2000-06-193916SENATE1505312000-06-19—————The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Condolences150531505310000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 14 June 2000, of Gregory Stuart Wilton, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Isaacs, Victoria, since 1996. I ask honourable senators to stand in silence in memory of our late colleague, Greg Wilton.Honourable senators thereupon stood in their places.Bills15053R100515053Consideration resumed from 8 June.12:31:0015053Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—In revisiting this now fairly lengthy debate on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000, I wish to clarify some points that were made by the minister in his contribution last time. He exhorted the opposition to seek some advice from the Clerk on the questions we were pursuing. As ever, we are attempting to be helpful. We did get advice from the Clerk of the Senate and I will read the advice we got. I will preface my comments by indicating that we provided the Clerk with a list of questions which we have been pursuing and which we intend to keep pursuing in relation to this legislation until we get some answers. So the Clerk had before him a series of questions, some of which the minister has seen or has been repeatedly reminded of. In response to that query from the opposition, the Clerk provided me with the following: Your questions on the local government bill are in order. The only basis on which they could be out of order is irrelevance to the bill, and they are clearly relevant. I see no other problem with the question. That is the advice we got from the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans. The second thing I wish to point out is that the Labor Party, despite a fairly mischievous press release by this minister, have no intention of blocking this bill whatsoever. We put out a release on the back of the minister's release which said that we will agree to pass this bill by 30 June 2000. The minister has had a number of days to cogitate on the series of questions that are currently being pursued by the opposition. I would like to give the minister the opportunity to respond to them now. If he requires some reminder as to what they were, I am more than happy to do that in the interests of being helpful, as the opposition always is, but I doubt whether he does. So there were the five outstanding questions that we asked the minister. All five questions are in order, on advice from the Clerk. The minister is, therefore, duty bound to make some kind of attempt to respond to them. So I would ask Senator Macdonald, given the effluxion of time, to please now answer the five questions that we have provided. 12:34:0015053Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I must say that, regrettably, I was not taking a lot of notice of what Senator Mackay was saying. I assume it is a rehash of what happened before. But if I can just recapitulate a little, this bill is about ensuring that grants to local authorities can continue to be paid, with the appropriate legislation to look at the escalation clause. The previous escalation clause was no longer relevant because it was aligned to the escalation of payments made by the federal government to state governments when the state governments got their financial assistance grants. Under the GST, which the government has proposed and which the Labor Party now supports, all of the GST goes to the states, so there will not be any need for Commonwealth grants to the states in the future. So we had to get another formula by which local government could get escalations in the payments each year of the financial assistance grants from the federal government to local authorities. This bill before us deals with that issue: how the escalation clause will increase. It also deals with some other minor, fairly technical amendments to the legislation. In between talking with my leader about much more interesting things, I thought I heard Senator Mackay say she had got some advice from someone about what would go on in this chamber. I am not quite sure where she got the advice. I have not seen it, and I am not quite sure what she is talking about. But even the most elementary understanding of parliamentary processes would provide that consideration of the bill in committee deals with the clauses before the committee, and none of the questions Senator Mackay has asked in any way deals with the clauses of the bill before the committee. So I venture to say that, if Senator Mackay has advice to that effect, I would not think much of the advice. I do not know where she got it from—unfortunately, I did not hear that—but it would seem to be quite clearly wrong. The committee stage deals with the clauses of the bill and matters relevant to it; it is not a general fishing expedition for information that you would get at estimates committees.As part of her contributions to this debate, in issues not related to the bill before us, Senator Mackay talked about how councils all around Australia have been approaching her because they have particular concerns about the way the financial assistance grants will impact upon them or how the GST will impact upon them. I have to say that if that is correct, then Senator Mackay has not been doing her job because, as I recall, she has not approached me with those questions or concerns. If you have concerns that are genuine rather than just political point scoring issues, you refer them to the government minister, even if you do not happen to like him or indulge in personal political attacks on him all the time in this chamber. If you want an answer, you still go ahead and refer those questions so that councils that have a concern can get appropriate answers from the government of the day that is responsible. When I was in opposition that is what I did. Regrettably, if Senator Mackay does have these concerns, she has raised very few of them with me, if any—perhaps she has raised one or two of them with me at various places—and she certainly has not written to me at length about these alleged concerns.By contrast, during the last week I drove 500 kilometres west from Townsville out into more remote parts of rural and regional Queensland. In the course of that visit, I spoke with four councils: the Flinders Shire Council, based at Hughenden; the Richmond Shire Council, based at Richmond; the Dalrymple Shire Council in the outskirts of Charters Towers; and the Charters Towers City Council. Would you