1999-12-073914SENATE1128501999-12-07The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice112851128511285Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Isn't it the case that the contract for `GST start-up funding assistance' determining the legal obligations for charitable organisations stipulates that this funding is to be paid in progressive instalments up until July 2000? Minister, doesn't this arrangement provide the government with extra leverage to demand that charities favourably comment when each instalment is paid—that is, not just once, but two or three times over the period of the grant?11285Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is typical of the overall low standard of the opposition. Senator, it may have been of help to you if you had listened to the Treasurer this morning when he was speaking with Fiona Reynolds on the AM program.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—A very good interview.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, it was an exceedingly good interview, and I will share with you what he said on this matter because if you had heard him I doubt whether you would have asked the question. The Treasurer said:The whole objection—the thrust of your question—. . . was that people didn't disclose that they were being funded. So we put a clause in a contract requiring them to disclose. And what the contract says is, if you are running a seminar explaining GST, you must acknowledge that you've received a grant from the Commonwealth to do it if that is the case.All we are trying to do is to make it clear to people that there is Commonwealth funding. Let me draw your attention to a comment by Mr Raper, the ACOSS President. Mr Raper is not someone who is traditionally noted as coming out—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! There are senators on my left interjecting and shouting. If you have some comment there is an appropriate time to debate it. You should not sit and shout all through question time.WW4Senator KEMP—Mr Raper, the President of ACOSS—Senator Schacht interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, I have just addressed you on the matter of behaviour.WW4Senator KEMP—Mr Raper is not noted for being supportive of the government on this GST package. The Treasurer indicated that Mr Raper feels totally at liberty to criticise the policy. The Treasurer went on to say:All it says is, if you are running a seminar, if you decide to run a seminar on tax compliance and the Commonwealth government has funded that seminar, then you should disclose that.The truth of the matter is that I have not noted any charities that are loath to come out and make comments on government policy.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. I never asked the minister about the Treasurer, I never asked the minister about Mr Raper and I never asked to be read long extracts from their speeches. I asked him a direct question that required a simple answer about the contractual terms the government is insisting on that charities sign up to in order to get public funding to help them convert to the GST.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order, Senator Cook; you are making a speech.RF4COOKSenator Cook—The point of order is that the answer is not relevant to the question. Will you direct the minister to answer the question and not evade it?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—I was going to speak on the point of order, but as you have ruled Senator Cook out of order I will not bother to. Senator Cook asked about the contract which charities are signing. My answer refers in detail to the contract which charities are signing and I am throwing Senator Cook's comments into an appropriate perspective. I urge Senator Cook to listen very carefully. It is always wise to listen to what the Treasurer says.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—What's the purpose of it?WW4Senator KEMP—Why don't you listen to the answer—or else, Senator Murphy, you would be better off going back to fly-fishing.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, direct your remarks to the chair.WW4Senator KEMP—It is true to say that Senator Murphy is more successful at fly-fishing than asking questions and making policy comments in the Senate. That is the point I am making. Before I was so rudely interrupted by Senator Cook, I was saying that the fact of the matter is that charities are making comments on the GST and on a wide range of issues. We are always happy to consult with charities. As I have said so often in the past, we are a consultative government. The interpretation that you are putting on this contract, Senator, is entirely fallacious.11286Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Isn't it true that the demand for favourable comment from charities in return for Commonwealth funding is unprecedented? Minister, this obligation has never been imposed on charities before, has it?11286Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I would have to check this but my understanding is that there have been similar clauses which have been included in contracts in the past. That is my understanding, Senator. But the whole nub of your question goes to whether charities are loath to comment on the GST. The short answer to that question is that charities are not loath to comment on the GST—you only have to look, Senator Cook, at the newspapers this morning and the newspapers yesterday. I think it is true to say that charities are quite happy and confident to comment on the GST; and I refer of course to the comments by Mr Raper, who is the President of ACOSS. So there we are: the question is fully answered in detail. I have been more than kind to you, Senator Cook.1128611286Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4SALP10—My question is directed to the Special Minister of State, representing the Minister for Finance and Administration. Will the minister advise the Senate of any recent government initiatives in information technology outsourcing? What benefits will these initiatives have for small and medium size businesses? In particular what benefits will there be for employment prospects in information technology industries, including benefits for people in regional Australia?11286Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—I am pleased to announce an outstanding result in the government's initiative in relation to IT outsourcing. Yesterday the federal government and IBM Global Services Australia signed contracts for the outsourcing of IT services for the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Health Insurance Commission involving contracts of some $350 million. This is good news for Australian business. This also spells savings for Australian taxpayers to the tune of $54 million over the term of the contract. Senator Chapman also mentions small to medium size businesses. This is very important and the Labor opposition need to listen to this because they do not have a policy on this.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Labor senators will stop shouting. You are in breach of the standing orders.Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on my right should not be shouting while I am speaking either.9X5Senator ELLISON—Thank you, Madam President.Senator Lundy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lundy, you are in breach of the standing orders and of my ruling.9X5Senator ELLISON—As part of the tender IBM Australia had to provide $70 million worth of work for Australian small and medium size enterprises. It has entered into a series of strategic alliances and teaming arrangements with Australian small to medium enterprises to provide such things as call centre services, Australian PC equipment and support services, and of course other IT services. This is a direct flow-through benefit to small to medium enterprises in Australia.There is also a commitment which will see $260 million worth of products and services sourced and developed within Australia. As a result of this, there will be some $100 million worth of export revenue to this country from this outsourcing, and perhaps Senator Lundy from the opposition ought to take note of that.All of this spells good news for job seekers in Australia. It spells more jobs in Australia. In fact, it will create 282 new jobs, of which 155 will be located in regional Australia. Senator Lundy might also want to know that it will retain 256 existing jobs in the ACT. What part of that program—getting new jobs, saving taxpayers' money and providing Australian businesses with money—do the ALP opposition not like? What part of that program, which results in benefits to Australians, do they not support? They do not have a policy and what we have is an initiative which is delivering top quality infrastructure in the IT sector to Australia. It is also providing business for the IT industry in Australia and it is providing jobs in that industry.7G6LUNDYSenator Lundy—Why do you exclude Australian companies from the prime contract?9X5Senator ELLISON—It is obvious Senator Lundy does not want to listen to this, Madam President.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lundy, you are out of order.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I have already reminded senators of the provisions of the standing orders and I suggest you read standing order 203 if you have forgotten what it says.9X5Senator ELLISON—As I stated, this will result in new jobs. In fact, 105 new jobs will be created in Brisbane as a result of the enhancement of the technical assistance centre previously established by IBM.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—IBM.9X5Senator ELLISON—I hear Senator Lundy talk about IBM. IBM is a company which has 5,000 Australian employees. It has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Ballarat. This is a company which is employing Australians and outsourcing work to small and medium enterprises as a result of the contract that this government signed yesterday. We are intent on proceeding with this initiative which will provide enhancement to the IT industry in Australia, jobs for Australians and savings for taxpayers. We have a policy in this area. Labor do not.1128711287McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister support the Prime Minister's statement during question time yesterday that there are not too many pie or lamington drives that turn over more than $100,000? Can the minister confirm that under the GST legislation the $100,000 threshold applies not to any one activity but to an entire organisation's activities, and in fact total organisational turnover—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The question is to the Assistant Treasurer and it is for him to answer. Senators on my right will cease shouting.84LSenator McLUCAS—Can the minister confirm that under the GST legislation the $100,000 threshold applies not to any one activity but to an entire organisation's activities, and in fact total organisational turnover of more than $100,000 a year is quite common in the charitable sector? Will the minister now correct the record and admit that many charities will have to pay the Howard-Lees GST on significant areas of their activities?11287Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Oh dear! I have given advice freely, admittedly without any pressure, but it is good advice: do not take questions from Senator Cook. If Senator Cook gives anyone a question, I urge them—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, I draw your attention to the question.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, I have been speaking for 10 seconds—this is the question. This is a question that has been drafted for the senator and given to the senator. The Treasurer made another statement this morning. I think it is important that the Labor Party keep abreast of what the Treasurer is saying. The truth of the matter is, as the Treasurer said this morning—and this directly answers your question, Senator—that they can structure their affairs so they can take advantage of it on individual fundraising activities. They can restructure their affairs. The trouble is that you took a question from Senator Cook and the substance of the question was not correct.What we are seeing here is a pathetic scare effort by a pathetic party that does not have a single policy that one can point to. Let me make it clear that some of the key elements of this tax reform package will not only impact on charities but will impact on the wider community. We are providing major tax cuts. Many families will benefit in the order of $40 to $50 per week. We are providing, unlike the Labor Party, real rises in pensions and benefits. No policy of the Labor Party would provide real rises in pensions and benefits. We are taking many costs off charities. We believe this is a fair package which will benefit charities and which will, of course, benefit the wider Australian community.I think we are coming to a stage in this whole debate where people have got to ask what the Labor Party stand for. What do the Labor Party stand for? They oppose everything. They opposed our policies; they opposed the ANTS package lock, stock and barrel, as I recall. Senator Cook is nodding in agreement. Not an amendment was moved.RF4COOKSenator Cook—We opposed the GST.WW4Senator KEMP—The truth of the matter is that you opposed tax reform but you are not prepared to state what you actually stand for. As I have said, the question was based on a faulty assumption, and Senator Cook should be more careful in the drafting of these questions.11288McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQldALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that most church parishes, most refuges for homeless people, most school P&C associations and most scout and girl guide groups, amongst many others, have a total annual turnover of more than $100,000?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The behaviour in the chamber is absolutely unacceptable by any test. Senator McLucas has the call to ask a supplementary question, and senators on both sides should not be shouting as you have been doing.Senator Patterson interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Patterson! I have just spoken about that.84LSenator McLUCAS—Will the minister now admit that, under the Howard-Lees GST, thousands of not-for-profit groups like the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Salvation Army, Lifeline and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute will be paying the GST—Honourable senators interjecting—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Moron!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Withdraw that, Senator.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators on both sides are sledging and shouting in a way that is totally unacceptable by any standard of behaviour.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senators at the table should observe the standing orders as well.84LSenator McLUCAS—Thousands of not-for-profit groups such as those that I have listed, including Lifeline and the Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, will be paying the GST and tackling the outrageous paperwork that your restructuring and this new tax will entail.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on both sides should observe the standing orders, as I have already said.11288Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It shows you the problem. You give a detailed answer to a question and then the senator stands up and reads a prepared supplementary question. She does not bother to listen to the answer to the question. Let me quote the Treasurer. This is not the Assistant Treasurer; this is the Treasurer. This is even more important. This is what he said.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I suggest that a number of senators in the chamber today should watch a replay of the Senate. I do that from time to time, and I think you might be surprised at what you see and hear.WW4Senator KEMP—This is what the Treasurer said this morning. This is very clear, and it is a pity you did not have a chance to listen to it. He said, `Well, they can structure their affairs so they can take advantage of it on individual fundraising activities.' Oh dear! Senator, I am sure that the charities will be able to work that out, but I would advise them not to come to you for advice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, your answers should not be directed across the chamber in that fashion.1128911289Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Justice and Customs. The government is committed to ensuring that the Australian Federal Police is strongly supported and is able to meet the challenges of the next decade. Will the minister inform the Senate of the government's ongoing financial commitment to the AFP?11289Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Watson for a very astute question. Commissioner Palmer, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, recently said that the AFP has never enjoyed a higher reputation, has never enjoyed better funding and has never been more strongly supported by any government in its history. It has never been better funded and has never had a brighter future. Well may he say that. The Prime Minister said in February 1998 that Australia deserves a Commonwealth law enforcement agency that is second to none.As a consequence of the Prime Minister's commitment, we appointed Tony Ayers to do a review of Australian Federal Police funding. As a consequence, we have a new budget charter for the Australian Federal Police. We have committed more than $320 million of additional moneys to the Australian Federal Police to prepare it for the challenges of the 21st century.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You're still playing catch-up.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Madam President, you might remind Senator Bolkus, before he again interjects, that the last year of Labor appropriations for the Australian Federal Police were for $207 million. This year the coalition have committed around $322 million to the Australian Federal Police. In the past 18 months we have committed $115 million to undertake a resources and skills upgrade program. That program is overseen by the Federal Police Monitoring Committee, which reports both to me and to the Minister for Finance and Administration. We have committed more than $100 million under the Tough on Drugs strategy to the Australian Federal Police, which is for four mobile strike teams, a heroin signature program, increased telephone interception, increased overseas liaison, computer upgrades, and money for more informants and for better handling of witnesses.In September this year, this government injected a further $105 million to dismantle the Australian Federal Police adjustment and cessation schemes. The AFP Adjustment Scheme, which we have bought out of, was the brainchild of guess who? The former Labor government. What a brainchild that was! They saddled the AFP with $105 million of debt, which grew every year, and refused to fund them for it. Where did they think they were going to get it? They would have to have taken it out of their operational funding. That was the brainchild of Labor—to give 70 per cent of the Australian Federal Police an incentive to leave. They gave 70 per cent of them an incentive to leave. And guess when? Just before the Olympics. That was the brainchild of Labor, and that was all they did for the Australian Federal Police. The Federal Police never found that regime appropriate to an ongoing professional employment relationship. As a consequence of upgrading its operations, savings have been found to fund the new certified agreement. The certified agreement was reached after months of negotiation and is funded from existing AFP resources. It was overseen by the Industrial Relations Commission.Recently the Federal Police paid a sign-on bonus of six per cent to its employees. Virtually all of the outdated allowances, penalties and overtime have been abolished in favour of a new incentive based remuneration package. It will enable the Federal Police to attract and retain highly skilled and qualified professionals in the face of increasing recruitment pressures. The new professional employment regime will substantially improve the effectiveness of the Australian Federal Police and will empower its officers to focus on getting the job done, and being paid well to do it, rather than placing inappropriate restrictions on what time of day the law enforcement can take place. That was the old system under the former Labor government. It is not the system that this government supports.1129011290O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister explain why those organisations that have openly supported the GST have received the most financial assistance from Treasury's GST start-up office, while those who continue to oppose the tax have had to make do with much more limited funding?11290Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have often made the point in this chamber that the Labor Party should never judge the coalition by its own standards.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—It's impossible; you don't have any.WW4Senator KEMP—By Labor standards. You should not judge the coalition by the standards that you adopt, Senator. The standards that this government applies are that we do things in a fair, honest and equitable fashion. What we have been concerned with is to make sure that the start-up assistance, where industry groups can provide assistance, is done in a way which ensures that we can maximise the information flows to the wider community. We do not behave like the Labor Party does. Unlike Labor, we are not into the politics of revenge. We have a different view of government. It is a view which I think has been strongly endorsed by the Labor Party. We intend to conduct government policy on sound public policy grounds.Senator, you stand up and make a sweeping complaint like that without any evidence. No evidence has been tendered, just a complete slander on all the groups that have received funding. I suggest to you that the question has no basis whatsoever.11290O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Far from not having any evidence, I want you to comment on this, Minister. Isn't it true that the National Farmers Federation, which said that they would `continue to press for a broad based GST and strongly oppose any further narrowing of the base to which the GST applies', is in a very privileged position in determining the distribution of a massive $15.25 million, while charities—many of whom continue to oppose the Howard-Lees GST—must make do with an average of $2,000 each? Isn't this cash for comments, pure and simple?11290Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me make this clear: we make no apology at all for working with the National Farmers. We make no apology for working with one of the peak farming organisations. Why should we? They are a body which have a view. I have never noted the National Farmers not being prepared to fearlessly put their views. In some things they agree with us; in some things they do not agree with us.Equally, we are working very closely with charities. There is a charities consultative committee. We are listening to charities. The inference in that question, I think, is quite appalling and I do not accept it one little bit.1129011290Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA 3I6SAAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. In light of revelations about Acxiom, Geospend and the internal Australia Post survey, could the minister tell us whether this government will ever take action to provide privacy protection for the personal information of Australians? And hasn't it become clear to the government that even the existing public sector protections are not providing any real measure of privacy to the Australian public? Is it the case that the government's unwillingness to protect privacy as an internationally recognised human right will lead to a co-regulatory approach to privacy based on a similar framework to that which regulates commercial radio in Australia?11291Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank the senator for the question because it gives me the opportunity to clear up a few misunderstandings in the community, no doubt generated by the sort of dramatics that we have just heard from the senator. The government recognises the importance of privacy for the community and always has. Senator Stott Despoja would understand that. I think before you were in this place your party joined with the coalition parties in defeating the Australia card. So we need not listen to anybody on the other side about privacy. They wanted us all to have our own Australia cards. They have no credibility whatsoever. But we are, of course, committed to the importance of privacy to the community. Many people are concerned about the way personal information is used in the private sector, and we understand that.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—You're a disgrace.10000The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, withdraw that remark.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—The minister is a disgrace because she is not telling the truth.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You are not being asked to debate it, you are being asked to withdraw.XE4BOLKUSSenator Bolkus—I withdraw it.7E4Senator VANSTONE—He is a good boy, Madam President, when he is behaving. This is the main reason, of course, why the government is committed to introducing legislation that extends privacy protection to the private sector. The bill is proposed to come into effect on 1 July 2001, or 12 months after its commencement, whichever is the latter. The bill will implement the national principles for the fair handling of personal information as the default national standards for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.If a database of personal information is created by Acxiom and PBL before the bill commences, as media reports have indicated, it does not mean that it entirely escapes the new regime. With respect to personal information collected by an organisation before commencement of the legislation, it will oblige the organisation to take reasonable steps to ensure this data is accurate, correct and securely held. The organisation will also be required to be open to consumers about what information it already holds and how it collects, holds and proposes to use or disclose such information.Senator Bolkus interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, you have been persistently interjecting.7E4Senator VANSTONE—Further, the bill will carefully prescribe the circumstances where an organisation may transfer personal information outside Australia in very limited circumstances. After the legislation has commenced, where existing data is updated by further collection of personal information, the organisation will need to comply with all the national principles, including those relating to the collection, access, use and disclosure of personal information.So, Senator, I hope that makes it clear to you that this government is committed to privacy legislation covering the private sector. The Attorney has made it clear on a number of occasions that that is the case. I have given you a bit more detail about how that is going to happen, and I invite you to take account of that next time you are making public remarks.11291Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am wondering if the minister would describe the regime that she has just outlined as `light touch' as others in the community—and, indeed, her own government—have described it. And, given this so-called commitment to privacy, could the minister enlighten us as to whether or not this government is committed to securing communications privacy in Australia? Is it the case that, despite the rapid advances in monitoring and surveillance technologies, it is still the policy of the government to restrict access to encryption technologies and secure communications more generally? Does this government really believe that the information economy, which Senator Ellison was boasting about in answer to a previous question, can develop? How can that develop without increased privacy protection and security for transactions?11292Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—Senator Stott Despoja has obviously entered a speed speaking competition so that she can get as many questions into her one-minute supplementary as she possibly can. She probably passed that with flying colours. I will take all of those questions on notice because it is just not possible to note them all down. If the Attorney has anything further to say in relation to this matter, other than the information that I have already provided to you, Senator—Senator Stott Despoja interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—Senator, there is no point in you gesticulating at me. I cannot hear you when I am talking and I have got no intention of giving you my time.If the Attorney has anything to add, I will certainly give it to you and I will give it to you quickly. But, as for referring to this as a light touch, it was your colleagues who told the papers last year that you were all sizzle and no sausage.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, your remarks should be directed to the chair, not across the chamber.1129211292Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Can the minister confirm that RSL veterans, the men and women who fought for this country, will pay the Howard-Lees GST on their annual membership fees? Just what are the rules regarding the local RSL branch that has a turnover of less than $50,000 but is part of a national organisation that has a turnover of many millions of dollars? Is the local RSL branch part of the national organisation for GST purposes, or are they separate? Will any assistance be made available to the RSL for implementing the GST and, if so, will the RSL also have to provide favourable comments on the government's GST in order to secure GST assistance money?11292Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Just as yesterday, I was asked a question on the tax system, which is a responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer and, therefore, I will pass that question to him.11292Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. But I must say—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators at the table should not be shouting, as they have been doing today.N26ABETZSenator Abetz—Could I take a point of order, Madam President. How can there be a supplementary question when the honourable senator has accidentally referred the question to the wrong minister? There cannot be a supplementary.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order: it is simply not good enough for the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs not to know about this very significant impact on ex-service organisations. Of course there should be a supplementary, and of course Senator Newman should be forced to answer it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, there is no need to shout in that fashion, and that is not relevant to the point of order that was made. It has been customary to allow points of order that arise from not only the answer but the question.4J4Senator SCHACHT—Madam President, I have a supplementary. I appreciate that with this useless minister there might be—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you are casting aspersions on a minister, and that ought not be done; and you are making editorial comment.4J4Senator SCHACHT—Well, a minister who is not competent to answer any question at all. 10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—What is your supplementary question?4J4Senator SCHACHT—My supplementary deals with people who are in the veterans community. Can the minister confirm that the annual bikies' ride organised by, amongst others, Vietnam veterans motorcycle clubs, is subject to GST on all corporate sponsorships they receive? Don't the proceeds of these rides go to help disadvantaged children, including children of Vietnam veterans? Why do the government and the Democrats want to tax the small amount of joy these disadvantaged children receive at Christmastime? That is for you, Minister. It is in your portfolio representation.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Your question, Senator, should be directed to the chair, not directly across the chamber to the minister.11293Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The opposition seem to be very slow learners. Questions relating to the taxation system of this country are the responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer.1129311293Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. I refer to perhaps Australia's best-known whistleblower, Mr Alwyn Johnson, who was sacked from the Tasmania Bank in 1990, having warned the government in a way which allowed intervention to save tens of millions of dollars in Tasmania. In 1992 Mr John Howard wrote to the Tasmanian government saying that Mr Johnson's actions may well have preserved 700 jobs and saved Tasmania from potential economic disaster. In view of the recent sale of the bank with $134 million going to the Tasmanian government, will the Prime Minister or the government take action to see that Mr Johnson gets due compensation in the wake of his sacking for having done this public service nine years ago?11293Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—It is true that the now Prime Minister wrote in support of Mr Johnson at that time and in those circumstances. He was unjustly treated; that is so. I understand that he fought through the processes and I think through the courts, or at least through administrative tribunals. I understand he was ultimately reinstated—I stand to be corrected but there is an argument as to whether—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—No, he wasn't.BH4Senator HILL—I think he got his job back with the bank in the end, but there is a question as to whether in the end he nevertheless suffered financial loss.The circumstance of the bank being sold is hardly relevant to the question as to whether he has been properly treated by either the bank or society in the previous circumstances. Nevertheless, if he is entitled to more, then that is primarily a determination to be made by the Tasmanian government. But in the circumstances of this particular case, the Commonwealth is prepared to take the matter up with the Tasmanian government and see if there is any avenue open to further assist Mr Johnson.11293Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am very heartened by that response, because all sides of politics—in Tasmania and I think here—would agree that Mr Johnson has been wronged. Indeed, the Prime Minister said in his letter that we cannot hope to have a conscientious, motivated and prosperous public sector if civil servants are prevented through fear from emulating his actions. I wonder if the Prime Minister, in his communications with the Tasmanian Premier, might consider an independent arbiter looking into the matter with the particular view of an outcome which would, as far as possible, right the wrong that has been done to Mr Johnson.11293Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—I will refer the suggestion of an independent arbiter to the Prime Minister to take into account in any approach that he might make to the Tasmanian government on the matter.1129311293Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to Senator Newman's answer yesterday in question time, where she stated that the GST will not apply to the net profit of a charitable fundraising activity. Isn't it a fact that the Howard-Lees GST is applied to the value added portion of the charity's fundraising activity, which is in effect the profit from the charity's fundraising activity?11294Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We would have to know more about the charity and we would have to know more about the fundraising activity. Is the charity registered, for example? That is a fairly relevant question. I have just dealt with an issue on fundraising with one of your colleagues. Charities can structure their activities to take account of individual fundraising efforts, if that is the way they wish to go. Charities will undoubtedly take every advantage they can under the law, as the law is written, and that is what we would expect them to do. Charities have a flexibility to decide whether they will register or whether they will not register. The charities will weigh that up and, from our point of view, I think that is a good thing and it provides a flexibility the charities are seeking.11294Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't it true that the GST is in effect a tax on the goodwill of thousands of Australians who want to assist those most in need of community support? Why does the Howard government want to punish charities with the Howard-Lees GST by imposing this insidious tax on charitable fundraising activities?11294Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I invite Senator Faulkner to look at the answer I gave to the first part of his question. The second part is—Senator Cook interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Senator, the point was made that we would need to know whether the charity is registered or not. You could not provide an answer to that question. I pointed out that charities have the ability to structure themselves. What we are seeing here is a pathetic scare campaign by a party with no policies. They are a party that have no understanding of tax reform. We believe the tax reform package that this government is proposing will benefit charities, business, individuals and Australian families. We stand for something, Senator; you stand for absolutely nothing. 