2000-04-113915SENATE1377702000-04-11—————The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sue West) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice137771377714:00:0013777Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, Minister for Family and Community Services. I refer to the minister's press release announcing a top-up mechanism for people who are worse off under the new tax system. Can the minister confirm that her criteria for assessing whether someone is worse off are the `combined effects of family assistance, income tax changes, and other changes to the social security system' referred to in her press release, but not the impact of the GST, which is not mentioned? Will the minister assure the Senate that the impact of the GST will be included when deciding whether families are worse off?13777Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—Yes.1377714:01:0013777Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4New South WalesNPDeputy Leader of the National Party of Australia in the Senate10—My question is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Minister, the government has been consistent and honest with the Australian people about the sale of Telstra. Will the minister inform the Senate of progress on this policy? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches and what would be the impact if these were implemented?13777Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—That is a very important question from Senator Brownhill. He understands as well as all Australians, the Labor Party included, that it is very much in the interests of Australia as well as the interests of Telstra and its shareholders that we progress the sale as quickly as possible. That is a policy approach that is blindingly obvious to anyone who ever came here, to anyone who ever lived here, to anyone who ever experienced the very poor quality of service you got when the Labor Party ran Telstra, when the Labor Party never used the power of direction, when the Labor Party's policy on services was, `Well, give them a call. Ask them to come out and fix the phone. If they are too busy, I am sorry, we can't help you.' That was their approach.Let there be no doubt about this. We have always made it clear that we believe this is a policy in the best interests of everyone concerned—except perhaps the unions; I would have to concede that. We took that policy to the 1996 election. We took it to the 1998 election and we will take it to the next election. That will be one of the very big battle lines for the next federal election. Given that it will be one of the big battle lines drawn for the next election, tomorrow night represents a very big opportunity for the leader of the federal opposition, because my understanding is that he is going to deliver himself of a speech that will explain why Telstra should not be sold. I presume the title of the oration is `Not till we get to government'.But what the punters will really be looking for from Mr Beazley will be not windy rhetoric or prolix prose. They just want a few home truths. They want to know why, for example, when Mr Beazley was in government he sold the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas without telling the public beforehand. In other words, he said one thing and did another, as of course he is doing now. He also should explain why he expects the public to believe him on that. It is also a very big opportunity for him to finally admit that he invited Frank Blount to come to this country so Telstra could be privatised and, at the same time, explain why he expects the public to believe him when he now denies that.It is also a very big opportunity for Mr Beazley to explain why he was there with Paul Keating in September 1995 when they offered to sell Telstra to BHP, because all he has said so far is, `It's irrelevant whether I was there or not.' I think we all know there is a bit more to it than that. It is highly relevant. We know why he was there. It was because he was wanting to flog it to try and fix up the $10 billion budget black hole, which you on the other side all knew about but lied your heads off and said you did not. That was another classic example of Mr Beazley saying one thing and doing another. He ought to be able to explain tomorrow night why it is the Labor Party's policy to sell off Yellow Pages and MobileNet, why they only talk about core assets but are happy to divest themselves of the rest, why as Deputy Prime Minister he was happy to see Telstra sell off its networking business, IBMGSA, but now they are no longer prepared to condone that because they say it is privatisation by stealth. There are a lot of very big issues that Mr Beazley can address tomorrow night. I think the public really wants to understand the truth, not just the smokescreen that is going to be put up between now and the next election. Explain why Cheryl Kernot was wrong when she said, `You could trust them in opposition but you certainly can't trust them in government.' (Time expired)13778Brownhill, Sen DavidSenator BROWNHILLRD4New South WalesNP10—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, as I am a National Party senator representing regional people, could you tell us how the sale would allow catch-up funds for the road system, the water systems of regional Australia, the infrastructure that is badly needed out in rural Australia, and also the salinity problem that has beset the whole of the nation over the last decade, which is because of the Labor Party's absolute betrayal of the regional areas of Australia?13778Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Senator Brownhill is dead right. You do not have to take my word for it. You can ask Carl Scully and Jim Bacon, because they have been out there saying, `Thank you very much. We like the proceeds of the sale of Telstra being applied to state infrastructure projects.' In fact, Carl Scully says, `We want a lot more of where that came from.' They are dead keen to get their hands on it—and so is the National Party and so is everyone else in rural Australia—because they recognise that the funds simply are not there otherwise. So this is another big opportunity for Mr Beazley to explain why he blocked $250 million for Networking the Nation, why he was opposed to a $670 million social bonus out of T2, why, as finance minister, he privatised everything that moved and why indeed he said, in the classic weasel words, `We won't support privatisation until there is adequate competition.' Now we have something like 40 carriers. There is going to be a lot in this speech and I look forward to being there. I will be asking the first question. So just make sure that we all have our invitations.1377814:08:0013778Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency has not published any inspection reports on nursing homes this year in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania? Does this mean that no review audits have been carried out in those states and territories over the last three months? Is this proof that, despite recent events, the government has taken no action this year to ensure proper standards of care in the nursing homes of the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania?13778Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—To answer the question directly—no, it does not. The government has a very proud record of what it is doing in the aged care industry, considering what we were left with after 13 years of neglect. We inherited a destabilised aged care industry in this country. The senator knows very well that more than 14,000 places were made available for the allocation in the year 2000 approvals rounds, double the 7,000 places allocated in the 1999 round. So it is an absolute fallacy to say that we have neglected the industry. We are righting the wrongs that we inherited when the Labor Party went out of power. Thank God they went out of power. I can speak on behalf of the aged care industry itself. They left the industry in a total shambles. By their own report, there was an enormous deficit. They did not act on that report.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Madam Deputy President, I rise on a point of order and it goes to relevance. I asked the minister whether or not there had been any inspections in those states and territories. It was a quite straightforward question. I hope that as a result of the point of order he can now find his brief and perhaps attempt to answer the question.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister is getting to that part of the question.VW4Senator HERRON—I was just winding up to give a complete answer to the question. Just because I do not respond in the manner which the opposition wants, it is not a reflection on the answer that I am about to give. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency has advised the minister that it will complete the accreditation of all aged care facilities by the legislative date of 1 January 2000. All aged care facilities were required to submit the initial application for accreditation, known as form A, by 31 December last year. All facilities have completed this part of the process. In addition, all facilities were required to complete the second stage—the self-assessment form—by 31 March 2000 to accommodate the facilities' preferences for a date of site audit. Ninety-eight per cent of all facilities have completed this process. Less than 60 are still to submit this stage of their applications. This high response illustrates the industry's acceptance of the accreditation system. Might I ask, Madam Deputy President—adopting the Melham response—what the Labor Party are going to do about the accreditation system? They are going to accept it. They are not going to change it. Just like the GST, they are not going to change it. They are not going to change our health care rebate. They are going to sit down, as my colleague Senator Vanstone said, and listen to people. AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The minister has now had two gos at it and has failed to answer the question about inspections. In addition to accreditation, there is a requirement for review inspections. Have you conducted any or haven't you?VW4Senator HERRON—The honourable senator has got a touch of the Daryl Melhams. I have been trying—Government senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Can I have some order so I can hear what the minister is saying and so I know whether he is talking about inspections or not?VW4Senator HERRON—I am answering the question, Madam Deputy President. I am giving the process that is occurring at the moment in terms of accreditation. Following on that, I think it is essential—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—You're raving.VW4Senator HERRON—I am not raving at all. Following on from my remarks about the accreditation system, the facilities that have not met the 31 March 2000 deadline are being contacted by the agency to ensure that their self-assessment form is submitted in the near future. To date the accreditation process has been completed for 424 facilities. The department is monitoring the progress of facilities towards accreditation. Contingency plans are being developed to deal with any facilities which fail to meet the accreditation deadline.13779Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I again ask the minister: can you advise whether or not there have been any reports as a result of inspections on nursing homes in the Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania this year? They are not on the web; they are not publicly available. This seems to indicate there have been no reports. Can you or can you not confirm that there have been no review audit reports carried out in these states despite the furore about aged care?13779Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam Deputy President, you will notice that the supplementary question is now more refined than the one asked previously. The previous one was just a scattergun question. Now the honourable senator is saying `this year'. AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—It was in the original question.VW4Senator HERRON—If it was in the original question I apologise, because I did not hear it the first time. I apologise for not hearing the question that was asked because of the row that was coming from the other side, the continual sledging and the shouting by Senator Faulkner. How is it that one can hear the question when we get this sledging from Senator Faulkner?10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, would you come back to the question, please.VW4Senator HERRON—If there is anything that the minister has to add to the answer, I am happy to bring it back to the Senate. 1378002:15:0013780Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56New South WalesLP10—My question is to Senator Ellison representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the minister inform the Senate of actions the government is undertaking to consult with young people throughout Australia, particularly what outcomes the government aims to achieve from today's meeting of the National Youth Roundtable?13780Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Payne for this very important question, because the Howard government is totally committed to communicating directly with young Australians and improving opportunities for young Australians. Today, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs formally opened the Youth Roundtable for this year. This underlines the government's commitment to that communication with young Australians. This roundtable will provide 50 participants with an excellent opportunity to communicate directly with government at a very senior level—from senior ministers to parliamentary secretaries to government officials—and they will deal with a variety of issues such as education, employment, health and wellbeing, and rural and regional affairs. It is a shame that we have a press release from Senator Lundy which, apart from being wrong, is totally negative in relation to this great initiative put forward by this government. Senator Lundy says that the government has prohibited the GST being an issue for discussion. In fact, this is blatantly untrue; it was raised last Sunday and continues to be a subject of discussion at this roundtable. Can I just say that Senator Lundy should be joining with the government in this important initiative. The opposition should come on board and work with the government in improving communication with young Australians and in improving opportunities for those young Australians. I note that Senator Lundy goes on to say that last year's Youth Roundtable was such a failure and that the facilitators are not participating this year. In fact, we have the lead facilitator back again, and three facilitators who worked on it last year are there today.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator Lundy—Everyone else quit because they couldn't stand the way it was organised.9X5Senator ELLISON—Why do we have such negativity from the opposition in relation to such a positive initiative for young people? We will be listening to what these young participants have to say—and I might add that we had about 1,000 applicants for this very important task. That shows the level of interest across Australia from young Australians in relation to this great initiative. This initiative will run until tomorrow and we will be listening very much to these participants, who are between the crucial ages of 15 and 24. They are the up-and-coming generation who will be running this country. I might say that one of the recommendations from last year was that this age group should participate more on boards and task forces and in initiatives put forward by the government, and we have done just that. We are involving more young Australians on government task forces and also on international and national advisory boards.This government is totally committed to young Australians and to advancing their cause. Some examples, apart from this National Youth Week, which I mentioned last week to the Senate are the government's youth allowance, which allows for the first time rental assistance and which encourages young people to continue their studies. That will be increased by four per cent under the new tax system. Out of 20 teenagers looking for full-time work, we have one who is currently unemployed. We have seen a reduction in youth unemployment in the March figures. This is a step in the right direction, and one which the government intends to see go further.1378014:19:0013780Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QueenslandALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that, over the last two years, hospital admissions from nursing homes increased by eight per cent while the nursing home population increased by less than one per cent over the same period? Can the minister confirm that in the 1998-99 year there were a total of 702,000 bed days spent by nursing home residents in public hospitals? Aren't these figures proof that standards of care in nursing homes are declining as a result of the government's deregulation of the sector and that more and more residents are ending up in hospital as a result? 13781Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Unlike other senators on the other side, I accept most of the statement that Senator Gibbs has made because I know she is a caring person and is knowledgeable in a number of these matters. But having said that, the facts are only half the truth; the rest is its correct interpretation. The reality is that there is an ageing population. People are getting older.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Do you want to use that for the stolen generation as well—the facts are only half the truth?VW4Senator HERRON—Even Senator Evans is getting older day by day. One day perhaps he might need the ministrations of one of these agencies. The conclusion that Senator Gibbs has drawn from those figures is not correct. What is occurring in the aged care industry is that we have set in place an accreditation agency and a registration agency. What is the Labor Party's policy? `We are going to sit down and we are going to get it right,' as Daryl Melham said. But are they going to repeal our standards and accreditation system? Not at all. No, the Labor Party has said, `We are not going to repeal what you are doing in government.' If you interpret what the Labor Party is saying, then we are doing a good deal. I would throw it back in Senator Gibbs's lap and say, `Is the Labor Party going to repeal what we have put in place to raise the standards?' Deathly silence, Madam Deputy President. Deathly silence on the other side—deathly silence. They had 13 years. Daryl Melham said they are going to fix it and they are going to do the right thing—they are going to do the right thing and fix it. The reality is that the interpretation of the figures is incorrect, or the statement that Senator Gibbs had. I know that it would have been handed to her by one of the questions committees. That is the way they work on that side. They do not allow any extemporaneous questions, as we did when we were in opposition. Why don't the backbenchers over there wake up and get some spontaneous questions rather than those raised—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Herron, would you like to address the chair and the issue, please.VW4Senator HERRON—On a point of order, Madam Deputy President, I did. I was saying everything through you. I am happy for you to check the Hansard to see that that is correct.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is rather hard when you are turning your back—I cannot hear you very clearly.VW4Senator HERRON—Madam Deputy President, another interpretation that I would put to you is that there is an ageing population. People are becoming more ill. Diabetes is going through the roof in terms of the incidence in our population. It is a reality that, with a rapidly ageing population, we are getting more people going into acute hospitals. There is no alternative to that. I am sure the Labor Party have no answer to it. We still have not heard their policy. So there is a rapidly ageing population; more people are being admitted to hospitals. One of the great things we are doing is allowing people to determine their own access to hospitals. It is a reality that there is a relatively small number in the population who are in nursing homes. It is true that the number is becoming more affected by serious disease. It is inevitable that there will be more people going into acute hospitals. So I think there are alternatives to the interpretation of the figures that Senator Gibbs has given to us, and I am happy to respond to them if she can produce concrete evidence of what she has alleged in the question.13781Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QueenslandALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Part of the question referred to the deregulation of the sector. Can the minister confirm that the increasing numbers of nursing home residents who are admitted to public hospitals are a symptom of the crisis in the government system? Aren't these figures the end result of the staff cuts and cost cutting that have occurred under your deregulated system?13782Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It would be very easy to answer that question with a simple no. But I do not think it warrants that. The question is alleging that we have produced chaos in the aged care system. They had 13 years to do something about it. We have been in government four years. If I may have a touch of the Daryl Melhams, we will fix it. 1378214:24:0013782Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—My question is to the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, and is in the context of the mandatory sentencing debate. I ask the minister whether she can confirm that, despite the recent negotiation between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Burke, and in spite of the small amount of money which will go some way towards translation services and diversionary programs, and despite tinkering at the edges of the definition of `a juvenile' in the Northern Territory, the fact remains that mandatory sentencing laws remain on the statutes in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia. I further ask the minister: given that this is the case, and given that mandatory sentencing laws are clearly a breach of our international human rights obligations, what will the Commonwealth do to address that?13782Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. Senator, I draw your attention to the information provided yesterday on the agreement reached between the Prime Minister and Mr Burke. I think, with the greatest of respect, Senator, you are being slightly polemical in referring to some changes as being `tinkering at the edges' because the joint initiative—Opposition senators interjecting—7E4Senator VANSTONE—I am sorry about the people on the other side who are only interested in stirring up this debate for their own political purposes. I understand that you have a genuine interest in this matter. The joint initiative will also deflect juveniles apprehended for minor offences from the mandatory sentencing regime by ensuring that the Northern Territory police are required to place them in a diversionary program prior to any charges being laid. Where offences are more serious, police will still be given discretion to place offenders in the same diversionary programs and, upon successful completion of those programs, not pursue charges. I regard that, Senator, as a significant move ahead. We all might like a magic wand whereby what we want can simply be done. Some of you may have the view that the federal system can operate with the federal parliament choosing to override the states and territories whenever it feels like it and whenever it considers it appropriate, and may have no interest in the sharing of powers between the Commonwealth and the states. We regard this as a move forward. I do not regard millions and millions of dollars as a paltry sum of money whatsoever. And at least a move forward, I would have thought, is something that somebody interested in the debate would welcome. And, maybe yes, move later for more, but don't disparage a move forward just because you want more.13782Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for her reply but I ask: is the minister aware that according to recent Australian Bureau of Statistics information the rate of indigenous imprisonment in my home state of Western Australia is some 22 times higher than that of non-indigenous people? Given that this is the case, and given that mandatory sentencing does not assist with that process, why was Western Australia so conspicuously absent from the negotiations with the Prime Minister in relation to addressing this issue, and what action will the government take to address the appalling rate of indigenous incarceration in Western Australia?13782Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—I thank the senator for his question. In one way I wish this was your main question because I have a storehouse of information on this that I will not be able to get to you in one minute. You are right: Western Australia, when you compare the indigenous incarceration rate—that is, so many per hundred thousand—with the non-indigenous, has the highest incarceration rate of any state. What you neglect to mention, of course, is that the Northern Territory has one of the lowest. Tasmania is the lowest; the Northern Territory is next, followed by my state and I think New South Wales and Queensland. My own state and Queensland have a rate that is double that of the Territory. What that should tell you, Senator, is that there is no good in just hanging onto mandatory sentencing and ignoring it in the Territory and in other states, and ignoring it in other offences. It should also tell you that picking on a figure such as incarceration rates does not tell you a lot, either, because the Northern Territory is almost an exemplar in that sense. The impact of the justice system on the indigenous community is a very complex issue, and it is not one that I think has been served very well by this mandatory sentencing debate. (Time expired)1378314:29:0013783Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron representing the Minister for Aged Care. I ask: can the minister confirm whether any of the residential aged care places announced last week have been brought forward from future allocations? Isn't it a fact that 315 of the residential aged care places that were announced last year were simply brought forward from this year's allocation? Will the minister guarantee that allocations of residential aged care places in the years 2001 and 2002 will not be reduced as a result of last week's announcement? Can the minister also confirm that the residential places that were announced last week will only in fact become operational in two to three years time?13783Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I would have hoped that Senator Forshaw would have prefaced his question by saying, `When we left government there were 10,000 aged care places left short.' And that is a fact. There were 10,000 aged care places short, according to the Gregory report. If Senator Forshaw had prefaced his question with that comment, then I would have been happy to answer it. We were left with 10,000 aged care places short—and they are the Australian National Audit Office figures, not our figures. Even Senator Faulkner would recognise the validity of those figures.Madam Deputy President, 530 of the new residential places are high care residential places, and that is in accordance with the benchmark established by Labor in 1986, which Labor then failed to meet. They did not meet their own standards. This large release is in accordance with our promise to make up Labor's deficiency and provide for growth. The bulk of the new places—7,378 of them—are low care residential places. These hostel places will admit people when they first become frail. They may then age in place, as set out in the aged care legislation. This policy has provided a further 18 per cent of high care beds. 13783Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that, whilst he tried to give us a lecture in ancient history, most of which was wrong, I was asking him about announcements that were made last week. Minister, you never addressed that at all. My supplementary question is: isn't it a fact that the government has cynically inflated its recent announcement of new places as a means of providing some political cover for a minister who has no credibility? Can the minister confirm that only 291 of the 7,800 residential places announced are actually nursing home beds, the vast majority of them hostel beds for which there is less demand?13783Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the first supplementary question is an emphatic `no'. If there is another adjective I can use, I will supplement that with `no'. I do not have an answer to the second question. I do not have a brief on that and I will have to get back to Senator Forshaw with a response from the minister.1378314:32:0013783Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—My question is to Senator Vanstone, the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Would the minister explain the information she gave to the Senate a moment ago that police will be required to place youngsters in diversionary programs before any charges are laid? Does this not in fact mean that the police will be putting into programs—that is, sentence—people who have not even been charged? Secondly, I ask the minister: is it the case that, under the arrangement signed yesterday by the Prime Minister, Kevin Cooke, who was recently jailed for a year for stealing a towel, Johnno, who was recently jailed for stealing textas but had quite a considerable prior record, and Jamie Warramara, jailed for a year for stealing biscuits because he was hungry on Christmas day, would all still go to jail? 13784Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Senator, I will be happy to arrange for the people in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to give you a full briefing on diversionary programs. If you had been following the debate in relation to diversionary programs which are now used fairly widely around Australia—especially in relation to drugs—you would know that this government has worked very closely with the states to encourage diversionary programs in relation to first-time offenders and drugs. The program generally works like this: when the police believe they have apprehended the appropriate person who has committed an offence, the person is given a choice—`Would you like to go on a diversionary program and hopefully find a better way?' or `Would you like to be charged with the offence?' Those people who do not choose to go into the diversionary program, or who go into it and then drop out, still face the option of charges. That is how a diversionary program works. It is a choice between proceeding into the criminal justice system, and the consequences that follow, or offering what we believe is a better alternative. We are doing this in relation to drugs, the states are doing it in relation to a whole variety of other offences, and there is an agreement to do it in relation to offenders in the Northern Territory. I would have thought that would have been understood.13784Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. Firstly, does the minister therefore equate youngsters stealing biscuits because they are hungry with a need for the same remedial treatment that applies to drug addicts in the Northern Territory and Western Australia? Is that the level of thinking behind this deal? Secondly, will the minister answer the question about the three specific people, the celebrated cases—that is, Kevin Cooke, who stole a towel; Johnno, who stole textas; and Jamie, who stole biscuits. Would they still not go to jail under the minister's arrangement?13784Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—Senator, you ask, `Does this mean you equate people who might be charged with these offences—juveniles in the Territory—with drug addicts? I remind you that the diversionary programs in relation to drugs are focused on first-time offenders, who are not necessarily addicts. The whole purpose of a diversionary program is to try to stop someone falling into that trap. So I suppose the short answer to that question is `no'. You invited me to comment on a couple of phrases that you snatched out of somewhere, attached to people's names, and you referred to them as celebrated cases. As someone behind you once properly said, you are a camera chaser. If you think I am going to comment on individual cases with some little catchphrase that you have dragged out of thin air, you are mistaken. The criminal justice system and its impact on the indigenous community is not served by that kind of cheap debate. (Time expired)1378414:36:0013784Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—My question to Senator Hill relates to the agreement between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Will the minister clarify who will be responsible for monitoring the effectiveness and the fair operation of the initiatives to do with mandatory sentencing, announced by the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory yesterday? Does the minister agree that it would not be appropriate for the Northern Territory government to be given this responsibility? Changes are to be carried out by way of alterations to the general orders of the Northern Territory Police. The minister might want to check, but can he tell the Senate whether those general orders are public documents and freely available, or are they comparable to the general orders of the Victorian police, as I knew them in the 1960s, which were confidential and which were in the brown bomber(Time expired)13784Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I want to have this answer checked, but I assume it is to be administered by the Northern Territory government. That is what we would expect. They are responsible for law and order in the Northern Territory. We have sought to assist the Northern Territory government by providing further options in relation to diversionary opportunities and to help with the funding of those options. In particular, as the honourable senator will know, there is another $5 million per annum to fund new programs for juveniles, and we will jointly fund an Aboriginal interpreter service and matters of that nature. But the administration should primarily be the responsibility of the Northern Territory. I think it is fair to say that in this instance the Northern Territory government will be watched carefully not only by the Commonwealth but by all Australians to see that the arrangement that has been agreed by the Northern Territory Chief Minister is fully implemented to the letter and in spirit as well. The purpose of this agreement is to ensure that young offenders have a better opportunity to avoid detention and hopefully this will constructively put them on the path for a life that will not involve criminal activity. That is our objective. We want to see not only that our funding is properly spent in that regard but also that it proves to be successful in that objective. I will check whether or not the orders are made public. I suspect in this instance they would be made public for the purpose of giving public confidence in the process. I will follow that up.13785Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. As the situation now exists, you have a judicial review of the way in which a young person is dealt with through the courts. Since this is an alternative, will there be any basis for a judicial review of what the police decide? If there is not, in what way are you going to give that quality control which courts presently give to this system?13785Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I will take advice on that. If you were to ask me for a personal opinion, I think that to overlay it with too much judicial review may well have the effect of avoiding the very objective that you are seeking, and that is that, particularly in smaller communities, police officers will be given greater discretion to work with local offenders to avoid detention and to put them on a better path for the future. So the more that you restrain that with the strictures of judicial review—and other such safeguards in certain circumstances, I accept—you might start to discount the benefits that you are seeking. But I will check on that.AW5Carr, Sen KimBH4Senator HILL—If I have anything useful to add, I will come back and particularly tell Senator Carr.1378514:42:0013785Gibson, Sen BrianSenator GIBSONBX5TasmaniaLP10—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. The government's 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance and lifetime health cover have proved successful in boosting private cover and alleviating the pressure on the public system. Will the minister outline the success of the government's initiatives? Is he aware of any alternative approaches?13785Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—It is a very good question, and one that is dear to my heart. It is good news, and it is a very good question. I am happy to report that the 30 per cent rebate and lifetime health cover have proved an outstanding success. It is pleasing to see today's media reports that these initiatives are encouraging more than 8,000 new members each week to join one of the nation's largest private health insurers. Madam Deputy President, there is more, as Tim Shaw would say. Not only are those 8,000 members coming in, but the Sydney Morning Herald reports today:The latest profile of Medibank Private's new members suggest the federal government's strategy to force younger Australians into private insurance is working.Medibank Private's managing director, Mark Burrows, said that more than 9,000 new members had joined the fund in the last week of March compared with an average of around 3,000 new members each week in October. Other health insurers—HCF and MBF—are also reported to have recorded sharp increases in new members over the past 12 months, with the MBF membership gains up to 91 per cent in February and 145 per cent in March. These increases in figures come as the 30 June deadline approaches for people wishing to take out private health cover and to avoid a whole of life rating.For the first time in 10 years, we are now seeing a rising trend in private health insurance membership rates. More than 293,900 people have joined private health insurance since the Howard government introduced the 30 per cent rebate on 1 January last year—in just over a year, 293,900 people have joined. Where were we under Labor? They almost destroyed the health system of this country. I have a touch of the DMs I'm afraid—you know what I mean: a touch of the DMs, not the DTs. We are fixing this mess. We have sat down and thought about it, and we are fixing it. We are fixing their mess. Let me tell you how the Leader of the Opposition described this successful government initiative. He said, `It's a piece of exceptionally stupid policy.' We have not heard what the Labor Party policy is, but they said that ours was stupid—and we have got 293,900 places in a little over a year. I will again quote the Leader of the Opposition. He said it was `a complete and monumental failure'. If 293,900 places in a little over a year is a failure I would be interested to know what their policy is. The Leader of the Opposition has reluctantly acknowledged that he will retain the 30 per cent rebate. It is fairly obvious to anybody that Labor do not understand the basic concept that Australia needs a robust public health system, complemented by a viable private system to look after the health care needs of all Australians. This government is delivering the goods in the interests of all Australians. Why don't the opposition bring on their health policy and come clean? The Labor Party, to quote my valued colleague Phillip Ruddock, are trying to walk down both sides of the street. But, wait a minute, there is a pattern forming here: the Labor Party criticised the 30 per cent rebate but will not abolish it in government; they criticised the GST but they are not going to abolish it when they are in government. (Time expired)1378614:46:0013786Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VictoriaALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Does the minister agree with the view reported in the Australian Financial Review that banks will reap a windfall from the application of the GST to credit card accounts? Can he confirm that, according to the article in the AFR last week, `the GST could deliver banks a bigger slice of credit card sales, a move that threatens to further reduce returns for retailers and lead to increased costs for consumers'? Is it true that charging merchant fees for credit card transactions on the full GST-inclusive price will mean windfall revenue for banks because of the GST? If this is not blatant profiteering by the banks, Minister, what is?13786Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Conroy for that question. I plan to answer that question in some detail, but I would like to bring to the attention of the Senate a statement made by Senator Conroy in this parliament yesterday which I really think bears repeating. Madam Deputy President, as you know, one of the very big benefits—and Senator Conroy in his question mentioned benefits—that we are giving to the Australian taxpayers is the major tax cuts that we will be delivering after 1 July. ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—This is not relevant—you weren't asked about tax cuts. WW4Senator KEMP—He asked about benefits. Senator Conroy—and I would ask the Senate to listen very carefully to this—described the tax cuts that we are proposing as `wantonly throwing money into the economy, just as they are through these tax cuts'.TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator Knowles—Did he say that?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Knowles asked whether Senator Conroy did say that. I can assure Senator Knowles that I was reading from the Hansard. The truth of the matter is that there has been a lot of debate in this Senate about why the Labor Party will not guarantee the tax cuts. Day after day my colleagues have stood up after question time and debated this issue and the Labor Party refuse to answer whether they will guarantee these tax cuts. But now Senator Conroy has said in this chamber that we are just throwing money at the economy. That is what he said.VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator Herron—Wantonly.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes, wantonly. So I bring that to the attention of the Senate. As to the specifics of the question, the ACCC's guidelines indicate that businesses, including banks, should not increase their net dollar margin as a result of the new tax system changes alone. The ACCC, I am pleased to report to the Senate, is currently holding discussions with the banks to ensure that they adhere to the net dollar margin principle and pass through any new tax system related savings. The ACCC has been given strong powers to monitor prices and prevent price exploitation during the transition phase. Businesses that breach the exploitation prohibition face substantial penalties of up to $10 million for corporations and $500,000 for individuals. If Senator Conroy has any concerns in that area, I think that would provide him with an answer. But, before he stands up, I think that Senator Conroy has a wider issue to explain to this chamber: why is he calling these major tax cuts `wantonly throwing money at the community'? I invite Senator Conroy to stand up after question time and to clarify his position and the Labor Party's position on this. This was a very big statement that Senator Conroy made, and I think we should now demand that it be made clear once and for all whether the Labor Party will guarantee the tax cuts that we are bringing in or whether they plan to abolish the tax cuts—as in the famous l-a-w law. (Time expired)13787Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VictoriaALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question.Government senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Can I have order on my right. Senator Kemp needs to be able to hear the question.3L6Senator CONROY—Minister, there are millions of dollars at stake here for ordinary small businesses.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order!WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator Kemp—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is impossible to hear Senator Conroy's question, not that the question would be of any relevance to anything. But it is impossible to hear it. Madam Deputy President, I invite you to ask for a bit of silence so I can hear Senator Conroy's question, because I think he may be clarifying his statement on tax cuts. I am not sure but I think he may be.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert Ray—He's giggling at his own jokes again.WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator Kemp—It was a good joke though, Robert.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—Madam Deputy President, on that point of order—Honourable senators interjecting— 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, but can I just have Senator Ray and Senator Kemp remain silent while you speak to the point of order.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam Deputy President: given that Senator Kemp has never answered a question asked of him in this chamber, it will not make any difference.