 20 and 23 made by the Senate, disagreed to amendment No. 15 made by the Senate and made an amendment in place thereof, requesting the reconsideration of the amendments disagreed to by the House, and concurrence in the amendments made by the House in place of amendment No. 15.Ordered that consideration of the messages in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills10860r91210860Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)14:48:0010860Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VICALP00—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to deal with this matter in the second reading debate. It gives me an opportunity to highlight not only a number of concerns with respect to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 but also issues that it canvasses which relate to other legislation being considered by the Senate. Let me focus firstly on this bill.Labor, as I am sure previous speakers have indicated, will be opposing those areas where the bill seeks to weaken the current act. The approach by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to the legislation and to the current act is very concerning. He seems to have used this review as an opportunity—as he has done in many other areas—to limit prescription where it works in the favour of employers and, as we are aware, in all other areas he is seeking to impose more prescription when it is in the interests of workers or employees. The first point to highlight is where the minister is seeking to limit the prescription on employers, which is the main area that Labor will be opposing. There are also other issues in this legislation which we will be highlighting as well.Firstly, and strangely for a bill with a short title of Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , it will weaken the requirement of employers to promote equal opportunity, which is the current phrase in the act, and replace it to read just, `contribute to the achievement of'. The point here may well be that it is not solely an employer's responsibility to promote equal opportunity. I think everyone in this chamber would accept that it is also the government's responsibility to promote equal opportunity. Let us consider one example where it is obvious that that is what the government is not doing. In another bill currently before us, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 , the government is seeking to remove workers' entitlements from awards with respect to maternity leave.The government is going to be removing some of the standard maternity leave provisions from awards, again in the climate of wanting to limit prescription on employers, with the very strange argument, given all of the evidence we have had, particularly after an inquiry by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, that pregnant women are going to be in a position to bargain above that minimum for themselves.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—I am sure young women in the gallery are interested in that, Senator Collins.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—From my perspective, Senator Crossin, I am probably in a reasonable position to negotiate some standards in relation to maternity protection, but from my life experience I know a lot of women who are not. I take this opportunity to highlight what was close to the saddest evidence which we heard in our inquiry on the more jobs, better pay bill. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner said that in her inquiry on pregnancy and work she was aware of examples where workers dealing with the effects of these supposedly wonderful family friendly Australian workplace agreements had terminated pregnancy because they could not manage a pregnancy and work. That is how bad workplace relations are in this country at the moment.Let me go back to what is titled the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 and highlight the other areas where these proposals are weakening protection for Australian women. The other prescription that the minister proposes to remove from the current legislation is the requirement that employers should consult their employees. So we are going to make it easier for employers to maintain this myth that they are really doing something of benefit for their employees. We are not going to even require that before they report to government that they are doing something about equal opportunity, they talk to their own staff about it. We are going to make it very easy for an employer to simply tick a box and say, `Yes, some vague idea about equal opportunity has occurred in my mind over the last 12 months.' Tick a box, send it off to the government, and that is it. That perhaps best characterises what this bill is about.This bill represents the result of a review which was part of the 1995 Competition Principles Agreement and a review of all legislation that is costly to business. That is the purpose of this bill: simply to limit any regulation or prescription that might be costly to business. But the sad thing is that a lot of discriminatory behaviour is costly to business. We used to have in place guidelines and prescriptions that helped business make some cultural change and hopefully realise over time that many of their practices were costing them in the long term. Again, perhaps the best example is that of pregnancy and work, because unfortunately only a very small number of employers have started realising that, if they find incentives to encourage their professional, well-trained, skilled women to return after a pregnancy, if they help them find ways of working within their business and if they introduce real workplace family-friendly practices, their employees do come back and they do not lose those skills. The employers maintain a skilled work force and they do not have the costs associated with employees moving on and a high turnover. This act was about achieving that cultural change.This bill tries to remove all those guides. It is removing very simple guides like `We suggest you actually talk to your own employees about what they think might be useful to generate some workplace flexibility that would suit them, that would help them balance their work and family lives.' Let me have a look at another example which highlights that point. One of the prescriptions in the current act that this bill seeks to remove is the requirement for a senior manager within a firm to coordinate the development of the affirmative action plan. Why is that so unreasonable? If an employer is meant to be reporting to government that they are genuinely trying to do something in this area, what is so difficult about requiring that a senior manager within the company has some responsibility for it? It is a fact of life that if it is not a senior manager, no change is really happening or going to happen. Again, it highlights what is so limited about this bill.You can argue that there are some things that impose, particularly on small businesses, some difficult prescriptions, such as regular reporting requirements and some requirements in relation to the detail of reporting. But this bill also seeks to remove a review of report. The level of activity is currently scaled to get some idea of what is going on in Australian businesses. Also, there are requirements that certain issues be reported on to get, again, some idea of what is really going on in Australian businesses. The real motive for removing this, apart from the fact that some businesses do genuinely struggle to deal with these reporting criteria, is that, as in other areas such as the Workplace Relations Act, the minister does not want to know. The minister does not want to know how Australian workplace agreements are really working for workers.The minister has so far—after about two years of operations of Australian workplace agreements—through the Office of the Em ployment Advocate, conducted research into how employers find these agreements work, but they have never inquired seriously, in any objective and broad sense, about how these agreements work for employees. I would go further than that and say that the minister has deliberately sought to conceal how these agreements are really working for employees. Despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence from a variety of areas, including legitimate statutory authorities such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, the minister and his department continue to exist in a massive state of denial—a massive state of denial that will be highlighted next week when we report on our intensive inquiry into the operations of the Workplace Relations Act. The very sad thing is that it seems that government senators are also in that state of absolute denial.Ultimately, it is those government senators and members who continue in that denial who are going to have to live with the consequences, and the best news we have had recently on that score is the impact that has been felt most seriously in Victoria. The Kennett government stumbled because it had been in denial about the very extreme effects that its activities have had on everyday people.When we get to the committee stage of debating this legislation, which I understand will not be today, I will concentrate particularly on amendments that we will be proposing in two areas. The first of those areas will be to strengthen provisions in the bill that deal with the consultation component because the genuineness of this legislation is seriously under question unless there is a guide that workers be consulted about equal opportunity programs. But, hell, why ask women about what they think will help them maintain their employment? That seems to be the minister's view. In fact, it is with some humour that I look at the title of this bill. I actually characterise it with another title, which I will come to in a moment because