1129411294Parer, Sen WarwickSenator PARERKI4QLDLP10—My question without notice is directed to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. The Howard government's economic policies have been focused on delivering real benefits to Australians through lower interest rates, increased investment and more jobs. Minister, will you advise the Senate of any surveys which show the positive results of the government's economic policies?11294Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—Senator Parer is of course right: our government is delivering real benefits to Australians through high economic growth, low interest rates, low inflation and more jobs. Meanwhile, the Labor opposition seem to have an election strategy based on just one policy: they do not like the GST, but of course they are not going to remove it. That seems to be the sum total of their election strategy. They are constantly complaining about the GST in relation to the car industry in particular and talking up a buyer's strike. As they now realise, the sales figures for the end of November came out just yesterday. What did those figures for the end of November show?Senator Conroy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, it is totally inappropriate to just sit there shouting in that fashion.JX4Senator MINCHIN—The sales figures to the end of November showed that 70,000 vehicles were sold in November—an increase of 14 per cent on the previous month. They are only one half of one per cent less than in the same month last year—in November 1998—which was the best November result in the history of the motor industry. The total vehicle market for 1999 is only three per cent down on the record the industry had last year. The market is still nine per cent higher than the previous record year of 1997 and 20 per cent higher than Labor's last year—1995. The industry is predicting that 1999 will be the second best year they have ever had. They have just increased their forecast for this year by 10,000 to a record sales of 770,000 vehicles. So the car industry has had its three best years ever in the four years of our govern ment. With the benefits of tax reform and strong economic—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Madam President, I raise a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. The minister is not answering the question and is not relevant to the question of whether or not the price of cars is going to go down after the GST. Here is his chance to put on the public record that prices are going to go down, and he is absolutely irrelevant to the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, there is no point of order.JX4Senator MINCHIN—Madam President, as I was saying, the benefits of tax reform and our strong economic management mean that this industry itself is predicting that its sales will reach 950,000 by 2003. So the future of the car industry is very bright, and the future for industry generally is very bright, under our economic management. The ACCI Westpac survey of industrial trends was released just this morning. To quote Mark Paterson, the Chief Executive of the ACCI:This is the last survey of the century. Once again, it is very good news. We are crossing over from the Twentieth Century into the third millennium on a confident note. The best actual results for new orders and output in five years, the recovery in capital expenditure plans and the high level of capacity utilisation indicate that after five consecutive quarters of robust economic recovery we can look forward to further sustained growth in the year 2000.The highlights of this survey include: a surge in business confidence to the highest level in 2½ years; capital expenditure plans in the next 12 months have firmed up to their highest level in three years; the amount of overtime worked leads the survey to predict that employment growth will accelerate over the next few months; and new orders are at a five-year high.Business has every reason to be confident. In the past year they have seen another strong budget, another strong surplus. They have seen the Ralph reforms with lower corporate taxes and the most significant reforms to our capital gains tax ever all delivered. They have seen the ANTS package pass the parliament.Senator Murphy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Murphy, stop shouting. You have been doing it throughout this answer.JX4Senator MINCHIN—They have seen us lift the burden of Labor's WST off their shoulders from 1 July next. The mid-year economic review forecasts continuing strong economic growth, budget surpluses and, we hope, further labour market reform. While Labor whinges from the sidelines, we are getting on and delivering economic management. We are delivering a much better environment for business and jobs.1129511295Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister inform the Senate whether the Howard-Lees GST will be payable on child sponsorship, such as those supported by World Vision, whether they are individual or corporate sponsorships?11295Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I do not want to be in a position of advising World Vision on how to structure their activities. That is not a matter for me to deal with in a public forum. It is a matter for the particular charity involved to speak to the tax office. The general rule is: where an organisation is registered and meets the other tests, sponsorship is subject to a GST. I think that has been clearly stated. Let me make it very clear that World Vision and other organisations will look at the flexibility that the legislation will provide and work out how they wish to structure their particular activities.11295Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the minister's answer, I might quote from the Taxation Office and ask him to expand on one of its rulings, which states:. . . sponsorships usually require—BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. Clearly, this is not a supplementary question. If the honourable senator attempts to ask a supplementary by quoting from the tax act or from any other document, he is not asking a question: he is making a statement. He may intend on some future occasion to ask a supplementary, but he is premising it with a statement. That is outside the standing orders.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Stop protecting him.BH4HILLSenator Hill—We all have to abide by the same rules. He should be expected to comply with the standing orders and, if he intends to ask a supplementary, to ask it in accordance with the standing orders.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, on the point of order: it is the oldest trick in the book for the leader to try to protect a floundering minister like Senator Kemp. I think that Senator Hutchins should be allowed to ask his supplementary question—he has a minute to ask it—before Senator Hill jumps in to try and defend Senator Kemp. Nothing will help Senator Kemp.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is a valid point that there is far too much editorial comment—Government senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am attempting to address Senator Hill's point of order and there is far too much noise on my right.LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—On the point of order, Madam President: is it an abuse of question time for Senator Faulkner to take the opportunity to sledge Senator Kemp, to express his personal view about what Senator Hutchins should be allowed to do and, in no shape or form, address any submission before the chair? I would have thought that if ever there was an opportunity to throw him out before Christmas, give him a very good present and something to think about for the new year, this was it.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I was attempting to deal with the point of order when there was so much noise that it was not possible. A point of order was taken by Senator Hill about which I was making the comment that we have got into the habit of a lot of editorial comment at the beginning of questions, which ought not to be occurring. What I was watching for was whether or not the question was seeking a legal opinion from the minister, which he must not give and which should not be asked. Senator Faulkner's point was not relevant to the point of order. I call Senator Hutchins. 84PSenator HUTCHINS—Can the minister explain what the tax office meant by the following words from its ruling, and I quote:. . . sponsorships usually require the recipient to do something . . . the provision of these rights is a taxable supply.Has the minister seen today's statement from World Vision expressing concern that the provision of photographs and reports on a child's progress, or indeed any acknowledgment of the sponsorship, will constitute `a taxable supply'? Will the minister now clarify this situation and tell the many Australians who sponsor a child living overseas whether or not they will be paying the Howard-Lees GST on the financial support they provide?11296Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will seek further advice from the tax office on this. This is a requirement for a specific ruling. It may well be in the sense of a donation. Regarding the first point that Senator Hutchins made, it was not clear that he was talking about a sponsorship. It may well have been a business sponsorship. We will have to look closely at the nature of the sponsorship. I will provide advice to the Senate.1129611296Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4NSWAD00—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Hill. Is the minister aware of reports from the UNHCR that at one militia controlled refugee camp at Tuapukam near the West Timor capital of Kupang, 35 people, 32 of them under the age of five, died in the 10 days prior to 1 December from preventable causes, such as diarrhoea, malaria and respiratory infections, bringing the total to 157 people over seven weeks in that camp alone? What pressure is Australia bringing to bear to try and get these refugees out of Indonesia?11296Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Yes, I did hear of those reports that are now a day or two old. They are basically in the terms that have just been put to me—that is, the United Nations spokeswoman claimed that within this camp, which is still under the control of the militia, some 35 people died from malaria and diarrhoea, 22 of them children. Obviously, if that is the case, it is deplorable. The slightly better news since is that aid workers, I understand, have finally been granted clearance to establish a medical centre at that camp—I think it is that particular camp—and hopefully out of that medical treatment will be able to be given to those in need.Obviously what is necessary is to get out of the camp those who wish to leave, as well as to treat those who remain in a humanitarian way. It is true that Australia is continuing to contribute to both goals. We have contributed in all, I understand, some $37 million in humanitarian aid since July this year. That has been aid to both East and West Timor. In particular, the aid that has gone to West Timor has covered such matters as health—as I have mentioned—including tuberculosis, HIV-AIDS, child and maternal health and the provision of medical supplies, basic education, et cetera. Some $2.25 million has been provided through UNHCR and NGOs. Apart from providing the humanitarian assistance, Australia is working in support of the repatriation of such refugees, in particular supporting UNHCR in its efforts and also the International Organisation for Migration.I understand that refugees are still returning, although the number has slowed significantly. In relation to those that still remain, an agreement was signed on 22 November between INTERFET, TNI, the Indonesian police and humanitarian agencies to facilitate the rapid return of those who remain. Australia is obviously supportive of that agreement, and we are doing everything that is within our capacity to assist and support the return of those people as quickly as possible.1129711297Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—My question is addressed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the Howard-Lees GST be payable on dolls sold by the Adelaide Central Mission's dolls hospital, which has been run for over 50 years by volunteers, many of them in their 60s and 70s?11297Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I assume that this is a non-commercial supply. Therefore, it will not be subject to the GST. 11297Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that yesterday in the House the Treasurer stated that if there is a transformation or a manufacturing process which is a commercial process competing with the private sector, the same tax will arise? In light of this answer, can the minister confirm whether the repairing and cleaning of broken dolls to be sold again—Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! I have lost track of the question because there are so many in the vicinity making a noise.FY5Senator DENMAN—Do you want me to start the supplementary question again?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Yes, please.FY5Senator DENMAN—Is the minister aware that yesterday in the House the Treasurer stated that if there is a transformation or a manufacturing process which is a commercial process competing with the private sector, the same tax system will arise? In light of this answer, can the minister confirm whether the repairing and cleaning of broken donated dolls to be sold again as `like new' dolls constitutes a manufacturing process for which the 10 per cent Howard-Lees GST will be payable?11297Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have just responded that if it is a non-commercial activity, it is not subject to the GST.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left should know that it was one of their own senators who has asked this supplementary question. She is entitled to hear what the Assistant Treasurer has to say.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Denman has not indicated whether this is a commercial operation or not. It is simply not clear. If it is a non-commercial operation, it will not be subject to the GST. Senator Denman has not indicated whether it is registered. I have to say that it is another poorly drafted question. I can only say that it was probably from Senator Cook.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, after that very fine answer, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice112981129815:03:0011298Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—On 25 November, Senator McKiernan asked me a question in relation to some comments of Chief Justice Murray Gleeson and whether unrepresented litigants were dealing with state or Commonwealth laws. I seek leave to incorporate the answer in Hansard .Leave granted.The answer read as follows—Senator McKiernan asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 25 November 1999:(1) Does the Minister believe that High Court Chief Justice Murray Gleeson is correct when he said that the Howard government's cutbacks to legal aid are causing problems of `substantial practical dimensions' which are threatening the efficiency of the Australian courts and their ability to deliver justice?(2) Can the Minister indicate whether all of the unrepresented litigants were dealing in matters of state law or commonwealth law and why they were unrepresented?Senator Vanstone—I referred the honourable senator's questions to the Attorney-General, who has provided the following supplementary information to the answers I provided at the time.(1) Chief Justice Gleeson's remarks referred to the presence of unrepresented litigants in the court process.The Government does not consider that there is empirical evidence to support the claim that there has been an increase in unrepresented litigants due to the Commonwealth's changes to the legal aid funding arrangements. Recent reports which indicate a different view rely on limited anecdotal evidence to support their claims.There are a number of reasons why people may not be represented in court. People may choose to represent themselves, or they may fail to meet legal aid commission means and merit tests. Consequently, it is unlikely that those litigants would have qualified for legal aid funding in those circumstances, in any case. The Commonwealth has maintained funding for legal aid in Commonwealth law matters at 1995-96 levels. The data available to us from legal aid commissions does not enable us to reach any conclusions regarding levels of self representation. However, the Government considers this is an important area which would benefit from more thorough research. The Australian Law Reform Commission is looking at this issue as part of its reference on the adversarial process with a discussion paper to be released early next year. In addition, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance have commissioned the Justice Research Centre to conduct research in the area of self funded litigants and is expected to report early next year. The Family Law Council also intends undertaking a project on litigants in person in the family law context and has formed a committee for that purpose.(2) Information concerning whether matters before the High Court involving self represented litigants arise under Commonwealth or State law is not available from the legal aid statistics collection and would have to be sought directly from the High Court.However, Commonwealth funding for legal aid services has not generally been used to support High Court litigation. Commonwealth legal aid funds are provided to assist those who are in most need, particularly for resolving disputes in relation to family law matters.In any case, because of the diversity of factors which may determine whether or not a person is represented the information sought would not alone provide evidence of a link between self representation and changes to the Commonwealth's legal aid funding arrangements.1129815:03:0011298Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some answers to questions asked by Senator Lundy on 30 November in relation to privacy issues.Leave granted.The answers read as follows—Senator Lundy asked the Minister for Justice and Customs without notice, on 30 November 1999:My question is to Senator Vanstone, 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 axiom (sic) data warehouse? Senator Amanda Vanstone—The answer to the honourable Senator's question is as follows:1. There are, at the moment, strict rules in the existing privacy legislation that prevent credit providers and reporters from misusing and disclosing personal information contained in credit reports.2. In respect of personal information contained elsewhere, there is currently no legislation that regulates the activities of private companies such as PBL and Acxiom.3. This is not to say that the private sector is totally without regulation. Some industry bodies, such as the Australian Direct Marketing Association, have developed their own codes of practice. The Australian Direct Marketing Association Code has recently been authorised by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and binds all members of the Australian Direct Marketing Association. The Code sets standards for fair trading and contains privacy provisions to protect consumers. I understand that Acxiom is actively involved with the Australian Direct Marketing Association and adheres strictly to the ADMA code of practice.4. Furthermore, in relation to PBL and Acxiom, there is nothing to prevent an individual from contacting Acxiom Australia at any time and asking it to remove that individual's personal information from its database. Indeed, Acxiom Australia would be wise to act on such a request, in the interests of good business and establishing a good relationship with consumers of Australia.5. Even though the Acxiom Australia database may be established before the commencement of the proposed private sector privacy legislation, PBL and Acxiom will not escape the operation of this new regime. Some of the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information, which are contained in the legislation, will apply to personal information collected by Acxiom Australia before the commencement of the Bill.6. Once the legislation is implemented, in respect of existing information, Acxiom Australia will be obliged to take reasonable steps:- to make sure that the personal information it collects, uses or discloses is accurate, complete and up to date; and- to protect the personal information it holds from misuse and loss and from unauthorised access, modification or disclosure; and—to destroy or permanently de-identify personal information if it is no longer needed for any purpose.7. As well, Acxiom Australia:- must, on request, take reasonable steps to let individuals know, generally, what sort of personal information it holds, for what purposes, and how it collects, holds, uses and discloses that information; and- may only transfer personal information outside Australia in very limited circumstances.8. Where existing information is updated by further collection of personal information, Acxiom Australia will need to comply with all the National Principles, including those relating to the collection, access, use and disclosure of personal information.Senator Lundy asked the Minister for Justice and Customs a supplementary question without notice, on 30 November 1999: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 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?Senator Amanda Vanstone—The answer to the honourable Senator's supplementary question is as follows:1. I would first like to point out that I am most surprised by the honourable Senator Lundy's question, in the context of the Opposition's failure to do anything to protect the personal information of the private sector during its term in office. I also remind the honourable Senator of the Opposition's failed `Australia Card' proposal.2. The Government has, since it announced that it would implement a `light touch' privacy regime for the privacy sector, gone to considerable lengths to take into account a broad and representative range of views in order to develop the best possible privacy regime for the Australian context.3. Consultation has occurred in a number of forms since the Government's announcement in December 1998. It has proved very fruitful in developing the legislative framework.4. The Government has decided to respond to recent calls for more consultation on the proposed legislation by agreeing to release key provisions of the Bill later this month to allow further consultation. These will include the National Privacy Principles, key definitions, exemption provisions covering the media and small business and the provisions covering personal health information. The Attorney-General proposes to introduce the Bill early in the first sittings next year.5. Although there is currently no legislation that prevents other companies from accessing the Acxiom Australia database, there is nothing to stop an individual from contacting a direct marketing organisation to establish what information it holds about the individual and request that the organisation delete the information from its records.1130015:04:0011300Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4SAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) and the Minister for Family and Community Services (Senator Newman), to questions without notice asked by senators today, relating to the goods and services tax and voluntary, charitable and service organisations.Today we had one of the most extraordinary performances by the government. Not once in response to any number of questions from the opposition was it able to explain the implementation of the GST as it would affect voluntary, charitable and service organisations in this country.The Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs ducked completely in response to my question. She said, `Don't ask me. Ask the Assistant Treasurer.' Senator Newman's performance today in response to the question I asked proved what a helpless, hapless and hopeless minister she is. In response to an issue I asked about veterans and the RSL, the biggest veterans organisation in Australia, all she said was, though she represents the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, `Ask the Treasurer. Don't ask me.' That is appalling. It is an insult to the veterans community and all the veterans organisations.It just shows that this minister, I suspect, has given up being a performer for the government. Most, if not all, ministers would welcome the opportunity to make a comment and answer a question about an issue that affects the veterans of this country. Not Senator Newman. In the past, she has been a shadow minister for defence and a shadow minister for veterans' affairs. When in opposition, she went around the place promoting herself as one of the experts on defence and veterans matters. But, as a minister representing the veterans' affairs minister in this place, she completely ducked the question. Why? Because she did not know or did not care. It is an insult.Even if we had asked Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, about this matter, I suspect that we would have got the same answer in content as we got from Senator Newman, which was nothing. He would not be able to answer the question. There are several thousand RSL sub-branches around Australia, many of them with a turnover of less than $50,000 a year. They are, therefore, exempt.VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—It is $100,000, not $50,000.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I am glad that Senator Watson raises that point. The government is putting an amendment to make it $50,000. It is putting an amendment forward to reduce it from $100,000 to $50,000. It has not been debated yet; it is coming forward shortly. The several thousand RSL branches get an exemption. However, they are affiliated to a state organisation that has a turnover of several million dollars per year and a national organisation that has a turnover of several million dollars more. What is the government going to advise the RSL regarding local branches of the RSL in a suburb or town not having to pay the GST on the membership fees they charge?Eighteen months after the announcement of the GST, there is no information from the government on that. Even today, when the Treasurer, Mr Costello, was asked in a doorstop interview about how charities could get an exemption from the GST, his only advice was:Well, they can structure their affairs so that they can take advantage of it on individual fundraising activities so that if a charity wants to stay outside the system, it is up to how it structures its activities.What advice are you giving to the RSL on how it should structure itself at a sub-branch level not to pay the GST? If the RSL rang the Treasurer's office now and asked him for that advice, they would not get it. Any charitable organisation, or any other service organisation, would not get any advice from this Treasurer other than, `You go and work it out yourself.' It is a disgraceful proposition to put to charitable and service organisations in this community that they have to go and work out how they get around paying the GST. The minister is actually trying to make them some form of tax avoider. What he has proposed is ethically wrong. If he can say that only today, 18 months since they announced the GST, it is a disgrace. We now have seven months to go to the introduction of the GST and neither this Treasurer nor his representative here in this Senate can explain to the people or the parliament how this is going to work. (Time expired)15:09:0011301Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VICLP10—The wholesale sales tax system is really what the opposition are supporting, because they have no other policies. I remind honourable senators that, some time ago in this chamber, I referred to a friend of mine who had manufactured a product and had not charged wholesale sales tax because he believed it was not necessary. He was followed up by the tax office some years later for a bill of something like $275,000 or an amount of that sort. When he challenged the tax office and said that he had involved other businesses that were selling that product after he had stopped making it and they were not charging wholesale sales tax, he was asked if he would sign an agreement that he still owed the money but if he did not tell anybody about it or publish the agreement, he would not have to pay the money. That was the sort of blackmail that was going on under Labor.Under the wholesale sales tax, there was the argy-bargy about in-ground swimming pools and above-ground swimming pools. In-ground swimming pools were deemed not to attract wholesale sales tax, although wholesale sales tax had been charged on them for years and years and had to be rebated. It was a ramshackle, appalling system. All the Labor Party can do is to come in here today and to go on and nitpick.They go on about charities, but I want to remind them that just before Christmas 1993, just before a federal election—I remember it because I was here—Mr Keating made a promise to charities that they were going to match dollar for dollar every dollar that was raised by that charity. What a scam. What a bogus scam. When the charities looked at the fine print, they were going to get a dollar for every dollar that they spent of that money that was raised over the Christmas period. As the charities said to me, `We raise the money at Christmas and we spend it for the whole of the year till the next Christmas. We can't spend it all at Christmas or we would not have anything left, because we don't get as much in our winter appeal.' Some of them do not even have winter appeals. The Labor Party, which are now bleating about charities, absolutely hoodwinked the charities in 1993. It was a disgraceful hoodwinking of those charities.Now we have the Labor Party peddling myths and untruths about the GST. They are saying it is an insidious tax. Let us go back to what the Labor Party said historically about the GST. Mr Hawke went on and on about it being a good tax. Mr Keating went on and on about how important it was as a tax. Mr Hawke said in 1985:Unless there is a source of income in the consumption area, then the mass of Australians—the ordinary taxpayers—are not going to be able get the substantial cuts in personal direct taxes to which they are entitled.He is absolutely right. We are having huge tax cuts from which people will be able to have more discretionary income to donate to charities. They will be able to assist in a greater way. It is absolutely amazing for the Labor Party to come in here and nitpick about the GST when they have no policies themselves. If I have time, I will say a bit more about Labor's view of the GST.Labor are coming in here peddling myths and untruths, saying, `What is going to happen about the Girl Guides at a lamington drive?' The Assistant Treasurer has been saying over and over again that they can structure them in a way that enables them to earn up to $100,000 without having to deal with the GST. That is a lot of lamingtons. I have done lamington drives for the Girl Guides. I know about having the netting thing across the hall, getting the sponge and dipping it in the chocolate. We never made $100,000 and we worked our tails off in a weekend. If a church is running a fete and they want to have the cake stall and other stalls, they can structure them as separate entities and raise the $100,000. If they can raise $100,000 on the white elephant stall and $100,000 on something else, then good luck to them. They can structure it. I am sure the Guides and the Scouts and the charitable organisations have the wit and the will to structure, if they wish to, so as not to pay GST.I have not heard the Labor Party say that if they got into government they would get rid of the GST. The Labor Party would serve the Australian public better if, in a cooperative way, they looked at the ways in which to implement this taxation system—the greatest reform of tax since federation—to ensure that we can actually provide health, social security and all the things we need to provide, as a compassionate society, into the future and to enable young Australians in the future to provide for the older people in their communities and for the health of the nation. (Time expired)15:14:0011302Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNSWALP00—The way that the government has proceeded in relation to handling this issue on the taxation of charities does not surprise us on this side of the Senate. In the last few years we have seen conflict between the Labor side of politics and the non-Labor side of politics—and this includes the Democrats. Once again, we are seeing a bit of a conflict between people who are motivated by being well-meaning, by generosity of spirit, and, in this case, as usual, the coalition, who the Society of St Vincent de Paul described as mean spirited. Time and time again over the last few years since Labor lost power we have seen this conflict between people who are motivated by this generosity of spirit and those who are mean spirited.Over the last few days a number of organisations have come out quite strongly against the federal government and what they are planning to do in relation to this taxing of charities. There is World Vision, which I mentioned in my question to Senator Kemp today. Senator Denman mentioned Adelaide Central Mission, in which, as I understand it, elderly volunteers repair donated dolls for resale; the chief of the mission believes that that will result in a tax that they will have to pay. We also have the Royal Life Saving Society, whose chief executive has slammed the situation in relation to this tax, because he does not believe that he will find any volunteers to act as treasurer to organise compliance with and administer this tax.Catholic Health Australia and Mr Francis Sullivan have said that to comply with and administer this act, on the advice of Arthur Andersen, a consulting group, would cost them $69 million extra a year. And to cap it all off, Mr Terry McCarthy, a spokesman for the Society of St Vincent de Paul, said that to them it will mean that they will have to pay another $1 million a year to comply with these GST rules. To quote Mr McCarthy:That's $1 million less to distribute to the poor, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised.What I cannot understand is why the government are acting in such a mean spirited way. I do not understand what motivates them to carry on in this way. All I can think is that there is some sort of extreme Calvinism running deep through their ranks that means that they believe that the poor, the disadvantaged and the disenfranchised are there because they are poor, disadvantaged and disenfranchised; that it is their fault that they are not part of the elect and therefore they should be punished one way or another: there should be no rewards and they should have a stick taken to them to make sure that they get out of this situation that they have unfortunately found themselves in.I do not know of any members of the coalition who would know that sometimes people find themselves in this desperate situation where they have to humbly go and ask for assistance, which is not an easy thing, I imagine, for Australians to do. It takes courage for them to do it, and they do it. There are men and women out there in our country who volunteer and put in a lot of time and energy, and their own money, to make sure that their fellow Australians are not poor, disadvantaged or disenfranchised.Why are the charities upset? Because the government went to the last election and said that charities would not be taxed. They fibbed to them. They misled them. No wonder the charities are upset about it. There are five representative groups, and that is only from some of the press clippings in which you can see that this is the situation. We on this side say to the government and to those charitable organisations that we are concerned about where they are coming from. What we would ask the government—and Mr Swan, our shadow minister for family and community services, has urged the Prime Minister to do this—is: why don't they do the decent thing and exempt charities and their fundraising activities from the GST net? That is all the government have to do to end this scandal. But they will not, because they have misled the people that they said would be exempted from this taxation, and they are going to continue to do that. (Time expired)15:19:0011303Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—It is not a case, as Senator Hutchins said, of the government misleading charitable organisations. For the record, it has always been the intention of all governments to ensure that the taxation pool is not diminished, not just by individuals but by charities that do not conform to a certain set of rules. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have made it quite clear that the pursuit of tax dodgers is one of the government's great successes since its time in office. To suggest otherwise of this government—this caring government, this government that has captured the hearts and the minds of the blue-collar workers, the people that used to support that other side of politics—is ridiculous.For instance, Senator Hutchins went on about the aged, the infirm, the fragile and the young, as did other speakers, when that is not the intention of the government, nor is it true. This government in fact makes it easy under the GST for over 80 per cent of the people of Australia to have tax cuts. Why would it—looking at it rationally—try to take away those areas of responsibility that are assumed by the private sector and then have to come in itself and fill in that vacuum? I must say that, before Senator Hutchins's time, the Treasury, during the Hawke-Keating government, was run by fiscal bandits. We had an enormous job to do to repair that damage. But it will be nothing like what we will see, even though the success is as great as it has been for this government, this Howard coalition government of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The success is coming with the implementation of the GST. And when it comes, charitable organisations will be better off. Every other organisation in Australia will be better off.Perhaps they will still be dependent. By their very nature, by their very name, they are dependent on charity, and this government has never closed its eyes to charitable organisations, has never closed its eyes to people in need. I only have to point out what happened in East Timor recently, when it was this government that solved the problem there, when it was the initiative of this Howard government that sent in those brave young Australians to restore order there, at the risk of their own lives. We talk about the grand picture but we do not let the micro picture go aside either. There is one thing that this government has a preoccupation with, and that is those people in need. Let me tell the other side that the GST legislation already contains concessional measures that are available to charities. We have already put that in print. We have already put there the registration turnover threshold of $100,000 GST free, the GST-free status of non-commercial activities and the GST-free status of supplies of donated second-hand goods.What really turns my stomach in this argument is the fact that a picture is painted to try and stampede people into believing that the GST is going to be on some broken-down dolls that may be repaired by people with the utmost care and the utmost feeling for those people who are deprived, that somehow having people carry out charitable work on charitable donations is going to attract the GST. It is quite clear that the legislation provides for those things to be GST free, and I think that is a scare tactic, notwithstanding that it is incorrect, and forgets the big picture of the GST. Don't look at the hole, look at the donut, and the donut is that not only charitable organisations will be better off but all Australians will be better off. We have got $12 billion of tax cuts coming in on 1 July next year. We have got $2,000 to $3,000 coming off motor vehicles next year. In three out of four years since we have been in government, we have had record sales of motor vehicles. The scare tactics that the Labor Party so assiduously use need to be rebutted, and rebutted they will be. You cannot take the voting public of Australia for fools. You have done it for far too long and it is going to end. (Time expired)15:24:0011304Denman, Sen KaySenator DENMANFY5TASALP00—I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Kemp on the GST and charities. The Howard government relied on the mantra that no-one would be worse off under a GST. What are we finding? We are finding that one of the vital partners of the Howard government's so-called coalition, the charitable sector, will be worse off. Despite what Senator Lightfoot said, we have heard many examples of how they will be worse off.One of the other partners of his so-called social coalition are the CEOs on those massive salaries. I have not heard them complain. Why should they? After all, they have computer programmers and experts on tax law setting up the compliance mechanisms. This will be left to their underlings and they will reap the benefits of the massive tax cuts. Thus we find that business will be able to claim compliance costs, for example, a new computer. Charities have never paid tax on a new computer, so they are not going to benefit. Business will also benefit from not paying wholesale sales tax. Charities have never paid it, so again there is no benefit to the charity; but there is to business. Additionally, charities will not benefit from the reduction of tax in the same way that business will.Compliance is one of the real issues for charities, who even now have trouble finding treasurers for their management committees. We have to realise that charitable organisations rely on volunteers. How will those dedicated volunteers find the time or the energy to do all the extra work, again in their spare time? The Howard government will make mileage from the free courses that they are offering to these groups. That is fine for people in business. They can pay someone else to substitute for them while they do the free courses. Charitable groups cannot, be cause again they rely on volunteers to come in. They cannot pay people to substitute for them while they go off and do these courses, so again it is volunteers who are at the moment giving extended time and may not have the time to go on giving that extended time. I spoke today with a charitable service provider in my area on the north-west coast of Tasmania, and one of his main concerns is where they are going to find volunteers to reprogram their computers and how they are going to call on their already overburdened treasurer to pick up the slack from the extra work that the GST will provide for them.Confusion still reigns over what will attract a GST and what will not. I think Senator Kemp totally misunderstood the question I asked about the dolls being repaired by the dolls hospital for the Adelaide City Mission. We still do not know whether they will or will not attract the GST. We have found that new goods donated will attract a GST but second-hand goods donated will not. So the logical thing to do, if you are given new goods, is ask the donor to give them elsewhere so that wherever else you give them can give them back to you as second-hand goods and they then do not attract the GST. Raffle tickets will not attract the GST but school fundraisers such as lamington drives and chocolate sales will. One could imagine charities saying, `Please give these new goods to somebody else so that we can have them back,' and that is going to create a most awful mess.As I have already said, raffles do not attract a GST, so why hold stalls? The Labor Party would be delighted that raffles do not attract a GST, and the Labor Party raised lots of money through our membership with raffles. If that does not attract a GST, that will probably suit us very nicely. The President of ACROD, Michael Sumner, put out a statement today and in it he said, `There is no doubt charities will be worse off in comparison.' (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.1130415:29:0011304Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Vanstone), to a question without notice asked by Senator Stott Despoja today, relating to private sector privacy laws.I asked Senator Vanstone today about privacy and in particular about the dire need for Australia to have a comprehensive, national and preferably enforceable privacy regime so that all Australians can feel confident that their personal information and data are protected, especially in light of events in the past week. We have seen the Acxiom debacle in relation to data warehouses. We have seen the Geospend issue. We have seen even this morning allegations about the HIC. There is also the internal Australia Post health survey. All of these issues have brought the privacy debate fairly and squarely onto the public agenda, yet we have yet to see any comprehensive action by this government.One thing Senator Amanda Vanstone said in response to my question was quite correct—and I do acknowledge that—and that was the Labor Party's history on this. There were some latecomers to the privacy debate on the opposition benches today who were getting quite agitated about the issue of privacy. I certainly appreciate their agitation in the sense that we have yet to see the extension of the Privacy Act to the private sector. Unfortunately, opportunities for the Labor Party in office to strengthen and tighten privacy laws were not taken advantage of.At the risk of giving a brief history lesson, I think it is important to understand the context of this debate in Australia. I am certainly very proud of the history of the Australian Democrats. As Senator Vanstone pointed out in her response to my question, yes, we did join with the then opposition to defeat the Australia Card during the 1986 debate. During that time, it generated a great deal of awareness among Australians about privacy issues. The bill of former senator for the Australian Democrats, Senator Michael Macklin, in 1987 brought on the debate that culminated in the Privacy Act in 1988. At that time, the Australian Democrats tried, through amendments, to extend the Privacy Act not only to the public sector but to the private sector—a debate that is ongoing. Amendments put by former leader Janine Haines to ensure the protection of personal information in the private sector were opposed on that occasion.We have introduced a private member's bill in the last few years. In 1997, my private member's bill would have extended the Privacy Act to the private sector. We withdrew that bill after the government finally decided that it would act to ensure some degree of private sector privacy. In fact, the government did promise during its 1996 election campaign that this would be a priority issue. I note that at the last election the coalition's policy stated:The coalition regards personal privacy as a cherished right in a free society.The government claimed that it would `work with industry and states to provide a co-regulatory approach to privacy within the private sector in Australia comparable with the best international practice.'Indeed, the evidence in the answer today indicates that the government has been consulting, and we acknowledge that, through the privacy principles consultations. We are very pleased to be a part of that process. Consultation has taken place, but that is not enough. Consultation is good, but it is not an excuse for holding up the protection of privacy. I did note that some members of the opposition screamed and shouted during the answer to the question, but they have a worse record. When Senator Bolkus was the joint sponsor of a motion to refer the issue of private sector privacy to a Senate committee with me, he certainly indicated a willingness to rectify this record. But Labor was the party that introduced the Australia Card in 1986 while in government. It was the party which did not support the extension to the private sector of the Privacy Act in 1988. There seems to be a different policy from the opposition depending on whether or not it is in government.84PHUTCHINSSenator Hutchins—A bit like you on the GST, isn't it?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Not like me on the GST. I acknowledge that there is time for the ALP to change its mind, and I hope that it will join with us in urging the government to get its act together on the issue of privacy and extending it to the private sector. The Democrats believe that personal information should be protected through a comprehensive and national enforceable regime. We believe the fundamental principle that a person has the right to know what personal information is held about them, whether the information is lawfully held and, of course, whether or not that information is correct. Article 17 of the International Charter of Civil and Political Rights provides:. . . no one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his [or her] privacy.We have seen evidence to the contrary in the last few months and weeks, and it is time for decent laws. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.1130610001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1130610DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows: That Australian citizens oppose social, legal and economic discrimination against people on the basis of their sexuality or transgender identity and that such discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic society.Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of sexuality or transgender identity so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at a national level.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 10 citizens)1130611DT6Bartlett Sen AndrewTo the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled.The Petition of the undersigned shows strong disappointment in the Australian Government's inadequate protection of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from the destructive practices of prawn trawling. Prawn trawling destroys up to 10 tonnes of other reef life for every one tonne of prawns while clearfelling the sea floor. There are 11 million square kilometres of Australia's ocean territory; the reef represents just 350,000 square kilometres.Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support the phasing out of all prawn trawling on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by the year 2005.Senator BartlettDT6Senator Bartlett(from 11 citizens)Petitions received.Notices113061130615:35:0011306Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for six sitting days after today for the disallowance of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No. 202 and made under the Customs Act 1901.11306Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, and for related purposes. Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 .Senator Coonan to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills on search and entry provisions in Commonwealth legislation be extended to 16 February 2000.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes: (i) the release of two reports, Kosovo/ Kosova: As Seen, As Told , parts I and II, by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) on the human rights abuses perpetrated in Kosovo in 1999, and (ii) the focus of these reports on the administration of justice in Kosovo; and(b) urges the Government to: (i) support the OSCE's call for an end to impunity and the transfer of all indicted suspects to the Hague for trial for crimes against humanity committed before and during the armed conflict, and (ii) encourage the United Nations to provide sufficient resources and personnel for effective policing and human rights investigations.15:35:0011307Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during this sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The statements read as follows—Name of BillBroadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No 1) 1999PurposeTo amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to:include anti-hoarding provisions for free to air television broadcasters (Schedule 1):provide for the transmission of out of area licensed broadcasting services, and to limit pay TV carriage of metropolitan programming in regional licence areas (Schedules 2 and 3); andincrease the time allowed for sponsorship announcements by community broadcasting licensees (Schedule 4).Reasons for urgencyPassage of the legislation in the Spring Sittings is necessary to:support the implementation of the Government's TV Fund black-spots program, expected to commence early next year, with out of area transmission measures which will assist in the provisions of broadcasting services to households located in areas of inadequate reception (Schedule 3);implement an election commitment to increase community broadcasting sponsorship announcement time. Delay is causing increasing hardship to community broadcasters (Schedule 4); address the public interest concern that free to air broadcasters receive preferential treatment in being able to acquire live broadcast rights (ie to major sporting events on the anti-siphoning list) but then do not always televise these events live and in full (Schedule 1); andresolve current uncertainty regarding the integrity of regional commercial free to air licence areas against possible importation of `look-alike' services by regional pay TV operators (Schedule 2)(Circulated by authority of Senator the Hon. Richard Alston, Minister for Communications Information Technology and the Arts)Name of BillBroadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999PurposeTo amend the provisions of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 relating to Australian content on subscription television broadcastingTo amend s.160(d) of the Act to limit the scope of international obligations which apply to the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA).Reasons for urgencyPassage of the subscription television amendments in the Spring sittings is essential to make the existing Australian content licence condition for subscription television broadcasters enforceable Passage in the Spring Sittings will enable the scheme to commence operation in respect of the 1999-2000 yearAmendment of s.160(d) will provide certainty to the ABA in clarifying the international agreements that apply to its functions, in response to the potentially far-reaching implications and uncertainty created by the High Court's Project Blue Sky judgment.(Circulated by authority of Senator the Hon Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts)Senator Ian Campbell to move, on Thursday, 9 December 1999:That the order of the Senate of 30 November 1999 relating to estimates hearings be varied to provide that, in respect of the 1999-2000 additional estimates, initial hearings for legislation committees be scheduled as follows:Monday, 21 February, Tuesday, 22 February and, if required, Friday, 25 February (Group A )Wednesday, 23 February, Thursday, 24 February and, if required, Friday, 25 February (Group B ). 11308Items of business were postponed as follows: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 9 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 8 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 8 December 1999.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 8 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 8 December 1999.Committees113081130811308Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to:That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges: Whether threats were made against persons who made submissions to the Select Committee on A New Tax System in consequence of their submissions to the committee and, if so, whether any contempt was committed in that regard.Miscellaneous11308Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business orders of the day relating to the following bills may be taken together for their remaining stages:Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Investment Program Bill 1999Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Business1130811308Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the Senate not meet on Monday, 14 February 2000.Miscellaneous11308Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999Miscellaneous1130815:39:0011308Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Deputy President, I would like to announce that the Greens have just won six seats in New Zealand. With that good news, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 395 standing in my name for today, relating to preventing the clearing of native vegetation in Queensland, be taken as a formal motion.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?8O6O'BRIENSenator O'Brien—As long as that first part is not part of the motion, there is no objection.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—There is no objection.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I thank the Senate for that. This is all good news, and I move:That the Senate—(a) notes the `Mexican stand-off' between the Queensland Premier (Mr Beattie) and the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) which is preventing the implementation of effective controls on disastrous native vegetation clearing and burning in Queensland; and(b) calls on both parties to enter into negotiations immediately, based on a firm proposal from Queensland setting out the funding required to enable clearing controls to be legislated before the State Parliament rises for Christmas.Question resolved in the affirmative.Miscellaneous11309Motion (by Senator Hutchins) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) extends its condolences to the families of the victims killed in the Glenbrook train disaster on 2 December 1999;(b) notes the highly competent response to the accident of emergency services in New South Wales, and the manner in which passengers of the trains were consoled and attended to at the accident site; and(c) acknowledges that the New South Wales Government acted quickly in establishing an independent judicial inquiry to investigate the cause of the accident.Miscellaneous11309Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to: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.Committees113091130911309Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Quirke) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy be extended to 17 February 2000. 1130911309Motion (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 Australia in relation to Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation be extended to 18 February 2000.1130911309Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator McKiernan) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee on the operation of Australia's refugee and humanitarian program be extended to 29 June 2000.Matters of Public Importance113091130910000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received a letter from Senator Woodley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:The need for the government to implement without delay the recommendations of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's report into the deregulation of the Australian dairy industry.I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I will ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.15:42:0011309Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—The reason why I have proposed this matter of public importance today is that there is great concern about this issue in the dairy industry and amongst dairy farmers. Last week I attended three meetings on this, as well as being here for sittings of the Senate. One of my representatives attended another meeting and I have further requests for meetings in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. There is significant concern in all of those states—and in fact in every state of Australia—about this matter. The meetings which I attended included Victoria. I say that because it has been very interesting to listen to some of the rhetoric about this issue which says that all of the farmers in Victoria are behind deregulation. Certainly in the meetings I attended the concern was about half and half—half of those present supported deregulation and half did not. A rough poll taken by Channel 9 at a meeting in Shepparton showed about 55 per cent of the audience against deregulation and about 45 per cent in favour. We know of course that the Victorian government itself will be entering the debate in the sense that there will be a plebiscite in the next couple of weeks for which a question has been prepared. The plebiscite will be taken amongst Victorian dairy farmers.Today I want to look at the various recommendations of the report and put them into the context of the rest of the report so that people will understand how they have come about. Then I hope to convince the Senate and perhaps put pressure on the government to respond to those recommendations, because I believe they are critical to this whole debate about deregulation. The package which the government has announced is inadequate, and without implementation of the recommendations of our report, I believe, the action for deregulation will indeed mean disaster for the Australian dairy industry.The first recommendation urges the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, to call as a matter of urgency a meeting of state agricultural and regional development ministers to determine a framework and a time frame for the coordinated deregulation of the dairy industry. I believe that the Commonwealth has not taken sufficient action in this regard. Whether that is the fault of the Commonwealth or the states has been a matter of great debate, but I certainly support the recommendation of the committee that this meeting be called. It should have been called by now, and it must be called as soon as possible.The concern I have is that the states are acting independently of one another and, in some cases, acting independently of the Commonwealth. That Victoria is moving to a plebiscite illustrates that. Farmers in other states would also like to have some kind of plebiscite, so there is a need for a national approach. Certainly in the meetings I attended in Victoria, there was a small—and I want to emphasise the word `small'—but vocal minority who were saying, `We don't care about the rest of Australia. We're going to benefit.' I am sure that that is not a universal or even a majority opinion, but it was said strongly. I was very disappointed in that because I believe the dairy industry in Australia is a national industry and must take account of the concerns of all the states.There is division not only between the states but also within the states. That was particularly clear to me in Victoria, where there is a tremendous amount of bitterness between farmers, depending on which side of the debate they are on, and even between regions. With that and with the divisions between the states, there is an urgent need for all of the states and the Commonwealth to come together to address these issues. There is need for a unified industry and, particularly, for solidarity amongst farmers. If there is not that solidarity, then I believe they will be picked off one by one to their own detriment and to the detriment of this country.The report, as background to this recommendation, suggested that there are winners and losers. Under the current regulation, under the system we have at the moment, the winners are the farmers, who get a decent return for their work and investment, and the consumers, who have a regulated and guaranteed year-round supply of milk and a price which is not only reasonable but, as has been pointed out on many occasions, below the cost of water.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—So you are against deregulation?HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I am against deregulation. Hadn't I made that clear?WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You hadn't said.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—I will get to that.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator McGauran, you are on the speakers list, so wait your turn.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Under the current system, the other lot of winners in this whole issue are regional economies. One of the big concerns expressed in our report is the effect of deregulation on regional economies where the main income is dairying. We can refer to the studies done in the Bega Valley and in one of the shires in Western Australia, the name of which I cannot quite remember at the moment. Perhaps Senator Crane might be able to tell us.UW4CRANESenator Crane—Try Boya.HX5Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEY—Right. They have shown a significant loss for regional economies following deregulation. It is this whole issue of winners and losers which makes it absolutely critical that we pick up recommendation 1 of that report and that this meeting is held as soon as possible.Another concern in the report was the shift of control and income away from farmers to processors, manufacturers and the large retailers. One of the things which the report said was that the market or commercial pressures will force deregulation. I have made clear that, although it was a unanimous report, I had a reservation at that point. I do not believe that deregulation is inevitable, and I want to return to that a little bit later in this speech.The other recommendation supported this initial one. Recommendation 2 pointed out that there could be penalties from the National Competition Council if there is any delay in deregulation. I do not agree with that proposition and neither does the committee. Recommendations 3 and 4 pointed out that where there is a loss of quota, as there is in three states, this is a loss of real property and that, where there are regional impacts, these also should be compensated. So we are worried that the package does not address the issue of the loss of quotas or the issue of regional impacts. We recommended that the ACCC monitor the effects on consumers and farmers. That is critical.Finally, in recommendation 6, having heard claims during the hearings of some of the accountability and transparency processes within some of the large cooperatives, we recommended that an inquiry into the operations and accountability mechanisms of cooperatives be undertaken. I have already begun to do some work in that regard.Let me finish with a couple of concerns. I am concerned about the Victorian plebiscite because I believe the question which has been posed to farmers is a very loaded question. We warned about that in our report. We said that you should really have a national, professionally prepared survey, not a single question which is too easy to bias. Is deregulation inevitable? No, it is not. It is only a lack of political will to stand against commercial pressures which will make it inevitable. I want to say that it is about time that we realised that in this place we represent people; we do not manage on behalf of powerful corporations. What is the point of standing for election to parliament or to a peak body unless we are prepared to represent the people whom we say we stand for? I urge the government to act now before we lose another one of our primary industries unnecessarily. (Time expired)15:52:0011311Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4WALP10—I rise to speak on this matter of public importance relating to the deregulation of the Australian dairy industry and to address the recommendations of the committee, of which Senator Woodley was the chair and of which I and other senators in the chamber, including Senator O'Brien, were members. Senator Calvert attended a number of hearings, as did Senator McGauran.I found the contribution of our chair somewhat of a contradiction, in that he combined his personal views with the findings of the committee. I do not think there are any of us here who do not support the motion. Certainly the government supports it. It is rather interesting that we have before us an MPI put by the Democrats that we support. The problem I have with Senator Woodley's contribution is that the report made it quite clear that— whether or not we liked it, and whether or not we had a personal view—deregulation of the dairy industry was inevitable. There were a number of reasons for that, but the most important one, when talking about national pools or DMSS schemes, is that the dairy farmers themselves, particularly in the outlying states, did not support a return to either of those schemes, and there is no viable alternative.It needs to be understood that, if all the states decided not to deregulate, milk would flow from the various business operations across state borders, whether it be from cooperatives or from businesses. The impact of that would be to deregulate the price at the selling point, so the impact would be there regardless of what the states did. The important thing is that there is agreement between the states and the Commonwealth to implement the Commonwealth package and some of the other issues in our report. I quickly wish to deal with those issues. The first recommendation says:The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Government call as a matter of urgency, a meeting of state Agriculture and Regional Development Ministers to determine a framework, and a timeframe, for the co-ordinated deregulation of the Dairy Industry.The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Truss, has arranged a meeting on 22 December of all state agricultural ministers to determine a framework and a time frame for the coordinated deregulation of the dairy industry. This is the fourth time in the last five months that there has been an endeavour to put together such a meeting. The date is 22 December, which is the day after the Victorian poll result will be announced, and it reflects the urgency and priority that the minister has placed on this issue.Had the Victorian poll been earlier, the meeting would have been held earlier, but it was deemed by the various state ministers and the federal minister that it would be better to hold that meeting after the poll result was known, and that arrangement is in place. The second recommendation says:That should administrative arrangements not be in place in time to make the first payments by 1 July 2000, that appropriate compensatory arrangements are factored into the payments schedules, in order that dairy farmers do not suffer any more financial hardship than is presently envisaged.The government's response to that is that it plans to have the administrative arrangements in place in time to make the first payments by 1 July. Of course, this is dependent to a degree upon the outcome of the ministers' meeting on 22 December, but I have been informed that they will go into that meeting with strong goodwill.Senator Forshaw interjecting—UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—Senator Forshaw smiles. I have been informed that it even includes the New South Wales minister. At least we are getting cooperation from New South Wales. I believe that the only thing that would delay that process would be if it were held up in the political process here, and I do not believe that will happen. Recommendation 3 says:That the states of Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia consider the issue of quota entitlement and any form of compensation that may be appropriate for the resumption of quota entitlement, including the possibility of using the NCP payments as compensation.As we all know, this is an issue for the states, but I can tell you that at this point in time the minister for agriculture in Western Australia has invited the dairy industry there to prepare a submission to him dealing with that particular issue. I hope there is similar action taking place in New South Wales and Queensland, but I do not know at this point whether that is the case. Maybe some other people in the debate can assist us in terms of that particular discussion.The fourth recommendation of the committee says:That regional adjustment packages for rural and regional communities affected negatively by deregulation be developed by both State and Commonwealth Governments.This is a matter on the agenda of the ministers' meeting. There has been communication between the minister's office and the various state ministers' offices to address that particular aspect. Hopefully, some guidelines will flow from that and subsequent meetings of officials. We move over the page to recommendation 5:The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in accordance with subsection 17[1] of the Prices Surveillance Act monitor costs and prices in the dairy industry so that dairy farmers are not unfairly burdened with the cost of the proposed levy.I am informed that Minister Truss has proposed that the ACCC be resourced to monitor milk prices during the deregulation process and to deal with the substance of this particular recommendation from the committee. Finally, recommendation 6 says:That an inquiry into the operations and accountability mechanisms of cooperatives be undertaken.The government asked what purpose such an inquiry would serve our commercial operations. However, the minister has made it clear that this is a separate issue from deregulation and certainly something that he is prepared to have a look at.Basically, I have gone through the recommendations that were made by the committee and, might I say, without apportioning blame, that at long last we will get the meeting which I think everybody here would liked to have seen happen a month or two ago but for some reluctance by some of the participants. Then the decision of the new Victorian government to have a plebiscite delayed it further. If they work diligently and cooperatively, it is my view that in fact they can deal with the issues in the time that is allowed.Finally, in answering particular aspects of this MPI, it is worth noting that the committee report was tabled in parliament with the unanimous support of the whole committee—ourselves, the Labor Party and the Democrats. That underscores the constructive nature of the inquiry we held. It was not an easy inquiry. In fact, it was very difficult. People who are used to situations that they have lived with for a long time find it hard to cope with the deregulated environment, with the new world.The Senate needs reminding—as I have done in a number of meetings that I have addressed in a number of states since the inquiry—that it was the Kerin plan and then the Crean plan which inevitably led to this particular day with the huge emphasis on the development of our export market. The reality is that export market production has now overtaken domestic market production and commercial pressures have brought this day upon us when the dairy industry will be deregulated, regardless of what individual states do. I do not criticise that. I think that is something that we must accept. There was a certain amount of political driving from within the industry itself and also from within this parliament to bring about this day. There are going to be some enormous adjustments and the structural adjustment package will be absolutely crucial for some towns—I mention particularly Harvey, a town just north of Bunbury in Western Australia where the committee held hearings. They have other problems with the restructuring of the forest industry in that part of Western Australia. We as a government, along with the states, need to be responsive to what is required to deal with those adjustments.Having said that, this package of the federal government that is worth some $1.8 billion is still on the table. It is funded through a consumer levy. What happens in terms of the regional projects, the regional submissions and the regional restructuring is something that will have to be determined in a joint operation between the Commonwealth and the states. (Time expired)Distinguished Visitors1131310000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! I would like to recognise in the public gallery former Tasmanian member of the House of Representatives for Wilmot and Lyons, Max Burr, and welcome him to the Senate.UNKNOWNHonourable senatorsHonourable senators—Hear, hear!Matters of Public Importance1131311313Debate resumed.16:03:0011313Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656NSWALP00—The matter of public importance which the Senate is discussing today states:The need for the government to implement without delay the recommendations of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's report into the deregulation of the Australian dairy industry.As Senator Crane has just pointed out, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee brought down a unanimous report into the dairy industry and specifically the potential deregulation of that industry. The committee comprised representatives from the government, the opposition and the Democrats. Therefore, it is almost impossible—it is impossible—to do anything today other than to support the sentiments contained in this matter of public importance.Obviously, we support the recommendations of that report. Senator Crane in particular went into some detail in his remarks regarding each of the recommendations. I point out that, in the process of producing a unanimous report, there was obviously a need for some compromise on the part of the various groups or parties represented on the committee. The overriding consideration of the committee was that we believed it was important to produce a report that was fair and accurate, with an emphasis on endeavouring to promote a resolution to the deregulation issue. We believed that objective would be far better achieved if we were able to reach a consensus rather than just using the issue for partisan political purposes.As the report notes, the dairying industry is our third most important agricultural industry in terms of export earnings and its importance within the community for consumers, farmers and producers. Obviously, the recommendations of the report are supported by the opposition. It follows that we believe the government should move with the quickest possible haste to implement those recommendations. We also have to take the opportunity today to remind ourselves once again of the reasons why we have got into this situation and why it is that, only six months or so before the domestic market support scheme ceases to operate, we still do not have a national agreement on the future of this industry, in particular, the future regulation of the industry. I believe the reasons for that rest—and the committee's report supports this—with the failures of the previous Victorian government and indeed of the current federal government to do what they should have done to bring about a national strategy, a national plan.5F4CALVERTSenator Calvert—We didn't criticise the Victorian government, nor did we criticise the federal government; you are doing that.