believe, Madam Chairman, that not one of them raised with me any problems about the financial assistance grants; not one of them raised the question of the GST at all. In Flinders Shire we had a discussion about the GST, but that was because I asked some of the councillors how the GST was impacting. Two of them were local businessmen who explained to me the impact that it may have on them, and by and large they thought it was a very good system. I guess that is why the government proposed it, and I guess that is why the Labor Party is now going to keep it. But it is a good program for Australia, and it has major benefits for areas that export like those western Queensland areas. It is interesting that no-one raised it with me. All these concerns Senator Mackay talks about do not seem to materialise when I am there talking to councils. The question of the financial assistance grants was raised at some of those meetings but, again, it was raised by me, not by the councils. It was raised by me to get some input into the review the Commonwealth Grants Commission is conducting into the financial assistance grants at the present time. I am keen to ensure that all councils are aware of that so that they can get their input into it, and we can look at ways of doing that. While I was in Richmond, the Richmond Shire Council, who do receive quite substantial grants from the Financial Assistance Grants Scheme, were very keen to tell me how they used those financial assistance grants. Of course, they are interested to see this bill go through so that their grants will continue. The Richmond Shire Council do a lot of very good things. I was very impressed, as I always am, by the leadership of local authorities, particularly in country areas, in the way they promote their communities, the way they lead from the front and the way they do not sit around and say, `We want the government to do it. We want a hand-out for this; we want a hand-out for that.' In fact, in Richmond they are about to embark upon a very exciting new industry, the cotton industry, and they were very proud to show me around the cotton industry in Richmond. All they wanted from government was for governments to get out of their way. They wanted a couple of water licences from the Queensland government, which I believe the Queensland government will provide—certainly if I can help in the area, I would like to. In this area, which until now has been a sheep and cattle pastoral area, they are about to get this tremendously new and exciting cotton industry, which is being done in an environmentally sensitive way. So there will be no problems with endosulphins running into the gulf rivers, and there will not be any of the other questionable side-effects with this new cotton industry. It will be done in such a way as will provide great things for that community. That small town of about 600 people—going into a thousand in the district—expects that, with the increase in this cotton industry, the population will increase within the next few years to between 3,000 and 5,000 people, and that is magnificent. It is these sorts of things that councils do with their financial assistance grants that are of particular interest to me, not these debates that some of my colleagues opposite try to have for petty political point scoring about matters that are not related to this bill.One of the other things that council has done in leadership is take over from a voluntary group who run what I think—not that I am any expert—is perhaps one of the world's greatest exhibitions of fossils. I speak about this very excitedly because these are real life fossils. They are 100 million years old. They are being picked up in Richmond and in Hughenden, where I had the pleasure of meeting Senator McLucas's parents. They are a delightful couple. The only thing I say about Senator McLucas's parents is that they have failed as parents in that they have not been able to teach their daughter the correct political paths to follow. But they are a delightful couple and obviously very committed westerners—7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator Lundy—I am sure when they read this they will be sickened by it.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Lundy, did you say I am sickening you with this contribution? I am sorry if telling the chamber that Senator McLucas's parents are delightful people sickens you, but if it does sicken you then bad luck for you, Senator Lundy. You will just have to put up with it. I will continue to say what delightful people Senator McLucas's parents are.84LMcLucas, Sen JanSenator McLucas—Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I would request that Senator Macdonald withdraw that comment about the ability of my parents to parent me. I think that is rather offensive.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I certainly do withdraw that if it does offend Senator McLucas. I said it jokingly. Senator McLucas, I said that they failed to teach you proper political thoughts because you have a different political viewpoint to them. That was all.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Minister, I think you had better stick to the bill. That would be a good idea. YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, but I certainly did not want to be offensive to either Senator McLucas or her parents, all three of whom are delightful people. I do apologise.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Return to the bill, thank you, Minister.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I am withdrawing with some explanation. I certainly did not intend to—10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I like withdrawals to be unconditional, and I would appreciate your addressing the bill.