it has slipped my mind.The government and the minister cannot be serious. They talk about changing the title from the Affirmative Action Agency to Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, but really it is about less prescription and about reducing costs for business in the short term. I hope, before I finish my 20 minutes, I remember how I characterised this bill because it amused me for half the day. I suppose in late term pregnancy one's short-term memory starts disappearing, but I hope I will get back to it.Let me move on to the other area I was proposing to highlight, again mentioning the pregnancy component, because I intend to spend some time dealing with our view that the HREOC report and some of its recommendations about work and pregnancy or being pregnant and productive should be considered seriously by the government. We have mentioned in our review of the current Workplace Relations Act our disappointment that the government has not yet picked up those recommendations. We are using this opportunity to again highlight those recommendations, and we will be moving some amendments which are tailored to address those recommendations as well. I have already expressed my disappointment that some of the amendments in the Workplace Relations Act actually go backwards, away from the HREOC recommendations, rather than forwards by proposing some real improvements for pregnant women and work.Just to highlight a couple of those issues, whilst we support the provisions in this bill that look at broadening the definition of employment matters so that we will be covering more employees when dealing with equal opportunity type issues, we want to clarify coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act for federal statutory authorities, judicial office holders and—shock!—members of parliament. So let us hope that we might be able to do something here for members of parliament.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—I hope we have the support of Jackie Kelly.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I hope that we do have Jackie Kelly's support, but on top of that I would like the minister's support. I would like to be able to make the decision about when I commence my own maternity leave, and if the government would convince us that they are going to do as we recommend and withdraw the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 from its priority list, I would actually be able to commence my leave, but the minister is not prepared to do that at this stage. Again, one needs a sense of humour to operate in this place.84PHUTCHINSSenator Hutchins—He is being partisan Pete.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—He certainly is being partisan Pete. After I read the Victorian government's submission to our inquiry on the Workplace Relations Act—1X4WESTSenator West—Which government?GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—The new government's submission; we did not have one from the old government. It was actually not so much partisan Pete any more but Pete the—1X4WESTSenator West—Don't be unparliamentary.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—No, I was not going to be unparliamentary; it was Pete the perverter of justice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—That is an unacceptable way of referring to a member of another place. It is casting some sort of aspersion on him. I ask you to withdraw it.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINS—I am sorry and I withdraw it. I will reflect it very accurately by quoting their submission, which is public, which said that they thought the minister's behaviour with respect to Victorian employees was `perverse'.I will close by again highlighting that our amendments will be dealing with quite a number of issues to try to improve this bill, to re-insert some things that have been recommended to the minister but he has ignored—copious amounts of advice that should be a component of an effective equal opportunity regime. We will be forcing the minister to reconsider those issues. Unfortunately, the minister is not really about equal opportunity for women in this bill; he is about removing prescription for business, and when we get to the committee stage I am sure I will recall the characterisation I had for this bill earlier in the day and I will share that humour with the Senate. 15:08:0010863Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . I do so specifically on behalf of my colleague Senator Andrew Murray, who has responsibility within the Democrats for this legislation. He is not able to be here at the moment but he will still be having carriage of the bill for the Democrats when we get to the committee stage of the debate, whether that is next week or next year.It is appropriate to make some comments at this stage before we get into consideration of the detail of the bill and of some of the amendments that are going to be put forward in terms of the fundamental principle of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. It is appropriate for me, as an Australian Democrat, to emphasise the strong record that the Democrats have had over many years in promoting equal opportunity for women in the workplace and elsewhere as a crucial principle not just of justice but—as indeed has been shown through studies over the recent years since there has been some improvement in opportunities for women—the economic advantages to the country.It is not always desirable to reduce such social justice principles to economic measurements in dollars and cents. Nevertheless, I think this shows the good sense in enabling all people to contribute as effectively and as fully as possible whether it is in the workplace or in the broader community. It is in all Australians' interests, not just the interests of individual women, to ensure that women have equal opportunity in the workplace not just for the benefit of women but for the benefit of all of us both socially and economically. It is self-evident that women bring enormous skills, expertise, perspectives and experience to the workplace and it really goes against everyone's self-interest to try to minimise in any way the ability of women to contribute or to minimise the opportunity for that contribution to be maximised. So it is both economically sensible, as well as an important basic principle of equity, to ensure that women do have equal opportunity in the workplace and, as many other speakers have indicated in this debate, that is a goal that has not yet been fulfilled and indeed is under threat in some areas.This bill obviously relates to issues in the workplace and I had the opportunity to attend a few of the public hearings that were recently held into the broader workplace relations legislation that Minister Reith has put forward and also to read a reasonable proportion of the public submissions. Certainly, one of the clear messages that came through and continues to come through—and there were quite a lot of clear messages in the public hearings and in the submissions about that particular bill—is that some issues of equal opportunity for women in the workplace are under threat in terms of how workplaces operate in Australia and some of the trends in their operations. We need to be aware of the threat, to spotlight the reasons for it and to try to ensure that that reversal is addressed.A whole range of issues continue to present problems and obstacles for women in the workplace, whether they are in the area of sexual discrimination and harassment and the inadequacies of processes to deal with those, or relate to such issues as pregnancy and maternity leave in the workplace. Information and stories came forward from women concerned about what it may mean if they get pregnant and take time off or wish to take time off to have a child: whether or not they will get their job back, whether or not their responsibilities will be the same as before they left and whether or not their career path opportunities will be curtailed as part of having a child and expanding their family.That is a very real fear amongst many women and it is certainly a fear that the Democrats believe should not be present. There should be a very clear-cut principle that having a child and going on maternity leave does not present to someone a threat as to their being able to return to their previous position, not just in terms of issues such as pay rates and entitlements but also in terms of responsibility: the types of work they are able to do and the career paths and opportunities open to them. Speaking personally and also for the Democrats, that is a fundamental principle that is not always upheld and it needs to be stated as strongly and as often as possible because that threat is still present. Clearly, things have moved forward from the days when women basically had to resign from their jobs, including those in the public service, if they got pregnant. Whilst we have moved on from those days, there is still some way to go before we reach the perfect outcome, and those sorts of issues need to be recognised.Perhaps one of the biggest aspects of the workplace and employment market which puts some of the advances women have made over recent years under greater threat is a move towards an increase in casual and temporary work. Very clear information and evidence came to light through the Senate inquiry into the Workplace Relations Bill that an increase in—and quite a deliberate use of—casual, temporary and part-time work by employers puts the rights of employees at much greater risk and very much increases the pressure on individual employees to sacrifice basic entitlements to ensure that they are able to maintain work, and that has a particular impact on women.It is no secret that the greater proportion of women are going into casual and part-time work. In terms of areas of jobs