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! There is no point of order. Senator Faulkner, you know that, and I would ask those sitting near Senator Kemp to be silent so he can hear the question being directed to him.3L6Senator CONROY—Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Will the minister instruct the ACCC to protect small businesses from the millions of dollars in extra revenue the banks intend to gain from this measure? When will you act and stand up to the banks, Minister?13787Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam Deputy President, I must say again it was very hard to hear the question as a result—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—Why do you roll over to the banks all the time?WW4Senator KEMP—And Senator Conroy is now shouting out again, Madam Deputy President. The first point I would make in relation to the supplementary, Senator Conroy, is that you did not listen to the answer I gave to your first question because we discussed—3L6Conroy, Sen Stephen10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Conroy!WW4Senator KEMP—Can I point out to you, Senator Conroy, that I went into some detail on the guidelines and on the monitoring of those guidelines by the ACCC. I went on in some detail into that and the action that can be taken by the ACCC. But, Madam Deputy President, the wider issue here is the tax cuts. The great fear that the public have out in the community is that, when you ally Senator Conroy's comments with the comments of his leader, these tax cuts are at risk, because the Labor Party will refuse to guarantee these tax cuts. I think the public are very concerned about this. (Time expired)1378814:54:0013788Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, at the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES, which is currently meeting in Nairobi, Kenya and India have proposed the relisting of all elephant populations on appendix 1, thereby prohibiting all further international trade in ivory and other products from these endangered animals. Can the minister assure the Senate that the Australian delegation in Nairobi will be voting in favour of the Kenyan and Indian proposal to provide greater protection for the African elephant by relisting the species?13788Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—We do support that proposal, which is consistent with the position that we took at the last CITES meeting.13788Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I thank the minister for that answer. Madam Deputy President, I have a supplementary question. Can the minister also provide comment on the Australian government's position in relation to the debate over proposed rules 28 and 29 of that convention, relating to submissions of informative documents and exhibitions by NGOs at CITES conferences? Will the Australian delegation oppose such rules where they clearly impede the free exchange of written information or free speech?Honourable senators interjecting— 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Hill?BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—I could not hear the question. If you would let him ask it again, I will have a go at answering it.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If we could have some less noise in the chamber, the minister may well be able to hear. Thank you, Senator Bartlett.DT6Senator BARTLETT—My supplementary question relates to the debate over proposed rules 28 and 29, which relate to submissions of informative documents and exhibitions by NGOs at CITES conferences. Will the Australian delegation oppose such rules where they clearly impede the free exchange of written information or free speech?13788Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I have now heard the question but I regret that I am no better off, Madam Deputy President. If it were a question about rules 26 and 27, I could have answered but 28 and 29 have just slipped my memory. But it is not usual for us to impede the free flow of information.1378814:56:0013788Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQueenslandALP00—My question without notice is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. I refer to a circular put out by Sleigh PEC Chartered Accountants in Canberra which advises clients to register for an ABN electronically because `if you do it by paper, it will take months' as the ATO has advised them they are `snowed under with the paper applications'. Is the ATO snowed under with written ABN application forms? Will it take months to receive an ABN if a written application is made, as opposed to an electronic application?13788Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—We have in fact answered a similar question recently from Senator Murphy. I do not know whether you ever read answers to Senator Murphy's questions; I doubt whether you probably even listen to answers to Senator Murphy's questions. We encourage people, of course, where they can to make an electronic application. It means that the turnaround time is faster. But we have the systems in place to make sure that people can get their ABNs, and we encourage them to register and to register soon.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—How long do they have to wait?VW4Herron, Sen JohnSenator Herron—Whatever it takes.WW4Senator KEMP—Yes. There has been a very wide range of ads which have been placed in newspapers to encourage people to register for their ABN. We are very pleased to see that large numbers of people are now making sure that they do register. So the message that I would get out to the community, whether they wish to register by a formal application through paper or to register in electronic fashion, is to do it and to do it quickly, because that will ensure, of course, that they will have their ABN when this brilliant new tax system comes in on 1 July. 13789Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQueenslandALP00—Madam Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. As you did not address the question, Senator Kemp, maybe you could try the supplementary. Given the appalling state of telecommunications in many regional and rural centres, isn't it the case that a regional or rural business will have no choice but to make a written application as electronic lodgment probably does not even exist, and therefore many regional and rural businesses will be waiting months to receive their ABN?13789Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The point I am making is that people have known about the need to register for the ABN for quite a long period of time. Kits have been sent out, and we would encourage people to make sure they register. The fact of the matter is that they have time to register, and they should get their forms in. I think it ill behoves the Labor Party to be trying to encourage a scare campaign on this. We have the capacity to process the registrations.1378915:00:0013789Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6South AustraliaLP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate as to how the Howard government is protecting Kakadu National Park, and can he tell the Senate what steps are being taken to improve the living conditions and employment opportunities of the park's traditional owners?13789Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable senator for that important question, because we have just been celebrating the 21st anniversary of the declaration of stage 1 of Kakadu National Park, which I remind the Senate was another outstanding environmental achievement of the former Fraser government. It was an anniversary marked with some sadness due to the recent death of one of the senior traditional owners. He was a man who had a deep commitment to his traditional lands and a vision for the advancement of the indigenous people of the region. But the anniversary gave us the opportunity to reflect on the successes of Kakadu National Park.The world heritage values of the park continue to be managed and protected under a joint agreement between the Commonwealth and the traditional owners. This is despite the increasingly dishonest claims of groups such as the Australian Conservation Foundation. Last week they were at it again, trying to scare everyone about a potential water spill from a retention pond at the Jabiluka mine site. For the record, the independent Supervising Scientist has advised that there is no imminent risk of overflow or release. He also advises that no approvals have been given for discharge of excess run-off waters and that none will occur this wet season. His advice also repudiates claims that the pond was constructed without the necessary approvals.I am able to report to the Senate even more progress in the protection of Kakadu. In July last year, the Howard government committed almost $3.2 million to upgrading tourism infrastructure in the park. Planning or construction is already under way on key projects such as the Yellow Water boardwalk, the Jim Jim Falls road, the Jim Jim Falls camp ground and new boardwalks. These projects are important in presenting the national values of the park in a way that also protects them from damage. They will help attract more tourists to the region, providing jobs and other economic benefits to the local population. We are also well advanced in implementing our response to the Kakadu Regional Social Impact Study, under the leadership of former Labor Senator Bob Collins. This includes: new housing, construction and major upgrades worth $1.2 million, which are under way in a number of Kakadu out-stations; $3 million worth of construction, due to begin on improvements to basic infrastructure such as power, sewerage and water reticulation; and better employment opportunities through community development employment projects and through Parks Australia, which has increased its numbers of indigenous trainee park rangers. We have launched a groundbreaking hospitality training course for indigenous people, based in the Crocodile Hotel. Already 22 young Aboriginal people are in training, and there are more to follow. We are giving them the skills to help them take advantage of the growing tourism and hospitality industry in the Northern Territory—real training for real jobs. We are negotiating with the Northern Territory government to co-fund a new Aboriginal education unit at the Jabiru Area School to provide increased levels of education to young Aboriginal people in an environment that respects their cultural background. And we are working on a number of measures to improve the delivery of health services throughout the region. I have sought to demonstrate to the Senate that not only are we proud of proclaiming the first stage of the park but also, in celebrating its 21st anniversary, we are working on practical and sensible ways to work with the local indigenous people to give them jobs for the future, better health, better education and better homes.Madam Deputy President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice137901379015:05:0013790Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—During question time, Senator Greig asked me a question, and I have some information which may be of interest to senators. I seek leave to give the answer, although I do not have a pre-prepared answer.Leave granted.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Senator Greig, you asked me about incarceration rates, and I identified for you that Tasmania and the Territory have the lowest rates of indigenous incarceration versus non-indigenous incarceration, with 5.7 and 6.7. In fact, you can go further than that and say that the ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous rates of imprisonment in the Territory is lower than that of all other states and territories apart from Tasmania. The Northern Territory's ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous imprisonment is half that of New South Wales and half that of the rest of Australia.You asked about Western Australia, and I quite agree with you: that is the state that has the greatest problem in this respect. There is information that is available, which I am sure you can get as well as I can, but I am quite happy to get more for you. The Western Australian government is aware of this and is trying to do something about it through a program called Safer WA. I am advised that, through that program, Aboriginal communities are working through the local Safer WA committees and the regional Aboriginal justice councils to try to find solutions to the very high rates of incarceration that there are for Aboriginal people in Western Australia. For example, their rate is 20.7 in the comparator—compared to the Northern Territory. There are plenty of states that have double the Territory's problem. In the debate on mandatory sentencing, which I indicated added very little to the complex problem of the impact of the criminal justice system on the indigenous community, we saw a lot of transparent huffing and puffing and a lot of pious pontificating. But bear this in mind. The people who said, `Judicial discretion is everything; we must have judicial discretion,' ignored the hundreds of ways that parliaments around Australia limit judicial discretion in the criminal law. What do those people say as to why some of the states which allegedly have all this judicial discretion have far worse comparative incarceration rates?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Vanstone is able to provide more information in support of an answer she gave at question time. That is reasonable. She has now been on her feet for in excess of three minutes and I believe she is no longer providing additional information.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator Abetz—It is very good information which is embarrassing to the Labor Party.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—It is not embarrassing. Ministers are limited to four-minute answers in question time and to one-minute answers to supplementary questions, and then the senator who asked the question does not have the capacity to ask a further supplementary question. I want to draw that to your attention, Madam Deputy President, and ensure that Senator Vanstone does not abuse the privilege she has been given in being given leave to add to an answer. 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone has indicated to me that she has one more quick point to make.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—I am pleased, Madam Deputy President, that you speak eye-contact language and understand. There is just one more point which Senator Greig raised with me and that was: what is the government doing about it? It will take some time to answer. There is an enormous number of programs on early intervention that would impact on the indigenous community and their relationship with the criminal justice system. I will get that together. I also indicate that I will be raising the matter at the Police Ministers Council because—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—That is another point now.7E4Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator VANSTONE—Senator Greig asked what the government will do, and I am telling him that I will raise the matter at the Police Ministers Council because the judges as well as the police have a role in this. There is no one simple problem or one simple solution.1379115:10:0013791Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—Madam Deputy President, I have some information that has been provided to me in response to an answer I gave to a question from Senator Harradine yesterday. I seek leave to have the information incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—I have been made aware of the two articles referred to by Senator Harradine in his question on 10 April 2000.Infant and maternal mortality rates in Kosovo are the highest in Europe. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is working to meet the urgent reproductive health needs of refugees there.UNFPA's work in Kosovo has included providing laundry equipment to the maternity clinic at Pristina University Hospital as well as emergency reproductive health supplies to assist with safe deliveries, treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and provision of contraceptives.In its advice to AUSAID, UNFPA rejects the suggestion that it is, or has ever been, co-operating with President Milosevic on ethnic cleansing. Instead, UNFPA assures us that all its activities in Kosovo are consistent with the principle of voluntarism agreed at the international conference on population and development in Cairo in 1994.DIMA's country information service has located a range of information on UNFPA and population policies in Kosovo from its standard information sources, including the articles mentioned by Senator Harradine.Such information is routinely provided to case officers on request to assist them with claims that they are consideringWhere specific requests arise, responses are widely published to case officers through an on-line data baseHowever, there is no record in the country information service to indicate that there have ever been protection claims made in Australia alleging persecution through the operation of birth control programs.1379115:11:0013791Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Vanstone), to questions without notice asked today, relating to mandatory sentencing.There are some real worries about the arrangements that were made between the Chief Minister and the Prime Minister, altering the way the criminal justice system is carried out in the Northern Territory. The changes to the way the criminal justice system is being carried out in the Northern Territory are not to be made by parliament, are not to be made by way of regulation, are not to be made—as far as I understand—by any instrument that is reviewable before this parliament or any other; the changes are to be made to the general orders under which the Northern Territory police operate. It has been said—Senator Vanstone said it before—that parliament can limit judicial functions. In fact, there is a bill in the area of migration law that is going to do that, but at least parliament has a say. In this agreement, where there is a change to be made to the general criminal justice system, parliament is to have no say at all because what is going to be changed to effect the new system is the general orders of the Northern Territory police. I do not know whether those documents are public and freely available. Senator Hill did not know whether those documents are public and freely available. Did the Prime Minister know whether those documents are public and freely available when he made the arrangements with the Chief Minister? If those documents are not public and freely available, how are we going to judge whether the police are carrying out their duties under the criminal justice system in the way they ought to be carried out? How are they going to be checked? I would have thought that that was one thing which should have been known right from the start. It is said in the joint statement by the Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the Hon. Denis Burke MLA, that:They agreed that their common objective was to prevent juveniles entering the criminal justice system. They go on to talk about a scheme which is to be set up under the general orders of the Northern Territory police. If the police come in and examine a person accused of an offence, then that person has entered the criminal justice system there and then because the police are part of the criminal justice system. So for this statement to say that there is an agreement that their common objective is to prevent juveniles entering the criminal justice system is just not to the point. It is not correct because the rest of the document talks about a changed criminal justice system.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—You are talking about it in terms of post prosecution. This is a pre-prosecution intervention.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Exactly. Senator Hill has explained it by saying that what this means is that we are going to cut out the judicial part of the criminal justice system. That is the part which makes the criminal justice system patent to the public, so that we understand what is going to go on. That is going to be crossed out.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator Abetz—What?SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—The other thing that is going to happen under this—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—No-one is going to complain about not being prosecuted.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—People might not complain about not being prosecuted, but a lot of other people might complain about them not being prosecuted. In other words, the victims have a bit of a say in this. You have always been for the victim. In this case there is no consideration given to the victim; it is up to the police. They are going to exercise a discretion which is a larger discretion than any other police force in this country has. It is a matter of having things done by the executive rather than having things done by the judiciary. It is another attack by this government, unfortunately, on the judicial system of this country—whether it is in this area, whether it is in the area of migration or anywhere else. This is a further attack, carried out through the general orders of the Northern Territory police, on the judiciary. (Time expired)15:15:0013792Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasmaniaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—The speech by Senator Cooney shows once again how the Labor Party seem to be more concerned about process than outcomes. Surely, I would have thought, the Labor Party would have celebrated the wonderful outcome that was achieved as a result of negotiation between two heads of government within this country. It was an outcome that I thought, in fact, Senator Cooney and his party were wanting to achieve. But, of course, as is so often the wont with the Australian Labor Party at the moment, they are in a position of policy paralysis and they do not know what they want. In fact, in Senator Cooney's contribution we were not told what Labor would have done if it had been in power. But just in case the Australian people want to have some indication of what Labor would have done if it were in power and Kim Beazley were to have been Prime Minister, listen to this. On 16 February this year, Mr Beazley said, `I think mandatory sentencing has to go.' It was black and white. Six days later he said, `I agree'—see, he is softening now—`that it is more desirable that it be done at the level of government that actually enforced the laws.' Then, on 31 March, he said, `The criminal law of Western Australia should be determined by West Australians, and there's no question about that.' So within a month we had the double backflip. First of all he was saying mandatory sentencing had to go and then, within the course of a month, he was saying, `Well, really, Western Australia can determine it for itself.' On this occasion, in a very sophisticated move, the Prime Minister was able to talk to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and achieve an outcome that I thought virtually everybody in this parliament wanted—that is, a softening of the Territory's approach. Let me simply remind Senator Cooney and honourable senators opposite that if they really do want judicial discretion, let us look at the outcomes in those jurisdictions that do have judicial discretion and no mandatory penalties. What do you find in relation to the incarceration rate of our indigenous population? The Northern Territory, with its mandatory sentencing policy, had the second lowest rate of Aboriginal incarceration per 100,000 of population—lower than any other state or territory bar Tasmania. My home state of Tasmania had an even lower rate than the Northern Territory. So those who would celebrate judicial discretion are in fact celebrating a higher rate of incarceration of our indigenous population. They are the facts and figures, and it is unfortunate that certain friends of ours within the media, and the public commentators, do not grasp the facts and do not grasp the figures but just run with platitudes that sound warm and caring. The fact is—and I repeat—the jurisdictions with judicial discretion in this country had a higher rate of indigenous incarceration per 100,000 head of population than the Northern Territory. Once again, it is a classic example of Senator Cooney and the Labor Party saying, `We want judicial discretion no matter what the impact will be on the indigenous community.' That is really what they are saying. Then Senator Cooney and the Labor Party—and I assume he is speaking on behalfof the Labor Party—bemoan the fact that judges will not have a say in relation to the diversionary therapy proposals. Let me simply say to Senator Cooney: we would try to catch the young offender and save him or her from the judicial system altogether. I would have thought that was humane, I would have thought that was responsible and I would have thought that was a good social outcome if you had a genuine social conscience and a genuine social concern rather than a simple concern for cheap headlines, irrespective of the social outcomes. We on this side are very proud of the agreement that the Prime Minister was able to reach with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Other Labor speakers might like to tell us what they would have actually done if they were in government, other than engage in a cheap discourse of political point scoring which, of course, is not aided by the facts because the facts speak against exactly what Senator Cooney was trying to put to us.15:21:0013793McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—I also want to speak on this taking note of the responses to a number of questions during today's question time. Let us, in the first instance, deal with the reaction of the Northern Territory to yesterday's agreement. The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory was on television and all of the electronic media last evening claiming a big win—a win-win—because he achieved everything he set out to achieve during the negotiations on this, and pocketed $5 million to boot. That is $5 million a year. But his legislation remains intact, apart from one very significant and, I might say, very welcome amendment to it—that is, that the age of juveniles will move from 17 to 18. That is welcomed by us. But the agreement of yesterday actually brings more concern than it does joy, despite the joy that we feel about the movement in age from 17 to 18.A major part of those concerns has already been addressed by my colleague Senator Cooney in dealing with the enhanced and increased powers that are given to the police force in the Northern Territory by yesterday's agreement. There is no question at all that the police have been given enhanced and increased responsibility under the agreement of yesterday. I do not know if they will be given any additional resources. The bigger questions that Senator Cooney addressed are: what is the public accountability of those increased powers to the police forces and where is that going to be seen? We have not yet seen the small print of this agreement. Of course, there are things in this agreement that we welcome, but they are only a step—and, let's face it, a step in the right direction. The right direction will be the removal of mandatory sentencing laws from the statute books not only of the Northern Territory but also of my home state, Western Australia. It is a very blunt instrument to be using in the law enforcement area, and it has been proved on a number of occasions that mandatory sentencing is just not working. There are people who are very happy about the agreement, particularly backbenchers on the government side, and they are saying that no longer would juveniles be incarcerated for minor offences. The detail of that is not contained in yesterday's announcement. The detail is that the police have got certain powers to direct persons—young offenders—onto the diversionary programs if they so decide. Is it going to be compulsory or mandatory that the individuals be so diverted? If it is, will it mean that a 17-year-old can go on a rampage and end up on a diversionary program while an 18-year-old accompanying them will be automatically charged—because the police have no discretion over whether to charge or not to charge—and as a consequence will be faced with mandatory sentencing? It is a much more severe regime for adults than for juveniles in the Northern Territory.That is not to say that we do not welcome the change in age, but the announcement yesterday does beg a whole host of questions, which are heightened when one looks back at the Senate committee's investigation and the questions that were asked of the representatives of the Northern Territory government about what was happening in the Northern Territory at the time. We wanted to know the number of young offenders who had been convicted and sentenced under the mandatory sentencing regime. After a matter of months we got some information but, even to this day, the public of the Northern Territory, this Senate, the parliament and the public of Australia do not know the number of offenders who were charged at 16 and sentenced as adults at 17 in the Northern Territory. That information is not yet available, and there is no public accountability contained in the joint announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Yet we are going to hand over $5 million a year—which is welcome—for the diversionary programs. The increased funding for the interpreter service is also welcome; it is a much needed thing that has not previously been in existence. We have had scenarios where individuals who did not understand English were being charged through the courts of the Northern Territory, convicted in the courts of the Northern Territory and sentenced under the mandatory sentencing regime when they did not understand what was happening. (Time expired)15:26:0013794Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I move—10000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Senator Harradine, are you speaking on the same issue as the other senators?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—No.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—You wish to speak on another question. I am sorry, Senator Harradine, but Senator Ludwig wishes to speak on the motion.15:26:0013794Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQueenslandALP00—I wish to take note of the answer from Senator Hill to the question by Senator Cooney on mandatory sentencing. We now know that revolting—BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. You are not suggesting that there should be three Labor speakers and one from the coalition? We were asked to defer to the Australian Democrats, and that would have made five against one today because I expect Senator Harradine is going to give us a tickle-up as well. Nevertheless, we accepted that, but to sit here and watch the Labor Party put up a third speaker is a bit rough.1I4McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKiernan—What is the point of order? BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—The point of order is that there is an understanding in the way in which things are done in this place, and you are in the process of breaching it.10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I understand that. I will take a submission. I understand the informal workings of the chamber.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—There is no intention here in any way to dud the government on such a matter. We had a discussion and I understood that at the conclusion of this issue Senator Harradine would be seeking the call on another question and I understood that the Democrats would seek another question. But if that is the view of the government, I think it is probably wiser if we did not proceed with our additional speaker at this point in the spirit in which we discussed the matter earlier.Question resolved in the affirmative. 1379515:31:0013795Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I move:That the Senate take note of the further answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to a question without notice asked by Senator Harradine on 10 April 2000, relating to women in Kosovo.This is an absolutely pathetic response. It is a very serious matter that a UN organisation, the United Nations Population Fund, the UNFPA, responded to a specific request from Mr Milosevic for that organisation to come and operate only in the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. That followed a statement made by the Yugoslav minister for family concerns that the Kosovar women were just breeding machines and something needed to be done to limit or forbid—those were his words—the number of children that they are having.When I specifically questioned the government about that organisation operating at the request of the war criminal Mr Milosevic and operating only in the Kosovo area, the department, which presumably was AusAID, came up with a pathetic response—which I am almost positive would not have been seen by the minister—not dealing with that key issue at all but suggesting the infant and maternal mortality rates in Kosovo are the highest in Europe. The department's response was that the UNFPA is `working to meet the urgent reproductive needs of refugees there' and that `maternal mortality rates are extremely high'. Rather than go to the causes of the maternal mortality rates, which are many in number—and I have mentioned this over a period of time in the Senate—the UNFPA's answer is, `Well, don't have any kids.' I have evidence from doctors in Kosovo which shows that hospitals had `everything they needed and were performing sterilisations and pregnancy terminations' and they had `all that they needed in respect of IUDs, manual vacuum aspirators' et cetera, but they lacked the essential life saving drugs and equipment because priority was being given by the UNFPA to the supply of birth control provisions, some of which were outdated—and I have evidence for that. The minister simply stated in response that `UNFPA has included providing laundry equipment to the maternity clinic at Pristina'. I think it was three washing machines or something like that. Millions of dollars are being spent for the other material, and only three or four washing machines for the clinic. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.1379515:33:0013795Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the further answer given by the Minister for Justice and Customs (Senator Vanstone), to a question without notice asked by Senator Greig today, relating to mandatory sentencing.In doing so, I want to express my very real disappointment that I seemingly cannot get a straight answer to a straight question on this issue. I am referring specifically to the first and key part of my question asked here today which was that, in spite of the conciliation and negotiation between the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and our Prime Minister that resulted in a deal which we learned of yesterday, mandatory sentencing remains. I touched on that deal briefly. It in part included some $5 million of additional funding to the Northern Territory to assist with diversionary programs, in addition to which the definition of `juvenile' was slightly tinkered with so that 17-year-olds were no longer vulnerable as they previously were and the definition of an adult is now 18 years. I do welcome that. In terms of the $5 million funding, I maintain my argument that that is really a paltry amount of funding for the substantial difficulties and problems that are faced by many people in the Northern Territory in relation to the criminal laws, most particularly indigenous Northern Territorians. I note also that a part of the package has resulted in an interpreter service being provided. I welcome that also but I feel a sense of shame, to be frank, that this was not there in the first instance. As has been noted in this chamber previously, if you happen to be an illegal immigrant landing on our shores then you are provided with an interpreter service in order to process the legalities that you would need to go through in terms of immigration or refugee status. Yet, if you are a first Australian and a juvenile offender in the Northern Territory, you had no right to that until recently. Again, I welcome this particular outcome of the negotiation but feel quite appalled that it was not there in the first instance. I acknowledge also that there will be more money available to diversionary programs, and that too is a good thing. But at the core of my question was simply this: in spite of all that, is it not the fact that mandatory sentencing laws still exist in the Northern Territory and Western Australia? From recollection, I do not think the minister answered that or answered that clearly.That is at the core of my question because we either accept that mandatory sentencing per se is acceptable or it is not. The Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, of which I am a member, found in its inquiry and deliberations that mandatory sentencing laws clearly breach international treaties, most significantly in relation to CROC, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It would appear that they would also be in contravention of CERD, the treaty relating to racial discrimination. I think we as a nation have to take such treaties very seriously. You can argue strongly that we did that in terms of speaking with state and territory governments prior to signing on to these treaties. As a nation, we have signed on to these basic benchmarks of human rights and dignity. Yet it is quite clear that the government is not serious in adhering to those, even when we have the most flagrant breaches, and this has most recently flared up in the Northern Territory. A joint press release issued yesterday between the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Denis Burke, and Prime Minister John Howard stated, in part, in paragraph 6:The Northern Territory legislation will be amended so that a person will be treated as an adult from 18 years of age rather than at 17 years of age. Apart from this, the mandatory sentencing provisions of the existing law will remain unchanged.This begs the question: why bother? Why bother going to all this trouble to get additional funding for interpreter services, a special juvenile court and diversionary programs and why bother tinkering with the definition of `juveniles' and finding innovative ways of getting around this law, when it would have been far simpler, far more intelligent and more comprehensive, if we are to include Western Australia—and I think we must—to have simply repealed these laws in the first place rather than messing around with them at the edges? I am not alone in that view. I note also that, following the announcement of the Prime Minister yesterday, the Law Council of Australia strongly criticised that, arguing that this was `simply political window dressing which, on the face of it, vests more power in the Territory's police force'. That was said by Dr Gordon Hughes, the Law Council spokesperson. The real remedy, he said, would have been to abolish mandatory sentencing and to restore judicial discretion to judicial officers in sentencing matters. I can only agree. The outstanding question to the minister is: do mandatory sentencing laws breach our international treaty obligations or do they not?Question resolved in the affirmative.137961The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:1379788O6O'BrienTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The petition of residents of the nation of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate that:1. Majority of electors in the 1998 federal election were not in favour of the GST2. Alternative taxation regimes were not properly considered.Your petitioners humbly ask the Senate to repeal the GST legislation and to instigate an inquiry to thoroughly investigate alternative taxation regimes.8Senator O'Brien8O6Senator O'Brien (from 8 citizens).137972208O6O'BrienTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The members of Animal Liberation (Vic) and the undersigned vigorously oppose the export of live sheep from Australia for the following reasons: the documented history of inhumane suffering inflicted on many of 5,000,000 sheep exported per annum, the contribution made to the unemployment of Australian citizens, especially meat industry workers, the adverse effects this has on residents generally, and the availability of frozen carcass export as a viable alternative.Your petitioners request that the Senate call upon the Australian Government to ban the export of live sheep and to actively pursue the frozen carcass alternative.220Senator O'Brien8O6Senator O'Brien (from 220 citizens).Petitions received.Notices1379713797Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that:(i) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank will hold their summit meetings on 16 and 17 April 2000 in Washington, DC, and(ii) until governments and international institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, acknowledge the growing disparities between developed and developing nations and act to redress these inequalities, protests such as the A16 planned for Washington during those meetings, will continue to disrupt any moves towards trade liberalisation; and(b) calls on the Australian Government to work towards developing institutions more capable of managing global markets to create a more stable, humane and equitable international economic order.Senator Hill to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to the environment, and for related purposes. Environmental Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000.Senator Woodley to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the development of the Brisbane Airport Corporation's Master Plan for the future construction of a western parallel runway be extended to 10 May 2000.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that:(i) the Minister for Trade (Mr Vaile) launched the Federal Government's Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement for 2000 on 5 April 2000, and(ii) this document sets out the Federal Government's trade agenda for the coming year;(b) welcomes the commitment by the Government to fund an investigation of new technologies, including information technology and biotechnology; and(c) urges the Government to consider further issues of reform, including:(i) increased assistance to the education and research sectors to enhance export prospects within innovative sectors,(ii) removing the differential Higher Education Contribution Scheme, which discriminates against the sciences, engineering and related specialisations,(iii) increasing the research and development tax concession to 150 per cent,(iv) revising the intellectual property laws to address the demands of new technologies and developments, and(v) seeking the following reforms of the World Trade Organization (WTO): (a) recognition that trade must be fair, not just free,(b) the review of reforms already implemented and the development of a permanent dialogue between the WTO and institutions concerned with protection of the environment and the implementation of human rights and labour standards,(c) the reassessment of the priorities of the international community, so that the powers of other international institutions are not subjugated by those of the WTO,(d) the development of a commitment to greater transparency, and(e) the development of greater democracy, so communities can have a say in the process of globalisation.Senator Tierney to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes:(i) a recent survey from the Graduate Careers Council of Australia that shows graduates from 10 disciplines at the University of Newcastle are more satisfied with the standard of their courses than graduates from any other Australian university, and(ii) that the University of Newcastle leads graduate satisfaction in areas of architecture, banking and finance, speech pathology, chemical engineering, general engineering, industrial relations, initial teacher education, building, geography, nutrition and dietetics;(b) recognises that the University of Newcastle is ranked 4th of the 12 universities in New South Wales for attracting first preferences for undergraduate students, and is ranked 9th out of the 36 public universities in Australia for attracting government research funding; and(c) supports continued Federal Government assistance for regional universities which, for thousands of students from rural areas, continue to be their first choice for tertiary education owing to such graduate satisfaction.Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999.Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that, despite the recently-announced agreement between the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory (Mr Burke), mandatory sentencing laws remain in Western Australia and the Northern Territory;(b) acknowledges that the existence of these laws breaches international human rights treaties and is contrary to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; and(c) notes that:(i) the agreement between the Prime Minister and Mr Burke does not address Western Australia's mandatory sentencing regime, and(ii) mandatory sentencing is inconsistent with the separation of powers, the right to a fair and impartial trial, and provisions of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.Senators Bolkus, Brown and Bartlett to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate—(a) notes that:(i) 22 April 2000 is the 30th anniversary of Earth Day,(ii) Earth Day is an annual day of celebration of the environment, participated in by millions of global citizens each year, and(iii) 4 500 groups in 181 countries are part of the Earth Day network and are organising environmental events and celebrations to mark Earth Day 2000;(b) congratulates the many Australian organisations that are part of the Earth Day network;(c) encourages the fullest participation in Earth Day by Australian groups from all sectors; and(d) recognises the global significance of Earth Day and its extraordinary contribution to the environmental movement over the past 30 years. Senator Greig to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate requests the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission:(a) to inquire into all aspects of:(i) the agreement between the Northern Territory Government and the Commonwealth regarding the Territory's mandatory sentencing regime,(ii) the consistency, or otherwise, of mandatory sentencing regimes with Australia's international human rights obligations, wherever such regimes exist, and(iii) Western Australia's mandatory sentencing regime; and(b) to report:(i) on paragraph (a)(i) within 4 weeks, and(ii) on paragraphs (a)(ii) and (a)(iii) within 12 months.Senator Crane to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the importation of salmon be extended to 11 May 2000.