1999-11-303914SENATE1099301999-11-30The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous10993Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the amendments to standing orders 76(1) and 67, adopted as temporary orders on 29 April 1999 and as sessional orders on 30 June 1999 and relating to the giving of notices of motion and the postponement of business, be adopted as standing orders with effect from 1 January 2000.Miscellaneous109931099310993Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:(1) That estimates hearings by legislation committees for the year 2000 be scheduled as follows:1999-2000 additional estimates: Monday, 7 February, Tuesday, 8 February and, if required, Friday, 11 February (initial hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 9 February, Thursday, 10 February and, if required, Friday, 11 February (initial hearing—Group B ) Tuesday, 2 May and, if required, Thursday, 4 May (supplementary hearings—Group A ) Wednesday, 3 May and, if required, Thursday, 4 May (supplementary hearings—Group B ).2000-2001 budget estimates: Monday, 22 May to Thursday, 25 May (initial hearings—Group A ) Monday, 29 May to Thursday, 1 June (initial hearings—Group B ) Wednesday, 29 November and, if required, Friday, 1 December (supplementary hearings—Group A ) Thursday, 30 November and, if required, Friday, 1 December (supplementary hearings—Group B ).(2) That the committees meet in accordance with the groupings agreed to on 26 November 1998.(3) That the committees report to the Senate by the following dates: Thursday, 9 March 2000 in respect of the 1999-2000 additional estimates Thursday, 22 June 2000 in respect of the 2000-2001 budget estimates.(4) That the following documents be referred to legislation committees for examination and report in respect of the 1999-2000 additional estimates: Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2000 Particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 2000 Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2000 Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—Issues from the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 1999 (tabled 21 October 1999 ) Provision for running costs borrowings—Statements and supporting applications of issues for May and June 1999 (tabled 29 September 1999 ) Final budget outcome 1998-99 (tabled 28 September 1999 ).(5) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure, expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration, the provision for running costs borrowings and the final budget outcome 1998-99 in accordance with the allocation of departments to committees agreed to on 11 November 1998.(6) That consideration of the Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration for the year ended 30 June 1999 in committee of the whole be an order of the day for the day on which legislation committees report on their examination of the Issues from the Advance.Business1099310993Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the days of meeting of the Senate in the year 2000 be as follows:Autumn sittings: Monday, 14 February to Thursday, 17 February Monday, 6 March to Thursday, 9 March Monday, 13 March to Thursday, 16 March Monday, 3 April to Thursday, 6 April Monday, 10 April to Thursday, 13 April. Winter sittings: Tuesday, 9 May to Thursday, 11 May Monday, 5 June to Thursday, 8 June Monday, 19 June to Thursday, 22 June Monday, 26 June to Thursday, 29 June.Spring sittings: Monday, 14 August to Thursday, 17 August Monday, 4 September to Thursday, 7 September Monday, 11 September to Thursday, 14 September Tuesday, 3 October to Thursday, 5 October Monday, 9 October to Thursday, 12 October Monday, 30 October to Thursday, 2 November Monday, 6 November to Thursday, 9 November Monday, 27 November to Tuesday, 28 November Monday, 4 December to Thursday, 7 December.Bills10994r91210994Consideration resumed from 26 November.09:33:0010994Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—The opposition's position in relation to the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 has been outlined comprehensively previously in the speeches that were given on the second reading. We have also circulated a number of amendments. We are interested in hearing the government's position with regard to those amendments at this point. As I recall, and I could be wrong, there was not a wrap-up from the government on the second reading. If there was then I stand corrected.Broadly, we support some of the provisions that are in the bill. We support the name change of the bill. We believe that it more accurately reflects the functions of the bill. We are happy to support the change to the words `equal opportunity for women in the workplace'. We are not supporting a number of the other sections, and we have circulated amendments in the chamber in that regard. I think what we intend to do has been very adequately canvassed in the second reading debate. I will speak to the amendments as we come to them. I move opposition amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (line 12), at the end of the definition of employment matters , add: ; (g) arrangements for dealing with pregnant, or potentially pregnant employees and employees who are breastfeeding their children.09:35:0010994Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I think now is the appropriate time to make some general remarks on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , and then we can proceed with the amendments individually.The Australian Democrats are strong supporters of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. When the Affirmative Action Act was introduced in 1986, the Democrats stated their hope that it would give women a real choice to work in paid employment and to remove some of the impediments that stood in the way of women having equal employment opportunities to men. Unfortunately, the position of women in the workplace has improved, but not sufficiently, since the act was introduced. It would be a wonderful thing if this act was not required but in fact it is more required than ever and is needed to assist in the advancement of women.Women today still do not have the same employment opportunities as men. Recently the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency outlined the following specific problems that remain in Australia's work force in relation to gender inequality. He remarked that Australia still has one of the most gender segregated work forces of OECD countries, which is extraordinary given the nature of Australian society; that the proportion of women in management is unacceptably low, and I should add to that that the proportion of women who are directors is still unacceptably low; that women still earn only 84 per cent on average of what men earn; that there are specific industries where affirmative action has had little or no impact; that there has been a sharp increase in casual employment in recent years across the spectrum of the Australian work force; that the fastest growing area of employment is contracting; and that women are overrepresented in part-time and casual employment.We all know that this parliament itself does not set a high enough standard in terms of the number of women represented in the parliament, and that is true of the parliaments of all nine governments that we have in this country.Seventy per cent of those who live in poverty in this country are women and their dependent children. Poverty in Australia is attached to the gender issue and is directly related to the unequal employment opportunities available to women, in particular women with children. As recent research has demonstrated, in countries where women are not given a choice to balance their work and family commitments they are choosing not to have families. That, frankly, is not in the long-term interests of Australia.Continuing workplace practices which discourage women from balancing work and family life will have serious social consequences, such as an ageing and shrinking population. Due to ongoing discrimination against women in the workplace, the Democrats are extremely concerned about any watering down of the impact of this act or the role of the Affirmative Action Agency. We believe that the act is fundamentally sound and has a continuing and vital role in scrutinising Australian workplaces in their treatment of female employees.I would love to be able to say that we have reached a stage where discrimination against women in the workplace is an isolated or aberrant event which does not require the ongoing scrutiny of government. However, we are so far from achieving that goal that I cannot support the government's moves to relax the scrutiny and the reporting provisions of the government agency in those provisions where they have done that. There are some parts of the bill which are sensible and which the Democrats will support. These include changing the name of the act to reflect its aim to achieve equal opportunity for women, rather than to retain the connotation of quotas and reverse discrimination that the term `affirmative action' sometimes has. The Democrats support the clarification of the objects of the act to make explicit that this legislation is about creating equal opportunities for women, that is, it aims to level the playing field which at the moment is tilted towards men. The Democrats understand that Australia has an extremely gender segregated work force and that women still do not have the same opportunities for employment and promotion as do men. This means that legislation such as this bill plays a vital role in enshrining in legislation the principles of equal opportunity.I want to compliment the government for maintaining an attachment to this form of legislation. Although we will be opposing a number of provisions in the bill, nevertheless we think that overall the approach of continuing emphasis on equal opportunity for women is important. The legislation still has much to achieve. The agency still has much to achieve and the Democrats do not support weakening its capacity to achieve its aims. We will be supporting the first amendment and thank the Labor Party for putting it forward.09:40:0010995Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I thank Senator Murray for his comments and his clarification of the Democrats' position. I wish to briefly amplify the provisions of the first amendment. As I indicated before, we support the broadening of the definition of employment matters covered by the act. Our amendment further extends this definition of employment to include arrangements for dealing with pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees. As Senator Murray has indicated, this additional extension acknowledges both women's right to work and the economic contribution that women make. By making pregnancy an explicit employment matter we are acknowledging that the practical day-to-day management of pregnant workers is the responsibility of the employer, rather than the incumbent and the emphasis being on the employee.The Labor Party amendment is in line with the thrust of the report of the national pregnancy and work inquiry, Pregnant and productive and submissions to this inquiry have indicated that:Employees in workplaces that have access to well articulated, comprehensive frameworks that cover sex discrimination, pregnancy and maternity leave felt a sense of security, reduced anxiety and were better placed to plan for their future.We believe that these are benefits that should flow from extending the definition of employment matters to pregnant, potentially pregnant and breastfeeding employees.Prior to my commending the amendment to the Senate, I wish to indicate—and I would like the government to respond to this—that the report I alluded to previously, Pregnant and productive, has been sitting around for some time within the government's purview. We have not seen any action with regard to that report. Before we proceed to the amendment, I take the opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary precisely what is happening with that report and why we have not seen any response from the government to date.09:43:0010996Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government received the report in the middle of the year. It was publicly tabled in about August, as I am informed. We regard it as a very important report. It has a number of quite complex matters considered in it. We do not think the way it is being proceeded with here—that is, by senators seeking to amend this bill—is a comprehensive and coordinated approach to implement its recommendations.The government will be responding to the report fairly early in the new year. It is a report that we take seriously. We do not think it sensible to pluck out some of the recommendations and implement them in this bill. As the honourable senator opposite would know, the recommendations cover a range of pieces of Commonwealth legislation and other forms of Commonwealth activity and action. We think there should be an integrated and coordinated approach to firstly responding to the recommendations, and then implementing those that we believe have merit. We are opposed to the idea of just plucking out some of the recommendations in what can only be described—and not in a pejorative way, but in an accurate way—as an ad hoc fashion, as is being done here at the moment.We have been invited to give a view on the opposition amendments. We will not be supporting them. We have looked at them closely. We are opposing the first amendment. We believe that women are protected from discrimination on these grounds under the Sex Discrimination Act. We are familiar with the recommendations of the HREOC report. As I have said, we will be considering those in detail, comprehensively, and will be responding to those in the near future.This bill and the Workplace Relations Act provide employers and employees with the necessary degree of flexibility to formulate conditions of service and workplace organisations that accommodate the needs of workers with family responsibilities. It is worth pointing out that something like 68 per cent of certified agreements and 79 per cent of Australian workplace agreements approved under the Workplace Relations Act already include a range of family friendly provisions. That is all that I really need to say at this stage. We will be voting against this amendment.09:46:0010996Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I have just a brief remark. We think that pregnancy and breastfeeding issues are very strong issues in this question of discrimination. They are clearly women's issues—I guess it is strange for me to be talking about them—and they are directly relevant to the issue of equal employment opportunity for women and how women are treated in the workplace. Coming from a part of the world where breastfeeding was a normal and natural accompaniment to daily life—it was not regarded as something to be hidden away—I perhaps have a different experience of it in the culture I was brought up in. We think it is appropriate that these recommendations be included in the definition of employment matters. They will do no harm—that is for sure—and they may well do a great deal of good, so we support them.09:47:0010996Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do need to respond. If you want to extrapolate from those remarks that the government does not think they are important, then it is a false extrapolation. The government has received a comprehensive report from HREOC on this issue. We regard it as important that, when you have a body of work like that done, you respond to it in a comprehensive, integrated and serious manner. You do not just pluck out a couple of recommendations on the run because a bill happens to be appearing in the Senate at about the same time and impose it.I certainly respect the fact that this report makes important recommendations and has moved the debate along on these issues, but I make the partisan point that Labor certainly could have put these matters into legislation in any one of the 13 years in which they were in power; they chose not to do so. The fact of the matter is that the report that the government has before it moves this debate along, increases the information at the government's disposal on these issues and will be responded to thoroughly in an integrated and coordinated manner—not just in an ad hoc fashion because we think that it might do some good.09:48:0010997Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I was hoping we might be able to move expeditiously through the bill, but I cannot let those comments go; however, I will not hold up the chamber unduly. First of all, we do not agree that this is a piecemeal approach to this issue. In fact we are proposing amendments to three bills today. We believe that, given the nature of the Senate, it is appropriate to grasp the nettle when it occurs in terms of legislative opportunities. We have a window of opportunity here. We have a report that has been kicking around for five months or so, and it is apposite and critical for us to deal with these issues at this juncture, given that we have the legislative opportunity. So we clearly do not accept that it is an ad hoc approach. It is a comprehensive approach, both in a policy sense and also in a legislative sense, to proposed amendments to three bills.Amendment agreed to.09:49:0010997Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 2:(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 21), after "contribute to", insert ", and promote,". The intent behind this amendment is to ensure that the agency remains proactive and contributes to the educational role that is so crucial if the objects of the act are to be realised. Clearly, contribution is appropriate, but the proactive angle with respect to this is critical from our perspective.09:50:0010997Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We think that the amendment is an improvement in the wording of the bill and we support it.09:50:0010997Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I will put the government's position on the record. We are opposing this. We note for the record that the bill does require employers to contribute to the achievement of equal opportunity for women. The government believes this is a far more accurate depiction of what is actually required of employers and it complements the proposed objects clause that the act promote merit based employment and the elimination of discrimination. `Contribute to the achievement of' equal opportunity requires substantive actions, not just verbal promotion of EEO, to be taken. In addition, the agency will be guided by the objects of the act, which recognise the broader promotional context in terms of extending the benefits of EEO for women more widely.Amendment agreed to.09:51:0010997Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 3:(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 25), after item 9, insert:9A Subsection 3(1) Insert: potentially pregnant has the meaning given by section 4B of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 .Opposition amendment No. 3 inserts a definition for the term `potentially pregnant'. This is to ensure the proper meaning of the opposition amendment that was just carried to extend the definition of employment matters to include potentially pregnant employees. This arises from the Pregnant and productive report, which confirms that women continue to be discriminated against on the basis of potential pregnancy. In terms of the current debate, that is not desirable. The report says:An example of direct discrimination on the ground of potential pregnancy is where an employer refuses to employ women of child bearing age because they may become pregnant.This is something that women face on a daily basis and, unfortunately, have faced increasingly over the last few years. If you go for a job interview, it is very common, even though it is unlawful, to be asked what your plans are with regard to pregnancy. Quite often, these things are difficult to predict. Nevertheless, it is clearly unlawful to ask about this.Given that it is unlawful, the opposition believes it is important to expand the definition to include `potentially pregnant'. This will ensure, hopefully, that the types of inquiries and surveys similar to the one that Senator Allison referred to in the Senate quite recently from Australia Post will become clearly unlawful. It sends a signal to employers that this sort of behaviour is untenable and will not be countenanced. More importantly, from a legislative perspective, it provides clarification in relation to the existing act.09:53:0010998Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—We think this is a technical amendment, and we are supporting it.09:53:0010998Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Murray is right: it is technical. It flows from the first amendment, which the government opposed. We are clearly opposed to this one as well.Amendment agreed to.09:54:0010998Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 4:(4) Schedule 1, item 15, page 5 (after line 26), before subsection 8 (1), insert: (1A) Before developing a workplace program, a relevant employer must: (a) confer responsibility for the development and implementation of the program (including a continuous review of the program) on a person or persons having sufficient authority and status within the management of the relevant employer to enable the person or persons properly to develop and implement the program; and (b) consult with each trade union having members affected by the proposal for the development and implementation of the program; and (c) consult with employees of the relevant employer, particularly employees who are women.This amendment is critical for the opposition because it is designed to ensure maximum consultation with management and employees in the development and continuous review of workplace programs. It also ensures responsibility for the development and continuous review of workplace programs, ensuring that they continue to reside with a senior person in the company. The amendment reflects recommendation 2 of the review of the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 which specified that the legislation should `promote consultation between employers and employees and their representatives in addressing equity issues in the workplace'.This review recognised the role that unions play through its reference to employees' representatives. In fact, far from recommending against union consultation, the review's main reference to unions was a discussion of the workplace data analysed by the Centre for Research in Employment and Work. I quote from that report:. . . unionised workplaces have better equity performance than non-unionised workplaces, and the higher the level of union density the more likely the workplace is to have high equity performance.Proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in the Labor amendment are taken directly from section 8 of the act. They ensure that the process remains in the hands of senior people, who are determinants in the final decision making, and that the consultation is comprehensive.From our perspective, this amendment deserves the full support of the Senate. To do otherwise, we believe, would represent a substantial watering down of the existing legislation. I commend the amendment to the Senate. 09:56:0010999Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Paragraph (a) of opposition amendment No. 4 ensures that a senior person or relatively senior person within the organisation has responsibility for developing and implementing the appropriate workplace program. That is important to ensure that the program is given due weight and support within the organisation. If it were not passed, there is the potential for an organisation to delegate responsibility for equal opportunity to a person with a junior role without the proper support of the organisation. It gives the right signal.Paragraph (b) requires consultation with the relevant trade unions in the development and implementation of workplace programs—of course only if the unions are available for that purpose. Paragraph (c) requires consultation with employees, particularly women if they are there. We support requirements for consultation with women employees as they are best placed in the enterprise to know how their employer treats women and what else can be done to promote equal opportunity on a reasonable basis. It is the reasonable basis which should always be pursued. I cannot imagine the agency supporting any unreasonable approach.Overall, we think this amendment improves the development and implementation of workplace programs under the act. We support it.09:57:0010999Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The proposed amendment is opposed by the government. We regard it as a form of almost 1950s and 1960s style prescription. The federal government is effectively advising a company, corporation or organisation of just who they should have within the organisation running a particular program. It is a very paternalistic, nanny-knows-best approach to seeking an outcome. It is totally contrary to the government's view that, basically, organisations should come within their own structure to produce the best outcome under the objects of the act. There is a new objects clause in this bill which makes those objects quite clear. They are matters that are agreed upon around the table.What we cannot agree on is the way that this amendment would seek to have the government from on high advise every organisation in Australia just how they should implement the program. We are sending a message from the federal government that equal opportunity in the workplace is a good thing. We go through a new set of reporting arrangements aimed at encouraging EEO programs to be incorporated into strategic human resource priorities. It is a far more modern approach to business and organisation.Instead of saying in the law, `Thou shalt put some senior person in charge of it,' we are saying that, if you really want to make equal opportunity in the workplace move forward, you have to have all organisations grab it and internalise it and make it part of the mainstream operations of their business. To seek to do that legislatively, we have set out a reporting arrangement organisation structure that provides organisations with flexibility. If organisations seek to bring their equal opportunity programs into the mainstream of their human resources activities—and, in fact, into all of their activities—you are far more likely to get an outcome which is equivalent to the government's and the parliament's objects and the objects set down in the legislation.This amendment is one of the more odious ones, from the government's point of view, because it is a backward step to the 1950s and 1960s, where the government says, `This is what you have got to do. Not only are we telling you that we think society believes that equal opportunity in the workplace is a good thing but we are telling you that a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians in Canberra will tell you the best way to achieve it.' `How are we going to achieve it?' `We think that the way you need to achieve it is to appoint some senior person in the organisation to be responsible for it.' So, to comply with the amendment if this ever became law—and I really hope that it does not, because it is such a regressive step to have a federal government saying, `This is how you should do it,' when the government's view, which is a far more forward-looking view, is to say, `You need to incorporate these concepts in the daily operations of your business; you need to inculcate this into all of your business practices and all of your organisation's internal structures'—employers would in the future have to do the opposite of that and find a door in the building and write on it, `I am the officer in charge of equal opportunities in the workplace,' and then the organisation could say it had complied with the act.This is really a classic jump into the dark, into the past, by the Australian Labor Party. I would be very surprised if people like Mark Latham and the forward-thinkers in the Labor Party would support this sort of leap into the dark ages. I am, quite frankly, flabbergasted that the Democrats would, in the late 1990s, support such a backward step. Here we are with the government saying, `Let's make equal opportunity in the workplace something that is filtered through and put into the mainstream of organisational thinking in companies, organisations and businesses around Australia,' yet the Democrats are supporting a proposal to say that if you appoint an equal opportunity officer you have basically passed the test. It really is not in tune with management thinking or organisational thinking. Apart from it being a bit of tokenism—I can see that you could put in a political pamphlet, `We made sure that a senior person was responsible for equal opportunity'—it might make you feel good to think that you actually achieved something.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—That's what the current act does.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I hear the interjection saying that is what the current act does. I hear what Senator Murray says, quite frankly, on what the current act achieves. The government is fair dinkum about improving equal opportunities in the workplace, and I know Senator Murray is. Senator Murray has said—and I support him in his words—that the current legislative regime, which is one that we have inherited from previous decades, `has not done enough and has not seen Australia achieve improvements in equal opportunity in the workplace'. Senator Crossin by interjection is saying, `That's what the current act does.' We are saying that the current act is a failure, and that is why we are here today trying to improve it.7Y6CROSSINSenator Crossin—This is going to make it worse.Senator Mackay interjecting—10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order, Senator Mackay and Senator Crossin!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—This is important. I have been very brief on the amendments. It is very good to see the Labor Party's new focus on having legislation passed through the parliament in a timely manner. It was good that last night we saw the shortest debate on an industrial relations bill in the history of Australia, and we welcome that. Perhaps these points do not sit comfortably with the ALP but they are points that I think most people around Australia accept—and you are communicating with businesses big and small across Australia when you are doing these sorts of things. The government is saying, `We think that you should make equal opportunity part of your mainstream business practices. Don't create a little office over in the corner with a badge on it saying, "This is the equal opportunity office," and, when you've done that, think that that is your job done. We are saying to put it into the mainstream of your organisation.' That is what the government is saying. It is a very important principle that we are dealing with here. The Labor Party and the Democrats are saying, `No; put a little badge of someone's door, and that is how you fix it.' We think it is wrong. We are opposed to this amendment.10:05:0011000Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I will be brief. I want to quote for the parliamentary secretary's edification from the second reading speech of Minister Reith, where he indicated that the independent committee appointed by the government to review the act had unanimously found that the act had delivered `substantial gains to women and desirable outcomes for business', and was still fulfilling a valued and valuable role. The intent of the Labor Party amendments is to in fact extend the role with regard to that. I had hoped, as probably many senators would have, to proceed expeditiously with regard to this, but we really cannot—and my colleague Senator Crossin will probably make similar remarks—let the comments of the parliamentary secretary go unanswered.It is unfortunate that, whilst I appreciate the work that Senator Campbell does, in terms of senior people we do not have Minister Alston and Minister Newman here, and so it falls to Senator Campbell to carry the legislation through. That is a pretty good indication of the government's priority in relation to it. We are saying to business—Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—I am not casting aspersions on Senator Ian Campbell at all. I appreciate that this is the role of many of us in taking legislation through. It is an interesting illustration of how, when you are looking at the nature of systemic discrimination, it is important to start at the top where the decisions are actually made. That is the intent of this amendment. We are saying that in addressing systemic discrimination we are concerned that business will be getting the wrong signal unless it is defined in terms of the types of person that we believe ought to be undertaking these positions. That is the nature of systemic discrimination. That is why we as a party have introduced affirmative action provisions. That is why we as a party now have a record number—from our perspective—of women in parliament.The point about that is that, in order to change the existing political paradigm, you need to get more women in to make a difference. In terms of changing the way the business sector thinks about things, the responsibility for these activities has to reside with a senior person in the organisation. That is the nature of systemic discrimination. Here again, whilst I appreciate and respect the work that Senator Campbell is doing here today, it would have been handy if a senior member of the government were here to take this legislation through—casting no aspersions on Senator Campbell in relation to it.10:08:0011001Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I must say that this is going to be one of the few times during this debate when I will disagree with you slightly, Senator Mackay, because I notice that, in terms of legislation that Senator Campbell has had to deal with in his time as Leader of the Government in the Senate, I would judge him to be regarded as pretty senior, otherwise he would not have the job. I think he is senior enough for this.A very important point has been made by Senator Campbell. In part, it is very philosophical but in part it is very practical. You made remarks about trying to get away from the `nanny state'. I think the purpose of these amendments is to try to get away from, to coin a rather bad phrase, the `manny state'. The problem is that the act has not yet achieved the best outcomes. With the putting of responsibility on a person, what the government has done in other legislation which Senator Campbell and I have debated is to actually put responsibility on classes of people. In the Corporations Law, to take an example, below the level of listed companies the government has said that the responsibilities of the role of company secretary should not be on a person but should be on the directors—in other words, on a class of people.Right behind the Labor amendment is a view that directors or senior management—people with real authority—should have responsibility in this area. If the Labor amendment had been put either way I would have accepted that directors were responsible or senior management was responsible. The real point they are making is that you cannot have the responsibility allocated to the entire company of 100 people—although they should all hopefully have their spirits behind it—because they do not have authority. You cannot allocate it to the storeman or the receptionist because they do not have authority.I think you are only halfway there with your rebuttal of the arguments, if I may say so, Senator Campbell. If you say that responsibility should be given to a class of person and that class of person is directors or senior management, then you are giving proper authority and power behind it. I do not know how the Labor Party would consider such a response from the government but it is in the right direction; but in the absence of that, they are making the right point—that somebody senior, if it is not a class of people, has to be responsible in this area and that, as far as possible, trade unions, if they are relevant to that enterprise, and women employees should be consulted. I do not think that advances the `nanny state' and, hopefully, it gets rid of the `manny state'.10:11:0011002Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I want to make a few comments in response to Senator Campbell's comments. The current act does allow for a senior person within an organisation or a business—and we are not just talking about businesses here; we are also talking about institutions such as universities, organisations and even trade unions—to comply with this legislation. I want to make a number of comments in relation to our amendment. If the act has been successful—and there are acknowledgments across the board that there are still significant improvements to be made—then there is a case for mainstreaming, but that has not been the case. In fact, in the extensive consultations that the Affirmative Action Agency underwent in reviewing this act and in the report they produced, Unfinished business: equity for women in Australian workplaces , around the country there was substantial affirmation that organisations or businesses who were represented at those consultations still believed there was a need to at least identify somebody in the senior management of those organisations or businesses who had responsibility for this.It does not necessarily mean having a particular person, such as an equal opportunity officer or some significant equivalent name, with a label on their door. In some institutions or businesses that is appropriate, but in other businesses it may well be that somebody is given the responsibility at a senior level because of the importance of the commitment to this. We would like to be able to mainstream these programs if we had got there in terms of affirmative action or equal opportunity for women in the workplace and we were no longer still trying to achieve the targets but had met those targets. That is not the case.In relation to consulting with trade unions, again in those extensive consultations and in the report of the Affirmative Active Agency, there was no demonstrated evidence that consulting with trade unions in a workplace, where such a trade union existed and it was applicable, was a bad thing or that that had had a negative impact on what the business was trying to achieve. In fact, there were many examples of where the sectors within a business had actually worked together cooperatively to achieve an affirmative action plan and to try and improve targets. So there is no demonstrated evidence to show that consulting with a trade union is anything but a positive issue.You perhaps take it for granted that, in developing an equal opportunity plan in the workplace, businesses or institutions will consult with women who are concerned; and that is not necessarily the case. This act is about establishing consultative committees or equity committees that develop these plans together and cooperatively. I reiterate that that is why our three suggestions in this amendment should stand. We have not reached the targets. We are not at the stage where we can sit back and say, `Let's mainstream. Let's not specifically consult with a major component in the workplace and let's take it for granted that women would be consulted', because, at this stage, all three of those things are not happening in each and every workplace.10:15:0011002Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I appreciate Senator Crossin's contribution. I do not think we disagree too much on where we are trying to go. The scheme of this act is to make some very clear outcomes and objectives crystal clear to society, and particularly all organisations, and I have been careful this morning to talk about not only businesses but a whole range of organisations. It does not matter whether you work in a for-profit public corporation or a not-for-profit small voluntary organisation: your human rights are equally important. No matter where you find yourself working or where you choose to work, particularly if you are a woman, you should have as your birthright equal opportunity—the difference is how we achieve the aim.Let me just pick up one of Senator Murray's points. Through this act, we seek to move away from the sort of prescription which is inherent in this amendment. The amendment seeks to confer responsibility on a person or persons. So to meet the requirements of the act—if it is amended in this way—you would be able to confer responsibility on exactly the sort of person Senator Crossin is talking about, an equal opportunity officer who is judged, I presume, in the eyes of the organisation as being sufficiently senior to have that responsibility. I guess that is something that could be contentious. I guess someone could come in say, `That is not a senior enough person. You have not met the requirements of the legislation.' But, ultimately, an organisation that was not serious enough about equal opportunity to meet the requirements of the legislation could simply appoint a person whom they judge to be senior but whom others may judge not to be senior enough. Just to re-emphasise, we think moving back towards prescription and saying, `This is how you achieve equal opportunity; appoint someone with responsibility,' is not the way to go.Ultimately, it will be a class of people, as Senator Murray said, who will have the responsibility and who will be judged on their performance and not on their organisational structure. You can set up a whiz-bang organisational chart with little boxes and lines joining them saying, `This is our equal opportunity person; senior on the hierarchy.' But ultimately the government wants to see what has been achieved by that organisation at the end of the day, at the end of next year or the year after in terms of equal opportunity. Have they made progress? The people who will be made responsible and held responsible are the managers—as a class of people, to use Senator Murray's words. It might be the management of a small organisation or it might be the board of directors of a large organisation. They are the people who will be held responsible. They will be judged and they will be accountable under the reporting requirements.I agree with Senator Crossin that in many organisations consulting with trade unions, where they have an association with the workplace, could be regarded as a constructive and sensible part of building an equal opportunity program within an organisation. There are some workplaces that have trade union representation where that sort of consultation would be prudent, sensible and constructive. We want to move away from having legislation and a prescription that says, `Thou shalt do that.' We believe the onus should be put on the organisation; you do not prescribe those sorts of things from on high anymore. We think that is counterproductive.Equally, with your consultation with employees, why would you seek to mandate that sort of thing? When you mandate that all you are doing is telling organisations how to go about building their organisations to meet the objects of equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Why mandate how they do it? That leads to a `tick a box' approach. Firstly, you would appoint a person who is in charge of the area and you would make them as senior as it suits you, depending on how fair dinkum you are about this. Secondly, you would say, `Right, we have to go and consult with the trade union and we have to go and consult with employees.' If you were not fair dinkum about it, you would just tick those three boxes and say, `I have done my job.'We do not want that approach. That is the classic approach where Canberra tells you to fill in a form—a Bureau of Statistics form. You fill it in, send it back and the job is done. That is the approach we are trying to get away from. Our view, Senator Murray, is, yes, make a class of people responsible; and this act makes a class of people responsible—the management. The organisation will be judged on the results they have achieved, not on whether they have appointed someone to be in charge of it. The managers will be responsible and the board of directors will be responsible.It is not about mainstreaming—to use Senator Crossin's word—as opposed to making it an area of Commonwealth legislative action. As has been recognised by all speakers, the Commonwealth would not be here today bringing forward this legislation if we were not fair dinkum about requiring legislative action to improve equal opportunity for women in the workplace. Senator Murray, in his opening comments, gave the Commonwealth credit for maintaining a legislative approach in this area of action. If the Commonwealth did not think that that was appropriate, we would not be here today discussing it, and we are. It may be a philosophical divide but, as Senator Murray said, it is also a practical one—when you want a send a message to organisations to lift their game in relation to these matters, you need to have a practical approach.The Commonwealth believes that telling people they have to appoint an officer, consult with trade unions and consult with employees, particularly women, is a prescriptive approach which, in practical terms, will be counterproductive. It will not achieve improvement; and we are about achieving improvement. Just like organisations, the government will be judged at the end of the day on whether we have achieved an improvement, and that is how we would like to be judged.Amendment agreed to.10:22:0011004Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 5:(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsections 13A(2) and (3), substitute: (2) A relevant employer must prepare a public report in respect of the period of 12 months commencing on 1 April 2000 and after that, in respect of each consecutive period of 12 months.This amendment reflects a major concern that the opposition has in terms of the diminution of the compliance requirements of employers under the act. We note with interest Senator Campbell's comments that the government would not be here today if it did not care about these issues. The government is here today with a series of changes which effectively water down this act which was initiated by Labor in government. Far from an enhanced commitment to affirmative action, the government is here actually diminishing its commitment by watering down the act fairly substantially. We think this area is probably one of the more salutary examples of that.The reporting arrangements of the act are an important component in achieving the objectives of the act. I think Senator Campbell himself indicated that this is how the judgment of performance is determined—that is, in relation to the reporting requirements. Thus, it provides some empirical evidence as to how organisations are proceeding with regard to the provisions of the act, and we believe it should not be watered down.The opposition amendment deletes subsections (2) and (3), which allow for employers to report biennially—which is a change—and replaces them with another subsection which has the original reporting time from the original bill, which is annually. I think everybody in the debate has recognised that women continue to be discriminated against in the workplace and, while clearly some improvements have been made—fewer than we would all like, particularly in the last 3½ years—now is not the time from our perspective to water down and diminish the act and reduce the reporting arrangements for companies. Just to reiterate, it is those reporting arrangements that allow the people of Australia, through the parliament, to determine how a particular organisation is going with regard to meeting the provisions of the act.In 1998 Katherine Harris, the Director of the Affirmative Action Agency, commented that the following persistent problems remain, and these will come as no surprise to people in this chamber: Australia still has one of the most gender segregated work forces of the OECD. The number of women in management remains low—appallingly low in fact, substantially lower than even the proportion of women in parliaments. Achieving pay equity still remains a significant challenge. That is something that we believe was dealt a not insignificant blow by the Workplace Relations Act. Also, 70 per cent of those who live in poverty in Australia are women and their dependent children.She also said that in countries where women are not given a choice to balance their work and family commitments, they are choosing not to have families and to remain in the paid work force; this is happening in this country now. There is a lot of debate at the moment in relation to why women in Australia are not having children at the rate they previously were. Clearly, if that is to be a priority of our society, one of the things that has to happen is that we have to ensure women are supported in that role by provisions in relation to child care and by some of the amendments that we have already carried or are yet to carry with regard to pregnancy.The important thing is that women need to feel that they are valued and that they are not discriminated against. We do not believe from our side of politics that a laissez faire, leave-it-to-the-market attitude is germane in relation to these amendments.So I agree with Senator Campbell: we do need reporting, we do need an adequate report and we do need an empirical measure by which to determine the progress of organisations. But we do not believe that that objective is served by moving to biennial reporting. We believe it is important that the original act's provision of annual reporting be retained.10:27:0011005Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government has sought to move through this legislation to biennial reporting because virtually everyone who reviewed this act told us that that would improve the potential to achieve equal opportunity in the workplace for women. The feedback we got from the Independent Review Committee, the Affirmative Action Agency and the Office of the Status of Women all said that the one-year cycle was too short and that it effectively led to organisational resources being tied up basically filling out forms as opposed to strategic implementation of equal employment opportunity initiatives. That really is the reason the government changed the reporting time: all of these agencies and independent committees that looked at the annual reporting structure said that it basically ensured you did not have time to get into implementing programs because you spent half the year filling out forms.The agency itself made the recommendation to the Independent Review Committee. Not only did the agency, as was referred to by Senator Crossin earlier, acknowledge the benefits that would flow from moving to biennial reporting in terms of what it would confer on organisations and their EEO programs; it also made the point that it would free up the agency's resources to assist organisations to make substantive gains.So the independent review saw this as a win-win. Firstly, organisations who were supposed to be implementing EEO programs would benefit because they would spend more time building equal employment opportunity programs into the mainstream of their organisations. I think Senator Crossin and I use different terminology when it comes to `mainstream'. My view is that the outcome of EEO programs should be to build them into the mainstream of that organisation. Furthermore, the agency itself would not have to spend so much time and so much of its resources basically receiving these annual reports.When a government requires an organisation to report annually, it puts a burden on two sets of people: firstly, on those filling out the forms; and, secondly, on the agency receiving the forms, collating them and analysing them. We have had the business sector, the organisational sector, saying, `We cannot spend our time productively in equal employment opportunity program development if we are spending all this time filling out forms,' and we have had the agency telling us, `Our time, our resources—limited as they always are when you are part of a government organisation—can be spent more effectively developing and making substantive gains in terms of equal employment opportunity if we do not have this annual reporting regime.' So the government was incredibly happy to endorse the recommendation. We thought it was practical and sensible. We saw it as a way of improving the chances for genuine equal opportunity for women in the workplace. We are surprised, to say the least, that Labor would seek to maintain a system that all of the stakeholders have said is not working.Furthermore, the Commonwealth believes—and it has always been part of our policy—if we can relieve the burden of red tape on the community as a whole if that sort of regulation is not seen to be improving our society, then it is an important objective to achieve. We would prefer to see both the profit sector and the non-profit sector focusing their resources and energies on constructive and productive activity rather than filling in forms and complying with government red tape. Quite frankly, when you have the agency telling us, `We will improve the objects and the chances of achieving equal employment opportunity,' and we have the business sector saying, `We can do it better without having to fill in these forms,' then we really think it is a win-win situation—less red tape, better chance of achieving your objectives and better opportunities for the federal government agencies responsible to put their resources into substantive gain. I certainly hope that the Democrats will, on this occasion, support the government.10:32:0011006Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—Minister, you make some sound responses, but of course the opposition made a sound proposition in the first place. My memory of the act when I read it and the notes attached to it is that they are indeed waiving provisions so that after a reasonable period—and the opposition's next amendment addresses that—those who comply well will no longer have to report. I think the fundamental issue—and maybe it gets back to the philosophical issue—is this: the reporting provision is almost a penalty provision. If you are not doing well, you are going to carry on reporting; if you are doing well, you will not have to because of the waiving requirements. You are not going to make somebody carry on reporting if they have 100 per cent women in their workplace. Why would you?Our view is that if we had more evidence that organisations were achieving the aims of legislation then monitoring could be relaxed, and we would be interested in the government's position. But the fact is that they have not got there yet. I read the review recommendations as well. I am not sure that reducing reporting will in fact result in any improvement to the situation. I am inclined at this stage to stay with the opposition's view of it, but I recognise the points the government are making. Perhaps when things improve that will be the time to make reporting less onerous.10:34:0011006Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I do not want to prolong debate, but I think it is worth while making this point—and I think Senator Andrew Murray is more likely to appreciate it than many others in this chamber. If, for example, you as a government impose upon a whole range of organisations—most organisations in Australia are small, be they small voluntary organisations or small businesses; most have fewer than 50 people in them—laws, such as those passed from time to time by this place for the purposes of the Commonwealth gathering statistics, that the business community or any organisation see as being a burden on them and do not see any benefit in, then those laws do not end up having widespread support or are not held in high regard.We have a clear message coming from the community saying, `We don't see the EEO laws passed by the Commonwealth as being an effective way to provide equal opportunity; we see them as basically a set of regulations requiring us to fill in some forms once a year.' That is very analogous to the way most organisations see forms from the Bureau of Statistics: they see them not as something that benefits them but as something that creates a burden on them. We have had the community at large saying, `We see this as a regulatory burden from Canberra.' They do not see it as a fine philosophical principle in the ways that we like to talk about the importance of equal opportunity; they see it as yet another regulation from Canberra. So they are not likely to take very seriously the objects of the act and our fine philosophies about improving equal employment opportunity for women if they see this as yet another regulatory burden.They have come to us and said, `We'll take it seriously, but you can't be serious if you think you are going to achieve the outcomes by getting us to fill in a form every year.' We have received that input as policy makers. The agency responsible—and Senator Murray has told us that he has read the review—have told us that they regard it as a burden as well. We have had two serious inputs into the policy making process, both saying that the regulatory burden does not help to achieve the policy objective, which is equal opportunity.The important thing that flows from that is: how seriously do those organisations take us as a government and as a parliament when we are trying to say, `You are supposed to incorporate this objective of equal employment opportunity into your organisation'? They are telling us, `If you're serious about it, you won't just get us to fill in these forms and then we've done our duty.' They are saying, `We're happy to report two yearly.' The agency are saying, `We think it would be better if you reported two yearly.' But the parliament in its incredible wisdom is saying, `No, fill in the forms.' I say to the chamber that this is a classic example of nanny knows best. Ignore all of the independent advice to government and the parliament saying, `We're sick of filling in forms. We're happy to give women a better go, but we're sick and tired of governments and parliaments telling us that they know best. Fill in another form. Send it off to Canberra. Then we've done our duty.'Quite frankly, when small businesses, small organisations and voluntary organisations around the country say, `Canberra is at it again. More forms. Fill one in. Stick it in an envelope. Send it off,' no wonder they sometimes wonder what happens here in Canberra. There is all this independent advice saying, `We don't want annual reporting. Filling in a form doesn't improve equal opportunity,' yet the parliament decides in its inordinate, endless wisdom that it is going to tell businesses and organisations around the country to fill in yet another flopping form. They all tell us that that is not the way to achieve the outcome, yet Senator Murray and the Labor Party say, `No, get them to fill in another form. That is the way to get equal opportunity.'If you are a printing business, if you are in the stationery business or if you are a bureaucrat who likes processing forms, stick with the Labor Party and the Democrats because they will keep that paperwork coming. Red tape is good—that is the policy of the Democrats and Labor. More red tape means more opportunity and more equal opportunity. I think we have tried that experiment. We have tried lots of red tape to create equal opportunity. The government thinks it has failed. The agency thinks it has failed. The people of Australia think it has failed. But here in the chamber, we say, `No, let's stick at it.' Good luck to you.10:40:0011007Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—That was a passionate outburst from the parliamentary secretary. He obviously feels very strongly about red tape but perhaps not so strongly about blue tape. Let us get back to some of the serious points you made, Senator Campbell. Firstly, I think you have just misled us all quite severely. Perhaps you might like to apologise to the chamber for doing so. These provisions, as I understand the act and the bill, actually relate to organisations which have over 100 employees. Senator Campbell, the ABS definition of a small business is 20 employees or, in the case of a manufacturing organisation, 100 employees.Further provisions in various acts all indicate that small businesses are regarded as organisations of fewer than 100 employees. Several times during your discourse, I heard you refer to small business. The fact is that small business is not subject to this act. You have directly misled the parliament—either that or you have not read the act and have not understood its provisions. The fact is that there are well over one million business entities which are not subject to this act and do not have to fill in these forms.The second area in which you have misled us all is saying that the people of Australia object to these forms. I can assure you that, as somebody who is lobbied extensively by mail, by email, by letter and in person, the people of Australia have not been writing to me saying that they do not like the equal opportunity forms. The third point is that the waiver provisions are there so that these reports do not have to continue if the agency decides in certain circumstances that they do not. The problem we face is that, when you have a small agency with small resources, they have to analyse the reports that come in. Frankly, they have no other means of finding out what is going on. They cannot get out into all those workplaces and enterprises to do an on-site inspection and analysis, which would be the ideal way for this situation to be resolved.The last point to make with regard to the points you made is that independent advice is just that. It is advice from people who are independent of us. The government, the opposition, the Democrats and everybody else in this place constantly ignore independent advice and take a different view. What do you think happens when we have a Senate inquiry and we have 500 independent people coming along? We accept what 300 say and reject what 200 people say. Independent advice is always dependent upon your view as to its veracity, impact and meaning. The fact that the agency or a few others independently have said something does not require the Senate to agree with it; it requires the Senate to evaluate it.On this occasion, we happen to disagree with the independent advice. But I would put on the record that the Democrats, the Labor Party and the government all agree with the independent advice on, for instance, changing the name, the objects and the definitions of the act. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot say that we have accepted the independent advice in some areas and not in others and that, therefore, we are guilty of some heinous sin against the people of Australia. I do not accept that argument. So that is my response to your passionate outburst. You have been misleading in your remarks, and you have been wrong in your remarks.10:45:0011008Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—We in the opposition are pretty keen to expedite this. We have heard from Senator Campbell a passionate exposition in relation to his obviously heartfelt views on affirmative action. However, we are keen to progress this as quickly as possible and to get through the government order of business as quickly as possible. I understand the restraints that Senator Campbell has got in relation to ensuring that all the issues are very compre hensively canvassed on the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 , but we would like to move on. I think it has been canvassed adequately, and we could perhaps proceed.7L6HOGGSenator Hogg—Stop flopping around!9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Indeed, Senator, I agree.10:46:0011008Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—It is very good to see the honourable senator opposite wanting to expedite these things. It is interesting that, at the leaders and whips meeting a few days ago, we allocated some hours to this debate. The leaders and whips all said, `That'll take a lot longer than that.' So it is good to see that, all of a sudden and after three years of telling the opposition that it is a good idea that we deal with the legislation, there has been such a significant change in their tactics.To be as effective a manager as I am and to convince the opposition to deal with the industrial relations bills—to the extent that a 10-minute euphemistically styled speech from Senator Collins is the only contribution from the entire opposition side—is a remarkable achievement in the management of the government's program. It is an achievement that I will be quite proud of. The only trouble is that, if the program is managed as easily as it has been managed in the last 24 hours, there will be no need for a manager anymore, and I will have to find some other gainful means of employment. Maybe I will have to dedicate more of my time to equal opportunity issues in the future, having—even as a very junior person in the government, Senator Murray—been able to redesign Australia's Corporations Law. I do not know why I was let loose on that job when I am so junior and ineffective.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—I didn't say that you were junior!H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I do not think I would rank high enough in the organisation to be in charge of equal opportunity in the government, though. I would be a bit too junior.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—Madam Chairman, on a point of order: I did not say that the parliamentary secretary was junior. In fact, I supported him as having sufficient seniority.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Order! There is no point of order.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—One of the points that needs to be made before the Senate votes on this amendment—and I have made two passionate pleas for the Democrats to see the light on this one—is that I do feel strongly about red tape, and I do feel very strongly about how governments go about trying to achieve worthy outcomes. We all agree passionately about the need for equal opportunity for women in the workplace. It is not as though it has been a particularly acrimonious debate today; it has been a constructive one.I want to comment on a point that Senator Murray made, and this may save me making a contribution on the next amendment, so this could be a stitch in time saving a couple. Senator Murray moved to look at the potential for waivers—and we are going to move to that amendment in a matter of seconds—and said that it is a carrot and stick. The carrot is that, if you report well you will be able to be waived out of the system and will not have to report annually, and if you are behind the game you will have to stick with annual reporting. The effect of the next amendment is that you can be waived but, as I understand the amendment, you will have to have reported annually for three years; you will have to have made three reports. So even someone who is doing quite well is going to have to stick with annual reporting for three years.Even with well-organised companies and other organisations, when you use a legislative carrot and stick that holds out the prize of not having to do annual reporting in four years time if you behave yourself this year, the carrot—to colour my analogy slightly—hanging in front of you in four years time will probably be a little bit withered, mouldy and unattractive. The carrot is to move to biennial reporting or to have the reporting requirements waived effectively after four years.I say to Senator Murray: I do not think you can rely on the waiving provisions. You have to—and I am sure you always do—look honestly at the matter. Even if an organisation with 101 people in it put in place a very good EEO program that achieved incredibly good outcomes that all of us could applaud—in other words, an exemplary organisation—they would still be forced to report annually for three years and would still not have the carrot put in front of them to move away from the reporting regime until the fourth year. So it is not much of a carrot.As I said—passionately, because I believe in it passionately—the point I am trying to make, which may have been lost amongst all that passion, is that organisations out there need to embrace the concepts of equal employment opportunity in the workplace. Forcing them to fill in forms militates against them embracing the ideals in the act, because they will see it as just another imposition from Canberra, not as a good idea. We want them to see it as a good idea.10:52:0011009Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In rising to speak on this amendment, I would like to indicate that Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting the government. We are supporting them because I do not believe that the government are attempting to diminish or water down the legislation. I believe that they are trying to find a balance that will give women the equal opportunity in the work force they are entitled and consider the rights of the employer. I would like to comment on a statement by Senator Murray that, if an employer reports well for three years, it can apply for a waiver—which is the concern of the next amendment. I have a series of issues I would like to raise on that, and I would appreciate having Senator Murray's attention.Firstly, what about those industries that, by virtue of the nature of the industry they are in, find it difficult to attract women employees? Are those industries going to be penalised and be required to continue reporting not by virtue of their non-compliance by their own wishes but by virtue of their non-compliance because of the type of industry they are in? In relation to the proposed amendment for the waiver, I would also inquire—in this case from the opposition—who would, as a result of their amendment getting up, assess whether a company has sufficiently met the criteria to be assessed as having put in an acceptable report? Secondly, I cannot find in the amendment anything that indicates what those criteria could be.10:55:0011010Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—To be brief, that information is in the act. Essentially, the intent of this amendment is to stick to the original act. This amendment seeks to ensure that the provisions of the original act are retained. It is not a new initiative by the opposition.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 5 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10:55:0011010Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 6:(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), at the end of subsection (1), add:; but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting periods.Again, this amendment retains the existing requirement of the original act—that is, that the reporting requirements could be waived only if the employer had complied for three years previously. At the moment, we are considering an anomaly which may have inadvertently been created by our amendment. While that is being sorted out I will talk very briefly to opposition amendment No. 6. The bill, without this additional clause—which is the retention of the three years—is, we believe, another example of the government watering down the compliance regime in the original act. The intent of our amendment is to ensure the continuation of the provisions of the original act.From our perspective, as Senator Murray has also indicated, if you are an organisation which has been doing the right thing for three years, then of course the waiver exists. As Senator Campbell said, that is the carrot, to use that analogy—and that analogy is germane. From our perspective, if the disadvantages that women face in the workplace are to be seriously addressed and the objectives of the act achieved, we believe there must be a demonstrable capacity for employers to report for a three-year period prior to the waiver kicking in. With those few words, I will leave it there. I will perhaps come back to this matter later in the debate.10:57:0011010Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6WAAD00—I think I should make clear the Democrat position on this. We supported amendment (5) because we believe that an annual public report is appropriate where organisations with more than 100 employees are not fulfilling their obligations under the act. However, we also agree that, if you have organisations which are fulfilling their obligations under the act and they have reported on that basis, and that report has been accepted by the agency, there should be the opportunity for the agency to waive that provision. Amendment (6), if it is read in conjunction with the amendment that was previously passed, could mean that organisations would—as Senator Campbell outlined—have to report for a further three years before they could access the waiver. I do not want to happen. I want the waiver to be able to be accessed because, historically, they have reported for three periods and that has been regarded as appropriate by the agency. Frankly, it would be foolish for an organisation of 101 women to have to report for three years in the future.If the Clerk has been able to assist with an appropriate amendment, my summary of our views is that we would want to tack on to the end of that amendment something like `which may predate 1 April 2000'. But I am not moving that as a formal amendment because I think the opposition are likely to accept my proposition and, if they are, they may well have better words than I have found so far.Whilst I am on my feet, perhaps I could get an answer from the parliamentary secretary; it will probably come from his advisers. Can you let me know from the reporting of the background to this bill how many organisations are affected above 100 members; do you know all told?11:00:0011010Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—In that intervening period, we have come up with a form of words which may address the difficulties which others have outlined. I will seek leave to move that the words `including a period of three reporting periods preceding the commencement of this section' be added at the end of the amendment.11:00:0011011Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Murray has asked some questions about the number of organisations that come under this act; there are about 3,000. In terms of waivers, it is interesting to note in this debate that in 1996 the director waived the reporting requirements of 144 best practice organisations, followed by a further 45 in 1997. Then in 1998, a further 102 organisations were waived. That gives you some idea of the use of the existing waiver provisions.While I am on my feet, I might just say that the bill, again we believe, more adequately addresses the sort of high bar that needs to be reached to achieve a waiver. To reiterate that, it prescribes the standard that is required to be waived: an organisation must take all reasonably practical actions to address all issues against all employment matters. It is a very high standard—we would argue, higher than that which exists in the existing legislation.We also believe that the length of an organisation's previous compliance is not an accurate or desirable indicator of whether they meet the high standard required to be waived. We think that basically meeting the requirements of the act for a period of three years is not the sort of standard that is desirable. I recognise that this amendment does not seek to diminish the new high standard we have put in the bill, but effectively it puts into the legislation a time to be served provision. We remain opposed to that.If the amendment to make it effectively retrospective goes through, I think it will be even less objectionable. But the reality is that, even with the amendment that I know Senator Murray and the opposition have been discussing, an organisation could meet all of the standards that are required, it could become a best practice company that meets all of the high standards, and yet to receive any benefit from that, apart from the intrinsic benefits of becoming a best practice company in terms of equal opportunity in the workplace, effectively it will still have to serve into the fourth year before getting any benefit from this provision.We think that the act is a significant improvement on the existing regime. It sets a higher standard in terms of achievement to get a waiver and, again, it gets away from the prescription that has been a feature of the legislation in the past.11:03:0011011Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—We sought further advice from the Clerk in relation to the previous amendment that we moved, and we have received some advice which we think will improve our previous improvement to the previous amendment. I seek leave to amend my amendment.Leave granted.