growth, those areas are more and more often filled by women rather than men, and a much greater proportion of women are in casual and part-time work. That can suit people's circumstances, obviously. It is not to suggest that such work is a second-class type of employment, but it does present special challenges and difficulties in terms of protecting and safeguarding the entitlements of all workers who are engaged in casual work and also part-time work. Those safeguards are in danger of diminishing, and that presents particular difficulties for women.So, whilst there have been advances, and ones that the Democrats have championed and welcomed over time moving towards greater opportunity for women in the workplace, not only is there still some way to go but also we have to guard against slipping back. I think there is a risk of slipping back and losing some of the advances that have been made in recent years. The Democrats, both as part of examining this legislation in further detail and the amendments that will be brought forward and more generally as a general principle with all legislation, will be vigilant in ensuring that the gains that have been made in the past are not lost and that the goals that still need to be met will be advanced towards. I am sure that Senator Murray will continue in a similar vein when the amendments are considered in greater detail in the committee stage.15:17:0010865Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I thank all of those honourable senators who contributed to this very important debate on this important piece of legislation. I thank Senator Bartlett for filling the place on the speakers' list left by his colleague Senator Murray, who was unable to contribute this afternoon but whom we expect to contribute in his constructive manner when the committee stages of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 are dealt with. I indicate also that the government does not intend continuing to a committee stage this afternoon in the limited time available, and so people will have time to further consider amendments to the bill.As I said, the issues that have been canvassed in the debate are important. The government is committed to designing an equal opportunity regime for the new millennium. We currently have a regime in Australia that was designed some decades ago. We believe it is time to look forward. Our approach to equal opportunity in the workplace is not a single-faceted, prescriptive legislative focus; it is an across the economy focus. We all know that in an economy where you have jobs growth, where you have low interest rates and low inflation, the opportunities and the choices for women in the workplace are going to be a lot wider than if you have a contracting economy, high interest rates, high debt and not very many job opportunities.One of the great achievements for women of this government is to ensure that they have choice again in their lives. Women with children have special responsibilities, as do fathers. It is an economy where we have interest rates under control. You see a very big change from a decade ago under the previous administration, where you had interest rates in many cases going over 20 per cent, which meant that many women who did not want to be in the work force had no choice but to go into the work force simply to meet the financial needs of their families, because if the women did not go into the work force they would not have been able to pay the higher mortgage interest rates that were forced on them by the massive debt that was run up by the previous administration. In the Hawke and the Keating years tens of billions of dollars of deficits year on year on year drove interest rates up, drove the cost of housing up and forced many women, against their own will, to go into the work force just to pay those mortgage interest bills.So this government is interested in reforming the legislative regime, which is what we are focusing on in this debate, but we are also interested in having a broader approach to equal opportunity, and that is to create true economic opportunity and true choice for women through sound economic management which delivers low interest rates, low debt, higher real wages, high productivity and more and more jobs. What a fantastic thing it was yesterday to hear the Treasurer in the other place able to announce in his midyear economic review that we can now see the unemployment rate going below seven per cent next year and strong economic growth—all on the back of historic low interest rates so that living is more affordable. What a great thing for Australian families and Australian women.It is my sincere pleasure to again thank all honourable senators for their commitment to this debate and to commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That consideration of this bill in the committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Adjournment10866Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.1086615:21:0010866McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—Earlier this month the Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch, addressed the Australasia Centre annual dinner. In my view, Mr Murdoch's address was in essence endorsing an all but amoral approach to foreign policy, and more particularly to Australia's stance in East Timor. Mr Murdoch used Australia's participation in East Timor as a case in point, obviously coming down on the side that Australia should not be involved in East Timor. While he did not say it straight out, that was obviously the summation by those present and how the media publicised it.Those who read Mr Murdoch's address will see that he shrouds his true sentiments towards East Timor in a very broad analysis of the perils of moral crusades and the virtues of financial interest. To quote from Mr Murdoch's speech:In short, if Australia chooses to pursue a moralistic foreign policy, it had better realise it runs the risk of doing more harm than good.It is one thing to put young Australian lives at risk under Australian commanders and pursuant to Australian rules of engagement. It is quite another to place them in harm's way under rules set by someone not democratically elected and responsible to their parents and loved ones for their safety.None of this means that Australia should adopt a coldly amoral foreign policy. Rather, we must always remember four values, but at the same time we must take a hard-headed view of where interests lie.Mr Murdoch calls for a cool-headed and a hard-headed approach to the East Timor question, which he claims Australia did not take. Rather, he says in his address, Australia reacted with emotionalism, moralism and even religious enthusiasm—all to be taken as a flaw in national character, I suppose.Behind these accusations of Australia's misadventure, a certain barefaced self-interest is obvious and leaves him open to the accusation of a very fake concern for Australia's interests. His massive investments in Indonesia and the Asia-Pacific region, no less than Star television, and his own ethical code that gravitated him towards the 30-year Suharto dictatorship betray his bottom line interests against East Timor.Murdoch's own militia have been out in force razing the government's recently announced policy to lift the Medicare levy so as to fund Australia's East Timor commitment. Murdoch journalist and most noted Suharto apologist, Greg Sheridan, declared emotively that the government's Timor levy is a `bad, dangerous gimmick'. It is not surprising that this journalist, having spent his career justifying the Indonesian occupation of and brutality in East Timor, would revert to denigrating the necessary policy moves to defend and construct an independent East Timor. Of the myriad articles written by Mr Sheridan, I can safely say he never acknowledged the self-serving nature of the Suharto family, nor did Mr Sheridan ever trust that democracy could achieve more for Indonesia than the 32-year totalitarian regime. Now he and his boss deride this government's actions to bring peace, stability, democracy and a future to this new country.In its most narrow interpretation, Mr Murdoch's address is right if we are talking in purely economic terms. It would be much more financially viable and economically responsible to turn a blind eye to the atrocities committed, but it would also be morally damning for a country such as Australia. Such hand washing has a way of sticking to a country's history. It is my view that Mr Murdoch creates a false dichotomy between morality and the national interest. The distinction between the two is not black and white.Former White House Deputy Secretary of Defense, Joseph Nye, put it well when he said:A democratic definition of the national interest does not accept the distinction between a morality-based and an interest-based foreign policy. Moral values are simply intangible interests.It is worth noting that this parliament unanimously believes Australia has a compelling strategic interest in promoting peace and security in East Timor as it moves towards independence. Our leadership of INTERFET in East Timor is not only about human rights and the defence of people seeking a just freedom; it is equally about looking after our own defence and security. Without peace and stability in East Timor, Australia cannot be confident of the long-term security of its northern borders.It is true to say that the moral aspect weighed heavily in the decision to take up the lead of an international peace force. After all, the Indonesian forces had failed to control the violence and butchery of the innocent by the militia—and, indeed, the military's own who involved themselves in razing buildings and slaughtering the innocent.Not only did the international community, through the United Nations, support Australia's actions, but 18 other countries have deployed their