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—It is unconditional, and I will explain that I certainly meant no offence. I am sorry if Senator McLucas took it that way. I repeat that both she and her parents are delightful people. I was pleased to be able to meet her parents.I was talking about fossils and things that this council use their financial assistance grants for. I was delighted to see Kronosaurus Korner, which is from the museum which the Richmond Shire Council has now taken over. It was established by a voluntary group of people, the leader of which actually found a fossil some years ago on his property. Apparently all of that area was an inland sea 100 million years ago and there are a lot of world-class fossils there. It is a delightful experience to see what that community has done. They are matters of relevance to this bill. They are where the councils have used some of their financial assistance grants.But I do not want to carry on this particular debate today. It is an important bill that we must get through. I am gratified that Senator Mackay has indicated by press release that the opposition will not be holding the bill up, that it will pass through the parliament and that local authorities will be able to get their grants by 30 June. The reason I have taken exception in the past to entering into the debate on questions which Senator Mackay has raised is that all of the questions have been answered. She keeps talking about five questions she has raised and says she has another 46 or something to raise, heaven forbid. If any of them are relevant to the bill, I will be very happy to answer them. Senator Forshaw asked a question in committee that was relevant to the bill, and I was very happy to answer it. Senator Forshaw was obviously satisfied with the response. It answered his query, and he is no longer taking part in the committee stage. If there are questions on the bill, please give them to me and I will answer them.As for the questions that Senator Mackay raised, the reason I do not want to continue doing this and continue wasting the chamber's time is that all of these questions have previously been answered. In response to those questions, I simply refer the chamber to the Senate estimates Hansard of 3 December 1999, page 197; the Senate Hansard of 25 May 2000, page 434; the Senate Hansard of 8 June 2000, page 14,160; and the Senate estimates Hansard of 25 May, page 429. All of Senator Mackay's questions have been answered previously, and I refuse to waste the time of the Senate reanswering questions that have already been answered.12:50:0015056Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—The minister is obviously so interested in his own legislation that he was not listening to whom I was quoting in terms of the nature of the questions we have been asking. I was in fact quoting the Clerk of the Senate, Mr Harry Evans, who the minister asserts—and I wrote this down—is `quite clearly wrong'. I will repeat the whole thing. We sought advice from the Clerk of the Senate as to whether our questions were in order or not. We provided the Clerk with a list of questions seeking advice. This was your suggestion, Minister Macdonald, which we took up. The response I got from Harry Evans, Clerk of the Senate, was this. Perhaps the minister can listen carefully. It states:Senator Mackay, your questions on the local government bill are in order. The only basis on which they could be out of order is irrelevance to the bill, and they are clearly relevant to the bill. I see no other problems with the questions. I also refer the minister to Odgers' Australian Senate Practice. I am not sure whether he is familiar with this, but if he is he should look at the last paragraph of page 262, which states:As with relevance in debate ... and in relation to amendments to the motion for the second reading ... the requirement of relevance is interpreted liberally, so that senators have maximum freedom to move amendments. In determining relevance, the question is: “What is the subject matter of the bill, and does this amendment deal with that subject matter?”. The long title of a bill can be taken as an indication of its subject matter ...The minister has been around a bit longer than me, so he ought to know about that. Also, I say that the minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand, `We have not been approached before with these questions and concerns,' and then read out a list of estimates hearings at which he allegedly answered the questions. The minister cannot have it both ways. Interestingly, we had a meander through the parentage of Senator McLucas and a meander through cotton and fossils and so on, so the minister clearly regards all these matters as germane to the bill but he does not regard questions about the impact of the GST on local government as relevant. Minister, I am sorry, the Senate does. The Senate regards them as relevant, Odgers regards them as relevant, the Clerk of the Senate regards them as relevant. Everybody—your government—would regard them as relevant but, if they do not, that is something we will take up in another forum. So everybody except you, Minister, is saying these are relevant. Minister, I say this to you: yes, we have guaranteed the passage of this bill by 30 June 2000. We will do that, but we will not do it in such a way as to let you and your government off the hook with regard to what is happening with local government and the GST or local government and financial assistance grants. We will sit here until we get answers. This is the view of the opposition and of the Leader of the Opposition, so I suggest you start answering some questions, otherwise we will be here for a very long time.While we are talking about meanderings around local government and councils, I might take this opportunity to report on some meetings I had in the seats of Richmond, Page and Cowper in northern New South Wales, all of which are held at the moment by the National Party. I had meetings there with a number of councils, as I always do. At this point I must say I have not yet attended a meeting of a council where the GST has not been raised. I do not simply attend only Labor Party councils. I am eclectic; I view the sector as one. I do not use question time to persecute individual councils based on their political proclivities as this minister does. In fact, the opposition, throughout the course of a number of local government elections in Victoria, in New South Wales and in Queensland, did not once seek to misuse question time to push a political barrow, and nor will we. I will go through the questions those councils raised at those meetings about the GST. The councils in those three seats—and let me repeat them in case people missed them: Richmond, Page and Cowper—all raised varying concerns with the GST. Some were in relation to the implementation costs, some were in relation to the potential for rates to go up, some were in relation to the potential for services to increase in price because of the GST imposition—which is a broken promise by this government that the sector would be GST free, might I say. So that is the story. We are in order. The questions are in order. It is not up to you, Minister, to determine and tell the