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—My amended amendment will now read:(6) Schedule 1, item 21, page 8 (line 20), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; but only if the relevant employer has complied with those requirements for a period of not less than 3 consecutive reporting periods, including a period of 3 reporting periods beginning before the commencement of this section.I think that clarifies it beyond any dispute.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that opposition amendment No. 6, as amended, be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:04:0011011Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I move:Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3—Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 28 Section 4(1) (definition of de facto spouse ) After "of the opposite sex", insert "or same sex".29 Subsection 4(1) (definition of de facto spouse ) Omit "as the husband or wife of that person". 30 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of marital status ) Add: and includes opposite and same sex couples.31 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of marital status ) Insert: sex means: (a) the status or identity of being a man; (b) the status or identity of being a woman; (c) that status or identity of being transgendered; (d) the status or identify of being gay, lesbian, homosexual, bisexual or hetrosexual; (e) a person's sexuality.32 Subsection 4(1) Insert: sexality means heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism and bisexuality that presently exists, existed in the past or may exist in the future.33 Subsection 4(1) Insert: transgendered means a person of one sex who: (a) assumes any of the characteristics of the other sex, whether by medical intervention (including a reassignment procedure) or otherwise; and (b) identifies himself or herself as a member of the other sex; and (c) lives or seeks to live as a member of the opposite sex and; (d) attempts to be, or identifies himself or herself as a transexual or transgendered person.34 Subsection 4(1) Add: ; and includes opposite and same sex couples.35 Section 12(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (1) This Act binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth, of each of the States, of the Australian Capital Territory, of the Northern Territory and of Norfolk Island.36 Section 13 Repeal the section This amendment, which is circulated in the name of the Democrats on behalf of my colleague Senator Greig, relates to proposed amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act concerning the inclusion in definitions of same sex couples. It is an issue that the Senate would be aware of, and the Democrats have spoken of it on a number of occasions in relation to the recognition of same sex couples. We think it is appropriate to raise those issues as being ones that do need consideration as we look at improving and modernising and making more effective our Sex Discrimination Act and other pieces of legislation.The Democrats have an ongoing concern about the need to recognise same sex couples as legitimate relationships. That is the reason that this amendment has been circulated.11:06:0011012Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—I wish to indicate that this amendment has been circulated quite late in the piece by the Democrats. We have not had the opportunity to peruse it, particularly with regard to how it is relevant to our particular amendments. We are not indicating opposition to the principle, by any stretch of the imagination, but we would appreciate the opportunity to examine these matters perhaps with the benefit of more time. So I indicate at this point that we would prefer to have it considered later, and not in relation to this debate but in relation to a debate that may be more relevant. We simply have not had the opportunity to make a determination about it. So at this point I am afraid that we are going to have to indicate that, for that reason, we are unable to support it at this juncture.11:07:0011012Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—As Senator Mackay has just said, this amendment was circulated incredibly late—indeed, after debate had commenced this morning. That is not to say that that does not from time to time happen; it does. But it obviously makes it harder for honourable senators to consider the subjects.On a brief reading of the amendment which I have been able to do in between contribut ing to the debate this morning, I would be doubtful as to whether the committee would be competent to deal with the amendment to another act when we are considering the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 1999 . This amendment is to another act. I would be surprised if the committee were able to deal with this amendment anyway. But I do not think that matter needs to be tested at this stage. We will not support it.11:08:0011013Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to not only speak against the amendment in that it are not relevant to the subject of the bill but also to voice my opposition to the actual amendment itself.Amendment not agreed to.11:08:0011013Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—We now move on to opposition amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. Just to clarify the comments made by Senator Campbell, our understanding is that it is appropriate and germane to move these because they are within the purview of the previous act—that is the advice we have received—whereas the amendments that were circulated by Senator Greig were not germane to the issue before the committee.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Yes, that is correct.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Thank you, Chair, in relation to that. I move opposition amendment No. 7:(7) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 3—Amendment of the Sex Discrimination Act 198428 Paragraph 3(b)Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".29 Subsection 4(1) (after paragraph (b) of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Insert: (ba) holds a judicial office;30 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of Commonwealth employee ) Add: ; and includes a Senator or member of the House of Representatives. 31 Subsection 4(1) (at the end of the definition of employment ) Add: and (d) unpaid or voluntary work, including under a scheme established under a law of the Commonwealth.32 Subsection 4(1) Insert: judicial office means: (a) an office of Justice of the High Court; or (b) an office of judge of a court created by the Parliament or of a court of a Territory.33 After section 7 Insert:7AA Discrimination on the ground of breastfeeding (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child if, because the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding her child, the discriminator treats the aggrieved woman less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat someone who is not breastfeeding her child. (2) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the discriminator ) discriminates against a woman (the aggrieved woman ) on the ground that the aggrieved woman is breastfeeding the child if the discrimination imposes, or proposes to impose, a condition, requirement or practice that has, or is likely to have, the effect of disadvantaging women who are also breastfeeding their children. (3) This section has effect subject to sections 7B and 7D.34 Subsection 10(2) Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".35 Subsection 11(2) Omit "or potential pregnancy", substitute ", potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".36 Subsection 13(1) Repeal the subsection.37 Subsection 14(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child". 38 Subsection 14(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the employee is breastfeeding her child".39 Subsection 15(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".40 Subsection 15(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the commission agent is breastfeeding her child".41 Section 16 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the contract worker is breastfeeding her child".42 Subsections 17(1) and (2) After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".43 Subsection 17(3) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the partner is breastfeeding her child".44 Section 18 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".45 Subsection 19(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".46 Subsection 19(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".47 Section 20 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".48 Subsection 21(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".49 Subsection 21(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the student is breastfeeding her child".50 Subsection 22(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".51 Subsections 23(1) and (2) After "potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".52 Subsection 24(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child". 53 Subsection 25(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".54 Subsection 25(2) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because the member is breastfeeding her child".55 Section 26 After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".56 Subsection 27(1) After "potential pregnancy", insert "or because that other person is breastfeeding her child".57 Subsection 27(1) Omit "or potentially pregnant", substitute ", potentially pregnant or breastfeeding".58 After subsection 27(2) Insert: (2A) To avoid doubt, it is unlawful for a person to ask another person a question (whether orally or in writing) in connection with the employment or potential employment of that other person, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about that person's intentions in relation to pregnancy or in relation to meeting that person's family commitments.59 At the end of subsection 27(2) Add: ; but it is unlawful to discriminate in a recruitment process on the basis of that information.60 After section 27 Insert:27A Pregnancy equity standards (1) The Minister may formulate standards, to be known as pregnancy equity standards, in relation to the employment of women who are pregnant or potentially pregnant. (2) Pregnancy equity standards formulated in accordance with this section are to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the pregnancy equity standards are formulated and take effect only as provided by the following provisions of this section. (3) If: (a) notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in either House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House; and (b) the pregnancy equity standards, whether or not as amended, are subsequently approved by that House; and (c) the other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in the form approved by the first-mentioned House; the pregnancy equity standards take effect in the form so approved from the day on which that other House approves the pregnancy equity standards in that form. (4) If no notice of a motion to amend the pregnancy equity standards is given in the House of Representatives or the Senate within 15 sitting days of the particular House after the pregnancy equity standards have been laid before that House, the pregnancy equity standards take effect from the day immediately after that 15th sitting day or, where that day differs in respect of each House, the later of those days.27B Unlawful to contravene pregnancy equity standards It is unlawful for a person to contravene a pregnancy equity standard.27C Division 4 not to apply to pregnancy equity standards Division 4 does not apply in relation to a pregnancy equity standard.27D This Part not to apply if person acts in accordance with pregnancy equity standards If a person acts in accordance with a pregnancy equity standard this Part does not apply to the person's act.61 Subsections 38(1) and (2) Omit ", marital status or pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "or marital status".62 Subsection 38(3) Omit "or pregnancy".63 At the end of section 38 Add:(4) In this section, a reference to a person's sex or marital status does not include a reference to pregnancy or potential pregnancy.64 Section 39 After "pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".Part 4—Amendment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 65 At the end of subsection 46P(2) Add: ; or (d) if the complaint is about an advertisement in connection with an ar rangement under paragraph 14(1)(a) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 —by any person.66 After paragraph 46PO4(d) Insert: (da) where the unlawful discrimination relates to pregnancy or potential pregnancy—an order requiring a respondent to pay to an applicant exemplary or punitive damages;67 After subsection 46PW(6) Insert: (6A) The Sex Discrimination Commissioner may refer an award to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission without a complaint having been lodged with the Commission if the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is of the opinion that the award is discriminatory.68 Section 48 Omit "or potential pregnancy" (wherever occurring), substitute "potential pregnancy or breastfeeding".I will briefly speak to each section of this amendment, which adds part 3 to schedule 1. The amendment to item 28, paragraph 3(b), inserts breastfeeding as a ground for unlawful discrimination and picks up recommendation 43 of the HREOC report entitled Pregnant and productive: it's a right not a privilege to work while pregnant . I think Senator Murray made comments about this. The need for breastfeeding to be explicitly recognised was noted by HREOC, which argued in the report:. . . because it [breastfeeding] is not specifically covered as a separate ground under the Sex Discrimination Act, there is some confusion. HREOC receives a number of inquiries about breastfeeding and discriminatory treatment on that basis, which could generally be covered under other sections of the Sex Discrimination Act such as the prohibition of sex discrimination. To have breastfeeding specified as a separate ground of unlawful discrimination under the SD Act would, however, clarify the situation.We are making it implicit and explicit and ensuring that the law as it currently stands is clarified with regard to this particular issue.I move on to item 29 of opposition amendment No. 7 which amends subsection 4(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act. This amendment clarifies that the provisions of the act do in fact cover judicial office holders. As the Pregnant and productive report noted:The extent of coverage provided by the Sex Discrimination Act for federal appointees, federal judges and federal members of Parliament was raised during the inquiry. Several submissions called for the clarification of the SD Act's coverage and amendment, if necessary, to ensure full coverage of these categories.A Commonwealth employee is defined to include someone who holds an administrative office but does not extend to someone holding a federal judicial office. It appears that federal judicial office holders are in a relatively vulnerable position therefore. It seems that judges do not appear to be covered in any way by the SD act if they were to suffer unlawful pregnancy or potential pregnancy discrimination. This particular section of the amendment simply ensures that that protection is extended to them.I move on to item 30 of opposition amendment No. 7, which also amends subsection 4(1). This amendment clarifies that the provisions of the act do in fact cover members of parliament. Again, the Pregnant and productive report noted:Federal Members of Parliament do not appear to be covered by the Sex Discrimination Act either, as they are elected rather than employed.The report went on to argue:The intent of federal and state/territory anti-discrimination legislation is to ensure fair and equal access to all positions and fair non-discriminatory treatment. It is therefore essential that clarification of coverage of the Sex Discrimination Act for federal statutory appointments, federal judicial appointments, federal members of Parliament and their employees is achieved and that all parties of these arrangements are well informed of the situation.I will move along to the section of the amendment dealing with unpaid or voluntary work. This amendment implements recommendation 8 of the Pregnant and productive report to ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act covers unpaid workers. The report argued as follows:Unpaid work is increasing in incidence, with some people undertaking official and unofficial internships or work experience in order to obtain the experience needed to enter the workforce or retrain for another profession. Varying in duration and content, these periods of unpaid work can be highly structured programs that can provide employers and workers with considerable benefits.Voluntary workers also make considerable contribution to the charitable and not-for-profit sector. It is our contention that these workers ought be covered and should be protected to ensure that they do not suffer discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy.I will move along to the section of this amendment dealing with judicial office. This section of the amendment follows on from areas already covered and provides a definition of what `judicial office' actually means. So I hope that would be reasonably clear. In relation to the section of our amendment dealing with discrimination on the grounds of breastfeeding, that simply clarifies the issue by including breastfeeding as a ground for unlawful discrimination, which I believe we have canvassed adequately. That applies similarly to items 34 and 35 of amendment No. 7.Item 36 repeals subsection 13(1). This amendment removes the exemption of employment by an instrumentality of a state. It implements recommendation 10 of the Pregnant and productive report, which noted:Under section 13 of the SD Act, employees of an instrumentality of a state or territory are not covered by section 14 of the SD Act. However, section 26 concerning the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs, is not subject to this exemption. An `instrumentality of a State' is defined as a body or authority established for a public purpose by a law of a state and includes a technical and further education institution conducted by a state, but does not include any other institution of tertiary education.Employees not covered by the Sex Discrimination Act include employees in state and territory government departments, state and territory authorities, state and territory public or government schools, TAFEs, state and territory hospitals and local government. In addition, the Sex Discrimination Act may not cover statutory corporations or quasi-autonomous state bodies in the public sector. Most of these exempted employees are protected by state and territory legislation.What we are doing with this amendment is repealing subsection 13 to provide the same basic level of protection for the rights of all women, whichever state or territory they inhabit. This amendment is part of a concerted effort to achieve a uniform national standard across Australia and removes unnecessary confusion about anti-discrimination laws. Items 35 and 37 are again simply to include breastfeeding as a ground of unlawful discrimination. I will not traverse that ground.Item 58 inserts after subsection 27(2) a specific provision that prohibits the asking of questions, whether orally or in writing, which might reasonably be understood as intended to elicit information about whether or when a woman intends to become pregnant and/or her intentions in relation to meeting her current or pending family responsibilities. This is in line with recommendation 36 of the Pregnant and productive report. Under the current wording of the Sex Discrimination Act, it is not clear that discriminatory recruitment questioning is not permissible, something which we canvassed earlier. It is not obvious to a casual reader that the act may prohibit questions at interview about pregnancy and potential pregnancy. What we are intending to do here is clarify and confirm the intention of the Sex Discrimination Act. Again, this is leading directly from the Pregnant and productive report.Item 59 inserts an amendment at the end of subsection 27(2). This is intending to clarify the unlawfulness of discriminating in medical examinations of pregnant women during the recruitment process. This is in line with recommendation 37 of the Pregnant and productive report, which had the view that a reading of section 27 of this act may lead to the inappropriate conclusion that it is not unlawful to discriminate in relation to medical examinations of pregnant women at the recruitment stage. Our intention here is to make it crystal clear that it is unlawful to discriminate during the recruitment process.Item 60 inserts an amendment after section 27 to empower HREOC to publish enforceable standards in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy in the workplace and is in line with recommendation 1 of the Preg nant and productive report. The power to set enforceable guidelines goes beyond the current power of HREOC under the Sex Discrimination Act, and this was again a recommendation of the Pregnant and productive report. The drafting of these amendments is based on the disability model in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.Items 61 through 63 remove the exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes in relation to pregnancy and potential pregnancy. This is in line with recommendation 11 of the Pregnant and productive report. Certain exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act concern potential conflicts between anti-discrimination and religious beliefs and practices. The current act includes an exemption for the employment of members of staff at educational institutions that are conducted in accordance with doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teaching of a particular religion or creed, insofar as any discrimination is pursuant to those tenets. This exemption applies only to hiring and dismissal practices. It does not allow discrimination during the course of employment. The report states:These provisions exempt discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status and pregnancy. They do not actually exempt potential pregnancy from unlawful discrimination. It is unclear whether the ground of sex, which is included in the exemption, would include potential pregnancy in these circumstances.The Pregnant and productive report noted on page 53 that several submissions argued that the provisions were too broad and interpreted and to result in unfair use to detriment of pregnant women.The argument behind this amendment was aptly summarised by the Australian Law Reform Commission comment that:. . . religious freedom and the right to enjoy culture and religion must be balanced with the right to equality and with the principle of non-discrimination. The statutory exemption prefers one right over another and precludes any consideration of where the balance between the rights should be.It is our view that a woman's right to have children and her right to work are just as important as her right to adhere to a particular religious doctrine.Finally, item 64 inserts the following amendment to item 39 as follows:After "pregnancy", insert "or because the person is breastfeeding her child".That again refers to the breastfeeding provisions which we have canvassed probably more than adequately so far in the debate.11:21:0011018Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TASIND00—I am coming from refugee and humanitarian committee work to the chamber, so I am trying to catch up with this debate.3M6MURRAYSenator Murray—We will be refugees.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—As long as we are not refugees by 24 December. I am obliged to hear the response from the government in respect of the points made by Senator Mackay. Whilst I am on my feet, I will raise a couple of questions with the government. In its responses to an ILO survey, the government indicated that it was not supportive of lactation breaks. I raised that matter with the government some weeks ago. I am wondering what the situation is and what considerations have been given to the matter.I raised another matter about compulsory pregnancy testing; that is, an employer requiring a woman employee to undergo a pregnancy test. I was not dealing with occupations that would be dangerous to the unborn. I was referring to the issue of a potential employer requiring pregnancy testing. I made clear to the government my view on that matter, which is that it is a severe discrimination against women for an employer to have the right to request a pregnancy test prior to, or even during, employment.I want in due course on the public record here in the chamber the government's responses on that matter. I do not know whether it went to ministerial level; I believe it was done in a bureaucratic area. These are matters of such significance that they ought to be dealt with, and responded to, by the government. They are the two matters. I would be interested in the government's responses to Senator Mackay's amendment.11:25:0011018Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—We have just got someone trying to get a clear answer on the issue of lactation breaks. In relation to the amendment moved by Senator Mackay that is before the chair at the moment, I commented earlier in the debate on some similar amendments and I do not want to repeat myself. Senator Harradine knows that we are trying to get through the legislative agenda as effectively as possible. I am very pleased with the progress that we are making here.For the benefit of Senator Harradine and anyone else who was not here earlier, the amendments have their genesis in the report by HREOC called Pregnant and productive. That report is before the government at the moment. We are putting significant time and resources into reviewing the 46 recommendations of that report. The recommendations cover a range of Commonwealth legislation and other activities and actions. We will be making a comprehensive response to that report in the new year. I suggested, without being too critical of the opposition, that we regard the process of picking up those recommendations and putting them into the Sex Discrimination Act before the government has made a comprehensive response to that report as an ad hoc approach that is not desirable, to put it politely.In response, the opposition said that it was taking legislative opportunities that do not necessarily come along all that often on these issues. That is a respectable position to take, but we think we should have a comprehensive response. I know that the issues are recognised by the government. I know that Senator Harradine regards them as incredibly important issues. They are increasingly important as more and more women choose to enter the workplace and, when they are in the workplace, choose to raise families. They are issues that affect women; they also affect fathers.The government's position at the ILO in relation to prohibition on pre-employment pregnancy testing is, again, an important one. The government supported a prohibition on pre-employment pregnancy testing at the ILO. There was an earlier departmental response to the ILO questionnaire, which clearly opposed pregnancy testing that is discriminatory. However, the response reflected a minor legal concern—it is the concern that Senator Harradine has alluded to—which is that there may be instances where general medical test results on prospective employees may be misleading without the knowledge that the person is pregnant. Pregnancy tests conducted and used in the process of interpreting such general tests would not be discriminatory.That was not actually the concern you were alluding to. I think you were alluding to the concern about where the employment may put at risk the unborn child. The government is unequivocally of the view, and made it clear during the first discussion of this matter at the ILO conference in Geneva in June this year, that it supported a prohibition on pregnancy testing for prospective employees. The government is strongly supportive of the rights of women in employment to have children and raise families, free from fear of discrimination.Australia has put in place strong legal protections to protect women from discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy in applying for employment is prohibited in Australian legislation via the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It is also prohibited under state based legislation. To ensure these protections are adequate, the government commissioned the pregnancy discrimination inquiry, which was the first of its kind in Australia. This highlights the importance the government places on ensuring the fair treatment of women in the workplace.I do not have in the advisers box at the moment the officer who has sought advice on lactation but, if he does return before this debate has concluded, I will be happy to leap to my feet and add to my response. Alternatively, I will ensure that something is put on the parliamentary record to respond to Senator Harradine's question at the earliest possibility.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. 11019Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Campbell) read a third time.Bills11019r86711019Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Troeth:That this bill be now read a second time.11:33:0011019Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The opposition is not opposing the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . The legislation involves amendments to nine pieces of legislation and, for the record, I will identify the particular acts. They are the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991, the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987, the Farm Household Support Act 1992, the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1996, the National Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992, the Primary Industry Council Act 1991, the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and, finally, the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. I am sure that all the senators here in the chamber and those watching and listening in their offices are absolutely full-bottle familiar with each one of those pieces of legislation and, consequently, I do not think that I need to go through in detail the specifics of the amendments to those individual pieces of legislation. I also note that, as I understand it, all parties are supporting the passage of this legislation and I am not aware that there are any contemplated amendments. However, it is necessary to briefly identify some of the more important amendments that are contained within this legislation and outline them to the Senate. In doing so, I note that the specific amendments to each one of those nine pieces of legislation are set out in some detail in the explanatory memorandum and also in the second reading speech of the minister and in the speech of my colleague Gavan O'Connor, the shadow minister in the other place.A number of the amendments are of a minor technical nature and, in that regard, I refer particularly to the amendments to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987, the Farm Household Support Act 1992 and the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1996. Those amendments are mainly of a technical character. They correct minor errors in the acts and are part of the ongoing process of ensuring that legislation remains up to date and clear in its intent and effect.Some of the more important amendments contained within this bill are the amendments to the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994. The amendments to that act are twofold. Firstly, the amendments will ensure that the Commonwealth can recover costs associated with the testing of new plant varieties conducted at the request of another country. Australia is one of some 43 countries which are members of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants and there is a spirit of cooperation amongst those countries which are members of the international body. Test growings are commonly conducted on behalf of another country where the facilities or expertise may not exist in the country that requests the test to be undertaken. This amendment will ensure that the costs associated with conducting those test growings are recovered, even if no specific application is lodged for the variety within Australia.The second aspect of the amendments to the Plant Variety Rights Act is one whereby it will alter the way in which the costs of conducting a test growing are recovered in the case of an objection. Currently, the legislation provides that a person who objects to an application must bear the cost of any test growing. This is seen as a disincentive to the lodging of objections, particularly by small businesses and non-profit organisations. The amendment requires that the unsuccessful party will bear the costs of the test growing.Further amendments within the legislation are to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. The amend ments will restore the operation of the act to a position which is consistent with its objects, namely, to rationalise levy and charge collections and also to make provision for the effective and efficient collection of primary industry levies and charges.There are further amendments, as I have indicated, which are of a mainly technical nature. I do not think I really need to go to those in any detail as they have been outlined very clearly on the record in the explanatory memorandum and in the speeches at the second reading stage of the bill. One that I would mention is a further amendment to the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991. This act provides for the establishment of industry councils to facilitate broad based industry involvement in the policy formulation process. The Grains Industry Council was established by a schedule in the original Primary Industry Council Act in 1991.However, since a chairman and the non ex officio members were never appointed, the Grains Industry Council has not operated. The only other council which was established under this act—the Pig Industry Council—has since been abolished. The Grains Industry Council is intended to provide a forum for representatives from the main sectors of the grains industry to be involved in formulating its strategic direction. However, the reform process for wheat marketing, the establishment of strategic plan units by the Grains Council of Australia for other grains in the early 1990s, and the establishment of the then Agrifood Council obviated the need for activating the council.The need for a forum to advise the government on the strategic direction of the grains industry is therefore no longer relevant following privatisation of the Australian Wheat Board and ongoing reforms to state grain marketing arrangements. As honourable senators will recall, there has been a substantial amount of debate, inquiry and report by the Senate, particularly by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, on the changes that have been taking place within the wheat industry and within the structural aspects of that industry and the organisations over the last couple of years. However, the Primary Industry Councils Act will remain, even following these amendments, to provide a framework for establishing policy councils for the industry or for any other primary industries if a need should arise in the future.The amendments to the other act that I would mention briefly are to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. The Rural Adjustment Scheme—or RAS as it was more commonly known—effectively ceased to operate as at 30 June 1998 when it was replaced by the government's Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. Therefore, amendments are required to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992. The amendments are relatively minor, aimed at redefining the role and functions of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council in the light of the wind down of RAS. As I said, I mention that one even though the amendments are of a minor technical nature because the operations of RAS have been a matter of ongoing examination, discussion and debate within the parliament, the industry and the community over a number of years.They are the major aspects of this bill that I need to refer to. As I said at the outset, it is a bill which would implement amendments to some nine pieces of legislation. The opposition is happy to support each of those amendments. They either implement changes which are necessary because of changes within the industry structures or reflect improvements in the operation of the legislation for the industry and for the country. On that basis, we indicate our support for the passage of the bill.11:45:0011021Troeth, Sen JudithSenator TROETHGX5VICLP10—The Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 draws together technical amendments to nine pieces of legislation and, although not wishing to go over the same ground as Senator Forshaw, I will indicate briefly some of the technical amendments. I will firstly deal with the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994. In 1995, the PBR Act replaced the previous Plant Variety Act 1987. In doing so, it reduced the allowable period of prior sale for most new plant varieties from six years to four years.A number of applicants found that the change meant that their eligibility to apply had expired up to two years earlier. The proposed transitional arrangement would allow affected applicants the opportunity to have their applications reinstated. As well, currently a person who objects to an application must bear the cost of any test growing. The proposed amendment requires the unsuccessful party and the opposition to bear the cost of the test growing and is in line with the normal practice of the court in awarding costs. The amendments will ensure that the cost to the Commonwealth associated with any test growing conducted on behalf of another country can be recovered in full.A significant cost in the scheme is the requirement to maintain a copy of the register in each state capital. These registers are seldom, if ever, used and so it is proposed that a single hard copy of the register be maintained by the PBR office and that an electronic version be included on the Internet. This will provide a better service at a lower cost. In line with other areas of the PBR Act, the amendments will also ensure up-front payments of fees before objections and applications for revocation are accepted.I now move on to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act 1991. Most of the confusion that arises about this act is because most people do not realise that levies and charges are not imposed by the act, only collected, so these changes will fix anomalies in the collection of levies and charges and not change any of the rates. The amendments merely clarify customs used in rural industries such as the use of settlement agents and solicitors in arranging property sales incorporating the sale of livestock. Again, the definition of `proprietor' has been the subject of concern for some time. Anomalies were highlighted as to who is legally the proprietor or operator of a processing establishment, particularly in relation to an abattoir.Under state and territory laws, it is usually necessary for the proprietor or operator of an abattoir to have a licence to carry on such activities. Thus, where applicable, the holder of such a licence will be defined to be the proprietor. If no such licence is required, the proprietor will be the person who has overall legal responsibility for the operations of the establishment. It is not intended that this be taken to mean the head slaughterer, the processor or the office manager but, instead, the person carrying on the business of operating the establishment.Intermediaries play a vital role in the collection of levies and export charges. They help keep the number of collection points to a minimum and ensure the maximisation of collections. They pay on behalf of the producers amounts of levy, charge and related late payment penalties deducted from producers' proceeds. Some large companies have made a practice of creating arrangements to thwart this purpose or pressure producers to make their own levy payments, particularly if the intermediary controls the gross proceeds of the dealings merely to avoid a duty to assist their industry maximise levy collections. They often deal with many producers so it is reasonable to expect them to aggregate all deductions from producers and to on-forward the proceeds to the collecting body—that is, the Commonwealth. Amendments to section 8 will make it unambiguous that intermediaries have powers to deduct amounts of levy or charge from producers' gross proceeds and to make levy or export charge payments on the producer's behalf. The changes are being made so that all will operate on an even playing field.Modifications are also being made to certain offences in relation to search and entry powers. An authorised person will be able to enter premises with the consent of the occupier, as at present, or the person in charge. This will prevent inconvenient delays to both the authorised person and the client. The person will be empowered to examine records and documents while on the premises. Although an authorised officer may enter premises with the consent of the occupier or the person in charge, consent may be withdrawn at any time. So, where entry is gained under a search warrant, it is reasonable to expect that an authorised officer will be able to exercise his or her duty without obstruction or hindrance. The new offences permit procedural fairness to be maintained yet allow an authorised officer acting under a search warrant to perform his or her duty. Overall, the amendments will update and enhance the levy and charge collection techniques.The purpose of the amendments to the Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992 is to replace the name of the National Landcare Advisory Committee with a new name, the Australian Landcare Council, and I think we need speak no further to that. The Australian Landcare Council advises the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage on natural resource management issues. The amendment has the support of those involved with the Australian Landcare Council, and the new name has been in use since the announcement of the intended change in July 1997.The proposed amendment to the Primary Industry Council Act repeals part 1 of the schedule to that act, which provides for the establishment of a Grains Industry Council, as Senator Forshaw has outlined. I must emphasise again that the council has not operated since the commencement of the legislation and, although this proposed amendment repeals the provisions for a Grains Industry Council, the act itself will remain to provide a framework for establishing policy councils for any primary industry if the need should arise in the future.One of the other major amendments is to the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, which provides for the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the advisory body, the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council. On 30 June the Rural Adjustment Scheme effectively ceased to operate and the government introduced the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, so the functions and title of the advisory council have been reconsidered. The new advisory council will provide the minister with advice on exceptional circumstances issues as well as a range of rural adjustment matters, and also on any other relevant matter that the minister requests advice or information about. The amendment will see the name of the Rural Adjustment Scheme Advisory Council changed to the National Rural Advisory Council. The commencement date for that is 1 April 1999, to coincide with the appointment of a new council whose period of appointment is from 1 April 1999 to 31 December 2001.The last amendments I wish to deal with are the amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. In essence, the amendments clarify the meaning of several definitions and fix a few inconsistencies. As a result of these changes, Australian wine companies will be more certain of their obligations under the Label Integrity Program. This program is a key reason that the loyalty shown by both Australian and international wine consumers towards Australian wine is well founded: the wine is what the label claims. I am sure, Mr Acting Deputy President, we all feel more comfortable knowing that is what happens. I commend the changes to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.(Quorum formed)Bills11023r89011023Debate resumed from 29 September, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.11:59:0011023Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 is one of a number of taxation measures. Indeed, I think the word `taxation' has been mentioned more times in this chamber this year than possibly any time in the history of Federation, and we still have a bit of a way to go. Senator Conroy, the Labor Party spokesperson on this issue, who normally is so keen to speak voluminously on matters relating to tax—except perhaps business tax; he did not seem quite so keen to talk about that very much recently—was listed to speak before me but perhaps on this particular occasion he is still pondering his words in relation to this issue.This bill has been to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee and both I and Senator Woodley were involved in the hearings for that bill, along with a separate piece of legislation that we will deal with at another time. The Democrats had a number of comments in relation to that which I will flag shortly. I note that the report from the Labor senators on that piece of legislation basically indicated that Labor would be reserving their position on this particular bill. So I will be listening with interest, as I always do, to Senator Conroy as to what Labor's position is going to be on this bill. It is quite an interesting bill. It is a bit separate from all the matters of tax we have been talking about in recent months relating to the GST, indirect tax, capital gains tax, business tax, fringe benefits tax, et cetera. This obviously links to various issues relating to taxation and tax deductibility, but it is specifically related to the Prime Minister's agenda, if you like, of encouraging corporate philanthropy or private philanthropy.The aim of the bill in trying to further encourage the private sector, the corporate sector and the public in general to contribute more to charities—to non-profit groups; to good works, if you like, to use the broadest possible term—is something that I do not think anyone could argue with. It has been noted a number of times that the US, in particular, and other parts of the world have quite strongly established a tradition of philanthropy over time. It is something that we are lacking to some extent in Australia. That is not to suggest that Australians are miserly or uncharitable. But in terms of any structured sense of broadscale philanthropic measures from corporations and wealthy individuals, I think it is fair to say that we do not have a particularly strong tradition. Obviously there is something to be gained by examining ways of establishing such a tradition or increasing practices in that regard.Clearly we cannot rely solely on the public purse to fund every noble activity in the community. Nonetheless, I think it is worth highlighting a couple of aspects of that issue just to put it in context. It is not simply a matter of the public purse or the government providing most of the funding for charitable activities to date and now we need to get some big business or companies or whatever to be involved in it. I think it is worth noting as often as possible the immense contribution that the average person makes in the area of assisting in charitable activities.A lot of that is not going to be in relation to sizeable donations—people still give their $5 or $10 or $20 when the Red Shield Appeal representatives come knocking on their doors. It is important to emphasise the enormous contribution that many, many people in the community make through things such as voluntary work and providing extra assistance to non-profit groups, whether it is being a voluntary treasurer to the local scout group, assisting with a stall down at the local market or helping out once a year at your local historical society—any of those sorts of activities. They are not easily able to be measured in relation to the thrust of what this bill is about, which is providing some tax incentives for large scale donations. I think it is worth noting that this will not assist and encourage some of that other small scale community activity. Having said that, I do not have any immediate brilliant ideas about how best to facilitate that. So it is not meant to be a criticism. I think it is worth making the comment just to put it in a broader context.Already people make an enormous invaluable and almost immeasurable contribution in the community at all levels that keeps society turning. One of the issues in relation to ensuring that not-for-profit organisations are not negatively impacted by various changes is the immense value of the work that those groups do. It is not the private sector, in my view, or the government in many respects that ensures that social needs are met; it is the non-profit sector and the community itself that I believe make the greatest contribution to ensuring that social needs are met.Government has an important role to play, and the private sector has an important role to play. Inasmuch as the purpose of this bill is about trying to encourage the private sector to play a greater role—and I think that is appro priate—if anything, the burden to date has been borne most heavily by the general community and non-profit organisations first, in my view, by the government second and by the private sector third. I think we would be doing a good thing if we were able to redress that imbalance. The Democrats believe that this bill does seek to go part of the way towards doing that. It is fairly narrow in its scope in terms of what it encourages. I think that is something that needs to be highlighted.The Senate committee heard some evidence from the Australian Conservation Foundation and also received documentation—in particular, one very worthwhile document called Philanthropy: sustaining the land. It specifically explored some fairly straightforward tax measures that could provide an incentive for people to assist in land conservation, particularly in terms of donating land, putting covenants over their land and assisting in ensuring inappropriate development does not occur on land in perpetuity. I think that is a particular opportunity which this bill does not grasp.The Democrats would be keen to move amendments in the committee stage of this debate to move further in that direction. They are not circulated as yet. I would hope the chamber would not be critical of the Democrats for not having circulated those, given the fairly absurd rush of legislation we have had in recent times in this place and this particular bill having come on at exceedingly short notice, shall we say—so exceedingly short that even the ever enthusiastic Senator Conroy was not able to get here in time. So, if feasible, I would like to explore those sorts of issues further in the committee stage via amendments. I do not know whether there is any opportunity to move to other pieces of legislation in the interim or to even have something to eat, but we will see what happens in that regard.I think the broader issue of encouraging, through tax incentives and other measures, greater contribution from the private sector to philanthropic activities, charitable works, cultural expansion or whatever areas of activity you want to look at should be encouraged. Obviously, you always have to look at the best way to go about that and ensure that proposals put forward that seek to achieve that aim do actually work towards achieving that aim and are not mistaken in their intent. That is part of what the examination of this particular bill is about.It is worth highlighting some of the activities that have happened and are already occurring in the community to demonstrate how valuable the expansion of private contributions in this area can be. I will focus a bit more specifically on environmental areas again, but in doing that I do not wish to suggest that other non-profit activities are not equally important. This bill focuses to some extent on areas of culture or cultural donations. That is worth while as well. There is also a much broader area of activity that could benefit from further contributions and further incentives to assist in the way that cultural activities are assisted through this bill.I will mention a couple of areas of environmental activity that are already occurring. Senators may be aware of an organisation called Trust for Nature, Victoria, which specifically works with private land-holders. It is separate from the equally important government activity of establishing national parks and state forests and having public sector management or government based management of those areas of land. That is obviously crucial, and it is an area of activity that the Democrats strongly support. But organisations such as Trust for Nature work in the area of private ownership of land or ownership through entities such as this trust. They work with the land-holder whilst the land-holder is still on the land, and they can perform the role of environmental or conservation custodian for that land.Oftentimes, the perception is that land-holders in regional areas are exploiting or developing the land and significantly changing the nature of the land. We have a sad history in Australia in terms of some of the damage we have done to the land, not just in straightforward issues such as the clearing of vegetation but also in the flow-on impacts, such as biodiversity, species extinction, salinity, damage to waterways, pollution, et cetera. All of those areas are ongoing prob lems, and enormous effort is being put into trying to fix those problems.We have heard a lot in this chamber about government initiatives and government funding being put into various measures—the Natural Heritage Trust, Landcare, et cetera—aimed at fixing some of those problems and preventing future problems. That is crucial, but as we all know the amounts being put in are not adequate to address it, and we are still very much fighting a difficult battle, if not a losing battle, in relation to that. Further action can be taken and needs to be taken by government in that regard, but clearly the task would be much easier if we were able to provide extra assistance through other mechanisms for the community itself and for the private sector to contribute resources, whether money, time or expertise, to that ongoing task.Taxation law can be a very worthwhile mechanism for doing that. Some of the material provided to the Senate inquiry highlighted examples of measures in place in the United States, for example, which provide extra incentives for people, exemptions from taxation, various taxes or other incentives, whether deductions or assistance with depreciation. I think those sorts of measures are urgently needed and need to be explored and embraced by government very quickly because we are still fighting a losing battle.I spoke in this place not too long ago about the very severe and urgent problem in my own state of Queensland of the continuing, uncontrolled land clearing that is occurring, generating among other things 33 per cent of the greenhouse gas emissions in Queensland. That issue alone is an enormous problem. According to the Queensland government, one of the hurdles that they are facing in addressing that is in relation to providing adequate financial incentive for land-holders not to clear and not to extract immediate economic value from their land, as the land-holders think they are entitled to.That highlights in itself how big a difference economic incentives provided to land-holders not to further damage the land can make and how central they are. It is quite reasonable for people to try to make a living, and that is a point that a lot of land-holders and farmers make all the time. If we want to encourage a long-term sustainable view of our land and try to address some of the immediate economic imperatives that can sometimes lead to people doing damage to the land because of the immediate pressure of economic factors, then we can look at measures involving the taxation system as well as direct payments. Again, that comes back to payment from the public purse. Providing tax incentives, deductibility, exemptions, et cetera obviously has an impact on general revenue and on the budget as a whole. I do not deny that. There is still a potential financial cost to the taxpayer and to the government.You have to look at the long term. One of the aims of this bill is to try to sow the seeds of a long-term tradition, a long-term change, in Australian culture, corporate behaviour and the private sector's behaviour. The benefits that can be gained, even if you wish to measure things solely in dollars and cents, can be enormous. Using the Queensland example, if we were able to at a particular immediate cost stop land clearing in Queensland—as the Labor Party unequivocally promised to do before they came into power in the last election in Queensland—the environmental and economic benefits in the long term to that state would be almost immeasurable. In one hit we could address 33 per cent of Queensland's greenhouse gas emissions—I think it is 13 per cent or 14 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. That would be an enormous advance, and that is ignoring some of the other major benefits in preserving biodiversity and, indeed, in preserving the value, the worth and the health of that land in the long term, which assists people to remain on land and assists in preserving the viability of local communities.There can be immense and immeasurable benefits if we provide some incentives for people to act now or to cease particular actions and change their actions to provide a better environmental and social outcome. But we do have to provide those incentives, particularly if we are looking at trying to generate a shift in perception and a shift in behaviour. As I understand some of the Prime Minister's speeches on this area and the broader philanthropy agenda, that is part of what he is trying to do.When you are trying to generate a shift in perception and a shift in behaviour, you do need to provide some incentives. Unfortunately, like many things immediate economic imperatives tend to drive a lot of human behaviour these days. Providing some changes to the structure of our taxation system enables those economic imperatives to be alleviated so that people can see beyond their immediate economic need. If that can be alleviated, they are able to look at bit more broadly and a bit more long term. The benefits to all of us, not just to those individual people, can be immense.In closing, in relation to this bill I would like to highlight and recognise the overwhelming importance of the contribution that the general community, the average person and non-profit organisations make in Australia. We are looking at philanthropy and corporations providing significant extra assistance. We have seen some advances in recent times, with corporations sponsoring extra activities and providing extra donations to community activities.I am sure all senators, in the various things they are involved in—the various functions, the various places they go and the various parts of the community they see—constantly come across, as I do, marvellous things being done at the grassroots level by people for no reward. They are often started by a very small piece of assistance, even sometimes just a few hundred dollars or $1,000 from local businesses or corporations. That little bit of extra assistance, that seed funding, can produce enormous benefits. Any measure that encourages that sort of activity and that sows more of those seeds has to be encouraged if it is able to be done in a way that is sustainable both in terms of equity and financial responsibility. That is an activity the Democrats would very much like to encourage.12:19:0011026Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I thank Senator Bartlett for stepping into the breach, as they say, in the rush of legislation. Thank you for your assistance on that. The first key issue for debate here is corporate philanthropy. The Prime Minister and other ministers announced these proposals in March to take effect from 1 July this year. They are supposedly aimed at increasing private philanthropy by making the tax consequence of gifting much more attractive. This is to be achieved firstly by providing tax deductibility for gifts of property valued at more than $5,000 held by a taxpayer for more than one year, irrespective of the value at which it was acquired, to tax deductible public funds—such as charities, universities, et cetera—and for similar gifts to a new category of tax deductible private funds.Secondly, it will provide a capital gains tax exemption for the increase in value of a property over the period that it was held by the gifting taxpayer under the cultural gifts program and for testamentary gifts—that is, gifts through wills to tax deductible funds. Thirdly, it will allow taxpayers to elect to spread tax deductions for gifts made over five years instead of the year of the gift only. While increased private philanthropy may be a worthwhile aim, Labor is concerned that the government wishes or intends to use this as an excuse for reduced future public philanthropy to welfare or charity agencies or to cultural ones.The opposition is concerned that the government is positioning itself to be able to pull back support in future by arguing that it has installed incentives for the private sector to donate. This is similar to the arguments that the coalition will want to run in the future concerning vital state government services. So when states complain that they do not have enough resources to provide adequate levels of service to the public and ask the Commonwealth to contribute, we know what the conservatives will say: `You have the GST. If you want more money, we'll simply have to increase the rate of the GST.' This is the Howard government agenda on tax. We are concerned it will be the Howard government agenda on community support as well. That is why we need to closely scrutinise these proposals, which will greatly increase the tax benefits accruing to gifts.I point out that the cost of the concessions is quite considerable. It is said to be in the order of $71 million by the financial year 2002-03. Whether these public resources are better spent by assisting private philanthropy, over which the public has little or no control, is an open question. This is something that the Senate should examine closely. How do we ensure that the resources that will be obtained in tax concessions will be efficiently used to assist our community? Providing tax concessions in respect of the testamentary gifts is a complex issue. Should tax concessions be provided to assist the estates of people who are almost exclusively wealthy taxpayers? If people decide to be generous with their assets in death, should a tax concession be granted to their estates? These issues need to be explored.The second area of concern is the proposal to allow deductibility through gifts of property to private funds. Whilst private charitable funds may be as beneficial to the community as well-known public funds, there is a major accountability risk with private funds. How are we to know the funds are being effectively administered? How would we know the effectiveness of their operations? Are they worthy of public subsidy through tax concessions for donations to them?We need to be certain that such entities cannot be used to foster tax avoidance. It might sound obscene to suggest that a charity would get involved in tax avoidance or that anyone would attempt to use a charity for tax avoidance, but that is a real threat. Prior to the election in 1996, a former Treasurer, Ralph Willis, announced a crackdown on the misuse of charitable trusts. The incoming government picked up that initiative and carried it through. Clearly the threat of misuse for private charitable trusts must be significantly greater than that attached to public institutions. I make the point that private philanthropy should be about services to the community and not about tax dodges for wealthy people to hide behind.The third issue dealt with in the legislation is that of donations to political parties. This bill proposes that gifts to a political party of property valued at over $5,000 will qualify for a $1,500 reduction. In a separate bill, Labor is opposing measures which will increase the level of tax deductibility for cash donations to political parties from $100 to $1,500. Labor intends to be consistent and opposes the proposal in this bill on gifts of property. It is outrageous that the government is seeking a public subsidy for gifts from wealthy people to political parties. If wealthy people wish to make political donations, that is their prerogative, but they should not be able to get a subsidy from the Commonwealth—from the taxpayer—for making such a contribution. Indeed, the Howard government ought to have much more pressing priorities than that of subsidising wealthy contributors to the Liberal Party. The government is happy to cut funding for essential community services and yet it is now seeking to subsidise its own wealthy contributors. This is an outrageous proposal which the Senate should reject.The next issue dealt with in the legislation is that of bribes to overseas officials. Australia has agreed, through the OECD, to legislate to deny tax deductibility for bribes paid to foreign government officials in an attempt to level the international playing field for foreign trade and investment. This is consistent with recent amendments to the criminal law which make it a crime to pay such bribes with the intention of influencing a foreign official in the exercise of his official duties to obtain or retain business or to obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business. However, if the bribe is legal in that official's country, it will be allowed as a deduction.In addition, facilitation payments will still be deductible. These are payments made to get an official to undertake or expedite a routine government function. Examples include visas; the provision of electricity, water, telecommunications and mail services; and the loading or unloading of cargo. This simply recognises the reality of dealing with some countries. I would note that facilitation payments cannot extend to business contractual matters. Labor supports these measures. They should assist Australian businesses to compete against less scrupulous competitors. They are being enacted around the world and should therefore penalise those competitors who are paying bribes and thereby gaining an unfair advantage against honest Australian competitors. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill.12:25:0011028Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Firstly, I would make the point that, obviously, this bill has been brought on at very short notice, through no fault of the Labor opposition. We are used to dealing with legislation at short notice—that is par for the course in the Senate—but it highlights the general confusion in the operation of the government's program at the present time because of the difficulties they are having, particularly with their industrial relations legislation. If the government knew where they were headed on the issue of industrial relations, we would not be dealing with important legislation, such as this, at such short notice.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 deals with a number of issues: controlled foreign companies—CFCs—and capital gains tax, amendments to exempt certain post-judgment interest, franking of dividends, non-deductibility of bribes, philanthropy, rate of tax for friendly societies, company law, review amendments, technical amendments and concessional tracing rules for company loss. Most of those areas are not contentious and the changes are minor in the context of the issues with which they deal.I wish to make some comments and express some concern about the area of philanthropy. The schedule on philanthropy contains measures that implement the government's response to the report on philanthropy in Australia by the Business and Community Partnerships Working Group on Tax Reform. The measures on schedule 5 were announced on 26 March 1999. The intention is to encourage greater corporate and personal philanthropy in Australia. There are three different categories of gifts for which a deduction is available. Under division 30 of the 1997 act, taxpayers are entitled to income tax deductions for certain gifts.Under section 30-15, donations to listed recipients can be claimed as income tax deductions. Examples of recipient organisa tions include public libraries, public hospitals and charitable organisations. The cultural gifts program provides a tax deduction for gifts of significant cultural items to public art galleries, public museums and public libraries by offering donors a tax deduction. There are capital gains and losses—taxpayers may make a capital gain or loss in a capital gains tax event. If a taxpayer donates an asset to a tax exempt body, a capital gains tax event arises as there has been a change in the ownership of an asset.The capital gains tax asset is property which the owner may transfer to another person, such as shares, real estate, buildings and collectables. Gifts of property that are within the scope of the cultural bequests program result in the donor making a capital gain or loss under section 118-60 of the 1997 act. This provision provides that a capital gain or capital loss is disregarded for a testamentary gift of property under the cultural bequests program. There are deductions for gifts of property valued at more that $5,000. Subsection 30-15(2) of the 1997 act contains a table that lists the recipients and types of gifts or contributions and directs how much can be deducted for gifts of property or donations. Item 1 of the table deals with various categories of recipient funds, authorities or institutions. These are listed by name or by type in subsection 30-15(2)(b). Item 2 of the table deals with certain public funds.I think every senator in this place, indeed every member of parliament, would applaud the increasing levels of philanthropy and the attempts to encourage increasing levels of philanthropy in Australia; it is a worthwhile goal. What does concern me, however, is the underlying philosophical thrust of this approach by the Howard government. It concerns me that, at a time of significant cuts in public expenditure in areas such as health and education—there are many other areas of significant reduction in public expenditure by the Howard government—the encouragement of philanthropy in some way is intended to attempt to make up for those reductions in critical areas of public expenditure.A few weeks ago I was looking at recent ABS statistics of Commonwealth spending on education during the first two years of this government, the Liberal government, being in office. There had been a reduction of approximately half a billion dollars in education expenditure—a reduction from 1.99 per cent of gross domestic product to 1.9 per cent of gross domestic product; and university funding had fallen by 12.5 per cent. This is an example of cuts to the very basic educational fabric of the Australian nation. These are cuts that have been made to a very important area of public investment in this country. It concerns me that these cuts have obviously occurred, but it also concerns me that this encouragement of philanthropy is in some way attempting a philosophical shift as well as a fiscal shift to the private sector.Of course, in no way can philanthropic efforts, philanthropic donations of high income earners in areas such as education, health and cultural activity generally make up for the significant cuts that have been made to public expenditure in this country. Governments do have a purpose, they do have an important role. It is vital that governments underpin and sustain the role of the public sector in areas such as education, health and the arts.I am very much afraid that what we have in front of us is simply the philosophical and nostalgic cast back by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to the 1940s and 1950s when, as I think he would see it, government had a far lesser role to play, that that is the philosophical approach that should be taken today and that this cutback in essential and basic public expenditure can be replaced by private donations.Much is made of the philanthropic activity that occurs in the United States. Again I am concerned that this is some attempt by the current Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to push Australia further down the road of Americanising Australian society. We have seen examples of that by this government in so many other policy areas. I would emphasise again that the philanthropic activities generally of high wealth individuals and institutions, whilst they can be applauded, cannot make up for the severe reductions in basic public expendi ture that we have seen in recent years under the Liberal Howard government.I should also add the National Party, the doormats of the coalition. That party has gone along with cuts to education and health, particularly in the regional areas of Australia. It is yet again a disappointment—well, not so much a disappointment; we expect this of the National Party all the time—to be letting down its supporters out in the bush and regional Australia in not defending the cuts to services in these areas.I see this as essentially a further failure of this philanthropic approach. If there are significant increases in contributions and donations, I do not think we will see too much of them out in the bush or in regional Australia. We might see an increase in the major urban areas, such as Melbourne and Sydney. But this is, yet again, an example of a philosophical approach where the National Party has failed to defend the interests of people in regional Australia whom they purport to represent. Such an approach does come at a significant cost to revenue. The cost of the tax incentives for the attempts to increase private philanthropy, I note in the explanatory memorandum, will be in the order of $71 million by the financial year 2002-2003.The second area of concern that I have on this legislation is the potential for tax minimisation and tax evasion. It is unfortunate that, when areas of tax deductibility are extended, the fancy tax lawyers and accountants in this country are able to sniff out an opportunity to package tax minimisation schemes. Labor will view with interest the level of contributions that are made as a consequence of this legislation, where those contributions are made and into what areas of expenditure—whether it be education, health or cultural activities—this money is encouraged by the tax concessions that are on offer.The former Labor Treasurer, Ralph Willis, in examining this area of tax minimisation and tax evasion identified the misuse of charitable trusts as one significant area of misuse of public moneys in this country. I would not like to see this legislation provide yet another opportunity for such activity to be extended. Nevertheless, as I said in my opening comments, improved, increased private philanthropy is a worthwhile goal so long as it does not attempt to replace essential public expenditure, which can be delivered only through the public sector in such critical areas as education and health; and, secondly, so long as we do not see an extension of loopholes for tax minimisation and tax evasion.This legislation was considered by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. A number of submissions were made to the inquiry. Representatives from the tax office, to their credit, appeared before the committee and were questioned on some of the aspects that I have expressed concern about today. Generally, the issues that were raised were answered.In conclusion, it is with interest that Labor will review the outcome of this attempt to encourage improved philanthropic activity in Australia. In the coming years we will need to weigh up the increased contributions that will almost certainly occur as a result of this legislation against the significant commitment of public moneys through tax expenditures, through the $71 million, to determine whether overall the policy and philosophical shift is worth while.12:40:0011030Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I simply want to thank all senators for their contribution to the debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Sitting suspended from 12.41 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice110301103011030Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Minister, how does a member of the public prevent PBL from storing and selling their entire consumer spending history and credit details on the giant PBL Acxiom data warehouse?11031Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, I will consult the Attorney-General on that matter.