forces or are committed to INTERFET. Those countries are Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States—countries arguably more motivated by morality than national security.It is ironic that Mr Murdoch should criticise Australia's actions as being a knee-jerk response when recommending Australia should act only after a full and open debate on the matter and then deliver our answer, when in fact the main concerns at Australia's actions were that we did not act swiftly enough. Of course, both criticisms are wrong. Australia acted according to the United Nations directions, and acted swiftly and according to the gravity of the situation post referendum. The Senate need only recall the rampaging of the militia to reject any proposition that we acted in a knee-jerk fashion.Mr Murdoch's bottom-line concern that Australia's peacekeeping effort will cost billions of dollars can be answered by saying that the price for our international responsibilities—or any country's for that matter—is unavoidably expensive. But why hasn't Mr Murdoch acknowledged in his speech that most of this expense is attributed to the then Indonesian government, or elements within that government, and the military's involve ment in the scorched earth policy in East Timor, even if it was only to have waved the militia through on their rampaging way?The scorched earth policy, which saw 70 per cent of public buildings and private residences in East Timor destroyed, as well as 75 per cent of the population being displaced, has multiplied the cost of rebuilding East Timor and, subsequently, Australia's aid costs. Also, the insecurity created by an unchecked militia required a larger than anticipated peacekeeping force, pushing up the cost of our engagement. Yet Mr Murdoch's speech meticulously avoids any reference to Indonesia's responsibility, as if to say they have none.But the greatest gall must come from the claim by the elements inside Jakarta's hierarchy and their Australian supporters that we have something to apologise for in how we have undertaken our INTERFET responsibilities—that is, that we have been insensitive and heavy-handed towards Indonesian sensitivities. In response to that, on any analysis, under General Cosgrove the force have carried out their duties masterfully and in an extremely dangerous situation. By meeting force with force they have better secured their own and the people of East Timor's well-being, which is their very mission. It is not in Australia's interest—morally, financially, or strategically—to accept Mr Murdoch's view as outlined in his address.1086715:31:0010867Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise this afternoon to place on record my response and a number of comments in relation to a speech given by Senator Grant Tambling, the other senator for the Northern Territory, on Wednesday when he rose in this chamber to address the matter of indigenous education in the Northern Territory. Let me say at the outset that I found his contribution extremely disappointing because of not only the facts he presented in his speech but also the manner in which it was delivered.In that speech he made reference to me showing some surprising ignorance in relation to Aboriginal education. I would like to place on record that no such ignorance has been displayed, other than by Senator Tambling in that speech. Senator Tambling has made a number of very good contributions in this chamber and has spoken on a number of topics on which he is well versed, but his speech on Wednesday has shown that education is not one of those.Having had over 20 years experience in the education industry and having taught in an Aboriginal school in the Northern Territory in bilingual education and having been employed 12 years ago to write the first lot of performance indicators for the Department of Education under their AEP, Aboriginal Education Program—or, IESIP, as it is known now—I would hope that I bring to this chamber anything but ignorance. Senator Tambling's ignorance, of course, went to the tune that all through his speech he mispronounced the acronym `IESIP'. This is probably very hard for our Hansard reporters to encapsulate in the written record of the Senate, but that in fact could be attributed to his lack of knowledge of the subject.But what needs to be said about Wednesday's speech is that between the Northern Territory government, Senator Tambling and the federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs somebody needs to get their story right. Senator Tambling was busy trying to defend the actions of his colleagues in the Territory but, in fact, at this stage all three are not singing the same tune. Their facts are not consistent. Let me draw your attention to one example. In Senator Ellison's speech on Monday in response to my contribution he said that this government—that is, the federal government—since coming to power had in fact commissioned a report that was carried out by Mr Collins, insinuating that Learning Lessons was something that the federal government had commissioned.Yet the response on Wednesday in the Northern Territory tabled by the Minister for School Education, Peter Adamson—who I might say at this stage is probably doing an even worse job in education than the muddle-headed duck out of Beatrix Potter would do—referred to the review being commissioned by the Northern Territory Department of Education. So who, in fact, did commission Bob Collins and that report? Perhaps it is time that some of the people in this scenario got their story right.Senator Tambling also went on to say that the purpose of the IESIP review was to `reorganise and rationalise the current collection of 32 initiatives' by the Northern Territory government. That is not what they think. The front of the review of their IESIP report actually says that this is about the future of the current IESIP initiatives and their future programs for the year 2000. Recommendation No. 1 is that all 32 initiatives cease.On one hand we have the Northern Territory government saying one thing, and on the other hand we have Senator Tambling saying something else. But in fact the Commonwealth government and Minister Kemp are on record in the Northern Territory for not exactly supporting the Northern Territory government. So I am surprised that Senator Tambling would go out of his way to do that.In an interview conducted by Drive Time on 22 October of this year, of which I have the transcript, Senator Kemp was asked at length by the reporter about his response to the review of IESIP. The reporter mentioned that Senator Kemp had in fact travelled to the Tiwi Islands with Bob Collins while he was conducting the review. These are the words of David Kemp:. . . the Tiwi Islanders said to us then that they believed that they had been failed by the education system. It is clear—he said—that there is a major problem with indigenous education . . . He further went on to say:It's clear that many of these children are not getting the basic literacy and numeracy skills . . . Julie Christiansen, the reporter, asked:He—Bob Collins—described it as an appalling crisis. Would you put it as strongly as that?David Kemp's response was:Well I think it's totally unacceptable in Australia that we've got such a large group of young Australians who aren't being adequately served by the Education system that's been provided.So we have an admission by the Commonwealth and, as I said on Monday, a willingness by the Commonwealth to actually try to step in and do something to assist the embarrassing and national disgrace in relation to Aboriginal education in the Northern Territory.The further point I want to come to this afternoon is the funding arrangements under IESIP. Senator Tambling said that I made a statement that the current operational plan as negotiated with the Commonwealth will simply be extended to the year 2000, and he said that that was incorrect. It is not incorrect, Senator Tambling, and I am most surprised that you do not have your facts right. Perhaps you should stop getting the people in the Northern Territory government or their spin doctors to write your speeches for you. In fact, in relation to the Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 , the Bills Digest provided by the Parliamentary Library says this:The most prominent changes were:. the current triennial funding for 1997-99 to be extended by 1 year so that from 2001 IESIP could operate on quadrennial funding, in alignment with the Commonwealth's major schools funding programsSo, Senator Tambling, I was not incorrect. In fact, I was very correct, in accordance with the second reading speech, the explanatory memorandum and the Bills Digest produced by this parliament.Senator Tambling further said that I had made a comment about the on-costs taken by the Northern Territory government in the following words:. . . 46.1 per cent of the total money coming from the Commonwealth is taken off under the guise of on-costs by the Northern Territory government.He said that this is untrue. Again, Senator Tambling, you are wrong—very, very wrong. I was quoting from a reply to a question on notice that I had from DETYA. It is question No. E490. I had asked DETYA the following question: The Northern Territory government maintains a high percentage of its funding every three years for the administration costs, around 48%.