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 26June 2000:The mechanism contained in general business notice of motion no. 489, standing in the name of Senator Murray, providing for accountability to the Senate in relation to government contracts.15:41:0013799Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Appropriation (Dr Carmen Lawrence's Legal Costs) Bill 1999-2000, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—APPROPRIATION (DR CARMEN LAWRENCE'S LEGAL COSTS) BILL 1999-2000Purpose of the BillThe Appropriation (Dr Carmen Lawrence's Legal Costs) Bill 1999-2000 will provide legislative authority for expenditure in 1999-2000 by the Attorney-General's Department in payment of a legal liability of the Commonwealth to the solicitors firm Dunhill Madden Butler, pursuant to the judgment of the Federal Court of Australia in Vass & Ors v The Commonwealth [2000] FCA 47. In the judgment, handed down on 2 February 2000, the Commonwealth was found liable to Dunhill Madden Butler for damages for breach a of contract to pay legal costs incurred by Dunhill Madden Butler in acting for Dr Carmen Lawrence MP in relation to the Marks Royal Commission and her court challenges to that Commission. The Commonwealth will also be liable to pay interest on the judgment to the date the damages are paid as well as the legal costs of Dunhill Madden Butler in pursuing its claim against the Commonwealth.Reasons for UrgencyThe Government has decided that the Commonwealth should not appeal the decision of the Federal Court and that a specific appropriation should be sought to enable the payment of the Commonwealth's liability. This followed advice from the Solicitor-General that damages could not be paid by way of the general appropriation to the Attorney-General's Department and that a specific appropriation should be sought.On 25 February 2000, the Federal Court made final orders in Vass & Ors v The Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been ordered to pay to DMB damages, pre-judgment interest and costs. The unpaid judgment will continue to accrue interest. Therefore, introduction and passage of the Bill in the Autumn 2000 sittings is being sought.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Attorney-General)Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate notes that:(a) it is 62 days since former Senator Parer resigned as a senator for the State of Queensland;(b) the Queensland Liberal Party has said that it will not select a replacement for Senator Parer until 30 April 2000, another 19 days (a total of 81 days since Senator Parer's resignation); (c) at the Queensland Liberal Party's request, the Queensland State Parliament will not be asked to appoint a replacement for Senator Parer until 16 May 2000 (a total of 97 days since Senator Parer's resignation);(d) the day of swearing-in of the successor to Senator Parer would be 5 June 2000 at the earliest (a total of 117 days since Senator Parer's resignation); and(e) the people of the State of Queensland have been denied their full Senate representation by the lethargy of the Queensland Liberal Party in appointing a successor to Senator Parer.Senator Brown to move, on the next day of sitting:To move—That the Senate—(a) notes:(i) that the Ballallaba Action Group, a river care environmental group based at Captains Flat, New South Wales, has launched an appeal to raise money for Hungarians who depend on the rivers affected by the cyanide spill from the mine in Romania which is co-owned by Esmeralda Exploration Ltd, and(ii) the support for the initiative from the Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn, and from the Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary; and(b) congratulates the Captains Flat community, which itself has had to cope with the effects of cyanide and other contaminants from mining, for its initiative.15:43:0013800Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—On behalf of Senator Coonan, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move:That the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) made under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997; and the National Television Conversion Scheme 1999 made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 be disallowed.I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.Leave granted.The summary read as follows—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) made under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997The Order permits the export of lamb to the United States beyond the amount of the quota on that trade set by the two countries.New clause 20 grants to the Secretary to the Department the discretion to grant a “US lamb certificate” to an eligible exporter who fulfils certain conditions. The Explanatory Statement notes that, despite the grant of this discretion, “the Secretary would in the normal course of events agree to the grant of the certificate.” However, the Explanatory Statement does not indicate what is to happen if the Secretary does not agree to the grant of the certificate and whether the exercise of that discretion is subject to external merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.The Committee has received a response to these concerns from the Minister but wishes to seek clarification of specific issues. This notice will allow the Committee to do so.National Television Conversion Scheme 1999 made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992This instrument provides for the legislative scheme for the conversion of national television broadcasting services from analog to digital mode.Division 2 of Part A, which is concerned with the requirements to be fulfilled by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in preparing and making a digital channel plan, appears to achieve an admirable level of consultation by all interested parties. Paragraph 10(b) requires the Authority to invite comments on its draft plan, and subsection 12(2) requires it to have regard, when making the plan, to any comments received. However, section 11 permits the Authority to revise a draft digital channel plan, and gives it an unfettered discretion to decide “whether it is appropriate to invite comments” thereon. The Authority appears to be given no guidance whatever in the Scheme in coming to a conclusion as to the appropriateness (or otherwise) of inviting comments.The Explanatory Paper accompanying this Scheme that does not provide a section-by-section explanation of its terms making it difficult to understand the effect of these individual sections.13801Items of business were postponed as follows:Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the reference of matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till 13 April 2000.General business notice of motion no. 474 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to the Advertising Standards Board, postponed till 12 April 2000.Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 2 standing in the name of Senator O'Brien for today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, postponed till 12 April 2000.General business notice of motion no. 489 standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, proposing an order for the production of documents by each minister in the Senate relating to indexed lists of contracts, postponed till 28 June 2000.Business of the Senate order of the day no. 2 for today, relating to the presentation of a report by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, postponed till a later hour.Budget1380113801Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of the Senate of 26 November 1998 relating to the committee groupings for estimates hearings be modified as follows in respect of the budget estimates hearings for 2000-2001:Group AOmit: `Legal and Constitutional'Substitute: `Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts'.Group BOmit: `Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts'Substitute: `Legal and Constitutional'.Miscellaneous13801Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That a message be sent to the House of Representatives requesting that the House immediately consider the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999.Business1380113801Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:Corporations Law Amendment (Employee Entitle-ments) Bill 2000Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Amendment (Funding and Wool Tax) Bill 2000.Miscellaneous13801Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) condemns any attempt to forcibly remove and arrest Kosovar refugees in Australia; and(b) calls on the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) to invite all Kosovar refugees presently in Australia to make protection visa applications so that they can be dealt with and evaluated on a case basis in accordance with established Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs criteria.Miscellaneous1380115:45:0013801Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I now ask that general business notice of motion No. 497 standing in my name for today be taken as a formal motion. That motion relates to the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999 now in the House of Representatives but not debated. 10000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There being no objection, I call Senator Brown.15:45:0013801Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I thought that might happen. I move: That, until a message is received from the House of Representatives indicating that the House has considered the Human Rights (Mandatory Sentencing of Juvenile Offenders) Bill 1999, ministers and parliamentary secretaries shall not exercise the following procedural powers under the standing orders, and shall not authorise any other senators to exercise those powers on their behalf: (a) to move a motion connected with the conduct of the business of the Senate at any time without notice, under standing order 56;(b) to arrange the order of government business notices of motion and orders of the day on the Notice Paper as they think fit, under standing order 65;(c) to move, in relation to a government bill, that the bill may proceed without formalities or, in relation to government bills, that the bills may be taken together, under standing order 113(2);(d) to move at any time that the Senate adjourn, under standing order 33(2);(e) to present documents under standing order 166 without leave;(f) to move the adjournment of a debate after having spoken in that debate, under standing order 201(6);(g) to move that the question be now put on more than one occasion, and after having spoken in the debate, under standing order 199(3); or(h) to move that a bill be declared urgent and, if the motion is agreed to, move further motions concerning time allocated for consideration of the bill, under standing order 142.15:45:0013802O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—by leave—The opposition will not be supporting this motion. Senator Faulkner in debate yesterday in this chamber on a motion relating to the cut-off set down the opposition's position in relation to what he described as `engaging in creating havoc in relation to the government's legislative program' and made some comments which expressed Labor's understanding of Senator Brown's position in relation to this motion, but we will not be supporting the motion. I would refer senators to the comments of Senator Faulkner on page 13111 of the Hansard.15:46:0013802Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—The opposition's asseveration that this would create havoc is hogwash; it is just nonsense. This is a motion to bring formality into the process. It is not to block any debate. The implication from the opposition that this would cause havoc and that it is tit for tat, an eye for an eye, is wrong. It clearly means that the opposition has not read the motion. It is a matter of bringing formality into the processes of this place, with no embargo on any matter whatever—none at all. And there is no rejoinder in same measure to the gag. The only bill that this Senate has sent to the House of Representatives in recent times is on mandatory sentencing. It is a disgraceful display of anti-democratic behaviour by the government in the House of Representatives, and it deserves to be checked. I am very concerned that, if we do not express the gravity with which we see that matter in this place, we are going to see a repeat of this behaviour against the Senate and the democratic process from the government.Question resolved in the negative. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—Could I have my sole support for the motion recorded, please?10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Yes, that will be done, Senator Brown.Committees138021380213802Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Murphy) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on the provisions of the Fair Prices and Better Access for All (Petroleum) Bill 1999 and the practice of multi-site franchising by oil companies be extended to 22 June 2000.138021380215:49:0013802Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Australian Wool Research and Promotion Organisation Amendment (Funding and Wool Tax) Bill 2000, together with the Hansard record of committee proceedings and documents presented to the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.Miscellaneous13803138031380315:49:0013803Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—by leave—I present additional information received by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee relating to the additional estimates for 1999-2000.Committees138031380310000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—The President has received letters from a party leader seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by leave— agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Community Affairs Legislation CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator Ray to replace Senator Denman for the consideration, in accordance with the order of the Senate of 10 April 2000 (see entry No. 12, 10 April 2000), of additional estimates relating to magnetic resonance imaging scanner installations.Legal and Constitutional Legislation CommitteeSubstitute member: Senator Ludwig to replace Senator McKiernan from 17 April to 8 May 2000.Bills13803R101513803Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.13803NaN:52:003Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I table a revised 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—INTRODUCTIONThe Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill has been necessitated by recent decisions of the High Court.The Bill responds to the High Court's decision last year in the Re Wakim case, which invalidated the `cross-vesting' of State jurisdiction on federal courts; and to the Court's decision this year in the Bond case, which identified problems in relation to the powers of the Commonwealth DPP.It also precludes delaying tactics in the criminal justice process by reducing the `collateral' access of defendants to federal administrative law procedures and remedies.The general cross-vesting scheme was established in 1987 by the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987, and by reciprocal legislation in the States and Territories.The purpose of the legislation was to establish a system of cross-vesting of jurisdiction between federal, State and Territory superior courts to overcome uncertainties that exist as to the jurisdictional limits of those courts.Under this system, a litigant could, broadly speaking, institute proceedings in a superior court anywhere in Australia without regard to jurisdictional limits, subject only to the possibility that the proceedings would be transferred to a more appropriate court.The system was welcomed as the answer to arid and inconvenient jurisdictional debates which had plagued litigants, practitioners and courts.A separate cross-vesting scheme was subsequently established for matters arising under the Corporations Law.The High Court decided in June last year, however, that the conferral of State jurisdiction on the Federal and Family Courts under the general and corporations law cross-vesting arrangements is not permitted by the Constitution.The decision, which is known as Re Wakim, was regrettable.In undermining the cross-vesting arrangements which I have mentioned, and a number of other co-operative arrangements, it undermined arrangements which have permitted a significant growth in national co-operation between the States, and between the States and the Commonwealth. Re Wakim has had a particularly negative effect in relation to the Corporations Law scheme, significantly reducing the Federal Court's involvement.The special cross-vesting arrangements were regarded as a fundamental element of the fully integrated system of State, Territory and federal adjudication contemplated by the Corporations Agreement.The explanatory memorandum for the Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 1990 - which introduced the special cross-vesting arrangements - confirmed that they were intended `to enhance the national character of the new scheme'.The cross-vesting arrangements were regarded as `central to the conferral of a national character' on the corporations law scheme.The Commonwealth Parliament cannot restore all of the elements of the cross-vesting arrangements which were affected by Re Wakim.It lacks constitutional power to do so.In recognition of this constitutional fact, the States have all enacted legislation, the Federal Courts (State Jurisdiction) Acts, which give effect to past ineffective decisions of federal courts as if they had been made by State courts.The State legislation also provides for proceedings invalidly commenced in federal courts to be transferred to State courts.Co-operative measures are also being explored.An appropriate referral of power by the States to the Commonwealth under subsection 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution would address the loss of the Federal Court's Corporations Law jurisdiction.A fully integrated national corporations law scheme, reflecting the existing co-operative approach to regulation and amendment, could be established by the Commonwealth if the State parliaments were prepared to refer the necessary power.To this end, Commonwealth officers have begun work on a proposal for a suitable referral.A detailed proposal will be developed in consultation with the States and Territories for consideration by Commonwealth, State and Territory ministers.SCHEDULES 1, 3 AND 4 TO THE BILL: RESPONSE TO RE WAKIMThe Commonwealth can take more immediate steps to address some of the problems created by Re Wakim.That is what this Bill does.The first and most obvious step is to repeal the now invalid provisions of Commonwealth laws that purport to consent to the conferral of State jurisdiction on federal courts.This is done in Schedule 1 to the Bill.The Commonwealth Parliament may also take steps to confer jurisdiction on any court to review decisions made by Commonwealth officers, whether in the exercise of powers conferred by State or Commonwealth laws.The Commonwealth can thus ensure that the Federal Court continues to play an important part in the co-operative arrangements already mentioned.Commonwealth officers and authorities are invested with powers by State law under various co-operative arrangements.Indeed, this has been a common feature of the co-operative federalism that has evolved over recent years.Under the Corporations Law, for example, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, a Commonwealth authority, is invested with powers and functions by States.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is also invested with powers and functions by States under State Competition Policy Reform Acts and State Price Exploitation Codes.Since the establishment of the Federal Court, it has been accepted that the Federal Court, rather than State courts or tribunals, generally should have the function of reviewing the actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers and authorities.I shall discuss what is perhaps the only significant exception to this general policy later, in relation to Schedule 2 and criminal prosecutions in State or Territory courts.Accordingly, where States conferred jurisdiction on Commonwealth officers and authorities under various co-operative schemes, federal courts were given jurisdiction.The policy was clear.The Commonwealth administrative law regime should apply to the actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers and authorities.Federal courts and tribunals should review the actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers and authorities.The means chosen before Re Wakim to give effect to this policy was for the States to adopt as State law relevant Commonwealth administrative laws.The particular laws adopted varied in each case, but would involve one or all of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, the Privacy Act 1988 or the Ombudsman Act 1976. The Federal Court was then invested with State jurisdiction to hear matters under this applied legislation.However, the decision in Re Wakim meant that this approach no longer works.In so far as the adoption of Commonwealth administrative laws by States also involves conferral of State jurisdiction on the Federal Court, it is invalid.Schedule 1 to the Bill resolves this problem.It amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.The amendments bring the decisions and actions of Commonwealth officers and authorities under certain States laws within the scope of these Commonwealth Acts.The Federal Court, when exercising jurisdiction in relation to these decisions and actions, will be exercising federal jurisdiction, not State jurisdiction.This means that the Federal Court will continue to fulfil its role as the primary forum for review of the actions and decisions of Commonwealth officers and authorities.State and Territory Supreme Courts will be given equivalent federal jurisdiction in limited circumstances.This limited jurisdiction is intended simply to avoid `splitting' judicial review proceedings and substantive proceedings between federal and State and Territory courts where the substantive proceedings must be brought in the State or Territory court.I note in passing that, while Re Wakim invalidated the conferral of State jurisdiction on federal courts, it did not invalidate the conferral by Commonwealth law of Territory jurisdiction on those courts.The Bill, however, treats Territories in the same way as States, in order to achieve uniform federal coverage of matters under State and Territory laws.It has already been noted that the Territories were consulted in developing this approach, and had no objections.Schedules 3 and 4 also address consequences of Re Wakim.Following Re Wakim, an unintended consequence of amendments of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989 made by the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 is that actions for misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to securities can no longer be brought in the Federal Court.Schedule 3 will reinstate the Federal Court's jurisdiction under the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act by reference to the new Corporations Law actions.The Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act also inserted s.659B in the Corporations Law.It was designed to ensure that the Corporations and Securities Panel would be the primary forum for resolving takeover disputes under the Corporations Law, in order to allow such disputes to be resolved as quickly and efficiently as possible by a specialist body largely comprised of takeover experts.Section 659B was designed to prevent legal proceedings in relation to a takeover bid, including judicial review of Panel decisions under any State administrative laws, before the end of the bid period.Only proceedings commenced on the application of ASIC, or another public authority of the Commonwealth or a State, were to be exempted.Schedule 4 is necessary given other amendments in this Bill to give effect to the original policy behind section 659B.Proposed section 59A of the Corporations Act will give section 659B of the Corporations Law additional force under the Corporations Act as a Commonwealth law applying to the Federal Court.SCHEDULE 5: RESPONSE TO BONDSchedule 5 will amend the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 to deal with technical deficiencies in Commonwealth legislation identified in the High Court's recent decision in the Bond case.Schedule 5 will amend the Act in three ways.It will authorise the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, or a member of the Director's staff, to exercise rights of appeal conferred under State or Territory law in relation to prosecutions for State or Territory offences.It will put beyond doubt the Director's rights of appeal in relation to proceedings for summary conviction in respect of Commonwealth offences.And it will put beyond doubt the Director's authority to carry on or respond to appeals instituted by others in relation to such proceedings.The amendments will thus restore what had been thought to be the situation before the decision in the Bond case. In that decision, the High Court held that a staff member of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions did not have the power to appeal a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on Mr Alan Bond for breaches of the Western Australian Companies Code.In particular, the amendments will allow a role under Commonwealth law for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Office of the Director, in relation to prosecutions and appeals under the Companies Code considered in the Bond case.However, it will be necessary for the States and Territories to consider their own laws in the light of the amendments of Commonwealth legislation made by this Bill.The Attorney-General shall be writing to the States and Territories to bring them up to date with the Commonwealth amendments, and to ask them to confirm that their own laws are adequate to give the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the role that was intended under co-operative arrangements.SCHEDULE 2 TO THE BILL: REVIEW OF DECISIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCESSSchedule 2 to the Bill deals with judicial review of decisions in federal, State and Territory courts, but in the specific context of criminal prosecution.The object is to avoid the use of unmeritorious delaying tactics in the criminal justice process, by removing the `collateral' access of defendants to federal administrative law procedures and remedies.Schedule 2 contains amendments of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Corporations Act 1989 and the Judiciary Act 1903 that will, in federal criminal matters, restrict defendants' access to administrative law remedies.Defendants will not be able to use the ADJR Act to challenge decisions to prosecute.Nor will they be able to use that Act to challenge other decisions in the criminal justice process after a prosecution or appeal has commenced.Further, defendants in State and Territory courts will not be able to rely on section 39B of the Judiciary Act to bring an application in the Federal Court to review decisions of Commonwealth officers made in the prosecution process.The 39B jurisdiction will in that case be removed from the Federal Court and conferred on State and Territory Supreme Courts.Section 39B of the Judiciary Act is currently a provision of general application which allows Federal Court action for mandamus, prohibition or an injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth.This same jurisdiction is constitutionally entrenched as part of the High Court's original jurisdiction under subsection 75(v) of the Constitution.If the 39B jurisdiction in relation to prosecutions in State and Territory courts were not removed from the Federal Court, and conferred instead on State and Territory Supreme Courts, the opportunity to disrupt and delay those prosecutions by repeated, unmeritorious applications to a different court system - in this case the Federal Court system - would remain.The expectation is that there will be significant advantage in requiring all decisions relating to the criminal justice process to be made in the system in which the prosecution is brought.Without reducing fairness or access to justice, the expectation is that the transfer of jurisdiction will contribute to increased efficiency, and reduction in costly delays which may otherwise result from access to two court systems.CONCLUSIONThe Commonwealth cannot legislate to restore all of the elements of the co-operative arrangements rendered invalid by the decision in Re Wakim.But it has taken positive steps in the Bill to reinstate federal court jurisdiction lost as a result of that decisionFurther, the Bill will restore what had been thought to be the situation of the Commonwealth DPP under co-operative arrangements before the decision in the Bond case.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Committees138061380615:52:0013806Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)10000PON/A10—A message has been received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate of a change in the membership of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. The message is that Mr Kelvin Thomson will take the place of Ms Plibersek.Bills13807R100713807Consideration resumed from 10 April, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 13807The bill.NaN:53:003Campbell, George (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator George Campbell)10000PON/A10—The government amendments to this bill on sheet DM206 have been circulated in the form of requests. Two of the amendments should properly be requests because they result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. The other amendment, amendment No. 1, is purely consequential on the substantive amendments. In those circumstances, and provided that there are no further amendments, as distinct from requests, to the bill, the chamber may consider it appropriate to allow the consequential amendment to be put to the House of Representatives in the form of a request to avoid the inconvenience of the bill having to undergo the additional consideration by the House of Representatives which is required when there are amendments and requests. This should not be taken as indicating any acceptance by this chamber of the view, which has occasionally been put by government advisers, that where there are substantive amendments and requests they should all be put as requests. This chamber has not accepted or acted on that inappropriate view. If it occurs that there are other amendments, asdistinct from requests, to the bill, the consequential amendment will also be put as an amendment.15:54:0013807Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—At this stage I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I advise senators that this memorandum was circulated in the chamber yesterday. I now seek leave to move government amendments or requests Nos 1 to 3 on sheet DM206.Leave granted. H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELL—I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2, line 12, omit “Item 5”, substitute “Items 1A, 1B and 5”.(2) Schedule 1, page 66 (before line 10), before item 57, insert:56A At the end of subparagraph 7(a)(ii) of Schedule 2Add “or is receiving income support supplement under Part IIIA of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986”.(3) Schedule 3, page 251 (before line 6), (before item 1), insert:1A Subsection 17(1) (definition of income cut-out amount)Repeal the definition, substitute:income cut-out amount is the amount worked out using the formula in subsection (8).1B At the end of section 17Add: (8) For the purposes of the definition of income cut-out amount in subsection (1),the formula is as follows: 2[Maximumbasic rate+Pharmaceutical amount for a single person]+Ordinary freearea limit 52where:maximum basic rate means the sum of the amount specified in column 3 of item 1 in Table B in point 1064-B1 and the amount of pension supplement worked out under point 1064-BA2 for a person who is not a member of a couple.Note: Point 1064-BA2 refers to maximum basic rate. Maximum basic rate depends on a person's family situation. The rateused here is the rate for a person who is not a member of a couple.ordinary free area limit means the amount specified in column 3 of item 1 in Table E-1 in point 1064-E4.pharmaceutical amount for a single person means the amount specified in column 3 of item 1 in the Pharmaceutical Allowance Amount Table in point 1064-C8.15:56:0013808Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—First of all, I seek some clarification. I would appreciate advice as to whether the minister is joining us or whether Senator Campbell is now handling the bill, given that the minister was in full voice when we adjourned last night. Secondly, I have two sheets in front of me that are thought to be running sheets. I would like some clarification as to whether I should be reading them together or whether one is allegedly superseding the other. The revised one seems not to have all our amendments on it.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—This is the one of 11 April, 10.46 a.m?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Yes. It seems they are to be agreed together, opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4. In that they cover two separate matters, I am not quite sure what is occurring.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You can move them separately if you want to.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I am happy to do that. I just note that the original running sheet had them listed separately. I now have a running sheet in front of me that has quite a different sort of feel to it. I am trying to be clear that the second sheet replaces the first and, if so, I want to indicate that I will not be moving the amendments together because they are on two separate issues.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If you wish to move them separately, you can do so when we get to those amendments.15:57:0013808Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—The Democrats have had an opportunity to examine these requests and the accompanying supplementary explanatory memorandum since they were tabled yesterday. We certainly do not perceive any problems with these. I could be tempted to go on about a problem with late circulation of amendments to social security legislation which we always get bagged about when we do it. I just thought I would mention that for next time. Other than that, having looked at them since they were tabled yesterday, the Democrats do not perceive any problems with these.Amendment and requests agreed to.15:59:0013808Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3):(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 16), omit “10%”, substitute “30%”.(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 31), omit “10%”, substitute “30%—or, if another percentage between 10% and 30% is determined under subsection (1A), that percentage—”.(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 2), after subsection (1), insert:(1A) If:(a) the Secretary is satisfied there has been, or will be, a pattern of care for an individual (the child) over a period such that, for the whole, or for parts (including different parts), of the period, the child was, or will be, an FTB child of more than one other individual in accordance with subsection 22(2), (3), (4), (5) or (6); and(b) one of those other individual makes, or has made, a claim under Part 3 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child for some or all of the days in that period; and(c) the Secretary is satisfied that the child was, or will be, in the care of that last-mentioned individual for at least 10% of that period;then, on the application of and with the agreement of the individuals who care for the child, the Secretary may determine a percentage between 10% and 30% as the percentage to apply for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c).Yesterday I outlined in my speech on the second reading the reasons for the Labor Party moving these amendments. Our concern about the government moving to a 90-10 arrangement is that it would be inconsistent with arrangements in other legislation, particularly in relation to child support, and we are not convinced that the level of care suggested by a 90-10 split is appropriate. I do not want to go over all of that again. The minister was in the chamber and Senator Bartlett was in the chamber. I think Senator Bartlett asked for an explanation of why the government advocated the 90-10 arrangement. Perhaps we might start there.16:00:0013809Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I would like to save time by putting on the record why the government is not prepared to accept these amendments. I think any thinking person would have to agree that it is not a good way to go. I remind the committee that parliament passed legislation introducing the 10 per cent threshold for the sharing of the family tax benefit in June last year, and there was unanimous support. We are in the process of sending an information package to 2.3 million families. I do not have a copy of it with me now, but I can assure you that it is printed and it is on its way out to people. Over one million families have already received this package. The mail-out to families is based on the legislation that was passed by this Senate unanimously last year, and it is telling families about a whole range of matters, including shared care. The families are requested to complete and return a claim form based on the information that is in the package. Information in the package includes comprehensive details about the shared care arrangements that were passed, as I said, in June last year. The ALP's proposed amendments would move the sharing threshold to 30 per cent and allow sharing of payment at a lower level on application, but only with the agreement of both separated parents. It is superficially attractive. I recognise that, on the face of it, it seems quite a reasonable thing to try. But it is not, and the sad thing is that the amendments would result in up to 5,500 losers among parents with less than 30 per cent care who are already receiving family allowance. So it is really a serious matter. The parliament passed legislation, Centrelink sent out an information package to parents, and one million families have already received the package. They are being asked to fill in their details and send them back to Centrelink, but there will be 5,500 losers among parents who are already getting family allowance. The proposed amendments would give power to one parent, and to me this is one of the most serious things about it. The administrative things are important, of course, the confusion for parents is important, and the losers are important, but this would give power to one parent in an area of great emotion—as we were saying yesterday when we were debating changes to the child support legislation. When parents have separated they want their children properly supported, they want to have time with them, and they want to be a real parent to them. This is an area which is fraught with emotion already, but the ALP amendments would give veto power to one parent. If that parent has between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of care, they could determine the financial circumstances of their former partner, who has up to 30 per cent care of the child. Is that reasonable? In a perfect world, everybody would be gracious. There has never been this requirement before, and it is not the requirement now. This is now administered in an impartial way by Centrelink. There is no ability by one parent to veto the arrangements for the other parent, and I would have thought that the ALP would have realised that this would be the impact. I am sure they would not have agreed to it if they had known. As the payment could be shared only by agreement of both separated parents, the proposed amendment would create an environment of dispute between the parents that is not in the current system. There are disputes enough, and the current system does not give an opportunity for a further dispute in this area. If you are going to ensure fairness, it is essential that a parent's entitlement to family assistance be determined by the Family Assistance Office, not at the discretion of a former partner. The amendment would put at risk the entitlements of parents. Let us not forget that these are parents who are making the effort to have substantial, ongoing care arrangements for their child or children, such as every weekend or every second weekend plus half the school holidays. We are all very sad if children lose the benefit of the second parent in their lives, but where a parent is really trying to make the effort to maintain meaningful contact with the children who are with their former spouse, that parent is trying to do the right thing by their kids. Sharing the care by having the children every weekend or every second weekend and half the school holidays is a pretty typical arrangement between families who do not have insurmountable relationship problems which keep them from doing the best thing by their children.Any change now would jeopardise the proper implementation of the legislation. It would result in increased administrative costs to alter work that is already well under way. It would also increase the ongoing cost of administration. The initial estimates that have been provided to me by my department are that the cost would be $23.7 million in 2000-01 and $21 million in subsequent years. Ten per cent, as is in their legislation, is a reasonable test of material care, recognising of course that parents with this level of care do incur significant costs in caring for their children. But, whatever the level, we should surely be encouraging it.Recent Australian research does show that parents with this level of care or more incur relatively significant costs due to the need to provide a bedroom, furnishings, food, clothes, health care and entertainment. The 1996 family law reforms were introduced with the intention of promoting the parenting role of both parents and their continuing role in the lives of their children following separation. Surely this Senate will not lightly walk away from that commitment to children, to the parents who love them and to the parents who are trying to do the right thing by them. Surely, having agreed to a legislative arrangement last June, we will not at the eleventh hour send everything into confusion, produce 5,500 losers and damage the relationship between the two spouses who are trying to have an agreement that works for their children.16:09:0013810Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—The minister's comments about damaging relationships, et cetera, are unfortunate. I think that sets the wrong tone. I want her to answer this question: what will the government do with situations now? Will you automatically split the payment 90-10? What happens to families who have other arrangements? Will it be that automatically you will split the payment between the two parents? Say a mother who is a custodial parent is receiving 100 per cent now: will the effect of this measure be that they will automatically go to 90-10, whether they make application or not?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—The answer to that is yes.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Therefore, Minister, you will be able to detail the number of losers under that proposal—the number of people who will actually lose family benefit automatically as a result of this measure? As you were able to tell us the 5,000, you will be able to tell us how many of the people who get 100 per cent now will get less as a result of this measure. How many is that?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—You said you lose benefit. They are not losing benefit.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—If they get 100 per cent now, and they get 90 per cent tomorrow, don't they lose benefit?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—They are losing a percentage. They are not losing the benefit, which is what you said. I think you want to be very accurate on this.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Minister, I do not want to be patronised. I asked you the question, and it seems it is a sensible question. You can have a semantics debate if you like. You talk about losers, but you only use the losers that you want to use to advance your argument. You have just admitted that, under your provision, parents who are currently getting 100 per cent benefit will receive 90 per cent of the benefit. So they will lose 10 per cent of the benefit. How many of those are in the system? How many people will have their benefits reduced by 10 per cent as a result of this measure?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—There is a difference, Senator Evans. First of all, if I am courteous to you, I do not think it is reasonable for you to suggest that I am patronising you. I treat you as a civilised individual, as I believe you to be.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—You are patronising me.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—I am afraid that that is a defence mechanism on your part; it is not intended.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Everyone thinks you patronise them.