Senate what you will and will not do. The Senate has decided that these questions are in order. If you do not think they are, I suggest you seek advice from the Clerk of the Senate as to why they are not in order. But they are in order. I also direct you to Odgers—and I repeat the page, page 262, for you—which makes it very clear. Also, Chair, I can say that a previous chair, Senator Watson—not from my party—in fact ruled that those questions were in order. Senator Bartlett ruled similarly when he was in the chair. I have heard no demurral from you, Chair, but it is so clear that I will not seek a ruling. So here we have a series of questions that are extremely vital to local government. This minister regards them—and he used some fairly basic alliteration—as petty political point scoring. They are not. The impact of the GST on local government is not petty political point scoring. It is not petty, political point scoring to local government and it certainly is not to the communities that local government serve. The impact of the GST on local government is of extreme importance to them, particularly where you have a situation whereby Mr Costello and this minister have said that, as a result of the GST, rates will go down or services will go up. The minister has made that contention but he has not put forward one single piece of evidence to show that this is in fact the case. The minister alleges that at every single council meeting that he has been to the issue of the GST has not been raised once. I find that extraordinary and that is obviously something we will be pointing out to local government. I know for a fact that is not true but if you, Minister, seek to mislead the Senate in this way that is fine. I will restate the questions—and they will be restated and restated. If you wish to re-hash the answers you gave to me at esti-mates, that is fine: you can do that. You can stand up in this chamber and give me the same answers that you gave me in estimates. I might point out, though, in terms of the first of the five questions—will the government undertake an analysis of the impact of the GST on local government?—you know the answer to that one so you should just get up here and say it, unless you have changed your mind. I understand that the government is under significant pressure here from people living in caravan parks and so on. There is a chance that the government may have altered its position on this with the calls from National Party members for exemptions for regional Australia in relation to the goods and services tax. In estimates you indicated that, firstly, you had not conducted any assessment as to the implications of the GST on regional Australia, nor did you intend to. You may be revisiting that. If the government's position remains the same in relation to the first question, just say so. The second one is this: will the government be monitoring or determining what impact the GST has on local government and on communities? That was not asked in estimates so you can try that one, Minister.The third question we asked them—this is on the record now—was: what will you do about the $15 million you took out in terms of the freezing of the escalation factor? If that is not germane to this bill, I do not know what is. Will you be putting the money back? What will you be doing? That was not answered at estimates either. The only thing that was answered at estimates occurred in a quite interesting interchange between the minister and his officials, in which he disagreed with his officials as to the freezing of the escalation factor. Presumably, we now have some commonality between them.I asked the minister whether he would seek advice as to whether the ACCC has jurisdiction over local government. The minister has raised this twice now in question time in relation to two Labor councils. The minister has said that he regards the allegations made by these councils to be so serious that the ACCC should investigate them. This question was not raised at estimates, it has not been raised before and I want the minister to undertake to seek advice as to whether the ACCC has jurisdiction over local government. Certainly, he is not beyond directing Professor Fels off to Labor councils. I might illuminate the committee at this point to an interchange between me and Senator Alston when he was standing in for Senator Hill. I asked Senator Alston: `Are you going to send the ACCC off to investigate every council that alleges it may have to increase its rates or charges as a result of the GST?' He answered me: `Only the Labor ones.' Unfortunately, that was not picked up by Hansard, so I am here to say it now. I see Minister Macdonald laughing; he thinks it is funny that Senator Richard Alston said `Only the Labor ones.' If he thinks that is funny, he should get out of the portfolio. It is not funny. It is extremely serious. It is serious that the government chooses to use question time in this blatantly political manner when dealing with elections in a sector that has nothing to do with federal or state politics.We did not get an answer to that question, so you are wrong there again. You did not answer the question of why there was an underspend in the LGIP, so you can have a go at it now. In this fairly lengthy contribution, we have traversed the issue of why these questions are in order. If the minister is quite clearly disagreeing with the Clerk of the Senate, Odgers and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, that is something we will be seeking further advice on. If we need to, we will take the minister through the humiliating process we took him through at estimates again. I restate those five questions. They are not that difficult. If the minister could have a go at them, I could move on to my next five questions.13:02:0015059Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—As I said at the conclusion of my previous contribution, all of the questions that Senator Mackay now asks have previously been answered either in this chamber or in the Senate estimates committee. I have given her the references to the pages. Madam Chairman, if you intend to allow people to waffle on forever and to waste the time of the committee, that is a matter for the chairman for the time being. But I am certainly not going to be a party to wasting the chamber's time by reanswering questions that have already been answered a number of times. I have given Senator Mackay the references to the questions she has asked previously. I have given her