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You've got no idea!7E4Senator VANSTONE—Precisely. In relation to this particular PBL warehouse, I am not familiar with the details. I know you have a longstanding interest in privacy matters, and I will get a brief on the matter for you.11031Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given that the Howard government has consistently dropped the ball on privacy legislation covering the commercial sector, what is there to prevent other companies from accessing this database, which the developers hope will contain the personal details of 15 million Australians? Isn't this just big brother keeping tabs on us via credit and spending details, but this time controlled by a private Australian company and a massive American information wholesaler?11031Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator, as I have indicated to you, I do not have with me at the moment a brief on that matter. As I said, I will get one from the Attorney. But I do take the opportunity to take issue with your assertion that you chose to put in your question that this government has dropped the ball on privacy.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You have no idea.7E4Senator VANSTONE—That may be your view, Senator. I understand that you have different views. It is no surprise to me because you are in opposition and we are in government. You would expect, more often than not, that we would in fact have different views, but because we have different views does not mean that we have dropped the ball. We are just doing something in a way different from the way that you would have chosen to do it had the Australian people had one skerrick of confidence in you and re-elected you, which they did not.1103111031Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TASLP10—My question without notice is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate how the government's business tax reforms will provide Australia with an internationally competitive and fairer tax system, reduce the opportunities for tax avoidance and further benefit Australian families?11031Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Gibson, for that question. I am pleased to announce to the Senate that the first six bills to implement stage one of the government's reforms to business taxation passed the Senate last night, and are now awaiting royal assent. This is a historic achievement, and an achievement that this chamber can be well proud of. The coalition is equipping Australia with the tools of a modern and fair tax system for the next century, part of which is the new business tax system.The new business tax system will be very positive for Australian business and for whole of the Australian economy. The key features of the new business tax system are: a major cut in the company tax rate, making our rate one of the lowest in the region. We are also providing substantially simpler tax arrangements for small business, which have been very widely welcomed by small business. Further, there is a halving of the capital gains tax rate for individuals. We set out on this journey not only to make the business tax system more competitive, but also to make it fairer and to make the package of reforms revenue neutral. These changes will end many opportunities people have had to avoid taxation through exploiting unintended loopholes in the law. It will restrict the ability of individuals to alienate personal service income, limit deductions for non-commercial losses and tighten the 13-month rule for tax shelter arrangements.These initiatives to deal with tax avoidance are in complete contrast to the very poor effort that the previous Labor government made in attempting to clamp down on tax rorts. This government will not tolerate tax bludgers. We recall that, even after the Labor government left office, they were in this chamber defending various tax rorts, including the quite notorious R&D syndicates. The government is not only introducing a new set of business taxation proposals which will make Australia more competitive, we are closing off loopholes for taxation avoidance so that people pay their fair share of tax.It is also important that the reforms to business taxation are not seen in isolation, but are seen as part of the overall positive economic outlook underlined in last weeks mid year economic and fiscal outlook report and confirmed yesterday by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Growth in the economy this year is expected to be 3.5 per cent, and unemployment is expected to fall to 6¾ per cent by June of next year. The government is running an economy with increasing employment, low inflation, low interest rates, high growth, a surplus budget and a new improved tax system on the way. A fairer and more competitive modern tax system will make Australia more competitive and build on the benefits that this government has already delivered to the Australian community, business and families.1103211032Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Ellison, the Special Minister of State. Is the minister aware that reports in today's media of the formation of a giant data warehouse containing the personal and financial details of almost every Australian state that this data warehouse will contain information from a diverse range of sources, including electoral rolls? Can the minister confirm for the Senate that section 91B(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act specifically prohibits the use of Commonwealth electoral rolls for commercial purposes? Will the minister assure the Senate that an investigation will be conducted to ascertain whether Commonwealth laws, including the Commonwealth Electoral Act, have been or would be breached in relation to the formation of this data warehouse?11032Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—There are restrictions, of course, on the use of electoral rolls. I am not aware of the issue that Senator Faulkner has raised, but I can assure the Senate that I will look into this and ensure that the provisions of the Electoral Act are adhered to.11032Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I do find it extraordinary that neither Senator Vanstone nor Senator Ellison have been made aware of this important issue, which is very prominent in today's media. Madam President, can I ask as a supplementary question: is the minister aware that the construction of the data warehouse is a joint venture between PBL and Acxiom USA and that the joint venture's chief executive officer is none other than Mr Andrew Robb, the former Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia? Can the minister inform the Senate how this new data warehouse may have gained access to copies of the Commonwealth electoral rolls for a private commercial purpose? If not, I ask the minister again: will he commence an immediate inquiry as to how this access was given?11032Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—Senator Faulkner is assuming that this entity has gained access to these rolls. I will look into the matter. Senator Faulkner has made this assumption no doubt on news reports. I can assure the Senate that we will look into this matter.1103211032Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate of Commonwealth efforts to ensure the long-term sustainability of the prawn fishing industry within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? How are these efforts being undermined by the environmental recklessness of the Beattie government?11032Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—This is a very serious matter. Yesterday I mentioned to the Senate the very disappointing efforts of Premier Beattie, in particular, in relation to land clearing in Queensland. Senators will remember that he promised that legislation would pass through the Queensland parliament before Christmas. Watch this space—disappointing effort in relation to water reform, disappointing efforts in relation to greenhouse. But equally important is the record of Mr Beattie today in relation to unsustainable fishing on the Great Barrier Reef.Honourable senators will remember that earlier this year the CSIRO brought down a major report on the issue of sustainability of prawn trawling on the Great Barrier Reef in which it advised that effort had reached a level where we could not be assured that it was any longer sustainable in terms of the damage to the total ecosystem. It advised that the level of bycatch—six to 10 tonnes of bycatch for every tonne of prawns—was too high. It advised that further efforts needed to be taken to stop illegal fishing, with 40 to 50 trawlers regularly fishing illegally in green zones. It advised to close areas that had not previously been trawled.When the Commonwealth then said to the Queensland government that in the Queensland government's new management plan—the Queensland government being the manager for the fishery—it needed to take these matters into account, the Commonwealth government was told that it was interfering in Queensland business. Madam President, you will recall that the draft plan put out by the Queensland Fishing Management Authority in effect allowed for a cap at 1996 levels, but not before the year 2004. The take would be allowed to rise until the year 2004 and then a gradual reduction was to be brought into place.The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority took independent and objective advice and advised the Queensland government of a number of safeguards that the Commonwealth would expect within the new management plan of the Queensland government. That was put to the Commonwealth government. A task force was then set up between GBRMPA and the Queensland Fishing Management Authority that agreed to a number of reforms that could give the Commonwealth confidence that fishing in the future would be at sustainable levels whilst providing for the long-term viability of the industry and the wellbeing of fishing.Did the Queensland Premier take the advice of the task force? No, the Queensland Premier intervened, overruled the advice of the task force and has now in fact put in place a management plan that disregards the issue of sustainability. In particular, the new plan that the Queensland government has put in place includes no cap at all, let alone a cap at 1996 levels. The new plan does not provide for gradual reduction from a 1996 cap. It does not provide for any reduction at all, let alone the five per cent per year that had been recommended. It does not provide for independent allocation assessment committee work to ensure that the allocation of effort is fair, particularly for the benefit of small operators, to particularly take into account regional circumstances. It does not provide for turtle exclusion devices and BRDs—bycatch reduction devices—to be mandatory across the whole of the Great Barrier Reef area.This is an irresponsible outcome by the Queensland Premier—an intervention that has been unhelpful and has resulted in the likelihood of unsustainable prawn fishing in the Great Barrier Reef. That is something that the Commonwealth simply cannot tolerate occurring. (Time expired)11033Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQLDLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. What further action will the Commonwealth take?11033Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I welcome that question. The point is that the Commonwealth government will ensure sustainability not only because it is its international obligation but because it is the right thing to do for all Australians. We are happy that Queensland manages the fishery, but it has got to do it within sustainable limits. What Mr Beattie did was tick off on all the easy parts of the plan and say he would look at the cap next year. But, of course, we know that is code—a wink and a nod—for not doing anything. If the Queensland government under Mr Beattie is not going to act responsibly in relation to one of Australia's great world heritage areas, then the Commonwealth government will have no alternative but to intervene.1103311033Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that he has received a copy of the second advice from the Clerk of the Senate dated yesterday regarding the government's spurious claims for public interest immunity over the scan scam documents? Does the minister agree that the Senate Clerk's advice, concentrating as it does and should on Senate procedure rather than points of law, effectively demolishes each and every one of the grounds advocated by the government to keep these documents secret from public scrutiny? When will Dr Wooldridge stop inventing brand-new and baseless grounds for public interest immunity and instead front up with the documents, as ordered by the parliament?11034Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for the question and also for his courtesy in faxing to me the letter from the Clerk to him, which I received just before I came down to question time. As you can see, it is over two pages, Madam President. I have not had the opportunity of scrutinising it completely, but I think Senator Evans should give up the facade of sheltering behind the Clerk of the Senate, who cannot answer for himself. I do not know why Senator Evans does not use these arguments himself rather than sheltering behind the very broad shoulders of the Clerk of the Senate. Senator Evans has been on a fishing expedition for a long time.Since yesterday I have received a communication from the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Michael Wooldridge, and he advised me that he has nothing to add to the information contained in the letter to the Clerk of the Senate which I tabled yesterday. The minister indicated his disagreement with the views of the Clerk of the Senate in relation to the public disclosure of information in the context of the order of the Senate of 21 October. He has confirmed that a total of 17 cases have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It would not therefore be proper to disclose information which may have a bearing on these investigations.11034Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate that the minister has returned to one of the earlier defences. I am quite happy to debate the issue with him and have been since February. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Not in question time, Senator.AX5Senator CHRIS EVANS—The supplementary question is that the HIC said very clearly on the record at estimates earlier this year, in February and March, when we asked them about it that they had no objection to making this information available to the Senate even if the matters were referred to the DPP because they could not see how that would prejudice the prosecutions. Why now do you attempt to use that defence when the HIC itself said that was no defence to providing the information?11034Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—This is a decision that the minister has made.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—He does not need to justify it?VW4Senator HERRON—The justification is that the matters have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 17 cases. I think it should be apparent that this is the proper course of action to take, that these matters should be pursued in the courts of law, and that is the action that has been taken.1103411034Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I refer the minister to her answer to my question yesterday regarding refugees from East Timor, where she stated:The government expects the East Timorese who are able to do so to return before their visas expire.Minister, the UNHCR may be willing to say it is safe for refugees to return in the sense that they no longer have a well-founded fear of persecution in that they are not likely to get shot. But is it not the case that water and food supplies, water quality, shelter and access to medical and education services are currently clearly inadequate? How can the government guarantee that it is safe to return to these conditions? Why is the government trying to ensure East Timorese are returned to these conditions as soon as next week?11034Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question, and I can indicate to him that I have some more information—not a lot but nonetheless some more—in relation to his question on this matter yesterday. I have had a look at the brief that I have been provided by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. It does not address that specific point, and I will speak to the minister and see whether there is anything he has to say in relation to that matter.Before concluding, can I say that I noticed the perhaps unintentionally glib way that you referred to the UNHCR as though they may make a decision and it is not one that we ought take notice of. I, and I think plenty of other senators and members, have significant respect for that body, and I would not so easily dismiss out of hand a decision they have apparently made if I had a different view. Nonetheless, I will put your view to the minister for immigration and ask him whether there is anything further he wishes to add.11035Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In relation to the UNHCR, Minister, isn't the role of that body simply to determine whether or not people have a well-founded fear of persecution? It is not that body's role to determine the conditions in which people return in terms of health, education, water and food supplies. The minister also stated yesterday that return is voluntary. Is the government aware of statements from a number of East Timorese refugees in Australia requesting an extension of their visas until conditions improve? How can returning these people be described as voluntary? What will the government do with any East Timorese who are unwilling to leave by next week? I would remind the minister, in seeking that information from her counterpart, that she did give a commitment yesterday to get back to me as quickly as she could on that day with any remaining answers. I have not had any extra material to date, so I would ask her to see if she could get more detail from Minister Ruddock on that issue as quickly as possible.11035Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Part of the answer that I will table after question time deals with the question of people who do not want to return at this point. The minister's advice in relation to that matter is that, if those people have a good reason to extend their stay here beyond 8 December, they can approach him on an individual basis.1103511035Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—My question is to Senator Herron representing the Minister for Aged Care. Will the minister confirm press reports that the government will be abandoning the policy of coalescence in aged care, a policy that was rejected by the Productivity Commission? Will he also confirm that the Prime Minister's office has been forced to intervene to resolve the issue, given the failure of the Minister for Aged Care to work with the sector towards a solution? Isn't the government's backflip on this issue a response to pressure from the Queensland coalition backbenchers, led by the member for Fadden, and does the minister support the attacks by the member for Fadden against Minister Bishop on this issue? Isn't this yet another example of the failure of the Minister for Aged Care to handle difficult issues in her portfolio?11035Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—One thing I have learned after being in this place about nine years is to gauge media reports and such things very carefully. An even more important thing I have learned is to gauge even more carefully assertions made by the Labor Party spokesman. I know Senator Hogg has not been here that long but he has been very active in Labor Party affairs, and I am sure that he would be very wary of propositions that were put to him. I do not believe those assertions that are in the paper. I have certainly campaigned for a resolution to the coalescence question—as all of my fellow Queensland senators have done—because it is a significant thing for Queensland. I am sure that is why Senator Hogg is putting this proposal as well. But I think it should be put in the context that the government publicly released the Productivity Commission's report on nursing home subsidies on 31 March this year. The report endorses the government's intention to move towards uniform national subsidies for residential aged care. The Productivity Commission also found no evidence of a funding crisis in the residential aged care industry. The Productivity Commission says:The substantial prices paid for bed licences do not sit comfortably with the view that there is a funding crisis in the sector. Similarly, the commission notes that many homes, private for profit and not for profit alike, are producing operating surpluses under the current subsidy levels, even in the lower subsidy states.Now that the Productivity Commission's report has been released, the government has conducted a series of consultations, and those consultations are continuing. Industry and consumer stakeholders in all states have been consulted on the key issues raised, and when these consultations are completed there will be a whole of government decision on the recommendations and the way ahead. Just because the industry want a decision accelerated in their favour in my own state—and I can understand that because that is what industry does, and I commend them for their activity—that is not going to force the hand of the government into making a decision that will influence the whole of the country.The government will be especially mindful of the impact on the industry and on those older Australians who live in nursing homes and hostels. In 1995-96 the Labor government spent $2.5 billion on residential aged care across Australia. The outlay in 1999-2000 is budgeted to be $3.5 billion. That is an increase of 42 per cent since the coalition was elected to government in 1996. We will be continuing to consult with the industry and with the residents of nursing homes and hostels. We will respond to our reports at the appropriate time, because it is an important question that needs to be determined by government, that needs a whole of government response to be developed.11036Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QLDALP00—I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that Aged Care Queensland has been left out of the discussions between the sector and the government on this policy backdown? Can he confirm that, along with the ill-fated accommodation bonds, this is another of the government's aged care reforms that will be jettisoned by the government?11036Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—At the risk of repeating myself, which I am not wont to do, Aged Care Queensland has been very active in lobbying all my colleagues and me. To my understanding, they have briefed departmental offices. If the implication was that they have not met with the minister, then I will follow up on that. But I am certainly aware of the fact that there have been extensive consultations from Aged Care Queensland both with the minister's officers and with the department.1103611036Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—This question without notice is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Will the minister inform the Senate of the impact of the government's Tough on Drugs strategy on stemming the flow of the domestic production of amphetamines?11036Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Payne for the question. She has a longstanding interest in the problems of drug abuse in Australia. Domestic amphetamine production is the major supplier of amphetamines on the Australian market. All too often we get slightly distracted by focusing on the drugs coming across the border and therefore do not focus enough on the job that is being done in Australia to produce these drugs. The modus operandi is fairly simple. Over-the-counter pharmaceutical tablets are purchased—or, more often than not, stolen—by criminals to extract the pseudoephedrine from which methylamphetamine can be produced. It is a pretty simple process. A packet of 90 over-the-counter pharmaceutical tablets can be purchased without prescription for roughly $20. By reacting this pseudoephedrine with other chemicals—more difficult to acquire but not so difficult that they cannot be purchased on the black market—for a value of about $50, pure methylamphetamine can be produced. So, for a $70 investment, with the wrong connections in the underworld, a return in the vicinity of $5,000 can be realised.The number of clandestine laboratories is increasing. There were 4,418 arrests nationwide for amphetamine offences in 1997-98, compared with 3,585 in 1996-97—up 23 per cent in one year. So it is important to focus on this growing problem of amphetamine production in Australia, and it is important to realise just how profitable and lucrative this sort of business is. Cocaine can be cut on heroin, heroin can be cut down to 50 per cent; this sort of stuff can be cut down to have only three per cent pure amphetamine in what is sold on the market. So the profit margin is obviously significantly higher.The Bureau of Criminal Intelligence organised the National Chemical Diversion Conference in Canberra yesterday and today. That highlights the importance of the greatest weapon against criminals of law enforcement internationally and nationally, and that is cooperation. I have had occasion to say in here a number of times that we have been successful in major drug seizures because of international cooperation, and our cooperation has provided success overseas because we have been cooperating in reverse.Similarly, when you come to the question of amphetamine production it is important to focus on cooperation. This conference brings together the law enforcement investigators who are working at the coalface, the chemical technicians, the transportation industry and health officials—all of whom have an interest in this growing and very serious problem in Australia. The exchange of information between law enforcement agencies is vital. The control of precursor chemicals is, of course, difficult because of the large-scale industrial use. These chemicals are extremely dangerous. For every kilo of methylamphetamine produced, there are 10 kilos of toxic waste. So, Senator Brown, when you have not got something to do, you could help us in law enforcement in relation to amphetamines. You should have a very strong interest in this matter because—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, you should direct your remarks to the chair, not across the chamber.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Through you, Madam President—for every one kilo of methylamphetamine produced, 10 kilos of very dangerous toxic waste are turned out. It can contaminate the air, the ground, water and buildings. These drugs are also particularly dangerous. When law enforcement goes in to dismantle these labs, explosions frequently occur. We have had police officers very significantly injured for the rest of their lives because of these drugs. (Time expired)1103711037West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that a report from a director of a nursing training institute in Sydney identifies numerous instances in which untrained staff in hostels are administering dangerous drugs to residents? Is the minister also aware that, as the report notes, overdoses and underdoses are becoming commonplace in hostels as unqualified staff hand out complicated medications and drugs, including morphine? Is the minister aware that there have been numerous admissions to hospital as a direct result? Just what is the government doing to protect older Australians in hostels from dangerous medication administering practices by unqualified staff?11037Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator West for that question and her continued interest in nursing, given her background. I am not aware of that particular report in the media today but it is true that there is an ongoing problem in relation to medications overall, to answer the last part of the question first, and the misuse of medication both in nursing homes and hospitals, but more seriously in nursing homes and hostels because of the age of the patients concerned, the difficulty in remembering the dosages and the fact that there is a difficulty in the staffing of hostels and nursing homes insofar as qualifications and the understanding of the people who dispense these materials. Both the previous government and the current government have adopted standards that require accreditation in these places to overcome these particular issues, but they will vary from time to time. Again, as Senator West asserts, it is well known, for example, that hospital admissions to a large degree are as a result of inadequate or excessive medication, and problems arise from that in the wider community as well as in nursing homes. To summarise that, in answer to Senator West's question: that is governed under the accreditation criteria, both by the states and the federal government, so that those issues can be addressed.11037West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Don't reports of unqualified staff administering dangerous drugs to older Australians raise serious concerns about the medical safety of many of the aged care institutions in this country? Shouldn't we be doing everything to ensure that the safety of frail older Australians is not put at risk? I also ask the minister: what are the implications arising out of this in relation to the dispensing to patients of schedule 8 drugs by untrained staff? There are some breaches of the laws there, and it is really of grave concern to everybody. What is this government going to do about those?11038Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In answer to the first supplementary question, yes, that is correct. In answer to the second, the government is doing something about it by ensuring that the criteria established, both at the state and the federal level, with the cooperation of the states, are instituted and enforced so that the activity should not occur.1103811038Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. Minister, ex-service personnel who serve their country in theatres of war and who, as a result of their injuries and health, are recipients of the TPI pension are granted a sales tax exemption on new motor vehicles and parts. Does the government intend to provide an equivalent GST exemption?11038Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The GST exemptions flow through, Senator, so there is no particular change there. I think that probably deals with the question that you have asked. The government has a great concern and interest to make sure that ex-servicemen are looked after appropriately. That has always been this government's policy and, over the period of time that we have been in government, we have taken every possible step to make sure that the benefits available to ex-servicemen are maintained and, where possible, improved.11038Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister has clarified that GST exemptions flow on. Can the minister assure the Senate that these recipients will not be worse off under the new tax system in relation to vehicles, and under what process?11038Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make a general comment in relation to vehicles overall. Under our policy, as a result of the removal of the wholesale sales tax, the overall price of vehicles falls. So, this government, unlike the Labor Party, believes in cheaper vehicles, not more expensive vehicles. Also, of course, you would be aware that pensions are being increased in real terms. This is our policy; it is not Labor Party policy. We believe the package of reforms that we have brought down will be to the benefit of not only ex-servicemen and TPI recipients but the Australian community. This is what this tax reform is about: improving the conditions of the Australian community and improving, of course, the benefits available to those on welfare.1103811038Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister explain why the Howard government has refused to fund the AMA's planned education campaign designed to promote an end to the antiquated system of extremely long hours being worked by young doctors in public hospitals?11038Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Denman for her question and her concern about the extremely long hours worked by doctors.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Young doctors.VW4Senator HERRON—Young doctors. I remember the day when I was a young doctor. I did a survey as then president of the Resident Medical Officers Association and found that we were working 100 hours a week, for which we were paid a pittance. I am sure that that could be replicated among many other professions.The short answer to the question is that it is up to the doctors themselves to take particular action, as we did in those days; it is not for government to do it. Does Senator Denman really expect the taxpayer to subsidise young doctors because they are working hard? That is the way you get experience in this game: you go out and you work hard; you get hands-on experience looking after sick people so that you can get some value out of it. The government is not going to subsidise young doctors.I am delighted to have the Labor Party advocating that the taxpayers subsidise young doctors. It might be the foretaste of the Labor Party's policy on health care in this country, because we have been waiting three years for the policy. Is this the first bit of policy—that the Labor Party will subsidise young doctors to stop them working such long hours? I welcome the question. The facts of the matter are that we do not believe it is government's responsibility to do this. But I am happy to ask the minister if he has anything further to add to the answer that I have just given.11039Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister concede that excessive workloads are a major contributing factor in the high rate of adverse events and preventable deaths and injuries in our hospitals? Why does the Howard government continue to tolerate this dangerous practice?11039Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—In an industrial situation, they are the sorts of arguments that I would expect the resident medical officers to use. In fact, that is the argument which I used to use, so I have no difficulty in answering that particular question. Of course, any single event in our hospitals that is deleterious to a patient should be condemned. There is no question about that. There are procedures in hospitals to prevent this occurrence. It is the Labor Party that has control of the majority of hospitals in the country. I think that is the sort of question that should be addressed to Premier Bob Carr, Premier Steve Bracks or the other Labor premiers around the country.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Name them!VW4Senator HERRON—Mr Beattie. The states have responsibility for the hours that are worked within their hospital system and for adverse events that are occurring. It shows that there is a complete misunderstanding of the hospital and medicare system. (Time expired)1103911039Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Is the minister aware that the radioactive waste reprocessing contract between ANSTO and Cogema, which was announced a fortnight ago by DFAT, is contrary to the accord between the French Greens and their coalition partners, which specifically states that `recycling at The Hague will be reviewed and no new recycling contract will be undertaken'? Is the minister aware that the ship which is now on its way to northern France carrying 308 spent fuel rods from the Lucas Heights facility may not be allowed to deposit its toxic cargo at its destination? In light of this latest revelation about the supposedly secure contract with France, is it the case that Australia will have no reprocessing options for the waste from a new, and unnecessary, nuclear reactor?11039Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I take the opportunity of this question to congratulate ANSTO on the very successful, efficient shipment that occurred late last week. I think they did an outstanding job in very smoothly transporting those spent fuel rods from Lucas Heights onto the ships and out of Australia, in accordance with our policy that we should reprocess those spent fuel rods and return the waste from those spent fuel rods in time for storage in a facility in Australia.As to the Democrats' assertion that, because the French Greens have some difficulty with this matter, we will not be able to have our spent fuel rods reprocessed at Cogema, I point out to Senator Stott Despoja that ANSTO does have a binding contract with Cogema for this reprocessing. In August of this year Australia exchanged diplomatic notes with the French government in respect of this matter. The note specifically states:The Government of the French Republic assures the government of Australia that it does not intend to take or support any legislative or regulatory initiative or any other action which would prevent or hinder execution of the contract relating to the delivery of the spent fuel to Cogema and its transport to the processing site in France.Whatever the views of the French Greens may be, the French government has made it abun dantly clear that the contract with Cogema will be honoured.11040Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of the accord between the French Greens and their socialist coalition partners? Does the minister recall his own statements and the statements of his department and agencies that the new nuclear reactor would not be constructed in Australia until the issue of waste disposal was resolved—the minister's own words? Would the minister please explain whether it remains the policy of his department to co-locate the future storage of the reprocessed high level waste with the proposed national radioactive waste repository?Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Government senators should be aware that the supplementary question has been asked and the minister should be called to answer.Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Ian Macdonald, cease interjecting.11040Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I think there are several questions there which I am given one minute to attempt to answer. It is not the government's policy to co-locate. We have only ever said that it remains a possibility that we will co-locate the facility for the storage of long-lived intermediate level waste with the low-lived and short-lived intermediate level waste repository. We do have a strategy for the waste from the Lucas Heights reactor. That is why we are proceeding with the new reactor. That waste will be the result of the reprocessing of the spent fuel rods. According to the contract that we have with Cogema, that waste will be returned to Australia in 2015 and it will be stored in a long-lived intermediate level storage facility, which may or may not be co-located with the repository.1104011040Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is the minister aware that studies in New Zealand have found that charities have had to absorb a five to eight per cent increase in overall running costs as a result of administering the GST? What action will the government take to ensure the expected five to eight per cent increase in running costs for charities here in Australia does not lead to less resources to help the needy? Is a $200 GST gift voucher the limit of the Howard government's assistance?11040Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—That was a pretty silly question. But, having said that, no, that is not the extent of the assistance to charities, and the senator should be well aware of the fact that that is not the case. For example, a great deal of assistance is being given to the community sector by virtue of funding peak bodies to provide assistance to the smaller community sector organisations. Only just over a week ago I announced the establishment of a 13 number for the community sector, the education sector and the small business sector to ring to get information on specific points. In addition, the government has made it quite clear that it will be monitoring the impact of tax reform on the charitable sector. There is no intention by the government to make life more difficult for the charitable sector in the provision of services which are funded very largely by government.11040Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Those changes do not help them with long-term running costs. Is the minister aware of a report in the Financial Review of 22 November which states that the government's GST high-roller tax rebate `should not be construed as pandering to the wealthy'? Why then have high rollers been exempted from paying a GST while, at the same time, the government is forcing charities to pay a GST on government grants they receive, as confirmed by Minister Anthony when he said:I make the point that it is likely that any grant made by the government to charities will be subject to a GST.Why does the Howard government, with the support of some Democrats, want to tax charities and the poor yet it is more than happy to hand out multimillion dollar GST breaks to Liberal cronies and their high-roller mates? 11041Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Madam President, that is just the normal political rhetoric that we are accustomed to from them. The charitable sector does not pay a GST on payments received for specific services to people with disabilities.Senator Sherry interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry, you have asked a question. You should not continue to shout while the minister is answering it, and nor should other senators.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, if Senator Sherry wants to learn what is not the case, I would refer him to a press release by the shadow minister, Mr Swan, which is absolutely crammed full of inaccuracies. They do not pay a GST—he would not listen to me before—on specified services to people with disabilities, to the aged, to child care or on non-commercial services. They do not pay a GST on donations, on the sale of red noses or second-hand goods or on raffles or bingo. They do not even have to register if their total turnover is less than $100,000.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, I raise a point of order.BE4Senator NEWMAN—You are asking for information and I am giving it to you.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Madam President, the point of order is relevance. The question went to the confirmation by Minister Anthony in respect of a question from Mr Swan that grants to charities will be subject to a GST. Why won't she admit it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.BE4Senator NEWMAN—You have already had that answer given several times, so I am not going to waste time. I am trying to give you more information that you obviously do not know either. If these charities are not registered, there is no ability to claim back the GST. (Time expired)1104111041Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. The government is committed to increasing IT&T skills and providing new opportunities for employment in the growing industry of telecommunications. Will the minister inform the Senate of the positive impact call centres are having on jobs growth, particularly in regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches? What would be the impact should those be implemented?Senator Lundy interjecting—11041Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—We will come to you in moment, Senator Lundy. Senator Calvert's question is a very important one because it highlights the extraordinary significance of not only the telecommunications sector but also the role that call centres have to play. Global telemarketing is about a $275 billion industry. In Australia, call centres are worth about $2½ billion and are growing at the rate of about 20 per cent a year. Indeed, salaries are going up by about 3.9 per cent. Most of the people employed—in other words, more than 50 per cent—are earning more than $30,000. If you are in the sales marketing area you can earn a lot more than that. Indeed, customer service operators are earning up to $52,000 and telephone salespeople are earning up to $72,000.Madam President, you would have thought this was very good news, wouldn't you. But no, what is the attitude of the trade union movement? A spokesperson from the Bendigo Trades Hall Council says, `Call centre jobs are not worth having.' That is the starting point. When she was asked about a proposal to create 200 new jobs in Hamilton, a very depressed rural area which used to be the wool capital of the world but has been going south for a number of years—Senator Troeth and I know it very well—she said, `I'd tell them to forget it. It's hardly worth it. Call centres are the new sweatshop factory labour.' If there is one thing I would have thought we have all learnt in recent times it is that rural and regional Australia has particular problems, but especially with unemployment. The levels of both adult and youth unemployment have been consistently higher than in metropolitan areas. Is that a given, or isn't it? Do we disagree on that proposition? We don't, do we?Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You would not have thought we did. But then we look at what Mr Martin Ferguson had to say only a month or so ago. He surprised a group of young farmers in Canberra by suggesting that the problems in the bush—bank closures, the loss of schools and hospitals—were the same as those in the cities. In other words, the bush does not have any special problems. This is a long-running record. Gough used to say that the bush had never had it so good; Keating used to trot it out on a regular basis; and here we have the latest spokesman in the area saying the same sort of thing. And now we have the unions opposing call centres, which are one of the great growth opportunities for jobs in rural and regional Australia. We must bear in mind that Mr Ferguson said this after the Victorian election. I would have thought that, if there was a lesson that even he might have learnt, it was that there are some special factors at work in rural Australia.I think this is absolutely deplorable. Of course, the unions are now embarking on this huge membership drive. They know that call centres are disastrous because about only 10 per cent of people there are actually union members. So they have to get out there and ramp it up. What do they say? When you talk to the Queensland branch secretary of the CEPU he says, `The problem is that a lot of employees don't even want to know that conditions aren't so good'—in other words, we are going to spend a lot of money telling them what the problems are so they have to join the union movement. You would have thought that Labor, with all its poll driven attitudes—Mr Beazley is out there looking at polls on the GST and polls on the referendum—would have learnt something, that it would have discovered that in the real world the unions are not the end of the line.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—You are so predictable. Get some new lines.LD4Senator ALSTON—When Mr McMullan achieved a bit of internal democracy and persuaded the local branch of the ALP to diminish the weighting in favour of the union movement, Senator Lundy said that the downside of full rank and file was marginalising and reducing the trade union movement. There it is—a wholly owned subsidiary, a spokesperson for the CPSU. (Time expired)1104211042Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY ZF4SAALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of the crisis meeting held this weekend by the AMA and the medical defence organisations to discuss the pressures which are forcing up the price of medical indemnity insurance? What steps has the government taken to reduce the burden of medical indemnity insurance on doctors and, in particular, to reduce the number of practitioners who are abandoning obstetrics and gynaecology because of extremely high premiums?11042Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I saw this question passed to Senator Faulkner. He looked at it and said to himself, `This one really stinks.' So he handed it on to Senator Mackay. When Senator Mackay smelled it she said, `This is a crock of X. I think I will hand it on to Senator Crowley.' Senator Crowley said—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is too much noise in the chamber and, Senator Herron, I draw your attention to the question.VW4Senator HERRON—Thank you, Madam President. Senator Crowley asked the question because she was the only one that thought it was fertiliser, was strong and would produce policy. So she has asked the question. This is a serious problem. The costs of medical defence insurance have gone through the roof in this country. It is part of a worldwide phenomenon. There are some areas where the increasing incidence of litigation parallels the number of lawyers in the country. It is a particular problem in relation to obstetrics and gynaecology. I recall one of my colleagues saying that it is now a blame and claim society in that everybody expects a perfect result and, if they do not get it, they consider that it is time for litigation.This problem is one that has to be addressed by the public as a whole—by the whole of society. It is inevitable that unless some action is taken by society as a whole this problem will escalate in the community. It is something that the community will have to address if they expect the very high standards of health care that they get in this country. The standards of health care in this country are as good as any in the world, if not better in many respects, particularly in relation to obstetrics and gynaecology. This serious question needs to be addressed because it will produce problems in the delivery of services throughout the country.Senator Crowley referred particularly to obstetrics and gynaecology. It has reached the stage in some American states where obstetricians and gynaecologists who love their profession are getting rid of all their assets. I have actually seen a sign saying something like, `I have no assets. If you wish to sue me as a result of any incident, that is your prerogative. The reality is that I have no assets.' That has occurred in the US. I think it was in Miami that obstetricians refused to do any obstetrics at all to put the state on notice and to bring this to a head.11043Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am not at all sure what to make of that generalised comment about this terribly important issue.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right will come to order.ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Minister, particularly in the light of the insurance premiums increasing dramatically for obstetrics and gynaecology practitioners, and in light of the fact that those premiums are very different from one state to another, would you please answer how the minister will ensure that obstetrics and gynaecology services will remain available in rural areas if the present trend of doctors to cease providing these services because of the rapidly rising cost of medical indemnity insurance continues?11043Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The first point to make is in relation to premiums, which are set by insurers. The Commonwealth government has no control over those premiums, which are based on business considerations. Issues relating to litigation and medical practice, as I mentioned previously, are a matter for state governments. The government is obviously concerned about the cost of private indemnity insurance as it relates to Medicare rebates and is addressing this issue through the relative values study. The relative values study is currently determining the cost of running a medical practice. It should be noted that in November of last year the Commonwealth introduced a substantially increased rebate for obstetricians performing complex births. The fee now payable is $964 and is expected to inject funding of almost $7 million per year into private obstetric practices. In addition to that, the states have taken action. My own state of Queensland introduced under the previous coalition government a flying obstetrician service for remote areas. (Time expired)BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice110431104315:02:0011043Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Hutchins asked me a question without notice on 29 November in relation to aged care waiting lists. I have received a reply from the minister and seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Senator HUTCHINS —My question is directed to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the coalition came to power with a major performance target in aged care to reduce waiting times? Is the minister aware that the annual report of the Department of Health and Aged Care shows a 36 per cent increase in the waiting times for residential aged care over the last two years, now rising to an average of 68 days?Senator HUTCHINS —If I can assist the minister: on page 226 of the department's report, it quotes clearly that there was an increase in the waiting period from 1997-98 of 50 days to 1998-99 of 68 days. Isn't it a fact that this 36 per cent increase in waiting time for residential aged care over the last two years is undeniable evidence of the failure of this government's aged care reforms? Further, despite all the attempts to explain away this increase, isn't it a fact that older Australians now must somehow struggle to remain in the community longer while they desperately search for, on average, over two months for a nursing bed home?SENATOR HERRON —The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:ENTRY PERIODS FOR NURSING HOME CAREResponse:The Government is committed to ensuring that older people can access residential care when they need it.Figures from the Department of Health and Aged Care confirm that when an older person needs care urgently, a place can generally be found for them straight away. In fact, 18% of nursing home residents are placed within two days of Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) approval (1998-99) In emergencies, residents can be placed before the ACAT assessment has occurred.For 1998/99, the period between assessment by an ACAT and a person's entry to permanent residential care was 68 days, on average. This is for all residential aged care services, including hostels. Admission to nursing homes is less, at 57 days, and admission to hostels is more, at 85 days. In most cases, older people and their families need time to visit different facilities, make a decision, and arrange their affairs before they moveDifferences in the way aged care entry times are calculated have produced higher figures in 1998/99 than for previous years. This does not mean that residents are actually waiting longer. Comparisons over time are not valid for a number of reasons.Firstly, as part of the Aged Care Reforms in 1997 an ACAT approval for nursing home admission is valid for one year, to bring it in line with the hostel approval period, rather than the 90 days which used to apply.This takes pressure off people entering nursing homes and gives them more time to make decisions. This gives older people time to visit different facilities, consider their options, settle their affairs and make arrangements with the facility of their choice before they enter care. Some older people may obtain ACAT assessment but choose not to proceed with entry to residential care for quite some time, while others may prefer to wait for a place in a particular facility, for instance due to religious preferences. It is therefore misleading to refer to this as a `waiting period'Secondly, the change in nursing home ACAT approval to one year also means that ACATs do not have to postpone an approval until they are sure the resident could find a place, as was sometimes the case in the past.Thirdly, the success of ageing-in-place also affects entry periods because in the past if a person moved from a hostel to a nursing home this would have been counted as a new admission, with a very short waiting time. Up to 40% of hostel discharges in the past were to nursing homes, which would have reduced the average waiting time substantially.Since the Aged Care Reforms fewer people have had to move from a hostel to a nursing home as they can receive higher levels of care in the low care service. This has a statistical effect on how entry periods are calculated.Miscellaneous110441104415:03:0011044Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TASALP00—Madam President, pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government for an explanation as to why answers have not been provided to the following questions on notice: No. 1600, which I asked on 28 September 1999; No. 1701, which I asked on 22 October 1999; No. 1702, which I asked on 22 October 1999; No. 1703, which I asked on the same day; and No. 1704, which I asked on the same day?15:03:0011044Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Mackay for the courtesy of advising me that she was going to raise these issues. They are questions which were asked of me in my representative capacity and were directed to Mr Anderson. Concerning question No. 1600 in relation to the certified air-ground radio service at Yulara in the Northern Territory, I am advised that the answer has been slightly delayed because information being provided by Airservices Australia to the department has just been provided. I am told that the senator's question will be answered as soon as possible, although I add that the trial has been completed. I referred to that earlier this week in question time.Concerning questions Nos 1701 and 1702, I apologise for the fact that they are a couple of days late. They were asked only on 22 October. The reason for the delay is that on 22 October my department was gearing up for the Regional Australia Summit, which was a major exercise for the whole of the depart ment. Even though a limited number of officers were directly involved, the whole of the department was particularly busy at the time as it was putting together the process for the launch of the first of our rural transaction centres which was opened at the end of October. So the department has been extremely busy. The answers are now a couple of days outside the 30-day period. I am told by my department that the answers to questions Nos 1701 and 1702 are expected to be lodged tomorrow or the next day with the Table Office.In relation to questions Nos 1703 and 1704, both of which deal with the Regional Australia Summit—as do questions Nos 1701 and 1702—I can inform Senator Mackay and the Senate that the answers to those last two questions have been provided to the Table Office today and I have sent Senator Mackay copies of those answers.Questions Without Notice110451104515:06:0011045Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.The Howard government has now proven that it is even more secretive than most Australians would have assumed. We have had some desperate attempts by government ministers in recent times to hide and cover up their actions as ministers. A classic example is Senator Hill and Senator Alston invoking cabinet-in-confidence as a reason for hiding details of the Federation Fund, when cabinet had absolutely nothing to do with carriage of the part of the program that was in question. That was outrageous.Then we had Senator Newman capping that effort, hiding the so-called seminal document on welfare reform that she was prevented by the Prime Minister from launching at the National Press Club in September. The Prime Minister's office gagged Senator Newman, and she then used two new and flimsy grounds of public interest immunity to gag bureaucrats and failed to come clean on the document. What were those public interest immunity grounds? They were, firstly, that non-cabinet documents might prejudice cabinet considerations and, secondly, that tabling the document might confuse the public debate.Those excuses were met with amazement and derision right around this building: amazement that a minister would invent two new grounds of public interest immunity and derision at her claim that transparency could lead to public confusion rather than public information. It was best described as a `mushroom ground' for public interest immunity: `Don't let the poor old public into the secret about anything that the government is up to. After all, if you do they might get confused.' Now there is a document in the public arena from the Clerk of the Senate stating that those two grounds were, in his words:. . . not among the established grounds for public interest immunity claims . . . and that he had not heard of them before. Basically, Senator Newman was making up those public interest immunity grounds on the run.Now we have three new excuses from Minister Wooldridge to hide details about the MRI scandal. He is arguing that public interest immunity is legitimate because disclosure of MRI details prejudices the government's relationship with the profession, disclosure could be misleading as to the reasons for the decisions taken, and the information includes information about the affairs of radiologists and the college. This is even more absurd. No-one knows what the first two grounds mean. Even the Clerk of the Senate could not understand what was being said. They are just inventions. It is gobbledegook from the government again. The third ground could relate to breach of privacy or commercial-in-confidence, but that is not stated. If Minister Wooldridge felt secure in using a privacy ground, one assumes he would say so. You can only conclude that that particular ground—the third ground used by Minister Wooldridge, the affairs of radiologists—is also nonsense.We know how secretive this government is. We know how it likes to cover up these details, to hide them from the parliament and to hide them from the public. Now we learn how secretive the government is, and not only about its own affairs. It is aiding and abetting big American multinationals' access to every detail about Australian citizens including, probably, the improper use of electoral roll details. As far as I can see, this is just another example of two-faced behaviour from this government. This is the principle of the government: whatever you do, hide the reasons for your ministerial decisions; cover up. That is part and parcel of the modus operandi of the Howard government. It stands exposed again in the way it does business. Now we learn about PBL and US multinational Acxiom. There are a lot of questions to answer here and this government has got to front up. (Time expired)15:11:0011046Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—The diatribe by Senator Faulkner is somewhat stupid, if I could put it that way. This government, above all other governments in the history of Federation, is as open and transparent as a polished pane of glass. There are no secrets at all. What did Senator Faulkner substantiate his statements with? Nothing. It is a hypothesis; a whispering campaign.This government is open and transparent—so much so that the privacy legislation that is to apply to collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information is an initiative of this government.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Where is it?WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—It is proposed legislation and it will be introduced. Senator Lundy said:. . . given that the Howard government has consistently dropped the ball on privacy legislation covering the commercial sector, what is there to prevent other companies from accessing—the database that she spoke about—which the developers hope will contain the personal details of 15 million Australians? The database is not accessible—if it exists, with 15 million Australians in it. This is the scare campaign that the Labor Party runs with. The Labor Party is a party in decline. For the past decade or so, the Labor Party has had to rely on the aggregation of small interest groups throughout Australia, sometimes the arty people and the small trade union groups that exist now—only 25 per cent of our work force. The aggregation of these could just get you over the line. To run a scare campaign on the government I find quite reprehensible. We all know that the secrecy surrounding the Hawke and Keating governments was an art form. It was established by those governments as an art form. You could not penetrate them.One of the criticisms of this government that Senator Faulkner made was of the Federation Fund. In denigrating it, you take away the wonderful benefits that those people in rural and remote Australia, particularly, but not exclusively, got from that Federation Fund. It was a great initiative by the government. It worked extremely well indeed. There was nothing secretive about that. Where were the problems? Where were the charges? Where did you follow through? You were saying that there had been some maladministration on that fund but you have never followed it through. This is a classic example of what you do. You introduce a topic to this house and you cannot follow through with any evidence. You simply cannot do it. It is not like the days of the whiteboard—when that was all there was. When asked, the member of the day said that she had rubbed the information off the whiteboard and it was no more. That is secretive.And what about the magnetic resonance imaging machines? What is the secrecy with respect to them? The Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, found out that an inordinate number of these machines were being ordered before the tax chopped in on them. He brought the subject up. He initiated the inquiry. He brought it in. The Labor Party, once it was initiated by Dr Wooldridge, ran with it. You picked it up and ran with it. And such is the power of the pink press that they did your bidding, and it looked as if it was your initiative. It was not.Next you will be claiming that the subjection now of 15 people to prosecution with respect to the MRI machines was your doing. It was not. It was the doing of this government. It was the doing of the minister for health, Dr Wooldridge. It had nothing to do with you people at all—nothing at all. I would expect that some prosecutions would come out of that. And I tell you this straight: it was a rort. But it was nothing to do with the government and it was nothing to do with the initiative shown on your part. It was open government. It was our open and transparent government that allowed you to pick up on the problem with the ordering of those machines. This is a very transparent government. The people of Australia can see what we do. And do you know what? They trust us. It will be a long time before they trust you and put you back on the treasury bench. (Time expired)15:16:0011047Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—If ever proof was needed that the government was keeping these matters secret, it was Senator Lightfoot's speech. He clearly knows nothing about these issues at all. The MRI issue is a very serious one. It has been described by the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, himself as a scam. His concerns about this matter were largely as a result of the Labor Party pursuing it in the parliament for the last year and pursuing it in the estimates hearings for the last year. It is only because of the pursuit of those matters by the Labor opposition that the minister has finally taken some action. We have been after him on this issue for almost a year now.The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, in his question time response, accused me of hiding behind the advice of the Senate Clerk, Mr Evans—no relation, I might point out. It is important to say that I am relying on the advice of the Clerk in these issues, because he has provided a very comprehensive debunking of the government's defence for failing to produce the documents requested by the order of the Senate. There is no defence that is plausible or that can be sustained by the government for refusing to release the documents that we have requested in relation to the MRI scam. The Senate Clerk in describing the government defence in his letter of yesterday said:. . . but new, unexplained and obscure grounds seem to be multiplying.That is because the government is making them up on the run. We have now in the last month had five public interest immunity defences offered by the government—by Senator Newman and Senator Herron—to justify the proposition that the public interest is best served by the public not knowing what is going on, that the less the public know the more the public interest is served. That is the government's proposition. In the last month, they have offered five different grounds for that. Senator Faulkner referred to the two used by Senator Newman. Senator Herron, in his letter the other day, used a further three, including—and this is the doozey of them all; this is the real doozey—that the `Government's relationship with the profession and the future supply of information to the Government' could be prejudiced if they released information pertaining to the decision on MRI. The government's relationship with the profession could be prejudiced!That is the basis of their decision not to release to the public the information vital to this issue. It is the government's relationship with the profession that is at the core of the problem here. They cosied up to the profession from February to May last year, in the process of making a budget decision. The minister, in his recent explanation to the parliament, said that in that period 48 new contracts for MRIs were allegedly signed. Forty-eight! That is almost as many as were in existence in the 10 or 15 years prior to that process commencing.It is his relationship with the profession that is at the core of the problem. In the few months from February to the May budget decision, 48 new contracts for these million-dollar machines were signed. He admits a scam occurred. We knew a scam occurred, because we have been investigating this matter for almost a year now. But he admits the scam occurred because something in the relationship between the minister's office and the profession allowed it to become common knowledge that the budget decision would open up the Medicare rebate for the MRIs. Because of his concern and the public concern about this issue, the minister has been forced to remove that Medicare rebate. Those MRIs are no longer eligible for it while investigations take place.We have been after this information since February. I want to concentrate on the minister's defence now that somehow it might prejudice the DPP investigations into MRI contracts. Not only does the Senate Clerk, Mr Evans, debunk that as total nonsense, but the HIC, the body that are investigating this matter, when I asked them about it in May of this year, made it very clear on the Hansard record that they had no problem with this information being released. Mr Watzlaff said in direct answer to a question by me:In terms of the identified information, I wouldn't have any difficulty then because there would be no prejudice to the investigations. The investigations would be complete, the briefs would be done, the matters would be referred.He is referring to them being referred to the DPP for prosecution. He made it clear that in his opinion in July this year that information would be able to be released to the opposition and to the public. The HIC had no problem with us having the information in about July. Here we are at the start of December and the government are inventing more and more excuses to hide the secrets of the MRI scam, to hide what happened between them and the profession that caused this scam to be perpetrated. To say that they cannot release the information to the public because it might harm their relationship with the profession is ludicrous in the extreme. (Time expired)15:21:0011048Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I too join in this debate with some delight. If ever we had a case of the pot calling the kettle black, we have it right here. I want to take the Senate back to some of the behaviour of those on the other side of the chamber that occurred in the days we were in opposition—and I particularly refer to ministers Collins and Evans—in terms of the estimates process and other matters that we dealt with at that time. They made an art form of claiming commercial in confidence, as the Hansard record will show. They did so without any excuse, just with total immunity. They would say, `Oh, that's commercial in confidence.'The other one I should mention here was the real doozey of them all—Senator Cook. He is not with us now; he is in Seattle. The particular aspect I want to deal with was when the WTO negotiations were going on and we relentlessly pursued the then government with regard to some of the things that were going to be in that agreement, as well as the signing off on it.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Relentless is not exactly a word that comes to mind.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—They signed off on things that we never had the opportunity to scrutinise whatsoever—AW5CARRSenator Carr—More like dead sheep.