1999-12-083914SENATE1136501999-12-08The PRESIDENT(Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills11365s24511365Motion (by Senator Tambling, at the request of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, and for related purposes.Motion (by Senator Tambling) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1136509:31:0011365Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I table the explanatory memorandum and move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Commonwealth Government, in its 1998 election commitment, Protecting the Sydney Harbour Foreshore , stated that it was committed to preserving the Sydney Harbour foreshore for future generations. The Government announced that, as the Department of Defence relocates from certain sites around Sydney Harbour, it would establish a Trust to assume management and planning responsibilities for those sites.This bill will fulfil the Government's commitment by establishing the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust.As the cradle of European settlement and the focus of Australia's most populous city, the Harbour is the quintessential image of our nation abroad. It will be the centre of international attention during the 2000 Olympic Games.For the people of Sydney, the Harbour provides an avenue for commerce and the transport of people. The Harbour and its foreshores are a focus of city living and of recreational pursuits. For these reasons the Government is committed to preserving the Harbour and its foreshore for future generations.Over the last century, the Commonwealth has been custodian of some of the foreshore areas of greatest natural and heritage significance. Those lands have been used by the Department of Defence for the activities of both the navy and army.Defence is relocating, or in some cases has already relocated, from North Head, Middle Head, Georges Heights, Woolwich and Cockatoo Island as part of the Government's program to improve the defence of Australia. As Defence relocates these lands will be vested in the Trust. The bill will also allow other Commonwealth foreshore sites to be vested in the Trust if desired.The Trust will be required to manage the sites with the objectives of:. ensuring that management of Trust land contributes to preserving the amenity of the Sydney Harbour region;. conserving the environmental and heritage values of Trust land, and establishing suitable land as a park;. maximising public access to Trust land; and. cooperating with other Commonwealth, New South Wales and local government bodies.The Trust will be a transitional body, established for ten years, to ensure that the Commonwealth's duty to rehabilitate the former Defence sites is fulfilled, and that the sites are returned to the people of Australia in good order and with a sustainable financial base for their ongoing management.In establishing that financial base, the Trust will be able to recommend the commercial use of parts of the sites and their transferral to freehold title. However, any such long-term proposals will need to be considered as part of the management planning process and the associated community consultation. They will also need to be in accord with the objectives of the Trust which, as the government has made clear, are about rehabilitating, protecting and presenting these sites for the benefit of the whole community.I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the government's stated policy of ultimately transferring North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights to the NSW government for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. We will consider long-term arrangements for the Woolwich site and Cockatoo Island following the management planning process and while we have no final view, it is our intention that the ultimate ownership of these sites will be determined on the basis of the best outcome in maintaining these sites as community assets. The Trust will consist of a Chair and five Members, appointed by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. The Government of New South Wales will be invited to nominate two Members for appointment to the Trust. A full-time Executive Director is to be appointed to the Trust, and other staff and consultants may be hired.The bill provides for the Trust to develop management plans for the sites within 18 months of the land being vested in the Trust. Management plans must be developed with full community participation, and are subject to my approval as Minister for the Environment and Heritage.The bill provides that the Trust will establish a community advisory committee in respect of each management plan area, for the purpose of providing advice to the Trust on issues relevant to the management plan area. The Trust must consider the advice or recommendation of these committees. Additionally, the Trust may establish a technical advisory committee.The Trust is expected to work in close cooperation with the New South Wales government and local government authorities, and is fully empowered to do so.Due to the need to commence management planning as soon as possible, I issued a media release, on 13 March 1999, announcing that the Commonwealth Government would establish an Interim Trust to commence planning and public consultation. The Interim Trust was duly established and I formally opened its office at Chowder Bay on 15 August 1999, and announced the appointment of an Executive Director. The bill provides for actions undertaken by the Commonwealth on behalf of the Interim Trust in relation to a management plan to be considered as having been performed by the Trust.In recognition of the considerable community interest in the future use of these foreshore sites, I released an exposure draft of the bill and explanatory memorandum for public comment in August 1999 and I am appreciative of the large number of individuals and organisations who took the opportunity to make suggestions. The government continues to assess the matters raised during the public consultation period and while that occurs I have decided to introduce the bill as originally drafted to allow Senate processes to commence. It will be our intention to introduce any amendments to the bill arising from the public consultation period during the committee stages of debate.This bill presents an historic opportunity to protect what are without doubt nationally significant sites and I commend the bill to the Senate.Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned till the first day of the 2000 autumn sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.Business1136611366Motion (by Senator Tambling, at the request of 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:Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999Bills1136611366Consideration resumed from 7 December.09:33:0011366Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—The Democrats oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:(4) Schedule 1, item 26, page 19 (line 20) to page 21 (line 33), TO BE OPPOSED .(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 25 (line 14) to page 27 (line 26), TO BE OPPOSED .The Democrats cannot support the increase of the ANZFA's regulatory powers to determine food regulatory measures independently of the health ministers of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Council. The bill as it stands enables the ANZFA to formally manage food standards and codes of practice without the additional mechanism for review, public input and information about food regulations and decisions that the health ministers meeting currently provides. We believe that this is an inadequate situation for the purposes of public consultation and public education, a theme that has been a feature of the debate about this bill.Furthermore, the term `less significant' is not defined under the bill. It is not clear how extensive the new ANZFA's powers will be if this bill is enacted as it stands. Additionally, the 28-day turnaround period in which the health ministers can veto the ANZFA's decisions of less significance as proposed under the bill, we believe, is inadequate for consumer consultation and for lobbying. For these reasons the Democrats cannot support the increased regulatory powers of the ANZFA. Therefore, we seek to omit such changes under the bill.09:34:0011367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I support the amendments.09:35:0011367Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I appreciate the issues being raised by Senator Stott Despoja, but can I give her an assurance that these mechanisms do not cut out the public consultation process. It is a matter that the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Council, the 10 ministers, would have particular oversight of and would always be mindful of in any of the issues that are being addressed. We do not support these amendments as they remove an important streamlining provision allowing matters of minor significance to be dealt with more efficiently than through the sometimes lengthy current arrangement. For the provisions relating to these kinds of matters to be used, three hurdles have to be cleared. Firstly, the ministerial council has to have previously approved a general approach to be followed in the development of the specific type of standard; secondly, the draft standard must raise issues of minor significance or complexity only; and, thirdly, no substantive objections have been raised by stakeholders in their submissions.In addition to these three hurdles, the bill contains an important safeguard. Even if these requirements are satisfied, it will take only one minister on the ministerial council to object to the draft standard and the process will revert to the standard arrangement of having all ministers vote on the issue. This is an important efficiency measure that does not reduce the integrity of the standards development process or, for that matter, the rights of the community in the public processes that are always transparent.21:36:0011367Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Labor opposition does not support these amendments, which seek to remove the provisions for the faster handling of less significant applications. We sought successfully to make amendments in the House of Representatives to remove some of the deficiencies of the government's original approach which were raised in the committee hearings and which we took quite seriously. It is recognised that there are excessive delays for some minor matters and that there should be procedures that avoid every single matter banking up waiting for formal ministerial council approval. We believe the opposition's amendments make it possible for concerned community groups to object and prevent any particular application from being fast-tracked if it contains a contentious matter. We think that provides the effective protection to ensure there is proper scrutiny of all matters if there is a group or interest that feels that the fast-tracking should not apply. We obviously will monitor that in practice to make sure that that intention is met and that it does work successfully. We are, therefore, happy to support at this stage the current proposal and will be opposing the amendments.09:37:0011367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Could Senator Tambling give an example of what is a minor change as against what is a major change?09:38:0011367Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised that an example might be a minor extension to a food additive. Essentially, it would be a matter for the ministerial council itself to determine those particular aspects that are minor and major.09:38:0011367Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—But the government's intention is that if a new food additive is listed that would be seen as minor?6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—No, an extension of it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—An extension to it. What does the minister mean by an extension to a food additive?6E4TAMBLINGSenator Tambling—I am advised that it would be where there is an extension of use in the application of the additive.09:39:0011367Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I would like to ask the minister similar questions. First of all, I would like to know what Senator Tambling understands the term `less significant' to mean in relation to areas where ANZFA will make food regulatory measures without the approval of the health ministers under the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Council. What is his understanding of that term? Who is to determine what regulatory measures are of less significance? As I said in my speech at the second reading stage, is it the media, is it consumers, is it the industry, or is it ANZFA? How does the government define `less significant', and at what stage along the development of a public debate will the relevant persons, whoever they may be, gauge what is of greater or of lesser significance? Certainly I suggest that ANZFA was not too good at determining the significance of the matters in relation to substantial equivalence in the past. Can Senator Tambling explain his understanding of `less significant'?09:40:0011368Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—This is an important policy issue where the ministerial council would determine the guidelines under which it would operate. Let me give a couple of examples. Senator Stott Despoja would probably be familiar with the folate project which, of course, relates to special foods and special food issues with regard to pregnancy which militate against spina bifida. In that particular situation there is a listing of quite a number of products and commodities. The matter would still be addressed very properly by the ANZFA board in the process of determining that particular area.Similarly, Senator Stott Despoja would also probably recall that in the discussions that are taking place at the moment with regard to genetically modified food there was a list of policy criteria determined by the Australian New Zealand Food Standards Council. Whilst that is still an ongoing matter to be properly determined—it will come back here for debate in the early part of next year—when we get to the detail of the particular issues, that will be a matter of where the appropriate authority lies as to what is less significant, otherwise Food Standards Council ministers' conferences, which generally try to embrace their agenda a couple of times a year within a half-day or a day session, will in effect become major areas. There is a board. The board has appropriate responsibility. In looking at the amendment, I can assure Senator Stott Despoja that there is no way of avoiding public accountability or transparency in the process, but we would not want to subject the changes to unnecessary delays as they go through the processes.09:42:0011368Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank Senator Tambling for his answer. He raises the issue of public transparency and the issue of accountability. I ask whether the rationale behind a 28-day turnaround period is that a precedent has been set. I do not know if that is the case for other bodies or what have you, but does the government really believe that that is a satisfactory period of time in which to allow members of the public, consumers as well as different representative and lobby organisations, to come together to register their understanding of or concerns with the decision? Is a 28-day turnaround period really sufficient? Does the government honestly believe that? To me it seems a very short period of time, and one that is inadequate.09:43:0011368Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—I am advised, regarding the 28-day process to which Senator Stott Despoja refers, that there is a time constraint from when a decision goes through the board and is then presented to ministers out of session, with ministers having 28 days in which to advise whether they have an objection. As I commented earlier, if any one minister raises an issue it then goes back to the full process.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 26, page 19 (line 20) to page 21 (line 33) and schedule 1, item 34, page 25 (line 14) to page 27 (line 26) stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.09:45:0011368Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 35, page 27 (line 30) to page 28 (line 2), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If the Authority is required to give notice of a matter to a body or person under this Part, the Authority: (a) must give public notice of the matter; and (b) may also give notice of the matter to another body or person (if it considers it appropriate to do so).This amendment was contingent upon amendments Nos 4 and 5. If they lost, this is perhaps an alternative way of ensuring that public notice is given. Again, this relates to the theme of public education and transparency and accountability. We believe that public notice should be in an easy and accessible form to a wide range of groups in the community. We do not believe that a simple listing, say, in the Gazette would adequately improve the general public education of food regulations and development.This amendment is based on the fact that the last amendments were not successful. It is part of our attempts to ensure that the community has adequate information about decisions being made. It is to ensure that there is adequate information and education, obviously so that the community and consumers can respond accordingly.09:46:0011369Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5WAALP00—The Labor Party will be supporting this amendment. We think it improves the bill. It improves the transparency and accountability procedures used by the authority. It gives more flexibility in the use of things like the Internet in making available the details of proposed decisions. We think it improves the bill. Therefore, we will be supporting it.09:46:0011369Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4NTCLP10—The government does not support the amendment. The timing and manner of any notifications given by ANZFA are set out in many places in the act. This is another unnecessary amendment which, when read in conjunction with other sections of the act, adds very little to the act. We do not support this amendment.09:47:0011369Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—This gives me the awesome responsibility of making a decision which is pivotal to how this might go. I have listened to what the contributors have had to say. This is a matter of giving the public, particularly representative groups, an opportunity to be aware of changes that are made and of consulting with the public a little more widely. As a Green, I could not go against that. I will therefore support the amendment.09:48:0011369Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I thank both Senator Brown and the opposition for their support. I refute any suggestion from the government that this is an unnecessary amendment. It was pretty much the same argument provided by the government for a number of the amendments we have put forward, especially the first two, for which we did receive majority support in the Senate. I thank the Senate for that.The theme of a lot of this discussion has been the issue of wider public participation in the ANZFA. I hope that the government will take it on board. As I said yesterday, unless consumers and the public feel that they have access to information and education about food, including foods that may be genetically modified, et cetera, there will be scare campaigns and fear in the community. Perhaps we will have a community that does not make best use of technological advancements that could have potential benefits.We believe that the bill grants the authority the ability to determine itself in a manner in which the public is provided notice. Currently, if an application is accepted by the authority, it must publicly invite submissions. It is determined that this practice will continue under the bill being considered. Again, this amendment is just elaborating on some of the public processes available.On behalf of the Democrats, I argue that public consultation and involvement is fundamental to maintaining ANZFA's amended objective to ensure a high degree of consumer confidence in the quality and safety of food produced, processed, sold or exported from Australia and New Zealand. That is why we have done our best during this committee stage to enhance the bill to at least achieve some of those objectives as outlined in the legislation. Again, I thank the other senators for their support. I urge the government to perhaps reconsider.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.11370Bill (on motion by Senator Tambling) read a third time.Miscellaneous11370Motion (by Senator Tambling)—by leave—agreed to:That government business order of the day No. 40 (Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999) be discharged from the Notice Paper .Bills11370r89611370Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Herron:That this bill be now read a second time.09:51:0011370Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are dealing with Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 . The stated policy objective of this bill is to ensure that superannuation savings are invested prudently, consistent with the requirements of the Superannuation Industry Supervision Act 1993 for the purpose of providing retirement income and not for providing current day benefits. This is a policy objective that Labor established when in government. It is an objective that we still support. However, it is precisely because we support this objective that we cannot support this bill, which by the admission of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, extends the opportunity for superannuation funds to be invested for current day benefits.Labor will be opposing this bill based on five key criteria. Firstly, the government has provided no substantive evidence of a systemic abuse of the current investment rules by what are known as do-it-yourself superannuation funds that would require the proposed changes as they are drafted. Secondly, the changes contained in the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (No. 3) Bill, which passed the parliament with the support of the Labor opposition, should begin to address many of the problems where they may exist. Thirdly, there are other ways of tightening the existing laws that will better address the perceived problems where they may exist. Fourthly, this legislation, if passed, will make it tougher for small business. It will increase restrictions, red tape and costs. Fifthly, it does have some adverse implications for people living in rural and regional Australia.The government has argued that some self-managed superannuation funds, SMFs, are not complying with the spirit of the current laws, which are designed to prohibit superannuation funds from borrowing. The government claims that, where this practice is occurring, it increases the risks associated with superannuation fund investments and is contrary to a retirement income policy designed to ensure that superannuation savings are preserved until retirement and not accessed for current use.Labor in determining its position on this bill, and on just about every bill that comes before the Senate that amends legislation established by a Labor government, asks itself: how will this improve the operation of the superannuation law for the benefit of all Australians? A threshold issue for Labor is whether, as the government claims, the practice of superannuation funds borrowing and using retirement income for current day use is so widespread and constitutes such a systemic threat to retirement incomes policy and to the retirement incomes of fund members that it needs to be significantly changed. In addition, Labor has been required to make a judgment on whether the government's legislation actually achieves what it claims it is designed to achieve. To Labor, the obvious answer to all of these questions is no, the government fails the tests.To ensure that our legislation was based on the widest possible evidence, Labor referred this legislation to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. The decision to refer the bill to a specialist committee for examination was also taken to allow the government the opportunity to present its case in support of the bill. The usual materials supporting the bill—the explanatory memorandum, budget announcement and various press releases—did not present an appropriate supporting case. Disappointingly, the government did not provide adequate evidence in support of its bill.According to the evidence presented to the committee, the opposition is not convinced that there is a widespread practice of inappropriate use of superannuation funds. The committee did not receive convincing evidence that the retirement income of fund members is at high risk. However, where the government can show that unusual investment practices which place retirement incomes at unacceptable risk are occurring, Labor will support appropriate measures to crack down on this type of behaviour.Firstly, is there a need for change? The Insurance and Superannuation Commission, or ISC, as it was known, carried out a survey in support of its claims for the need for this legislation. The government drew upon a random survey of 1,000 excluded funds conducted by the ISC in 1997. The survey found that around 20 per cent of excluded funds were investing in unit trusts that were effectively controlled by the fund members or the employer. It appears that one-half of these unit trusts were undertaking geared investments. Around 13 per cent of superannuation funds were leasing or renting assets to associated parties such as members or employers.The ISC conducted follow-up fieldwork of 100 selected funds which provided an example of superannuation funds investing in unit trusts which, in turn, invested with the employer sponsor, made loans to members and employer sponsors, and leased assets to employer sponsors. The government claims, based on the evidence of the ISC survey and fieldwork, that these practices affect the integrity of the SIS investment rules.The majority of the evidence provided to the committee roundly criticised the data provided by the government in support of the bill, in particular the fieldwork conducted by the ISC on which the bill seems primarily based. Much of the evidence to the committee argued that the ISC's fieldwork, while identifying problems with the investment practices of some of the 100 chosen funds, did not consist of a representative sample of excluded funds. In addition, evidence from the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants pointed out that the research was now three years old and was undertaken by a different regulator to the Australian Taxation Office, which now regulates SMFs as a consequence of the recent legislation in the No. 3 bill that I referred to earlier.The Assistant Treasurer provided a response to questions taken on notice during the committee hearings which included some additional information about a small sample of 145 funds conducted in 1998-99 based on funds' historical activities. The sample found that around seven per cent invested in geared trusts compared to a total of around 30 per cent that invested in related trusts. Where breaches of the existing law were identified, APRA put in place enforcement or rectification action. It would have been more useful for the committee to have had access to this information at an earlier stage and in a fully disclosed format. The opposition referred this bill to the committee on the premise that it was incumbent on the government to provide more substantial evidence of the need for the measures contained in the bill.The additional survey conducted by APRA does not provide any substantive support for the legislation. Even assuming that the survey was both representative and robust, the information provided by the Assistant Treasurer actually supports the retention of the existing legislation. If breaches of the current laws were identified and APRA were able to take corrective action, that would support the view expressed by many at the hearings that there is little need for changes as contained in this SLAB 4 legislation. I emphasise that point. Where some abuse has been taking place, the regulator, APRA, has been able to enforce the law as it now stands. The Australian Taxation Office, which now regulates this area, will, I suspect from evidence we have received, be a more efficient regulator in this regard.The committee received little, if any, convincing evidence of SMFs failing. The Small Independent Superannuation Funds Association argued that, where SMFs had invested in a small business, the success or failure of the business itself did not necessarily equate to the success or failure of the SMF. This is because not all SMFs invest in small business or property. In addition, the government did not provide any conclusive evidence of SMF fund members losing their retirement incomes as a result of poor investment practices and becoming fully or partly dependent on the government.I will make some comments about self-managed superannuation fund investment returns. One would expect that, if self-managed superannuation funds are conducting some sort of risky investment practices, this would be reflected in the investment returns of these funds. However, evidence provided by the Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants citing an article from the Personal Investment magazine stated that, according to research conducted by Rainmaker Information Services and Rice-Kachor Research, SMFs actually earned better than average investment returns in the three years up to 1997. The government was unable to refute this evidence, which does not support the need for this bill to be passed.There is now a significant doubt about the tax concessionality of superannuation. Currently, higher income earners pay tax on superannuation at 45 per cent. With the new income tax rates to apply from 1 July next year, most middle income earners will be on the 30 per cent tax rate, which is the same rate for superannuation. Lower income earners pay tax on superannuation at a rate higher than their marginal tax rate. Thus, it can be argued that superannuation for a significant number of people is no longer taxed concessionally. But it can be argued that, if it is, it should not be used for current day purposes or investment practices which place the generous tax concessions at undue risk. In answer to a question on notice from the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Kelvin Thomson, the government was unable to provide evidence of the extent of tax concessions used by SMFs.In addition, the government has contradicted its own claims that superannuation funds should not be invested in assets with the intent of using them for current day purposes. In a speech in Brisbane on 28 May 1999, the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, said in commenting on the SLAB 4 changes:Funds with fewer than five members will be able to invest up to 100 per cent of their assets in business premises leased to members or the employer-sponsor of the fund. This will enhance the ability of small business owners to use their superannuation savings to invest in their own business premises.If the government has admitted that it is extending the opportunities for small business owners to invest their superannuation savings in their business premises, surely that is in conflict with the claim that superannuation funds should not be used for current day benefits.In addition, deliberately permitting—in fact, encouraging—a superannuation fund to invest all its assets in one asset, as opposed to one asset class, is hardly consistent with what is generally considered to be an appropriately diversified investment strategy that balances risk and return. While there are a few investment restrictions on trustees of super funds, they are required to ensure that the funds' investments as a whole are diversified and do not expose the fund to risks from inadequate diversification. A strong case could be argued that the extension of the business real property rule to 100 per cent does not allow for appropriate diversification.As was the case with fund returns, one would expect that, where the government has identified an alleged abuse of the investment rules, this legislation would result in revenue savings. However, in both the explanatory memorandum of the bill and evidence before the committee, the government was unable to provide any substantial evidence of a risk to revenue that the existing investment rules pose. Neither was a strong case mounted that additional revenue will flow or that the existing revenue base will be preserved as a result of the passage of the bill. In response to a question on the revenue impact of the bill, Mr Painton from the Treasury said:As presented in the 1998-99 budget, it was in terms of not having a revenue effect within the forward estimates years. But the understanding is that, over time, these measures will improve the integrity and investment rules, and that is expected to have a positive effect on the budget. But there is no identified budget effect within the forward estimates . . . It is the prerogative of governments to ask the parliament to pass legislation which relies on an understanding rather than on cold hard facts. But it is the responsibility of opposition parties to scrutinise the evidence presented by a government and, where it does not measure up, to reject the legislation it purports to support.We have an existing investment rules regime and it should be possible for the government to substantiate its claims with existing experience or robust statistical modelling and analysis. The government does have available to it the resources of the highly respected Retirement Incomes Modelling Unit in Treasury which is able, given the availability of appropriate data, to model the longer term effects of government retirement incomes policies. It would have greatly supported the government's case if it had provided some analysis of the government's proposed changes through the RIM Unit. The facts are that there is little substantial evidence supporting the government's bill: SMFs are not in crisis, retirement incomes are not being jeopardised and there is little evidence to support that the alleged high risk investment practices the government claims are occurring are causing a systemic breakdown in the retirement incomes system.Is the existing law adequate? The Australian Society of Certified Practising Accountants claimed that the provisions of the existing laws regulating investment practices are adequate and that existing abuses, where they occurred, are minimal. They also argue that the government's proposed changes were like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and were not the most effective way of meeting the government's stated policy objective.The association also argued that the changes implemented as a result of the recent passage of the SLAB No. 3, which require all SMF fund managers to be trustees of the fund and transfer regulation of SMFs to the Australian Taxation Office, go a long way to ensuring that advertent or inadvertent breaches of the existing investment rules were remedied. We had similar evidence from Mr Murray Wyatt from the CPAs.I would now like to turn to the issue of a unit trust look-through requirement. Evidence to the committee raised the issue of whether there should be a look-through requirement for auditors to require them to look through the fund and into any unit trusts that the fund operates to ensure that the unit trusts are also complying with the spirit of the legislation and not conducting risky or non-commercial practices. This would seem to be a sensible suggestion and is something that Labor would encourage the government to consider as an alternative to what is being proposed here. In support of the argument that the transfer of the regulation of SMFs to the tax office will result in better compliance than occurred previously is the additional $6 million in resources the ATO will be putting into its role as SMF regulator.A range of other issues which this bill raised have convinced the opposition that it would not be good public policy to support this bill. Many of the witnesses appearing before the Senate committee examining the bill claimed that the proposed bill will increase the complexity of operating an SMF. This is disturbing, as the parliament should be acting to simplify the operation of superannuation, not make it more complex, particularly for small business. Increased cost is usually commensurate with increased complexity. The evidence before the committee suggests that the passage of the bill will increase costs by at least $2,000, depending on the complexity of the fund. In some cases the fund might just be wound up and the money put into a master trust.I mentioned the impact on rural and regional Australia as an important principle. Most disturbingly, Labor is concerned about the negative impact this bill is likely to have in these areas, particularly by restricting small business investment. Mr David Coogan, chairman of the superannuation task force for the Institute of Chartered Accountants, said in evidence to the committee that there will be areas of the market, for example the rural sector, where it could have a negative impact. The Small Independent Superannuation Funds Association also supported this view. It must come as a great shock to National Party senators in this chamber, given the enormous problems National Party members have been having recently, particularly in Victoria, that yet again a piece of legislation has come before this chamber supported by this coalition, dominated by the Liberal Party, which will negatively impact on regional and rural Australia. But where is the National Party?There has been a significant time delay with this legislation, some 18 months between the initial 1998 budget announcement and introduction of the bill, which means that some superannuation funds which acted in accordance with the announcement may be in breach of provisions of the bill. The Senate has a non-binding procedural order that recommends that the Senate not pass any tax legislation that comes before it more than six months from the time it was announced. There seems little doubt that if this bill is passed by the Senate it should operate prospectively rather than retrospectively.On the issue of the choice of funds, the government has asked the Senate to support its choice of funds legislation, which surprisingly, given the government's apparent support for it, has yet to be debated in the Senate and has been pulled from the list of bills to be debated this year. The government's approach in respect of this legislation for small business is inconsistent with its so-called choice of funds philosophy.Labor will not be supporting this bill in its current form. Where there is evidence that the existing law is being abused, Labor will support reasonable changes that crack down on that abuse. It is clear that more evidence is required to accurately ascertain the extent of the problems that the government claims are occurring and which this bill claims to address. Labor will not be a party to compli cated, difficult changes to superannuation which make it tougher for small business, add to cost and add to problems in regional and rural Australia.10:12:0011374Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—Before commencing my speech on the second reading, I wish to declare for the record that my partner has a self-managed superannuation fund which has some investments in a unit trust and in which I also have an interest. As far as I know, this bill would restrict the activities of that fund.This bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 , deals with an extremely complex area of superannuation law governing the investment rules for small superannuation funds. As our report on this bill suggests, it has not been an easy bill for us to develop a position on. However, investment rules are designed to limit the risks to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is preserved for retirement incomes. This is done by restricting investment in the employer or associates, prohibiting super funds from borrowing funds or lending them to members, preventing member assets from being acquired by the fund and requiring all transactions to be at arm's length. The ISC became concerned that a number of funds, particularly smaller funds, were getting around those tough investment rules by investing heavily in unit trusts which were then not bound by the rules, and proceeded in some cases to flout them. This opened up the prospect of a very large proportion of tax preferred superannuation assets being invested back into a person's business or heavily geared, thereby reducing their contribution to retirement savings.A 1997 survey of excluded funds covering 1,000 of the 140,000 funds revealed that 20 per cent of funds invested in unit trusts, that 13 per cent of funds were leasing or renting assets to associated parties and that, in all, around 10 per cent of funds used unit trust or lease arrangements that circumvented investment standards. This legislation has sought to overcome these difficulties by preventing superannuation funds from investing in closely held unit trusts. The prohibitions on super funds borrowing or dealing with associ ates would also continue. Against that, the legislation provided a new concession for superannuation investment, allowing small funds to invest a greater amount of their assets into real business property. Currently only 40 per cent of assets can be invested in real business property. Under the new bill, this rises to 100 per cent.Given the continuing prohibition on super funds' gearing, this will increase the flexibility of super funds to invest in big, lumpy but attractive real property investments. That concession will be particularly important in regional Australia. Small superannuation funds, the Senate committee was told, are an important source of finance for investment in regional areas. People want to invest in their local areas and this concession will allow for increased direct investment by small super funds in real property in their local regions.However, it remains a tall ask for a small superannuation fund to undertake an investment in real business property off its own bat. For a fund with, say, $200,000 to $300,000 of funds, an investment in a single real property could make up 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the fund's total assets, and that is a real risk to the investment diversity of the fund and its associated risk profile. Of course, this was part of the attraction of investing in a unit trust: it allowed a super fund to spread its investment in real property across other unit holders. This bill precludes that by precluding investment in a closely held unit trust; that is, a trust with less than 20 members.The Democrats have come to the conclusion that there are very sound reasons for super funds investing in a closely held unit trust, particularly where such a trust is investing solely for real business property. There are sound reasons for allowing the large and lumpy cost and risk of property investments to be shared by a superannuation fund with other investors, even associates, through a unit trust. However, I think that the prohibition on borrowing which applies to a superannuation fund should also apply to a closely held trust on the basis that it could affect the liquidity and the risk profile of the underlying closely associated super fund.I understand that in the committee stage the government will be moving an amendment to ensure that small superannuation funds can continue to invest in closely held trusts where the sole asset of those closely held trusts is real business property, provided the trusts do not borrow more than the currently allowed five per cent. That extends the same investment rules for a superannuation fund to a closely held trust but allows that extra bit of flexibility by allowing a super fund to spread the cost and the risk of a real property investment. I do not think that there is any need to allow closely held trusts to also invest in shares. Shares are much smaller unit investments than real property parcels and can and should be dealt with directly by the small superannuation fund.Another issue raised by submissions to the Senate committee is the supposed retrospectivity of the legislation. The government's intention to introduce this legislation was first announced in the 12 May budget in 1998. An exposure draft was released more than six months later with a number of significant concessions agreed to by the government during the consultation phase. The bill was finally tabled in the parliament on 11 August of this year, some 15 months after the budget announcement.There are two sets of transitional arrangements with this bill for assets purchased prior to May 1998. The transitional rules allow, effectively until 2009, for such funds to rearrange their affairs to comply with the new rules. For assets purchased after May 1998 and prior to royal assent of this bill, the funds will have only until July 2001 to comply with the bill. We think this is a rather tough ask particularly given that there was a 15-month period before the actual law was tabled. I think it is almost impossible to ask trustees to comply with rather vague budget press releases and then wait 15 months for legislation, particularly when the legislation ends up being rather different from the Senate announcement.While we appreciate that this bill is designed to deal with potential tax planning through unit trust structures, it also has the effect of severely affecting what may be quite legitimate investment decisions by super funds as well. Indeed, as evidence to the committee from Cleary Hoare Solicitors, quoted in the Senate report, points out:If a taxpayer, even with the best advice, has acted contrary to the provisions of the Bill since May 1998 in a way as to make complying superannuation funds non-complying the taxpayer on the current laws, will have 47% of the assets in the superannuation fund confiscated.Given these sorts of concerns, the Democrats do not believe that we can retain the 12 May 1998 operative date for this bill. I understand that the government has agreed that in the committee stage it will move to make this bill operative from 11 August 1999.The penultimate issue I want to deal with is that of the actual definition of business real property. A number of submissions to the committee suggested that the definition of business real property might need to be extended. It was suggested that leases, vacant land and other types of property might be included in the definition. A government amendment will make business real property the only allowable investment for a closely held unit trust, and I think this definition becomes very important. The Democrats will be seeking an assurance from the minister that the Treasury will be prepared to consult industry groups over enacting a regulation that might ensure that the definition of business real property is as wide as is practically possible within the risk and investment constraints intended by the law.The Senate will be aware that for some time the Democrats have advocated and moved to see that all superannuation legislation deals with the inequitable situation that applies to same sex couples. We are advised that in the case of this bill it is technically difficult to amend the legislation. However, my colleague Senator Bartlett will be moving a second reading amendment requiring the government to prepare a report for the Senate on the technical and legislative requirements for removing the discrimination faced by same sex couples in superannuation and tax laws. With that comment I will conclude and indicate that the Democrats will be supporting the bill at the second reading.10:22:0011376Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I rise on behalf of the government to support the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 put forward by the government. One of the strengths of the superannuation arrangements in Australia, particularly the superannuation guarantee system, is the flexibility in terms of investment restrictions. We are different to most other countries in that superannuation funds are free from some of the very onerous investment regulations. While this bill will certainly restrict certain investments which may expose funds to greater risk, it will allow superannuation funds considerable scope for diversified investment.It is important to look at the matters that have moved since the budget announcement some time ago. For example, there have been very generous grandfathering provisions, especially for those funds that had particular arrangements in place on budget night. Essentially, all those funds would have been protected. Also, there is the incentive to increase the business rule property exemption from 40 to 100 per cent. A number of submissions acknowledged the very extensive consultation that has taken place. It has taken a long time and there has been a great deal of consultation. Naturally, not everybody was happy about particular outcomes.I am particularly pleased about an amendment that the government agreed to following the hearing in Melbourne on 18 November. I refer to the government's agreement to the use of an interposed unit trust, but only in circumstances where that unit trust is not allowed to borrow. Perhaps one of the most contentious issues arising from the deliberations of the hearing that I chaired in Melbourne was the view that widely held trusts are in a position to leverage and to borrow much more extensively than is possible under the arrangements for the smaller funds. That seemed to be a grievance. I must say that that sort of issue raises a number of problems for me in superannuation. Leverage is always a difficult area because any leverage at all exposes funds to a greater risk. Obviously, the responsibility of any superannuation trustee is to get the highest return, commensurate with the minimum amount of risk. Of course, any situation which allows leverage is a situation where members' investments are open to greater risk. Perhaps this was the issue that really dominated the whole of the hearings.We have to go back a little in history, because when the SIS arrangements were first put in place—they were put in place by a Labor government with close supervision by the superannuation committee, which Senator Sherry and I chaired over that period—there was a very strong feeling that there was to be no borrowing whatsoever. Subsequently, a piece of paper was issued by the ISC that allowed an extraordinary situation where you could not borrow directly, but if you interposed a unit trust, that unit trust was able to leverage or borrow. As such, it meant that super funds were in a position to acquire a wider range of assets. But the whole process effectively lifted the risk profile of many small funds. It is always difficult for regulators to look closely at investment strategies, so broad guidelines have to be laid down. The government in its wisdom has seen fit to do so, but in some cases where you have an interposed trust there is exploitation of the situation. That is not in every case—in fact, I would say the majority of super funds that use this interposed trust as a mechanism for leverage do so very responsibly. But, of course, we have to be careful as legislators to make sure that we do not allow those who are unscrupulous to move in.One of the big challenges in the superannuation industry at the present time is that this pot of gold in superannuation continues to grow at a tremendous rate. Despite the government announcement, it is significant to point out that do-it-yourself funds, small super funds, et cetera are still increasing in number, size and importance. I remind you that it was always the original intention of the SIS, supported by both levels of government, that there should not be borrowing. This raises the wider question that a number of funds alluded to: why do you put so-called tighter restrictions on the smaller funds rather than on the larger funds, where they can invest in companies that have a certain amount of gearing or have these sorts of trusts?There is also the question of investing in certain types of derivatives. Derivatives are an issue that I think will challenge the superannuation industry in the future because, used inappropriately, they can be used as a mechanism of leverage—and no, I am not satisfied that we have got these rules completely right in Australia at the present time. It could well be an issue for further evaluation not only by our committee, if time permits, but also by the industry generally. That is because, after all, we have to safeguard the protection of these moneys, particularly as more and more of people's money is being put into the private sector, and there will always be people within the private sector who put private profit, personal greed, ahead of members' interests. You can always get situations where you have a very aggressive chairman taking a fund in directions which may not necessarily be in the best interests of the wider membership, despite all the sorts of powers that we seem to be giving to the individual members. My time is brief; I know the minister is anxious to get on with this bill, so I will conclude my remarks in support of the bill.10:29:0011377Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I rise to speak to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 on behalf of the Democrats in conjunction with my colleague Senator Allison. As Senator Allison indicated at the end of her second reading contribution, one issue of ongoing, frequent and regular concern to the Democrats has been the inequities suffered by same sex couples under superannuation legislation—and a range of other legislation—at Commonwealth level. I have spoken on this a number of times, as have many of my colleagues. The Democrats have an overarching piece of legislation in the Senate aimed at removing all forms of discrimination and ensuring recognition and equal treatment of same sex couples across all Commonwealth legislation.Unfortunately, parliament being what it is, getting private senators' bills passed through the parliament is a fairly difficult process, as the close to 100-year history of this parliament would attest. I am not totally sure but, off the top of my head, I think about six or eight private senators' bills have been passed in the whole history of the parliament, so it is not an easy road for ensuring legislative reform. I hasten to add that that should not be taken to suggest in any way that the Democrats are not continuing to pursue every avenue to obtain the passage of that legislation.Nonetheless, the Democrats are also about trying to ensure outcomes. It is important to raise the issue, but the people that are suffering unfair discrimination around the country are looking for that discrimination to be addressed and are looking for concrete outcomes in that regard. Many times in the past, the Democrats have moved specific amendments at the committee stage of legislation trying to address discrimination against same sex couples, and we could have approached this piece of legislation in the same way. If it had been accepted, it would have at least opened the door and removed one area of discrimination, but discrimination in a lot of other areas of superannuation legislation would have been maintained as it exists. It would also have put that issue in the middle of a potential bouncing backwards and forwards between the two houses of parliament of the overall bill that we have put it onto.I will actually be doing the government a favour this morning, although I am not sure that they will see it that way. Instead of having it embodied in a piece of legislation which the government would be unwilling to accept, thus putting the whole legislation at risk, on behalf of the Democrats I will address the issue through a second reading amendment, which has been circulated. I apologise for the late circulation but, hopefully, all senators are aware of the content of it now. I move the Democrat second reading amendment:At the end of the motion, add:"and that there be laid on the table, on or before the last sitting day in March 2000, details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same-sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation".The second reading amendment, which I hope will receive the support of the Senate, specifically and quite simply requires the govern ment to provide details of all the legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation.There was a suggestion that this issue could have been referred to a Senate committee for examination. On one level, this sounds like a reasonable idea except that we have already had a number of reports on these issues over the years, not least a very comprehensive Senate committee report into the Democrats' sexuality discrimination legislation that I spoke of previously. There was also the report of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, chaired by the previous speaker, Senator Watson from the coalition. Their report of November 1995 on superannuation and broken work patterns contained a recommendation that superannuation regulations be amended so that those in bona fide domestic relationships and single people be treated in the same manner as married and de facto superannuants. That recommendation was aimed at ensuring that all people in bona fide domestic relationships, whether same sex or opposite sex partners, would have equal treatment. That was a unanimous recommendation of the committee from four years ago, and it has not been acted on. I think people are getting tired of waiting.There was also a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report on superannuation entitlements of same sex couples, which did not focus on the whole gamut of superannuation legislation but on a broad range of it, particularly in relation to public sector recipients of superannuation. Again, that report contained a recommendation, which was brought down by the Human Rights Commissioner in April this year, that various sections of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 and relevant trust deed rules under the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991 be amended to remove provisions which impair equality of opportunity in employment and deny protection before the law. In particular, it recommended that gender specific terms should be replaced by gender neutral terminology so that benefits apply equally to opposite sex and same sex partners. This is another report with another recommendation relating specifically to superannuation entitlements which clearly highlights the unjustifiable discrimination that same sex couples face and recommends that that discrimination be removed.The second reading amendment that I have moved basically requires that all the legislative changes that are required to ensure equal treatment and recognition of same sex couples would have to be compiled and presented to the Senate. Part of the aim of that is to ensure that all of the required changes would be presented in one block. It might be a fairly feeble defence, but nonetheless the defence that is regularly used by the government is that it is inappropriate to make piecemeal changes, thus creating anomalies where you have different definitions of couples in different areas of legislation. This would ensure that the whole range of required changes across all the superannuation and taxation legislation would be put together and, in effect, would require some degree of government response to recommendations from reports such as those that I have just detailed. It obviously does not commit the government to adopting them, and that is a decision for the government to make. In that sense, it is not a policy based amendment at all; it simply requires that the legislative detail be provided as a single group to the Senate. I believe that would make some advance.As I said at the start of my contribution, when one speaks often on this issue one is conscious that outcomes are slow in appearing, certainly at the federal level. Even in the short couple of years that I have been speaking about these issues in this chamber, we have seen very significant and positive legislative changes being made at the state level in Tasmania, and there are positive changes now being made by the state government in my own state of Queensland. It is getting more and more unacceptable and, from my point of view, embarrassing that the federal legislative level is now lagging far behind most states—even states such as Queensland and Tasmania, which some people might mistakenly see as conservative, backward or red-necked on these sorts of issues.Queensland and Tasmania have shown a progressive approach. They have made positive changes and the sky has not fallen in. In fact, significant benefits have arisen as a consequence. We are getting to a stage where the Commonwealth, instead of taking a leadership role, is very much behind the pack. Apart from the situation in Western Australia, where legislation there is completely unacceptable and even more discriminatory, the Commonwealth is now about the worst in the country. Whilst this amendment will not achieve concrete legislative change, which is what the Democrats are aiming to achieve in the long run, it will hopefully move a step towards that in a way that does not commit the government on any policy level but provides the information to be made available to the Senate for consideration.I do hope that all senators will give favourable consideration to the amendment. As I said at the start, in effect it does provide the government with an easier path than attempting to make specific legislative changes to this particular bill, which deals with only one small component of what is, as all Australians know, a very large and complex superannuation industry governed by quite a range of legislation and regulations. It provides better opportunity for the government to present the information to the Senate without having it enmeshed with other policy and legislative changes. I hope the Senate as a whole does see this as a positive way forward and supports the amendment.10:40:0011379Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank senators for their remarks. Because of an issue that has arisen, I will seek to adjourn the debate. I move:That the debate be adjourned.10:40:0011379Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—by leave—Just very briefly, Senator Kemp has just indicated to me what he intended to do. We do not have an explanation. I will not oppose the adjournment, but I will make the point that we are ready to proceed. We have been under considerable pressure to consider the government's pro gram by the end of the week. I do not think it is satisfactory to adjourn just as we are about to go into committee.Whilst we are anxious to cooperate with the government's program and to make sure that everything is dealt with, this was not indicated to me until about a minute ago. If there are problems with the amendment and the deal the Democrats have entered into with the government, the government and the Democrats should get it right. We should be dealing with the legislation as is set down on the red for the day. We are not happy about it. We are concerned to make sure that the government does deal with its legislation by the end of the week, and this sort of unexpected event does not help.22:42:0011380Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I indicate that the government's decision to adjourn the debate is solely their own and has no linkage to the Democrats. Personally, I oppose adjourning because I do not see any need to do so in relation to the bill before us, the amendments that are ready to be debated in the committee stage or the amendment that I have just moved, which is a straightforward procedural amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11380r89011380Consideration resumed from 30 November.(Quorum formed)The bill.10:46:0011380Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will be moving a number of amendments to schedules 3 and 5 on behalf of the government. Amendment (1) relates to the commencement of item 14 of the bill. It ensures the consequential amendments to the political donations provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 will not commence until immediately after the provisions of Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1999 commence.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—You are moving government amendment (1) on sheet DA250—that is all?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I think there has been some change in the running sheet.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—I am not aware of any changes. There has been no change provided to the chair. The first amendment, I understand, is to clause (2), followed by schedule 3, schedule 4 and schedule 5.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I move government amendment (1):(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 24), omit "and 13", substitute ", 13 and 14".This is just to fix up some technical wording and typographical errors.10:48:0011380Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—We are supporting this amendment, but I have just been informed that the Democrats are redrafting some of their amendments. It is very difficult to operate when we are having bills put off when we go into committee, and then we are informed the Democrats are going to change some amendments. We are trying to operate in this sort of environment and be cooperative, but it is extraordinarily difficult.10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendment (1) be agreed to.AW5CARRSenator Carr—They could not manage a duck raffle. What sort of management is this?10000CHAIRMANThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Carr, if you wish to have a discussion about management would you please have it somewhere else.BH4HILLSenator Hill—What we need is a cooperative opposition.10:49:0011380Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I hope Senator Bartlett is going to give us an explanation, but I take strong exception to that comment by the government leader, Senator Hill. We just agreed to put off the committee stage of Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 . I expressed my concerns about that. The government were not ready to go on with their amendments—there is some last-minute hitch—and now I find that the Democrats have a problem with a couple of their amendments.AW5CARRSenator Carr—Where is the ANTS package? ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes—where is the ANTS package? We are being cooperative. The government has difficulties—AW5CARRSenator Carr—Difficulties? You are very generous.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—All right, I am being too generous. The government has got difficulties and we would like to know what is going on, what is the program, and what we are going to be dealing with. We are trying to be as cooperative as we can to finish prior to the end of the week, but it is extraordinarily difficult for an opposition to be cooperative in the way we have when we are jumping from one bill to another like a jack-in-the-box. I have never seen these sorts of difficulties with programming in my time in the Senate.10:50:0011381Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—To assist us in progressing through the amendments on the running sheet, as I indicated before and as I think Senator Sherry indicated, the adjourning of the previous bill was solely the government's decision and one which I was not willing to support. But that has been adjourned so we are now onto this bill. I appreciate it is always problematic to get a bill brought on for debate unexpectedly; nonetheless, all the amendments that are going to be moved have been circulated.I anticipate that I will not be proceeding with some of the Democrat amendments, but as far as I am aware there will not be any extra amendments. It is just that I will not be moving some of the amendments that have been circulated in my name. I will indicate those when we get to that stage of the debate, but it should not present any problems for our progressing through this bill. We do have a running sheet, we do have all the amendments circulated, and I will indicate as we get to the appropriate stage, or earlier if people wish, which amendments I will not be proceeding with. It should be feasible for us to proceed through this bill for as long as necessary until the government has figured out whatever their problem was with the superannuation bill and we can get back onto that one.Having said that, I believe the amendment before the chair is government amendment (1), which the minister has indicated is an administrative amendment which fixes up typos and things like that. I guess we will have to take him at his word on that. Given that the opposition have indicated their support for the government amendment, there is probably no need for me to speak any further on that particular amendment.10:53:0011381Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The Labor opposition will be supporting government amendment No. 1.Amendment agreed to.10:53:0011381Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I move government amendment No. 2:(2) Schedule 3, page 16 (after line 7), after item 2, insert:2A Application of item 2 Despite the amendment made by item 2, a taxpayer who was entitled to a franking credit or a franking rebate in respect of a dividend paid, or a distribution made, before the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent continues to be entitled to the franking credit or franking rebate.This amendment will insert item 2A in schedule 3 so that no taxpayer is disadvantaged by the retrospective amendment to subsections 160APHH (6) and (7) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to be made by item 2 in schedule 3. Item 2 will replace the existing concession under the 45-day rule which applies where shares or interests in shares are transferred to a bare trustee with an alternative concession requested by the custodian's and nominee's industry. This amendment will ensure that a person who was entitled under the existing concession to a franking credit or a franking rebate in respect of a dividend paid or a distribution received before the day that the bill receives royal assent will continue to be entitled to those franking benefits.10:54:0011381Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I indicate that the opposition will be supporting this government amendment. Parliamentary Secretary, given the cooperation we extended with respect to SLAB 4, could we have at least 10 or 15 minutes notice that you are going to bring it back on? We do not know when it is going to come back on.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Yes.Amendment agreed to.10:55:0011382Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Heading to Schedule 4, page 18 (line 2), after "bribes ", insert "to foreign public officials ".(2) Schedule 4, item 1, page 18 (line 7), after "bribes ", insert "to foreign public officials ".These amendments go to the non-deductibility of bribes to foreign public officials. It is our desire that the denial of tax deductibility of bribes to foreign officials ought equally be extended to bribes for officials in domestic situations. On the same principles as the government has outlined for foreign officials, which we absolutely support, denial of tax deductibility should also be extended to domestic bribery situations. This would level the playing field for businesses operating in Australia.We would like the government to consider and respond positively to the suggestion that non-deductibility should be extended to domestic bribery situations at all government levels—Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments—not just to foreign situations. That is the intent of our amendments (1) and (2) and the next amendment that we will be considering, amendment No. 3.10:56:0011382Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The government will not be supporting this amendment, and I think it is incumbent upon me to set out some of the reasons why. Firstly, the OECD has recommended that member countries should deny tax deductibility for bribes made to foreign public officials. Secondly, the government shares the concerns of other member nations that the payment of bribes to foreign officials causes economic and trade distortions. This measure implements that recommendation. Deductions for bribes to foreign public officials will be disallowed with effect from the 1999-2000 year of income. Deductions will still be allowed for facilitation payments.10:57:0011382Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Could Senator Ian Campbell tell the committee if it is not the case that it is illegal to bribe officials? I agree with the move but, if that is correct, why is there a need to specify this?10:58:0011382Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Brown, I am sorry, but I was distracted when you spoke and my officers could not quite hear you. You are usually very articulate and clear, but we missed what you said. With respect, could you please repeat the question?10:58:0011382Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I said that I understood that it was illegal to bribe foreign officials under Australian law. If that is the case, why do we need this specific section—which I agree with? It should not be tax deductible, but if it is illegal surely it is not tax deductible.10:59:0011382Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I am informed that, although it is clearly a criminal activity, the different payments are not differentiated. This amendment seeks to do that and therefore make a clear differentiation. I guess it is fair to say that it is a technical definitional problem under the criminal law, but the tax law does not have within it the capability of making a differentiation.11:00:0011382Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—With respect to Senator Brown's question—because I had the same thought myself, Senator Brown, when this issue was drawn to my attention some time ago—I am advised that, obviously, it is illegal to bribe in Australia but that it is not illegal to claim a tax deduction for it. So yes, you could be prosecuted, with obviously whatever the penalty is for making a bribe, but under our tax law you can claim a tax deduction for it. That is my advice. That is why we are moving this amendment.11:00:0011382Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I would like to clear this up. Obviously, if you are driving to work and you break the speed limit and get fined for that, you cannot deduct that as a part of your work program, because you have broken the law.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Because it is specifically excluded under the tax act. Bribery is not.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It is interesting to me—and I am sure it will be to a lot of listeners—that the tax act has to list individually all the things that are broken under the law or otherwise it is not tax deductible. That is interesting. I support the amendment, but I am learning here. I would have thought that illegal activities ought not be tax deductible. It would be interesting to hear from Senator Campbell what the general philosophy here is if that is not the case.11:01:0011383Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I think there was a request for information in Senator Brown's contribution which we are waiting on. While that is being gathered I will add an extra one in relation to this opposition amendment. The principle of it seems fairly straightforward. It uses exactly the same wording as is already in the bill in relation to foreign public officials. I know that the parliamentary secretary has explained that it is a technical issue and why it would be problematic from the government's point of view for this amendment to become part of the tax act. But it seems straightforward enough from the Democrats' perspective and the principle, obviously, is a positive one. So, for us not to support it, I need to hear some indication from the government as to why it would present some issue of unworkability.11:02:0011383Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I have been provided with some additional material which I think will answer Senator Sherry's points in more detail as well as respond to Senator Bartlett's request for information. I think Senator Sherry by interjection responded accurately to Senator Brown's point about why you cannot deduct a speeding fine. I do remember a particular year in Western Australia where it would have been very helpful for me to be able to do so. I had about five speeding fines in a row. It was a significant expense involved in getting to and from work. But I realised it was probably cheaper if I just got out of bed 10 minutes earlier and left home earlier, rather than speeding along the Roe Highway to my Cannington office and meeting the constabulary on the way. The answer is, as Senator Sherry said by way of interjection, that there is a specific exclusion in the tax law about those fines. In a way this is clarifying the tax law in a not dissimilar way, ensuring that moneys used to bribe foreign officials cannot be deducted.The point that should also be made clear is that there is no evidence that taxpayers are claiming tax deductions for expenditure on bribes paid to Australian officials. I guess that would apply to foreign officials as well. It makes some sense to say that if you are involving yourself in illegal activities it is unlikely that you are going to bring the money you might use for that activity into a formal system such as the taxation system. It is more likely that you are using money that you want to ensure is outside the system. So it makes sense that there is no evidence of it. Certainly there is no evidence of claiming tax deductions for expenditure on bribes paid to Australian officials. While some royal commissions and inquiries into corruption have reported the payment of bribes to police officers and other government officials, these payments have not been claimed via the taxation system. I think, again, on the face of it, that is logical. You are not likely to report money that is being used for those circumstances to the tax office and try to claim a deduction for it. You would have to be pretty stupid to do that.To respond to Senator Sherry's point, the government obviously takes the matter of any bribery of Australian officials most seriously. There are very strong criminal penalties applying to Australian officials acting corruptly. These penalties are backed up with effective enforcement regimes, including via the Federal Police. The rationale for denying deductibility of bribes to foreign public officials is that effective criminal sanctions against such behaviour do not exist in certain less developed countries, and this rationale does not apply within Australia. This answers Senator Bartlett's question as to why we do not need this amendment. Therefore, any extension of the bill would have no impact on illegal behaviour. We do not believe that it is a beneficial measure.11:06:0011384Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—For clarification of the matter, I ask the parliamentary secretary: why is there not a simple law which says that if it is illegal it is not tax deductible?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—The question is that the amendments moved by the opposition be agreed to.11:07:0011384Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That was quite an important question I put. I would like an answer to it. The question is that if an activity is illegal, it ought not be tax deductible. If we had such a law, we would not be getting into specifically whether it is bribing a foreign official or something else. It would be automatically excluded from deductibility because it would be illegal. The implication otherwise is that there are some illegal activities which you can tax deduct, but that does not seem logical to me.11:08:0011384Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The point that needs to be made is that illegal income is assessable but, to refer back to the point I made in my previous intervention in the debate, it is very rarely reported. Just as, to our knowledge, there is no evidence of illegal deductions being claimed, again it is commonsense that someone making illegal income will not report it and say, `Here's some illegal income; please tax me.' They are not likely to say, `Here are some deductions for illegal expenditures.' Does that make it clear to you?11:09:0011384Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—No, it does not. Here we are dealing with an amendment to the tax law which says that if you bribe a foreign official, which is an illegal thing to do, you cannot tax deduct it. I would have thought that there should be a tax law which says that if you do anything that is illegal, you cannot tax deduct it. I can see the merit in looking at illegal activities. The obvious ones that come to mind, for example, are running a brothel when it is illegal, a gambling activity that is illegal or growing a crop that is illegal. If the taxation department knows about them they should be taxed like any other activity. But I think it should be clear in the tax law that there ought not be the facility for getting a tax deduction for an illegal activity. That is surely what the government is saying here.If you bribe a foreign official that is illegal. Under Australian law, that is not allowed. You will not be able to tax deduct it either. What we all know is that Australians and Australian companies are involved in the business of bribing foreign officials in countries to our north. Apparently that is being put down as a necessary part of business and tax deductibility is being sought for that. I believe that it ought not be. As the parliamentary secretary has explained, there is a worldwide move to try and stop tax deductibility for bribing foreign officials.I do not want to hold up the committee. I would say that the government needs to look at amending the tax law, if it has not done so already, to simply say that the money gained from any activity which is illegal is not tax deductible. It would save listing every crime under the statutes and saying, `You can't deduct this, you can't deduct that.' If you are speeding on your way to work, you cannot deduct the fine that you have to pay, because that is an illegal activity. If you incur a business cost when you are making money illegally, while you get taxed for the making of the money, you cannot deduct whatever illegal thing it is you are doing as a tax deduction. I think it would make tax law much simpler if the Taxation Office and the minister look at this and come back to the parliament with a very simple amendment to the tax law which says, `Costs incurred through illegal activities are not tax deductible.'11:12:0011384Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I appreciate Senator Brown's comment that he does not want to bog down the committee stage in this debate. It is actually a very interesting debate. I am getting lots of very good advice about some of the examples. The brothel is one that you raised. I am not sure whether using that as an analogy is the best way to put this argument forward into the public domain when there are hundreds of thousands of people tuned into the parliamentary and news networks across Australia listening intently to this debate, as well as those plugged into the Internet who are following it in that way.The best way to summarise it without getting into difficult hypothetical examples about income derived from brothels and then potentially taxing that income, and then the tax treatment of potential deductions that might occur in the business of running a brothel—and the mind boggles as to the various business expenses that might go into that operation and the various goods and services that may need to be deducted in terms of running that—is to say that the point in general is that the tax office's job is to assess the income and tax the income. We have made the point about how the tax office will get that information in the first place and that it may well be sparse. But their job is to assess the income and collect the tax on that income. It is not their job—it is the job of the criminal enforcement side of things—to make judgments as to breaches of the law.It is not the tax office's job to make a judgment as to how that money has been derived. It is a difficult issue. We would probably all agree with your principle. It is a matter of how to apply it in legislation. I think the way we are applying the principle in relation to the bribery of foreign officials is a sensible move forward and is achievable. I commend the bill as it stands to the Senate.Amendments agreed to.11:16:0011385Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I move:(3) Page 21 (after line 10), after Schedule 4, insert:Schedule 4A—Non-deductibility of bribes to public officialsIncome Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 Section 12-5 (before table item headed "buildings") Insert: bribes to public officials . . . . . . . . . 