(a) Has the department ever looked at how they reached that figure . . . I went on to ask the department how it was broken down and whether or not it was justified. Their response was that they did have that information. The Northern Territory Department of Education IESIP operational plan for 1997-99 outlines how it applies an administrative levy to salary costs from the IESIP. It breaks those down as being: superannuation 15.6 per cent, workers compensation insurance two per cent, long service leave 2.5 per cent, property management if applicable 14 per cent, administration 12 per cent, a total of 46.1 per cent. The DETYA response goes on to say:On-costs are only levied against the salary provision in initiatives with part-time workers levied for Superannuation and Workers Compensation. On-costs are not charged on capital or operational area initiatives.But the figure of 46.1 per cent is fact, from an answer from DETYA to a question on notice. The figure I quoted is not untrue.Senator Tambling goes on to talk about the IESIP review team's interpretation of `supplementary' and `core'. His speech shows a significant lack of knowledge about the difference between these two. The Northern Territory government's own review clearly talks about the fact that the IESIP money was meant to be supplementary money but had been used over those years as core funding.There are many elements of Senator Tambling's contribution that are incorrect. In the report that was tabled in the Northern Territory parliament by Peter Adamson on Wednesday in response to the Collins report, only 108 of the 151 recommendations were mentioned—a continuing example of their lack of concern in this area. (Time expired)1086915:41:0010869Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—I rise to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the safe haven project for the Kosovars and the East Timorese. The assessment of a community's humanity is the way in which we treat our fellow human beings. Australia as a nation can be very proud of its humane response to the crises of Kosovo and East Timor. A nation cannot respond to human tragedy on this scale without the support of its people. The Australian people deserve to be recognised for their generosity, their concern and their rapid response to those two very significant human tragedies.The calls from the United Nations for assistance in providing sanctuary to the displaced people in Kosovo and East Timor were responded to. We all watched the crisis unfold in Kosovo on our televisions and in our newspapers over a number of weeks during the Christmas season. We saw the exodus of men, women and children packed into carts, on tractors and on foot. Few of us will forget the image of elderly people being wheeled out of Kosovo in wheelbarrows. As they travelled to the border camps in Macedonia, they captured our hearts and captured the hearts of all Australians. The Prime Minister and his fellow ministers, the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Philip Ruddock, heeded this unprecedented call from the United Nations for assistance in this world crisis.The commitment made by the Australian government to help was the first step in a momentous task that involved not just the Commonwealth government across a number of departments. I also pay tribute to all the state governments and agencies that were involved—in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Agencies such as health, dental services and education departments became involved in what was a mighty effort, and it is still going on. Non-government organisations rallied at a day's notice. Charitable organisations, community groups, sporting clubs, youth organisations—a plethora of groups—came to the assistance of those groups of people. Families and individuals just fronted up to assist. There are too many to mention by name.The decision to provide safe haven to 4,000 Kosovar men, women and children unfolded to become the largest humanitarian effort since the Second World War to be undertaken by the Australian government and the Australian people. The compassion and generosity of the Australian people came as no surprise to me, given my portfolio responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Australia is one of the world's most humanitarian nations. Australians have a big heart when it comes to people in need. At over $US9.5 million per annum, Australia is in the top 12 donor countries to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is also one of the top three countries of refugee resettlement, and one of only 10 countries worldwide that even has a designated humanitarian immigration program.However, even armed with these humanitarian statistics, I was constantly amazed and very often overwhelmed by people's contribution of time—days, nights and weekends; by people volunteering in their holidays; by young Army reservists who appeared and said they wanted to work in the safe havens; by the heartfelt care; by the professionalism of the doctors; and by the cooks. I have to add here that one of the companies in Tasmania that had quoted to provide food for the Kosovars in the safe haven in Brighton, Tasmania realised some way into the program that he had overquoted, and so he reduced his quote. What an example of integrity in business, that he should actually reduce his quote and say that he could do it for less. I ate there, and I can tell you that there was nothing spared on the food and the catering in that organisation. I pay tribute to that gentleman in particular, whom I had the very great fortune of meeting when I presented certificates to all those involved in the Brighton safe haven. All the workers, paid and unpaid, put in enormous amounts of effort. As principal patron of all the safe havens, I travelled to every haven and to some on a number of occasions. I will be visiting East Hills next week to meet the East Timorese who are there. At the request of the minister, I went to Leeuwin in Western Australia, to Bandiana in the Albury-Wodonga area on the Victoria-New South Wales border, to East Hills in Sydney, to Brighton in Tasmania, to Hampstead in South Australia, to Singleton in the Hunter Valley, and to Portsea and Puckapunyal in Victoria.The other thing that should not be forgotten is the way in which the local communities came around and assisted as well, some bringing donations of food, others offering buses to take people from Puckapunyal to various sites around Victoria. I cannot tell you all the sorts of support that were given, with sporting clubs taking Kosovars or East Timorese off to various sporting events and so on.The management of Operation Safe Haven was and still is an enormous exercise for both the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Department of Defence, with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs as lead department. Establishing suitable accommodation for families in what were essentially Army barracks was a huge logistical exercise that demanded cross-departmental cooperation. That came in spades. It was tremendous to see those departments, with very different cultures—as I have said here on previous occasions in this chamber—coming together and being able to work so successfully together.I am reminded of a comment made when I first visited the Puckapunyal safe haven. One of the Army officers said to me that, after many years of state-of-the-art logistics training, it was great to finally be able to put their skills to good use. One of the other joys was to see a young Army reservist, who was Albanian, playing with the Kosovar children, and to see them getting rid of the fear that they had had of people in uniform by being able to play with a young Australian Army officer who was fluent in Albanian. The departmental staff, the Defence personnel, the paid staff and volunteers, who made the bricks and mortar of the safe havens into a human sanctuary, worked tirelessly for the Kosovars in their care. Many haven staff worked extraordinarily long hours: late nights and weekends were the norm rather than the exception, and many others worked full-time in addition to volunteering in the havens.The haven centre managers who were responsible for the management of the havens and the coordination of the staff deserve special mention in this chamber. I want to include them in the record and I congratulate them all and thank them very warmly, on behalf of the Australian government and people, for their tireless work. They were: at East Hills, Peter Mitchell and Larry Tanner; at Singleton, Larry Tanner and Gerard Cheong; at Puckapunyal, Kevin Kinna and Megan McRae; at Portsea, Wendy Davenport and Adam Warzel. I have to mention Wendy Davenport here: at the reception at the opening of Portsea, she gave her whole speech in Albanian, and she is not an Albanian speaker. There were roars of applause. Mind you, she does speak German, and I think that helped her to get around some of the guttural sounds. It was a tremendous effort which really endeared her to the Kosovars in her care. At Hampstead, there was John Lindsay; at Leeuwin, Gerald Hitchcock and Paul Fahie; at Brighton, Genevieve Leonard; and at Bandiana, Robert Wait.In making special mention of these people, I would also like to include in these thanks the efforts of all the members of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs based in the individual havens and also in the headquarters of the Safe Haven National Taskforce. I would also like to acknowledge the efforts of all members of the Department of Defence and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. When a project of this magnitude is undertaken, not only does the workload of those directly involved increase but, by a ripple effect, the entire department is affected. So to the workmates of those directly involved, I say thank you for picking up the slack and the extra work that fell your way while your colleagues were out working in and organising the safe havens.I do not have the luxury of time to mention every individual involved in Operation Safe Haven: if I did, the Senate would sit here until dawn; and they want to go home, I am sure, because the engines are rolling out at Canberra airport. I seek leave to incorporate into Hansard a list of the organisations that were involved with the havens, and I hope I have not missed any. There were individuals involved, but these were the main organisations. I am proud to have been involved in Operation Safe Haven and I hope that my words this afternoon have gone some way towards recognising the enormous debt of gratitude and thanks that we as a nation owe to those who have worked so hard in the establishment and management both of the Kosovar and East Timorese safe havens and to those who continue to do so as we still manage the remainder of the safe havens.If, as I mentioned in my introduction, you are judged by your humanity to your fellow men and women, then those whom I have mentioned today and those involved in the safe havens will all indeed be judged richly.