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—Some of your colleagues I wouldn't even be terribly courteous to, but I am to you.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Don't patronise me; just answer the question.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—I will answer it too. I'll give you both: 5½ thousand people will lose benefits. That is different from whatever the number of people is who will lose some benefit.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Minister, you have come into this chamber, and you have information that supports your case. We admit this is a balancing argument. We have asked you a reasonable question: how many people will lose benefits as a result of your cutting the benefit from 100 per cent of the rate to 90 per cent of the rate?04:14:0013811Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The issue is a bit complicated because there are a number of people who do not currently claim the 10 per cent. So the law as it now stands is that people who are providing 90 per cent of care are getting 100 per cent of payment, as you know. What that means is we do not go behind that. Centrelink has no reason to know what the numbers are—where there is a 10-90 split. I cannot give you those answers because, unless the other parent has claimed, it is not possible to quantify.04:14:0013811Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—But isn't there also a group of parents who might well be getting 100 per cent of the benefit but providing only 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the care currently? They are going to be major losers as a result of this provision because they will be losing 10 per cent of their benefit automatically. You cannot quantify that. You are very keen to talk about the losers and our amendments, but you cannot tell us the losers in your proposition.We accept this is a balancing act; it was a point I made in the second reading debate. That is why we are not convinced by your arguments. You have not told us the other side of the coin, and that is why we have moved this amendment. We are concerned about the impact. I also want to know whether or not that 10 per cent that will be saved will automatically be paid to the non-custodial parent.16:15:0013811Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I answered that: I said yes.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—So the non-custodial parent will automatically receive 10 per cent of the benefit?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—If they are providing 10 per cent of the care. Currently there is an unfair situation where somebody who is not giving 100 per cent of the care is getting 100 per cent of the payment. Most people would not regard that as fair. Surely the system that you endorsed in June last year is a fairer system—people get paid for the proportion of care that they are providing.16:15:0013811Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I presume that means that you will also be amending the Child Support Act in coming months to reflect that because, as I understand it, the 70-30 provision is reflected in the Child Support Act. It seems to me that there is a live issue about whether someone who provides less than one day a week in care is meeting a direct proportion of the costs as compared to the parent who is providing the home, the clothing, buying the shoes, providing the education—meeting all those expenses. I do not think anyone argues—I do not think you would, Minister—that the percentage of care automatically corresponds with the percentage of the costs. One of the concerns that we have is that 10 per cent represents less than one day a week. So I suspect that, in the majority of cases where this is applied, it represents one weekend a fortnight in terms of the care arrangements I am familiar with regarding children in these sorts of arrangements. Therefore, you have to make a judgment about whether or not they are meeting the full share that the percentage of care represents in terms of the costs, given that the custodial parent is providing the majority of care, purchasing the clothes, providing the education—doing those sorts of things. That is why we have some concerns about the arrangements.But I want to take you back to this question as to who the losers are out of your proposition. It seems to me that there may be a variety of arrangements in care and that these people are automatically going to lose 10 per cent of their current payment even though the other partner may not want it. You were quite disparaging about our attempt to talk about parents coming together and reaching agreement. I accept that those things are difficult, but your provision is to automatically take 10 per cent of the payment off those custodial parents. I am not sure that that is a fairer or more rational way. You have not even consulted those parents about whether they want that to occur. What you are saying to me is that you will do that automatically, and I am not sure that that is a preferable outcome. 16:17:0013812Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think that is a misreading of what the government is doing. The government is actually recognising what is actually happening and what is agreed between the parents. If it is actually happening, why shouldn't the payments reflect the amount of care that is being given? I heard what Senator Evans had to say about the costs of, if you like, the principal carer, but there are quite substantial costs for anybody who is caring for a child every second weekend, half the holidays or every weekend. I understand that, in percentage terms, that is in the mid to upper 20s—approaching 30 per cent. That is a major commitment of your time to your children but it is also a major cost in providing two homes for your children. But do not forget that, in addition to this, the person who is giving, if you like, the secondary care is also providing financial support for the primary carer to enable that education that they are providing or whatever else that you mentioned. AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—And that is calculated elsewhere, is it?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Yes, it is calculated elsewhere but you have to factor this in. We are talking about a dynamic family—dynamic in one sense and with difficulties and problems in another sense because they have broken up—and they have to try to make sure that the new type of family life is the best possible for the children. If you have parents who are prepared to provide not only what they are required to give by law—that is, their child support payments—but also a meaningful secondary home for their children, they are spending a lot of money and time on their children. Do you suggest that that should not be reflected in the payment that would go to that parent for the proportion of time they are actually giving? I am really only concerned that you are allowing a veto between parents who may have difficulties about access and difficulties from time to time about whether child support payments are late or not—you know the typical patterns; that you are putting a veto on the secondary carer getting their entitlement for the percentage of time they are actually giving to care. I cannot imagine that you would think that was fair—unless that is patronising.16:20:0013812Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I have a number of questions for the Minister for Family and Community Services to answer—basically providing her with the opportunity to convince me of her argument. I guess I am starting from a point of needing to be convinced. Firstly, I want to get to this issue that we are overturning something that the parliament agreed to when we passed the Family Assistance Act in, I think, June last year. I accept that it is possible for people to have inadvertently accepted something that they did not realise was in there, particularly given everything that was happening at that particular time, and that the introduction of that fairly major piece of legislation was put through fairly quickly. There were all sorts of reasons for that, and I am not necessarily criticising that process. But, even looking at it now, I am not able to see how this very significant change to implement a new shared care arrangement with this 10 per cent threshold was contained within that legislation.Section 25 of the act mentions a 10 per cent threshold. But, as I read it, that is basically there as a cut-off point to prevent people being able to claim to be the sole claimant of the family tax benefit rather than necessarily to implement a whole new pattern of shared care and shared payment. It is certainly not something that was referred to in the second reading speech and it seems to me quite a significant change. I would ask the minister to outline exactly where in the existing legislation this whole shared care arrangement with the 10 per cent threshold is. What component of the legislation that we agreed to last year is she suggesting that we are completely overturning? Is it simply section 25 or is there some other part of it that I have not picked up on properly? 16:23:0013813Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—In answering Senator Bartlett's questions about the consideration by parliament last year, this is a useful opportunity to put on the record just what did happen. The inclusion of a 10 per cent threshold was clearly stated in the legislation that was passed in June last year. The particular section involved was section 25 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999. It was also clearly described in the explanatory memorandum for the bill, with an example of how it would operate. The legislation was considered by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as you might recall. The committee received submissions from four organisations, a public hearing was held on 13 May 1999 and it reported later that month. One of the submissions, which came from ACOSS, noted in relation to the treatment of shared care that the introduction of a new structure of family assistance `provides an opportunity to make progress towards a more suitable system than we currently have'. The Senate thus had the opportunity to examine and to raise with the government any concerns that it had on the eligibility rules for family tax benefit, and no such concerns were raised at that time in relation to shared care.Going on to the further questions that Senator Bartlett asked, I said earlier that the opposition's amendment is superficially attractive because it does have the appearance of trying to strike a reasonable balance as to the situations in which payment can be shared below a 30 per cent threshold—and Senator Bartlett was asking about thresholds—but it fails to acknowledge that there is not currently a 30 per cent threshold for family allowance, which is the main payment that is being rolled into the family tax benefit. The opposition have been trying to paint a picture that family allowance is based on a 30 per cent threshold, and I think that is perhaps because they make a connection with the child support legislation, which stands separately. Therefore, they would paint a picture that the government is thereby reducing the threshold to 10 per cent. The true picture is that there is no threshold percentage for family allowance now. The amendment from the opposition fails to make it clear that the proposed discretion to allow sharing between 10 per cent and 30 per cent will not apply at all for many parents. The reason for that is the secretary's discretion can only apply if both parents agree for the secretary to determine a percentage between 10 and 30 per cent, and if one parent does not agree then the discretion does not apply. I do not think that is what you really want, Senator Evans. I cannot imagine you do. I would urge you to think again.16:27:0013813Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I wish to go back to the original issue of section 25 in the existing act, which the minister quoted. Section 30 of that legislation specifically stated that only one individual was eligible for the family tax benefit at the same time. It would seem to me that was the wording of what was in the then bill at the time. I know this amending bill seeks to remove section 30 but the bill that we agreed to last year specifically stated that only one individual would be eligible for the family tax benefit at any one time, as I read it. So, in terms of the argument of what the Senate actually unanimously agreed to last year, I think that puts it in a bit of a different situation in terms of this fundamental issue of whether or not we are moving to a system of splitting the family tax benefit between two different people. I acknowledge what the minister is saying about the existing arrangements under family allowance but, of course, there are different arrangements in relation to child support legislation and a number of other existing payments. The current family tax payment uses 30 per cent, child support uses a 30 per cent minimum and I think a number of other payments provide no opportunity for splitting at all. So it still seems to me that it is not so much an issue of whether or not we should have a shared care component in the legislation perhaps but where that percentage line is, which is what the amendment that we are discussing goes to. It still seems to me to be a significant shift to go to 10 per cent. Perhaps the minister could outline a bit more why 10 per cent is such a good idea and why 30 per cent is not. That might provide some assistance.Section 30 of last year's bill does not prevent the sharing of the family tax benefit. It may be useful if I read out the reference in the explanatory memorandum of last year's bill. An example of the operation of section 25 is the situation where parents are separated and one parent, parent A, has the care of the child at all times except for one weekend every month, which is when the other parent, parent B—pursuant to a contact order—has the care of the child. In this scenario, there is a pattern of care each month, during which the child is an FTB child of two individuals at different times during the period. In this scenario, parent B has the care of the child for two days each month—that is, less than the 10 per cent requirement in section 25. Parent B would therefore not be eligible for FTB for the child for the two days each month during which time the child was in his or her care. In this scenario, the secretary would have the discretion to determine that parent A was eligible for FTB for the child for the two contact days of parent B. But, of course, under the amendments coming forward from the opposition, that secretarial discretion would not work unless the parents were agreed.In response directly to Senator Bartlett about the 10 per cent issue, I would argue that 10 per cent is a reasonable test of material care. You must recognise that, even at that level of care, caring for the child incurs significant costs which cannot be ignored. Remember that this parent is also being required to pay child support, so it is in that context. Research that has been done quite recently in Australia shows that parents with that level of care or more incur relatively significant costs, because they need to provide a bedroom, they need appropriate furnishing for children of different ages, they need to provide food and clothes, and children get sick with parent B as they do with parent A. Of course, they also want to have some entertainment together. You must acknowledge that 10 per cent is a reasonable test of material care—after all, we want to encourage the maximum amount of contact. Ideally, we would like them to have fifty-fifty contact, or we would like them to live together and not have any of these arrangements. But surely we do not discourage somebody who, perhaps because of their own ill-health or disability or because of huge work commitments, has limited contact. For some people at a particular stage of life, it is very difficult to put in much more than 10 per cent. But, if you do not give them any recognition that that 10 per cent is significant in the child's life, you are sending a message of `Why bother?' to that parent. I fear that we would not be able to build on that as the relationship developed. It seems to me that even 10 per cent is to be encouraged and supported so that that percentage may grow, as and when the opportunity presents itself for that parent to give more time.16:33:0013814Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I would like to make a couple of comments. I do not agree with Senator Newman's last comments. I accept that we should be encouraging both parents, custodial and non-custodial, to take a role in the care. I do not think any of the measures particularly send a message to one parent of `Why bother?' There is no doubt that, whatever arbitrary level you set, there will be arguments about whether they have nine per cent care or 11 per cent care. And, quite frankly, once couples—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—That is why the discretion is there.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—There is no discretion in this. The arbitrary decision is that they will receive 90 per cent to 10 per cent—that is one of the points I am making. To get back to the central point, I understand that the government applied a 70 per cent-30 per cent split arrangement for many years. That applied in the child support legislation, it applied in the family tax initiative and it applied in the family allowance until the Federal Court decision. It seems to me that the onus is on the government to prove why we should move from the 70-30 split to the 90-10 proposition they are advocating currently. The government have to prove why we ought to move to that. The minister has made some arguments as to what they are doing administratively, but I think the key issue is that the minister has to establish the efficacy of splitting allowances at that low level of care. Traditionally, we have not split allowances at that low level of care. The 70-30 split has been accepted in other legislation. As I said, it applied in the family allowance until it was knocked off in the courts. It applied in the family tax initiative, as I understand it. We are moving to a lower level of care at which we decide to split the payment. That is a decision for this parliament to make, but the onus is on the minister to prove the case for that. We heard some reference to research. The staff of the shadow minister responsible, Mr Swan, asked for that research when they were briefed about the justification for the 10 per cent level. In explaining it then, the minister asked the rhetorical question, `Surely you would agree that 10 per cent is reasonable?' It seems to me that you have to make the case. Surely I would agree that 30 per cent is reasonable, or 20 per cent or 15 per cent. The point is that you are making a change; you have to convince the parliament on what basis that change should be made.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—I'm not—you are.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I argue that you are making a change. There is no doubt that the provision in the original legislation slipped through. This is the first time we have had a debate about shared care. Senator Bartlett's—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—It was in the explanatory memorandum. It was in the committee.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Minister, you would be the first to agree that we have had hundreds of pages of legislation in this package.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—But you also have members on the committee, and you are on the committee.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Yes, and no-one has served more time on those committees than me. I have not seen you there, but I have been there for hours. The point is that this is complex legislation. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages of legislation, and I do not think any minister of the Crown pretends to be on top of every part of the detail, let alone expects every senator or every member of the committee to be. This is the first time that we have had a debate about what we see as a substantial change in approach—that is, about the question of shared care. Senator Bartlett is quite right to say that that went through to the keeper. We did not have a debate about it. It seems that we are able to make changes to parenting payment conditions on the run. The integrity of the package, the integrity of the information mailed out to Australian families, seems to be able to be altered if the government is under enough political pressure to allow for the parenting payment changes. So it seems to me that the argument that the minister adopts about the previous debate on the legislation and about the information is not really convincing. I have got the booklet in front of me now, and I do not think that the sort of proposition we are advocating today would cause too much difficulty.The minister has not been able to give us the details of who are the losers from the government's change. I think that is an important consideration, and saying that you do not know or that you cannot find out just seems a bit too cute. The minister always seems to have a big figure and a big dollar cost for anything the Democrats or the opposition put up, but cannot tell us about the downside of the government's arrangements. The onus is back on the government to prove why we ought to be making these splits in payments at what are relatively low levels of care; levels which traditionally we have not applied, which we do not apply in the child support legislation and which we have not applied previously in the family area. To make the case, the minister made a passing reference to research. I would like to see it—there was no specific reference. What is it that justifies moving to that low level?As I have said all along, it is a balancing act. I have not made any great claims for the Labor amendments. It is a judgment call about such things. This is a very complex area. We think one of the advantages of our approach is that it does encourage parents to work these things through together. We say that the government's approach is arbitrary in that arbitrarily thousands of people who currently receive the payment will have their payment reduced from 100 per cent to 90 per cent, even if the other partner has not applied or does not want it. That seems to me terribly arbitrary. So the claims that we are removing discretion do not sit well with what you are doing. You are immediately removing discretion. You are arbitrarily saying that they will lose 10 per cent of their payment if they have shared care, whereas they might be receiving 100 per cent now. As I say, it is a judgment call. I do not think we have had the debate. I think it is an important issue which we should have debated the first time. I accept some responsibility that we did not have that debate then, that we did not pick it up in the first round of this package of legislation. It is the parliament's role to make those decisions. We do need to make this one. I think the onus is on the government to establish why we should move to the 90-10 split, given what they have done in other legislation and in previous legislation in this area in the life of this government. I do not think that case has been made out. We think the 70-30 split, which has a bit of a precedent to it, is a better arrangement and that is what we argue for.16:40:0013816Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The senator asked about the basis on which we talk about the costs of sharing care. I draw to his attention policy research paper No. 75, published by the Department of Family and Community Services in May 1999, entitled The behaviour and expenditures of non-resident parents during contact visits. It was produced under contract to the department by Murray Woods and Associates. I think that, in the interval when this legislation goes across to the House of Representatives, if this amendment were to be passed—I hope it will not be—perhaps it would be beneficial for the opposition to have a look at that paper as to why we would say that people providing 10 per cent of care should get that recognition in the system. That is the law now. That is what parents are being told is the law now and one million of them have already received that information in their letterboxes.Senator Evans referred to another issue, too, about discretion and about parents getting the fair percentage of care. There is a discretion in existing legislation that, if a parent has less than 10 per cent of care, the other parent can get 100 per cent. They have to meet at least the threshold of 10 per cent in order to get a share of the payment. The government would say that non-resident parents are trying to have contact with their children and, if we do not recognise that, we are sending a message which many men in Australia feel they are getting already. We heard only yesterday in the debate from Senator Harris, who was obviously speaking for a lot of people who feel disaffected by the family law system and the child support system, et cetera. If people are providing at least 10 per cent of care, this parliament has passed a clause which entitles non-custodial parents to get financial recognition for that. If this parliament were to overturn that, you will have even more people who are dissatisfied with the system. There are men who feel that the entire system is against them, and I do not think we want to encourage that attitude in Australia. We have all seen what it has led to in political activity from people who are obviously emotionally very disturbed by the break-up of their families.This legislation has been passed by this Senate after a committee inquiry and the tabling of an explanatory memorandum which spelt out exactly what was happening. There was no attempt to hide it. If, on the eve of the new system, you take this away from people who are providing that care, I think that would be very unjust. This is not something which is a matter for party politics. I think it is very seriously a matter of supporting and cherishing families who have been through a lot of hard times by the time they get to this stage; it is a matter of saying that the parliament of Australia believes that even 10 per cent of care is better for kids than no care from the second parent.16:44:0013817Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I think it is probably best not to get into that whole debate about how fathers are perceiving they are being treated by child support as opposed to how mothers feel they are being treated, because it is a very difficult debate, as all people here would acknowledge. It is probably best not to frame these amendments in the context of that debate if we can help it. Nonetheless, I recognise very much the views and perceptions that the minister just mentioned in relation to people who do not have primary care of their child. I am sure she would acknowledge that there are also very strong feelings amongst people who do have primary care of their child about how the system is treating them, and we need to consider those as well in terms of what their perceptions are about any changes that may be made. I am sure the minister would be aware that there are some perceptions that this 10 per cent threshold is an extra blow for primary caregivers. I will not redebate the meaning of the existing section 30, but in terms of how it reads, where it specifically deals with the situation of two individuals who are not members of the same couple and are not living together, only one can be eligible for FTB in respect of that child at any given time. It still seems to me to read very much to prevent a splitting of the FTB payment. I do not necessarily want to disagree on that, backwards and forwards, ad infinitum.There is one other question I would like to put to the minister. This original family assistance act was brought in as part of a very large number of bills that were part of the new tax system. I am sure each of us has different views about that overall new tax system but, again, there is not much point in revisiting that debate now. As part of people's assessments about the desirability and the overall fairness of that new tax system, there was a lot of modelling done by different people and differing economists. There was a lot of modelling published by the government demonstrating how people would all be better off. I just want to see an indication from them as to whether any of that modelling specifically included people getting only 90 per cent or 75 per cent of the new family tax benefit rather than 100 per cent, as might have been expected. I want to know whether that assessment of the `losers' Senator Evans was talking about will mean their payments will be reduced by a percentage—they will not lose it altogether, but it will be reduced by a percentage—and whether that reduction was factored in to any of the modelling that was done by Access Economics, NATSEM or whoever else at that time.16:48:0013817Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—First of all, Senator, you referred to section 30 in last year's legislation. That was the section in which there was fifty-fifty care between the parents, and that clause allowed one parent to be eligible in the first week and the other parent to be eligible in the second week. So I do not know that that is particularly relevant to what we have in front of us now. I am just wondering whether I could propose something to the chamber that might be a way out for everybody. I hear your concerns and I think my concerns are actually more serious than yours—like in a marriage, you know, we are inextricably bound.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—One marriage is enough for me, Senator Newman, with all due respect.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—One is enough for me, too. Perhaps I could make a suggestion. This legislation is already in place, and the information has gone out to parents, as I said. It would be very, very difficult for parents to have a sudden change in what has been sent to them. In addition, we are talking about $23 million a year of new administrative costs, and I do not think either the opposition or the Democrats would be supportive of that. But during the course of this coming year, if we monitor this measure, I could undertake that we will come back to the Senate and advise whether the concerns of the opposition have actually been borne out in fact. At this eleventh hour, it seems to me that it is not an unreasonable suggestion as a way forward for us all.16:50:0013818Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I am usually the first to indicate that I am happy to try and work through problems. I think previously on social security bills and other related matters we have always attempted to find a solution. That is my basic approach here as well and, if the government is looking to find a way through it, we would be happy to be party to any talks that had a more constructive outcome than sometimes arrives by weight of numbers in the chamber on particular amendments. But I do not know that an offer to monitor is substantial enough to sway me at this stage. I accept the minister's bona fides in making that offer, and I appreciate that, but I think we would want something a bit more substantial. Having said that, I recognise that the Democrats vote with the government—it does not matter what I want and what I say—so I am always a realist about these things. If the minister has something constructive for resolving this that provides greater flexibility and alleviates our concerns, then we would be happy to talk about it. I do not know that in the chamber, on the run, is the way to do it. I am not sure that an offer given by the minister—given with, I am sure, all sincerity—is necessarily enough. I have serious concerns about the approach being taken. If the minister wants to adjourn the bill and have a discussion about a way through, the Labor Party are always amenable to that constructive approach to see if there is more common ground. But, as I said, I am not sure that the offer by the minister really takes us very far. It still leaves us with our particular problem. I am interested to hear what Senator Bartlett has to say. Maybe there is an alternative that the minister might want to consider that might find a middle road. Perhaps I will wait to hear what Senator Bartlett has to say.16:52:0013818Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I would like to thank the minister for that offer she has given. I think it is a good reflection of the fact that all of us, whatever angle we are coming from on this issue, recognise that it is a difficult and complicated one and one where we are trying to get the best outcome in balancing various issues. In terms of the way forward, I am of a mind at this stage to support the ALP amendment. It does not worry me whether the minister wants to have the vote taken and we pass the bill then talk it through while it goes back to the House of Representatives, or whether she wants to adjourn the bill now and we talk through firming up what she has suggested. Either way, we want to nail down a little more specifically how that process might best work before we back away from supporting the amendment. It does not really worry me whether the minister wants to do that through adjourning the bill while we figure that out or whether she wants to pass the bill and give the House of Representatives something useful to do for a change. We could look at it again if she threw it back to us and we could talk to her in the meantime. 16:54:0013818Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The opposition can amend this legislation at any time in the future, so they are not being precluded from the opportunity to try again if they find that, over the course of the 12 months, their fears are borne out. I would have thought that all parties would understand full well now that the huge administrative load that we have all been carrying over the last few months is coming to a peak with 1 July approaching, and all the new requirements for the tax and social security systems are needed to keep things moving. I do not really agree that we could move down an adjournment track. With other legislation coming along behind, it will get swept aside and have difficulty getting back onto the list. My proposal was meant in good faith. There is still an opportunity for this amendment to be brought forward at a later date if the concerns are borne out in fact. The government therefore is not prepared to adjourn the debate and, of course, we cannot accept the amendments.10000McKiernan, Jim (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator McKiernan)—For the record, I ask all concerned, if they have to bring their mobile phones with them into the chamber, to ensure that their mobile phones are turned off.Amendments agreed to.16:56:0013819Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I move amendment No. 4:(4) Schedule 2, page 243 (after line 12), after item 117, insert:117A Section 132Repeal the section.This provision deals with social security appeal rights. It is a matter we have debated on a couple of previous occasions in relation to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 and the Social Security (Administration) Bill 1999 and appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The bill would require any new evidence that comes before the tribunal to be referred back to the original decision maker. We oppose that extra step as we think it would only make appeals more time consuming and complicated. We are not convinced that referring the matter back to the original decision maker is necessary for the evidence to be properly examined. If the tribunal is qualified to examine the appeal case, we believe it is capable of examining any new evidence in that case. We will again move our amendment, as we have in those previous bills, to preserve the current arrangements whereby the tribunal will consider any new evidence on its merits.16:56:0013819Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The amendment will not be opposed by the government.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to with requests.Bill reported with amendments and requests; report adopted.Committees138191381913819Motion (by Senator McGauran, at the request of Senator Allison)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the interim report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee on matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the terms of reference for the inquiry into online delivery of Australian Broadcasting Corporation material be extended to Wednesday, 12 April 2000.Bills13819R101113819Debate resumed from 5 April, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.17:00:0013819Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—The opposition supports the passage of the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, with a proviso in relation to the aspects that change foreign ownership levels. That proviso goes to issuing a strong recommendation to the government to consider certain matters that fundamentally relate to Australian jobs and services in rural and regional Australia. I will come to those matters in a bit more detail when I address the opposition's amendment. I am presuming that the minister is on the way to the chamber, although with this minister one never knows.This bill contains two schedules. Schedule 1 contains the proposed changes to liberalise the foreign ownership restrictions of Australian airlines. It also contains other minor technical amendments to the Air Navigation Act 1920. I will return to address this schedule later. Schedule 2 of the bill increases some of the penalties for breaching curfew legislation at Sydney airport. These amendments increase five-fold the maximum penalty for taking off or landing at Sydney airport in breach of the curfew in the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995. The effect of these amendments is to increase the penalty for an individual operator from 200 penalty units to 1,000 penalty units. For a company, the increase is from 1,000 penalty units to 5,000 penalty units. In dollar terms, the new maximum penalty for an individual operating an aircraft in breach of the curfew will be $110,000 and for a company it will be $550,000. The amendments in items 3 and 4 of schedule 2 apply new maximum penalties for taking off between 10.45 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. from a runway not permitted by the act. These new maxima in section 10 of the act also represent a five-fold increase. They will now be $55,000 for an individual and $275,000 for a company.It is interesting to note that the maximum penalty for breaching some other restrictions imposed by the act has not been changed. I am not sure where the minister is. Hopefully, he may be listening. Missing in action again, perhaps? I draw the minister's attention to the failure of the bill to increase the penalties in section 11. That section imposes a penalty for taking off or landing on a runway not permitted by the act between 6.00 a.m. and 7.00 a.m. or between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. on a Saturday or a Sunday. Whilst the penalties for that section are the same as in the existing section 10, the government has not seen fit to increase these penalties. Other penalties have not changed, such as those for failing to lodge notices for landing noisy aircraft during the curfew or providing false or misleading information. I would normally call on the minister to explain these apparent anomalies. I am not sure if Senator Herron is sufficiently versed. Perhaps, if he is responding in relation to this legislation he could seek advice.VW4Herron, Sen John9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—Senator Herron is not. I would appreciate some advice from the government as to whether Senator Macdonald is going to grace the chamber with his presence or not.I have called on the minister to explain these apparent anomalies that I have outlined. While he is on his feet explaining this apparent oversight in the policy, I also invite him to discuss the situation at Adelaide airport. At the last session of this chamber, we passed the private member's bill of the member for Hindmarsh in relation to the curfew for Adelaide airport. For the final reading of that bill, the Adelaide Airport Curfew Bill 1999, the member for Hindmarsh declined the opposition's offer to work jointly to legislate for the provision of insulation for houses and public buildings affected by noise in the same way as for Sydney residents. The opposition calls on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services to declare a commitment to a combined effort to address that anomalous situation as well. An early indication of how much support the minister has for the new curfew at Adelaide has caused the opposition some concern, and while the minister is on his feet, he may elaborate in relation to that. In a press report in the Adelaide Sunday Mail of 26 March 2000, it was reported that the curfew was broken to assist Ansett to juggle its schedules because of a stop-work meeting. It seems to the opposition that that would not have fitted the criteria for emergencies agreed to by the parliament. But I invite the minister to explain what happened there—if he comes to the Senate.In conclusion, I reiterate the opposition's support for the changes to schedule 2, incomplete as they are. It is not our job to tidy that up; it is the government's responsibility to do that and we call on it to do so. I appreciate there is some evidence provided to the courts that some airlines—and I stress that this is probably a very few—have seen fit or may in the future see fit to ignore the curfew as a cheaper option than delaying a take-off or arrival. It is unfortunate that some show such a lack of consideration for residents. For some, of course, only money talks and for that reason we support an increase in the penalties described. I move:At the end of the motion, add:“but that the Senate, while supportive of the amendment to adjust foreign ownership rules under the Air Navigation Act 1920, considers that in examining a proposal for the sale of shares in Ansett to foreign interests, the Government should take into consideration the view that:(a) Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia;(b) a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International;(c) high skilled, high value Ansett airlines jobs should remain in Australia;(d) Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities not be jeopardised by the sale; and(e) services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels, or improved”.17:06:0013821Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—As has been mentioned, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 deals with two particular issues. Firstly, it increases the maximum penalties payable for breaching the Sydney airport curfew. The penalties will increase by a factor of five. The rationale for this is that it is thought that the current level of fines does not have sufficient deterrent effect. I will refrain at this point from opening the Pandora's box of debate on airport noise other than to say that the Democrats support the increase in penalties.The second issue with which the bill deals is foreign ownership restrictions relating to Australian international airlines. I should note that the bill does not impact on the ownership of Qantas, although presumably the amendments which we propose to give force to today may stand as some sort of precedent in respect of Qantas ownership. Currently the Air Navigation Act 1920 limits the ownership of shares in an Australian international airline to no more than 25 per cent for an individual foreign airline and to no more than 35 per cent in total for all foreign airlines. The bill proposes to remove these restrictions, replacing them with a simple requirement that no more than 49 per cent of an Australian international airline may be owned by foreign persons. These proposals come at a time when Air New Zealand is proposing to acquire News Corporation's shareholding in Ansett Holdings, giving it 100 per cent ownership of Ansett's domestic operations and 49 per cent of Ansett's international operations. The Australian Democrats do not oppose the liberalisation of the foreign ownership restrictions. They will, I believe, result in increased freedom of Australian international airlines to access global equity markets and thus expand globally and compete in the international market. For that reason we support this bill.I would like, though, to comment on two issues arising out of this measure. The first is a procedural matter and the second is a substantive one. These amendments follow from the Productivity Commission report into international air services and the International Air Services Commission report provided to the government on 11 September 1998. It took the government some nine months—until 3 June 1999—to respond to that report and it took a further nine months to draft what appears to be a very straightforward piece of legislation. Subsequent to that, and as a clear result of the proposal by Air New Zealand to buy Ansett, this legislation takes on an incredible priority, which I do not think it can be argued that it would not have had were it not for this transaction being in the wings—pun unintended.This bill had to be exempted from the provisions of standing order 111. That standing order was put in place, I understand, so that legislation would remain on the Notice Paper for a sufficient period to allow public scrutiny and for the public to make representations in accordance with ordinary democratic processes. This legislation was only introduced into the House of Representatives, and consequently publicly available, on 8 March 2000—just five weeks ago. The point I make is that the democratic processes of the Senate and of the parliament should not be curtailed to make up for the dilatory action of the government.The substantive issue I raise