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Calvert wants to interject. I will come to these issues in more detail, but let us remember the position. The reason why deregulation was put on the agenda was that the previous Victorian Liberal government said that they would deregulate their industry irrespective of the views of the farmers, of the cooperatives, or of the governments in the other states. That is what they said. They said, `We don't care about the views of the industry in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania or Western Australia.' They said they would unilaterally deregulate. Because they are the major milk producing state in this country, it was clear that such a unilateral decision would have vast ramifications for the other states. Further, such a unilateral decision in an industry which has been progressively restructuring over a number of years—going back to the days of the Crean plan and, before that, the Kerin plan when Labor was in government in the 1980s—was bound to upset the orderly progression if all the players did not agree to a totally deregulated industry.What has happened since is that the Victorian Liberal government have lost office. Labor are in power and they are carrying out their electoral promise to give the dairy farmers in that state an opportunity to vote on whether or not they support deregulation, and particularly whether or not they accept the package that has been negotiated by the industry. Our view is that history would have been different if, first of all, Victoria had not unilaterally made that decision but had been prepared to continue to press their case within the forums of COAG and ARMCANZ—that is, the meeting of all the state and federal ministers for agriculture—to try to reach a national position. That is also the responsibility of the federal government.Senator Crane says this is a states issue. It is a states issue, we know, because it is the states that regulate the milk industry, particu larly in the market milk sector, through the use of quotas and so on. That has been the history for a long, long time. It is what has in the past guaranteed the security of income and the viability of dairy farmers. But we know we live in a different time now. Through the demands of the World Trade Organisation for increased competition and greater, freer trade, through the need to improve our exports in this industry where there are great opportunities, and also through the principles of national competition policy, this industry has had to face those issues, like many others, and to look at restructuring and deregulation.As Senator Boswell knows and as we all know, words like competition policy and deregulation are not very popular out in rural and regional Australia—whether we are in office or whether the current government is in office. They are not popular because we know that they have had and will have major impacts on regional communities and on the industry. But it is the responsibility of a federal government to take the lead on these issues. It is no good saying, `These are state issues—you have to solve them'. If this is being driven, as we know, by things like national competition policy, then the emphasis is on this being a national industry. We are looking for a national solution. We are looking for national benefit through greater export income for the national economy, and therefore there has to be leadership from the national government. We have not seen it from this government and, unfortunately, we are still not seeing it.I have to be critical because the government have said that they have picked up the package that has been developed by the industry—a package which is designed to assist dairy farmers to restructure or to exit the industry if that is their choice—but they have then said, `You can have it if you can get all the states to agree'. Then they have dropped the bundle and done nothing about trying to advance that process. Senator Crane announced today that there will finally be a meeting, on 22 December. We welcome that. But a responsible minister who was doing his job, knowing the deadlines that have to be met—such as the end of June next year—would be in there pushing those states, whether they are Liberal, Labor or National Party states, to reach a consensus. He would not be washing his hands of the issue by saying, `We will put the package on the table, but it won't operate unless all states agree,' and then basically doing nothing. And that has been the situation: a failure of national leadership.In the remaining couple of minutes, I want to turn to a couple of other issues. One of the key recommendations of the committee is the need to look at the impact upon regional communities. There is nothing in this package about this issue, and we have heard nothing from this government about how they intend to address it. It seems as though they think this can be left to the states as well. That is where this government really needs to act, and act quickly, because I have been advised that there are people already making decisions in parts of Australia—certainly in my state—to get out of this industry because, in their view, deregulation is inevitable and it is coming. I heard what Senator Woodley said. He does not believe it is inevitable.We do not know what the result of the plebiscite will be in Victoria. We will know in a couple of weeks. That is one issue, but this government has to have a policy position as to how it will react, whichever way that vote goes. If the vote is yes for deregulation then it is inevitable—the other states have said they will follow. We already know that the major food supermarket chains are looking to further deregulation in terms of how they might be able to seize a greater share of the market against their competitors, particularly in the state of New South Wales. But if the vote were to go the other way—YE4BOSWELLSenator Boswell—Which it won't.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Senator Boswell said that it won't, but the issue here is that this government does not have a fall-back position. It does not have a strategy about how it is going to address the issues that will arise between the result of that ballot and June next year. If the vote were by some chance to reject deregulation, there will still be big problems on the table. That will not solve the issue. We know that in many ways that could well complicate the issue even more.The Labor Party's concern is that you cannot just treat this issue, one, as a states issue and, two, as one where `We'll just let the chips fall where they may.' You have to address the issue of the impact upon regional communities. You also have to address—as this package does not—the issue of the impact upon share farmers. That issue has been raised a number of times now. We still do not have any indication as to how those people will be treated. Frankly, this government and this minister can do a lot better.We are keen to see these recommendations implemented. If one thing was clear out of the report, it was that the senators on this committee from the states of New South Wales, Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia were able to get together and bring down a bipartisan, unanimous report. Hopefully, this government can get all those states into the cart and get them to reach an agreement on this most important issue.16:17:0011316McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VICNP10—I also rise to speak on this matter of public importance. If we read the matter of public importance straight and cold and not try to twist it as the previous speaker did just to gain political advantage, this side of the House can easily answer the matter of public importance and on many points agrees with it.Senator Forshaw did not address the matter of public importance. He took every possible opportunity to criticise this government's approach to a very complex issue, not at all recognising that the final decision is a state's matter. We have played our part with regard to the compensation package—a very generous compensation package—but Senator Forshaw is worried about what the federal government is going to do if there happens to be a `no' vote in the state of Victoria. The point is that, if there happens to be a `no' vote, the responsibility is with the Premier of Victoria. That is where the responsibility will lie for the ultimate decision as to whether the country deregulates. It is a Victorian decision. It begins there and basically ends there, Senator Forshaw.As the Senate would be aware, the Victorian dairy farmers are going to make that decision in the coming weeks—they have received their ballot papers. They will be voting for or against the deregulation of their industry. Current trends show that is somewhat of a fifty-fifty position. That is how close it is. Unless there is a very strong `no' vote, on 1 July 2000 the Australian dairy industry will be facing deregulation. It is because the Victorian dairy industry is the largest and most competitive that they will have the final say in this major change. The Victorian dairy industry produces some 63 per cent of Australia's milk. In 1996-97 they recorded 5.622 million litres from 8,203 dairy farmers milking 1,238,000 cows.It is worthy to note that this will be the largest restructure undertaken in primary industry. The change facing the dairy industry dwarfs all other deregulations and readjustments in the rural sector, such as in the tobacco industry, the citrus industry or the pig industry—which we have all heard of in the last couple of years. It perhaps also dwarfs the abolition of the wool floor price scheme in 1990. It is also worthy to note that the Australian dairy industry is recognised not only as Australia's most efficient rural industry but also as one of the most efficient rural industries internationally. It is in fact the fourth largest agricultural exporter—made up of some $2 billion worth of exports and exporting some 50 per cent of its product. It is made up of 14,000 farms—90 per cent being family farms. The dairy industry has more family farms than any other rural sector. It is the bastion of the family farm.Like all rural industries over the past 20 years, dairying has undergone great change in order to keep pace with new technology, rising costs and static returns. From this change, the number of dairy farms has declined from over 30,000 in 1974 to 14,000 to this date. Even the herd sizes have increased from, on average, 77 in 1975 to 149 in 1998. Of significance is the improved herd genetics as well as the advances in pastoral management and supplementary feeding regimes, which have seen the average annual yield per cow increase.That is the very good state our current national industry is in. Now that the industry is moving into a new phase, it is very important to understand the current state of the industry. It is an industry which is very efficient and which is going along very well at present. More particularly, it represents the family farmer. I cannot think of another rural industry that is more the quintessence of the family farmer.Deregulation brings with it, firstly, the ending of the Commonwealth Domestic Market Support Scheme in July 2000 and, secondly, in my state, the abolition of the Victorian government intervention in the market milk arrangements. When these two support schemes are lifted, Victoria will immediately start trading across the border and most particularly in the lucrative Sydney markets. That is what deregulation is all about: this massive Victorian industry that has become bottled up will be able to start trading across the border where presently it cannot.But there will be a social cost to this deregulation. The New South Wales Bega Valley, for example, has reported that it will lose some 30 per cent of its dairy farmers. Victoria also will have to bear a cost: it will not be immune to deregulation. It could lose as many as 2,000- to 3,000 of its own farmers. If we are to lose so many farmers in what is already an efficient industry, why are we doing this? Why is it inevitable? Why does the industry itself support deregulation? It must be noted that this decision for the state of Victoria will be made by its farmers in a ballot. It will be their decision. Whatever opinions we in this parliament have for regulation or deregulation, it will now be very much in the hands of the Victorian farmers. The push for deregulation, it is believed, will ultimately open up the competition between the states and bring down the price of milk for consumers.Given that time is against me, I would like to respond quickly to the Senate committee's recommendations. The government is responding, in full, to that Senate committee. There will be a meeting after the ballot. There is no point having a meeting before the ballot, Senator Forshaw. On 22 December there will be a meeting of all state agricultural ministers and our federal minister. That is when the action will start happening. We have in place a package. We know how we are distributing that package. We will have a meeting with the state ministers on 22 December. All other recommendations in that report have been met. I should add that most of them are state issues. (Time expired)16:26:0011317O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—I am pleased to say that the opposition has no problems with the proposition advanced by the Australian Democrats because the findings that the Democrats want the government to implement arise from an inquiry of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. It was the Labor Party that initiated that inquiry. The Labor Party proposed to this chamber that the committee be authorised to undertake such an inquiry. Going back in history, it was the Labor Party that pursued the issue of the future of the dairy industry. It tried to look at how we could have a viable, productive, sustainable dairy industry for the future.Senator Crane and Senator Forshaw have referred in their contributions to the Kerin plan and the Crean plan. You would have to be extremely short-sighted, as a government taking office in 1996, as the coalition government did, not to notice the history of the dairy industry, not to notice the steps that were being taken towards deregulation, not to notice that legislation was in place which would have had the effect of sunsetting the Domestic Market Support Scheme for the dairy industry on 1 July 2000. In March 1996 when this government took office it knew that the underpinnings of the regulated industry would disappear on 1 July 2000. No crystal ball was needed to know that that would occur. Of course, the DMSS is a scheme which currently sees a transfer of money from what are known as the regulated states, in particular New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, into the states that are predominantly not reliant upon market milk, particularly Victoria where 63 per cent, approximately, of Australia's milk production takes place. My state of Tasmania has a much smaller production but a very efficient dairy industry exists.What was happening under the DMSS was a transfer of money which was, in effect, a payment from the regulation states to Victoria and Tasmania to say, `Look, don't challenge our regulation under the Constitution. Let's leave things as they are and let us work out our arrangements.' Coexisting with that we had a national competition policy system which required the states to review their arrangements. But nothing happened. Minister Anderson and Minister Vaile did nothing in relation to the dairy industry. As I said at the outset, it was the Labor Party that commenced the Senate's inquiry into this matter, which I think has drawn to the attention of the Australian parliament the potential plight of the dairy industry come 1 July 2000 when the Domestic Market Support Scheme will end. I have not heard one member from the government in this chamber or in the House of Representatives say that they propose to extend the scheme. I am not saying that we are advocating that, but there is no such proposition. It is a given. The DMSS will end on 1 July 2000.Frankly, with the transfer of money ceasing and pressures coming from the large cooperatives in Victoria to end the DMS scheme, there really is no alternative for the state of Victoria, whatever happens in the ballot. They will lose millions of dollars in income. The net benefit to the industry is $93 million. The overwhelming benefit flows into Victoria. That will disappear. Victorian dairy farmers will find themselves in an inferior situation if circumstances continue as they are now.But of course they will not. An article in the Australian Financial Review of 16 November postdates the Senate committee's decision. I will read into the Hansard a couple of passages from it. It is headed `Milk deregulation—it's already here'. The article says, for example:The regulated price paid to Tasmanian farmers for milk used in flavoured milk drinks was cut by a third earlier this year, from 100 per cent to 67 per cent of the farm-gate return for plain fresh milk.The move was forced on the Tasmanian Dairy Industry Authority by milk processors, who argued that if the price wasn't reduced, they would bring the product in from South Australia, where the cost of milk used in flavoured drinks was much lower.The article further states:In the lead-up to deregulation of all post-farm-gate controls on pricing and supply, on 1 July last year, Woolworths had put out a tender to supply milk to all its NSW stores which had been won by National Foods.Similarly, Coles linked up with the Dairy Farmers group. Then Franklins put out a tender and Victorian manufacturing co-op Murray Goulburn chipped in with an offer neither of the other two could match because of their higher sourcing costs in NSW. The price cut followed.That is exactly the reason why the committee said that it does not matter what is decided in Victoria. It does not matter whether Victorian dairy farmers actually vote against their own self-interest and say that they want to keep deregulation. In the end, the commercial pressures on the industry, which will be driven by the supermarket chains and the processors, who can do better by trading across state boundaries in some cases, will break down regulation. They will ensure that there is deregulation in the industry. If that happens, and it happens without a package, the overwhelming evidence that the Senate committee received is that there will be a much harsher effect on dairy farmers right around the country. That is on average, of course; some will do well and some will do a lot worse.What the Dairy Industry Council have been saying for years is that there has to be a restructure and deregulation but only with a restructure package. What did they do? They worked on a package alone. They did not have the assistance of Minister Anderson or Minister Vaile. They presented a package to the minister in April this year and they got a response in September. It was a variation on their original proposal. I am advised by people in the Dairy Industry Council that the government's position was, `We've done our job. You go and sell it to the states.'It is that understanding the committee had when it said that it was now a matter for the federal government to drive this issue. It was not good enough for the federal government to leave the matter in the hands of the industry. This is, after all, as Senator McGauran said, one of the most important rural industries in Australia. It is a huge export industry. We produce so much milk that we have to export 50 per cent of it. We cannot possibly consume what we produce here.The alternative to not having an export driven industry is to basically cut the industry in half. If we cannot sell the nearly 50 per cent of our production that we now export—and production is growing like topsy, quite frankly—prices will continue to fall. I put on the record that the evidence before the committee is that production in the industry, given that at the same time there was a move towards deregulation, has gone from about 6½ billion litres of milk in 1991 to a projected 11½ billion litres next year. This is in an environment where the industry and governments have recognised that we are all driving towards deregulation yet people are increasing their production. I do not know where the signals are coming from. Some of the evidence was that they were coming from cooperatives, who thought they would be well placed, with high production in their area, to drive down costs.At the end of the day, there will be dairy farmers who pay a price because of deregulation. That is why we have to try to smooth the bumps a bit. That is why the committee came up with these recommendations, including that there is a need for a package. It has to be worked out with all the states. If all the states do not agree, there will not be a package. There will, however, be deregulation and it will be a very bumpy ride for some areas. That is also why the committee said that there should be regional adjustment packages, because some regions of this country will be worse affected than others. That is why I say that this government should have been driving this process for this important national industry well before September this year, when it came out and said that it would support the dairy industry package. I could say many things about this issue. I am pleased that the Labor Party initiated this inquiry. I am pleased that there is bipartisan support for this proposition. (Time expired)16:36:0011319Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—This is an interesting debate today. I am quite surprised that it has come on, because all the parties that were members of the committee, including the government, agreed with the recommendations. I have listened to the opposition try to make politics out of this. I must admit that I have heard what Senator O'Brien said at the conclusion of his speech. This is an export driven industry. It is a great industry. One of the great industries of this nation has always been the dairy industry. The men and women of Australia who are involved in it work seven days a week.I wonder how many people debating this issue here today have milked a cow. I have. I started milking cows when I was 15 and had left school. I hand-milked them. I am proud to say that at the age of 16 I was a steward at the Royal Hobart Show in the dairy section. I went on to become chief dairy steward there. I held that position for many years. I got to know the great dairying families in Tasmania, including the Bennetts, the Geards, the Joneses, and the Millhouses. Through my connection as a show councillor, I knew some great dairy industry people whom Senator McGauran would know in Victoria. They include the Vallances in Bacchus Marsh and Jack Ray, a former ringmaster at the Royal Melbourne Show. So I do know a little about the dairy industry. I know that back in 1956 the late Neville Lucas showed a Tasmanian cow that won the champion cow at the Royal Melbourne Show. It was a very fine effort.We are talking about an industry that has always had the same problem. In the springtime, you get a lot of grass. You get a lot of milk, and what do you do with it? The industry has restructured into an export industry. As Senator O'Brien said a little while ago, it is an export industry and it is an export driven industry. Being such, we have to be able to compete on the world market, like other industries that have had to restructure—like the wool industry, the fruit industry and every other rural industry that you can think of. I am pleased Senator Boswell is here because I know he is a great advocate for the rural people of Australia. He has seen all these things happen with the sugar industry.When this happens, you can always guarantee that whoever is in government is going to be criticised by the opposition. We have heard the opposition here today sticking their boots into the government because they reckon the government should be driving the situation. Well, that is not the way it should be. In this particular case, it is being driven by the industry because they are the people who know what it is all about. They know what they want. They know how the industry operates. They are the ones who are pushing for deregulation. There is no doubt that there are people who are going to lose out. Senator O'Brien will remember we had evidence in Deniliquin. Producers on one side of the river are producing market milk and producers on the other side of the river are producing town milk, and one group were getting twice the amount of money of the others. At the end of the day, we had evidence that people who were into export were quite happy with the price the way it is and with the projection of price levels becoming lower.For those people who have quotas and who have bought quotas, it is going to be quite a big drop in income. I agree wholeheartedly with the matter of quota entitlement. I think Senator Forshaw touched on this one. If those people who sacrificed and worked hard to buy quotas for milk do not get compensation for those quotas, I think they will have been hard done by. They are people, like anybody buying shares or similar things, who wanted to build up their family business and spent money to buy quotas. Unless they are compensated, I think it most unfair. The proposals put forward by the committee, after a lot of inquiry, are matters that this government should be supporting. There is no doubt the government welcomed the approach by the dairy farmers.As I said earlier, it is an industry driven proposal, and the government has not sought to interfere as it has in other areas. I think it would be fair to say that interference in the wool industry by past governments has not served the interests of the wool growers over time. In hindsight, it has not been the best thing for the industry. I think the industry know better. They are the ones who know how things work and they are the ones we should be taking notice of. Nevertheless, the government has committed itself to being ready to implement the structural adjustment package. It is worth $1.7 billion. It is now up to the states to decide what they wish to do. As we found during the inquiry, there is no doubt that there are some areas of Australia where it is easier to produce milk than others. It is fair to say that Victoria and Tasmania are two of those areas.We were privileged to see some of the highlights of the modernisation of the industry. The manufacturing plant we visited south of Melbourne, where we saw probably the most environmentally friendly milk processing plant in the world, was certainly an eye-opener to me. As we know, a fair percentage of milk is water. The water is extracted from the milk to allow the milk to be exported overseas as powder. The powder is stored so that it can be released to the market whenever it is needed, so it smooths out the bumps and the hollows of the industry. All that water was used in places around the property. (Time expired)Miscellaneous1132011320The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)10000PON/A10—I present a response from the Minister for Family and Community Services to a resolution of the Senate of 28 September 1999 concerning programs for people with disabilities.Budget11320113201132016:43:0011320Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present additional information received by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee relating to the supplementary budget estimates 1997-98, supplementary additional estimates 1998-99, additional estimates 1998-99 and budget estimates 1999-2000. Bills11320Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill: New Business Tax System (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 1999 Committees11321113211132116:45:0011321Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present an interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon. I will read the report for the record, because this is a very important matter, as you would know, Mr Deputy President Sherry, being a Tasmanian yourself.The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory regimes governing the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) and the need to ensure transparency, consistency, scientific rigour and the highest standards of protection of the environment, the local fish population and the fishing and recreational fishing industries of Australia.The reference specifically requires the committee, in the course of its inquiry, to have particular regard to the administrative procedures and decision making processes involved in the July 1999 AQIS import risk analysis to allow the importation of salmon products into Australia and the potential consequences of that decision for those involved in the salmon farming industry and other stakeholder industries.The committee considers that the reference, while requiring particular assessment of the decision on salmon imports, is of significantly wider impact. The issues include:. the WTO process and the respective roles played by AQIS and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in that process;. whether sufficient consideration was taken of developments in the science since the 1996 IRA and the most recent assessment;. how AQIS undertakes its import risk analysis process, including the methodology used by AQIS in the development of the IRA, and any impact that the shortened time frame had on that process; and. the development of the appropriate level of protection and the roles of the respective agencies in the determination of the ALOP. These issues are complex and require detailed consideration.The committee also understands that the OIE, the international animal health organisation, is holding an international conference in February 2000 on risk analysis in aquatic animal health. The committee considers that the findings of this conference may be of assistance in its consideration of the risk analysis issues.For these reasons, the committee has made this report an interim report and seeks to present a more considered report next year.I now seek leave to move a motion to enable the committee to present its final report in respect of its inquiry on 16 March 2000.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon be extended to 16 March 2000.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11321r927Billsr9501132116:49:0011321Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 and the A New Tax System (Indirect Tax and Consequential Amendments) Bill (No. 2) 1999 , together with a submission and Hansard record of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed.Bills1132211322Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.(Quorum formed)16:51:0011322Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—When the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 [No. 2] was debated in the House, one of my colleagues described it as a waste of a chance to do something better, with some downright bad ideas thrown in too. That is not a bad summation of what is a fairly mediocre bill that we believe is in some senses premature. However, as a result of amendments moved by the Labor Party in the House and accepted by the government, we are now in a position where we can support the bill in its current form.I note for the information of senators that this bill is identical to the ANZFA Amendment Bill No. 1 introduced by the government into the Senate in March 1999. Labor had reservations about that bill when it was first presented. We referred the bill to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I was a member, and the report was tabled in August of this year. For the government's own reasons, they have chosen to reintroduce the bill into the House. After the initial debate in the House, we are pleased that the government have accepted a number of Labor's amendments and suggested improvements to the original bill, bringing it to a form that we can now support.The bill proposes a range of changes to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1981. Firstly, it implements some recommendations from the national competition policy review of the ANZFA Act in 1998. Secondly, it is a partial response to some of the recommendations of the Blair review handed to the government over a year ago, in October 1998. Broadly, that review recommended a move toward greater self-regulation in the food industry. Although the Blair review made 27 recommendations, this bill contains a full or partial response to only about six of those. The general debate about the regulatory framework should have occurred, we believe, before this bill was brought on. It does appear that aspects of the bill are therefore slightly premature. We continue to look forward to a more comprehensive review of our food regulatory structure in light of the Blair report. However, we have this bill before us and it is that with which we must deal.There were a range of comments and approaches taken during the Senate inquiry into the original bill, and I think that was a most useful process. The Australian Consumers Association provided criticisms of proposals to downgrade requirements for informative food labelling and for the objectives to which the authority must have regard in developing food regulatory measures. The ACTU called for ANZFA to be scrapped and replaced by an entirely new regulatory authority with a genuine consumer focus. There were criticisms of the broad cost recovery proposals and the implications of fee for service approaches to the priorities of ANZFA, and there were some fears expressed that the bill's call for equivalent standards was code for continuing the trend for Australia to adopt the lowest common denominator around, whether for pesticide residues, herbicides or meat content. So there was a range of views put, but I think it was a useful process.Labor's amendments to the bill which were accepted by the government cover a range of the concerns raised in the Senate inquiry process. Currently the ANZFA Act provides only for the development of food standards which are enforceable in state jurisdictions by reference to the Food Standards Code. I wish to make a couple of comments about codes of practice and standards, but I suggest that any senator who wants more information about this change should look at the research note published by the Parliamentary Library last week, which gives a good summary of the issue. The bill establishes a mechanism for the development of non-binding codes of practice as a supplementary form of food regulation. Current references in the act to standards are replaced by the words `food regulatory measure', covering both standards and codes.The major concern about the use of codes of practice is that matters which are currently subject to binding food standards could and would be transferred to the less enforceable codes of practice. This would greatly reduce or remove the requirements on industry to abide by the regulations. It was observed that such codes appear to have no legally binding effect on industry and no enforceable jurisdiction. It remains Labor's firm view that a code of practice in the area of food regulation must not be permitted to substitute for a standard containing measures that protect public health or consumer safety. It should be used to articulate industry best practice in processing.After giving careful thought to this proposal, Labor will cautiously give it support, recognising that codes of practice are already developed to help with the administration of the act. By bringing them into a statutory framework, statutory consultation requirements are introduced which are not currently required. Labor, though, places the government and ANZFA on notice that we will be closely monitoring the use of that procedure.Given the large amount of work that Labor members and senators have put into improving this bill over a number of months, from the Senate inquiry process onwards, I want to spend a couple of moments recounting in a little more detail the other improvements that Labor have made to the bill. I also wish to place on record Labor's thanks to all those involved in the protracted discussions around the improvements, including the government, but in particular ANZFA officials for their assistance. Labor's amendments to the proposed new objectives have greatly improved the bill. We could not have supported the bill had those objectives remained in the government's preferred form.The government has now accepted Labor's suggestion that public health and safety and consumer interests must be clearly paramount in the objectives. I note that the government did not agree with that approach originally and opposed it in the majority report of the Senate inquiry. The government wanted people to enjoy `equivalent public health protection in relation to food throughout Australia and New Zealand'. It is Labor's view and that of witnesses to the Senate inquiry that this language of equivalence is less than ideal, and we welcome the government's support for those consequent amendments. The WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures does not require a lowest common denominator approach to harmonisation. It merely encourages harmonisation and requires standards that exceed the international benchmarks to be based on a scientific justification or an appropriate risk assessment. Other improvements to the objectives include changes to ensure that public health and safety and consumer confidence remain a priority and that consistency can be an objective but only where it is clear that the price for the harmonisation will not be a lowering of our standards. Consumer information—primarily through labelling—will be a key objective for ANZFA in setting standards.Another Labor amendment will create a three-year rolling work program to give more certainty to stakeholders and to ANZFA and to facilitate government funding arrangements. Labor listened to organisations such as the Australian Food and Grocery Council, who argued that this ought to provide better capacity for the authority to manage its resources. Labor's amendments will also ensure that ANZFA is required to give public notices in a range of situations. The authority will be required to give notice by way of public announcement when holding an inquiry to consider a draft standard or a draft variation of a standard.Through these amendments we hope to ensure that ANZFA is accountable and open to public scrutiny. It is important that the wider community—outside of those very few people who, for reasons best known to themselves, are regular readers of the Commonwealth Government Gazette—is able to have input into inquiries and proposals. The government has maintained that there is a need for a fast-tracking proposal to allow minor variations to standards to be effected by the ANZFA board without requiring a vote by the full ministerial council. I very closely questioned officials regarding this proposal at the Senate inquiry and I was not satisfied with the assurances provided. Labor's amendments aim to ensure that such variations or approvals are limited to non-contentious matters that are not objected to by consumer or public health bodies.Of course, there is only so much the parliament can do to ensure the spirit of this power is not breached, and I hope the government will approach the issue honestly. By that I mean that, if concerns are raised about a proposal by consumer or health groups, the matter will still be referred to the ministerial council for decision, even if the Commonwealth government itself rejects those concerns.In relation to a range of amendments deleting or modifying requirements for the costs of a regulatory measure to be weighed against the potential benefits in terms of public health, I state clearly that Labor does not support any unnecessary regulation. However, we have moved these amendments to make it unequivocally clear in the act that public health is priority No. 1.If some of the amendments sound technical or complex, I can assure senators that the issues surrounding cost recovery were by far the most complex to negotiate to a point of broad acceptance by Labor, the government, industry and a range of consumer and public health stakeholders. After these discussions, the government has accepted Labor's amendments to the government's original proposals for cost recovery. Cost recovery will be limited to applications with an `exclusive commercially capturable benefit', or to progress things through the three-year work program faster. Any refund of application fees has been limited to `the sum not expended from the charge as is calculated in accordance with the regulations' by ANZFA for processing the work. Labor has also made provision for a non-refundable application fee.I understand the government agreed in the negotiations over this bill that there would be further consultation on the regulations that relate to this particular section of the act. We look forward to participating positively in that process and ensuring that fees and any refunds issued are absolutely transparent. The independence of this particular public regulator, affecting the food supply on which the entire population depends, can never be compromised.Cost recovery in food regulation that is too broad undermines the importance of a public regulator prioritising public health and safety and consumer information. The government cannot shirk its responsibilities to properly fund ANZFA by getting the industry to foot the entire bill.On the issue of resources, I note in passing the confused state that the authority and the government seem to be in regarding ANZFA's funding needs. In the Senate estimates last week, Mr Lindenmayer, ANZFA's Managing Director, admitted that the workload would not taper off in 2000-01 as the government had claimed in the May budget estimates. In fact, it was admitted that the authority was going to ask for an extra $3 million this year from the health budget. That is a pretty big underestimation of the workload and related costs. It is not only Labor, though, that has noticed the lack of resources at ANZFA. The Australian Food and Grocery Council said in their submission to the Senate inquiry on this bill that they continue:. . . to have grave concerns