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—and we are now paying a pretty hefty price for that, particularly in the area of quarantine. It would do you good, Senator Carr, through you, Madam Deputy President, just to read a little bit of history about how this occurred and what those opposite did.Also with regard to the quarantine issue, there was a concern about wheat coming into this country—feed wheat, in fact. Senator Collins hid behind a veil of secrecy for many, many weeks while that particular process went on. In contrast, Dr Wooldridge has been much more open in terms of dealing with the MRI process. I say through you, Madam Deputy President, to those on the other side of the chamber that they really should look at those people of their own who have perfected this particular art.There is one other example I can remember very clearly. It concerned one Mr Reynolds of the BLF who was allegedly travelling over to Canberra to attend particular meetings of a committee that had been set up at that particular time, I believe by Senator Cook. It was certainly Senator Cook I was dealing with in the estimates on this particular aspect. By chance I found out that, even though the meetings were being held in Canberra, Mr Reynold's destination was invariably Sydney or somewhere else. He then went back without ever getting near to where the meeting was being held. That is all on the public record now for you people to have a look at. It was denied, it was covered up and they refused to hand the information over for many, many months. Probably the class act of all was Mrs Kelly and her whiteboard and what occurred with that.These people who come in here and throw these sorts of things across the table want to look back at a little bit of their own history and their own performance in terms of what occurred and what they did. Once again, I can refer to a particular instance involving former senator Gareth Evans when he was in charge of foreign affairs. I asked some questions about something as innocent as wool. Once again the classic answer came out, when he did not know the particular answers to my questions, `Oh, that is commercial in confidence.' It took a lot of twisting of the arm and a lot of bending of the elbow before he would come out and put those things on the table. Once again, these are pretty simple and straightforward things which you people need to have a look at.Senator Carr interjecting—10000Crane, Sen WinstonThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Carr.11049Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—They shout across the table. It is their usual performance in terms of dealing with this when we get up and start putting some of the facts on the table. That is their way of dealing with these particular issues. I would suggest to them that they ought to be a little bit consistent in their approach.When it comes to withholding information from the general public, one can never ever forget what the then Prime Minister Mr Keating did with his LAW tax cuts. He took a policy into an election and he totally and absolutely deceived the Australian people. When we got back here, as those on the other side of this chamber know, he totally changed his position, reversed the decision and misled. So in terms of withholding information or misleading, we have the champions in this place. That type of behaviour comes directly and absolutely from the Labor Party, those sitting on the other side. (Time expired) 15:26:0011049Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6ACTALP00—Isn't it interesting that some members of the coalition seem to have excellent memories that can drag up all sorts of tripe from the past, but today we saw in the chamber two frontbenchers showing their complete ignorance and lack of understanding of a very current issue, and that is the one I would like to address my comments to today. It relates to privacy and to the issue of how the privacy of consumers and citizens is protected in the information age. We have seen today reported in the newspaper and through various reports since that privacy is something that is not at the forefront of this government's agenda.It is quite extraordinary that, despite having made two election promises—one in 1996 and another in 1998—that this government would legislate to protect the privacy of individual information held in the commercial sector or the private sector, we are yet to see that legislation tabled in this place. What we do know—and this is an even graver indictment on the frontbenchers in this place today—is that the government has circulated a discussion paper at some length. Indeed, it was in 1998, late last year, that they circulated the national principles for the fair handling of personal information. But nearly 12 months later there is no legislation to be seen.Despite obviously having a very clear position on this issue from the point of view of a discussion paper from the Attorney-General's Department, this government has failed to act and it has failed to legislate, exposing consumers and citizens to potentially very serious breaches of privacy. I am, of course, referring to the reportage today of an alliance between PBL and Acxiom. It is a very interesting alliance given that the new chief executive of this particular company happens to be none other than the former federal director of the Australian Liberal Party. I will come back to that point.Let us have a look at what is being proposed here. What this company is saying is that they will store the information of 15 million Australians and they will gather it from a range of different sources. They nominate the areas. They will gather it from the electoral roll and they will gather it from credit card companies. They will gather it from a range of sources that demonstrate, for the first time that I can recall, the absolute significance of some of the corporate alliancing that is occurring in the information technology sector, the telecommunications sector, the media sector and so forth.For the first time we have seen what I see as a confession by the CEO of this particular company as to just what depth they intend to use and manipulate personal information about citizens in this country. I will refer to Acxiom's own homepage now to show the sorts of ways they hope to use the personal information that it is suggested PBL in partnership with Acxiom will be collecting about Australian citizens:The Acxiom Data Network, with all of its power, is only in its infancy. There are many innovations still on the way, such as the ability to integrate data directly into call centers, interactive web pages, point-of-sale applications and sales force automation software. Additionally, "push notification" will be available later this year. This technology will automatically alert subscribers when customer data has changed, keeping their data as current as possible. Subscribers will soon have the ability to build their own prospect lists directly from our InfoBase files.If that does not make you nervous, it should.Just about every other jurisdiction in the western world has managed to find a way to legislate quite specifically to put in place sanctions against the breach of personal information. Australia has not. My concern is that, whilst ever this government is negligent in this regard and fails to legislate for the protection of personal data held in private hands, Australian consumers and citizens will become vulnerable to a depth of manipulation that they have not given permission for and that they are not aware is actually occurring.I believe this matter warrants the most serious consideration by the government, right now. Senator Faulkner raised in this place this afternoon the issue of the use of electoral rolls as a potential breach of section 91B(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. That needs to be immediately inquired into by the government to find out if that constitutes a breach of that act, and Acxiom and PBL need to be called to task. (Time expired)15:31:0011050Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—There has been a very wide ranging debate on the motion to take note of answers this afternoon, and it has dealt with a number of topics from secrecy and public interest immunity to Acxiom database, the production of documents relating to the MRI matter, and Senator Newman and her working documents. What has been said is that the information has been confidential and that it is likely to prejudice ongoing inquiries, but it does raise a very important principle. Public interest immunity is a matter that continually comes up in looking at documents produced for parliament and has done over the past couple of decades. It does require the reconciliation of two apparently irreconcilable issues of high policy.On the one hand, the principle of public policy which calls for recognition is the requirement that the parliament have access to all or any information of whatever kind which will enable it to discharge its obligations. After all, openness in government is essential to ensure representative democracy and accountable government. But this is not a complete open slather. On the other hand stands the equally important doctrine of ministerial responsibility and accountability, and a fundamental feature of responsible government is that others have to deal with government confident in the knowledge that at least some of their matters that are commercially or otherwise sensitive can be kept confidential.Something that is completely overlooked when you have one of these debates is the risk to the public interest when it is simply left up to the political process to protect confidentiality. Politicians have no neutral evaluator role at all; they are not judges and they are not constrained in any way to conduct the balancing exercise by reference to well defined principles. Obviously, while political pressure can be brought to bear, we do have to bear in mind that you cannot underrate the importance of confidentiality in communications with government and in the decision making process. I am not mounting a play for secrecy—far from it—but those dealing with government should be able to do so with complete openness and frankness, secure in the knowledge that properly defined circumstances will allow commercially sensitive information and privacy to be protected. That does not seem to be something that comes to mind when these sorts of debates and slanging matches go across the chamber. What is the greater public interest here?Another matter that was brought up at some length by Senator Lundy was the so-called alarm at the announcement of the establishment of the Acxiom database and the alleged threat to privacy. This is also a bit of a furphy, because the government plans to introduce a bill to amend the Privacy Act 1988, and the amendments will establish a co-regulatory framework for the protection of personal data in the private sector, and industry groups will be encouraged to develop codes of conduct for the management of personal information using the Privacy Commissioner's information privacy principles. Where a code of conduct is absent, a default legislative framework will apply.It is important that those listening to this debate understand that the legislation will specifically apply to the collection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information. The national privacy principles have provided a default framework for the handling of personal information. There are 10 of those, and the private sector will be required to follow these standards or have its own codes that provide as much protection as the policy principles approved by the Privacy Commissioner. No-one need have any concern that there will be uncontrolled use of personal data.If you really look at secrecy, you just have to look at what the previous Labor government did. Isn't the Beazley black hole perhaps the biggest secret of all that we have seen in this nation? If you look at the way the Labor Party have consistently withheld information on the grounds of some totally undefined principle, you can have no fear. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations1105115:37:0011051Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam Deputy President, I wish to make a short statement as I claim to have been misrepresented.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The honourable senator may proceed.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—A letter has been circulated containing the names and places of birth of certain members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The letter is directed to the Australian electoral office and on the back page it carries my name. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the letter and in no way do I purport to the sentiments that are contained within it. I will be informing the Australian electoral office to advise me of any correspondence they receive in relation to this. I wish to clarify the fact that this document, if circulated, is not a document that I have in any sense or form produced.Notices110511105111051Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee I now withdraw the following business of the Senate notices of motion standing in my name: No. 1 for six sitting days after today, Nos 2 and 3 for seven sitting days after today, and No. 4 for eight sitting days after today.11051Senator McKiernan to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Legal and Constitutional References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 7 December 1999, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the government business orders of the day relating to the following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 A New Tax System (Tax Administration) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) 20 November 1999 marked the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely ratified treaty in United Nations history, and (ii) UNICEF will convene an international meeting in Florence, Italy, on 7 December 1999 to examine the Convention, involving discussions on its impact and future role, and the issue of discrimination; and(b) expresses its support for Ms Elsie Fisher, a young indigenous South Australian, who will attend the meeting as the Australian delegate.Senator Brown to move, on 8 December 1999:That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2000:(a) relations between Australia and Indonesia with regard to West Papua (Irian Jaya);(b) Australian Government aid in West Papua;(c) links between Australia's armed forces and Indonesian armed forces operating in West Papua;(d) Australian trade links with West Papua;(e) the impact of Australian investment and trade on human rights and the environment in West Papua; and(f) West Papuan immigration, including refugees, to Australia.11052Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 6 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 340 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, proposing an order for the production of Commonwealth-State agreements, postponed till 7 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 370 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee on the regulation and promotion of biotechnology, postponed till 7 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 382 standing in the name of Senator Bartlett for today, relating to equal rights for same-sex couples, postponed till 7 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 386 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the World Trade Organization, postponed till 7 December 1999.Committees11052110521105215:41:0011052Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—by leave—I present the 20th report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT No. 20 OF 19991. The Committee met on 30 November 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-That the provisions of the following bills be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateA New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics7 December 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEconomics7 December 1999The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 19 October 1999). Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999(deferred from meeting of 23 November 1999). Customs Amendment (Anti-Radioactive Waste Storage Dump) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 30 November 1999). Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999 Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000. Criminal Code Amendment (Application) Bill 1999. Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999. Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999. Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999. Gladstone Power Station Agreement (Repeal) Bill 1999. National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999. Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair30 November 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationInsurance provisions as they relate to the GST Possible submission or evidence from:Treasury, Insurance Council of Australia, Major insurance companiesCommittee to which bill is to be referred:Economics Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) : 6 December 1999Possible reporting date : 7 December 1999signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee member1105311053Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Hogg) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the proposed sale of Australian Defence Industries Ltd to Transfield Thomson-CSF be extended to 17 February 2000.Miscellaneous11053Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Heffernan) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) November marks the anniversary of the great famine in the Ukraine in 1932-33, (ii) during that period, 7 to 10 million Ukrainians starved to death, evoking massive resistance on the part of the Ukrainian people, for whom the principles of private property and individual endeavour were deep-rooted in their national identity, and (iii) for Ukrainians, the dark legacy of death and despair will serve as a bitter reminder that their destiny as a people must be measured and guaranteed by the strength of their independence; (b) urges the Australian people to remember those who perished and suffered as a result of this famine, as a reminder that we should always respect the freedoms bestowed upon us; and(c) joins with the World Congress of Ukrainians and the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations in calling on Australians to acknowledge the International Day of Remembrance gazetted by the Ukrainian Government in respect of those who suffered and perished in the great famine of 1932-33.Miscellaneous11054Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja)—as amended by leave—proposed:That the Senate—(a) expresses its concern that: (i) according to UNICEF and the International Labour Organization (ILO), there are as many as 250 million working children around the globe, (ii) many of these children are less than 5 years old, (iii) nearly half of them work full time, although more than 80 per cent of children's work is unpaid, and (iv) more than 150 million are in Asia, 80 million in Africa and 17.5 million in Latin America; and(b) urges the Government to address this issue by supporting moves by: (i) the United States of America to establish a working group on trade and labour in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and (ii) the United Kingdom to establish a forum between the ILO and the WTO to discuss implementation of ILO Conventions, including Convention 182, prohibiting exploitative child labour.15:44:0011054Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—Although the coalition government was opposed to that motion in principle, it does make it very hard for us—and I do not think it is good practice—to amend motions on the floor if there is a possibility of allowing other senators to see what the amendments are. Even if you think we may not be interested in the amendments, we are general ly interested in things that are occurring. I just think it would be useful in future, if there are going to be amendments to motions that you are seeking formality for, for all senators know what the amendments might be.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous11054Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes the alarming rate of clearing of native vegetation in Queensland, where every day without controls sees another 1 000 hectares destroyed, with disastrous impacts on biodiversity, increased risk of salinity and other land degradation, and adding to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions;(b) acknowledges the Queensland Government's intention to implement controls on clearing native vegetation and calls for this to happen as a matter of urgency; and(c) calls on the Commonwealth Government to give Queensland appropriate financial assistance so that the clearing controls can be implemented effectively and quickly.Committees11054110541105415:46:0011054Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I present the government's response to the report of the then Employment, Education and Training References Committee entitled A class act: inquiry into the status of the teaching profession , and I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE SENATE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE STATUS OF THE TEACHING PROFESSIONThe Commonwealth Government recognises that there is a perception that the status of the teaching profession is in decline and acknowledges the concerns expressed by witnesses to the Inquiry. The 1999-2000 Budget included $77.7 million over three years for a Quality Teacher Programme to update and improve teachers' skills and help lift the status of the teaching profession in both government and non-government schools. The programme will support the provision of targeted professional development programmes by government and non-government education authorities and other organisations with a small proportion of the funds being retained to support strategic national projects.A decline in the perceived status of teaching is not a purely Australian phenomenon. An issues paper prepared for the 45th session of the International Conference on Education in 1996 includes the statement that, "In most countries, however, the (teaching) profession has suffered a serious loss of prestige"(1).The importance of the status of teachers is recognised in the statement of National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century which was endorsed by State, Territory and Commonwealth Education Ministers meeting at the 10th Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) in Adelaide in April 1999. The statement of new national goals, which has been termed The Adelaide Declaration , replaces the former Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia (The Hobart Declaration ).The intention of the National Goals for Schooling is to establish a foundation for action by State and Territory governments, the Commonwealth, non-government school authorities and others in the wider community to secure the best possible educational outcomes for all young Australians. The National Goals statement explicitly acknowledges `the central role of teachers in the learning process' and the fact that `The achievement of the national goals entails a commitment to collaboration for the purposes of enhancing the status and quality of the teaching profession'. It also acknowledges the importance of `increasing public confidence in school education through explicit and defensible standards that guide improvement in students' levels of educational achievement and through which the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of schooling can be measured and evaluated'.The Commonwealth Government considers that a number of the report's recommendations are excessively prescriptive and have the potential to decrease the status of the profession by reducing the autonomy of teachers and by reducing opportunities for teachers to exercise their professional judgement. The Government also notes that the apparent decline in status is not a recent phenomenon and was evident also over a period when a number of the measures which the majority report proposes to re-introduce were in place.As detailed in the following response, the Commonwealth Government does not accept a number of the recommendations in the report. Several of the recommendations will be referred to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs which is a more appropriate forum for their further consideration.(1) Source: Francis. L Higginson. Teacher Roles and Global Change . An Issues Paper prepared for the 45th session of the International Conference on Education. p10(Note: The numbering of recommendations is not necessarily consistent between the Report and the Minority Report. A comparison table is included at the end of the Government Response for ease of reference.)Recommendation 1The Committee RECOMMENDS that:the Commonwealth Government facilitate the development of a national professional teaching standards and registration body to have the responsibility, authority and resources to develop and maintain standards of professional practice. The national body should work closely with State governments and peak teaching organisations. The national body will:. establish standards of professional practice which take into account what teachers should be expected to know and be able to do in order to facilitate student learning across the key learning areas. certify levels of entry into the profession, criteria for re-registration and recognition of advanced standing in the profession. accredit programmes of initial teacher training and establish the professional development framework for the maintenance of the professional expertise of teachers. make recommendations to the Commonwealth Minister on priorities for national professional development programmes. consider and act on complaints of professional incompetence, and assist teachers to improve their skills. manage a register of teachers who meet and maintain professional standards and are thereby eligible for employment as teachers in both government and non-government sectors of education. promote the value of teaching in the community.The national professional teaching standards and registration body should be empowered to delegate aspects of its authority, and such tasks as it sees fit, to appropriate agencies or teacher associations. The national body should cover all sections of the industry and teachers from all sections of education, including those in early childhood, government and non-government schools, vocational education and training, TAFE, adult and community education and, in time, universities.The national body should be funded by governments and by teachers' registration fees.Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that State and Territory governments examine the possibility of the establishment of teacher registration boards with functions, membership and funding similar to those now operating through the Teacher Registration Board in Queensland.The Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA (the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs) investigate the establishment of a framework for mutual recognition of teacher registration arrangements adopted by boards of teacher registration in each State and TerritoryThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA, working closely with State and Territory teacher registration bodies, examine the feasibility of establishing:. nationally consistent standards of professional practice which take into account what teachers should be expected to know and be able to do in order to facilitate student learning across the key learning areas. certified levels of entry into the profession, criteria for re-registration and recognition of advanced standing in the profession. accreditation arrangements for initial teacher training and a professional development framework for the maintenance of the professional expertise of teachers. a system for making recommendations to the Commonwealth Minister on priorities for national professional development programmes. mechanisms for acting on complaints of professional incompetence and assisting teachers to improve their skills. a national register of teachers certified by State and Territory registration boards as meeting and maintaining professional standards and thus eligible for employment as teachers in both government and non-government schools.The Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA include among its responsibilities the promotion in the general community of the value of teaching.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government notes that many elements of this recommendation relate to matters that are the primary responsibility of State and Territory authorities and teacher employers in the States and Territories.There is a difference between a system of registration of teachers, which would be a recognition that a person has met the minimum standards required for employment, and the code of high professional standards required to raise professional status which, as the report indicates, is the responsibility of the profession itself. The Government is not persuaded that the evidence provided demonstrates a connection between teacher registration and teacher professionalism. As indicated in the minority report, the implementation of this recommendation would require a high degree of collaboration between authorities involved particularly as it goes beyond the limited teacher registration practised in Australia.The Commonwealth Government further notes that there is no consensus as to the desirability of formal teacher registration or of the preferred model for this. Currently Queensland, as mentioned in the report, and South Australia have teacher registration authorities. Victoria has replaced its mechanism for formal registration of government school teachers with a Standards Council for the Teaching Profession. The lapsed Teaching Standards Bill, which was introduced into the last New South Wales Parliament and was to have provided for the establishment of a Teaching Standards Board with responsibilities in relation to both teacher registration and teacher standards, provoked considerable public debate.There is already a mechanism for mutual recognition of teacher registration. Where teacher registration exists the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 and complementary legislation which has been enacted in all States and Territories provides for the mutual recognition of all registered occupations.The creation of a national body which has as a core responsibility the establishment of the eligibility for employment of all teachers, whether in the government or non-government sphere, would represent an intrusion upon the legitimate interests of the States, Territories and non-government school authorities and would have the potential to restrict the flexibility of employers and teachers to respond to local requirements in areas such as curriculum and professional development. Without support from all parties, the Commonwealth Government would not consider any national measures to regulate the teaching profession or involve itself with arrangements which individual States and Territories may have instituted for this purpose.While the Commonwealth Government agrees that a degree of national consistency in initial teacher education is desirable, it also acknowledges the requirement for initial teacher education to address the needs of teacher employers in the States and Territories. The Commonwealth provided funding for the Australian Council of Deans of Education to undertake a project to develop national standards and guidelines for initial teacher education. The report of this project entitled Preparing a Profession was published in February 1998 and the Commonwealth Minister referred it to MCEETYA. MCEETYA has since proposed the establishment of a Taskforce to inquire into the skills base and qualifications of teachers graduating from university education faculties to establish whether the needs of employers are being met currently and for the future. The Commonwealth Government considers that Preparing a Profession will be a useful resource for this Taskforce and also urges teacher employers in the States and Territories and education faculties in the universities to take account of it when assessing the qualifications of applicants for teaching positions and when developing or assessing teacher education courses.The Commonwealth Government will arrange for the minority recommendation in relation to the promotion of the value of teaching in the general community to be referred to MCEETYA. It notes, however, that governments on their own cannot be expected to effect significant changes in community perceptions of the value of teaching without supportive and complementary action by other key parties. Too often in the past, for example, the irresponsible actions of some teacher unions have been seriously detrimental to community perceptions of teachers and teaching, generally.Recommendation 2The Committee RECOMMENDS that:Governments fund public schools at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight Key Learning Areas, and commensurate with the National Goals of Schoolingthe Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments jointly establish a Schools Education Costs Committee to undertake consultation and research with the aim of ascertaining the cost of delivering, at the various stages of schooling and in each of the Eight Key Learning Areas, an education which will meet the basic requirements of those Key Learning Areas and the National Goals for Schooling andon the basis of such data and information determine overall resource levels, allocative mechanisms and the relative funding shares of the various governments.Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that governments fund public schools at a level sufficient to deliver the appropriate standard of education within the Eight Key Learning Areas, and commensurate with the National Goals of Schooling.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government agrees with the first part of the recommendation and with the recommendation of the minority report. On 23 April 1999, MCEETYA agreed to the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty First Century. The Goals are more focussed on high quality learning outcomes for all Australian students and provide broad directions to guide activity to secure these outcomes.The Commonwealth Government also agrees with the arguments put forward in the minority report that the sentiments expressed in the majority report are unrealistic and pay insufficient attention to the conflicting financial pressures on governments. The Commonwealth Government's policy is to support the development of two strong school sectors which give maximum possible choice for parents and students. It has committed itself to maintaining funding for government and non-government schools in real terms. Commonwealth funding for schools has increased by 90.6 per cent over the period 1988-89 to 1998-99 (1) and is guaranteed by legislation to the year 2000. The Commonwealth Government will provide an unprecedented $7.6 billion in direct funding to government schools over the 2001- 2004 quadrennium. This represents an increase of almost $1 billion (or 15 per cent) for government schools.(1) Source: Table V—Commonwealth Budget Outlays by Function and Subfunction, Budget paper No.1 1998-99The 1999-2000 budget included decisions for schools funding for 2001-2004 and draft legislation to enact the arrangements scheduled to be introduced late in 1999. The Commonwealth Government is committed to education reform, better targeting and improved educational outcomes for all students, and is determined to achieve real improvements in literacy and numeracy. While the Commonwealth provides significantly growing funding for specific national objectives and growing general grants to States, it is a matter for State governments to decide the final funding levels and allocation of resources to individual schools.Recommendation 3The Committee RECOMMENDS that the new national professional teaching standards and registration body establish clear levels of advanced professional certification reflecting teachers' experience, professional development and additional roles such as mentoring. Such certification might be helpful in determining levels of remuneration for teachers.Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation. Salary and career structures are a responsibility of State and Territory governments.ResponseAs indicated in the response to Recommendation 1, the Commonwealth Government does not support the establishment of a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching. The Minority Report by Government Senators more accurately reflects the situation where salaries are a matter for negotiation between teachers and teacher employers in government and non-government schools.Recommendation 4The Committee RECOMMENDS a reversal of the trend to casualisation of the teaching force.Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation. The trend to casualisation is beyond the control of Commonwealth or State jurisdictions.ResponseThe recommendation does not distinguish sufficiently between the casual employment of teachers to fill short-term vacancies and the move towards the contractual rather than permanent employment of teachers. While the report cites instances of difficulties associated with contract employment it has not taken adequate account of the underlying reasons for this development, or its actual or potential benefits.The Commonwealth Government does not believe that the setting of a direction or target for a particular level of permanent employment of teachers would necessarily be in the best interests of Australian school education or of individual teachers themselves. For this reason it would not seek to intervene in the decisions of State, Territory and non-government authorities on these matters.Recommendation 5The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government institute research on the level of casualisation necessary to provide employers with reasonable flexibility while safeguarding the interests of teachers.Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that State and Territory governments institute research on the level of casualisation necessary to provide employers with reasonable flexibility while safeguarding the interests of teachers.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government notes that MCEETYA has established a mechanism to consider biennial reports on teacher supply and demand. The Commonwealth Minister will raise with MCEETYA the desirability of monitoring developments in relation to contract and casual employment as part of this process. Recommendation 6The Committee RECOMMENDS proposed new funding for vocational education in schools be retained within the TAFE system, with school efforts focussed on improving links between vocational education and training providers and schools. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation.ResponseThe recommendation does not reflect the needs of young people in the labour and training markets of the late 1990s. The proposed measure would narrow the options for delivery of vocational education and training (VET) in schools and restrict the availability of delivery sites. The Commonwealth Government has a clear objective to increase the pathways available to senior secondary students by expanding the provision of nationally accredited VET for these students through school-industry programmes involving school students participating in and progressing to apprenticeships and traineeships. This includes ensuring that an adequate supply of deliverers of VET is maintained.Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have been implementing user choice principles in the VET sector since January 1998. User choice aims to improve the responsiveness of VET to the needs of clients by encouraging direct, market-based relationships between individual providers and their clients. User choice gives greater power to clients to negotiate training that meets their needs and means that employers can use their preferred training provider. Restricting funding for VET in schools to one provider such as TAFE would confer an advantage to that sector over other providers. It could potentially undermine the user choice in VET principles as agreed by Ministers. Quality and flexibility should be endorsed and a monopoly avoided in the interests of greater client choice and satisfaction.Recommendation 7The Committee RECOMMENDS that:Commonwealth, State and Territory governments establish benchmarks for appropriate levels of funding for technology in schoolsthe Commonwealth Government reappraise its Capital Grants Programme to ensure that government school funding for technology meets the benchmark funding level established by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments.Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA investigate the establishment of bench marks for appropriate levels of funding for technology in schoolsResponseGiven the current environment of rapid technological growth and diversification in all education sectors, and the differing needs of schools in each State and Territory, it would be difficult to establish precise and uniform benchmarks for information and communication technology (ICT) funding in schools. Most government funding policies are now moving away from the traditional inputs-based approach, to one where funding is determined according to desired outcomes and goals. In the ICT environment, this might include a goal to connect every school to the Internet by the Year 2000, or to provide a specific number of ICT professional development days per teacher per year. These goals vary considerably across States and Territories and across sectors.Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have demonstrated a significant commitment to facilitating the use of ICT in schools through a range of funding initiatives. The commitment by State and Territory governments has been particularly significant in the past two years, with most announcing strategies comprising a comprehensive, integrated package of initiatives including maintenance, enhancement and replacement of computer hardware and software as well as improved Internet access.Perhaps the most significant commitment made by Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments is the Education Network Australia (EdNA) initiative. Initiated by the Commonwealth in 1995, EdNA is a national process for collaboration and cooperation between all sectors of the Australian education and training community, focusing on information and communication technology. EdNA aims to:. maximise the benefits of ICT for Australian education and training, and to avoid duplication of cost and effort between the various sectors and systems; and. create a culture which will motivate teachers, and students in all education sectors to work together to improve the quality of educational outcomes through the effective and innovative use of electronic networks.The EdNA process has established a collaborative framework known as the EdNA Reference Committee (ERC) which involves Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments, government and non-government schools, the vocational education and training (VET), higher education and adult and community education sectors. Sectoral advisory groups have also been established to provide input to the development of EdNA from each sector's perspective and to exchange information and ideas about the use of ICT in education. This has facilitated cooperation and collaboration across all States and Territories, and ensures that the needs of all education sectors are addressed. It has also led to significant cost savings by avoiding duplication and overlap.One of the major outcomes of EdNA has been the development of EdNA Online, a unique Internet site which offers many quality features including a powerful search engine, a range of categories through which users can browse to find resources, and access to information about schools, universities, vocational education and training and adult and community education organisations. The website is managed by Education.Au, a non-profit company owned by Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers.EdNA Online vastly improves communication between peers for both students and teachers, especially those now working in isolation because of geographical or physical factors. It allows improved access to curriculum materials and facilitates joint exploration of topics between teachers and students around the world.The Commonwealth provides support for computer education, including the use of the Internet, through the Framework for Open Learning Programme (FOLP), which aims to promote coordination and collaboration between States and Territories and between sectors and systems in the use of ICT in education.In the 1999-2000 financial year, the Commonwealth Government has allocated $2.579 million under FOLP to support increased awareness and use of the Internet and the EdNA website by members of the education community. Activities over the past few years have included support for a range of teacher professional associations to build and strengthen their own electronic networks, and provision of resources to enhance teacher professional development and student learning. FOLP also provides support for the salaries of EdNA project officers in each sector as well as for the technical development of the website.Other important FOLP activities include a project to provide high quality surplus Commonwealth Government computers and IT equipment to schools, and an educational community access pilot project in rural areas and areas of socioeconomic disadvantage to ensure that all members of the educational community have access to, and understanding of, the uses of technology in education.The Commonwealth recognises the need to ensure equitable and appropriate IT skill levels for all Australian school children. In late 1997, DETYA commissioned the Australian Key Centre for Media and Cultural Policy at Griffith University in Queensland to undertake a sample study on IT skills of school students. The key objective of this study is to assess and report on the extent to which students are developing skills of information processing and computing. It is intended that the study will produce baseline data about the IT skills of students, programs in place, curriculum materials and the policies of school systems and individual schools.A survey of the final year of primary school (Years 6/7) and Year 10 in both government and non-government schools was conducted in May 1998. At the same time, principals of the schools and teachers of these students were surveyed. Some 220 principals, 1 300 teachers and 6 200 students completed the survey. Information was collected from key personnel in State and Territory education departments and peak organisations in the non-government sector. Preliminary results from the study were included in the 1997 National Report on Schooling in Australia (ANR). It is expected that the project report, entitled Real Time—Computers, Change and Schooling , will be published by the end of 1999.Australia is also participating in an APEC project on the Integration of ICT into the learning experience through teacher professional development and pre-service training . Activities include:. identification and documentation of selected exemplary practices within Australia; and. participation in an international workshop to be held at the end of October 1999.In January 1999, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and Arts released A Strategic Framework for the Information Economy , which identifies ten priority areas for action including one to "deliver the education and skills Australians need to participate in the information economy".DETYA is working with the EdNA Reference Committee and key education and training stakeholders to develop an Action Plan for this priority area.The key Action Areas of the Plan are:. People. Infrastructure. Content, Applications and Services. Policy and Organisational Framework. Regulatory FrameworkThe Government is to review progress in developing this Action Plan in November 1999.Recommendation 8The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government reinstate the Disadvantaged Schools Programme as a separately identified and funded programme. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendationResponseAs acknowledged in the Report, the Disadvantaged Schools Programme (DSP) has been integrated into a broadbanded Literacy and Numeracy Programme. This recognises that literacy and numeracy skills are central to the educational futures of disadvantaged students.Educationally disadvantaged students, including target groups for the previous DSP programme, continue as a key focus of the Literacy and Numeracy Programme, with particular focus on the crucial early years of schooling (Kindergarten to Year 3). Funding under the Literacy and Numeracy Programme is targeted towards improving the literacy and numeracy outcomes of the most educationally disadvantaged students and is in line with the Government's priority to foster the acquisition by all students of appropriate literacy and numeracy skills.The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty First Century contains the goal that students should have attained the skills of numeracy and English literacy; such that, every student should be numerate, able to read, write, spell and communicate at an appropriate level .This goal is supported by a National Literacy and Numeracy Plan that aims to give all children a good start in school, while recognising that there is a wide gap between those who enter school well prepared for learning and those who are least prepared. A key equity measure in countering other forms of educational and social disadvantage is the development of strong foundational literacy and numeracy skills for all children.State and Territory government and non-government school education authorities are responsible for the detailed administration of the Literacy and Numeracy Programme including the allocation of funds to schools which have the highest need for additional assistance. The Commonwealth's Guidelines for this Programme incorporate those features of DSP approaches which have been most successful in supporting the literacy learning needs of educationally disadvantaged students.There has been no reduction in the total funding available for allocation to States and Territories as a result of integrating the DSP into a broadbanded Literacy and Numeracy Programme. The Commonwealth makes a very significant financial contribution to support the work of schools and teachers in improving the literacy and numeracy skills of young Australians. The 1999/2000 Budget provides an additional $131 million under the Literacy and Numeracy Programme for disadvantaged school students, making a total of almost $869 million for literacy and numeracy in the next four years to 2002-03.Recommendation 9The Committee RECOMMENDS a national recruitment campaign designed to attract high quality applicants to the teaching profession, with costs shared between the Commonwealth and all States and Territories. Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA develop a national recruitment campaign designed to attract high quality applicants to the teaching profession.Response In 1997 MCEETYA established a taskforce to develop a national teacher recruitment strategy which could be adapted by State and Territory Governments to suit local circumstances as required. MCEETYA subsequently agreed to proceed with market research into and the design of a market strategy. The Commonwealth met half of the cost of this with the States and Territories providing the balance on a pro rata basis. The Taskforce has now been asked to do further work to show how any national campaign materials could be integrated with existing and future State and Territory campaigns, to indicate any links between the campaign and Commonwealth priorities and to detail the cost benefits to States and Territories of collaborating on aspects of developing national campaign materials.Recommendation 10The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government introduce scholarships for university graduates to undertake postgraduate professional qualifications in teaching. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation.Response The offering of teaching scholarships is one possible response of employers to supply and demand issues and the nature of these issues varies from State and Territory. The Commonwealth is not an employer of teachers and it would be inappropriate for it to institute a system of scholarships along the lines recommended.Recommendation 11The Committee RECOMMENDS abolition of differential HECS fees. This will remove the particular disincentives now faced by science graduates planning a career in teaching. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government believes the introduction of differential HECS contributions creates a fairer system of student payments. It would be inappropriate to dismantle the system as a whole on the basis of considerations applying in a single discipline or profession alone, especially as teacher recruitment and incentives to attract teachers with skills in short supply are essentially matters for teacher employers.Recommendation 12The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government reinstate funding for the National Schools Network. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation. ResponseThe Commonwealth is moving away from funding the ongoing operations of groups in favour of providing support for strategic projects which further the Commonwealth's key objective ofimproved student learning outcomes in schools and its national leadership role in school education.The Commonwealth Government considers that a fee for service approach which links funding todefined outcomes is a more efficient use of resources than the provision of core funding for bodies whose overall activities, however worthwhile, may not necessarily address Commonwealth Government priorities or areas of interest. The National Schools Network is able to tender for Commonwealth-funded projects and is included in the register of interested bodies wishing to carry out projects under the Quality Outcomes Programme. The institutions involved in the activities of the National Schools Network have displayed enthusiasm and commitment. However, the report does not provide evidence of its stated successes being implemented by other schools and teacher education providers in a manner that enhances the status of the teaching profession. Neither does it take into account alternative methods of achieving the outcomes it proposes.Recommendation 13The Committee RECOMMENDS the establishment of a National Teacher Education Network comprising a consortium of innovative teacher education faculties and schools to build upon the work of the National Schools Network and the Innovative Links Project in modelling best practice in the development and delivery of initial and continuing teacher education. Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA consider the establishment of a National Teacher Education Network comprising a consortium of innovative teacher education faculties and schools to build upon the work of the National Schools Network and the Innovative Links Project in modelling best practice in the development and delivery of initial and continuing teacher education.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government agrees with the sentiment in the Government Senators' recommendation that MCEETYA is the appropriate body to consider the development and delivery of initial teacher education and notes that MCEETYA proposes to establish a Taskforce to inquire into the skills base and qualifications of teachers graduating from university education faculties to establish whether the needs of employers are being met currently and for the future. The Commonwealth Government does not consider that encouraging MCEETYA to undertake other measures relating to teacher education would be productive.Recommendation 14The Committee RECOMMENDS the establishment of a national development fund for research in education. Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendationResponseConsiderable funding for educational research is already available under a number of specific and broader Commonwealth programmes such as the Quality Outcomes Programme, the Literacy Grants Programme, the School to Work Programme and the Higher Education Research Grants Programme. The Commonwealth also provides grants to bodies such as the Australian Council for Educational Research and is constantly evaluating its own contribution to education.Recommendation 15The Committee RECOMMENDS that the proposed national professional teaching standards and registration body include among its responsibilities the development of a suggested structure for induction programmes nationally and guidelines to assist schools and government and non-government systems in implementing them. Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA include among its responsibilities the development of a suggested structure for induction programmes nationally and guidelines to assist schools and government and non-government systems in implementing them.ResponseThe responsibilities and employment conditions of newly graduated teachers are a matter for teacher employers. As the States and Territories are the major employers of new teachers, the Commonwealth Minister will refer the recommendations to MCEETYA. However, the Commonwealth Government is concerned that a single structure for induction programmes may not meet the needs of all new teachers and may restrict the flexibility of schools in addressing those needs.Recommendation 16The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government reinstate the National Professional Development Programme.Minority ReportThe Government Senators dissent from the recommendation.ResponseThe Commonwealth Government agrees that teacher professional development is a necessary part of teacher professional renewal. Where the Commonwealth directs funding to national educational priority areas, provision is made for the professional development of teachers. $7 million over the three years 1997 to 1999 is being provided to support professional development associated with the implementation of the Literacy and Numeracy Programme. The Commonwealth is also providing $4.6 million over the three financial years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 for the professional development of teachers to deliver civics and citizenship materials under its Discovering Democracy programme.Teacher professional development is the key element of the Commonwealth Government's new Quality Teacher Programme. The Commonwealth Government has committed $77.7 million over three years for this programme. These funds will be used to update and improve teachers' skills and help lift the status of teaching in both government and non-government schools. The focus will be on professional development in literacy, numeracy, mathematics, science, information technology and vocational education in schools. Assistance will be targeted at teachers who completed formal training 10 or more years ago, casual teachers and teachers seeking to re-enter the teaching force.The National Professional Development Programme for teachers was a three year initiative that ended in 1996-97. The Commonwealth Government has introduced a more tightly focused approach to the funding of teacher professional development and sees no need to replace its new initiatives in respect of teacher professional development.Recommendation 17The Committee RECOMMENDS that the proposed national professional teaching standards and registration body include among its responsibilities the accreditation of professional development providers and courses. Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND that MCEETYA include among its responsibilities the accreditation of professional development providers and courses. ResponseAs noted in the response to Recommendation 1, the Commonwealth Government is not persuaded that there is a need for a national bureaucracy to regulate the teaching profession. The Report does not demonstrate that the national accreditation of teacher development providers or courses would raise the quality of teaching in Australian schools. There would also be substantial practical difficulties in maintaining an accurate and up-to-date register of accredited providers and making this information available to schools, which are increasingly operating in a devolved environment. The Commonwealth Government is further concerned that any measures to impose external control on professional development courses or providers may restrict flexibility in provision and the ability of local groups to come together on a one-off basis to provide courses designed specifically to meet local needs.Recommendation 18The Committee RECOMMENDS that, in line with its acknowledgment that teaching is a profession, teachers' participation in professional development be a prerequisite for their continued registration, or for re-registration. Minority ReportThe Government Senators RECOMMEND, in line with their acknowledgment that teaching is a profession, that State and Territory governments ensure that teachers' participation in professional development be a prerequisite for their continued registration, or for re-registration. ResponseConditions of employment are a matter for negotiation between teachers and their employers. As pointed out in the response to Recommendation 1, the Commonwealth Government is not persuaded that the evidence supports the creation of a national bureaucracy to regulate teaching or that there is consensus about the desirability of teacher regulation at the State and Territory level or the preferred mechanism for this. Although the Commonwealth Government supports teacher professional development and has made provision for this in association with funding to address national educational priorities, it would not support a prescriptive approach which could prevent an excellent teacher from continuing to practise solely on the grounds of failure to participate in professional development.Recommendation 19The Committee RECOMMENDS that the Commonwealth Government require State and Territory governments, as part of their contribution to the National Report on Schooling, to include information on teacher supply and demand in government and non-government schools, with detailed figures to be included in the Statistical Appendix to that document.Minority ReportThe Government Senators support the recommendation. ResponseThe current information frameworks for the Annual National Report on Schooling in Australia already require reporting of some information on teacher supply and demand in the section on teachers and teaching. The Report publishes tables on teacher numbers by State and Territory by sector, student-staff ratios and enrolments and graduations in teacher education courses. The tables are now in the body of the report since the separate statistical index was dispensed with in 1995.MCEETYA has made arrangements for the monitoring of teacher supply and demand and to receive a biennial report through Conference of Education Systems Chief Executive Officers on this. As the Annual National Report on Schooling is a MCEETYA document, the Commonwealth Minister will consult his State and Territory colleagues through the MCEETYA Annual National Report taskforce on the possibility of including relevant material from the supply and demand report in future Annual National Reports.COMPARISON TABLE—REFERENCES TO RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE TWO PARTS OF THE REPORT Committee RecommendationCorresponding Minority Report ReferenceNo 1 (p ix & pp 21-22)Recommendation one, pp 253-255.No 2 (p x & p 90)Recommendation six, p 256. No 3 (p x & p 118)Recommendation two, p 256.No 4 (p xi & p 126)Recommendation three, p 256.No 5 (p xi & p 126)Recommendation four, p 256.No 6 (p xi & p 137)Recommendation five, p 256.No 7 (p xi & p 151)Recommendation seven, pp 256-257.No 8 (p xii & p 161)Recommendation eight, p 257.No 9 (p xii & p 178)Recommendation ten, p 257.No 10 (p xii & p 178)Recommendation eleven, p 257.No 11 (p xii & p 178)Recommendation twelve, p 257.No 12 (p xii & p 178)Recommendation thirteen, p 257.No 13 (p xiii & pp 202-203)Recommendation fourteen, p 257.No 14 (p xiii & p 203)Recommendation nine, p 257.No 15 (p xiii & p 216)Recommendation fifteen, p 257.No 16 (p xiii & p 227)Recommendation sixteen, p 257.No 17 (p xiii & p 228)Recommendation seventeen, pp 257-258.No 18 (p xiv & p 228)Recommendation eighteen, p 258.No 19 (p xiv & p 247)Recommendation nineteen, p 258.15:46:0011064Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The government's response to this committee report is considerably overdue. I take some pleasure in reporting that this is an inquiry that I was able to initiate through the last parliament. This report, which is about the status of teaching in this country, was brought down in March 1998. The report highlighted the widespread, pervasive view that there is a serious crisis of confidence developing within this country over the decline in the status of teaching. It highlighted the serious problems that are emerging in this country because of the growing shortage of teachers.It is a report that was brought down in March 1998. The government has a policy, as I understand it, which has been stated on numerous occasions, that reports from this parliament ought to be responded to by government within three months. This report was brought down one year and seven months ago. The government's response, I would say, is grossly inadequate. It acknowledges there is a serious problem, acknowledges the widespread perception that the status of teaching has declined and acknowledges the concerns expressed on a universal basis by the very large number of witnesses that appeared before the inquiry. But it does nothing about proposing any solutions.The government's response to this report is further evidence that this government is the first since Menzies to walk away from its responsibilities to provide a high quality public education system that is available to all Australians. The government's response demonstrates that this government, while acknowledging the extent of the problem, has been unable to meet any of the challenges that are confronted by educational institutions in this country.There can be no doubt that there is an acute teacher shortage looming. There can be no doubt that already in the northern parts of Australia there are great difficulties in staffing our schools. This has been demonstrated particularly in the math-science area but also in the humanities area, particularly in English, and is also now developing in other language areas.It is an irony that, when this government talks about the internationalisation of the labour market, it confines its concerns to the top end of the labour market. It confines its concerns to the international competitiveness of major corporate leaders and chief executives. So it has no real problems in paying multimillion dollar salaries because it says it is necessary to meet the international pressures of the labour market, but when it comes to teachers those issues do not seem to be quite so pressing. A clear demonstration of this is that the British government, the Canadian government and, I understand, the New Zealand government are advertising in this country to take teachers out of Australia and recruit them to teach in schools in their countries. They do so because teachers in this country are of a very high standard. They have an international reputation for quality which is recognised by other governments but not recognised by our own.The shortage of teachers is, in fact, being extenuated by the government's attacks upon education. This massive decline in the status of teaching has been accompanied by the persistent attacks on public education by ministers in this government. While acknowledging there are serious problems, the government seeks to make the situation much worse by blaming our schools and claiming there are problems in our schools which only this government has an answer to.It says that teachers are responsible for not addressing the problems of unemployment, of literacy, of standards and of drugs and suicide—and every other conceivable difficulty this country faces. This government asserts that there is a failure in our education system. It seeks to demonstrate that, in its view, if you can establish a crisis in our system, then it has the solutions to reforming it. So it establishes the man of straw and then seeks to knock it over. In fact, the actions of government make the situation much worse by constantly blaming the problems of our society upon the schools in this country.Instead of meeting these challenges with realistic solutions, as this report on behalf of the Senate has proposed, this government seeks to put its head in the sand and say that schools are only good for being blamed—as the scapegoats for society's ills. This report proposed that one of the major reforms that this parliament could introduce was a national registration of teachers. The report said that there was a major opportunity to: establish a basis for standards across the teaching profession, establish the entry level into the system, provide accreditation programs for initial teacher training, ensure that the Commonwealth had a set of priorities recommended to it for a national professional development program, and take various measures to protect the quality of teaching in this country by allowing for a professional body to be funded and run by the industry which would provide a vehicle for establishing proper teaching credentials and maintaining the quality of teachers.The report has demonstrated the necessity for such a body. There is increasing mobility within the industry in this country, there are increasing difficulties being faced by the industry and there is a need to meet those difficulties across the borders. What you see in this report is very much an out-of-date response: an old-fashioned concept being pursued by this government that says that deregulation and privatisation are the answers to the social problems confronted by our community.This government response is totally inadequate. It says that the problems can be devolved to the states, that they are for someone else to have to deal with and that it is someone else's responsibility. This government can absolve itself of its obligations to meet the challenges faced by our students and by our schools. This government response is grossly inadequate because it fails to deal with the issues that this Senate committee report puts before it. It fails to deal with the fact that there has been declining government support for public education under Dr Kemp. It fails to deal with the fact that there are serious problems being confronted by our teachers every day of the week without the help of this government. It fails to deal with the fact that there is a desperate need for a national approach to the education difficulties being faced in this country. This is a government that seeks to hide its responsibilities behind the tired old argument of states rights.Efforts are being made in Queensland, in South Australia, in New South Wales and now in Victoria to move towards registration of teachers. I say this can be best served by national cooperation to ensure that there is protection for our students and our schools and to maintain the quality of education in this country through the intervention of government to assist in the advancement of education. This government turns its back on those obligations; it turns its back on those responsibilities. We have seen that this government has basically not been able to deal with the problems that it has extenuated: the way it has turned its back on professional development, the way it has turned its back on the disadvantaged schools program, the way it has turned its back on support for the schools network and various other infrastructure support measures, the way it has turned its back on education research to ensure that our teaching methods are the best available to our teachers.These are all measures that the government has failed to deal with in its response. Of course, the great tragedy is that it took it one year and seven months to come up with this grossly inadequate response to a highly considered report, which is widely read and widely acknowledged in this country to be a very fine report. I have no doubt that most people in the education industry will accept that this government is not really interested in the development of a quality education system in this country. In fact, it has a real interest in undermining it.15:56:0011066Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I rise to speak on this government response to the report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee inquiry into the status of the teaching profession, which we called `A class act', under which name it has been known ever since. It is very interesting that the government's response should come down today. Although I do not expect my colleagues to note when I am able to be absent from parliament, I did seek a pair today because I had been invited to speak at an educational conference in Melbourne. I was asked to address the efforts of three groups towards the establishment of professional standards for teaching and to comment on how these fitted into the Senate inquiry. I was very pleased to accept this invitation to be a discussant.I have said at other times that a lot of people say government reports are fairly useless, that they are just written to keep people busy and then collect dust on shelves. I have always said to people that that is one way you can look at the world, but one should know that a Senate report actually belongs to the people. Get copies of it, take the information, take the data and use it to go on campaigning for the cause that led to the inquiry in the first place.To give credit where it is due, the teachers and the people involved in the profession of teaching and education have taken the report and made great use of it. I was very interested to listen to three papers today: one by people involved with the teaching of mathematics, another by people involved with the teaching of English and another by those involved with the teaching of science. They have set about designing a system that would allow the teachers, as professionals themselves, to define the professional standards for teachers in those areas. That is very much in sympathy with the principal recommendation of the report and very much out of sympathy with the government's response.The report recognised that teaching is a profession and that there should be no further dispute or debate about it. It is called `get on with it'. Let us have the clear establishment of those professional guidelines, those professional standards, those professional markers of assessment and let us look, as our report suggested, at ways in which the professions themselves can contribute to the design of courses in university education departments so that our teachers get better training for the task at hand when they leave the training place and go into the classroom.I will come back to some of those points in a minute. But first I want to pick up on an important point that I heard my colleague Senator Carr talking about—that is, the difficulty young teachers have when they go out into the classroom. It is bad enough as a young teacher. You are enthusiastic mostly, looking forward to what you are going to do. But taking up your role as a first year out teacher is a pretty challenging process. There was during our inquiry a lot of discussion about and recommendations on the theme of supporting systems for young teachers, particularly older teachers mentoring. The evidence that came before our committee was that one of the biggest problems for the establishment of a professional career in teaching was the casualisation of those recent graduates.If you have a three-month appointment as a teacher, then you cannot even begin to think of yourself as a teacher starting down a career path. Certainly teachers who might want to be mentors at the schools they are passed to made it clear that, if you have somebody who is on a three-month contract, nobody can take seriously the likelihood that they will be there in four, five or six months time, and this is actually militating against quality in our young teachers. If ever there was a criterion that I think goes to the consolidation of professional standards and the building on what is taught and learnt in the teacher training course at university or wherever, it is the fact that you do need some commitment in your employment, not a three-month casual job.In fact, people were raising it with the me again today at the conference. This very morning I was listening to teachers saying, `What can you do with people who come out of college and their first employment is a three-month contract as a teacher? They do not know if they will be teaching in three months time. Then, if they are lucky, they will get another three months. And, if they are lucky, they will get another three months. They are not covered for holiday pay or any of the other things that a full-time teacher gets.'The other cruel fate of teachers in this circumstance is that they are not judged as having completed one year of teaching, so they are not eligible for career promotion. So in any number of ways this is a very cruel mismanagement of young teachers and an obstacle to their career, let alone their professional development. In response to the recommendation to reverse the casualisation of the teaching force, the government says:The recommendation does not distinguish sufficiently between the casual employment of teachers to fill short-term vacancies and the move towards the contractual rather than permanent employment of teachers. While the report cites instances of difficulties associated with contract employment it has not taken adequate account of the underlying reasons for this development, or its actual or potential benefits.