relates to the second reading amendment that the opposition has circulated and to which Senator Mackay has spoken. I foreshadow that we will be supporting that amendment. The Australian Democrats are concerned about the potential impact that foreign ownership of our international airlines will have on employment, skills and services in this country. There is also some concern, which I share, that the head office of any Australian international airline should remain in Australia. The action by the Labor Party in circulating its second reading amendment is to be commended, but the Democrats would like to go one step further and put our concerns in the legislation. We would like to entrench in the legislation a requirement that the Treasurer be satisfied as to certain factors when making his decision as to whether or not to approve the transaction as being in the national interest.At present the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act requires that the Treasurer's approval be obtained when a certain level of shareholding is being acquired by a foreign person. When the Treasurer is considering a transaction which involves a foreign person purchasing an airline, the Democrats believe that the Treasurer should be substantially satisfied that the following goals will be met: firstly, that the headquarters of the airline should remain in Australia; secondly, that highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry should also remain in Australia; thirdly, that jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised; and, fourthly, that services to rural and regional communities should be maintained and, if possible, improved.I will digress for a moment and say that it would, of course, have been our preference and would perhaps have been more appropriate from a drafting perspective for these factors to have been contained in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. However, given that that act is not the subject of amendment and debate today through this legislation, these provisions will need to be enacted as part of the Air Navigation Act. I would add that they would have precisely the same effect if they formed part of the Air Navigation Act as they would have if they formed part of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. This amendment is a logical and reasonable extension of Labor's second reading amendment.It has been indicated to me that the Labor Party will be opposing the Democrat amendment. I confess that that perplexes me a little, but I will pursue that a little later at the committee stage. I indicate again that the Democrats support the opposition amendment to the motion before the chair and will support the second reading of the bill.17:13:0013822O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, I am sure you are delighted to be in the chair when we are discussing the aviation industry, given your recent experience with the aviation industry and, indeed, mine. I wish to speak to the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 for a number of reasons, not the least being that air travel is the lifeblood of regional centres like Launceston in my state of Tasmania. Without regular air services, key economic activities, such as tourism, in northern Tasmania would be severely retarded. What is an already unacceptably high level of unemployment would, therefore, deteriorate even further. Since March 1996 and the period of the stewardship of this government, all services to regional Australia—not just aviation—have been under constant pressure in the name of economic efficiency. Under this government, unfortunately, terms like `economic efficiency' mean one thing only—cuts in services. I noted yesterday on the front page of the Launceston Examiner a story headed `North misses out on fares'. People have remarked on the parochial nature of the north versus south debate in Tasmania, but in this case it is not an argument based on a parochial interest in the generally under-stood sense.According to a story in the newspaper, people flying from Melbourne to Launceston would have access to a more expensive dicount fare than people flying from Melbourne to Hobart. For those who are not aware, the flying time from Melbourne to Hobart is around 65 minutes but the flying time from Melbourne to Launceston is about 50 minutes. I understand that that would have been the first occasion that major airline fares to Launceston exceeded those to Hobart. Fortunately, I have been able to ascertain from the newspaper and from other sources that the airlines have now changed their minds. I was talking about both Southern and Ansett-Kendall in respect of that fare structure. So both airlines were at fault in that regard. They have now changed their minds and restructured these fares to ensure that people in northern Tasmania are not disadvantaged—in the sense that they will be paying the same fare—although one can mount an argument that they ought to be paying a lower fare for travelling a significantly shorter distance, given that one would expect that the cost structure of the airlines would be less to travel that shorter distance.In coming to aspects of the legislation, I think it is important to note that the second reading amendment we are proposing—which I understand the government is accepting—is designed to ensure, at least in part, that services to regional Australia are not reduced. I will return to this point later. But going to the detail of the bill, schedule 1 relates to a liberalisation of foreign ownership rules for Australian airlines. At the nub of the opposition's support for the bill is a view that Australian companies must be able to compete on the international stage and that competition can enhance the welfare of and services to our community and economy—notwithstanding the glitch that I just referred to. Australian companies can provide that competition and our community can gain the greatest benefit from it, if they are given the latitude to operate under similar conditions to their competitors.I must add that this argument applies equally to the Australian shipping industry. The minister, Mr Anderson, has two reports. One of these reports which has been available to the government since 1997 argues for government action to ensure that the Australian shipping fleet is able to compete equally with foreign shipping. But Mr Anderson has refused to act, and this key transport sector is being left to wither and die. But I digress.Returning to the bill before us, these amendments seek to remove some of the current restrictions on foreign airlines' ownership and control of Australian international airlines, other than Qantas. At present the Air Navigation Act 1920 limits ownership of shares in an Australian international airline to no more than 25 per cent for an individual foreign airline and no more than 35 per cent in total for all foreign airlines. And I welcome the minister. The amendments remove these restrictions and replace them with a requirement that a foreign person can own no more than 49 per cent of an Australian international airline. This makes that provision more general and removes the distinction between restrictions on airlines and persons. I note for the record that these amendments do not apply to restrictions on the level of foreign ownership of Qantas. Those restrictions are contained in the Qantas Sale Act 1992, and there are no amendments to that act before the Senate. But I would be naïve to infer that these amendments have absolutely no bearing on Qantas. As has been borne out in recent press reports, British Airways has a keen interest in the passage of these amendments. That airline has made no secret of its desire to acquire a larger proportion of Qantas. That decision is not before this house and that debate will occur should amendments to that act be brought forward.There has been a lot of focus on the recent negotiations between Air New Zealand and News Corporation in relation to the sale of News Corporation's share in Ansett domestic. This would give Air New Zealand 100 per cent ownership and control of Ansett domestic. As Ansett domestic owns 49 per cent of Ansett International—an Australian international airline for the purposes of the air services agreements—the amendments before the Senate are important for that deal to proceed. Soon after the announcement of that deal, the public became aware of negotiations between Qantas and Air New Zealand, or at least their significant shareholder, Brierleys, and simultaneously new talks between Ansett and Singapore Airlines seeking to finalise long-term ownership arrangements. It now appears that the talks between Qantas and Brierleys have been suspended, and there is an expectation that the announced deal between Air New Zealand and Ansett may proceed. The opposition has therefore considered this bill in a broad context. In fact, there are 12 airlines that have at one time or another been designated and have received allocations from the International Air Services Commission. Each of these airlines, with the exception of Qantas—for previously stated reasons—and National Jet Systems—because it is no longer an Australian company—would be beneficiaries under the new provisions of the act. Not all of these airlines are currently operating, but it shows the potential for broader application of what is before us. The limits on foreign ownership and control in the Navigation Act 1920 are derived from the provisions in the bilateral air services arrangements. These provisions allow either signatory to an air services agreement to refuse entry of airlines of the other country into their market on the grounds that they are not substantially owned and effectively controlled by nationals of that country.The Productivity Commission inquiry report released in September 1998 provided a focus for considering and reassessing progress with Australia's approach to international air services. When the government announced its response to that report, the opposition welcomed the government's decision to reject the more extreme elements of it. The opposition supported the choice of incremental liberalisation rather than what was proposed, which was a unilateral and unfettered liberalisation favoured by some.There is no sense in giving away rights without getting something back in return, in the opposition's view. The changes before the Senate are part of that incremental approach to liberalisation of international air services. They liberalise ownership and investment arrangements whilst staying clearly within the bilateral air services arrangements. They build on the long and strong history of aviation reform by the previous Labor government. The challenge to any government is to maintain the momentum of change while still delivering a benefit to the Australian community and Australian exporters, including tourism interests, air freight users and Australian international airlines.So ownership and control provisions are a universal feature of an internationally applied framework of bilateral treaties. An individual country cannot progress too far in isolation. The changes put before us in these amendments will assist in airlines' alliance plans, will allow better access to capital markets and will ensure that Australia retains a healthy presence in the international market. At the same time, it sends a message that Australia is continuing to reform and is not a closed country.My colleagues on this side of the chamber share a view that our community is best served by competition, but sensible competition that ensures that we all share in the benefits. That brings me to our second reading amendment with regard to this bill. Should the changes to the foreign ownership provisions in the Air Navigation Act 1920 proceed, it is still up to the government to consider the national interest implications of each application of foreign purchasers of Australian airlines. The government's foreign investment and sectoral guidelines, which are applied through the Foreign Investment Review Board, will also be amended to reflect changes in this bill. Under those sectoral guidelines, the Foreign Investment Review Board can presently only permit approval provided it is consistent with the national interest of acquisition of up to 25 per cent of an Australian domestic or international airline by an individual foreign airline flying to Australia, 40 per cent in aggregate of an Australian domestic airline by foreign airlines and 35 per cent in aggregate of an Australian international airline by foreign airlines.Other foreign investors, including foreign airlines who do not fly into Australia, can acquire up to 100 per cent of an Australian domestic airline. Although the government has been prepared to consider proposals in excess of those standards for domestic airlines in special circumstances, there is no similar exception for international carriers. So, to take advantage of changes arising from this bill, the sectoral guidelines will need to be changed. The Foreign Investment Review Board is also, as I said, required to take account of the national interest. So it is in that area that the government, through the Foreign Investment Review Board, has latitude to examine closely the plans and intentions of proposed investments.The opposition's amendment relates to the proposed investment by Air New Zealand to take over Ansett. Legitimate and expected concerns exist, held by the employees and their representatives, that the deal will not deliver on the expectations of our community. As I said before, the opposition supports globalisation of markets and opening our organisations to foreign ownership, provided there are benefits and provided those benefits are shared and enhance our community.In relation to this proposed deal, there are a number of concerns in the community, and I will enumerate them. There is a concern that Air New Zealand is undercapitalised and that jobs will be cut to provide that injection of funds. The Australian Services Union has a concern that there will be a loss of 2,000 jobs in administration, information technology, engineering and maintenance, and reservations. There is also a concern about a loss of skills and expertise from Australia and that jobs will be transported to purported lower wage markets, particularly in New Zealand. There is a concern that the regional focus of Ansett and its subsidiaries, Kendell, Aeropelican and Skywest, must also be maintained for passenger and trade access to and from regional communities. There is also an issue of just which badged airline—for example, Air New Zealand or Ansett International—will receive what share of future growth in international business. Obviously the fear is that the growth will be through Air New Zealand and that Ansett International will not receive its fair share, with a flow on to jobs and job security.I must say that, after a briefing from Ansett and Air New Zealand on this proposed deal, I personally was far from satisfied on a number of points, particularly on the issue of job security. That is why these amendments we have before us are so important. While it has principally been Ansett employees and their union officials who have raised and campaigned around these issues, they are echoes of the fears in the broader community. They are concerns that we are hearing continually: concerns about jobs, the maintenance of skills, job securityfor those who have jobsgrowth for the future and access for members of our community to aviation services.In considering the decision on the effective takeover of Ansett by Air New Zealand, the Foreign Investment Review Board and the government must obtain commitments from Air New Zealand to address these concerns. Through this amendment we are calling on the government to pursue assurances from Air New Zealand that ensure the benefits of liberalisation of ownership and the opening of this airline will be shared. We seek to ensure that Ansett remains headquartered in Australia, firstly. This is to be sure that the significant presence of this Australian airline remains in Australia. The message from all is that this airline is important to our community and for jobs, and that this community wants the company to still identify with Australia and to have its main office here, with the jobs that go with it. Those headquarters must be more than just a building. If the new entity fails to honour the commitments it has given to both the government and the opposition, we believe it must be held accountable. The company must therefore have a management presence in Australia such that it can be held accountable. I seek confirmation on that point from the minister. I want to know where we go and whom we go to when and if there is such a problem. The second point I want to raise is that a fair share of future growth in Air New Zealand's international routes will be through Ansett International. Again, this is about aspirations for growth and to address the concern that growth will be shared between the airlines in a fair manner for their common owner. The third point I want to raise is that high skill, high value Ansett Airlines jobs remain in Australia. Again, this is about growth and about ensuring opportunities for quality of life for current and future generations. It is about getting a fair share of the benefits of growth, globalisation and competition, not just a share for the shareholders and executives.The issue of skill shortages in the aircraft, engineering and maintenance areas has been raised in the media and in the Senate. I have been informed that Qantas is already employing skilled licensed aircraft maintenance engineers from overseas. Australian airlines must address these skill shortages in the interests of the community and the economy. Points (d) and (e) of the amendment go to the retention of jobs and services and to the potential for growth in services in regional and rural communities. These points are about ensuring that regional communities do not pay the price of cheaper airfares on popular routes. In conclusion, I would like to say that the opposition will not decline to give this bill a second reading. But, in relation to the announced deal between News Limited and Air New Zealand, we are urging them in the strongest possible terms to exercise the powers they have to ensure, firstly, that Ansett Australia remains headquartered in Australia; secondly, that a fair share of the future growth in Air New Zealand's international routes be through Ansett International; thirdly, that high skill, high value Ansett jobs remain in Australia; fourthly, that Ansett jobs in regional and rural communities not be jeopardised by the sale; and, fifthly, that services to regional and rural communities be preserved at current or higher levels. We ask and, indeed, expect the government to support our second reading amendment. The Democrats have indicated they will support it. 17:31:0013826Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator O'Brien for his quite clinical assessment of the legislation and of the points involved in the government's bill. Senator O'Brien has gone into it at some length, and that means that I will not have to go into it to the same length, as the senator is clearly already aware of the purpose of the bill and what it actually says. I apologise to Senator Mackay and Senator Greig for not being present in the chamber during their speeches on the second reading, although my advisers have been here and they have indicated a couple of specific issues that I will try to address. I would not normally absent myself from any debate in which I am involved; however, I am sure other senators will excuse me on this occasion. I was involved with members of the Youth Roundtable, who have come along to see how the parliament sometimes works. We have been waiting for this bill for several days, and it happened to come on at the very time when I did not want it to—when I was with the young people. Their timetable is very tight.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien—It is Murphy's Law.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—As Senator O'Brien said, it is Murphy's Law. The government did announce in a joint statement on international air services in June 1999 that it would, among other things, reform the foreign ownership rules for Australian international airlines other than Qantas. You might recall that the arrangement up to that time was that any single foreign airline could have a 25 per cent interest in Australian flagged international airlines, or any group of foreign carriers could have a 35 per cent interest. But we announced back in June 1999 that we were going to amend that to give Australian flagged international carriers the right to get more capital and to get the expertise that international airlines could provide.I understand that Senator Greig, in his speech on the second reading, complained that the Senate did not have enough time to consider the bill in full. However, as I said, this policy of the government has been around for more than nine months, and a lot of work has been done with it. I might say to the opposition how gratifying it is that the government and the opposition can work together in the interests of Australia's airline industry. I appreciate the work that Mr Martin Ferguson, the shadow minister in the other chamber, and his staff, have done in conjunction with Mr Anderson and his adviser in coming up with a suitable outcome for this needed legislation. The reason I think everyone supports it, including the Democrats, is that the benefits of international air travel are increasingly important to the Australian community. Tourism is now Australia's largest single export industry, with earnings of some $16.3 billion in 1998-99. Of course, the international tourism industry creates jobs for Australians, and, as I was saying to members of the Youth Roundtable earlier, it is the type of activity that will provide jobs for young Australians, particularly in rural and regional Australia where young Australians are looking for work. Tourism in rural and regional Australia is increasing, and I might sound a bit parochial when I keep mentioning Longreach in my state of Queensland. It was a wool community in years gone by, but it has now turned around quite substantially. While the annual income from wool in the Longreach area is about $22 million annually, from tourism it is around $45 million. It just shows how important tourism is to regional and remote Australia; and of course the airline industry brings in foreign tourists to our country.International air services also carried some $53 billion worth of freight into Australia in the year ended December 1999. But Australian international airlines do compete in a global market, and to maintain and increase their market share they must be given the opportunity to develop attractive products for consumers, based upon their assessment of commercial demands. They do that either in their own right or in partnership with airlines of other countries.The system of bilateral arrangement, where countries that govern international aviation impose national ownership and control restrictions to regulate entry into the international aviation market, does apply. These commonly require that international airlines be substantially owned or effectively controlled by either party to a bilateral agreement. Australia's current ownership control requirements mean that expansion of our international airlines can be assisted only to a limited degree at the present time by drawing upon foreign investment. The current arrangements encourage high levels of debt rather than obtaining equity to fund long-term expansion. In a cyclical industry like the international airline industry, this is not a very desirable method of funding expansion.As Senator O'Brien said, this bill, if enacted, will amend the ownership and control requirements to provide for up to 49 per cent foreign ownership of Australian international carriers, other than Qantas—and I emphasise that Qantas is dealt with separately in other acts—with no distinction between foreign airlines and other foreign investors. This will set the level of foreign equity in Australian airlines at the limit that our bilateral partners are likely to accept. The amendments to the Air Navigation Act proposed in this bill do not apply to Qantas. The arrangements for Qantas are legislated for in the Qantas Sale Act. This amendment bill also contains a provision relating to the Sydney Airport Curfew Act, and there are some amendments to that. They have been debated here by other senators, and they are fairly sensible amendments that all parties to this bill actually support.I emphasise that, whilst understandably the discussion in the Senate today has been about Ansett and Air New Zealand, and Air New Zealand's buying out of News Limited's share in Ansett, this bill does not relate only to Ansett. It relates to any airline that has a majority Australian ownership and which flies and is licensed to fly internationally. These liberalised foreign ownership restrictions—the 49 per cent—will benefit every Australian company that seeks in the future to operate international air services. I also emphasise to the Senate and to those who may have an interest in this bill that the bill does not represent government approval for the Air New Zealand takeover of Ansett. The government is considering that bid through a parallel process under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. As Senator Mackay and Senator O'Brien have said, the opposition has a second reading amendment to the bill, and I can confirm that we will be supporting that amendment. We are considering the headquarters issue and the future of Ansett International, and we are of course considering the regional implications of the bid.I understand that Senator Greig has foreshadowed a Democrat amendment. We will not be supporting the amendment because we do not think it is necessary—in fact, we think it is redundant. We will be considering all of the issues set out in the amendment proposed by the Democrats as we work through the proposed takeover. I want to emphasise to the Senate that we are examining the proposal very closely and very rigorously, and Ansett and Air New Zealand cannot take the government's approval for granted. Mr Anderson and the government agencies that support him in these considerations will be very closely looking at the Air New Zealand takeover.In addition to our own considerable in-house capabilities, we have commissioned outside financial advisers to provide us with additional advice about the financial sustainability of that proposal. I suppose it could be argued that the amendment is necessary because some future government might not follow the same rigorous approach that this government has adopted; however, I cannot imagine any government, current or future, that would not consider the points set out in the Democrats' amendment as a matter of course. We believe that the Democrats' amendment would simply clutter up the Air Navigation Act with an unnecessary statement of what is obvious. I also suggest that, even if we were inclined to support what the Democrats are saying in a legislative way, we would not be supporting it under the Air Navigation Act. It would seem that the place for a debate on these sorts of matters would be when parliament is considering any amendments to the Foreign Acquisition and Takeovers Act, which is the more appropriate place for the types of amendments that the Democrats are proposing.I understand that Senator Mackay in her address sought an explanation as to the disparity between the fine for breaches at Kingsford Smith Airport in Sydney—which are a maximum of $550,000 under this bill—and the maximum fine that applies in Adelaide, which is $110,000. The current maximum fine for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport is $110,000. In response to Senator Mackay, I indicate that the government have identified that there is a particular enforcement problem at Sydney airport. Without overstating the obvious, it sometimes became a paying proposition for an international airline to deliberately breach the curfew, knowing that even if the maximum fine of $110,000 were imposed, they would still be better off. The consequences sometimes of missing a flight, all of those things like not being able to take off at the right time, having to put up passengers in a hotel—and in a big aircraft there are a lot of passengers—and rescheduling can become a very expensive exercise for the airline involved. Some of them may have thought at times that they would be better off to pay the fine and to send the aircraft out in the curfew time rather than to abide by the curfew. That is the reason why we have increased the maximum fine applicable at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport.Senator Mackay questioned why this did not apply to Adelaide. The answer to that, Mr Acting Deputy President Ferguson, is that your state of Adelaide is not quite Sydney and Adelaide Airport is certainly not Kingsford Smith Airport, and we expect that there will not be the same sort of incentive to breach the curfew at the Adelaide Airport as there is, for the reasons I have mentioned, at Sydney airport. There have been a number of breaches at Sydney airport. There has recently been a successful prosecution. I am unaware of any breach of curfew at Adelaide airport. If there have been any, the problem is not very great. Accordingly, the fine has been set at the lower level. But if it becomes obvious—if history shows—that there is an increase in the breaches of the curfew at Adelaide airport, then the government will not hesitate to increase the penalties to bring them into a higher category. But, to this date, there has not been any factual evidence which has necessitated the government looking at that. That is why the difference has occurred.I thank those senators who have participated in the debate and commend to the chamber the bill and the second reading amendment that has been moved by Senator Mackay on behalf of the opposition. Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time13828The bill.17:47:0013828Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—I move Democrat amendment No. 1:(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 5), after item 12, insert:12A After section 11AInsert:11AA Decisions in relation to foreign shareholdingsIn making any decision required to be made under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 in relation to the acquisition of a shareholding to which section 11A applies, the Treasurer must be satisfied that the acquisition will not result in any of the following goals not being substantially met:(a) the goal that the headquarters of an Australian airline should remain in Australia;(b) the goal that highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry should remain in Australia;(c) the goal that jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised;(d) the goal that services to rural and regional communities should be maintained and, if possible, improved.As I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, this amendment calls on the Treasurer, when making a decision as to whether the national interest is served by permitting a transaction to proceed, to be satisfied that the acquisition will result in a number of goals being met. Specifically, these goals are as follows: firstly, that the headquarters of an Australian airline should remain in Australia; secondly, that highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry should also remain in Australia; thirdly, that jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised; and, fourthly, that services to rural and regional communities should be maintained and, if possible, improved.While we are satisfied that, on balance, the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 will be beneficial to the Australian aviation industry, we do have concerns—and I think they are reasonable concerns—about the potential for a foreign acquisition to impact adversely on these issues contained within the amendment. I have been written to—as, I am sure, the government and opposition have—by the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, amongst others, and their correspondence said in part:Unlike News Corporation, which had a significant national presence within all regions of Australia, Air New Zealand has no domestic presence in, or demonstrable concern for, rural Australia. Decisions to rationalise services and withdraw from uneconomic routes affecting both the level of service provided and the ongoing employment of local people within the community would not have to be counterweighed against public sentiment, media comment and political response.What I would like to make clear is that I am not suggesting that the Air New Zealand purchase of Ansett will result in a reduction in services to regional Australia, nor am I saying that the transaction or any other airline acquisition will result in a massive loss of skills to foreign countries. What I am saying is that when the Treasurer is reviewing these sorts of transactions he needs to have at the forefront of his mind the goals I have outlined, and those goals should be expressly set out in the legislation.We have just passed a second reading amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party. As I indicated during my speech in the second reading debate, I have been advised that the Labor Party will be opposing this Democrat amendment. That does perplex me a little, and I would like to compare my amendment to the second reading amendment just passed. The Labor Party's second reading amendment expressed that, in examining the proposed sale, the government should consider, firstly, that Ansett Australia should remain headquartered in Australia. My amendment also provides that the headquarters of an Australian airline should remain in Australia. The second reading amendment states that `a fair share of future growth in routes should be through Ansett International.' That is an Ansett specific issue. My amendment does not deal with that because my amendment applies across any transaction involving the purchases of an Australian airline. The second reading amendment also states that `high skilled, high value Ansett airlines jobs should remain in Australia.' My amendment also provides that highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry should remain in Australia. The second reading amendment states that `jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised by the sale,' and my amendment also provides that jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised. The second reading amendment states that `services to regional and rural communities should be preserved at current levels, or improved. My amendment provides that services to rural and regional communities should be maintained and, if possible, improved. So you can see very clearly the similarities. My probably rhetorical question to both the senator representing the minister and to the opposition spokesperson on aviation, Senator Mackay, is this: could you please explain to me—and to the aviation industry presumably—why you cannot and will not support this amendment, given that you have just supported a motion which has almost identical terms? The second reading motion that we have passed today is all well and good as it relates to the Air New Zealand Ansett acquisition but it only relates to that transaction. Senator Mackay, with respect, I ask: what happens when the next foreign acquisition of an Australian airline happens? There will be no motion before the chamber which you will be able to amend, as you have done on this occasion. I worry that perhaps the Labor Party's professed commitment to rural and regional Australia and to the aviation industry on this issue is more cursory than sincere.Senator Macdonald, you stated in your address, in your second reading speech, that the amendment I am proposing here really ought to have been done under a different act. I did speak to that in my speech in the second reading debate and I did acknowledge that. Yes, it would be better dealt with there but the fact is we do not have that opportunity before us now and I am simply seeking the opportunity to secure that here. Minister, you also said that you see this Democrat amendment as being largely redundant, unnecessary as it were. I disagree with you, but if that is the case then just support it. If it is redundant, okay, fine—support it, we move on and it does not matter. The fact that you will not support it and yet you argue that it is redundant suggests to me that your argument is not very solid. So my plea at this late stage—and I understand that the government and opposition still oppose this amendment—is that this amendment is, I believe, a better and stronger one in terms of what we are trying to achieve here because, quite simply, a second reading amendment, as government and opposition senators know, simply does not have the imprimatur or the legal standing that a proper amendment does. I think this is a more sincere and comprehensive amendment and I seek in committee support for it.17:54:0013830O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I intend to respond to Senator Greig in relation to his amendment but the first thing I want to do is remind the minister that, in my speech in the second reading debate, I referred to the commitments that have been given by Air New Zealand that the headquarters of Ansett will remain in Australia and that there is a variety of other commitments that have been given by Air New Zealand. I suppose in part I would be dealing with Senator Greig's amendment in saying this, but what I said was that the headquarters for the airline needed to be more than just a building and that, if the new entity failed to honour its commitments, then it had to be held accountable. I wanted to know where we would go if the new airline did not maintain that commitment and if it established its headquarters outside of Australia, so perhaps you might deal with that.Let me deal with Senator Greig's amendment and say that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment. The proposed amendment makes a major change to the Air Navigation Act 1920 that will impact on other significant legislation, in particular the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. The opposition have been involved in discussions on this issue for some time and we regard this in some ways as a me-too option—and certainly as a last-minute option which seeks to impose the name of the Democrats on the debate at a very late stage—because, frankly, the Democrats were absent from any discussions and proposed no ideas when options for addressing these concerns were being resolved earlier.The proposed amendment, which we saw yesterday, would in many respects be legislating with haste and with consequences that, I would suggest, would not be clear were we to pass the amendment. In the opposition's view, the amendment would do nothing more to assist the concerns of the community and Ansett staff than those that have been encapsulated in the agreement with the government, which are represented at least in part by the second reading amendment to the bill which has been carried, given particularly that that amendment had the support of the government as well as the opposition. Our second reading motion considered all the goals that are described in the Democrat amendment and more, as I think was just conceded by Senator Greig. Labor's second reading motion dealt with the issue of Ansett International receiving a fair share of the growth in business of the whole airline and, through the Labor second reading amendment, we have given these issues the profile they deserve for the government's deliberations through the Foreign Investment Review Board process.Legislation relating to foreign ownership and arrangements of this type is not for last-minute agreement and policy-making. Indeed, the government is on notice that the community is watching on all the fronts referred to in our second reading amendment, such as Australian headquartering, retention of skills in Australia, Australia receiving a fair share of the growth in the business, retention of rural and regional jobs, and retention and improvement of services in regional Australia. We do not think the Democrat amendment will add anything in practice to the deal, which if it is not the impetus for the bill is certainly substantially affected by the amendments to the bill. If you go to the amendments themselves, remember that in the amendments we are talking about changes to law and expecting that at some stage, if there is a dispute, some court will be asked to interpret them and to give them a meaning. Take where it says for example: ... the Treasurer must be satisfied that the acquisition will not result in any of the following goals not being substantially met:The question that I posed to the minister about the substance of compliance and, for example, Air New Zealand having its headquarters in Australia would not be dealt with, in our view, by the words in (a):(a) the goal that the headquarters of an Australian airline should remain in Australia ...That could be a building and a skeleton operation. There is substantial room for argument in terms of those words. It goes on:(b) the goal that highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry should remain in Australia ...How many? Where? The amendment is not adequate in terms of what I think the Democrats are seeking to achieve. With due respect, the Democrats have put something together quickly and have piggybacked on our second reading amendment, thinking that it was probably better that it be in the bill. We do not think so. We think that the inclusion of these words adds little. I could go on—(c) and (d) are equally vague about the requirements on, say, a prospective joint venture partner in an Australian operation. Given that the government has substantial control of the process, it is a matter for government—and we expect to be in government in a very short period of time—to implement the desires of the community. The government retains control over that through the legislation that will be in place following the passage of this bill, without this amendment. Were Senator Greig able to demonstrate that that was not the case—and I am sure that he cannot—then we might have concerns. But, looking at the amendment, reading it and trying to understand how it would be interpreted, the reality is that it is so broad and vague that—as I think Senator Greig and others know—the legal profession would drive a phalanx of big trucks through it. Forgive me, Senator Greig, but the opposition think that your amendment is well intentioned but is, firstly, unnecessary and, secondly, inadequate in achieving the aim that you require. It is a matter for the deliberations of the executive as to how they implement this matter, and it is better done that way than in some legalistic way. Indeed, any government which did not have regard to the issues contained in the second reading amendment—and indeed in your amendment—would risk the opprobrium of the Australian people. The opposition will not be supporting this amendment, and we continue to support the bill unamended.18:03:0013831Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Greig has proposed his amendment, and I confirm that we will be opposing it for the reasons that I mentioned when concluding the second reading debate. Even if we were inclined to support it, it is in the wrong bill anyhow. Whilst I have not looked at the constitutional questions and I am not as familiar with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act as I expect I should be—as, no doubt, all other senators are—it would seem to me that imposing these sorts of obligations on the Treasury in considering matters under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act through an amendment to this bill, an aviation legislation bill, would not be appropriate. I can only repeat to Senator Greig that the substantive parts of his amendment are, as he rightly points out, very similar to the second reading amendment, but they are the sorts of goals that any government, regardless of its complexion, would obviously take into account. Naturally enough, we as a government would hope—and any government would hope—that the headquarters of an Australian airline would remain in Australia. Obviously, any Australian government would also want highly skilled, high value jobs associated with the aviation industry to remain in Australia. It is, after all, an Australian airline. It is an Australian government looking after Australian interests. Why conceivably would any government—this government or a future government—do otherwise? The amendments include:(c) The goal that jobs in rural and regional Australia should not be jeopardised;(d) The goal that services to rural and regional communities should be maintained and, if possible, improved.Senator Greig hits a soft spot with me on those areas as I am a major user of regional airlines, and I continue to have my say to the companies concerned about the services they provide, their frequency, their continuity and the type of aircraft that they use. I would say, Senator, that those things are a given. As I said in my second reading speech, we are not really inclined to clutter a piece of legislation with amendments that really do not mean anything, that are not appropriate to this act in any case and that would just add verbiage to the legislation, making it more complicated for anyone to read.In answering Senator O'Brien, can I go on to say that the amendment moved by the Labor Party has been supported—perhaps I could almost say enthusiastically supported—by the government. I think that gives an indication to anyone who might be using the provisions of this act at any time in the future of what this government and—on the basis that any alternative government would only be a Labor Party government—any Labor government would do in considering these matters.The opposition's second reading amendment clearly indicates the government's view. It is fairly obvious that those issues will be taken into account very carefully and appropriately by the Treasurer in assessing the application under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. I do not think we can pervert the course of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the decisions that the Treasurer will have to make under that act by being any more prescriptive, but the intention of the government is clear. If it is an Australian airline, that airline obviously will have to deal with the government for a long time in the future. I am quite confident that the Australian international airlines will work cooperatively with Australian governments, of whatever persuasion, in the interests of the Australian people.18:08:0013832Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—I will reply briefly to some of the feedback I have received from the government and the opposition. Firstly, if I can address some of the comments that Senator O'Brien made, there was much wonderful hyperbole about how allegedly terrific the Labor Party amendment is—it is in sentiment, but it is not in practice. While the ALP amendment largely seeks to do all those things which the Democrat amendment does, the fact remains that, as a second reading amendment, the Labor Party's motion has absolutely no legislative impact—nil—as opposed to the Democrats' amendment, which would have legislative impact. So you are either really serious about addressing these issues or you are not. I also make the point, which seems to have been overlooked by opposition members, that the opposition amendment, now passed, relates only to the Ansett deal. It makes no reference to or provision for potential future deals. So there is a flaw there. In reply to what appears to be the major criticism from the minister with regard to my amendment that it is untidy effectively, that it clutters and that what we need is simplicity, that strikes me as odd. Since when has the parliament been interested in simplicity rather than clutter?YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian Macdonald—We try.86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—If you have time on your hands, Senator, the tax act makes for great reading. I also make the point that, contrary to your claim, Minister, I am very confident that there are no constitutional questions in relation to whether this amendment ought to be applied here or to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. Quite simply, if my amendment were to be out of order, then I would be ruled so by the chair and there is no indication of that. On that basis, I summarise by arguing strongly and rightly that this is the better amendment, it is the more sincere amendment. If you are genuinely concerned about Ansett headquarters, if you are genuinely concerned about services to rural and regional areas, if you are genuinely concerned about Australian jobs, then legislate so, do not simply indicate so. Labor's amendment is simply indicative, not prescriptive. In summary, I remain committed to what, fundamentally, is the best amendment in this regard. It is certainly more comprehensive in its potential application and I seek the support of the committee for it.18:11:0013833O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I cannot resist responding briefly. Senator Greig's comments are equal to a red rag to a bull. Let me ask Senator Greig whether he can tell us how his amendment would require a particular proportion of skilled jobs to remain in Australia. Frankly, it does not. Let me ask Senator Greig how his amendment would require headquarters to remain in Australia. Frankly, it does not. As I said earlier, for a company seeking to participate in Australia, it is a much stronger position to negotiate and give undertakings to the government about its ongoing intentions than to have a single-barrier test applied, which is what your measures would be because they are aims. Once in, once the takeover has taken place, the amendment you propose would have no effect. That is the problem with trying to legislate on the run in this area. Were you to be successful in your desire, as I take it from your amendments, you would have to be proposing a much more prescriptive provision requiring ongoing actions by the company seeking to take over. The reality is that, with the support of the government, our amendment has obtained a public commitment to seeking those undertakings as a prerequisite to the takeover. The honour of the company taking over in this case will be tested if they breach those undertakings. To achieve the alternative which you seek, which I think is something more than the undertaking that we are going to get in this and, I suspect, in every other case that is a takeover—and it cannot be Qantas, as I established in my speech in the second reading debate because it does not apply to Qantas, so we are talking about Kendell, Impulse or Aeropelican, or something like that, which are subsidiaries of Ansett and already taken over, or we are talking about Southern Airlines which are subsidiaries of Qantas; I am not sure where we are headed, but something will arise in the future and I am sure that the parliament has legislative powers for the future as well—the opposition believes it has come up with measures which, in effect, I think your amendment says are required. What we are saying is that you cannot throw an amendment of this nature on the table and think you are going to achieve that because you will be establishing not an arrangement which requires a relationship with the government of the day and governments for the future, but a simple one-barrier test which can be processed through the courts and, once passed, the matter is at an end. That is one of the fatal flaws in your amendment. The reality is, frankly, that your amendment is `me too' and you are seeking now to say, `We're doing better because we want to put this in the bill.' I am suggesting to you that you will be achieving a lesser outcome by putting this into the bill.18:15:0013833Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—Just quickly in reply, I cannot agree. I think perhaps Senator O'Brien has misunderstood me. I think he feels we are trying to do something which we are not. All this amendment seeks to do is ensure that these criteria are for consideration. They are not proscriptive rules. All we are requiring here is that there be active consideration of the issues. That is all that they are designed to do.Question put:That the amendment (Senator Greig's) be agreed to.18:20:00The Senate divided.