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Is leave granted to incorporate the list referred to by Senator Patterson?Leave granted.The list read as follows—Organisations involved with HavensAdult Migrant English Service (AMES)Albanian Australian Community Association Inc.Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors (ASeTTS)AusAIDAustcareAustralian Centre for Languages (ACL)Australian Red CrossCatholic ChurchChristian Centre for Social JusticeChristians in Solidarity for East Timor (CISET)International Organisation for MigrationMacFarlane Burnet AssociationMercy HospitalNorth Richmond Community Health CentreSalvation ArmyService for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS)St Vincent de Paul SocietySurvivors of Torture and Trauma Assistance and Rehabilitation Service (STTARS)Thomas CookTorture Rehabilitation and Network Service Australian Capital TerritoryTranslating Interpreting Services (TIS)Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc (VFST)World VisionSenate adjourned at 3.52 p.m.Answers to Questions on Notice10873The following answers to questions were circulated:10873(Question No. 1475)147510873Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Ministers representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications ; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of information Act since 3 March 1996.10873Hill, 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:Initial stage decisions on requests under the Act are generally made in the Department and AusAID by Senior Executive Service (Band 1) officers. Internal review decisions are made by Senior Executive Service (Band 2) officers. In Austrade, initial stage decisions are made by Senior Executive Service (Band 2) officers, and internal review decisions by Senior Executive Service (Band 3) officers. All these officers have tertiary qualifications.10873(Question No. 1213)121310873O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 26 July 1999:(1) What was the staffing establishment for Melbourne-based Airservices Australia staff located in Melbourne as at 30 June for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999.(2) What were the actual staffing numbers in Melbourne at the above dates.(3) What are the functions of those staff.(4) Does Airservices Australia plan to reduce the number of staff located in Melbourne; if so: (a) how many positions are to be abolished; (b) why are they being abolished; and (c) when will they be abolished.10873Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by Airservices Australia that:(1) While neither Airservices nor its predecessor, the CAA, operate on the basis of "staffing establishment" in the sense that this term is used in the public sector, Airservices' staffing numbers for the period are set out in response to (2).(2) Airservices' staffing numbers in Melbourne as at 30 June in 1997, 1998 and 1999 are tabulated below:199719981999Melbourne*1095976907* Melbourne includes Melbourne Airport, Moorabbin Airport, Melbourne city locations and the Moonee Ponds Training College.(3) These staff provide the functions set out in Section 8(1) of the Air Services Act 1995 (as amended).(4) (a), (b) and (c). Airservices is currently reviewing its cost structure and hence staffing levels at all locations around Australia as part of its Business Transformation process and as a result of the efficiency improvements flowing from The Advanced Australian Air Traffic System (TAAATS) project which is reaching completion. The number of positions to be abolished and the precise timing are yet to be determined, however, over the whole of Airservices, staffing numbers are expected to fall from 3957 as at 30 June 1999, to 2845 by the end of 2000/2001. 10874(Question No. 1255)125510874O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) How many matters concerning the enforcement of aviation regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) were the subject of action before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years and so far in the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What has been the cost to CASA of the above matters.(3) On how many occasions did CASA engage senior counsel in relation to matters before the AAT in the above financial years.(4) In each case where senior counsel was engaged: (a) what was the nature of the matter before the AAT; (b) how long was the matter before the AAT; (c) what was the name of the senior counsel representing CASA; (d) what level of support was required by the senior counsel; and (e) what was the cost of both the senior counsel and the support.10874Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following information:(1)—1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-2000Total number of applications for review active during the period. *2417203818* The answer to Question 1 represents the number of Administrative Appeals Tribunal matters which were current during any particular financial year. Some matters have been current in two or more financial years and thus contribute to the totals in more than one of the columns in the table.(2)—1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-2000$$$$$Total cost to CASA of AAT matters. *380,48226,82186,93960,0700* Costs for each matter have been recorded against the financial year in which the matter was commenced in the Tribunal—that is, all costs for a matter commenced in the 1995-1996 financial year are shown in the 1995-1996 column.The costs shown in this table represent the external costs to CASA of legal counsel and legal advice. The costs shown above do not include:. the cost of Tribunal transcripts in the cases where these were obtained;. the costs of travel and accommodation (of CASA employees, witnesses or counsel) where these were paid for directly by the Authority; or. CASA's internal staff costs.(3)—1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-2000Number of occasions CASA engaged senior counsel for AAT matters. *11200* Matters have been recorded against the financial year in which the matters were commenced in the Tribunal. Thus, a matter involving senior counsel that was commenced in the 1995-1996 financial year that went to hearing in the 1998-1999 financial year would be shown in the 1995-1996 column.(4)—Year of matter #Nature of matterLength of actual hearing time before the AATName of senior counselLevel of support req'd by senior counselCost of both senior counsel and support95-96Cancellation of various Pilot Licences (Broadbent)19 days(plus 3 days mediation)Mr A ShandJunior counsel$129,924(this is the total cost since 1995/1996,not just the cost of the hearing)96-97Suspension of Air Operator's Certificate (Maile/Wingz Nth)1 dayMr J HiltonCASA Legal Staff$13,527(this includes additional preparation time spent in anticipation of a further hearing)97-98Suspension of Air Operator's Certificate (Aquatic Air)2 daysMr J Hilton (gave advice but did not represent CASA)N/A$2,250Year of matter #Nature of matterLength of actual hearing time before the AATName of senior counselLevel of support req'd by senior counselCost of both senior counsel and support98-99Cancellation of Air Operator's Certificate (Coral Sea)9 daysMr J HiltonJunior counsel & Private Law Firm$53,897* Matters have been recorded against the financial year in which they were commenced in the Tribunal.10875(Question No. 1485)148510875Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 September 1999: (1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996. 10875Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) I am not prepared to authorise the diversion of resources from other work that would be required to provide the level of detail sought by the honourable senator. However, the following information outlines in general terms the arrangements for decision making in the Attorney-General's Department.Under section 23 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department has granted decision-making authority to all Senior Executive Service (SES) officers, and decisions are made by officers in the areas which are responsible for the documents in question. Because of the nature of my Department, most of these officers have legal qualifications, but otherwise the qualifications and experience of the decision-maker for each individual request are not recorded. Initial decisions regarding access to documents and imposition of application fees and charges are exercised by SES Band 1 officers and above. Decisions on applications for internal review are exercised by SES Band 2 officers and above.10876(Question No. 1494)149410876Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4).10876Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The following general comments provide context for the answers to these questions. The Department of the Environment and Heritage includes its Canberra based Groups, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Antarctic Division. Following the formation of Environment Australia in November 1996, data for the Australian Heritage Commission and for the National Parks and Wildlife functions of the former Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) were incorporated with the Department's records.Separate data is provided for the statutory authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), and the prescribed agency, the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).DepartmentThe following answers are based on statistical records held in the Department for annual reporting purposes. Staff development in the Department has included a wide range of activities including informal seminars to which interested staff are invited and for which no attendance records are maintained.