26.532 After section 26-52 Insert:26-53 Bribes to public officials (1) You cannot deduct under this Act a loss or outgoing you incur that is a *bribe to a public official. (2) An amount is a bribe to a public official to the extent that: (a) you incur the amount in, or in connection with: (i) providing a benefit to another person; or (ii) causing a benefit to be provided to another person; or (iii) offering to provide, or promising to provide, a benefit to another person; or (iv) causing an offer of the provision of a benefit, or a promise of the provision of a benefit, to be made to another person; and (b) the benefit is not legitimately due to the other person (see subsection (3); and (c) you incur the amount with the intention of influencing a *public official (who may or may not be the other person) in the exercise of the official's duties as a foreign public official in order to: (i) obtain or retain business; or (ii) obtain or retain an advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due to you, or another person, as the recipient, or intended recipient, of the advantage in the conduct of business (see subsection (4)). The benefit may be any advantage and is not limited to property.Benefit not legitimately due (3) In working out if a benefit is not legitimately due to another person in a particular situation, disregard the following: (a) the fact that the benefit may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation; (b) the value of the benefit; (c) any official tolerance of the benefit.Advantage in the conduct of business that is not legitimately due (4) In working out if an advantage in the conduct of business is not legitimately due in a particular situation, disregard the following: (a) the fact that the advantage may be customary, or perceived to be customary, in the situation; (b) the value of the advantage; (c) any official tolerance of the advantage.Duties of public official (5) The duties of a *public official are any authorities, duties, functions or powers that: (a) are conferred on the official; or (b) the official holds himself or herself out as having.3 At the end of section 110-25 Add: (1) Expenditure does not form part of the cost base to the extent that it is a *bribe to a public official.4 Subsection 995-1(1) Insert: bribe to a public official has the meaning given by section 26-53.5 Subsection 995-1(1) Insert: public official means an employee or official of an *Australian Government Agency or of a local governing body. Local governing body has the same meaning as in section 74A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 .6 Application The amendments made by this Schedule apply to losses, outgoings or expenditure incurred in the 1999-2000 income year or a later income year.This amendment is consistent with the two amendments that the opposition has just moved and which have been passed. There are two very minor corrections to this amendment. They correct what would be described as typographical errors. Where we have `insert "bribes to public officials"', we have 26.53. It should read 26-53. We have at the end of section 110-25: Add: (1) Expenditure does not form part of—it should read `Add: (10) Expenditure does not form part of'. They are typographical errors. I do not want to unduly keep the Senate. The arguments we put forward in respect of the two previous amendments that were carried are the same as those for this amendment.11:17:0011386Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I agree with Senator Sherry's proposition that the arguments are similar. I do not think we need to put them again, unless the Democrats have a different view on this amendment, which I would be surprised at. I record that the government is opposed to this for the same reasons I have put previously. But after a long training in politics, I can see where the numbers lie.11:17:0011386Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—As Senator Ian Campbell suspected, the Democrats support this amendment for the reasons that we supported the previous two amendments. We see them as consequential, basically. I agree with Senator Campbell's idea about not unnecessarily chewing up time in the chamber. I speak in the interests of ensuring the maximum productivity of one of our future amendments. I am keen to deal with this prior to my amendment coming on, which is in the not-too-distant future.The policy sense and the detail of the amendment that the opposition has moved are appropriate. In the debate between Senator Campbell and Senator Brown on the previous amendments, I did not indicate at much length the Democrats' rationale behind supporting those amendments. It is probably appropriate to do that now. Whilst there may be some technical issues related to having such amendments in legislation, the policy intent and the message contained in the body of this amendment that we are debating now, which is probably the substantive one, are positive. It ensures consistency and represents a consistent message. It ensures that bribes to foreign public officials are not tax deductible, which is the government's intent. That intent extends to bribes to all public officials, including those within Australia. The definitions of `public official' and `bribes' contained in here mirror what is contained within the government's bill. I cannot see any problem with it. For that reason, the Democrats will support the amendment.Amendment agreed to.11:20:0011387Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule 5, page 22 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A At the end of subsection 25-5(1) Add: ; or (d) obtaining a valuation in accordance with section 30-212.(4) Schedule 5, page 24 (before line 4), before item 11, insert:10A At the end of section 30-205 Add:(2) However, this section does not apply if, apart from the operation of subsection 118-60(2), an amount would have been included in your assessable income in respect of the gift you made.(5) Schedule 5, page 26 (before line 27), before item 19, insert:18A After subsection 70-90(1) Insert: (1A) If the disposal is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the market value is replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation. You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the disposal.18B Section 70-95 Omit "market value", substitute "amount".(6) Schedule 5, page 27 (before line 3), before item 20, insert:19A Section 116-25 (table item A1, at the end of the column headed "Special rules:") Add: If the disposal is a gift for which a section 30-212 valuation is obtained: see section 116-10019B At the end of Division 116 Add:116-100 Gifts of property (1) If CGT event A1 is the giving of a gift of property by you for which a valuation under section 30-212 is obtained, you may choose that the *capital proceeds from the event are replaced with the value of the property as determined under the valuation. (2) You can only make this choice if the valuation was made no more than 90 days before or after the CGT event.I will put some quick words on the record to support the amendments. Amendment No. 3 clarifies that the cost of obtaining a valuation from the Commissioner of Taxation is tax deductible where the valuation is required under the gift provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Amendment No. 4 relates to the cultural gifts program. It ensures that donors making gifts of property under the cultural gifts program will receive a deduction equal to the amount they would have received before the new capital gains tax exemption under new subsection 118-60(2) became available.Amendment No. 5, which relates to trading stock, will allow taxpayers to choose to use the commissioner's valuation obtained under section 30-212 for the purposes of valuing the disposal of trading stock outside the ordinary course of business. Taxpayers may only choose this alternative valuation where the disposal occurs no more than 90 days before or after the date of the commissioner's valuation. Finally, amendment No. 6 allows taxpayers to choose to use the commissioner's valuation obtained under section 30-212 for the purposes of valuing the disposal of a capital gains tax asset where the disposal occurs no more than 90 days before or after the date of the commissioner's valuation.11:22:0011387Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Is there a supplementary explanatory memorandum?11:22:0011387Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Yes, there is. That is my oversight; I should have done this a few minutes ago. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the bill. The supplementary explanatory memorandum was circulated in the chamber on 8 December 1999.11:22:0011388Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I have a couple of questions to ask in this section to do with the general issue of philanthropy and the amendments we are considering. In the committee hearing, Senator Campbell, we heard evidence that in the United States, on the issue of philanthropy, those individuals and organisations that give money under this broad heading do have to publicly disclose. Their accounts are available publicly for people to look at to see where the money is going. Why did the government not consider that approach in respect of the issue of philanthropy in this legislation?11:24:0011388Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—While Senator Ian Campbell is deliberating there, I would like to ask a question. Why is the $5,000 limit there? Why is there a differentiation under this and coming sections so that you can get tax deductibility if the donation you are making to, for example, the National Trust organisation is worth more than $5,000 but not if it is less? There are different conditions that apply. I will be moving an amendment to remove that distinction. Why has the government decided that $5,000 is the barrier and why, if your gift is worth more than that, do you get better deductibility than if your gift is less than that?11:25:0011388Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Senator Brown, I am sorry, I was taking advice while you were speaking.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Give your response, Senator, and then I will come back with mine.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Thank you. The issue Senator Sherry raises is an important one. As Senator Sherry will know from the committee's hearings, as with virtually everything in public policy there are pros and cons to different approaches. The government's approach in this area is to be dealt with under the next package of bills that is coming before us, which will see the Senate return to the second reading debate on the four remaining ANTS bills.Senator Sherry will know about the register of charities, which will be established as part of the new tax system. I have noticed from flipping through the papers that there seems to have been a focus on charities and the new tax system in the last few hours. The opposition seem to be focused on it. That is part of a range of new integrity measures in terms of charities. We do not believe that the tax law is the appropriate place to be creating a new disclosure regime for charities.Charities themselves and philanthropic organisations would realise there are benefits to having a disclosure regime and to having transparency so that people involved in those charities and people who donate to those charities feel some comfort that the money going into them is being directed for the purpose for which the charity was established. The way to achieve that is not through taxation law.11:27:0011388Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—There is just one other point that I wanted to touch on briefly in this area. There is obviously a cost to government revenue of philanthropic activity. That is obviously a line item in the budget papers. Will the tax office be providing a report giving more detail about where these moneys are being directed through philanthropic activity? I am not talking about a list of who gives what in terms of naming individuals or companies, but some idea of where these moneys are being directed. From an opposition perspective and, I would have thought, from a government perspective it would be very useful to indicate what is occurring with the use of public expenditures. Would you indicate, Senator Campbell, what degree of reporting is likely from the tax office on this matter?11:29:0011388Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—The advice I have received is that the Australian Taxation Office has not provided that level of detail in its reporting since time immemorial. Under the previous government it was not done. However, as all honourable senators know, independent research is done on these matters—important research trying to find out where the benefit of these deductions falls. Senator Sherry quite rightly points out that giving tax breaks and tax deductions is a form of expenditure because it potentially costs the revenue. It is worthwhile information, but the tax office has never done it in the past and does not propose to do so in this case.Senator Brown, I have been provided with a response to your question, but as I was taking advice while you were asking it, I am not sure that the brief I have specifically answers your question. So that I do not say something that is not right on the mark, as I seek to make all my answers, could you quickly recap?11:30:0011389Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The question was: why are donations of property valued at more than $5,000 being given better tax deductibility than those valued at less than $5,000? For example, if a property is worth more than $5,000, that is okay, but if the value of the property is less than $5,000 it is only tax deductible if it was bought during the 12 months before making the gift. Why is that $5,000 barrier put there?11:31:0011389Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Congratulations to my bureaucratic advisers: the answer is right on the mark. It may not be the answer that Senator Brown wants to hear, but I have read it and it seems a reasonable proposition. There may be a disagreement about whether the tax office always proffers reasonable suggestions, but the reason is that the government does not support varying the current provisions of the legislation in this area—that is, the $5,000 cut-off. The threshold is imposed quite simply to avoid the compliance costs associated with allowing deductions for donations of low value items, for example, second-hand clothes or used household goods, and to simplify enforcement. Donors making donations below the threshold are still able to access tax deductions by selling the asset and donating cash. The bill provides for income tax deductions to be allowed for the market value of donations of property worth more than $5,000 regardless of when it was purchased or acquired.11:32:0011389Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—That presumably means that, if some body donates a painting worth $4,000 which could have some regional significance, for example, to a Bendigo or Dubbo or Launceston collection, they do not get deductibility unless it was done in the last 12 months. I do not think it is difficult to differentiate that from second-hand clothes. The problem I have with this is that it means the small donor right across the Australian populace who may not have works and properties of more than $5,000 that they can donate is disadvantaged against the big donor who, being better off, is going to have works or properties worth much more and who gets the deduction regardless of how old the item being donated might be.11:33:0011389Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—In relation to cultural gifts, I am advised that the example you used, which is a painting, would fall under the category of cultural gifts and under that category there is not a $5,000 threshold. So you would be able to donate a painting to a collection in Launceston, Dubbo or anywhere else and still get a full deduction for it, probably for the very reasons the honourable senator is thinking about.11:34:0011389Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Then why the limitation on cultural donations and not, for example, donations which add to the environmental amenity?11:34:0011389Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Cultural gifts is a quite specific program. Senator Brown would understand why there is such a program; he has just given a good example of that—a piece of art or cultural heritage being donated to a specific collection or other purpose. Gifts that might add to environmental or other heritage values fall under the same advice I gave previously, that is, it is purely a compliance cost issue. There is always a problem in these debates in the parliament as to where you set a threshold. There comes a stage where you need to draw a line. By their nature they are always arbitrary. Someone who wants to donate something worth $4,500 is going to ask why the system is biased against them and point out that if they made a donation worth $5,500 they would get a deduction. That is the problem. You will have the same arguments whether you set it at $2,000 or $1,000.Our advice is that compliance costs are balanced in the national interest if you set the threshold at $5,000. We could easily spend the next two sitting days coming up with examples illustrating that that is not a good threshold. Our best advice is that that is a reasonable threshold in terms of costs and benefits. The cultural gifts program specifically creates a system that will allow cultural gifts to be given, which solves the problem that Senator Brown first raised. In terms of giving gifts to an organisation that may seek to benefit Australia's natural environment or other heritage, donations of over $5,000 of property will be tax deductible; if property is worth less than $5,000 the option is that the good could be sold and the donation made. In that case the donation would be tax deductible.We are not therefore saying that anybody who has got property of less than $5,000 to give cannot benefit the organisation. We are just saying that, in terms of the compliance mechanisms in relation to the gifting of property, there are bigger compliance issues at stake. I am not an expert in this field, but obviously, if you donate property, valuation issues come into it. If you are donating cash, it is quite clear: you write them a cheque. If you were, for example, to auction or put up for sale on one of the many excellent Australian electronic auction rooms on the Internet these days a good or an item that you wanted to sell and donate the money to the Wilderness Society in Tasmania—an excellent cause, I am sure you would agree, Senator Brown—QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Absolutely.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—My younger brother Colin spent many years of his life raising money for the Wilderness Society in Tasmania.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Why didn't you?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I actually helped to raise money for the Wilderness Society in Western Australia and gave over my property in the Swan Valley for the Wilderness Society in Western Australia to have a fundraising function for my younger brother. That is why Senator Brown and I get on so well: he knows where my feelings lie in relation to wilderness and the Wilderness Society.That is an example. Let us say I had something of value to auction. I could easily sell it, create some money and hand over a cheque to the Wilderness Society. That means that someone who has a piece of property that is worth less than $5,000 can still do the right thing by the Wilderness Society or any other organisation that they wish to donate to. It ensures that that sort of philanthropy can go on. But, in terms of the compliance cost of property and the additional compliance that will relate to gifting property, the government believes that $5,000 is a good threshold.11:39:0011390Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am tempted to add that, with Christmas being around the corner, the Wilderness Society shops are the best place to go to.I have a couple of follow-ups on that. I will give an example. Let us say you have made a collection of historic labels for apple boxes from the Huon Valley, which are very brilliant and colourful, for the apples being sent overseas in the 1950s, 1960s and so on, and you want to donate that. They are assessed as being worth $3,000. Surely it is not a sensible option, if you are going to get tax deductibility, to have to sell them somewhere to a private collector when you want to put them into the public domain and then add $2,000 to get tax deductibility. I want to check on that. I hope Senator Campbell is going to say that, because it is a cultural donation, exemption will apply. The second thing is that I wonder about the provision which says that gifts of property valued at less than $5,000 are tax deductible only if the property was bought within the 12 months before making the gift. Why is that proviso there?11:41:0011390Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—On the first point, yes, that would be the answer I would give. I hope the tax commissioner would agree with me. Senator Brown would be shocked to learn that I had a collection of those apple crate logos, so I will not surprise him. I do not.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—They are very sought after in Tasmania.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—It would be fascinating to see them. I think that is the right answer. That would certainly, in my own interpretation, be regarded as a cultural gift.In terms of the issue of buying something within 12 months and gifting it and therefore not having the $5,000 threshold, again it comes down purely to compliance issues. If you have purchased something within 12 months and gifted it, quite clearly the valuation issues are a lot simpler and it will be easy to say what the value was because there would have been a transaction that has taken place to make the value quite clear. The other point I should make is that it has been part of the legislative regime and we are not seeking to change that. It is not a new measure; it is something that has been in place for some years.11:43:0011391Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—The problem with it is that it has the effect of giving tax deductibility to somebody who buys an item of less than $5,000 value and then donates it to a public institution or collection. But somebody who has got something which may have greater historical value because it has been part of a family collection or a household for 150 years and is valued at $4,500, and there are lots of such items, does not get the tax deductibility unless it falls within whatever the definition is of cultural value. If that is the case, if such items get exemption because they are of cultural value, why have this proviso of 12 months? What items are you looking at that a person might buy that are not cultural items and might gift within 12 months to an institution that is going to draw the allowance for tax deductibility? Can you give me an example?11:44:0011391Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—There is not a lot to add. The cultural gifting pro gram is a quite specific one. I know from some experience that there are clearly guidelines in relation to that and I hope that they have not been altered too much by incorporating apple crates from the Huon Valley.An example would be if someone wanted to gift an item to the Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul or anyone else. Say they wanted to gift some item that is useful to them—a washing machine, cooking equipment or anything else—and I am sure it would happen quite regularly that people would buy something and provide it to a charitable organisation. And it is very obvious what the value of that good is if it has been purchased within the past 12 months.With the compliance cost in relation to determining the value for the sake of tax deductibility purposes, the key issue of why you set the threshold at $5,000—which is how much paperwork and how much compliance cost is involved by the parties involved, including the tax office, in setting the amount for the deduction through valuation processes and other issues—is solved if the item has been purchased within 12 months because the valuation is therefore quite clear.An item with some historical value or significance that has been in the ownership of a family over 150 years is clearly a different matter when you come to valuation. Ultimately, the tax office needs to place a value on things, and the costs involved in trying to determine the value of those items make the government's point. That is why there is this exemption for items purchased in the past 12 months. It is a provision that has been in the law for many years and it makes sense. That is why we are keeping it there.11:47:0011391Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Could Senator Campbell enlighten me as to the provision that, for gifts of property to cultural institutions only, tax deductions can be spread over five years? Why not the gift of a property which, for example, has high environmental value, where an endangered species may be involved? Why can't that be spread over five years as well? Why is there the restriction as to it being a gift of cultural value? I might add that I have some intention down the line of giving a block of land that I own to the Bush Heritage Fund. Maybe that is an interest that I should declare in debating this particular area of tax reform.11:48:0011392Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—I can offer two things in response to the important issues raised by Senator Brown. Firstly, the cultural gifts program is a quite specific one. You have made a fair point: why cultural gifts and why not others? It is a specific decision of government to assist with cultural gifts. It is a discrete program.As for the issue that Senator Brown raised in relation to gifts, for example, of land with environmental significance, Senator Hill, the minister for the environment, has made it clear to me—and I now pass this on to the chamber—that he does intend to come into the chamber shortly. He was going to address these issues using the platform of the proposed Democrat amendments, which we are moving towards, if not rapidly. Senator Hill was wanting to come into the chamber to deal with those issues and it might pay, since he is certainly far more versed in these matters than I am, for him to address that issue when he arrives. I am sure he is watching this on the monitor in his room and that could be a good cue for him to leave his room and wander towards the chamber.11:49:0011392Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I think you might be right—I am not going to ask a question about the issue that Senator Brown is referring to. I will be brief. In the supplementary explanatory memorandum, on page 3 the last dot point paragraph says:. ensure that the consequential amendments to the political donations provisions in the ITAA 1997 will not commence until immediately after the provisions of Taxation Laws Amendment (Political Donations) Bill 1999 commence.Can you explain what the purpose of that is and if you are moving that in the amendments we are considering here? The reason for asking is that we have a later amendment that you would be aware of and we want to know whether that paragraph is going to cut across it. 11:51:0011392Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Firstly, that was contained in amendment No. 1, which has been agreed to. Secondly, because the political donations bill is still to be considered, the commencement provisions have been altered by that amendment to ensure the provisions that relate to that in this bill do not come into effect until the political donations legislation becomes law. Clearly, it would be presumptuous of us, and technically silly of us, to predict such a thing occurring. We hope it will occur at some stage in the future, but this just will not come into being until that happens.11:51:0011392Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The final point I was going to make relates to the question that I asked earlier about the tax office giving us an overview of where these philanthropic monies are going to in the community. We do not agree with your approach that information will not be provided—we would like that information. We have not moved an amendment to that effect, but I indicate that we will be pursuing that issue at another time, perhaps on other legislation. I do not have any other comments. We are supporting these government amendments.Amendments agreed to.11:53:0011392Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Can I make a suggestion, as Senator Hill has come to the chamber. I am not sure about it because I have not discussed it with clerks, advisers or anyone else, which is very dangerous. Would there be any downside to moving to the consideration of some of the Democrats amendments and Australian Greens amendments in relation to gifts of property?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—We are not proceeding as the parliamentary secretary requested.11:53:0011392Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—Can I try to help the committee.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We would love your assistance.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILL—And you would help me if you could liberally interpret the standing orders for a moment or two. We are coming to a range of amendments—particularly from the Australian Democrats but there are also some from the Greens—that seek to extend the benefits that we have included in this bill in relation to philanthropy for conservation purposes. Within this bill there are quite historical changes to encourage donations of property for conservation purposes, and that should not be overlooked. In the future, a donation of property for that objective will be tax deductible, which will be a huge incentive for the transfer of properties. That is somewhat consistent with a trend that is taking place in some other countries, in particular the United States. It has contributed there to a vast array of property being dedicated by individuals to conservation purposes, which significantly complements the traditional way of doing that through a national park system. So, through this bill, the government is taking a major step to encourage the development of such a philosophy in Australia. It does it in relation to the income tax deduction. It is also a benefit that capital gains tax will not apply to a test of entry disposition of such a property.The Australian Democrats, as is not unusual, say, `Yes, we'll take that, but we want to go further.' Their amendments cover a range of other initiatives that could be addressed by government to even further encourage philanthropy in this area. In particular, they provide that where a property owner covenants a property or part of a property for conservation purposes and that results in a reduction in the value of the property, then that should be treated as a tax deductible sum. In addition, they say that where a property has been donated, the donor should have the additional advantage of being able to average out that donation for income tax purposes over a period of five years. Again, they argue that if a property is donated for this purpose capital gains tax should not apply.The government's position on each of these additional measures is that we are not pre pared to support them in this bill. We think, as I said, that we have made a historic start along this road of encouraging the disposition of property for conservation purposes, and we are prepared as a government to seriously consider other initiatives during the course of next year. It has been interesting to reflect upon the work that has already been done in this area, particularly by the CSIRO's Carl Binning and Mike Young, which has been very helpful in putting together a possible suite of initiatives that a government might take in regard to this—two of which, as I said, have been picked up by the government in this bill. It is also interesting to note that significant property owners and business people in Australia are now coming together and debating among themselves what they might be able to do to encourage this philosophical change in the Australian people towards the disposition of property for conservation purposes. So the community is moving to a position which the government would obviously regard as desirable.There is considerable information on the public record as to a possible suite of further initiatives, and the Australian Democrats and the Greens have put on the table today some further options in that regard. The government's view is that they should be seriously considered during the course of next year—obviously not surprisingly in relation to the cost as well as the issue of effectiveness—and then the government can make a decision as to which further initiatives, if any, it should take, within the budgetary constraints of the government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation for whatever commitment that the government might be prepared to make in relation to revenue forgone. The government put to the committee that that is a better way to proceed on these other initiatives that are put up in the form of amendments by the minority parties today, and to that sentiment the government would not be prepared to support them on this occasion in this bill.11:59:0011393Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—Senator Hill spoke to amendments that I have not moved yet. To give context to his comments, I will move the amendment I think he is talking about, which is No. 10 on sheet 1669. I move:(10) Schedule 5, page 24 (after line 12), after item 11, insert:11A After section 30-220 Insert:30-222 How much you can deduct for certain gifts of land (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct for a gift of property that you made to a recipient covered by item 1 or 2 of the table in section 30-15 if: (a) the property is land or an interest in land; and (b) the recipient is: (i) an *environmental organisation or a fund, authority or institution covered by the table in subsection 30-55(2); or (ii) a public fund established and maintained under a will or instrument of trust solely for the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to an entity mentioned in subparagraph (i). (2) If you sell land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) for less than its market value, you can deduct the difference between the market value of the property on the day you made the sale and the actual sale price. (3) If you give land that you own to an entity mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) but you retain the right to live on that land for the remainder of your life, you can deduct the market value of the property subject to your life interest. (4) For the purposes of sections 30-247 and 118-60, a transaction covered by subsection (2) or (3) is deemed to be a gift of property that is deductible under section 30-15 of an item in the table in that section.30-223 How much you can deduct for land affected by a conservation covenant (1) This section contains the rules for working out how much you can deduct if the value of land is decreased by a conservation covenant. (2) If you enter into a conservation covenant in respect of land you own and the market value is decreased because of the covenant, you can deduct the difference in the market value of the land before and after you entered into the covenant. (3) For the purposes of sections 30-247 and 118-60, your entry into a conservation covenant is deemed to be a gift of property that is deductible under section 30-15 because of an item in the table in that section. (4) In this section, conservation covenant means any approved form of agreement relating to the management, use and development of an area of land that is registered or noted on the land title and requires the landholder and all subsequent landholders: (a) to maintain native vegetation and undertake any other actions required to conserve the biodiversity values of that land; or (b) to maintain buildings or structures or other items of cultural significance that are registered on a recognised Commonwealth, State or Territory heritage register; and includes, but is not limited to, an agreement under the following provisions: (c) sections 304 to 311 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ; (d) sections 69B and 69C of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW); (e) sections 41 to 44 of the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997 (NSW); (f) section 51 of the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld); (g) section 3A of the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 ; (h) sections 69 to 72 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 (Vic); (i) section 23 of the Native Vegetation Act 1991 (SA); (j) section 30B of the Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 (WA); (k) section 29 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 (WA); (l) sections 37A to 37H of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (Tas).There is a range of amendments on the running sheet that I was listed to move together, most of them relating to an independent valuer. I indicate to the chamber that I will not proceed with those. The substantial issue that the minister's comments were addressing and the policy change that the Democrats want to achieve through taxation legislation are contained within Democrat amendment No. 10, so I will just speak to that one.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Hogg)—You have moved amendment No. 10 on sheet 1669. Is that correct?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Yes.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—And you are not proceeding with the others in that bloc as listed on the running sheet?DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—No, just amendment No. 10. I will not proceed with amendments Nos 1 to 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 or 17 on the Democrat sheet 1669 as per the running sheet. Amendment No. 7, which I am not moving either, was not listed there because it was a duplicate.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am told it should not have been.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—The other ones were to do with providing an opportunity to have an independent valuer as well as the commissioner, which is a small issue that we decided not to proceed with. The substantial issue is amendment No. 10, which basically adds an extra component to the act. As I said in my second reading contribution on this bill, some of the aims of what the government has done with this bill are laudable and the Democrats support them. As Senator Hill indicated, the bill does broaden opportunities for taxation incentives for some conservation related measures. In our view, it presents an ideal opportunity to extend that further in a way that we believe will be at fairly minimal cost to the public purse. In terms of savings to the public purse in the long term through improvements to our land quality and to our record in the conservation of land, it would be money well invested that, in our view, would pay itself off many times over.The amendment inserts two new sections into the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997—I think that is the correct one. The first relates to rules for working out how much people can deduct for a gift of land if it is given to an environmental organisation, fund, authority or institution—as defined—or to a public fund established and maintained under a will or instrument of trust solely for the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to environmental organisations or related institutions. When people sell land they own to an environmental organisation for less than its market value, it provides the opportunity for them to deduct the difference between the market value of the property and the actual sale price. Or, if they give that land to an environmental organisation or related authority and retain the right to live on the land for the remainder of their life and, upon their death, pass the ownership of the land over to that environmental organisation or trust, again, the market value of the property can be taken into account for tax purposes.The second section enables deductions for land affected by conservation covenants. Establishing a conservation covenant on land means, in broad terms, having a requirement inserted into the actual land title to preserve particular parts of the land. This would usually protect the vegetation from being cleared or impacted on, prevent buildings from being constructed or preserve and protect the creeks and features of the land. If you enter into a conservation covenant like that with either a relevant trust or a government authority, the decrease in the market value that occurs as a result of putting that conservation covenant on your land is also able to be used for tax deductible purposes.It is worth pointing out that the use of conservation covenants is not new. It has been used already throughout Australia to great effect—in some states more than others. The amendment lists various state based acts that conservation covenants currently operate under. In my own state of Queensland the state government is moving to improve the operations of that process. As I have mentioned in this chamber before, the Trust for Nature in Victoria is an excellent example of a conservation trust established and recognised under state legislation. I have also mentioned the operation of a large number of conservation covenants overseas, such as I have outlined in this amendment. The sort of work that the Trust for Nature has done has been incredibly effective, not just with its ongoing conservation outcome but also in terms of the savings to the public purse. It is worth emphasising that point. It sits alongside the operation of national parks and publicly managed areas of land. I am not in any way suggesting that these sorts of measures should replace national parks and areas of land managed by state authorities, but resources at government level can go only so far in that area of activity. One of the major ongoing impacts on the environmental value of our land is the use humans put that land to and the way they live on it.If we can provide mechanisms that encourage people to conserve and maintain the environmental values of that land, it will be a massive saving down the track to society as a whole, both economically and environmentally. It would assist the landowners themselves to be a part of conservation management. As I am sure all senators would be aware, a major issue in Queensland at the moment is land clearing, which is a very unfortunate and immensely environmentally destructive activity. For economic reasons, farmers feel it is a necessity to clear their land, predominantly for cattle grazing—for those of you who might be pondering having a steak for lunch.Farmers are moving in that way because they believe there is some economic incentive for them to do so. In many cases it is very marginal. There are the costs of clearing the land, and the return they then get on it from cattle or whatever is often very small—there is a very thin margin of so-called profit there—but there is immense environmental damage that the community as a whole has to bear for many years to come. We can provide tax incentives for people to maintain vegetation on their land, and these sorts of measures can make all the difference in that regard, particularly when you are dealing with the marginal income making activities that are driving a lot of the land clearing at the moment. For a very small initial impact on the public purse, there is a massive environmental and economic benefit for the country down the track.An immediate and prominent example that is proving to be of immense difficulty for the state Labor government in Queensland is their unequivocal election promise to put adequate controls on land clearing in Queensland. The way the world works, for better or for worse, is that financial matters often drive a lot of human activity, including a lot of environmental destruction. Along with using measures such as strict legislative and regulatory controls and punitive measures, we all know that providing incentives and encouraging people through positive means to change behaviour are often just as effective, if not more effective. Where there are opportunities to adopt such an approach, I think we should try to grasp them.This particular amendment is significant in that regard. I am not in any way suggesting that it would solve the land clearing problem in Queensland overnight; it is more about putting in place the mechanism for long-term behavioural change. I would not want the state Labor government to see it as an excuse to back out of their election commitment to introduce some proper land clearing controls, but it is a mechanism that can add to that. It has flow-on benefits across the country of involving landowners themselves in conservation, and it attaches some economic value to maintaining the health of our environment.Often one of the big problems for people who want to preserve the environment is that there is no dollar value placed on things. There is a dollar value in raising a cow and getting someone else to slaughter it and slice it up, but there is often no dollar value in maintaining the health of the land. Down the track we will all have to pay those hidden ongoing costs of the environmental damage. Whether those costs are from repair of or reduced productivity from the land, or whether they are from pollution and other flow-on health costs, there are enormous in-built costs that just do not show themselves to the individual.This is only one mechanism. I should emphasise that it is, in its own way, a small measure but it provides a good mechanism for a lot of that philosophy of providing incentives—of giving economic value to conserving land rather than just degrading it. In that sense I think it sends a positive message, as well as providing financial incentives for people. It builds on systems that are already in place at a state level through conservation covenants. It does not limit covenants to those mechanisms, so it is flexible enough for other mechanisms for conservation covenants to be put in place, for example at the federal level.Some marvellous work on using the tax system to encourage land conservation has been done by the CSIRO and others in the conservation movement. There are examples of how this has been done in the US and Europe to produce quite positive environmental benefits. I think Australia is lagging behind in that regard. There have been good proposals put forward by organisations such as the CSIRO about ways that we can expand on the fairly simple measure that is contained in this amendment, and on ways that we can move even further down the road of providing incentives for improving the conservation of our lands. This is a small measure, but I think potentially it is a very valuable one. I very much urge all senators, and in particular government senators, to take it seriously. As I said at the start, the immediate cost to the public purse would not be a major one, according to some of the work that has been done in this area by organisations such as the CSIRO, but the long-term economic and environmental benefit would be immense.12:14:0011397Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Labor will be supporting the amendment moved and spoken to by Senator Bartlett and subsequent amendments that will come later. I attended the Senate committee hearings on this legislation, and it was obvious that there was a glaring omission from the philanthropic approach of the Prime Minister relating to the environment.The proposals that we are considering form at least part of an effective approach to conserving the Australian environment. From that point of view, we are happy to support the amendment that is currently being considered. I am disappointed that the Prime Minister, in his emphasis on philanthropy, appears to have a very narrow approach in his principles in this area. The environment is just not on the agenda, it appears. This is one glaring omission from the Prime Minister's approach. We are happy to support the initia tive. I note that the CSIRO is one of the organisations proposing this approach. The CSIRO is an organisation of considerable standing—deservedly so—in the community, and it enjoys significant respect and support from the entire community.There has been an argument about the cost. Obviously this will extend the cost, but this philanthropical theme that the Prime Minister is attempting to move the nation on was his idea. If the amendment that we will be moving later to reduce the allowable deduction to political parties is carried, we will actually be saving money, and that would go some way to offsetting the cost. Frankly, I think the environment is a more important priority than massive donations to political parties. Senator Bartlett makes the perfectly valid point that there may be some short-term direct costs that are measured on budget, but we have to look at the savings—particularly longer-term savings—to the environment and the total cost to the community, not just at the narrow costs that are measured on budget with savings to our environment, to the general economy and to our social structure as a whole. They are not easy to measure, but I think it is legitimate to point to that in this debate. For those reasons, Labor will be supporting the amendment that has been moved and the amendments that will be moved later with respect to this and other areas.I have made these comments now because I do not want to waste the time of the Senate and repeat them when we get to the later amendments.12:19:0011397Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I am delighted to hear that. I also congratulate Senator Hill for providing the opportunity for this legislation to be brought before the parliament. As he said, it is historic legislation. It is marvellous for the environment that we are seeing recognition of the patriotism of people who protect land, ecosystems, wildlife, vegetation, coastlines and desert that they own and want to see protected in perpetuity. They put covenants on the land or they donate it to organisations while they are alive, or they make provision in their wills to ensure that the land will be protected as part of the nation's heritage. As far as human- built property is concerned, this has been in place for many years, but when it comes to the environment it has been missing. This is not so in the United States where, for decades, if you donated land which had environmental value, it was tax deductible. But we are catching up, and this legislation is going to be of very big benefit to Australia's environment.I was involved with the establishment of the Australian Bush Heritage Fund in 1990, and, although I am not directly involved with the organisation now, it has within the decade become one of the most powerful forces in Australia for protecting the environment. It has been able to purchase critically endangered blocks of land containing rare and endangered birds, animals, orchids, fish and trees from the Bega Valley—where only eight per cent of the original vegetation cover now exists—to Erith Island in Bass Strait, to rare coastal heathland in Tasmania and wildlife habitat in Western Australia and, more recently, to woodland in Queensland where, as we know, there is an utter disaster taking place at the moment. Hopefully, moves by the Queensland government to cut across that will be in place before Christmas.So I congratulate the minister for the environment, Robert Hill. I am just sorry he is not here to hear me speaking these words—and the roof has not fallen in. I also congratulate the Democrats and the Labor Party for moving to make some obvious adjustments to the legislation which are going to be important to donors who are doing the right thing by this country.The amendment that the Greens are moving in addition—and, I think, the Democrats as well—to ensure that tax deductibility of properties can be spread over five years by the donor, as happens with cultural properties, is a really good one. As it stands under this legislation, if you give Blue Poles, which was worth $1 million, to an Australian collection—and I am speaking theoretically; I know it has already been purchased and was not given—or you give a painting worth $1 million to a collection, you can spread your tax deductibility of that painting over five years. Under this legislation, if you give a block of land which has rare and endangered species, water courses, lagoons and wildlife worth $1 million to a collection for permanent protection for this nation's heritage, you cannot do that. Quite clearly, it is very sensible that the donor ought to be afforded that tax deductibility and congratulated for their generosity. So congratulations all around. I feel that this is a marvellous change. It is encouraging rather than discouraging people who do the right thing by the environment.Finally, let us look at what we have been debating in the last couple of days in this place. Just yesterday or the day before we were extending diesel fuel grants to people who get into bulldozers and drive through forests, knocking them down—in effect, a deductibility; an extension of largesse from the government. In a way, that this very positive moment for the environment has arrived makes me feel less bad that that legislation went through with only my dissent—with the support of the Democrats on that occasion, but it went through easily. Before I became a senator, I came to Canberra to lobby for this effect, and people had not even started thinking about it. But it is here now. It is excellent legislation. With the amendments it is going to be even better, and I want to congratulate all those involved.12:24:0011398Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15WALP10—Leading up to Christmas, and with that famous story, I feel like Mr Scrooge here right now. It is so sad. I am very happy that Senator Brown is so happy and that Senator Hill has made him so happy. I am sure Senator Hill is sitting in his office sipping a cup of tea and is riveted to the monitor. He could even be clicked onto the Internet, but I do not think so—I do not think the honourable minister is an Internet clicker yet. I do not know whether Senator Brown is being slightly humorous or a little bit sarcastic or he did not hear Senator Hill correctly, but we are not supporting these amendments.The most interesting thing about the debate in the last few minutes is that it has been such a monument to the Labor Party's policy problems. Less than an hour ago we were informed by a Labor adviser that the Labor Party were not supporting these amendments.Senator Sherry interjecting—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—We were. Obviously, we can have a debate about that, but the Labor Party advised us that they were not supporting these measures. We know as a matter of history—and Senator Brown would reinforce this—that throughout their 13 years in government they did not do this. I am sure former Senator Walsh and former Treasurer Keating probably would have argued with Senator Brown as to the cost of these things—and this is why I feel a bit like Senator Scrooge today. It would be lovely to make Senator Brown happy. We try to do that all the time—it is very hard—but it is nice to see that he has had this moment of happiness. But he should be happy about what Senator Hill said.Senator Sherry might have been busy at the time trying to find a policy—trying to grope around for something that they believe in. Senator Hill did come in here. He put on the record that the government is seriously considering this whole policy. Maybe that is what Senator Brown is happy about. I think this measure will get through. One hour and 15 minutes ago it would not have got through, but it looks like it is going to get through. This amendment has the numbers on the floor of the chamber. But the government has said that it will not support it. I make it clear now that we will not call divisions on these issues. As the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, I personally regard calling divisions when it is quite clear what the vote is and when the parties have made clear their position a waste of debating time.But I make it clear that the government is opposed to these measures for the reasons Senator Hill put down. We regard these as important ideas. We regard encouraging philanthropy in relation to giving land for conservation purposes as desirable. We think that can play an important part in a strategy to encourage private landowners to use their ownership and empower them to be part of the national conservation and environmental effort. I think Senator Brown and others would recognise that this government has done more than any other government to encourage that in the past three years.If Senator Bartlett and Senator Brown come to my great state of Western Australia, I encourage them—if they have not already done so—to go to Paruna Sanctuary, which is up in the Darling Range. It is an incredible private initiative, funded almost entirely out of the property of Martin Copley. I think he is actually a citizen of Great Britain. He is a great character who spends about half his time in Western Australia. He has created this fantastic sanctuary in the Darling Range—a phenomenal private initiative which has been facilitated by this government.Senator Hill came in here today and said, as the minister responsible and therefore on behalf of the cabinet and the Prime Minister, that the government is more than sympathetic to these sorts of measures, has looked at the CSIRO work and other work that has been done in this area, and wants to put together an integrated package. So it is disingenuous of Senator Sherry to say that the Prime Minister is blind to this. The minister and the government have come in here and said, `We are going to bring'—to quote Senator Hill's words—`a serious consideration to an integrated policy package of which these sorts of measures could form part.'These measures need to be costed. I guess when you are in opposition you can just say: `We didn't do this for 13 years when we were in government. We don't know how much it is going to cost.' I guess that is a continuation of Labor's policy when they were in government. They did not really care very much about what anything cost. The record of that was $10 billion deficits for nine out of their 13 years, high interest rates, high debt, high inflation, high unemployment. This is Senator Scrooge speaking, but you cannot just create any policy you want and ignore the cost, which is just what the Labor Party have done today. They have said, `We might pick up some money on political donations.'The financial impact of the measures in this bill unamended is estimated to come to about $71 million in 2002-2003. We have no costings whatsoever on the amendment that is about to be agreed to by the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party will not be able to get up and say that this will cost $71 million, $100 million or $200 million because they have no costings. They have decided at some stage in the past hour or so, `This is a nice idea. We have no idea how much it will cost. We might be able to claw back some of the cost if you agree to an amendment on political donations. But we do not really know how much it will cost.' There would have to be one hell of a lot of political donations in a year to claw back $71 million.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The $71 million is your cost.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The $71 million is the government's estimates, the Treasury's estimates and the tax office's estimates of the measures in this bill.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—That's right.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—Exactly. Senator Sherry and the party he represents should come forward with some estimate as to what they think is the value of these measures.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—CSIRO says $2 million to $4 million.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—The CSIRO has not costed these measures, with all due respect. You would have to make an estimate as to how many people, for example, would decide that it is in their financial interest. They may be good environmentalists at heart—they are probably good capitalists at heart as well—who may, for example, decide to hand over all of their property and receive a life tenancy in return, put some covenants on and gain millions of dollars worth of taxable benefits.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—Are you filibustering?H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—No, I am not filibustering. I am responding to two points. One is that the government thinks that these sorts of measures have some merit. We think there should be an integrated, costed approach. You need to look at how you achieve the best outcome for the environment and conservation values within the limited financial resources of the Commonwealth. It was Senator Sherry who earlier said that tax deductibility is an expense to the revenue and that he would like to know where the money is going. Even though the tax office and the previous government never did that when they were in government, the opposition think it is a good idea now. That is good. The opposition seem to be developing some sort of policy. It changes from hour to hour, but at least they are wrestling with the concept of a policy. They have stuck to their old policy of no fiscal restraint. They have said, `If it is a good idea, let's do it and hang the expense. We'll let the next generation pay. Put it on the Beazley bankcard or, if Mr Beazley is not the leader, Mr Crean's bankcard. Hang the expense.'The issue I am responding to is Senator Sherry's point that the PM and government do not care about it. We do care about it. We have said we will develop an integrated policy approach and that this sort of mechanism will be part of it. Senator Brown should be rightly proud of the fact that it has made it onto the government's serious policy agenda. He will be upset that it will not get through now. The government is not going to agree to these measures. So the strong likelihood of the decision of the Senate to support these measures is that the whole bill will be set aside, which is not a threat or anything; that will be what happens. Senator Brown has been lobbying for this and dedicating himself to this sort of public policy measure at the Commonwealth level for a generation, for his whole time in this debate, so he should feel rightly proud that it has got to this stage. It is now under serious consideration by the minister for the environment and ultimately the government of Australia, as Senator Hill has indicated historically here today.This measure is not going to make it today. It is not going to make it into public policy because we do not think the measures have had enough thorough consideration, costing and analysing. Is this the best way to use the Commonwealth's resources? What if this does cost a quarter of a billion dollars, hypothetically? Is that the best way to spend a quarter of a billion dollars? How do you ensure that property owners are best encouraged by the taxation law to gift properties? What balance is there in the use of covenants? What about the life tenancy issue? How do you do this? How do you find the best policy balance?We do not think the approach that is taken today on the floor of the Senate is the right one. It could be a perfect approach, but we want to do it in a considered manner. Ultimately we will bring forward a policy. Ultimately it will have the scrutiny of a Senate committee, no doubt. Ultimately, it will be put into a package of legislation if that policy receives the assent. So I will not add to the debate. I am certainly the last person who would seek to extend this debate. But it is very important that people understand where the government is coming from. Certainly Senator Brown seemed to be under some illusion that the government may be supporting this amendment today. We are not.12:36:0011401Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I am not surprised at the contribution we have just heard. Here we are attempting be cooperative, to get through this legislation prior to 12.45—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I am ready for the vote right now.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Good. I think what we have just heard could be classified as a filibuster. But there are a couple of points that I have to respond to.Senator Campbell makes the point, `Well, how can you support something like this when you do not know the costings?' If that is a valid argument—and I do not believe it is because, as I pointed out, CSIRO says $2 million to $4 million—how on earth has the government costed the contents of the rest of this package and what sort of assumptions has it made? It is not a valid argument from Senator Campbell.The points I have made still stand. The CSIRO have given us a costing. This was a glaring omission from the philanthropic approach of the Prime Minister as contained in this legislation. Senator Campbell has as much admitted that by acknowledging that the government will be looking at something like this at some future date. Senator Hill has come in and said that the government will be looking at it. Why didn't they look at it in this particular piece of legislation? So we do not see any particular problem in supporting this at this point in time. We will be moving an amendment to reduce the tax deductibility of moneys to political parties. I did not say that it would save $71 million. I said there would be some saving that certainly would be some offset for the cost of the measure that is being supported and appears likely to pass here.Finally, I want to make a comment about our advisers. I have spoken to both our advisers—very trusty, reliable, knowledgeable individuals. Neither of them indicated that we would be opposing this. We only got the final amendments halfway through the debate so I do not know where that information has come from. I think it is inappropriate to refer to private conversations with advisers. It is inappropriate and it should not happen. The conversation, as I am informed, did not occur. Again, I think that was an inappropriate comment and, frankly, irrelevant to the debate.I am pleased that the non-government parties have been able to correct a very obvious defect in the Prime Minister's philanthropic approach. If it is good enough for health, it is good enough for education, it is good enough for a range of philanthropic endeavours in this country, and it is good enough for the environment. On behalf of the Labor opposition, as I have said, we will be supporting these amendments.12:39:0011401Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—In response, I wish to make a change to the amendments I have moved. On technical advice, I need to make a slight change; that is, to delete part 4 of the first section, 30-222, and part 3 of section 30-223.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—Also, as a consequence of that, I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) as circulated on sheet 1677. I understand this is necessary to enable the provision to operate as intended.Leave granted.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I move:(1) Schedule 5, item 16, page 25 (line 20), after "section 30-15", insert "or by section 30-222 or 30-223".(2) Schedule 5, item 21, page 27 (line 14), after "section", insert ", or under section 30-222 or 30-223,".I will say a couple of things regarding the substance of some of the contributions, particularly from the government. Firstly, in terms of costs, I do not think the Democrats or the Senate are ignoring the costs. My understanding is that the CSIRO have done some costings of measures such as these and indicated they will cost only $2 million or $3 million per year. The government, as I am sure they would agree, have the resources to cost measures such as these and, given that these measures are going to pass through the Senate, I hope that they will use those resources to cost them themselves. Maybe they can do it more accurately.I come back to the point that I hope, when they do those costings, they will add in the future savings—even purely in dollars and cents terms, let alone in terms of environmental benefits—of the improvement in land conservation that will occur as a consequence. I can outline lots of the costs of what we are spending now every day to fix up salination, deforestation, erosion and many other consequences of land clearing, and they are well and truly above whatever the immediate cost to the revenue might be from these measures. Whatever costing the government might say these measures have, I can guarantee that the savings as a result will far outweigh them.The government also indicated it is better to do these sorts of things as an integrated package. I welcome Senator Hill's indication that the government is looking at doing that and moving that way. I think all people will understand that it is not necessarily the best approach always for everyone just to sit back and wait for the government to deliver on things it is going to do. I should perhaps remind the government that the Senate has a duty and a legislative role in terms of law making in this country. The government can put forward proposed legislation, as they have done, and it is for the Senate to consider that legislation and to amend it or to add in improvements. That is quite a legitimate part of what the Senate is able to do. It is not something that government should attack as inappropriate. It should not be suggested that we should just sit back and wait for the government to deliver an integrated package once they have developed it.These are self-contained, clear-cut amendments. They do not preclude the government developing a package of other measures down the line. Hopefully they will be an incentive for them to build a broader package of measures, but to suggest that we should just wait for the government to act is, I think, misreading and misunderstanding the actual role of the Senate as a law making body. Also, I think it is expecting rather too much in terms of the faith we are expected to put in the government to deliver on things. We have delivered amendments here; we believe they are good ones. We believe that whatever costs there are to them will be far outweighed by savings in the future. I urge the government to take that on board when they are considering this legislation as it is finally amended.Consideration interrupted; progress reported.Matters of Public Interest1140210000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Chapman)—Order! It being 12.45 p.m., I call on matters of public interest.1140212:45:0011402Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—The reason I have sought to make a statement today is based on a combination of factors. I have had to endure 14 months of adverse media coverage. Most recently, there has been an article in the West Australian newspaper on 6 November 1999 and a further article in the Australian on 7 December 1999 about my possible expulsion from the Liberal Party by a small committee in Western Australia called the Appeals and Disciplinary Committee.I have not said anything during those 14 months in the interests of the Liberal Party. However, it needs to be stated here that the pursuit of me is in the face of the fact that the state executive of the party resolved over a year ago that the matter should not proceed. That decision was taken after I had provided a comprehensive statement which they discussed. Following that, the state council also resolved that the matter should not proceed.The West Australian article was written by a journalist called Anne Burns and is about Noel Crichton-Browne and me. It was almost entirely incorrect in every way. The Australian article by Roger Martin implied that I was being criticised for not saying anything. I stress that I have not spoken to either journalist for the sake of the Liberal Party. However, I am now compelled to come into the Senate.Crichton-Browne has now mailed the Burns article across Western Australia because it is highly favourable to him and critical of me. The point needs to be made that Anne Burns has a very close personal relationship with Crichton-Browne. I do not have the luxury of such a compliant journalist. I have, therefore, after 14 months of silence, resorted to the Senate.I wish to set the record straight on the many statements and allegations contained in the article. It, like so many other articles written by Burns, claims that I have apologised for alleging that Crichton-Browne has made death threats against me. I have not. I have apologised for, and I quote from the apology:. . . statements that I had made to various individuals and on radio during 1995 [that] have been construed by some—et cetera. There is no person I have spoken to or interview I have done that says anything other than the fact that I sought police advice on security matters following unidentified phone calls in the middle of the night that contained threats. I said to the police that I did not know the origin of the calls but that, given what had been going on in the party at the time, I wanted to know how best I could ensure my safety.I at no stage requested police protection, which has been a further claim of Burns. I was also never given it. The article claims that I:. . . narrowly escaped expulsion from the Party over the affair when the majority verdict of a discipline committee inquiry found her guilty of four charges of conduct prejudicial to the Liberal Party. That is plainly wrong. This so-called report was put together by two people, George Cash and Julie Debnam, who are two members of what once was a seven-member committee. The article says that there were originally six members. Wrong again.It needs to be noted that one person was removed from the committee, Ric Mincherton, because he was a witness for Crichton-Browne in his case against me by making allegations against me that were simply not true. Julie Debnam is one of the complainants, but she too remained. Two other decent people resigned from the committee when they discovered that it was a witch-hunt to get me. Immediately they resigned, it was clear that the committee was nothing more than a kangaroo court. Last June, when the chairman tried to bring the matter to a conclusion some eight months or so after the matter had started, the remaining members removed a quorum by walking out of the meeting. The chairman then resigned.This left three members, but only two of those three—Cash and Debnam—put together a so-called report recommending my expulsion. By this stage, the committee had no chairman and no quorum, but these two still tried to get their fake report accepted by the party. The party refused. As distribution of this document was highly restricted, one has to ask who gave a copy of the report to Crichton-Browne. I am told that he then went to state parliament and shopped it around to get someone to table it in the parliament. He was successful. A former member of the Labor Party, Mark Nevill, obliged.Crichton-Browne then distributed this fake report to virtually all senators and members and very widely across Western Australia. He knew that the so-called report had no standing, but that did not stop him. According to the article, Mr Nevill went on to accuse David Johnston, the president of the party, of `nobbling the committee'. How preposterous! David Johnston is a lawyer and a well-respected person who as president has simply sought to have this matter finalised appropriately. He too is now being vilified by Crichton-Browne and his supporters.The article claims that Crichton-Browne's destruction came about because:. . . he led rebel coalition senators across the floor to vote against then Treasurer John Howard's retrospective legislation to outlaw bottom of the harbour tax schemes.What nonsense! He made himself irrelevant because all he ever did was stack branches with the expectation that everyone else should do the same. Burns claims that I:. . . had already fallen out with him over her performance as a WA senator.I had certainly fallen out with him, but, as so many people who know Crichton-Browne would attest, it was because I would not spend my time stacking branches at his direction. I told him that I wanted to do my parliamentary duties and that I did not have the time to do his bidding.If my so-called performance was so bad, why then was I serving as deputy whip in the Senate? Why have I chaired, by prime ministerial appointment, deputy chaired or participated in so many inquiries into policy matters on issues ranging from taxation to social security, health, aged care, child care, education and so much more? Additionally, if my performance had been in question, why was I was preselected to the No. 1 position on the Senate ticket in 1992 at the height of Crichton-Browne's political attack against me?The article claims that I told Mincherton that I:. . . had received death threats from Crichton-Browne at her homes in Perth and Canberra and was under police protection.All I can say to that is that Mincherton is totally dishonest and manipulative and well known for it in the party in Western Australia. His bias against me is unquestioned.As for the role of Mr McGinty and Mr Kobelke, two state Labor members of parliament, their claims are pure politicking of the highest order. I unequivocally stand by my claim that I telephoned Mr McGinty and asked him not to ask any question about me as the question that he was proposing to ask was factually incorrect by mentioning death threats and police protection. He said that he wanted to run the question in an effort to embarrass the Premier and that he was not going to identify me. I said that he had to be joking when he said that he would not identify me because the question even had a reference to my dog. He was determined to run the question, but I begged him not to. The rest is history. He and Kobelke have continued to try to damage me and the Liberal Party ever since in relation to this matter.Burns claims that the committee found that I had:. . . conspired with Mr McGinty and had misled the party's Senate pre-selection committee.Wrong. I have never conspired with Mr McGinty or anyone else in the Labor Party and I told the preselection committee precisely what happened. The article claims, `She did not lodge a defence,' referring of course to me. This suggests that I did not prepare one. Wrong again. My defence was presented to Crichton-Browne and he immediately sought to have the matter settled because he did not wish to have it made public.My defence details the shocking treatment that I have had to endure from Crichton-Browne over many years. It contains many credible witnesses who were witness to his behaviour against me. I have resisted coming into the Senate over the last year and tabling it for all to see. This could have been done with complete immunity. The only reason I have not is to protect his former wife and children. However, if I have to endure much more harassment from this man, I will be left with no alternative but to table that document along with a copy of his statement of claim so that the facts will be there for all to see.Crichton-Browne obviously gave a copy of my defence to the solicitor, Jack Courtis, who is supposedly acting for the division and branch that laid the complaints against me. I am aware that Crichton-Browne was most annoyed that Courtis had passed the defence to the committee sitting in judgment on me. The committee members read it. When Crichton-Browne was informed of this, he immediately issued instructions for it to be withdrawn from the committee. That leads me to another question: why is it that Crichton-Browne is running the case against me by instructing the prosecuting solicitor instead of the complainants? I believe that to be a serious abuse of due process by him exercising complete influence over the deliberations and direction of the committee. I have asked the complainants to sign statutory declarations stating that they, and only they, have instructed Courtis and paid for his services. No such declaration has been forthcoming.The question of funding for the case against me is an interesting one because the division and branch that laid the complaints have to declare any such funding to the Australian Electoral Commission. They have a duty of disclosure. If, by any chance, the solicitor is not charging for his time, then he too has a duty of disclosure to the Australian Electoral Commission.Burns claims that I did not appear before the party's state council:. . . despite a request from Premier Richard Court to give an explanation to the party.Wrong. No such request has ever been made to me by the Premier verbally or in writing. He is too interested and involved in running the state and winning the next election.Interestingly, this article does not even make an attempt to be balanced. While there is a cursory mention of Crichton-Browne's record of domestic violence, why was there no mention of him being a convicted criminal for fraud against the taxpayer? Burns clearly allowed her relationship with Crichton-Browne to influence the way in which she wrote the article. While she states that I refused to be interviewed for the article—that is true—I did provide her with a written statement which carried a rider stating that it was not to be printed in part without my prior written approval. What did she do? She printed the statement in part without my approval. I now come to the newly constituted committee. It has, as three of its members, Mincherton, who is a proactive agitator against me and who was removed from the previous committee; and Cash and Debnam, both of whom wrote the fake report recommending my expulsion. I have appealed that these three members cannot be deemed to be unbiased in their consideration of my case, but they have chosen to remain on the com mittee. One can hardly wonder what conclusion they will draw this time. I am in a situation where I have witnesses sitting in judgment against me.Many supporters have asked why I paid $20,000 to Crichton-Browne and have made the observation that doing so gave the appearance of guilt. To that I would say two things. Firstly, given my time again, I would do no such thing. Secondly, I wish to make it crystal clear that I have not pleaded guilty to anything; a casual observation of the events will illustrate that. Crichton-Browne commenced proceedings against me seeking damages and costs. He received no payment for damages and a meagre contribution towards his costs in comparison to what he sought. Once he saw my defence he did not wish to have it made public. He knew it was true. As a consequence he did not wish the matter to proceed to court, where witnesses to his behaviour and attitude toward me would be called to give evidence.I most reluctantly agreed to the payment of a contribution towards his costs in an effort, which has clearly proven to be futile, to protect the Liberal Party and to stop his 11-year harassment of me. I wanted to draw a line in the sand and get on with my life and my work without his constant harassment. He and his mates will obviously not allow that. That is why I wish I had my time over again, because I would never make such a judgment.The next question that I am asked is: why did I apologise? I already covered this earlier when I mentioned the exact words of the apology. The other question is: why were the terms of settlement not made public until after the 3 October election last year? The answer is that that is what Crichton-Browne agreed to. It is worth also noting that, whenever Crichton-Browne or Burns have referred to various interviews I did that form the basis of his action against me, there have never been full transcripts quoted. When one looks at the full interviews, as I have detailed in my defence, they clearly give a different view.The time for me to explain in detail the level and extent of harassment and abuse I have had to endure is just not available. As I said before, that is contained in my defence and will be tabled in the Senate if this harassment continues. Had Crichton-Browne been prepared, as I was, to finalise the whole matter and get on with his life, then I would not have had to take this step. I am enormously grateful for the ongoing support of the Prime Minister; my leader and deputy leader in the Senate, Senator Hill and Senator Alston; my parliamentary colleagues; my staff; members of the Liberal Party; and friends and family. To them I say thank you.I will, despite all of Crichton-Browne's efforts, continue to work hard for the people of Western Australia as a senator and to provide Western Australia with strong representation.1140612:59:0011406O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TASALP00—According to its annual report, the Australian National Audit Office seeks to add value to public sector performance and accountability through the provision of objective, professional and independent auditor advice. The ANAO rightly identifies the