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Its called `Reith's agenda'.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Well said, Senator Carr. It is interesting that the government's response suggests that there are insufficiencies in our report, suggesting it knows better. If it does know better, why does it not respond by saying, `We appreciate the problems of the casualisation of the teaching work force and so we recommend along the lines of what you are saying'? To suggest that we got it a bit wrong and, therefore, it is justified in doing nothing seems to be one of the more puerile responses from a government to any report at all.But, more than anything, it matters that this is dismissive—dismissive of the very challenge we saw at the heart of the report, that if you are going to improve teaching, if you are serious about the status of teaching, if you are serious about what happens to our children in the classroom, then you actually talk about the professionalisation of those people involved in this great career. You do not do that by having no regard for the increasing casualisation of the teaching force. I find that response by government extremely disappointing.It is interesting to me how readily and conveniently the states are used for the Commonwealth government to pass responsibility to. They will take it back whenever it suits them, but in this case it is called, `No, we wash our hands of it. It is a state matter. Don't come to us with your problems.' In the brief time I have had to have a look at this government response, it seems to be a grudging response, in that it does not want to really acknowledge that we touched on anything of any importance. I note that the government response says:The Commonwealth Government recognises that there is a perception that the status of the teaching profession is in decline and acknowledges the concerns expressed by witnesses . . . This is a beginning. But, having admitted there might be some substance to the reason we had the inquiry in the first place—I cannot say that the Commonwealth government is not prepared to fund any of the recommendations, because I have not read every response—the government is certainly not prepared to fund or take seriously our principal recommendation. While it acknowledges the importance of some kinds of national standards, it certainly does not want to go the way of the recommendations. The response continues:The Commonwealth government—once again—notes that many elements of this recommendation relate to matters that are the primary responsibility of State and Territory authorities . . . . . . . . . . . .The government is not persuaded that the evidence provided demonstrates a connection between teacher registration and teacher professionalism.It is kind of slippery stuff by way of response. As I have told the profession in the past: if the government will not assist you, there is no need to wait. As a professional body you can set about establishing your own standards. You can, without any government assistance, define yourself as a professional body. And that is exactly what the conference today was suggesting. The three principal areas—the professional teaching bodies associated with science, English and mathematics—are actually now in the process of defining their own professional standards, devising ways in which teaching material and assessment methodologies can be put in place and then assessing the process to see whether it actually does hold up. They are doing this with research grants. They are actually producing some extremely important and very interesting work, and they are getting on with the substance of this report.I must congratulate the profession for not sitting around whingeing and complaining but taking the recommendations of this report and doing what they can to see that the teaching profession is recognised for what is: a class act and a very important contribution to the benefits of education for our children. It is a pity the current federal government does not want to join them.Question resolved in the affirmative.110681106816:06:0011068Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present the government's response to the 18th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, entitled Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Final report . I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—Government Response to the 18th Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Final ReportRecommendationsThe Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that, if there are negotiations for an across countries agreement for the regulation of international capital:. Australia continue to be involved in those negotiations (paragraph 8.41);. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet assume the lead role in coordinating the Australian Government's negotiations;. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet actively and effectively involve all relevant Commonwealth agencies from the beginning of any negotiations;. the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to put their views on all aspects of any negotiating text as part of an open and public process, and. from the beginning of any negotiations towards such an agreement, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet forward written reports on a six-monthly basis to the Committee about their content and progress (paragraph 8.47).Government response. The Government reiterates that negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in the OECD are no longer taking place. Should an across countries agreement for the regulation of international capital emerge again in the future in the OECD or any other forum, the Government will consider whether it is in Australia's national interest to be involved in such negotiations.. Should the Government decide to participate in any such future negotiations, it will give consideration as to which department should have the lead role at the time and will keep the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties informed.. The department with lead role for any such future negotiations would involve not only all relevant Commonwealth agencies, but also all State and Territory governments and through them local government agencies. Non-government organisations would also be consulted as appropriate.. In any future negotiations of treaties covering international investment rules the Government would provide for interested parties and individuals to put their views, including through the Government's treaty making processes, which ensure timely and effective consultation on all treaty matters.Documents110691106916:06:0011069Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I present corrigenda to the 1998-99 annual reports of the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.Committees11069110691106916:07:0011069Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—I present the 81st to 83rd reports of the Committee on Privileges, all relating to persons referred to in the Senate.Ordered that the reports be printed.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I seek leave to move a motion relating to the reports.Leave granted.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLES—I move:That the 81st to 83rd reports of the Committee of Privileges be adopted.These three reports are the 29th to the 31st in the series of reports recommending that a right of reply be accorded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified, in the Senate.On 9 and 10 November 1999 the President referred three letters to the Committee of Privileges as submissions under privilege resolution No. 5. The letters were from the Chief Executive Officer of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, on behalf of Dr Chris Atkinson and Dr Chris Harper; Ms Christine Bourne; and Mr Raymond Rose, Principal of the Bridge Business College.The committee considered all three submissions at its meeting of 25 November 1999, and recommends that responses in the terms included in the reports be incorporated in the Hansard.In matters of this nature, the committee has always reminded the Senate that it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or persons who seek redress. Two of the three submissions ask that certain action be taken by the Senate or individual senators. The committee has included those requests in the responses, but emphasises that its sole duty is to recommend that relevant responses be incorporated. It neither endorses nor rejects the requests contained in those responses. I commend the reports to the Senate.The responses read as follows—RESPONSE BY THE ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGISTS ON BEHALF OF DR CHRIS ATKINSON AND DR CHRIS HARPER PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF THE SENATE OF 28 FEBRUARY 1988I have been requested by two Fellows of this College to draw your attention to false statements contained in the Senate Notice Paper No. 74 of 29 September 1999.The relevant questions are Nos. 1650, 1651 and 1652 in which Senator Evans sought information in respect of a number of College members. Among those members were Dr Chris Atkinson, who was described as `a radiologist with the Victorian Imaging Group' and Dr Chris Harper, who was said to be `a radiologist of Perth Imaging Centre'.Dr Chris Atkinson is a Consultant Radiation Oncologist attached to the Christchurch Public Hospital in Christchurch, New Zealand. Dr Atkinson has absolutely no involvement with the Victorian Imaging Group or any other medical imaging practice. Dr Chris Harper also is a Consultant Radiation Oncologist. He is Managing Partner at the Perth Radiation Oncology Clinic and has absolutely no connection with the Perth Imaging Centre or any other medical imaging practice.Drs Atkinson and Harper are very concerned that their names have been placed into the public domain in this context, with potentially serious damage to their well-deserved professional reputations and standing. The most basic research by Senator Evans' staff prior to the questions being placed on the Notice Paper would have established the falseness of the statements made in respect of Drs Atkinson and Harper.The purpose and value of Parliamentary Privilege is recognised. However, surely it is incumbent upon those who enjoy that privilege to exercise it in such a way as to avoid the harm caused to Drs Atkinson and Harper by this apparently wanton use of their names.It would be appreciated if you would ensure that the members of the Senate are informed of the correct situation in regard to Drs Atkinson and Harper, please. It would seem reasonable also to ask that Senator Evans be requested to issue a personal apology to each person.Les ApolonyChief Executive OfficerRESPONSE BY MS CHRISTINE BOURNE PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF THE SENATE OF 28 FEBRUARY 1988Complaint re: Senator Stephen HutchinsOn 23 September 1999, Senator Stephen Hutchins made the following remarks in the Senate:"Although Ms Bourne was unseated as a result of a dispute over the counting of the ballot which ultimately went to the High Court, I understand that Ms Bourne has recently been served with a notice of bankruptcy."I am severely distressed by those words and am compelled to write this submission to seek redress and an appropriate response in the parliamentary record.My complaint about those words is twofold. Firstly, I am distraught that a very private matter is now in the public arena and my reputation and standing in the community have been adversely affected because of those words.Secondly, those words referring to the bankruptcy notice, I contend, had no relation to the speculative matters that Senator Hutchins raised in his speech reported in Hansard, Wednesday 22 September, page 8604. His speculative speech very clearly identified me and I cannot fathom the reason why he would publicly inform the nation of my notice of bankruptcy other than to mischievously arouse curiosity by the media and others, attract attention to my personal predicament and to deliberately and maliciously cause me distress. In that respect he has succeeded.By way of explanation, the bankruptcy matter has been brought on by Alice Murphy, a Labor Party Councillor on Leichhardt Council who defeated me in a byelection following a High Court ruling on a number of ballot papers from the 1995 Local Government election. For the past four years I have endured a long running court case, suffered personal financial loss, faced relationship breakdown and moved on, leaving friends and networks behind to begin a new life somewhere else.I won an election but lost a court case and have been paying for it ever since both financially and in my personal life. I feel I have suffered enough at the hands of the Labor Party. To be publicly humiliated is almost more than I can bear.Because of Senator Hutchins' comments, I have been readily identified, subjected to questioning from political colleagues, speculation in the local media, and intense pressure from friends and family.His words were intended to hurt and by uttering the words he showed a callous disregard for my privacy, my integrity and my reputation.I humbly ask that consideration be given to me under Resolution 5 , Protection of Persons referred to in the Senate , and the words "Although Ms Bourne was unseated as result of a dispute over the counting of a ballot which ultimately went to the High Court, I understand that Ms Bourne has recently been served with a notice of bankruptcy." be removed from Hansard. It would also be appropriate that an apology should come from Senator Hutchins for the adverse effect his words have had on my privacy and reputation.Christine BourneRESPONSE BY MR RAYMOND ROSE, PRINCIPAL, BRIDGE BUSINESS COLLEGE AGREED TO BY MR ROSE AND THE COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF THE SENATE OF 28 FEBRUARY 1988In order to introduce our grievance to you may I first draw your attention to Senator Carr's speech of 29 September 1999 regarding private providers of international education, and in particular to his comments about Bridge Business College .We immediately responded to Senator Carr by registered letter and still await an answer. Our point by point response to the Senator's comments is as follows:We have read the Hansard recording of the concerns you raised recently in relation to the overseas student sector in Australia. We note in particular your comments concerning Bridge Business College.In the table below you will see your comments reproduced together with a specific response from the College in relation to each point: You raised the following points in relation to Bridge Business College.Our Response`. . . . I understand is not a member of the ACPET organisation but is an RTO.'Bridge Business College is a member of the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges Limited (ACIVC) and is Accredited as a provider of vocational courses by NSW VETAB`It has some 600 students allegedly enrolled'The Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) lists our Maximum number of students as 720. This figure was established after an inspection of our premises in July 1997 by the ACIVC Accreditation Commissioner acting on behalf of NSW VETAB`but they are required to attend only on an infrequent basis—what they call very flexible delivery service + and sometimes up to only an hour a day'All overseas students are required to attend for 20 hours per week. The College frequently reports non-attending students to DIMA. Evidence of this is on file and available for scrutiny. Our timetable provides some flexibility (choice of classes times within a given day ) in line with the National Framework for the Recognition of Training Principles. Note Principle 7 "Courses shall be capable of being adapted to meet the particular needs of the industry individuals and other educational institutions." this college claims to offer extensive courses in computing and business studies but for some 600 students it appears to have only 40 computers.This College has a Novell Local Area Network comprising 100 computers . We do not offer computer courses only. The College provides courses in ELICOS, Business Studies, Travel and Tourism as well as Computer Skills. Approximately 20% of our students are enrolled specifically in Computer Skills courses. Bridge Business College is particularly proud of its premises, academic staff and state of the art facilities offered to students. Your comments have caused us grave concern and we are distressed that you made your comments without being adequately informed.On Wednesday 20 October we were `visited' without appointment by the Department of Immigration Investigation Section in direct response to Senator Carr's comments. I believe that the investigators' ensuing inspection enabled them to form an opinion which negates all Senator Carr's comments in relation to our resources and their utilisation.Senator Carr's comments were widely reported and are now common knowledge to all accreditation bodies, education agents and many potential students. I need hardly add that his comments have already inflicted damage on this College. Indeed I suggest that Senator Carr was supplied with information from a person or persons who had vested interests in discrediting a competitor.We seek redress in the manner considered appropriate by your Committee and in the light of our predicament look forward to an early response.BRIDGE BUSINESS COLLEGERaymond RosePrincipal16:09:0011072Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VICALP00—I have only just seen this report, so it is obviously difficult for me to respond in detail. But I am familiar with the thrust of the complaint made by one of the visa shops I have been naming in the Senate over recent times. This is a matter that was drawn to the attention of the Senate in a speech I made on 29 September regarding the Bridge Business College. The Senate will recall that there were a number of advertisements placed in the foreign language press on behalf of certain agents, many of whom I have now been able to discover are in fact unregistered agents—an offence which I understand carries a jail penalty of some 10 years—advertising various services including, in return for money, the provision of visas for this country.I have been running a series of inquiries as to the operations of a number of colleges which are, in my judgment, very poorly regulated. Given the extraordinary level of evidence that is now emerging, this government has a great deal to answer for. I point to the normal provisions that apply here, that the Privileges Committee has not necessarily found in favour of the complainant or myself. The complaints I have made have been basically acknowledged by the persons seeking redress. For instance, in terms of the reference to ACPET, the industry organisation, they say that Bridge Business College was in fact a member of the Australian Independent Vocational Colleges Ltd. I think they agree with the claim I made that they were not a member of ACPET and that they were a registered training organisation. They acknowledge those claims. I said they had 600 students allegedly enrolled in the college. They do not dispute that proposition. I made the claim that the students were not required to attend on a regular basis but were required to attend only on an infrequent basis, what is called a very flexible delivery service, sometimes up to only an hour a day. This is a claim that the college acknowledges. It says:All overseas students are required to attend for 20 hours per week. The College frequently reports non-attending students to DIMA. Evidence is on file and available for scrutiny. Our timetable provides some flexible (choices of classes times within a given day) in line with the National Framework for the Recognition of Training Principles. Note principle 7: `Courses shall be capable of being adapted to meet the particular needs of industry and individuals and other educational institutions'.It is hardly what I would call a robust denial. It also goes on to say—this is the matter of substance—that I made the claim that this college claims to offer extensive courses in computing and business studies but for some 600 students appears to have only 40 computers. That is a claim that I repeat today, because the information I had at the time the claim was made was that it was absolutely true. It is based on evidence presented to me by persons who had direct knowledge of the operations of this visa shop. This college then goes on to say that it had some hundred computers. I do not know when it bought them, but I can suggest to the Senate that this occurred after the claims were made in the Senate.I suggest that this government ought to do more than just visit these colleges, as is indicated in this report, but ought to undertake a thorough investigation of the operations of these colleges. What is occurring is that these colleges are being told that the government is coming to pay them a visit three days before the officers come, and when they do come you find that the colleges are more than happy to have their timetables reorganised, republish their timetables, have the places cleaned up, sometimes import equipment from other colleges, round up a few students, amalgamate classes and find various other devices by which the government officers can then report, `We made a visit and we found nothing wrong.'What is occurring again and again is that the government is not actually looking for anything wrong, because it would demonstrate the gross inadequacies of the present regulatory regime. It would demonstrate the claims I have been making about the operations of these visa shops and the inadequacies of the current law and, what is more, the inadequacies of the administration of the current law. The fact is that the government has cut the number of staff who are responsible for the administration of the ESOS Act by some 50 per cent. As a consequence, officers are not able to effectively administer the law. At the same time the government is only too happy to vilify people and to seek to whip up a level of public hysteria about persons illegally entering the country as refugees, but will not do anything about the abuses of visas by illegal immigration agents and bodgie colleges, some 30 of which I have now named. The government itself, in response to questions, has identified to me an acknowledgment, on the government's own figures, of 20 with serious attendance problems.It is a very good thing that the persons who were named in the Senate have the opportunity to present their case to the Senate, and I support people's right to do that. But I also put the view to the Senate that it is important for senators to put their views strongly and forcefully and, having checked information to the best of their ability, to use parliamentary privilege to expose the inadequacies of the administration in this country and to demonstrate that there are persons doing the wrong thing and that this government is not serious about addressing those questions and about attending to solutions to a very important issue.I come back to this basic point: this is an industry that involves some $3.5 billion a year. It is our fourth largest export industry. It is heavily, in fact critically, dependent upon quality, and it is the government's responsibility to act as the gatekeeper of that quality. This is an industry that can be seriously undermined by the operations of visa shonks, by persons acting as illegal immigration agents and by others who are not fulfilling their obligations to provide a high quality education and who are using the laws to provide a visa and not a high quality education.Again and again, evidence is coming forward to demonstrate that this government is not serious about protecting quality and ensuring the effective administration of the law. The consequences of that are very serious for the whole education industry. I repeat: it is our fourth largest export industry. Minister Kemp has to do a great deal more, and it is no good for him to turn around and say that it is just a problem for the immigration department or for the states, nor is it appropriate for operations that run these colleges to hide behind the gross inadequacies of the law. There has not been one prosecution for breaches of the ESOS Act in all of the time of its operation. Of all the colleges that have collapsed, of all the colleges that have gone belly up, only one had money in trust accounts, which are a very important part of the ESOS legislation. The government maintains that it is not a responsibility under the law to report persons who are not attending or to ensure that the conditions under which registration is originally gained are maintained. There is no provision in the law to stop people using the law in such a way as to provide a mere shell of an operation rather than to maintain a quality education environment and a quality education service.I make this final point: it is not good enough for people to come to this country and pick up a qualification carrying our name which they can hawk around the world and not do the work to achieve that qualification. The real problem that arises is that bodgie certificates which are issued to people who do not do the work undermine the qualifications for all those that do the work properly and are intent on ensuring a high quality outcome for the colleges, universities and other educational institutions and for the students who have come to this country for the purpose of securing a high quality education rather than a visa and who are used by unscrupulous operators to work in brothels, sweatshops, the hospitality industry and to drive taxis. For instance, in Melbourne recently the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ran a bit of a raid at Melbourne airport and managed to close down half the taxi fleet in Melbourne for a week. Those sorts of operations have to be brought to an end, and the failure of government to regulate this industry has to be exposed.Question resolved in the affirmative.Parliamentary Zone1107416:19:0011074Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present five proposals by the National Capital Authority, together with supporting documentation, as follows: erection of temporary structures associated with the running of the National Capital 100 V8 Supercar race, proposed by the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation to be held in June 2000; upgrading the East Block and West Block car parks; installation of banner poles at the National Archives of Australia; landscaping works to the John Gorton Building; and refurbishment of the Treasury building.Notices1107411074Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority:(a) upgrading the East Block and West Block car parks;(b) installation of banner poles at the National Archives of Australia;(c) landscaping works to the John Gorton Building; and(d) refurbishment of the Treasury Building.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for the erection of temporary structures associated with the running of the `National Capital 100' V8 Supercar race proposed by the Canberra Tourism and Events Corporation, to be held in June 2000.Bills11074r9111107416:20:0011074Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills11075r9161107516:21:0011075Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Again on behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills11075r8961107516:21:0011075Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, you would be well aware of this: on behalf of Senator Watson, I present the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Committees110751107510000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the memberships of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Economics Legislation Committee— Substitute members: Senators Lundy and Conroy to replace Senators Sherry and George Campbell for the 1999-2000 supplementary budget estimates hearings on 3 December 1999Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— Substitute member: Senator Calvert to replace Senator Coonan for the 1999-2000 supplementary budget estimates hearings on 3 December 1999 from 2 pm till adjournment. Bills11075A message from His Excellency the Governor-General was reported, informing the Senate that he had assented to the following law: Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 Bills11075r854Billsr85311075Consideration resumed from 26 November.FEDERAL MAGISTRATES BILL 1999Schedule of the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(3) Clause 39, page 23 (lines 6 to 8), omit subclause (6).(4) Clause 41, page 24 (line 12) to page 25 (line 16), omit the clause.(5) Page 25 (after line 16), after Part 5, insert:Part 5A—Removal of proceedings(6) Page 25 (after line 16), after the heading to Part 5A, insert:41A Removal by order of Federal Court or Family Court (1) Where: (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Federal Court, apart from section 32AA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 , has jurisdiction in the matter; the Federal Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Federal Court, on such terms as the Federal Court thinks fit. (2) Where: (a) a proceeding is at any time pending in the Federal Magistrates Court; and (b) the Family Court, apart from section 33A of the Family Law Act 1975 , has jurisdiction in the matter; the Family Court may, upon application by a party or upon application by or on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, at any stage of the proceedings before final determination, order that the proceeding or a part of the proceeding be removed into the Family Court, on such terms as the Family Court thinks fit.(3) The Federal Court or the Family Court may not make an order under subsection (1) or (2), as the case requires, unless: (a) all parties consent to the making of the order; or (b) the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, is satisfied that it is appropriate to make the order, having regard to all the circumstances, including the interests of the parties and the public interest.(7) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41A, insert:41B Orders may be made If an order is made under section 41A, the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires, may make such orders as it considers necessary pending the disposal of the proceeding by the Federal Court or the Family Court, as the case requires.(8) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41B, insert:41C No appeal lies An appeal does not lie from a decision of the Federal Court or the Family Court under section 41A in relation to the removal of a matter under this Part.(9) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41C, insert:41D Removal valid even if subsection 19(1) contravened A reference in section 41A to a proceeding pending in the Federal Magistrates Court includes a reference to a proceeding that was instituted in contravention of subsection 19(1).(10) Page 25 (after line 16), after clause 41D, insert:41E Part has effect subject to Constitution This Part has effect subject to the Constitution.(11) Clause 45, page 27 (line 20) to page 28 (line 2), omit the clause.(12) Clause 46, page 28 (lines 3 to 20), omit the clause.(15) Clause 76, page 46 (line 9) to page 47 (line 4), omit the clause. Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to amendments (3) to (12) and (15) of the Senate—Senate Amendment 3This amendment would allow appeals from decisions regarding transfers between the courts. A right to appeal in these circumstances would just increase costs and delays for litigants. The right to appeal against the substantive issue in dispute remains.The House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendment 4This amendment omits the regulation making power mandating the transfer of proceedings from the Federal Magistrates Service to the other courts. This would mean that there would be no ability to adjust workloads and would lead to a danger of workload imbalance. The House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendments (5) to (10)These amendments would allow the Family and Federal Courts to order that a proceeding be transferred from the Federal Magistrates Service to the relevant superior court.There is a real risk of the better resourced party using this provision to force a less well-resourced opponent into the more expensive superior court. This would mean that the under resourced party would be denied the benefit of having their case decided by the cheaper, faster and more efficient Federal Magistrates Service. Accordingly, the House of Representatives opposes these amendments.Senate Amendments (11) and (12)These amendments delete clauses 45 and 46 of the Bill which would have allowed discovery and interrogatories only with the leave of the court. The provisions were included to give an express legislative signal to the court about a new approach to be taken which would ensure more efficient conduct of litigation. The House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.Senate Amendment (15)This amendment deletes clause 76 from the Bill. Clause 76 provided that reasons for decision could be given orally and in short from. The provision is important because it sends a signal to the Federal Magistrates Service to encourage it to use oral or short form reasons where appropriate and it will encourage a more efficient use of judicial resources. The clause will not override common law obligations to give proper reasons for decision. The court itself would determine when short from reason could be given under rules of court. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.16:23:0011077Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move:That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.The government is not prepared to accept most of the opposition amendments, which were made in the Senate and disagreed to by the House of Representatives, since it believes that they would only obstruct cheaper access to justice in the Federal Magistrates Service, make the service more complex and reduce its potential to cut the backlog of cases in the family law arena. However, following further discussions with the opposition the government is prepared to allow some of the opposition's amendments so as to ensure passage of the vast majority of the provisions of the bill. I will speak to the particular amendments once the opposition moves to insist upon them. The government supports the amendments made by the House of Representatives in place of Senate amendment No. 15. These amendments clarify that the Federal Magistrates Service will have jurisdiction only to deal with matters concerning the residence of children in family law proceedings where either party seeks orders by consent or the parties consent to the Federal Magistrates Service hearing the proceeding. On behalf of the government, I thank the opposition for being prepared to engage in what has been a series of constructive negotiations on these bills and welcome the establishment of the Federal Magistrates Service, which will result in a less formal, quicker and more streamlined means of resolving many federal disputes.16:25:0011077Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—I also indicate, as has been mentioned by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, that there have been constructive discussions between the government and the opposition on this legislation. We do have a range of motions to put before the Senate this afternoon. Senator Campbell moved that the committee not insist on amendments Nos 3 to 12 and 15 and, at a later time, I will be seeking to have those amendments moved in two separate batches. I think that Senator Campbell may in fact do that himself. The opposition will not be insisting on its amendments Nos 3 to 11 but will be insisting on amendments Nos 12 and 15. I think Senator Greig has also been involved in these discussions, as has his office, so there might be a similar inclination from the Democrats about those. I think we will also look at the second batch of amendments in a similar way. We will not be insisting on all of the amendments that were passed in the Senate some time last week. Just talking about all of the amendments in one batch at the moment, the amendments that we are going to insist on are those that ensure the provision of reasons for a magistrate's decision and the provision of reasons on appeal. We are insisting on amendments that allow the federal magistracy to determine its own rules on subpoenas rather than deal with this matter through legislation. Basically, we will enable the Federal Magistrates Service to establish its own rules on the issuing of subpoenas, having regard to the needs of those people who appear before the courts. We note that there are in fact a number of other courts and tribunals that exercise summary powers which allow simple processes for the return of subpoenas, and we would encourage the court to adopt a similar practice. In our view, it is vital that parties be able to obtain access to information necessary to frame their cases in the interests of both fairness and the administration of justice. There is an amendment that goes to the operation of the Federal Court in its capacity to direct the transfer of proceedings, and we are still maintaining that amendment. The other pivotal amendment that we wish to insist upon is that which stops the government from moving so many industrial cases—cases that are often complex, controversial and involve critical industrial issues—to the jurisdiction of the federal magistracy. We believe they should be maintained in the Federal Court, and the amendment to ensure that they are so maintained will be insisted upon. So, at this stage, I indicate that we will not be insisting on our amendments Nos 3 to 11 but we do insist on amendments Nos 12 and 15.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you, Senator Bolkus. I was of the understanding that it would facilitate the putting of the question if those were put into two separate bundles.16:28:0011078Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—The Democrats have long been supportive of the notion of a federal magistracy. We have always indicated our preparedness to work cooperatively with the government on that, and we said so in our report to the committee inquiry. We are of the view that we have no fundamental concerns with amendments Nos 3 to 11, which we previously supported, and we will not be insisting on those, but we do hold firmly to the belief that amendments Nos 12 and 15 ought to be insisted upon, for the reasons we outlined earlier.In particular, we remain of the view that those industrial relations matters, such as section 127 and part 10A relating to freedom of association, require the attention of a superior court for a number of reasons. I do not know there is any hugely compelling reason for that, but there is clearly community concern over that. I think the Federal Court is a better jurisdiction within which to do that because of the expertise that it has achieved and maintains. Also, the fact that the Federal Court can hear matters through to finality in one go is an important consideration. So with that in mind, we are happy to concede the points that have been made here today. At this point in time we will be supporting the concepts which have been forged cooperatively between the opposition and government.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I intend to facilitate proceedings by putting the questions separately. The first question is that the committee does not insist on Senate amendments Nos 3 to 11.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The next question is that the committee does not insist on Senate amendments Nos 12 and 15.Question resolved in the negative.FEDERAL MAGISTRATES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 1999Schedule of the amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed—(8) Schedule 11, item 25, page 40 (line 24) to page 41 (line 18), omit section 33C.(9) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) proceedings are instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property of a total value exceeding, at the time the proceedings are commenced: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and(10) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (after line 16), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) If: (a) after proceedings have been instituted in the Federal Magistrates Court in relation to property, the total value of the property exceeds: (i) $300,000; or (ii) if another amount is specified in the regulations—that other amount; and (b) the respondent in answer to the application by which the proceedings are instituted, is seeking an order different from that sought in the application; the Federal Magistrates Court must, before proceeding further with proceedings, inform the parties that, unless each of them consents to the Federal Magistrates Court continuing to hear and determine the proceedings, the Federal Magistrates Court is required to transfer the proceedings to the Family Court.(11) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 18), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(12) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 20), after "hearing", insert ", or continuing to hear,".(13) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 24), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(14) Schedule 11, item 42, page 44 (line 28), after "(1)", insert "or (1A)".(15) Schedule 11, item 63, page 48 (line 9) to page 49 (line 20), omit the item. (19) Schedule 12, item 4, page 57 (line 30) to page 58 (line 2), omit the item.(20) Schedule 12, item 6, page 59 (line 26) to page 60 (line 21), omit section 32AC.(23) Schedule 25, page 80 (line 2) to page 82 (line 18), omit the Schedule.Reasons of the House of Representatives for disagreeing to amendments (8) to (14), (19), (20) and (23) of the SenateSenate Amendment (8)This amendment omits the regulation making power mandating transfer of proceedings from the Family Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. This would mean that there would be no ability to adjust workloads and would lead to a danger of workload imbalance. The House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendments (9) to (14)These amendments concern family law property proceedings. The amendments allow family law property proceedings to be transferred from the Federal Magistrates Service during the proceeding (as opposed to only at the commencement) if property is worth more than $300,000. The original clause provided that the time to consider the value of the property is when the proceeding is filed.These amendments would have a significant impact on the efficient operation of the Federal Magistrates Service. If transfer applications could be made during proceedings, this could be used as a delaying tactic. A case could be heard partly in one court and then transferred to another, which could be disruptive and inefficient. Under the original clause, the Federal Magistrates Service could still use its general transfer powers to transfer cases to the Family Court at any stage of the proceedings, if it considers it appropriate to do so.Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept these amendments.Senate Amendment (19)This amendment deletes the provision which would have allowed the Federal Court to give short form reasons on appeal where the appeal did not raise a general issue of principle. This amendment was suggested by the Federal Court itself as a means of encouraging the more efficient use of judicial resources on the hearing of appeals. Accordingly, the House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendment (20)This amendment omits the regulation making power mandating transfer of proceedings from the Federal Court to the Federal Magistrates Service. This would mean that there would be no ability to adjust workloads and would lead to a danger of workload imbalance. The House of Representatives does not accept this amendment.Senate Amendment (23)This amendment deleted Schedule 25 which gave the Federal Magistrates Service jurisdiction in some matters under the Workplace Relations Act.This jurisdiction would provide quick, low cost relief for breaches of key aspects of workplace relations law. Accordingly, the House of Representatives opposes this amendment.House of Representatives amendments made in place of Senate amendment No. 15—(1) Schedule 11, item 63, page 48 (lines 19 and 20), omit "during the interim period".(2) Schedule 11, item 63, page 49 (lines 10 to 20), omit subsection (6).Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the committee does not insist on its amendments Nos 8 to 15, to which the House of Representatives has disagreed, and agrees to the amendments made by the House in place of amendment No. 15.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) proposed:That the committee does not insist on its amendments Nos 19, 20 and 23 to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.16:31:0011079Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4SAALP00—These three amendments go to the issues that I mentioned earlier: the reasons for decisions on appeal, the capacity of the Federal Court and the industrial jurisdiction. They are the amendments that the opposition believes the Senate should insist on.16:32:0011079Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I rise simply to concur with Senator Bolkus's remarks and to point out that those particular areas of concern remain with the Democrats and, as such, we endorse those amendments.Question resolved in the negative.Resolutions reported; report adopted.Business1107911079Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That government business orders of the day No. 14 (Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999) and No. 15 (Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 ) may be taken together for their remaining stages.Bills11080r911Billsr91611080Debate resumed from 13 October and 27 September, on motions by Senator Ian Campbell and Senator Ellison:That these bills be now read a second time.16:37:0011080Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—I will start my contribution by posing a question to Senator Ian Campbell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Will the minister be attending for any of this debate? I am not so worried about the second reading debate; I am more concerned about the committee stage. I would suggest that he might want to—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—He wouldn't miss it.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—He would not miss the committee stage? I am very happy. Thank you very much for that.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I may have to fill in for short periods, but otherwise—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—I hope that the minister is able to attend for all of it because most of the questions are going to be to him because his office and he are handling this particular item. That is no reflection on you. The technical detail of this bill will require his considered opinions—as frightening as that prospect is, I agree. The exercise that preceded the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 debate today is a shameful one. It is one of the National Party fibbing to the bush and then capitulating to the Liberal Party. I am disappointed that Senator McGauran has done the famous chicken run on this one—I am not sure where he has got to—because he has a lot to answer for. The famous `Roll Over Ron' Boswell and Senator McGauran have been caught out again. Then the Democrats capitulated to the Prime Minister who also then dudded the National Party. As Peter Garrett said, it was a dirty deal done dirt cheap. Senator McGauran has entered the chamber. Welcome back, Senator McGauran. I am pleased you have not fled.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—All his mates have.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—He has his colouring-in pens over there. He has to colour something in. The then Leader of the National Party, Mr Fischer, originally said he would only support a GST if the fuel excise was abolished. He reneged on that pledge, as the fuel credit scheme that was announced by the government retained fuel excise. This meant no reduction in petrol tax for ordinary motorists and an increase in the city-country petrol differential—a bad deal for country Australia. But that is only the start of it.The government promised a whole package of measures on diesel which it has reneged on. The chamber has dealt with legislation recently where the government was trying to renege on a deal cut with the Democrats to get the GST through. The Prime Minister used the diesel fuel rebate in the forestry industry as a bargaining chip in order to fool the Democrats. He promised to cut the diesel fuel rebate to foresters to secure Democrat support for the GST, and now he has reneged on that deal.This legislation is one more step in the government's reneging on the promises it made to the road transport industry. The former Leader of the National Party promised that he would resign if he did not deliver the full diesel promise. The deal with the Democrats made sure he did not deliver. The current Leader of the National Party also promised he would resign if the deal was not delivered. He also reneged on this promise. The diesel fuel grants scheme came about because the deal with the Democrats was unconstitutional. The deal was so bad that it ran against the Constitution. It was against the Constitution to divide the nation into city and country regions and impose differential tax regimes. So we are left with the uncertain grants scheme and a wing and a prayer— fingers crossed—that this is actually going to pass the constitutionality test, as opposed to the last failed attempt.Because of the confusion surrounding the scheme the government cannot give us the details on it. We remember Tim Fischer telling us to wait for the wonderful explanatory memorandum in which everything would be revealed. We did that, and what it revealed was that the government did not actually know what the scheme it had agreed to was actually about. The government wanted us to pass that legislation and then wait for months until it worked out it is to be applied through administrative arrangements. Because we are a cooperative opposition and we wish to try to end the confusion for the road transport industry, we reluctantly agreed to that approach, flawed as it was.Now we have before us a piece of legislation which is supposed to deal with these administrative issues, and what do we find? We find that this legislation does not end any of the confusion. Rather, what it does is defer yet again the issue of the boundaries between the city and the country—the so-called urban conurbation boundary lines which got such a good mention yesterday, Senator Greig, in your absence; I was pleased that Senator Allison was present for that discussion. But, worse, it imposes a huge new compliance burden on transport operators. This involves more paperwork, more record keeping requirements and more expense in seeking professional advisers to navigate through the red tape. Remember: this is the government that was going to get rid of red tape for small business. The small business truckies who I talk to do not believe that they have had a reduction in red tape. They do not believe the red tape has been removed.Senator Sherry interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—Thank you, Senator Sherry. That is absolutely right: there is potential for penalties if people make honest mistakes. We saw this week the Yellow Pages survey. What is the single, greatest fear that small businesses have at the moment? Their greatest fear is the GST compliance bill. I see that Senator Allison has joined us, and I welcome her participation. I also welcome Senator Brown. Small businesses are already fearful of what this government has done to them in the red tape area and all the compliance burden that this entails—coined by the Treasurer as the nightmare on main street—and now we see them having to cope with the next instalment, the nightmare on highway 1, delivered courtesy of the National Party rolling over to Senator Heffernan and the bullyboys in the Liberals yet again.Since June Labor has been asking, `What are the areas that qualify for the grant?' What are they, Senator McGauran? Are you able to tell us today? Senator Heffernan is part of the Manchu court. You are an important and powerful man, Senator Heffernan. Maybe the member of the Manchu court can give us some guidance and enlightenment today. Just because he is here today does not mean he is going to speak though. The members of the Manchu court are silent and that is how Senator Heffernan likes to conduct himself in this chamber. We are constantly told that all will be explained soon—perhaps by Senator Allison, perhaps by Senator Greig, perhaps by Senator Heffernan, perhaps by Senator McGauran, perhaps by Senator Kemp, the minister who has been dobbed in as handling the negotiations. But do not hold your breath, Senator Brown—and I do not blame Senator Greig—because I am afraid there will not be much explanation of the bill in this chamber.Transport operators have a right to be able to plan their businesses with certainty. They have a right to expect governments to set out the rules simply and with adequate time to prepare for them. Each time we ask these questions we find silence from this government. It is the most talkative the Manchu court has been in six months in this chamber. Yet this is the scheme that the government have costed down to the last million dollars. So either they know exactly what the boundaries are between those that get the grant and those that are discriminated against, and they are not telling anybody, or they still do not have any idea what they have agreed to with the Democrats. Those are the only two options: either the government know and are not telling us, or they still do not have a clue what deal they have done with the Democrats and, even more importantly, the Democrats do not have a clue what deal they agreed to with the government. They are either hiding the truth from the people because they are worried about what a nightmare they are going to impose on the transport industry or they have no idea how they costed the proposal as outlined in the Prime Minister's press release.Senator Kemp frequently invites members of the opposition to stand up and go their 10 yards to courage. That is Senator Kemp's favourite statement. I see that Senator McGauran is nodding. I invite Senator Heffernan to go his three inches to courage by standing up and speaking to this legislation. Can we check Senator Heffernan's microphone to make sure that it is working, because I am willing to bet that it is a faulty mike over there. Senator Heffernan, you just have to stand up to make a contribution to this debate. Since June we have repeatedly asked questions in the other place, in the committee and now here today on how this new nightmare will work. We never get any answers. All of the transport operators who live and work around urban centres have a right to know whether they will qualify for these grants, yet they are being kept in the dark.There is important new information in this bill but, as usual, there are more questions posed than answered. There are record keeping requirements. These impose the new red tape for these grants. If you fail to satisfy the provisions of clause 18, you do not quality for any grant. We now know that. But what we do not know is what you have to do to satisfy the clause. We know what you have to do to not satisfy the clause, but tell us what you have to do to satisfy the clause. As usual in legislation the detail is not specified but is deferred to a determination not yet issued by the tax commissioner. So we do not know what the record keeping requirements are in order for people to qualify for the grants. On top of that, we still do not know which journeys will qualify for the grants. In fact, we do not even know what the definition of a journey is, as was revealed at the Senate inquiry on this bill.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—The tax office doesn't know.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—The tax office does not know what a journey is. But there are new provisions which are complete. These are the new powers of the diesel police. These are the new powers that transport operators will now face. In fact, the tax office admitted that one of the new weapons—I know that Senator Hutchins will be particularly interested in this—of the diesel police in this country is the dipstick. It actually conceded that a dipstick was part of the new diesel police armoury. But that is not all. This bill also creates new powers for the tax commissioner to stop vehicles and to search vehicles. This bill allows virtually unlimited access to premises. It creates an offence if people do not comply exactly. Truck drivers in Australia will now face unprecedented intrusion into their business and, indeed, personal affairs. Dipsticks will be waved at them on the side of roads and they will be pulled over and checked. You can just imagine the scene when a truck driver, after a long day on the road, arrives home late: `Hello, dear. Why are you late home?' `Well, dear, the tax commissioner ordered that my truck be stopped and searched. I have just experienced the nightmare on highway 1 for the last few hours that Labor tried to warn the community about.'NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—They won't be able to dipstick Senator Heffernan's tax avoidance trusts.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is probably right, Senator Campbell. The conversation will go: `Oh, have you brought home someone for dinner as well?' `No, dear, but since the tax office believes that there are some documents here relating to the diesel grants scheme, he has decided to enter our home and stay here for a reasonable time. By the way, he has the right to inspect, examine, count, measure, weigh, gauge, test or analyse any goods or other property in our home and may also take samples. But just carry on as if he isn't here.' So the government is providing itself—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—They may have to pay fringe benefits tax on their dinner.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—That is a very good point, Senator Campbell. We may have to GST them for providing a service as well. The government is providing itself with all these new powers. It is imposing new requirements on transport operators, but it has not addressed any of the confusion that it has caused with the dirty diesel deal with the Democrats. Why did the Democrats do this dirty deal? What was their motivation? They claimed that their motivation was the environment. Let us have a brief look at this. The Democrats had an expert adviser, Dr Clive Hamilton from the Australia Institute, advising on this and other environmental issues. What did Dr Hamilton do? He examined what the government was offering the Democrats, advised against it and then resigned when he saw what was happening. He is a man of integrity. He refused to be associated with a dud deal. He knew that the Democrats were getting conned by the government and tried to warn them. They did not listen, they did not care; they were going to shaft the community with the GST and shaft the urban environment as well.The fact that truck operators would also face a bureaucratic nightmare does not disturb the Democrats at all. They were naive and gullible—just the kind of people the Prime Minister preys on. The Australian transport industry is now having to bear the cost of these compromises and these nightmares and, as well as copping the paperwork and uncertainty, they now face unprecedented government powers.The bus industry actually put in a submission to the Senate inquiry that suggested and asserted strongly that for the bulk of the private bus industry they expect costs and fares to rise in the order of nine per cent. Their submission suggests that there would be some substitution of bus use, with increased car use as a result of these changes. Mr Gunning stated:We think we know that. There are plenty of studies around. The cross-elasticity of demand between cars and buses is about 0.5; so, with the sort of numbers we are talking about, we think there will be a move from buses to cars.They go on in their submission to argue that this will actually increase greenhouse gases as well. Senator Brown, can you believe that? We have a bill before us which is to protect the environment, yet it is guaranteeing an increase in greenhouse gases because people are going to be forced off buses into private cars. Mr Gunning also said:Thinking about what the bus industry understands about the conurbations that have been drawn, the bus industry is especially struck by the fact that there is a whole range of agricultural areas that are being drawn inside the conurbations: wine growing areas in Victoria, for example, or market garden areas in Sydney, or plain bush in the case of Brisbane, and the like.So they know that bus costs are going up by nine per cent and they are quite emphatic that this is going to mean that they will see people forced off the buses and bus fares will rise by about three per cent, and that is in an environment where, for a private motorist, car costs are coming down by about three per cent. Mr Gunning continues:. . . for a business user of cars, cost reductions are in the order of 13 or 12 per cent. We know that there is substitutability . . . So we are heading in the direction of pushing people out of the great bulk of the bus fleet into cars. We know that on average, across-the-board, depending on the scenario you draw, buses are about eight times environmentally better than cars.That is right, Senator Brown; they are eight times environmentally better than cars in the area of greenhouse gas and all the other areas, and this bill pushes people off buses and into cars. It is a disgrace and a sham. The Democrats need to be exposed not only for increasing greenhouse gases through this legislation but also for putting enormous costs onto the transport industry and forcing the industry to go through an enormous amount of hoopla just because the government wanted to sell out the trucking industry and the private bus industry to appease the Democrats. But the Democrats did not care.All the Democrats wanted to do was to say, `We've done a good deal.' They lost their own environment adviser over it. He could not stomach what they were doing. He walked out. He said, `Enough is enough!' This mob are a soft touch. You have to congratulate Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. He did a good job of pulling the wool over the Democrats' eyes. He sucked them in good and proper and does deserve some credit for this. But the environment movement of this country will not give him any credit. The transport industry will not give him any credit over it.Senator McGauran interjecting—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY—You can wave your coloured pen over there and finish your colouring in. Would you like to borrow a yellow one? The National Party sold out. They will pay for this deal at the next election, just like they paid for it in the Victorian election when they lost Gisborne and all those rural seats. The fact that the Labor Party is the largest holder of rural and regional seats in Victoria, more than the Nationals and the Liberals combined, is an indictment. This is the beginning of the backlash over rubbish bills like this.16:57:0011084Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I remind the Senate and my colleague Senator Conroy about the reason for proceeding down this path. He well knows—and I think agreed at the time of the debate in the Senate—that our aim for reducing transport costs for regional Australia was a good one, that 45c a litre excise on diesel was a large amount of money and that our aim, like the government's, was to see that transport costs in the regions and country Australia would be reduced. What we did not want to see was an increase in the use of diesel and an increase in pollution, particularly the particulates that come from diesel, further worsening our air quality in the cities in particular, which is where the great concentrations of transport are to be found.The Senate will recall that the original proposal for this excise reduction was for all vehicles over 4.5 tonnes. What the Democrats did was to say, `Let's try to work out a system whereby we can deliver those transport cost reductions to country Australia but still make sure that we do not have an increased use of diesel in the city. The Senate will be aware of the range of measures put in place to make sure that that happened, such as the alternative fuel scheme—the conversion of vehicles from diesel to other fuels, primarily gas. There are moneys set aside for that purpose. You will recall that emission standards in this country are five years behind Europe and the UK—and we can look to Senator Conroy's party for the state that Australia is in, in terms of emission standards. The Democrats did something about that through their negotiations with the government so that, by 2006, we will be in line with Euro standards. We will have a very stringent regime for vehicles in this country and we will no longer see the levels of pollution that we currently have.To go to this question of conurbations, which Senator Conroy is so intrigued about—NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Tell us what they are.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—I think we all know that conurbations are extensions of cities—for instance, Melbourne down to Geelong. I think we can reasonably say that Geelong is not a remote area. It is in many senses part of the metropolitan area of Victoria. So is the Gold Coast. In Queensland, Brisbane and the Gold Coast can reasonably be seen to be conurbations. Sydney and Newcastle are likewise. Because they are so close, it is not reasonable to suggest transport in those areas is regional transport that we want to lower the costs for.In this debate, the Labor Party seem to be fascinated by the fact that the tax office cannot tell them precisely where the line on the map is. Well, I am sure you will be able to go to the tax office and ask them if they can tell you in very precise details where the parameters are for the business tax agreed to by the Labor Party. We know that they cannot. This is not an unusual situation for the Senate to be in. We know that the Taxation Commissioner must make rulings. It is not for the Senate or the government to determine precisely what those rulings are. The tax office must take the advice that it gets at the time and it must act on the legislation that it has before it.Senator George Campbell interjecting—1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Mr Acting Deputy President, I am having a lot of trouble hearing myself here.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator George Campbell, you should resist interjecting and participate later in the debate. Put you name on the list of speakers if you wish to speak.1M6Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON—Senator Conroy says that this is a sell-out to the truck industry. This is not a sell-out to the truck industry. It will be a scheme which has a high level of surveillance. That is not a bad thing. I remember the Labor Party and others in this place, ourselves included, criticising the fact that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme has been rorted in the past. The Auditor-General has done at least two reports on this question and identified the problems that arise within that scheme. This was the reason that the Democrats went straight to the Auditor-General and said, `This is the proposal. This is what we seek to achieve. Will you please be very involved in the development of the legislation which will do just that—that is, make sure that the cost reductions are delivered to regional transport.' That is precisely the process that we went through.Senator Conroy said that the detail is not specified. No, Senator Conroy, it is not specified. It is not likely to be specified. It is a matter that still needs to be resolved. I was not at the hearing so I am not able to tell you precisely where the grey areas are but I am sure this is not an insurmountable matter. The principle is that the transport operator will receive the 23c a litre excise, which is part of the 45c a litre excise currently paid by trucking operators, for the proportion of the journey which is into regional areas. It does not matter if the truck starts in the middle of the city; it does not matter if it comes back into the city after it has done its transport in regional areas. The area which is into the regions will be that which is reimbursed for the excise.Of course, if this is too difficult, trucking operators do not have to accept it. They can carry out their business and not bother with claiming that diesel credit. They are at liberty to do that and maybe some will do that; I do not know. This seems to the Democrats a sensible approach. I believe the Auditor-General will examine this whole program very carefully. If some matters need to be ironed out further down the track and, I am sure, if what is being predicted by Senator Conroy actually happens, we will be more than interested in finding ways of resolving it. At this point in time, I can say that we have full confidence in the Auditor-General having identified the problems that were related to the diesel rebate. We are confident that the Auditor-General has been in a position to devise a scheme which will work and will not be rorted. It might be slightly more onerous but I personally welcome that.If we are talking about returning 23c a litre of excise for regional transport, then it is not unreasonable that the tax office should have increased powers. Senator Conroy calls them `unprecedented intrusion' and tells us a cute story about the tax office entering people's living rooms—very amusing but not very realistic. The Democrats are strongly supportive of stringent measures to make sure that there is no abuse of this system. It is not going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. I am sure Senator Conroy would like it to be but I doubt very much that that is going to be the case. I think we will work out the detail. There will be a ruling at some stage about what the edge of a conurbation is and how it will operate. I have full confidence in both the government and the Auditor-General getting that right. I commend this legislation to the Senate.17:07:0011085Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are dealing with two pieces of legislation here today, the legislation that Senator Conroy and Senator Allison have been speaking about, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 , and also the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 . This legislation proposes to undo—and I stress `undo'—one aspect of the deal between the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and the Australian Democrats to secure passage of the GST, namely the reduction of the amount of diesel fuel rebate eligible for forestry operations. If passed, this legislation will increase the amount of rebate in respect of diesel fuel to 100 per cent for forestry operations. The background to this is that the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme returns to certain businesses such as mining and primary production all, or a proportion of, the diesel excise they pay on diesel fuel used in their business operations. The rebate only applies to these off-road uses, presumably because of the historical link to excise and road funding.The Prime Minister announced in a media release of 31 May 1999 the following change of policy regarding the GST package, which had proposed to extend the off-road uses of diesel which would qualify under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. The media release said:The extension to the off-road concession for diesel and like fuels will be limited to providing full credits for marine use, bush nursing homes, hospitals, nursing homes, aged person homes and private residences, but not for construction, power generation, manufacturing or forestry. The proposed full credit for mining currently accessing the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme will be maintained.That was the position of the Prime Minister on the deal done with the Democrats on the diesel fuel rebate in respect of forestry. In other words, the forest industries in this country were to have a reduction in the diesel fuel rebate. Obviously, that would have increased the costs of operation of the forest industries in this country.The government then introduced the Customs and Excise Amendment (Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme) Bill 1999, which was passed by this Senate on 28 June 1999. This bill specifically limited the amount of rebate for the forest industry in respect of diesel use to 35/43rds. In other words, it was a reduction—a reduction in the amount of rebate to be returned to the forest industry in this country. That bill has passed this parliament. That bill accurately reflected the deal done between the Australian Democrats and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, to pass the GST legislation.There is no doubt that that was the deal—to take away from the forest industries in this country part of their diesel fuel rebate. There is no doubt about that. I am glad that Senator Greig is in the chamber. I do not blame him for this mess—and this is a mess. He was not here when this shambles of a deal was put together, and he has had to try to pick up the pieces. Senator Greig, on Thursday 18 November 1999, at a Senate Economics Legislation Committee hearing, was question ing the detail of the diesel fuel rebate and its impact on the forest industry.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Why didn't you support us?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I will get to you in a moment, Senator McGauran, because the National Party's position on this is an absolute disgrace—yet another example of the failure of the National Party to stand up for the bush. Senator Greig said:But, as far as the Democrats are concerned, the position is not unclear.The discussion continued:Senator Conroy—So, is forestry in or out?Senator Greig—It is out.I notice—I acknowledge—he is nodding in the Senate chamber. Forestry was out. Reduce the diesel fuel rebate on the forest industry—that was the deal the Democrats did with the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. The questioning continued:Senator Conroy—Doesn't this bill put it back in?Senator Greig—It does.Senator Greig is acknowledging, in relation to the original deal they did with the Democrats, which was passed in this Senate, that the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has backtracked. He has backtracked. He has torn up your deal. We then had the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson, commence the second reading speech in respect of the bill that has already been passed by stating that the bill:. . . implements changes to the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme agreed with the Australian Democrats as part of the package of environmental measures that will now accompany the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July 2000.The Deputy Prime Minister is confirming that part of the diesel fuel rebate was to be taken from the forest industries, increasing the costs of operation for the forest industries. That was the deal. There is clear evidence—overwhelming evidence—that the deal was done. The forest industry was to lose part of the diesel fuel rebate and costs were to be increased in the bush. It is an important rural and regional industry. The costs of operation for forestry were to be increased in rural and regional Australia.That was the deal. I checked out at the time what this was going to cost the Tasmanian forest industry, and it was going to cost at least $2 million a year extra for the forest industry in Tasmania alone. The forest industry in Tasmania represents about 15 per cent of the economy. It is a very important industry—a very important rural and regional industry—and employs a great number of people. It was to be hit with extra costs as a result of the deal between the Democrats and the Prime Minister, Mr Howard. But of course the picture very quickly changed. Once the forest industries pointed out that this was going to cost millions of dollars around Australia for the forest industry, the picture soon changed.Before I get to the changing picture, what about the role of the National Party? I am glad Senator McGauran is here. I notice he is not speaking on this piece of legislation. What about the role of the National Party, supposedly representing rural and regional Australia? How on earth did they let this aspect of the GST deal get through? What were you doing?