references to the answers that have been given.I want to respond to a couple of things Senator Mackay just raised in her speech to the committee. I laughed then—as anyone with the misfortune of listening to this part of the debate would be laughing—at the honourable senator telling the chamber, `Senator Alston said this, but regrettably it was not picked up in the Hansard.' We rely on the Hansard as a reasonably accurate record of what happens in Senate committees. Hansard happened to miss it, but Senator Mackay picked it up. The fact that she has now said it here means that it must be true. I was not there, so I cannot comment on its veracity or otherwise. But Senator Mackay giving self-serving evidence to this chamber is hardly a substitute for Hansard. I think I will rely on Hansard. If they did not pick it up, perhaps it did not occur.Then Senator Mackay said that the ACCC and the government say that rates cannot go up. What we have said, and what I repeat, is that rates do not have to increase because of the GST. If councils want to put up their rates and blame, maliciously and untruthfully, the GST—as the South Sydney City Council has done or as the Brisbane City Council has done—then they should be brought to account. But those councils, like every other council, are able to put up their rates as they like. All they cannot do is blame it on the GST. As everybody in Australia would know, there is no GST on rates. There was never intended to be, never has been and never will be as long as this government is in control.There is no GST on rates, but there are big savings for councils. Some $70 million in embedded taxes is removed. Some $70 million of indirect taxes that councils currently pay will disappear as a result of the new tax system. So all councils will save there. With all fuel for councils at least 7c or 8c a litre cheaper—and, for councils in regional areas, with trucks between four and 20 tonnes and over 20 tonnes as well getting fuel 25c a litre cheaper—you do not have to be Einstein to work out that there are big savings for councils. I would not expect the honourable senator sitting opposite me to accept my word on these things, but I would ask that she accept the word of the Treasurer of New South Wales, Mr Egan, a Labor Party man. He has written to councils in his state, and I do not have the exact quote but it was along the lines that the new tax system will be very good for local authorities. As I said, do not believe me but believe Mr Egan. If you want to go further afield, I mention quite regularly the report from Arthur Andersen done for the Victorian government in relation to—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay—The Kennett government.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—I take from the implication of that interjection that the honourable senator opposite is saying that Arthur Andersen, a respected worldwide accountancy firm, manipulates its advice because of whoever gives it instructions. I reject that entirely. Arthur Andersen is a very professional organisation, and its advice would have been given honestly and professionally. I think it is appalling of a senator in this chamber to accuse a national accountancy firm with a very good reputation of this sort of malpractice. I would almost think that is something that the chamber should ask the senator who interjected to withdraw.Arthur Andersen did a report for the Victorian government on four Victorian councils, and they came up with assessments that, if councils considered this matter carefully, there were big savings to be made for them. They actually put some figures in their report in the order of $200,000 for small councils and up to $1.9 million for large councils. That is not my report and it is not a report that our government has done; it is a report that someone else, a professional organisation, has done for another government.Senator Mackay also indicated that she had been to the Richmond council, and I want to make a distinction that that is not the Richmond council I was talking about. My Richmond council is up in north-west Queensland. I think I know the council that Senator Mackay was talking about—that is, the one in the Richmond area of the Northern Rivers of New South Wales. If those councils have problems, I invite them to write to me with their specific problems and I will try to address them. But what I suspect those coun-cils may have raised with Senator Mackay was the fact that the New South Wales government refuses to share with local authorities in New South Wales a part of the national competition policy payments. In Queensland under a Labor government and in Victoria under a Liberal government, those state governments receive substantial payments as a result of the national competition policy and the efficiencies made by the implementation of that policy, and the states did very well out of it. But the Queensland and Victorian governments—just to name two, but I suspect there are others—shared a part of those savings and a part of that payment from the efficiencies gained under the national competition policy with their local authorities. So Queensland councils have got some benefit from that and Victorian councils have got some benefit from that, but the New South Wales government continues to refuse to make these payments available to councils in New South Wales.I suspect that is the issue that these councils may have raised with Senator Mackay, because I tell you what: there are a lot of councils in New South Wales who, either directly to me or through their local members—but, regrettably, I have to say, it is only their coalition members, although I am sure Labor members in New South Wales are also getting submissions from their councils—plead with me to try to get them some of their national competition policy payments, as do councils in Queensland and Victoria. I have written to the New South Wales minister but not with a great deal of success. I appreciate that these are issues for the various state governments. In a cooperative sense, the Commonwealth and the state governments made the arrangements back in the Labor Party federal government days for the distribution of payments from the national competition policy efficiencies. That was an arrangement that the previous government put into effect and which we have abided by, as I recall. Two state governments that I know of have shared those payments, and they shared them very fairly because a lot of the efficiencies and the savings from the