(1)—(5) There have been a total of about 5,024 attendances at internal and external staff development courses by staff since 3 March 1996 at a total cost of approximately $2.08M. This information is not disaggregated on an internal/external basis or for individual courses.In the period from 3 March 1996, the Department has run some legal awareness training courses. No courses have been run on the specific subject of decision making under the Freedom of Information Act. Within the Department, delegates for decision making and review of decisions are usually at the SES level. The decision makers can obtain advice, on a case by case basis, on their roles and responsibilities from the Department's legal advisers.GBRMPA(1)—(5) There have been 261 attendances by staff at 63 internal staff development courses since 3 March 1996. The cost of internal and external staff development courses for this period was $162,595. These costs are not disaggregated on an internal/external basis.There were no internal courses containing training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.AGO(1)—(5) There have been 100 attendances by staff at 3 internal staff development courses since 3 March 1996. The cost of the courses was $20,000.There were no internal courses containing training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.10876(Question No. 1512)151210876Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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 external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focussing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).10877Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The following general comments provide context for the answers to these questions. The Department of the Environment and Heritage includes its Canberra based Groups, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Antarctic Division. Following the formation of Environment Australia in November 1996, data for the Australian Heritage Commission and for the National Parks and Wildlife functions of the former Australian Nature Conservation Agency (ANCA) were incorporated with the Department's records.Separate data is provided for the statutory authority, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), and the prescribed agency, the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO).DepartmentThe following answers are based on statistical records of staff development courses held in the Department for annual reporting. Staff development in the Department has included a wide range of activities including informal seminars to which interested staff are invited and for which no attendance records are maintained.(1)—(5) There has been a total of about 5024 attendances at internal and external staff development courses by staff since 3 March 1996 at a total cost of approximately $2.08M. This information is not disaggregated on an internal/external basis or for individual courses.In the period from 3 March 1996, a small number of staff from the Department have attended externally conducted legal awareness training courses. There are no records of any courses on the specific subject of decision making under the Freedom of Information Act. Within the Department, delegates for decision making and review of decisions are usually at the SES level. The decision makers can obtain advice, on a case by case basis, on their roles and responsibilities from the Department's legal advisers.GBRMPA(1)—(5) There has been a total of 314 attendances at external staff development courses by staff since 3 March 1996. The cost of internal and external staff development courses for this period was $162,595. These costs are not disaggregated on an internal/external basis. There were no external courses containing training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.AGO(1)—(5) There have been 65 attendances at external staff development courses by staff since 3 March 1996. The cost of the courses was $46,300.There were 2 courses containing training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act. One course was specifically focused on the subject of freedom of information decisions and one course dealt with the issue amongst others.The provider was the Australian Government Solicitor and the cost was $395.10877(Question No. 1551)155110877O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) (a) What level of funding was provided through the Community Sector Support Scheme (CSSS), by state, in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what funding has been allocated to the scheme for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) In each state: (a) which organisations applied for funding; (b) which organisations received funding; and (c) what was the level of funding for each organisation through the CSSS in the above financial years.(3) (a) How does the department publicise the availability of funding through the CSSS; and (b) has the form of this publicity varied since the 1996-97 financial year; if so, how has the public information campaign in support of the CSSS varied.(4) (a) What was the cost of promoting the CSSS in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what funding has been allocated for this purpose in the 1999-2000 financial year.(5) (a) What criteria does the department apply in assessing applications for funding through the CSSS; and (b) has the criteria varied since the 1996-97 financial year; if so: (i) how have the criteria varied, and (ii) why.(6) (a) Who assesses applications for assistance through the CSSS; and (b) who finally approves or rejects each application.10877Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Community Sector Support Scheme was split across the Health and Aged Care and the Family and Community Services portfolios in October 1998. Funding for organisations previously assisted under the part of the Community Sector Support Scheme that moved to my portfolio is now administered alongside other funding for similar agencies that came from other departments, in a `National Secretariat' Program. The responses to these questions relate to the period for which I have had portfolio responsibility for the Community Sector Support Scheme and its replacement Program.(1) (a) The National Secretariat Program funds national bodies. It does not provide funding on a State-by-State basis.(b) Total funding expected to be spent under the National Secretariat Program in 1999-2000 is $3,113,561.(2) (a) Organisations may not necessarily seek funding under the National Secretariat Program + relevant applications can be directed there from other less appropriate funding programs. Approaches for assistance made by two organisations have been referred to the Program since October 1998 + the Lone Fathers Association Australia in June 1999 and the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children in October 1999.(b) The Lone Fathers Association Australia was granted two years' seed funding from 1 July 1999. Approval in principle has been given for the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children to receive two years' seed funding, commencing shortly.(c) The Lone Fathers Association Australia will receive $50,000 in the 1999-2000 financial year. The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children is expected to receive $36,538 pro rata from 11 October 1999 to 30 June, in the 1999-2000 financial year. Subject to meeting their contract requirements, both organisations will receive $50,000 in the 2000-2001 financial year.(3) (a) The Department of Family and Community Services does not publicise the availability of funding under the National Secretariat Program. Availability of funding under the Community Sector Support Scheme was similarly not publicised.(b) No.(4) (a) The Department does not promote the National Secretariat Program. The Community Sector Support Scheme was similarly not promoted.(b) Nil.(5) (a) Eligibility criteria for continuing funding under the National Secretariat Program state that organisations should:. be national in scope;. be a not-for-profit community based organisation; . be concerned with issues of relevance to the needs of the Australian community with respect to family and community services;. act as a conduit for information flow between the Government and their membership, drawing together views on issues of relevance to their membership and providing a consultative mechanism for the Department;. work on behalf of disadvantaged groups or others of interest or relevance to the Department, or on issues impacting on these groups;. be able to demonstrate that it does not duplicate the representational work on behalf of its constituency, compared with other organisations in the National Secretariat Program;. have limited capacity to be self-financing and to generate other income to run a national secretariat;. not represent the interests of service providers unless it can demonstrate that no other organisation can be identified which fulfils the role of representing consumers in their field of interest; and. have processes in place to effectively represent its members' view, as reflected in its reporting and communication channels, financial resources, external credibility, and internal accountability requirements.The two organisations receiving `seed funding' under the National Secretariat Program have been required to move toward meeting the full eligibility criteria and to explore additional sources of funding to become more self-sufficient.