parliament as its principal client. One of the key roles of the Audit Office is to undertake performance audits by examining the utilisation of resources, information systems, performance measures, monitoring systems and legal compliance. This is important work. It ensures that the parliament and the Australian taxpayers can see if public money is being properly expended and public services are being provided in an efficient manner. However, when the Public Service is in delivery of a safe and efficient air transport system, the need for a first-class performance from the responsible agencies is not important, it is essential. Anything less potentially puts lives at risk.For that reason, Audit Report No. 19, tabled at the end of last month—the performance audit of the aviation safety compliance division of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority—was both an important and a disturbing document. The Audit Office investigation found an absence of quality management in the performance of CASA's safety compliance functions. There was a lack of consistent adherence to safety procedures that put at risk both CASA's effectiveness and the resulting public confidence and assurance.I was further disturbed by the answers, or indeed lack of answers, I received from CASA during the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport estimates hearings last Wednesday. I asked a series of questions about the training and checking of pilots. Although I am interested in the processes used in training and checking all pilots who operate aircraft carrying fare-paying passengers, my questions went specifically to the checking and training of pilots employed by Qantas.I asked the Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Mick Toller, about the checking of simulators in which pilots of high performance aircraft train. I understood that these simulators had to be checked every 120 days in line with Civil Aviation Order 45.0. Mr Toller said the checking of simulators varied, and I look forward to a more complete answer from him on that point in due course.I also asked whether pilots were checked twice a year in line with the Civil Aviation regulation 217. Mr Toller confirmed that that was the case although he said the period was more likely to be 13 months than 12. Mr Toller also confirmed that pilots must be checked on-line or actually operating an aircraft in service once a year. Mr Toller told me that the job of CASA was to check the Qantas pilots who ensure that their colleagues are up to the mark. He said CASA checked the check captains to `ensure that they operate the system to a satisfactory standard'. Mr Toller said that normally an airline would develop a check and training program for its pilots in consultation with air safety authority—in this case, CASA. He said that the program must contain performance targets and CASA audits the airline's performance against these targets.I asked Mr Toller whether the results of such checks would be held by CASA. I wanted to know whether CASA could at any time tell whether an airline, in this case Qantas, was meeting those benchmarks. Mr Toller responded by saying:That would certainly be on file. I then asked whether it would be possible to supply that information to the committee, to which Mr Toller replied that it certainly would. I asked Mr Toller about the establishment within Qantas of a special unit to undertake pilot checking and training. Mr Toller said that internationally airlines are encouraged to set up operational quality programs and that system is then checked by the safety authority. I asked if any changes were made to this system, like the abolition of this special unit within Qantas, and whether those changes would be monitored and recorded by CASA. He said:They most certainly should be.He qualified this by saying he was not aware that this unit had been disbanded. He said that if there was change, which was little more than a name change, there would be no need to notify the authority. But he said that such a unit would need to be separate from the operational side that it was auditing, and that makes a lot of sense.Mr Toller said if there were new arrangements at Qantas, he was not aware of them and that was why he had called for a special report on the relationship between that airline and CASA. I then asked CASA whether the Qantas testing pilots—that is, the pilots that CASA checks—were in compliance with the conditions of their licences. Mr Toller then said:I do not know.I was not surprised that Mr Toller could not answer that question on the spot. However, it was asked one week ago and has still not been answered. It should have been dealt with as a matter of urgency.I then asked whether, if Qantas check pilots were not in compliance with the conditions of their licence, they would be prevented from undertaking any testing until they met those conditions. Mr Toller replied:That is correct.Mr Toller said that CASA would not necessarily know whether all Qantas pilots were properly licensed. He said the authority would to a large extent rely on Qantas for that sort of information. This contradicts his earlier evidence that CASA checks the checkers. Mr Toller agreed that if there were unqualified Qantas checking pilots approving their colleagues to operate aircraft, all those pilots' qualifications would be invalid. He said they would all have to be retested and they could not operate aircraft until they were.I now have a copy of the terms of reference, protocols and topics for discussion that will provide the basis for the inquiry Mr Toller has launched into the relationship between Qantas and CASA. While the terms of reference appear sound, the matters addressed under the heading `Topics for discussion' are disturbing to say the least. If the questions on this list are read in conjunction with both the findings of the Auditor-General in relation to air safety compliance and the evidence from CASA at last week's committee hearings, it appears that the administration of aviation safety has all but collapsed.The terms of reference are: Review of exchanges between CASA and Qantas over the last 12 months; looking at operating procedures, training programs (flight and cabin crew), human factor issues, long haul landing recency and flight time limitations; report on matters where CASA or Qantas appear not to have acted appropriately or in the best interests of safety; identify CASA regulatory procedures that could be improved.However, as I said, the issues raised under the topics for discussion heading cause me some concern. I hope the minister might be able to provide me with an explanation as soon as possible. Point 4 of this list states in part:Outline of the surveillance program during 1998.I would have thought that that program would be well documented and well known both to Qantas and CASA. Under the same point, the brief asks:Was a comprehensive program provided?I am concerned that there is a need to ask such a question. The existence of such a program is fundamental to the whole surveillance system. I would therefore hope that a comprehensive program developed by Qantas and approved by CASA is in place.Point 6 of the document I have referred to asks:What is the process for approving check captains within Qantas and is that process satisfactory?I had assumed that this process would have been clearly defined and in a comprehensive surveillance program agreed between the airline and CASA. It would be disturbing if that was not the case.Point 7 of the brief asks:How is cabin crew training monitored?I understand the monitoring of cabin crew is not discretionary, as this question suggests, but is specified in civil aviation regulations.I go on to point 8 of the document, which asks:Has the company submitted a compliance statement?I assume that that question relates to the lodgement of a compliance statement as part of an application for the issuing or reissuing of an air operating certificate. I understand that licences are generally issued for 12 months, though, according to the recent Auditor-General's report on safety compliance, CASA is considering renewing licences for up to 36 months, and compliance statements go to the regulatory regime in which airlines must operate exactly to cover the regulatory conditions imposed on them by this regime and in doing so meet the conditions of their licence. I cannot understand why there would be a need to survey CASA officers and Qantas employees to establish whether such a statement has been lodged. I would have thought that the assistant director, aviation safety compliance, would be able to say in a flash whether the largest airline in the country had lodged such a statement.Nor should it be at all difficult to determine whether Qantas meets the conditions of its licence, as would be detailed in a compliance statement, if I understand the term correctly. Point nine asks:How often does CASA undertake a flight simulator fidelity check?Again this should be a matter of fact, not a matter of discretion on the part of officers undertaking this work. Point 10 of the document asks:how are changes to the QANTAS training and Checking manual approved?and:How are changes to syllabuses of training approved?and:have there been any significant changes in the past twelve months?I understand that such changes have to be formally signed off by the Director of Air Safety, Mr Toller. If that is correct, if Mr Toller has not signed them off, they have not been approved. Again this is or should be a statement of fact. I would hope that the minister might clarify the status of the document and the basis on which these questions have been formulated.Page 99 of Audit Report No. 19 advises that in 1997-1998 only 28 per cent and 45 per cent of CASA's planned flying operations surveillance activities were completed respectively for the two major operators. The two operators are not identified in the report. Perhaps the minister might also be able to advise me whether, in fact, that data relates to Qantas and Ansett. Further, the report states that between July 1998 and February 1999 planned flying operations surveillance was only 29 per cent and 14 per cent of the previous year's surveillance for the two operators. I understand that to mean 29 per cent of 28 per cent of the target and 14 per cent of 45 per cent of the target. Despite this reduction in planned surveillance to February 1999, only 21 per cent and 37 per cent of planned flying operations surveillance was achieved for these two operators respectively.I am advised that the second period, that is July 1998 to February this year, was to enable CASA to get all the relevant data lodged for that period. CASA has argued that the introduction of a new audit system led to a reduction in the surveillance effort, and that is no excuse.This data relates to planned surveillance by CASA. This is not about good operators needing less scrutiny. It relates to the surveillance targets CASA sets itself. For the Senate and the travelling public to be satisfied that the aviation system in this country is being properly scrutinised requires someone to take control of the administration of aviation safety in Australia. In this case, that someone must be the Minister for Transport and Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anderson.1140913:12:0011409Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have with me a report on my visit to Tibet in July and then to Tibetan refugee establishments in Nepal and India last month. I will ask the Senate's permission to table this report later in the day when members have had an opportunity to look at it.We in Australia are in an ideal position to do something about the plight of six million Tibetans who are in the world's largest militarised colony. Tibet was invaded in the 1950s by the People's Liberation Army of China and it has been under the yoke of Beijing ever since, with a massive abrogation of civil rights involved. More than one million Tibetans have died as a result of that oppression. The oppression, while much more finetuned by Beijing these days, continues.In Lhasa, more than 1,000 monks and nuns are in prison as we are here today. These are young men and women who have done nothing violent, who would never have been arrested in Australia, who have simply called either for the freedom of their country or for the return of their spiritual and political leader, the Dalai Lama, from exile in India to Lhasa.A third category of default which ends up putting monks and nuns into jail is a refusal to sign a denunciation of the Dalai Lama in whichever nunnery or monastery they may be. The secret police are in these monasteries at the moment and re-education programs were taking place while I was in Tibet. It needs to be noted that great monasteries like Sera and Drephung in the northern outskirts of Lhasa, which I visited, had 10,000 monks each in 1959 when the Chinese Liberation Army, so-called, arrived. The complement in each place can now be numbered between 100 and 300. The 20,000 people who have been evicted have been evicted against their will and in appalling circumstances and, as I said, a number of them are in jail where torture has been the order of the day.I will not go into the details, but it is extraordinarily degrading to the men and women, these youngsters, who have a religious avocation to find themselves in that circumstance simply for trying to maintain what they see as the truth. The fact is if the secret police arrive and say, `Write a denunciation of the Dalai Lama' and they refuse to and do not sign it they are, as a minimum penalty, evicted from the premises and as a maximum end up in jail. On the plight of nuns—and I have got this in the report—the Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in India quotes:Tibetan women have been subject to brutal repression following the severe religious crackdown launched in 1996 and 137 nuns are known to have been expelled from the nunneries. Tibetan women, often nuns, continue to be arrested arbitrarily and subjected to ill-treatment and torture while in prison. Of 1,216 known current political prisoners, 295 are women and 11 female political prisoners are serving more than 10 years. One woman, three months and 17 days pregnant, was kept standing in a cold room for 14 hours in a row the night of her arrest while being interrogated. She told her interrogators that she was pregnant and feeling weak. However, the pleas were ignored and the questions continued. She miscarried her child in the prison toilets shortly afterwards. Ngawang Sangdrol, a Gari nun—Gari is a nunnery in the hills about three-quarters of an hour drive north-west of the centre of Lhasa. While I did not go into the nunnery for fear of reprisals after my visit, I saw the nunnery from the parking lot down in front of it. This nun—is serving an 18-year sentence, the longest known sentence of any political female prisoner in Tibet.This is the Centre for Human Rights reporting. Since this report and since my visit to Tibet, her sentence has been extended to 21 years. It continues:Originally she was arrested for taking part in a pro-independence demonstration. She and 13 other nuns had their sentences extended after recording pro-independence songs in prison—for singing about their country in prison—In March 1996, Ngawang Sangdrol was amongst a number of female prisoners who refused to tidy her cell, apparently as a protest against the Panchen Lama re-education program being conducted in the prison— that is, a requirement that the nuns denounce the true Panchen Lama, the second most important religious figure in Tibet.They also refused to stand up on one occasion when a Chinese official entered the room. She was sent to stand in the rain as punishment and Ngawang Sangdrol called out, "Free Tibet".For that patriotic defiance her sentence was extended for a further three years and as I have said it has gone to 21 years. Here is an extraordinary person. Here is a remarkable woman. I will not go into the details of the other treatments given to female prisoners in these jails, but it is horrific.In other circumstances in other countries, this woman would be getting national awards and accolades. But, instead, the world has turned its back on her, her fellow prisoners and her country, and is lined up to fete Chinese leaders, both inside and outside China. I met the ambassador, Richard Smith, in Beijing after my visit to Tibet, and we talked about his visit to Drachi prison, where, indeed, the nun I have just spoken about languishes today. He took tea in the garden with the criminal—that is, the governor of the prison; it is the innocents on the other side of the wall. But the world prefers not to look at this.I get the Chinese literature on Tibet, including a glossy journal called China's Tibet. It is full of up-beat stories about economic advancement. The point the Dalai Lama has made is that the economic inflow of money to Tibet is nowhere like the outflow through the resources, the forests, the mines, the hydro-electricity that is being drained out of Tibet. But all that aside, we, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to at least know about Tibet. It is the world's biggest military-occupied country and, extraordinarily, it is occupied by a communist regime. It is the West that succours the communist regime in Beijing and ignores the theistic and now democratically elected in-exile regime of the Tibetans.I spoke to the Chinese ambassador yesterday, and I thank him for his visit because we had a good exchange. He used the fact that countries around the world do not oppose the Chinese occupation of Tibet and, in fact, recognise that Tibet is part of China, but that is not the case.As I said to the ambassador, the independence or otherwise of Tibet is in the hearts of the Tibetans. I laud the extraordinary bravery of those young people who, seeing a westerner standing in a temple or in a street in Lhasa, spoke to me in their halting English and told me consistently two things: we want our country's freedom and we want the Dalai Lama to return to Lhasa.I have asked the ambassador whether he would arrange for a trip back to Tibet for me to see the country through the eyes of China. That is not a difficult thing because nearly every other MP who goes to Tibet must fulfil certain obligations, which involve China being the tour guide. I hope that opportunity arises because I do not seek, and have not sought, to be one eyed about this. I have to report to the Senate that I find the plight of the Tibetans an extraordinary blot on the civilised thinking and actions of the global community at the end of this century.I went to Nepal and India and visited refugee camps and was amazed to find, among other things, that the flow of refugees south over the Himalayas is increasing. It will be up to 4,000 this year. These people, who are supposed to love the motherland of China but are walking out on it from their own country, do not do so at the drop of a hat. They are not allowed passports. So much for citizenship of China. They cannot leave with a valid passport.When they do go to Nepal they choose winter, because that is when the raging rivers coming down out of the Himalayas are frozen and they can walk across them. There are three major passes they use to cross the Himalayas; one is near Mount Everest. They climb through the snows in winter. I ran into a young man in Kathmandu who is now learning how to paint traditional Tibetan art—something he did not have access to in his own country—and he lost both his legs to frostbite. He was caught in a blizzard in the pass. His four companions lost their lives. Yet the government in this country does not recognise people from Tibet as refugees because that might upset Beijing.I saw in Nepal and India the hundreds of children who are being smuggled out of Tibet. Their parents want them to have a Tibetan education; indeed, they want them to have some form of education. Time and again I ran into young girls, 16 and 17, who had never been to school in Tibet. Why not? Among other reasons, one has to pay a fee to go to school—up-front fees in a communist country, if you do not mind! Those who cannot pay the fees are the poorest. Who are the poorest in their own country? It is the Tibetans. Who comes last on the opportunity list? I guess it is the girls. But to see the happiness of these youngsters, having got out of the country, is extraordinary, because at last they have an opportunity in life, and their parents are having them smuggled out. One 16-year-old girl said, `I was with my brothers and two monks came along and said, "Go and go now." I did. I did not even have time to go home and tell my mum and dad and here I am, I do not know what mum and dad think. I do not know whether they know I am here, but I am here now to get my Tibetan education.' She had to decide whether she would go into the usual education stream, or become a nun herself. She has the opportunity to do that now. She effectively had no such opportunity and no schooling under the Chinese regime. There are thousands of such youngsters in Nepal and India.A word needs to be said, because there have been tough times in the past, for the growing attitude of assistance by the Nepali government, as well as by the Indian government in these circumstances. I was able, through the good offices of our ambassador in Kathmandu, to meet the Nepali Minister for Home Affairs to try to get the thousands of Tibetans in Nepal travel documents, so they can go to countries like Germany and Britain—travel documents like those afforded to Tibetan refugees in India. He gave me a good hearing. This is good for business for Nepal as well, because the Tibetans make carpets and export them to the West, but the business people in Nepal have great difficulty getting out to make the deals which will allow this industry to bring an income to the Tibetan community.Finally, Tibet will be an item on the agenda while I am in this parliament. I use this opportunity to ask the government, our government, to play a much more prominent role in the interests of Tibet and Tibetans and their thirst for freedom in the future. (Time expired)1141113:28:0011411Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—There is a certain sense of occasion in speaking on a matter of importance in the national parliament's final sitting week of the twentieth century—in fact, the final sitting week of the millennium. The cusp of the new millennium is about as auspicious an occasion as you could want to reflect on our nation's achievements of the past and the challenges of the future. It has been a momentous century for this nation, commencing with the birth of federation. It has seen us commit our troops during two world wars and in other regional conflicts, including Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.Our troops have defended our freedoms and defended those unable to help themselves, such as in the current deployment of Australian troops in East Timor. These encounters have undeniably defined our national identity. We are proud of the Anzac spirit, a spirit characterised by bravery, loyalty and mateship. This is the spirit by which Australian men and women have shed their blood to protect the country they love—Australia—and their fellow Australians. It is a spirit which saw a lone soldier, Private Simpson, and his donkey braving enemy fire to rescue wounded mates in that fateful Gallipoli landing. There is also the great sporting tradition that has developed over the years. Over the past century, Australia has produced superb sports men and women, and I am sure that this prowess will be evident in the year 2000 at the Sydney Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games.Australia has also been shaped this century by the patterns of migration that have come to our shores. Australia has been a great migrant nation, advantaged by the intake of skill, labour and social diversity. Whether in the days of the gold rushes or Queensland cane growing, or our more recent past in the 1950s that gave us the mighty Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, migration has shaped our multicultural character. The question, however, remains as to what level of immigration is in the national interest. Our population is unlikely to grow sufficiently without immigration to take advantage of global and regional opportunities, nor will it be conducive to maintaining our national security. We do need to look to a pattern of migration over the next decades that will foster properly thought-out national goals.However, perhaps the most enduring symbol of our nation is the Australian bush. For more than 150 years, Australia has ridden on the sheep's back. The bush has provided Australia with a wealth of verse, culture, inventions and history. Bush legends have permeated Australia's identity and Australians relate to these whether they are based in the city or the outback. The bush legend and notions of the bushie with his swag are part of Australia's psyche. It is part of what Australia is today. The bush spirit is the Australian spirit.Australia has reached the end of this century in good shape. We can be justifiably proud of our secure democracy, tolerant society and vibrant economy. But along with our prosperity and progress is the growing realisation that not all Australians have shared equally in this good fortune. As a nation, perhaps the greatest challenge we face is to bridge the gap between those who prosper and those who have missed out. Nowhere is this need more pressing than in parts of rural and regional Australia.I have spoken often this year on issues relating to rural and regional Australia in this chamber. The themes have varied from youth unemployment to regional development and living standards in rural and regional Australia, policy positions that impact on the bush such as national competition policy, and the impact of agencies seemingly beyond the control of government such as the World Trade Organisation. These speeches have reflected journeys that I have taken within my home state of New South Wales to go to the people most affected and discuss the issues with them.This past decade has seen the divide between the city and the bush widen to a chasm. Not only is it a divide between city and country, but also between inland and coastal areas, between the sun belt and the rural belt and between large and small regional centres. In short, it is between those who have prospered and those who have missed out on the benefits of massive technological change and deregulation.The impact on the bush has been characterised by political protest and socioeconomic dislocation. The trend for Australia to become two nations flies in the face of our egalitarian spirit. It is simply unAustralian to tolerate the alienation of some Australians from others. The volatility of rural and regional Australia is deeply troubling. It has exercised a great deal of my time and attention this year in my `Senate Goes Bush' series of visits to rural and regional Australia. These visits reflect my belief that we do need to go bush if we are to really know the hardships and, indeed, the strengths of rural and regional Australia and if we are to have any hope of reconnecting with country Australia.In each place I visited it was clear that the people of rural and regional Australia have been doing it tough. As recent election results attest, they also feel disillusioned and disaffected with the political processes that impact upon their daily lives. Parts of rural and regional Australia have been hurting. Not only have the regions been fighting drought and shifts in population, but the regions face trying to overcome the tyranny of distance when accessing services that those in the city take for granted.However, it has become abundantly clear to me that rural and regional Australia does have the capacity to regenerate itself so long as the conditions are right. Part of the reconnecting process is that the government is addressing the sectoral needs of regional Australia. A suite of programs is designed to turn around the geographical disadvantage in this vast land. There are no quick fixes, but sustained effort, understanding and increased expenditure are helping to address the balance.Bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots may well be the most important policy challenge we face. Any regeneration and development of rural and regional Australia must also grapple with the kind of framework that best suits the purpose. Despite the splendid initiative of the Regional Summit and our desire to recreate the securities of the past, I suspect that we have not yet asked ourselves what rural and regional communities of the future will look like. What indeed is our big picture?In a recent ABC Country Viewpoint broadcast, the following questions were asked: does the big picture envisage a network of regional centres that are just smaller versions of our state capital cities or does the big picture envisage a network of services that are virtual and accessed only through the Internet? Does the big picture envisage millions of hectares of plantations providing carbon credits for multinational corporations? Does the big picture include the old vision of a food bowl for the rest of the world? Whatever policy mix is used, an issue for the government is to identify and promote strategic investment in the future of the nation that will see the growth of prosperous, well-serviced regions.There is a political divide, of course, on how to achieve this. Experience has demonstrated that a top-down attempt to establish major regional centres is unlikely to succeed unless there is significant local leadership and community support. This approach also ignores the need of those in smaller communities who are unable, because of geographic isolation, to access the services of major centres. An enduring impression that I have taken away from the Senate Goes Bush visits is that people of rural and regional Australia do not want hand-outs; what they want is a hand up. This means that there is a leadership role for government to assist local communities to assist themselves, to identify their strengths and weaknesses and, indeed, to find their own way forward.It is up to all of us in government, in the private sector, in unions, in regional development organisations and local councils to find a way for regional communities to identify and harness their potential. The government's proposal as part of the rural summit to get some help from the big end of town, colloquially speaking, in setting up a rural trust is a significant step in bridging the gap between the haves and the have-nots. More importantly, it recognises the moral obligation we have to include rural and regional Australia in the nation's prosperity. If we fail to do this, we diminish our achievement as a successful nation.Last week, the Prime Minister chaired the first meeting of the government's business and community initiative to promote the notion of a social coalition. It brings together the resources of the government, the private sector, individuals and the Australian business community. Clearly, an integrated approach will maximise our chances for rural and regional renewal. It will also be necessary, I suggest, to carefully consider the impact of decisions imposed on Australia by global organisations such as the WTO.No-one will deny that trade is the lifeblood of this country and we need to keep our strategy under review. We cannot afford to drop the ball on this issue in Australia. As a country that overwhelmingly relies on exports for our survival, we must continue our participation in the WTO, but we must also keep our strategy in doing this under close scrutiny.The clear lesson from the Seattle round is that people affected by WTO decisions want to have a say in matters that affect them. The protests that we all saw on our televisions and read about in newspapers were not as much about global free trade, I suggest, but rather the way in which this is pursued by the WTO, seemingly without regard to the impact on a local community. The dispute settlement rules are opaque and in need of reform. It is little wonder that those on the receiving end of adverse decisions are often puzzled by and invariably angry with decisions they do not understand. The decision against Australia on the importation of uncooked salmon products is simply a case in point.Notwithstanding the matters that I have mentioned today in this matter of public interest debate, I must say that I am buoyed by the signs of regeneration in rural and regional Australia and confident that the innate decency of our fellow Australians will see us face the new millennium with both hope and resolve to meet these challenges. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues, the clerks, the Senate staff and Hansard, who serve us with such distinction throughout the year, the very best Christmas and a New Year filled with promise.1141413:42:0011414Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—I rise to speak in this debate on matters of public interest to raise the need for an Aboriginal languages interpreter service in the Northern Territory. In these days of modern travel it is not unusual for many of us to find ourselves in countries around the globe, for business or pleasure, where English is not the national language. Luckily for those of us who speak English, it has become the most widely spoken language in the world and in most places it is relatively easy to find someone who speaks some English. However, most of us have found ourselves at one time or another in a situation where we do not speak the local language and nobody seems to speak a language that we can understand. Some of us may have even found ourselves in a situation where we have had to deal with government bureaucracies in those countries or seek medical treatment from a local doctor or hospital or even have had to deal with police or perhaps a local court—environments where nobody seems to speak a language we can understand and the proceedings are not understood by us. It is a frightening and disorienting experience, not being able to understand what is being said and being unable to make yourself understood.For a large percentage of Aboriginal Territorians—and I am sure elsewhere in Australia where we find indigenous Australians from a traditional background—the problems of a lack of understanding in the court system, the health system or government bureaucracies is a regular occurrence, often with dire consequences. Perhaps it is important to place some statistics on the record so we have a picture of what we are dealing with here.Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory make up about 27 per cent of the population. Of these people it is estimated that about 75 per cent speak an indigenous language, or languages even, and have a very poor or limited understanding of English. In 1997-98, Aboriginal people made up 70 per cent of people who fronted the Northern Territory's court system. In the same period Aboriginal people made up more than 50 per cent of patients in the Northern Territory's hospital system. In contrast, non-English speaking background Territorians—those from overseas non-English speaking countries—made up only 8 per cent of the Northern Territory's population. However, when dealing with the judiciary, the health system or government bureaucracies, NESB Territorians have 24-hour access to free government provided interpreter services. If you are Chinese, you can; if you are Laotian, you can; if you are Greek or Spanish you can. Off the top of my head I think about 150 languages are catered for. That is only fair. Most reasonable people would consider that it is only fair that non-English speakers have access to interpreter services.However, if you happen to be an indigenous Australian in the Northern Territory with no or limited English, the situation is vastly different. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are not automatically provided with interpreter services to help with language difficulties in accessing any community services. Of particular concern is the lack of Aboriginal interpreter services to allow them to access health and legal services. It is outrageous but true.Over 20 years ago Aboriginal linguist Gloria Brennan wrote a report investigating the need for an Aboriginal interpreting service, concluding there was a real and urgent need for such a service. Finally, 18 years later, an Aboriginal languages interpreter service was trialled in the Top End over a six-month period. Focusing predominantly on health and legal services, the trial addressed the following four key issues: whether there existed a need for such a service; the feasibility of establishing a permanent service; the most effective means by which a service might run; and how much it was likely to cost. The report, titled Executive Summary Northern Territory Aboriginal Languages Interpreter Service Trial Evaluation Report, was circulated to members of a working party looking at Aboriginal interpreter services and other proponents of Aboriginal interpreter services throughout Darwin.The findings of the draft report were very clear. It highlighted the need for an Aboriginal service and it recommended that it be administered through the existing Northern Territory Interpreter and Translator Service (NTITS), which would be both cost effective and consistent with the government's position on the mainstreaming of service delivery to Aboriginal people.In May 1998 a final report was published by the Northern Territory Attorney-General's Department, titled Trial Aboriginal Languages Interpreter Service—Evaluation Report. However, the integrity of the published report has been questioned by members of the working group and proponents of an interpreter service. What happened has been explained by a member of that working group, Mr Russell Goldflam. He said:The draft report, which clearly recommended the establishment of the nation's first Aboriginal interpreter service, never saw the light of day and was replaced by a watered-down version several months later, which was prepared and published without involvement of members of the Working Group.Interestingly enough, even though they were invited to do so, the Northern Territory Attorney-General's Department did not address this matter as part of the Northern Territory government's submission to the inquiry into the provision of an interpreter service in Aboriginal languages which was conducted by the Northern Territory government under the auspices of the then NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Dawn Lawrie.In February this year, Dawn Lawrie, who was the then NT Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, began a public inquiry into the provision of interpreter services in Aboriginal languages. It attracted wide public interest with submissions received from the government, the judiciary, the legal, health and community service providers. Handing down her report some five months later, after considering nearly 100 written and oral submissions, Ms Lawrie concluded that:The Northern Territory Government should establish an Aboriginal interpreter service and that the establishment of the service should be given the highest priority.Not only that, Ms Lawrie stated that the lack of Aboriginal interpreter services in the Northern Territory is discriminatory, contravening both the federal Racial Discrimination Act of 1995 and also the Northern Territory's own Anti-Discrimination Act of 1992.Over the years the Northern Territory government's response has been that an Aboriginal interpreter service would be too expensive. If they are not prepared to accept the argument of justice and equity in providing such a service, they should consider the economic arguments in favour of an Aboriginal interpreter service. Clearly the provision of properly trained legal and medical interpreters would save far more than the cost of such a service by reducing court delays, retrials and incorrect diagnosis and/or treatment in our hospitals.A study by Dr Peter Collins for the Northern Territory's Office of Aboriginal Development in 1995 in fact pointed out that the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service would be very cost effective. In the health sector a properly funded interpreter service will lessen the potential for claims against medical negligence, misdiagnosis, readmissions and so on. In the legal setting the savings for less court and police time would be enormous. The lack of an Aboriginal interpreter service is placing enormous pressure on our court systems in the Northern Territory.Not long after Dawn Lawrie's report was released the federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Herron, was reported as saying that Aboriginal people should take some responsibility for such a service and that ATSIC should provide the funds for it. The minister's comments say a lot about his support for the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory and the services they need. As the Reverend Jim Downing succinctly stated in response to Senator Heron's comments later in a letter to the Northern Territory News:Has he . . . or any other Government Minister suggested that the Turks, Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese, and all the other racial groups provided with a 24 hours interpreter service should pay for their service? No it is the sort of service a government should provide.At this point I repeat an earlier point I made: that is, in the Northern Territory there is full-time free interpreter service available to people from non-English speaking backgrounds, but not if you are Aboriginal.A recent incident, however, which received much media attention, highlights what can happen and has happened due to the lack of an Aboriginal interpreter service. Recently at the Royal Darwin Hospital a young Aboriginal woman was sterilised without understanding that the procedure was permanent. Traditionally the Northern Territory government has relied on either family members or friends who may speak English to translate between patients and staff. However, they are not trained interpreters. There is no guarantee that they may be around when needed, there are cultural constraints on them in explaining certain matters, and they do not necessarily understand the procedures involved. The chief minister's response to the media attention given to this revelation of the young woman being sterilised without her consent was that he rejected the need for an Aboriginal interpreter service and said:to my mind (that) is akin to providing a wheelchair for someone who should be able to walk.Speaking in parliament about translators, he went on to say that it was a disgrace that Aborigines still needed them. His comments would almost be laughable if they did not reflect his obvious lack of humanity, his lack of understanding of the cultural principals involved and his lack of understanding of the principals of justice in our legal and health system.While Mr Burke has previously acknowledged there was a need for an Aboriginal interpreter service, he said it should be paid for by federal government funding. Obviously he does not consider the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service a high priority for his government. It is somewhat ironic really. On the one hand, he considers himself to be the great helmsman steering the North ern Territory towards the holy grail of statehood, yet he is not prepared for the Territory to meet its responsibilities regarding the equal treatment of Territorians. Last week the former Anti-Discrimination Commissioner, Dawn Lawrie, in responding to these comments by the Chief Minister, said what a lot of people in the Northern Territory are becoming increasingly inclined to think. She said, `Denis Burke is a national disgrace', and she is right.I conclude my remarks by saying that the debate over the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service is not about whether people should speak English. It is about what the reality is now and what impact it is having on many Territorians. This is something Denis Burke does not want to seem to grasp; that is, that a large percentage of Territorians are being discriminated against. They are denied a basic service that is offered to all other non-English speaking Territorians.Aboriginal Territorians need an Aboriginal interpreter service and they need it now. Hopefully in the future, non-English speaking Aboriginal people will be as fluent in English as they are in their own languages, and it would be an advantage to them if they were. But at the moment that is not the case, and it needs to be addressed. There is simply no excuse for the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory not to introduce an Aboriginal interpreter service immediately. He is directly responsible for the consequences of not doing so.I want to mention the names of some people involved in legal and health issues in the Territory. They include the Supreme Court Judge, the Hon. Justice Dean Mildren; the Director of Public Prosecutions, Rex Wild QC; the recently retired Hon. Justice William Kearney; the Director of Legal Aid, Richard Coates; the Director of the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Gordon Renouf; the Director of Anglicare, Peter Fisher; Dr Ilona DeBella, from the Royal Darwin Hospital; Jackie Vincent, who is the chairperson of the Katherine Aboriginal Language Centre; and Dr Sam Heard. The list goes on and on.Why have I mentioned them? Because they all support the introduction of an Aboriginal interpreter service. Why is it that the leaders in the Aboriginal legal and health areas can see what is so blindly obvious, but the Chief Minister, Denis Burke, will not allow the Northern Territory to meet its responsibilities by establishing immediately such a service? I firmly believe that the Chief Minister, Denis Burke, should be held personally accountable for what happens as a result of the lack of an Aboriginal interpreter service in the Northern Territory.Sitting suspended from 1.56 p.m. to 2.00 p.m.Questions Without Notice114171141711417Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Does the Assistant Treasurer recall his own answer yesterday when he said: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.If the government really wanted to help charities why are they not just taken out of the punitive GST net instead of encouraging them to do everything they can under the law to avoid the Howard-Lees GST? Wasn't one of the government's main claims for introducing the GST that nobody could escape paying their fair share? Isn't the government now giving the green light to individuals and businesses who under the law may be able to avoid or minimise paying the GST?11417Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—What an astonishing question from Senator Murphy—a truly astonishing question. All the Labor Party complaints over the last week or so have been that a GST is being imposed on aspects of charitable works. That has been your complaint over the last week. Now Senator Murphy is worried that charities are going to avoid the GST. Get real! Where is the Labor Party coming from on any issue? It beats me. Because you do not believe in anything you flip-flop on everything and one day you argue on one side of the street—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, address your remarks to the chair, not across the chamber.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. The trouble is, as I was saying, that if you do not believe in anything, if you do not stand for anything, if you do not know where you stand on an issue, you run contradictory lines, which we have just seen from Senator Shayne Murphy. We are bringing in a very fair tax system which will be of benefit to charities, of benefit to large and small business, of benefit to taxpayers, of benefit to families and, particularly, of benefit to those on pensions and benefits. We have a tax reform program; we want to make sure Australia has a tax system which will take us into the new millennium and which is fairer and more equitable and which will better enable Australia to compete on world markets—in other words, a tax system which is the world's best practice.You ask such a question because you have no philosophy, you have no views, you have no policies. I ask the Labor Party to work out with their colleagues whether they are worried about the GST affecting charities or are they worried about charities escaping the GST. Just get your lines straight. It shows the appalling leadership the Australian Labor Party has both in the other chamber and in this chamber that you cannot get your lines straight on this particular issue.11417Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. One thing we have worked out on this side is that this minister does not and cannot answer questions. But the Assistant Treasurer might be able to answer this supplementary. In regard to charities being able to `structure their activities to take account of individual fundraising efforts', can the minister outline exactly what restructuring charities will be able to do to avoid the Howard-Lees GST and at what further cost to the charities? For example, will charities now have to set up ABC Charities (Lamington Drive) Inc., followed by ABC Charities (Gala Evening) Inc. and maybe even ABC Charities (Money for GST Compliance Costs) Inc. in order to remain under the GST threshold?11418Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It goes from bad to worse with you, Senator Murphy. You are good at fly-fishing—no-one in this chamber argues that. You are probably the champion fly-fisher, Senator. But, frankly, this question? We are providing flexibility to charities—that is what we are doing. This means that pie drives, lamington drives, cake stalls, Christmas cake sales and all of those sorts of things will not come into the system unless the particular charity has a turnover on those projects of over $100,000. It is perfectly straightforward. Will charities want to restructure? Charities will obviously make a choice. Charities will work out what suits the particular charity. This is exactly what charities wanted. It might not be what Shayne Murphy wants, but this is what charities wanted and we have delivered to them in spadefuls.1141811418Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Macca! Macca!10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! That sort of behaviour and shouting is absolutely unintelligible and unintelligent.WP6Senator LIGHTFOOT—I can only put it down to end of year exuberance, Madam President. The minister will recall that almost exactly 12 months ago he said that `1999 will be the year of regional Australia'. Will the minister inform the Senate how successful the partnership has been between the federal government and rural and regional Australia, and in particular what programs will have continuing benefit for regional Australians in 2000 and beyond?11418Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator Lightfoot for the question and for his ongoing interest in rural and regional Australia. Certainly 12 months ago I did nominate 1999 as the year for regional Australia, and I am pleased to say that the Howard government has focused Australia's attention on rural and regional Australia in that time. I am proud to have been one of the two ministers appointed to look after the interests of rural and regional Australia, in the regional services area. My colleagues Senator Troeth, Mr Truss, Mr Tuckey and I have concentrated on things that will help regional Australia.We have acknowledged that a lot of good things have happened in rural and regional Australia but that progress has not been even across the board. We are aware that there are patches of rural and regional Australia which need further attention. But we have focused the attention on rural and regional Australia. In fact, most of Australia now understands that we have to look more closely at rural and regional Australia. Business, state governments and the federal government do—it seems all do except the Australian Labor Party. They have absolutely no policies on regional Australia. They have done no work towards those policies. All they have done when talking about rural and regional Australia is carp and criticise the good things that we have done.Madam President, you will remember that in the last 12 months the Labor Party appointed someone who was going to be the saviour of the bush, a high profile Labor person—well, she had been for a little while—who was going to really fix regional Australia from the Labor Party point of view. What happened? She was sacked during the year because she could not help rural and regional Australia. She was sacked from that shadow portfolio and replaced by a regional spokesman who lives in the centre of Melbourne and who has said on two occasions recently that he understands the problems of rural and regional Australia because the same problems are happening in his electorate in inner city Melbourne.FX5MURPHYSenator Murphy—Madam President, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. I understood the minister got a dorothy dixer from his own side about how well this government was treating rural and regional Australia. We have listened to him for some time but we have not heard anything. We really would like to know just what you are doing for rural and regional Australia rather than commenting on what other people in other parties may or may not be doing. It would be useful for us if the minister could inform us exactly what the government is doing.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I can understand why the Labor Party try to stop me telling them what we have done for rural and regional Australia and what they have not done.More specifically, we have cut costs to rural and regional Australia. We have done that by removing some 23c a litre on fuel for trucks that work in rural and regional Australia. We have got rid of the wholesale sales tax, that debilitating Labor tax. We have removed $4 billion from export costs. We have removed $10 billion from costs of small business. We have removed $7,500 on average from the costs of every farmer. And every one of those initiatives was opposed by the Labor Party.We have increased telecommunications to the bush: $464 million into the bush—opposed by the Labor Party. We held a regional summit which focused on rural and regional Australia. What did the Labor Party do? They attended, said a word saying it was not a bad idea, and then nitpicked on costs, nitpicked on the little things, criticised and carped on the little things. We have had the RTC program, the rural transaction centres, $70 million putting banking transaction centres back into the bush—opposed by Labor. They did not want to give us the $70 million to do it. It was opposed by Labor all the way through. The Natural Heritage Trust, $1½ billion, most of which goes into rural and regional Australia—opposed by the Labor Party and criticised project by project. We have done a lot, and in the future we intend to carry on those programs. I personally intend to continue my visits to rural and regional Australia. (Time expired)11419Lightfoot, Sen PhillipSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6WALP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister continue to outline those initiatives that will have great bearing on rural and regional Australia in the next millennium?11419Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again I thank Senator Lightfoot. We want to continue on the initiatives we have made in the health area with the opening of the James Cook University Medical School to put more doctors into rural and regional Australia. We want to spend the money we have allocated to help get pharmacists, doctors and allied health professionals into rural and regional Australia. I and most of my colleagues spend a lot of time in country Australia. Last year I spent 61 days in rural and regional Australia, 62 days with local governments, 24 days in the territories and 45 days in my offices in rural and regional Australia, meeting all the time, listening and understanding, as my colleagues do. The Labor Party do none of that, because their spokesman lives in Melbourne and stays there. Next year we hope to open more RTCs, more telecommunications. We are having the Northern Australia Forum to focus on that part of regional Australia. And so it goes on. (Time expired)1141911419Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister confirm that, under the Howard-Lees GST, Sydney's Taronga Zoo will have to send 10 per cent of the moneys raised through their animal sponsorship program to the federal government, as confirmed by an ATO ruling? Is it fair that, although corporate donors may get a GST input credit, the $300,000 in sponsorship from the general public, including the children who get a certificate of appreciation for sponsoring animals like Chester the white tiger, will have the 10 per cent GST skimmed off for the government's coffers? Isn't the government ashamed that it is slashing the value of kids' sponsorships of Taronga's animals from $300,000 by a 10 per cent tax?Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise is unacceptable by any standards and I do not think that senators appreciate the way behaviour is viewed by writers and phone callers to the parliament.11419Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Senator Conroy, for the question. I would have to say there was a trifle of overacting there, Senator Conroy, in line with your usual form. This is totally in line with the sort of nitpicking questions that we receive from the Labor Party. Very relevant information, I believe, to the issues which have been raised by Senator Conroy in relation to the impact of the goods and services tax on charities came this morning from none other than the Salvation Army. I think it may be of interest to hear what the Salvation Army said. The Salvation Army said it is now comfortable with the GST. It said:With the compensation that has been provided by the government, we have signed off on it.—this is the Salvation Army—We believe that the government is providing—Senator Chris Evans interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, abide by the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—It said:We believe that the government is providing adequate compensation, that in fact the government is providing funding for ongoing education.So we have bodies like the Salvation Army really taking issue with the sorts of complaints that the Labor Party is making. Basically what we are seeing is an attempt by the Labor Party to scare people to bring about some fear and concern where there is no need for fear and concern.Sponsorship arrangements made by a GST registered charity will generally be subject to GST. This is because sponsorships are effectively payments in return for a service of advertising or other benefits. However, Senator, because a sponsorship transaction will typically take place between two registered entities, the impact of the GST will net out. You raised the case of where an entity, I understand, is input taxed.3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Children's sponsorships!WW4Senator KEMP—You raised the case of corporate sponsorship and even though, in the case of input taxed financial organisations, they will be unable to claim an input tax credit in respect of sponsorships undertaken, all other input taxed financial organisations will be in a similar position. Senator, we are bringing in a new tax system—Opposition senators interjecting—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—You don't know, do you?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator, I just—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, ignore the interjections.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator, I have outlined the general issues in relation to corporate sponsorship. If you are speaking about a membership, we can go through that for you, but the truth of the matter, Senator, is that what is going to happen is that we are going to bring in a tax system which will be delivering real rises in disposable incomes for Australian families. They will be far better off under our system than under the system that the Labor Party currently supports. Who knows what in the future the Labor Party will support? We are very confident that individuals and families will certainly be better off as a result of our system.11420Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VICALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, won't the application of GST to sponsorships like this undermine community support for making gifts to organisations like Taronga Zoo, with the knowledge that the government is going to get a 10 per cent cut of the action?11420Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If you are speaking about a specific membership or a specific issue, we will of course provide advice on that. But, if you are speaking about the general issue of sponsorship, Senator, the fact of the matter is that we believe that, as a result of the measures that we have brought in, bodies like the zoo will certainly not suffer from our system and we believe they will in fact benefit.1142011420Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6NSWLP10—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone. Australians are vitally concerned about drugs, crime and access to justice. Will the minister inform the Senate of initiatives and achievements in the Attorney-General's and Justice and Customs portfolios?11420Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—I thank Senator Coonan for the question. It is quite appropriate, as we approach the end of the year, to look on the achievements in each portfolio. The first that I would nominate in this portfolio is the contribution the AFP made in East Timor. They were the first people there. There are 40 that are still there. They gave extremely meritorious service and I would particularly like to mention Alan Mills, a retired AFP Assistant Commissioner who gave distinguished service as the UNAMET commander in East Timor. That I would single out as a great achievement for the Federal Police this year.The Federal Police and the NCA are of course now properly resourced. They have had increased money, as I was able to mention yesterday, under the Tough on Drugs initiatives. They have had record seizures of heroin, cocaine and amphetamines. We have had the arrests of major international fugitives and, most importantly for the man and the woman in the street, they have been very successful—through the Swordfish reference—in catching up with tax cheats, something that the people opposite when they were in government never did.The next achievement that I would like to mention is that of CrimTrac, an extremely overdue need to put together law enforcement information from all the state police services, and we are starting with a fingerprint system that was allowed—over 13 years under Labor—to fall into absolute disrepair to the point that it was effectively useless.We have given Customs the resources and powers to do the job, and all we hear from the other side is, `Why don't you peel a bit off, establish a new authority and call it a coastguard?' In contrast to that, the Prime Minister's task force has put $124 million of new money in, including new Dash 8 aircraft, a night capable helicopter and a national surveillance centre. In relation to law reform, this government has initiated and passed sex slavery legislation. It is very important for Australia to be taking the lead in this area to demonstrate that we will not put up with trafficking, especially in women, for use as sex slaves. We have passed legislation in relation to foreign bribery so that our companies when competing overseas compete on quality and price and not on whether they have got money to bribe the person they are getting the contract from. We have introduced theft, fraud and bribery legislation, which is a part of major criminal law reform. We have had a report done by the Australian Law Reform Commission on the confiscation of proceeds of crime, and we will be acting on that report early next year. Crime prevention under this government is getting the money and the attention it deserves.There is a whole range of achievements. There is one thing that this parliament could have achieved, not just for itself but for all Australians. But, sadly, because of people opposite, it is not going to happen. Sports drugs is one area in which we could have seen a very exciting achievement by this parliament. Because we have the Sydney Olympics next year, it is important that Australia demonstrates we want a clean Olympics and that we show what we are prepared to do towards that. Customs has legislation at hand to increase the penalties on people who import performance enhancing drugs, to turn them into middle level narcotic penalties. The Democrats are prepared to support us, Senator Harradine is prepared to support us, One Nation are prepared to support us. We could pass this legislation before Christmas and have an effective regime leading up to the Olympics. What does Labor say? `Send it off to a committee.' They have not even thought about it. Kate Lundy is sitting there looking down.Senator Lundy interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Lundy.7E4Senator VANSTONE—The reason Senator Lundy is looking down is she is responsible for sports matters and has not done anything about it. They have not got a policy. That is why they have to send it off to a committee—to think about it. That is why it will be delayed. (Time expired)1142111421Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate whether the ladies' committee of Sydney's Royal North Shore Hospital will have to pay GST on their sales of biscuits, cakes, jams and pickles, which raised $164,000 last year for the hospital to purchase essential medical equipment? Can the minister also confirm advice the ladies' committee has received from a member of the Charities Consultative Committee that, while it would probably be liable for a GST on sales, this charity would not be able to get back some of its GST paid on materials bought by the volunteers? Why is the Howard government insisting on forcing this charity and thousands more like it to be surrogate tax collectors?11422Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator, I do not know whether you have tuned into the debate in recent days, but we have had an extensive discussion on cakes stalls. In fact, I think we have heard the word `lamington' more in this chamber in the last couple of days than we have heard in the last 50 years. The situation is this: the charities will decide how they structure their activities. Some charities will want to register for the GST, and some will want to remain outside the system. That is their choice. If they believe that they want to be part of the system—and many will—they will be able to claim the input tax credits. If they do not wish to be part of the system, then they can have the option, as the Treasurer has so lucidly outlined, to structure their activities.Let me quote what the Treasurer said—I thought it was a pretty good quote, and I think we can afford to share it with you again in this chamber. He was referring to a charity:We are going to make it unequivocally clear in the legislation that unless you are a charity that has a turnover of $100,000, you do not come into the system.That is what it means: pie drives, lamington cake stalls, Christmas cakes and all those sorts of things will not come into the system unless they have a turnover on those projects of over $100,000. He went on to say, `Well, they can structure their affairs so they can take advantage of it on an individual fundraising activity.' So, if a charity wants to stay outside the system, it is up to it how it structures its activities. Unless the project is going over $100,000, they can stay outside the system. The point I am making to you is simply this: that particular charity or group will make a decision as to whether they want to remain outside the GST system, in which case they will not be able to claim their input tax credits, or whether they want to become part of the system, in which case they will be able to. So we are providing that flexibility to charities.This is what charities want. When they came to see us, charities wanted to have flexibility in this area. I have to tell you that a lot of people are getting very fed up with the Labor Party's attitude on this. I quoted to you in my previous answer what the Salvation Army said in an interview with Pat Daly. I think they summed it up very well indeed. There was also an interview with Richard Menteith of the Wesley Mission. This shows how outside the ball game the Labor Party are at the moment. This is what Wesley Mission says:Wesley Mission has always seen the GST as a significant improvement on the other tax paradigms and regimes that we have had in previous years.They went on to say:We need to recognise—3L6CONROYSenator Conroy—Cash for comment!WW4Senator KEMP—I know it hurts, Senator Conroy—after all the effort of the scare campaign, after all the attempts by the Labor Party; a party without policies, a party without any views on how we should reform Australia.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Order! Minister, the time has concluded.WW4Senator KEMP—Madam President, if I could have a supplementary, I have got a few more quotes from Wesley City Mission to share.11422Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I advise the minister that the information I was asking him was actually provided by the Charities Consultative Committee. As a supplementary question I ask: is the government seriously asking this charity and thousands more like it to restructure themselves to avoid the complexity and paperwork imposed on all charities by the Howard-Lees GST? Should this charity be setting up separate entities, like the North Shore Ladies Committee (Cakes) Unit, the North Shore Ladies Committee (Jams) Unit and the North Shore Ladies Committee (Pickles) Unit? Doesn't this just impose a different set of complexities and paperwork on this charity? Just how is the government going to get itself out of this pickle of its own making?11423Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Rosemary Crowley—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Crowley, please, Senator.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Crowley has done a Shayne Murphy—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator, you should refer to senators correctly.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Crowley is worried that charities will be in the system and Senator Crowley is worried that charities will be out of the system. One of the many good things in this package is that, with the structuring arrangements we have announced, a lot of charities will find it very convenient to take advantage of those arrangements. There are advantages in being in the system, and some charities may see their advantages in being out of the system. It is their choice.1142311423Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—My question is to Senator Ian Macdonald, representing the Minister for Transport. It relates to the proposal by Virgin Airlines to concentrate its Australian operations on the main intercapital trunk routes. Given the existing two domestic airlines operate a national network of services that includes many low density, regional services, what assurances can the senator give the residents of rural and regional Australia that the likely downward pressure on fares charged by the incumbent airlines on trunk routes through Virgin's intended cherry picking strategy does not lead to upward pressures on the less competitive regional routes as a result of the reduced capacity of Ansett and Qantas to cross-subsidise routes?11423Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—We as a government are confident right across the whole spectrum of government activities that competition brings a better deal for customers and brings lower prices. You start from that premise. Senator, you are raising a concern which I also raised when this matter was first mentioned. I have to emphasise that there is no evidence of any of that happening. My point in raising it—and no doubt yours—was just to let people out there know we are looking.When I looked at this question a year or so ago, I made a point of getting some of the company returns for the subsidiaries of Ansett and Qantas who do the rural and regional routes. The reports that I was able to get all showed that they were doing quite nicely as independent units. They are not cross-subsidised by the major trunk route carriers.I am also aware—I have no special knowledge about this; I just use my eyes, read the paper and have a look around—that there are a number of independent players, not related to Qantas or Ansett, who quite successfully operate in rural and regional Australia. One is Flight West, a very good Queensland based airline that runs in rural and regional Queensland and out to Norfolk Island. It seems to be quite profitable, and it provides an excellent service. It does it on its own—it receives no subsidy from Ansett or Qantas. Similarly, Impulse Airlines, operating out of Newcastle, seems to operate quite successfully without any cross-subsidy.I, like you, Senator, want to keep an eye on it. It seems to me that those magnificent services that have been provided by the rural and regional operators for those of us who live in rural and regional Australia will continue. There is nothing in anything that Virgin has done or in anything that Qantas and Ansett have said that would lead me to think there would be any diminution in the services to rural and regional Australia. Virgin will provide huge benefits for those on the major trunk routes. I like to think that people are discovering even more places up my way, like Townsville and Cairns. I think players like Virgin will follow Flight West, Qantas and Ansett in bringing services up there. That again will help with competition, and competition of course brings a better service and reduced costs.Like you, I will keep an eye on it, but I really have no great concerns. I think the services to rural and regional Australia will continue, and I would like to compliment those currently providing those services. Although they are a little expensive and they think that those of us who live in rural and regional Australia are not quite as bulky as some of our intercapital city counterparts—the room given to us on some of the regional airliners is a little bit small—they provide a pretty good service and I congratulate them on it.11424Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I note that the minister is keen to reassure the Senate that everything will be all right on the night. I ask as a supplementary question: does the Commonwealth intend to use the prices powers of the ACCC, or to supplement such powers as necessary, to ensure that users of regional air services do not suffer an increase in relative fare levels arising from the entry of Virgin Australia to the domestic intercapital routes?11424Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QLDLPRegional Services, Territories and Local Government10—If Senator Greig or any other senator or citizen of Australia has any evidence that there are problems, or that there is something untoward happening that the ACCC should look at, then certainly we will refer it to the ACCC, but I do not anticipate that that will happen. The regional routes, as I have already explained, are successful in their own right. I cannot see that there is any need for it. What I can see is that competition will bring better air services right across the spectrum of the Australian airline travelling public and that things will be better. But, certainly, Senator, if you have any evidence, or if something pops up in the future that you are concerned about, by all means refer it to us. Anything untoward will be referred to the ACCC at the earliest possible time.1142411424Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Given that this Christmas is the last Christmas that Australians can enjoy before the introduction of the Howard-Lees GST, can the minister explain what the value of services that can be purchased with a $40 post-GST gift voucher will be as opposed to the value of services that can be purchased with a $40 gift voucher this year?11424Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The first point is that next Christmas Australians will be even better off as a result of the government's policies. Let me tell you what people will receive next Christmas in contrast to this Christmas. Next Christmas the first thing that will come through will be the very major tax cuts. Many families will be in the order of $40 to $50 a week better off even after the imposition of the GST. That is the first thing we will see: families who are better off. We will see pensioners and those who are in receipt of benefits better off.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The answer to this question has been going for well over one minute. I never asked anything about the so-called tax cuts which will make low income Australians worse off; I asked specifically about the value of a gift voucher in services, and what the face value of that will be this year compared with next year under a GST. Will the minister answer that question—it is a clear, precise, specific question—and not evade it by dragging in all the government propaganda about how we are all going to be better off under the GST, which no Australian believes?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—You asked me how Australian families will be next Christmas compared with this Christmas.RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I rise on a point of order. The minister has just rewritten the question. I never asked him that at all. If he would only listen to the question! I will go to it again. Given that this is the last Christmas, can the minister explain what will be the value of services that can be purchased with a $40 post-GST gift voucher as opposed to the value of services that can be purchased with a $40 gift voucher this year? That was the question.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order.WW4Senator KEMP—The point I was trying to make to Senator Cook was that the great thing is that Australian families will be better off next Christmas. The great thing is that Australian families will be even better off. The great thing is that those in receipt of pensions and benefits will be better off. That is important, and it is something we are particularly proud of. We have special assistance for self-funded retirees. All those things are, frankly, very important measures.On the value of the service, the truth of the matter is that in some areas we may see prices of some services rise, and in some other areas we may see prices fall. There will be a range of changes. The truth of the matter is that you would have to specify the particular service, Senator, but we do know that Australian families will be better able to afford to buy vouchers. Some families, because they get the extra $40 or $50 a week, will be able to buy more vouchers and give more gifts. We are very proud of the measures that we are bringing in. The Labor Party opposed tax reform lock, stock and barrel.Those people will get those vouchers next Christmas, and they will see that they will have the money in their pockets to save more or to spend more. It is something that this government is particularly proud of. Everyone looks forward to Christmas, but I have to tell you that, with this tax reform, they will be looking forward to Christmas 2000 with even more enthusiasm than this year.The final point I make is this: what a hypocritical question, coming from Senator Cook. One of his most famous quotes—not the most famous quote, but one of his most famous—was `the Labor Party is a high taxing party'. That was a Senator Cook quote. I would type that as his third most famous quote, Madam President.4J4SCHACHTSenator Schacht—What was the first?WW4Senator KEMP—No, I am not going to say what his first most famous quote was. People are well able to look it up in Hansard .11425Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister did not answer my question but, given his answer, it is incomplete unless he tells Australians they will be paying five per cent to seven per cent more in inflation as a consequence of the GST. My question goes back to the gift voucher. Isn't it a fact that the $40 post-GST gift voucher will be able to purchase only $36.36 worth of services next year as opposed to the full $40 face value of the gift voucher this year? Will you confirm that fact, Minister? Doesn't that mean that the Howard-Lees GST, as it will apply on gift vouchers next year, is no more than a tax on Christmas?11425Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Boy, is Senator Cook struggling now! I will look at one of the areas that Kate Lundy has a particular interest in.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Kemp, do not refer to a senator in that fashion.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Katherine Lundy, for some reason, wants to impose a wholesale sales tax of around 22 per cent on a lot of sporting goods. I do not know why Senator Lundy wants to do that—RF4COOKSenator Cook—Madam President, I raise a point of order. My question was not about Senator Lundy and, in any event, the answer given about Senator Lundy was misleading and misrepresentative. My question was about the gift voucher. It is a simple question. If the minister is not capable of answering it, will he just sit down.Honourable senators interjecting—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Madam President, on the point of order—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—She's already ruled.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—I have not ruled. Some of you are making too much noise.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I think Senator Kemp is being relevant to the question. He is talking about gifts that one might buy at Christmas time. If he wants to remain relevant, I think he should also explain to the Senate that, with a $40 gift voucher, under Liberal policies you could buy three CDs next Christmas, and if you stuck to Labor's policies on CDs and taxation you would be lucky to buy one.Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—The issue is being debated and there is no point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I have a further point of order. In recognising Senator Campbell and taking that point of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—It was not a taking of a point of order.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am aware it was not a point of order, but you did say `point of order'. You ruled it was not a point of order—10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, sit down. Senator Cook had raised a point of order—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I am aware of that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Remain quiet while I finish saying what I am saying. Senator Cook took a point of order, Senator Campbell rose to speak to the point of order, and when there was sufficient silence around so that he was likely to hear, I called him to speak to the point of order that Senator Cook had made. I have not yet ruled on that point of order, and you have intervened. If you wish to speak to that, you may.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—I was trying to do that.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—You were seeking to raise another point of order, which is why I intervened.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—The point I am making is this: when a government minister is in trouble and the government is in damage control, government members use the device of taking spurious points of order or they speak to points of order and make spurious debating points. That is out of order. If Senator Kemp cannot answer a question in question time, and he cannot answer this one, he should sit down and take it on notice.