(The Temporary Chairman—Senator J.P. McKiernan) 10Allison, L.F.Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.37Bishop, T.M.Campbell, G.Carr, K.J.Chapman, H.G.P.Conroy, S.M.Cooney, B.C.Crane, A.W.Crossin, P.M.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Lightfoot, P.R.Ludwig, J.W.Lundy, K.A.Macdonald, I.Mackay, S.M.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.O'Brien, K.W.K *Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Quirke, J.A.Ray, R.F.Schacht, C.C.Sherry, N.J.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Watson, J.O.W.Question so resolved in the negative.Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.13834Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald) read a third time.Bills13834R1008BillsR100913834Debate resumed from 3 April, on motion by Senator Ellison:That these bills be now read a second time.18:23:0013834Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I rise to speak on the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 and the associated bill and will be addressing most of my remarks to the question of the taxation treatment of charitable institutions and not-for-profit organisations and the measures that are contained in the bills. Other senators from the opposition will address some of the broader economic issues and other issues in the bills. I do not profess to be expert in those areas, and I think Senator Sherry and others will address some of those areas. I have taken an interest in this particular measure and its impact on the charitable and not-for-profit sector, mainly because of my shadow ministry responsibilities and also because of the inquiry into the goods and services tax conducted by the community affairs committee last year when a range of these issues were raised constantly with us and when, to be brutally frank, a lot of organisations said that the impact of the FBT changes would be more serious for them than any of the GST changes because much of the not-for-profit area was largely GST free and the FBT changes were going to have a very serous effect on their ability to provide services.I move a second reading amendment on behalf of the opposition: Omit the words after “That”, substitute:“further consideration of the bills be an order of the day for the day after the day on which a report is tabled in the Senate of an independent inquiry established by the Government, after consulting the not-for-profit sector on membership and terms of reference, to: (a) investigate and update the definitions of `public benevolent institution' and `charitable institution' for the purposes of tax law; and (b) inquire into the appropriate taxation treatment of charitable and not-for-profit organisations and the public hospital sector”.In moving this amendment, Labor are seeking to ensure that the debate about this bill is an informed debate. I will come back to this theme later in my speech, but we are seeking to make sure that the decisions we make on the taxation treatment of the charitable and not-for-profit sector are informed decisions. Our main thesis is that we are not in the position to do that at the moment and that we do not have enough information about the impact of these changes. I think the GST community affairs committee inquiry threw a lot of light on some of those problems, but we still have not come to terms with the serious impact these changes may have on the not-for-profit sector and particularly on the services they deliver to the most disadvantaged in the community—the disabled, the poor, the aged and the Aboriginal medical sector.These are very serious issues. Our major concern is that we do not have enough good information about the impact on those organisations and that we should not be making massive changes to their taxation treatment without that information. It is the case that Labor had supported a position prior to the last election very similar to the government's which sought to cap fringe benefits tax arrangements. We still support the need for capping, the need for transparency and the need for accountability in terms of these provisions. I do not think that there is anybody in this chamber who has an alternative view. We are arguing about the level of the cap, how it is applied and who it is applied to. I want to make it very clear that the Labor Party do support the cap. We are most dissatisfied with the current arrangements whereby informal advice from the tax office is provided to organisations. They have been basically advised that 30 per cent salary packaging is acceptable and that, provided they do not go over that limit, the tax office will not call on them or ask them to assist them with their inquiries. So it has become a bit of a benchmark in the industry. That is not a very satisfactory way of doing it, and we support the view of the government that we need to regulate that and that we need to find a much better and more transparent way of dealing with this issue.Before I continue, I just want to say that, in terms of the second reading amendment, we are obviously looking to defer consideration of these FBT changes for not-for-profit organisations and charitable institutions. That is the impact of our amendment. We are not proposing to delay the rest of the bill and clearly we are suggesting by this measure that, if we are successful with the amendment and the government wants to continue proceeding with the rest of the bill, we will be happy to facilitate that. I understand that there are other measures in the bill about grossing up the formula for fringe benefits that are not the subject of the concern I am expressing now, and we would anticipate those going ahead. But we are concerned to deal with the issues of the impact of the FBT on the not-for-profit sector that I have just raised.It is important that we get some certainty into this issue, because there are people currently working in not-for-profit, public hospital and charitable institutions who are unclear as to what their current conditions of employment are. Because of the government's announcement of 1 April as the operative date, people actually do not know what their current conditions of employment are. Most employers have been slow to make changes because they know that the bill has not been passed. They know there is a live debate in the parliament about the conditions that ought to be applied to the not-for-profit sector. There are people who operate under awards, under agreements and in unregulated employment conditions who have a set of employment arrangements that have been thrown up in the air. They do not know how they stand. Like other senators, my office has been getting lots of calls from people saying, `What does this mean for us? How do I arrange our affairs? Have I effectively just had a salary reduction?' and we cannot answer those questions. It is important that we get some certainty to it, that we get something that allows people to operate with a degree of certainty and allows them to plan. I am sure the government says, `Well, if we can just pass the legislation, everything will be certain,' and in a sense that is right. But there are issues we think need to be debated and resolved, and we do not think the government's approach is necessarily the correct one.The issue was the subject of submissions to the Community Affairs Committee inquiry into the government's tax package which reported to the Senate in March last year. However, at the time the government signalled that it was unable to comprehensively examine the impact of the proposed FBT changes. In October last year, Labor called for an independent inquiry into this issue. We gave the government notice that we were concerned about the evidence arising from those inquiries, that we were concerned about the evidence being put forward by the charitable and not-for-profit sector, and that we thought an independent inquiry into this issue was warranted. The government has ignored that request. While the government may want to claim that it is a bit late to be moving this amendment, the reality is that we have had a consistent position calling for some sort of inquiry to resolve some of these important public policy issues at stake here and get some clarity as to some of the issues that are causing confusion.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray—For many months.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Yes. We have had this position since October and we thought that the government may well adopt it. We have advocated a Ralph style inquiry into the not-for-profit sector, to give them the same sort of treatment that the business community received, in terms of an overall look at the taxation treatment of the charitable sector.3M6Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray—As have the Democrats.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Yes, the Democrats have as well. I think there has been a consensus in the sector that that would be useful. As a result of this legislation being put off and the government not responding to that request, we are now in the situation where the operative date has passed, we have not got legislation in place and we have not had a resolution of those public policy issues.In my amendment today, I try and throw the issue back to the government in the sense of them consulting with the sector about having an independent inquiry. I also have a motion on the Notice Paper about a Senate committee inquiry. Being frank and to be fair to the senators on the committee, including me, it is a second-best option. I do not think we have the same level of expertise and resources that an independent inquiry could bring to the issue. We would do a professional and reasonable job, but I think that a Ralph style inquiry would be a better and more comprehensive option and one which would take those great public policy issues a bit further. If this approach is rejected by the government, then we will pursue the Senate inquiry approach. That issue has been on the Notice Paper for some time. At the request of the Democrats, I have delayed it as we have tried to find a way through these issues. As I say, I think the independent inquiry would be the better option given the scale of the changes proposed, the number of organisations affected and the impact on the public hospital sector, which is going to be enormous. I think we are talking about $700 million over the next four years, so these are major changes to the taxation treatment. They need a proper examination.I accept that the government has now made some changes and the bill currently before the Senate includes a higher limit of $25,000 for the cap for charitable and not-for-profit organisations. The fact that the government has increased the FBT concession limit to charitable and nonprofit organisations is an admission, I think, that the original limit was too low and would have unfairly reduced their ability to deliver services to the disadvantaged. The government has begun to recognise that problem and what it means for services to the most disadvantaged in our community. I am not clear why the government chose the $25,000 limit and how that new higher limit will avoid cuts to services, but it is a sign that the government is trying to deal with the issue. The reality is that even with a higher limit the proposed change will still raise significant amounts of revenue, which means significant cuts to the operational budgets of charitable and nonprofit organisations. An enormous impact is still going to be felt by these organisations.The proposed limit on FBT concessions is a significant change to the taxation treatment of charitable and nonprofit organisations and the public hospitals. Yet the only thing we know for certain about this change is that it will act to reduce the range of community and public hospital services they provide. At the time of the Senate inquiry last year, the government was unable to provide any detailed information on the modelling of the impact of the measure. This lack of information was noted in the inquiry's report to the Senate. More than a year after the proposed limits were announced, the government still refuses to or is unable to provide specific information on the impact of the proposed changes. We have no information on the extent of the use of the FBT concessions. We have no information on the pattern of the use of the FBT concessions and we have no information on the value of the FBT concessions to the charitable and nonprofit organisations and public hospitals. The figures on the revenues raised by the proposed FBT limits included in the bill are rough estimates at best. On the government's own figures, I have seen a number of different figures quoted. But they all indicate that over $700 million will be cut from the budgets of charitable and nonprofit organisations and public hospitals over the next four years.While the government has been unable to provide detailed information on the impact of the changes it is proposing, the organisations that will be affected have done so. They presented submissions to last year's Senate inquiry and they have continued to lobby and provide evidence of the very real impact on the services they provide. Just a few of the organisations that presented evidence to the Senate inquiry included: the Spastic Centre of New South Wales, which would be forced to cut services to 370 school aged children, close a respite centre and cease services to 200 families in rural communities; Deafness Forum Australia, which would be forced to cut one in three staff; and the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, which has stated that all remote health services in the Northern Territory would be closed and many urban services would suffer cuts. These are very real impacts. They are impacts this parliament has to grapple with seriously. We need to come to terms with it. The Labor view is that we ought not make changes when we do not know the impact of those changes and we ought not make changes that we have been warned will seriously affect those in the community who can least protect themselves. I am sure that is a concern for all senators on all sides of the chamber.The government has also refused to address the need for compensation to ensure that essential services to the disadvantaged are not reduced as a result of the proposed changes. Clearly, that is an alternative we could consider. It is worth remembering that the issue was examined by the 1995 Industry Commission report into charities. I note that Senator Woodley and I both spoke on it on that occasion. We are still involved in the issue. At the time the commission stated:Given the major benefits which [charitable and non-profit organisations] as a whole currently derive from input tax exemptions, however, the Commission considers that any proposal to remove these benefits should include alternative ways of providing the same aggregate level of government assistance to the sector.That principle was applied at a time when this was a very small issue compared with what it is today. The growth in fringe benefits tax exemption usage has been phenomenal since then, driven, in part, by a couple of state governments and by the demands placed on the charitable and not-for-profit sector for more services in difficult times. Until there is an independent inquiry into the use of the FBT concessions, we cannot know what the impact of the proposed limits are and we cannot know what reductions to services will occur as a result. We therefore cannot be sure that we can protect those services to the least disadvantaged in our community. In the short time left to me, I want to mention that there is a real need to look at the basis of many of these concessions. There is a lot of concern about the definition of `PBI' and the definition of `charities'. As I understand it, we have to refer back to an act of the British parliament from the 16th century. It is a funny way to build a new tax system for the 21st century, and it seems to me that we can do better.I turn briefly to the role of the Democrats. I have had some very constructive discussions with them and I hope we can continue to work our way through these issues. What we are proposing is that the inquiry precede debate on this bill, that we have the information at our fingertips when we debate the bill. I urge the Democrats to adopt that approach. I am concerned that they may be looking at adopting an approach of voting for some sort of inquiry but will deal with the bill now. We do not have the information that allows us to have an intelligent public policy debate about the legislation. We are not informed by that inquiry. If we make the decision and have the inquiry afterwards, it raises the question: why have an inquiry? I know that the Democrats, like the Labor Party, are interested in a broader inquiry than—LD4Alston, Sen RichardAX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—Senator, it is always nice to know what the results of an inquiry are before you institute one. I am sure it is a policy you pursue, and Telstra does come to mind. But I digress. I make the point to the Democrats that, while I know there are wider issues, at the heart of this is the FBT and its impact on the charitable and not-for-profit sector. There is also the question of the GST. I understand the sensitivities about that. If we are serious about having a proper public policy debate about how all those taxes impact on the sector and its ability to deliver services, we have to do it in a holistic way. We need to have the inquiry and then make decisions about the taxation treatment of those institutions. If we do not have the inquiry first, we will be making these decisions tomorrow morning without the benefit of that information. I think it would be a very brave senator who made the claim that we really know what the impacts of these changes are. I do not think the government knows and I do not think the Senate knows either. I would make a plea to the Democrats to support our second reading amendment because it does allow us to have that proper and informed public policy debate, to have a Ralph type inquiry report to inform the Senate's work and to inform proper legislation in this country. We would get a much better result from such an approach.Clearly, the Labor Party operates in a political environment where it does not have the numbers. If the amendment is defeated and the bill goes to the committee stage, we will vote on any amendments proposed and we will have to take a stand on each of the issues. We would prefer to do that with the benefit of a proper inquiry, proper modelling and proper research. We think we would get a much better public policy outcome if we dealt with it in that way. A proper inquiry would inform the Senate debate, allow us to make informed decisions and allow us to have a bit of a community debate too about the proper taxation treatment of charities before we moved to deal with the FBT limits. There are, of course, questions about the operative date and so on, but our preferred position, since October, has been to have that proper inquiry, to recognise the evidence we received from the GST inquiry that there were serious problems with the implementation of these FBT proposals—to have an inquiry to get that information—to have an informed debate and then to deal with the bill. That is our preferred option. I hope we get some support for it. If not, obviously we will move on to dealing with the substance of the bill and making decisions accordingly.18:44:0013838Woodley, Sen JohnSenator WOODLEYHX5QueenslandAD10—First of all, I wish to address the concerns that Senator Evans has just expressed. Certainly, in intention, the Australian Democrats will support the opposition's second reading amendment. It may be that we will still want to change some of the words. We can do that by negotiation tomorrow because obviously the second reading debate of the A New Tax System (Fringe Benefits) Bill 2000 will not be finished tonight and will continue for some time tomorrow. By and large we intend to support the opposition's second reading amendment, but it may be that we can negotiate a change to some of the words. Senator Evans, we will find that out when we have that conversation with you. I just give you that assurance.I agree with just about everything you have said, in particular that we do not have the kind of information we really need in order to do justice to this debate, and certainly in order to do justice to the charity, churches and not-for-profit sector. The very fact that I have had to use an extended description points to the problem that we have in law. The basis upon which most of these matters are dealt with is a law that goes back some 400 years in English law. Someone told me today that, in fact, it goes back further than that—to the 1100s. I do not know how we can ever expect in a modern society to be basing legislation on that kind of proposition. So we need the kind of inquiry Senator Evans described. I hope that with goodwill on all sides, and maybe a further discussion about wording, we will achieve what Senator Evans has described.In the few minutes that are left to me tonight, I want to talk about the motivation for the government introducing this legislation, because the motivation that has led to the debate and the legislation which we have before us is very clear. I would remind the Senate—and I do not know whether senators have forgotten this—that it was the Ralph report on business taxation which proposed that, in order to pay for a reduction in the company tax rate, the government should abolish the fringe benefit tax exemption to this sector. That was a proposal in the Ralph report. Quite clearly, the government were not game to do that. The roof would have fallen in, I am sure, and they realised that. But they did propose a kind of half-way measure, that is, there should be a $17,000 cap across the board on charities, on churches, on hospitals—you name it, wherever there was an exemption in the past, then a $17,000 cap should be imposed in the future. That of course was intended to raise over $200 million, which in effect would achieve what the Ralph report proposed, that is, to compensate for the loss of revenue in lowering the company tax rate.The churches and the charities reacted very strongly to that, and for good reason. They know that the Industry Commission—or Productivity Commission as we now call it—some years ago did a major inquiry into charities. In fact, the report they produced was quite thick. It showed that some of the charities and some of the services which they provided were overusing the fringe benefits tax exemption, to such an extent in a few cases that I think one could use the word `rorting' without being unfair. That was true. When that Productivity Commission report came down, the major churches and the major charities realised that there had been some overuse of the fringe benefits tax exemption. So they went and had extensive conversations with the Australian Taxation Office. It was never put in writing, and so the Treasurer keeps on reminding us that there is no legislation and no written advice to actually underline the position I am putting—but it was very clear. I have spoken to charities across the country and all of them have reported that this is what happened: they had a conversation with the tax office; it was not written down; it was not put into legislation. That is true, but all of the charities and churches, et cetera, adopted voluntarily a 30 per cent cap on salary packaging using the fringe benefits tax exemption. That was the agreement reached. The government has totally ignored that. (Time expired)Notices1383913839Senator Grieg to move, on the next day of sitting:That the provisions of the Jurisdiction of Courts Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2000, with particular reference to:(a) the capacity of Australian courts of law to enforce Australian obligations under international human rights treaties;(b) the obligations that such treaties impose to require domestic remedies;(c) the capacity for individuals to access international human rights bodies, the circumstances of that access and the conditions which must be met under the various treaties and instruments, such as the First Optional Protocol, before individuals may access them;(d) the capacity of Australian courts of law to sanction Australian companies for their misconduct in environmental, human rights and industrial activities which may occur overseas but which, if conducted in Australia, would be contrary to Australian law; and(e) suggested amendments to implement Australia's international extraterritorial human rights, environmental or industrial jurisdiction.Documents1383910000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—It being 6.50 p.m., the Senate will move to the consideration of government documents.1384018:50:0013840Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This is a document that the Attorney-General must have prepared each year to fulfil his obligations under the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979. The report from the Attorney-General and the act that he is in compliance with are often thought of as giving permission to policing authorities to intercept telephones, telegrams and no doubt other communications. I see Senator Alston in the chamber. The onset of technology in this area is incredible. The policing authorities find it very useful to listen in to these conversations and, indeed, to tape them in the course of gaining intelligence and evidence for prosecutions. The act allows all that.Fundamentally, the act is about protecting our privacy. I think it is very useful to talk to a report like this to bring to our mind that the concept of privacy still has currency, that there is some protection for privacy in the legislation that comes before this chamber and that ultimately becomes law in this country. The issue of privacy is a big one. It is a big issue in Europe and elsewhere. We have laws regulating privacy for the public sector but there are no laws that protect privacy in the private sector. I know that the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, was intent on getting such legislation through when he first took over the office, and no doubt he is still intent on that happening. It would be good to see legislation brought in to protect privacy. We all want our privacy but, unfortunately, moves are not made that would enable us to have it to the extent that we would want. Indeed, the protection is so feeble that maybe it is not the protection of privacy we want but legislation that says there ought to be an equality of possession of information so that, if we are not going to have privacy, at least we will have as much information about things as everybody else does, because knowledge and what you know about others, of course, is a great strength in any relationship one might have.Since this act was brought in, the number of authorities that have been able to tap into electronic communications between people has grown. On 28 October 1988 the Victorian police were given possession of it. I must say that is a very significant date because it is the birthday of my wife, Lillian, but that is just an aside that I put in as I go through, Mr Acting Deputy President. The New South Wales Crime Commission was given the power on 30 January 1989, and so on. And I notice that the New South Wales Police Integrity Commission got permission to use these powers on 14 July 1998. There is always a legitimate reason for giving powers to authorities, but there is always a danger that the very purpose of the act—that is, to protect our privacy—becomes damaged because of this. If you look at the number of taps that are allowed, they do not seem greatly excessive. But I think it is always wise for somebody to step up on an occasion like this simply to say, `Yes, the Attorney-General has to have this report prepared and it is proper for us to look at it.' It is proper for us to remember that, really, it is about protecting privacy and that, as the growth of these powers increases, it is always timely for somebody to at least mention that the matters put out by the Attorney-General are being taken note of. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned.1384018:56:0013840Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6Northern TerritoryALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.In moving that the Senate take note of this document, I think it is very important that, with both documents Nos 2 and 3, given the current debate we are having surrounding mandatory sentencing and the current situation we find ourselves in with regard to the stolen generation, this report in particular is tabled before the federal parliament this week. These documents come about as a result of a requirement under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 that the Social Justice Commissioner be required to report annually on the `enjoyment and exercise of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders'. One might find it rather ironic that, in this current debate, the commissioner is required to report on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights because, if you read his report on social justice, you will find that the situation is in fact far from that.It is interesting to note that, in his report, the commissioner concentrates quite heavily on the situation occurring in the Northern Territory. In fact, about 80 per cent of this report refers to the situation in which Aboriginal people find themselves in the Northern Territory. It seems that that Territory is slowly becoming a blot on our national reputation with regard to indigenous people. This social justice report is the first by Dr William Jonas. It was presented to the Attorney-General on 20 January. It looks at four key issues: young people and human rights, identity, mandatory sentencing and bilingual education. It outlines some very useful statistics in relation to indigenous people and population, unemployment, secondary education, mortality and, of course, contact with the criminal justice system. It goes into some detail about mandatory sentencing and bilingual education. I also want to note that it makes some very interesting statements about statehood, the way in which statehood was treated in the Northern Territory, the way in which indigenous people voted and perhaps why they voted to reject statehood. It is interesting to see that, throughout his report, Dr Jonas makes a number of very interesting comments about the reconciliation process. In particular, in his summary of the statehood process in the Northern Territory on page 24 he says:A reconciliation process which is based on anything less than negotiation over these principles—the principles he is referring to are the principles of the reconciliation of distinct rights of indigenous people in the Northern Territory that flow from the now famous Kalkaringi statement—will join proposals such as the Social Justice Package as an empty, unfulfilled commitment to social justice for all Australians.It is interesting to note that the report actually makes a number of statements along these lines. He looks at the extent of indigenous disadvantage, from the perspective our future and our young people. He profiles what is happening with indigenous people between the ages of 15 and 29 years. He also considers the issues that the participants in the indigenous young people's forum considered: where they are, where they are going, and what they believe they need to do in order to contribute to their identity as indigenous people. He makes some very brave comments about the attempt by the Northern Territory government to abolish the bilingual education programs, and he writes about rights to education, language, cultural difference and self-determination for indigenous people. Given that this is the first report from the Social Justice Commissioner along these lines, it has some very telling points to make, particularly, as I said, about the extent of indigenous people in the Northern Territory. It makes very interesting reading and I have no doubt that I will continue my remarks at length on this matter. 19:01:0013841Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—As Senator Crossin has said, this is the first report from Dr William Jonas, the third Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. It is good to see that Dr Jonas acknowledges the great contribution made by his predecessors. On page 26 he has put in a paragraph which I think is worth repeating. He says:Dr Mick Dodson, the first Social Justice Commissioner, set the highest standards of advocacy for the human rights of Australia's Indigenous peoples and his achievements are lasting. Zita Antonios, who filled the role in an acting capacity for eighteen months, maintained this role in a period of intense public debate, increased workloads and great change. Both are to be warmly congratulated for their efforts. I have inherited from them a strong legacy from which to continue to advocate for the rights of Indigenous Australians.Dr Jonas sums it up well and properly pays tribute to Dr Dodson and Zita Antonios.As Senator Crossin has so eloquently put it, this report deals with the criminal justice system and its effect on the indigenous community, particularly young indigenous people. We have not got time to go through the report in detail, but it does show that the matters Senator Crossin raised are supported by considerable evidence. You only have to look at table 19, for example, `Imprisonment rate by age'. If you look at the imprisonment rate at ages 20 to 24, which is when young males in particular tend to get themselves into trouble, you can see the contrast between indigenous males and non-indigenous people. There is a need to seek an answer to the problem that the criminal justice system presents to indigenous people. One way we might go about doing that is to at least have some empathy with indigenous people—indeed, with people who are in the criminal justice system generally. I do not mean that we should be in any way soft on crime, but sentences should be proportionate to the crime. It is not an easy matter to serve a sentence in jail. No-one who is listening to this speech would like to be put into jail, and it is not simply because of the experience of being in jail; it is also because of what it does to your social standing. Most people would be very concerned that their reputation would be greatly tarnished by going to jail. Just imagine turning up to apply for a job and, in the list of the experiences of your life, you had to say, `I've been to jail.' Just as we want a high reputation, so do those who go into the jail system. The term that is spent in jail is not the only concern in the issue of mandatory sentencing; it is the terrible damage done to a young person's reputation. The crime itself is bad enough, but the greatest condemnation that this society can put on any person is to send him or her to jail, thus fixing a stain upon his or her reputation—justly in many cases. We ought to be very careful about who we are going to put in jail and who we are going to mark with damage to their reputation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.1384219:07:0013842Crossin, Sen TrishSenator CROSSIN7Y6Northern TerritoryALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I want to take note of the native title report that has also been produced by the Social Justice Commissioner this week. The report is a requirement under section 209 of the Native Title Act. It reports annually on the operation of the Native Title Act and its effect on the exercise and enjoyment of human rights by Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders. I have to say from the outset that this is also not a particularly complimentary report on the activities of the government. It reveals the inadequacies of the Australian government's policies and practices in effectively dealing with the ongoing discrimination against indigenous peoples. It recommends a revised approach to indigenous equality. In this report Dr Jonas says:We need special remedial measures to overcome historically entrenched patterns of racial inequality, as well as active intervention to protect the distinct cultural characteristics of indigenous communities.He goes on to make a comment that public debate on indigenous issues has often been divisive, as we have seen recently, with scapegoating of indigenous people as somehow being privileged and enjoying special treatment compared with the general population. He goes on to say that the reality could not be further from the truth. In particular, this report considers the implications of the March 1999 decision of the committee on the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, commonly known as the CERD committee. That committee has found that the federal government's 1998 amendments to the Native Title Act of 1993 are in breach of Australia's obligations under the convention. An inquiry is being conducted by the federal parliamentary joint native title committee.The CERD committee considered the amendments according to the two fundamental requirements of the convention: to treat all people equally and in a non-discriminatory manner, and to ensure the effective participation of indigenous people in decisions which affect them. The committee found that the amendments to the Native Title Act are discriminatory and were implemented without the informed consent of indigenous people. This report is important because it looks at these two fundamental principles in relation to three areas: the inadequacy of the minimum standards which are required of state governments in their management of native title regimes, the impact of the registration test on native title claims, and the impact of the amendments in the Native Title Act in relation to the native title representative bodies.The introduction to this report is very telling. It says:The native title story has told us that reconciliation is not about Indigenous people proving they can be reconciled to a non-Indigenous way of life. Rather it is about recognising Indigenous culture and giving it the same value and respect as that which is given to non-indigenous culture.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.19:11:0013843Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZN26TasmaniaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—On the same matter, it is important that some factual elements be reintroduced into the debate on the report of the committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and to remind the Australian people about the way this committee operates. It has luminaries such as representatives from Cuba and China, who undoubtedly deal—7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin—Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The point of order I raise is whether or not Senator Abetz has read the report and is actually speaking to the report, in which the composition of the CERD committee is not made mention of at all by Dr Jonas.10000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID-ENT (Senator Sherry)—Senator Abetz's contribution is relevant to this particular report.