national competition policy have come from efficiencies that local authorities have implemented. The Queensland and Victorian state governments have recognised that and made some of their, if I might say, windfall gains from the NCP available to councils. But in New South Wales: nothing. I can only ask Senator Mackay, if she is interested in the welfare of local authorities in New South Wales, to please use her influence with the New South Wales Labor government to share those national competition policy payments with local authorities in New South Wales.The other issue that I wanted to comment upon briefly is that Senator Mackay made reference to caravan parks in the Northern Rivers area of New South Wales. The policy that the government has adopted is a very fair one: five per cent and inputs to caravan park operators' expenses refunded in full. The caravan park residents will be treated fairly, as will every other Australian, with big tax savings coming up in just 12 days time. The biggest tax cuts that have ever been given to the Australian public will all arrive in 12 days time. For people on pensions or welfare payments, those pensions and payments will increase by four per cent. It will be a massive increase. This will be money going into the pockets of ordinary Australians. It is the biggest tax cut ever in history. Unlike the Labor Party, which used to promise tax cuts before an election—it used to actually legislate for tax cuts before an election to come into effect after an election—win the election and then cancel the tax cuts, these are real live tax cuts. In 12 days every Australian in the work force will get these tax cuts and every Australian on benefits will get an increase in their benefits. So it is a fair system and one that is very, very good for Australia.But Senator Mackay raises the caravan park issue. What did Mr Beazley say when he was asked about it? What did Labor spokesman Mr Swan say about it? If I can paraphrase, there has been a pretty deathly silence. I suspect that Senator Mackay could use the next two weeks of debate—which she is threatening the Senate with—on this bill that everybody agrees with. Perhaps she could use that time in the next two weeks to tell us what the Labor Party would do about caravan park fees.For all the froth and bubble and the huff and puff about the GST, we know that the Labor Party hate the GST so much that they are going to keep it. That is how much they hate it. They hate it so much they are going to keep it; they are going to adopt it. There is going to be a roll-back, which we are all interested to hear about. But Senator Mackay could use the next 20 minutes and the next two weeks of debate—which she is threatening this Senate with—to tell us how they will roll this back in relation to caravan park operators.We think our system, our proposal of the way to treat it, is fair and equitable. We suspect that Mr Beazley also thinks it is fair and equitable by the very light way that he has dealt with it—if I can put it politely in saying `light way'. But, if Senator Mackay has the numbers in her faction in the Labor Party and has a policy on how this will happen, how it will be rolled back, let us hear about it in the next 20 minutes. I am sure that caravan park dwellers, the media and, indeed, those of us on this side—and I suspect many on your side as well, Senator Mackay—would be just fascinated to find out how you will roll it back. 13:18:0015062O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I was interested to hear the responses today from the minister which purported to be answers to questions which originally the minister said were not relevant to the bill. Clearly he has now been forced to amend his view, given the very clear advice from the Clerk of the Senate that the questions are in order. I am not so sure that he was really aware of what he was referring to. He seemed to flick through some photocopied or printed out references to Hansard where he suggested the answers exist. I have not had an opportunity to check all of those, but my initial inquiries indicate that we do not believe that the answers exist in Hansard. I wonder whether the minister would refer us to the particular passages in those Hansards which he alleges answer the questions which have been asked. If indeed they do answer the questions, then this debate can move on.As I indicated in a contribution when last the committee was considering this legislation, the minister's refusal to answer questions was going to lead to the government pulling this bill and dealing with other legislation. The minister took umbrage at that comment and said that I was some sort of bullyboy for threatening that his own party would pull the rug out from under him in relation to dealing with his own legislation. I did not have an opportunity to respond; he talked the time out, as I recall it. But the reality was that I was telling him the facts of life: the government were not prepared to see that legislative time—legislative time that I understand they consider is insufficient to deal with the legislative package they wish dealt with—used up whilst this debate went on.Essentially, we have a situation where a number of questions have been asked, and there are a number of other questions that Senator Mackay wishes to ask which, consistent with the advice received, as I understand it, would be proper questions to ask. The minister may take a view that he simply does not want to answer questions. I suppose that if he persists with that bill at some stage, the opposition will say, `Well, the minister has nailed his colours to the mast.' The minister has decided, for reasons which I am entitled to speculate about—as all people are entitled to speculate about—that he is not prepared to answer questions.Some people have suggested to me that the minister is frightened about answering these questions in that he might put his foot in it and he might get the government into further trouble on the GST. Recently a number of comments about outcomes have been made leading to interventions by the Treasurer. Effectively, he has said that other ministers do not know what they are talking about when they talk about consequences of the GST. I suppose it is reasonable to assume—in the absence of answers from Senator Macdonald to questions which are in order—that he too is frightened of copping an earful from Mr Costello if he does not get it right. Obviously, in those circumstances, he is not confident about getting it right. He may not