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order and that was not an appropriate contribution either.WW4Senator KEMP—The point I am making is that, in many cases, the real value of the voucher will improve. For example, this Christmas Senator Lundy wants to impose a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on sporting goods. We are taking that off and imposing a 10 per cent GST. The short answer to Senator Cook is that the real value of vouchers may well rise.1142611426Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—My question is to the Assistant Treasurer. The A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 provides, in section 40E, for a school tuckshop or canteen run by a non-profit body to elect to have all its supplies of food treated as input taxed. The cost of the GST on inputs will be passed to the students. This will be particularly hard on parents who organise school tuckshops and canteens run on a non-profit basis. Given that the government is now expecting to reap additional revenue through the higher business registration, will the minister consider making a determination under section 38(3) to extend GST-free status to all food supplied to students in school tuckshops run by non-profit parent-teacher organisations?11426Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Harris for that question. Tuckshops which are run by a non-profit body at a primary school or a secondary school and which supply only food may choose to be input taxed—that is their choice—and they will be outside the GST system. Where this occurs, the tuckshop will not charge GST on sales of food, but it will not be entitled to claim input tax credits for GST paid on its purchases. In this case, the tuckshop's revenue can be excluded from the annual turnover of the non-profit body for GST registration purposes. People will make their own judgments, but I think many parent associations will choose to be input taxed and not charge GST on food. That is a choice that they will have. That is another area where this government is flexible. We are providing options to people.The other point I think Senator Harris referred to was a windfall rise in GST revenue. Senator Harris, I think you were probably referring to an article which appeared in the Financial Review yesterday. The increase in estimates of GST registrations reflects both the normal increase in new business registrations from year to year, more up-to-date ATO data and, of course—thanks to this government—a stronger economy. They are the economic parameters. Growth factors are already factored into the Treasury revenue estimates for the GST. The growth in business numbers therefore, I am advised, would not of itself result in any increase in revenue over and above the current Treasury estimates.The point I want to make to the Senate—and we have had a number of questions today on this issue—is that this government is providing flexibility for non-profit bodies. In the case of school tuckshops, there is a flexibility. You have to view this whole package. Many families will be $40 to $50 a week better off as a result of our tax package. The fact of the matter is, as we discussed with Senator Cook with respect to the voucher issue, that many families are going to be better off. They will have more money in their pockets. This is something that this government is very proud of. I hope that provides the response that you were seeking. We will not be going further, but I think that is a response which shows the flexibility that this government has in relation to making sure that we have a system which is fair to all types of organisations.11427Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQldIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. My supplementary question goes back to the original question to some extent. The question was whether the government would give, through section 38(3), a GST-free status to the food. That was the basis of the question. That would allow them to not have to pay the GST or decide whether they would claim inputs or not. Bearing that in mind, if the government did exercise that consideration, would the minister be able to inform the chamber what the relative costs of granting that concession would be?11427Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not have any figures here at the moment which could assist you, but I will look to see whether there are any figures that I am able to supply to you, Senator.1142711427Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the minister aware of the Treasurer's statement yesterday where he said:So that if a charity wants to stay outside the system, and it's up to it how it structures its activities, unless the project is going over $100 000 they can stay right outside the system.How does this statement accord with the Treasurer's press release of 29 October where he said:This means that, where the unit's turnover is less than $50 000, the unit can choose whether it registers for GST or not.The Treasurer further stated:Where the unit has a turnover of $50 000 or more, it will have to register separately for GST.Can the Assistant Treasurer just try to inform us what the registration threshold is—$50,000 or $100,000? If the Treasurer himself is not sure, how will charities know?11427Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That was the whole point of the announcement yesterday. I am very glad that Senator Sherry referred to the Treasurer's comments because I think they are extremely important, and it provides me with an opportunity to properly inform the Senate exactly what the Treasurer said. He said:Well, they can structure their affairs so that they can take advantage of it on individual fundraising activities.This was an issue that Senator Crowley raised with us.YW4MACDONALDSenator Ian Macdonald—Hang on, she's gone.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, Senator Crowley seems to have departed. The Treasurer said:So that if a charity wants to stay outside the system, and it's up to it how it structures its activities, unless the project is going over $100 000 they can stay right outside the system.Then he went on to say:Well, staying outside the system means that they don't have any registration—they don't have any advantages of the GST—but of course they don't have any price requirements in relation to the GST.The Treasurer then went on to make the very important point—a useful point to sum up this question time—that there are some 156 countries that have a GST type system. These countries are not going back to the Labor Party wholesale sales tax. No-one is arguing that they should go back to the Labor Party wholesale sales tax system, except maybe the Labor Party. As I have said in this chamber before, the truth of the matter is that the hardest question you ever get in this chamber is: what does the Labor Party stand for?LD4ALSTONSenator Alston—There's no answer, really.WW4Senator KEMP—As my colleague Senator Alston said, there is no answer to that question. We do not know what your tax policy is. You do not know what your tax policy is.RF4COOKSenator Cook—No GST.WW4Senator KEMP—No GST? I hope I have clarified the position for Senator Sherry.11428Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The point of the question went to why the Treasurer on one day said the threshold was $50,000 and on another day said it was $100,000. If the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not sure about how the new tax will operate—and the Assistant Treasurer has never had any idea about how it will operate—what hope do voluntary organisations, small businesses and ordinary Australians have? What happened to the simple new tax?11428Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to that is this—and it is not me; it is the Salvation Army. This is what the Salvation Army said yesterday.Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—The Salvation Army will speak for charities, not you. It is this:The Salvation Army is now comfortable with the GST with the compensation that has been provided by the government. We have signed off on it more or less.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Wasn't that just the bloke who answered the phone and was trying to be helpful?10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, you should not be talking across the chamber in that fashion. There is an appropriate time for you to intervene and debate the issue, and that is after question time.WW4Senator KEMP—I must say to the senator who made the interjection that it was a most disgraceful interjection. I hope the Salvation Army—AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Read the whole thing.WW4Senator KEMP—I am happy to read the whole thing. If any of my colleagues want to stand up after question time and take note, I hope that they will be able to read the whole thing into the record to see what an utterly bogus, hopeless group the Labor Party has become under the leadership of Beazley in the other place and Senator Faulkner in this chamber.AX5EVANSSenator Chris Evans—Madam Deputy President, I take a point of order. I invite the minister to table the document, if he is so confident of its contents.10000PRESIDENTThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. Senator Kemp?WW4Senator KEMP—No.BH4HILLSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .1142815:01:0011428Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to questions without notice asked by senators today, relating to the goods and services tax.During question time once again the inadequacy of this government in explaining the GST was revealed. There is no explanation at all as to why a rapacious government like this would want to impose a tax on Australian charities. The charitable movement in Australia is an honourable one. The charitable movement in Australia is driven by the idealism of many people who make personal sacrifices to see that Australians in greater need than them receive services. And what is the government's way of honouring that effort by many volunteer Australian charitable workers? Its way of honouring it is to tax them—and not only to tax them. Now that opposition to that tax has been raised by the charitable organisations themselves—Government senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much noise in this chamber. I ask speakers to address the chair and for interjections to cease.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—In the debate we have just had during question time, Senator Kemp said, `What does the Labor Party stand for?' Well, it stands for a lot of things, none of which he said it stood for, of course. One of the things it does stand for, clearly and up-front and in your face, is no GST. Under that heading that also means no GST—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Your leader said you will only roll it back.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Oh, why don't you drop dead!10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, would you please withdraw that imputation.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—The Labor Party's position is they support rolling back a GST. They support the GST but we are not sure by how much. So it is a lie to say they don't support the GST—an unmitigated lie.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator Campbell!H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We stand for no GST and we voted in this chamber against a GST—H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—That's rubbish! You hypocrite!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You know it, and you are only envious—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell, you have made an unparliamentary comment. Would you please withdraw it.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—I withdraw.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—We stand for no GST on charities and we stand for no cash-for-comment blackmail on Australian charities.H15CAMPBELLSenator Ian Campbell—Tell the truth. Aren't you capable of telling the truth?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—You have never made it to the ministry and you are very keen to get there. Fortunately, the Prime Minister in overlooking you, Senator Campbell, for front bench preference has made the right decision. It is a decision I applaud him for. Today I received an email, which all senators received, from the honorary secretary of the Motor Neurone Disease Research Institute, who says in part:I have had conflicting opinions about whether the GST will apply to our operation. If it does there will be 10 per cent less money available for research. The institute exists to provide funds for research into a devastating terminal disease of considerable cruelty, of unknown cause and no cure.She goes on:The doubt about application of GST seems to me to hinge on one factor: Will the production of a report on completed research be considered to be an outcome and will the allocation of funds be considered pay for that outcome? If the institute's support for research is liable for GST then we have a situation in which there will be 10 per cent reduction in funded research, research which is vital to those living with motor neurone disease. Their fate is a cruel enough one without having the hard raised funding reduced by taxation.That is from a leading charitable organisation doing valuable work on a disease that some Australians are afflicted with. The government should show sympathy. There is no sympathy here, other than, `We will teach you how to evade the tax.' Let me come back to that in a minute. Today I have a press report from the Daily Liberal , a newspaper in country New South Wales, dated Tuesday of this week, which states:"Complying with GST would cost the Western region diocese of St Vincent de Paul at least $40,000 a year," it was claimed yesterday.It goes on to say:That is what St Vincent de Paul say will be the effect of it.This is a tax imposed by the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Democrats. We know that there have been talks going on behind the scenes because their backbench has been stampeded by this insensitive, unfeeling, impersonal tax being imposed on Australian charities. But what sympathy do we get from these parties about the plight of Australian charities and the need to turn every dollar they raise to the benefit of the charitable purposes for which they exist? Senator Murray, the Democrat spokesman on taxation, said today, `The fact is that we agreed charities would be within the new tax system. For those charities who don't want to be in the new tax system, well, they are going to be.' That is an unfeeling, unsympathetic attitude to Australian charities trying to raise a quid by the local raffle, by the lamington drive, by the cake stall, to serve the needs of their charitable organisations. The response from the government is to say, `Restructure your affairs', but restructuring your affairs means a new legal entity, a new set of books, a new auditor, and you people use it on administration, not on services. (Time expired)15:08:0011430Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6WALP10—Senator Cook, you can keep on trying but you are not going to get there.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Address the chair, please, Senator Eggleston.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Through the chair, of course, Madam Deputy President. As long as Senator Cook keeps trying, he is not going to make the case that charities do not accept the GST. As was said on ABC national television on the 7.30 Report last night, Mr Daley from the Salvation Army said:It's a fact of payments out and then receiving payments back. We're satisfied that all the issues have been dealt with and that we're not going to be jeopardised in any way, or it's not going to be a negative for us.That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Here you have a spokesman for the Salvation Army saying that they are not at all unhappy about the way charities will be treated under the new tax system. So, regardless of Senator Cook's attempts, the fact remains that across the board charities are quite happy with the way this system will work.Let us think about how it will affect the clients of charities. What does the new tax system mean for the clients of charities and will they benefit? In fact, the clients of charities will be much better off under the new tax system. They will be better off because there will be a real increase in pensions and allowances which will give them more spending power. They will be better off because there will be tax cuts worth $12 billion a year which will benefit low income earners and give them more spending power. The beneficiaries of charities will be better off because there will be an increase in family benefits. There will be a reduction in the incidence of poverty traps, and the new tax system will underpin our social security safety net, provide better education services and better health services. So, in a multitude of ways, the beneficiaries of charities will benefit from the new tax system.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You don't believe this.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I believe every word of it, Senator Faulkner, and I know that you know in your heart that it is true that these people will benefit.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You are more stupid than I thought you were.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—Senator Faulkner, there is a hollow ring—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Eggleston, address the chair, please, and try to ignore those interjections.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—because there is no doubt that the ALP will keep the GST when and if they ever return to power. Paul Keating wanted to introduce a tax like this. Here we are: it is on the agenda, it has happened. When you come back into office you will leave it there because you know that most countries in the OECD have this kind of indirect tax system. This was a very necessary step forward that Australia had to take. As a matter of public policy the ALP will not remove it.Let us look at how the GST will affect charities. First of all, non-commercial activities which will not be subject to the GST include supplies that are less than 50 per cent of the market value of such items, supplies that are less than 50 per cent of the cost to the charities providing the supply, or the supply of second-hand donated goods. It is true that the commercial activities of charities will be treated the same as the commercial activities of any ordinary business to ensure that ordinary businesses are not put at a competitive disadvantage. Charities will be entitled to register for the GST if they so desire and if their gross income is above the threshold levels, which will mean they will generally be able to claim back the GST paid on all their inputs as input credits. Fundraising done through sponsorship from businesses will be largely unaffected by the GST.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—You believe all this, do you?4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I do believe it, and I know you do, too, Senator Faulkner. Here you are pretending that you do not see the benefits of this tax.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, cease interjecting. Senator Eggleston, please address the chair and ignore those interjections.4L6Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON—I will, Madam Deputy President. I know that you as Deputy President would not want to see any persons like Senator Faulkner on the opposite side making misleading statements about not believing in the benefits of this tax system. Fundraising for charities done through donations—(Time expired)15:13:0011431Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6NTALP00—People at home who have been listening to the events of the parliament in the last few days should be left in no doubt at all that Ebenezer Scrooge is not in fact a fictional character in a story book but that Ebenezer Scrooge is alive and well in the hearts of each and every member of the federal government. What we have seen this week from this debacle of the impact of the GST on charities is that this government is very strong on taxing the weak and very weak on taxing the strong or the rich members of our society.We have a government that wants to turn charities into tax collectors. We have a government that is also quite inconsistent about its policies and where it is going. Yesterday Senator Kemp stood up in the Senate and told us that World Vision sponsorship, for example, could be subject to the tax. The GST will be payable on money you pay to World Vision to sponsor a little child overseas. At the same time, in the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister was forced to declare a backdown, whereby a GST exemption for child sponsorships would apply. We have heard a great deal of inconsistency about their policy on the GST. If the ordinary person sitting at home does not understand this policy, you could well understand why. Even the members of this government do not know how this policy is going to apply.We now have a GST on compassion. We have a GST on the goodwill in people's hearts. Let us look at the elderly volunteers, for example, who run a stall at the base hospital in Orange. They raise over $200,000 per year, probably using old ice-cream containers or tins such as that for a till, and donate over $100,000 to that hospital because they believe in the cause. They believe that they are trying to raise some money for the hospital. They will now be caught up in the GST bungle.The answer today from this government is that charities will now have a choice. They will not have a choice. The choice will be that if you have a turnover of under $100,000, you can opt to be part of the system or not. If your turnover is over $100,000, you are in the system. The choice is either whether they bother with all the paperwork and try to recoup some of the money back that they will be paying on the GST or whether they will say it is all too hard.The real essence of this is that there will be a decline in the number of volunteers in this country who willingly give their time to charities and volunteer to bank this money or do the limited paperwork that is now required. Charitable organisations will be relying more and more on fewer and fewer people. No-one will be bothered being a tax collector for this government when they want to spend their time raising money and assisting the charities that they believe are worthwhile assisting. At the end of the day, we will see less money for activities and those people that those charities are designed to assist.Nobody in the community believes Senator Eggleston or Senator Kemp when they say that this will be a good thing for people who are poor and struggling and for organisations that need these extra funds. Nobody believes that. I cannot believe that the government is so out of touch with the anger in the community at this time as this GST debacle rolls out before their eyes.We have a tax on compassion. We are turning charities into tax collectors. We really want the government to stand up and say categorically that they will be exempting charities and their fundraising efforts from the GST. That is what ACOSS have called for and that is what charities have called for from day one. They want a complete exemption from this debacle and a complete acknowledgment by this government that they play a very valuable role in this community. That role will now be turned into nothing less than a tax collector for the federal government.15:18:0011432Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSONEP5SALP10—We have listened to various senators speak in here today. One thing we really know is that, as far as the Labor Party is concerned, it is a great pretence that they do not believe in the GST. If the Labor Party does not believe in the GST, why do they not come out and say that they will get rid of it in the unlikely event they are elected? Not once have they been prepared to say that they will get rid of the GST. With that in mind, one can only assume that they actually support a GST. They will not at any stage get up and say that they will remove the GST in the unlikely event that they are elected.Senator Crossin will not say it. She makes statements that are simply not true. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate her claim that the number of volunteers will decline. Volunteers have been declining under the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax. They have been declining in number over the years. All these service clubs that have been mentioned today have been declining in number all the time we have had the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax. So do not blame a decline in numbers on the GST.In question time, Senator Cook spoke about the value of a $40 voucher this Christmas compared with a $40 voucher next Christmas. Under the sound economic management of this government, that $40 voucher could actually be a voucher worth well over $100 if that person is paying a mortgage on their house. In the time that this government has been in power, we have been able to put more than approximately $100 week per week extra in a house buyer's pocket because interest rates are so much lower than they were when we came to office. They have more spending power now.Senator Cook did not say anything about the giver of that $40 having income tax cuts next July. He conveniently forgot that. The $12 billion worth of income tax cuts being delivered by this government will allow somebody who gives a $40 gift voucher this year to actually give more next year.Senator O'Brien interjecting—EP5Ferguson, Sen AlanSenator FERGUSON—Senator O'Brien can say all he likes by way of interjection, but the proof is in the pudding. Senator O'Brien is another of those members opposite who does not want the GST removed. He wants to keep it there in the unlikely event that those opposite happen to form a government.Senator Cook's question about a $40 voucher was naturally aimed at getting some cheap headline. He never mentioned anything about the real increase in pensions and allowances that will occur. He never mentioned anything about the $12 billion worth of tax cuts that will flow on to Australian taxpayers on 1 July next year. He never mentioned the increase in family benefits. There was not a word about the positive side of tax reform. There was only the harping negative side as he tried to find specific instances and nitpick. Even then, he did not come up with the correct facts.Senator Cook never said anything about reducing the incidence of poverty traps. One of the key planks of this taxation reform is to try to reduce the incidence of poverty traps, something which you did not even attempt to tackle during 13 years of Labor government. I remember Senator Murray saying at one of our tax inquiries that this is the first time any government in recent times has done anything to try to tackle the poverty traps that exist and the disincentives for people to work or to work harder or to earn more. There was not a word from Senator Cook about the new tax system, which is going to underpin our social security safety net, education, health and all of those other things that are so important to all the members of our community.My advice to the Labor Party is to stop the scaremongering tactics. Do not frighten Australians. Everything that you have said today is not designed to present the truth to the public, it is designed to try to scare the public into believing something that simply will not happen. We had Senator Crossin saying that the number of volunteers will decline, as though the number has been increasing in the last number of years. We all know that all voluntary organisations over a long period of time have struggled to maintain their numbers. The Labor Party actually like the GST because they have no intention of removing it. I know Senator McKiernan is another one who thinks that we should keep it. (Time expired)15:23:0011433McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—With regard to the remarks of the previous speaker, Senator Ferguson, I am not one of the people in this chamber who can be accused of getting up here and scaremongering in the past, and I am not going to do it at the moment. What I am going to do, though, is something quite unusual. I am going to quote from the Daily Liberal . This is a newspaper that operates in the western district of New South Wales. It is not within my constituency but, because of its name and because of what the editorial of yesterday says, it is well worth while reading it into the record to see where this scaremongering is coming from and to see where the facts and the truths, and where the fears of the charitable organisations, are coming from. It will not take very long to read. The editorial says:The western region branch of St Vincent de Paul Society believes it will cost $40,000 to comply with GST regulations when they come into force on July 1, 2000.This particular case, which won't be uncommon among charities and other community non-profit groups, highlights the difference between the current system of exemptions and a system immersed in paperwork.At the moment—Senator Ferguson should listen to this—registered charities and some other groups are exempt from paying wholesale sales tax. It's a fairly simple procedure requiring a registration number and little or no paperwork during the transaction. Under the Federal Government's GST guidelines there is a significantly more complex system which will tax corporate sponsorships, fetes, food vouchers, refuges and even sheltered workshops.The Australian Tax Office has admitted GST compliance costs will eat into charity funds and volunteers will need training to cope with GST paperwork and personally bear the additional out-of-pocket expenses.It is a significant quote coming from the Daily Liberal . I believe it is quite an accurate portrayal of the fears that abound in our community of those organisations which provide such a service to the Australian community.Even Mr Costello has heard of these fears. Yesterday in the House of Representatives Mr Costello tried to calm nerves, but what he also did was to actually tell it like it is. He has told the charities that operate in Australia that, whichever way they turn, they are going to get it in the neck. They are going to get it in the neck because if they register that they have over $100,000 in inputs, they will have all the associated paperwork. If they do not have $100,000 in inputs and seek not to register, then they are going to be hit with the GST on the inputs. So whichever way they turn they are going to cop it—they are going to cop it going and they are going to cop it coming back as well. Today's Adelaide Advertiser says:And Mr Costello said large charities with big turnovers would still escape the tax by separating their individual activities into units worth less than $100,000.But by doing this, charities would still be caught in the GST net because they would not be allowed to claim the rebates for the GST on products they purchase.For example, a parent group with a turnover of less than $100,000 would still have to pay the GST on items such as some foods for the tuckshop, raffle prizes and clothes for the uniform shop. The group could sell the items GST-free but would not be able to claim back any of the GST it paid for the stock.As we approach the last year of the current century, Ebenezer Scrooge is well and truly alive. But what is the identity of Ebenezer Scrooge? Is it John Howard? Is it Mr Costello? Or is it Senator Lees?10000McKiernan, Sen JamesThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Please do not reflect upon a member of the other house or a senator.1I4McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN—The answer to that question is still to be found out.Question resolved in the affirmative.1143415:29:0011434Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWAAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) to a question without notice asked by Senator Greig today, relating to airline competition and regional air services.In his answer, Senator Ian Macdonald repeated his commitment to competition and to rural and regional Australia, and also indicated his enthusiasm for and interest in the proposal by Virgin to work within Australia. It is true that there is considerable interest and concern over the proposal by Virgin Airlines to operate here. I think this concern and interest is in two parts.Firstly, there is the excitement from many people in the general community about the prospect of a third airline operating within Australia and what this new competition might mean in terms of cheaper air fares. I can remember the immense support in my home state of Western Australia for the emergence some years ago of Compass Airlines and the way in which it dramatically altered the cost of interstate flights, which plunged dramatically and for the first time made it possible for many West Australians who previously had not been able to afford interstate airfares to then do so. This jolt to the airline duopoly has had long-reaching effects and the legacy of Compass to today's consumers is a domestic airfares regime that is more accessible and affordable than it was in the past.Alongside the understandable interest in the emergence of Virgin Airlines is the very real concern about the cherry picking operations that Virgin proposes to employ. That is, by choosing to work only the main capital city trunk routes—largely Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane—the pressure will almost certainly be applied to both Ansett and Qantas to lower their trunk route fares in response to the competition from Virgin. This will undoubtedly apply equal pressure to both Ansett and Qantas to either increase fares on their less popular and less frequented sectors or perhaps to wind back these services altogether.Today's press and the Brisbane Courier-Mail report that Mr Richard Branson's Virgin Airlines has crossed its first major hurdle towards establishing a third domestic airline after the federal government granted foreign investment approval. Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, yesterday announced the approval under new rules which allow foreign carriers to establish new domestic aviation businesses provided they are in the national interest. This raises the question of what constitutes the national interest, and it is in this context that I raise my real concerns about the potential downgrading of services to rural and regional areas, or perhaps the more likely scenario of low frequency sectors used by Ansett and Qantas being the subject of price hikes as these airlines continue to service those areas not serviced by Virgin but under the added financial pressure being placed on them by competition.Competition in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it can only work fairly if there is a level playing field. In a previous answer on this matter when it was raised by my colleague Senator Woodley, Senator Macdonald said:This particular issue is one thing I think the government just has to keep an eye on to make sure there is not any diminution in the bush.But this issue is about not only how the emergence of Virgin may adversely affect the bush, but also the way in which less popular sectors such as Perth to Adelaide or Adelaide to Darwin may be affected by potential price increases. The Australian Competition and Consumer Council, the ACCC, would appear to be well placed to monitor and report on this, particularly in terms of potential price increases as a result of what might rightly be seen as unfair trade practices. Again Senator Macdonald made reference to this in a previous answer to my colleague Senator Woodley when asked about the demise of Compass Airlines and the apparent difficulties imposed on it by Qantas or Ansett in terms of airport space and general terminal facilities.Today I asked the minister whether the Commonwealth intends to use the prices power of the ACCC and whether it intends to supplement such powers as necessary to ensure that users of regional services do not suffer an increase in relative fare levels arising from the entry of Virgin Australia into the domestic intercapital routes. In reply, the minister indicated that, if any adverse illegal or improper behaviour towards Virgin could be shown, then it ought to be directed to the ACCC. It is a reply that very strongly suggests reaction rather than action.I think, however, that I express the views and concerns of many Australians when I say that, to date, the government has not been altogether convincing with its assurances of consumer protection and consumer equity for those travellers in the less popular flight sectors currently serviced, and well serviced for the most part, by the existing duopoly. In a sense what many Australians are asking is: will the Commonwealth establish safeguards to ensure that the quality and frequency of regional airline services operated by Qantas and Ansett are not compromised by the entry of Virgin Australia? While the government has made reassuring noises about the benefits of competition and its professed commitment to rural and regional areas—and by implication to more isolated cities such as Perth—there has not yet been any real tangible action to match these words with particular regard to ensuring equity for domestic airline travellers. The government needs to make clear its attitude towards the prospect of Virgin Australia as a fully foreign owned company. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.1143510001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:114351008U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any further attempts by the Australian Government to establish a national or international nuclear waste dump within Australia.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, new reactors, waste dumps, and sales of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 100 citizens)114351208U4Lees Sen MegTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes any attempts by the Australian Government to mine uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National Park or any other proposed or currently operating site.Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any intentions by the Australian Government to support the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment and sale of uranium.Senator Lees8U4Senator Lees(from 120 citizens)11435168684NLudwig Sen JoeTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned are concerned about the impact the Government's second wave of industrial relations changes on working Queenslanders and their families.Your petitioners call on the Senate to reject outright the Howard/Reith Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999.Senator Ludwig84NSenator Ludwig(from 1,686 citizens)114353584MMason Sen BrettTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:We the undersigned believe the government should allow the freedom of choice for injecting drug users to have government funded access to alternative detoxification programs. We urge careful and safe rapid detox treatments, such as Naltrexone, be publicly funded under Medicare and an increase in rehabilitation and counselling for drug addicts.Senator Mason84MSenator Mason(from 35 citizens)1143514884MMason Sen BrettTo the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:We the undersigned believe the government should allow the freedom of choice for injecting drug users to have government funded access to alternative detoxification programs. We urge careful and safe rapid detox treatments, such as Naltrexone, to be publicly funded under Medicare and an increase in rehabilitation and counselling for drug addicts. Legal surveys indicate that 60 per cent funded methadone patients want to cease therapy. If this result applies nationally this would suggest that the Queensland government is imprisoned 15,000-20,000 people on methadone. We demand the tools to set them free, as our right, with the highest priority and urgency.Senator Mason84MSenator Mason(from 148 citizens)Petitions received.Notices1143611436Senator Murphy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the operation of the Australian Taxation Office be extended to 17 February 2000.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on the effectiveness of education and training programs for indigenous Australians be extended to 9 March 2000.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That paragraph (4) of the order of the Senate of 30 November 1999 relating to estimates hearings be varied to add `Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1999-2000 (tabled 30 November 1999 )'.Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting: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, the committee groupings for the hearings be modified as follows:Group A Omit: `Legal and Constitutional' Substitute: `Economics'.Group B Omit: `Economics' Substitute: `Legal and Constitutional'.Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No. NPF 02), made under subsection 20(1) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 , be disallowed.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) recognises that the Government's Internet censorship regime will commence operation on 1 January 2000;(b) notes: (i) that 3 weeks prior to the commencement of the Internet censorship regime, no industry code has yet been registered, (ii) the concerns of some Internet industry groups that neither the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) nor the Government has appropriately responded to queries regarding the registration of regional, or specialist, industry codes, (iii) that no details have yet been provided by the ABA regarding the operation of the reporting and complaints mechanism, (iv) that crucial details about the technical operation of the Internet censorship regime, including notification mechanisms, have not yet been provided by the ABA, making it difficult, if not impossible, to prepare for the commencement of the regime, and (v) that Internet content hosts and Internet service providers will be subject to a range of penalties, operating from the date of commencement; and(c) calls on the Government to repeal the Internet censorship legislation and replace it with a workable framework based on education and responsibility.Senator Conroy to move, three sitting days hence:That provisions 6.3 and 6.4 of Accounting Standard AASB1015, made under section 334 of the Corporations Law, be disallowed.Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matters be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for inquiry and report by the end of the second sitting week in April 2000:(a) whether the finding of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that the Native Title Amendment Act 1998 is inconsistent with Australia's international legal obligations, in particular, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, is sustainable on the weight of informed opinion;(b) what amendments are required to the Act, and what processes of consultation must be followed in effecting those amendments, to ensure that Australia's international obligations are complied with; and(c) whether dialogue with the CERD on the Act would assist in establishing a better-informed basis for amendment to the Act.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table, no later than 4 pm on 6 March 2000, details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same-sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation.Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the provisions of the Northern Prawn Fishery Amendment Management Plan 1999 (No. NPF 02), made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and tabled in the Senate on 24 November 1999, be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2000, with particular reference to:(a) the impact of the plan on the environmental sustainability of the Northern Prawn Fishery and overall fishing effort; and(b) the likely impact on the viability of existing prawn trawler operators and whether the plan will favour larger commercial operators.Committees11437114371143715:36:0011437Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—I present the 21st report of 1999 of the Selection of Bills Committee.Ordered that the report be adopted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The report read as follows—SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEEREPORT NO. 21 OF 19991. The Committee met on 7 December 1999.2. The committee resolved to recommend-(a) That the provisions of the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateCustoms Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyLegal and Constitutional16 February 2000(b) That the following bill be referred to a committee:Bill titleStage at which referredLegislation committeeReporting dateSydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral)immediatelyEnvironment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts7 March 2000(c) That the following bills not be referred to committees:. Appropriation (East Timor) Bill 1999-2000. Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 1999 . National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 1999.The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 19 October 1999). Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 10) 1999(deferred from meeting of 23 November 1999). Customs Amendment (Anti-Radioactive Waste Storage Dump) Bill 1999(deferred from meeting of 30 November 1999). Albury-Wodonga Development Amendment Bill 1999. Criminal Code Amendment (Application) Bill 1999. Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999. Gladstone Power Station Agreement (Repeal) Bill 1999. Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1999.(Paul Calvert)Chair8 December 1999Appendix 1Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill:Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Bill 1999Reasons for referral/principal issues for considerationThe bill was introduced on 24 November 1999. If the bill goes through the Senate this sitting period, it will be without the opportunity for public debate or parliamentary scrutiny. The bill introduces an external search procedure which may have potential civil liberties ramifications. The parliament should have the opportunity of ensuring that the appropriate safeguards are incorporated in the bill.Possible submission or evidence from:Committee to which bill is to be referred:Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s) :Possible reporting date :signedKerry O'BrienWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberAppendix 2Proposal to refer a bill to a committeeName of bill :Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:Upon introduction of the bill, the issues relating to the disposal and protection of the land that is no longer required by the Department of Defence need to be considered, including issues of land conservation and heritage significance. The committee needs to examine the adequacy of the bill in ensuring the ongoing preservation of the environmental and heritage values of the Sydney Harbour foreshore areas, and the necessity of maintaining public ownership of and access to those areas.Possible submission or evidence from:Defenders of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore 02 9487 2854Mosman, Manly, Leichhardt and Hunters Hill local councilsNature Conservation Trust of NSW 02 9279 2466National Trust NSW 02 9258 0123`Friends of Cockatoo Island'Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation CommitteePossible hearing date(s):Possible reporting date: March 2000(signed)Vicki BourneWhip/Selection of Bills Committee memberNotices1143811438Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, postponed till 16 February 2000.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 9 December 1999.General business notice of motion no. 398 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to human rights abuses in Kosovo, postponed till 9 December 1999. Committees114391143911439Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry (to commence not before 31 March 2000) and report by 31 October 2000:(a) an examination of the allocation of funding from the Commonwealth's $4.5 million fund for electro-magnetic radiation research and public information;(b) a review of current Australian and international research into electro-magnetic radiation and its effects as it applies to telecommunications equipment, including but not limited to, mobile telephones;(c) an examination of the current Australian Interim Standard [AS/NZS 2772.1 (Int): 1998], as it applies to telecommunications;(d) an examination of efforts to set an Australian Standard dealing with electro-magnetic emissions; and(e) an examination of the merits of the transfer of the responsibility for setting a new Australian standard for electro-magnetic emissions to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency.Miscellaneous11439Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that: (i) the third biennial World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference Seattle meeting of the WTO commenced on 28 November 1999, and (ii) European Union members have agreed to require labels for food containing greater than one per cent genetically-modified DNA; and(b) urges the Australian delegation to the meeting to recognise Australian public support for the labelling of genetically-modified foods and support the right of individual countries to pursue labelling regimes. Committees114391143911439Motion (by Senator Cooney) agreed to: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 2000.1143911439Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Denman) agreed to:That the Senate resolution of 26 August 1997 relating to the declaration of gifts intended for the Senate be modified as follows:Omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute:(b) A gift is to be taken as intended to be a gift to the Senate or the Parliament where: (i) the donor expressly states that the gift is to the Senate or to the Parliament; or (ii) the identity of the donor, the nature of the occasion, or the intrinsic significance or value of the gift is such that it is reasonable to assume that the gift was intended for the Senate or the Parliament.(ba) In the absence of express intent, it will not be assumed that a gift was intended for the Senate or the Parliament where the gift has a value below the following thresholds: (i) $500 when given by an official government source; or (ii) $200 when given by a private person or non-government body on any occasion when the senator is present in his or her capacity as a senator, Senate office-holder or delegation leader or member.(bb) In the absence of express intent, it will not be assumed that a gift was intended for the Senate or the Parliament merely because the gift has a value above those thresholds.114391143915:39:0011439Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VICALP00—I present the 20th report of 1999 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.Ordered that the report be printed.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.This is the last report of the year and of the century, and of the millennium by some counts, and I think it appropriate that I make some mention of people who have contributed to the work of the committee over the year. First of all, I want to thank the members of the committee—my Deputy Chair, Senator Crane, and Senators Crossin, Ferris, Mason and Murray—for the productive and committed spirit in which the committee has worked and for the considerable attention to detail which is necessary. They bring a sense of fairness and of what is a proper process to the consideration of the legislation that comes before the committee. It makes for reports which I think are very successful in the light of that approach.Secondly, I want to thank the ministers and parliamentary secretaries for the comprehensive and expeditious responses that they have made when the committee has raised issues. That has been very good, and I want to acknowledge that those responses, together with the letters that are written, improve both the quality of the legislation dealt with and the quality of the debate about that legislation.There is no Bill of Rights in Australia. We are the only English-speaking country of our particular kind that does not have a Bill of Rights. England, Canada, the United States and New Zealand do. In so far as there is scrutiny of legislation at a parliamentary level, it takes place in this committee, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, and in the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, which is chaired by Senator Coonan. Civil life, civil rights and civil liberties have been considerably enhanced by these two committees. There is probably still a need for a Bill of Rights, but I think these two committees do a sterling job.That work has much to do with the efforts put in by the counsel who guides the committee, Professor Jim Davis from the ANU Law School. I want to thank him for his work during the year. I particularly want to thank the secretariat, Margaret Lindeman, Sue Blunden and James Warmenhoven. He has been put last in these notes I have, which were prepared by him. He is a very modest man but a man who is worthy of great praise. I thank him and the staff for their assistance. We look forward to scrutinising legislation in the next year, the next century and the next millennium.Question resolved in the affirmative.114401144015:44:0011440Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I present the report of the Community Affairs References Committee entitled Rocking the cradle: a report into childbirth procedures , together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings, submissions and additional information.Ordered that the report be printed.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I am very pleased to table this report called Rocking the Cradle , a report on childbirth practices and procedures in Australia at the end of the millennium. I suppose I could say I would rather like to go out of the century rocking something, if not the boat at least the cradle.Government senators interjecting—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEY—Thank you very much, gentlemen, I am extremely pleased that you should come in, suckers, on that one—absolutely wonderful. But I have to also say, colleagues across the chamber, that it allows me to at least admit a certain consistency.First of all, I want to thank the secretariat—Elton Humphrey, Christine McDonald, Leonie Peake, Ingrid Zappe, Peter Short and, in particular, for the large bulk of the work, Mary Lindsay . I would also particularly like to thank the many hospitals where we held public hearings. Unlike many other inquiries, we held our hearings in the hospitals and that allowed us then to very quickly visit the birthing centres and have a look at the neonatal intensive care wards. There is nothing like going to see for getting our head around the latest developments and to see also the care and effort with which people are assisted in childbirth in this country.However, there are some points that emerged during this inquiry which are very important and do need consideration. First of all, the report finds evidence that confirms the caesarean section rate in Australia is very high—unacceptably high, up there with the highest in the world. It varies considerably from hospital to hospital. It varies considerably from state to state and it varies significantly as to whether you are a public patient or have private insurance. It is much higher for people with private insurance and all the evidence given to the committee showed that the numbers of emergency caesarean sections were not too different between public and private patients; it was the elective caesarean section in the privately insured patients that made most of the difference.The evidence provided to the committee did not justify that difference. While just about all witnesses providing information might have talked about the women being older—that they tended to be older having a first baby, that there might have been previous complications or what have you—we had no evidence that confirmed justification for the difference between the privately insured and the publicly insured in elective caesarean section. We regard that as a significant concern.We found on the evidence that the only thing that lowered caesarean section rates anywhere in the country has been the intention or the attitude of a senior obstetrician, either in a hospital or in a region or in a state—as in Tasmania, where we were told that, or, for example, in the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in South Australia, where doctors set out to lower the caesarean section rate and did so with no increase in maternal mortality or morbidity or danger to babes either. So it is quite clear that caesarean section rates are somewhat arbitrary and we believe that there is no real justification for them.I certainly found myself dealing quite often with the challenging line: `Well, if a woman really wants a caesarean section, why can't she have one if she demands it?' I found myself torn between my woman self, on one side, and my medical self, on the other, and I had quite an interesting debate in the back of my head. But I must say that I find no best practice guidelines that can justify doing caesarean sections on request or on demand. On the evidence we were given, it is not the best procedure for a babe to be born by caesarean section; it is better if the baby can be born vaginally, and for the majority of women—over 70 per cent of babies that are born are spontaneous vaginal births in this country—the problems are minimal.What we were concerned about was the number of times caesarean sections were done for the convenience—it is said—of the mother and certainly for the convenience of the doctor. We did not find either of those reasons sufficient justification. In the end I conceded to my medical self and decided that it is better that we have best practice guidelines that assist all obstetricians and all mothers in making the decision how best to have a baby delivered. There is much more that could be said. I do urge people to read the report for discussion on this matter and to stay to listen to my good colleague Senator Gibbs, who will deal with it further.We were also concerned about questions like this. If a mother demands a caesarean section, she may indeed in the end be provided with a caesarean section but, if she should ask to have a baby born in a birthing centre, she is still regarded as distinctly odd by many people, particularly some obstetricians who are not inclined to favour birthing centres or midwifery management of child care. The evidence that we got suggests many mothers really appreciated those options. They would like to see more birthing centres particularly in hospitals. That is the thrust of childbirth in Australia: there are some—a very small percentage—who prefer home births but the majority would like to have their babies born with minimal intervention in birthing centres.In Brisbane, in one hospital we were told there are so many people wanting to have their babies in birthing centres that there is a ballot each month for which women will actually get a place in a birthing centre. The community want it—they are very pleased with it. It is satisfactory and it is safe. There is no increased mortality for mothers but there is much less intervention, so there is an argument that says there is decreased morbidi ty for mothers and that babies are born with the same amount of safety and so on. And yet the provision of birthing centres has not kept up with demand, and we urge governments to see that more centres are available so that women can exercise that end of their option.We were very concerned about the very large increase in the number of ultrasound tests being done and, on the evidence provided to the committee, in many cases ultrasound tests are being done with no or very little medical benefit. So we have urged that this very expensive area of antenatal care and antenatal screening be thoroughly examined. It is expensive: the Health Insurance Commission figures put the cost of ultrasound at about $38 million—more than a third of the cost of all health insurance figures for the whole of birth.Of the whole cost of birth—the whole cost of antenatal care and childbirth—more than a third goes down to the ultrasound screening in the antenatal period. Many witnesses said that it is no more than a very expensive early baby photo. I think that there is no doubt that ultrasound is a wonderful test if properly used with adequately trained providers of the service or the test, with adequately trained people to read it and with some guidelines about the safety of ultrasound. But many of those criteria are not in place. You also need to know how to use the test so as to get good benefit from it. We also appreciated that many people wanted to have the ultrasound but were not prepared for or counselled about the consequences of discovering from the test that maybe there was something wrong with their babe.We were also very concerned that, despite the improvements in maternal and child health and childbirth in this country, the Aboriginal maternal mortality rate is still twice that of non-Aboriginal mothers, and the infant mortality rate for Aboriginal babies is three times that of non-Aboriginal babies. Although it has dramatically improved from the five times figure in the early 1980s, it is totally unacceptable to have figures of that height at this time.We were also very concerned about medical indemnity. We did not have a term of refer ence addressing this, but time and time again witnesses told us that the cost of medical insurance premiums for obstetricians and for general practitioners practising obstetrics was so high and their fear of litigation was so real that many doctors are now withdrawing from the practice of childbirth. We believe that that is a major concern, and when we sought figures—either from the committee or from specially commissioned work by Fiona Tito—in all cases we were unable to get the information that we needed to make serious decisions about medical indemnity. Even the AMA and members of MDOs were not able to get that information. It is time for a full inquiry into the question of medical indemnity so that the reserves and the practices are open to scrutiny and are transparent. The huge differences in premiums paid—for example, about $42,000 for an obstetrician in New South Wales compared to about $27,000 for an obstetrician in Victoria, compared to about $11,000 for an obstetrician in Tasmania—make no sense at all. We believe we have some explanation for it but it is not at all sufficient to explain why those differences are there. We believe it is time for a proper inquiry.My colleague Senator Knowles is going to say in her dissenting report that she thought this report was unnecessary as it deals with matters of professional practice or matters for the state. Any number of witnesses disagreed with Senator Knowles and said they found this inquiry was absolutely important because it is time for national leadership to focus on setting some guidelines, getting some best practice criteria and dealing with the recommendations from five excellent reports in very recent years, including one by the NHMRC. Almost none of the recommendations have been acted on by either state or federal governments. If we want to continue being up there with the best and to improve health for Australian women, we must act on this report. (Time expired)15:54:0011442Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4WALP10—Senator Crowley is quite right—I am going to say precisely that for the very reasons that she just said, that is, there have been five reports into this issue in recent years, and to have another inquiry at huge expense to the taxpayer was considered by government senators to be completely and utterly unnecessary. Much of what was considered was of concern; there is no denying that and the government senators do not deny that. There are areas of concern regarding childbirth in Australia. But we must remember that the overwhelming number of births in Australia are safe, both for the child and for the mother. We were concerned that there were valuable resources of this parliament going to an inquiry which essentially was going to saw sawdust because, as Senator Crowley has quite rightly identified, there have been five reports already undertaken.The other part of this inquiry that caused government senators concern was the mere fact that it sought to delve into areas that were not the responsibility or under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Funding for hospitals comes from the state governments. There are so many of these areas. It is quite outlandish for medically unqualified members of parliament, at any stage, to try to say that they know better than a doctor. I believe the relationship between a mother and her practitioner is paramount, above political interference.While we might all agree that the number of surgical interventions in Australia is high, I do not believe it is up to senators to say it is too high and that they are unnecessary and to override the decisions of medical practitioners. For example, there is a recommendation saying there should be no more than 15 per cent caesarean sections in a year. What I automatically said was, `What happens after 15 per cent has been achieved?' Do you just say to someone who is about have a baby, `Excuse me, can you wait until next year because the allocation of 15 per cent has been met?' So many of the recommendations are very silly in terms of their practical implementation.I do not for one moment say that a number of the issues were not important, but so much of the evidence that has been overlooked in the majority report stated that this inquiry was unnecessary. In fact, we had witnesses in Perth—highly qualified medical practitioners, I would suggest—who said, `Why are you doing this again?' And all I could say was, `Hear, hear! Why are we doing it again?' As I said, I do not wish to in any way belittle the case that has been put by so many people or their concerns, but I do submit that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government to have impact on so many of the things that this committee sought to inquire into. Therefore, the government senators have put in a minority report accordingly.One of the other things that we put into the minority report was that there has been a complete disregard shown to so many government initiatives, particularly those for people in rural and remote Australia. I could not get over the fact that such a major initiative as the federal government putting in $8.2 billion to fly-in-fly-out female GPs servicing women living in rural and remote Australia could be overlooked by the majority, and they in turn recommend that money be put into such a program. That was announced in the budget not so long ago and yet it was overlooked, as was the fact that they will visit up to 160 locations nationally about four times a year.The other thing that was overlooked was that this service is among a raft of federal government initiatives funded by a $200 million budget commitment to improve access to medical care in rural and regional Australia. No-one, least of all the minister or the government, denies that there has been a problem in the past with the servicing of people in rural and regional communities. We are setting about pouring the money into those communities that Labor refused to pour in during its 13 years of government. That has been contained in the budgets but overlooked in the majority report. I think that is a pity. But, as I said, that is the position of the government senators. We believe that the federal government should mind its business while the state governments mind theirs but while, more importantly, patients have communication and contact with their medical practitioners.16:00:0011443Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QLDALP00—I rise to speak on the report Rocking the cradle: a report into childbirth procedures . On listening to Senator Knowles's speech, I would like to remind her that the terms of reference for this committee were approved by the Senate. The Community Affairs References Committee held six days of public hearings in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth. We received almost 200 submissions, which came from a wide range of organisations and individuals, including hospitals, health services, practitioners, independent and hospital based midwives, welfare and peak organisations, and individual mothers.Over the past 10 years there have been inquiries and reports about childbirth services in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and one from the National Health and Medical Research Council. Obviously, childbirth is an important issue in this country. Unfortunately, despite there being so many inquiries, few of the recommendations the various reports have made have been acted upon. With more than a quarter of a million babies born in Australia every year, childbirth is a very important part of the health of this nation. Childbirth is the major reason for hospitalisation in Australia, and it accounts for the highest number of occupied bed days. It is important that we make childbirth as safe as possible for both mother and child.The committee found that childbirth in Australia is very safe, although maternal and infant mortality rates are significantly higher than average in indigenous communities. Across Australia there are about 5.3 maternal deaths per 100,000 births and approximately 5.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. In indigenous communities, the death rate for mothers is double and the death rate for infants is triple that of the non-indigenous community. Some of the reasons for those problems were best summed up in evidence given to the committee in Adelaide by a number of Aboriginal community health care workers.Those health care workers told the committee that past policies had created a fear in indigenous women about going to hospital. There was also a feeling of isolation because Aboriginal women were amongst people they did not know, thus creating a sense of shame. The committee heard that many indigenous women have to travel long distances to receive medical attention, further exacerbating the problem. They will visit a doctor or hospital once and usually not return because they see the hospital as a place to go when you are sick, and they do not consider that being pregnant is being sick; they view pregnancy as a natural part of life. One of the specific recommendations that the committee made to combat this problem was that the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health provide recurrent funding to ensure continuity for existing antenatal programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and to establish new programs in areas of need. The committee received evidence that Australian women value safety during birth for their babies and themselves above all other considerations. For that reason, the large majority of expectant mothers choose to birth in hospitals. While most women acknowledge the contribution of the medical profession to the low mortality rates, they are concerned about increasing levels of medicalisation of childbirth. Mortality rates are relatively uniform across the country, with the exception of the indigenous population.The rates of intervention, however, vary. Intervention rates are highest among women who have private health insurance, women who give birth in major tertiary hospitals and women attended by specialist obstetricians. The rates vary by state, with South Australia recording the highest rate of caesarean section. The committee was especially concerned by the high rate of elective caesarean section in Australia for which, the evidence suggests, there is little or no medical justification. The committee received no evidence that justified the significant variation in caesarean section rates between states, between hospitals and between public and private and patients.The committee did receive some evidence that caesareans were on the increase because of a rise in defensive medicine—a practice whereby doctors provide a service that is not needed because of a concern about possible litigation should a problem with the birth occur. The committee is of the strong view that there is a need for national leadership to reduce caesarean section rates. The committee supports the development of best practice guidelines on interventions and other aspects of maternal and infant care. Such guidelines would improve the quality of care, reduce the use of unnecessary, ineffective services and ensure that care is cost effective.There is also concern among the committee members about the polarisation of views that emerged during the course of the inquiry. Some witnesses indicated that caesarean sections and other interventions should be available to women on demand, regardless of any medical indication of need. Other witnesses felt that all forms of medical intervention were overused. Many people recognised that an intermediate position was likely to prove most beneficial to women. The committee heard that, where cooperation between midwives and specialists is common, women's satisfaction with the birth experience was enhanced without sacrificing safe and successful outcomes.We found that the best examples of this middle ground occurred in birth centres. In birth centres, women considered to be at low risk gave birth in home-like surroundings, attended by midwives but with specialist support available should problems arise during birth. Everywhere the committee went, we discovered birth centres that were oversubscribed. They were full to overflowing because of the desire by women for a less medical approach to childbirth, without sacrificing the benefits of medical advances as they became available. Unfortunately, it seems, there is not much effort being made to move resources from expensive interventions, including caesarean sections, to birth centres.The committee found that the current arrangements for antenatal, birth and postnatal care increased the fragmentation of services. The existing funding arrangements break that care into episodes centred on various care providers. The evidence we received indicated that women would receive much better outcomes if they had continuity of carers throughout the process.There was also disturbing evidence that a significant and increasing proportion of funding is spent on ultrasound scanning. The committee found that the most recent figures from the Health Insurance Commission, which excludes services provided by hospital doctors to public patients in public hospitals, show that in the period July 1998 to June 1999 expenditure was $38.6 million on ultrasound, almost all of it routine scanning; $27.6 million on labour and delivery, including complex births, caesarean sections and immediate postnatal care; and $30 million on antenatal visits.Quite a few witnesses voiced the same concerns as the Royal North Shore Hospital, which told the committee:Of particular concern is the cost of numerous ultrasound examinations. It is our current experience that it is not unusual for women to have undergone three ultrasound examinations before their pregnancy reaches 20 weeks of gestation.The committee believes the use of ultrasound screening needs to be evaluated as soon as possible. The women of Australia need to know that this procedure is being used properly within clear best practice guidelines. Lowering the use, and therefore the cost, of ultrasound screening may provide a source for funding in other antenatal, birth and postnatal support areas, but I stress that the first step is a full and proper evaluation of ultrasound screening. The committee was also concerned about the increasing trend to discharge new mothers and infants from hospital early. Evidence provided to the committee suggested that, rather than reducing health care costs, early discharge may actually increase them in the longer term.In summary, let me say that the 35 recommendations made in this report will not provide all the answers. The government, the community and expectant mothers in particular need to maintain interest in the area and to continue to debate, discuss and discover what practices are the best for mother and child.Question resolved in the affirmative.1144516:10:0011445Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4SAALP00—I present additional information received by the Community Affairs References Committee, relating to the committee's inquiry into proposals for changes to the welfare system.114461144616:10:0011446Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, chaired by Senator Gibson, I present report No. 370, entitled Defence life cycle costing: Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98 Fourth Quarter . I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report and to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard .Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.The tabling statement read as follows—Madam President, this is our Review of Auditor-General's Reports for the fourth quarter of 1997-98.The Committee held a public hearing in May this year to discuss these issues with relevant Commonwealth agencies. I will briefly discuss each issue in turn.The Audit Report on life cycle costing at the Department of Defence found that there was considerable scope for Defence to further promote and implement its policy of whole-of-life costing. Our report encourages Defence to implement this policy more rigorously.Sound costing is a crucial basis for good decision-making. This is particularly relevant for Defence, which has a significant asset base.The Defence policy accords with Commonwealth procurement guidelines that purchasing be efficient and effective. However, the JCPAA agrees with the ANAO that its life cycle costing policy should be promoted and implemented more effectively.At Defence, life cycle costs are estimated to be between two and three times the value of capital costs. The objective of life cycle costing analysis is to facilitate decisions that achieve maximum value for money over the whole life of an asset. Because acquisition costs at Defence are so substantial, it is vital that the Commonwealth is assured that tax payers' money is spent as effectively as possible. While the Committee understands that life cycle costing is not always easy or cheap, we nevertheless urge Defence to implement it to the best of its ability. In particular, we urge Defence to require tenderers to make contractual commitments regarding life cycle costs. Audit Report No. 47 investigated the management of Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort. This was a follow-up to a previous audit conducted in 1996. The more recent audit found that there had been considerable improvement in the guidance provided to agencies, and also in the management of these instruments by Commonwealth agencies. The JCPAA held a public hearing at which several Commonwealth agencies informed the Committee of relevant developments.We note that there is room for further improvement in the management of these instruments, and we recommend that the ANAO monitor the outcomes of the managed funds policy.It is gratifying to note that the overall level of Commonwealth exposure for these instruments fell from $415 billion in 1996 to $215 billion in 1997.May I conclude, Madam President, by thanking on behalf of the Committee those people who contributed their time and expertise to the Committee's review hearing.I am also indebted to my colleagues on the Committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiry, Dr Margot Kerley, the Committee secretary, Ms Rose Verspaandonk, Ms Tiana Gray, and Ms Maria Pappas.Madam President, I commend the Report to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills11446r9281144616:11:0011446Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TASLP10—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Australian Federal Police Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 , together with submissions and Hansard record of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills11446r9261144616:11:0011446McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—I present additional comments for inclusion in the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 .Ordered that the report and the document be printed.Ministerial Statements114471144716:12:0011447Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I table a statement on Bushcare and seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—The Bushcare program has been working for the last two and a half years to achieve two key goals of the Natural Heritage Trust—a revegetation rate that is greater than vegetation loss and an improvement in the quality and condition of Australia's native vegetation. It has provided unprecedented support to the Australian community to protect and plant native vegetation.Halfway through the first phase of the Bushcare Program and the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership agreements it is now clear that to achieve these objectives we will need more effective support by the States for integrated regional planning of natural resource management and control of native vegetation clearance.Against this background this is an opportune time to review progress, to elicit the lessons learned, and to develop new directions. These longer-term directions will be refined as the Government analyses the findings of the Mid-Term Review of the Natural Heritage Trust in coming months. But to maintain momentum, there are steps that should be taken now to further improve the program:. Effective State based constraints on broadacre land clearing;. Institutional reform to ensure implementation through integrated catchment management;. Building on regional strategies through new `devolved grants';. Establishing new incentive mechanisms such as revolving funds; and. Providing information to communities through the internet.The ChallengeAustralia's native vegetation is one of the richest and most fundamental elements of our extraordinary natural heritage. Native vegetation binds and nourishes our ancient soils; it shelters and sustains native wildlife; it protects streams and wetlands, estuaries and coastlines; it absorbs carbon dioxide and emits oxygen.Conversely, the depletion and degradation of native vegetation communities threatens the long term health and productive capacity of Australian landscapes. Destruction of native vegetation is the single biggest cause of biodiversity loss; it is a primary driver of land degradation, salinity and declining water quality; and it is among the single biggest components of our net Greenhouse gas emissions.Land clearing is a central issue but there is much more to it than clearing alone.Clearing is compounded by more insidious, widespread, incremental losses of remnant native vegetation. Grazing pressure, old age, insects, disease, weeds, rising watertables and firewood gathering are undermining the quality of bush remaining in rural landscapes.Similarly in cities and towns, the precious remnants of native bush are depleted, fragmented and degraded incrementally.The SolutionsThe solutions to the decline in native vegetation cover, and the environmental problems stemming from that decline, are simple: land clearing should be reduced very significantly; revegetation of native vegetation communities should be enhanced; and a great improvement is required in the protection and management of the native vegetation which does remain in rural and urban landscapes.Approach and achievements to dateThe Natural Heritage Trust and Bushcare The Natural Heritage Trust is the largest investment in the environment ever made by an Australian Government. It is tangible recognition of the fundamental importance of natural capital, which underwrites other forms of wealth.The Natural Heritage Trust marks the point at which Australia finally started re-investing in natural capital.Reflecting the centrality of native vegetation management for many environmental issues, the Bushcare program is among the Trust's largest components, with almost $350 million in Trust funding over six years.Bushcare has an historic and ambitious goal: to reverse the long term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation cover by the year 2001. This goal is pursued through three complementary forms of investment:. Direct investment in on-ground projects at a community level; . Investment in institutional reform aims to improve decision-making and support for better vegetation management at all levels; and. Investment to build community capacity to improve native vegetation management.A central feature in the delivery of Bushcare has been the Natural Heritage Trust `One Stop Shop' process. It enables community groups anywhere in Australia to apply for funding through an integrated process, with community-based assessment of their proposals at regional and state levels.Bushcare has funded more than 1800 projects through the Trust's One Stop Shop, in which it has invested over $127 million to date. About 70% of this funding has been invested directly in on-ground works to improve native vegetation management.A great diversity of projects is being supported. For example:In tackling the daunting problem of salinity in the Western Australian wheatbelt, the Trust is funding a project in the North Stirling area to protect 1,700 hectares of remnant bushland, of which more than 300 hectares is habitat for threatened species. More than 330 hectares of revegetation using locally sourced native species has already been re-established, protected by 1,270 kilometres of fencing;In South Australia, to support the clearing legislation introduced during the 1980s, Bushcare has funded the protection of more than 90,500 hectares of high quality bushland covered by statutory heritage agreements;Government's effort in urban areas is exemplified by Victoria's Metropolitan Vegetation Works project which focuses on revegetation activities to prevent land and water degradation in high-priority areas along streams and to create wildlife corridors around greater Melbourne. Bushcare funds are helping 47 community groups to establish 110,000 new trees and shrubs in 27 separate projects.Building community capacityNatural resources are sustained or otherwise through the cumulative impact of the countless everyday decisions and actions taken by those with direct responsibility for the land including farmers, indigenous communities, municipalities, government agencies and utility companies. The Bushcare program recognises that attitudes, knowledge, skills and capacities of the people taking these decisions are crucial.The Australian landcare movement is unique in its combination of grassroots voluntary community effort with technical and financial support from government and increasingly the private sector. Landcare, Bushcare, Rivercare and Dunecare groups are cleaning up the rivers and beaches, stabilising eroding banks and dunes, recreating wildlife corridors and restoring wetlands. They are controlling feral animals and weeds, and putting back some of the vegetation which their forebears, and in some cases they themselves, have removed.Despite the leap in community awareness over recent years, there remains a great thirst for information at a community level, and for hands-on skills and technical support. There also remain significant areas where the knowledge base is patchy or weak. Moreover, some of the natural resource management issues Australia faces are of such scale and complexity that it is unreasonable to expect community groups alone to tackle them effectively through small-scale local projects.The problem of dryland salinity is perhaps the best example. Salinity is a symptom of inappropriate land use and management, often over large areas and long timeframes. Solutions to it are likely to involve far more significant changes in land management practices than hitherto thought necessary.We can broadly identify that large parts of south-west and south-east Australia require large-scale revegetation to help deal with dryland salinity. There is a large overlap between areas that have been cleared in the past, have moderate to high salinity risk, have potential for commercial reforestation and are in need of revegetation to restore biodiversity conservation values. The design of appropriate incentive structures and integrated program delivery mechanisms involving the community and lifting its levels of participation at the regional scale will be crucial to generate the investment necessary to achieve the scale of revegetation envisaged. In this way regions obtain a more diverse economic base, farmers get an alternative source of income, and Australians get a significant improvement in environmental outcomes.Broad scale community participation is critical to increasing momentum in the transition towards more sustainable land management practices. Through thousands of local projects, the Natural Heritage Trust has provided extra resources, encouragement and technical support to help community groups to invest in their own natural heritage. Around 60% of Bushcare projects are for less than $20,000 per year, and 75% of Bushcare projects to date are being undertaken by voluntary community groups.Bushcare has also invested in projects which are national in scope, aimed at enhancing the overall capacity of the Australian community to improve native vegetation management. These strategic national projects include: FloraBank, which has developed a national framework and protocols for collection, storage and distribution of native seed; and the new national Atlas of Australian Birds, involving thousands of volunteers generating a national overview and important insights into trends in the quality of habitat across Australia. Bushcare-funded research has also enhanced our overall capacity to manage native vegetation more strategically, more effectively, and at less cost. Research projects are giving us a much better knowledge base on issues such as more effective incentives for conservation on private lands; opportunities for local government to conserve native vegetation; legislation in States and Territories that facilitates or constrains conservation behaviour; and potential tax incentives for the protection of native vegetation, to name a few.Bushcare has also catalysed improved native vegetation management on land managed by Aboriginal people. For example Bushcare funding has enabled the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Land Management group to institute a program of capacity building for traditional owners. The Community Ranger project is developing a Property Management Planning process that will be used across all Anangu-Pitjantjatjara lands (which make up 14 % of South Australia). The project is currently implementing a program of traditional indigenous land and vegetation management practices, rehabilitating land and controlling feral animals and weeds.The need for better incentivesNinety-three percent of the Australian continent lies outside formal conservation reserves. On the vast majority of this land, much of it privately owned or managed, conservation of biodiversity is not the primary land use or management objective. In most circumstances it is not possible to obtain a cash flow from conservation. Further, taking steps to conserve biodiversity on private land often imposes on landholders a direct cost or loss of opportunity to profit. And because many of the benefits arising from the conservation of native vegetation accrue off-site and to the public as a whole, it is often difficult for conservation to compete with other land use options that provide direct economic returns.As a consequence, conservation remains under-valued and under-provided in the market place in which traditional goods and services are traded.Governments can support the conservation of native vegetation on private lands through the removal of disincentives and the creation and provision of incentives, to a level commensurate with the public good. Through such mechanisms, the costs of biodiversity conservation and land restoration can be shared appropriately between individual landholders, the local community and society as a whole.The most common form of incentive used to date has been grants, such as the majority of community projects funded through the One Stop Shop. Other forms of incentives on a more limited scale include assistance for local councils to introduce differential rating schemes, which allow a reduction in, or exemption from, rates payable on land managed for conservation values.A fine example is the Johnstone Shire Council's Rate Rebate and Conservation Agreement Scheme. This Bushcare project aims to develop voluntary conservation initiatives and agreements with private landholders for all critical habitat areas within the shire. By the end of the project 2000-3000 hectares of critical habitat in the Wet Tropics will have been protected and enhanced. Conservation agreements with landholders are tied to the Shire's planning scheme and involve the rezoning of the area covered by the conservation agreement into a Conservation Zone. Landholders are offered a rebate on the general rates applicable to the allotment, and Council undertakes the rezoning process at no cost to the landholder. Johnstone Shire is committed to continue the program after Trust funding ceases.The ongoing economic incentive provided to landholders through such schemes is highly symbolic, recognising their contribution to the wider public good. It is also practical in helping to offset long-term management costs.A regulatory bottom lineUnder the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreements, all State and Territories have committed to prevent any clearing of endangered ecological communities, any clearing which changes the conservation status of a vegetation community, and any clearing which is inconsistent with the sustainable management of biodiversity at a regional scale.These are impressive commitments, which make an historic pledge to improve management of our natural resources. To further embed these agreements the Commonwealth is working with States and Territories to establish a national framework within which these commitments can be met.Through the Australia and New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council (ANZECC, the Council of Environment Ministers), the Commonwealth and State and Territory governments have developed a National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation . It sets out the national consensus on best practice arrangements in regulation and also planning, incentives, monitoring and evaluation. The framework will encourage cooperation in establishing a comprehensive platform for institutional reform.But collective action between Governments can take us only part of the way. A clear lesson from the early years of Bushcare is that the national goal of a net gain in the quality and extent of native vegetation cover cannot be achieved in the absence of effective controls on broadscale land clearing in all jurisdictions. This is not something that can be delivered by landcare groups, or bird observers, or committed individual landholders. It is the business of State and Territory governments.Further actions and new emphasisImproved regional action through Devolved GrantsHaving successfully supported the thousands of landcare groups around Australia to restore and conserve native vegetation, the next great challenge is to assist landholders who are not members of landcare groups to undertake similarly important work. A key vehicle to assist such landholders will be `devolved grant' projects, including fencing incentive schemes and bush corridor revegetation projects. Devolved grants enable a regionally based organisation to administer Bushcare funds to assist many individual landholders to carry out works on their own properties that deliver regional priorities.For grant recipients, those doing the work on the ground, there is a minimum of paperwork and delay, and funds are available at the time of year most appropriate to the region. These projects are potentially available to all land users, not just the members of landcare groups, and they concentrate the burden of paperwork on the professional staff of regional organisations, rather than on the volunteers who do most of the on-ground work.For example, Greening Australia is now running a large-scale, Bushcare fencing incentives project in Tasmania, which in its first four months approved funding for more than 155 km of fencing, protecting 1876 hectares over 109 sites. Rather than requiring 109 separate project funding applications, this is a single project which allocates funds at a property level against defined criteria, in return for a management agreement with the landholder.To date Bushcare has invested about $17 million in focused on-ground works through Devolved Grants. This model shows enormous potential and the Commonwealth will expand upon it. The Natural Heritage Trust Guide to Applications 2000-2001 provides potential new participants with new and additional information on Devolved Grants.Improved One-Stop-Shop ProcessA central feature in our delivery of Bushcare and associated programs is the `One-Stop-Shop' process which enables community groups anywhere in Australia to apply for funding through an integrated process, with community-based assessment of their proposals at regional and State levels. This process has delivered funding to over five thousand projects over the first three funding rounds.The One-Stop-Shop process is continuously being improved. This year the guidelines for new applications are easier to follow. While keeping the same basic structure that past applicants are familiar with, the new guidelines are shorter and easier to read. They also make it easy for applicants to get help or extra information if they need it.This year has also seen an improvement in the delivery of cheques to community groups. This has been possible with the commitment and cooperation of all parties. The Government will continue to seek improvement in this area.But to obtain maximum value for the Government's investment in the Natural Heritage Trust, increased emphasis will be given to funding participants in larger scale, regional projects which are underpinned by integrated natural resource management planning at a scale in which the community is capable of addressing the key issues.Bush for GreenhouseAddressing climate change creates profound challenges and opportunities for native vegetation management in Australia. The Government has established the Bush for Greenhouse program, overseen by the Australian Greenhouse Office. Bush for Greenhouse is designed to facilitate corporate investment in revegetation `sinks' to sequester carbon dioxide and reduce our net greenhouse gas emissions. Delivery of this program is being let through a competitive tender process, the outcome of which I expect to announce over coming weeks.Limiting the loss of native vegetation will form a critical part of any long-term greenhouse abatement strategy. There are important synergies to be captured between reducing net greenhouse gas emissions, abating dryland salinity, enhancing water quality and improving wildlife habitat at a landscape scale.Through Bush for Greenhouse and through the development of further policy and program measures, the Government aims to maximise the positive effects of these synergies on Australia's native vegetation.Bush for WildlifeBush for Wildlife is a new initiative to provide a stronger focus on wildlife conservation through Natural Heritage Trust programs such as Bushcare, Endangered Species, Feral Animals and Weeds.Through this initiative the Bushcare guidelines now give priority to projects which include a component which protects or restores habitat for endangered native plants and animals.The initiative is also supporting State based `land for wildlife' schemes. These schemes provide a support base for landholders interested in protecting wildlife on their properties.CommunicationThe information technology revolution offers major opportunities to enhance access for the thousands of Australians who participate in Bushcare to the information they need to make their efforts a success. I would like a Bushcare grant applicant, school or community group anywhere in Australia, to be able to use the Trust website for obtaining information such as: recommended species for replanting, habitat requirements for endangered and migratory species, management plans for important wetlands, as well as summaries of relevant Bushcare research projects, best practice information, key contacts and other sources of support.Work is well underway to enable this in the very near future.Encouraging Philanthropy Community projects funded through the One Stop Shop are critical to providing land managers with the education, information, motivation and resources required to underpin and guide on-ground action and will remain central to the Commonwealth's overall strategy for Bushcare.There is scope to provide even greater incentives for conservation management on private lands through the tax system, through recent measures to encourage greater corporate and personal philanthropy announced by the Prime Minister on 26 March 1999.Take the United States. There the private sector invests as much in public benefit nature conservation as the public sector.Through the Prime Ministers initiative, for the first time donations of property valued at more than $5,000 to any eligible institution, including environmental organisations, will be tax deductible, no matter when the property was purchased.The Prime Minister also announced gifts donated as part of a deceased estate will be exempt from capital gains tax.These initiatives build on the $80 million Landcare Tax Rebate introduced through the Natural Heritage Trust and are designed to encourage greater philanthropic investment in the future of Australia's natural heritage.Revolving FundsThe Commonwealth is committed to the introduction of new revolving funds, in cooperation with other governments and non-government organisations to enable the purchase of land with high wildlife habitat values and its subsequent resale to buyers committed to management for conservation.The conservation values of purchased properties will be secured in perpetuity by the placement of a covenant on the title of the land. Resale of the land will enable the capital invested through the Natural Heritage Trust to be revolved to fund further purchases. With appropriate enabling legislation to minimise transaction costs, revolving funds are an innovative, efficient, market-based mechanism through which to provide greater security for conservation values on private lands, at little ongoing cost to the taxpayer.This proposal is modelled on the highly successful Trust for Nature Victoria, which has been operating under its own legislation since 1972. The revolving fund operated by the Trust for Nature was enhanced significantly earlier this year with a capital injection of $500,000 from Bushcare. Bushcare will facilitate similar initiatives throughout Australia.Broader Institutional ReformThe next phase of Bushcare will focus on tackling the wider constraints to better vegetation management, and on investing where we can exert most leverage on the policies and practices of the key players in vegetation management. It is about highlighting, extending and improving best practice, not just in vegetation management, but also in regulatory, planning and incentives frameworks across all tiers of government.Over the last decade there has been a proliferation of regional and catchment-based structures and processes in natural resource management. Many regional/catchment strategies have been and are still being prepared, and are often used as the basis for allocating public resources such as Natural Heritage Trust funds including devolved grants in particular.However these strategies are rarely reflected in statutory planning or regulations that have legal force. If they do, it is usually with a narrow focus on a specific issue such as water quality.Australia needs to dramatically improve the effectiveness and integration of its natural resource management planning systems. There needs to be much better vertical integration cascading through statewide or regional planning, and given effect in local planning, zoning and rating schemes.We also need to deliver better horizontal integration. The management of rivers, catchments, coastlines, vegetation, wildlife, land use and now carbon needs to be addressed as one and planned accordingly. This is both most feasible and most imperative at the regional or catchment scale.Now is the time for Governments and communities to work together to create much more effective mechanisms for addressing natural resource and environmental management issues of which native vegetation is a vital element. This must happen in an integrated manner and at a scale which is appropriate to the particular issues being addressed. It must also enable community commitment and participation in discovery and delivery of the solutions.The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act commences in mid 2000. It will oblige the Commonwealth to pay close attention to matters which will inevitably be the subject of regional strategies and plans. These include matters of national environmental significance such as nationally threatened species and communities of native wildlife; wetlands of international importance; and migratory species protected under international agreements.A key objective of the Act is to promote a cooperative approach to protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community and landholders. The Commonwealth looks forward to working nationally to enhance the very frameworks within which we manage Australia's natural resources.A further field of genuinely exciting opportunity involves the potential synergies to be captured between reducing net greenhouse gas emissions, abating dryland salinity, enhancing water quality and improving biodiversity conservation and wildlife habitat at a landscape scale. Full realisation of these synergies may depend on the development of effective markets for carbon and, perhaps, salinity credits to generate some of the required long-term investments. The Government will be working hard to explore and build upon these opportunities.ConclusionThe overall goal of Bushcare to achieve a net gain in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation is a clear on-ground outcome with environmental and sustainable production dimensions.The first two years of Bushcare have strongly emphasised direct capital investments from the Trust in on-ground vegetation projects, and also the fundamental role of the community in managing native vegetation.The community-driven elements of the program are now being complemented with a greater emphasis on strategic investment to deliver on key priorities such as reducing land clearing, securing the habitats of endangered and threatened species, and targeting key land and water degradation problems.Reforms to institutional arrangements capable of influencing all landholders are also progressing well but need to be taken much further.The institutional arrangements to most effectively deliver investment in landscapes will fully engage community capacity and innovation, be at a scale at which there can be complete integration across natural resource and environment management objectives and have the strong support and engagement of governments at all levels in the form of resources and authority.The Government will work cooperatively and strategically to achieve this vision as it continues in its unprecedented efforts through Bushcare and the Natural Heritage Trust to reinvest wisely in Australia's natural capital.1145216:13:0011452Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I table a statement on the Seattle World Trade Organisation Ministerial Meeting by the Minister for Trade, and I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard .Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I wish to inform the Senate of the outcomes of my visit to Seattle last week for the Third WTO Ministerial Conference, and the preceding "Friends of the Round" meeting in Switzerland, for an informal meeting of Trade Ministers on 25-26 October.The meeting in Lausanne was supposed to be one of the key preparatory meetings for the Seattle Ministerial. Its purpose was to review the preparatory process ongoing in Geneva for the Seattle Ministerial Conference, which had been making little headway. The Lausanne meeting involved Ministers from more than 20 countries, including the "Friends of the Round" grouping in which Australia has played a prominent role over the last couple of years, plus the United States, the European Union, Japan, Canada and key developing countries. The main sticking point was the scope of a new Round—in other words the breadth of issues which were to be placed on the negotiating agenda.From Australia's perspective, I put the case strongly for a round which would be centred on the key market access areas of agriculture, services and industrial products. Research commissioned by my Department estimates that the gains in terms of global welfare from a 50% cut in support and protection in these areas alone would total some US$400 billion annually.I expressed Australia's concern that some developed countries, in particular the European Union and Japan, were too ambitious in areas such as investment and competition policy. Also attempts by the United States to put new and controversial issues such as labour standards onto the agenda would not be acceptable to developing countries. I warned that such ambitions could derail the round launch and urged a more measured and realistic approach. I also made the point strongly that a successful launch would require further elaboration of the fundamental reform objective agreed in the Uruguay Round. I pointed to the near universal support for agriculture reform across the WTO Membership except for a small group of countries led by the EU and Japan.In the following weeks I was in telephone contact with my EU, US and Cairns Group counterparts on agriculture where a number of sensitive issues were resolved. Regrettably the same could not be said for other areas like labour standards and investment where, despite the efforts of Australia and others for a more reasoned position, attitudes from countries at both extremes remained rigid and unrealistic. As a result Ministers faced a hard job to find compromises at the meeting.At Seattle I led a strong Australian delegation representing all industry sectors, interested agencies and including the opposition spokesman on trade. I welcome the strong commitment by the Australian business community to the Seattle meeting. Like the Government, they appreciate the importance of opening new export markets for Australia's continued economic and employment growth.Many of the Australian industry organisations in Seattle ran parallel events to support and encourage progress with the agriculture talks. The National Farmers Federation arranged a meeting of farm leaders from Cairns Group countries and the sugar, grains, dairy and processed food industries ran seminars and other activities in support of our agricultural reform objectives. I would like to pay tribute to the outstanding efforts made by the Australian contingent. There was a real sense of "Team Australia" throughout the meeting.Through their efforts, and those of Australia and the Cairns Group of agriculture countries, we made significant progress on agriculture. This was also assisted by close cooperation with the United States.But similar progress was not achieved in other areas. We had warned in Lausanne that overloading the agenda with new issues like investment, competition, labour standards and the environment would put the round at risk.Contrary to many media reports, the riots were not a major problem for the conference. The real stumbling blocks included. an unwieldy agenda. unrealistic ambitions in new areas, which were not tempered in the Geneva preparatory process or during the conference;. an excessive emphasis on labour standards by the United States despite determined resistance from developing countries;. and strong demands from developing countries which sought to renegotiate Uruguay Round agreements as part of a new Round launch.In the end there was neither enough compromise, nor time to achieve it. Notwithstanding this disappointing outcome, it would be wrong to conclude that no progress was made in Seattle. We made good progress in agriculture and services—and in some other areas. We are hopeful that these results can indeed be "frozen", as proposed by USTR Charlene Barshefsky and Director-General Mike Moore at the final Committee meeting, and that the process can be re-started at an appropriate time.It needs to be remembered that agriculture and services negotiations are already mandated and will begin early next year. On agriculture we have established clearly the almost unanimous expectations of the WTO membership to move toward the elimination of export subsidies, to avoid the protectionist banner of "multifunctionality", to achieve substantial and progressive reductions in domestic support, to pursue market access negotiations aimed at the broadest level of liberalisation and to deal with issues like environment and rural welfare in ways that do not distort production and trade. These elements will provide a very positive direction for next year's agriculture negotiations.The mandate for the services negotiations has not been controversial. We can expect to make progress on market access in sectors such as financial, telecommunications, professional services and electronic commerce. We will also continue to work on the full intellectual property agenda.Australia intends to fight hard to progress the mandated negotiations, in close cooperation with the Cairns Group and with positively inclined services trading countries. We stand ready to incorporate these negotiations in a broader round as soon as possible and will work to that end. In the mean time we are well prepared to start the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services in the new year.I would like to make clear that the events in Seattle have not resulted in any change in the Government's support for a market access focused round that includes industrial products in addition to the mandated negotiations on agriculture and services. We will continue to argue for a new round while getting on with the agriculture and services negotiations.We will also continue to express our concerns at attempts to overload the WTO agenda with complicated and controversial issues. That does not mean we do not support sensible work programs in the WTO on issues such as trade and environment and on trade and development issues. There are clearly overlaps with other policy domains in these areas which the WTO is already addressing. Despite the misinformation being peddled by the Labor Party, Australia went to Seattle supportive of an ongoing work program of the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment and the Committee on Trade and Development. This reflects our position that it is important to ensure efforts to free up trade are mutually supportive with environmental goals, as well as advancing the broad objective of sustainable development.There is misinformation on the trade and labour issue being put around by the Labor Party in recent days. It is a shame to see that Senator Cook, who I might say was a valuable and constructive member of the Australian delegation in Seattle, has had to toe the trade union line on his return to Australia.Senator Cook knows what the real situation was in Seattle. The United States was running with a highly provocative proposal to developing countries on trade and labour. He acknowledged the US "had one of the worst records of all countries in the world for following ILO conventions". Australia's position, supported by the Labor Party until recent political expediency got in the way, has been that labour standards are better dealt with in other international forums such as the ILO.Australia was nevertheless amongst a group of countries trying to find a way of bridging the gap between the US and developing countries given the importance of finding an acceptable solution to this issue for the final Seattle outcome. It appeared that consensus could have been reached, as part of a Seattle package, around the establishment of a free standing "working forum" suggested by Thai Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Supachai, involving a range of international organisations including the WTO, ILO, UNCTAD and the World Bank. This would have met Australia's objective of not bringing the issue directly within the WTO.In addition to pushing for the negotiations on agriculture and services to begin early next year, there are other aspects of the WTO we will also pursue. We will press our dispute actions against the infamous US lamb safeguard tariff quotas and Korea's beef restrictions. We also plan to work, through the WTO Dispute Investigation and Enforcement mechanism I announced in September, to identify and pursue any other areas where our trading interests are being damaged through non-observance of the WTO rules by others. We will also do all we can to see China and Taiwan accede to the WTO early next year, given the sizeable trade benefits in prospect for our exporters.The Government adopts an integrated multilateral, regional and bilateral approach to trade policy. The WTO is a vital part of this strategy and the Seattle outcome has not changed that. But the WTO is only a part of our trade policy agenda. Regionally, we will be pressing to invigorate the APEC trade liberalisation and facilitation process when Australia hosts the APEC Trade Ministers' meeting next June. The Seattle outcome means there is a strong case for APEC members to continue regional efforts to build support and momentum for a trade round.We will also be investigating, with our New Zealand and ASEAN colleagues, the potential for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) linking CER with the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. In this regard I was pleased to announce earlier today that former Deputy Prime Minister and Trade Minister, Tim Fischer, will be the Government's representative on the high-level task force to pursue AFTA/CER links. As one of Australia's most successful Trade Ministers, Tim Fischer brings a wealth of experience in pursuing closer economic and trade relations with the ASEAN countries.The delay in a Round launch will no doubt also stimulate attention to other possibilities for regional trade liberalisation and greater economic integration. There has been interest expressed in several bilateral and plurilateral combinations, including some which would link North and South America with CER and Asia. The Government is open to concluding free trade agreements where they would give Australia substantial gains in market access which Australia could not get elsewhere in a similar timeframe.Bilaterally, the Market Development Taskforce in my Department will continue our efforts to open markets and promote exports in both traditional and emerging markets.Australia has an enormous interest in trade, and in protecting and building the global trading system. The Government will continue to put that message squarely to the Australian people. In this regard I will shortly be releasing a new series of regional fact sheets which will highlight the importance of international trade to the prosperity of local communities. This link between our trade performance and our economic livelihood has to be better understood and the Government must play its part in conveying this message.We have a huge stake in the global trading system. So in addition to building a stronger domestic support base to the Government's trade work, we will continue to pursue our international trade policies with maximum energy at all levels—multilateral, regional and bilateral.16:13:0011454Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4WAALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement.This is a statement by the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Mark Vaile, on the events of the last week and in the preparation leading up to the last week for the Seattle Round of trade talks. I welcome the statement. It does represent an exercise in accountability to the parliament. It enables the issues to be debated by this chamber. They are welcome developments and I consider that no area is more important than trade, because it is our major economic activity and outranks the GST in its significance to Australian working people and ordinary Australians.Madam Acting Deputy President, 1.7 million Australians work in jobs that exist because we are an exporting nation. About 21.3 per cent of our GDP is earned in export. Much of our future growth will cause better and more permanent jobs if we develop our exports more effectively. Indeed, in Australia manufacturing jobs in companies that are export companies pay higher wages than companies where there is no export dimension to their activities. So trade is an essential and significant part of our national economy. Anything that can be done to promote it means greater benefits to the wider Australian community, and it is very important to have that strongly stated.Now that the empty teargas canisters have been cleared away, the spent rubber bullets have been swept up, and the wastepaper in the conference halls in Seattle have been cleaned out, it is important to consider what last week was about and what the significance of those events was. The WTO itself seems to me to be under challenge from many quarters of the world as to its continued viability and existence.I want to say a few things about the WTO and its predecessor, the GATT. The WTO is a consensus driven organisation with 134 governments around the world affiliated with it, and its role is to come down with rules to prevent and settle trade disputes. Before we had the WTO or the GATT, trade disputes went grievously bad at the cost of millions of lives in the world. The First World War is an example of a trade dispute that did not succeed and was conducted on the battlefields. Much of the Second World War was about that as well. As a result of those disputes, and following the end of the Second World War, at the Bretton Woods accords the GATT, the World Bank and the IMF were established as international institutions to try to regulate international economic activity on a non- conflict basis and, given the harsh lessons of the Great Depression, to do so in such a way that the world did not slip into economic decline in the way it did that blighted so many lives as a consequence of the Great Depression.Those are significant achievements by the world trading system and they cannot be dismissed lightly. They have to be defended stoutly. Freeing up world trade has meant greater economic growth around the world. All countries have benefited, all countries have grown as a consequence, and it is vital for developing countries that it continue. The argument in some quarters is: who benefits most? That is an argument worth having, but it is not an argument to say that the advantages of growth should be easily dismissed. There is not a serious case for comparative advantage to be set aside, because comparative advantage does lead to general economic growth.The attacks on the WTO that challenge these facts overlook the basic reasons for having such an organisation. It is not a supra-national, international government; it is a consensus driven body. Outcomes are adopted by governments. The breakdown in talks in Seattle set these principles back to some extent, at a cost to Australia. The cost to Australia is quite significant in that, if tariffs were cut around the world by half, Australia would have gained by $7.5 billion a year. With greater market access, thousands of Australian exporters—including service exporters, manufacturers and farmers—would have been able to establish new markets. There would have been higher wages and there would have been cheaper products for customers worldwide.By the round not proceeding, NGOs that opposed the establishment of the round have lost out. They were protesting against the status quo. The best chance they ever had of realising their objectives was for the round to be engaged—if not in the WTO itself, then in other forums associated with the round so that the issues they were really concerned about could be dealt with. The failure of the round comes at the cost of developing countries, which are now without a multilateral forum in which they can address many of their issues. For Australia, having an international rules based, multilateral forum that can settle trade disputes on a fair basis—according to merit, not according to might—is a fundamentally important issue. For Australia as a medium-sized power dealing with the mighty nations of this world, if it can resolve its disputes at a roundtable in Geneva where the rules of fairness apply, rather than by force or by overbearing economic strength, that is a significant advantage for this country and one that should be stoutly and strongly defended by all of us.I now want to turn briefly to the manner in which the round closed down. It was said from the podium that they hoped to freeze the results reached in the negotiations at the point that the negotiations collapsed. It was said as a hope. There is no guarantee that the results, as far as they were achieved, will be frozen; and that is unfortunate. There is an important need now to move very quickly to get a round launched, in Geneva or elsewhere, or, failing that, to consolidate the gains that were made to get acknowledgment of those gains from our negotiating partners and agreement on the general outcomes so that the results genuinely are frozen and not frozen only because the chair ordained it. I think that is a vitally important thing, otherwise the results will thaw and degrade, and we will lose the advantage that this round of negotiations gave us.That is important particularly for Australian agricultural producers who stand to benefit if we open markets because of the round. Also, although agriculture and services—as a consequence of Labor's negotiation at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round—are now mandated and will continue in negotiation next year, it is important that we have a wide round with other sectors in order to have scope for cross-sectoral negotiation to conclude outcomes.Mr Vaile set down in his statement several outcomes for agriculture. Those outcomes now need to be nailed down so that they do not erode. Mr Vaile in his statement also quotes me. I need to correct the quote, because it is incorrect. What I did say was that the United States has the worst record in adopting ILO conventions of many countries in the world. That is a matter of fact. It is a matter of record, and the reason I state it is that there is a need for countries which are putting the WTO ahead of the ILO in terms of labour standards to do their basic work on adopting labour standards in their own countries and to support the work of the ILO. That does not mean that there cannot be debate on labour standards in the WTO, but there is certainly an obligation to work through the ILO. The Australian Constitution is, after all, nothing more than a constitution to ensure free trade between the states. But in pursuing free trade in Australia, we added a labour clause by enabling in the Constitution the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes that go beyond the borders of more than one state. That is a constitutional response by our forefathers, which is a worthwhile thing to bear in mind when this government is trying to exclude a discussion of labour standards from a free trade agreement.Our Constitution upheld the principle; there is no reason why we cannot address it in intelligent and constructive ways through the negotiations in the WTO. One has to ask oneself—given that the Reith legislation has been found to contravene ILO conventions—whether there is a guilty conscience in some quarters of the government and whether we have Mr Reith overwhelming Mr Vaile's commonsense in trying to shift trade negotiations to reach an undertaking that would incorporate some recognition of labour standards in some form or at least an off-base discussion of it so that the matter was addressed. Finally, I think the concentration on regional trade openings is welcome but it is not good enough. The bar is too low as far as an AFTA-CER agreement is concerned. (Time expired)16:23:0011456Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6SAAD00—I seek to make a few comments on the same report. I start by commending the Minister for Trade, Mr Mark Vaile, for making his statement today on the Australian delegation to the Third World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference held in Seattle last week. I certainly acknowledge that some aspects of his report are quite interesting, including his claim that:Contrary to many media reports, the riots were not a major problem for the conference.And he goes on to talk about what he considers the real stumbling blocks—in one circumstance, an unwieldy agenda, and there are other issues to which he refers. There can be no doubt that many of the images on our television screens of protesters and riots and of people from a range of different welfare, labour and trade union organisations and indeed environment groups protesting in the streets of Seattle remain with us.There are some important lessons to be learnt from the WTO conference. One lesson that we should learn from the failure of these talks is that, if the advocates of further trade liberalisation are to have any success in achieving their aims, they must engage in a full, transparent and accountable dialogue with citizens around the world. Unlike the traditional post-confab happy snap that we normally get from trade conferences, some of the scenes on our television screens and in our papers were quite confronting images, leading some commentators to even claim that this might be the birth of global politics, which I think is an interesting image. For almost a decade now globalisation has been part of the international lexicon. However, communities around the world have consistently been denied any meaningful dialogue on the pace or direction of globalisation. Queries, doubts and concerns about the effect of the reforms implemented as a consequence of the Uruguay Round earlier this decade have instead been met with the retort that globalisation is basically inevitable and that we can like it or lump it. So the Democrats welcome this statement as hopefully leading to greater dialogue and transparency on trade issues between government and the people. However, any congratulations must end there.We consider the approach of this government on trade issues as narrow and short-sighted. Perhaps the most stark example of this was the so-called Team Australia—the collection of industry representatives and bureaucrats, and I acknowledge that the shadow minister was present. But there were no non-government organisations represented in that official delegation. Team Australia comprised representatives from the `fastest, highest and strongest' members of the private sector, but no representatives of the civil society, the poor or the environment.Of course, promotion of our agricultural industry is important—and we acknowledge every right of the minister to pursue these issues—but there was no reason for the Australian agenda to be so limited. We believe the government's refusal to engage in UK or US sponsored discussions on issues of labour standards or human rights at the conference is another stark flaw. It has long been a feature of the international rights debate that developing nations are wary of being subjected to impossible labour, environmental and rights standards. However, the extraordinary reluctance of the Australian government to discuss these issues within the context of trade liberalisation is difficult to comprehend.The WTO is often trumpeted as preferable to other international economic and financial institutions due to its democratic working structure and conferral of equal voting rights on all its members. Furthermore, its founding treaty contains an undertaking to protect and preserve the environment and to make positive efforts to assist developing nations. I acknowledge the previous speaker's comments: Senator Cook said a lot of the protesters were protesting against the status quo and that perhaps it would have been in their interests—in his view, not necessarily in that of the Democrats—to achieve change through this forum proceeding and achieving certain outcomes. Yes, this is a very good forum in which to pursue some of these issues, but I guess our concern is that the Australian government does not necessarily see the forum in that broader context.So arguments that the WTO is not an appropriate forum for the discussion of these issues is completely contradicted and undermined by the founding documents of that organisation. It is also difficult to see how issues of rights and standards are not linked to trade, when one of the driving forces of globalisation of industry and trade is the lower prices of goods and services across nations and regions caused by lower labour costs. When it is Western multinational corporations that are among those who are most guilty of the perpetration of breaches of human rights and environment and labour standards, arguments that they should not be subjected to the same standards in developing nations as they are in developed nations are hard to maintain.The government made it plain on many occasions that it prefers to seek minimalist positions on international standards—as seen in the recent ILO conference in Geneva. Of course, this position is not necessarily reflected when it comes to trade. I was interested to see the comments by Mr Warren Truss last Friday when he stated:It would be a tragedy if we were to end up with a weak declaration just so we could get an agreement.On the issue of labour standards, the government would prefer the ILO to be the sole organisation charged with their implementation; yet it is well known that the ILO faces some considerable difficulty in discharging this duty and that a permanent dialogue with the WTO would prove beneficial in ensuring that nations adhere to their international commitments.Where unanimous international agreement has been secured for a standard, such as the Prohibition of Exploitative Child Labour, ILO Convention No. 182, adopted in June this year by 174 nations, including Australia—more nations than are members of the WTO—every effort should be made to secure rapid ratification and implementation. The WTO is an ideal organisation to assist in this process, and our government's failure to support either the UK or the US initiatives to facilitate this is extremely disappointing.The failure of the talks gives nations around the world an opportunity to take stock of the overwhelming protests and anger at the pace and direction of globalisation and to consider the reforms to be made. The Democrats see that there are five key areas for reform of the WTO and urge the government to take these recommendations on board. Primary among these is that trade must be not just free but fair and ethical. The unjust enrichment of the wealthiest nations and corporations should not be part of any international or national agenda. There must be a review of the reforms that have already been implemented, a review of the effect of past trade liberalisation and the development of a permanent dialogue between institutions concerned with the protection of the environment and the implementation of human rights and labour standards.There must be a reassessment of the priorities of the international community. Trade is one aspect of life and should not subjugate other values. The enforcement powers of the WTO exceed the powers of almost all other international institutions—bar, perhaps, the UN Security Council—and thus give it inordinate strength. There must be greater transparency if the faith of civil society is ever to be won. The demonstrations in Seattle were not evidence of a lack of faith or a loss of faith but of disgust with a regime that has flourished despite worldwide opposition. There must also be democracy so that communities can have a stake in the process of globalisation, and I do believe that the WTO processes need reform.Not only did Team Australia exclude NGOs in the trade liberalisation debate in Seattle; by supporting the Green Room process Australia acted to exclude many developing G77 interests. The Green Room facilitates discussion between only 30 or so countries, and this is clearly inadequate when developing countries need to get differential trade liberalisation and other measures which are sympathetic to the G77 countries' different needs onto the agenda. The delegates of developing nations expressed concerns after the talks broke up that the process had not been fair and did not address their concerns. NGO releases at the end of the round in Seattle describe the process as `undemocratic, unjust and unbalanced'. It is clear that the talks failed due to the way the WTO conducts itself. The protesters' messages were very similar. The WTO needs to reform its processes so that trade policy is made in a way that is transparent, fair and balanced.I would also like to take the opportunity to raise some of the issues that surrounded the discussion on the creation and use of and trade in GMO products in Seattle—a particular area of concern, no doubt, given the debate on the ANZFA legislation today. The WTO must assess where it is at. Environmental and ethical trading issues should be represented not only at the meeting but also outside on the streets. I do not think we can disregard those demonstrations in Seattle. The demonstrations were telling of a wider shift in global community attitudes in which environment, health, labour and, of course, G77 issues are of top concern. Trade liberalisation is not an end in itself; it facilitates other ends. I think Australia and the Australian government, as well as other countries that participated in the WTO round in Seattle, would do well to remember that.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees11459114591145916:33:0011459Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I present the government's response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its enquiry into commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife. I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—SENATE RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO COMMERCIAL UTILISATION OF AUSTRALIAN NATIVE WILDLIFEGOVERNMENT RESPONSERecommendation 1The Committee recommends that the Federal Government investigate the possibility of an experimental management trial, preferably in the rangelands region of Australia. Such an investiga tion should include discussions with officers from all relevant Federal Government instrumentalities (including Environment Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Bureau of Resource Sciences and RIRDC), wildlife scientists, state government officials and private landowners. Funding for such trials could come from the Bushcare: National Vegetation Initiative program of the Natural Heritage Trust.Government responseThe Government supports in principle the concept of an experimental management trial and will undertake a feasibility study to ascertain the viability of such a trial, as part of the implementation of the National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland management.This feasibility study will aim to gain an understanding of social, environmental and economic factors impacting upon and arising out of native wildlife utilisation in rangelands. Key issues which should be foreshadowed within such a study would include: the species most likely to form the basis of sustainable and profitable industries; the management regimes and codes of practice necessary to ensure long term ecological sustainability and long term economic viability and to minimise animal welfare concerns. Key issues would also include marketing, processing and quality control; the range of incentives available to encourage improvements in natural resource management practices; identification of government and other institutional impediments to such changes and the necessary monitoring and evaluation of the impacts resulting from the changes.Depending on the outcome of the feasibility study, the Government would work with key stakeholders in one or more rangeland regions to develop a detailed proposal for an on-ground trial in a form suitable for Natural Heritage Trust investment. Diversification of land use is consistent with the draft National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management, and enhanced utilisation of native species, in particular native flora, is potentially one way of diversifying rangeland industries, while promoting ecologically sustainable management of environmental and natural resources.Commonwealth funding for a feasibility study and trial could be sourced from Bushcare and the National Landcare Program, contingent upon the projects being consistent with the objectives of those programs and funds being available. The most productive result is likely to be obtained if a trial were conducted in partnership with State and Territory governments, landholders (including indigenous landholders) and appropriate community organisations. Recommendation 2The Committee recommends that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee review the effectiveness of programs related to feral animal control in two years time.Government responseNoted. The Committee has identified that, aside from habitat loss, one of the greatest threats to biodiversity in Australia is the impact of feral animals. The Government has recognised the threats posed by feral animals, and all other invasive species, and is addressing these through programs under the Natural Heritage Trust. The Government considers that any review should encompass all invasive species control programs and recognises that in two years time, more detailed information will be available on various control options and should enable comprehensive cost effectiveness analyses to be undertaken, including with regard to commercial harvesting of pest species.Recommendation 3The Committee recommends that the Government monitor the environmental, social and economic impacts of commercial utilisation of wildlife so that a balance sheet can be constructed to assess the full impact of wildlife industries on the Australian economy.Government ResponseAccept in principle. The use of a balance sheet assessment that incorporates environmental, social, and economic impacts of commercial wildlife use could provide essential information for managing industries that evolve from increased access to wildlife resources.Indicators would be an essential component of a balance sheet approach and would need to be agreed by stakeholders and be consistent with existing initiatives. Governments are currently undertaking work in a number of areas that would assist the development of such balance sheets. This includes the Australian Bureau of Statistics' natural resource accounts, the National Forest Inventory and reporting against the Montreal Process criteria and indicators for forests, State of the Environment reporting and the development of environmental indicators. Using the work already being undertaken could contribute to the development of management regimes that recognise the commercial values of wildlife use and assist in the management of broader biodiversity values.Recommendation 4The Committee recommends that the Federal Government investigate ways in which private sector investment in biodiversity conservation can be supported and encouraged. In particular, the Committee draws attention to the model of sustain able use of wildlife as used in southern Africa, whereby in some areas ownership of wildlife is transferred to local landowners, and recommends that the Government examine the appropriateness of such a model to biodiversity conservation in Australia.Government ResponseAccepted. The investigation of increased private sector investment in biodiversity conservation is strongly supported. Systems of management need to be underpinned by analysis of the species concerned, the local environment, determination of the property rights and incentive regimes to support conservation and sustainable use objectives. These will involve investigation of measures to manage risks such as erosion of the gene pool in remnant populations.Model systems for private sector investment currently exist in industries based on wildlife use, for example, some fisheries management regimes. The development of an access right regime will enable a market to develop for species of commercial value. This will occur through the incorporation of the necessary conditions to ensure an efficient and effective market for the commercialisation. Flow-on implications for other species will also need to be taken into account. Significant benefits to increased biodiversity conservation values could lead to flow on benefits to other species through habitat improvement, increased availability of funds, improved knowledge and incentive mechanisms for sustainable use.Recommendation 5The Committee recommends that State and Federal Governments together review all administrative procedures relating to commercial utilisation of wildlife in Australia with a view to increasing their efficiency so as to ensure that there are no unnecessary hindrances to industry.Government ResponseAccepted. A review of administrative procedures under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports & Imports) Act 1982 is already underway, with a view to eliminating inefficiencies. This review will include consideration of administrative costs and fees charged to the industries, in line with the Commonwealth's policy on cost recovery.The Commonwealth will continue to work cooperatively with State Governments to streamline administrative procedures relating to commercial utilisation of wildlife. Through relevant Ministerial Councils, the Commonwealth will seek the cooperation of the States and Territories to develop more integrated and efficient procedures in this area. Statutory obligations may also be reviewed, where appropriate, to remove duplication. Recommendation 6The Committee believes that governments should make greater efforts to recognise the contributions made by amateur biologists. The Committee recommends to Federal and State Governments that they review wildlife regulations with a view to facilitating the work of professional and amateur scientists, so that they can actively contribute to biodiversity conservation.Government ResponseThe Government is strongly supportive of, and encourages broad community involvement in, all aspects of biodiversity conservation. Through the Natural Heritage Trust, funding and other support is provided for a broad range of activities which target the full range of environmental and natural resource issues facing Australia. Scientific research can have significant long-term benefits to biodiversity conservation, and the government is keen to ensure that professional and amateur scientists can actively contribute to biodiversity conservation. The Government also acknowledges that indigenous people have considerable traditional ecological expertise and that this knowledge should be respected.Through the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council , the Commonwealth Government will encourage the States and Territories to review wildlife regulations and amend any that inhibit legitimate scientists and others in the community from contributing to our knowledge of Australia's biological diversity. However, in undertaking such a review it will be necessary to ensure that biodiversity conservation is maintained, access to biological resources is equitable, and that where access gives rise to private benefit, the community receives an appropriate share of that benefit.Recommendation 7The Committee recommends that codes of practice relating to wildlife industries should: (1) be in place prior to approval being given for an industry to commence operations; (2) have a clear connection between licensing conditions and compliance with a code of practice so that failure to comply results in a withdrawal of the licence; (3) be consistent between the states; and (4) where several codes apply to the same industry, be consistent between codes.Government ResponseAccepted. It is noted that this recommendation accords with the general thrust of discussions in the National Consultative Committee on Animal Welfare on this issue. The Government recognises that codes evolve over time and that a code introduced at the time of approval of an industry will need to be reconsidered in light of new knowledge, including that gained as a result of the operation of the industry. Codes must also be broadly based so they do not favour or penalise particular industries. It is also recognised that a number of animal use industries are including animal welfare codes into Quality Assurance Programs. This is an effective mechanism to ensure best practice and compliance with codes of practice and will be encouraged.Recommendation 8The Committee believes that these factors point strongly to the conclusion that the current prohibitionist policy does not work to protect wildlife from illegal activities, although the extent to which it does not work, is difficult to ascertain. The Committee notes that the Federal Government is currently undertaking a review of all environmental legislation. The Committee recommends that the Government include in that review consideration of other policy options for Wildlife Protection.Government ResponseAccepted in principle. The Consultation Paper on the Reform of Environment Legislation, released in February 1998, included proposals to amend the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. However, these proposals were not included in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill, pending the report of this Senate Inquiry. The Government has, in its election platform, made a commitment to amend the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1982. The reforms recommended by the Senate Committee, including implementing administrative arrangements that protect wildlife from illegal activities, will be carefully considered in drafting amendments to this legislation.Recommendation 9The Committee believes that the Government should act wherever possible to support legitimate small businesses in Australia, and therefore recommends that Environment Australia give priority to resolving problems relating to the sale and export of coral and shells, so as to assist industry.Government ResponseAccepted. The Government is in the process of implementing new arrangements for trade in corals and shells. These arrangements will assist the coral industry to legally harvest and export its product, and will substantially decrease the administrative burden on the shell trade without reducing the level of control of the trade in species of shells vulnerable to overharvesting.Recommendation 10The Committee recommends a remote Aboriginal community be invited to carry out a trial survey of the levels of subsistence wildlife use, and its impact on biodiversity, supported by a grant through the Natural Heritage Trust. Government ResponseConsiderable work has already been conducted to investigate subsistence use of wildlife, particularly in northern Australia, primarily focused on the identification of utilisation patterns. What is now needed are strategic studies to set utilisation patterns in an ecological context, including an examination of the long term impacts upon biodiversity of various utilisation patterns, and impacts other than subsistence use by traditional communities. It is also desirable to measure the effects on biodiversity of the absence of traditional use. Studies should include analysis of the full economic benefits, and the cultural importance to society of subsistence use. In addition, any study needs to be undertaken with the full cooperation of the community, respecting their rights, and agreement with the community about use of information gained during a study is essential. Commonwealth assistance through the Natural Heritage Trust could be made available for appropriate studies.Recommendation 11The Committee recommends that Aboriginal people should be consulted where commercial opportunities are identified on lands where there are communities that have strong traditional links to the lands.Government ResponseAccepted. On lands owned or managed by indigenous communities it is well accepted that any commercial use should occur only after consultation. The Government considers it important to fully involve indigenous communities in any proposals where commercial opportunities are identified on lands where there are traditional links.Recommendation 12The Committee believes that the importance of intellectual property rights of Aboriginal people in relation to the use of wildlife has not received sufficient recognition, and the Committee recommends that the Federal government give greater attention to this issue.Government ResponseAccepted in principle. Traditional knowledge of biodiversity has benefited Australian society and continues to do so, but historically, the value of indigenous peoples traditional knowledge could be perceived as having been largely ignored, with the sources of knowledge often not acknowledged, and rarely benefiting. Current intellectual property rights regimes may not offer sufficient protection to the holders of traditional (indigenous) knowledge because the two concepts are largely incompatible under Australian law. There may also be tension between the publication requirements of statutory intellectual property rights and any desire indigenous communities have to keep knowledge secret. The Government supports efforts to engage key stakeholders, including indigenous communities, in widespread discussions aimed at resolving this issue. This may include using the intellectual property system to protect traditional knowledge; eg confidential information, protection and recognition through contract law, and the possibilities of developing a new class of proprietary rights, or new classes of transfer agreement.Statement by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, in relation to the Report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on `Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife'.I am pleased to present to the Parliament, the Government's response to the recommendations contained in the Report of Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Inquiry into Commercial Utilisation of Australian Native Wildlife.I am indebted to the Committee for their significant efforts in providing a constructive contribution to the consideration of this issue. The Committee received over 340 submissions, and took evidence from over 100 witnesses and groups of witnesses at 14 public hearings around Australia. The submissions and evidence presented to the Committee clearly highlight the wide divergence of views within the Australian community about the ethical desirability of the commercial use of wildlife. Despite this obvious lack of a broad consensus amongst Australians, the Committee has developed a series of recommendations that seek to balance the sometimes-competing demands for conservation and ecologically sustainable use of our wildlife resources. The recommendations also seek to streamline government regulation of these activities to make it more efficient and effective.Not surprisingly, the Report identifies that the future of biodiversity conservation in Australia now depends very much on finding mechanisms to ensure that natural habitat on private land is preserved and restored. Valuing natural habitat as an economic resource will certainly assist it to be fully respected and conserved. It concludes that, if appropriately managed, commercial utilisation of wildlife may be a mechanism of achieving that respect and conservation. This is consistent with the principles accepted by all Governments in Australia through the adoption of the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity in 1996.The Report also correctly identifies that the challenge for government agencies, entrepreneurs, and conservation groups is to manage wildlife use so as to minimise the environmental risks and maximise the benefits to biodiversity conservation. It notes that proposals for harvesting and ranching of our wildlife need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, and comprehensive management plans developed which take into account a cost benefit analysis of other land uses, and other mechanisms for preserving habitat. In keeping with the predominant view expressed to the Committee, animal welfare considerations must factor highly in any utilisation regime.One key area highlighted by the Report as requiring attention is the issue of property or access rights to wildlife. It notes a lack of clarity as to what constitutes rights (including indigenous or Native Title rights) in wildlife, and that these rights are in practice difficult to define and are not consistent across Australia. It suggests that by assigning property or access rights, wildlife would become an asset rather than a liability to the landholder, and that if landholders receive a financial reward for living with wildlife and bearing the cost to society of maintaining natural resources this may encourage conservation. This view is consistent with the draft National Principles and Guidelines for Rangeland Management.The issue of Native Title rights is of fundamental importance in considerations of wildlife use systems. While the scope of every native title right in Australia has not yet been clarified, the Native Title Act 1993 essentially provides a framework for the recognition and protection of native title rights and interests, rather than replacing the common law with some statutory scheme of rights to land. The Government recognises that access, and knowledge and input to the use of resources on the land is important to native titleholders, and agrees with the Committee's recommendation that indigenous people be consulted and given the opportunity to express their views about certain proposed land use activities.The Report examines a number of established wildlife industries, such as crocodile and emu farming, kangaroo and wildflower harvesting, aviculture and bush food, and makes a number of constructive proposals for their management. It also alerts Governments to the fact that, if the `user pays' principle is not kept firmly in mind, industries based on commercial utilisation of wildlife have the potential to impact on the public sector in high administrative costs. It notes that mechanisms are needed to ensure that commercial utilisation of wildlife does not result in a net economic loss to society, and that there is a need to fully and publicly monitor all costs.The Committee has made 12 specific recommendations aimed at streamlining government regulation of the commercial use of wildlife and ensuring ecologically sustainable use of our wildlife resources. The broad thrust of the Committee's recommendations is endorsed by the Government and will be achieved through the responses outlined in this document. Implementation of the recommendations will remain consistent with Australia's international obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and also the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.The Committee has recognised that regulation of wildlife use lies mostly within the ambit of State government control, and that any implementation of its recommendations can only occur with State government cooperation. Through relevant Ministerial Councils, the Commonwealth will encourage the States and Territories, and work with them to implement those recommendations that require cooperative action.Some of the Committee's recommendations are already being implemented or can be implemented in the near future while others, because of the extent of the work involved in their development and/or higher priorities requiring more immediate attention, are of a medium to longer term nature.The improvements that will be gained from the Government's response to this report include improved efficiency and responsiveness of operations under the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act, greater public transparency, and ensuring that world's best practice standards and methods are employed in managing the commercial use of Australia's native fauna and flora. The Government has already given an undertaking to review the Wildlife Protection Act to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The Senate report provides a well-defined framework within which this review will occur.Through its response to this Report, the Government has demonstrated that it places a high priority on wildlife conservation and on ensuring that it is addressed in a transparent, responsive, efficient and scientifically rigorous way. It has also demonstrated its commitment to improving administrative efficiency and removing unnecessary hindrances and constraints to legitimate industries.I am confident that the approach outlined in the Government's response will not only maintain our strong record in protection and conservation of Australia's native wildlife, but will also ensure improved protection for those species into the next century.In closing, I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the Committee for this comprehensive report, and for the insightful comments and recommendations made in relation to wildlife harvesting and regulation in Australia.I commend this response to the Parliament.ROBERT HILLMinister for Environment and Heritage 1146416:33:0011464Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I present the government's response to the President's report of 30 June 1999 on outstanding government responses to parliamentary committee reports. I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard .Leave granted.The document read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTSRESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ON 30 JUNE 1999Circulated by the Leader of the Government in the SenateSenator the Hon Robert Hill8 December 1999A NEW TAX SYSTEM (Senate Select)First Report—February 1999The Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.Main Report—April 1999The Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.Report on Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements Bills, Luxury Car Tax Bills and Wine Equalisation BillsThe Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCESAccess to medical recordsThe Government response is being finalised and will be tabled as soon as possible.Child care fundingThe Government response is being finalised and is expected to be tabled shortly.The Lucky Country Goes Begging—Report on the GST and the New Tax SystemThe Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES (Joint Statutory)Provisions of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998The Government response to the recommendations of the report is, in effect, constituted in amendments to the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 1998 (CLERP Bill) which were proposed in the Senate on 12 October 1999.The amendments to the CLERP Bill will implement almost all of the recommendations of the majority report and a number of the recommendations contained in the supplementary reports. In particular, the Government will seek to implement:. the Committee's recommendation that the new compulsory acquisition power be subject to a time limit to provide additional certainty for minority shareholders (recommendation 3);. the recommendations to adopt proposals made by the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee in relation to the takeover provisions of the Bill;. the Committee's recommendations to clarify some of the procedural aspects of the takeover and compulsory acquisition provisions (recommendations 2, 4, 5 and 6);. the Committee's recommendations in relation to the fundraising provisions of the Bill (recommendations 8, 9 and 10); and. the recommendation by the minority reports that the ability to enforce orders of the Corporations and Securities Panel be extended to persons other than the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.The Committee's recommendation that rollover relief from capital gains tax be provided in relation to takeovers and compulsory acquisition (recommendation 7) was considered in the context of the Review of Business Taxation. Recommendation 7 has been overtaken by the Review's recommendation that capital gains tax rollover relief be allowed for scrip-for-scrip takeovers provided certain conditions are met.EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING REFERENCESA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching professionThe Government response was tabled on 30 November 1999.EMPLOYMENT, WORKPLACE RELATIONS, SMALL BUSINESS AND REFERENCESReport of the Inquiry into the GST and A New Tax SystemThe Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCESAccess to heritage: user charges in museums, art galleries and national parksThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 autumn sittings. ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND THE ARTS REFERENCESInquiry into the GST and A New Tax SystemThe Government has considered the recommendations of the report when drafting the A New Tax System legislation.Report on the powers of the Commonwealth in environment protection and ecologically-sustainable development in AustraliaSince the report was tabled, the Parliament has passed the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which effects a major reform in the Commonwealth's environmental legislation. The Government response has been delayed by the need to consider the report in light of the new legislation. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 autumn sittings.Report on the Jabiluka uranium mine proposalThe Government response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 autumn sittings.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint Standing)Defence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 1997The Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.Australia and ASEAN: Managing changeThe Government response is in preparation.Funding of Australia's DefenceThe Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.Australia's trade relationship with IndiaThe Government response is in preparation.Report on the loss of HMAS SydneyThe Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.Military justice procedures in the Australian Defence ForceThe Government response is expected to be tabled shortly.FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCESReport on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south AsiaThe Government response is in the final stage of preparation. LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCESInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and FlintThe Government response is close to being finalised.Inquiry into the Australian legal aid system (3rd report)The Government response is expected to be tabled in the 2000 autumn sittings.Inquiry into sexuality discrimination The Government response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible.Privacy and the Private Sector: Inquiry into privacy issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998The Government response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possibleMIGRATION (Joint Standing)Australia's visa system for visitorsThe Government response was tabled on 23 November 1999.Working holiday makers: More than touristsThe Government response was tabled on 2 September 1999.Deportation of non-citizen criminalsThe Government response is close to being finalised.Immigration detention centres inspection reportThe Government response was tabled on 2 September 1999.Review of Migration Regulation 4.31BThe Government response is close to being finalised.NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES (Joint Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territoriesThe Government response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible.NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime AuthorityFurther consultation on the proposed Government response is expected to be held at the November meeting of the Inter Governmental Committee (IGC) on the National Crime Authority. Subject to the IGC it will then be possible to table the Government response in the 2000 autumn sittings. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT (Joint Statutory)JCPAA ReportsAs a matter of general practice this explanatory schedule does not include reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit unless such reports contain policy recommendations. Reports that address administrative or operational matters are usually responded to in the form of Finance/Executive Minutes. These are normally provided to the Committee within six months of the tabling of the report and are then tabled by the Committee.Asset management by Commonwealth agencies (Report No. 363)The Finance Minute for this report was tabled on 11 March 1999 (Final).Advisory Report on the delayed provisions of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 (Report No. 364)The Committee made five recommendations in Report No. 364. Most of the recommendations related to the technical content of the provisions (recommendations 3, 4 and 5). Amendments in the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 4) 1999 , which received Royal Assent on 16 July 1999, gave effect to all these `technical content' recommendations.Recommendation 2 of the report was beyond the Tax Law Improvement Projects terms of reference. As part of the response to the Review of Business Taxation's report, the Government has announced the New Business Tax System which contains measures that will significantly improve the way in which capital gains tax relief is delivered to small business. This recommendation will be considered in settling the detail of these measures.Recommendation 1 is procedural in nature. The Review of Business Taxation has recommended the adoption of an ongoing tax simplification strategy. This recommendation will be considered in the context of the Review's recommendation.Annual Report 1997-98 (Report No. 365)No Finance Minute/Government response required.Review of Auditor-General's report 1997-98, Second quarter (Report No. 366)The Government response to recommendation 3 was tabled on 21 October 1999.Review of Auditor-General's report 1997-98, Third quarter (Report No. 367)The Government response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible. Review of Audit Report No. 34, 1997-98: New Submarine Project, Department of Defence (Report No. 368)The Government response to policy recommendations is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible.Australian Government Procurement (Report No. 369)The Government response was tabled on 23 November 1999.RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCESCommercial utilisation of Australian native wildlifeThe Government response was tabled on 8 December 1999.The Effect of Pricing and Slot Management Arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on Regional Airlines CommunitiesThe Government response is being prepared and will be tabled as soon as possible.SUPERANNUATION (Senate Select)Resolving superannuation complaints (31st report)Before considering a response to the report, the Government was awaiting the outcome of a High Court appeal to the Federal Court decision of Wilkinson v Clerical Administrative and Related Employees Superannuation Pty Ltd . The High Court decision of Attorney General of the Commonwealth v Breckler & Ors was handed down on 17 June 1999 in favour of the Commonwealth. As a result, the Government's response to the report is:Recommendation 1 The Government accepted this recommendation. In response the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1998 was enacted in December 1998 to enable the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal to arbitrate complaints with the consent of the parties. In light of the High Court decision, the arbitration powers ceased to have effect on 13 September 1999.Recommendation 2 This recommendation is no longer relevant in light of the High Court decision. As a result the Government considers that a response is not necessary.TREATIES (Joint)Treaties tabled on 18 March 1997 and 13 May 1997 (8th report)The Government response is subject to continuing consultations. Agreement with Kasakstan, Treaties tabled on 30 September 1997 and 21 December 1997 (11th report)The Government response is in the final stages of preparation.Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)The Government response is subject to continuing consultations.Treaties tabled 1 April and 12, 13 and 26 May 1998 (15th report)The Government response is in the final stages of preparation.UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (17th report)The Government response is being considered and will be tabled shortly.Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Final Report (18th report)The Government response was tabled on 30 November 1999.The Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and Five Treaties tabled on 30 June 1998 (19th Report)The Government response is in preparation.Two Treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and Treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 (20th Report)The Government response is in preparation.Five Treaties tabled on 16 February 1999 (21st Report)The Government response is in preparation.Five Treaties tabled on 11 May 1999 (22nd Report)The Government response is in preparation.1146711467The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)10000PON/A10—In accordance with the usual practice, I table a list of parliamentary committee reports to which the government has not responded within the prescribed period. The list has been circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, the list will be incorporated in Hansard .The list read as follows—PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTSAS AT 8 DECEMBER 1999PREFACEThis document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of Government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.The practice of presenting this list to the Senate follows the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the then Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the then incoming government. The then Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 the former Government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chairman, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The current Government in June 1996 affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of their presentation.The list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the following Senate Standing Committees: Appropriations and Staffing, Selection of Bills, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances and Scrutiny of Bills. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Responses to reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit are usually made in the form of Finance Minutes which are tabled by the committee. Where a response has been made by way of Finance Minute, the date of presentation has been appropriately annotated.Legislation committees report on bills and on the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be implemented through the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by legislation committees on estimates or scrutiny of annual reports.A guide to the legend used in the `Date response presented/made to the Senate' column* See document tabled in the Senate on 8 December 1999, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports-Response to the schedule tabled by the Deputy President on 30 June 1999 , for Government interim/final response. A New Tax System (Senate Select)First report—February 199918.2.99*(final)NoMain report—April 199919.4.99*(final)NoReport on Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements Bills, Luxury Car Tax Bills and Wine Equalisation Bills30.4.99*(final)No Australian Security Intelligence Organization (Joint Standing)Advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment Bill 199913.5.9925.11.99No Community Affairs LegislationReport on the Australian New Zealand Food Authority Bill 199911.8.99-No Community Affairs ReferencesAccess to medical records26.6.97*(interim)NoChild care funding9.12.98*(interim)NoThe lucky country goes begging—Report on the GST and the new tax system 30.3.99*(final)NoReport on proposals for changes to the welfare system22.11.99-Time not expiredRocking the cradle—A report into childbirth procedures8.12.99-Time not expired Corporations and Securities (Joint Statutory)Provisions of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Bill 199812.5.99*(final)NoReport on matters arising from the Company Law Review Act 199821.10.99-Time not expired Economics ReferencesA new reactor at Lucas Heights1.9.99-No Employment, Education and Training ReferencesA class act: inquiry into the status of teachers and development of the teaching profession31.3.9830.11.99No Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education ReferencesReport of the inquiry into the GST and a new tax system31.3.99*(final)NoJobs for the regions: A report on regional employment and unemployment30.9.99-Time not expired Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts ReferencesAccess to heritage: user charges in museums, art galleries and national parks11.7.98*(interim)No Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts ReferencesInquiry into the GST and a new tax system29.3.99*(final)NoReport on the powers of the Commonwealth in environment protection and ecologically-sustainable development in Australia27.5.99*(interim)NoJabiluka: The undermining of process—Report of the inquiry into the Jabiluka uranium mine proposal30.6.99*(interim)NoReport on the development of Hinchinbrook Channel27.9.99-Time not expired Finance and Public Administration LegislationFormat of the Portfolio Budget Statements (2nd report)22.11.99 (presented 29.10.99)-Time not expired Finance and Public Administration ReferencesInquiry into business taxation reform22.11.99-Time not expired Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint)Defence Sub-committee: Visit to Sydney Harbour foreshores defence properties, 14 November 199723.3.98*(interim)NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing change6.4.98*(interim)NoFunding of Australia's defence8.5.98*(interim)NoAustralia's trade relationship with India29.6.98*(interim)NoReport on the loss of HMAS Sydney22.3.99*(interim)NoMilitary justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force21.6.99*(interim)NoDefence Sub-committee—Visit to defence establishments in northern Australia, 26-29 July 199927.9.99Not required-Bougainville: The peace process and beyond27.9.99-Time not expiredWorld debt: Report on the proceedings of a seminar, 27 August 1999, Canberra6.12.99-Time not expired Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ReferencesThe 1998 Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests (Report on nuclear weapon and ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia)30.6.99*(interim)NoInterim report—East Timor30.9.99Not required- Legal and Constitutional LegislationFamily Law Amendment Bill 19996.12.99-Time not expired Legal and Constitutional ReferencesInquiry into the Commonwealth's actions in relation to Ryker (Faulkner) v The Commonwealth and Flint30.4.96 (presented 29.4.96)*(interim)NoInquiry into sexuality discrimination2.12.97*(interim)NoInquiry into the Australian legal aid system,3rd report25.6.98*(interim)NoPrivacy and the private sector: Inquiry into privacy issues, including the Privacy Amendment Bill 199825.3.99*(interim)No Migration (Joint)Australia's visa system for visitors30.4.96 (presented 27.1.96)23.11.99NoWorking holiday makers: more than tourists3.9.972.9.99NoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29.6.98*(interim)NoImmigration detention centres inspection report10.11.98 (presented 27.8.98)2.9.99NoReview of Migration Regulation 4.31B31.5.99*(interim)NoGoing for gold—Immigration entry arrangements for the Olympic and Paralympic Games27.9.99-Time not expired National Capital and External Territories (Joint)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories22.3.99*(interim)No National Crime Authority (Joint Statutory)Third evaluation of the National Crime Authority 6.4.98*(interim)NoStreet legal: The involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operations6.12.99-Time not expired Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint Statutory)Fourteenth report—Examination of annual reports for 1997-981.9.99Not required- Fifteenth report—Interim report for the s.206(d) inquiry, proceedings of conference on 12 March 199913.10.99Not required- Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)Advisory report on the delayed provisions of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 (Report No. 364)21.12.98*(final)NoAnnual report 1997-98 (Report No. 365)11.3.99*(final)NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, Second quarter (Report No. 366)30.3.9921.10.99NoReview of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, Third quarter (Report No. 367)30.3.99*(interim)NoReview of Audit Report No. 34, 1997-98: New submarine project, Department of Defence (Report No. 368)9.6.99*(interim)NoAustralian government procurement (Report No. 369)30.6.9923.11.99NoDefence life cycle costing; Commonwealth guarantees, indemnities and letters of comfort; and review of Auditor-General's reports 1997-98, Fourth quarter (Report No. 370)8.12.99-Time not expiredReview of Auditor-General's reports 1998-99, First half—Aviation security, costing of services and planning of aged care (Report No. 371)20.10.99-Time not expired Republic Referendum (Joint Select)Advisory report on the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of a Republic) 1999 and the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill 19999.8.9911.8.99Yes Retailing Sector (Joint Select)Fair market or market failure?: A review of Australia's retailing sector30.8.99-No Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport LegislationReport on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon (Interim report)7.12.99Not required- Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ReferencesCommercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife30.6.988.12.99NoThe effect of pricing and slot management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport on regional airlines communities31.3.99*(interim)NoDeregulation of the Australian dairy industry21.10.99-Time not expired Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy (Senate Select)Interim report—Competition policy: Friend or foe—Economic surplus, social deficit?12.8.99-No Superannuation (Senate Select)Resolving superannuation complaints (31st report)12.7.98*(final)No Superannuation and Financial Services (Senate Select)Report on the Choice of Superannuation Funds (Consumer Protection) Bill 199922.11.99Not required-Report on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 199930.11.99Not required- Treaties (Joint)Treaties tabled on 18 March and 13 May 1997 (8th report)23.6.97*(interim)NoAgreement with Kasakstan; treaties tabled on 30 September and 21 October 1997 (11th report)24.11.97*(interim)No Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty (12th report)1.12.97*(interim)NoTreaties tabled 1 April and 12, 13 and 26 May 1998 (15th report)2.7.98*(interim)NoUN Convention on the Rights of the Child (17th report)10.11.98 (presented 28.8.98)*(interim)NoMultilateral Agreement on Investment: Final report (18th report)22.3.9930.11.99NoThe Fifth Protocol to the General Agreement on Trade in Services and five treaties tabled on 30 June 1998 (19th report)23.3.99*(interim)NoTwo treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 1998 (20th report)29.3.99*(interim)NoFive treaties tabled on 16 February 1999 (21st report)7.6.99*(interim)NoFive treaties tabled on 11 May 1999 (22nd report)28.6.99*(interim)NoAmendments proposed to the International Whaling Convention (23rd report)23.8.99-NoA seminar on the role of parliaments in treaty making (24th report)30.8.99-NoEight treaties tabled on 11 August 1999 (25th report)27.9.99-Time not expiredAn agreement to extend the period of operation of the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap (26th report)18.10.99-Time not expired Termination of Social Security Agreement with the United Kingdom; and International Plant Protection Convention (27th report)6.12.99-Time not expiredFourteen treaties tabled on 12 October 1999 (28th report)6.12.99Not required-Miscellaneous1147311473The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)10000PON/A10—I table a document providing details of travel allowance payments made by the Department of the Senate to senators and members during the period January to June 1999.Miscellaneous1147316:34:0011473Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I table a document providing details of parliamentarians' travel costs paid by the Department of Finance and Administration for the period January to June 1999.Delegation Reports114731147316:35:0011473West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4NSWALP00—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Estonia and Sweden, which took place from 24 October to 29 October 1999. In doing so, I would like to pay tribute to the members of the delegation: my deputy, Senator John Watson; Mr Laurie Ferguson, the member for Reid; Mrs De-Anne Kelly, the member for Dawson; Mr Gary Nairn, the member for Eden-Monaro; Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry, a senator for Tasmania; and the parliamentary committee secretary to the delegation, Mr Richard Selth, who is from the Senate committee on the environment. This was a short trip of six days in total to the two countries, but it was a very busy, enjoyable and interesting one. It was only the second delegation from the Australian parliament to actually get in to visit the parliament of Estonia—the first one was led by Mr Stephen Martin about four or five years ago—since the recommencement of independence in 1991 following the with drawal of the former Soviet Union from that country.This was a country that was left rather impoverished by the former Soviet Union and its regime, but the people there are making great strides in their efforts to catch up. They have applied for entry into the European Union. They are one of five countries that are in a group involved in discussions and negotiations that are taking place that may result in their getting next entry into the European Union. They regard that as a very important milestone. They regard having an economy that enables them to make the choice as to whether they become members of the monetary union or not as very important to them as well.We were extremely honoured in Estonia to be given an audience with the President of Estonia, Mr Meri, and to hear the stories not just of Mr Meri but of other people who had suffered and been incarcerated and exiled because of their opposition to the Soviet regime and because of their great love of and desire for freedom and democracy. Their stories were almost chilling for us, as we come from a democracy where no blood has been spilt and no hardship has been endured to gain democracy, and where we regard elections as a bit ho-hum and run-of-the-mill. For them, an election is very important. For them, democracy is sacred and of the utmost importance.We also had the honour to be escorted by the Honorary Consul-General of the Republic of Estonia to Australia, Dr Malle Tohver, who spent the time with us when we were in Estonia. We appreciated her making the effort to come back to Estonia to accompany the delegation. One of the highlights was that, as entertainment on the Monday night, they arranged for us to attend a piano recital by Vladimir Ashkenazy, one of the world's noted pianists. It was really fantastic. We were all rather tired and jet lagged but were kept awake by this beautiful music and wonderful pianist. We certainly appreciated the honour of attending that recital.With a guide, we were able to explore the old town of Tallinn, which is a medieval city surrounded by all the old buildings from the Soviet time, so there is a huge contrast. The weather was cold but the hospitality and welcome were very warm. We certainly appreciated that.The contrast between Estonia and Sweden is very marked. Sweden is a democracy—it is a monarchy—and has been for many years. It is one of the original democracies. The political system is established and is very much a consensus style of democracy. They regard their style of consensus as very important. We spent a day at the Riksdag, the parliament of Sweden, and observed proceedings of the parliament, as we had done in Estonia. Also, we were able to meet with a number of the parliamentary committees, of which there are many, and hold discussions with them. The amazing thing about both Estonia and Sweden was the very limited use we made of interpreters. The command of English by all members of the committees was high. I think some of them spoke better English than did the Australian delegation.We did not spend all of our time in Sweden in Stockholm. We went down to Orebro and were able to inspect a lead and zinc mine, Zinkgruvan, owned by North Limited, which is, of course, an Australian company. It was very interesting to see that mine and, for me, to contrast that with the silver, lead and zinc mine at Broken Hill. It is a huge contrast and was very interesting for us all. We also met the Governor of Orebro and had luncheon with her in her castle, which is quite magnificent. She is also a very interesting lady to talk to.On the final day, we had a half-day trip up to Uppsala, which is the home town of Birgitta Dahl, who is the Speaker of the Riksdag. It was very interesting to see her home area, to visit the university there—it is the major university in Sweden—and also to visit the library and look at some of the original botanical drawings by Solander, who came with Banks on the Endeavour voyages. It was a very interesting time.We were accompanied throughout by Stephen Brady, the Australian Ambassador to Sweden; in both Sweden and Estonia by Rick Nimmo, who is the first secretary of the embassy; and also by Andrea Gleason from the embassy, who was very much involved with the program for the spouses in Stockholm and the Swedish side of the visit.I would like to pay a great tribute to our embassy in Stockholm. It is only small but covers something like six or seven countries in that region. From the reception that our embassy officials were getting, it is quite obvious that they work exceedingly hard. They are on top of all the issues and are making sure that Australia's presence is felt and that Australia's point of view is raised. We were certainly able to hold discussions with the two countries about the commitments of other countries besides Australia in East Timor. We should be very proud of the work of our embassy in Stockholm because it is a very hardworking embassy. I commend the embassy staff for the efforts that they made to make sure our trip was very enjoyable.The report, I am pleased to say, is out in a speedy fashion. I thank Richard Selth for the many hours he has spent on it. I would also like to pay tribute to the hospitality that was extended to us and arranged by the Speaker of the Riksdag and the Speaker of the Riigikogu in Estonia and to say thank you to them for the efforts they made. It was a very enlightening trip. We learnt a lot more about those countries, and I think they learnt a lot more about us. With those remarks, on behalf of everybody I would say thank you for this timely report to the parliament.1147416:45:0011474McKiernan, Sen JamesSenator McKIERNAN1I4WAALP00—by leave—I present the report of a parliamentary delegation to Italy on 2 to 8 October 1999 and to the 102nd inter-parliamentary conference in Berlin on 9 to 16 October 1999. I had the unexpected honour of leading the Australian parliamentary deleg ation to Italy from 2 to 8 October and to the 102nd inter-parliamentary conference in Berlin from 9 to 16 October 1999. I stood in for the designated leader, the Hon. Alex Somlyay, who unfortunately became ill on the way over to Rome and could not continue with the delegation. His presence was greatly missed on the delegation. The delegation closed ranks and achieved its aims and objectives in a way that brought great credit to Australia.In speaking this afternoon, I take this opportunity to embarrass Mr Neil Bessell, who is sitting at the table in front of you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Mr Bessell is a wonderful individual with an extraordinary ability to remain calm in sometimes volatile situations. I mention Mr Bessell because he was the secretary to the delegation. He performed that duty in an extremely diligent fashion, which was a credit to him and the Senate in general. His good counsel, which was sought by many during our visit to both Berlin and Italy, was much appreciated by all who received it.If he was not such an asset to the Senate chamber, I suggest that Mr Bessell might make a wonderful diplomat for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I publicly take this opportunity to thank Neil for the assistance given to this delegation and other IPU delegations. I am sure that you will agree, Madam Acting Deputy President, what an asset he is to the parliament, to these delegations and to the IPU. He will be missed by the IPU itself. Well done, Neil. It is a credit to you. We will miss you on the next delegation for the IPU conference, which will be held in Oman and Jordan.I will return to the report while Neil recovers his composure. The visit to Italy was productive, highly informative and indeed enjoyable. There is no doubt that relations between Australia and Italy, based as they are on trade and migration, are well-established and harmonious. This relationship is reinforced by the fact that Italy has committed 600 defence personnel to the Australian-led INTERFET mission in East Timor. I can assure senators that the delegation took every opportunity to express the appreciation of the Australian parliament and the people of this nation for this commitment and to reinforce the need for a sustained commitment over the coming years so that East Timor takes its place in the international community. In this regard, the delegation was encouraged by the comments from Senator Toia, the undersecretary for foreign affairs.The Italian program for the visit focused initially upon Florence and Tuscany, a regional area with strong links to Australia. Florence has sister city status with Sydney. Yarn and fabric manufacturers import fine quality Australian wool and wine and olive oil producers export to Australia and closely liaise with our local manufacturers. The program then moved to Rome, where arrangements had been made for the delegation to meet the speaker of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and hold extensive discussions with the chairs and members of six parliamentary committees.The delegation also participated in a public audience and was received by His Holiness Pope John Paul II at St Peter's Square in the Vatican. On a personal note, with my interest in migration and citizenship matters, I found most interesting our meeting with Senator Toia, the undersecretary for foreign affairs. We discussed in detail constitutional reforms in Italy to establish a parliamentary electorate for Italians abroad and its implications for Australia.While this meeting was occurring, other members of the delegation were meeting with Monsignor Migliore, the undersecretary for relations with states for the Holy See. I know that my colleague Senator Hogg particularly found this a valuable opportunity to explain Australia's position on East Timor. The delegation is very grateful to a number of people, including the Italian parliament and the speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, for the hospitality rendered to the delegation whilst there. We are also very grateful to the Australian ambassador to Italy, His Excellency Rory Steele, and particularly Mr Phillip Stonehouse and other staff at the embassy. We thank them sincerely for their assistance during our visit to Italy.The report I have just presented also records the delegation's contribution to the work of the 102nd inter-parliamentary conference in Berlin. I am pleased to indicate that the Australian delegation took a leading role in the IPU's deliberations and resolutions. This contribution is summarised on page 26 of the delegation report and includes Australia submitting a memorandum and draft resolutions on the need to revise the current global financial and economic muddle. Mrs Gallus, a member of the delegation from the other place, participated in the debate and chaired the drafting committee on the topic.Australia submitted a memorandum and draft resolution on the contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for, and promoting international humanitarian law on, the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva conventions. I participated in this debate. For my sins, I ended up chairing the drafting committee on the topic.Senator Hogg participated in the debate on the supplementary item to the agenda. This involved the contribution of parliaments to the peaceful coexistence of ethnic, cultural and religious minorities, including migrant populations, within one state marked by tolerance and full respect for human rights. Mrs Crosio and Mrs Gallus participated in the meeting of women parliamentarians. Mrs Crosio and Mr Barresi contributed to the general debate held during the conference. Both of them spoke on the situation in East Timor. Finally, I was elected to the vice-presidency of the second committee on parliamentary, judicial and human rights questions.The IPU is about dialogue and goodwill between parliamentarians. The delegation was pleased to hold specific meetings with members of the Yugoslav and Indonesian IPU delegations. The level of participation was certainly in keeping with the commitment and contributions of previous delegations. We are actively exploring the possibility of expanding Australia's profile at this important international parliamentary forum. The report rightly acknowledges the contributions of many people in Australia, Italy and Berlin who assisted the delegation. There are a couple of people apart from Mr Bessell that I will single out for special mention.I would particularly like to acknowledge on the record Rosa Ferranda and Janice Scarrabotolo, officers of the Department of the Senate, who translated into Italian a three-page brochure including biographies on the delegates. The brochure was greatly appreciated by our hosts and assisted the delegation so much that we ran out of them on the second day of our visit. It is a lesson for the future. I would also like to recognise the continuing assistance that delegations such as ours receive from Brenda Herd in the Parliamentary Relations Office and Judith Kelly in Senate finance.Delegations cannot be successful if members of the delegation do not work together, particularly in circumstances such as when we lost our leader on the way over. I thank the acting deputy leader of the delegation, Mrs Gallus, and my other colleagues Mrs Crosio, Mr Barresi and Senator Hogg for their cooperation and commitment. I commend the report to the Senate.Committees11476114761147616:53:0011476Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QLDAD00—by leave—I wish to return to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the commercial utilisation of Australian native wildlife. I missed the call by about 10 seconds. If I had continued my tennis on a Thursday morning, I would have made it. That is life, as they say.I wanted to speak briefly on this report because it is one where the Democrats welcome very much the government's response in this area. I certainly welcome the way in which the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, and his office have dealt with this report and their positive response to it. It is good to work with the government or with anyone in this place when you get such a positive response and a response that is not necessarily political, al though politics play a part in everything. The Senate report's recommendations were taken at face value and were responded to in terms of what was proposed.The inquiry was conducted over 18 months and took over 300 written submissions. It reported in June last year. The report called for an overhaul of wildlife protection laws, stronger animal welfare codes of conduct and study of indigenous subsistence use of native wildlife. I chaired the committee and it was, at times, a very controversial committee. The report did not please everybody, but it is an ongoing issue. That is why I am very happy to respond to the government's response to this report.I believe that Australia's native wildlife populations are our most precious assets, but the laws on native wildlife protection across the various states and between the states and the Commonwealth are a dog's breakfast. That has been recognised. I note that the federal government has accepted eight of the Senate report's 12 recommendations. It has not rejected the other four. This is a real chance to fix the problems which the report highlighted. I am glad to say it is one report that has not gathered dust on the shelf but has been responded to in a very positive way. I would like to highlight three of the issues that were raised to illustrate what I am saying.One of the recommendations was that the federal government should conduct a feasibility study for a trial of large-scale native wildlife farming to see whether large-scale native wildlife farming could replace domestic species in the Australian rangelands. This was a recommendation from Dr Graham Webb of the Northern Territory. I am glad that the government has proposed a series of steps whereby this could be taken up.Another one of the recommendations was to encourage private sector investment in biodiversity conservation. Senator Lyn Allison from the Democrats has already visited a number of the sanctuaries run by Dr John Walmsley, specifically Warrawong in Adelaide and Yookamurra in South Australia. This has been with the encouragement of Senator Hill so that we can begin to take up that particular recommendation.Finally, we recommended that there should be inclusion of indigenous people where commercial opportunities related to wildlife were identified on those lands where indigenous people have strong traditional links to the land and also that there should be a discussion of the intellectual property rights of indigenous people aimed at resolving the flaws in existing legislation. In relation to that, there has been the High Court decision in the case of Murrandoo Yanner about his right to hunt traditional animals on his traditional land. That is a very controversial decision of the High Court which highlights the need for the government to pursue this issue.I am glad that the government has responded positively. I am very happy to receive the government's response. I will have to study it in much more detail. This is an initial response. If I have any criticisms, I guess there will be an opportunity later on to raise those. But my initial response is a very positive one in terms of what was tabled by the minister today.1147711477The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)10000PON/A10—Madam President has received a letter from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of certain committees.Motion (by Senator Minchin)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation and References Committees— Participating member: Senator HutchinsLegal and Constitutional References Committee— Substitute member: Senator Crossin to replace Senator Ludwig for the committee's inquiry into the Government's response to the recommendations of the report, Bringing Them Home Participating members: Senator Crossin for the committee's inquiry into matters arising from the introduction of the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999 Senator Ludwig for the committee's inquiry into the Government's response to the recommendations of the report, Bringing Them Home .Miscellaneous114781147811478The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)10000PON/A10—I table the portfolio additional estimates statement for 1999-2000 for the Joint House Department. Copies of this document will shortly be distributed to interested senators. Additional copies will be available from the Senate Table Office.1147816:59:0011478Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—by leave—I table the following documents: Particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 2000 [Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1999-2000], Particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 2000 [Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1999-2000], and Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations made by Act No. 46 of 1999 (Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1999-2000), Act No. 47 of 1999 (Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1999-2000), and Act No. 48 of 1999 (Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Act 1999-2000).1147817:00:0011478Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 1999-2000 for portfolios and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. Copies of these documents will shortly be distributed to interested senators. Additional copies are available from the Senate Table Office.Documents114781147817:01:0011478Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Madam Acting Deputy President, during the lunch time debate on matters of public importance I gave notice that I would be tabling a document on my trip to Tibet. I have not had a response from the government on this matter. I will get another report and give it to the government again, but I do want consideration of that document so that I can, if all parties are willing, table it before the day is out.Bills11478Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bills: Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 Bills11478Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made and insisted on by the Senate to the following bills: Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 Federal Magistrates (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1999 Bills11478r89011478Consideration resumed.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The committee is considering Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 as amended, and amendments 10 on sheet 1669 and (1) and (2) on sheet 1677 moved by Senator Bartlett. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.17:02:0011478Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—Before the debate was adjourned earlier in the day, I was saying that these are good amendments and ought to be adopted. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Robert Hill, has indicated that there are difficulties because of the complexity of costing the amendments, which would, for example, extend tax deductibility to any value lost on a property or reasons of covenanting to protect native vegetation and so on. There is also some assessment to be done with the proposal in amendments coming next that the tax deductibility be allowed to be spread over five years. If a donor of a block of land for environmental purposes values that land at $1 million and the land is of high environmental value, it is logical that they get the same benefits as somebody who donates a painting which is worth $1 million. Under legislation, the person who denotes the painting will be able to spread tax deductibility over five years, obviously gaining benefits from that, but the person who donates the block of land—part of the national heritage—will not get that advantage.Let me reiterate how important this legislation is and my earlier commendation of Senator Hill for bringing it into this place. It is breakthrough legislation, because for the first time it means that a citizen who donates a block of land—which has rare and endangered species or which is of great heritage amenity to the nation—to an entity like the Australian Bush Heritage Fund or the several trusts in various states set up specifically to look after land in perpetuity, with the purpose of protecting an ecosystem or some feature or living entity—wildlife or plant life—will know that it is going to be protected forever. The idea here, to shorthand it, is to ensure that people who make donations towards private national parks where there is a guarantee that they are going to be protected in perpetuity will get a tax advantage from that. Two days ago we were discussing in here and I was opposing a change in the diesel fuel grant system—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Well done! He is a fast learner.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—The minister will be pleased. I was opposing a change in that system that gives a tax break if you want to put diesel in your bulldozer and go ripping into the forests. How much more important it is from my point of view that we give a tax break to somebody who wants to protect forests and donates land to an entity like the Australian Bush Heritage Fund. I support the amendments, but I am concerned that this process may lead to us seeing, tomorrow, a rejection of these amendments in the Reps—not because they are not meritorious but because the Treasury has not yet worked out how to do the assessments of what this will cost.Senator Hill has flagged that he has amendments that next year will cover much of this field. Maybe we could hear a little more about what is intended there so that it is on the record and we have some more concrete reassurance that the excellent measures involved in these Democrat and Green amendments are not simply going to be consigned to oblivion. There it is. On the one hand, I do not want to see the legislation fail. On the other hand, I do not want to see the amendments, which obviously have the majority support in this committee, dismissed and put on the sideboard. I think that in the next 24 hours we have to come to a pretty honest arrangement about that so that all interests are best served and, in particular, this breakthrough legislation is not consigned to oblivion. It is too important for that. Once again—it is rare that I am in the position of being able to do this—I congratulate the minister for bringing the legislation forward.17:08:0011479Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Following on from the comments Senator Brown has made, I note that he did challenge the government that Senator Hill amplify and clarify his earlier statement. Could the government indicate whether they intend to do that.17:08:0011479Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I believe this matter was extensively discussed and Senator Hill has made a very comprehensive statement. I do not wish to detain the committee; I think we have got a lot on our plate. Senator Hill, to pick up in a sense the spirit of Senator Brown, said:We think, as I said, that we have made a historic start along this road of encouraging the disposition of property for conservation purposes, and we are prepared as a government to seriously consider other initiatives during the course of next year.Senator Hill went on to say:The government's view is that they should be seriously considered during the course of next year—obviously not surprisingly in relation to the cost as well as the issue of effectiveness—and then the government can make a decision as to which further initiatives, if any, it should take, within the budgetary constraints—I thought I had said something controversial. You made me a little nervous, Senator Brown, as you charged across the chamber towards me. Nevertheless, let me continue. Senator Hill said:. . . within the budgetary constraints of the government but also with the objective of getting the most effective outcome in terms of conservation for whatever commitment the government might be prepared to make in relation to revenue forgone.So Senator Hill has made a statement. We welcome the encouraging comments that Senator Brown has made in the sense that that is a very important start, and certainly that is the government's position.17:10:0011480Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Just a couple of other matters of clarification: are the remainder of the amendments that the Democrats were having prepared being completed?DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—I do not have any others to move.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—So we are just going to deal with the amendments to this particular schedule.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—We are currently dealing with amendments No. 10 on 1669 and Nos 1 and 2 on 1677, which have been moved together by leave. I am informed that No. 10 has been amended. The question is that the amendments so moved be agreed to.17:11:0011480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I have a quick question for the minister at the table in relation to charitable trusts. I think this is the appropriate time to do so. On what basis can a charitable trust receive gifts for the purposes of the bill? What aspects of the tax act are involved, or are there any rulings that a charitable trust would have to comply with? I would understand this a bit better if the minister could provide me with that information.17:12:0011480Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am advised that there is no specific reference to charitable trusts in the bill. A charitable trust would have to satisfy the requirements which are set out in the act.17:13:0011480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thank the minister for that answer as far as it goes, but my question went to what aspects of the tax act, or other rulings that might be relevant here, a charitable trust has to comply with in relation to this issue of a charitable trust receiving a gift for the purposes of this particular bill. I appreciate what the minister has said, but if he could provide a little bit more information to the committee that might be helpful.17:14:0011480Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The gift provisions have various criteria. There is one which relates to PBIs and there are others as well. I do not know that we can be more specific than that. My advisers tell me that we cannot be more specific than that, that they have to satisfy the various criteria; for example, if it was a PBI, the criteria for being a PBI.17:14:0011480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Thank you again, Minister, but if I can put it in my layman's language I am sure this might assist the minister or his advisers. What I would like to know, Minister, is: can a charitable trust—I am using that terminology deliberately because it is charitable trusts that I am interested in—receive a gift deductible donation from a corporation or a company? That is an important issue that I would like clarified before we move to finalise the matter that is before the chair.17:15:0011480Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—If it satisfies the criteria in the law, a charitable trust can receive, from my understanding, a gift deductible donation from a company. But it has to satisfy, for example, criteria in relation to being a PBI. Does that assist you any further, Senator?17:16:0011480Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—It does since you have just indicated to me that this is the case. Could you advise the committee whether a charitable trust has to comply with section 23E of the tax act, which deals with the tax exempt status of charitable trusts? That would be useful information for the committee.17:17:0011481Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The mere fact that it is exempt under section 26E does not give it gift deductible status. We are talking about, for example, whether it is a PBI. I gather that is what you are referring to. I can see that we are not making great progress. Are there any matters that you would like to put on notice? I am slightly concerned as we have some specific advisers here but we may need other specialists in tax law.17:17:0011481Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I indicate to the minister that I think that is not a satisfactory answer to the point I would like to progress but I am advised—as is often so welcomed—by the clerks at the table that this matter might be better pursued a little later in the committee stage debate. I am very happy to accept that and I might come back to this in a short while after the matter that Senator Brown has been progressing is finalised.17:18:0011481Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Just to see whether we can speed the journey, could I suggest to you that you may have some written questions that you would like to provide so that we can perhaps give some fuller answers. That may assist you.17:18:0011481Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Of course that would assist me except that, Mr Temporary Chairman, as so often happens when we are dealing with such matters, my questions are utterly dependent on the minister's answers. But I will do anything I can to assist the minister—well, perhaps not to assist the minister but certainly to assist the committee—in progressing this matter as quickly as possible.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—We would wish to do the same.17:19:0011481Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—The government has raised issues of costing. Given the earlier debate, the one prior to lunchtime, does the government have any update on possible costings and what it sees as the problem? We have figures from the CSIRO of an approximate cost—something similar to $2 million to $4 million—and I am just trying to pin down the government a bit more about the detail of its concern.17:19:0011481Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am not sure that I can at this stage assist you further. I was aware there was some extensive debate, if I remember correctly, with Senator Ian Campbell. I do not wish to traverse that area, but we note your concerns. I am not sure I am able to provide you at this stage with any additional costs.17:20:0011481Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—You are right: it was Senator Ian Campbell and not you. It is was more to the rant end of the argument level.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Oh!ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I do not want to be harsh at this time of year but it was getting close to that end of the spectrum as a contribution.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—We are all tired and emotional.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Yes, that is true. But costings is a very serious issue and I wonder if the minister has thought any more about the issue relating to reporting. That would be providing an annual update about which sectors these philanthropic donations are going to go to—education, health and also, in the case of the amendments that we are considering, various donations of land under various covenants. That is an important issue because the costings on this measure under this legislation are $71 million or $72 million—that is a fair amount of money—and it is a broad new principle that the Prime Minister has personally championed and it is important to be able to identify what the value for money is.So, from a Labor perspective, it is important that we are able to see that X amount goes to education, X amount goes to health, X amount might go to land conservation and are then able to look at the cost in terms of expenditures in the budget. That would be useful for that reason and, secondly, that would be useful from a historical perspective because it would be interesting to just see how much extra philanthropic activity is encouraged by this legislation.17:22:0011482Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In defence of my esteemed colleague Senator Campbell, I thought he was incredibly helpful in the earlier debate. I felt he was almost too helpful, to be quite frank, but that is the character of the man. That is the measure of the man—he just wants to assist as much as he can. We understand that. He is young and enthusiastic, and why wouldn't he be?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—He wants your job too!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Lots of people want jobs, Senator. Can I make the point that I do not think we can add any further information. Senator Campbell explained that some private research may have been going on, but we have not got any data on it. I do not think the income tax returns are a big help in disaggregating these matters. We understand your interest, but I am not sure that we can provide any further assistance over and above the great assistance that Senator Campbell has already provided.17:25:0011482Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I do not want to get into an argument about whether or not Senator Campbell was helpful. The other issue that I raised this morning—and I had thought we might get some progress on it—concerns being able to identify where moneys are going at the moment in the form of philanthropic—we have all struggled to get around this word in its various forms—activity.WH4McGAURANSenator McGauran—Phil who?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Keep the mind on the job, Senator McGauran. This is an important question for the opposition. I raised the issue of what occurs in the United States. When organisations receive some sort of philanthropic contribution, the information is readily accessible. The organisations that have received the donations are required by law, as I understand it, to provide that detail publicly if requests are made. I think that is a reasonable approach. It adds to transparency and to the community's knowledge of where the money is going. I also think it would assist in minimising misuse, evasion or tax minimisation schemes that could possibly emerge as a consequence of this approach. Again, I wonder if the government has thought any more about this issue of greater transparency and access to information. It is related to the issue of the tax office doing some sort of examination from its perspective, from a government perspective, of where the money goes to. We are concerned about this issue, and I hope the government is able to respond in more detail than Senator Campbell was able to this morning.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—The question is that the Democrat amendments be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Before we proceed to the vote I would just like to know if Senator Brown is going to vote for this amendment. The opposition will be voting for this amendment.QD4BROWNSenator Brown—Yes.17:27:0011482Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not want to call a division, so could we get a clear understanding of who is voting for what: Labor is voting for the three amendments, so is Senator Brown, and the Democrats obviously are. The government ain't! I make that clear.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Australian Greens amendments (1), (6) and (11) on sheet 1668.17:27:0011482Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—We might deal with the following series of amendments too, which are consequential, if the committee so desires.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am advised that the others are not amendments and that we have to put them separately. So we will deal with the first ones first.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments Nos 1, 6 and 11:(1) Schedule 5, page 22 (after line 8), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 30-15(2) (table item 1, column headed "Type of gift or contribution") Repeal paragraph (b), substitute: (b) property (including *trading stock); or(6) Schedule 5, page 23 (after line 1), after item 5, insert:5A Subsection 30-15(2) (table item 2, column headed "Type of gift or contribution") Repeal paragraph (b), substitute: (b) property (including *trading stock); or(11) Schedule 5, page 24 (after line 3), after item 10, insert:10A Subsection 30-15(2) (table item 3, column headed "Type of gift or contribution") Repeal paragraph (b), substitute: (b) property.Thank you for your advice. These amendments are to remove the $5,000 barrier on the value of gifts whereby, under the legislation, a gift worth more than $5,000 would be deductible but a gift worth less than $5,000 would not be deductible. You will remember that we had a little debate about that this morning, Mr Temporary Chairman. It is a very complex matter.As Senator Campbell said, to not have some limit would mean that you could laboriously get an evaluation on the cast-off shirts that you put into the box for St Vinnies and have it deducted. Of course, nobody wants that burden put on the tax office. There would be a lot of paperwork, which would become very costly for trivial matters like that. Nevertheless, I think that $5,000 barrier is too high. I understand the complexities, and I think these are less important amendments than the next lot coming up and the ones that we have just dealt with. I wish to continue with the amendments, but I am not going to die in a ditch over them.17:29:0011483Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—With respect to the amendments that Senator Brown has moved, my understanding is that they cover a similar and wider ambit to the amendments that we have just passed. Therefore, given what has passed, the Labor opposition will not be supporting these amendments. I am a little surprised that Senator Brown is continuing with them, given the concerns he expressed when we debated the last set of amendments that were moved by the Democrats. I am somewhat surprised that he is going on with them at this stage, given the concerns that he expressed. The opposition will not be supporting these particular amendments, given the amendments that were passed earlier.17:30:0011483Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments. I think this debate has been well canvassed.17:31:0011483Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—I have just done the sums and it does not sound like I am going to get the amendments up, Mr Temporary Chairman.17:31:0011483Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—If I can now address the issue that I was progressing before, I think it might be more appropriate to do it here, and I thank again the clerks for their advice on this particular matter. As I understand it, the minister has said that, for the purposes of this act, a charitable trust can receive a tax deductible donation under certain criteria. I assume the certain criteria are those that are set out in section 2 on pages 69 and 70 of the explanatory memorandum. I do not want to put words into the minister's mouth, but I think that was what he indicated previously. I seek confirmation on that.17:32:0011483Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It is not just those criteria; it is all the criteria in the gift provisions.17:32:0011483Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thank the minister for that. That is helpful. I was not clear on whether he was relating this to deductions for gifts to private funds or making this broader. The reason I raise the question, Minister, is that the notorious Greenfields Foundation has been described as a charitable trust by one of the trustees, Mr Bandle. In fact, in a leading Australian newspaper on 23 July 1998, he said:We are set up as a charitable trust and we have written cheques of approximately $80,000 to charities so far. Here we have what is effectively a fundraising arm of the Liberal Party that has established itself as a charitable trust. Obviously, as far as the opposition is concerned, this has some great relevance to section 2. Could I ask the minister in relation to section 2, paragraph 5.29 of the explanatory memorandum—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Would you mind going back a couple of steps. I was talking to my advisers.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I was drawing your attention to paragraph 5.29 on page 69 of the explanatory memorandum which talks about prescribed private funds. It says:Prescribed private fund is defined in subsection 995-1(1) to be a fund that is prescribed by the Income Tax Assessment Regulations but does not include a fund that is declared in writing by the Treasurer not to be a prescribed fund.To get some clarity in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Regulations: are they regulations that will be made by you, as the Assistant Treasurer, or will they be made by the Treasurer?17:35:0011484Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Either could do it. It could be signed by the Treasurer or me. I do not want to race ahead, but Senator Faulkner has stood up and made some comments and I am seeking some further advice on them. As far as the regulations are concerned, they can be signed by either the Treasurer or me.17:35:0011484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I assume from the minister's comment that he wants to provide some more information before we move on because he said that he is seeking some further advice which I am happy to await.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—That advice is being provided. We could move on if there were some other matters that you wish to raise.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Could you let us know what the advice is?WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—As soon as I get it, I will give it to you.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—So you haven't received it?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—We can proceed with these particular amendments and this matter can be further followed while the minister is getting advice.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—You know how cooperative the opposition is, Mr Temporary Chairman. If that would assist the committee, that is fine.17:36:0011484Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—When Senator Faulkner speaks in these low, hushed and sincere tones in the chamber, we always know that there will be some attack coming. Of course, he has launched an attack, as he always does. I am not an expert on the Greenfields Foundation. I have no particular knowledge of this body, nor of its legal structure. I know that it obsesses you, but it does not obsess me. I am not sure if my advisers have any particular knowledge on it. I think you can stand up and make allegations, because you are fairly good at that. You always come in the chamber and make allegations, not in the sense of ever proving anything of substance but certainly in making attacks and smears. You are probably the world champion in the chamber at that. That is the truth. I just would not like, because we pass through matters, to leave these things on the record.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Order! The question before the chair is the amendments moved by Senator Brown.17:37:0011484Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—That was a most unfortunate contribution from Senator Kemp, wasn't it, Mr Temporary Chairman! That he should respond in that way to some serious questions being raised by a senator in the chamber!Senator Sherry interjecting—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I was disappointed, Senator Sherry, to see that he responded in the way he did—not surprised, but disappointed. This is a very important issue, given that the minister has now indicated that the making of these regulations is a matter for either the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer, and given that we have a situation where the trustees of the Greenfields Foundation have made absolutely clear in their public comments that the Greenfields Foundation was set up as a charitable trust and also that the Greenfields Foundation has written cheques, at least to the value of $80,000, to charities.I want to be absolutely assured that the Greenfields Foundation will not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act. In other words, I want to be absolutely assured that we do not have donations or gifts provided to the Greenfields Foundation, which is a charitable trust, whereby those donors receive a tax deductibility for those donations and whereby at some time those donations, which are not disclosed, go to the benefit of the Liberal Party. That is my concern. It is my only concern. Senator Kemp, if you can give this assurance in the Senate now, the issue is over as far as I am concerned. I seek a categorical commitment from you, on behalf of the government, that the Greenfields Foundation will not be a prescribed private fund for the purposes of this act.17:40:0011485Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not know the facts about this particular body; I am not sure you know the facts about this particular body. You have a high degree of spleen, and we understand that.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Murphy)—Order!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I am not in a position to provide advice about this particular body to the chamber. It would be quite improper of me. You have made some allegations. I do not know the current legal status of the fund. It may be what some people describe as an ancillary fund. For gifts to be tax deductible, an ancillary fund must disburse funds to an entity that in itself is a tax deductible entity. As I have no particular knowledge of this body, and my advisers have no particular knowledge of this body—it does not obsess us the way it obsesses you—I am not able to provide any particular comments on it.17:41:0011485Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I am afraid that that is simply not good enough, Minister. The Greenfields Foundation describe themselves as a charitable trust. I am not actually making any allegations. The minister does not understand that there are no allegations being made, but because of the reprehensible behaviour that the Liberal Party and the Greenfields Foundation have entered into over a number of years, I want some assurances from this minister in the chamber today as we debate this bill. If the minister is willing to give those categorical assurances, I have indicated that the matter is finished.Perhaps the Treasurer could write a letter and make this absolutely clear. I think very many Australians would be concerned if today we find that we are dealing with important legislation in Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 which leaves another loophole through which the Liberal Party or the Greenfields Foundation—for that matter, perhaps any political party—could do this. Unfortunately it is the Liberal Party that has the form on this. It is the Liberal Party that has used a vehicle known as the Greenfields Foundation. Wouldn't it be a most appalling development in Australian public life if, in the name of philanthropy, the Liberal Party exploited this provision? All I want is to be assured that that is not going to happen.If you can give that assurance now, Senator Kemp, as the responsible minister at the table in this debate, the matter is finished. That is all I want—an assurance that we are not going to have the Greenfields Foundation, which is a charitable trust, exploit the provisions in the bill in the way that I have outlined. It is very possible, because you have said that a charitable trust can receive a tax deductible donation. That is what you indicated clearly to the chamber. You have told us that; I accept that.We also know that the Greenfields Foundation is a charitable trust, and I want to be assured that, under the terms of this legislation, the Greenfields Foundation will not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of this act. The reason I want to be assured is that I do not want individuals or corporations donating money or gifts to the Greenfields Foundation and receiving tax deductibility for that, and for this to be effectively a money laundering exercise for the Liberal Party. This would mean that not only would these entities not be disclosed—which of course is the intention and purpose for the establishment of the Greenfields Foundation in the first instance—although they should be if you are interested in defending the integrity of the Electoral Act and of the electoral law in this country, but also the donors would receive tax deductibility.This is an important issue and I hope that other senators in the chamber share my concerns. I know that in the past Senator Bartlett, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, and Senator Brown have shared the concerns that have been expressed by the opposition. All you have to do is give us an assurance, Senator Kemp. That is all I want: an assurance. If you cannot give it, then I want you to get the assurance from the Treasurer, Mr Costello. If we receive that assurance, I think that will put many minds in the community at rest.17:46:0011486Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—This is a fantastic proposition. I am being asked to stand up in this chamber and make comments about an organisation of which I have no knowledge and of which my advisers have no particular knowledge. It would be a very unusual thing for a person to be able stand up and say, regarding this particular object of spleen by Senator Faulkner, that we can give detailed advice. The measures we are considering are important measures. This is an excellent bill.I have always said that the Labor Party judges the Liberal Party by the Labor Party's own standards. Therefore, people like Senator Faulkner go around seeing great plots and conspiracies—which certainly exist in his own party, particularly in the New South Wales division, which has a singularly unlovely record—and immediately attribute ill motives to the coalition. We just do not accept that, Senator. We do not behave like you do. We are a party that does not go around behaving in the fashion which you constantly try to portray. We are not the Labor Party.You have concocted all of this, and I do not even know whether this body is a charitable trust or not. It would be a very brave minister who would take your word on these things. Having experienced many selective quotes from you in the past, I can say that it would be a very brave minister who would take anything you say on face value without doing a lot of careful checking; and that is exactly what I would always do with anything you said. But the advice I have is that a trust that donates to a political body is currently limited to $100. That is under the current law. That is the advice I have got.Senator Faulkner interjecting—WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Yes, but the huge scenario you have concocted is that people will be receiving considerable tax deductions and that this particular body can then make large donations to the Liberal Party. I am just pointing out to you that the advice I have from my advisers is that such a donation would be limited to $100.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—What about loans?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Senator, you want to waste the Senate's time. Senator Faulkner, you have this obsession because you think that we are like you. We are not; we are quite different. We actually act in an ethical fashion.With this whole scenario that you have built—all these questions and all these points of attack on the Greenfields Foundation—a trust is limited to a donation to a political party of $100. That is an exciting scenario, and that is the advice I have from my tax experts.17:50:0011486Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Let us be charitable. Let us assume that Senator Kemp—because of incompetence, not deliberately—fails to understand the significance of this issue. I am actually not making any allegations here. All I want is a commitment from Senator Kemp, and if I receive the commitment we can close the book. But, you see, in the Financial Review of 23 July 1998 Mr Bandle, one of the Greenfields Foundation trustees, said:We are set up as a charitable trust and we have written cheques of approximately $80,000 to charities so far.They have been described as a self-confessed charitable organisation for some time.What I am interested in progressing is the question of donations to the Greenfields Foundation itself. It is the minister who said that a charitable trust like the Greenfields Foundation can receive a tax deductible donation or gift. It is the minister who said that to the committee. I am not making this up. If he is wrong, just correct the record and that is fine; we will get on with it. Let me read again what 5.29 says in the explanatory memorandum:Prescribed private fund is defined in subsection 995-1(1) to be a fund that is prescribed by the Income Tax Assessment Regulations but does not include a fund that is declared in writing by the Treasurer not to be a prescribed fund.That is all Mr Costello has to do, and perhaps, if he would leave such an important task to Senator Kemp, Senator Kemp would have to do it on his behalf. It says:. . . does not include a fund that is declared in writing by the Treasurer not to be a prescribed fund.If the commitment is given that the Treasurer will make this matter clear, that is all the committee needs to hear. That is the assurance that I want—either a categorical assurance from the minister in the terms that I have asked for it previously or an assurance that such a document in writing will be forthcoming from the Treasurer in relation to the Greenfields Foundation. If that is received or that assurance is given, then I am sure the committee will be satisfied, at least on this point.17:53:0011487Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Senator Faulkner, I do not wish you to keep on perhaps giving a misleading approach to the Senate. I said a charitable trust which satisfies the gift provisions. I think that is somewhat distinct from the comments you made to the committee. Let me just quote from the EM. It says on page 69:Schedule 5 to this Bill amends section 30-15 of the ITAA 1997 to allow deductions for gifts made to specified private funds from 1 July 1999. This is achieved by extending the application of item 2 in the table to prescribed private funds [items 6 and 26]. Item 2 of the table deals with gifts to public funds established and maintained under a will or trust . . . for: the purpose of providing money, property or benefits to a fund, authority or institution covered by Subdivision 30-B;This goes to the nub. If a political party is a body, how much money can be given to such a body? The advice that I have been given is that it is limited to $100—and this is causing such huge angst for you, Senator Faulkner. If you have alternative advice, let's share it.17:55:0011487Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—I do not want to take up a lot of time, as I would like to at least progress through this legislation today, but I thought it might assist perhaps both sides of this if I made a brief contribution to try to avoid us getting into an escalating war between the two large parties in this place about who is the most unethical in their behaviour in fundraising, et cetera and get back to the question that is being raised, which I think is a reasonable one for Senator Faulkner to raise. As I see it, the issue is not so much about how much tax deductibility a particular foundation might be able to get if they give money to a political party but that people who give money to that foundation may be able to claim substantial tax deductions.Perhaps we could move away from the Greenfields Foundation and Senator Kemp could think of it in the context of perhaps the Labor Party being back in office and having the `Redfields Foundation' established and using it in ways that he might be concerned about. If that foundation is able to be a prescribed foundation and receive donations of property or whatever from the public, then those people who give those donations will be able to claim tax deductions for it. If I understand it correctly, that seems to be the concern that Senator Faulkner is raising. The concern is that this may provide—forget about the Greenfields Foundation—a foundation that is deliberately set up as a front to channel donations to any political party, if they can be prescribed as a private fund under regulations, a publicly subsidised opportunity for increased donations to that foundation.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—And the donations aren't disclosed either, Senator.DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—There are flow-on problems of non-disclosure or adequate disclosure of donations, but that is perhaps a matter for electoral law. What I would be interested in the minister addressing is whether or not any foundation that achieves the status of `prescribed private fund' can then operate in that way.17:58:0011488Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—It has to disburse its funds to organisations listed in 30-B.5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—How?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—In order to retain its status it has to distribute funds to organisations listed in 30-B. My advice is that political parties are listed in 30-B but the maximum deduction is $100. If your advice is different to that, Senator Faulkner, you should stand up and say that the advice that you have is different. If your advice is the same, your whole argument is seen to be a nonsense. What we need you to do is provide your advice. That is the advice that I am receiving from the tax office. It is not a matter of setting up fronts or anything else; it is a matter of being an organisation listed under 30-B. That lists a whole host of organisations and there are particular criteria applied, and to political parties it is $100. If Senator Faulkner thinks that is not correct, I think he should stand up and say it. That is the advice that I am getting from my people.17:59:0011488Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—The best thing I can do to try to assist the Assistant Treasurer, who desperately needs it, is to seek leave in a moment to table a couple of documents that might assist him. The first one comes under the letterhead of the Greenfields Foundation. It is signed for the trustees by Mr Tony Bandle.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Are you going to deal with this bill and the $100 issue?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I have dealt with that a number of times, and I will come back to it to try to explain it to you.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You have not dealt with it; you have not dealt with it once.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Let me just quote one sentence:The Foundation has not and cannot make payments to political parties—this is prohibited by its deed. So do not start talking about $100 donations or any other form of donation. The Greenfields Foundation claims—take my word for it—let me quote again:The Foundation has not and cannot make payments to political parties—this is prohibited by its deed.Those are their words. I will be seeking leave to table that in a moment. Recently the Greenfields Foundation—on its letterhead, C/- Post Office Box 52, Deakin West, ACT—under the signature of Mr Anthony J. Bandle for the trustees, wrote another letter to the Australian Electoral Commissioner. They are getting into deeper water here all the time. Senator Kemp might not know that but I think a lot of other Australians do. They wrote this letter to the Electoral Commissioner, and one of the paragraphs said:Your letter appears to assume—this is from the Greenfields Foundation to the Australian Electoral Commissioner, `your letter' being the Electoral Commissioner's—that the obligations of associated entities extend to the Trustees of the Foundation. However, that assumption is based on a misconception as to the purposes of the Foundation. The Foundation is a Trust Fund, established for charitable purposes, administered by the Trustees.That is what they claim to be—a charitable trust: `A trust fund established for charitable purposes administered by the trustees.' These are not my words; these are the words of Mr Bandle for the trustees. So what we are dealing with here, to try to explain this to you, Senator Kemp, is a foundation called the Greenfields Foundation which, to get around the disclosure provisions in the Electoral Act, has loaned to the Liberal Party on the most generous of commercial arrangements a very large amount of money. It has also donated to charities a very small amount of money. So it is not making direct donations—as you and I would understand the dictionary definition of `donations'—it is loaning massive amounts of money to the Liberal Party. That is the way it tried to get around the disclosure provisions of the act. That is why what you are saying is a total and absolute nonsense. Perhaps you might now understand that particular point.But let us go on. What I am concerned about is the capacity for either a private individual or a corporation to provide a donation or a gift to the Greenfields Foundation and for that organisation or private individual to be able to benefit under these provisions as a prescribed private fund not only to cover up the fact that it has made the donation but to actually receive tax deductibility for the donation. That is the issue. The more I hear Senator Kemp respond, the more I become worried that there is something here to cover up. First of all, what I came in here to do, you would be interested to know, Mr Temporary Chairman, was to get an assurance from this minister. But, of course, it has not been forthcoming. It is hard to believe the minister could be as dopey as he is, trying to pretend to the committee that he does not understand either the bill that he is responsible for shepherding through the committee today or the electoral law in this country.That is the issue. It is on that issue that I want to receive a commitment from the minister at the table because the Greenfields Foundation says it is a charitable trust, and that means—and the minister made it absolutely clear—that it can receive tax deductible donations. All I want to do is ensure that the Treasurer, who can quite clearly declare in writing the Greenfields Foundation not to be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act, will do so. All I want to hear is that the Treasurer will do so, so that we do not have a further effort from the Liberal Party of Australia or any of these shonky, dodgy front organisations, like the Greenfields Foundation, to subvert the disclosure provisions of the Electoral Act. It is easily done. The Treasurer can declare in writing in relation to the Greenfields Foundation that it is not to be a prescribed fund. That is all that has to happen. If the minister at the table will give that commitment and if we see that from Treasurer, it will certainly satisfy me. And from the spirit of what I heard from Senator Bartlett, who is engaged in the debate, I assume it would satisfy him also, who nods. That is all you have to do, Minister. If you can do that, we can get on with it.18:07:0011489Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have just had another pathetic rant from the discredited Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Senator Faulkner reflected, I regret to say, on my intelligence. This is the former environment minister who single-handedly lost the environment vote in 1996—and I say this advisedly because there are people in the chamber who would know that what I say is correct. Senator Faulkner was such a political genius that, as the Labor environment minister, he single-handedly lost the environment vote. There is no other environment minister, I believe, who can claim such a record. This is the person who reflects on the intelligence of others. It is an extraordinary story. One of his responsibilities as a minister was the forest debate. You would remember the farce in this chamber—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Order, Minister. What you are saying is not really relevant.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—I will just make the point that he did such a terrific job on forests that he was removed by the Prime Minister. He was not to deal with forests.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—On a point of order, Mr Temporary Chairman: you did point out to Senator Kemp that his comments about forestry were not relevant. Clearly, they are not and you were spot on. Then he continued to wilfully ignore your ruling.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Sherry, you should not make a statement. Do you have a point of order?ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The point of order is relevance.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You do have a point of order.ZW4SHERRYSenator Sherry—The minister should get back to the issue and stop wasting time.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—We are seeing another massive waste of time, and I hope that tomorrow in the debate we will not get the Labor Party talking about how restricted the debating time is for all these bills, because you have wasted most of the afternoon. This has been another big Labor effort to waste most of the afternoon by a failed minister who was removed from a central part of his job by Mr Keating. For a minister who single-handedly lost the environment vote to stand up and reflect on others is quite appalling, in my view. I do not accept that at all.I have received some very marginally revised advice from my advisers that in fact political parties are not subdivision 30-B funds. A private fund could not even donate $100. I hope that clarifies the record. My understanding is that, in relation to any prescribed agency, this will require a regulation which is tabled in this parliament and subject to disallowance by this chamber. We have had this huge rant and rave and the usual effort by Senator Faulkner to slander people. He is truly the limbo champion of the Senate: no-one can go lower than Senator Faulkner, in my view. Let us construct this huge hypothesis that Senator Faulkner has marched into the chamber and said that this is so critically important we have to delay the committee for an hour. Will you provide, in writing, information about an agency of which I have no particular knowledge and nor do my advisers? The central fact which Senator Faulkner did not understand was that for the Greenfields Foundation or for any other body to become a prescribed agency will require a regulation and this can be disallowed by the Senate.We have wasted the time of this chamber. No-one—and above all you, Senator Faulkner—when we are rushing to get through bills tomorrow should dare to complain about delays in this chamber. You have wasted an afternoon.18:12:0011490Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—Finally, the minister has caught up with the play and understands that this requires a regulation. He is right about that. Of course, I told him that about 40 minutes ago. I thank the advisers for their tolerance. We all have difficult jobs but, my God, you have really got a difficult job!WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—No-one more than you!5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I think we all know what we are dealing with, Senator Kemp. The minister has now caught up with the play and understands that this requires a regulation. Can we have clarification from the minister: will the regulation name individual private prescribed funds or will it have categories of private prescribed funds? Could you provide that information for us?18:13:0011490Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I have checked with my advisers. The Hansard will show whether you mentioned that they will require regulation. I don't think people can remember it on this side. You may have said it; you may not have said it. We will all check the Hansard to see whether this is another effort by Senator Faulkner to mislead the Senate—it may not be. I am a reasonable man. He has had such a record of misleading the chamber that nothing would surprise me. I am seeking some advice on the matters raised.18:14:0011490Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—Don't you recall John asking you whether the Treasurer was—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Refer to Senator Faulkner by his correct name please, Senator Sherry, if you are going to object. Are you taking a point of order, Senator Sherry?