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—If my comments in relation to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination were somehow irrelevant, I simply invite Senator Crossin to read the Hansard and her comments where she refers to the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination as well. I would have thought that if it was relevant to her it would be relevant for me as well.The Australian Labor Party are in this terrible dilemma at the moment. They will quote reports such as Dr Jonas's and other reports, but they will not tell us what they are going to do. That was so embarrassingly portrayed to the Australian people by the shadow minister Daryl Melham's quite pathetic performance on the Sunday program. When asked whether they would repeal those allegedly discriminatory sections of the Native Title Act, he was unable to commit himself to doing so. Similarly with Senator Crossin. All she does is to try to promote the report but does not say what they would do in government. Indeed, we have been invited by Senator Crossin in her comments to consider the findings of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination. It would be interesting for the Australian people to be told that in the committee's recent report—this so-called independent committee—it only found its way clear in the reporting process to give two positives and 13 concerns to Australia. Indeed, if I can quickly explain, the UN committee classifies its reports into positive aspects and subjects of concern. So, when they looked at Australia as a nation in relation to racial matters, what did they find? They found two positives and 13 concerns. But guess what? When they had a look at China they found six positives and only 10 concerns—three times as many positives as they were able to find for Australia and three fewer concerns than they found in Australia. Russia scored six positives as well and only four concerns. Guess what Cuba scored? One concern and four positives. So, if you were to decide which country to live in with respect to racially discriminatory practices and you read through the United Nations checklist of positives and concerns, you would undoubtedly choose Cuba according to the rationale of the committee of the United Nations that deals with the elimination of racial discrimination. Just take the tip: why is it that all the boat people seem to be wanting to come to Australia and not Cuba or China? I simply say to the people who sit on these United Nations committees: get a bit of rigour, get a bit of integrity, get a bit of factual information and get into the real world and then your reports may be considered with a degree of respect by the Australian people and, indeed, other people around the world.In relation to the native title legislation, I completely reject that, in any way, it is racially discriminatory. I would simply say that it has been an outcome for the betterment of both the indigenous community and the Australian community at large. 7Y6Crossin, Sen TrishSenator Crossin—That is not what Dr Jonas said.N26Abetz, Sen EricSenator ABETZ—A lot of the debate has now gone out of native title to the extent that Senator Crossin's shadow minister is unable to identify any section that the Labor Party would repeal. They have not identified any section that they would repeal. It is a bit like the GST: `We are against it but we are going to keep it when we get into government.' Until the Labor Party come up with some realistic policies, they forfeit the right to be in government. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Adjournment1384410000Sherry, Nick (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESID-ENT (Senator Sherry)—Order! It being 7.17 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1384407:18:0013844Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56New South WalesLP10—I am not one to ride on the Olympic bandwagon, but September's Olympic Games will see one of the biggest celebrations in this nation for a very long time. The attention of the world will be on Sydney and, more precisely, on Greater Western Sydney. The immediate benefits of a successful bid for the Games are obvious for the region, but what are the medium and long-term impacts for the area? The world will focus its attention on Sydney when the Olympics arrive in September and it is vital for Western Sydney to take advantage of that unprecedented attention to ensure that the region continues long into the future to feel the benefits of hosting the Games. Most important of those impacts is the stimulus for economic growth. As one of the main industrial, agricultural and business centres in Australia, the Greater West's economic worth is $35 billion, with over 72,000 businesses and 1.5 million people. Western Sydney has to highlight the attractive investment and business opportunities the region has to offer. One of the region's most important attributes is its well-educated, productive and highly skilled work force. International companies are bringing their business to Sydney to exploit this valuable labour force to gain a foothold in the Asia-Pacific region. Crucial to this is the fact that 25 per cent of Sydney's work force are from non-English speaking backgrounds. They have valuable language skills and are ideally suited for operating in both Western and Asian business environments. The impact of business confidence and investment in Sydney's Greater West will be shown by the development of new industries. The IT industry is one which will have a major economic impact. According to recent reports, there are 18,000 people currently employed in IT in Western Sydney. The Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board estimates growth in information technology of an expected 300 per cent over the next five years in some parts of the region—Wollondilly, in particular, I understand. There have to be strategies in place to make sure that Sydney takes advantage of the international exposure of the Olympics and realises the full economic impact of the Games—and I will touch on just a couple of those. Firstly, there is Investment 2000, an Australian business venture aimed at developing links to business and investment companies within Asia by giving Australia as broad a coverage as possible during the running of the Games. The focus will be on the labour market's strong potential, including our high education levels, skills availability, the Asian language resource and competitive salary levels. Secondly, the Australian Technology Showcase will promote the innovative qualities of New South Wales and Australian emerging technology industries to international executives in business and the media. Finally, the Olympics Business Roundtable has developed a strategy known as `Australia Open for Business' that seeks to ensure that the best features of the economy are on display when the Olympic spotlight focuses here in September.In relation to jobs growth, industry investment and infrastructure development, the Greater West's economy is expected to grow by an average of $1 billion over the next three years and $1.5 billion over the next six after that. As a result of hosting the Games it is expected that an extra 200,000 jobs will be created by 2003. Many of those will be in the newly developed IT&T industries as well as hospitality and tourism. In fact, the immediate impact of the Olympics is seen most dramatically in the investment in infrastructure development in the Greater West—take the Olympic site itself, for example. It is an incredible feat in engineering and construction. Its on-time completion is a testament to the Australian construction industry—completed, I might note, with minimal industrial action. The Homebush Olympic site is supplemented by the Dunc Gray Velodrome in Bankstown and the Penrith Lakes Olympic rowing course. All three venues create permanent landmarks for future generations to enjoy.Three million dollars a day was spent on construction of the facilities for the Games, including the construction of the athletes village and a new rail loop built to increase commuter access to the site. A new urban park, twice the size of Centennial Park, has been established. It is part of 440 hectares of recreational parkland that covers the site. There is a public domain area that has the capacity to hold up to half a million people. The athletes village is an important development in the Greater West and will become a new suburb at the completion of the Games and the Paralympic Games. Named Newington, it will be the world's largest solar powered suburb. At a cost of $470 million, it will be completed in 2005. There will be an estimated 5,000 residents in the new suburb when the temporary dwellings have been removed and 2,000 permanent dwellings have been constructed. A primary school and other community facilities will be established out of the Games facilities. A business park development and neighbourhood retail centre will boost services in the surrounding region.Even the proposed Parramatta rail link is another infrastructure development in the west stimulated by the Olympic economic boom. Costing $1.4 billion, it is expected to be completed by 2006 with an estimated patronage of 18.6 million people. We will obviously also have an increase in the numbers of tourists to the region, with an important flow-on effect for the entire economy of the Greater West. The Tourism Forecasting Council predicts an influx of 8.2 million visitors to our shores over the 21 days of the Games and the Paralympics after that. In the longer term the Games are predicted to attract 1.6 million tourists in the four years after the Olympics, according to the Tourism Forecasting Council. Of these, New South Wales can expect 1.1 million, providing a $4.2 billion windfall for the state's economy, as noted in a report from KPMG Management Consulting and Griffith University on this subject.A most prevalent and culturally important impact of the Games is the very widespread development of sporting facilities in Western Sydney, giving the Greater West a very strong right to claim to be the sporting capital of the state, if not Australia. The Stadium Australia development was completed at a cost of $690 million and provides the largest outdoor venue in modern Olympic history. At the completion of the Games it will be reconfigured to seat 80,000 people. Even IOC President Juan Antonio Samaranch described the Sydney Aquatic Centre as `the best swimming pool I have seen in my life'. That 4,400-seat venue will play host to a wide range of events in the longer term, ranging from World Cup swimming to the local school swimming carnivals. The Olympic velodrome in Bankstown will provide a long-term legacy for the people of Western Sydney. Not only will it attract world and national cycling circuits but the infield can be easily reconfigured to host exhibitions and other cultural events.The Olympic site construction is based on the principle of the Green Games. Environmentally friendly practices were adopted in the construction of all of the venues and that has had an important impact on Western Sydney with the restoration of wasteland and the establishment of parklands in particular. The major long-term effect of the Green Games on Western Sydney has been the restoration of the Homebush Bay site. It was a disused environmental wasteland, previously the site of an armaments store, a chemical company, a garbage dump and a slaughterhouse. Not surprisingly, over time it became severely degraded land. Waste Services New South Wales was given the responsibility for the removal of contaminants on the site, placing the toxic waste in consolidated pits at Homebush Bay. It also dealt with restoration of the mangrove at Homebush Bay so that waste which does run off the site is filtered out before it hits the water system. That clean-up, that mangrove management, is a major environmental achievement. What was a major toxic wasteland and absolute eyesore has been transformed into a sporting and recreational landmark for the nation. In fact, by September 2000 there will be five million shrubs and native grasses planted around the site, including the planting of an additional 200,000 trees—an additional important environmental legacy for Western Sydney. These parklands are a much-needed recreational resource in Sydney's Greater West and the use of green construction techniques and products in the Olympic venues will provide invaluable experience for future developments in the construction industry.Finally, there are obviously also cultural questions attached to the staging of the Olympics and the Paralympics and, most particularly, the question of art. Twelve innovative public art projects have been commissioned for display at the Olympics. At a cost of $7.5 million, they will be on display at Homebush and in other areas of Western Sydney. Homebush Bay itself will feature nine public art projects. Some of these will be free standing and others will be worked into the surrounding environment. They will provide a creative and interesting landmark that will be appreciated by both the people of the Greater West and the visitors to the area. The Olympics obviously provide an extraordinary opportunity for the people of the Greater West of Sydney to showcase all the exciting prospects that we have to offer. The long-term impacts of hosting the Games are both exciting and enormously beneficial. There are trade and business opportunities for Western Sydney. They will provide jobs growth and investment into the long term. The more medium term tourism impacts of the Olympics and the Paralympics will also assist in economic growth. The environmental impacts of the Games, such as the new parklands, are significant and advantageous for the people of Sydney and beyond. Finally, we have the record of the great sporting and cultural legacies which will be enjoyed by all Australians but most particularly by the Greater West long into the future.1384619:27:0013846Ludwig, Sen JoeSenator LUDWIG84NQueenslandALP00—I wish to speak tonight to Auditor General's report No. 35 of 1999-2000—Retention of military personnel. This was a matter that was introduced in the chamber earlier last week but at that time I could not draw attention to it in the detail that I wish to tonight. Therefore I wish to speak to it this evening as I have had a long interest in the Defence Force, particularly the Reserves. This is an important document and one of which we should take note. This report goes to the very heart of the Defence Force's ability to retain the highly trained, efficient, motivated men and women that form the core of our nation's Army, Navy and Air Force. It is of great economic, strategic and moral importance that our Defence Force maintains the best possible retention rate of its personnel, both officers and enlisted full time and reserve personnel. The retention rate is economically important. The cost to the taxpayer of the extensive training of our Defence Force personnel is indeed significant. The retention rate is also strategically important. The loss of officers and enlisted personnel from the Defence Force results in the degradation of the military's corporate knowledge and its ability to serve our nation's interests in time of crisis and need. The retention of our service personnel is also morally important. High rates of separation from the military indicate to me that we are not providing our Defence Force personnel with an appropriate employment environment. To do this to men and women who have chosen to defend our nation with their lives in times of crisis is morally reprehensible.The Australian Defence Force's involvement in the INTERFET peacemaking contingent is a continuation of the long and justifiably proud history of service to this nation by its officers and enlisted personnel. However, it could be argued that this high level of service is under threat. According to the Auditor-General's report, the Australian Defence Force, in the last 12 months, experienced an overall separation rate of 14 per cent. If this figure was not cause for concern, then the staggering 26.73 per cent separation rate of women from the Army during 1996-97 is. This rate is nearly three times the overall rate of separation in the Australian Defence Force. Clearly, a separation rate of this magnitude must have a detrimental effect on the morale and efficiency of the Australian Defence Force. This cannot be allowed to continue. The Australian Defence Force spends in excess of $31 million a year on recruiting new personnel, yet the Auditor-General's report states:Defence's career management agencies appear to have minimal staff.Many members of the ADF who were interviewed as part of this report said:... that they had rarely met a Defence career manager and did not feel they had any influence over their future.It was further reported that there `is no formal career management at the private level even though there is significant investment in the initial training of those members.' Any organisation, let alone the Australian Defence Force, where there is a general belief amongst members that they have little influence over their career progression, is going to have problems with morale and staff retention. It would appear that the Defence Reform Program has further exacerbated feelings of the inadequate career progression of officers and enlisted personnel of the Australian Defence Force. Interviews conducted by the Auditor-General revealed that:Army and Navy personnel often stated that civilians are taking many jobs and posting options that rightfully belonged to Defence members.It was further reported that:... there is a common perception that the skills, experience and general capability of military personnel, and the ADF itself, are being eroded through the increasing use of civilian workers and that morale is being lowered.Clearly, Defence Force personnel either have lost, or are losing, faith in the Defence Reform Program. Many in the ADF are of the belief that the Defence Force reform package is only about `an increasing emphasis on efficiency' at the expense of their working conditions. The Auditor-General's report stated:... members consider that many of the savings reported in Defence Reform have been made only because they work longer hours and make do with reduced resourcing levels.Indeed, Australian Defence Force personnel state that they believe the Department of Defence is indifferent to the effect that continuous change is having on them both personally and professionally. Combine these feelings with reports of poor housing conditions for single personnel, the stresses that changes in postings place on ADF families and what is perceived by Defence personnel as an overall decline in military ethos, and you see a picture of a work environment that is far from optimal. The Auditor-General's report found that:Defence could manage retention more effectively if it had a better understanding of the views of its members.The report went on to state:Defence attitude surveys and the re-introduction of exit surveys are examples of Defence attempts to obtain the information it needs to manage retention better.The gathering of information to manage retention better is a fine and worthwhile exercise by Defence. But it will be useless information if there is not the will, both within the Defence Force and the government, to genuinely want to improve the lives of our serving men and women. There must be adequate resources to provide good quality housing for all Defence personnel. The government must look sympathetically at the effects that serial postings can have on Defence families. The government needs to look at and understand the effects that the Defence Reform Program has had on the lives, morale and careers of Australian Defence Force personnel. Adequate resources need to be given to Defence's career management agencies so that ADF personnel can feel as though they have at least some control over their careers.As I have previously stated, we have an economic and strategic imperative to maintain the best possible retention rate for Australian Defence Force personnel but, more importantly, we have a moral imperative to do so. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force have volunteered to serve their country. This does not give us the right to take their service for granted. Indeed, it obligates all of us to provide them with the best possible working environment we can. Any less is a betrayal of their trust in us as their political leaders.1384819:33:0013848Murray, Sen AndrewSenator MURRAY3M6Western AustraliaAD00—I recently experienced the ordeal of a criminal trial for criminal assault. I was acquitted. Some of the media said the jury took an hour to reach its decision. In fact, the judge instructed the jury to go off to lunch, and they returned their unanimous not guilty verdict immediately after lunch. I have had to experience 20 months of stress, considerable legal expense and an uncertain degree of damage to my reputation. For now, I wish simply to put some matters to do with my case on the record and to make a few observations about the process.I had pleaded not guilty to the charge of assault occasioning bodily harm. The charge stemmed from an incident that occurred 20 months earlier while I was walking my dog. It involved my little dog, Benji, a terrier-cross; Ms Wendy Arthur, now Marshall, and her great dane, Ebony Bear; and Mr Warren Marshall. Despite the fact that Mrs Marshall, Mr Marshall and I all gave evidence on oath that no-one saw a blow land on Mrs Marshall, she alleged that I deliberately struck her on the head after her dog, Ebony Bear, ran towards Benji. The facts of the matter are that her dog, Ebony Bear, ran towards and then attacked Benji; to defend Benji, I hit and kicked her dog. If Mrs Marshall was struck while this was happening, she was struck accidentally either by me or by her dog's face. While I regret that she may have been hurt in the melee, it was an accident. I abhor violence against women and, as I stated in court, at all times my actions were directed at her dog and stemmed from my heartfelt belief that Benji was being fatally attacked.Given the enormous hardship that accompanies a criminal charge, a great deal of careful consideration ought to be entered into prior to proceeding with a prosecution. In my opinion, the charge I faced was without merit. The prosecution was costly to the taxpayer and costly and stressful to me, my family and my staff. I think it should never have proceeded. The Crown alleged that I deliberately hit Mrs Marshall. Mrs Marshall claimed to have felt a blow but not to have seen it. Mr Marshall, who was about 75 metres away, did not see a blow despite observing the whole incident. I certainly saw no such blow. The judge made this point in his instructions to the jury, and I quote:... there's no witness who has come into court and who has said `I saw the accused's hand hit Mrs Marshall on the head.'All witnesses agreed that they saw me being assaulted by Mr Marshall. Not only did Mr and Mrs Marshall not see me strike Mrs Marshall; each delivered testimony that was highly inconsistent with the other. Mrs Marshall made the extraordinary allegation that, while she was standing with her huge dog, I walked up behind her and hit her for no reason. Mr Marshall's testimony painted a different, inconsistent and ridiculous picture.I find it most distressing that such a tenuous allegation could give rise to a costly and stressful 20-month ordeal such as the one I endured. There is no evidence for suspicions voiced to me that improper motives played a part in the process, whether of a political, personal or financial nature, or whether from vindictiveness or official incompetence. That cannot be known. All I do know is that a very serious allegation was made on the basis of an assertion of a blow to which there was no witness.Compounding the damage to myself and my family was the media treatment. The media coverage was not biased or malicious, but it did have an impact. I read, watched and heard the media repeat again and again the allegation that I had criminally assaulted a woman, an allegation which, because of the process of law, I could not defend in the media until the second last day of 20 months when I could finally present my side of the story in court. The media can only report what is before them, and for 20 months what was before them was an allegation. It was naturally of interest to them because of my profile as a politician, and because of the real—if remote—threat of the loss of my job and the loss of jobs of my staff.I have analysed print media coverage of the charge process and trial. The charge was brought against me on 25 July 1998. Someone leaked the news to the media within a hour of the police charging me. From the clippings which I have kept—which is not all the media coverage and does not include radio and television—prior to the trial on 7 March 2000, at least 310 centimetres of copy was printed in various newspapers throughout Australia detailing the charge and allegations made by Mrs Marshall. Media coverage was national, periodic and coincided with various procedural court appearances. The allegation hit the headlines in August, September and December 1998, and then again in March, May, June and October 1999 and January 2000. During the same period, just 52 centimetres of copy was printed detailing the fact that I intended to plead not guilty and my short statement of defence against the allegations made by Mrs Marshall. The media imbalance was obvious and naturally distressing, although I should again stress the media had no choice—they had only the allegation to go on with. After 20 long months, the trial began. Some of the media sat in the courtroom and for three days—7, 8 and 9 March this year—listened to the prosecution and defence, and then reported to the Australian public that I had been found not guilty of the charge. Now let us look again at the figures. The trial commenced on 7 March this year, and the media devoted 85 centimetres of copy to the prosecution—to the allegations made against me by Mr and Mrs Marshall. From 8 March, the story was different—it was new, fresh, it was my defence. So, over just two days, I secured about 229 centimetres of copy on my defence. And then nothing. The story was no longer a story. The fact that I had been found not guilty would not be slowly filtered out to the public again and again over a 20--month period. Indeed, if you happened to be on holidays from 8 to 10March, you would have missed my defence of the allegation, missed the extremely important fact—to me at least—that I had been found not guilty.I think the media coverage of my charge and case was very fair, but in percentage terms about 78 per cent of all print media coverage regarding this incident occurred before my trial, before my case was presented. Even if it is an unintentional consequence of the justice process, the constant repetition of an allegation does have a bias against the defendant. It is indicative of the hurt to reputation that can accrue to the innocent, despite the publication of the not guilty verdict and other favourable publicity on other matters.Why do I raise these issues? Firstly, to be sure that as well as the transcript of the trial—and the judge's summation is particularly illuminating—this Senate has available at least a brief report from me on my trial. Secondly, to illustrate the troubles that are visited on public figures if criminal charges and the resultant media coverage are pursued when a case is quite flimsy. Thirdly, to illustrate that it is in the process of justice and publicity before the resolution of a case that unfairness and harm can accrue. We need to pay more attention to process, and I will have more to say on that at a later date.The cost and the possible damage to my reputation remain. On the positive side, my compassion and concern for disadvantaged people facing criminal proceedings has not faded. It has been re-inforced. It is sometimes said that you can judge a society by the way it treats those it has charged and the way it treats those it has convicted. The treatment of accused persons also says a great deal about a society, and I have considerable misgivings about the operation of our criminal justice system after this experience—obviously, with particular reference to Western Australia. In closing, I would like to say that in this parliament a great range of genuine supporters from all sides emerged who were keen to ensure that I was viewed as normal during the course of these events. I am deeply grateful to all those who offered their support to me over the trial period and throughout the 20 months.1385019:43:0013850Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6Western AustraliaLP10—Tonight I want to speak about a relatively small country in Africa, one which I have visited on many occasions and one where the previous speaker, my colleague Senator Murray, has spent a great deal of his life. The country I speak of is Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was taken over in a democratic sense—only in a sense—by the present incumbent, Mr Mugabe, in 1980. Zimbabwe is landlocked and lies between the countries of Mozambique to the east, Botswana to the south, and Zambia, formerly Northern Rhodesia, to the north. It is a particularly beautiful country in a lot of areas. In its most westerly extremity, it has one of the great, if not the greatest, outstanding natural features of the world—Victoria Falls. It is apt to note that that is one of the few names that survived after the 1980 takeover of the Smith government by Robert Mugabe. I have been to Victoria Falls, as I have been to a lot of Southern Africa, and it is indeed a wonderful country. In the south, the Limpopo River borders South Africa and Mozambique, and Zimbabwe has running through it the mighty Zambezi River, which is the source of the water for Victoria Falls.However, Zimbabwe today is far from an ideal nation. It still has its beauty, but it has immense trouble. There is immense trouble for the 12 million-odd people that comprise Zimbabwe, 98 per cent of whom are African of Shona and Ndebele extraction. In recent times President Mugabe—76 years old and described through the media as a megalomaniac, as a despot and as someone bordering on evil, if not evil—has brought his country not just to its economic knees but has, in the most extraordinary manner, taken over 600 of the 1,400 or thereabouts producing farms owned by white Zimbabweans with no compensation. The method used was to beat drums and to chant outside the houses to intimidate the people inside their homes so much that the black African workers left the farms. Those farms are largely lying vacant and fallow today. They are not producing the necessary income for the bereft economy, and others will undoubtedly be taken over. The High Court found in Zimbabwe that the move by President Mugabe to do this without compensation was, in fact, illegal. But that did not stop this black despot. What he did was pass a law through his parliament that allowed him to do precisely that in defiance of the High Court of Zimbabwe. There are approximately 70,000 white Zimbabweans involved in the rural industries in Zimbabwe, and they are of course in great danger. Two innocent farmers have already been killed, many more have been injured and many more will be injured before this is resolved.I might just dwell for a moment on what could have been in Zimbabwe, a country that is rich in nickel, gold, silver, platinum, diamonds and copper. It has vast amounts of fresh water. It has vast hydro potential for cheap electricity. Yet only 10 per cent of those people in Zimbabwe are employed in rural industries. President Mugabe last year and the year before sent an army off to the Congo to support President Laurent Kabila at vast cost to the Zimbabwean economy—or to what remained of it. The economy is suffering to the tune of 70 per cent inflation now. Fifty per cent of the people in Zimbabwe are unemployed. In 1980, when President Mugabe took over this jewel of colonial Africa, formerly Southern Rhodesia, the exchange rate between the Zimbabwean dollar and the British pound was 50p. Today, that has dropped not to 25p or to 10p but to 1.5p. Literacy has dropped from 59 per cent in 1980 to 42 per cent today. Today, life expectancy for the total population is 38.86 years. It is 38.77 for males and 38.94 for females. The infant mortality rate is 61.21 deaths per 1,000 live births. Those are not figures that one would expect from a country that was left in excellent order by the former Premier of Southern Rhodesia, Mr Ian Smith.Those farmers that have been displaced—20,000 of those 70,000 that are in danger—are to be replaced and relocated as a result of an offer from the United Kingdom. I would like to think that my government, my Australia, would also make some offer to bring these people who are in grave danger to the safety of Australia, as we have done with many people over the years, particularly in the last half a century or so, remembering that Australia is a nation of migrants. If we did that we would save them from this, as he has been described, `evil black tyrant'. His invasion of the farms is suicidal in a political and economic sense. Whatever Mr Mugabe does there, he is not going to resolve his problem by allowing veterans of his 1970s war of independence, his liberation war, to take over these farms in a manner that is contrary to the law, and contrary to the law of Zimbabwe in particular.He has, in effect, single-handedly destroyed what was one of the brightest prospects in Africa. Mining is practically non-existent now, notwithstanding the riches of Zimbabwe. The rural industry has declined to the degree where some food items are being imported. Yet this man sends thousands of troops to what was formerly the Congo to defend Laurent Kabila's regime in that central African country. It seems preposterous when people are starving, when the economy is one of the worst in southern Africa, when the country cannot feed itself, when exports have dried up and when it has become a mendicant state of southern Africa that is dependent upon the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other charitable organisations. It is unfair not just to those very friendly and affable people of Zimbabwe but particularly to those white Zimbabweans who stayed there and considered themselves nothing other than Zimbabwean. I do feel immense sorrow for and empathy with the white Zimbabweans in particular, but it is not confined to them alone. This government has the capacity to do something to alleviate that situation and I hope that it acts soon. (Time expired)19:54:0013851Senate adjourned at 7.54 p.m.Documents1385113851The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act—A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2000.Australian Horticultural Corporation Act—Aust-ralian Horticultural Corporation (Aust-ralian Dried Fruits Board) Regulations—Aust-ralian Horticultural Corporation (Australian Dried Fruits Board) Orders No. 1 of 2000.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part—105, dated 4 and 5 April 2000.106, dated 4 April 2000.107, dated 4 April 2000.Answers to Questions on Notice13852The following answers to questions were circulated:13852(Question Nos 1268 - 1278)1268 - 127813852Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the ministers listed below, upon notice, on 23 August 1999:(1) What reimbursements were made to the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary between 30 November 1998 and 31 July 1999.(2) What was the total value of the reimbursements made.1268 - Minister representing the Prime Minister1269 - Minister for the Environment and Heritage1270 - Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts1271 - Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs1272 - Minister representing the Minister for Defence1273 - Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care1274 - Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration1275 - Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs1276 - Minister for Industry, Science and Resources1277 - Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs1278 - Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry13852Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—On behalf of all of the ministers listed, the answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows:(1) During the period 30 November 1998 and 31 July 1999 Parliamentary Secretaries were reimbursed for:(a) expenses of office in respect of holding or performing the function of an appointment as a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister of State; and(b) travelling expenses up to a maximum amount as specified in Remuneration Tribunal Determination Number 9 of 1998 in respect of each overnight stay when travelling in accordance with the determination. (2) (a) Expenses of office:Reimbursement for expenses of office were as follows (in some cases these reimbursements were for expenses incurred over a longer period than that covered by the question):1268 Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister: - $6,607.00 Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan1269 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage: - $6,900.00 The Hon Sharman Stone MP1270 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: - $5,784.00 Senator the Hon Ian Campbell1271 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: - $9,370.84 The Hon Kathryn Sullivan MP1272 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence: - $6,466.80 Senator the Hon Eric Abetz1273 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care: - $7,500.00 Senator the Hon Grant Tambling1274 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration: - $6,932.00 The Hon Peter Slipper MP1275 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs: - $8,379.36 The Hon Trish Worth MP1276 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources: - $6,932.00 The Hon Warren Entsch MP1277 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: - $6,932.00 Senator the Hon Kay Patterson1278 Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: - $8,212.00 Senator the Hon Judith Troeth(b) Travelling expenses:Details of reimbursement of travelling expenses are tabled each six months in the document “Parliamentarians' Travel Paid by the Department of Finance and Administration”.13853(Question No. 1311)131113853Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs, 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.13853Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Three. One officer from the Attorney-General's Department, one Law Enforcement Officer seconded from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and one Customs Liaison Officer seconded from the Australian Customs Service (ACS).(2) (a) and (b)The officers' names were:Mr Paul Griffiths, Principal Legal OfficerMr Peter White, Federal AgentMr Tom Anderson, Customs Director (Level 5)(c) The duties of departmental liaison officers were outlined in the Prime Minister's response to part (3) of Question no. 313 (Hansard 31 March 1999, p 3688). The responsibilities of the above officers relate respectively to the Attorney-General's Department, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Customs Service.(3) I am advised that the total cost for the period 21 October 1998 until 23 August 1999 was $295,492, which included salary, superannuation, ministerial allowance, travel and other administrative expenses. The breakdown for each officer is as follows:Mr Paul Griffiths: $88,828 (Attorney-General's Department)Mr Peter White $106,195 (Australian Federal Police)Mr Tom Anderson $100,469 (Australian Customs Service)13854(Question No. 1557)155713854Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4Western AustraliaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1999:With reference to the wide definition of a goods and services tax (GST) supply:(1) If a GST registered person dies and their business is carried on by the deceased estate until the assets can be sold, will GST apply to the sales of the various business assets.(2) If the will provides for the business assets to be divided among the beneficiaries will their transfer from the deceased estate be subject to GST-based upon the market value of the assets transferred.13854Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) If a GST registered person dies and their business is carried on by the deceased estate until the assets can be sold, GST will apply to the sales of the various business assets in the same way as if the person were still alive.(2) If the will provides for business assets to be divided among beneficiaries, the supply of those business assets will not be in the course or furtherance of the enterprise and no GST will be payable on the supply. However, where the extent of creditable purpose has changed (because the assets are now used for a private rather than a creditable purpose), an adjustment may be required because the deceased estate is no longer entitled to full input tax credits on the acquisition of the business asset.13854(Question No. 1666)166613854Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VictoriaAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 11 October 1999:With reference to point 1 of the terms of reference for the 2-year review of aged care reforms, which refers to `Access, including equity for different groups within residential aged care client group, equity across regions and the balance of care services available within regions':(1) What difficulties have been identified in the submissions concerning access to residential aged care services by older people with (a) a mental illness; and (b) complex care needs requiring specialist nursing, such as older people with chronic health conditions like dementia.(2) What difficulties have been identified in the submissions concerning access to residential aged care services by older people: (a) who are financially disadvantaged; and (b) who live in financially disadvantaged areas.(3) What difficulties have been identified in the submissions concerning access by older people to community aged care packages and to home and community care services in terms of: (a) waiting times for assistance from a service; and (b) the amount of service hours they obtain per week. 13854Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Professor Len Gray, Chief of Aged Care for the North Western Health Care Network in Melbourne, was commissioned to undertake an independent 2-Year Review of Aged Care. The first report is attached. Its main focus was consultations through focus groups involving 508 participants (service providers and staff, service clients and regulators) in 17 locations across the country. The report has been published. Professor Gray has advised the Minister that he does not wish to draw conclusions from anecdotal evidence but wishes to test assertions with reliable data. Some areas are further progressed than others and he does not wish to make a part of the Review stand for the whole as this could lead to unbalanced results.13854(Question No. 1686)168613854Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 19 October 1999:With reference to the past practice in which the Prime Minister has supplied answers across portfolios relating to the employment of departmental liaison officers (DLOs):(1) How many DLOs have been allocated to each minister and parliamentary secretary as at 1 October 1999.(2) In each instance, what are the responsibilities of each liaison officer where allocated on account of a major agency et cetera.(3) (a) Which ministers have been allocated escort officers; and (b) how many.(4) (a) Which ministers have staff undergoing short-term developmental experience in the offices of ministers and parliamentary secretaries, for example, graduate administrative assistants; and (b) how many.(5) What are the number of staff from the department and from Cabinet's Parliamentary Liaison Office assisting the Leader of the House and the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.13855Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows:(1) Table 1 (below) provides details of the allocation of DLOs to ministers and parliamentary secretaries as at 1 October 1999. The one position allocated to the Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet, Senator the Hon Bill Heffernan, was vacant at that date. The allocation of two DLO positions to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, the Hon Wilson Tuckey MP, was to facilitate a staff handover from 28 September 1999 to 11 October 1999.(2) The DLOs have responsibility for facilitating liaison between the minister and the department or agency in relation to administrative and policy matters. The range of duties varies depending on the level and skills of the DLO, as well as on the work priorities of the minister's office and department or agency from time to time.(3) Consistent with past practice, the Minister for Defence, the Hon John Moore MP, and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, the Hon Bruce Scott MP, have each been allocated one escort officer.(4) Consistent with past practice, public servants may undertake short-term developmental opportunities in ministers' offices. The Office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Office of the Minister for Health and Aged Care regularly take a placement from the Graduate Administrative Assistant (GAA) programmes in their respective departments. As at 1 October 1999 each of these ministers had one GAA in their office.(5) The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet provides four staff in the parliamentary liaison role. One parliamentary liaison officer (PLO) and an assistant to the PLO are made available in the House of Representatives and the Senate.TABLE 1: DEPARTMENTAL LIAISON OFFICERS AS AT 1 OCTOBER 1999 ABBOTT1ABETZ1ALSTON2ANDERSON2ANTHONY2BISHOP1BOSWELL1CAMPBELL1COSTELLO3DOWNER3ELLISON1ENTSCH1FAHEY2HEFFERNANNilHERRON2HILL2HOCKEY2HOWARD2KELLY1KEMP, D3KEMP, R2MACDONALD1MCGAURAN1MINCHIN2MOORE2NEWMAN4PATTERSON1REITH2RUDDOCK3SCOTT2SLIPPER1STONE1SULLIVAN1TAMBLING1TROETH1TRUSS2TUCKEY2VAILE2VANSTONE3WILLIAMS2WOOLDRIDGE2WORTH113856(Question No. 1865)186513856Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay9L6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 19 January 2000:With reference to the following programs: Area Consultative Committees Regional Assistance Program Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships Project contracting available under Job Network (Office of Small Business)Small Business Enterprise Culture Program (Office of Small Business)(1) What was the total amount of funding provided for each program, the period over which it was paid and disbursement to date.(2) What was the purpose of each program.(3) Can details be provided of all projects implemented and funding assistance provided to community organisations/groups/the private sector under the above programs from 1996 to date.