be confident that his views of the implications of the GST will accord with those of the Treasurer. The alternative is that perhaps he just does not know.The bottom line is that the opposition are entitled to ask questions in the committee stage of this bill. A number have been asked and, as I said, the minister suggests that those answers exist in the Hansard. I stress that we do not believe that is the case. But we can move on if the minister is prepared to refer us to the particular passages, not general pages, and to give us the detail of the answers that he relies upon in saying that he has answered those questions. That will assist the progress of this debate rather than allow it to bog down on the first of a number of questions which the opposition intend to ask, which the opposition are entitled to ask and which, I believe, would be ruled in order. If there are particular questions in that process which the minister can demonstrate are not in order, then that is his right. He pretends that answers exist elsewhere that we can rely upon but, as I say, we are not convinced they exist. The minister has an opportunity to present to the Senate and put on the record exactly what has been said in the Hansard. He has the pages there; he waved them in front of us when he was making his contribution earlier. He can draw those passages to our attention. He can put them on the record again, and those people in local government who have been waiting for those answers can be assured that the minister has properly dealt with them. Alternatively, if he cannot do that, I think everyone is entitled to the view that the answers do not really exist. Let us face facts: most of the population of Australia does not have ready access to every aspect of the Hansard relating to this debate. It is not reasonable to require local governments around Australia to chase every contribution the minister has made in the Hansard. I am sure that, if there is a point that the minister wanted to emphasise with any particular council or a question that any particular council has raised, the minister has the resources of his office and the department to deal with those questions. He is not underresourced. He does not have, I would suggest, a difficulty physically in dealing with the questions. The question is: is there a difficulty intellectually in dealing with these questions? I say that in this sense: the GST is a very sensitive subject for this government. In the 10 or 12 days that the minister referred to leading up to the implementation of the GST, people have a lot of questions, many of which are yet to be answered. We are talking about legislation which has a direct relationship to the effect of the implementation of the GST on local government. Many local government bodies have gone on the public record to express their concerns about the implications of the effect of the implementation of the GST on their operations, particularly financially. This legislation deals with the financial arrangements between the federal government and local government. I suggest that the minister follow the course that I propose, and this bill can then move forward. The alternative is that we will pursue the questions that we want answered, and there are a couple of possible outcomes from that: we could take a significant part of the legislative time that is available to the government in attempting to have these questions answered and fail, and Senator Mackay will obviously have something to say about what happens to this legislation at that point; or, before we get to that point, the government might say, `We have other legislation which is also of significant priority, and we cannot allow this matter to stand in the way of that,' and we would then see this bill pulled. That will have ramifications for everyone. Perhaps the minister is prepared to try to play that game of Russian roulette and say, `We'll see who gets shot when the bill doesn't pass.' That is potentially the game we could end up playing. I stress again: if the minister has the answers there in the Hansard to the questions which have been asked, all he has to do is stand up and read them out and we will see whether they answer the questions. It may be that they raise questions, in which case, quite properly, the opposition might want to raise those particular matters. That is quite a proper process in the committee stage of a bill. Senator Macdonald will have seen it occur on many occasions both when he was in opposition and since he has been in government. That is quite a proper process. That is the only way this bill can properly move forward—that is, by a meaningful contribution to the process of answering questions legitimately asked by the opposition. The minister can simply stand up, deal with the questions and we can move on. As I say, the alternative is that we could be here for some time seeking to elucidate answers which are keenly awaited by the local government sector in this country. I really do suggest that the time is now for the minister to get on with answering questions which have been properly asked. If the minister needs time, if he needs to see the Clerk of the Senate because he does not accept the position that has been put by Senator Mackay about whether the questions are in order, then perhaps he should say so and seek to report progress on this bill and go and get that advice, and the Senate can deal with other material while he is properly advised. Maybe he needs to go and check with the Treasurer so that he can give answers that will not offend the Treasurer. The government is in charge of the timetable of processing legislation. If he needs time to do that, all he needs to do is stand up and seek to report progress and we will move on to the next bill and come back to this when he does have the answers—answers which he is confident the Treasurer will be satisfied with. Those are the courses which, it seems to me, are available to the government. Perhaps now is the time for the minister to consider those options. But, firstly, I ask that he refer us to the particular passages that he relies upon as having answered the five questions which Senator Mackay has asked.13:30:0015064Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—I think we have finally got there, haven't we, Senator O'Brien? The minister has finally decided to run up the white flag. He is just going to sit there and not answer any questions at all. Senator O'Brien and I had a private discussion of how long it would take