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—No, I am not taking a point of order. I am asking a question. But I will not question him further, because he will get distracted.18:14:0011490Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—My understanding and advice is that the intention is that they would be individually done.18:14:0011490Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—I thank the minister for providing that advice and the advisers for informing the minister what the process would be. Does this mean that there will be—I expect this to be the case—a range of prescribed private funds all contained in the one regulation, or would there be separate regulations in relation to prescribed private funds? I can see a way around this. If the minister is willing to give this commitment, again, we can move on.Is the minister willing to give a commitment to the Senate here that the Greenfields Foundation, if it is to be a prescribed private fund, will be regulated for separately out of a category of other prescribed private funds? I assume that there would be one regulation; that is why I ask the question. Is there to be a separate regulation in relation to the Greenfields Foundation? If that is dealt with separately, it obviously gives the Senate the capacity to disallow such a regulation without affecting other prescribed private funds.Is the minister willing to give that assurance now? I do not know what the Treasurer intends to do in relation to the Greenfields Foundation. That is the point I have been trying to make now for quite some time; it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. Can the minister assure the Senate that a separate regulation will be brought down for the Greenfields Foundation? Is there to be such a regulation for the Greenfields Foundation? In other words, is the Greenfields Foundation to be prescribed by the income tax assessment regulations?If it is a separate regulation, that gives the Senate the capacity to deal with it. Obviously Senator Bartlett and perhaps Senator Brown might have a view on this. That seems to me to be a sensible way of proceeding in the circumstances. If the minister is willing to give that assurance, we can move on. Again, one tries to find ways to assist the minister and the government in this. That is probably the best I can do.18:17:0011491Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—That is the best that Senator Faulkner can do by trying so hard. Let us summarise where the debate is at. A regulation is required. The regulation is disallowable by the Senate. I am not in a position to describe how the regulations will be brought in. I am also not prepared to discuss a particular fund. I know nothing about this fund. I also do not accept the innuendo with which Senator Faulkner so freely and fulsomely litters his arguments. If the Senate does not like a prescribed agency, it has the capacity to disallow the regulation.18:18:0011491Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—That is a very disappointing response from the minister. I will try to explain the situation that we face here. The minister has indicated that a charitable trust can receive a tax deductible donation. In order to assist, I seek leave to table a letter from the Greenfields Foundation.Leave not granted.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—This minister appears to be either unwilling or unable to assist the committee make some progress in this matter. The minister does not want a letter tabled for his benefit which goes to the point that I have been outlining about the Greenfields Foundation's description of its own activities. These are not my words about the Greenfields Foundation; these are its own words. I quote from this letter directly:The foundation is a trust fund established for charitable purposes administered by the trustees.That is what the trustees themselves say on their own letterhead in a letter dated 15 January 1998 and sent to the Electoral Commissioner.That has been reinforced in a range of other publicly available documents by the trustees of the foundation. It has also been a matter about which the trustees have speculated publicly. One trustee, Mr Bandle, is quoted as saying that the Greenfields Foundation is set up as a charitable trust. That is one reason why this organisation has raised so many concerns in the public arena.We know that the Greenfields Foundation is a charitable trust; it says so itself. We know that there is now a capacity, if this bill is passed unamended, for a prescribed private fund to be prescribed by the income tax assessment regulations. This will mean that there will be tax deductibility for donations and gifts for such organisations. I am concerned about that. It offends a number of very important principles that I think are matters of great concern for the chamber.I have sought a categorical commitment from the minister to try and get over this problem. I have sought a categorical commitment from the minister that the Greenfields Foundation will not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of this act. I have sought confirmation from the minister in those terms—he would not give it. I have tried to seek confirmation from the minister, given that we are aware that either the Treasurer or the Assist ant Treasurer would have to regulate. I asked him a question about that, though he claims I did not raise the issue of regulation. I asked him who would regulate and he indicated to us that either the Treasurer or the Assistant Treasurer would make the regulations in this regard. He has forgotten that, but that is all right. We know he is a bit off the ball on some of this stuff.We also know that the Treasurer can declare in writing that a fund like the Greenfields Foundation not be a prescribed fund for the purposes of the act. If we got that commitment, we could move on. The Assistant Treasurer would not give that commitment. We made it clear to the Assistant Treasurer, eventually, after some time behind the play on the bill—and I think it was understood—that the prescribed funds, the charitable trusts in this instance, would be identified by name in a regulation. I suggested we have a separate regulation for the Greenfields Foundation so that if it was regulated under the Income Tax Assessment Act regulations, then that could be disallowed by the Senate. Again, it was just another way of moving on.How many times do you have to offer the Assistant Treasurer a bit of help? How can you help someone who appears unable to help himself? These offers have been made. The Assistant Treasurer, on behalf of the government, is willing to accept none of them. It is very difficult to come to any other conclusion than that the government's intention is to try and shonk its way through in relation to the Greenfields Foundation and to allow a vehicle for either private individuals or major corporations or companies to provide donations to a shonky organisation like the Greenfields Foundation. The donors themselves receive tax deductibility and, of course, there is no public transparency in this. There is no disclosure of those donations and the donors get tax deductibility. That is not good enough. No-one who would defend the integrity of either our electoral laws or our tax laws could accept such a situation.18:25:0011492Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I do not want to detain this stage of the committee any longer. Senator Faulkner has already wasted most of the afternoon building this enormous construct over some particular angst he has with regard to a particular body. The comments he made were, as usual, laced with errors, as we have come to expect with Senator Faulkner. We all know that his political judgment, when it comes to the count, has always been rather poor. That is the reason he is in opposition. That is the reason key responsibilities were removed from him when he was environment minister. That is the reason he lost the environment vote. The truth of that matter is that this guy has got form.Let me get a couple of things on the record so that Senator Faulkner and maybe his advisers can be assisted. The mere fact that a trust calls itself a charitable trust means nothing in terms of whether gifts to the trust are tax deductible. It must satisfy the gift provisions in division 30. I understand that Senator Faulkner, having wasted our afternoon, has decided to walk out of the chamber. Why wouldn't he? Tomorrow he has to build the argument that somehow we have not got time to consider the legislation which is coming through.He has wasted this whole afternoon on a total nonsense about a particular body which may well call itself a charitable trust. Just to repeat myself: a body calling itself a charitable trust means nothing in terms of whether the gifts to the trust are tax deductible. I know nothing about this particular body. I have no information on it. We have had a total waste of time this afternoon. If Senator Faulkner was so worried about it, the truth is that to determine a prescribed agency requires a regulation to be brought in, and a regulation can be disallowed.We have wasted all of this afternoon. Let us say that the paranoia of Senator Faulkner has some particular merit in the sense that perhaps someone will try to prescribe an agency which he does not like. The facts of the matter are that it comes before this chamber in a regulation and it can be disallowed. That is what we had all of this big debate about this afternoon. We had time wasting and an attempt to table documents. It was a total construct and a total farce. It shows you why the Labor Party is so hopeless. It is so hopeless that rather than Senator Faulkner getting down to do some decent policy work, the man cannot climb out of the gutter. That is the problem. The man cannot rise from the gutter. We have just seen another example of the way Senator Faulkner goes on in this chamber.18:29:0011493Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—There are a couple of points that should be made about Senator Kemp's contribution. It was the opposition's hope that we could have finished this legislation some time ago. Senator Faulkner, my colleague and leader, raised a legitimate concern about the possible misuse to which this particular piece of legislation can be put.It is not just a concern about Greenfields, it is a concern about any political party that could set up an organisation like Greenfields and then use the provisions of the act. It is not a matter of Greenfields or any organisation like Greenfields simply making donations to a political party. The matter is—and in the case of Greenfields we know that loans were made—that we do not believe that these sorts of contrived arrangements are appropriate, and it is not appropriate that they are being rewarded as a result of this piece of legislation, which is purportedly to encourage philanthropy. That is one of the points that Senator Faulkner was making. I do not believe Senator Kemp knows anything about Greenfields or Greenfields-type operations. I accept his word at face value on that.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—You are just wasting time.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Senator Kemp, you know you should not interject except from your chair.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Here is the minister, arrogantly making contributions while he is walking across the chamber—totally disorderly. Minister, we want—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Please direct your comments to the chair.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Mr Temporary Chairman, we want assurances from the minister and the government that this sort of operation cannot occur within the ambit of this legisla tion. The minister has claimed he knows nothing about the Greenfields-type operation. I accept that at face value. He claims his advisers know nothing about the Greenfields-type operation. If they do not know anything about it—and I accept that at face value—go away and find out. We will have time to deal with this issue; we are not going to conclude it tonight, that is obvious, because you cannot give us the assurances we require—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Just wasting time.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—We need to know that this legislation is not going to be misused, and you have failed to give us those assurances.On the issue of regulation, the Labor Party is not going to be placed in a position where we have a list of organisations that are subject to disallowance with us having to disallow all of them in order to disallow one. That would obviously place us in an invidious position—and why should we be placed in that position? We want the Senate to have the capacity to disallow one of the organisations if we believe that it does not fit the stated aims and intentions of encouraging philanthropy. This is a very important issue.I would suggest that the minister, the advisers and the Treasurer turn their attention to this matter overnight so that it can be resolved, because we do not want to hold up the committee stage. But this is a concern we have that the minister has failed to satisfy us on. We should not be seeing, in the guise of philanthropy, fancy ways of obtaining significant deductions at public expense in order to pass it through to political parties. That is not the intention of this legislation. I am confident that we can come up with a solution to this particular problem. Perhaps the Assistant Treasurer could have suggested we adjourn our consideration of these particular amendments, and we might have been able to work out some solution to the logjam that we are now faced with.In concluding, Senator Faulkner was not raising allegations. He was drawing to the attention of the Senate and the government a legitimate concern about what is clearly now a subterfuge—a contrived entity to avoid the electoral laws by Greenfields. Senator Kemp might not want to recognise that this has occurred, but it has occurred—the Australian Electoral Office has investigated the matter and has said that it has occurred. We are not making allegations about members of the Liberal Party or of this legislation being used to subvert the electoral law, but we want assurances that this cannot happen.Our reading of the legislation, as it is presented to the Senate, is that there is a significant possibility that a subterfuge can be entered into with respect to Greenfields-type organisations. Labor believes that no political party—the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the Democrats, the Greens—should be able to enter into those sorts of contrived arrangements in the name of philanthropy. This legislation is all about encouraging philanthropy in areas such as health, education and, with the passing of the earlier amendments in respect of encouraging environmental protection through various mechanisms, environmental protection for land in this country. That is what philanthropy is about.It seems to me that, if the government is fair dinkum about its approach, it would be very happy to give us the assurances we have been seeking and to agree, if it cannot give the assurances, to get the appropriate advice and to agree to an amendment to assure us that the type of scenario that Senator Faulkner has outlined cannot occur. I am sure that Senator Kemp's approach and that of the advisers with him is that they do not intend operations like Greenfields to come within the ambit of this legislation. I am not so sure about some of the other people in the Liberal Party hierarchy. But this is our major concern. It is an issue that has come to light in the course of this debate, and these matters should be addressed. This is what the Senate is for; it is for looking at these sorts of issues and dealing with them.As I say, it is regrettable that the minister has not been able to satisfy our concerns about what is a very fundamental issue: attempts to circumvent the electoral laws of this country. It is perfectly legitimate and I believe in the public interest for Senator Faulkner to be raising concerns of this type. The last thing I think the Prime Minister would want, with his stated goal of encouraging greater philanthropy, is this bill and the outcome of this bill getting caught up in some sort of controversy over political donations. I really cannot understand why, if the minister cannot give us the assurances, we could not have moved on. He could have obtained some advice and we could have resolved this behind the scenes and not wasted a great deal of time, instead using the time more effectively and efficiently in dealing with other provisions of this bill or other pieces of legislation. I believe that our concerns should be satisfied. They have not been satisfied to date, for the reasons that Senator Faulkner and I have briefly outlined. These concerns should be satisfied.18:38:0011494Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6SAALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman—WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—What a waste of time.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Well may you laugh, Minister. I think it should be said here quite clearly at the outset that what is emerging in this debate is something of considerable importance.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—The amendment is not ready. You are wasting time.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—You say it is a waste of time. Let me tell you that there has been a lot of wasted time around this place, a lot of it over the Greenfields federation or whatever it is called, that has filled your coffers with money and got your people elected to this place. You have gone in there and you have taken money in some of the worst rorts that this place has seen, and you have resisted every effort to clean them up. What is happening now is that this is being exposed. We will process this either when we get answers to our questions or when this bill is amended in such a way that we will not have to deal with it.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Look serious.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—I am very serious, because in fact what happened with that whole Greenfields rort that you people over there were so fond of was that millions of dollars went into the coffers of the coalition and that money was used for electoral purposes. It was an utter disgrace the way that got around the electoral laws in this country. This afternoon we are seeing in this bill the provision for the same stuff all over again. When we are assured, when we have answers to our questions or when this is suitably amended so that we do not see these sorts of provisions again, we will proceed with it. But we are not going to see this go through so that more Greenfields foundations can mushroom up around the countryside and can launder money for the coalition. In this chamber we have repeatedly tried to do something about that.The fact of the matter is that the electoral laws have not, as I understand it, totally closed up that loophole, and what we are likely to see here is a loophole so big that one of Senator Ian Macdonald's large trucks can go through it. We want to make sure that is not going to happen. So, Minister, what we would like from you is a categorical assurance here, not `We don't know' or `We don't understand where this is going' or `We will give you an answer in the fullness of time'. There are enough advisers over there who ought to be up to looking at this matter. Or you can do what happened earlier today. As I understand it, all of a sudden the superannuation bill just disappeared out of here; it just went. All of a sudden we were on other legislation because the government wanted to sort something out. Well, you can do exactly the same on this. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: we make it crystal clear to the government that we want answers to this. Either that or we will try and see that this is amended to make it a decent and workable proposition. Minister, instead of your walking around the place like a cat on a hot tin roof, we would like some answers.WW4KEMPSenator Kemp—Update: the amendment has been withdrawn.ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKE—Minister, I will give you the opportunity to tell the Senate that now.18:42:0011495Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I understand that there is some commonsense emerging—5K4FAULKNER Senator Faulkner—Except with Senator Kemp. ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Exactly. That is the point I was going to go on to make. While Senator Kemp has been parading around the chamber making various accusations, I understand there is some arrangement being worked out that will enable us to try and deal constructively with other business whilst this matter can be examined more fully.ZS6QUIRKESenator Quirke—Like superannuation.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Lightfoot)—Superannuation is not the business before the chair at the moment.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—That is right, and I hope we can move on to it shortly. But it is an indication of the difficulties the government program has encountered when we could have finished that bill this morning but could not go on, regrettably, because Senator Kemp had to pull the legislation off. But I do understand that the Manager of Government Business, Senator Ian Campbell, is dealing with the matter. I hope he is dealing with it effectively so that we can positively use our time over the next half an hour or so, whatever the parliamentary secretary as Manager of Government Business has in mind. Certainly the Labor Party is willing and happy to go on to other business and squeeze a little more time out of the evening to deal with other legislation, if that is the intention of the Manager of Government Business.What has occurred is unfortunate. We have endeavoured to be as cooperative as we can in dealing with matters as expeditiously as we can. Unfortunately, we could not get clear, precise, concrete assurances from the minister and apparently from his advisers. That is regrettable, but I am sure we can deal positively with some elements of legislation remaining in the time available tonight to maximise utilisation. I do understand that there are some procedural matters to deal with so I will sit down at this point in order that they can be progressed.18:45:0011495Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you, Senator Sherry. There is a great deal of activity going on in the chamber. We appreciate the fact you had to waste some more time so that the amendment could be drafted. We understand that but I do not think we should go through this charade and pretend that there is some deeper purpose to this. I will be seeking advice from the Manager of Government Business before he disappears. I have now received advice from him. I need advice from him because he is a very good Manager of Government Business and we like to liaise.Progress reported.Business1149611496Motion (by Senator Kemp)—by leave—proposed:That consideration of government documents not be proceeded with this day and that government business continue till 7.20 p.m.18:47:0011496Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4NSWALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that the opposition agrees with that motion but I have indicated to the Manager of Government Business that it is on the basis that the order of business has been changed and I am not expecting Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999 to come on this evening. But no doubt we will be able to finally dig ourselves out of the mire that Senator Kemp created earlier in the morning.Question resolved in the affirmative.Documents114961149618:48:0011496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TASAG00—by leave—I table my document Chinese Occupied Tibet and the Tibetans in Exile .Bills11496r89611496Debate resumed.18:48:0011496Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QLDAD00—by leave—I withdraw my second reading amendment.18:48:0011496Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—I will make a few observations on the debate on Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 . Senator Bartlett, your voice was a little bit quiet but I assume that you have withdrawn your second reading amendment.DT6BARTLETTSenator Bartlett—Yes.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMP—Thank you. There have been a number of contributions from senators. The new superannuation investment rules were announced in the 1998-99 budget. The investment rules are designed to reduce risk to superannuation savings and to ensure that superannuation is preserved for retirement. The bill will ensure that the fundamental principle that superannuation funds cannot borrow is maintained. This serves to limit the risk to superannuation savings from geared investments and will also ensure that superannuation savings are used for retirement purposes. In doing so, the bill will benefit the community as a whole by ensuring that billions of dollars of superannuation tax concessions provided each year are used for their intended purpose, thereby reducing the burden on future age pension outlays.An important aspect of the bill will be to enhance the ability of small business owners to use their superannuation savings to invest in their own premises by allowing a small superannuation fund to invest up to 100 per cent of its assets in business premises that are leased to members or to the employer sponsor of the fund. The bill contains a number of transitional arrangements to assist superannuation funds in adapting to the new arrangements. The government has consulted with key industry and professional groups on the bill. The bill was referred to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, which reported on 25 November 1999. After careful examination of the report, the government has decided to respond to some of the issues which have been raised.Firstly, on non-geared trusts: a number of groups such as ASPA have argued that, while the broad thrust of SLAB4 is appropriate, there should be some scope for investments in non-geared related trusts. For instance, it has been argued that this is a means of jointly owning property with a related party as an alternative to a tenants-in-common relationship. To meet this requirement, the government will move an amendment to create a power to make a regulation to exempt particular classes of assets from being in-house assets. The exception will apply only to a superannuation fund with fewer than five members that invests in a company or trust which meets specified requirements.These requirements include that the company or trust does not borrow; it does not invest in or loan money to individuals or other entities other than deposits with financial institutions; it does not acquire assets from a related party of the superannuation fund other than business real property; it does not lease assets to related parties or enter into lease arrangements other than a legally binding lease of business or real property to a related property on an arms length basis; and it conducts all other transactions on an arms length basis. The government will consult with accounting and other industry bodies in developing a definition of non-geared company or trust that meets these requirements.As to the start date, concerns were expressed about the lapse of time since the original announcement on 12 May 1998. In response the government will move an amendment to ensure that the change to the in-house provisions will apply only from the date of introduction of the legislation—11 August 1998. The change to allow a small superannuation fund to use 100 per cent of its assets to acquire business real property from a related party will continue to apply from 12 May 1999.Let me say in conclusion that, by limiting the risk to superannuation savings and ensuring that superannuation is used for the intended purpose of retirement income, the bill will set a sound framework for superannuation savings for decades to come. As I have already mentioned, some government amendments will be moved at the committee stage. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.11497The bill.18:53:0011497Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 4:(1) Schedule 1, item 13, page 6 (lines 14 and 15), omit "any of paragraphs 71(1)(b) to (f) or paragraph 71(1)(h)", substitute "paragraph 71(1)(b), (ba), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h) or (j)".(2) Schedule 1, item 28, page 12 (after line 31), at the end of the item, add: ; or (j) an asset included in a class of assets specified in the regulations: (i) not to be in-house assets of any fund; or (ii) not to be in-house assets of a class of funds to which the fund belongs. For this purpose, a class of assets may consist of, but is not limited to, assets that are investments in entities that undertake, or do not undertake, specified activities.(3) Schedule 1, item 34, page 14 (line 24), omit "(i)", substitute "(j)".(4) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 27), after item 34, insert:34A Subsection 71(5) Omit all the words from and including "may" to and including "was", substitute "or regulations under paragraph (1)(j) may be expressed to have taken effect at a time earlier than the time when the determination or regulations were".Note: The heading to subsection 71(5) is altered by inserting "or paragraph (1)(j) regulations " after "determinations ".These amendments will allow a regulation making power to be used to make an exception. This will apply only to a superannuation fund with fewer than five members that invests in a company or trust which meets the specified requirements.18:54:0011497Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I wish to make a few comments in respect of amendments Nos 2 to 4. Government amendment No. 2 will allow the government to make regulations to exempt certain assets or classes of assets from being treated as in-house assets. This is an enormously wide power and, without having seen the regulations, how can the Senate be sure of what the government is doing? There is absolutely no need for the government to do this, and Labor is opposing this amendment. Government amendment No. 3 is a consequential amendment. Government amendment No. 4 relates to section 71 of the superannuation industry supervision legislation, known as SIS, which determines the meaning of in-house assets. Currently section 71E allows for the commissioner to make a determination—not a regulation but a determination, which is an important point—as to whether an asset should be taken to be an in-house asset. That determination is a disallowable instrument under section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.Section 71(5) allows for the determination to be retrospective. That is, the commissioner's determination given in writing to the trustee of a super fund may be expressed to have taken effect at a time earlier than the time when the determination was made. That is seen as being positive, as it means that if a superannuation fund asks for clarification of the status of a particular asset, it can be given in-house asset status from the date the super fund acquired it rather than from the date the commissioner makes the determination. However, the government's amendment No. 4 is asking that regulations be included. That is, the government is asking the Senate to allow it to make regulations that can operate retrospectively. We ran into this type of request from the government in a previous debate on the recently passed so-called surcharge tax amendment bills, and the Senate made a clear decision, supported by the Australian Democrats, that the government should not have a power to make retrospective regulations.Firstly, it must override the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to do so, and I ask the government whether or not its amendment is correct. Senator Kemp will recall that the opposition has previously corrected his amendments. Section 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act specifically relates to the timing of the regulations and states that a regulation has no effect if it takes effect before the date of notification if the rights of a person would be so affected as to disadvantage that person. Secondly, liabilities would be imposed on a person in respect of anything done or omitted to be done before the date of notification. That is, regulations shall generally not be retrospective, particularly if they disadvantage a person or impose a liability. It could be argued, if regulations were made about the status or otherwise of in-house assets, that they would always be positive and that section 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act would not come into play because no-one would be worse off.However, how does the Senate determine whether regulations which it has not seen yet are positive or negative? How can we make this decision? In the case of the so-called surcharge tax bills which were recently passed, the Senate acted decisively to take the offending provision out of the bill. These provisions were to allow the government the capacity to override section 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act. Retrospective regulations should not generally be allowed to be made. Certainly the Labor opposition and the Australian Democrats have acted on this before, and I call on the Australian Democrats to act in the same way as we did on the previous occasion and not to support government amendment No. 4.18:58:0011498Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I want to indicate that the Democrats will support this and other amendments. As I said in the second reading debate, we think they go to many of the problems that were identified by those who made submissions to the inquiry. We support the thrust of them, and we were instrumental in assisting to develop them as well. There is a question I want to put to the minister, and it relates to the fact that this amendment allows the regulations to specify assets. I want to ask how the minister will proceed to develop definitions of real property and with whom he will consult. If we could get some assurances on the record about that process, Minister, I think we would be rather more confident that this will happen to our satisfaction.18:59:0011498Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—In relation to the matters raised by Senator Sherry, any regulations would be beneficial in the sense of excluding things from being in-house assets. Regulations come before this chamber. If Senator Sherry and the Senate are unhappy with the regulations, they have the power to disallow the regulations. That provides the safety check that Senator Sherry was referring to. In relation to the matters that Senator Allison raised, let me assure you that the government will consult with accounting and other industry bodies in developing a definition of non-geared company or trust that meets these requirements. This is a consultative government, and we will ensure that there is a proper process of consultation, which I know you would want.19:00:0011499Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I have a couple of other points to raise. Apparently the Democrats have entered into an agreement with the government in respect of the regulations that we are considering. I point out to the Senate that the changes to the amendments that are being presented to the chamber, as a result of the deal between the government and the Australia Democrats, do not satisfy Labor's central concerns and principles with this legislation. They do not deal with the issues or the concerns that were raised by the witnesses that came before the Senate committee. We received some of the strongest submissions and evidence that I have ever seen before any committee in my time in the Senate opposing the central principles of this legislationI will make it clear for the record: the amendments that the Democrats, together with the government, have drafted do not deal with those problems. They do not deal with the five key criteria that I outlined in my speech during the second reading debate. They do not deal with the first point: that the government has provided no substantive evidence of a systemic abuse by DIY super funds of the current investment rules. They do not deal with the point that, if there are concerns in this area, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3), which was passed with the support of the opposition, will largely address the problems, if there are problems. There are other ways of tightening existing laws that will better address the perceived problems. For example, the tax office will now be regulating in this area. They do not deal with the difficulties that this legislation will cause for some small businesses. They do not deal with the difficulties of some people in rural and regional Australia. Whilst some of these amendments may have improved the situation slightly, they do not go to the heart of the problems that Labor has with this bill.I would like Senator Allison to explain why, on this occasion, she is supporting retrospective regulations when we have not seen the regulations. She is taking the government on trust. On a previous occasion when we considered this approach, we were not prepared to do it in respect of superannuation. I do not want to extend the debate, but this government has a pretty patchy record on superannuation. I am being mild in my criticism because I am aware of the time constraints we are under. I would not be taking anything on trust in respect of this government and superannuation. We do not believe there should be an overriding of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. There would need to be extraordinary circumstances for that to occur. On the argument advanced by the government to date, we are not faced with any sort of reasonably extraordinary circumstance to warrant the Acts Interpretation Act being overridden in a way that is occurring here. I would like a response from Senator Allison. These amendments do not satisfy our concerns about the legislation and we will still be opposing the legislation.19:04:0011499Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I think it has already been pointed out to Senator Sherry by the minister that the regulations are a disallowable instrument of the Senate. If we are not satisfied with them, that is the action that we can take. I can assure you, Senator Sherry, that we will not be afraid to disallow if that is found to be necessary by the Senate. We will be looking forward to seeing what those definitions are and taking advice, as no doubt you will, about whether or not they pass the scrutiny of the Senate.Amendments agreed to.19:05:0011499Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—by leave—I move government amendments (5) to (11):(5) Schedule 1, heading to section 71A, page 15 (line 15), omit "pre-12 May 1998 ", substitute "pre-11 August 1999 ".(6) Schedule 1, heading to section 71B, page 16 (line 28), omit "pre-12 May 1998 ", substitute "pre-11 August 1999 ". (7) Schedule 1, item 35, page 22 (lines 1 and 2), omit all the words from and including "7.30" to and including "1998", substitute "the end of 11 August 1999".(8) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (lines 10 to 14), omit all the words from and including "after" to and including "(the test time )", substitute "after the end of 11 August 1999 (the test time ), unless the asset was acquired under a contract entered into before the test time".(9) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (line 18), omit "the test time", substitute "7.30 pm by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory on 12 May 1998".(10) Schedule 1, item 46, page 24 (line 29), omit "the introduction time", substitute "the test time".(11) Schedule 1, item 46, page 25 (line 3), omit "the introduction time", substitute "the test time".These amendments ensure the changes to the in-house provisions will apply only from the date of introduction of the legislation, that is, 11 August 1999. As the amendments have only recently been agreed to, they are not accompanied by a supplementary explanatory memorandum.19:05:0011500Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—These amendments improve the bill. They do not deal with all the central concerns, but they do deal with one issue. They effectively shift the date from the budget announcement in May 1998 to 11 August 1999. The reason that that needs to occur—amongst many other matters that unfortunately are not occurring—is that it took so long for the government to present detailed legislation to the parliament. It took 18 months after the budget announcement, and this caused enormous uncertainty within those sections of the superannuation industry handling do-it-yourself superannuation. I know the minister on a number of occasions has said, `We consulted widely and we consulted for this time.' I point out to the Senate that we have some different provisions from the original budget announcement because there was such a backlash. But it took 18 months for the government to bring in the legislation. That is why we are considering this date. These amendments do improve it, but they do not deal with the other central concerns that Labor has.Whilst I am on my feet—and I am aware of the time—I might point out that I notice that the Australia Democrats have withdrawn the amendment that they were going to move in respect of same sex couples. That is regrettable.Senator McGauran interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—It is regrettable because the amendment would have required a report from the government. It was not actually amending the legislation. It is a sad day for the Democrats to be backing down on these types of issues, particularly when it was a pretty limp old amendment that the government apparently was not going to accept. It is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Senate select committee, of which Senator Watson was the chair. The government would not accept that amendment. Just so there is no argument, it says:"and that there be laid on the table, on or before the last sitting day in March 2000, details of all legislative changes that would be required to ensure the recognition and equal treatment of same-sex couples under all Commonwealth superannuation and taxation legislation".For the life of me, I cannot see what the government objected to. It was not changing the law as such; it was about the handing down of a report. I think it is very disappointing that the Democrats will not be proceeding with what is not a particularly dramatic amendment anyway, but they can explain themselves to the various communities who are concerned about this issue. I have commented on this matter here because I know we want to deal with the bill prior to the conclusion of business this evening.19:08:0011500Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—In answer to Senator Sherry's remarks about our second reading amendment, he will be pleased to know that a notice of motion on the amendment was put by my colleague Senator Bartlett this afternoon, and the Labor Party will have a chance to vote on that motion tomorrow. I look forward to the ALP's support.I point out that we will be supporting these government amendments too. We are pleased that the government recognised the hardship that would have arisen from the retrospectivi ty back to May 1998 that was embedded in the original bill. We think that bringing it forward to 11 August is a reasonable approach, together with allowing a much longer period for funds to comply—on to the year 2009.19:09:0011501Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TASLP10—I think the amendments reflect the wisdom of referring this bill to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services. Most of the issues that were raised in that report have been picked up by the government. I thank the government for that. It will facilitate the operation of superannuation in Australia.I would like to remind Senator Sherry that the issue that he was referring to was largely addressed earlier in the superannuation No. 1 legislation that passed this parliament. That response was a very meaningful epoch-making response, and I do not think it is necessary to take the matter any further at the moment. I thank the minister for picking up these issues. It will certainly make distributions from funds a lot easier as a result of an ungeared unit trust. I thank the minister.19:10:0011501Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—All I can say is that if you look at the evidence and the issues that were presented to the superannuation committee hearings on this matter, the amendments that the Democrats and the government have put together do not deal with many of the concerns raised by persons who appeared before the committee and the issues raised in the submissions. Frankly, I am not sure what Senator Watson was referring to in terms of SLAB 1. I assume it was same sex couples, was it, Senator Watson?VJ4WATSONSenator Watson—Yes.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—Okay. I also point out to the Senate that we do have a private members bill in the House of Representatives, I think moved by my colleague Mr Albanese and seconded by Mr Danby. It is a very important piece of legislation. Again I say to the Democrats: if the government is fair dinkum on this, let us see that bill in here and being dealt with, as well as your proposed amendment. With due respect to you, Senator Allison, I think that, on this matter, the government is having the Democrats on. They do not intend to progress that issue at all. If they did, the bill would be in here for us to consider and to deal with this important issue with respect to superannuation and same sex couples. It is a fundamental right for a person who has superannuation moneys accumulated in their name to designate what they want done with their money. Governments have no place in interfering with that.Senator McGauran interjecting—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—There is a problem in a range of areas, Senator McGauran, not just with nomination of beneficiaries, but that is not the subject of the debate now. That will conclude my contribution. I make it clear that we are not happy. We do not believe the amendments satisfy the concerns that are being raised. We do not support this legislation. I will not be calling a division because of the time of year and the time of the evening, but I make it very clear that that is the Labor Party's position.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.11501Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That this bill be now read a third time.19:14:0011501Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TASALP00—I indicate for the record that the Labor Party opposes the bill for the reasons that I have outlined in the previous contribution.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Notices1150111501Senator Kemp to move, on the next day of sitting:That on Thursday, 9 December 1999:(a) consideration of general business, and consideration of committee reports and government responses under standing order 62(1) not be proceeded with; (b) the routine of business from the time at which general business would otherwise commence shall be government business only; and(c) divisions may take place after 6 pm.Adjournment11502Motion (by Senator Kemp) proposed:That the Senate do now adjourn.1150219:15:0011502Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56NSWLP10—The United States magazine George is essentially representative of the mainstream of politics. It is American, previously edited by the late John F. Kennedy Jr, and has both Democrat and Republican columnists. So if you read an article in George about the impact of the Internet on politics, you know that IT has moved beyond the realm of specialised interest and into the mainstream.In fact, a casual browse of the Net demonstrates how seriously those involved in US politics take the power of the web. From George Bush Jr's presidential campaign to Hillary Clinton's run for the Senate to Donald Trump's campaign for the Reform Party nomination, American politicians are delving into this medium with unbridled enthusiasm. Even the Stop Hillary campaign gets a guernsey here and there. Each of these has a significant presence on the web—providing information, soliciting support and donations, and giving browsers the opportunity to ask questions or make comments. I can only imagine that, as the US presidential race heats up early next year, web presence will become increasingly important.As important as IT is in US politics, so too is it in the Australian environment. The 1990s explosion of the Internet has already had enormous implications for political communication. The use of the World Wide Web, email, bulletin boards and other means of Internet based communication has increased enormously in what is really a relatively short period of time. After all, the Internet as we know it effectively only came into existence in recent decades. Whilst Her Majesty is said to have sent the first royal email in 1976, the advances of contemporary browsers, online shopping and audio are really developments of the 1990s.As politicians, political parties, lobbyists, community organisations and individuals have all started to use these techniques, the impact that the new form of communication will have on politics, on communities and on the way we interact has also been considered. There are some very significant issues at the heart of this—issues like availability, access, skill renewal, and of course the impact on politics and politicians. Perhaps the most fundamental question for us is whether new technologies will somehow change the way that we interact with our constituencies. Some people believe that communication facilitated by IT between politicians and the community can introduce a more equitable relationship, allowing politicians and citizens to contribute equally.Lawrence K. Grossman, former President of America's NBC News, says that new forms of communication based on IT will change contemporary politics. He said:Gutenberg made everybody a reader, Xerox made everybody a publisher, and interactive telecommunications is making everybody a lobbyist.That is a compelling proposition for anyone interested in engaging more people in the process of politics. But studies conducted in the United States indicate that whilst the new mediums of exchange on the Internet and email will have a great impact on political communication, they are in fact more likely to reinforce the existing structure of American politics than to change it. So whether the Net and email actually change the way people think about politics and politicians remains to be seen. Certainly there are differences between the American and Australian scenarios.As most members and senators could attest—some more positively than others—the introduction of email facilities for members of this parliament has been greeted enthusiastically by our constituents. Certainly over recent times I, like all senators, have been on the receiving end of a number of email campaigns, from Jabiluka, to Internet censorship to, more recently, the situation in East Timor. The number of people using email to contact parliamentarians is increasing. What is undeniable is that devices like email and Internet sites are important tools for politicians and their constituents alike—and therein perhaps lies the difference with some of the historical comparisons I have made.Perhaps the real test of this method of exchange will be how we as parliamentarians choose to respond to emails. The delivery of a message via electronic means does not change the validity of the message or make it more or less important than a letter or a fax, but it might actually change the expectations of the person who sends the message. The issue of how to respond to email messages is being considered right across international politics. People who email the US President get an email confirmation of their message and, if it is appropriate, a letter in response. The Prime Minister encourages members of the public to leave comments on his web site but to pursue detailed matters through other means, like contacting their local member or senator.An ongoing challenge is dealing with the global nature of the Internet. As senators who represent a particular state, or members who represent an even more specific constituency in the lower house, the way in which the Net and email open up access to people from all over the world is a challenge that I suspect will be met in different ways by different members. Some might just hit `delete' whilst others might view email as they would a letter or a telephone inquiry from someone outside their constituency. The most important thing in all of this is that members and senators do not ignore the opportunity that the Internet and email create for us, and that constituent contact generated through new technologies is embraced enthusiastically.In the Australian context, both federal and state parliamentarians have taken up the IT challenge with enthusiasm. Many members of this chamber have a Net presence, and many others are following suit. I think it is fair to say that members of the coalition are leading in many ways in the trend. To provide a central registry of all individual coalition members' home pages, I have published a directory that profiles the personal home pages of my coalition colleagues from the New South Wales and Commonwealth parlia ments. It is called Insite and a copy has been provided to the Parliamentary Library. It was launched recently at an event I organised in Sydney to celebrate both the growth of the IT industry and the important role of Australian women in this growth.Two speakers addressed the launch of Insite. The first speaker was Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales state member who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow minister for information technology. His portfolio passion is IT innovation in New South Wales and the potential boost for our state. He is a keen follower of a range of IT issues, including Internet content, Y2K challenges and IT training.The second speaker that we enjoyed hearing from was Ruby Blessing. She has seen the average web browser go from a simple, text based interface with grey backgrounds and no animation to a fully integrated multimedia delivery tool. She is one of the world's leading web designers and has been a regular recipient of awards for her work. Acknowledged as the most prolific female web designer in the world, she has designed more than 100 corporate, institution and cultural web sites. Inducted into the Australian Business Women's Hall of Fame in 1999, she now operates a consultancy for businesses and cultural institutions wanting to take full advantage of the Internet and all forms of IT.Ms Blessing shared a number of her experiences and thoughts in this area and, when remarking on the launch of Insite, said:Browsing through . . . Insite I was impressed by the number of members embracing the Internet to inform and communicate with their electorates. Most were extremely up to date with a diverse range of content and features. Regardless of political persuasion, it's hard not to get excited about this sort of dynamic use of the Internet.For politics in 1999 and beyond, the Internet and personal home pages offer a huge range of opportunities and advantages for parliamentarians, and Insite seeks to harness the growing involvement of members of the coalition in that area. I was pleased to see, for example, in putting it all together, that many Senate colleagues are keenly involved in leading the charge in engagement on the Net. Senators Boswell, Calvert, Gibson, Knowles, Troeth and Tambling and many of our lower house colleagues have extremely impressive sites. Since the publication of Insite even more have been raised with me or are under construction, and they will be in there as well. In commenting on the publication of Insite , the Prime Minister said that this initiative might act as a tool to `grow and encourage our colleagues to use online tools to keep in touch with our customers, the Australian public'. Hopefully, that is an opportunity everybody will take up.At the same time as I launched Insite, I also took the opportunity to launch a new redeveloped web site of my own—easily found at www.marisepayne.com. It has already seen huge amounts of new traffic and I am very pleased with its progress. It is particularly interesting to hear from the people who are logging on—ranging from young people at school to professionals and retired workers from New South Wales, Australia and internationally. There is a huge diversity of interest, and that diversity is something I think we should encourage and facilitate.Even my political party—the Liberal Party of New South Wales—is engaged in a major redevelopment and review of its web site. Under the guidance of Country Vice-President Robyn Parker it has been completely overhauled. Now if you log on you get information on the party, its parliamentary representations, regular publications and different parts of the organisation. The New South Wales Young Liberal Movement has gone through a similar process and has a very dynamic site that I think makes it comparable to any other youth political organisation in Australia.Most importantly, though, in this whole process, the coalition and I, in particular, recognise the importance of utilising the new technologies to maximise our community interaction—to maximise our contact with our constituents in the most advanced and technologically progressive way. I can say with great assurance this evening that the coalition—in the parliament and in the states and territories—is taking up huge opportunities offered through the Internet, which is very commendable indeed. I think it is a fundamental part of our jobs as senators, and as members in the other place, to maintain an active interest and an active presence in this regard. I look forward to continuing to do that and to hearing from a lot more young people in particular through my web site.1150419:25:0011504Murphy, Sen ShayneSenator MURPHYFX5TASALP00—Tonight I would just like to say a few words about the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee interim report on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon. The report is an interim report, and I am very pleased to see that the committee is taking this issue as seriously as it is. But, having said that, I would like to make a few comments with regard to evidence given to the committee, particularly by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.I was somewhat amazed at evidence given by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on what is a very important issue for this country, being an agricultural producer in very significant terms, and it in turn being a very important part of our exports to other countries around the world. The quarantine matter that goes to salmon relates to the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement—or the SPS agreement—that has arisen out of the World Trade Organisation. We as a country played a very significant role in the development of the SPS agreement, so one would have thought that we would have had some degree of expertise in its application. But you certainly would not be able to glean that if you were to look at and take account of our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's performance before the committee. It would seem that they know very little of its workings.I have spoken on the issue of salmon on a number of occasions with regard to the restrictions on the importation of not only Canadian salmon but also salmon from around the world. As we know, there are many diseases that occur in a range of species of fin fish. Arising out of the setting up of the World Trade Organisation, countries were required to bring into line the levels of pro tection—or the ALOP measures—that they would have in place.As I said from the outset, we, AQIS and DFAT would lay claim to being major players in the development of the World Trade Organisation's sanitary and phytosanitary measures that relate to animal and human health. If that is the case, I have to say that I am just amazed that we have not been able to proceed appropriately. Back in 1994, we received applications from countries with regard to the restrictions that we had in place for the importation of salmon meats. AQIS, under WTO rules, was required to proceed to conduct an import risk analysis—and it did. In 1995 it brought down a draft report. The draft report contained recommendations to lift the existing restrictions which had been in place since 1975. Subsequently, it brought down a report in 1996 that recommended the maintenance of the restrictions.There is a total inconsistency in that. What changed between 1995 and 1996? Little, I would suggest. What new scientific evidence came to light? None, I would suggest. That gave cause for concern at the WTO. The fact that when AQIS prepared their draft report in 1995 they gave copies of it to the Canadians in particular, who were joined by the US in their application to have our restrictions removed, is surprising, to say the least. It was a draft report. Little or no consultation had been conducted with recreational fishing people here, or even with those who are involved in farming of salmonoids in this country, not just in Tasmania. As I said, in 1996 they bought out a final report that recommended the retention of restrictions. Of course, it was quite obvious that the Canadians would actually take us to the WTO disputes panel. If we look at the WTO process in that respect, we can see that the panel of experts put together by the WTO when they were considering the processes that AQIS used in the conduct of its risk analysis raised questions about whether or not AQIS conducted their import risk analysis appropriately, and I think rightly so.The very relevant point about that is this: we lay claim to being major contributors to the development of the sanitary and phytosan itary measures that relate to import restrictions that can or cannot be used by countries in respect of trade. Since these measures have been in place, other countries have sought to use them. I think one of the biggest economic traders in the world, the US, has on a number of occasions sought to use them very blatantly as trade restriction measures and their applications have been defeated on at least two occasions at the WTO. But we proceeded to actually present something and, of course, when the 1996 report was submitted, Canada disputed its finding, the disputes panel upheld Canada's position and there was an appeal. But we still did not proceed down the road to fulfil even one very important part of an import risk analysis—that is, to actually outline the communication process for many of the diseases that salmonoids would be susceptible to that were found in other parts of the world but not in Australia. Can I say also that the WTO itself had yet to finalise an import risk analysis process. It had yet to lay down the strict rules upon which a country was expected to develop or write its risk analysis.If we look around the world to see how salmonoid diseases have been communicated from one place to another, it is very interesting. Nobody really knows how many of these diseases, which really started out in parts of Europe, were communicated to the United States, to Canada and to other parts of the world. Nobody really knows, but what you always get is the line that there is no evidence to demonstrate that this occurred as a result of a trade in product. In Europe in particular, and even now in parts of the United States and Canada, you have a salmon farming industry that is very significant. That is not to say it is not a good industry, because it actually can be a good industry. They have the basis of all of the scientific data that has been developed because it has been in their interest to develop it. Of course you would not expect them to come up with answers that say, `We have a problem with regard to the transmission of disease and it actually can occur through the transport of product.' Things like whirling disease have gone almost right around the world. It started off in Europe and has gone to the US and to Canada. It was never found in New Zealand but is now found in New Zealand, and nobody wants to acknowledge how it got there, but you will always get the excuse.We have heard from the government that we do not have the capacity to enter into a trade war with Canada over salmon. That is simply not the point; it misses the point altogether. The reality is that there are trade laws. If the WTO is to function appropriately, we as a country have every right to take up the arguments in accordance with the trade laws, and we should do so. It does not mean that the government has to readily accept, as it has on this occasion, an outcome from the WTO. (Time expired)1150619:35:0011506Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VICAD00—I rise tonight to talk once again about the lack of adequate support for Australians with psychotic illnesses. Psychotic disorders cover a diverse group of illnesses that are characterised by distortions of perceptions, thinking and responses. Psychotic illness is usually linked to a loss of the ability to enjoy life and to mood disturbance and depression. Schizophrenia, bipolar and delusional disorders are included in this group and the symptoms debilitate many members of our community. The point I want to make tonight is that they are not receiving adequate care and support.The National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, established by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care back in 1996, painted a bleak picture for over 100,000 Australians living with long-term psychotic illness. It told us just how common mental illness is in our communities. SANE Australia was invited by the mental health branch to respond to a follow-up study of over 1,000 people and it published the results in a report entitled A SANE response . These members of our community are suffering and they are more likely to be the victims rather than the perpetrators of violence. They are often homeless and they are missing out on suitable accommodation and much needed rehabilitation and recreation.As most people now receive treatment for psychotic illnesses outside a hospital setting, the report says that effective management procedures should include in-patient and outpatient hospital care, specialist community treatment and support services. It is also important for these people to have regular and ongoing contact with a general practitioner and they should be encouraged to be active participants in community activities.We should be able to expect that government health services will help people with psychosis to manage their illness. Yet half of those surveyed reported that when they needed a particular government service in the past 12 months they were unable to receive assistance.SANE also found that services provided by government agencies were not as helpful as church based and other non-government ones. There is an increased need for community based support and education programs. Drop-in centres, day programs, mutual support groups and places where people can work together to reduce stigmatisation and isolation are all essential for the chronically ill to build their social skills. This support is extremely important to people with psychotic illness, especially as they grow older.Thirty per cent of people with psychotic illnesses rent; others live in hostels or group housing. Ten per cent of those people are homeless at any point. Funding for more rehabilitation programs is absolutely essential, as only 19 per cent of people with a chronic illness attended rehabilitation programs during the past year. Yet we know that these programs are important to complement much needed clinical care and provide assistance with accommodation needs.Funding for a range of specialist supported housing is essential. Constant shifting is detrimental to recovery or maintenance of psychotic illness. People with physical illnesses receive government funded care in their home, but only 25 per cent of those surveyed by SANE receive advice on looking after themselves at home. Forty-three per cent of those surveyed say that they are never free of symptoms and 75 per cent of those on medication suffer side effects severe enough to impair their lives. Yet disturbingly, only 19 per cent had taken part in rehabilitation services and one in 10 surveyed was homeless or living in marginal accommodation.Many people have welcomed the closure of substandard supported residential services. However, many of these unfunded accommodation homes in Victoria, my home state, are facing closure due to increasing costs and room size restrictions being placed on them by the state government Department of Human Services. Their closure has driven many psychotically ill people out onto the streets. Where building regulations are maintained and adequate support is provided by properly trained managers and staff, these accommodation homes provide stability in what is a very fragile world for people with psychotic illness. They offer far more security than caravans or homelessness to people who are solely reliant on the disability support pension.This year, during September-October alone, SANE identified 189 people needing full-time care. Considering that this figure did not include such heavily populated areas as the Mornington Peninsula and Mildura, this paints a grim picture indeed. People were found to be bouncing between hostels, community homes, generic hospitals and nursing homes.SANE points out that there are not enough psycho-geriatric beds available for older people suffering from a psychotic illness. If they are placed in a nursing home, they find that other residents resent them. At Mont Park, just north of Melbourne, 26 beds are available and SANE found that beds in acute admission wards are often used. In these places, many patients were overdosed and readmissions are frequent.It is not a pretty picture. Once again I call upon all tiers of government to recognise the needs of Australians living with psychotic illness. Like any other group, people affected by persistent psychotic illness should be consulted in the development of programs and service management plans designed for them.SANE encourages government departments to work closely together to improve the links between existing services and to build on them so that as these people age they receive the care they need. In many older people, the symptoms become unstable and the coping strategies people have often fail as they grow older.The matter is urgent. If we do not act now, in five or 10 years time, as SANE points out, the problem will be much worse. Again, I congratulate SANE on another important report and I urge the government to make sure the findings and recommendations do not just sit on shelves gathering dust.1150719:43:0011507Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasLP10—As we face the end of 1999 and celebrate the commencement of the year 2000, it is appropriate for us as a nation and as a people to reflect. Tonight, I do not want to concentrate on when the new century and millennium will actually start. No doubt that will be an interesting debate that many people will have over their family barbecues, around the table, at the bar, at meetings and at Christmas parties. It will make for interesting discussion and I am not sure whether it will be resolved as to when the new century and millennium should be celebrated.Tonight, the chance is that this is my last speech in this parliament for 1999 and, therefore, possibly this century or millennium. I invite the Australian people to reflect on why we will be celebrating the year 2000. Why is it the year 2000 and not 2001 or indeed the year 3000? What was the commencement point for the counting of the years?Next year, we commence the year 2000 AD, the year of our Lord. The years before AD are known as BC, or Before Christ. No other person in the history of the world has had such a significant impact on the world or, indeed, had their birth as the commencement date of the counting of years. We in this place often consider what the place in history might be for us, our political party, a particular leader and particular ministers and backbenchers, all of whom make their own individual contribution. In fairness, I simply say that none of us will even be a footnote in the history of the world in comparison to what eventuated with the birth of Christ.The Christian faith is, of course, embraced by the overwhelming majority of the Australian people. Statistics tell us that 71 per cent of people in our Aboriginal community identify themselves as Christian and as embracing the Christian faith. An overwhelming number of migrants similarly adopt the Christian faith. Indeed, the Christian faith has had a great impact on the development of this nation. Many of our founding fathers, such as Alfred Deakin and Henry Parkes, were quite open about the role the Christian faith played in their life.Indeed, on 1 December, when reading the Herald Sun, I saw an article by a former very distinguished minister of this parliament, James Killen, about why Ming, or Mr Menzies, is his No. 1. One of the interesting things that Sir James Killen pointed out was that Mr Menzies, in his view, had three great strengths. Allow me to quote from the article:When he opened the National Memorial Bible House in Canberra in February 1960 he said: "The Bible is the repository of our faith and inspiration. It is the great source of faith, and that is why we should read it."Sir James Killen then went on to say:The spiritual strength commanded by Robert Gordon Menzies has virtually passed unobserved.Its existence in my view . . . was vital in the building of the Menzies era.It was also vital for, as I said before, our founding fathers, such as Alfred Deakin, who will not be known by many Australian people. They prayed and fasted for so many days to get the wording of the Australian Constitution right. Henry Parkes, who is seen as the father of our federation, said:As we are pre-eminently a Christian people, our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our constitution are based on and interwoven with our Christian beliefs.It was also important for many of the great explorers, such as Leichhardt, Sturt and Eyre, and people such as Reverend John Flynn—Flynn of the Inland—of the Royal Flying Doctor Service, who had the words painted on his plane `For Christ and country'. So many people in the development of our nation have acknowledged the importance of their faith in their endeavours.The overwhelming embracing of the Christian faith is, unfortunately, ignored by commentators today. Indeed, there has been a trend of late to belittle the Christian faith, especially by commentators and certain writers and journalists. Indeed, sometimes even in this place, an odd interjection is made to members of the Parliamentary Christian Fellowship. One wonders whether that same lack of understanding and compassion to the Christian faith would be accepted if it were to be shown about other faiths within the community. I think not. People would be labelled as politically unreconstructed. It seems that at the moment it is fair game to be highly critical of the Christian faith, which is embraced by well over three-quarters of the Australian people. The Christian faith has been a liberating force and a force for good. The life and example of Christ is a life that we should all seek to emulate. I fully admit—I am sure a lot of my colleagues would understand—that I fail in that regard. Madam President, you would be aware of that from time to time, especially during question time, when I may not necessarily be as unreservedly forgiving as I ought to be. As an example of leadership through service, the life and example of Christ, I believe, is one that we can all learn from.Suicides and some of the social problems that our nation faces often have their roots in a lack of spiritual dimension in the lives of the people concerned. People see no hope or purpose beyond the immediate problem. They often see themselves as an accident, as some would have us believe this whole world is, that is, it just happened as a result of some big bang theory; they are here as a result of an accident; and if the ride is not too good, they might as well put an end to the accident they are currently experiencing; and, therefore, there is no future and no hope for them.On the other hand, the Christian faith tells us that we are all unique and special, and that there is a purpose for us in the scheme of things as designed by the great architect of the universe. As we reflect on the last 2,000 years and the last 200-plus years, there is no doubt in my mind that the Christian faith has been an overwhelming force for good. So the purpose of my rising to my feet this evening is to invite the Australian people to consider the basis of the real reason why we will be celebrating Christmas in 17 days time and, indeed, a new year in 23 days time. Let us remember the real reason we are celebrating. I am sure that if we all do that as individuals and as a society, the future of Australia will be blessed and it will be great. My hope is that, as the new year, the new century and the new millennium commence, we do not forget the importance of the Christian faith and the Christian roots of our nation.Senate adjourned at 7.53 p.m.Documents1150911509The following government documents were tabled:Australian Communications Authority—Telecommunications performance—Report for 1998-99.Australian Land Transport Development Program—Progress reports— 1995-96. 1996-97. 1997-98.Australia Post—Statement of corporate intent 1999/2000 to 2001/2002.Defence—Report for 1998-99—Corrigendum.Health Insurance Act—Mid-term review of provider number legislation, December 1999.International Labour Organisation— Australia's submission report on International Labour Organisation (ILO) instruments adopted in— 1997—Private employment agencies. 1998—Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, and general conditions to stimulate job creation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Convention No. 181—Private employment agencies. Declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work and its follow-up adopted by the International Labour Conference, 86th Session, Geneva, 18 June 1998. Recommendations— No. 188—Private employment agencies. No. 189—General conditions to stimulate job creation in small and medium-sized enterprises.National Rail Corporation Limited (National Rail)—Report for 1998-99.Natural Heritage Trust—Report for 1998-99.Treaties— List of multilateral treaty action under negotiation or consideration by the Australian Government. Text, together with national interest analysis—Bilateral —Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea on Scientific and Technological Co-operation, done at Canberra on 17 September 1999.Multilateral — Agreement for the Establishment of the International Development Law Institute, done at Rome on 5 February 1988. Convention on Damage caused by Foreign Aircraft to Third Parties on the Surface, done at Rome on 7 October 1952—Denunciation.The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Instrument No. CASA 1095/99.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declaration under section 18 amending Schedule 1—99/ESP011.Superannuation Act 1990 —Deed to establish an occupational superannuation scheme for Commonwealth employees and certain other persons, pursuant to section 5—Thirteenth amending deed, dated 5 December 1999.Answers to Questions on Notice11510The following answers to questions were circulated:11510(Question No. 1717)171711510Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, 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.11510Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:According to the Department's financial records, as well as of agencies in the portfolio, the total expenditure in the 1998-99 financial year on legal matters (including cost of obtaining legal advice) was as follows:(1) $1,083,465.13 paid to the Attorney-General's Department.(2) $949,933.82 paid to other sources.These figures include compensation and other payments, as well as the cost of purchasing legal services. It would be very difficult, and would require an unreasonable diversion of resources, to identify only those payments made for legal advice.11510(Question No. 1601)160111510O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Ministers listed below, upon notice, on 28 September 1999:(1) How many personal, ministerial, electorate and parliamentary secretarial staff have claimed travel allowance since 1 June 1999.(2) What is the total value of travel allowance paid to each staff member over the above period.(3) In each case, on how many occasions did staff members stay in: (a) commercial accommodation; and (b) private accommodation.(4) On each occasion that a staff member stayed in commercial accommodation, was a receipt provided in support of the travel allowance claim without the provision of a receipt.(5) On how many occasions did each staff member apply for travel allowance in advance of the travel being undertaken.1601 Minister representing the Prime Minister1602 Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services1603 Minister representing the Treasurer1604 Minister representing the Minister for Trade1605 Minister for the Environment and Heritage1606 Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts1607 Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business1608 Minister for Family and Community Services1609 Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs1610 Minister representing the Minister for Defence1611 Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care1612 Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration1613 Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs1614 Minister for Industry, Science and Resources1615 Minister representing the Attorney-General1616 Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs1617 Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry1618 Minister for Justice and Customs1619 Minister for Aged Care1620 Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs1621 Assistant Treasurer1622 Special Minister of State1623 Minister representing the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation1624 Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government1625 Minister representing the Minister for Employment Services1626 Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation 1627 Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation1628 Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism1629 Minister representing the Minister for Community Services11511Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's questions is as follows:(1)—(5) The very detailed information sought in the honourable Senator's question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. The practice of successive governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information on a general basis.11511(Question No. 1182)118211511O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 6 July 1999:(1) (a) What level of Commonwealth funding was provided for vocational education and training in Tasmania in the 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 financial years; and (b) what level of funding has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.(2) What level of funding in the above years was allocated for: (a) training policy and innovation; (b) entry level training and skills enhancement (c) new apprenticeships; (d) the Jobs Pathway Program; and (e) the Workplace English Language and Literacy Program.(3) What level of funding in the above years was allocated to Tasmania through the Australian National Training Authority.11511Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a) Commonwealth funding of vocational education and training in Tasmania for the financial years requested was:Financial Year$1995-9629,071,0621996-9732,179,5931997-9838,779,0631998-9939,878,597(b) Commonwealth funding appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year is $31,019,928 + this figure includes some elements of Commonwealth funding of vocational education and training in Tasmania for which figures can only be provided on a year to date basis. Current indications are that funding for the full year will, at least equal that for 1998-99.(2) (a) Training policy and innovation currently includes only the Support for New Apprenticeships Program (up to 1997-98, this was included in Entry level training and skills enhancement):Support for New Apprenticeships program funding:Financial Year$1995-965,867,0691996-979,285,3941997-989,618,2121998-9910,684,2451999-20004,203,055 (Year to date)(b) Entry level training and skills enhancement consists of the New Apprenticeship Access Program (NAAP), the Small Business Professional Development Best Practice Program (SBPD), training development grants from the Strategic Intervention Program and, up to 1997-98, included funding of Australian Vocational Training System pilotsTotal funding for Entry level training and skills enhancement is:Financial Year$1995-96334,5381996-971,941,3001997-982,428,6001998-99257,0001999-2000555,000This is made up as follows:The New Apprenticeship Access Program which commenced on 1 January 1997, assists job seekers with serious disadvantages in the labour market who wish to obtain a New Apprenticeship but cannot do so without preparatory assistance.Net NAAP funding to Tasmania was allocated via the State training authority, acting as brokers for the Commonwealth.Financial Year$1996-97115,000 (part year)1997-98272,6101998-99*1999-00**160,000Notes:* The zero funding for 1998/99 funding is because the Tasmanian State Training Authority decided not to participate in NAAP-III because of dissatisfaction with the terms offered.