(4) What are the names of the community organisations/groups/private sector groups that have received funding under these programs, their addresses, and the electorates they are located in.(5) Can details be provided of the person/organisation/group that announced each project/funding assistance given under these programs, and the date of the announcement.(6) Can details be provided of the approval process for each project/funding assistance given under these programs, the number of applications, the names of the applicants, the names of the successful applicants, and the name of the person/committee/group who selected the successful applicants.13857Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Regional Assistance Program (RAP) and Area Consultative Committees (ACCs)(1) As previously provided in my response to the honourable Senator O'Brien's questions Nos 1366 and 1367 of 30 August 1999, the allocation and expenditure for the Regional Assistance Program (RAP) in the 1997-98 financial year was $20.3 million and $15.4 million respectively. In the 1998-99 financial year $33.3 million was notionally allocated for regional initiatives and a total of $19.979 million was expended. The notional allocation and total expenditure for Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) in the 1997-98 financial year was $7 million and $9 million respectively. In the 1998-99 financial year $7 million was notionally allocated for ACCs and $8.3 million was expended.In the 1999-2000 financial year the total allocation for RAP is $40.8million, $18.8 million for individual RAP projects, $10 million for ACCs. The remaining $12 million is allocated to Business Incubators ($5 million); Indigenous Small Business Fund ($2 million) and National Initiatives and Emergencies ($5 million). As at 31 January 2000, total actual expenditure on 1999/2000 RAP projects is around $3 million of a total $8.9 million approved to date, with total actual expenditure of around $5 million on ACCs.(2) The purpose of the RAP is to generate employment in metropolitan, regional and remote Australia by encouraging business and communities to take action to boost business growth and create sustainable jobs. This is achieved through the funding of projects, which provide job generation, enhance the skill base of a region, tackle disadvantage and encourage growth in a region. Further details of the programme are contained in the Guide for Area Consultative Committees and Project Proponents, a copy of which was provided to the honourable senator on 12 August 1999.The purpose of ACCs is to work in partnership with government, business and the community to identify and foster opportunities for jobs growth, skills development and regional growth, and to find community based solutions to these issues. ACCs also play an important role in RAP by identifying, encouraging, endorsing and supporting the development and implementation of suitable projects. This description is incorporated and expanded upon in the Charter and Role of ACCs, a copy of which was provided to the honourable senator in May 1999.(3) A list provided by my department and based on historical data of approved RAP projects since RAP commenced on 1 July 1997 to the end of financial year 1998-99 in response to the Hon Senator O'Brien's question No 1368 of 30 August 1999, has previously been provided to the honourable senator. A further list of the first round of RAP projects approved in financial year 1999-2000 was provided to the honourable senator by my department in response to questions put to it in the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on 2 December 1999. My department has updated the list of RAP projects to include those approved to date in financial year 1999-2000 which is being separately supplied to the honourable senator (a copy of this list is also held in the Senate Table Office).I am advised by my department that, in the near future, details of projects as they are approved will be able to be accessed through the Internet at www.acc.gov.au.Information on National Initiatives and Emergencies component is included in the attached list (Attachment A - Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office).I am advised by my department that information on ACCs for the financial year 1997-98 is not readily available and that the resources required to obtain it would represent an unwarranted diversion of the resources of the Department. A copy of information sought on ACCs for the 1998-99 financial year, prepared in response to the Hon Senator O'Brien's question No 1370 of 30 August 1999, was provided directly to the honourable senator by my department following the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee on 2 December 1999. A list of ACCs in receipt of funding assistance funded this financial year (1999-2000) is attached (Attachment B - Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office).(4) The list provided by my department in response to Question (3) above contains the information sought by the honourable senator for RAP projects approved this financial year (1999-2000) through the new approval process, under which such information is now captured. I am advised by my department that to provide information additional to that already provided on RAP projects approved prior to the introduction of the new approval process would require a search of historical data across all states and territories and represent an unwarranted diversion of departmental resources. Further, I am advised my department could not guarantee that the result of such a search would be comprehensive. The information sought by the honourable senator in relation to ACCs is contained in the list on ACCs provided in response to Question (3). Details on each ACC can also be located on the Internet at www.acc.gov.au.Information on the National Initiatives and Emergencies component is also provided in the list provided in response to question (3) above.(5) I am advised by my department that it does not record details of public announcements of particular RAP projects. Each round of approved RAP projects is announced by my colleague the Minister for Employment Services, the Hon Tony Abbott MP in conjunction with the Ministers for Transport and Regional Services and Education Training and Youth Affairs. A copy of the relevant media releases, which incorporates the date of announcement, is attached (Attachment C - Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office).Minister Abbott also writes to each ACC Chair and each local member advising them of projects approved in their regions.ACC funding is not subject to an announcement process. The announcement of projects under the National Initiatives and Emergencies component (refer to the attached table for details - Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office) is managed on a case-by-case basis. The Visy project was announced at a ceremony on 4 November 1999 at Tumut, NSW, attended by the Minister for Finance, the Hon John Fahey MP and the Premier of NSW the Hon Bob Carr. (6) The approval process for RAP is described in the Guide for Area Consultative Committees and Project Proponents, a copy of which was provided to the honourable senator by my department on 12 August 1999. In brief, proposals are submitted to the relevant State/Territory office of my department. All proposals submitted must be endorsed by ACCs if they are to be considered for funding. The State/Territory offices of my department assess proposals and make recommendations for approval to the National Office of my department. Projects are approved by the Group Manager, Regional Delivery Group, Ms Dianne Hawgood, and the Secretary of the Department, Dr Peter Shergold. I am advised by my department that the names of successful applicants under RAP for the 1999/2000 year to date is contained in the list provided in response to Question (3) above. The number of applications not approved for 1999/2000 was 35 in the first quarterly round and 24 in the second quarterly round. In relation to the provision of the names of unsuccessful applicants, my department advises that, until the formal introduction of the new application form which clearly states that any information provided to the department will be considered public information, such information comprises personal information and therefore subject to privacy considerations. There is no approval process in relation to ACCs.Projects under the National Initiatives and Emergencies component are approved on a case-by-case basis by Government.Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships (RRNA)Rural and Regional New Apprenticeships are the responsibility of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I understand that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs is in the process of answering Question 1863, which also incorporates RRNA.Project contracting available under Job Network(1) Project Contracting is one of the services under Job Network. A total of $2 727 096 was allocated for harvests commencing in 1998 and this was disbursed over the period July 1998 to August 1999. For harvests commencing in 1999, a total of $2 200 200 has been allocated. As at 7 February 2000, a total of $1 540 040 has been disbursed.(2) Project Contracting is a service provided through Job Network to ensure the satisfactory supply of labour to harvest areas that require considerable numbers of out-of-area workers to supplement local labour in order to harvest crops.Project Contracting services have been paid since 1998, with the commencement of Job Network.(3) & (4) Details of harvest areas and Job Network members allocated contracts under Project Contracting in 1998 and 1999 are set out in the following table (Attachment D- Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office). The amount of money paid to individual Job Network members is commercial-in-confidence until contracts have been completed and payment finalised.(5) In relation to the 1998-99 Employment Services Contract, details of successful tenderers were announced by the Hon David Kemp MP, Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs on 26 February 1998.For the 2000-2003 Employment Services Contract, the Hon Tony Abbott MP, Minister for Employment Services, announced on 3 December details of tenderers who have been made conditional offers of business for the second Job Network contract.(6) The approval process for Job Network tenders is outlined in the Employment Services Request for Tender 1997 and Employment Services Request for Tender 1999. These documents set out the principles and tendering conditions guiding the selection of tenders. The foremost principle was value for money for the Commonwealth Government. Value for money involved the optimum combination of quality of service as well as factors such as coverage, price and meeting the needs of the client group, and minimising the risk exposure of the Commonwealth.The other important principle guiding the process was open, fair and effective competition for the employment services tender. To help ensure this occurred, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB) (and in its previous form, the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) appointed Blake Dawson Waldron - Lawyers, to act as Probity Advisers to the employment services tenders. For both tenders, the department also adopted a Probity Plan, which detailed the various issues and steps to be followed throughout the tendering process.The Employment Services Request for Tender, 1997 and 1999 both outlined the tendering conditions that were applied to all tenderers. There were a number of stages to the tender process (including checks for conformance and quality assessment against the selection criteria) through which tenderers progressed leading to final decisions by the Departmental Secretary.All information on individual tenders is bound by the confidentiality and commercial-in-confidence provisions as stated in the Employment Services Request for Tender, 1997 and 1999. I am therefore not in a position to further release details about successful and unsuccessful applicants.Small Business Enterprise Culture Program (SBECP)(1) The total amount of funding is $6.4m over three years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002. As at 14 March 2000, $576,384 have been disbursed.(2) The purpose of the Small Business Enterprise Program is to provide funding for the development of business skills for small business owners and managers and to demonstrate the contribution that such skills can make to business viability and growth.(3) The Program did not exist in 1996. The First Round successful applicants were announced on 5 January 2000. (see Attachment E- Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office).(4) Attachment E (Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office) provides a list of the successful projects under this Program.(5) Minister Reith, Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business publicly announced relevant details of the successful applicants under SBECP on 5 January 2000.(6) Approval process:The approval process comprised two different streams.. The National projects were assessed by Commonwealth officers of the Office of Small Business and the final selections were carried out by the assessment panel and the Program Delegate.. The Regional projects were assessed initially by the Area Consultative Committees which endorsed one project from each area; these projects were then assessed by Commonwealth officers of the Office of Small Business, the assessment panel and the Program Delegate.No of applications:. There were 126 applications received in the first round of funding.Successful applicants:. A list of the successful applicants and a short description of the project is attached. (Attachment E- Copies of the Attachment are available from the Senate Table Office).Unsuccessful applicants:. Names cannot be provided for commercial-in-confidence reasons and to respect the privacy of unsuccessful applicants.13860(Question No. 1878)187813860O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 21 January 2000:(1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to people living in the Federal electorate of Gippsland.(2) What was the level of funding provided through these programs and grants for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years.(3) What is the level of funding provided through these programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year.13860Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Higher Education Programms And Grants(1) The higher education programme in Business Studies offered by the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University in association with the East Gippsland Community College of TAFE at Bairnsdale is located in the electorate of Gippsland. In 1996 student load at the campus was 13 equivalent full-time student units.Monash University has a campus at Churchill in the electorate of Gippsland which offers academic programs through the faculties of Art & Design, Arts, Business & Economics, Education, Engineering, Information Technology, Medicine and Science. It also plays a role in the university's distance education and flexible learning activities. In 1996 student load at the campus was 4,192 equivalent full-time student units.(2) and (3) The Commonwealth provides funding from the Higher Education Funding Act - 1988 on a calendar year basis to higher education institutions which then allocate funding to their various campuses and faculties. The financial year allocations have been determined by splitting each calendar year allocation into equal components. The following tables contains details of funding for the 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 financial years. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology - Higher Education Funding(Price Level: Estimated 2000 Prices - CAF 1.085211)96/9797/9898/9999/2000 (a)$m$m$m$mOperating Resources186.5188.3179.8174.7Research Grants 4.74.64.53.9TOTAL HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING191.2192.9184.3178.6Monash University- Higher Education Funding(Price Level: Estimated 2000 Prices - CAF 1.085211)96/9797/9898/9999/2000 (a)$m$m$m$mOperating Resources304.0296.2289.6285.7Research Grants 27.327.726.919.9TOTAL HIGHER EDUCATION FUNDING331.3323.9316.5305.6 (a) 2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 30 January 2000, the Research & Innovation are not the final allocations for 2000.Schools Programmes And Grants(1) (2) and (3): Electorate of GippslandCommonwealth General Recurrent Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name19961997199819992000Total$$$$$$Bairnsdale Christian Community School, Bairnsdale86,112142,800145,680*374,592Gippsland Grammar, Sale659,589674,718667,945**1,801,400*1,834,283*5,637,935Leongatha Christian School, Leongatha402,452421,532482,362533,316542,943*2,382,605Nagle College, Bairnsdale2,608,2232,897,1203,183,5663,319,833*3,391,608*15,400,350St Brendan's School, Lakes Entrance427,826503,209500,573572,628*584,177*2,588,413St Joseph's School, Korumburra245,438227,149281,499271,320*276,792*1,302,198St Joseph's School, Orbost172,676158,924110,314126,140*128,684*696,738St Joseph's School, Wonthaggi442,234463,483477,407523,600*534,160*2,440,884St Lawrence O'Toole Primary School, Leongatha375,791420,959477,106583,100*594,860*2,451,816St Mary's Primary School, Bairnsdale522,242602,767582,042856,800*874,080*3,437,931St Mary's School, Maffra349,243349,845383,839476,000*485,600*2,044,527St Mary's School, Sale311,487342,922370,491459,340*468,604*1,952,844St Mary's Primary School, Yarram200,061248,318240,355211,820*216,092*1,116,646St Michael's School, Heyfield254,433312,953297,492297,500*303,500*1,465,878Catholic College, Sale2,385,0602,704,3353,037,1913,212,294*3,281,744*14,620,624St Patrick's School, Stratford197,660210,942239,552235,620*240,372*1,124,146St Thomas' School, Sale466,696475,621579,761725,900*740,540*2,988,518Mary Mackillop Catholic Regional College, Leongatha1,137,4841,312,7321,505,1211,488,201*1,520,376*6,963,914Total General Recurrent Grants11,158,59512,327,52913,502,72815,837,61216,164,09568,990,559* Annual Entitlement - final payment figures not yet available# School closed at end of 1998 and reopened in 1999 under the same name.Training and Youth Programms and Grants Employer Incentives Programm(1) In the electorate of Gippsland, New Apprenticeships Centres have been contracted by the Department since 1 May 1998 to administer the Employer Incentives Programme. The three New Apprenticeships Centres currently operating in Gippsland are Gippsland Group Training, Melbourne Apprenticeship Services and Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry. (2) & 3) The Federal Government provides direct support in the form of employer incentives. In addition, the Government also pays New Apprenticeships Centres on a fee for service basis, to assist employer to take on a New Apprentice. Fees paid to the New Apprenticeships Centres are at tendered rates and are Commercial in Confidence.Employer incentives for the Electorate of Gippsland: 1996/971997/981998/99$1999/2000 $ (as at 11/2/ 2000)*Unavailable*Unavailable1,803,3221,354,891* prior to the commencement of the Employment Services Market on 1 May 1998, funding under this programme was monitored by the former Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA) areas. Information is not available by electorate in these years.Group Training Joint Policy Programme(1) (2) and (3) The following group training companies have offices in the electorate of Gippsland:. Eastern Victorian Group Training;. Gippsland Group Training Ltd; and. Supported Work Options Programme Inc, trading as the Personnel Group.Contracts between the Commonwealth and the successful tenderers are Commercial-In-Confidence as disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect the contractor's business affairs. Information on the funding provided to these organisations is commercial-in-confidence and is not available.Jobs Pathway Programme (JPP) 1999-2000(1) There are three Jobs Pathway service providers servicing 25 schools in the Gippsland electorate, the providers are: Eastern Victorian Group Training Inc; West Gippsland & La Trobe Valley Community Education Centre (Trading As Education Centre Gippsland); and Workways Association Inc.(2) The Commonwealth has contracted organisations in 1997-98, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 to provide Jobs Pathway services to young people in the Gippsland region. Funding for the Jobs Pathway Programme is distributed through an open and competitive tender exercise. Contracts between the Commonwealth and the successful tenderers remains Commercial-in-Confidence as disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect the contractor's business affairs. (3) In 1999-2000 the Commonwealth Government has provided funding to $23.6m to assist up to 70,000 young people from over 1,600 secondary schools across Australia. Vocational Education Training in Schools(1) The Australian Student Traineeship Foundation (ASTF) is an independent body established by the Federal Government to develop and support school-industry and community partnerships, which provide structured workplace learning opportunities for all senior secondary students. (2) and (3) Programmes funded in Gippsland by ASTF: Vocational Education Training in Schools 1996/1997* $1998$1999$2000$South Gippsland VET9,5009,350Note 110,000East Gippsland Vocational Education Program 65,00038,35056,70045,000Wellington Cluster VET in Schools 10,00025,00052,00034,000Gippsland VET Cluster 71,67080,00080,000Gippsland Cluster 65,000---La Trobe Valley Cluster 10,000---*1996 grants carried into 1997Note 1 In 1999 the South Gippsland VET cluster operated under the umbrella of the Gippsland VET Cluster and was funded through the Gippsland VET Cluster on this basis. In 1998, the ASTF was in the process of moving into its current 12 month funding cycle (calendar year). In consequence, grants in 1998 prior to the formal approvals round were set to expire at the end of that calendar year. Therefore, funding granted in 1998 is listed as '1998 funding'.During the process of changing the ASTF funding cycle, some programs were granted funds to cover any gap; therefore, many grants in the 1998 funding process were for the calendar year 1999, but commenced early. However, funding for 1999 was for Jan December 1999 and appears as such on the table.Literacy and Numeracy Programm(1) The Literacy and Numeracy Programme is targeted at assisting people whose literacy and numeracy skills are not sufficiently well developed to be competitive in the labour market ContractorsSitesEast Gippsland TAFEBairnsdale and SaleGoulburn Ovens Institute of TAFEdistance learning training within the Gippsland electorate(2) and (3) For Victoria, over 2,700 places have been allocated each year from 1998-99 until 2000-01 at an estimated annual cost of almost $6 million.Green Corps Projects(1) (2) and (3) Seven Green Corps projects have taken place in the electorate of Gippsland. Base SiteLocation NamePeriodJungadale Reserve DevelopmentTraralgon21/2/00 to 11/8/00Screw CreekInverloch4/10/99 to 31/3/00Hills to OceanLeongatha4/10/99 to 31/3/00BairnsdaleBairnsdale29/6/98 to 24/12/98WonthaggiPowlett Catchment1/12/97 to 29/5/98La Trobe ValleySnake Island15/9/97 to 13/3/98SaleSale19/5/97 to 15/9/97Contracts between the Commonwealth and the successful tenderers are Commercial-In-Confidence as disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect the contractor's business affairs. Information on the funding provided to these organisations is commercial-in-confidence and is not available.Job Placement, Employment and Training (JPET) Programme(1) JPET service are provide through Lakes Entrance Community Health Centre and the geographic coverage is: Lakes Entrance; Bairnsdale; outreach to Nowa Nowa; Orbost; Bruthen; Swifts Creek; Omeo; Mallacoota; Cann River; and Buchan.This service facilitates the placement of young people into employment, education or training through the development of individual case plans based on client goals and provides ongoing support, advocacy, appropriate referrals and life skills training. (2) & 3) Contracts between the Commonwealth and the successful tenderers are Commercial-In-Confidence as disclosure of this information would unreasonably affect the contractor's business affairs. Information on the funding provided to these organisations is commercial-in-confidence and is not available.Vocational education and training(1), (2) & (3) The Commonwealth provided funding for capital projects, including skills centres and the East Gippsland Institute of TAFE: Bairnsdale Campus and Sale Campus (Fulham).Commonwealth funding was provided on the following basis: . Fulham - Capital Funding for 1996 ($4.180m) . Bairnsdale - Capital Funding for 2000 ($3.315m) . Bramear College - Skill Centres For School Students for 1999 ($179,500) . Nagle College - Skill Centres For School Students for 1999 ($129,800)The Commonwealth does not provide recurrent funding directly to vocational education and training providers. The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) provides Commonwealth recurrent funding to the State and Territory Training Authorities. In 2000 the Commonwealth is providing $172.366 million through ANTA to Victoria for recurrent funding of TAFE colleges and other training providers.Workplace English Language and Literacy Programme(1) The Workplace English Language and Literacy Programme provides workers with English language and literacy skills to enable them to meet the demands of their current and future employment. Funds are allocated in response to applications.(2) Nil.(3) In 1999-2000 $38,700 has been allocated to a project based in East Gippsland.13864(Question No. 1906)190613864Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris EvansAX5Western AustraliaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 24 January 2000:(1) How many residential aged care facilities applied for accreditation by the 31 December 1999 deadline under section 42-4 of the Aged Care Act 1997.(2) How many residential aged care facilities failed to apply for accreditation by the 31 December 1999 deadline under section 42-4 of the Act.(3) How many residential aged care facilities had their funding stopped on 1 January 2000 because they failed to apply for accreditation by the 31 December 1999 deadline under section 42-4 of the Act.13865Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) and(2) As at 7/2/2000, only one facility had not submitted their Form A - Initial Application.(3) None. One facility had chosen not to apply and indicated this in a facsimile, dated 4 December 1999, to the Agency and confirmed this by telephone to the Department.13865(Question No. 1918)191813865Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 17 February 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm, Gavin Anderson and Kortlang since March 1996.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Gavin Anderson and Kortlang; (b) what has been the cost of the contract to the department; and (c) what selection process was used to select Gavin Anderson and Kortlang (open tender, short-list, or some other process).13865Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows:(1) Nil.(2) Not applicable.13865(Question No. 1930)193013865Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 17 February 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm, Gavin Anderson and Kortlang since March 1996.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Gavin Anderson and Kortlang; (b) what has been the cost of the contract to the department; and (c) what selection process was used to select Gavin Anderson and Kortlang (open tender, short-list, or some other process).13865Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:As far as I am aware, Gavin Anderson and Kortlang, have not been engaged to undertake services for the Department of Education Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), Australian National Training Authority and the Anglo-Australian Telescope Board for the period March 1996 to 17 February 2000. Following the machinery of Government changes in October 1998, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business will provide a separate response covering the employment related functions for the period March 1996 to 17 February 2000. The Australian Maritime College, Australian National University and the University of Canberra which are also listed under Administrative Arrangement Orders as a responsibility of the Minister's portfolio for part or all of the period in question, have not been approached in preparing a response to the question because they operate with a greater degree of autonomy. Additionally, the University of Canberra and the Australian Maritime College have not been covered by the Minister's portfolio since December 1997 and October 1998 respectively.13865(Question No. 1949)194913865Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 February 2000:Has the department, or any agency of the department, provided an annual return of income and expenditure for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years pursuant to section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral 1918; if so, can a copy of those statements be provided; if not, what, in detail, are the reasons for not providing those statements.13866Kemp, Sen RodSenator KempWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:In respect of the Treasury, the specified information was provided in the Treasury's Annual Reports for 1997-98 (Appendix I, page 125) and 1998-99 (Appendix J, page 144), to which I refer the honourable senator.The specified information in respect of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian Taxation Office, the National Competition Council, the Productivity Commission and the Royal Australian Mint was provided in the Annual Reports of those agencies for the specified years. Neither the Australian Securities and Investments Commission nor the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee made payments requiring to be reported in the specified years.The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority is not an Agency within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission did not provide the specified information due to an oversight. The ACCC was not aware of the requirement of section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 that such information be provided. The information is as follows. 1997-1998Advertising associated with recruitmentAdvertising associated with ACCC services and functions including Government business notices, Public hearings, submissions and directory listings.TMP Worldwide$60,106$52,988AGPS Gazette Advertising$7,548$7,369Morgan and Banks$10,830Neville Jeffress P/L$11,424$1,364George Patterson Bates$2,5001998-1999Advertising associated with recruitmentAdvertising associated with ACCC services and functions including Government business notices, Public hearings, submissions and directory listingsTMP Worldwide$30,612$22,971AGPS Gazette Advertising$7,778$2,277AIS Media$47,998$20,65613866(Question No. 1960)196013866Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 23 February 2000:Has the Department, or any agency of the Department, provided an annual return of income and expenditure for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years pursuant to section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; if so, can a copy of those statements be provided; if not, what, in detail, are the reasons for not providing those statements.13866Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Yes. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has provided this information in its annual report as required by section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. The information can be found at Appendix 7 (pages 216-217) of the 1997-98 annual report and Appendix 8 (pages 353-354) of the 1998-99 annual report. The information has been tabled in Parliament and is also available on the department's website (www.isr.gov.au). No other agencies of the Portfolio are required to provide this information as they are not covered by section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.13867(Question No. 1970)197013867Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 25 February 2000:(1) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to reports that: (a) the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, Mr Peter McGauran, has angered several Cabinet ministers by repeatedly misrepresenting the Government's position over the Basslink proposal to connect Victoria and Tasmania to the national electricity grid through the use of an above-ground cabling system in the Gippsland region; and (b) that Mr McGauran considers the Basslink above-ground cabling issue as `one of the biggest fights of his political career' and as a `do or die' issue.(2) Following the Minister's letter to Mr McGauran, reprimanding him for his misrepresentation of the Government's position on the Basslink proposal, did Mr McGauran contact the Minister to apologise for his behaviour.(3) What is the Government's position on the issue of above-ground cabling in the Gippsland region as part of the Basslink project.13867Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) (a) and (b) I am aware that Minister McGauran has commented on the Basslink proposal.(2) I have discussed the matter with Mr McGauran.(3) The Government is committed to a Combined Assessment & Approvals Process (CAAP), which is an agreement between the Commonwealth, Victorian and Tasmanian Governments for the environmental assessment of Basslink. The CAAP makes provision for scoping and public exhibition of guidelines and the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The CAAP has now formally commenced, following the Tasmanian Government's announcement that it has selected National Grid International Limited to build, own and operate the Basslink proposal.13867(Question No. 1981)198113867Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 3 March 2000:(1) Has the department, or any agency of the department, commissioned or conducted any quantitative and/or qualitative public opinion research (including tracking research) since 1 October 1998, related to the goods and services tax (GST) and the new tax system; if so: (a) who conducted the research; (b) was the research qualitative, quantitative, or both; (c) what was the purpose of the research; and (d) what was the contracted cost of that research.(2) Was there a full, open tender process conducted by each of these departments and/or agencies for the public opinion research; if not, what process was used and why.(3) Was the Ministerial Council on Government Communications (MCGC) involved in the selection of the provider and in the development of the public opinion research.(4) (a) What has been the nature of the involvement of MCGC in each of these activities; and (b) who has been involved in the MCGC process.(5) (a) Which firms were short-listed; (b) which firm was chosen; (c) who was involved in this selection; and (d) what was the reason for this final choice.(6) What was the final cost for the research, if finalised.(7) On what dates were reports (written and verbal) associated with the research provided to the departments and/or agencies.(8) Were any of the reports (written and verbal) provided to any government minister, ministerial staff, or to the MCGC; if so, to whom.(9) Did anyone outside the relevant department and/or agency or Minister's office have access to the results of the research; if so, who and why.(10) (a) What reports remain outstanding; and (b) when are they expected be completed.(11) Are any departments and/or agencies considering undertaking any public opinion research into the GST and the new tax system in the future; if so, what is the nature of that intended research.(12) Will the Government be releasing the full results of this tax-payer-funded research; if so, when; if not, why not.13868Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, or any agency of the Department, has not commissioned or conducted any quantitative and/or qualitative public opinion research (including tracking research) since 1 October 1998, related to the goods and services tax (GST) and the new tax system.(2) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(3) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(4) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(5) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(6) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(7) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(8) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(9) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(10) This question is not applicable as there has been no public opinion research commissioned or conducted by the Department since 1 October 1998 related to the GST and the new tax system.(11) There are no plans for such research.(12) See (11).13868(Question No. 2003)200313868Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu; (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract: and (c) what selection process was used to select Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (open tender, short-list or some other process).13868Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Preface: Where answers relate to contracts for consultancies, these details are publicly available in the FaCS and/or Centrelink Annual Reports for 1998-99 and appropriate references have been provided. Where answers relate to `non-consultancy' contracts, full details have been provided as these do not appear in the Annual Reports.(1) No contracts were provided to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu in 1998-99 by the Department of Family and Community Services, Social Security Appeals Tribunal, or Centrelink.(2) (a) No(b) No(c) No.13869(Question No. 2022)202213869Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm PricewaterhouseCoopers in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract: and (c) what selection process was used to select PricewaterhouseCoopers (open tender, short-list or some other process).13869Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Preface: Where answers relate to contracts for consultancies, these details are publicly available in the FaCS and/or Centrelink Annual Reports for 1998-99 and appropriate references have been provided. Where answers relate to `non-consultancy' contracts, full details have been provided as these do not appear in the Annual Reports.FaCS(1) 5 contracts were provided to PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1998-99 by the Department of Family and Community Services.(2) (a) (b) (c) Details are contained on page 302 of the Department's Annual Report for 1998/99.Centrelink(1) Centrelink has entered into 7 contracts with the firm PriceWaterhouse Coopers in the 1998-99 financial year. (2)(a)(b)(c) Of the 7 contracts, 4 were Consultancy contracts, details of which are available in the Centrelink Annual Report 1998-99 on Page 175. There were 3 Non-consultancy contracts, details of which are provided in the table below. Contract DescriptionTotal Cost of ContractPayment made (1998-99)How engagedProvision of audit servicesStanding offer$101,030.00Public TenderFinalise IT Strategic Plan$316,500.00$219,000.00Restricted Tender-PE68Preparation of Lotus Notes discussion paper$2,000.00$2,000.00Restricted TenderThe Social Security Appeals Tribunal did not provide contracts to PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1998/99.13869(Question No. 2041)204113869Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm KPMG in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by KPMG; (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract: and (c) what selection process was used to select KPMG (open tender, short-list or some other process).13869Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Preface: Where answers relate to contracts for consultancies, these details are publicly available in the FaCS and/or Centrelink Annual Reports for 1998-99 and appropriate references have been provided. Where answers relate to `non-consultancy' contracts, full details have been provided as these do not appear in the Annual Reports.(1) 2 contracts were provided to KPMG in 1998-99 by the Department of Family and Community Services. No contracts were provided to KPMG by Centrelink or the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.(2) (a) (b) (c) Details are contained on page 302 of the Department's Annual Report for 1998/99.13870(Question No. 2060)206013870Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2000:(1) What contracts has the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm Arthur Andersen in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the work undertaken by Arthur Andersen: (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract: and (c) what selection process was used to select Arthur Andersen (open tender, short-list or some other process).13870Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Preface: Where answers relate to contracts for consultancies, these details are publicly available in the FaCS and/or Centrelink Annual Reports for 1998-99 and appropriate references have been provided. Where answers relate to `non-consultancy' contracts, full details have been provided as these do not appear in the Annual Reports.(1) 1 contract was provided to Arthur Andersen in 1998-99 by the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS). No contracts were provided to Arthur Andersen by Centrelink or the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (SSAT).(2) (a) Consultancy services for the purpose of the development of draft indicators that are consistent with and support the FaCS key objectives set out in the Department's Strategic Plan.(b) Nil in FY 98/99(c) Restricted tender.13870(Question No. 2103)210313870Allison, Sen LynSenator Allison1M6VictoriaAD00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 9 March 2000:(1) Can details be provided of the process being used to manage plutonium waste at Maralinga and, in particular: (a) does that process include in situ vitrification; (b) was the material disposed of in trenches; (c) what was the depth of cover of those trenches; and (d) can details be provided of the engineering specifications for the trenches, including lining and the ingress of moisture.(2) How does the Maralinga plutonium disposal system compare with: (a) world's best practice; and (b) that proposed for uranium waste in South Australia.13870Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Both in situ vitrification and burial of debris have been used to treat contamination at Maralinga. The remediation methods were approved by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), the regulator to the Project.(a) In situ vitrification was used to treat contaminated debris in 11 pits.(b) Contaminated debris has also been disposed of in trenches and covered with clean soil.(c) The following table gives detail of the depth of cover of clean cover soil over the top-most level of contaminated debris in each of the Maralinga trenches: TrenchDepth below natural surface of the top of contaminated soil/debris (m)Height of `clean' soil mound over trench(m)Total cover of `clean' soil over contaminated soil/debris(m)Taranaki -soil3.53.06.5Taranaki - debris5.52.37.8Taranaki - ISV5.02.0*7.0Wewak4.21.65.7TMs5.50.66.1(d) The trenches are constructed to depths of 10-15 metres in bedrock, and, in all cases, the water table is at least 10-20 metres below the base of the trenches. The trenches are covered with clean soil, which is mounded from 0.6 to 3.0 metres above grade to facilitate water run-off. Marker layers of plastic have been placed above the contaminated debris in the Taranaki debris trench. The trenches are unlined. The contaminated debris has been placed in trenches in a stable geological environment which is unlikely to experience erosion. The integrity of the trenches will be routinely inspected under the long-term stewardship management plan for the site.There has been no evidence of plutonium dissolving in the groundwater and moving since the time of the testing at Maralinga. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation undertook solubility studies on plutonium in the Maralinga environment and the results showed that the plutonium had a very low solubility. This indicates that there is very little risk of plutonium leaching into the groundwater. In any event, the groundwater at Maralinga is very salty and is not suitable for consumption by humans or animals. There is no deep, fresh water source in or nearby Maralinga, so water from the area will not travel to regions where water from the water table is consumed.(2) At Maralinga, the circumstances giving rise to the likelihood of radiation exposure, were already in place when decisions about the control of those risks were made. Remedial work was carried out to reduce an existing risk. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Maralinga clean-up is an `intervention'. It is, therefore, incorrect to use the term `disposal' in relation to the treatment of the contaminated material at Maralinga. Using IAEA terminology, radioactive waste `disposal' situations are `practices' in that radiation exposures and their likelihood can be restricted from the start. (a) The Maralinga Rehabilitation Project has been undertaken consistent with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements for `interventions' outlined in the 1996 publication International Basic Safety Standards for the Protection Against Ionising Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources, Safety Series 155. (b) Comparisons cannot usefully be made between the requirements of an `intervention' (Maralinga) and a `practice'(waste management). If the question concerning waste disposal “proposed for uranium waste in South Australia” refers to the national radioactive waste repository, it should be noted that the repository is not being established for the management of uranium waste, but for the disposal of waste arising from Australia's use of radioactive materials in medicine, research and industry. Uranium mine tailings are managed at the relevant mine site.