with a food regulatory system which is inadequately funded to meet its public good function . . .In summary, the government's approach contained in this bill is disappointing. For population health and safety reasons, and to ensure consumer and market confidence in Australia's food supply, food regulation must be underpinned by a wider vision than just the accepted need for a uniform national regulatory framework to support industry efficiency. No-one can fully understand the government's real agenda for food regulation until they give a comprehensive response to the Blair review. Deregulation of food regulations must proceed with great caution at any time, and even greater caution is required when one is unsure about the government's real agenda and direction.We keep getting different information about when the policy response will occur. The government has had the Blair report for over a year now with no comprehensive response forthcoming. Of course, we accept that, given our constitutional situation, it is a matter that has to be discussed and negotiated with state governments. Surely, though, the public are entitled to be involved in that process. Why not put out some options or an issues paper now to generate a broader public discussion? Still, Labor will be happy to participate in the debate when it is eventually brought on and we will do what we can to encourage broad community involvement in that discussion.Labor supports an accountable regulator that puts consumer and public health interests first at all times. We have improved this bill so it does not detract from the status quo, and it certainly improves other aspects of the current act. Currently ANZFA is charged with public health, consumer and industry, trade and commerce functions. Elsewhere in the world these functions are often split to avoid the problems that can arise—particularly with conflicts of interest—when simultaneously addressing consumer health and industry issues.We have decided at this time not to pursue proposals which have been made in some quarters to remove all trade and commerce functions from the authority. The case for bigger changes and an alternative model were not, in our view, made out at this time, and in any event it is beyond the scope of the bill.Labor's amendments have improved the bill to the point where we can now support its passage. I congratulate all those involved in negotiating the bill to this more acceptable form. We look forward to a more comprehensive response to the Blair report and a sensible, widely based discussion and debate about the food regulatory model that would best serve Australia in the future.17:05:0011325Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Australian Democrats have concerns with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 (No. 2). The bill contains some identical terms to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999, the first one, which was referred to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, to which Senator Evans referred. That was referred for quite comprehensive consideration. The committee handed down its report on 12 March this year, and the Australian Democrats did submit a dissenting report. Senator Bartlett and I outlined in that report some of our concerns—some of which are outstanding, even given this bill in its new state.At the turn of the century and the millennium, people are considering an ever increasing number of issues and potential risks when buying their foods. These concerns can range from medical health risks to environmental, social, political and economic issues. This development means that new challenges and expectations have arisen for our food regulatory system. Food, of course, is an integral part of the social and cultural make-up of any society. As we embrace technological innovations and face the new millennium, our community requires greater autonomy in selecting foods and greater levels of testing. Our community requires greater information than ever before to determine which methods of food production they wish to embrace or encourage, which companies they wish to support and what additives they wish to ingest. The community needs to be able to avoid known allergens and, in the case of genetically modified foods, potentially unknown ones.The bill in its current form does not go far enough to protect the wider interests of consumers and industry. The Democrats maintain that generally consumer and industry interests cannot be adequately represented together under the one food regulator. In many cases consumer and industry interests are conflicting and the ANZFA is put in a difficult position between a rock and a hard place somehow trying to reconcile the two. Unfortunately, underfunded and underresourced consumer groups are usually the parties whose concerns are less represented by the ANZFA at the end of the day.However, there is one aspect in which consumer and industry interests are synonymous: consumer confidence. If consumers do not have confidence in their food regulatory system, they will not buy the product, in par ticular novel food products such as GM foods and nutriceuticals. The comprehensive community attitudinal survey published only yesterday, commissioned by Biotechnology Australia, concluded that Australian consumers had a general appreciation and knowledge of the potential benefits of biotechnology for the production, say, of medicinal components, clothing fibres and the like. However, the overwhelming majority of the Australian public did not support genetically modified foods and required equal information about the possible risks of biotechnology as well as information about the benefits of its application.That is not to say that genetically modified foods are necessarily or intrinsically bad or that biotechnology can be put in the evil or saintly basket, if you like; it is just to say that consumers have these fears and we must address them. People have concerns about this burgeoning industry and they must be given information and thus consumer choice. As the incredibly complex relationship between food, health and medicine continues to intensify, consumers are requiring greater testing and information about their foods. We as legislators, in addition to industry and of course the ANZFA, must recognise and provide this for the Australian community.The new objectives for the authority make inroads into addressing such concerns. I acknowledge that the objectives as amended specifically include the goal of a high degree of consumer confidence in the quality and safety of food produced. I maintain that this must be achieved by the ANZFA's first and foremost objective in relation to public health and safety. I acknowledge that proposed section 2A calls for `a high standard of public health protection throughout Australia and New Zealand' and that proposed section 10.1 states that `the protection of public health and safety' is the highest priority objective in developing food regulatory measures. Of course the Australian Democrats support these objectives although we maintain that the interpretation of these objectives must recognise the intersectoral and multidimensional nature of public health and safety.Public health and safety has been defined as an improvement in physical disease preven tion at both a community and individual level. It is a set of comprehensive long-term community considerations in addition to short-term individualistic concerns and measures which are sustainable, social, ecological, educative and economic in focus and practice. The bill works in part towards such an understanding of public health. However, we believe that further improvements are required to strengthen the authority's educative and consultative operations.The Biotechnology Australia community attitude report, which I mentioned previously, found that the public relies on the mainstream media, largely television and newspapers, for its information about biotechnology. This is clearly an inadequate situation. I believe that the Australian community is a bit more sophisticated than suggested by a debate at a level, say, that labels GM foods as Frankenstein-like. The government must set the standard and provide balanced, equal information to which industry and consumer groups can contribute in the public domain. When it comes to GM foods, the ANZFA has a responsibility to provide equal, balanced information on the technology itself and the food products that are produced by biotechnology.Another concern that the Democrats stated as problematic in respect of the objectives of the bill was the unqualified promotion of consistency between domestic and international food regulatory measures. We were concerned that they would, or would have the potential to, lead to the lowest common denominator for food standards. Debate about international standards and international consistency has come at an opportune time, with the demonstrations and debate in Seattle for the third biennial meeting of the ministerial conference of the WTO pretty much fresh in all our minds. Australia is obliged under the WTO to be consistent with international standards wherever a standard is developed.An exception is made when it can be demonstrated on good scientific principle that a change would undermine the protection of public health and safety in Australia. This, with the qualification of the bill's objective for consistency between international and domestic food standards without reducing the safeguards applying to public health and consumer protection, assists in overcoming many of the concerns that international consistency objectives would lead to standards of the lowest common denominator.Another area of regulatory concern which the Democrats outlined in our dissenting report to the Senate committee was the regulation of nutriceuticals, particularly for the future. We are looking at a not-too-distant future when nutriceuticals are anticipated to hold an unprecedented area of supermarket shelf space. These functional food products with health and safety and preventative medicinal claims will be a means by which to achieve product recognition in a market that is vying for product differentiation. The Democrats maintain that such products, due to their human health claims and potential health benefits, should be under the jurisdiction of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. We must, as responsible legislators, be forward thinking and proactive in providing measures now to effectively set standards for the biotechnology and the food science advances of the future. We cannot afford to have a repeat of the lack of recognition that surrounded genetically modified foods when they first hit our shores in 1996.The bill provides a new definition of food, delineating between the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the ANZFA. As my colleague Senator Bartlett and I stated in the dissenting report to the committee, all foodstuffs which claim health benefits due to the inclusion of one or more nutritional components and are demarcated from other products on the supermarket shelves should undergo independent scientific testing to back up those health claims. I am aware that the ANZFA and the TGA do consult over the definition of foods and drugs. We need a clear demarcation determined outside the reach of the industry interests and government.The other proactive undertaking which we feel is required for the responsible use of nutriceuticals is linked to the public educative activities of the ANZFA. The Australian public should be made aware that isolating one or two substances from a food or a group of foods and adding it to a breakfast cereal and the like is not likely to mimic the effect of eating the whole food with its full complement of phtyochemicals intact. Unfortunately, the Democrats are not in a position to transfer responsibility for nutriceuticals to the TGA under this bill. We do support through the objective under section 10 of the bill to provide adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices. That is something we have talked about for a long time. This should include balanced information about the possible health benefits of nutriceuticals. Consumer groups and health professionals have also registered concerns regarding the ability of consumers to extract information from food labels and nutritional panels that are on food products. There is a need in the community for a new education regime specifically targeted towards understanding Australian food standards and extracting information from the food labels.Another common criticism of current regulation of foods is the lack of scientific testing and activity under Australia's food regulator. I believe that to be an effective food regulatory body the ANZFA must broaden its scientific base. It must be able to independently assess food applications and their safety to become a body which supports and facilitates innovation in food science and nutrition. I believe there is a great opportunity for Australia in the area of scientific research and development. Collaboration between the CSIRO, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the like should be encouraged. We certainly do not suggest otherwise.The United States Food and Drug Administration provides a good example of facilitating development in this area. The FDA, through the Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, undertakes similar premarket approval of food to that of the ANZFA. It regulates genetically modified foods and has also recently revamped food labels to make it easier for consumers to get nutritional information about the foods that they are eating. In addition to these roles, it has a special office that is dedicated to special research skills and support and also facilitates the administration of the Joint Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition with the University of Maryland. The link with the university is designed to ensure the critical science based foundation which independent research institutions provide to establish sound food safety policy—in addition, of course, to facilitating the innovation, research and development of food science.I am not suggesting that Australia should mimic the food regulatory regime of the United States. However, considering the upcoming debate regarding the Interim Office of Gene Technology and the assessment and interaction of differing government agencies and departments under the office—and, additionally, the Innovation Summit that we have heard quite a bit about, which is coming up in February next year—I suggest that further consideration of interaction between research and regulatory endeavours should be undertaken. There is much to be gained in the areas of consumer health, food science and nutrition education by their simultaneous pursuit.At present, self-regulation is used in part to address nutrient claims on food labels and in advertisements. Currently codes of practice have been developed under the ANZFA with industry bodies. In Australia to date, relevant industry bodies have developed most codes of practice, despite persuasion by industry bodies. This is a concern for two reasons: firstly, the close liaison between the ANZFA and industry in developing such codes puts into question the extent to which such regulatory measures represent consumer concerns; and, secondly, the lack of regulatory clout that voluntary codes of practice have. The Parliamentary Library Research Note No. 17 addresses the differences between codes of practice and standards. The paper notes conflict between the 1995 code of practice on nutrient claims in food labels and advertisements, which was intended `to provide a basis for voluntary self-regulation of nutrient claims by industry'.On the other hand, the ANZFA nutrition labelling and standard proposal—proposal 167, `Nutrition Labelling'—states that it cannot be established if the standard proposal was developed, in part because the code of practice did not achieve the required outcome. Self-regulation is not appropriate for Australia's food regulatory system. It asks:How can a consumer know whether the codes of practice are achieving desired outcomes or indeed whether or not they are in place in all situations that suggest them?It concludes:Increased use of codes of practice could generate more questions than answers.The Democrats maintain that self-regulation and voluntary codes cannot stand alone to ensure public health and safety when it comes to food production and consumption. Codes of practice are not a substitute for food standards. The Biotechnology Australia community survey additionally found:The public regard regulation and provision of information on biotechnology by the government as preferable to self-regulation by industry, particularly in relation to GM foods.I think that similar conclusions can be drawn for the wider food regulation. When it comes to ensuring pathogen free foods and low levels of pesticides and other pollution contaminants, I believe that industry, like consumers, deserves enforceable food standards to protect the whole industry and consumers alike against the possibility of, say, the one Garibaldi amongst many smallgoods manufacturers. Many South Australians would be aware of that particular crisis.Although the Democrats have not acted to prevent implementation of the ANZFA's proposed cost recovery provisions, we have several concerns regarding their operations. While the Democrats support charging those who profit from approval of foods—that is, those who have an exclusive, capturable commercial benefit—we hold reserves about its application. Cost recovery was deemed as undesirable by both consumer and industry interests in submissions to the Senate inquiry. I note that Coles supermarket stated that cost recovery may lead to distortions in setting the working programs. Such concerns are legitimate and must be kept in mind when the newly proposed three-year forward plan schedule for the assessment of food products is operating.The Democrats consider the general shift of food regulation to voluntary codes with concern. Industry managed codes of practice should not be considered as a general alternative to standards. When it comes to consumer health and safety, the Australian community deserves statutory measures—nothing weaker. As we stated in our dissenting report, the South Australian Garibaldi smallgoods food poisoning and the estimated $2.5 billion cost per annum to the community for food poisoning should be ample impetus to establish codes of practice as an extra precaution and not as a substitute for food standards.The use of voluntary codes of conduct are of more concern when considered in conjunction with the decrease in regulatory powers of the ANZFA. The Democrats regard the general substitution in the bill for food standards to food regulatory measures with concern. Industry managed codes of practice should not be considered as a general alternative to standards. When it comes to consumer health and safety, the Australian community deserves statutory measures.Presently the ANZFA does not have the ability to implement or enforce food standards. Each food standard is referred with the ANZFA's recommendation to the Australia New Zealand Food Council, which approves, amends or rejects recommendations completely or in part. The Food Council is a vital review mechanism which assists in maintaining the ANZFA's accountability. The use of the ANZFA for food regulatory issues of minor significance, rather than the Australia New Zealand Food Council, undermines public input into the regulatory process, and I will be moving amendments that we believe satisfy some of these concerns.The integral role that the Australian and New Zealand health ministers played in the labelling of genetically modified foods is a very important example of the role that the council plays. It may be argued that the issue of labelling of genetically modified food would not have been considered by the ANZFA as an issue of significance to the public and therefore more so to the health ministers. However, was it suitably significant when the words `substantial equivalence yardstick' were first bandied about by the ANZFA several years ago? I would argue that public awareness of this issue has grown, particularly in recent times, and may have been deemed less significant when food regulators were first considering its regulation.Public debate is a metamorphosing phenomenon. It is undulating, if you like. It is for the ANZFA to determine what is of minor significance, which is undefined in the bill. Is that what is going to happen? Is it up to them? At what stage of public debate will significance be determined? The removal of the Australia New Zealand Food Council in any circumstances undermines the accountability of the ANZFA and therefore public confidence in our regulator, which in turn is detrimental to the food industry.The bill extends the ANZFA's powers to make food regulations independent of the council in certain circumstances. The bill allows for the ANZFA to implement regulation in situations which are considered to be of less significance, though what is `lesser' is not actually specified. Such decisions by the ANZFA will become regulation within 28 days of the decision if the council, the ANZFC, does not object. As we stated in our report, the ANZFA will be required to undertake public consultation as it deems appropriate. However, that 28-day window leaves little time for the community interests to be able to come together and to effectively lobby before that decision is implemented.That being said, I also recognise that the current system is inappropriate as decisions can be postponed by the council, as was the case with the decision in relation to genetically modified foods. Such postponement, which allows the health ministers to pursue a non-labelling position without appropriate approval for an extended period of time, is not acceptable.The Democrats stand by our commitment stated in the report that we cannot support the increased regulatory powers of the ANZFA as it restricts another avenue for public input into the decisions about the food regulation process. We believe in accountability, and we believe in transparency. I will be moving amendments shortly that will reflect our views. I anticipate that we will see more legislation dealing with food regulatory issues. (Time expired)17:25:0011330Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Firstly, I want to commend Senator Stott Despoja and the amendments being brought forward by the Democrats. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999 No. 2 is very important legislation. One aspect of it allows me to raise in the Senate—and it is raised far too infrequently—the overall economic ramification for Australia of not getting right the regulation of food. Australia has a golden opportunity to become the organic food producing country of at least the Asian region, if not the world. But there is little evidence that this government will take us in that direction.Compare that with the situation in Denmark, where $500 million of assistance for organic food production, with the objective of the whole country converting to organic food production in 10 to 15 years, has been announced. That is not just because of public pressure from people who are more and more concerned about the additives and contaminants that may be in their tucker but because the market for organic food produce is growing far faster than the rest of the food market.Right around the world there is an increasing consumer predilection for food known to be free of pesticides, genetic modification and other potential contamination or abnormality. It is something the Howard government must take into account. Across the way in New Zealand—where, I am happy to tell the Senate yet again, on the further counting in the national election vote there today, the Greens have crossed the threshold to take six seats in the national parliament—the Leader of the New Zealand Greens in the last parliament, Jeanette Fitzsimons, who has now won her seat in Coromandel, has been pushing for a long time for a royal commission on genetic engineering. Keep in mind that we are dealing today not just with an Australian matter but with the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill.Part of the reasons for parliamentarian Jeanette Fitzsimons pushing for a royal commission into genetic engineering, or a summary of it, is that genetic engineering raises ethical issues about combining genes from different life forms which could never combine in nature. It is about putting animal genes into the food of vegetarians, about manipulating human genes in combination with genes of other life forms and about the patenting of life form by business for profit and the ownership of our food crops by multinational corporations.The same applies in Australia. She also points to the risk and uncertainty of introducing foreign genetic material into our food which is unknown. The ecological effects of cross-fertilisation of other forms of genetic pollution between genetically engineered crops and other crops or weeds or wild native species is at this stage a matter for guessing. On economics, Jeanette Fitzsimons comments:The fastest growing world food market is the demand for certified organic produce.I have just mentioned the case of Denmark recognising and acting on that. Ms Fitzsimons further says:In the long term it will not be possible to market our produce as organic if there is widespread growing of genetically engineered organisms. We must choose between these two paths and there are profound economic implications which have not been evaluated.And then points out:None of these issues has been dated in any suitable public forum.She suggests that there should be a royal commission. That is a path Australia should be taking as well. In the meantime there should be a moratorium on the onrush of genetic engineering as far as foodstuffs in Australia are concerned. Such a moratorium would put further growing of genetically engineered organisms on hold. It would prevent the further importation of GE food until the royal commission had reported its findings and the government had responded with policy decisions. It would buy valuable time to learn from overseas experience before repeating it here. Senator Stott Despoja might just look at amendment No. 3, which she has brought before the Senate. That excellent amendment reads, `In developing food regulatory meas ures and variations of food regulatory measures, the Authority may also have regard to the following'. I would suggest that we use the words `Should also have regard to the following,' and then, `(in descending priority order):' I would include the precautionary principle. Senator Stott Despoja has a list of other very important matters, such as the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence and the promotion of fair trading. But I would recommend that the precautionary principle be brought in there.Why do that? Because we are talking here about food. There are other enormous potential impacts from genetic engineering on nature, but we are talking here about an issue that directly affects all of us every day of our lives, and it will do so into the future. It is affecting what goes into our children's mouths. It is affecting, potentially, the health of people right round the nation. So, should we be cautious about that at least? Of course we should. Ought it not be that people who want to have genetically engineered food should have to show that is safe before they put those foodstuffs on the supermarket shelves? I think so. Should it be left to the public to discover that it is not safe when years down the line epidemiology discovers there is a new pattern of harm to public health before we hold the inquiry and remove the foods from the supermarket shelves? I do not think so, and I do not think most Australians would think that. So, in the absence of any real thoroughgoing inquiry into genetic engineering, which is so much a matter of contention in the public's mind, we need to build a precautionary principle into the regulations by which people are directed to assess food coming onto the market in Australia.Let me reiterate the importance of the organic option, which is the option to genetic food, and indeed to the growing of foods with pesticides, herbicides and all other manner of chemical intrusion. Let me quote from Mr Scott Kinnear of the Organic Federation of Australia, from a media release a month ago, when he condemned the intervention by the Prime Minister in the GE labelling debate in this country on the grounds of cost and trade related issues. Mr Kinnear said that those grounds are `sure to anger consumers'. He said:As a result people will continue to seek organic foods to avoid eating GE foods. We have experienced exponential growth in organics over this last 12 months and with this latest delay, we expect this to continue.He criticised the KPMG report that the Prime Minister brought out as being `manipulative and unethical'. As Senator Stott Despoja has just said,, there is far too little public access in the arena of decision making here, and there is not much evidence that this legislation is really going to improve that. We all know in this place that the big corporations, with their lobbyists and lawyers, have a huge advantage over the consumer interest. They are paid to be here to tweak the ears of politicians, not least ministerial ears, to have their way. But they have a different motivational priority from consumer groups. The big corporations' bottom line is profit. The consumer groups are looking after the public interest. The best way to get to the best result for the Australian people when you are in that situation is to ensure that you have a thoroughgoing public inquiry that sets the benchmark, that comes up with all the information and then sensibly makes recommendations as to the way forward. It is then up to us as elected representatives to decide in the public interest how we will proceed.That is why I applaud the position of the New Zealand Greens, who have asked for a royal commission. This is a serious matter. It is fundamental and it affects every one of the 19 million Australians as well as our New Zealand cousins across the way, and I could not let this opportunity on this bill pass without flagging the need for such an inquiry. I have an ulterior motive of an economic variety. We Greens are so often criticised unfairly and wrongly as not wanting to see economic progress, but I believe that Australia's future—and as a Tasmanian I particularly believe this—is with clean, green produce, organic produce.The organic industry in Australia is very different from the big food producers and from conventional production. It is very much more oriented to family and small businesses, it is very much oriented to job creation, and it keeps its profits here in Australia. I think that advantage should be seen for what it is and built upon. I think it would be a terrific exercise for government and for the Labor opposition to start with the question, `Is the organic alternative a good one for Australia?' and investigate it while we still have the opportunity to take it up.As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Bartlett, once genetically engineered crops are grown and the genes move into adjacent natural plants—weed plants, for example—you do not get them out. Decision time is now; it is not later, after some unforeseen trouble or disaster strikes. It is a decision which I think we should be making in the light of good information. Denmark has made its decision. Australia, on the other side of the planet, should follow suit. The big parties should at least be looking into why Denmark is going in the direction of totally organic produce within the next five to 10 years, why that government has decided to put half a billion dollars into promoting that end, and why Australia should not follow suit when organic produce is the fastest-growing area of the food market. It seems like commonsense and it seems like a real opportunity, which should come as a result of a thorough inquiry—a royal commission, no less—and not just to protect the interests of consumers in Australia. If I am correct and if many experts in the field are correct, it is an opportunity which would lead to an enormously important part of Australia's economic prosperity in the next century.17:39:0011332Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I had anticipated there were going to be other speakers; however, I thank senators for their contributions. I note that this legislation was returned to this chamber yesterday, 6 December, and a second reading speech, which set out a lot of detail, was incorporated in the Hansard . I also note that this matter has been before the parliament for a considerable time. It was introduced back in March of this year, and it was reviewed very comprehensively by a Senate committee, which reported on 12 August. Subsequently, it was given a very comprehensive dealing in the House of Representatives, and the government agreed to a number of important amendments that were put forward by the Australian Labor Party. Therefore, the government anticipates that we will secure the support of the opposition this afternoon because of the arrangements and discussions that took place between the government, the minister, and the Labor Party.This bill amends the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991 in four major ways. It creates objectives for the act and clarifies the role, functions and regulatory objectives of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority; it provides the authority with more flexibility and efficiency in its consultation and decision making processes; it enables the authority to more effectively protect public health and safety and prevent misleading or deceptive behaviour; and it allows the authority to charge for services in certain circumstances.The bill will also enable the implementation of important reforms to food safety, and it is the first phase in improving the consistency of food related legislation across Australia. I would stress that point to Senator Stott Despoja and to Senator Brown, who said in their contributions today that they look forward to future arrangements that will be made. When I say that this is the first phase in improving legislation, they can be assured that the government is very closely aligned to a number of issues and is looking at the need for close attention in that regard.The bill has been examined by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, chaired by Senator Susan Knowles, which recommended that the bill proceed. Some community groups have raised concerns about the cost recovery proposal—that this ought to be subject to greater transparency. As Dr Wooldridge indicated in the House of Representatives, it is the government's intention that this be transparent and that ANZFA be fully accountable. A commitment has been given that ANZFA will consult with key stakeholder groups in developing the appropriate regulations.This bill is the result of careful consideration by ANZFA and of consultation by ANZFA with key stakeholders. The opposition, as I mentioned earlier, proposed amendments in the House of Representatives which were broadly in line with the government's policy intent and, as a result, they were accepted. I am confident that the bill, as amended, will meet the needs of consumers and industry alike. The bill emphasises ANZFA's role in ensuring the protection of public health and safety and in protecting consumers from misleading or deceptive behaviour. The bill will also ensure consumers have enough information about food to enable informed choices to be made.Finally, the bill will benefit all stakeholders by ensuring that government appropriated money is used for the primary purposes of public health and safety protection and protection of consumers whilst ensuring that applications of direct financial benefit or urgency to industry are assessed in a timely manner. I thank senators for their contributions and for their indications of support, and I thank the Labor Party for its support in the House of Representatives after the amendments were adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11333The bill.17:45:0011333Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I will be moving a series of amendments to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill [No. 2] 1999 on behalf of the Australian Democrats. I take on board the suggestion that Senator Brown made in his contribution—that the precautionary principle was a principle to which the authority should subscribe. The idea of an amendment to the Democrats amendment No. 3 is acceptable. I will be moving that in due course. I move Democrat amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), at the end of the definition of code of practice , add "However, a code of practice is not a standard.". This amendment relates to the voluntary code of practice. This amendment seeks to clarify that codes of practice are not considered in the same light as food standards. In my comments in the second reading debate I made quite clear that the Democrats do not consider codes of practice a substitute for food standards. This amendment that I am proposing is to ensure that the differentiation between statutory food standards and industry developed codes of practice—COPs—is stated in the bill. Codes of practice and food standards should not be clustered together under the one generic term of `food regulatory measures' without at least some clarification.The ANZFA amendment bill enables the ANZFA to formally manage COPs in a manner akin to that of applications and proposals to ANZFA for the variation and creation of new food standards. However, the ANZFA's management is not reviewable through the traditional mechanism of a food regulatory system. The major difference between food standards and voluntary codes of practice is that the ANZFA will have the final approval powers for any new code of practice. The Australia New Zealand health ministers—that is, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council—are not required under the bill to approve the bill and cannot veto it. As codes of practice avoid public input provisions, such as meetings of the Australian health ministers, and are voluntary, the Democrats maintain that we should do something about the chasm of difference between the two measures. The Australian Democrats maintain that voluntary codes of practice are not an adequate protection of public health. This amendment seeks to fix that.17:48:0011333Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support that amendment. If I hear correctly, what Senator Stott Despoja is saying is that a code of practice is not a standard and she does not want a COP to end up being a COP-out, and I would agree with that.17:48:0011333Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I note the amendment put forward by Senator Stott Despoja, and would comment that this amendment acts only to state the obvious. It is not necessary and it is not good drafting practice. The fact that the act has a separate definition of `standard' is sufficient to indicate that standards and codes of practice are different.17:49:0011334Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I rise to support the Democrat's amendment which sets out the difference between standards and codes of practice. I would like to elaborate on some of the reasons why it is very important that the people who are assessing clearly understand the difference between the two. When we look at the whole food spectrum, we are looking not only at conventional foods that we consume today. We are also looking very closely at the make-up of those foods. With the dynamic changes that are happening in genetic manipulation and the predominance of chemicals that are used in the preparation