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—It was part of the package.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It was part of the package, says Senator McGauran. Senator McGauran is acknowledging that as part of the package they are going to slug the forest industries in this country with extra taxation, increasing their costs, increasing unemployment. We see yet again the failure of the National Party to stand up for rural and regional Australia. We do not need the National Party in Australia, Senator McGauran. The Labor Party represents rural and regional Australia. In Tasmania we do not have the National Party; we do not need them. It was the Labor Party that identified this particular problem and the significant impact it would have on—the hurt it would cause to—the forest industries in Tasmania.I am going to turn to Senator Brown. Senator Brown is in the Senate chamber. Senator Brown and I do not agree on most issues in relation to forestry. Senator Brown's position is one that I do not agree with, but I respect it. At least he does stick with the principles he enunciates. Senator Brown wants to shut down the forest industries in Australia. The position of the Labor Party is that it is important to maintain sustainable forest industries and the employment that comes from that. These are important rural and regional industries. Senator Brown and I fundamentally disagree on the importance of the forest industries, but I will publicly praise Senator Brown on this one occasion. At least Senator Brown is consistent. At least he does not pretend to be adopting a pro-environmental view like the Australian Democrats.The Australian Democrats have been trumpeting that the GST deal is great for the environment. They attempted to say, `We have a great deal. We are going to take part of the diesel fuel rebate off the forest industries.' What happened next? Minister Tuckey obviously got motivated because he was being bombarded with complaints from the forest industries. Minister Tuckey said the legislation was a mistake. The legislation that had passed this chamber—the deal signed in writing between the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, and Senator Lees and Senator Murray on behalf of the Democrats—was all a mistake. It should not have happened in the first place.Consequently, the diesel fuel rebate is to be restored in full to the forest industries in Australia. I see Senator McGauran looking triumphant. Good on you, Senator McGauran, and good on the National Party. Where were you when the deal was struck? Why did you let this serious hit on the forest industries go through in the first place? It was simply a failure again of the National Party to stand up for rural and regional Australia. What we have here is a new piece of legislation. Of course, this is one piece of legislation which contains significant amendments. We have over 1,000 amendments to the GST deal that the Democrats and the government struck. This is one of the amendments to that particular deal, a deal which seriously hurt the forest industries in this country.Mr Tuckey announced that it was all a mistake. But it is very clear from the public statements of the Democrats, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that it was not a mistake. This was agreed to. It was signed up. Yet now we have Minister Tuckey claiming, `The legislation was all a mistake. We didn't mean to take away part of the diesel fuel rebate from the forest industries.' What have the Democrats said about this backtracking, this backdown by the Liberal-National Party government on this issue? Nothing. They have not said, `We did sign up to a deal. Why aren't you implementing the original deal? Why aren't you sticking with the deal?' The Democrats have done nothing. They have just rolled over. They have accepted it.Senator Greig, on behalf of the Democrats, if you are fair dinkum—you signed up to the deal—vote against this legislation here today. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I dare the Democrats to vote against this legislation to show that they have some guts and determination to uphold the deal that they have admitted they struck with the government.It will be interesting to see what the Australian Democrats do. I suspect that they will roll over. They will roll over with significant embarrassment because you cannot have it both ways. The Australian Democrats cannot have it both ways. They cannot triumphantly say or claim falsely that their GST deal was a great victory for the environment and then come in here and vote against a piece of legislation that restores the full diesel rebate to the forest industries. They cannot have it both ways, but I am sure they will try and do that. That is the essence of this particular piece of legislation in front of us here today.There was considerable outrage, justified outrage, from a number of organisations about this aspect of the GST deal. The National Association of Forest Industries complained bitterly about the deal that was passed into law by the Democrats and the Liberal-National Party government. The representatives of the workers—the CFMEU, the AWU and the Transport Workers Union—all complained bitterly about this deal because this deal that has been passed into law and that we are now reversing a few months later would have hurt bush workers. Anyone who used any machinery out in the bush would have faced a significant increase in costs, and that would have resulted in greater unemployment.I know Senator Brown has a different approach to this legislation, and I have already touched on it. We can anticipate what his position will be. At least Senator Brown has been consistent on this matter. But then there are the sorry Australian Democrats on this issue. It is a total rollover. Not only did they fail to protest at the reversal of this deal, which is what this legislation represents; they are now going to vote for it. This just highlights the inadequacies and the confusion of the deal done between the Australian Democrats and the Liberal-National Party government on the matter of the goods and services tax in this country.There are other matters that Senator Conroy has outlined and I know some of my colleagues are going to touch on those. But this represents the GST deal at its very worst. There is confusion and a changing of position. They are not even acknowledging the backflip that has occurred by the Australian Democrats. Senator Greig is in an embarrassing position. He was not here at the time this deal was struck. He has to defend the indefensible.I will conclude my remarks by saying that I have criticised the Democrats harshly. They deserve it on this issue. As I have said on a number of occasions in this place, where were the sorry, tired, subservient and subsumed National Party—the doormat of this government—on this important issue for rural and regional Australia? Where were the National Party when it came to protecting the interests of forest workers from a massive increase in costs because of the partial withdrawal of the diesel fuel rebate?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Right there in the legislation you're holding.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—The National Party disappeared. Senator McGauran, I would like you to participate; I acknowledge your interjections, I acknowledge that you are embarrassed. We would like you to participate and to explain why it is that this deal and the bill got through the Senate and we are now here reversing it for the forest industry and the forest workers of Australia. Explain it. What went wrong? If Senator McGauran is honest, he will acknowledge a major mistake was made and the National Party were not looking at this particular issue in any detail and they let it slip through.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—He's a Collins Street farmer.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, that's right. I am sure Senator McGauran, from his Collins Street office, was looking at the legislation but, unfortunately, it passed him by. This again highlights the general problems and confusion with the goods and services tax package and deal that was put together between the Liberal-National Party and the Australian Democrats. I look forward to the Democrats exercising some honesty on this issue and voting against this particular piece of legislation.The Labor Party is not going to vote against this legislation—against the reversal of the withdrawal of part of the diesel fuel rebate to the forest industry—for very good reason. The Labor Party strongly believes in a sustainable forest industry. We strongly believe in supporting that forest industry and we do not want to see additional costs added to the forest industry in this country—an important rural and regional industry and an important employer, particularly in my home state of Tasmania, where it makes up 15 per cent of the economy and employs many thousands of Tasmanian workers.17:24:0011089Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This is a defining moment in the debate about the future of Australia's forests and where the various political parties stand on this. In this place five months ago when the goods and services tax package came in and I was attacking that package because of the environmental damage it would do, I was taken up on the issue of forests by the Democrat speakers. Attendant on the goods and services tax package is a $3 billion per year gift, through the diesel fuel rebate, to the big corporations of this country—a refund of taxes that other Australians do not get. Two billion dollars of that, every year, from here on in will go to the mining corporations. Many millions more will go to the forestry corporations, in particular the biggest of those corporations, which are the woodchip corporations like North, Wesfarmers and Boral.When I brought the matter up in this place, pointing out that the package will have a negative impact on the environment of the cities—it is going to lead to an increase in pollution and in cancer making particles going into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels—and a direct impact on financing the destruction of forests in this country, the Democrats took me on. They claimed that I was misrepresenting the position. I will quote Democrat leader Meg Lees, who, in response to my concern that the package would be funding—essentially subsidising—the woodchip industry, said:There is no new money here for mining. But in particular I have to comment on his [Senator Brown's] extraordinary statements about forests and his somehow blaming us for the destruction of our old forests . . . When he suggests that in these bills there is any reduction for forestry, I again point him back to the facts. In this bill we have increased the costs for forestry by 8c a litre. It is probably not something that we should point out to the National Party, but there it is, and that is what we have done in this legislation. So for him to stand up here yet again and react to anything we try to do on the environment with his incessant undermining and incessant complaining is appalling.What we have here today is Senator Lees being discovered as the one who is behaving in an anti-environmental fashion. It is not me who is appalling; it is the Democrats who got up and said, `We are going to ensure that forestry is not assisted by this 8c a litre gift.' When I say `forestry', I mean woodchipping corporations, which are not in regional Australia; their head offices are in the big cities and that is where the profits go. Here we have the Democrats saying, `We have changed 180 degrees'—yet again—`and we are going to fund logging in the heartland of the great forests of Australia facing destruction under the regional forest agreements.'Senator Allison, who spoke a moment ago in here, has kept away from the forest issue. But this bill is about nothing else. It is designed to specifically hand millions of dollars of taxpayers' money across to the big logging corporations to subsidise their bulldozers, skidders and other machinery in the forests of Australia. It is an accelerant to the destruction of Australia's heirloom wild forests and the wildlife that is in those forests. What did Senator Allison have to say a few months ago in this place when the Democrats were attacking me for defending forests? She said:Senator Brown keeps claiming that the woodchippers will be advantaged by this bill. What he fails to notice is that the Democrats woodchipping clause denies an extra 8c a litre to forestry operations. The forests are finally distinguished from agriculture. Off-road use of diesel for forestry will be capped at 35c which is what they get now.Here we are, a couple of months later, with Senator Allison, Senator Lees and the Democrats supporting the exact opposite position to that which they took in June. It is a total about-face. They defended their situation on forestry in the media. They condemned the Greens for being misleading and not stating the facts. But here we stand now knowing what the real facts are: the Democrats have not defended the interests of the forests; they have gone with the woodchippers.The government document explaining this piece of legislation that subsidises the woodchippers says that these amendments simply give effect to the original government proposal. Who struck that proposal? It was Senator Lees and Senator Murray, together with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, Mr Costello. They were the ones, with the advisers sitting in, who wrote the deal down to the fine detail. The government says, `This is the original proposal. There has been an oversight. We are now correcting it.' The Democrats have indicated, as I have just told the chamber, that not only was there no glitch but they fought for the forests in that deal struck with Mr Costello and Mr Howard. We now know that that is not the case. Apparently there was an oversight by the government, and Senator Lees and Senator Allison jumped on that oversight as if they had actually fought to protect Australia's wild forests and wildlife.But the government has come back and said, `No. The woodchip industry is not going to stand for this. We can get the support of the Labor Party any time we want when it comes to the big woodchippers. We are going to introduce legislation to clear up the matter.' And in Senator Allison's speech, she did not refer to the forests once. Why? Because they have sold out the forests on this matter. It has been left to the Greens to say, `We should not, in this place, be using taxpayers' money to subsidise the destruction of the grand, wild forests of this country.'We have seen the turmoil in Western Australia. We have seen the Court government—of all governments—having to back off under the weight of the public pressure reflected in opinion polls showing that 89 per cent of Western Australians want out of the forests the very machines that the Democrats, the government and the ALP are going to subsidise through this legislation which is in our hands now before the Senate.Tasmania has the tallest forests in the Southern Hemisphere, the largest flowering trees in the world, and the most magnificent hardwood forests and wildlife on the face of the planet. Under the Regional Forest Agreement, they will be targeted over the next 20 years in valley after valley. With the support of the Democrats in June for this environment legislation, we now have the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Howard government divesting themselves of the power to intervene to protect the environment over those 20 years. The Regional Forest Agreement also contains a penalty clause for the Australian people: if they move to protect those forests, the woodchippers will be compensated.The Democrats have stood for the forests in the past. Let me state that without equivocation. They have been there when it counted; but not now, not since the last election. There has been a sea change and it is reflected in what is happening this afternoon. The Democrats, far from putting impediments in the way of those machines that are going to rip the heart out of these forests which the majority of Australians want protected, are now actually putting cheaper fuel into the tanks of those bulldozers.You would have thought on a matter of some few million dollars, the Democrats having gifted $3 billion a year to the big corporations through the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, a 180 degree turn in Democrats policy—$3 billion being more money than is required to keep the Australian presence in East Timor—they could have stood here today and said, `No. We will be consistent with our public statements in June. We will stand on our environmental record. We will stand with the people trying to protect the forests. We will stand with the majority of Australians who do not want machines in those forests, let alone subsidised machines.' You would have thought they could have done that much. But how far have they now defaulted on their past record, which is in tatters? It might be unrecorded but it is in tatters. People do care about this matter. The government rang up the Democrats and said, `Well, we are under pressure from the woodchip corporations. They do not want a 35c a litre rebate on their taxes; they want 43c—an extra 8c for the machines out there logging Australia's native forests.'The response from the Democrats was, `We've gone along with your package lock, stock and barrel, and that means if the woodchip corporations want an extra 8c a litre, we will give it to them.' I feel sorry for those people who voted for the Democrats at the last election, thinking that they would stand for the forests. I feel sorry—if there are any—for those members of parliament who do not want this outcome, and I challenge them to cross the floor on this matter. Otherwise, I will be the one vote left, the single Green vote, in defence of the forests, on a very important opportunity to put an impediment—to say the least—in the way of the marauding woodchippers.It is a very challenging moment as far as the nine Democrat senators are concerned. I withstood the criticism from Senator Lees and others five months ago. They said I was misrepresenting them, but now they are misrepresenting their own position of five months ago. I find it inexplicable. I cannot judge for the conscience of those people in the Democrats who feel that this is just a small matter. It absolutely is not. Over the next 20 years, there will be some 150,000 log trucks every year coming out of the statuesque tall forests of central Tasmania, the Tarkine, the north-east forests and the south ern valleys, going to the woodchip mills to export our heirloom forests. Every one of those 150,000 log trucks will be subsidised under the GST and the diesel fuel rebate packages that went through five months ago. Now, on top of that, the government, the Labor Party and the Democrats are also going to subsidise the fuel being used by the bulldozers in the forests.EP5FERGUSONSenator Ferguson—Do you hate people having jobs?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The Liberal member opposite interjects about jobs. Once again, I appeal to those senators who have a sense of decency in this. Mr Howard signed the regional forest agreement and said that this was to protect jobs in this industry. Let me tell you what has happened since he signed that deal with the state government two years ago. Five hundred jobs have been shed by the woodchippers and the big logging corporations. We have had a procession of people, of loggers—who supported the demonstrations against the Greens; who did that service for the woodchip corporations, the Liberal Party and the Labor Party; and who joined the Forests Protection Society, the front for the woodchip corporations. They got dumped as soon as the Prime Minister and the Premier of Tasmania signed the document, the death warrant, in 1998 for thousands of hectares of wild forests. It is the same story in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. It is all so unnecessary because what we should be doing is fostering the plantation based alternative, which is available in enough quantities to meet all the wood needs of this nation.I have an amendment here, which is a last-minute appeal to both the Labor Party and the Democrats. It says: `Let's shield the wild forests of this country from this subsidy.' Certainly, let the subsidy go to agricultural forests and plantation forests—arguable as that might be—but let us not extend the subsidy into the grand forests of the Styx Valley, the Tarkine or the Great Western Tiers. That is not agriculture; that is mining of a natural resource. Let us make the distinction. That is what Margaret Blakers in my office, with the good help of the officers of this parliament, has done in this amendment that I put before the Senate. It is a very clear defining line. It is what the people of this country, according to all opinion polls, would want here. It is an opportunity to do the right thing.Finally, I put to everybody in this Senate the question: if it is not for the undue influence of the big corporations through the donation system and the other wherewithal they have in getting to us as parliamentarians, how can it be that, when this debate comes on in the Senate, only one senator is left standing to say, `Let's not subsidise the very thing the people of Australia do not want. Let's not use the money of those Australians, who in legion oppose the destruction of forests, to subsidise the thing they do not want.' Opinion polls around the nation say that 80 per cent of Australians want to protect the wild forests, the wildlife, the koala habitats, the rare endangered bird habitats and the hardwood trees—the tallest trees in the world. Think again, fellow members. This is a democracy. We should be responsive to the people, not simply to the impact of a corporate sector which has profit lines, and not the long-term interests of the forests of this nation, in its sights.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, you spoke of an amendment. As the chair, I am not aware of that amendment and what it is an amendment to. Has it been circulated?10000Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, it has.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is it a second reading amendment or is it to be moved in committee?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It will be moved in committee.17:44:0011092Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—I rise to speak in the second reading debate on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 and the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 . Having just listened to Senator Brown speak, I am reminded of the story I was told as a little child about the boy who cried wolf once too often. Having listened to Senator Brown speak ad nauseam in this place on the same issue, either during the committee stage or second reading stage, he certainly reminds me very much of that fairy story. In this particular instance, Senator Brown is again crying wolf once too often.The problem is that Senator Brown has never taken a responsible position on matters relating to government legislation. In this instance, he chooses to blame and target the Democrats for the responsible position that they took in all the negotiations that were carried out during the debate on the GST. In fact, they were the only party that took a responsible position in negotiating with the government, and that is the reason we have these bills before us today; it is the reason we were able to get passage of legislation that is important to Australians.Nobody actually believes Senator Brown anymore when he talks the way he does and when he chooses to attack personally those Democrat senators who have shown the courage of their convictions and who have stood up for the things that they believe in in negotiations. They have far more credibility in supporting sensible environmental policy than Senator Brown could ever aspire to. Senator Brown is known in this place only for his political stunts and has no credibility at all in relation to these matters.The Democrats have always accepted that governments are elected to govern, and that governments have a right to pass legislation that they had proposed prior to an election. The Democrats, as another party, also believe that they have a right to have some input into the impact of that legislation and to make some changes. Through the negotiations that took place, that is exactly what happened. Throughout those negotiations it was shown that they were the only party that was prepared to responsibly take a position in helping a government achieve its aims and pass the legislation which has made and will continue to make a significant impact on the economy of Australia.Having listened for 20 minutes to Senator Brown, it is easy to imagine that he is really only trying to save his own skin amongst his extremist supporters. When we have another Senate election in Tasmania, we will see just how strong that support is. The Labor party senators have a very different agenda, and that was shown in what Senator Conroy and Senator Sherry had to say. I watched on television what they had to say. Senator Conroy appeared to think it was a bit of a joke and that the more wisecracks you make—Senator Patterson interjectingEP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—It was gripping television, Senator Patterson, I can promise you. I was walking in and out with alarming regularity because I wondered when he was ever going to get to the stage of talking about important things. But he and Senator Sherry were intent on being critical of the Democrats. They refused to play any role at all in constructive debate in this parliament about the GST and their only charge now is to criticise the Democrats for helping the government to pass this important piece of legislation.LI4PATTERSONSenator Patterson—Their only policy at the moment is wholesale sales tax.EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—The Labor party are not quite sure what they want these days, unfortunately. They are not quite sure what they want. They are not sure whether they should be proposing some new legislation or some new ideas or some new policies—they have not shown us any of those. I guess it is unlikely that we will see any of those prior to another election. They choose, instead, to stake everything on criticising the goods and services tax—which the Senate has passed—and on criticising the Democrats and the government for the passage of this piece of legislation. We will see whether this is a successful tactic, but it seems as though they have no other. If you have no policies of your own, it is very difficult to do anything but criticise existing policies put in place by a government that has been making sure that the economy of this country runs smoothly and is in a healthy position. You do not need me to reiterate at length the evidence that has been provided about the strength of the economy in Australia. It is important that nobody forgets it. You know what the situation was when this government came into office and that the damage that was done in 13½ years under the Labor Party has been reversed in 3½ years.In relation to these bills and the diesel fuel rebate, I happen to live in a country area, and I know how important the diesel fuel rebate scheme is to rural and regional Australia. When I talk about rural Australia, I am talking not just about primary producers but also about those people who live in the regions and who are going to benefit from the diesel fuel rebate, for example through the transport of goods to outlying areas. In all of those matters, this is a most important bill and the diesel fuel rebate is a most important issue for regional and rural Australia. Of all the issues that are currently confronting rural and regional Australia, the reduction of their costs of production and the reduction of the cost of living are among the most important. I want to repeat the opening sentence of our minister, Mr Hockey, when he put this bill down in the House of Representatives because I think all Australians should realise how important these bills are. He said:The government recognises Australia's dependence on transport due to the vast size of our continent.No-one would deny that. He continued:In light of this, prior to the 1998 election, the government promised to substantially reduce the cost of our major transport fuels. Such reform would in turn reduce transport costs and consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.The Democrats—to their credit—supported the reduction of those costs for transport. There were some issues where they did not agree in full with our position. But they know that rural and regional Australia needs the support of this government to reduce the costs, so they were prepared to stand up and join with the government in making sure that we could deliver. Where were the Labor Party when it came to trying to reduce the costs of transport to rural Australia? They were non-existent. They have no care or concern for any part of rural and regional Australia, and have not for years. That has been shown in the actions that were taken by them during their term of office for 13 years. Since that time we have tried to do everything we can to make sure that we can reduce that cost of living in rural and regional Australia.Only the Democrats were prepared to support us on that—not Senator Brown, not the Labor Party, only the Democrats. It needs to be recorded that in this area they were prepared to back the government and to negotiate with the government to make sure that this great reduction in cost was delivered to rural and regional Australia. This government will continue to make sure that we provide some relief for the cost of living, for the cost of transport, for the cost of doing business. The demise of a lot of our rural towns is because the actual cost of production, the cost of transport—of delivering their goods to the major markets—and the cost of the provision of services in those country towns in regional Australia was so high. They were driven out.We have now reached the situation where we are going to make sure that some of those costs are reduced. That was done with the support of the Democrats. It is all very well for Senator Sherry—whom I just see walking in the door—and Senator Conroy to get up and talk about this tax that has been introduced and how terrible it is that the Democrats supported the government. The Democrats took a responsible position. That is where we are today.There are a number of other issues in relation to the important Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme, which this legislation covers. We know that when the act was introduced by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services he foreshadowed that a further bill would be introduced to put in place the necessary administrative arrangements, including the compliance mechanisms that were needed to support the act. This is not something that has been sprung on this chamber; it was already foreshadowed some time ago that a further bill would need to be introduced. The minister also stated that the government would be seeking passage of this further bill prior to Christmas, which is exactly why we are debating this bill today. That was to enable the industry to develop record keeping arrangements and plan with confidence for the introduction of the grants scheme on 1 July 2000.The introduction of this bill fulfils that commitment. Most provisions in the act will commence on royal assent. It will ensure that instruments and determinations may be made and registration mechanisms established before the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme takes effect on 1 July 2000. This will avoid any undue delay in claimants receiving their entitlements. That is why it is so important that these bills are debated and passed.On 28 May of this year the Prime Minister gave an undertaking to Senator Lees that the government would put in place rigorous enforcement measures to police the scheme. In accordance with that undertaking the bill provides adequate penalties and safeguards to protect funds and to prevent abuse of this scheme.We have had a diesel fuel rebate scheme for a number of years. It was a scheme that was put in place because it was deemed necessary to make sure that when an excise increased on fuel primary producers and those who actually have to use a lot of fuel were able to get at a reasonable price the fuel that was necessary for the production of their goods.In the past some people have missed out. Some people who could genuinely have expected to get a diesel fuel rebate were not able to get it. This bill has sought to make sure that all of those people who we feel are in genuine need and genuinely should get the diesel fuel rebate will be able to do so. It will not matter how much slagging we get from Senator Conroy or Senator Sherry.Senator Brown has a ridiculous position. Just before Senator Brown completed his speech he appealed for decency on this side of the chamber and on the other side. I do not believe that Senator Brown knows what decency really is. We have seen his performance in this chamber on a number of occasions, and I am yet to see any evidence of any form of decency from Senator Brown. Yet he appeals for decency from the Labor Party, from the government side and from all others in this chamber.Where businesses have also claimed under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, this bill contains provisions to enable advances to be made under the grants scheme in the same way that they were under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. This will assist in minimising the compliance costs of such claimants. That is a very important aspect of the bill. It is important—with the introduction of the GST and other matters—that people who have been involved in the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme over a number of years and who avail themselves of the Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme still understand it and that the compliance costs are kept at a minimum. These bills ensure that those compliance costs will be kept at a minimum. For that reason it is most important that the bill has the support of this chamber.Whenever there is a change in taxation arrangements of any sort there is always some apprehension from people in the community who have to change to a new system. People are comfortable with the system that they know. They are comfortable with methods that they have used. When there is a change to a system they are always apprehensive that it will mean that they have to learn something new or they may be confronted with something that they do not fully understand. This bill ensures that the compliance costs will be maintained and in fact that the rebates are made in the same way as they are under the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme. That is a very important issue and a very important aspect of this bill.I have listened carefully to what other speakers have said and I think it is time that some of the facts were placed on the record, particularly about the Democrat involvement in the passage of these bills. I have endeavoured to do that because, as I said before, they negotiated the passage of these bills on the understanding and in the belief that governments have a right to put in place matters that they have gone to an election with and that have been approved by the people. In some areas they felt that they could not accept some of the things that were being proposed, but in general we were able to get much of the original bills through. It was only the responsible position that the Democrats took in making sure that it was possible for the government to pass these bills that enabled it to happen. I commend the bills to the chamber.18:00:0011095Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I should preface my remarks on the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 and related bill by saying that I have been involved in the road transport industry, not just as a union official but as someone who worked in it and as someone who at one stage was an alternate director of the Road Transport Forum, which has subsequently become the Australian Trucking Association. So I feel I have experience and knowledge of some of the difficulties that will befall the road transport industry in relation to the compliance and administration legislation that the government has put forward.When I look at the legislation, I see three questions that stand out. I talk from my own experience. They are: will it reduce costs; will it encourage more environmentally friendly vehicles and operations; and subsequently—something that has not been defined yet—what are the boundaries between conurban and non-conurban Australia? From my own experience in the industry, I am very sceptical that the offer that is being made to the road transport industry will in fact reduce costs to the consumer. In all the years that I have been associated with the industry, I have seen a number of very good road transport companies operate and try to work within the system. It is a well-known fact that road transport is one of the few industries in this country that are world's best practice. It is an industry that delivers not only to the consumer but also to its work force, its producers and its clients.But I must say that people in this industry have been under extensive cost pressures for many years now. The people who are putting them under these cost pressures are not the consumers of Australia but the people in between: the retailers, the manufacturers and the primary producers. In all these administration and compliance costs, I cannot for the life of me see how any of the pressure is going to be put on the likes of the retailers or the manufacturers; the pressure is going to be on that road transport operator alone. He or she is the person who is going to have to comply with those administration costs. He or she is the person who is going to have to make sure that everything is hunky-dory with the Taxation Office.I do not believe that the people who are involved in this industry have at all grasped the enormity of the task they will have to perform to ensure that this legislation is complied with. As they know and I know too, the government will be able to make sure that they comply, that they are administered, but it will never be able to make sure that those cost reductions, whatever they may be, will be passed on to the consumer. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President, consumers are already very wary that a number of retailers are already increasing their costs to cover the eventuality of the cost reduction that will occur as a result of the GST package. I cannot see in this legislation any means by which those middlemen between the transport operator and the consumer, or even between the transport operator and the producer, will have to show compliance. I do not believe there will be any control over them. As I said, this is a world's best practice industry. It has slim profits, and already at the moment there are rumours about some of the operators being in a bit of difficulty.So, when we come to compliance and administration, I do not think that the government or the people who drafted this legislation have totally grasped how cumbersome it is and how much it is going to add to the costs of that individual road transport operator. In the end, that person is going to be in the middle. It is not going to be the retailer, the manufacturer or those people between the transport operator and the consumer. The consumer and the road transport operator are going to be the ones who miss out. But I will tell you one thing: the retailers and the manufacturers are not going to miss out.If we go back many years, as I can, to the days when there was road maintenance tax in this country, there were a number of avenues by which people could avoid that tax. I was talking to a mate of mine on the phone this afternoon and he told me how he used to avoid the tax. Because primary products were exempted, he used to say that he had frozen chooks in the back of his chiller van. When the compliance people came along, he used to say that he had those chooks in there and that he could not break the seal of the vehicle. The thing was that he probably had a box of chooks or something but the rest of it was fully loaded freight. He was able to avoid paying that tax.The other problem is that in New South Wales—I do not know about other states—truck drivers who had not paid the tax used to go up to the police station, say that they had not paid this tax and then get imprisoned for a week or two. That is how they used to pay the tax. They never paid the money; they paid it through serving time either in their local police station or by going to one of the minimum security jails in New South Wales.I do not know what the situation will be if you do not comply with this legislation or do not administer it properly. Will we see a repeat of this? The government might remember—it was only 20 years ago—when we had one of the biggest and most serious civil disruptions in this country. We had trucks block Razorback, north of Canberra, and days and days of argument from men and women who were fed up with the amount of taxation that had been imposed upon them, paying it in dollars or in jail sentences. Luckily, we had a Labor government in New South Wales and we were able to do something about changing that, because there was nothing that the federal Liberal government could have done. They sat idly by and let other people solve their problems for them. We want to be very careful about what happens if people do not comply with the administration or the determination of this legislation, because we do not want to see the return of that situation in this country. People who work honestly and toil hard are entitled to their reward. I repeat again that I do not believe this legislation will ensure that any of the benefits that occur as a result of cost reduction will eventually get to the consumer. They will be gobbled up by retailers and manufacturers.I would also like to comment on the environmental aspects of this legislation. There does not seem to me to be any incentive whatsoever for companies to replace their vehicles. At the moment, 50 per cent of all commercial vehicles in the country are over 10 years old. Some 30 per cent are over 15 years old. That means that there is pollution, black smoke, being spewed out by diesel vehicles because they are not complying with standards that have been introduced from the late 1980s. This scheme will not give incentive to road transport operators to change their vehicles.One of the things that we should make sure of—and I am sure that there are people who would be opposed to this—is that vehicles are more productive. That means bigger vehicles, which means fewer vehicles on the road. But, again, there is no incentive for that to occur. In fact, because of the emission control legislation that is being introduced, 1999-model engines onwards will now consume three per cent more fuel than engines made prior to 1999. Where are we going in terms of getting more trucks off the roads, if that is what people want? It is not here in this legislation. There is no encouragement. There is no incentive. There are only costs and burdens, and people will do whatever they have to do to make sure there is bread and food on their tables to look after their families. If that means evading legislation or doing things like that, you can bet London to a brick on that that will occur.I also want to mention the boundaries between what can only be referred to as conurban plus Tasmania and non-conurban. I understand from my mates in the transport industry that there has been a series of discussions with the minister to define the boundaries of conurban and non-conurban. In every capital city in this country, we could ask whether the City of the Blue Mountains is in the conurban area or whether the City of Wyong is in it. We could go along those lines. As I understand it, in these secret meetings that the industry has had with the minister a series of maps have been put up in the office. These maps have been put up to try to define what are the conurban and non- conurban areas. The people who attend these meetings are not allowed to take notes—and they are not allowed to take notes for one reason: the government has not concluded the deal with the Democrats about conurban and non-conurban areas. Where is the honesty in this? The secret meetings are under way at the moment, and we will inevitably see the results of them. This deal will disadvantage people in urban areas. It will not advantage people in regional or rural Australia. It will disadvantage a whole heap of Australians. It will not give you environmentally sound engines or take your emissions out of the air, because there is no incentive in this for people to update or upgrade their vehicles. It is a retrograde step.This legislation needs a lot more thought—go back to my comparison about the frozen chooks. I am sure that, in the scheme of things, we will find lots of frozen chooks in this legislation. We will find loopholes, but the biggest loophole will be that—I will bet London to a brick on, as I said earlier—there will be no advantage to the consumer, because the government's legislation does not have any mechanism whatsoever to ensure that there is some control between the transport operator and the retailer or manufacturer. I have seen time and time again in my lifetime how those people between the consumers and those operators are the ones that can exploit any loophole or any opportunity that comes along.18:13:0011097Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—There seems to be some considerable confusion in the chamber here tonight from Labor Party members and, in one instance, Senator Brown. Acting Deputy President Sherry, you—in your more humble capacity as Senator—criticised the Democrats and claimed that we ought to vote against these bills. You felt that very strongly. I am here to point out that we are dealing with two bills and we are, in fact, voting against one of them. Our argument has always been that the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 is not unreasonable. Our argument has always been that it is good to discourage the use of diesel within metropolitan areas for environ mental and health considerations. We support that.However, when it comes to the second bill, TLAB 9 as it is known, that is a bill that is simply about extending subsidies to loggers and woodchippers, as Senator Brown has quite rightly said. We do not support that. We will be there for the forests, contrary to what Senator Brown is arguing on that point. We do not believe that we should extend even greater subsidies towards the destruction of our native forests; we find that abhorrent. Senator Brown has moved a number of amendments with regard to that, and we will consider those when we go into the committee stage.18:15:0011098Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I did indicate, in response to a disorderly interjection from Senator Conroy, that Senator Kemp would be handling this debate. We were not expecting to move into the committee stage this evening but, by discussion and agreement, we will be doing so. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have been closely involved with the ANTS program from its inception and will be happy to deal with questions in the committee stage. Before we get to that stage, of course, we must have a vote on the second reading. I would like to make just a couple of points in summing up. Firstly, I wish to thank all honourable senators quite genuinely for their contributions. They have assisted the government to move on to this legislation ahead of schedule.In relation to the diesel and alternative fuels grants bill, by way of summing up, I state that the bill does contain the necessary administrative arrangements, including the compliance mechanisms, to operate the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme. The bill ensures that the Taxation Commissioner has adequate powers to administer the grants scheme and introduces rigorous enforcement measures to protect public funds and to prevent abuse of the scheme. Claimants will be able to register for the grants scheme from 1 March next year and develop record keeping arrangements for the introduction of this scheme prior to 1 July 2000. Indeed, that is why it is vital that we have passage of these measures in the closing days of this legislative session. Overall, the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme will reduce the cost of our major transport fuel and in turn reduce consumer prices, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.Finally, I make this point: the Labor Party dealt itself out of this debate because it dealt itself out of the debate on the new tax system, in stark contrast to the behaviour of the party in relation to business tax reform, where it made a very wise decision, I think, to deal itself back into business. This grants scheme is directly linked to the introduction of a GST that starts on 1 July 2000, which brings substantial personal income tax cuts, abolishes the FID, abolishes stamp duty on the transfer of shares and, most importantly, abolishes wholesale sales taxes. This is good for Australia. It is great for Australian consumers, great for Australian businesses, and particularly good for Australians living in regional and remote areas. I will now turn to summing up the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 9) 1999 . This bill is a demonstration that the government is clearly committed to encouraging economic growth in regional areas, jobs growth in regional areas and also, and most importantly, an innovative timber industry while balancing responsible environmental management and community concerns about environmental issues. The intention of the government has always been clear, and the intention in the negotiations with the Democrats has always been that the forest industries would receive the same rebate amount as all other agricultural industries. The amendment contained in this bill ensures that this commitment is kept. The full rebate will be payable for fuel purchased for eligible forestry activities from 1 July 2000, and this amendment aligns the diesel rebate rate for forestry use with the rebate for agriculture. I indicate to the Senate now that the government will oppose Senator Brown's proposed amendment. Not only was it produced without any notice but it directly contradicts the government's position. I commend the bills to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—I ask that my single voice of opposition to these bills be recorded.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Thank you, Senator Brown.Bills read a second time.Ordered that consideration of these bills in the committee of the whole be made an order of the day for a later hour of this day.Business1109911099Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave—agreed to:That consideration of government documents not be proceeded with today and that government business continue till 7.20 p.m.Documents110991109918:20:0011099Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—On behalf of Senator Evans, I seek leave to table a document that I understand has been circulated.Leave granted.Bills11099r911Billsr91611099DIESEL AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS GRANTS SCHEME (ADMINISTRATION AND COMPLIANCE) BILL 1999The bill.18:22:0011099Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—For the record, may I make it clear that I have no objection to tightening compliance with taxation measures such as this.18:22:0011099Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Can I ask the parliamentary secretary for an update on discussions as to the definition of the boundaries between urban conurbations and non-urban conurbations.18:23:0011099Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Basically, the consultations are going on. There is no particular news or further information that I can provide. The tax office is holding consultations. As the honourable senator would know, we intend implementing these definitions by way of regulation, which will only happen once the legislation is passed. Of course, it is in everyone's interests, particularly the government's own interest, to ensure that these matters are the subject of regulations sooner rather than later so that people have plenty of time, as I said in my speech on the second reading, to get their own affairs in order well and truly prior to 1 July.18:24:0011099Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I also ask the parliamentary secretary who the discussions are taking place between concerning the definition of the conurbations.18:25:0011099Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I apologise for the short delay. We always want to make sure that we give accurate answers to all honourable senators, but particularly to Senator George Campbell. Discussions are taking place at this stage with the Australian Trucking Association, the Farmers Federation and other relevant stakeholders. Quite frankly, if Senator George Campbell thinks there are other stakeholders we should be holding discussions with, we are quite happy to receive constructive suggestions.18:26:0011099Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—I am particularly interested to find out not who the stakeholders are that are involved in the discussions—I think we know who those are—but who is handling the discussions on behalf of the government.18:26:0011099Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The Excise Division of the Australian Taxation Office.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—What is the role of the minister, Senator Kemp, is in this process?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The minister will be receiving advice from the ATO on these issues. But equally if any stakeholders sought to meet my colleague—I do not know whether they have; I presume they have because when I was in the Treasury portfolio everyone wanted to meet you about everything to do with taxation—he would certainly meet with them. The ATO is clearly the bureaucracy involved in this process. As with all normal government processes, the bureaucracy would develop advice. That will go to the Assistant Treasurer, and the Assistant Treasurer will clearly make decisions. Ultimately, the government will have to bring regulations down which will then come before this place.18:28:0011100Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5NSWALP00—This goes to one of the concerns that was raised earlier on by Senator Conroy about the minister not being here, because there are some differences in the answer that the parliamentary secretary has just given and evidence that we were given in the hearing of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in discussions about the conurbations. I will read a part of the Hansard of that hearing which took place on Thursday, 18 November. Mr Jackson was speaking on behalf of the tax office and talking about an education activity with the conurbation. The discussion read:Senator CONROY —So you will have sorted out conurbations by March?Mr Jackson —Conurbation is really a matter for the government. You need to ask the government about timing there.Senator CONROY —You are not involved in discussions about conurbations?Mr Jackson —We have provided some advice, but we are not in a position to discuss timing or details of the conurbation boundaries.Senator CONROY —Now I am all confused. Who is handling it?Mr Jackson —The minister, Senator Kemp. Senator CONROY —Senator Kemp is in charge of drawing the boundaries?Mr Jackson —Senator Kemp has responsibility for the decision.I again ask the question of the parliamentary secretary: where are the discussions on the conurbations up to, and who is handling the discussions? Is it the ATO? They do not seem to think they are handling them. Is it Senator Kemp? You certainly do not think he is handling them. So where are those discussions taking place? When will there be a definitive set of boundaries in terms of these conurbations so that we will be able to see what the definition is and how this legislation is applied?One of the strange things about this package of bills that we have in front of us is that we are being asked to pass legislation—and are in the process of doing it—and no-one actually knows how it is actually going to be implemented and where it is going to be applied. When we were talking about the position of some conurbations and the implications of them, Mr Apps, on behalf of, I think, the industry, said in response to Senator Conroy:It depends on the system that we ultimately come up with.So we are going to pass legislation to apply a grants system to a set of rules that still has not been drawn, and the earliest timing we are being given in terms of a decision being made in respect of these boundaries is March next year.From what I have been told, it appears that no-one seems to really know who has responsibility on behalf of the government for holding the discussions with the stakeholders and, more importantly, actually drawing the boundaries of the conurbations. In fact, in an interjection here yesterday during another debate, Senator Allison said to Senator Conroy that she knew where the boundaries of the conurbations were. Maybe Senator Allison is handling the negotiations on behalf of the government—stranger things have happened. With the coalition that is now operating between the Democrats and this government, it would not surprise us if Senator Allison was holding the negotiations on behalf of the government over the conurbations. But it would be interesting if we could get some clarity about who has the responsibility, who is handling the negotiations and when we will get a decision in respect of what the boundaries of the conurbations are.18:32:0011101Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I listened carefully to Senator George Campbell's reading of the Hansard from the hearings of 18 November. There is no conflict whatsoever between what Mr Jackson said, which entirely supports my position in my last intervention in this debate; that is, that Senator Kemp will have ultimate responsibility. He is the Assistant Treasurer. He has been given responsibility in that position. He will bring forward regulations which will provide the definitions that you are seeking.In the meantime, as with all normal bureaucratic processes, the Australian Taxation Office—the Excise Division of that office—will be handling the detailed discussions and consultations and will ultimately bring advice to the Assistant Treasurer. With all of these things, it will be up to the Assistant Treasurer and, ultimately, the government to decide whether the, I am quite sure, excellent advice that people like Mr Jackson and others in his office bring forward is to be proceeded with or not. As I explain to people when talking about tax policy, people like Mr Jackson and others in the tax office will no doubt have their jobs regardless of the votes of people whenever general elections are held, whereas people like the Assistant Treasurer and I may or may not have, based on the quality of the policy and implementation of that policy. So, ultimately, the ministers are responsible but we get advice from, in this case, the tax office and other bureaucrats from other departments when we are talking to other ministers. There is nothing in conflict between what I have advised the Senate and what Mr Jackson advised the committee in the hearing that you refer to.Finally, as I have said, regulations will come forward after the legislation has been passed. That is a totally normal procedure. It is one that, certainly in the six years that I was in opposition when the previous Hawke and Keating governments were in power, was an incredibly regular occurrence—virtually on every piece of legislation—and delegated legislation flows from that. In this great democracy, in this great parliament, in this great Senate of ours, those regulations will come before us ultimately and be capable of being debated and disallowed.18:34:0011101Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I refer the parliamentary secretary to Part 11—`Access to premises'—of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . Could you tell us who the `authorised officer' is?18:35:0011101Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The `authorised officer' is an officer authorised under this act—authorised, I am informed, in this case by the Commissioner of Taxation. I am further informed that this is an absolutely standard arrangement for taxation officers in relation to having access to taxation records. There is nothing unusual about this. An `authorised officer' means:. . . an APS employee who has been authorised by the Commissioner under section 62 for the purposes of the provision in which the expression occurs.18:36:0011101Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—So this is a taxation officer. The bill says that the authorised officer may at reasonable times enter and remain on the premises. In relation to reasonable times for a 24-hour, seven-day operation, what would you define as reasonable for, say, people who work in the long haul industry—overnight freight?18:37:0011101Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed that a reasonable time is one which would relate to the normal peculiarities of that business. A reasonable time for a 24-hour trucking business may be different to a reasonable time for a nine to five operation, but I am informed that the tax office has a history of exercising these powers in a cooperative manner. It does not, apparently, turn up at your door with search warrants and so forth. You need to cooperate in these matters.18:38:0011102Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—I think you may agree with me that this is a whole new area of taxation arrangements for, say, single operators who would not necessarily have been exposed to this level of scrutiny before. What would be reasonable times for, say, an interstate lorry owner-driver who would be leaving Sydney at 6 or 7 p.m., expected to be in Melbourne within 12 hours, to have a sleep and to go back and maybe do another load by the weekend? These men and women may be a bit exhausted. I cannot see how one could define what `reasonable' might be for, as I said, a seven-day 24-hour operation if they are not in the best of moods after doing all those hours. I am wondering, parliamentary secretary, how you may expect to get cooperation from these people if they are resting or taking some social time.18:40:0011102Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am assured that this is nothing unusual. This is something that applies in most of the tax acts that have governed this country for many decades under this and previous governments. I am assured that the definition of the term `reasonable' is just that. I know that many single trucking operators work extraordinary hours. I have spent many weeks of my life on the roads of Australia, on a particularly long one called the Nullarbor, and have met and discussed these issues with many truckies on those routes. I know them well. I know the stresses they operate under. As I have said, I am assured that the Taxation Office will deal with industries and taxpayers on a reasonable basis.If the hypothetical person we are talking about is working seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for 365 days a year—having crossed the Nullarbor a few times by truck on Christmas Day I know there are people who do work virtually every day—I can assure you on the Hansard record that the tax commissioner and his authorised officers will have to make very special arrangements. I think it is an extreme case you raise, but it is not one that is totally unusual. There are people who work their guts out day in, day out driving their trucks. I hope they do not get too exhausted because you and I both know, Madam Chairman, as does Senator Hutchins, that that is not good for the safety of the drivers or for other people on the road. In that case we will obviously have to make special arrangements. I can give you a commitment on behalf of the government that, if there is such an operator under this scheme and the tax office is being unreasonable, I will bring it to the attention of the tax commissioner on your behalf.18:42:0011102Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—The bill says `reasonable times' and `remain on those premises'. Is that covered by the words `may at all reasonable times enter and remain on those premises'? It does not say that they can remain on the premises for reasonable times. I wonder what the officers' instructions are about what might be reasonable times to remain on those premises. If we have a single operator, rather than a partnership, what is the position of the premises which may be, and probably are, the family home? Can you comment on that?18:43:0011102Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The situation, as I said in my first intervention, is one that relates to the circumstances of the taxpayer, and that will change depending on the circumstances—whether it be a huge transnational trucking company, a single operator or a partnership operating from home. The definition of `reasonable' would be different from place to place.18:44:0011102Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Parliamentary secretary, you mentioned earlier—correct me if I am wrong—that taxation officers do this sort of thing all the time. Do they have a running sheet, principles or instructions under which they are to operate in what might be seen to be reasonable times and remaining reasonable times? I got the impression from your previous answer that that was the case.18:45:0011103Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed that there are guidelines in existence. I have also sought to see whether they are available publicly. We do not have an answer for that. We have had a couple of thousand requests for information about this and only one of the 2,000 was in relation to the access regime. It is a generally accepted part of taxation law and implementation that you have an access regime for obvious reasons, but that is not to say that the one in 2,000 inquiries is not potentially the most important inquiry. We have to treat them all as important and we will do so. If those guidelines can be made public, then we will seek to do so.18:45:0011103Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—In relation to the access to documents, goods and other properties and then inspections, et cetera, what sort of training are officers of the Taxation Office undertaking at the moment, if any, to read particular aspects of consignment notes, manifests and all other documents that may relate to how one may ascertain what might be the difference between a conurban and a non-conurban area?18:46:0011103Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Training is an integral part of the tax office's operation. Of course, training to implement a new tax system is vital and all relevant training is being undertaken.18:46:0011103Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—In terms of relevant training, are you in a position to expand on that, Parliamentary Secretary, because to a large degree this is a new tax and I am sure you would join with me when I say that we would not like to see people unfairly taxed or harassed because Taxation officers are not—without denigrating them—au fait with a particular side of industry and the way paper work and everything associated with that works?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I do not have anything to add.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—I assume that Taxation officers are continually trained. I will put it this way: is there any particular training being undertaken by officers for this particular aspect of the legislation?18:48:0011103Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Following on from the incisive questioning of Senator Hutchins, does the bill allow the appropriately authorised officer to stop trucks in operation to inspect what they would regard as appropriate records?18:49:0011103Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Yes, that is the case. This bill in particular is designed to implement the system and contains a whole range of anti-avoidance measures which are designed to ensure that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax. As senators will know, when we bring forward the second tranche of the business tax system legislation, there will be a whole range of measures which will seek to cut out loopholes to ensure that people do pay their fair share of tax. You need to ensure, if you are fair dinkum about chopping off loopholes—either for high fliers, people in the corporate sector or any other citizens who seek to avoid paying tax—that the tax office is well resourced and has a range of powers at its disposal. People who may be seeking to cheat on the tax system and not pay their fair share should know that there is a significant chance of them being caught.We regard these measures as important in ensuring that PAYE taxpayers, for example, and other Australians who have no avoidance measures open to them do not have to cross-subsidise and pay higher taxes to make up for people who cheat, either through corporate tax loopholes or other mechanisms or simply through cheating on the excise system. These measures should ensure that someone who would be cheating in respect of this law had a fair chance of being caught.I would be open to suggestions from honourable senators opposite if they think they can find a range of measures that would improve the anti-avoidance measures in this bill. Clearly the tax office needs the sorts of powers that the senator opposite has alluded to to ensure that that takes place.18:51:0011104Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I would remind the parliamentary secretary that it is your GST—and the Democrats'. I should not leave them out. It is the result of a Liberal-National Party-Democrat deal. We are asking important questions about the consequences of that deal, about what will be a significant new compliance requirement in respect of the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme.Senator Hutchins, with his considerable knowledge of the operation of the trucking industry—far greater knowledge than any other senator I know of in this chamber—identified that the tax office obviously can enter the business premises when a person is not working. We have identified the difficult and lengthy hours of work in the road transport industry. We have identified that the business premises in many cases is the home of particularly a sole business operator, and now we have identified that the tax officers will be able to stop trucks going about their business.Given that we are going to have boundaries around all the major conurbations in this country and there is going to be a requirement for increased regulation, it seems to me that the enforcement of this provision will be very inconvenient to the hard working truckies in this country. They can be checked at home, when they have just come off a long drive of 12, 13 or 14 hours. They can be checked at weekends at their home. And if that is not enough to enforce this new scheme that has been dreamed up by the Democrats and the government, their trucks can be stopped on the road. Given the enforcement problems in this area, it seems to me that this is going to happen. I do not think this is what truck drivers in this country were led to believe with respect to simplifying the tax system. How is this a simplification of the tax system, Parliamentary Secretary?You might argue that these enforcement processes are in existing legislation with respect to tax inspection. But we are discussing a new arrangement about boundaries and enforcement across what will be artificial boundaries, not state boundaries. We are talking about boundaries that are yet to be determined.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Paint lines on the road.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right. I assume there will be painted lines on the road, quite literally. We will have border posts around all the major urban areas of Australia. It will be relatively easy to do for my home state of Tasmania. We have a sea boundary. But when you leave Sydney, you will come to the border post. Presumably there will be inspectors waiting at the line, ready to carry out these checks. You might consider these questions, Parliamentary Secretary: what will happen at these borders? Will there be some sort of identification at the border—some sort of road signage, boundary posts and boxes in which these tax inspectors can shelter from inclement weather? We have specifically built pull-over drives for inspecting the weights of trucks, for example. It is not an absurd scenario that I am painting. Presumably we will have to have specially built pull-over areas to carry out the tax inspection.NB5CAMPBELLSenator George Campbell—Tax office SWAT teams.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I do not think it will go quite that far, but there will have to be some sort of identification. We would like information about how this is going to be put into process. This is a bit of a wacky scheme we have got with these boundaries. Only the Democrats could dream this up, and only the government could fall for it. We would like an explanation about these boundaries and how it is going to be enforced, the signage, the inspection process and these types of arrangements. Goodness knows what all this is going to cost the Australian taxpayer. This is real fairies at the bottom of the garden stuff. Perhaps you could consider those issues. I would like Senator Greig to respond. We are not going to ignore the Democrats' part in this.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Certainly not.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—No, we are not going to. Have they given these matters some serious consideration? Have they given this some serious thought? I understand it was their proposal. I would like a response on the matters that I have touched on. I certainly hope that Senator Greig will give us a response as well. There is potential for an absolute shambles for the Australian trucking industry in increased bureaucracy, paperwork and regulation. I think we should have a clear understanding about what is going to happen in the areas that have been touched on, from both the Democrats and the government.18:59:0011105Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I would like to respond. Firstly, the government wants to see this implemented with the support of the industry. What Senator Sherry says is entirely contrary to what the industry said in evidence to the Economics Legislation Committee. Secondly, the power to stop trucks on the road is a power that is in existing legislation—it was basically something we brought in, I understand with the support of the Australian Labor Party, when it suited them, not so long ago—to crack down on abuse of the excise system in Australia. The power was put into the law to stop abuse of the excise, particularly in relation to fuel substitution. That was a matter of rorting of the system. It was a matter that took place for many years, and it is yet again another rort that was closed down by this government. I understand that the Labor Party supported these identical measures in terms of access powers and powers for the tax office in trying to stamp out fuel substitution. They are identical to those powers.19:00:0011105Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—On the power to stop and search vehicles, Parliamentary Secretary, in relation to an employee driver, what sort of consignment note, passenger manifest or other document—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Are you talking about an amendment to withdraw the power?84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—I wonder what the power is. With an employee driver who works for someone, what would he be expected to carry on him if he does not own the vehicle, and what is the penalty for him or her if they refuse to stop? Is there any penalty at all?