(b) These criteria are the same as applied to the previous Community Sector Support Scheme.(6) (a) The Department of Family and Community Services assesses applications and advises the Minister on their merits and the extent of available funding.(b) Approaches and rejections of applications for funding are decisions made by me as Minister for Family and Community Services.10878(Question No. 1571)157110878Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Are the charges applied by credit card providers to merchants for the right to have their credit card facilities made available to customers considered to be a financial supply within division 40A of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and thus input taxed for goods and services tax purposes. 10879Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No.10879(Question No. 1631)163110879O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) On how many occasions has the company Mercers Cullen Egan Dell been engaged by Airservices Australia since July 1995.(2) What was the cost of engaging the above consultants in the following financial years: (a) 1995-96; (b) 1996-97; (c) 1997-98; (d) 1998-99; and (e) to date in 1999-2000.(3) In the above financial years: (a) how many reports have been provided by Mercers Cullen Egan Dell to the ASA; and (b) how many of these reports were considered by the ASA Board.(4) In addition to the ASA Board, who was provided with copies of the above reports.(5) Can a copy be provided of each report provided to the ASA by Mercers Cullen Egan Dell.(6) What was the increase in the average weekly ordinary time earnings index in each financial year since July 1995 used by the ASA in the calculation of salary increases for contract employees.(7) What criteria does the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of ASA apply when appraising the performance of contract employees.(8) How many such assessments have been made for each contract employee since 1 July 1995, and in each case: (a) how many of those appraisals have resulted in the payment of a bonus, or an increase in the officer's salary; and (b) on how many occasions has a contract employee failed to win a salary increase or bonus payment as a result of an appraisal by the CEO.(9) What are the principles that are applied to contract employees' salary packages by the CEO.(10) Since July 1995, on how many occasions has the CEO consulted the ASA Board in relation to the principles applying to contract employees' salary packages.(11) Since July 1995: (a) on how many occasions have the principles applying contract employees' salary packages been varied; (b) what was the basis for each change; and (c) when was each change endorsed by the ASA Board.(12) When and why did the ASA Board delegate its power under section 42 of the Air Services Act 1995 in relation to the determination of staff remuneration to the CEO.(13) (a) What is the membership of the ASA Board Remuneration Committee; (b) how often does it meet; and (c) what functions does the committee perform on behalf of the ASA Board.10879Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(11) I am advised by Airservices Australia that the level of detail requested by Senator O'Brien would require an unreasonable application of scarce resources and has the potential to traverse areas normally covered by Privacy legislation.However, as a general response, Airservices advise that aside from special one off consultancies, Mercers Cullen Egan Dell is engaged to provide a job evaluation methodology, position assessments, a computerised assessment tool and market information on an as required basis. The annual cost of these services ranges from $2000 to $16,000 per annum.The information provided is used by the Airservices Human Resource Strategy Branch, the Chief Executive Officer and the Board Remuneration Committee, as appropriate.The criteria applied to the performance appraisal of senior manager positions vary from position to position and are a matter between the CEO and the manager concerned.(12) The Resolution which delegates authority under section 42 of the Air Services Act to the CEO was originally made by the CAA Board in May 1990 and was transferred to Airservices Australia by the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Act introduced by the Labor Government in 1995.(13) The Airservices' Board Remuneration Committee comprises three Board members, including the Chairman and CEO. The committee meets as required (usually at least twice a year) and undertakes an annual review of CEO and Executive Director remuneration, provides guidance to the CEO in relation to Executive Committee member remuneration and considers succession arrangements for the most senior Executive positions in Airservices. Obviously, the CEO absents himself from discussions which involve review of his remuneration.10879(Question No. 1632)163210879O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Re gional Services, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) How many of the 47 Airservices Australia (ASA) officers entitled to receive a bonus payment received the maximum payment possible in the 1995-96; 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years and to date in the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) In each case, and for each bonus payment, what weight was given to the average weekly ordinary time earnings index, advice from Mercers Cullen Egan Dell and a performance appraisal by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the ASA.(3) What is the basis for the variation in the maximum value of each bonus, as advised in answer to question on notice no. 1265 (Senate Hansard, 27 September 1999, p.8802) and who determines, in each case, the maximum bonus available.(4) What was the rating for each officer entitled to apply for a bonus payment against the five-point scale referred to in the answer to question on notice no.1265, for each bonus assessment made since July 1995.(5) What does the following advice, given in answer to question on notice no.1265, actually mean: `The ratings given by Executive Managers may be normalised by the CEO'.10880Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by Airservices Australia that Senator O'Brien's line of questions in relation to Airservices' senior manager remuneration is very detailed and has the potential to traverse areas normally covered by Privacy legislation.It has been a long-standing practice dating back to the last Labor Government that Government owned commercial enterprises, such as Airservices, introduce market based remuneration on condition that senior management jobs are advertised widely and filled on a merit basis, on the first occasion that they become vacant.Under current Government guidelines, Airservices is required to manage relations with employees in a manner consistent with the Workplace Relations Act 1996, consult with the Remuneration Tribunal in determining the remuneration of their CEO, and comply with any specific requirements set by the Minister for Workplace Relations in consultation with the Minister and the Prime Minister, if appropriate.Airservices has advised it meets these responsibilities and discharges its ongoing accountability requirements by appropriate Board supervision, retention of independent market advice from Mercers Cullen Egan Dell (in relation to the annual increase in total attainable remuneration, including the bonus) and annual performance assessments by the relevant supervisor, reviewed and, if necessary, altered by the CEO under "normalisation" arrangements.Airservices reports the remuneration of executive managers in its annual report each year in accordance with the reporting guidelines issued by the Department of Finance. These virtually replicate the reporting requirements for companies under Corporations Law.The Government believes that questions by Senator O'Brien that go beyond the information provided through these reporting arrangements would be an unreasonable call on resources.10880(Question No. 1658)165810880Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Thursday, 30 September 1999.With reference to educational institutions which operated under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 and the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students: (a) over the past 12 months, as of 30 September 1999, how many people who came to Australia on student visas have been deported; and (b) what are the names of the educational institutions at which they were enrolled.10880Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) The Department of Education, Training & Youth Affairs (DETYA) does not maintain this information, however the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) has advised the following:Visitors to Australia who are convicted criminals or a risk to national security are "deported". People visiting Australia who are in breach of the conditions of a student visa are "removed".The number of student visa holders "removed" for the 12 months to 30 September 1999 include:. 584 monitored departures, that is, unlawful citizens who were located and granted a bridging visa to depart Australia of their own volition;. 68 supervised departures, that is, unlawful citizens who purchase their own ticket but are detained and escorted to the airport, granted a bridging visa at the airport in order to be lawful on departure from Australia; and. 126 removal of detainees, that is, persons who are detained, have their ticket purchased byDIMA and who are escorted to the airport and removed.(b) DETYA does not maintain this information and DIMA has advised that their statistical reporting systems are unable to provide information on removals by educational institution.