** The $160,000 amount for 1999/2000 is on the assumption that the Tasmanian State Training Authority will agree to participate in NAAP-IV.The Small Business Professional Development Best Practice Program (SBPD):Financial Year$1995-96109,4931996-97*1,580,0001997-98*2,000,0001998-99100,0001999-2000220,000Note:* The Tasmanian Office of Vocational Education and Training managed the national SBPD for these years.The Strategic Intervention Program—Development of training materials:Financial Year$1995-9625,045AVTS pilots:Financial Year$1995-96200,0001996-9780,3001997-9835,000(c) New Apprenticeships currently consists of the New Apprenticeships Centres and the New Apprenticeships Through Group Training Expansion Program:Total funding for New Apprenticeships is:Financial Year$1997-98926,1201998-991,129,0131999-20001,295,057This is made up as follows:New Apprenticeship Centres (NACs)There are three 3 New Apprenticeships Centres (NACs) operating in Tasmania at 12 different sites.NACs came into operation on 1 May 1998 and the level of funding (expenditure) paid to NACs for Fee for Service are:Financial Year$1997-98926,1901998-991,054,0131999-20001,235,057New Apprenticeships Through Group Training Expansion ProgramOn 15 September 1998 DETYA entered into a contract with Northern Group Training Limited for a project to recruit an additional 353 New apprentices in small and medium-sized businesses in Tasmania over the period September 1998 to May 2000.The funding is to be allocated as follows:Financial Year$1998-9975,0001999-200060,000(d) Jobs Pathway ProgramThe Jobs Pathway Program, which commenced in late 1996, assists young people making the transition from school to work. Projects are funded through an open and competitive tendering process rather than on a state by state basis. Notwithstanding this, the net funding (expenditure) for JPP projects in Tasmania has been:Financial Year$1996-9766,9941997-9829,9971998-99*209,250Contracts with a total value of $1.14 million have been executed in respect of projects for 1999-2000. Initial payments under these new contracts will be made during September 1999.Note:* This figure is in respect of initial payments only and the final level of funding to be paid in respect of projects in Tasmania for 1998-99 may be up to $697,500.(e) The Workplace English Language and Literacy Program allocated the following level of funding:Financial Year$1995/96218,2351996/97245,2131997/98421,6721998/99344,3671999/2000(allocation not finalised(3) The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) allocated the following level of funding:Financial Year$1995-96Recurrent15,803,753Capital6,883,4671996-97Recurrent17,315,889Capital3,324,8031997-98Recurrent20,253,442Capital5,100,9501998-99Recurrent19,563,716Capital7,691,0061999-2000Recurrent20,590,822 (proposed)Capital3,235,994 (proposed)Note: Funding is provided on a calendar year basis. Indexation for 1999 or 2000 has not been included. Funding for 2000 has not yet been legislated.11514(Question No. 1284)128411514Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 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. 11514Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(4) The annual budget for the Media Monitoring unit in the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts is approximately $145 000. This includes salaries, fees for external monitoring of regional media, copyright fees and materials.The clippings are provided to Mr Stephen Smith, Shadow Minister for Communications and the Hon Duncan Kerr, Shadow Minister for the Arts. A copy is provided to Australian Democrats Senator Vicki Bourne, who has responsibility for communications and to Senator Alan Eggleston who Chairs the Legislative Committee on Environment, Communications Information, Technology and the Arts.11514(Question No. 1291)129111514Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, 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.11515Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's questions:(1) In 1998 the cost to the Department of news clippings was $127,320, paid to an external media monitoring service, plus $31,637 for photocopies of the clippings, making a total of $158,957. For the six months to June 1999 the media monitoring service has cost $86,430 and the photocopying $19,923, making a total of $106,353.(2) (a) The clippings are provided daily to the appropriate shadow Ministers.(b) They are: the Shadow Minister for Industry and Technology and Manager of Opposition Business, The Hon Bob McMullan, MP; the Shadow Minister for Science and Resources, Martyn Evans, MP; the Shadow Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Joel Fitzgibbon, MP; and the Shadow Minister for Sport and Youth Affairs and Shadow Minister Assisting the Shadow Minister for Industry and Technology on Information Technology, Senator Kate Lundy.(3) No.(4) No.11515(Question No. 1299)129911515Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.11515Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) As at 23 August 1999, two departmental liaison officers (DLOs) were employed in my office.(2) (a) (b) (c) Ms Ann Campton, Executive Level 2, responsible for broadcasting, telecommunications and Australia Post issues.Mr Andrew Jackson, Executive Level 1, responsible for administrative liaison relating to all areas of my portfolio.(3) The staff costs to the department for the period 21 October 1998 (being the date on which the second Howard Ministry was sworn in) to 23 August 1999 are estimated to have been $128,000. The Department's accounting records do not separate administration costs incurred by DLOs, as distinct from those incurred by my office. Consequently, it is not possible to advise the amount of non-salary costs incurred by the DLOs.11515(Question No. 1301)130111515Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers (DLOs) are employed in, or seconded to, the office of the Minister as at 23 August 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the DLOs; (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.11515Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to this question from the honourable senator is:(1) As at 23 August 1999, three departmental liaison officers were provided by the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS). In addition, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) provides a DLO to assist me in my role as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women.(2) (a) Kylee Bates, Sue Costello, Ian Sharples are the FaCS DLOs. Jean Mair is the PM&C DLO; (b) the three FaCS DLOS are all FaCS 2 level. Jean Mair is PM&C Band 2; and (c) all FaCS DLOs deal with matters relating to all policy areas and agencies within the Family and Community Services portfolio. Jean Mair deals with matters relevant to women's issues.(3) The total cost to FaCS from 21 October 1998 to 23 August 1999 was $178,924.74. The cost to PM&C was $35,519.49. In addition, FaCS provides each FaCS DLO with a mobile telephone and the use of equipment in the office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier and facsimile machine).11516(Question No. 1306)130611516Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Monday, 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.11516Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) As at 23 August 1999, there were 3 Departmental Liaison Officers (DLO) seconded to Dr Kemp's Office.(2) (a) Cathie Maguire, Heather Dyne and Garry Smith; (b) Executive Level 2, Executive Level 2 and Executive Level 1; (c) Liaison between the Minister's Office, the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission (PSMPC), and other Departments in relation to the Minister's portfolio responsibilities.(3) The total cost incurred by Departments over the period 21 October 1998, being the date on which the second Howard Ministry was sworn in, to 23 August 1999 was:DETYA: $148,566.03* This figure includes costs incurred for the previous DLO, Ms Karen Sandercock, an Executive Level 2 Officer who was seconded Dr Kemp's Office for the period 21 October 1998 to 23 April 1999.PSMPC: $58, 617.00* This figure includes costs incurred for the previous DLO, Ms Margaret Varghese and APS Level 6 Officer who was seconded Dr Kemp's Office for the period 21 October 1998 to 18 August 1999.11516(Question No. 1323)132311516Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, representing the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 24 August 1999:(1) How many departmental liaison officers (DLOs) are employed in, or seconded to, the office of the Minister as at 23 August 1999.(2) (a) What are the names of the DLOs; (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.11516Newman, 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) Two.(2) (a) Sharon Ong and Tom Dzaja; (b) Sharon Ong is a FaCS 2; Tom Dzaja is a Centrelink 4 and (c) Sharon Ong deals with matters relating to policy areas and agencies in the FaCS portfolio with the exception of Centrelink. Tom Dzaja deals with matters relating to Centrelink.(3) The total cost for DLOs in Mr Anthony's office (and previously in Mr Truss's office ) for the period 21 October 1998 to 23 August 1999 has been $131,053.58 including $66,724.94 paid by Centrelink. In addition, the department provides each of these officers with the use of equipment in the office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier and facsimile machine). Sharon Ong has a mobile phone provided by FaCS, Tom Dzaja has a mobile phone provided by Centrelink.11516(Question No. 1326)132611516Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VICALP00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 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.11517Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VICLPCommunications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) As at 23 August 1999, one departmental liaison officer (DLO) was employed in the office of my Parliamentary Secretary.(2) (a) Mr Jeremy Irvine (b) APS level 6 (c) The policy areas assigned to the DLO are Office for Government Online, telecommunications consumer issues and telecommunications carriers' powers and immunities.(3) The staff costs to the department for the period 21 October 1998 (being the date on which the second Howard Ministry was sworn in) to 23 August 1999 are estimated to have been $61,000. The Department's accounting records do not separate administration costs incurred by the DLO, as distinct from those incurred by the office of the Parliamentary Secretary. Consequently, it is not possible to advise the amount of non-salary costs incurred by the DLO.11517(Question No. 1434)143411517Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:With reference to the 1 068 New Tax System seminars announced by the Australian Tax Office on 10 September 1999:(1) What is the total cost of the advertising campaign for these seminars.(2) Of this total, what is the cost for: (a) print advertising; (b) electronic advertising; (c) other advertising (please specify); (d) media placement fees; (e) advertising firm fees and commission; (f) research fees; and (g) other (please specify).(3) (a) What consultants have been contracted to work on the advertising/promotional campaign for these seminars; and (b) how much has been, or is expected to be, paid to each of these consultants.(4) Was each of these consultants selected using an open, competitive tendering process; if not: (a) which ones were selected using a different process; (b) what was that process; and (c) what was the reason for using a different process.11517Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:The program is currently being delivered with the majority of the marketing and advertising completed. The following answers to the questions are based on expenditure to date:(1) The total cost (including commission) of the advertising campaign for The New Tax System Seminar program for the 1999 series of seminars is $841,561.(2) The breakdown of the total cost of the advertising campaign is:(a) print advertising $782,383 (commission is included in this figure, refer to (e) ii) below);(b) no specific paid electronic advertising;(c) $2, 762 for posters, $2,952 for seminar programs, $21,499 for signs to be used venues;(d) an advertising agency was used for the placement of the advertising of The New Tax System Seminar 1999 program but did not charge a media placement fee for their services;(e) i) advertising firm fees $31,265, ii) commission $78,238—this is based on 10% of the print advertising costs of $782,383 referred to at (a) above;(f) none; and(g) $700 artwork.(3) (a and b) No consultants were used in the development of the advertising program.(4) See answer to (3).11517(Question No. 1435)143511517Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:With reference to the 1 068 New Tax System seminars announced by the Australian Tax Office on 10 September 1999:(1) What is the total cost of these seminars, excluding advertising/promotion.(2) Of this total, what is the cost for: (a) staff; (b) venue hire; (c) transport; (d) travel and other allowances; (e) consultant fees; and; (f) other (please specify).(3) (a) What consultants have been contracted to work on these seminars, excluding advertising/promotion; and (b) how much has been, or is expected to be, paid to each of these consultants.(4) Was each of these consultants selected using an open, competitive tendering process; if not: (a) which ones were selected using a different process; (b) what was that process; and (c) what was the reason for using a different process.11518Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VICLPAssistant Treasurer10—The following answer is provided to the honourable senator's question:As The New Tax System Seminar Program is currently being delivered, detailed costs cannot be provided in answer to your questions. The budgeted amounts are supplied for your information.(1) The total budgeted amount for The New Tax System Seminars 1999 program, excluding advertising, is $5,426,059.(2) (a) The budgeted amount for staff is $2,175,000. (b) Venue hire and associated services is budgeted to be $1,148,645. (c&d) The transport, travel and accommodation budget for the 1999 seminar program is $258,123. (e) Consultant fees are budgeted at $286,000. (f) Other budgeted amounts for delivery of The New Tax System Seminars 1999 program are: (i) Venue booking and coordination $150,177. (ii) Development of the presentation aid multimedia material $100,000. (iii) Telephones and other communication charges $2,400. (iv) Automated telephone and website registration service for 250,000 registrations will incur a fee of $880,129. (v) Information kits and handout material—250,000 sets are budgeted to be $200,000. (vi) Video cassettes, for use by remote communities and people unable to attend a seminar—750 sets of 16 industry specific sessions, $225,585.(3) (a) Cosway Pty Ltd. (b) The total fees paid to date for this professional consultation are $30,400.(4) The consultant was appointed as a result of a select tender process.11518(Question No. 1453)145311518Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999:(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) (a) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11518Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Office of Indigenous Policy have researched those files which appeared to be relevant to matters in which decisions had been made after 3 March 1996 and subsequently challenged.Application numberBasis for Application (ADJRA or common law or combination)Subject matter (agency staffing or agency client or other)Status of application (finalised, withdrawn or unfinalised)Cost of defending applicationQuantum of costs awarded against the respondent (if any)528/96ADJRAClientFinalised$21None661/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$5,907None794/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$1,642None828/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$6,299NoneTG6/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$390NoneNG669/98ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$8,469Undetermined D0017/99ADJRAClientUnfinalisedW60022/99ADJRAClientFinalisedApprox. $15000None SG19/97ADJRAClientFinalised$12,606 (includes cost of SG27/97)$2000SG27/97ADJRAClientFinalised(See SG19/97)NoneQG100/96ADJRAClientFinalised$5,162.90NoneQG/166/96ADJRAClientFinalised$15,475None97/2876ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneTG6/98ADJRAClientFinalised$1,248NoneWAG179/96ADJRAClientFinalised$14,629NoneQG156/98ADJRAClientFinalised$23,025$25,26799/2834ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneSG132/98ADJRAClientUnfinalised$14,723Not yet applicable99/2796ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneQG97/96ADJRAClientFinalised$22,405NoneNG795/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$10,368.27None11519(Question No. 1471)147111519Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 21 September 1999.(1) Since 3 March 1996, how many decisions of the department and all portfolio agencies have been the subject of applications for review under the common law, including prerogative writs.(2) Of these applications, how many related to: (a) agency staffing matters; (b) agency client matters; or (c) other (please specify general area).(3) How many applications: (a) have been: (i) finalised, and (ii) withdrawn by the applicant; and (b) remain unfinalised.(4) What was the cost to the department or agency of defending each of these actions; and (b) what was the quantum of costs where they were awarded against the Commonwealth, where appropriate.11519Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is follows:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Office of Indigenous Policy have researched those files which appeared to be relevant to matters in which decisions had been made after 3 March 1996 and subsequently challenged.Application numberBasis for Application (ADJRA or common law or combination)Subject matter (agency staffing or agency client or other)Status of application (finalised, withdrawn or unfinalised)Cost of defending applicationQuantum of costs awarded against the respondent (if any)528/96ADJRAClientFinalised$21None661/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$5,907None794/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$1,642None828/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$6,299NoneTG6/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$390NoneNG669/98ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$8,469Undetermined D0017/99ADJRAClientUnfinalisedW60022/99ADJRAClientFinalisedApprox. $15000None SG19/97ADJRAClientFinalised$12,606 (includes cost of SG27/97)$2000SG27/97ADJRAClientFinalised(See SG19/97)NoneQG100/96ADJRAClientFinalised$5,162.90NoneQG/166/96ADJRAClientFinalised$15,475None97/2876ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneTG6/98ADJRAClientFinalised$1,248NoneWAG179/96ADJRAClientFinalised$14,629NoneQG156/98ADJRAClientFinalised$23,025$25,26799/2834ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneSG132/98ADJRAClientUnfinalised$14,723Not yet applicable99/2796ADJRAClientFinalisedNoneNoneQG97/96ADJRAClientFinalised$22,405NoneNG795/96ADJRA and s.39B Judiciary ActClientFinalised$10,368.27None11520(Question No. 1484)148411520Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made initial stage decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.(2) What are the: (a) formal qualifications; (b) relevant experience; and (c) employment classification/grade, of each departmental officer who has made internal review decisions regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act since 3 March 1996.11520Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I am advised that the sum of resources across the portfolio required to provide a detailed response to these questions would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department and portfolio agencies. Much information about Freedom of Information caseloads is available publicly in annual reports. The following information describes the arrangements for FOI decision-making in the Department.Under section 23 of the Act, the Secretary of the Department has granted decision-making powers for FOI matters to various offices within the Department. The authorised decision-makers are either SES officers or senior legal officers. In most cases, the initial decision on access to documents is made by the SES officer whose area has jurisdiction over the documents in question. An internal review decision on access to documents is made by an officer other than the one who made the initial decision on access. As a general rule, internal review decisions on access are made at the division head level. The Secretary has issued a Departmental instruction which is designed to ensure that FOI requests are processed in a timely manner. The Department has provided its officers with FOI training and its legal sections coordinate the Department's FOI requests and provide advice on the proper handling of those requests. The qualifications, experience and employment grades of FOI decision makers are not recorded on the Department's FOI files.11520(Question No. 1502)150211520Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) How many internal staff development courses has the department, or any agency in the portfolio, conducted since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the cost of internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(3) How many staff have attended internal staff development courses the department, or any agency in the portfolio, has conducted since 3 March 1996.(4) (a) How many internal staff development courses conducted by the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996 have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (4).11521Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I am advised that the level of resources required to answer these questions in their entirety across the portfolio would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department and portfolio agencies.11521(Question No. 1520)152011521Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 20 September 1999:(1) How many departmental officers have attended external staff development courses since 3 March 1996.(2) What is the total cost of the external staff development courses attended by the officers of the department, or any agency in the portfolio, since 3 March 1996.(3) (a) How many external staff development courses attended by departmental or agency staff since 3 March 1996, have contained training on making decisions under the Freedom of Information Act; and (b) of this number, how many: (i) were specifically focusing on the subject of freedom of information decisions, and (ii) how many dealt with the issue amongst others.(4) Of the courses relevant to (3), which agencies or consultants provided that training.(5) What is the total cost of the courses in (3).11521Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:I am advised that the level of resources required to answer these questions in their entirety across the portfolio would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the department and portfolio agencies.11521(Question No. 1630)163011521O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 28 September 1999:(1) Since 1 June 1999, on how many occasions did the department request a receipt from a staff member from one of the following offices who undertook travel and sought payment of travelling allowance at the commercial rate: (a) the Prime Minister; (b) the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet; (c) the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; (d) the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government; (e) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services; (f) the Treasurer; (g) the Assistant Treasurer; (h) the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation; (i) the Minister for Trade; (j) the Minister for Foreign Affairs; (k) the Parliamentary Secretary to Foreign Affairs; (l) the Minister for the Environment and Heritage; (m) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage; (n) the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; (o) the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation; (p) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; (q) the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; (r) the Minister for Employment Services; (s) the Minister for Family and Community Services; (t) the Minister for Community Services; (u) the Minister for Defence; (v) the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; (w) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence; (x) the Minister for Health and Aged Care; (y) the Minister for Aged Care; (z) the Minister for Finance and Administration; (aa) the Special Minister of State; (ab) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration; (ac) the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs; (ad) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs; (ae) the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; (af) the Minister for Sport and Tourism; (ag) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; (ah) the Attorney-General; (ai) the Minister for Justice and Customs; (aj) the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; (ak) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; (al) the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; (am) the Minister for Forestry and Conservation; and (an) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.(2) On each occasion that a request for a receipt in support of a travel allowance claim was made: (a) what was the basis of the request; and (b) what was the result of the request.11521Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1)—(2) The detailed information sought in the honourable Senator's question is not readily available in consolidated form. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the honourable Senator's question would be a major task. The practice of successive governments has been not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in assembling such information.11522(Question No. 1669)166911522Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BartlettDT6QLDAD00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 11 October 1999:(1) Does the foreword to the National Greenhouse Strategy state that the Commonwealth, states and territories have `endorsed' the strategy and that, by endorsing the strategy, jurisdictions have demonstrated their commitment to an effective national greenhouse strategy.(2) When, and by what means, were these endorsements secured.(3) Did the Prime Minister correspond with first ministers of jurisdictions in relation to their endorsement of the strategy; if so, will the Minister table the correspondence in the Senate.(4) Has the Government been informed or advised that the endorsement of the strategy by any state or territory is subject to caveats, other than those noted in the text of the strategy; if so, which states and territories have noted or communicated any such caveats.(5) When will the Government ratify the Kyoto Protocol.11522Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Council of Australian Governments agreed on 7 November 1997 to the process and timetable for finalisation of the National Greenhouse Strategy. A High Level Group of senior officials from the Commonwealth, States and Territories established by COAG took forward the further development and finalisation of the National Greenhouse Strategy. Premiers and Chief Ministers advised the Prime Minister of their governments' endorsement of the Strategy in the period from July to November of last year.(3) In the course of finalising and endorsing the National Greenhouse Strategy, the Prime Minister corresponded with first ministers of jurisdictions. This correspondence will not be tabled at this time.(4) In their endorsement of the Strategy a number of jurisdictions noted the differences in State and Territory circumstances including their greenhouse response capacity. The National Greenhouse Strategy refers to Australia's national circumstances, the regional diversity existing within Australia, and the need for greenhouse response measures to be tailored to match that diversity.(5) While a great achievement, the Kyoto Protocol left a number of issues essential to its implementation for further negotiation. Australia, like many other countries, will consider ratifying the Protocol after these issues have been resolved. Principal among these are:. First, the rules and modalities for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms: international emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation;. Second, important definitional and operational issues concerning the treatment of sinks;. Third, compliance with the Protocol obligations; and. Fourth, developing country participation.11522(Question No. 1673)167311522Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:For each of the past 10 financial years:(a) how much Commonwealth money was spent on tree planting through programs including Landcare, salinity programs and Natural Heritage Trust;(b) state by state, how many trees and what area of vegetation was planted;(c) what proportion of the plantings have been assessed to see whether they survived;(d) what proportion have survived;(e) how much Commonwealth money was spent on protecting remnant native vegetation;(f) what area of native vegetation was protected; and(g) state by state, what area of native vegetation was cleared.11522Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Precise data at the level of detail requested by the honourable senator is not available due to the range of programs and agencies addressing revegetation over the period in question and the fact that tree planting is rarely the sole activity of projects. This makes it difficult to apportion investment separately or directly to tree plantings.The following responses provide the best available information against each inquiry. (a) and (e)Investment in on-ground revegetation and remnant protection projects across Commonwealth programs, for the period 1989-90 until commencement of the Natural Heritage Trust, is estimated to have been approximately $6.5 million per annum. This figure covers those programs which are broadly comparable with Bushcare, and does not include investment in commercial forestry and farm forestry projects.Since commencement of the Natural Heritage Trust, investment through Bushcare in projects for which the primary activity was on-ground action (revegetation, regeneration and remnant protection for both biodiversity conservation and sustainable production) was approximately $14.6 million for 1997-98 and $26.3 million for 1998-99. There are elements of other programs, including others funded under the NHT, which are achieving vegetation outcomes, but there is insufficient data on those outputs at this stage.(b) and (f)For the period 1989-90 to the commencement of the Natural Heritage Trust, the estimated total area directly revegetated or protected through Commonwealth vegetation initiatives, based on information which can be directly verified, was at least 5,000 hectares per annum.From the commencement of the Natural Heritage Trust in 1997 until January 1999, it is estimated from project progress reports, that there has been direct revegetation and remnant protection activity through Bushcare projects of about 132,500 hectares. It is estimated that a similar area has been revegetated and protected under the National Landcare Program. Note that these figures are from project reports written prior to January 1999, and there has been significant activity since then. In addition, this data comes from the first six months of what are often three year projects, so the bulk of the outputs are yet to be achieved. There has also been significant revegetation through programs such as the Murray-Darling 2001 Initiative, Rivercare, and the Endangered Species Program.(c) and (d)No information is available on the survival rates of vegetation established by pre- Natural Heritage Trust programs.For Natural Heritage Trust funded programs, a proportion of projects has been assessed each year by State Natural Heritage Trust Evaluation Teams, Bushcare State Coordinators and Regional Facilitators and Bushcare Support (Greening Australia) staff. There is no aggregated national output data from these assessments.Whilst it is too early to undertake an assessment of survival of vegetation established under Natural Heritage Trust programs, methodologies to determine survival rates are being developed.(g) Annual rates of decrease in woody vegetation per State, determined by the Bureau of Rural Sciences in their report Land Cover Change 1990-1995, are as follows:State/Terr.Land Cover Change 1990-1995 (fire and forest management excluded) (ha/annum)ACT1,050NSW18,180NT3,320Qld270,290SA3,510Tas2,890Vic6,930WA21,750Total327,91511523(Question No. 1674)167411523Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 12 October 1999:Is the issue of exploration licences in Commonwealth marine waters a Commonwealth action for the purposes of the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act; if so, how many licences were issued in the 3 years from July 1996 to June 1999, and in each case: (a) what area did the licence cover; (b) what activities were permitted under the licence; and (c) what environmental impact assessment was undertaken.11524Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Yes, the issue of offshore petroleum exploration permits in Commonwealth marine waters is a Commonwealth action that requires consideration of environmental significance under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. However, the responsibility for deciding whether the issue of exploration permits under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 are significant actions for which a proponent should therefore be designated lies with the Joint Authorities which comprise the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and the respective State and Northern Territory Ministers. I therefore suggest that the honourable senator direct matters pertaining to parts (a), (b) and (c) of the question to my colleague, the Minister for Industry, Sciences and Resources, who administers the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. In relation to part (c) of the question I can advise that no proponent was designated in relation to the issue of an exploration permit in Commonwealth marine waters between July 1996 and June 1999.11524(Question No. 1681)168111524Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4NSWAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 October 1999:(1) Given that the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of African Unity accept that the two parties in the conflict in Western Sahara are the Kingdom of Morocco and the Polisario Front, does the Minister recognise the authority of Polisario to represent the Western Sahara people.(2) Does the Minister intend to formally meet representatives of Polisario, the representative body for the independence movement in Western Sahara.(3) (a) Is the Government aware that, during September 1999, peaceful demonstrations were suppressed in Layoun, the capital of Western Sahara and that the UN has verified that Saharawis were killed, imprisoned or disappeared; and(b) Will the Minister make representations to Morocco on this matter.(4) Will the Government provide any humanitarian aid to the 165,000 Saharawi refugees who are living in south west Algeria in harsh conditions.11524Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer in response to the honourable senator's question:(1) Australia considers the Polisario Front to be representative of an important body of West Saharan opinion, but the United Nations-sponsored referendum due to be held in July 2000 is designed to clarify the wishes of the population of Western Sahara on the issue of self-determination.(2) Dealings occur with Polisario on an informal basis in New York, and Australian parliamentarians and officials meet with Polisario Front representatives informally. Since many Polisario representatives also hold Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) positions, Australian Ministers do not formally receive them, because to do so might be presented as Australian acceptance of the SADR as the government of Western Sahara.(3) (a) There was a press report of incidents at that time which indicated that a number of demonstrators were injured. Although it was reported that no-one was killed, the article stated that 27 Moroccans were given jail sentences of 10-15 years for their actions. The Australian Government is not aware that the UN has made any formal reference to the incidents, nor to its knowledge, has any of the major international human rights bodies drawn attention to them. The Australian Government remains concerned over the human rights situation in the Western Sahara as part of its overall commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights internationally.(b) The Government has made representations to the Moroccan authorities on individual cases of alleged human rights abuses in the Western Sahara which have been brought to its attention, including through a longstanding arrangement whereby Amnesty International "Urgent Action" cases are considered and, where appropriate, pursued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on behalf of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. The Australian Embassy in Paris, which has responsibility for Morocco, has made representations to the Moroccan authorities on these cases and will continue to do so where appropriate.(4) The Australian Government has no plans to provide assistance to the Saharawi refugees in Algeria. The Australian aid program focuses on the humanitarian needs within our immediate region. East Timor, in particular, is currently taking a large proportion of our humanitarian assistance.11524(Question No. 1683)168311524Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:(1) What does the Australian Government know about the whereabouts and circumstances of Tibetan musicologist Mr Ngawang Choephel, from Vermont, who was arrested by the Chinese authorities in 1995 and sentenced to 18 years gaol for treason.(2) Is there any extant evidence that the treason conviction is valid.(3) Has Mr Ngawang Choephels plight been raised in any of Australia's dialogues with China on civil rights, or at any other forum; if so, what good came of raising the matter; if not, will the Government seek information about Mr Ngawang Choephels plight.11525Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) We believe Ngawang Choepel is currently located in the Drapchi prison.(2) We have no information on Mr Choepel's trial.(3) The Australian Government has raised Ngawang Choepel's case directly with the Chinese government at senior levels and at the annual Human Rights Dialogues in 1997, 1998 and 1999 including expressing concern at the length of his sentence. Our representations have ensured the Chinese have been alerted to the international concern about Mr Choepel's whereabouts and circumstances. We will continue to raise individual human rights cases such as that of Ngawang Choephel on appropriate occasions.11525(Question No. 1701)170111525Mackay, 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 27 October to 29 October 1999:(1) (a) How was the reference group for the summit selected; and (b) who signed off on their appointment. (2) (a) Who was appointed to the reference group; (b) what organisations do they represent; and (c) in what capacity were they appointed.(3) (a) What were the exact activities undertaken by the reference group; and (b) did they operate within a set of guidelines or terms of reference; if so, can a copy of these documents be provided; if not, why not.(4) Did the reference group operate within a set of terms of reference; if so: (a) who prepared the terms of reference; and (b) will the terms of reference be made public; if not, why not.(5) Were members of the reference group paid a fee/honorarium/stipend for their participation; if so, which members of the group received a fee; if not, why not.(6) For members received 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 meeting basis.(7) What was the total amount of money paid to reference group members for their participation.(8) (a) How many times has the reference group met; (b) in what locations did the meetings take place; and (c) on what dates.(9) Were the travel expenses for reference group members to attend meetings paid by the department; if not, why not.(10) (a) what was the total amount of money spent on travel expenses; (b) what were the individual total payments paid to reference group members; (c) what were the exact travel expenses that could be claimed; and (d) at what level were the expenses paid.11525Macdonald, 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) (a) The Department compiled a list of appropriately qualified people for the Minister's consideration.(b) The Minister determined the membership of the group and signed off on their appointment.(2) (a) A list of the reference group members is attached.(b) The members were chosen for their ability to provide particular perspectives rather than as representatives of particular organisations.(c) They were appointed to provide advice to the Minister on the organisation and conduct of the Summit.(3) (a) The Reference Group guided the development of the program, the commissioning of background papers, the selection of keynote speakers, provided advice on the list of participants and oversaw some of the administrative arrangements for the Summit.(b) A copy of the group's Terms of Reference is attached.(4) Yes, the Reference Group operated within a set of Terms of Reference.(a) The Terms of Reference were prepared by the Department and approved by the Minister. (b) The Terms of Reference could be made public.(5) The Chairman was paid a fee. The other members of the reference group were not paid as they were receiving salaries from their employers and it was not considered appropriate to pay them.(6) (a) The Chairman received a fee of $250 per meeting.(b) The fee was set in accordance with Determination 3 of 1999 made by the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal.(c) The fee was paid on a per meeting basis.(7) $1,750 has been paid in fees and a further $750 is yet to be paid.(8) (a) The Reference Group met 11 times.(b) All the meetings took place at Parliament House in Canberra.(c) Meetings were held on 27 May 1999, 2 June 1999, 15 June 1999, 29 June 1999, 21 July 1999, 12 August 1999, 20 August 1999, 31 August 1999, 22 September 1999, 15 October 1999 and 26 October 1999.(9) Travel expenses were paid to the Chairman according to the Remuneration Tribunal determination.(10) (a) The Chairman has been paid $1,470 with a further $630 yet to be paid in travel expenses.(b), (c) and (d) Travel expenses in relation to one member have not been finalised. Further information could be provided at a later stage.REGIONAL AUSTRALIA SUMMIT REFERENCE GROUPChairThe Rt Hon Ian SinclairMembersDr Wendy CraikMr Mike BeckinghamMr Mark BethwaiteSenator the Hon David BrownhillMr Barry Wakelin MPMs Jan HirstMs Liza AlbionMs Sema VarovaMs Prue ReganRegional Summit Reference Group (RSRG)Terms of ReferenceReference GroupA small high level Reference Group will be established to guide the development of the Summit.In broad terms, the Reference Group will guide the development of the program, the preparation of key papers that might be delivered, oversee some of the administrative arrangements for the Summit and document the outcomes from the Summit.Draft Terms of Reference:further development of the desired outcomes from the Summit; further development of the Summit program; oversight of the preparation of key papers to be presented at the Summit; providing assistance with the nomination of invitees; oversight of administrative arrangements for the Summit; and draw together the outcomes following the Summit.11526(Question No. 1702)170211526Mackay, 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 27 October to 29 October 1999:(1) (a) Who participated in the summit; and (b) which organisations did they represent.(2) (a) Who selected the participants; (b) how did they become involved in the summit; and (c) how were they notified of their involvement in the summit.(3) Was there a process for registration of interest to participate; if so, can details of this process be provided.(4) Were participants paid a stipend/fee for participating in the summit; if so: (a) who was paid; and (b) which organisations did they represent; if not, why not.(5)For participants 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.(6) What was the total amount of money paid to participants.11526Macdonald, 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) (a) A list of participants is attached.(b) The attached list also includes organisations.(2) (a) The Reference Group provided advice to the Minister on suitable participants.(b) and (c) The Minister wrote to invite selected individuals to participate and they responded to his invitation. (3) The Regional Australia Summit internet site provided an opportunity for people to register interest.(4) Participants were not paid to attend the Summit. They were invited to attend because of their particular interest in regional Australia and it would not have been appropriate to pay them.(5) Not applicable.(6) Not applicable.REGIONAL AUSTRALIA SUMMIT—LIST OF PARTICIPANTSMr Larry ActonPresidentAgForce QldMs Judith AdamsAustralian Healthcare Association (WA)Mr John Ah Kit MLAShadow Minister for Regional DevelopmentNorthern TerritoryProfessor John AllenUniversity of Nebraska—USASenator Lyn AllisonSenator for VictoriaDr Margaret AlstonAssociate Director, Centre for Rural Social ResearchCharles Sturt UniversitySenator The Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Communications, Information Technology & the ArtsProfessor Gerry AndersonAssistant Vice ChancellorUniversity of BallaratMr Neil AndersonChairRural and Remote Pharmacist Workforce Development ProgramMr Paul AndersonChief Executive OfficerThe BHP Co LtdThe Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Transport & Regional ServicesMr Richard ArmstrongPresidentQueensland Farmers' FederationMr Michael AshfordOffice of Information and CommunicationsWestern AustraliaMr Kevin Balm Integra Pty LtdProfessor Snow BarlowUniversity of MelbourneMr Kenneth BastonPrincipalEllavalla PastoralMr Tony BattagleneGeneral ManagerWinemakers Federation of AustraliaMr Roger Beale AMEnvironment & HeritageMr Shaun BeasleyMr Mike BeckinghamAustralian Rural Leadership FoundationA/Professor Bob BeetonHead of SchoolUniversity of QueenslandMs Susan BenedykaMacquarie River Food & Fibre IncMr Paul BennettPresidentTasmanian Rural YouthMs Janice Besch MinsonAustralia CouncilDr John BestHealth ConsultantDiagnosis Pty LtdMr Mark BethwaiteDeutsche Bank AGCr Mary BinksMayorLocal Government Association of TasmaniaLt Col Ken Bladen (Rtd)President—WAReturned & Services League of AustraliaMr Ben BodnaImmediate Past PresidentPhilanthropy AustraliaMr Terry BolgerKowari Motors Pty LtdMr Saxon BostonOrd River FarmersSenator The Hon Ron BoswellParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport & Regional ServicesMrs Leith BoullyChair Community Advisory Committee of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council Mrs Kath BrewsterPresidentCouncil on the Ageing (NSW)Mr Paul BriggsFirst Nations Advantage Credit UnionMr Greg BrinsmeadPrincipalMarcus Oldham Farm Management CollegeMs Jillian BroadbentDirectorReserve Bank of AustraliaMr Leon BrosterMurray Darling AssociationMs Margaret BrownChairpersonHealth Consumers of Rural and Remote AustraliaSenator The Hon David BrownhillSenator for New South WalesThe Hon. John BrumbyMinister for State and Regional DevelopmentVictoriaDr Lexia BryantCentre for Rural Health, Monash UniversityMr David BuckinghamExecutive DirectorBusiness Council of AustraliaMr Terry CahillDeputy ChairmanMid West Gascoyne Area Consultative CommitteeMr Alex CampbellChairLand and Water Resources Research & Development CorporationCr Nino CardilloCouncillorHinchinbrook Shire CouncilThe Hon Kate Carnell MLAChief MinisterACTMr Michael CarrollHead of Rural & Agribusiness MarketsNational Australia BankThe Hon. Fred ChaneyNational Native Title Tribunal Mr Michael ChaneyChief Executive OfficerWesfarmers LtdMrs Liz ChapmanRural Plan Consultancy ServicesMr Ray ChappellCompany Director and ConsultantProfessor John ChudleighUniversity of SydneyMr Frank CicuttoExecutive DirectorNational Australia Bank LtdMr Rudolf CincSA Rural Counselling Service IncMr John CobbPresidentNSW Farmers' AssociationMr Everald ComptonAustralian Inland Rail ExpresswayProfessor Barry ConynghamVice ChancellorSouthern Cross UniversityMr Peter CookeDirectorAgKnowledgeMr Bevan CooteGeneral ManagerEastern Australia AirlinesMr Stuart CoppockThe Regional InstituteMr Wayne CornishVice PresidentNational Farmers' FederationMr John CotterDr Wendy CraikExecutive DirectorNational Farmers' FederationMr Geoff CrickChairFarm Business Management CommitteeNational Farmers' FederationMr Alan CummineNational Policy DirectorAustralian Forest GrowersMr William CummingsCairns Chamber of CommerceMr Barry CusackManaging DirectorRio Tinto Ltd Ms Kersten DavisUniting Church Frontier ServicesBirdsville ClinicThe Hon John Dawkins MLAChairmanRural Communities Reference GroupSouth AustraliaMs Barbara DerhamChairFlinders Region Area Consultative Committee (FRACC)Mr Gatjil Djerrkura OAMChairmanATSICMr Robert DobrzynskiDelatite ShireMr Christopher DoddsAustralian Council of Social ServicesMr Ian DongesPresidentNational Farmers' FederationMrs Nicky DownerChairCountry Arts SAMr Rob DrakeDirectorMacquarie Bank LimitedMs Anne DunnMI Murren EnterprisesMr John DunnetEditorCountry Press AustraliaMr Dennis EckChief Executive OfficerColes Myer LtdMr Rod EddingtonExecutive ChairmanAnsett Holdings LtdMr Joseph EluChairmanAboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development CorporationMr Lance EmersonPharmacy Guild of AustraliaMr Paul EspieManaging DirectorPacific Road Group LimitedMr Greg EvansPolicy ManagerAustralian Gas Association The Hon John Fahey MPMinister for Finance and AdministrationMr Ian FalkUniversity of TasmaniaMs Patricia FeilmanExecutive SecretaryThe Ian Potter FoundationMs Corallie FergusonCEOImparja TelevisionMr Martin Ferguson MPShadow Minister for Transport & Regional ServicesMr Ron Finemore AOExecutive Deputy ChairFinemore TransportMs Kathleen FinlaysonRegional Development CouncilWestern AustraliaMs Sharon FirebraceChairmanIndigenous Land CorporationMr Chris FitzhardingeDepartment of Commerce & TradeWestern AustraliaDr Christine FletcherNorthern Australia Research UnitAustralian National UniversityMr Trevor FluggeChairmanAWB LtdCr Deirdre FordDeputy MayorCairns City CouncilMrs Jennifer FowlerCommunity Mental HealthMr David FoxChairNorthern Rivers Area Consultative CommitteeMr Lindsay FoxFounderLinfoxDr Lyn FragarDirectorAustralian Centre for Agricultural Health & SafetyMs Emma FreebairnPharmacistMr Collin Freeland AOChairmanAustralian Capital Region Development Council Mr George GardinerChairH.G. Gardiner & AssociatesMr Mark GenoveseExecutive ManagerCredit Union FoundationMr Jock GivenDirectorCommunications Law Centre, University of NSWMr Jeff GoodingChief Executive OfficerKimberley Development CommissionMr Bob GordonExecutive DirectorFuel Ethanol Association of AustraliaMr Larry Graham MLASpokesperson for Regional DevelopmentWestern AustraliaMr Harry GreenNational Party of Australia (NSW)Dr Clive HadfieldCairns HospitalMr Greg HallamExecutive DirectorLocal Government Association of QueenslandMiss Juanita HamparsumHamparsum Investments Pty LtdMr Peter HandcockGeneral ManagerDubbo City Development CorporationMr Brian HanleyCEOGresham Rabo Management LtdMr Ian HastingsMallee Rural Counselling ServiceMs Jennifer HawkinsRegional Womens Advisory CouncilMr Roger HenningNetwork Communications Pty LtdMr Rene HiddingDeputy Opposition LeaderTasmaniaMr Howard Hobbs MLAShadow Minister for Local Government & PlanningQueenslandThe Hon Paul Holloway MLCDeputy Leader of the OppositionSouth Australia Mr Steve HowardSecretaryThe Global FoundationMr Peter Howarth OAM'Wombramurra'Mr Robert HudsonHassall & Associates Pty LtdMr Bernard HugonnierDirectorTerritorial Development Service, OECD FranceProfessor John HumphreysHeadSchool of Health & Human Sciences, La Trobe UniversityMr Andrew HunterChief Executive OfficerTeleTaskBishop Eugene HurleyCatholic Diocese of Port PirieMr Rohan JeffsGeneral Manager Corporate ServicesWoolworths LtdMr Stanley JeyarajState ManagerKids Help LineMs Lynne JohnstonPastoralists & Graziers Association (WA)Mr Johnny KahlbetzerManaging DirectorTwynam GroupThe Hon Dr David Kemp MPMinister for Education, Training & Youth AffairsMr Peter KenyonIDEAS GroupMr Max KershawGeneral ManagerGunnedah Shire CouncilDr Sue KilpatrickCentre for Research and Learning in Regional AustraliaMr Peter KingChairmanAustralian Heritage CommissionMr Vernon KnightMallee Family CareMr Chris KopittkeDirectorThe Future Capital Corporation Pty Ltd Mr Graham LarcombeNational Economics Pty LtdMr Ian LauranceChairmanGascoyne Murchison StrategyMr John LawrenceChairNational Rural Health AllianceThe Hon Paul Lennon MHADeputy PremierMinister for Infrastructure, Energy & ResourcesTasmaniaMrs Grace LeyHealth Service Manager/Director NursingNortham HospitalMr Thomas LindseyDirector of Economic GrowthWarrnambool City CouncilMr Bruce LloydChairmanAustralian Landcare CouncilMr Kenneth LloydChief Executive OfficerCountry Arts SAMr Mike LoganDirectorOakville Pastoral Co.Mr John LushPresidentGrains Council of AustraliaMr John LyleNSW FarmersMs Susie LyleGunnedah Nursing Home IncMs Helen LynchNon Executive DirectorColes Myer, Southcorp and WestpacMr Gerry MacDonaldNational Executive DirectorRoyal Flying Doctor ServiceMrs Lindsay MacDonaldMemberRegional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund BoardSenator The Hon Ian MacdonaldMinister for Regional Services, Territories & Local GovernmentSenator Sue MackayShadow Minister for Regional Services, Territories & Local Government Dr John MaddenPresidentAustralia New Zealand Regional Science AssociationMr Patrick MaherChallenge Disability ServicesMr David MallochAustralian BusinessMiss Jennifer MarshallMr Brian McCarthyManaging DirectorRural Press LtdMr Don McDonald'Devoncourt'The Hon Peter McGauran MPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of FederationMs Cathy McGowanPresidentRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr Cam McKellarDr Donald McKenzieMs Elaine McKeonRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr Kevin McMenemyPresidentWestern Australia Farmers' FederationMrs Megan McNichollPresidentIsolated Children's Parents' AssociationDr David McSwanDirectorRural Education Research and Development CentreMr Bruce MeagherHead of Corporate AffairsAustar United Communications LtdMr Bob MerkenhofManaging DirectorLeighton ContractorsCr Ian MickelPresidentWestern Australian Municipal AssociationMs Sue MiddletonRegional Women's Advisory CouncilDr David MildenhallPresidentRural Doctors Association of AustraliaMrs Patricia MitchellChairQueensland Arts Council Cr Wal MitchellBarwon Darling AllianceMr Kym MobbsCentral Queensland Area Consultative CommitteeMr Justin MohamedChief Executive OfficerRumbulara Aboriginal Cooperative LtdCr Mike MontgomeryMayorMoree Plains Shire CouncilMr John MooreNational PresidentSt Vincent de PaulDr Sue MoreyHealth ConsultantMorey Australia Pty LtdMs Diane MorganVolunteering AustraliaDr David MorganExecutive DirectorWestpac Banking CorporationMs Helen MorrisExecutive OfficerSidney Myer FundMrs Jane MouritzHyden Progress AssociationMs Janet MoxeyAdministration ManagerMoxey DairiesMs Maureen MurphyGeneral Manager—Sales and Business DevelopmentAAPT SAT-TELMr Dennis MuttonCEODepartment of Primary Industries and ResourcesSouth AustraliaMr Baillieu MyerChairmanSidney Myer FundProfessor Robert NapierAssociate ProfessorOrange Agricultural CollegeMr Mark NeedhamNational Farmers' FederationMr Rod NettleChief Executive OfficerAustralian Local Government Association Mr Ian NightingaleExecutive OfficerEyre Regional Development BoardMs Moira O'BrienRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr Peter O'CleryCooperative Research Centre for Sustainable TourismMs Heather O'ConnorPhilanthropy AustraliaMr Bernie O'DonnellPro Vice-ChancellorCharles Sturt UniversityMr Stephen O'DonnellExecutive General ManagerMIM Holdings LtdMs Kerryn OliverPrincipalNortham High SchoolMr Dennis O'NeillChief Executive OfficerAustralian Council for Infrastructure DevelopmentThe Hon Michael Palmer MLAMinister for Transport and Infrastructure DevelopmentNorthern TerritoryMr Vince PaparoGeneral ManagerMoree Plains Shire CouncilMr Mukesh ParekhGeneral Manager, Channel PlanningCommonwealth Bank of AustraliaMr Haydn ParkNational Australia BankMr Mark PatersonChief Executive OfficerAustralian Chamber of Commerce & IndustryMr Graham PaynterChairRural Training Council of AustraliaMr Douglas PeelSouth East Atlantic SalmonMr Dale PerkinsPresidentSouth Australian Farmers' FederationMrs Barbara PhillipsANZ BankMs Johanna PlanteChief Executive OfficerAustralian Communications Industry Forum Mr Lachlan PolkinghorneNational Landcare FacilitatorMr Peter PulleyChief ExecutiveTamworth Development CorporationMr John QuantrillProgram DirectorAustralian Rural Leadership ProgramMr Ted Quinlan MLAShadow Minister for Treasury, Racing & Gaming, Sport & RecreationACTMr Michael RaddaNational Chief ExecutiveFurniture Industry Association of AustraliaMrs Elspeth RadfordRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr George RanceTasmanian Farmers & Graziers AssociationMrs Janice RichardsonRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr George RiedelMcKinsey & CoProfessor Celia RommCentral Queensland UniversityMr Joe RossCr John RossSenior Vice PresidentAustralian Local Government AssociationMs Fran RoweNSW Rural Assistance AuthorityMr David RowellTasmanian Employment Advisory CouncilMs Jennifer RussellRegional Women's Advisory CouncilMr Peter RyanChief Executive OfficerGoulburn Ovens Insitute of TAFEMr Bernard SaltDirectorKPMG ConsultingMs Eleanor ScholzNetworking the NationMr Tim ScholzAustralian Landcare CouncilMs Ulrike SchuermannExecutive DirectorAustralian Youth FoundationThe Hon Bruce Scott MPMinister for Veterans' Affairs Dr Derek ScraftonProfessor of Transport Policy & PlanningUniversity of South AustraliaMr Nigel ScullionChairmanAustralian Seafood Industry CouncilDr Margaret SearesChairAustralia CouncilMs Lyn SeymourSeymours Department StoreThe Hon John SharpCorporate AdvisorLinfox DIDSMs Helen SheilCentre for Rural Communities, Monash UniversityMr John ShortWestpac Banking CorporationMr Chris SidotiCommissionerHuman Rights and Equal Opportunity CommissionMs Rosie SimpsonTelstraMr Edward SimsChief Executive OfficerGrowzone Development NetworkMr Ian SinclairChair, Regional Australia Summit Reference GroupCr John SmithMayorWhyalla City CouncilMrs Margaret SmithNational PresidentCountry Women's Association of AustraliaA/Professor Tony SorensenAssistant ProfessorUniversity of New EnglandThe Hon George Souris MPLeader of the National PartyNew South WalesMr Richard SpinksTelstraProfessor David SpottiswoodDirectorCurtin University of TechnologyMs Crystal StarkCrows Nest Resource AssociationMr Richard StaynerExecutive DirectorRural Development Centre Mr Ken SteinkeAPN News & Media LimitedProfessor Brian StoddartUniversity of New EnglandMr Adam SucklingGroup Manager Regulatory AffairsOptus Communications Pty LtdMr Greg SwainGroup Manager, Regional ProgramsTelstraMr Simon SwanInformation Technology & Telecommunications ManagerRail Services AustraliaMr Ziggy SwitkowskiChief Executive OfficerTelstra Corporation LtdMr John TannerMr Peter TaylorATSICMs Genevieve TimmonsExecutive OfficerLance Reichstein FoundationMs Robin TooheyNational Council of Women Australia IncMr Fred Tritton MBEMayorRichmond Shire CouncilThe Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryMr Richard UdenGeneral Manager Regional Financial ServicesANZ Banking Group LtdMs Dianne van MeegenDirections In ManagementCr Margaret VigantsPresidentLocal Government Association of the Northern TerritoryMs Asa WahlquistThe AustralianMr Barry Wakelin MPFederal Member for GreyDr John WakermanDirectorCentre for Remote HealthMr Peter WalshPresidentVictorian Farmers' Federation Mr Bev WaltersPrimary Industry Bank of Australia (PIBA)Mr Jeffrey WatsonBooringa Shire CouncilMs Barbara WellesleyNational Project DirectorGood Beginnings National Parenting ProjectMr Richard WellsExecutive DirectorMinerals Council of AustraliaMr Ian WesterlandChairDunmunkle Health ServicesMr Michael WhiteChairmanTelecentreMs Belinda WilkesChairMIA Council of Horticultural AssociationsDr George WilsonDirectorAustralian Wildlife ToursMr Douglas WinterChairpersonWarrumbungle Rural Community Program IncMr Geoffrey WiseDepartment of Land & Water ConservationNew South WalesThe Hon Harry Woods MPMinister for Local Government, Regional Development & Rural AffairsNew South WalesMr Philip YoungManaging DirectorTourism Council of AustraliaMs Kerry YuPolicy OfficerMunicipal Association of Victoria11534(Question No. 1705)170511534Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TASAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 22 October 1999:(1) Has an agreement been made between the governments of Victoria, Tasmania and the Commonwealth about the environmental assessment of the Duke Energy proposal for a gas pipeline to Tasmania; if so: (a) what are the terms of the agreement; and (b) can a copy be provided; if not (a) is such an agreement being, or to be, negotiated; and (b) when.(2) (a) Under what conditions was Deal Island handed over to the Tasmania Government; and (b) is there a written agreement; if so: (i) what are the terms of the agreement, and (ii) can a copy be provided.(3) (a) Was the transfer of Deal Island to the Tasmanian Government contingent on a marine reserve being created in the surrounding waters; and (b) has any progress been made towards creating a reserve.(4) (a) How much money did the Commonwealth give Tasmania for managing Deal Island; and (b) for what specific purposes and under what conditions.(5) What actions by the Commonwealth would require environmental assessment under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act in relation to the Duke Energy gas pipeline proposals.11535Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) The Tasmanian Natural Gas Project was designated under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator the Hon Nick Minchin, on 21 May 1999. Several aspects of the project proposal have evolved since designation. Preliminary discussions regarding the environmental assessment of the project have been held between the relevant government authorities at officer level. However, no formal agreement has yet been made regarding cooperative assessment arrangements. It is expected that a formal agreement about cooperative environmental assessment arrangements will be reached once the details of the project are finalised.(2) (a) The conditions relating to the transfer of Deal Island from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) to the Tasmanian Government were defined in a Heads of Agreement dated 9 April 1998.(b) Yes. (i) The terms of the agreement essentially provided for the transfer of the island to the State for the sum of $1 with the State agreeing to conserve and manage the property under terms prepared in consultation with the Australian Heritage Commission. (ii) An extract of the agreement has been provided to the honourable senator. Further copies are available from the Senate Table Office.(3) (a) The transfer of Deal Island from AMSA to the Tasmanian Government was not contingent on the creation of a marine reserve in the surrounding waters.(b) The Commonwealth understands that the waters surrounding Deal Island are currently being evaluated for protection as a marine reserve by the Tasmanian Government. Further information about this process should be sought from the Tasmanian Government.(4) No funds were provided by the Commonwealth to the Tasmanian Government for managing Deal Island in association with the transfer agreement.(5) Several actions by the Commonwealth could trigger environmental assessment of the proposal under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. These include the potential need for approval in terms of the Government's foreign investment policy, and the provision of a pipeline licence for the Bass Strait section of the proposed pipeline. Environmental assessment of the proposal in this case has been triggered by the decision of the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources to grant the project Major Projects Facilitation Status.11535(Question No. 1712)171211535Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) How many requests by each individual member and senator have been received for Australian flags in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) Were any of these requests turned down; if so: (a) on what basis; and (b) in relation to which requests.(3) What has been the cost to the Commonwealth of the provision of these flags.11535Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Requests for Australian flags by each individual senator and member in 1998-99 were as follows:SENATORSNameNo. of RqstsNameNo. of RqstsAbetz, The Hon Eric1Hogg, John1Allison, Lyn2Hutchins, Steve0Alston, The Hon Richard0Kemp, The Hon Rod0Bartlett, Andrew1Knowles, Susan0Bishop, Mark0Lees, Meg0Bolkus, The Hon Nick0Lightfoot, Ross5Boswell, The Hon Ronald1Lundy, Kate3Bourne, Vicki0Macdonald, The Hon Ian2Brown, Bob0Macdonald, Sandy4Brownhill, The Hon David3Mackay, Sue0Calvert, Paul2McGauran, Julian2Campbell, George1McKiernan, Jim0Campbell, The Hon Ian1Minchin, The Hon Nick0Carr, Kim0Murphy, Shayne3Chapman, Grant3Murray, Andrew1Collins, Jacinta0Newman, The Hon Jocelyn4Conroy, Stephen0O'Brien, Kerry0Cook, The Hon Peter3O'Chee, Bill3Coonan, Helen0Parer, The Hon Warwick1Cooney, Barney0Patterson, The Hon Kay3Crane, Winston3Payne, Marise1Crossin, Trish1Quirke, John10Crowley, The Hon Rosemary0Ray, Robert0Denman, Kay0Reid, The Hon Margaret2Eggleston, Alan1Reynolds, The Hon Margaret2Ellison, The Hon Chris4Schacht, The Hon Chris3Evans, Chris2Sherry, The Hon Nick1Faulkner, The Hon John1Stott Despoja, Natasha0Ferguson, Alan0Synon, Karen1Ferris, Jeannie0Tambling, The Hon Grant2Forshaw, Michael0Tierney, John1Gibbs, Brenda1Troeth, The Hon Judith6Gibson, The Hon Brian1Vanstone, The Hon Amanda3Harradine, Brian2Watson, John1Heffernan, The Hon Bill3West, Sue1Herron, The Hon John1Woodley, John0Hill, The Hon Robert0MEMBERSNameNo. of RqstsNameNo. of RqstsAbbott, The Hon Tony3Lawler, Mr Tony8Adams, The Hon Dick1Lawrence, The Hon Dr Carmen3Albanese, Mr Anthony1Lee, The Hon Michael3Anderson, The Hon John6Lieberman, The Hon Louis2Andren, Mr Peter6Lindsay, Mr Peter7Andrew, The Hon Neil4Livermore, Ms Kirsten7Andrews, Mr Kevin4Lloyd, Mr Jim1Anthony, The Hon Larry5Macfarlane, Mr Ian1Bailey, Ms Fran5Macklin, Ms Jenny8Baird, The Hon Bruce3Marek, Mr Paul1Baldwin, The Hon Peter2Martin, The Hon Stephen3Baldwin, Mr Robert1May, Mrs Margaret2Barresi, Mr Phillip2McArthur, Mr Stewart3Bartlett, Mr Kerry4McClelland, Mr Robert4Beazley, The Hon Kim2McDougall, Mr Graeme1Bevis, The Hon Arch3McFarlane, Ms Jann2Billson, Mr Bruce4McGauran, The Hon Peter6Bishop, The Hon Bronwyn4McLachlan, The Hon Ian1Bishop, Ms Julie2McLeay, The Hon Leo1Brereton, The Hon Laurie1McMullan, The Hon Bob4Broadbent, Mr Russell2Melham, Mr Daryl6Brough, Mr Mal4Miles, The Hon Chris2Brown, The Hon Bob1Moore, The Hon John1Burke, Ms Anna3Morris, Mr Allan6Cadman, The Hon Alan4Morris, The Hon Peter1Cameron, Mr Ross2Mossfield, Mr Frank2Campbell, Mr Graeme2Moylan, The Hon Judi1Causley, The Hon Ian6Murphy, Mr John3Charles, Mr Bob3Mutch, Mr Stephen2Cobb, Mr Michael3Nairn, Mr Gary5Costello, The Hon Peter2Nehl, Mr Garry1Cox, Mr David6Nelson, Dr Brendan4Crean, The Hon Simon2Neville, Mr Paul5Crosio, The Hon Janice2Nugent, Mr Peter6Danby, Mr Michael3O'Byrne, Ms Michelle3Dargavel, Mr Steve1O'Connor, Mr Gavan1Downer, The Hon Alexander5O'Keefe, The Hon Neil4Draper, Mrs Trish4Plibersek, Ms Tanya2Edwards, The Hon Graham2Price, The Hon Roger3Ellis, Ms Annette6Prosser, The Hon Geoffrey5Elson, Mrs Kay6Pyne, Mr Christopher2Emerson, Dr Craig4Quick, Mr Harry1Entsch, The Hon Warren5Randall, Mr Don2Evans, Mr Martyn2Reid, The Hon Bruce2Evans, The Hon Gareth1Reith, The Hon Peter5Fahey, The Hon John0Ripoll, Mr Bernie2Ferguson, Mr Laurie3Rocher, Mr Allan1Ferguson, Mr Martin1Ronaldson, The Hon Michael1 Filing, Mr Paul1Roxon, Ms Nicola1Fischer, The Hon Tim2Rudd, Mr Kevin4Fitzgibbon, Mr Joel7Ruddock, The Hon Phillip4Forrest, Mr John5Sawford, Mr Rodney1Gallus, Mrs Christine0Schultz, Mr Alby4Gambaro, Ms Teresa4Sciacca, The Hon Con3Gash, Mrs Joanna8Scott, The Hon Bruce6Georgiou, Mr Petro5Secker, Mr Patrick2Gerick, Ms Jane2Sercombe, Mr Bob3Gibbons, Mr Stephen4Sidebottom, Mr Sid4Gillard, Ms Julia5Sinclair, The Rt Hon Ian1Grace, Mrs Elizabeth1Slipper, The Hon Peter8Griffin, Mr Alan4Smith, Mr Stephen2Haase, Mr Barry5Smith, Mr Tony1Hall, Ms Jill6Smith, The Hon Warwick2Halverson, The Hon Robert4Snowdon, The Hon Warren4Hanson, Ms Pauline1Somlay, The Hon Alexander5Hardgrave, Mr Gary3Southcott, Dr Andrew3Hatton, Mr Michael2St Clair, Mr Stuart3Hawker, Mr David3Stone, The Hon Dr Sharman3Hicks, Mr Noel2Sullivan, The Hon Kathy1Hoare, Ms Kelly4Swan, Mr Wayne1Hockey, The Hon Joe3Tanner, Mr Lindsay3Holding, The Hon Clyde1Taylor, Mr Bill1Hollis, Mr Colin1Theophanous, The Hon Dr Andrew2Horne, Mr Robert8Thompson, Mr Cameron4Howard, The Hon John2Thomson, The Hon Andrew3Hull, Mrs Kay2Thomson, Mr Kelvin2Irwin, Mrs Julia1Truss, The Hon Warren1Jeanes, Ms Susan1Tuckey, The Hon Wilson5Jenkins, Mr Harry6Vaile, The Hon Mark8Johnston, Mrs Ricky1Vale, Mrs Danna6Jones, The Hon Barry6Wakelin, Mr Barry5Jull, The Hon David3Washer, Dr Mal2Katter, The Hon Robert2Wilkie, Mr Kim2Kelly, Mrs De-Anne1Williams, The Hon Daryl2Kelly, The Hon Jackie3Wilton, Mr Gregory4Kemp, The Hon Dr David3Wooldridge, The Hon Dr Michael2Kernot, Ms Cheryl2Worth, The Hon Trish4Kerr, The Hon Duncan2Zahra, Mr Christian3Latham, Mr Mark1Zammit, Mr Paul1(2) No requests were turned down.(3) The cost to the Commonwealth for the provision of these flags for the 1998-99 financial year was $499 036.80.11539(Question No. 1727)172711539Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) What has been the total cost to the Department, and each agency in the portfolio, of legaladvice 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.11539Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Department/Agency(1) Legal advice obtained from the Department(2) Legal advice obtained from other sourcesAttorney-General's Department*$5,971,208.88$0.00Administrative Appeals Tribunal$12,953.00$9,196.00Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence$5,349.00$3,337.50Australian Customs Service$4,728,594.00$1,307,141.00Australian Federal Police$594,551.00$295,021.00Australian Government Solicitor$0.00$0.00Australian Institute of Criminology$0.00$1,731.50Australian Institute of Police Management$0.00$0.00Australian Security Intelligence Organisation$21,618.00$122,994.00AUSTRAC$25,000.00$0.00Copyright Tribunal$7,978.00$0.00Criminology Research Council$0.00$745.00Director of Public Prosecutions$2,311.00$29,023.00Family Court of Australia$0.00$299,360.30Federal Court of Australia$27,263.60$15,958.23High Court of Australia$1,795.00$9,910.00Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission$15,593.30$10,975.95Australian Law Reform Commission$14,211.00$0.00National Crime Authority$152,082.00$225,638.00National Native Title Tribunal$36,080.00$21,675.00Office of Film and Literature Classification$93,821.75$0.00Office of Parliamentary Counsel$1,964.00$0.00$11 712 373.53 $2,352,706.48* Fees paid to the Australian Government Solicitor, which has been administratively separate from the Attorney-General's Department since July 199811539(Question No. 1744)174411539Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked all portfolio Ministers, including the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:`as a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of: (a) staff training;(b) consultants; and (c) performance pay'.11539Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4SALPIndustry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The amounts relating to the questions asked are included in the following tables. 1998/99$'000%Total Salaries Expense107,417Staff Training 2,2942.1Consultants14,56113.6Performance Pay680.01997/98$'000%Total Salaries Expense68,758Staff Training 1,6842.4Consultants12,80718.6Performance Pay1040.01996/97$'000%Total Salaries Expense62,156Staff Training 1,3262.1Consultants8,48413.6Performance Pay800.0It should be noted that the figures provided are for the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) only in line with the question asked by the Senator. The information is provided from the published figures as per the annual report at the end of each year requested and for the structure of the Department as it stood at that time.The response excludes agencies considered to be prescribed agencies (Intellectual Property Australia (IP) and The Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO)) under the Financial Management and Accountability (FMA) Act 1997.11540(Question No. 1745)174511540Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:As a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the Department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of (a) staff training; (b) consultants; and (c) performance pay.11540Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4SALPJustice and Customs10—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:1996-971997-981998-99(a)Staff trainingas a percentage of total salaries$3,530,7262.09%$2,079,5111.29%$2 502 4222.39%(b)Consultantsas a percentage of total salaries$8,837,5885.23%$5,217,2063.23%$2 988 7242.85%(c)Performance payas a percentage of total salaries$330,3910.20%$296,9290.18%nil(not calculated yet)Total salaries$169,120,850$161,634,770$104 878 000(i) Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) expenditure is included in all items for the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years, as the AGS was part of the Department for these years. However, no AGS expenditure is included in the 1998-99 financial year.(ii) AUSCRIPT is not included in any of the figures. It was sold in June 1998. (iii) Training and Consultants expenditure was obtained from the Annual Reports.(iv) Performance pay is the amount payable in each financial year (ie not cash payments).(v) Salaries have been obtained from the Annual Reports, with adjustments to exclude AGS in 1998-99 and AUSCRIPT in all years.11541(Question No. 1749)174911541Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4NSWALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:As a dollar amount, and as a percentage of the department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost in 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years of: (a) staff training; (b) consultants; and (c) performance pay.11541Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QLDLPAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The table below details the Commission's expenditure for Administrative Consultancies, Training & Performance Pay for 1996/97, 1997/98 & 1998/99. It also provides the expenditure for each of these items as a percentage of the Commission's total salary outlay.Administrative ConsultanciesTrainingPerformance Pay*$%$%$%1996/974,924,0556.811,273,1821.7691,8300.131997/986,026,1868.361,998,2912.77118,1190.161998/996,326,0988.801,523,7122.12100,3730.14* These amounts relate to the year as indicated but were paid in the following year.11541(Question No. 1750)175011541O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 2 November 1999:(1) Has a radio studio been constructed in the Prime Minister's office at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney; if so: (a) was the contract the subject of a tender process; and (b) who managed the tender process.(2) (a) When were tenders called; (b) how many tenders were received; (c) who was the successful tenderer; and (d) what was the contracted price for the work.(3) Was there any variation between the contract price and the final price; if so: (a) what was the size of the price overrun; and (b) what was the basis of the price overrun.(4) Did the Commonwealth meet the full cost of constructing the facility.(5) Did the proposal to construct the studio come from the Prime Minister's office or the department; if not, who proposed that the studio be constructed.(6) Was the construction of the radio studio the subject of any discussions or consultations with any radio station; if so: (a) which radio stations were consulted; (b) what was the nature of those consultations or discussions; (c) who undertook those consultations or discussions on behalf of the Prime Minister; and (d) who undertook those consultations or discussions on behalf of the radio stations.11541Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5WALPSpecial Minister of State10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1)—(6) I am advised that a radio studio has not been constructed in the Prime Minister's Office at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney. The facility to which the question relates is presumably the media room that was set up during the week ending 4 September 1998 in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices at 70 Phillip Street, Sydney, which is on a different floor to the Prime Minister's Office. I am advised that it would not be accurate to describe the facility as a studio, since it consists of a normal office equipped with a broadcast quality telecommunications line and portable audio broadcasting equipment. This equipment can be connected to the line to enable a person in the room to give radio interviews as arranged with radio stations.The lease cost of the line is $143 per month, which is paid by the Department of Finance and Administration. Most of the current equipment dates back to October 1995, when it was purchased as a replacement for older equipment dating back into the 1980s. The purchase cost in October 1995 was $3,328. I am advised that the current and original equipment was used by the two previous Prime Ministers to participate in radio interviews from either the Lodge or the Prime Minister's office in Parliament House.When the current equipment was set up in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Offices in September 1998, the General Manager of the Ministerial and Parliamentary Services Group, Department of Finance and Administration wrote to Ministers and Shadow Ministers informing them of the media room's availability and advising them of the booking procedure to make use of this facility.11542(Question No. 1751)175111542O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 3 November 1999:(1) What allowances are paid to departmental personnel currently working in East Timor.(2) Do the above payments vary with seniority; if so, what is the range of these allowances.11542Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4SALPEnvironment and Heritage10—The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:According to records held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the answer to the Honourable Member's question as follows:(1) Departmental personnel currently working in East Timor receive Overseas Living Allowance, Difficult Post Allowance and Settling-in Allowance. One officer receives Language Proficiency Allowance.(2) (a) Overseas Living Allowance varies depending on the salary of the officer and the cumulative length of overseas service. Departmental personnel currently working in East Timor receive between $19,860 and $28,910 per year in Overseas Living Allowance.(b) Difficult Post Allowance does not vary with seniority. Departmental personnel currently working in East Timor receive $19,214 per year in Difficult Post Allowance.(c) Settling-in Allowance varies depending on the seniority of the officer. Departmental personnel currently working in East Timor receive between $48 to $53 per day. Normally Settling-in Allowance is paid for up to six weeks until an officer finds permanent accommodation. Payments beyond six weeks are granted where necessary, in which case the need for the Allowance is kept under review.(d) Language Proficiency Allowance does not vary with seniority. The officer currently working in East Timor receives $2,515 per year in Language Proficiency Allowance.11542(Question No. 1752)175211542O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TASALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 3 November 1999:(1) What allowances are paid to military personnel currently engaged in peacekeeping activities in East Timor.(2) Do the above payments vary with rank; if so, what is the range of these allowances.11542Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TASLPFamily and Community Services; Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to this question from the honourable senator is:(1) The allowances and benefits paid to military personnel currently serving in East Timor are outlined below.(a) The Deployment Allowance payable for service in East Timor is $57.83 per day. Other allowances such as Field, Seagoing and Hard Lying Allowance may also be payable depending on the nature of the members' service.(b) To preserve the integrity of these allowances, the East Timor Peace Enforcement Allowance (ETPEA) is structured so that it embraces the amounts payable for Deployment, Field, Seagoing and Hard Lying Allowances yet it provides a `top up' to a total of all allowances to $125 per day. That is the quantum of the ETPEA varies according to the total of other allowances payable but caps the maximum to $125 per day. ETPEA is payable for each day or part of a day a member is within the Area of Operations.(c) All salary and allowances paid to Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel for service in East Timor are exempt from income tax.(d) The Minister for Defence has declared service in East Timor as `warlike', for the purposes of subsection 5C(1) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986. The following lists those provisions for which personnel in East Timor on warlike service will be eligible.BenefitsADF personnel in East Timor have dual eligibility with coverage under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Benefits include access to severe injury adjustment, superannuation and compensation for loss of capacity to remain in the ADF.Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 they are entitled to disability pensions for injury or disease caused by that service and lifetime medical treatment for any such disability. The determination of the casual connection is on the more generous standard of proof applicable to operational service. The Statements of Principles of the Repatriation Medical Authority apply to all claims.There is a general and universal rule that compensation under both schemes are matched against each other to achieve the best outcome but avoiding a doubling of benefits.Dependants' BenefitsShould any of our personnel lose their lives a widow/er would be eligible for the full benefits of a widow/er's pension, including health cover, and financial support and full health cover for dependant children through the Veterans' Children Education Scheme (VCES). There are also VCES benefits, but not health cover, for those dependants whose veteran parent may become entitled to Special Rate of EDA.Service PensionMembers of the ADF International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) will have eligibility for a service pension in case of invalidity or later at age 60 subject to normal means testing provisions.Health issues + Access to treatment for difficult to diagnose illnessesOn 5 July 1999, I issued a media release concerning ADF personnel involved in deployments overseas. The members of INTERFET are potentially exposed to a range of operational, environ-mental, and occupational threats different to those involved in peacetime service in Australia. The effects of some of these threats may not be readily apparent on their return to Australia.The Government is adopting a strategy, to be delivered by the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs, to enable the Department of Veterans' Affairs to provide early treatment of veterans suffering from acute symptoms but difficult to diagnose conditions. This will allow any veterans to obtain acute care for the symptoms of medical and psychiatric conditions that might not be able to be diagnosed within a reasonable time by the medical community.Vietnam Veterans Counselling ServiceThe Department will also provide free access to treatment for a number of conditions, including post traumatic stress disorder. Members of INTERFET and their dependants will also have access to the services provided by the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service.CommemorationAny death on active service will be recorded on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. Commemoration of the sacrifice made would also be available from the Office of Australian War Graves.(e) Personnel serving in East Timor will also attract an entitlement under the Defence Home Owner Scheme.(f) All members will accrue War Service Leave of 1.5 days for each completed month of service in East Timor.(2) Apart from salary, the above allowances do not vary with rank.