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The act is entirely silent on those matters.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—So you are telling me, Parliamentary Secretary—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That he is not required to carry anything that he does not carry now.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—So he or she would not be subject to any penalties if they did not carry this information—if it was not his or her truck?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The act does not require that person to carry anything additional to what they carry at the moment, so it would be ludicrous to envisage a penalty for not carrying something that the act does not require them to carry.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—If I owned the truck and was a passenger in it—or the bus—and that truck was stopped by a Taxation officer and there was a driver in there, not an employee—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Not an employee?84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—An employee of the person sitting next to him or her. Would that vehicle be guilty of not complying?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Parliamentary Secretary, are you—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am staying seated.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—In these circumstances, Parliamentary Secretary, Senator Sherry has asked where these stops and searches might occur. Is it envisaged that this would be done by the roadside, or in a depot or in a producer's place or a retailer's place?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It will be done by the roadside. It will not be done by the seaside; it will be done by the roadside. But if the road is by the sea, it will be by the seaside.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—What sort of powers will the Taxation officers have, if any, to detain the vehicle?19:05:0011106Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I refer the honourable senator to page 31 of the explanatory memorandum, which says that the vehicle can be detained `for a reasonable period to carry out a search or inspection of the vehicle and to take fuel samples from the vehicle'. I presume that that is a similar if not identical power to the power supported by this parliament recently in relation to stamping out fuel substitution. I am reliably informed that is the case.19:05:0011106Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—So in relation to this driver—say it is an owner-driver—will he—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Or she.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—That person, then. If that person does not stop because they do not think it is reasonable, what would be the attitude of the Taxation Office to that incident?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—It is a very boring answer, but we expect that the officer would take the registration number of the vehicle and pursue the matter in a reasonable way at a later time.19:07:0011106Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I would like to make a comment on what Senator Hutchins has been saying. What he is pointing out is this: what is happening because of this legislation is that there is more power given to some people to obstruct other people in going about their business. You can see exactly what it is. The parliamentary secretary says it is an existing power, but that power is now going to be carried into another area. What Senator Hutchins is pointing out is that this is a classic case of legislative creep—that, as you introduce this new law about taxation, there is a greater opportunity for people to enforce an existing power in a new area.If you believe in classic liberal theory—John Stuart Mill and what have you—that is a matter of great concern. Although the gravamen of the debate is about the raising of revenue in a particular way, nevertheless the issue of the rule of law—the issue of due process—is very much alive. That is the issue that Senator Hutchins and Senator Sherry were pursuing before. It is a very serious issue. Any increase in power, whether in terms of the actual type of power or an increase in the area in which the power can be used, is a matter of great concern.19:08:0011106Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—As a classic liberal I would share those concerns absolutely. But the powers that exist in relation to fuel substitution apply to exactly the same trucks or lorries that Senator Hutchins—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—I've been reminded that you are a classic democrat—or you were.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I am a classic democrat with a small `d', that is right. These provisions which apply, and which were supported by this parliament, to cutting out fuel substitution rorts are being applied to exactly the same trucks on exactly the same roads in exactly the same way. What we are talking about is actually the administration of a grant.What we are trying to do here is to cut out rorting of a grant. My attention was brought by my advisers to the fact that I was talking about grants. If a grant scheme is rorted, it is ultimately, in the main, blue-collar and PAYE taxpayers who bear the cost of it. If this scheme is rorted, it will be blue-collar workers and PAYE taxpayers who will bear the brunt of it, as with the Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme when we came into power.It would be lovely to bring in measures and not have to enforce them, and to have a Taxation Office that did not have powers to enforce these things. But, ultimately, those who will pay will be those who live in suburban Australia with 2½ kids and a five-year-old Australian car in the driveway, where dad works 12 to 18 hours a day just to pay the mortgage and send the kids to school and mum works part time to pay the bills. Those who pay their PAYE taxes and other taxes and who have nothing available to them by way of rorting will pick up the tab.I suggest to honourable senators opposite quite sincerely that if they find anything wrong with the access regime here, they should seek to move an amendment to remove it. They should also look closely at their behaviour in relation to the measures we brought in which were identical to these and which give the tax office the power to ask a truck to stop for a reasonable period, to do inspections and to take fuel samples. If you do not like those sorts of powers, then put your money where your mouth is: stand up and move an amendment to remove the powers.You can scaremonger on these things. You can put a pamphlet around and say, `Isn't it nasty the government doing that?' But in the pamphlet, if you are honest about it, you will say, `If you don't have these powers, then the mums and dads living in the suburbs of Australia will pay.' If you do not support these measures, move an amendment to this bill and the fuel substitution bill to remove the powers, and let people who want to rort the tax system and the grants system get away with it. We are not going to do that, but if that is Labor's way—if that is the third way or the fourth way or whatever your new way is—then move an amendment. Do not waste the Senate's time by asking endless questions and seeking to undermine what we regard as a rigorous and important anti-avoidance measure which will add to the integrity of the taxation system so everyone pays a fair share and no-one pays too much, particularly those people who live in suburban Australia who pay their taxes to the tax office and do not have loopholes available to them.19:12:0011107Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I do not want to cut across this very important debate, but I see that we are going to have it extended into next week anyway. I want to put on record in this quiet hour of the night a very important point not about rorting but about reneging, which has occurred on one of the most publicly exposed agreements in recent political history in the country. On 28 May the Prime Minister wrote to Senator Meg Lees to outline the pact that had been reached on the GST. He wrote:Following on from our successful discussions, I am pleased to set out in this letter the government's understanding of the outcomes reached. The attachment to this letter sets out a brief description of each measure and the costing of the package.On page 7 of that document the Prime Minister said, under `Off-road diesel and like fuels':The extension of the off-road concession for diesel and like fuels will be limited to providing full credits for marine use—and a number of other uses which are listed there, but then said:. . . but not for forestry.Quite explicitly the Prime Minister had agreed with the Democrats that this off-road concession would not extend to forestry. What we have here before the Senate tonight is a bill which explicitly breaches the Howard-Lees pact. It explicitly extends to off-road forestry the benefit of the diesel fuel rebate—the extra 8c per litre—that the Prime Minister and Senator Lees had agreed would not occur. What has happened in the meantime? In total silence from the Democrats and in one of the shortest second reading speeches on a matter as important as this—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order on relevance. We are dealing specifically with the first bill; Senator Brown's remarks are dealing with TLAB 9. Senator Brown apologised for cutting across the line of incisive questioning from Senator Hutchins; I thought it was a useful intervention when he first started, but having listened to him I think he does need to be relevant to the bill before the chair. We will be dealing with the bill Senator Brown is now addressing on this coming Monday.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, I draw your attention to the bill before the chair.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And let me speak about it, because it is to do with diesel fuel changes and I continue. In the days following the agreement that was reached, Senator Lees was asked a question by Matt Peacock on AM :No Sir Humphries poking their heads up over diesel fuel, et cetera?She said:No. We went quite happily through all those diesel fuel changes and indeed there's a separate bill already introduced to the House of Representatives to cover that.They had been through all the details. The point I make here is that the Prime Minister has reneged on a specific component of the Howard-Lees pact—it is black and white; there is no doubt about this—and there has not been a murmur from the Democrats—not a word. Senator Lees has avoided this moment in the House. I say to Senator Lees: come down to the chamber next week when this matter is under discussion.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. You have called the senator to order in relation to relevance. He continues to be not relevant to this bill. There are no provisions in this bill which relate to the matters that Senator Brown is seeking to place before us, and I ask you to enforce your ruling that he be relevant to the bill that is before us. He is not being relevant, and he knows it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, the bill before the chair is the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999 . You should address your comments and make them relevant to that bill.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I assure you I will, Mr Temporary Chairman, but it must not escape our attention that the government is already running for cover. The Democrats are not here, but the government is running for cover on this matter. We are talking about compliance with the provisions for the implementation of the diesel fuel rebate. I am talking about a specific component of that, off-road forestry purposes, which is, as Senator Sherry from Tasmania, who is concerned, said, a multimillion dollar matter.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Senator Brown has just made it quite clear to you that the provision of the bill he is talking to is a provision of TLAB 9. This is the third time that I have had to draw his attention to it. I do not want to interrupt Senator Brown; it is much better for senators to continue their interventions and I will be happy to deal with any matters in relation to TLAB 9 when TLAB 9 is before us. I wish TLAB 9 was before us right now. If Senator Brown wants to have a vote on the diesel bill we will have that and I would be happy to make sure he had the first say on TLAB 9, right now. But we are not discussing TLAB 9.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Mr Temporary Chairman, on the point of order, the parliamentary secretary is quite wrong. I have moved on to talking about compliance. On the matter of compliance, the questions that other senators have been asking relating to vehicles in general extends of course to the bulldozers in the forest. I want to know about the compliance mechanism for this extension of the rebate to the bulldozers in the forest when it is a rebate that was not flagged in the first place.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, I hear what you are saying. There is no point of order from the parliamentary secretary; you may continue.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Thank you. We are in this fix. The Democrats are in this fix.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Mr Temporary Chairman, on the point of order, there are no provisions in this bill relating to grants to bulldozers because the bulldozers in the forest are off road, by their nature—ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What if you were on the back of a truck moving between an urban conurbation and a non-urban conurbation?H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That is a good question, but the other is not a good question. I seek a ruling that Senator Brown is out of order. His questions are clearly important, but he needs to ask them when we get to TLAB 9. We have 15 seconds left to pass this bill; I would be happy, if there were no further questions, to have a vote on the diesel bill before we adjourn.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am advised by the Clerk that there is no point of order. It being 7.20 p.m., I shall report progress.Progress reported.Adjournment1110910000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1110919:20:0011109Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—There are several matters I wish to raise this evening in relation to what I regard as one of the most significant regions in my state of New South Wales, Greater Western Sydney. I am fortunate to be based in this particularly exciting, distinctive and progressive region. I have spoken in the chamber on a number of occasions about this part of Sydney and its people. It is now worth taking stock of some of the achievements and events of recent months and to place them on the record also.In reflecting on those achievements and challenges, it is worth while mentioning in some detail the significance of the Greater West as a leading region. For example, the Greater West is enjoying a population boom which is in defiance of current trends, with a population growth rate eight times higher than the national average. The region's tourism market is larger than the Blue Mountains or the Hunter Valley. Ninety per cent of all food produced in Sydney is grown in the Greater Western Sydney region. It has an economy larger than all of South Australia's.The Greater Western Sydney work force is one of the most productive in the nation, with more than half holding post-secondary qualifications. In relation to language skills, one in every three residents speaks a language other than English. The region has just cause to describe itself as an economic powerhouse in Australia, with more than $35 billion generated by its 1.5 million residents last year.Currently, manufacturing is the flagship industry of the Greater West, followed closely by its traditional bases of agriculture, as I have mentioned, some mining and construction. I was pleased recently to be able to congratulate and promote through the local media the achievements of a Chester Hill based manufacturing firm—also actively congratulated by our Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile—TNA Australia Pty Ltd, one of 60 companies across the nation selected to contest the 1999 Australian Export Awards. The firm's ingenuity and adaptability were recognised as role model material for other Australian firms. They reflect a global outlook that is prevalent across all of the Greater West of Sydney.But the area is not purely defined through its economic and industrial outlook. Western Sydney has a significant community spirit, which is at least in part shaped through the active community engagement of the leading educational facilities throughout the region. I have developed a positive relationship with many of these institutions, and I want to just touch briefly on some of these facilities.In the past I have particularly praised the ongoing success of the University of Western Sydney. I have discussed its uniqueness. It is an excellent educational facility, which this year celebrates its 10th anniversary. Founded in 1989 through the amalgamation of existing colleges, it has just gone from strength to strength in recent years. Even in the relatively short period in which I have been involved with the institution it has gathered momentum as a serious and esteemed higher education facility.Indeed, as part of its process of ongoing development, the university has engaged in consultations, discussions and project work over recent times, from which have emerged four main challenges for the future development of the institution. They include the need to seize strategic competitive opportunities and to develop a united UWS image and direction. This actual process of review demonstrates that UWS approaches its role in the community very seriously, both in regard to its role in Western Sydney and its position as a member of the higher education community across the country. I have touched previously on some of the industry links the university has developed in Western Sydney and the success of some of their particularly innovative programs, which seek to build links between the community and the institution.It is a uniquely placed university, able to provide an educational experience to residents of Western Sydney who otherwise may not have ever accessed tertiary education. The commitment of the university—from its Vice Chancellor, Professor Jan Reid, to its faculties and staff—is enormous. It takes very seriously its role as a member of the broader community of educational facilities across the country. While it is not one of the country's longest established institutions—while it is not a sandstone university—it is fast catching up to some of the older universities in terms of excellence.Of course, it is not only the UWS which is achieving great success for the Greater West in educational terms and seeking to meet some of the unique challenges faced within the region. The Western Sydney Institute of TAFE is also taking an innovative approach in a number of areas. For example, as we get even closer to the next millennium—inexorably so—it is expected that IT and tourism will join manufacturing as the driving forces in the Greater West, generating additional economic output of about $1 billion a year for the next three years.The Greater West has been ready to embrace the IT revolution, promoting state-of-the-art training and education through such institutions as UWS and also the Western Sydney Institute of TAFE. Perhaps not surprisingly, the region was selected as the pilot area for a new project which aims to help women re-skill for the IT driven work force through what is known as an international computer drivers licence course. This was launched last Friday, on Online Australia Day, at the Mount Druitt campus of the TAFE, partnered by the National Office of the Information Economy, the Australian Computer Society and the Western Sydney Institute of TAFE. I am particularly honoured to be the official patron of the project.It is a program which I will be able to discuss in more detail as it progresses, but its anticipated success is demonstrated by the overwhelming response from women in Western Sydney when the program was first advertised. From a single advertisement placed in suburban newspapers, over 50 women have registered a desire to participate. I think this bodes very well for the success of the program and the capacity of Western Sydney to embrace new opportunities offered in the area of information technology. I spoke to some of those women at the launch last Friday. One in particular, whom I would not like to verbal by guessing her age, had a husband in the work force full time—who she was terrified would overtake her in terms of IT skills—a four-year-old and a two-year-old. The next thing she could see was the four-year-old perhaps overtaking her in terms of IT skills. The opportunity to participate in the international computer drivers licence course was one that she was very enthusiastic about. It has been taken up with enormous alacrity across Europe, and I hope it is just as successful here.We have other educational facilities across the Western Sydney region which meet the challenges of different needs. I want to refer briefly to two of those. I recently visited the new Broderick Gillawarna School in Revesby, which excels at providing education for specially challenged students. It is a relocated school, joining two previously existing schools, occupying a site adjacent to the Revesby State Public School. They share resources and jointly benefit from fundraising initiatives.The Broderick Gillawarna School now caters for 60 incredibly challenged children with disabilities, giving them independent living skills and the confidence to lead quality lives. It gives older students the opportunity to work in real work sites and also coordinates integration programs with other local schools. I know that one of their older students is, in fact, doing work experience in the office of a state member in New South Wales. She has found that to be an enormously beneficial experience in terms of independent living and confidence.The opening of the amalgamated school was a particularly inspiring occasion. It included a visit by Paralympic wheelchair basketball hero Troy Sacks, who visited and encouraged the children. In the company of well-known Canterbury Bulldogs Terry Lamb and Darren Griffiths it was almost hard to attract the children's attention to anything else. They are real role models for these kids, who are determined to make the most of what the education system can offer them and to make the most of what their parents and families are so committed to helping them with.Since commencing my work in Western Sydney I have had the opportunity to develop a very close rapport with Westfields Sports High School. Few Australian sports fans would not be disappointed for the national under-17s soccer team, the Joeys, who took Australia to its first final of a FIFA competition last weekend in the World Championships in New Zealand against Brazil only to go down closely in a penalty shoot-out, but not many would be aware that Westfields Sports High School in Western Sydney has played an extraordinary role in developing some of that talent.In fact, four Westfields players were recently invited to join the Australian Joeys squad. I think the school was, collectively, on the edge of its seat last weekend. In its soccer program alone, Westfields boasts the development of the youngest ever Socceroo, Harry Kewell. In addition, the school has produced the youngest ever Matilda, four players in the current Olyroo squad, seven players on professional contracts with international clubs across Europe and numerous other National Soccer League players, trophies, victories and representatives. And that is just the soccer program.The students also excel in any number of other sports, including gymnastics, tennis, cricket, basketball and rugby league, and they are incredible achievers in off-the-field pursuits as well. They now have their own sports medicine clinic to provide immediate facilities to their students so that they can study, and they also have a very good academic record of which principal Phil Tucker is very proud. They continue to look for ways to develop both in sporting and academic pursuits, and they excel. They are an extraordinary example of what young people in New South Wales, but most particularly in Greater Western Sydney, are achieving. They are clearly recognised internationally as an excellent school, and the fact that that school finds its home in the Greater West is a great credit to the school's administrators and the community.1111119:30:0011111Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—World AIDS Day is a time of both dignified sadness and noble courage. It is a time to mourn the loss of individuals and acknowledge that from their legacy the impetus for a non-violent political and cultural movement for justice was ignited. In the 15-minute memory of the news grab age, we forget the early scenes of horrific illness and pain. We forget the courage of those who said, `We are not lepers, we are you.'In the early days there was refusal of treatment, calls for quarantine and subsequent increases in attacks on groups perceived as the problem. A Tasmanian group called Halo, a disgraceful hate group, tried to connect homosexuality and child sex abuse, ignoring the fact that most child abuse is male-female heterosexual and familiar. I speak from a personal perspective on this particular aspect. A friend of our family's was HIV positive and died from an AIDS-related illness in the late 1980s. At that time there was no sympathy for him in his home state of Tasmania. Had it not been for the incredible support he received from his subculture, friends and associates, he would have died a very lonely death in another state. This is not to say that World AIDS Day is the domain of a subculture but to acknowledge the astute and pivotal role the gay movement contributed to the broader public health movement in this country. The mobilisation of co-ops, 24-hour phone lines, food, information and understanding was incredible.HIV-AIDS is not always sexually transmitted; it can also be contacted by sharing needles and equipment. There is general acceptance of legal exchange programs in Australia, often via non-criminal subterfuge where the health workers interface between the dual client demands of drug users and the general community. Courage and trust is shown by the clients who attend the exchanges knowing that they can be tagged by the moralists in our community as people who deserve the illness. The naivety of this retributive justice has nothing to do with the forgiveness mentioned in the world's spiritual writings. World AIDS Day is a time to recognise the debt we owe the many unpaid peer educators who moulded the message to allow efficient and succinct delivery of knowledge. It is about the quiet humility of thousands and thousands of volunteers such as the seamstress of the narrative quilt and the makers of the ribbons.Unfortunately, many of our global neighbours have not had the benefit of enlightened social action. This is not only a result of economic disadvantage but also a result of historically and culturally specific mores. Thus, only by understanding and seeing the obstacles to reform can a cultural modification germinate. This realisation leads to training peer leaders. This message is then delivered to others, with cultural specific codes in place. Unfortunately, pre-existing sexual and chemical values will limit the market penetration of this vital public health strategy. In Africa, the numbers of projected HIV sufferers have been revised upwards three times in a little over five years. Male dominance and cultural adversity to condoms create optimum conditions for this viral contagion. As predicted, HIV has penetrated the Asian, American and European continents, and social rifts are occurring with outbreaks of the virus.Without appearing morbid, a behavioural specific virus is a messenger highlighting the areas of disparity in a social and/or a fiscal sense. Other than abstinence or true monogamy, the best way to avoid the virus is the use of condoms. The acceptance of condoms in Australia is a result of mixing compassion and self-interest, opportunism and reason. Let us acknowledge the achievement of removing condoms from the embarrassed hush of the chemist's to the normality of supermarket shelves, and let us marvel at our strategy with injecting drug users that has resulted in a lower rate of infection in our prisons than in the general population of the United States.The theme for World AIDS Day 1999 is to be 100 per cent aware, to listen to, learn from and live with people with HIV-AIDS. New trends in infection show we cannot become complacent about this virus—we are as vulnerable as ever to a resurgence of the virus. Only by reinforcing the need to listen and learn can we hope to build on our spectacular efforts of the past; and Australia does have a very safe record in this area. With the help of our gay colleagues, we will be able to continue to challenge the politics of ignorance and fear that hold within their shallow walls a recipe for a public health nightmare. Once again, we say thank you to a movement that has helped us, and continues to help us, avoid the devastation that is occurring in other nations. We ask you to reflect on this important day, 1 December, World AIDS Day.1111219:37:0011112Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to speak on the future of education in East Timor. Right now international aid agencies are delivering basic health and social services. Peter Hosking of the Jesuit Refugee Service says he fears that Australians may suffer compassion fatigue when the Defence Force's bills start coming in. But we need to keep education on the agenda, because without it Timor has no hope of making it in a globalised economy.The task facing Timorese educators is indeed daunting. The Timorese are currently faced with the question of what languages will be taught in schools and in what level of priority. They are faced with the challenge of managing the process of healing for children who have witnessed and suffered so much violence. They are faced with the prospect of no secondary schooling for at least a couple of years as adolescents help their parents in the fields to alleviate chronic food shortages. They are faced with an absence of secondary teachers. A high proportion of secondary teachers before the ballot were Indonesians, who have since fled. They are faced with literacy rates of only 44 per cent for women and 61 per cent for men. They are faced with a situation in which there are very few written resources for the teaching of Tetum, the main indigenous language, and they are faced with having to forge an entirely new education curriculum.I hope Australians will remember the union movement here as one of the drivers for change in Timor when nearly everyone else was turning their backs. The education unions, the IEU and the AEU, are especially deserving of praise, and I want to acknowledge that tonight. They will play a major role in helping Timor build up the skills of its people. UNICEF and other agencies are delivering basic writing materials such as writing pads and pencils, but other supplies are virtually non-existent. Other equipment has always been lacking—things like glue, atlases, coloured pencils, wall charts, books and the like. Chairs and tables, for instance, have always been a rarity in schools. The unions have given generously. St Josephs Primary School in Gilgandra recently raised $600 by holding a special mass. By November, donations via the IEU will have reached $40,000. The IEU is also in the process of collecting classroom kits of materials, especially maths workbooks and other teaching aids.Mr Patrick Lee of the New South Wales IEU recently had as a guest in his house a former assistant to the Director of the Catholic Education Office in Dili. The Catholics have taken on the responsibility of getting the education system functioning again. They have already reopened some schools. The reopening of schools has provided relief to parents and structure and routine for children, which is crucial in the aftermath of trauma. Martinio Borromeu started working on the Tetum curriculum before the ballot, and he has been trying to retrieve it from memory. When my office spoke to him, his colleagues were missing or in the hills. Borromeu said that the most pressing educational need is trauma counselling and training for teachers. He said that the Timorese cannot afford to have psychologically broken people filled with hatred and hopelessness educating the next generation of children. Teachers will have a crucial role in helping children to heal, and this need precedes training in content and pedagogy.A core group of about 10 Timorese teachers are currently working on an emergency teachers guide to assist traumatised returning teachers to get back in front of their classes. Before the ballot, teachers were paid very little—about $20 a month, barely enough to support one person let alone teachers with dependants. Borromeu said that the remuneration caused resentment, particularly among Indonesian teachers who attracted much more money back home, and this often bred a callous attitude towards student progress, with quotes like, `It's not my problem if you can't read.' Outside Dili, principals were often not paid at all. Corporal punishment was rife, as one would expect in a society under invasion, and the military would often intervene in disputes between Indonesian teachers and families.Class sizes were generally around 100, and seldom below 50, students. One teacher would usually take multiple year levels. Because there was a dearth of written materials, instruction was usually didactic and learning was done by rote. The Indonesian education system is often accused of encouraging conformity and mediocrity, and this duality is writ large in Indonesia's occupied territories. Families had to pay fees every month for their children's schooling. Not surprisingly, it often made more economic sense to keep children as young as five out of school and in work at home. Schooling usually took place in shifts.The way forward for education in Timor will not be an easy one, given this scenario. The question of language is a vexing one. Tetum will presumably be the first language taught in schools, but there are very few written resources. The Mary MacKillop Institute in Sydney has been working for some time on developing curriculum materials in Tetum and has so far got to middle primary level. Before the ballot, it was decided that Timor's future lay in making Portuguese the main second language taught in schools. I have been told that this is now a fairly shaky proposition. English as a second language is in demand. It is the international language of commerce and the language of ASEAN. The place of bahasa, the Indonesian language, is unclear. There is recognition, though, that the many students who have been taught mainly in bahasa cannot be abandoned. There is also a deep hostility towards the Indonesian language remaining even for a transition period. The Mary MacKillop Institute told the recent Senate inquiry into Timor:In the present situation, East Timorese children entering a classroom find themselves in a learning context that is foreign—the only language allowed to be spoken and used in the classroom is that of the foreign invaders. . . . Psychologists who specialise in learning theory tell us that, beyond mild levels, fear inhibits learning. The trauma that many children have experienced at the hands of the invaders must surely put a psychological block and hinder the East Timorese children's learning in their language.Two years ago AusAID rejected the institute's funding for classroom and curriculum materials. Another agency was told there would be no funding for first language learning or ESL support because Portuguese was being touted as a replacement for bahasa. AusAID's consistent refusal to fund educational projects in Timor should be a source of national shame. Bear in mind that most schools are lucky to have a blackboard. The institute's massive literacy and translation work has been kept going by the Catholic Church and its congregations. When one of the sisters visited Timor earlier this year, people were dying of malnutrition. Children were travelling hours on foot to get to school. Some children were working punishing hours to keep their younger siblings at school.One agency has touted a demonstration school model where teachers would combine on-the-job experience with their training. This would release badly needed teachers immediately. Post-independence, ESL support will be vital as well as first language learning and language laboratories. Peter Hosking says that Timor will quite capably run its own school system but, to do this, it needs help in teacher training and curriculum development. His suggestions include sending Australian teachers to Timor. State education departments and non-government systems could, for instance, provide teachers with leave to do this. Or we could give Timorese teachers scholarships to study in Australia. Perhaps if we had treated the Timorese asylum seekers better we would have had some qualified teachers ready to return.The fact that Timorese children seeking asylum in Australia are excluded from TAFE, apprenticeships and traineeships after year 12 is disgraceful. They are also barred from university as they are considered to be over seas students and therefore full fee paying. David Peace, a Melbourne teacher, recently wrote:I feel ashamed when I try to explain this policy to the dedicated, enthusiastic young people who have chosen Australia for their home after escaping terror and tyranny in their homeland.Asylum seekers are generally on protection visas, which do allow them to access state primary and secondary education. But these children start school in a language vacuum. Many parents speak Hakka, a Chinese language, while the children speak Tetum. Neither is a written language and this makes it very difficult for parents to help with literacy enrichment. Children routinely miss out on extracurricular activities because of their parents' poverty, unless they go to a particularly understanding and proactive school.I would argue that Mr Ruddock should also rethink his shameful approach to sending home with just a bag of rice, a blanket and a sheet of plastic refugees who came from East Timor during the conflict. Children in these circumstances will not have access to schools back in East Timor, let alone health services, adequate food or shelter. They do want to return, but now is not the right time. In my view, Australia has a dual moral obligation to the Timorese: we must help with rebuilding its educational institutions and we must abolish the education trap that we have created for Timorese asylum seekers in this country.1111419:47:0011114Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—On 16 July 1945 a group of scientists from both Europe, including Britain, and the United States detonated the first nuclear device in the world. That was called the `Manhattan Project'. A direct result of that was that an American aircraft called the Enola Gay dropped nuclear devices on both Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. These were exploded somewhat above the cities and devastated them from that height. When the war in the Pacific ended, the benefits of the nuclear age, or the atomic age as it was then termed, were turned to peaceful uses. Today there are 445 nuclear power stations around the world. One of those nuclear power stations malfunctioned in Russia, at Chernobyl, some 10 years ago and put the other nuclear power stations in the rest of the world on notice. Since then there has been a second generation of nuclear power plants, some of which are under construction now. Notwithstanding that, nuclear power is still the safest, most efficient and least damaging environmentally to this world that we live in. That is indisputable. But we have to ask the question: what are we going to do with the waste that is accumulating around the world and should Australia participate in that? Sweden, for instance, generates 50 per cent of its power from nuclear energy; France generates 79 per cent of its power from nuclear energy; in the United States, 19 per cent of the power is nuclear; and 17 per cent of power throughout the world is generated by nuclear power. Seventy kilos of uranium feeding a 1,000-megawatt power plant needs the equivalent on the same basis per day of 8,800 tonnes of coal—that is, it takes 8,800 tonnes of coal to power a 1,000-megawatt power station, or 70 kilos of uranium.Australia has about 30 per cent of the world's known low cost recoverable uranium and about 12 per cent of the world's exports. Canada has about 12 per cent of the world's reserves and 28 per cent of the world's exports. Canada is opening up two new uranium mines this year that will produce in aggregate 8,000 tonnes of uranium or U-308—yellowcake. By comparison, both Jabiluka and Ranger together will be producing only 6,000 tonnes. During the Whitlam period, from 1972-75, no figures were kept on the export of uranium, but Australia produced 6,415 tonnes in 1997-98, which was valued at $288 million. With 12 per cent of the world's exports of uranium, one has to ask: what sort of responsibility do we have with respect to that waste? Australia has invented a method of safe, long-term and cheap storage. It is called synroc. It is a method that has already been tested and one that is operating in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and, we hope, Russia.Russia is a continuous worry to the rest of the world. It is sometimes thought—not without some evidence—that Russia will become the repository of the world's uranium power stations or nuclear power station waste. I wonder whether that is not going to be a mistake. On the other hand, Australia is an area the same size landmass as the mainland of the United States but with 19 million people instead of 260 million—an area where we have undoubted geological stability, an area where we have political stability, and an area that is inviting to countries such as the United Kingdom, which has deep storage; France, where, as I said, nearly 80 per cent of its power comes from nuclear sources, and other areas such as Holland, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan—all small countries by our standards—that do not have the advantages we have here.We could say, `Not in my back yard thank you,' and that is something I understand. But in a global environment—we have the Minister for Trade, Mark Vaile, at this moment attending the Seattle round of the World Trade Organisation—we have to ask ourselves: is it truly a global village? If it is, then we have a responsibility at least to return the waste that is derived from the uranium that we export. It may be that we have a larger responsibility than that, given the isolation as well as the geological stability and the political stability of this continent of Australia. We have the oldest of all rocks in the world, apart from Greenland—3.8 billion years old, and some of those rocks are in Western Australia. We have areas like the Great Sandy Desert and the Great Victoria Desert just north of the Nullarbor Plains that fit in that category of political and geological stability.The uranium atom is highly mobile in water; that is, when it is mixed with H2O it moves along just slighter slower than water moves. Therefore, if there is waste storage in Australia, that needs to be taken cognisance of. If it does not go there, are we happy to say that it should go to Russia—not geologically stable, with permafrost and with more water than any other country on earth? And I understand Russia has suggested that it lease enriched uranium to consumers in these second generation nuclear power stations.Or will it go to some developing country near Australia? Will it, for instance, go to cash strapped Indonesia? That is on our doorstep. Will it go to the emerging nation of East Timor? That is on our doorstep. Will it go to Papua New Guinea? That is on our doorstep. Will it go to Vanuatu or to any other geologically unstable and politically unstable countries that surround the northern periphery of Australia that are much closer to those of us in the northern part of Western Australia, the northern part of Queensland and the Northern Territory than Lucas Heights is to Perth, Adelaide, Alice Springs, Melbourne or the cherub state, as I call it, of Tasmania?Do we have a responsibility to ensure that the reserves of 629,000 tonnes of recoverable uranium are returned to this nation? Can we say that an export of $288 million, as another argument, should not be exported and we should close down all of the uranium mines in Australia, like the silly Mr Tony O'Grady, the Minister for Mines in Queensland, has done.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Please do not reflect upon a member of another chamber.WP6Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOT—He has closed down mines up there and prevented one mine at least from going ahead, which could have returned to Queenslanders $3.6 billion over its life. If we did stop producing uranium in Australia, would it stop the production of uranium throughout the world? Of course it would not.Under the three-mine policy of the Hawke government—effectively a two-mine policy—the biggest uranium mine in the world became the Rossing mine in Namibia owned by Rio Tinto Zinc. It will not stop the production of uranium. We can make a stand, but at what cost? It is a vexing issue. It does genuinely cause people problems. But I know in my own heart, with my own experience in exploration—looking for uranium and working with uranium ores—that we do have an answer to it. It is about time we exploited that; it is about time that it was explained in a rational manner to people so that this global village we live in can be a safer place for us all. (Time expired)Senate adjourned at 7.57 p.m.Documents1111611116The following government documents were tabled:Airservices Australia—Report for 1998-99.Anindilyakwa Land Council—Report for 1998-99.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Australia's welfare 1999: Services and assistance—Fourth biennial report.Corporations and Securities Panel—Report for 1998-99.Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—Australian citizenship statistics—Report for 1998-99 pursuant to the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 .Department of Transport and Regional Development—A measured approach to aviation safety reform—Policy statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Mr Anderson), November 1999.Energy Research and Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Equity and diversity program—Australian Broadcasting Corporation—Report for 1998-99.High Court of Australia—Report for 1998-99.Joint Coal Board—Report for 1998-99.Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1999-2000—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) and the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey).Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 1998-99.Tiwi Land Council—Report for 1998-99.The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May 1996, as amended 3 December 1998:Indexed list of departmental and agency files for the periods 1 June to 31 December 1998 and 1 January to 30 June 1999—Statement of compliance—Department of Family and Community Services.The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 1 December 1998:Public servants—Accountability, rights and responsibilities—Statements of compliance—Departments— Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Industry, Science and Resources. Prime Minister and Cabinet. Treasury portfolio. Answers to Questions on Notice11117The following answers to questions were circulated:11117(Question No. 1436)143611117Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(Question No. 1436)(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.(Question No. 1454)(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11117Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions:I am advised that as applications for review of decisions may involve both proceedings under statute and proceedings under common law, the responses to the above questions have been combined and are set out in the following tables:Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet(1) Basis for application(2) Subject matter(3) Status of application(4)(a) Cost of defending application(4) (b) Quantum of costs awarded against the CommonwealthMatter (1)Combined AD(JR) and common lawChallenge to the termination of the appointment of a Secretary without affording natural justiceFirst instance decision finalised but appeal pendingFinal accounts not yet receivedCosts were awarded against the Commonwealth but the amount has not been finalisedMatter (2)AD(JR) onlyChallenge to the adequacy of procedural fairness accorded to a Secretary prior to termination of his appointment First instance decision finalised but appeal pendingFinal accounts not yet receivedCosts were awarded in favour of the Commonwealth but the amount has not been finalisedSub TotalsAD (JR): 1(a) agency staffing: 0(a) (i) Finalised: 2N/AN/ACommon law: 0(b) agency client: 0(a) (ii) withdrawn: 0Combined: 1(c) other: 2(b) unfinalised: 0Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman(1) Basis for application(2) Subject matter(3) Status of application(4) (a) Cost of defending application(4) (b) Quantum of costs awarded against the CommonwealthMatter (1)Combined AD(JR) and common lawAgency clientWithdrawn$1,167.50N/AMatter (2)AD(JR) onlyAgency clientWithdrawnnoneN/AMatter (3)AD(JR) onlyAgency clientFinalisednoneN/ASub TotalsAD(JR): 2(a) agency staffing: 0(a)(i) finalised: 1N/AN/ACommon law: 0(b) agency client: 3(a)(ii) withdrawn: 2Combined: 1(c) other: 0(b) unfinalised: 0Public Service and Merit Protection Commission(1) Basis for application(2) Subject matter(3) Status of application(4) (a) Cost of defending application(4) (b) Quantum of costs awarded against the CommonwealthMatter (1)Probably combined AD(JR) and common law (see note 1)Challenge to Head of Paedophile InquiryFinalisedSee note 2N/AMatter (2)As aboveAppeal from first instance decision aboveFinalisedSee note 2Approximately$33,000Matter (3)Probably combined AD(JR) and common lawChallenge to Discipline Appeal Committee decisionFinalisedApproximately $1,830N/AMatter (4)Common law onlyChallenge to decision under the Public Service Act re a transferUnfinalisedAccounts not yet receivedN/AMatter (5)Probably combined AD(JR) and common lawChallenge to Discipline Appeal Committee decisionFinalisedApproximately $800N/AMatter (6)AD(JR) onlyChallenge to decision not to provide s.13 statement of reasonsWithdrawnAccounts not yet receivedN/AMatter (7)Probably combined AD(JR) and common lawChallenge to Promotion Appeal Committee decisionWithdrawnAccounts not yet receivedN/AMatter (8)AD(JR) onlyChallenge to Promotion Appeal Committee decisionFinalisedApproximately $43,500N/AMatter (9)Probably combined AD(JR) and common lawChallenge to Discipline Appeal Committee decisionUnfinalisedAccounts not yet receivedN/ASub TotalsAD(JR): 2(a) agency staffing: 0(a) (i) finalised: 5N/AN/ACommon law: 1(b) agency client: 0(a) (ii) withdrawn: 2Combined: 6(c) other: 9(b) unfinalised: 2Notes1. "Probably combined AD(JR) and common law" denotes that it was not clear from these applications on what basis they were made.2. Legal costs for matters number (1) and (2) could not be distinguished from the overall legal costs associated with the Paedophile Inquiry. Costs have been calculated on the basis of amounts paid by the PS&MPC to AGS. However for matters number (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) there were other respondents to the applications who are Commonwealth agencies and who may have borne significant legal costs in defending the actions. This arises in matters number (3), (5), (6), (7), (8) and (9) because in challenges to decisions of Disciplinary Appeal Committees and Promotion Appeal Committees, the Committee members submit to the jurisdiction of the Court and the agency responsible for the original decision affecting the applicant is joined in the action and takes the running of the case. 11119(Question No. 1190)119011119O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 12 July 1999:Have any industries importing or using the following imported aquatic products applied any self-regulation to those imports to reduce the risk of introducing disease into the Australian marine environment: (a) ornamental fish; (b) fresh frozen aquatic animal feeds and baits; (c) processed aquatic animal feeds; (d) shrimp meals; and (e) whole fish for human consumption + prawns, barramundi and molluscs; if so: (i) when were these self-imposed regulations introduced, (ii) who introduced them, and (iii) what is the nature of the regulations.11119Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) A voluntary code of practice for aquarium operations was introduced in November 1997 by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). A copy of the code of practice has been provided separately.(b) A voluntary agreement was made in March 1997 between the Western Australia Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) and Fisheries Western Australia that industry would import only herring that is fit for human consumption.(c) My Department is not aware of any industry self-regulation in respect of processed aquatic animal feeds.(d) My Department is not aware of any industry self-regulation in respect of shrimp meals.(e) My Department is not aware of any industry self-regulation in respect of imports of whole fish for human consumption—prawns, barramundi and molluscs.11119(Question No. 1248)124811119O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 August 1999:(1) What screening process is used to assess the airworthiness of second-hand aircraft parts.(2) (a) What organisation is responsible for undertaking the above assessments; and (b) who is responsible for policing the screening process. (3) Did a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer discover a major crack in the main rotor grip in a helicopter at a Melbourne airport in early 1998.(4) When was that incident reported to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).(5) Did the then chair of CASA, Mr Dick Smith write to the engineer commending him on his work and direct CASA to investigate the incident.(6) Was that investigation carried out by the CASA Sydney office; if so: (a) who was responsible for that investigation; and (b) what was the outcome.(7) Was the incident referred to the CASA Canberra office in July or August 1998, specifically the office of Air Safety Compliance, for further investigation; if not: (a) on what date was the matter referred to the Canberra office; (b) who undertook the further investigation; and (c) what was the outcome.11119Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following information:(1) The general scheme for controlling the installation and use of aircraft components in maintenance can be found in the provisions of the Civil Aviation Regulations (1988) listed below.The scheme is focused on the individual performing the maintenance. This allows the regulations to cater for the complete range of operations within Australian aviation. Under the regulations and general exemption, the responsibility for ensuring that an aircraft component installed or used in an aircraft meets the legal requirements rests with the person responsible for the installation and use of the component.Regulation 42W—Installation and use of aircraft components in maintenance of Australian aircraft in Australian territory.The regulations do not specifically refer to aircraft components as "second hand". Rather, under reg 42W, provisions are made that a person may not replace an aircraft component with another aircraft component unless it meets the conditions set out in the regulation.The provisions of reg 42W are extensive, and specific direction is given as to how components are to be identified and certified. Under each of the provisions of the regulation, direction is given as to how to treat items that have undergone maintenance.The only provision that allows the use of components removed or salvaged from other aircraft where no maintenance has been carried out is found in reg 42W(2)(c). In this case, subject to some qualifications in Reg 42W, the component may be installed if it is not damaged and complies with the manufacturer's specifications.Regulation 42X—Use of aircraft materials in maintenance—Australian aircraft in Australian territory.This regulation contains provisions similar to, though not identical with, those in reg 42W applying to the use of materials in aircraft maintenance.Regulation 42Y- Time-lifed components—exemption from supply under cover of document requirements.Time-lifed components can be exempted from the requirements of reg 42W(4)(a) and (b) if a person satisfies CASA or an authorised person that there is a complete record of airworthiness history available.Exemption Number 5/1992While the basic structure of the scheme to control the use of components and materials is contained in the regulations mentioned above there is also a general exemption, number 5/1992, that provides some relief against these requirements under specific conditions.(2) (a) The regulations clearly state that the ultimate responsibility rests with the person replacing, installing or using an aircraft component. In larger organisations, such as a well-established airline, it is usual to find systems set up to deal with the storage and identification of components. In these cases it is normal to find procedures for these functions in the organisation's manuals. In smaller operations, the Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer performing or certifying the work would hold individual responsibility. In all cases the regulations provide that the "person" replacing, installing or using an aircraft component is responsible for ensuring that it meets the legal requirements set out in the legislation.(b)Primary responsibility for ensuring compliance rests with the person replacing, installing or using an aircraft component. Methods for ensuring compliance would normally be documented in the operators' manuals. As part of its surveillance functions, CASA conducts audits of holders of Certificates of Approval to determine if the holder has acted in accordance with the regulations.(3) A licensed aircraft maintenance engineer discovered the crack in the main rotor grip in a helicopter at a Melbourne airport on 4 December 1997.(4) The fault was reported to CASA in a Major Defect Report on 5 December 1997.(5) A letter of commendation was sent to the engineer by the (then) CASA Chairman on 19 December 1997. The Chairman also asked CASA to investigate the matter.Following a detailed technical investigation into the mechanics and history of the material failure, the General Manager Airworthiness, recommended, in December 1997, that an investigation be conducted.(6) An investigation was carried out by the CASA Sydney Office.(a) An aviation safety investigator from CASA's (then) South-East Region was responsible for the investigation.(b) The investigation revealed that the most obvious offence, relating to the installation and use of aircraft components in maintenance of Australian Aircraft under reg 42W, was statute-barred by the time the crack was discovered in the main rotor yoke. Under Civil Aviation Regulation (1988) 296, there is a three-year limit on commencing of prosecution action and that time runs from the date of commission of the offence, not from when the offence was discovered.The only way that prosecution for an offence could have been commenced after the discovery of the crack is if the prosecution could have been brought under a provision of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 which provided for a penalty exceeding 6 months imprisonment as under section 15B of the Crimes Act 1901 such prosecution may be brought at any time after the commission of the offence. In this context, consideration was given to proceeding with an action under section 20AA(4) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 on the basis that, because the maintenance release was defective, the aircraft had flown without a valid maintenance release being in force. Such an offence carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment under subsection 20AA(5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1988.It was decided not to proceed with an action on this basis as it would have been tenuously based and would have represented an inappropriate use of the legislation to attempt to achieve a prosecution. Under section 20AA(5) the offence in section 20AA(4) is directed to the `owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft' rather than the person performing the maintenance. As those parties did not know about the defective part they could not have `knowingly or recklessly' operated the aircraft in contravention of section 20AA(4).There was, therefore, no way in which CASA could instigate prosecution action under the Civil Aviation Act or Regulations.(7) No.(a) At the request of the Assistant Director, Aviation Safety Compliance the case was reviewed in Canberra in February 1999. (b) The review was undertaken by an aviation safety investigator not directly associated with the initial investigation.(c) The review supported the judgement of the initial investigator that a prosecution could not be commenced because of the three-year time limit imposed under Civil Aviation Regulation 296 and the absence of facts providing a solid basis for the prosecution of an offence under the Civil Aviation Act 1988.11121(Question No. 1256)125611121O'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 a court in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years and so far in the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What was the cost to CASA of the above matters.(3) On how many occasions did CASA engage senior counsel in relation to matters before a court in the above financial years.(4) In each case where senior counsel was engaged;(a) what was the nature of the matter before the court;(b) How long was the matter before a court; (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.11121Macdonald, 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) The following tables provide information about the number of matters related to the enforcement of aviation regulations by the CASA, that were the subject of action (commencing and continuing) before a court in the financial years specified.Table (a) provides details of administrative law matters before the Federal Court, both on appeal from decisions of the AAT and initiated under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act (ADJR).Table (a)1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-2000Total number of Appeals in the Federal Court from decisions of the AAT, or matters commenced under the Administrative Decisions Judicial Review Act (ADJR) dealt with by CASA in a court and active during the period. *66654* Based on the number of Federal Court matters which were current during any particular financial year, that is, including both matters that were commenced in that year, and matters that were commenced in a previous year and remained active in the given 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.Table (b) provides details of prosecutions arising from alleged breaches of aviation regulations. These prosecutions are conducted by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).Table (b)1995-961996-971997-981998-991999-2000Total number of court matters relating to enforcement of civil aviation regulations commenced by the Director of Public Prosecutions.325845161(2) The following table provides information about the costs to CASA of the above court actions. These costs (as defined below) relate only to the administrative law actions shown in Table (a) of the response to Question 1. As the DPP, not CASA, conducts the prosecutions arising from alleged breaches of aviation regulations recorded in Table (b) of the response to Question 1, the associated costs of external legal advice and counsel are borne by the DPP.1995-96 $1996-97 $1997-98 $1998-99 $1999-2000 $Total cost to CASA of Court actions during the period. *30,915028,76800* Costs for each matter have been recorded against the financial year in which the matter was commenced in the Court—that is, all costs for a matter commenced in the 1995-1996 financial year are shown in the 1995-1996 column, even where a matter may have remained active over more than one financial year.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 Court 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; orCASA's internal staff costs.(3) CASA has not engaged senior counsel for Federal Court proceedings relating to regulatory matters within the relevant period.(4) (a) Not applicable. See the response to Question 3.(b) Not applicable. See the response to Question 3.(c) Not applicable. See the response to Question 3.(d) Not applicable. See the response to Question 3.(e) Not applicable. See the response to Question 3.11122(Question No. 1264)126411122O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 August 1999:(1) Was a Program Advisory Panel established to oversee the review of regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).(2) (a) When was that panel established;(b) who established the panel;(c) what is the membership of the panel;(d) what are the qualifications of panel members; and(e) who does the panel report to.(3) (a) On how many occasions has the panel met; and(b) has it produced any reports or other documents relating to its work.(4) Can copies be provided of the above reports or other documents.(5) Did the panel recommend that all dispensations or exemptions from CASA regulations be placed on the public record.(6) (a) When was that recommendation made;(b) when was the recommendation implemented; and(c) was the basis of the recommendation to ensure openness and transparency particularly where operators are in competition.11122Macdonald, 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) The Program Advisory Panel (PAP) was established to provide industry and consumer oversight to the Regulatory Framework and Regulatory Role Programs in the CASA reviews. Panel members were also divided into two Sub-committees + the Regulatory Framework Sub-committee and the Regulatory Role Sub-committee + to participate in, and facilitate the work of, Technical Committees and Project Teams in ensuring that the objectives of the review programs were met.As a matter of practice, the Panel rarely met in sub-committees but the two sub-committee chairmen, Capt. W Hamilton (Regulatory Framework) and Capt D Wiltshire (Regulatory Role) liaised closely with the Program Managers to monitor progress and ensured adequacy of industry and consumer representation on individual projects.(2) (a) The Program Advisory Panel was established in September 1996 and met formally for the first time on 15 October 1996.(b) The Panel was initially established by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development (the Hon. John Sharp MP) and given an extended term by the succeeding Minister, the Hon. Mark Vaile MP.(c) See Attachment A.(d) See Attachment A.(e) The Panel, through its Chairman, provided industry advice to the Director of Aviation Safety, and monthly progress reports and recommendations direct to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development.(3) (a) The Panel met 17 times between 1996 and 1998, with the first meeting held in October 1996 and the last meeting held in June 1998.(b) The Panel delivered a report on its work to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, the Hon Mark Vaile MP, on 28 November 1997. The report is titled: Report to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development from the Program Advisory Panel regarding its oversight of the CASA Regulatory Framework and Regulatory Role Programs in the CASA Reviews.(4) A copy of the report referred to in the answer to Question 3(b) has been provided to the Table Office. Minutes of the Panel meetings are available upon request. Minutes of the Panel's meetings and its report were earlier made available on the CASA website.(5) The panel recommended that all dispensations or exemptions from CASA regulations be publicly disclosed. This approach is being followed in the Regulatory Framework Program. In its deliberations the Panel also canvassed the publication of current dispensations, exemptions etc. but CASA's advice was that the sheer volume of the materials involved, and the difficulty of locating all of them, made the task impossible. The Panel's views on this issue are set out at paragraph 7.6 of its report.All exemptions issued by CASA since 1 July 1997 are available for download from the CASA web site.(6) (a) The Panel discussed and sought CASA action on the issues of dispensation and exemption at its third meeting, which was held on 17 December 1996.(b) The Panel's recommendation was adopted by CASA and implemented with the establishment on 1 July 1997 of a public register recording details of dispensations, exemptions etc and the reasons for which they were granted.(c) The Panel considered that publication would not only provide for openness and transparency, particularly where operators are in competition, but would also enable an assessment to be made of the relevance of current regulatory provisions. The Panel took the view that an excessive number of waivers with respect to specific regulations would suggest that those regulations were in need of amendment.Attachment APANEL COMPOSITIONChairmanMr James Kimpton, Manager, Aviation Policy, Ansett Australia; former Chairman, Australian Air Transport AssociationChairman, Regulatory Framework Sub-Committee:Capt. Bill Hamilton, President, Aircraft Owners' & Pilots' AssociationChairman Regulatory Role Sub-Committee:Capt. David Wiltshire, General Manager, A300 Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Qantas Airways; former Chairman of the Aviation Industry Council of AustraliaMembers:Mr Max Hazelton, founder of NSW-based regional carrier Hazelton AirlinesMr Rick Leeds, Federal Secretary, Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers AssociationMr Ken Lewis, General Manager of Safety and Environment, Qantas AirwaysMr David Llewellyn, Chairman, Queensland Aircraft Manufacturers' Association (resigned June 1997)Mr George Markey, founder, Australian Ultralight Federation (appointed June 1997) Capt. Bill Pike, former President, Australia and International Pilots' AssociationMr Frank Young, Managing Director, Navair International Flying College(resigned November 1997)Mr John Laverick, Consumer Interest AdvocateMs Hillary Caldwell, Consumer Interest Advocate (appointed December 1996)Ex-officioDirector of Aviation SafetyObserverMs Carol Boughton, Assistant Secretary, Aviation Industry, Department of Transport and Regional Development11124(Question No. 1404)140411124Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 September 1999:With reference to the effect of the goods and services tax (GST) on the internal operations of the Minister's portfolio (that is, not relating to the services provided to the public), and in relation to each of the agencies within the portfolio:(1) What preparations have been undertaken to date in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(2) (a) What has been the total cost of those actions already undertaken; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(3) Was the cost of undertaking this work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(4) What future preparations are planned or expected to be required in regard to the introduction of the GST on 1 July 2000.(5) (a) What is the total cost of the actions planned, or the estimated cost of expected actions; and (b) how much of these costs relate to: (i) consultancies, (ii) staff training, (iii) computer software, (iv) extra staff, (v) stationery, and (vi) other (please specify).(6) Was the estimated cost of undertaking this future work included in the portfolio's 1999-2000 budget appropriation; if so, how was this funding identified; if not, what other area of funding has been used for this purpose.(7) Is there expected to be any change in the ongoing running costs of the department/agency after the commencement of the GST; if so, what is the extent of the difference in costs.(8) Are there any other GST-associated costs which the portfolio agencies will incur prior to the commencement of the GST; if so, what are those costs.11124Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Preparations include establishment of GST coordinator, steering committees, implementation teams, FMIS evaluation, information gathering, review of contracts and staff training.(2)Treasury(a) $1000; (b) ii $1000Australian Bureau of Statistics(a) $50000; (b) I $12000; ii $10000; iii $15000; iv $13000Australian Taxation Office(a) $50,000 approx; (b) Most of the $50,000 relate to existing and additional staff salariesAustralian Competition and Consumer CommissionNil to dateAustralian Prudential Regulation AuthorityNil to dateAust. Prudential Regulation Authority(a) $5000; (b) Nil; i Nil; ii $5000Australian Securities & Investments CommissionNil to dateNational Competition CouncilAll Nil. Utilising Treasury's GST Project Coordinator as per SLA Productivity Commission(a) $500; (b) ii $500Reserve Bank of Australia(a) $25,000; (b) i $20,000; ii $2,700; v $250Royal Australian MintNil to date(3) No additional funds allocated in 1999-2000 budget. Existing funds being utilised(4) Staff training, review of contracts, financial system modifications, development of project plans, assessing software, ABW registration, review of accounting policies and documentation.(5) All likely expenditure has not yet been costed.(6) No additional funds allocated in 1999-2000 budget. Existing funds being utilised(7) Not yet identified.(8) Not yet identified.11125(Question No. 1448)144811125Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11125Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Since 3 March 1996, fourteen decisions made within the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the Act).Four of these decisions attracted eight applications for review—pursuant to both section 5 and section 6 of the Act. In total, therefore, there have been eighteen applications for review under the Act since 3 March 1996. (2) Of the eighteen applications: (a) none related to agency staffing matters; (b) ten related to agency client matters; and (c) eight related to other matters [specifically, to alleged decisions made under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act and Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations].(3) Of the eighteen applications: (a)(i) six have been finalised; (a)(ii) ten have been withdrawn; and (b) two remain unfinalised.(4) (a) Costs associated with defending these actions which are identifiable total $148,646. This figure does not include salary and on costs of staff involved in any of these matters, and excludes costs for those applications which have not been finalised.(b) Costs were awarded against the Commonwealth in relation to two matters. An amount of $26,230 was awarded as costs against the Commonwealth in one matter. In another matter, costs have been awarded against the Commonwealth but a dispute as to the quantum remains unresolved.11125(Question No. 1450)145011125Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How may applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11125Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Since 1 September 1994, applications to review visa decisions have been under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958. Between 3 March 1996 and 5 October 1999 the Department has received 2,803 applications for review of visa decisions filed in the Federal Court under Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958.There have been no applications to review visa decisions validly brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 since 3 March 1996.The Department is not aware of any non-visa related applications brought under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 since 3 March 1996.