and growing of those foods, the codes of practice have to be looked at from an entirely different aspect; that is, whether they are sufficient enough to ensure that matters can be brought to the notice of the people who are making the decisions, particularly when you take into consideration the phenomenon of chemical trauma that results from consuming foods. I would just like to quote from a document that I have which issues a warning that:There are direct results of environmental impacts of chemicals, especially the combined multiples of pesticides and herbicides used in the residential environment and also in the multiple residues of food. The combined levels of disrupting chemicals has never been tested in the determined public safety era.I will speak about those issues later in the committee stage debate. So we have a changing disability, and eligibility rules will not make the actual problem go away. We need to very clearly define the standards. Where codes of practice are implemented and used, they have to be used in such as way that they will take into consideration the impact of the genetically modified portion of the foods and the chemical content or residue of the foods on the people who are consuming them.17:52:0011334Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I may be accused of stating the obvious when I say that I am attracted to Senator Stott Despoja's proposition. It is consistent with what the Labor Party has sought to do through our amendments, which have been accepted by the government, to make it clear that there is a difference between the code of practice and a standard and that there is no diminution in the primary status of food standards. The parliamentary secretary correctly makes the point that it may not be necessary, but I do not see any harm in supporting it, in the sense that it reinforces what we have been about during the debate. The Labor opposition will support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:53:0011334Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 2:Schedule 1, item 9, page 6 (line 8), at the end of paragraph (i), add ", including the publication of information to increase public awareness of food standards and food labels".Essentially, this amendment is designed to strengthen the educative role of the ANZFA. The need for the Australian community to have educative tools and campaigns specifically to increase public awareness of food standards and to be able to extract meaningful nutritional, allergenic and other information from food labels and products has been identified by health professionals, nutritionists, dietitians and educators throughout the community. This amendment is intended to clarify and include food standards and food labels as part of the ANZFA's educative activities. It is not restricted to only those activities. For example, when gene food labelling is implemented, consumers will need to know specifically what the statement `may contain GM ingredients' means—if this term is adopted—or likewise for any other term. The ANZFA should provide information in supermarkets and any other accessible means about what these labels actually mean.Another area of specific concern that individuals, consumer groups and health professionals have is the way that labels will accompany foods which have been irradiated or which contain ingredients which have been irradiated. Again, that is another debate that has been ongoing in the community and even in this place. The Democrats have put on record our concerns with that whole debate and recent decisions. The potential for misunderstanding a label that states `contains ionised ingredients' or `treated with ionised electrons' as was put forward as a possibility I believe by Senator Herron in his response to my question on notice on food irradiation is very likely. Many fear that some in the community could interpret such a label as meaning `containing iron', or being some kind of fortified iron product. So education on food labels and standards is integral to facilitating consumers' individual right to choose what they consume. I think that must be the bottom line at the end of the day—that consumers have information, they have education, so they can make an informed choice.17:56:0011335Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the intent with which Senator Stott Despoja has proposed this amendment but, frankly, it is unnecessary as an elaboration of section 7(1) of the act and is unnecessarily prescriptive. I think the activities of ANZFA in the area of public awareness and education are very good and need to be encouraged and supported. For example, yesterday I had the opportunity to launch the official Food Additives Shoppers Guide , a document which is a suitable size for a purse or a pocket and which, in some 78 concise pages, gives a great deal of information on food additives. It is an excellent publication prepared under the auspices of ANZFA. Similarly, in many of the areas that ANZFA does operate, the information is comprehensively available on the ANZFA web site. Looking at the number of hits on the ANZFA web side, I am sure that interested groups and consumer organisations are accessing that information readily and from time to time.I can assure Senator Stott Despoja that when the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council considers any proposal that comes before us—and certainly the current issues that are being addressed by that council with regard to genetically modified foods and a range of other issues which impact on labelling—this whole issue of public sensitivi ty, public awareness and education of the public is looked at on each and every occasion and on each and every agenda item comprehensively. I would submit that this amendment does not make any real contribution to the effect of the act and consequently the government does not support it.17:58:0011335Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I support the amendment moved by the Democrats. In doing so, I concur with the minister's comments that ANZFA should be commended for the work it is doing in getting information out to the public. However, I would like to raise a couple of issues on labelling which I believe are very important and need to be taken into consideration when dealing with food standards. The first involves what are called `substantial equivalents'. The part that substantial equivalence plays in the assessment of whether food is suitable for human consumption, I do not believe, has been adequately aired in the public arena.I will quote from a document by Eric Millstone, Eric Bruner and Sue Meyer, who clearly state that the concept of substantial equivalence emerged in response to the challenge confronting regulatory authorities in the early 1990s. They say:Biotechnology companies had developed several GM foods and, to reassure their customers, wanted official approval for their introduction. But the government statutes did not cover GM food.I am referring to America. They continue:Nor did they provide the authority to regulate those innovations. Legislation could be amended but would not address the core problem of how to assess the risks.One obvious solution at the time would have been for legislators to have treated GM food in the same way as novel chemical compounds, such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides and food additives, and required companies to conduct a range of toxic tests, the evidence from which could be used to set the acceptable daily intake of those compounds. Regulations could then have been introduced to ensure that those levels were not exceeded.The adoption of the concept of substantial equivalence by governments of industrialised countries signalled to the GM food industry that, as long as the companies did not try to market GM food with a grossly different chemical composition from foods already available in the market, the GM food products would be permitted without any—I emphasise this—scientific or chemical analysis. The substantial equivalence concept was also intended to reassure customers, but it is not clear that it has actually served its purpose.I bring to the Senate's attention an issue where I believe this is very relevant. Unfortunately, scientists have not yet been able to reliably predict the biochemical or toxic effects of GM food from a knowledge of its chemical composition. Scientists are saying to us that they cannot look at a food's chemical composition and reliably give us an indication of its ability to be used for human consumption in the food industry. They go on to say:For example, recent work on the genetics of commercial grape varieties showed that despite detailed knowledge going back for centuries of the chemistry and flavour of the grapes and the wines, the relationship between the genetics of the grapes and their flavour is still not understood.So even in the wine industry they cannot give you a linkage between the chemical and any toxic compounds that would be created through those genetically modified foods. Relying on the concept of substantial equivalence is, therefore, merely wishful thinking. It is tantamount to pretending to have adequate grounds on which to judge whether or not the products are safe. Scientists are clearly saying to us that this is not the case.Another issue that the chamber needs to address, particularly in relation to labelling, is the actual tests being carried out on these genetically modified foods. There is a reasonable amount of scientific and general consumer knowledge about soya beans. We all know that certain soya beans have been genetically modified to withstand Round Up. What is not understood in the public arena is that the tests to check whether they are substantially equivalent are carried out on soya beans produced under laboratory conditions which have not been sprayed with Round Up, or glyphosphate. The soya bean has been grown for many applications in various countries around the world. Its substantial equivalence is based on a laboratory test under which the soya beans tested have never been sprayed with the glyphosphate they are genetically engineered to resist.It is very clear that conflicting information is coming through from people who require that their food be assessed for human consumption. In the scientific data placed in the marketplace for public perusal, there is an inconsistency between the soya beans tested and found to be substantially equivalent and the actual soya beans grown in broadacre that are sprayed with glyphosphate. To my knowledge, no tests whatsoever have been done on the beans that have been sprayed with the glyphosphate. When you come back to my earlier comment on the previous amendment, that is where it becomes very important in relation to chemical sensitivity. I believe that the Democrats amendment, which requires the publication of information to increase public awareness on the actual food standards and the labels, is not only desirable but necessary.18:07:0011336Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—Firstly, I commend Senator Harris on his contribution. He did not get an opportunity to give a speech in the second reading debate. I congratulate you, Senator Harris, for putting some of those issues on record. The example of soya beans and certainly the case of Monsanto illustrate wonderfully the social, health, environmental and even cultural issues that we are dealing with in relation to the debate about genetically modified foods—GMOs—more generally and specifically in relation to labelling.I thank the minister for his response to my amendment and I do acknowledge, as indeed the previous speaker did, the work of ANZFA in relation to current education activities. I certainly commend the web site. I am very happy to hear that there are lots of hits on that site. That is very important and certainly so is the booklet. I commend Senator Tambling on the launch of the booklet. That was very savvy marketing, Senator Tambling. I almost expected you to say, given this is a food debate, `Here is one I prepared earlier,' and flash that around. But prescriptive? How can this be prescriptive? This talks about including the publication of information to increase public awareness of food standards and food labels. This is not restricting them; this is not prescribing these things only. It is including them. I think to describe that as prescriptive is truly extraordinary.Earlier, in the second reading debate stage, the minister mentioned that this is the first phase. The Democrats acknowledge that. The issue of biotechnology is a huge issue that confronts Australians and the world. I understand there are other regulatory regimes being considered or put into place. I talked about the office of the gene regulator. All of these issues will have to be dealt with. I look forward to not only the ensuing debate on food labelling and genetically modified organisms but the broader biotechnology debate. However, the Democrats would have more confidence in the statements from this government—this is the first stage, there is a lot happening and there is reason for public confidence—if we had not seen what I view as a rather short-sighted approach to this debate in the contemporary history of this parliament. People would be more than aware of the Democrats' attempts on at least two occasions to set up some kind of committee reference on these broader biotechnology issues.Indeed, on the Notice Paper now there is another opportunity for the government and the opposition to broadly discuss these issues of biotechnology in a debate that we will have this week, I hope. People would be aware that I have moved that we should have a Senate select committee investigating some of these biotech issues and looking at issues like the implementation of the labelling of genetically modified foods and products. We should be looking at the precautionary principle. We should be looking at environmental health and social, cultural, religious—if you like—and moral consequences, because all of these things are bound up in this debate. It is not about being sensationalist; it is not about scaremongering; it is not about perpetuating fear in the community. The last thing we want to see are the kind of `Frankenfoods' headlines that we have seen in places around the world. It is about recognising some of the fears that the community has. But it is not just fear; it is also that consumers get very angry when they do not have adequate information. I do not think consumers necessarily want to reject GMOs. But I do think they want to know when they are buying them and when they are eating them—when they are putting them into their bodies, when they are ingesting them in some way. I think as consumers they have that right.I think this government should learn from overseas examples. We have seen what has happened in Europe and specifically in places like the UK. I realise there is perhaps a different cultural and political environment there. Certainly, when you look at issues like BSE, perhaps there are reasons that they have reacted more strongly than other parts of the world. But I do not think we can afford to ignore those kinds of very human, public, angered, sometimes almost activist and even terrorist actions and responses to the GMO debate. It is a responsible government that takes on board those issues, and not just within the context of ANZFA or the gene regulator. There is a need for a committee inquiry into this that not just brings into this debate the health professionals, the scientists and the experts but actually involves the public, perhaps very much in the same way that the consensus conference did earlier this year in Old Parliament House in Canberra.I take on board that this is perhaps the first phase. But that is no excuse to settle for lowest common denominator standards on a domestic or international level. It is no reason to be seen to, effectively, substitute codes of practice for standards. The minister, in response to my first amendment, stated that it was pretty obvious that a code of practice is not a standard. If it is so obvious, why are people worried about this? Why would we seek to make this clear? It is to give consumers as well as industry professionals some confidence in this legislation. I thank the Labor Party for their support on the first and second amendments and, similarly, the Independent senators. Please, let us take on board some of the lessons of other countries, even countries close to home across the Tasman. Let us not try and fool ourselves, this chamber and the public at large that somehow this is a prescriptive amendment.18:13:0011338Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I find it somewhat strange that Senator Harris is now obviously learning the wily and cunning ways of the Senate in that, obviously, he did not get the opportunity this evening to make a speech on the second reading debate so he is taking the opportunity to read it into the record through a series of amendments. I quite accept the validity of some of the points that he wishes to make about the very emotional issue that surrounds anything in the community that looks at regulating food and the delivery of food changes. The points he makes are very valid.It is also important to note that perhaps some of the debate with which he introduced this amendment—which I found a strange dichotomy—would really have been better saved for the notices of motion that Senator Stott Despoja already has on the Notice Paper. She gave notice on 21 October of a motion to set up a select committee on the regulation and promotion of biotechnology; and on 29 November she also gave notice of a motion to address the various issues arising from the WTO meeting in Seattle, particularly with regard to the labelling of genetically modified foods, and to pursue labelling regimes in that regard.They are going to be very interesting debates when we do have them—and properly have them—here in the Senate. There will be many opportunities in the coming months. I can certainly inform both Senator Harris and Senator Stott Despoja that, in the debates that are currently going on in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, which comprises the 10 health ministers of the Commonwealth, New Zealand and each of the state and territory jurisdictions, the whole development of these issues is being taken very cautiously, judiciously and thoroughly. There was a series of decisions last year that reflect on the points made by both Senator Harris and Senator Stott Despoja, and they again will be addressed in February, March and April of next year, when the council will have to finally resolve many of those issues—very importantly, following some significant economic studies that are currently under way. They have just been commissioned by the council itself.The legislation we are dealing with this afternoon is much the same as the legislation that was introduced last March. I would anticipate that in February or March of next year the government's initiatives in biotechnology will be on the table before this parliament, and I am certain that all senators are going to take a very keen interest in that biotechnology legislation and in the progress that the government is making in the establishment of the office of the gene technology regulator and how that will flow through. That again will impact on this very broad issue.But in relation to the issue before us—let me return and not do what Senator Harris is doing and take a lot of time putting other issues up—we are looking specifically at the Democrat amendment with regard to public information and awareness. I would contend that the work that ANZFA already conducts and that is already well designated under its legislation is there, and that this particular amendment on this occasion is unnecessary.18:17:0011338Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will break with precedent, and address my remarks purely to the amendment. I indicate on behalf of the Labor opposition that we are prepared to support the amendment. It seems to me that it is only an additional set of words, including publication of information to increase public awareness of food standards and food labels. We think that strengthens the educational role given to ANZFA by spelling out those functions. If food labelling is to work, we need to support it so that consumers are properly educated about what to look for. This amendment just strengthens ANZFA's role in getting out there and promoting public awareness. We think it adds to the efficacy of the bill and ANZFA's role, and we are prepared to support it on that basis.18:18:0011338Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I will just respond to Senator Tambling's remark: no, I most certainly have not made a second reading debate speech; it is the first one now that is sitting in the drawer up in my office after I missed the call. We can put that down to ineptness or just being new.I would like to bring the attention of senators back to the amendment that has been put before us by the Democrats. It is dealing with the responsibilities of and the requirements for these companies to put on the public record all of the available information. It is in that sense that I raise the issues in relation to the testing. The testing of these different foods is integral to the standards that are applied to them and whether these standards become a code of practice. Therefore it is extremely important that the public is well informed so that they can make their decision as to whether they consume these products or not. I reiterate that it is in relation to the issue of public awareness that I fully support the Democrats amendment.Amendment agreed to.18:20:0011339Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 3:(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 26) to page 9 (line 7), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) In developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures, the Authority may also have regard to the following (in descending priority order): (a) the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence; (b) the promotion of fair trading in food; (c) the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry. (d) the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards;This amendment was referred to during the speeches in the second reading debate. The intention behind the amendment is to strengthen the bill's commitment to public health and safety and to reduce the possible conflict between consumer and industry interests. The amendment is to section 10, as amended by the Labor Party in the other place. The amendment is intended to concentrate consideration of the authority developing food regulatory measures to those matters stated in part 1 of the act. They include the protection of public health and safety, the provision of adequate information relating to food to enable consumers to make informed choices, and the prevention of misleading or deceptive conduct. We support those particular principles.The Democrats amendment states in its current form that `the Authority may'—but I am happy to adopt Senator Brown's suggestion of changing that to `the Authority should'—have regard to a number of things, first and foremost `the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence'. That is followed by `the promotion of fair trading in food', `the desirability of an efficient and internationally competitive food industry', and lastly `the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards'. I wish to amend my amendment so that instead of `may' in the first sentence of the amendment—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Are you going to take out `may also' so that it reads `the Authority should have regard'—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Are you leaving in `also'?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I think `also' was intended to remain in there—`should also have regard to the following'. And then the further addition is to part (a) of that. After `available scientific evidence', it should read `and the precautionary principle'. I thank Senator Brown for his indication that he would support the amendment with those additions, and I am quite happy to adopt them. Again, I think this amendment is quite clear.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Has everybody taken down the amendment changes? Senator Stott Despoja.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—It sounds as though people are aware of the proposed changes, and I hope that people will support the proposed changes in the interests of public health and safety.18:22:0011340Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—Changing the `must' to `may' or `should' is not desirable, as it removes the compulsion on the authority to consider these matters in the development of food regulatory measures. I am rather surprised by that. I would have thought that the word `must' has more strength than either `may' or `should', and it is already there. These are matters that the authority should rightly consider in developing appropriate food regulatory measures. Without these safeguards, it could be unjustifiably prescriptive and costly.Similarly, Senator Stott Despoja has suggested adding to paragraph (a) the words `and the precautionary principle'. Unfortunately, that is a term that is often used very generally and is not one that is defined or has any specific or special meaning. It may well have a meaning for Senator Brown that is different for Senator Stott Despoja that is different for Senator Harris or different for me. I think that on this occasion it is not appropriately thought through or appropriately defined. So the government does not support the proposed changes, as initially they certainly water down the intent of the section.18:24:0011340Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I certainly take on board the minister's concerns. I am not sure if the government is going to support this amendment anyway, regardless of how it is amended, but I seek the indulgence of the chamber to change that word to `must', on advice. I think that is a preferable option.Leave granted.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Mr Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I realise that this is one of the difficulties of doing this sort of thing on the run. I would like a clear indication of what the final Democrat amendment is, because I am not at all clear on it. My intention at this stage is to vote against it unless convinced, but it seems to be such a movable feast at the moment that I am not clear. I think Senator Stott Despoja should make it very clear what the amendment is.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—I will make it clear from the chair. Amendment No. 3 will read, as it is proposed at the moment:In developing food regulatory measures and variations of food regulatory measures, the Authority must also have regard to the following (in descending priority order):(a) the need for standards to be based on risk analysis using the best available scientific evidence and the precautionary principle;Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) remain the same.18:25:0011340Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I wish to assure Senator Evans that that is the final draft of the amendment. I am pleased to hear that he is considering supporting the amendment. My understanding from what I had heard was that we were not actually getting your support, so I would hate to think that you were dressing up your opposition to this amendment on the basis of some last-minute changes as opposed to the fact we are indeed amending an amendment that was moved successfully in a deal between the government and the Labor Party in the other house. We acknowledge that the Labor Party and the government in their dealings have improved this bill, and we commend them on those efforts. We think this amendment would actually strengthen some of the desires behind the Labor Party and government changes in this new version of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill. I do hope that the opposition is still keeping a reasonably open mind on this one, because I think all of these issues—scientific evidence, precautionary principle, fair trading, efficient and internationally competitive food industry and the promotion of consistency between domestic and international food standards—are things that we all should be supporting.18:27:0011340Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—In speaking to the amendment to the amendment, I would like to raise the issue of the precautionary principle, particularly in relation to comments that I made earlier. We are talking about food; we are talking about people consuming these products. When we have issues like the one I raised earlier, where we were actually having one group of soya beans tested and another group of beans being submitted to the public for consumption, it becomes very important for the precautionary principle to actually be applied to these tests. I have some very clear indications that I could bring to the notice of the chamber now, but I understand we are only voting on the amendment to the amendment.3I6STOTT DESPOJASenator Stott Despoja—It is the whole amendment.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—If we are doing the whole amendment, I seek the indulgence of the chamber to speak for a couple of moments on what I believe is the difference between the risk analysis and the thing I spoke on earlier, the issue of substantial equivalence. This becomes particularly important when you look at the two scientific processes that are actually followed and, following from that, the regulatory requirements—I am now referring to the American requirements—that require substantial testing for a product to pass through the risk analysis process. This can take up to five years. It requires testing both within the laboratory and then through human trials. The example I would like to bring to the committee's notice is a product that was released for public consumption in 1989 by the Showa Denko KK marketing group. It is the product tryptophan. I will quote from the document I have, for the benefit of the Senate:For instance, in 1989 Showa Denko K.K. marketed tryptophan that had been produced in genetically engineered bacteria as a nutritional supplement in the USA.It was very clearly a food—it was a nutritional supplement. The quote continues:When this product was placed on the market, it made thousands of consumers ill. Of these, 1500 were permanently disabled and 37 died—- as a result of consuming it. To continue:Analysis by high pressure liquid chromatography indicated that this product was more than 99.6% pure tryptophan.The scientific analysis showed that, as far as substantial equivalence was concerned, it more than passed the requirement, but because it went through on substantial equivalence and not on risk analysis the American people now have 1,500 people permanently disabled and, tragically, 37 people died. The document continues:However, these also contained traces of a highly toxic contaminant. This toxin accounted for less than 0.01% of the total mass of the product but this was sufficient to seriously threaten health.This is why I come back to the precautionary principle. This is the reason that ANZFA, when developing food regulatory measures, must have regard to the criteria set out in the Democrat amendment No. 3(2)(a). The standards need to be based on risk analysis. I totally support this because of that one instance.I also strenuously stress the importance of the precautionary principle. If these products are exposed to the risk analysis process, they must go through not only a more rigid scientific assessment in the laboratory; they must also go through human trials prior to being released for public consumption. On that basis this particular tragic instance with the tryptophan would have been picked up in the human trials and we would not have had those thousands of people permanently disabled.18:33:0011341Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—I will quickly respond to the amendment and Senator Stott Despoja's comments. It is fair to say that the Labor Party has attempted to deal with the Democrat amendments constructively. I have already voted for the first two and indicated to her, in querying the amendment—because it was not at all clear to me what the final wording was; there was a deal of confusion around the chamber and it was important that we get it straight—that we have thought about the propositions put. Quite frankly, what she is now moving is quite a different amendment from what was originally indicated. Our first reaction was to vote against that original amendment because we had concern about the removal of the word `must'. Having said that, we are equally concerned about the current drafting and will not be supporting this particular amendment.The re-inclusion of the word `must' is very important and I am glad that was adopted in the amendment moved by Senator Stott Despoja finally, but on balance we are not convinced that adding the reference to the precautionary principle is necessarily wise at this stage. We are concerned about the undefined nature of the term and how that might be applied. On balance we are not prepared to support the amendment as proposed. We will be opposing amendment No. 3 proposed by Senator Stott Despoja.18:34:0011342Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That is unfortunate. We are dealing with food here, and the precautionary principle ought to apply. When you go to the Macquarie Dictionary , the word `precaution' is defined as `a measure taken beforehand to ward off possible evil or secure good results'. The second definition is `caution employed beforehand; prudent foresight'. When you have a food authority making decisions, surely that precaution is not just something that ought to be looked at; it is exactly what should be done. The use of the term `precautionary principle' is not new. The government itself included a definition in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill when it went through this House five months ago. Chapter 6 in that bill says that the minister must consider the precautionary principle in making decisions. It says:The Minister must take account of the precautionary principle in making a decision listed in the table—which includes all sorts of things to do with controlling permits, taking action, protecting wildlife, et cetera—to the extent he or she can do so consistently with the other provisions of this Act.That would be a very obvious way to go. We are not dealing here with any minor matter. We are saying to the authority that we charge with looking after the food that Australians and our Kiwi cousins buy, `Make sure that you have eliminated the hazards.' Surely that is not too much to put into a piece of legislation?The precautionary principle is accepted worldwide these days as meaning that you make sure something is safe before you proceed. I would have thought that, when it comes to food, that is the key instruction we as legislators should be giving to the Australia New Zealand Food Authority but, as I hear it, the government and the opposition are saying, `No, we cannot accept that one.' But surely this is the principle which will give people faith in this legislation: make sure you do not give the go-ahead for food regulatory measures unless, as in Senator Stott Despoja's amendment, there has been a risk analysis using the best scientific evidence available and that you act on it with the precautionary principle.If the evidence in the risk analysis says either, `We do not know,' or `There is a hazard here,' then you do not proceed. If the evidence in the risk analysis is that there is not any hazard or threat to public health and wellbeing, then you do proceed. That is what the precautionary principle means.Here we are saying through this amendment—and I presume the government and the opposition would not have accepted the original amendment—`Look at risk analysis.' Is it really that the government and the opposition do not want the food authority to do a risk analysis? If that is not so, why not put it into the legislation? When you have done your risk analysis, would the government and the opposition not tell the authority to use the precautionary principle? Goodness gracious, why not? This is pure commonsense, this is the heartland of this legislation and we as legislators should be using it; we should be employing these words. They are well understood and they have been used in other legislation, so why not here?I think this is the pivotal juncture in this debate and I say this to the government: what is at stake here is not simply the health and wellbeing of people in Australia and New Zealand; it is public confidence. We as legislators are charged with the responsibility of having the public confident that we have their interests uppermost when we legislate, and there are two words here which will give that confidence: precautionary principle. They mean that you do not let tucker go through onto supermarket shelves in the wake of scientific investigations unless you know it is safe and you have taken a reasonable test to ensure that you know that there are no hazards involved. Surely that is not too much to ask. I ask the opposition just to review the decision that has been made here. I would be quite happy to ensure that we take this through the dinner break because this is very fundamental and important and I do not think that it should be just waved away.18:40:0011343Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—I seek clarification from Senator Tambling as to how genetically modified food is going to be classified if in fact the substantial equivalence process is used. Can he assure the chamber and the people of Australia that, irrespective of whether a genetically modified food attains substantial equivalence, it will still be labelled within that food?I am referring to the American equivalent. We have in America the situation where, if a food product actually passes the substantial equivalence test, as well as not having to go through the risk analysis it is also not required to be listed as genetically modified. So I seek from the senator some assurance that, either through regulation or the government moving an amendment to the bill, we will have certainty, if ANZFA does elect to use the substantial equivalence process, that those food derivatives—whatever they are to make up the end product—are clearly labelled that they are still genetically modified even though they may attain the standard of substantial equivalence.18:43:0011343Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—Could I say, in response to Senator Brown and Senator Stott Despoja, that I am all in favour of warding off evil—that sounds like a perfectly good thing—as defined by the Macquarie Dictionary . But I am not sure that that is necessarily the only reference one uses when looking at putting a term in legislation, though. As I understand it, this term is not defined in the bill and we think that causes some problems.I note that you thought it was the heartland of this legislation and it was at a pivotal juncture in this debate. I also note that you have not moved an amendment to include it and that Senator Stott Despoja's amendment did not include it until the last 15 minutes. So, for something that is so pivotal and as such is the heartland of this bill, I am surprised that no-one thought to raise it before.I also think I am the only senator currently in the chamber who sat through the bill inquiry. It was not raised in submissions or in debate there. So, for such a pivotal and heartland measure, it is surprising that it had not arisen until we got an amendment on the run 15 minutes ago. But I do think that you have raised important issues and I am not unhappy about debating the role of this precautionary principle and how we might include it in the food regulatory legislation. Perhaps the time to do that is when we properly debate the full response to Blair and how we proceed with that issue.But, in terms of making this amendment on the run without that debate, without a better definition and without broader consideration, I am not prepared to sign up to that amendment at the moment. That is a judgment made on balance. We are happy to have the debate and I am sure we will have it about Blair and, as I said in my contribution during the second reading debate, we think we should have had the wider debate first before dealing with this bill. But, on balance, we are not prepared to support this amendment to the amendment as circulated that has been raised in the last 20 minutes in the chamber. There is no problem in doing that but, in the sense of getting us to commit to it and accept the amendment, we are not prepared to do so at this stage.18:45:0011343Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I reject outright the implication from Senator Evans. The place for a Green to bring an amendment up is in the Senate and in the committee stage. I have argued for it, and if he rejects the arguments, then so be it. I stick by the words. I introduced the amendment—Senator Stott Despoja was very quick to see the advantage of it, and she is very wise to be on the record as supporting it. The opposition does not want to take the opportunity to ensure we come up with the definition. Everybody knows what `precautionary principle' means. We could have a definition in there overnight if the opposition could go along with it, but they do not want to—even though, as Senator Evans said, he has been right through the debate on this matter. So be it. 18:46:0011344Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—In responding to the question posed to me by Senator Harris, I draw his attention to section 10 of the ANZFA Act. That act, which sets out the objectives of the authority in developing standards and variations of standards, reads:10. The Authority, in developing standards and variations of standards, must have regard to the following objectives in descending priority order:(a) the protection of public health and safety;(b) the provision of adequate information relating to food to enableconsumers to make informed choices and to prevent fraud and deception;—and then a number of other trade related matters follow. I can assure the senator that the authority is very mindful of that—it has to be, by the act. The Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council, in the considerations that it is having over genetically modified food issues, is certainly taking account of the issues raised by Senator Harris.Amendment not agreed to.Progress reported.Miscellaneous1134418:48:0011344Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I table the following disallowable instrument and report: Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determination No. 15 of 1999; and Remuneration Tribunal Report on Senators and Members of Parliament, Ministers and Holders of Parliamentary Office—Salaries and Allowances for Expenses of Office, dated 7 December 1999.Documents113441134418:49:0011344West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I have moved to take note of the report of the Department of Health and Aged Care on the operation of the Aged Care Act 1997 to enable me to refute today a press release that was put out by Mr John Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services and the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. Doing this might seem a bit strange, but it is in relation to the Commonwealth regional health services program, and the provision of aged care in rural areas is a very important issue. In this press release, Mr Anderson accuses me of making remarks in the estimates committee on 1 December in relation to this program. While saying that the Labor Party is lost and does not understand the needs of country Australia, he quotes me as saying:My dealings with rural communities suggest that when you mention the words `health' or `medical' they think hospital, hospital beds, doctor. To try and get them to make the quantum leap beyond that, to think about a range of allied health professionals and ancillary services that can be provided in a centre which do not involve beds, is almost like trying to pick the winner of next year's Melbourne Cup . . . They do not know them. They do not understand them. They do not know what they are. When you talk about occupational therapists, they think you mean a basket weaver.He accuses me of making a major misjudgment and having a poor opinion of my constituents. Firstly, I would say to Mr Anderson and to anybody who wishes to challenge me on health issues that I am a registered nurse and I am a member of both colleges of nursing in this country. So, if you want to challenge my credentials on health, feel free, but I have professional—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—You should have known better.1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—Senator McGauran, I suggest you read the Hansard because, like Mr Anderson, you are taking things out of context. I will read into this Hansard the actual quotes because the department agrees with my point. Mr Anderson has had the hide and temerity to take parts of two questions and combine them and not tell the people of Australia what the department's answer is. Along with Senator Crowley, Senator Denman and Mr Blazow from the department, we were discussing this particular program. I asked:What educative program has been undertaken to ensure the community in Blanchetown—which was one of the pilot programs—understands the role of allied health workers and professionals such that they are able to utilise them fully? My dealings with rural communities suggest that when you mention the words `health' or `medical' they think hospital, hospital beds, doctor. To try and get them to make the quantum leap beyond that, to think about a range of allied health professionals and ancillary services that can be provided in a centre which do not involve beds, is almost like trying to pick the winner of next year's Melbourne Cup.I then went on to say:Have you undertaken some sort of program to actually educate a community as to what the range of health services can actually mean beyond hospital and doctor?The reply from the department was:We do have multipurpose services in the regional health service centres. We do have a consultation process. A lot of the negotiation is actually done by our state office people and state government people. We do have some funding in both this year's initiative and last year's initiative for community planning money which we will be using to help communities employ professionals to provide them with advice of that character.They then go on:As part of the negotiations and as part of the agreement with them, we were actually entering into a contract and really working with them over a period of time in terms of looking at expanding the range of services. In a lot of communities—you are right—they think in terms of either the GPs or in terms of hospitals. I am not sure whether they do not think of the others, but it is just that the other two have priority.Then you can take the remainder of the bit I have been quoted from, to which Mr Blazow then says:That is true. In Blanchetown I think people are talking about the full range. I think in fact what has been discussed is a physio service.I then said:That is a problem that everybody—state and federal health departments—has in getting that information out. They are not doing it.Mr Blazow said:Sure. That is specifically why we give additional funding for community planning, to help communities at risk with those sorts of issues.It is quite obvious that Mr Anderson did not—WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—What is your argument? 1X4West, Sen SueSenator WEST—I am speaking to a report, Senator. This is the reason why Mr Anderson is totally out of the ballpark, out of character and out of all reasonable behaviour in selectively misquoting this and then going on to make aspersions about me and my relationship with rural areas. I absolutely condemn the minister for this sort of a practice. This is not the practice of a professional politician, and I am most astounded that Mr Anderson has stooped so low as to behave in such a manner. This is not the manner of behaviour that I expect from the Deputy Prime Minister of this country. (Time expired)18:54:0011345Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—In speaking to the report of the Department of Health and Aged Care on the operation of the Aged Care Act 1997, the first thing that must be said is that I am glad that the minister finally got around to it. The accountability report demanded of her under the act is 15 months late, but we do congratulate her for finally getting around to it. The report last year was not tabled. There was no excuse and no explanation given. When we raised it in the House of Representatives and questioned her about her failure to table the reports for both last year and this year, she said that it was `on the way'. Finally, a month or so later, we did get it—because we insisted on getting it—but the government had no intention of providing the report on the operation of the Aged Care Act, because it was embarrassed by what it shows. It shows a record of failure. The aged care reforms introduced in 1997 have failed the Australian public. They have failed to meet the financial targets, and they have failed to meet the needs of older Australians. The government has been very hesitant to release the information that makes that very clear.The opposition took the opportunity last week to table its own report, in the absence of the government meeting its statutory obligations, because we knew that the government was not at all keen on letting the Australian public know what was happening in aged care. The government's report—finally released—attempts to gloss over what is happening in aged care. It is almost as important for what it leaves out as for what it includes. There are some very misleading graphs. There is a glossing over of what is occurring in aged care in Australia.If you want evidence of that, it was in yesterday's announcement on coalescence when, after 11 months, the government finally responded to the report of the Productivity Commission that it in fact commissioned. In doing so, it responded to one of the 18 recommendations of the Productivity Commission. The government finally got around to issuing a two-page press release, which was supposed to be its formal response to the Productivity Commission, which had so definitely found that the government's plans for coalescence in aged care were inequitable and unjust. The government's two-page press release—with a nice graph at the bottom that had nothing at all to do with the subject—was taken to be its formal response to that Productivity Commission report.What we have seen yesterday afternoon and today is the sector expressing their dismay at the inadequacy of that report and at the failure of the Minister for Aged Care to properly deal with the issues raised. They have rejected the government's thinking that throwing $150 million at the problem will shut the sector up.There are real underlying problems in aged care in Australia, brought about by the failure of the aged care reforms introduced in 1997. The government will not silence the sector, and they will not satisfy the needs of older Australians unless they respond to those genuine problems that exist in the sector. Trying to hide the reality by producing this report—eventually—will not help.Throwing money at the coalescence issue to try to solve the problem will not address the real underlying problems that are at the heart of their propositions for funding of aged care in Australia. There are fundamental issues that the government has not addressed and has not responded to. The sector and older Australians will not accept that sort of response. They want something much more fundamental and comprehensive and something that admits that many of the aged care reforms have failed.It is interesting that in this report the statistics on waiting times, which show a 30 per cent increase over the last two years, have mysteriously been omitted. You will not find them in the report, but waiting times for an aged care bed in Australia have gone up by 30 per cent. Often that means an extra three or four weeks for people to find a nursing home bed in Australia. That is because the government has not kept up with the supply needed to service the ageing in our population. Those statistics mysteriously are not in the report. I would have thought, given the statutory requirement to report, they would have been included.There is a range of other interesting statistics that are not included, but senators will find them in the opposition's report. They are not the opposition's statistics but ones we have gleaned from estimates processes and other processes. This report seeks to gloss over the failures of their aged care reforms. It is like so many other things in aged care; they are stuck on the minister's desk for months. We do not get any activity to address the real issues of concern about providing services to the aged in Australia. The aged care reforms are failing. They are not meeting their financial targets. They are not meeting the needs of older Australians, and it is only because the opposition insisted on holding the government accountable that we have at least finally got the report, albeit 15 months late. Inadequate as it is, I welcome it as a start in holding the government accountable for the failure of the 1997 aged care reforms, and we can now hope to start to address the real problems. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment1134610000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bartlett)—Order! It being 7.00 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1134619:00:0011346Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Tonight I would like to talk about a great victory for regional Australia and the cause of regional development. This victory is the decision by the government to end the fringe benefits tax on all employer provided housing in remote areas. In other countries that have a fringe benefits tax, such as Canada, the USA and South Africa, exemptions have been made for remote areas so as not to discourage regional development. However, when Paul Keating introduced the Australian version of the fringe benefits tax in 1986 no exemptions were made for remote areas, and the result has been an unmitigated disaster for regional development. That the ALP has no understanding of the needs of regional Australia could not be more clearly demonstrated than by the refusal of the Hawke-Keating government to agree to any changes in the fringe benefits tax for the remote areas of Australia. This refusal was maintained by the previous government in spite of the devastating impact that the FBT had had in reducing the populations of towns with the closure of small businesses and the loss of jobs, not to mention the introduction of fly-in fly-out work force operations and the well-documented negative impacts this practice has had on regional development. Other non-commercial bodies, such as local government, found themselves liable for FBT, which meant that local levels of service suffered and fewer people were able to be employed. It was not as though the Hawke-Keating government was not informed about the adverse impact of the fringe benefits tax on remote areas. Almost from the time of its introduction, the negative impacts were pointed out to the then federal government by chambers of commerce, mining companies, small business proprietors, regional development commissions, local government authorities and bodies such as the North Australia Development Conference on behalf of interested groups in Far North Queensland, the Northern Territory and the north of Western Australia. One of the strongest voices of protest about the devastating impact of the fringe benefits tax came from the Liberal Party organisations in the Kalgoorlie electorate. I was closely involved with the Kalgoorlie north division, representing the people in the Kimberley and the Pilbara areas of Western Australia, which very early on called for remote area exemptions from this iniquitous tax and were joined by similar calls from the Kalgoorlie central division in Carnarvon and the Gascoyne and the Kalgoorlie south division, based in Kalgoorlie and the Western Australian Goldfields. As I stated in my first speech in September 1996, the impact of the FBT has been felt across the whole of Northern Australia and the pursuit for FBT exemption on all remote area housing has been a major battle for small business. It was also in my first speech that I referred to a significant independent study that was to be carried out by the Pilbara Development Commission and which was finally released in 1999. It confirmed the adverse impacts that the FBT was having on economic development in the Pilbara.Senator Murphy interjecting—4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Wait and see; you will see that it does. The report was jointly prepared by BSD Consultants, the Centre for Regional Economic Analysis of the University of Tasmania and McKessor Tieleman and Co. The report found:. . . the present system of FBT in Australia has had a significant negative impact on the development of the Pilbara since the introduction of this tax in 1986.Economic modelling results indicate that without FBT (and assuming an increase in income tax to compensate for FBT) the gross output of the region would have been 3.4% higher than under the existing system, over 670 additional jobs (supporting 1400 residents) would have been created, and an additional $14.5 million would have been invested and over $413 million in additional consumption expenditure would have been incurred.This is the equivalent of an additional $50,000 for every retail establishment in the region. It is estimated that FBT cost business enterprises the equivalent of four jobs per establishment.Well done, Paul Keating! These findings strongly indicate that regional development has suffered substantially through the introduction of the FBT, and it was certainly no overestimation when the current chairman of the PDC, Mr Piercy, recently described the decision by the federal government to exempt all employer provided housing from FBT as a major economic breakthrough for remote Australia. As a result of the FBT, the mining industry introduced fly-in fly-out operations, which have had a quite devastating effect on the development of new towns. It has meant, for example, that no new towns have been built around mining operations that have been established since this tax was introduced. Had the FBT been in place in the 1960s, none of the new towns which were constructed in the Pilbara, such as Newman, Tom Price, Paraburdoo or Pannawonica, would have been built, and no doubt the new port towns of Karratha, Dampier and Wickham would have been much smaller centres than they are today.The impact of FBT on local government in remote areas was also quite devastating. Because local government has to provide subsidies to attract employees, they found themselves liable for large amounts of FBT. For example, the Port Hedland town council had an FBT bill of around $300,000—money which could have been better spent on community services and the employment of more staff.It is very clear when you look at these facts that FBT has had a very negative effect on the development of regional areas. Mr Evan Adermann, a coalition MP in 1987, said that the FBT:. . . takes no account of businesses destroyed, jobs lost and further massive costs to business in paperwork and unproductive time spent in the calculation and remission of this stupid tax.He further stated:If the (ALP) Government ceased for a little while from courting big business magnates and had a look at the way small business in Australia has been sold out, it might begin to see the awful cost of its actions.Unlike the ALP, the Howard government has listened to the voice of regional Australia with respect to the adverse impact of the FBT on regional development, and it has taken steps to relieve the situation.In 1997 the Howard government exempted the pastoral industry from FBT on housing. In 1998 remote area housing for the mining industry was also exempted from FBT, and now this exemption has been extended to include all employer-provided housing in remote areas from 1 April 2000. It has been estimated that the extension to include small businesses and local government authorities will provide a $15 million boost to employees in Australia's remote areas and will therefore assist in job creation.In conclusion, I would like to express my thanks to the many organisations and individuals who have lobbied the federal government over many years to have the fringe benefits tax in remote areas removed. As I said in the beginning, the end of fringe benefits tax on employer-provided housing is a great victory for regional Australia and for the cause of regional development. The Howard government has abolished FBT for remote area employer-provided housing because it recognises the importance of regional development, and in abolishing FBT it has removed a major disincentive to regional development.1134819:10:0011348Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—I want to make a few brief comments with regard to the world fly-fishing championships. First I want to congratulate the participants, from 19 countries, who came to Australia to participate in these championships. Even though the competition fishing was very tough, I think everyone enjoyed the hospitality that was shown them here. Hopefully they will go back to their respective countries and promote Australia as a good fishing destination, even though some of them did not catch any fish during the competition.I congratulate my team-mates Ross Stewart from Victoria, Steve Seclier from Western Australia, Andrew Scott from Victoria, Pat Kennedy from New South Wales, and our captain, Malcolm Crosse from Tasmania, for being part of the Australian team that has won this competition for the first time in its history. Ross Stewart became Australia's first individual world fly-fishing champion, and I sincerely congratulate him because it is a very important step.Australia has always prided itself on being a fairly good fishing nation. It is unfortunate that competition fly-fishing—and indeed any sport fishing—does not receive the recognition it rightly should in view of the fact that some five million people in this country participate in the sport of fishing. Other sports that have a significantly lower rate of participation quite often receive greater acknowledgment.Other teams that made it into the medal race were France, which came second, and New Zealand, which came third. A guy from New Zealand who is now retiring from world competition, Mr Pat O'Keefe from Rotorua, won the bronze medal, so in his final world championship event his team won the bronze medal and he won the bronze medal as an individual. It was a very successful event, and I would also like to congratulate the organisers. Things ran very smoothly and, all in all, it turned out very well.I would now like to address an entirely separate matter that I have had some involvement with over a long period of time, namely forestry.GX5TROETHSenator Troeth—It is a pity you weren't here for the debate, Shane.FX5Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHY—I acknowledge Senator Troeth's interjection about being absent for the debate. I am actually sorry that I was not here for the debate, Senator Troeth. I suspect that I probably know as much, if not more, than most people in this chamber about this issue, so I would have liked to have made a contribution. I will take what time I have left tonight to make a contribution with regard to the RFA process in an overall sense, both nationally and in my home state.Nationally I think the RFA process was, from its inception, a good idea. It should have been able to deliver some good outcomes; in fact in some instances it has. Unfortunately, in other areas it has not. There has been much debate and much politicking with regard to amendments moved by the opposition. In a sense, the legislation, apart from being a guarantee to the states that compensation will be paid should the Commonwealth or a state renege on the agreement, has no value. The real value is in the agreement, and that is where I have some problems.I have said before that I have problems with regard to the processes contained in some of the regional forest agreements insofar as job creation is concerned. Job creation is fundamental to this industry in this country which, in global terms, is not a large timber supplier. We ought to be able to learn from other countries throughout the world, particularly some of the developing countries, about how not to waste and how not to use forest resources. It seems that we are incapable of doing that.In my home state I have for many years been at the forefront of support for the timber industry, and I will continue to be. But I will not support practices that are not in the interests of the industry, the state or the people who work in the industry. Regional forest agreements were championed as being a mechanism or a process whereby, at the end of the day, job creation would occur. In respect of Tasmania, Tasmanian forest workers have lost more jobs since the RFA has been in place than at any time prior—without a major closure of a factory—to it being put in place, and that is very unfortunate. But we can analyse some of the causes for that, and they are relatively easy to be analysed.What has happened to the timber industry in Tasmania—and, unfortunately, in some other states—is that it has become driven by one or two major companies. It has been taken in a direction that has not been in the interests of the state, neither economically nor socially. It has not been in the interests of the good utilisation of a natural resource. Tasmania has been through the mill in respect of inquiries, investigations and reviews on forest issues—probably more so than any other state in Australia—so we ought to have some knowledge about what should be happening.As I said, I have been pursuing changes. When I have looked at the cost of timber, particularly in Europe, I have seen, as I have said before, logs of timber sold in log form for three, four and sometimes as much as 100 times more than the same wood of the same structure that we sell in our state to the European market and to the Chinese market. Everybody says, `China doesn't want wood.' Of course, they want wood. It is the largest and most populated country in the world—of course, they need wood. The problem for us is that we have to look at the marketing processes and we have to look at utilisation. Last year I saw a single log sold in Germany for $A43,000, and I could get the same log—not known as the same species, but structurally exactly the same sort of wood—from a forest in the north-west of Tasmania for less than $7 per cubic metre, making the same size log worth in the vicinity of $100. It really begs the question: why is this happening?We in Tasmania had a review of forest practices, which was announced by the government over a year ago. It was conducted and the report was handed down, I think, in early May. Despite the fact that the person who conducted the review had previously conducted another review and found no problem associated with the conduct and management of the commercial forests in Tasmania, he handed down a review that was, in many respects, quite condemning of the practices and the utilisation practices that we have in Tasmania. I have waited a long time to get a state government response in respect of that. We now have a ministerial statement and a press release. I accept that any government has to consider these things in due course, but the unfortunate aspect of this is that, at this juncture, it seems that the government is only going to regurgitate the things of the past: it is going to refer it off to another committee. Given our experience with the number of reviews and inquiries, I had hoped that we would have been able to move on. I still hope—in many ways as a fishermen you always have to be the supreme optimist because you never know when you are going to catch one—that the government will move forward. I put them on notice, as I have done before, that if they do not move forward this will become a major political issue. (Time expired)1135019:20:0011350Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The Food Additives Shoppers Guide , prepared under the auspices of the Australia New Zealand Food Authority, is one of those must-have publications for anyone who wants to find out more about food additives. Despite its small size, it is big on information and practicality. Madam President, I had the opportunity to officially launch this in your electorate at the Canberra Centre yesterday, and it met with a very positive and good response. I will table a copy of it for the records of the Senate.As I was browsing through the guide, it struck me that it might also be an invaluable tool for Scrabble enthusiasts. It certainly contains a lot of interesting, long words that might improve not only one's knowledge about food additives but also one's word score. Knowing about food additives is particularly important for any mum and dad or their kids who may be allergic to certain food additives. Information on food additives can also be important in managing certain medical conditions and food intolerances or allergies.I wear a number of different hats in this parliament. My responsibilities include the regulation of standards for food and medicines in Australia and responsibility for the Australia New Zealand Food Authority—the sponsor of this particular guide, as it is often called—and the Therapeutic Goods Administration. In these various roles I am constantly being informed of new facts, new figures, new technologies and new developments. Today, facts and figures are certainly centre stage—in a very literal sense in this guide.Exactly what are food additives and food additive numbers? What do they do? What do they mean? And why do we need them? Put simply, `food additive' is the umbrella term that covers ingredients deliberately added to foods today for a range of reasons, such as to improve taste, to stop foods from drying out, to protect us from food poisoning and to keep our food fresh. Food additives include colourings, sweeteners, food acids, flavourings, thickeners and vegetable gums. We can see from this guide that food additives also include preservatives.In days gone by, people relied on traditional preserving methods so they could store foods and survive through times of adversity. While some of these methods are still used today for preserving jams, vegetables and some fermented meats, we now rely primarily on additives in our processed foods and drinks to carry out this function. Over the years, food additives have copped some bad publicity. Mostly, the criticism has been unwarranted. In fact, additives have a lot of advantages. One of the benefits is that we can enjoy a wide range of foods throughout the year. In many cases, this extension of availability would not be possible without food additives.A good example is to look at the way jams have changed. Traditionally, sugar was used as the preservative in jams. These days, people want jams without sugar, either as low kilojoule alternatives or for special dietary needs. So with the help of additives, artificial sweeteners replace the sugar, humectants are used so the jam has a smooth taste, thickeners give it bulk, and preservatives stop it going off once the jam is opened. I have just given an example of where the food additives used are synthetic, but it should be remembered that some substances used as additives also occur naturally. For example, citric acid can be used as a food additive. It is also present naturally in oranges.Many people today will be familiar with a publication called 508—what's that? That booklet was the predecessor of the new guide. The `508' in the title referred to potassium chloride—a mineral salt. ANZFA has revamped that publication so it now has a more user-friendly format. In particular, in the new version, additives are now listed both alphabetically and numerically. It is still a handy pocket size, which is great because it means that you can easily take it with you when you shop. You might want to think of this guide in terms of being a `codebuster' or `codebreaker' for food additives. There are overseas publications about food additives with these sorts of names.By law, food manufacturers are required to list on the label either the food additives code number or name or include both. These code numbers can seem a bit technical or may be meaningless or confusing for many people. This is exactly where the Food Additives Shoppers Guide comes in handy as it takes away much of the mystery surrounding the numbers. The codes are generally made up of three or four numbers. The reason food additives have code numbers is not to be difficult or to purposely hide information from consumers. It is because many additives have long and complex scientific names which are not only difficult to understand but also would take up too much space on a label. You might turn to page 63 of the guide and look at code No. 385, which is a preservative. The third word in this preservative's name is 27 letters long. Let me see if I can pronounce it correctly: ethylenediaminetetraacetate. It would be wonderful if you could put that on a Scrabble board.The international code numbering system for food additives was developed to make identifying food additives easier rather than harder. Now let us take a practical example from the guide. If you are reading the food ingredients list of a processed food in a supermarket, you might want to know what `440' is. You can flick through the guide and see that it is pectin—a vegetable gum used in products such as jams.When people ask me about additives and whether they are safe, I can confidently tell them, `Yes. The government would not permit them to be added to food if they weren't.' Additives have to go through stringent safety assessment procedures before they gain approval from ANZFA—the national food regulator. While additives are safe, some people in the community may experience adverse reactions to food additives. Other people have food intolerances to foods such as peanuts and milk. We are really keen for these people to know about the shoppers guide so that they can use this publication to avoid foods which may affect them. Indeed, the more practical information we have about food, the better it is for everyone. I think that was the issue being addressed in the debate just before the adjournment this evening when Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Brown tried to introduce certain principles regarding ANZFA, food and so on.The shoppers guide is a resource which can complement the advice and information provided by health professionals such as diet itians, nutritionists and members of the medical profession. If anyone wants to be the full bottle on food additives, I would encourage them to take a look at this publication. It is on the ANZFA web site at www.anzfa.gov.au free of charge. I am told that it is also available in major retail booksellers across Australia for $3.95. It would make a very handy Christmas stocking filler. It is something that is sure to be appreciated by anyone who has an interest in knowing more about the ingredients in foods. I urge anybody with such an interest to take a close look at this guide. Next time you are in a supermarket, check out the ingredients lists on the food labels for additives and use this guide to crack the codes. Spread the word about this guide among family, friends and work colleagues, as many people need to know about it. It is, after all, something that should encourage very happy reading. I table the publication.1135219:30:0011352Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—Tonight I want to speak about the ongoing consequences of the federal coalition's policy of higher education in Australia. It is no secret that regional universities are doing it tough as a result of this government's policies. Universities in regional Australia face a crisis in funding and resources caused by this government's policies. These policies, I believe, impede the role of education in regional development and increase the disadvantage faced by rural students. They are causing real damage to regional economies.I am saddened to say tonight—I intend to speak about the university in the Northern Territory—that the Northern Territory University at this stage is facing an increasingly tough time. By 2001, the operational funding for the Northern Territory University will have decreased by nearly $1.5 million since 1996. In a comparison of the actual 1996 operating grant to the university with the 2001 estimates derived from DETYA figures, there is a minus 4.2 per cent difference. The NTU has sustained not only cuts to operating grants but also a loss of discretionary grants and the failure of this government to supplement salaries paid in universities.For a small regional university like the NTU, the funding reduction has had a huge impact, as both staff and students are quick to point out. I am constantly being contacted by those staff and students from the NTU who are concerned about the quality of education being provided, the continuing increase in student-staff ratios, the high turnover of staff, the less frequent lecture and tutorial contact and the outdated technology.But it should be pointed out that this is an Australia-wide malaise in regional universities found in our higher education system. Regional universities have been trying to cope with declining student demand and problems in meeting their student targets. Increasingly expensive education has led to a reduction in demand for university places. In 1997 demand for university places fell by 4.4 per cent, and in 1998 it fell by 4.1 per cent. We know that rural students are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the cost of education and that the cost of university fees stops them from attending. The lower threshold on HECS has meant that more students from disadvantaged backgrounds are required to pay for their education.Also worth commenting on is the fall in demand of around 10 per cent among mature aged students. So it is really the old chicken and egg scenario. Increasing costs lead to a reduction in student numbers, which leads to less funding, which leads to less staff and higher staff-student ratios, which leads to increased student dissatisfaction, which leads to a further reduction in student numbers.The federal education minister, Dr Kemp, has previously claimed that the income available to universities is increasing, based on projections about the increasing proportion of income that comes via student fees and charges. However, as we have seen, the government's income to universities has been steadily decreasing since 1996. The government's figures show that under the current arrangements the year 2000 government funding to universities will be below 50 per cent of total operating revenue. It will be around the same level as it was in 1990.The repercussions of this government's higher education policies are being felt across the country and no more so than at the Northern Territory University. Recently, the NTU announced the loss of 22 positions from the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. The NTU have responded to their funding crisis—it now is a funding crisis at NTU—by reallocating valuable resources away from Aboriginal education to prop up the mainstream faculties. These redundancies have come as a direct result of the recommendations contained within the recently released Northern Territory University report of the Review Committee into the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and Indigenous Education.The courses of FATSIS, the acronym for that faculty, have been a primary reason for indigenous enrolments at the NTU. The courses are designed to introduce indigenous students to tertiary education and to encourage them in a culturally sensitive and appropriate way to go on and change their lives and their prospects through further education. The university has decided to move the 22 positions from FATSIS, saying that special programs for Aboriginal people built up by the indigenous faculty over the last 10 years are a wasteful duplication. This has been dismissed by the staff in that faculty. The staff have expressed dissatisfaction and concern with the way that the university has implemented changes within the faculty. The composition of the implementation committee prevented the community, students and staff from playing a role in the implementation of any of the recommendations of the review.They have expressed concern at the university's targeting of the faculty's enabling and bridging programs for early school leavers, which is something the Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory has identified as being a key area of need. It is ironic, really, that the faculty, the only freestanding faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies in Australia, which gives the Northern Territory University something unique, is now the target as the university desperately seeks to reduce its costs.FATSIS staff see the university's latest moves as attacking the faculty's integrity, which will ultimately destroy its viability and independence. It also means the loss of vital money from indigenous education programs. It is also symptomatic of the problems being faced by our regional universities. Cutting costs inevitably leads to cutting courses, which leads to less funding due to reducing the university's ability to attract students.Education plays a critical role in regional development, and no more so than in Darwin and the Northern Territory. It supports the development of industries and enterprises through the provision of essential skills and knowledge. It provides research and analysis of key industrial and environmental factors which impact on the regions themselves. It also contributes to economic activity and job creation more efficiently than any other industry.Cost cutting without vision, growth or planning means losing the student critical mass at the university. Fewer staff in the faculty make it even more difficult for that faculty to offer its courses in Aboriginal communities. That is important for the university if it is to attract students who may otherwise feel intimidated in places like the Casuarina campus of the Northern Territory University.Speaking on the Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 1999 about seven weeks ago, I painted a picture of universities struggling for funds, seeking to downsize and make staff redundant in order to cope. The loss of 22 positions at FATSIS is a direct consequence of this federal government's policies on higher education in Australia. It is disturbing that a unique Aboriginal education faculty is affected in this way at a time when we should be doing everything we possibly can to increase Aboriginal education rates, participation and retention and, even more important, the completion by those students of courses in indigenous studies in our tertiary sector.This government needs to address the role that education plays in regional development and to develop and promote policies that support a strong, viable and publicly funded tertiary education system which is responsive to the needs of the community it serves. Education contributes to regional development more per dollar spent than any other industry. For every million dollars of turnover in education, 38 jobs are created in the economy. This government need to reassess their failed education budget and allow universities, particularly those in regional areas such as the Northern Territory, to continue to make their valuable contribution to the regional students and the regional economy.I say that this government's policies stand condemned for what they have done to Australia's higher education sector and in particular the impact they had some years ago on the Arts Faculty of the Northern Territory University and have now had on the Faculty of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.Senate adjourned at 7.39 p.m.Documents1135411354The following government documents were tabled:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation—Report for 1998-99.Advance to the Minister for Finance and Administration—Statement and supporting applications of issues—September 1999.Aged Care Act 1997 —Report for the period 1 October 1997 to 30 June 1999 on the operation of the Act.Australia-China Council—Report for 1998-99.Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd (ARTC)—Report for 1998-99.Australian Sports Drug Agency—Report for 1998-99—Erratum.Australian Trade Commission (AUSTRADE)—Export Market Development Grants—List of grant recipients for 1998-99.Australian Wheat Board—Report for the period 1 October 1998 to 30 June 1999 [Final].Centrelink and the Data-Matching Agency—Data-matching program—Report for 1998-99.Department of Veterans' Affairs—Data-matching program—Report for 1998-99—Corrigendum.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Report for 1998-99.Landcare Australia Limited—Report for 1998-99.Pooled Development Funds Registration Board—Report for 1998-99.Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report for 1998-99 on the operations of the registered health benefits organisations.Productivity Commission—Report for 1998-99.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Acts Interpretation Act—Statements pursuant to subsections 34C(6) and (7) relating to the delay in presentation of a report—Australian Industry Development Corporation Report for 1998-99.Broadcasting Services Act—Restricted Access Systems Declaration 1999 (No. 1).Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 1082/99.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 20A—Determination No. T17 of 1999.National Health and Medical Research Council Act— Guidelines for Genetic Registers and Associated Genetic Material. Guidelines for Ethical Review of Research Proposals for Human Somatic Cell Gene Therapy and Related Therapies.Parliamentary Entitlements Act—Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations—Advice of decision under paragraph 18(a), dated 14 November 1999.Public Service Act—Public Service Commissioner's Directions 1999.Telecommunications Act—Carrier Licence Conditions (Telstra Corporation Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 2 of 1999).Answers to Questions on Notice11355The following answers to questions were circulated:11355(Question No. 1279)127911355Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) What is the annual cost to the department of news clippings purchased or produced by the department.(2) (a) Are the clippings provided regularly to the appropriate shadow ministers; and (b) in each instance, which shadow ministers receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(3) (a) Are they provided to the appropriate Australian Democrats' spokespersons; and (b) in each instance, which spokespersons receive a copy of the department's news clippings.(4) Are the department's clippings routinely provided to other members of Parliament; if so, which members and/or senators and in what capacity are they provided with a copy of the department's clippings.11355Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I am advised by my department that the cost of news clippings purchased or produced by the department is $108,446.27.(2)-(4) No.11355(Question No. 1298)129811355Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers are employed in, or were seconded to, the Minister's office as at 23 August 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the officers; (b) what are their employment classifications; and (c) what duties are they assigned, that is, to which policy areas or agencies are they allocated responsibility.(3) What was the total cost to the department of these officers. 11355Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Two(2) (a) Laurence Hodgman and Wayne Furler; (b) Both are EA Executive Level 1; (c) The officers are responsible for ensuring effective liaison between Departmental staff and the Minister's Office, encompassing all of the portfolio policy areas and agencies.(3) Total cost to the Department incurred for these officers for the period 21 October 1998 to 23 August 1999 is $152,405.86. This covers salary, superannuation, travel and ministerial staff allowance.11355(Question No. 1325)132511355Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers are employed in, or were seconded to, the office of the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary as at 23 August 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the officers; (b) what are their employment classifications; and (c) what duties are they assigned, that is, to which policy areas or agencies are they allocated responsibility.(3) What was the total cost to the department of these officers.11355Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) One(2) (a) Louise Rose; (b) EA Executive Level 1; (c) Ms Rose has responsibility for ensuring effective liaison between Departmental staff and the Parliamentary Secretary's Office in the portfolio policy areas for which the Parliamentary Secretary has responsibility.(3) Total cost to the Department incurred for this officer for the period 21 October 1998 to 23 August 1999 is $71,952.41. This covers salary, superannuation, travel and ministerial staff allowance. 11356(Question No. 1339)133911356Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) In the 1997 and 1998 calendar years how many state funerals were organised by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit.(2) What was the total cost.11356Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows:(1) In the 1997 and 1998 calendar years the number of state funerals organised by the Ceremonial and Hospitality Unit was four and one respectively.(2) The total cost was $66,659.98.11356(Question No. 1545)154511356Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja3I6SAAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) Are Guthrie cards stored and held at the Murdoch Institute at the Royal Childrens Hospital in Melbourne; if so, are the cards under the direction and control of the Murdoch Institute.(2) Does the Murdoch Institute conduct research using any Guthrie cards.(3) What corporate interests, such as companies, business names, unincorporated associations, et cetera, does the Murdoch Institute have relating to its research interests.(4) Is the Murdoch Institute for Research into Birth Defects Limited involved in commercialising Murdoch Institute research outcomes.(5) Does the Murdoch Institute for Research into Birth Defects Limited have any commercial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies for the funding and commercialisation of research.(6) Does any of the research undertaken at the Murdoch Institute involving commercial arrangements with pharmaceutical companies involve Guthrie cards, for example, will a pharmaceutical company in a commercial arrangement with the Murdoch Institute have a right to commercialise a research outcome based on research involving Guthrie cards held by the Murdoch Institute.(7) What limits does the Murdoch Institute impose on the uses of Guthrie cards for research and other purposes. 11356Herron, 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:The questions asked by the honourable senator in relation to Guthrie cards are better directed to the Murdoch Institute directly. Guthrie cards do not come under the responsibility of the portfolio of Health and Aged Care.While my Department does provide funding to the Murdoch Institute it is not involved in the corporate affairs of the Murdoch Institute.11356(Question No. 1569)156911356Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:Before the goods and services tax (GST) is payable on any transaction the supply made by a taxpayer must be `in the course or furtherance of an enterprise carried on by the taxpayer' (Division 9 of A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999): if a primary producer, who has been carrying on a business for a number of years, sells all of his trading stock and equipment then GST will apply to the sale, however, does GST apply to the sale of the farm land if the farm land is sold by the farmer after he has ceased carrying on the business of primary production.11356Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The GST legislation provides that a supply of farm land that is part of a going concern is GST-free, subject to certain conditions: the supply is for consideration; the recipient is registered or required to be registered; the supplier and the recipient have agreed in writing that the supply is of a going concern; the supplier must provide to the recipient all things necessary for the continued operation of the enterprise; and the supplier must carry on the enterprise until the date of supply. If a farmer ceases carrying on the business of primary production before the date the farm land is sold, the sale would not qualify for GST-free treatment under these provisions.However, the sale of farm land may be GST-free even where the land is sold after the farmer has ceased carrying on the business of primary production on the land.First, under amendments to the GST legislation recently introduced by the Government, the separate sale of farm land and improvements will be GST-free, provided a farming business has been carried out on the land for at least the period of five years preceding the supply and the buyer intends that a farming business be carried out on the land. The movable property (eg, livestock and equipment) will be subject to tax. This takes account of the normal practice for the sale of farms where the underlying land and movable property are sold separately.Secondly, and again under amendments recently introduced, GST-free treatment applies for a separate supply of farm land where it is subdivided and provided as potential residential land to an associate (eg, a relative) for no consideration or for consideration at less than the market value and where the land has been used for farming purposes for at least five years.GST will be payable on the sale of farm land that does not come under the above provisions, eg where the land has not been used for farming purposes for at least five years or where the land is to be sold for non-farming purposes such as residential land re-development. Property subject to tax can be sold under the usual tax rules or under 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.11357(Question No. 1574)157411357Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4WAALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:(1) How is the construction of retirement villages treated for Goods and services tax (GST) purposes.(2) How are rents that are charged by retirement village owners treated for GST purposes.11357Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The construction of a retirement village will be subject to GST. The sale of a new retirement village unit to a resident will be subject to GST; however, subsequent sales of that unit will be input taxed. These treatments are consistent with the more general treatment of the construction and sale of residential dwellings under the GST.(2) Residents of retirement villages who do not require nursing or daily living activities assistance services are treated the same as residents of other rental accommodation, that is, the rental charge would be input taxed. A supply of services, including accommodation, to residents of retirement villages who require nursing or daily living activities assistance services will be GST-free. 11357(Question No. 1636)163611357Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 29 September 1999:(1) Were security arrangements for the recent trip to Australia by Chinese President Jiang Zemin the responsibility of the state or federal police.(2) What instructions were given to police and other personnel responsible for security during the President's visit to Australia in September 1999.(3) Were they told that the President was not to see the Tibetan flag, protest placards or photos of the Dalai Lama while in Australia.(4) What instructions were they given about the methods and degree of force which could be used against demonstrators to achieve these objectives.11357Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) As is the case for all such visits, operational security arrangements for the visit by President Jiang Zemin were the responsibility of the respective jurisdictions he visited. Security arrangements were the responsibility of the Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland Police Services and, in Canberra, the Australian Federal Police. The Protective Security Coordination Centre and the AFP, who come within my portfolio, provided cross-jurisdictional coordination for the visit.(2) For the visit to Canberra, the Australian Federal Police issued standard operational orders not different in purpose from those normally issued for such high level visits.(3) In relation to the Australian Federal Police—no.(4) In relation to the Australian Federal Police—none.11357(Question No. 1676)167611357Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:(1) What is the Prime Minister's reaction to the fact that in 1996 the combined wealth of just 358 individuals equalled the income of 2.5 billion of the poorest people in the world.(2) Is there no danger for Australia's future in this remarkable imbalance.11357Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(2) It is a dramatic statistic which draws attention to disparities in wealth between rich and poor countries. Australia must bear those disparities in mind when formulating policies.11358(Question No. 1680)168011358Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 14 October 1999:With reference to superannuation in the Australian Public Service (APS):(1) Is it the case that a consortium of 33 agencies has been set up to determine the default fund selection criteria and select a service provider to implement choice of superannuation fund in the APS.(2) What public discussion has been held regarding this move.(3) Have any discussion and/or negotiations taken place with APS employees or the Community and Public Sector Union regarding the implementation of choice in superannuation fund.(4) How many person-hours and consultancy and other costs have been incurred to date, by agency, in the preparation for choice in superannuation fund.(5) (a) What instructions have been given to Commonwealth agencies by the department regarding choice of fund preparation, and (b) can a copy of these instructions be provided.(6) Why has this work been done when the Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment) Repeal and Amendment Bill 1998 has not been passed by the Senate.11358Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) I understand that several agencies have formed a cluster to obtain further information and consider how best to implement arrangements for each agency, including:- the development of appropriate selection criteria for a range of default funds; and- a list of suitable service providers for the provision of further market information.(2) See questions 1 and 3 for details of meetings and consultations.(3) Implementation of the new arrangements is a matter for each agency. The CPSU has been advised of the consortium's activities and progress to date and CPSU delegates in ComSuper have been consulted about the consortium.(4) The Department's costs since 1997, when the proposed arrangements were announced, are approximately $40,000. The total cost to ComSuper for its participation in the consortium is $1,500. It is not possible to quantify the person hours involved although the Australian Electoral Commission, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing and ComSuper advise that the cost per agency and person-hours are nil or negligible.(5) (a) No instructions have been given to Commonwealth agencies by the Department regarding choice of fund preparation. Information has been provided to agencies about the relevant proposed legislation in Parliament and broad issues agencies may like to consider when implementing arrangements. Agencies have been kept up to date about the current status of that legislation. This information has been provided in various forms including newsletters and general presentations (eg, a seminar held in February 1998). Information provided to agencies is also available on DOFA's website.(b) Copies of information provided to agencies have been made available to Senator Allison.(6) Like employers in the wider community who may be affected by any proposed legislation, agencies are responsible for determining their ability to implement relevant arrangements by the prescribed deadlines and adopting the necessary risk management practices to ensure they can meet those deadlines.11358(Question No. 1697)169711358West, Sen SueSenator West1X4NSWALP00 asked the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 October 1999:(1) Can the Assistant Treasurer outline the goods and services tax (GST) arrangements for loan payments made to wheat producers through the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) in lieu of crop sales being finalised.(2) Will the AWB need to differentiate between domestic and export wheat sales from their pool to determine what sales are subject to a GST and what sales are exempt.(3) If it is determined that AWB loan payments are GST free, will this exemption extend to other grain growers.(4) As many primary producers are now planning their crop rotations for the next 12 to 18 months, can the Assistant Treasurer explain what responsibilities primary producers and agricultural marketing boards have under the GST. 11359Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:(1) Where a loan agreement is entered into with, amongst other things, loan repayments and interest charges with commercial terms, details of conditions in the event of loan default, risks borne by the lender and a genuine expectation of repayment, no GST will be applicable to the loan principal and no GST is payable on interest charges. However, the supply of the loan facility by the AWB itself will be input taxed as a financial supply.Where a genuine loan agreement is entered into with a producer, a liability for GST on the supply of the wheat will arise either at the time the producer is paid or issues an invoice for their wheat, depending on whether the producer accounts on a cash or non-cash basis.(2) If the AWB sells wheat directly to a non resident customer and actually exports the wheat, the supply will be GST free. The conditions which must be met to make a GST free export are that the goods are exported from Australia by the supplier within 60 days of the supplier receiving any consideration or issuing an invoice for the goods (whichever occurs first).Export sales of wheat by the AWB will be GST free and domestic sales will be subject to the GST. Therefore, the AWB will have to account separately for these sales.(3) See (1)(4) Broadly, primary producers and agricultural marketing boards will have the same responsibilities as all other GST registered businesses. Each entity will have to apply for an Australian Business Number to be registered for GST. After 1 July 2000 GST will have to be remitted for taxable supplies made in the course of their business. An input tax credit will be allowed for GST paid on creditable business acquisitions. Regular returns called Business Activity Statements will need to be completed and lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) (quarterly or monthly). A net payment of GST will have to be made at the same intervals. Where a business has paid out more GST than has been collected then the ATO will refund the amount within 14 days of the lodgement of the return.11359(Question No. 1703)170311359Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay9L6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 October 1999: With reference to the Regional Australia Summit being held in Canberra from the 27 October to 29 October 1999:(1) Were guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers paid a stipend/honorarium/fee for participating in the summit; if so (a) who was paid; and (b) which organisation did they represent; if not, why not.(2) For guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers receiving a fee: (a) how much did they receive; (b) how was the fee level set; and (c) was the fee paid at a flat rate; if not, was the fee paid on a per day basis.(3) What was the total amount of money paid to guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers.(4) Were the travel expenses for guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers to attend the summit paid by the department; if not, why not.(5) (a) What was the total amount of money spent on travel expenses for guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers; (b) what were the individual total payments paid to guest speakers; (c) what were the exact travel expenses that could be claimed; and (d) at what level were the expenses paid.(6) (a) who selected the guest speakers and/or facilitators and/or paper writers; (b) how did they become involved in the summit; and (c) how were they notified of their involvement in the summit.11359Macdonald, 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) Some of the keynote speakers sought payment, all facilitators provided their services on a commercial basis and paper writers were offered an honorarium; (a) attached is a list showing payments; (b) they did not represent an organisation—they were chosen for their expertise rather than the views of their organisations.(2) (a) see attached list, copies of the list are available form the Senate table office (some payments are estimates only as invoices have not yet been received); (b) the keynote speakers and facilitators provided quotes for the provision of their services, the Reference Group determined that writers be paid a $1000 honorarium; (c) keynote speakers and writers were paid a flat fee, facilitators were paid according to their quotes which were generally a daily rate plus expenses.(3) See attached list, copies of the list are available from the Senate table office.(4) See attached list, copies of the list are available from the Senate table office. Travel expenses were not paid to some people because they, or their organisations, were willing to meet these expenses themselves.(5) (a) and (b) see attached list, copies of the list are available from the Senate table office; (c) air and taxi fares, accommodation and allowance for meals not provided at the Summit; (d) accommodation was organised by the professional conference organiser, Conference Logistics, and paid at the rates negotiated by them with the hotels. For keynote speakers travel expenses were paid at the SES level; for writers economy class travel and facilitators were/will be reimbursed for reasonable expenses according to their contracts.(6) (a) Keynote speakers were selected by the Minister based on advice from the Reference Group. Facilitators and writers were selected by the Reference Group from a group who were invited to provide quotations; (b) they were invited to express their interest in participating in the Summit based on the expertise and experience in the relevant issues; (c) they were notified by Summit Unit staff either by telephone or written correspondence.11360(Question No. 1704)170411360Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay9L6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 October 1999:(1) Was the organising of the summit conference put to public tender; if not, why not; if it was put to tender, will the tender documents be made public;(2) Was a private company contracted to organise the conference, if so, which company provided the services.(3) (a) How many departmental staff worked on the summit full-time; (b) how many worked on the summit in a part-time capacity; (c) what are the Australian public service levels of the staff who worked on the summit; and (d) how many at each level.(4) (a) What was the Budget for the summit; and (b) can a detailed breakdown of the total budget and expenditure for the summit be provided.(5) (a) What was the total expenditure on the summit, and (b) can a detailed breakdown of the cost be provided.11360Macdonald, 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) The organising of transport, accommodation, venue secretariat services and Summit registration was put to a restricted tender. A copy of the Invitation to Tender for the Services of a Profes sional Conference Organiser has been provided to the Table Office.(2) Yes. Conference Logistics was engaged to provide these services.(3) The Regional Australia Summit Unit consisted of (a) six full time staff;(b) one part-time.(c) Executive Level 1 and 2; Public Affairs Officer Level 3, APS Level 3, 4 and 61x Executive Level 21x Public Affairs Officer Level 32x Executive Level 11x APS Level 61x APS Level 41x APS Level 3Additional staff were drawn from across the Department to assist during the course of the Summit.(4) (a) $1,017,214. (b) A copy of the detailed Regional Summit Budget has been provided to the Table Office.(5).(a) The total expenditure for the Summit cannot yet be calculated as the majority of invoices have not yet been received; (b) a detailed breakdown of the cost of the Summit cannot yet be calculated as the majority of invoices have yet to be received.11360(Question No. 1709)170911360Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) Is the Australian Government providing funding or government assistance through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation or Austrade for the establishment of the following coal-fired power stations in the Asian region: (a) the Union Power Development Company station in Ban Kruat, Thailand; and (b) the Central Negros Power Station Corporation station in Pulupandan, Philippines; if so: (i) how much funding and what forms of assistance have been provided and/or promised, (ii) to whom has the funding or assistance been given, and (iii) when was the funding or assistance given.(2) (a) What environmental impact assessment has been done on either of these projects to investigate their environmental and social effects; and (b) has the Australian Government undertaken any environmental, economic or social assessment; if so, can a copy of the assessment be provided. (3) (a) Has the Government undertaken any environmental assessments of `clean coal' that comply with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member benchmarks on pollutant and emission standards; (b) have these assessments examined claims made about clean coal regarding (i) releases of greenhouse gases, (ii) levels of coal ash, (iii) levels of sulphur dioxide, (iv) levels of nitrogen oxides, (v) levels of mercury fluoride, and (vi) levels of trace elements, released to the local environment; (c) who did the assessments; (d) what findings were made; and (e) can a copy of the reports be provided.(4) (a ) How much funding was given to the Australian or Thai coal industry for the Australian Clean Coal seminar in Bangkok in April 1999; and (b) if no funding was provided directly to any industry bodies what, if any, government resources were devoted to support this or any other clean coal promotional projects in the Asian region.11361Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Portfolio responsibility for EFIC and Austrade rests with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.(2) (a) These countries have their own requirements for undertaking environmental impact assessments. The Australian Government does not normally keep track of environmental impact assessments undertaken in other countries. (b) Although I am not aware of any environmental assessments made by the Australian Government through my Department relating to environmental, economic or social aspects of these power stations, my department is responding to a request from authorities in Thailand to arrange for technical evaluation by Australian experts of plans for coal power stations proposed for Thailand.(3) I am advised that there is a range of scientific research under way into the development of clean coal technology, but that my portfolio has not undertaken specific environmental impact assessments of clean coal against OECD benchmarks in relation to the Thai power projects referral to above.(4) My Department provided funding of $88,700 to the Joint Coal Board to manage two workshops on Coal Utilisation and Environmental Management held in Bangkok, Thailand 29-30 April and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 3-4 May 1999. 11361(Question No. 1714)171411361Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, 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.11361Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised that:. The information requested is not readily available from departmental records in the form requested. The department's accounting system records the amount spent on legal services, which includes the conduct of litigation and other services as well as the provision of legal advice. In the 1998-99 financial year, the total cost to the department for legal services obtained from the Attorney-General's Department (including the Australian Government Solicitor) was $5,285,966.. In the 1998-99 financial year, the total cost to each agency in the portfolio for legal advice obtained from the Attorney-General's Department (including the Australian Government Solicitor) was:Australian National Audit Office—$31,053Office of Commonwealth Ombudsman—$19,336Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—$2,110Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—$88Office of National Assessments—NilPublic Service and Merit Protection Commission—$100,515.(2) I am advised that:. The total cost to the department for legal advice obtained from other sources in the 1998-99 financial year was $1,512.In the 1998-99 financial year, the total cost to each agency in the portfolio for legal advice obtained from other sources was:Australian National Audit Office—$205,397Office of Commonwealth Ombudsman—$3,000 Office of Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—NilOffice of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—$224Office of National Assessments—NilPublic Service and Merit Protection Commission—$25,984.11362(Question No. 1730)173011362Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, 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.11362Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)Department of Veterans' Affairs—$631,231.35; Australian War Memorial—$6,620.00; Repatriation Medical Authority—$ 54,200.50.(2) Department of Veterans' Affairs—$367,935.37; Australian War Memorial—$25,381.00; Repatriation Medical Authority—$606.70.11362(Question No. 1753)175311362Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VICAD00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 4 November 1999:With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1553 and, in particular, unanswered (5):(1) Why was there no formal consultation process with disability groups and people with disabilities in formulating the Gold Medal Disability Strategy.(2) Can a copy be provided of all ministerial and departmental correspondence and documentation relating to the decision to exclude stakeholders in the disability community.(3) Can a list be provided of participants, including total number and names of companies, indicat ing whether they are small to medium or large enterprises, in the Access Symposia.(4) (a) What are the minimum criteria for businesses to be eligible for an award; and (b) if no businesses meet these criteria, will the award money be distributed to the `next best' business, or used for some other purpose.11362Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Because the target audience for this awareness campaign is the business community.(2) No. As indicated in my answer to question one, given that the purpose of the strategy is to work with business to improve access to goods, services and facilities to people with disabilities.(3) Companies and organisations which formally registered to attend symposia in Hobart, Melbourne and Brisbane are listed below, however not all attending the symposia formally registered. Other information requested in the honourable senator's question is not readily available. I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure of resources to collect the information requested from these companies and organisations.Hobart + Hobart Vista Hotel; Purity Supermarkets; Jobmatch Inc; Gilby Roussos Architects; Tas Eco Homes; Blundstone Pty Ltd; Airport Maintenance Services; Rentokill; Coles Supermarkets; Barton Cottage; Mailworks; Kendell Airlines; Physical Disability Council of Australia; Tasmanian Deaf Society; Launceston City Council; Retail Traders Association of Tasmania; Kingborough Council; City of Glenorchy; University of Tasmania Student Services; National Disability Advisory Council; Community Transport Services Team; Everard Richardson Architects; City of Hobart; Tasmanians with a Disability; Susan Smith Architect; Tasmania South Regional Tourism; Devonport Chamber of Commerce; Property Council of Australia (Tas Branch); Tasmanian Department of Transport.Melbourne + YESS Industries; Deakin University; Geelong Employability; Bayside Trains; Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Sport and Recreation Victoria; National Australia Bank; Ansett Australia; Greenway Hirst Page Architects; Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind; Paramount Personnel; IMO Group; Coles Supermarkets; Department of Infrastructure; Rob Pickett Design; Council for Equal Opportunity; Myer/Grace Brothers; Pirra Lodge; Etra Architects Pty Ltd; City of Glen Eira; University of Melbourne; Hilton on the Park; Woorinyan Employment Service; Morris Walker; Vital Capital; Victorian Arts Centre; Arts Access; Perrott Lyon Mathieson; MS Society of Victoria; Victoria Hamer Architects; Mee's Bus Lines; Access Audits Australia; Monash University; Hume City Council; City of Melbourne; Trunk Entertainment; Australian Building Ceramics; Minibah Employment Service; Tourism Victoria; Highlands Personnel; Word of Mouth; ACROD (Victorian Division); Highpoint Industries; Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association; Contact Hardware Manufacturing.Brisbane + Access Employment Services; Association for Competitive Employment; Best Personnel; Brisbane Catholic Education; Corporate Outsourcing; Couriers Please Pty Ltd; Education Queensland, Employment Initiatives; Greek Club and Convention Centre; Horizon Foundation; Industry and Commerce TrainingGroup Ltd; Link Personnel; Minter Ellison; Noosa Council; Paraplegic and Quadriplegic Association of Queensland; Partnership with Industry; Proactive Tourism Services; Public Transport Alliance; Queensland Police; Queensland Advocacy Inc; Queensland Hotel; Motel and Accommodation Association; Queensland Main Roads; Red Cross; Sanctuary Cove; Seaworld; Sleeman Sports Complex; Spectrum Employment; Technical Aid to the Disabled; Work Solutions.(4) (a) Award criteria will be provided as soon as they are finalised.(b) There will be no monetary awards.