(2) (a) Nil(b) 2,803(c) Nil(3) (a) (i) 2,750(a) (ii) 1,006 (included in (3)(a)(i) above)(b) 427(4) (a)—(b) The Department does not keep separate records of costs awarded to and against the Minister by the Federal Court. To answer the question in full would require an examination of each and every one of the 2,803 related files. Such an undertaking would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. I can advise, however, that there is a finance agreement in place between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) and the Department of Finance and Administration (DoFA). Under this agreement, DoFA reimburses DIMA in the sum of $9,800 for each litigation case resolved during the program year after base funding in the amount of $1,058,000 is exceeded for the program year.11126(Question No. 1466)146611126Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised. (4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11126Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Since 3 March 1996, one decision made within the Industry, Science and Resources portfolio has been the subject of an application for review under the common law.(2) The application related to agency client matters.(3) The application was withdrawn at an early stage.(4) A bill has not been received in respect of this matter. No costs were awarded against the Commonwealth.11126(Question No. 1468)146811126Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How may applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11126Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) 100(2) (a) 1(b) 99(c) Nil(3) (a) (i) 48(a)(ii) 10 (figure included in answer to (3)(a)(i) above) (b) 52(4) (a)—(b) The Department does not keep separate records of costs awarded to and against the Minister by the High Court. To answer the question in full would require an examination of each and every one of the 100 related files. Such an undertaking would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. I can advise, however, that there is a finance agreement in place between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) and the Department of Finance and Administration (DoFA). Under this agreement, DoFA reimburses DIMA in the sum of $9,800 for each litigation case resolved during the program year after base funding in the amount of $1,058,000 is exceeded for the program year.11127(Question No. 1476)147611127Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 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 1996.11127Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) All decision-makers on release of documents are at senior management level and have the qualifications and experience of a level appropriate to the decision.(b) Refer to answer at 1(a)(c) Decision makers are Senior Executive Service officers(2) (a) Refer to answer at 1(a)(b) Refer to answer at 1(a)(c) Senior Executive Service Band 311127(Question No. 1478)147811127Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, 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; and (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 1996.11127Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) There are no formal qualifications required in order to make decisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act). The only requirement is that officers who make decisions on behalf of an agency must be authorised as provided by section 23 of the Act. Details of the actual qualification of authorised officers are not kept and to seek those details would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. Provision of information concerning the actual qualifications of authorised officers would be a disclosure of personal information and as such would be a breach of the Privacy Act 1988.(b) This information is not able to be provided. Details of the relevant experience of authorised officers who have made initial stage decisions are not kept and to seek those details would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.(c) This information is not able to be provided. Details of the employment classification/grade of authorised officers who have made initial stage decisions are not kept and to seek those details would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.(2) (a) There are no formal qualifications required in order to review decisions under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act). All that is required is that officers are authorised as provided by the Act to review decisions under the Act. Details of the actual qualification of review officers are not kept and to seek those details would be an unreasonable diversion of resources. Provision of information concerning the actual qualifications of review officers would be a disclosure of personal information and as such would be a breach of the Privacy Act 1988.(b) The department is unable to provide this information. It is considered that it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to obtain this information. (c) The department is unable to provide this information. It is considered that it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources to obtain this information.11128(Question No. 1496)149611128Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4).11128Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS(1) This period covers previous machinery of government arrangements. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was established on 21 October 1998. It was preceded by the Department of Industrial Relations (3 March 1996 to 17 July 1997) and the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (18 July 1997 to 20 Oct 1998). The information provided relates to these Departments (but not to DEETYA, from which administrative responsibilities for employment matters were transferred on 10 October 1998). As to question (1), the number cannot be given, because information is currently not available on the number of staff attending external courses for the entire period. However, staff have attended 1143 external courses in the period 3 March 1996 to 24 September 1999. (2) Not known, as records cannot differentiate between internal and external courses for the entire period. The total cost for internal and external development courses is $2 720 790 during the period 3 March 1996 to 24 September 1999 excluding internal salary and administration costs.(3) 8056.(4) (a) 8.(b) (i) 8.(ii) 0.(5) Nil.AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGENCY(1) March 96-June 96—Nil; July 96-June 97—Nil; July 97—June 98—1; July 98—Sept 99—5.(2) March 96-June 96—Nil; July 96—June 97—Nil; July 97—June 98—$6650; July 98—Sept 99—$5600.(3) March 96—June 96—0; July 96—June 97—0; July 97—June 98—19; June 98—Sept 99—Course 1 + 16; Course 2 + 14; Course 3 + 9; Course 4 + 13.(4) (a) None.(b) (i) None.(ii) None.(5) Nil.AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL REGISTRY(1) 127.(2) $174 978.(3) 2675.(4) (a) Nil.(b) (i) Not applicable.(ii) Not applicable.(5) NilCOMCARE(1) Records of internal courses were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 + 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998 there have been 60 internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare.Note: Internal staff development course has been defined as a course developed and presented by Comcare staff for Comcare staff.(2) Records of internal courses held were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996 + 30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998 the salary cost of attendees of internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare has been approximately $76 000.(3) Records of internal courses held were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996—30 June 1998. Since 1 July 1998, 357 individual staff members have attended internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare.(4) (a) Since 1 July 1997, 23 internal staff development courses conducted by Comcare have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.(b) (i) Nil.(ii) 23.(5) $56 000.Note: This amount comprises the salary cost of staff who attended these courses (based on average salary cost for Comcare staff).DEFENCE FORCE REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(1) Nil.(2) Nil.(3) Nil.(4) (a) Nil.(b) (i) Nil.(ii) Nil.(5) Nil.EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE(1) 84(2) $68 321(3) 981(4) (a) Nil(b) (i) Not applicable(ii) Not applicable(5) Not applicableNATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMISSION(1) 4.(2) $51 480.(3) 180.(4) (a) None.(b) (i) Not applicable.(ii) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.11129(Question No. 1514)151411129Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) any departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions; and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).11129Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESS(1) This period covers previous machinery of government arrangements. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was established on 21 October 1998. It was preceded by the Department of Industrial Relations (3 March 1996 to 17 July 1997) and the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business (18 July 1997 to 20 Oct 1998). The information provided relates to these Departments (but not to DEETYA, from which administrative responsibilities for employment matters were transferred on 10 October 1998). As to question (1), the number cannot be given, because information is currently not available on the number of staff attending external courses for the entire period. However, staff have attended 1335 external courses in the period 3 March 1996 to 24 September 1999.(2) Not known, as records cannot differentiate between internal and external courses for the entire period. The total cost of internal and external staff development courses is $2 720 790 during the period 3 March 1996 to 24 September 1999 excluding internal salary and administration costs.(3) (a) 13.(b) (i) 11.(ii) 2.(4) The Australian Government Solicitor and The Meeting Planners.(5) $8533. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AGENCY(1) March 96+June 96—0; July 96+June 97—19; July 97+June 98—23; July 98+Sept 99—23; March 96+June 96—$0.(2) July 96+June 97—$16768; July 97+June 98—$32218; July 98+Sept 99—$41 766.(3) (a) None.(b) (i) None.(ii) None.(4) Nil.(5) Nil.AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL REGISTRY(1) 628.(2) $204 847.(3) (a) 1.(b) (i) Not applicable.(ii) 1.(4) Australian Government Solicitor.(5) $400.COMCARE(1) Comcare can provide this data on a financial year basis only. An average of 306 officers per year have attended external staff development courses since 1 July 1995 with 77 officers participating in external staff development courses from 1 July 1999—20 September 1999.Note: An external course is defined as a course presented by non Comcare staff, whether offered as a public course or tailored to the needs of Comcare.(2) Comcare can provide this data on a financial year basis only. $1 903 759 has been expended on external staff development courses since 1 July 1995. This amount comprises both course fees and the salary costs of the attending staff.(3) (a) Records of individual external courses attended were not maintained during the period 3 March 1996+30 June 1997. Since 1 July 1997, three external staff development courses attended by Comcare staff have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act.(b) (i).One.(ii) Two.(4) The Australian Government Solicitor's office has provided the Freedom of Information training component of the three courses held since July 1997.(5) $3860.DEFENCE FORCE REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL(1) 4.(2) $3095. (3) (a) Nil.(b) (i) Not applicable.(ii) Not applicable.(4) Not applicable.(5) Not applicable.EMPLOYMENT ADVOCATE(1) 369.(2) $155 085.(3) (a) 1.(b) (i) Nil.(ii) 1.(4) Institute of Public Administration Australia.(5) $350.NATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMISSION(1) 939.(2) $343 397.35.(3) (a) 3.(b) (i) 2.(ii) 1.(4) Attorney General's Department; Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission; Communications Law Centre; International Commission of Jurists (Australian section).(5) $745.11130(Question No. 1558)155811130Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(a) How will the goods and services tax (GST) apply to holiday apartments, where an individual may own an apartment in a block of apartments that they use for 2 weeks of the year but the live-in manager arranges for tourists to rent out the apartment for the other 50 weeks of the year; and (b) will the rental income be subject to GST or will it be input-taxed.11130Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(a) The GST treatment of accommodation in holiday apartments will depend on whether the owners of holiday apartments are carrying on an enterprise and on the level of their annual turnover.(b) See (a) 11131(Question No. 1564)156411131Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to section 6 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act 1999, which specifies `timing of supply' rules in order to determine whether the goods and services tax (GST) is payable on transactions that span the 1 July 2000 implementation date: Given that under section 6(3) of the transitional rules real property, (ie. real estate) is taken to be provided at the time that the property is `first made available to the recipient':(1) For the purposes of the transition rules, when is real property taken to be `made available to the recipient' for GST purposes?(2) If a taxpayer signs a contract for the purchase of real property before 1 July 2000 and settlement arises after 1 July 2000, is GST payable where, under the contract for sale, the purchaser has the right to occupy the dwelling before 1 July 2000?(3) Where a taxpayer leases a property from 1 July 1998 and, after leasing the real property for 3 years the lessee and the owner of the property enter into a contract for sale which is signed and settled on 3 July 2001, does GST apply to the sale of the real property? (Note: The recipient, (ie. the lessee) who purchased the real property from the owner has had the property `made available' from 1 July 1998, that is, commencement of the lease, which is pre-GST).11131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Under the GST transition rules, real property is taken to be `made available to the recipient' when equitable ownership or possession of the property is transferred, that is, upon settlement. At settlement the recipient of the supply of real property has full use and enjoyment of the property.(2) If the real property is supplied at the time of settlement, GST will be payable on the supply where settlement arises after 1 July 2000, even if the contract for the purchase of the real property has been signed before 1 July 2000. Whether real property is `made available to the recipient' requires more than a right to occupy or use the property in some limited way before 1 July 2000. It requires that the recipient must have full use and enjoyment of the property.(3) The sale of the property on 3 July 2001 would be subject to GST, assuming it is property that does not qualify for input tax treatment (eg, established residential dwellings) or GST-free treatment (eg, certain farm land). If taxable, GST may be calculated on the full price of the property or according to the GST's margin system. Where a registered business purchases a property fully taxed, it will be able to claim an input tax credit for the tax payable thereby making the purchase effectively tax free. Under the margin system the GST would be calculated on the gross margin, that is, the sale price minus the value of the property at 1 July 2000.11131(Question No. 1565)156511131Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Will the Australian Taxation Office and other government agencies be able to use the information that is provided by taxpayers in applying for Australian Business Number (ABN) Registration, for audit purposes.11131Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The information supplied to the ABN Registrar for the purpose of obtaining an ABN will only consist of basic identity details such as name and address information, details about the activity the person or organisation is engaged in, and the person or organisation's Tax File Number (TFN).With the exception of the TFN, this information will be publicly available to anyone requiring it, including government agencies. There are privacy requirements in relation to the TFN and it will not be available to the public or government agencies through the Australian Business Register. The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will already possess the correct TFN information of entities registering for the ABN because the ATO is responsible for issuing TFNs.11131(Question No. 1566)156611131Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Are contractors who operate in an employee-like way and who operate through a company, going to be automatically entitled to register for an Australian Business Number and for goods and services tax purposes. 11132Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Australian Business Number (ABN) has been introduced to assist businesses, non profit organisations and other enterprises by making it easier for them to deal with government agencies. This will be achieved by reducing the need to provide the same information more than once and by making it possible to obtain more comprehensive information from government at fewer locations.Eligibility for an ABN is not restricted to particular entity types, such as a company or a partnership, and is not restricted to business.To obtain an ABN an individual, association, company, partnership or trust will need to satisfy the Registrar that it is carrying on an enterprise. Enterprise can be any one of a range of activities, including an activity conducted in the form of a business, in the form of an adventure or in the nature of trade, by religious and charitable institutions and by government bodies.Individuals who are subject to the new PAYG withholding system, such as common law employees and contractors engaged in labour hire arrangements cannot obtain an ABN.11132(Question No. 1568)156811132Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:If a property developer sells a property via an auction and, under the terms and conditions of the auction, the purchaser must provide a 10 per cent deposit, when is the property developer obliged to remit the goods and services tax in respect of the sale of the real property under Division 29 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999.11132Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The property developer must account for all the GST on a taxable supply in the tax period in which any of the consideration is received for the supply (or in the tax period in which the invoice for the supply is issued, if that is earlier).Under Division 99 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999), a security deposit is not treated as being consideration for a supply (and hence not subject to GST) unless the deposit is forfeited or is applied towards the consideration. If the deposit is forfeited or is applied towards the consideration, GST is paid on the amount of the deposit. The GST is attributed to the tax period in which the deposit is forfeited or is applied toward the consideration.11132(Question No. 1577)157711132Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) Is it a fact that goods and services tax (GST) invoices with a value of less than $1,000 will not have to include the buyer's name, Australian Business Number (ABN) or address; if so, why.(2) Will the non-inclusion of the ABN and other details make it easier to defraud the GST system.(3) What is there to stop someone disguising a transaction, for example, a transaction worth $5,000 to appear as 10 transactions worth $500 each, in order to avoid having to put the buyer's ABN on the GST tax invoice.11132Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The GST Act requires a tax invoice to show the ABN of the issuing entity (this will usually be the vendor but in the case of a recipient generated invoice it will be the purchaser), the GST inclusive price of a taxable supply, and other information specified in the regulations.Included in the additional information specified in the GST regulations is a requirement for an invoice to show the purchaser's name and address or name and ABN, if the value of the invoice exceeds $1,000.The difference in the invoice information requirements reflects a practical approach designed to accommodate smaller business transactions. For example, retail sales documents do not generally record purchaser or quantity details.It is not considered that these measures will make it easier to defraud the GST system. The information provided on invoices will be sufficient to identify transactions and the parties involved where it is necessary to do so.11132(Question No. 1580)158011132Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) What will be the impact on small business cash flows as a result of the Government's proposed Pay As You Go (PAYG) system. (2) Will the PAYG system result in the tax liability of many small businesses being brought forward, as opposed to the current system of small business tax collections.11133Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and (2) Sole traders currently pay their quarterly provisional tax instalments on 1 September, 1 December, 1 March and 1 June. Each instalment is paid inside the quarter, for example the instalment for the quarter ending 30 June is paid on 1 June, before all the income for the quarter is earned. In addition, all of the instalments are made within the income year. Under PAYG they will pay quarterly instalments 50 days later on 21 October, 21 January, 21 April and 21 July. All instalments will be payable after the quarter with the final instalment not due until after the end of the income year.Companies currently pay their instalments later, and at different times depending on their tax liability. Small tax companies pay one instalment on 15 December, 6 months after the income year, and the balance of their tax on 15 March 9 months after the income year. Medium tax companies make quarterly instalments on 1 June, 1 September, 1 December and 1 March. Only one instalment falls within the income year in the final month of June. Large tax companies pay two of their four instalments within the income year, their instalments are due on 1 March, 1 June, 1 September and 1 December.11133(Question No. 1593)159311133Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to the report in Inside Canberra that Mr Neil Wickenden, a business tax partner at HLB Mann Judd, has been advising clients that it will cost them up to $4000 in new hardware and software to become goods and services tax (GST) ready: Does the Government agree that it will cost small businesses up to $4000 to become GST ready; if not, why not.11133Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:No. Each business that registers for the GST will need to make its own decision about how to operate in the GST environment. Some businesses might decide to utilise existing systems (computerised or paper based) and thus not incur capital costs for GST start up. Other businesses may decide to purchase new systems, including new hardware and/or software. Any capital costs will vary and reflect the needs of the businesses.Businesses which have computers but not accounting software might use the free electronic cash book which the ATO will send to all GST registrants. Certain software companies have announced they will provide free upgrades of popular accounting packages.Should businesses decide to purchase new hardware and software, the Government has allowed businesses with annual turnover up to $10 million to claim an immediate tax write-off on computer hardware and software (and other items) purchased before 1 July 2000 to prepare for the GST. In addition, the Government is providing direct assistance to small and medium businesses from the $500 million GST start-up assistance funds to help them prepare for the GST.11133(Question No. 1641)164111133Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) (a) Has North Shore Diagnostic Centre applied for Medicare rebates for a new magnetic resonance imaging unit at St. Leonards since May 1998; if so, on what date did it commence operation; and (b) has the centre applied for any other new units: if so, when, and where are these units located.(2) In the application to the Health Insurance Commission (HIC), on what date is it claimed that the contract for the purchase of each unit was signed.(3) Have these new units been approved by the HIC to receive Medicare benefits on the basis that each contract was signed prior to 12 May 1998.(4) Has each of these new units commenced making claims on Medicare; if so, on what date was the first claim made for each unit.11133Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) and (b) No. Under the scheme of the Health Insurance Act and the regulations made thereunder, applications for recognition of eligible equipment are lodged by individual providers not by practices.(2) Not applicable.(3) Medicare benefits are payable to patients for eligible services, not units. (4) Not applicable.11134(Question No. 1657)165711134Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 September 1999:With reference to educational institutions which operated under the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Act 1991 and the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, and in regards to the collapse of the National Business Management College: (a) how many students were enrolled at the college at the time of its collapse; (b) how many students was the department aware of at the time of its collapse; (c) (i) how many of those students have been located, and (ii) what is the location of those students now; (d) how many students has the department failed to locate; (e) what has been done, and what is currently being done, to trace missing students; (f) (i) how many breaches of visa requirements has the department identified, and (ii) what actions have been taken; (g) how many students have been deported; and (h) what records of student enrolments and attendance has the department recovered.11134Ellison, 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 exact number of overseas students enrolled at National Colleges of Australia Pty Ltd (NCA) t/a National Business Management College (Australia), National Senior School (Australia) and National English College (Australia) at the time of its closure on 9 June 1999 is not known, but it appears that 321 were definitely enrolled. While NCA was required to maintain records of enrolment, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) is not. According to advice from NCA's solicitor and the liquidator appointed to wind-up the affairs of NCA, electronic and paper student records had been deleted or removed prior to the closure. The maximum enrolment capacity at NCA at the time of its closure was 2,180 students.(b) DETYA is not required to maintain records of students enrolments. The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) provides weekly updates of student visas issued. On 9 June when NCA closed, the report generated from this DIMA data indicated 639 visas had been issued to students wanting to attend NCA. A subsequent examination of available NCA records, provided a list of 672 overseas students who were possibly at NCA at the time it closed. This figure has since increased to 735 students believed to have been either attending NCA or included amongst NCA's records at the time of its collapse. The increased figure resulted from:. a number of students not recorded on the original list contacted DETYA;. local and overseas agents advised DETYA of details of students they had recruited for NCA;. and many providers who had enrolled ex-NCA students advised DETYA of the details of these students.(c) (i) DETYA is not required to maintain student contact details but has been able to obtain them for 340 of the possible 735 students. DIMA advises a total of 257 students have contacted DIMA to make applications for further student visas in relation to their studies and have since undertaken studies with different education providers. In addition 127 students were identified as having changed provider prior to the collapse of NCA.(ii) Of the 340 students for whom DETYA has obtained contact details, there are 22 students who paid money to NCA but were not granted a visa to enter Australia.(d) DIMA advises that of the 735 student names that appear on the consolidated list of students, a sample indicates that 20% are not recorded on DIMA records, meaning that they have not entered Australia, and about 15% have already left Australia. A further 35% have transferred institution and obtained new visas from DIMA, and 20% are known to have changed institution but have not been required to obtain replacement visas. 4% have had their visas cancelled. Approximately 6% have moved interstate to study, have applied for other visas, or form part of a small residual group who are in breach of their visa conditions and are yet to be located.(e) In addition to the actual inspection of paper files described in the response to (b) above, DETYA has written to:. individual students for whom addresses have been available;. the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET), the Australian Council of Independent Vocational Colleges (ACIVC), the ELICOS Association Ltd and to individual education providers registered on CRICOS to both seek their assistance in placing ex-NCA students and to advise DETYA of when and if ex-NCA students enrol in other institutions; and. agents in Australia and overseas seeking information as to the whereabouts of students for whom they may have arranged enrolment with NCA.DETYA continues to pursue these avenues and is in frequent contact with DIMA, exchanging and updating information as it becomes available.DIMA advises that students visaed prior to December 1998 were not required to advise DIMA of a change of provider. From this date legislation was introduced requiring students to obtain permission from DIMA to change provider in the first 12 months (or the duration of course, if less than 12 months).DIMA advises that the students enrolled at NCA at the time of its collapse who have not contacted DIMA and are in breach of their visa conditions are currently the subject of Compliance activity, with a view to cancelling their visas and removing them from Australia.(f) (i) DETYA does not maintain this information, however DIMA has advised that for the period 30/9/98 + 30/9/99, a total of 26 NCA students had their visas cancelled, generally for failing to meet their course requirements and for working in excess of their allowable hours (20 hours/week). Additionally , a number of NCA students who have failed to contact DIMA may be liable for visa cancellation, detention and removal.(ii) Such action lies outside DETYA's portfolio responsibilities, however DIMA has advised that for the period 30/9/98 + 30/9/99, a total of 26 NCA students had their visas cancelled, generally for failing to meet their course requirements and for working in excess of their allowable hours (20 hours/week). Additionally , a number of NCA students who have failed to contact DIMA may be liable for visa cancellation, detention and removal.(g) DETYA does not maintain this information and DIMA has advised this information is not available as the DIMA statistical reporting systems are not able to provide data on removals (or voluntary departures) by educational institution.(h) None. All documents and information holdings of NCA are held by the liquidator appointed to wind-up the affairs of NCA. The liquidator has advised that some electronic records have been deleted and that there is evidence that paper records had been removed before NCA closed.11135(Question No. 1660)166011135West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, upon notice, on 1 October 1999:(1) Why does the Committee appointed to administer the $3.6 million rural adjustment fund for Eden not have a New South Wales State Government or departmental representative.(2) Can the Minister ensure there will be no duplication in funding between the rural adjustment fund and the Eden jobs creation fund jointly established by the State Government and Heinz Watties.11135Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Eden Region Adjustment Package (ERAP) Advisory Committee was established to provide advice to me and the Minister for Forestry and Conservation (the Hon. Wilson Tuckey, MP) on suitable projects for assistance from the Federal Government's adjustment package for the Eden region. It is comprised of a wide range of local government, business and community representatives from the local region. The Federal Member for Eden-Monaro is an ex officio member, but does not have voting rights. Officers with observer status represent my department and Mr Tuckey's department.(2) Regrettably the NSW Government did not inform me of the establishment of its separate fund, however measures have been taken to ensure that there will be no duplication of funding between the Federal Government's $3.6 million Eden Region Adjustment Package and the separate fund jointly established by $250,000 allocations from the NSW Government and Heinz-Watties. To ensure there is no duplication, there is common membership between the Federal committee and the committee administering the joint NSW-Heinz-Watties fund. Three members of the ERAP Advisory Committee are also on the NSW-Heinz-Watties fund advisory committee and represent sixty per cent of that committee. In addition, Mr John Aveyard was appointed to chair both Committees.11135(Question No. 1663)166311135Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 8 October 1999:(1) Can breakdowns be provided, by state and territory; of actual and projected expenditure for each year of the Full Service Schools program.(2) (a) Will research and evaluation of the program be undertaken by the states and territories or by the Commonwealth; (b) how much money has been set aside for this purpose for each state; and (c) when will the money be allocated. (3) (a) What were the precise durations of delays in money for the program flowing from the Commonwealth to state education departments; (b) which states paid for the program by cost- shifting; and (c) which states delayed implementing programs because of these delays.(4) (a) Has consideration been given to extending the life of the program as a consequence of these delays; (b) will the Government provide any recurrent funding to projects such as the Full Service Schools program; and (c) how does the Government plan to provide for the ongoing needs of students at risk of homelessness or non-completion of secondary school.11136Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The allocation of FSS Projects in Schools is outlined in the following table.FIGURES AS AT 11 OCTOBER 1999Total Funding AmountAdmin Paymt Prepaid1st Paymt 1999 on Signing of Contract2nd Paymt Late 19993rd Paymt Early 2000Final Paymt Late 2000NSW$4,850,000$50,000$1,920,000$960,000$1,680,000$240,000VIC$3,350,000$50,000$1,243,652$736,348$1,164,544$155,456QLD$3,603,939$50,000$1,275,959$637,980$1,435,000$205,000WA$1,550,000$50,000$600,000$300,000$525,000$75,000SA$1,650,000$50,000$640,000$320,000$560,000$80,000TAS$1,050,000$50,000$400,000$200,000$350,000$50,000NT$529,028$50,000$200,000$93,010$162,766$23,252ACT$550,000$50,000$200,000$100,000$175,000$25,000Total$17,132,967$400,000$6,479,611$3,347,338$6,052,310$853,708(2) (a), (b) and (c) The Commonwealth is funding a National Evaluation of the FSS program to be undertaken between December 1999 to December 2000. The Request for Tender (RFT) to select an organisation to undertake the evaluation closed on 22 October 1999. The actual costs and level of expenditure will be identified through responses to the RFT.(3) (a) A number of States were concerned that the timing of the Federal election in late 1998 could delay or prevent the implementation of the FSS Program. Ultimately, however, the enabling amendments to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1996 were passed in November 1998 and Royal Assent was given in mid- December 1998. All States submitted proposals for Ministerial approval by early March and the Commonwealth Minister approved all proposals by the end of March 1999. The table below sets out the timing for each State. All payments were made as soon as contracts with State education authorities were finalised. There were some delays in payments due to State education authorities seeking legal advice on contracts.StateDate Submission Received by CommonwealthDate of Ministerial ApprovalDate Contract Signed by StateDate Payments Processed + plus Administration FundingNSW26/11/9821/12/9820/1/99First & Adm. 21/1/99VIC22/2/9930/3/9926/5/99First & Adm. 27/5/99QLD8/3/9930/3/9918/5/99First & Adm. 19/5/99SA29/1/9930/3/9921/4/99First & Adm. 23/4/99WA1/2/9911/3/9927/4/99First & Adm. 27/4/99TAS5/3/9930/3/993/5/99First & Adm. 5/5/99NT15/12/9821/12/981/3/99First & Adm. 1/3/99ACT12/3/9930/3/997/4/99First & Adm. 8/4/99(b) It is not possible to ascertain in detail how States handle their internal financial administration. It is not unusual for education authorities to utilise their own sources of funding in anticipation of Commonwealth or other sources of funding.(c) Prior to the finalisation of the enabling legislation, the Commonwealth and State/Territory FSS Steering Committees undertook extensive consultations to develop submissions for projects in schools which meant that States/Territories had a clear picture early on of the type of initiatives they would be implementing for FSS. The FSS guidelines also state that "Systems and schools are expected to use Commonwealth funds to complement the use of State funds and programs for the target group". It can therefore be expected that infrastructure for many of the projects in schools was already in place. Within each State/Territory, there are a large number of FSS projects in schools. How promptly these projects were put in place varied depending on the nature of the project. Where the project was building on existing State projects and infrastructure, the project was in place quickly. Where the project necessitated the building of networks and links into the broader community, other training providers and other services, these projects took longer to get under way.(a) and (b) The FSS Program is currently legislated for completion in December 2000. Any future funding for the program is a decision for Government in the context of Budget considerations.(c) State Governments, of course, have the primary responsibility for meeting the needs of students at risk of leaving school. For its part, the Commonwealth provides support for at risk youth aged 15 years and over through the Job Placement Employment and Training Program, which provides holistic assistance and support to these young people.The Government is concerned to improve the support provided to young people during their transition to independence more broadly, and to strengthen pathways for young people who do not, or are not likely to, go straight from school to further education and training or full-time employment, including those at risk of not completing their secondary education.The Government has recently appointed a taskforce to recommend on the scope and direction of a Youth Pathways Action Plan to improve outcomes for young people by strengthening existing pathways for young people, and especially those at risk; improving early assistance for young people, before they reach crisis point; helping those who are in crisis situations to quickly move out of them; strengthening families' and communities' capacity to help young people; and expanding opportunities for young people to participate in the economic and social life of their communities.The Taskforce includes representatives from the community, business and academic sectors, as well as both State and Commonwealth Governments, reflecting the emphasis the Government places on the need for broad community partnerships to strengthen pathways for young people. The Taskforce has been asked to report by March 2000.11137(Question No. 1671)167111137Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) Does the Government have any policy as to whether Basslink should be operated in a mono-pole or bi-pole configuration.(2) If Basslink is operated in a mono-pole configuration, what will be the effects on:(a) buried metal in the vicinity of any land terminal (and extending to what radius);(b) steel pipeline used to bring natural gas assure;(c) steel wire armoured Telstra fibre-optic cables crossing Bass Strait;(d) the shark fishing industry; and(e) vessels relying on magnetic compasses for navigation in Bass Strait.(3) Which authorities advise the Commonwealth, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments about the possible effects of operating Basslink in a mono-pole configuration.11137Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Commonwealth supports the interconnection of State electricity systems, subject to the necessary economic and environmental assessments. New interconnections are an important means of maximising the benefits from the National Electricity Market (NEM) which has now been operating successfully for almost 11 Months.Basslink will enable Tasmania to join the NEM.Basslink is also a key element of the Tasmanian Government's energy strategy and is considered by the government as a critical factor in the State's future economic development.For example Basslink should:. improve the security of electricity supply and reduce the exposure of Tasmania's Hydro electricity supply to drought conditions;. provide Tasmania with access to electricity at prices determined competitively in the NEM;. provide a means by which electricity generated in Tasmania can be sold into the NEM and provide a new source of peak generating capacity in the NEM;. ensure through a competitive selection process the cost of Basslink to users is minimalised; and. ensure that the returns to from State-owned electricity businesses are maximised.Basslink is being presented by the Tasmanian government as a commercial opportunity in the NEM to be constructed by the private sector as a build, own and operate project. A short list of three proponents has been selected. It is understood that the preferred proponent is to be selected by next February with the objective that Basslink will be completed in 2002. As Senator Brown would appreciate, a project of this nature is required to undergo a rigorous assessment and approval process where all critical elements of the proposal are examined at length. In this case, it has been agreed that a Combined (Commonwealth, Tasmanian and Victorian Government) Assessment and Approvals Process (CAAP) will be undertaken to jointly assess this proposal.The Commonwealth does not have a policy as to whether Basslink should be operated in mono-pole or bi-pole configuration. That decision would be expected to hinge on the outcome of the assessment and approval process.Environment Australia will be responsible for coordinating Commonwealth involvement in the CAAP.11138(Question No. 1682)168211138Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay9L6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 October 1999:(1) Did a trial regional forum, as part of the Regional Forums Australia Program, take place in north west New South Wales on 15 and 16 September 1999; if so: (a) where was it held; (b) who attended the forum; and (c) what organisation did each attendee represent; if not: (a) when is the trial forum now scheduled to take place; and (b) why was the forum postponed.(2) (a) What was the agenda for the trial forum; and (b) was a report produced of the forum's proceedings; if so, can a copy of the report from the trial forum be provided.(3) If there has not been a report or record of the forum produced: (a) why not; and (b) when will the report be available.(4) (a) What was the cost of the trial forum; and (b) can a detailed breakdown of that cost be provided.11138Macdonald, 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) No (a) Calendar year 2000, a date is yet to be determined (b) There was a need for a longer lead-time to allow for effective preparation.(2) Not applicable(3) Not applicable(4) Not applicable 11138(Question No. 1685)168511138Greig, Sen BrianSenator Greig86XWAAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:(1) What action has been taken by the department concerning the mundulla yellow disease which affects native Australian gum trees, killing them within 7 to 10 years and for which there is no known cure.(2) (a) What is the extent of the disease throughout Australia; and (b) can details be given for each state and territory.(3) Has any money been allocated from the Natural Heritage Trust to deal with this national threat to our native fauna; if so: (a) how much money has been allocated; and (b) on what basis have the funds been allocated.11138Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Mundulla Yellows is a condition affecting a wide range of native vegetation species. It was first noticed in Mundulla, South Australia, but is now suspected to have a much wider distribution. The Department of the Environment and Heritage, through the Bushcare program under the Natural Heritage Trust, is providing $150,000 between 1999-2000 and 2000-01 to contribute to researching the causal agent of this disease, and the development of a procedure for its diagnosis.(2) (a) Without a diagnostic procedure, it is impossible to accurately determine the distribution of this disease; there are a number of plant pathogens and conditions which might cause like-symptoms.(b) See 2(a)(3) (a) Under the Natural Heritage Trust $150,000 of Bushcare Program funds has been allocated to investigations into this disease.(b) The funding will be used to address the key knowledge gaps, as identified by researchers and other stakeholders, namely the identification of a causal agent, and the development of a diagnostic procedure. Discussions with researchers have been held and the Department of the Environment and Heritage is expecting to announce the selection of a research group with expert capacity to undertake this work, in the near future. 11139(Question No. 1688)168811139Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 20 October 1999:With reference to travel undertaken by staff of the Government Members' Secretariat from 1 July 1999 until 17 October 1999, in each instance:(a) what was the name of the staff member;(b) what were the dates and locations for which travel allowance was claimed;(c) what were the costs, details and dates of any airfares paid for by the Commonwealth; and(d) what was the cost of any cabcharge and other hire car charges during this period.11139Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Travel undertaken by staff of the Government Members' Secretariat from 1 July 1999 to 17 October 1999 is as follows:(a) Name(b) T/A Dates and Location(c) Travel Dates, details and airfare costs(d) Cab-charge and other hire car costsDawn CrosbyNil27/07/99 Can-Mel-Adel-Can $702.005-7/10/99 Brisbane5-10/10/99 Can-Bris-Can $682.00$263.74Andrew Blyth6-8/7/99 Brisbane6-9/7/99 Can-Bris-Can $682.0011-14/7/99 Sydney11-15/7/99 Can-Syd-Can Nil18-21/7/99 Melbourne18-22/7/99 Can-Mel-Can $464.0025-29/7/99 Adelaide25/7-2/8/99 Can-Adel-Can $702.0016/08/99 Hobart16-17/8/99 Can-Hob-Can $686.00Nil30/08/99 Can-Adel-Can $674.007/09/99 Adelaide7-8/9/99 Can-Adel-Can $674.00$1411.30Keith Blyth8-12/8/99 Canberra8-13/8/99 Adel-Can-Adel $674.0023-26/8/99 Canberra23-27/8/99 Adel-Can-Adel $674.0029/8-2/9/99 Canberra29/8-3/9/99 Adel-Can-Adel $674.0020-23/9/99 Canberra20-24/9/99 Adel-Can-Adel $702.0026-29/9/99 Canberra26-30/9/99 Adel-Can-Adel $702.0010-14/10/99 Canberra10-15/10/99 Adel-Can-Adel $674.00$592.66Reg ChamberlainNil16/07/99 Can-Syd-Can $326.0022-23/7/99 Sydney22-24/7/99 Can-Syd-Can NilNil28-29/7/99 Can-Syd-Can $326.00Nil6-8/8/99 Can-Syd-Can $326.00$214.45Brenden Brien5-7/7/99 Brisbane5-8/7/99 Can-Bris-Can $682.0012-15/7/99 Sydney 11-16/7/99 Can-Syd-Can $326.0019-21/7/99 Melbourne 19-22/7/99 Can-Mel-Can $464.0013-14/9/99 Brisbane 13-15/9/99 Can-Bris-Can $685.40$513.50Susan Bacon5-8/7/99—12-15/7/99 Brisbane, Maroochydore, Sydney5,8,12,16/7/99 Can-Bris-Maroochydore-Syd-Can $1,006.4019-21/7/99 Melbourne19-22/7/99 Can-Mel-Can $464.0026-28/7/99 Adelaide26-29/7/99 Can-Adel-Can $702.003-6/8/99 Perth, Kalgoorlie3,5,6,7/8/99 Can-Perth-Kalgoorlie-Perth-Syd-Can $1,783.0013/08/99 Adelaide13-14/8/99 Can-Adel-Can $705.40$553.58Cabcharge and Other car costs includes charges received to and including 27/10/9911140(Question No. 1696)169611140Carr, Sen KimSenator CarrAW5VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Friday, 22 October 1999:With reference to educational institutions that operate 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 (CRICOS):(1) Has the department crosschecked the names of owners, operators or managers of these institutions to ensure that they are not also registered immigration agents; if not, why not.(2) Does the department regularly monitor the numerous magazine advertisements, both in Australia and abroad, which openly promote student visas as an easy and cheap means of entering Australia; if not, why not.(3) Has the department detected any breaches of the law by providers or their agents that advertise student visas as a way of entering Australia.(4) What administrative and audit mechanisms are employed by the department to confirm actual enrolment numbers and student attendance at each college.(5) How does the department ensure that maximum enrolment entitlements are not breached by students transferring between colleges while they are in Australia. (6) How does the department track and monitor attendance of students who transfer between colleges within Australia.(7) How many institutions in the past 12 months have exceeded their maximum student numbers.(8) (a) How many staff within the International, Analysis and Evaluation Division of the department in 1996 were working on the administration of the Act; (b) how many are currently working on these tasks; (c) what are their specific duties; and (d) how many staff are assigned to undertake compliance audits.(9) Given that the Minister has stated that 11 colleges have fallen into difficulties since 1994 and that 9 providers have had their registration suspended or cancelled or been forced to close in the past 12 months, what action has the Government taken to reduce this alarming escalation in college failures.(10) What, and how many, investigations has the department undertaken over the past 12 months for: (a) misleading or deceptive conduct; (b) enrolling students for whom no registration has been given; and (c) failure to notify the department of breaches of attendance requirements.(11) What complaints about the operations of these colleges has the Government received from: (a) overseas governments or agencies; (b) parents of students studying in Australia; (c) overseas students studying in Australia; (d) industry representative bodies; and (e) other providers operating under the Act(12) With reference to the answer to question on notice no 1361 (Senate Hansard , 12 October 1999, p9147): (a) why was Lloyds International College, CRICOS provider number 01942A, not included in the list of colleges supplied in answer to (4); and (b) are there other CRICOS-listed colleges which are not included in that list.11141Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) No.This question is similar to question on notice no 1361 (Senate Hansard, 12 October 1999) number 4 "Can a list be provided of non-exempt, CRICOS-listed providers under the Act which are owned, operated or managed by providers who are or have been registered migration agents."The response was:"DETYA does not hold details of the "owners", "operators" or "managers" of providers. The Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS) lists a provider's "Principal Executive Officer" (PEO).Only one PEO is listed on the Register of Migration Agents maintained by the Migration Agents Registration Authority + Mr Kofi Ameyaw Osei of Caprock International Ltd, trading as Lloyds International College, CRICOS provider number 01942A."In order to identify "owners", "operators" or "managers", DETYA would have to undertake individual company searches with the Australian Securities Investment Commission. At an average approximate cost of $24 per search for in excess of 480 providers, this would cost in excess of $11,600 in addition to staff time.DETYA has not taken this further step because the ESOS Act does not preclude the "owners", "operators" or "managers" from also being registered migration agents. In fact, the (voluntary) Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) Code of Practice in the Provision of International Education and Training Services places an obligation on providers to inform students of the Migration Act and regulations governing their students' entry to and stay in Australia.Further, under provisions of the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Agents Regulations 1998, anyone who uses knowledge of migration procedures to offer assistance to a person wishing to obtain a visa to enter or remain in Australia must register as an agent with the Migration Agents Registration Authority.(2) The Department does not routinely monitor magazine advertisements. When DETYA receives information about advertisements which may involve a provider engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the recruitment of intending overseas students, DETYA investigates any issues which may involve breaches of the ESOS Act.(3) Under section 12 of the ESOS Act, if a provider engages in misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with the recruitment of intending overseas students, the provider's registration may be cancelled from CRICOS.In the past, DETYA has investigated cases reported as possibly involving misleading and deceptive behaviour. In all instances, the matters were satisfactorily explained and did not justify cancellation of the providers' registration from CRICOS. DETYA has no current investigations of this type.(4) The Department does not monitor actual enrolment or attendance.There is no legislative requirement for DETYA to monitor student attendance, nor is there any requirement under the ESOS Act for providers to report non-attendance.The Migration Act 1958 requires students to be enrolled on a full time basis in a course registered on CRICOS before they can be issued with a student visa. When they have entered Australia to study, student visa conditions stipulate, inter alia, that students must satisfy course requirements and maintain a valid enrolment. In order to satisfy course requirements, students must:. be enrolled in a registered course; and. have at least 80% attendance rate (according to records of the education provider), or. if evidence of attendance cannot be provided, achieve satisfactory academic performance as . . certified by the education provider; and. pay tuition fees as required by the provider.Failure to satisfy course requirements will result in cancellation of the student's visa.There is no legislative requirement for providers to advise DIMA of student non-attendance. Under the (voluntary) MCEETYA Code of Practice in the Provision of International Education and Training Services, providers are required to notify the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs if a student is no longer participating in the course for which they were enrolled.DETYA advises providers of their obligations under the MCEETYA Code of Practice when they become registered on CRICOS. The Code is also included in the DETYA publication "A Guide for Providers of Education and Training Services to Overseas Students" which is issued to all providers registered on CRICOS.(5) There is no legislative requirement for DETYA to monitor or ensure conformity with maximum enrolment entitlements, or to monitor the transfer of students from one provider to another. The State and Territory authorities determine maximum enrolment capacity as part of the registration process.(6) The Department does not track and monitor attendance of students who transfer between institutions in Australia. There is no legislative requirement for DETYA to do so.Under conditions attached to their visa for entry into Australia to study, students must study with the education provider where they initially enrolled for the first year of the course, or for the duration of the course if the it is less than one year. Students may apply to DIMA to change providers during their first year only in exceptional circumstances. After the first year of study there is no legislative requirement for students to notify DIMA if they transfer from one provider to another.Student visa conditions further stipulate that students must satisfy course requirements. In order to satisfy course requirements, students must:. be enrolled in a registered course; and. have at least 80% attendance rate (according to records of the education provider), or. if evidence of attendance cannot be provided, achieve satisfactory academic performance as certified by the education provider; and. pay tuition fees as required by the provider.Failure to satisfy course requirements will result in cancellation of the student's visa.Under the (voluntary) MCEETYA Code of Practice in the Provision of International Education and Training Services providers should to notify DIMA if a student is no longer participating in the course for which they were enrolled.There is no legislative requirement for providers to advise DIMA of student non-attendance.(7) DETYA does not hold this information. There is no legislative requirement for DETYA to monitor providers to determine if their student enrolments exceed the approved enrolment capacity registered on CRICOS.The State and Territory authorities approve the registration of institutions for a maximum capacity of enrolments. Any monitoring of compliance would be the responsibility of those authorities. No State or Territory authority has advised DETYA that any provider has exceeded their maximum enrolment capacity.(8) (a) Twelve. (1 x FAS (partial), 1 x AS (partial), 1 x SOG B, 2 x SOG C, 4 x ASO 6, 2 x ASO 5, 1 x ASO 3)(b) Twelve. (1 x FAS(partial), 1 x AS (partial), 1 x SOG B, 3 x SOG C, 2 x ASO 6, 2 x ASO 5, 2 x ASO 3) (c) FAS: Exercise delegated powers, oversight BranchAS: Exercise delegated powers, oversight SectionSOG B: management and co-ordination of the Section's activitiesSOG C x 2: review of the ESOS Act, Parliamentary matters, some administration of the ESOS ActSOG C x 1: Parliamentary matters (briefs, questions etc), some administration of the ESOS ActASO 6 x 1: administration of the ESOS Act, including monitoring provider compliance with the reporting, financial and tuition guarantee requirementsASO 6 x 1: IT systems development, including electronic Confirmation of Enrolment systemASO 5 x 2: administration of the ESOS Act, including monitoring provider compliance with the reporting, financial and tuition guarantee requirementsASO 3 x 1: systems support, including electronic Confirmation of Enrolment formASO 3 x 1: CRICOS management(d) Three + 1 x ASO 6 and 2 x ASO 5, with some assistance from the IT ASO 6 and 3 x SOG C.(9) DETYA does not have the responsibility to monitor the business affairs of private education providers nor does the ESOS Act empower DETYA to enquire into a provider's financial dealings other than in respect of its notified trust account.DETYA is responsible for administering the ESOS Act, the primary objectives of which are to safeguard students' money and to ensure that students receive the education and training for which they have paid.Since the tuition guarantee provisions of the Act were introduced in 1994, the registration of 11 providers has been cancelled from CRICOS as a result of financial failure.The percentage of providers whose registration has been cancelled from CRICOS as a result of financial failure has varied from year to year. Table 1 at Attachment A summarises overall cancellations and cancellations resulting from financial failure.In eight of the cases of financial failure, displaced students have either received the education and training for which they had paid, been refunded their tuition fees or received an appropriate insurance payment. In two cases there were no students enrolled. The remaining case, National Colleges of Australia Pty Ltd has not yet been concluded, but the insurance company has made payment to its legal representative and individual payments to eligible students will be made in November.(10) (a) DETYA has conducted enquiries into the conduct of three providers for apparently engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in connection with the recruitment of intending overseas students in the past 12 months.These enquiries related to inadequate premises, teaching and equipment. In all cases, the providers were holding themselves out as being able to provide education and training services to overseas students when DETYA had received information suggesting that their premises, teaching and equipment were inadequate, sub-standard or non-existent.DETYA raised these matters with each provider directly under subsection 12(1)(a) of the ESOS Act and concurrently referred them to NSW Vocational Education and Training Accreditation Board for appropriate action.As a result of the Department's enquiries and the written submissions received, cancellation action was not considered justified.On the basis of an anonymous complaint, a preliminary enquiry was made into another provider's activities but was not progressed as it did not reveal that the provider had engaged in activity contravening the ESOS Act.(b) In the past 12 months, DETYA has conducted eight enquiries into institutions recruiting students into courses not registered on CRICOS.Subsection 4(1) of the ESOS Act requires that for an institution or other body or person to recruit, enrol and teach overseas students, the institution or other body or person must be registered on CRICOS in respect of the course which is proposed to be provided.In the first stage of enquiries of this type, DETYA writes to the institution concerned, outlining the apparent case against it and providing advice on the institution's legal obligations in providing education and training services to overseas students. The institution is given an opportunity to make submissions in respect of the allegations against it. At the same time the relevant State or Territory education authority responsible for approving the registration of institutions to enrol overseas students is notified.Depending on the nature and extent of the institution's submission, the case is either brought to a satisfactory conclusion with no further action taken or is progressed to the next stage. If the institution's submission is unsatisfactory, the case is referred to DETYA's Legal and Fraud Branch for further consideration.To date, five of the eight enquiries conducted in the past 12 months have been satisfactorily resolved with no further action being taken. Two of the remaining three cases have been referred to Legal and Fraud Branch to determine if further investigation is warranted. The remaining case is being investigated by the National Investigations Unit of the Legal and Fraud Branch with a view to progressing the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions for action under subsection 4(1A) of the ESOS Act.(c) There is no legislative requirement for providers to notify DETYA of student non-attendance therefore, DETYA has not conducted investigations of this type.(11) (a) None.(b) Two. Both complaints came from parents whose children were enrolled in colleges which failed earlier this year + Business Institute of Victoria Pty Ltd (BIV) and National Colleges of Australia Pty Ltd (NCA). The complaints were both expressed in terms of the students not receiving a refund of their pre-paid course money or being provided with appropriate alternative tuition. The student enrolled at BIV is receiving appropriate alternative tuition and DETYA has been advised that NCA's insurance company has made payment to its legal representative and individual payments to eligible students will be made in November.(c) Fourteen.Eight students contacted DETYA complaining that they had not been paid a refund of their pre-paid course money when, for a variety of reasons, they had withdrawn from their course. Each of the students was enrolled with a different provider. DETYA investigated each complaint and as a result, three of the students have been paid appropriate refunds by providers. In four cases it was determined that the students were not entitled to a refund either under the terms and conditions of the providers' refund policy or under the provisions of the ESOS Act. The remaining complaint is still being investigated.Four students contacted DETYA complaining about the quality of the education and training they had received. Two of these students were enrolled with private education providers and two were enrolled at TAFE institutes. In all cases, the complaints were referred to the relevant State education authority for resolution.Two other students contacted DETYA with general complaints about their providers. These were referred to the relevant State education authority for resolution.(d) There have been allegations made by industry representative bodies about the operations of providers not complying with the provisions of the ESOS Act. Similarly, they have complained of providers acting in an unethical manner or not in the best interests of the industry. When such matters are raised, DETYA encourages people to provide documentary evidence or a signed statement in order that there is evidence on which to base an investigation.No industry representative body has provided documentary evidence or been prepared to submit a statement attesting to claims made.(e) Five.During 1999, three providers made a series of complaints, allegations and counter allegations about the operations, quality of facilities and advertising of each other.None of the allegations could be substantiated and no action was taken except in relation to an allegation that one provider was advertising and inviting intending overseas students to enrol in its courses before it was registered on CRICOS.As a result of its investigation, DETYA concluded that the provider had contravened subsection 4(1) of the ESOS Act during July and August by advertising its courses on the Internet and at a trade fair. However, action was not considered justified as it was not an intentional or reckless contravention of the ESOS Act.In June 1999, a provider alleged that a number of overseas students were undertaking practical flight training with flying schools in Western Australia which were not registered on CRICOS.DETYA's investigation of the complaint revealed that no breach of the ESOS Act had occurred as the students in question were enrolled with a CRICOS provider and the education and training was being provided by that provider.DETYA's investigation did not reveal any breach of Commonwealth or State legislation.In October 1998, a provider wrote to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs concerning possible abuses of student visas and misleading advertising by education providers in respect of overseas students. DIMA referred the matter to DETYA.DETYA's investigation (including having materials translated) revealed that no provider registered on CRICOS was involved, but that a number of Sydney based migration agents were involved. The agents had placed advertisements in a local Japanese language publication, suggesting they could provide assistance in obtaining visa extensions and resolving visa problems.There is no legislative basis for DETYA to take action against migration agents and the matter was referred back to DIMA for their attention and appropriate action.(12) (a) The list supplied in answer to part (4) of question on notice no 1361 was required to provide information on the number overseas students enrolled with providers registered on CRICOS on 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999. Caprock International Pty Ltd, trading as Lloyds International College, CRICOS provider number 01942A, was not registered on CRICOS until 2 July 1999.(b) Yes.In addition to Caprock International Pty Ltd, another 25 non-exempt providers have been registered on CRICOS since 30 June 1999.ATTACHMENT ATABLE 1Summary of provider collapses and cancellations 1994/95 + 1999/2000YearFailuresCancellations%1994/950801995/9632910.31996/9704701997/983515.91998/994527.61999/20001137.6Total112005.5%11145(Question No. 1699)169911145Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 October 1999:With reference to the trial of an air-ground operator at Ayers Rock airport:(1) (a) When did the trial begin; and (b) when will the trial end.(2) Was the trial successful; if so, why is it being terminated; if not, why not.(3) Was there a serious incident relating to a Qantas aircraft during the trial; if so: (a) what are the details; (b) what action has been taken; and (c) when.11145Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) have provided the following information:(1) (a) The trial commenced at 10.00 am on Tuesday, 14 September 1999.(b) The trial ended at 3.00pm on Monday, 25 October 1999.(2) The trial was a success. The safety benefits of the Certified Air/Ground Radio service which the trial provided are presently being assessed by CASA.The trial was terminated as the contract for its provision between the Ayers Rock Resort (Yulara) and the private sector service provider expired at the end of the planned six weeks period of the trial.The purpose of the trial, which was to provide the information necessary to enable CASA to assess the level of safety enhancement afforded, and to evaluate the operational procedures employed, was satisfied.(3) An incident on 27 September 1999, involving a Qantas aircraft at Yulara, was reported to the ATSB.(a) The ATSB has advised that the air/ground radio service operator at Yulara reported that the aircraft taxied and departed without the crew making the appropriate MBZ radio transmissions. No other aircraft were operating in the area at the time. The crew had selected one of their two radios to the flight service radio frequency with the other selected to the airline company frequency.The investigation determined that prior to making the taxi broadcast, the crew did not confirm that the selected radio was tuned to the MBZ frequency. Consequently the crew inadvertently transmitted their taxi and departure broadcasts on the airline company radio frequency.The air/ground radio operator confirmed that he had heard the crew of the aircraft make the separate required broadcast on the flight service frequency which he monitored.(b) The airline operator requested that the air/ground radio operator contact flight service during future non-compliance events, with a request that the flight service officer attempt to contact the aircrew to establish communications and direct crews to the MBZ frequency.CASA advised the ATSB that it will review such coordination aspects during the assessment of the trial.(c) Refer to (b) above.11145(Question No. 1706)170611145O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 28 October 1999:(1) On how many occasions has Mr Stephen Skehill been engaged as a consultant, or in any other capacity, or engaged on a retainer, by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) or the CASA Board.(2) On each occasion: (a) what was the purpose of the consultancy; (b) what was the cost of the consultancy; and (c) what was the duration of the consultancy.(3) If Mr Skehill was engaged on a retainer, what were the details of that engagement.(4) Was each consultancy, or other form of engagement, undertaken by Mr Skehill the subject of a tender process; if so, on each occasion: (a) how many tenders were received; and (b) who lodged those tenders; if not, why not.(5) Has Mr Skehill provided seminars, or some other form of briefing, on the requirements of corporate governance to CASA staff; if so: (a) to what areas of the authority were the seminars or briefings provided; (b) what was the date of each seminar or briefing; (c) who attended each seminar or briefing; (d) what was the cost of each seminar or briefing; and (e) for each seminar or briefing, who invited Mr Skehill to undertake that work.(6) (a) Can a breakdown be provided of costs associated with each of the above seminars or briefings; and (b) in each instance, who formally approved funding for these seminars or briefings.11145Macdonald, 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) Mr Stephen Skehill has never been directly engaged or remunerated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) or the CASA Board. Mr Skehill is employed as Special Counsel by the firm Mallesons Stephen Jaques. That firm has been appointed to the CASA legal panel. On occasions, legal work assigned by CASA to Mallesons Stephen Jaques has been undertaken by Mr Skehill on behalf of Mallesons Stephen Jaques. Mallesons Stephen Jaques is remunerated on negotiated hourly or other rates and has no retainer from CASA.(2) See (1) above(3) Not applicable(4) The appointment of Mallesons Stephen Jaques to the CASA legal panel was as a result of a competitive tender process conducted by CASA in January 1998. The panel was established on 1 June 1998. The other firm selected for the panel is Phillips Fox. On each occasion that external legal work is assigned by CASA, consideration is given to which of the panel firms is best able to meet CASA's needs.(a) CASA invited 10 private national law firms and the Australian Government Solicitor to submit tenders. Eight tenders were received by CASA.(b) The successful tenderers were Phillips Fox and Mallesons Stephen Jaques. For reasons of commercial confidentiality CASA considers it inappropriate to name unsuccessful tenderers but notes that these included a significant number of highly respected legal firms.(5) Mr Skehill has provided two briefing sessions on corporate governance issues for CASA staff.(a)—(c) The first, held on 17 June 1999, was attended by the CASA Executive Management Team. The second, held on 28 June 1999, was attended by senior officers of CASA's Aviation Safety Compliance Division.(d) The cost of each seminar was 17 June 1999—$1,428 and 28 June 1999—$1,008.(e) Mr Skehill was invited to conduct each of these sessions by, or with the approval of, the Director of Aviation Safety.(6) (a) The breakdown of the cost of each seminar is as follows:(i) 17 June 1999—this seminar was for Canberra-based staff and thus the only direct cost was the fee paid to Mallesons Stephen Jaques: $1,428.(ii) 28 June 1999—this seminar was for staff who were otherwise present in Canberra on official duty and thus the only direct cost was the fee paid to Mallesons Stephen Jaques: $1,008.(b) The cost of these sessions was funded by the Office of Legal Counsel.11146(Question No. 1723)172311146Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the department, and each agency in the portfolio, of legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) What has been the total cost to the department, and each agency in the portfolio, in the 1998-99 financial year of legal advice obtained by the department from other sources.11146Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) $4,889,026.(2) $4,563,763.11146(Question No. 1732)173211146Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:As a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of: (a) staff training; (b) consultants; and (c) performance pay.11146Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department that the details are as follows:YearDollar amountPercentage of total outlay on salaries(a) Staff training1996-97$137,2410.42%1997-98$114,3240.47%1998-99$243,8090.88%(b) Consultants1996-97$4,430,13113.5%1997-98$3,420,61914.2%1998-99$3,082,64611.3%(c) Performance pay (SES only)1996-97$135,0000.41%1997-98$106,5740.44%1998-99$119,8300.43%