before he decided to just sit there and not answer any questions, and I think it has happened now. I will assist Senator O'Brien in his questions, and I will reiterate to the minister the questions that were asked in estimates. Will the government undertake an analysis of the impact of the GST on local government? At that point, the government said no. Has the government changed its mind in relation to this issue? If the government does the analysis and it shows that there has been a deleterious effect, what will the government do? That was not asked in estimates. Will the $15 million—the money which resulted from the freezing of escalation factors in 1997-98—be put back? That question was not asked in estimates. Will the minister seek advice on the jurisdictional aspects of the ACCC and the local government sector? That question also was not asked in estimates. Will the minister explain why the LGIP was underspent by $1 million this financial year? This was alluded to but not explicitly asked in estimates. I think it might actually assist the process if the minister himself were able to apprise the Senate of it.I was there—as was Senator O'Brien—when Senator Forshaw asked these questions, and I well remember them. The quality of the answers was such that we in fact took the decision at that point that this would be an appropriate juncture to pursue the matter. Let us see if the minister can answer these questions. We will put those previous questions aside for a minute. Let us try these: in relation to the population estimates, what are the key differences between this amendment and the previous bill?13:32:0015064Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In the previous bill, there was a requirement that the Statistician be consulted—I will just get the exact words. This is a question relevant to the bill. Subsection 9(1) of the act prescribes the formula to be used in estimating the entitlement to the local government financial assistance grants for each state. This includes the use of a preliminary estimate of the population of each state as at 31 December of the previous year. The act currently requires the minister and the Statistician to agree on the assumptions to be used. However, at the time such estimates are made each year, the Statistician does not have the data available on which he bases his formal published population estimate. He believes that the responsibility for assumptions underpinning the estimated population predictions should therefore lie with the minister and that he should not be required to agree. He is happy to continue producing the estimate on that basis and for there to be a legislative requirement for the minister to consult with him on the assumptions. This new clause puts into effect the request of the Statistician. His reasoning, I think, is logical and understandable, and for that reason acceptable to the government. The legislation requires that I consult with him on the assumptions, but he does not have to agree with the assumptions. He thinks that is a matter for the government of the day, and we accept his view. It is an interim assessment. When the actual population figures become available at a later time, then adjustments can be made. So nobody really misses out—it means payments can get out. We use population data at an early time before the actual population numbers are accurately ascertained. Under the new bill the government, after consulting with the Statistician, makes an assumption. If that assumption turns out to be incorrect, then the real figures, when they become available, will be used, and the exact amount will be paid at that time.13:36:0015065Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—What factors will the government be using to determine its response in the interim?13:36:0015065Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The government will be relying very heavily on the work of the Statistician. It is the Statistician's role, of course, to produce those figures. The government has, as far as I am aware, no other sources of real information. So I, while I am the minister, rely—and although I cannot speak for future ministers it stands to reason that any minister in the future would rely—very heavily on what is suggested by the Statistician in getting to those population figures.13:37:0015065Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—It does not make sense to me, Minister. The Statistician has asked for the changes, presumably predicated on some concerns that he or she has in relation to the veracity of these figures. You say that you will be consulting heavily with the Statistician in determining the interim position. What will you be doing? If the Statistician has these concerns, what other factors will you take into consideration until the final figures are out?13:37:0015065Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—This is the Statistician, whose job it is to accurately count whatever he happens to be counting at the time, and in this instance it is the population. He does not have the data available on which he bases his formal published population estimates. As a public official whose job it is to accurately count, in this instance, the population, he does not really want to be seen as agreeing to an estimate when he is the one who should give the formal population figures. So he has said—and these are not his words, but perhaps I can impute them to him—that he feels that it would not be professional for him to agree with me on a set of projections on which he does not have the formal data. It is something I can do, because we can make an assumption—knowing full well that, when the accurate figures come out in the not too distant future, they will be adjusted and so no-one really misses out. It is a reasonable request from the Statistician, and one with which the government is prepared to comply.13:39:0015066Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—Minister, it appears that there is the capacity here—and you have in fact alluded to it yourself—for the Treasurer to override the interim figures provided by the Statistician. You have not really elucidated or set out the process which the minister of the day and the Treasurer will be using to determine population estimates, other than to say that you will be relying very heavily on the Statistician. In what circumstances would you see a situation whereby the Treasurer may in fact change the population estimates? What estimates are you using? It is not clear. 13:40:0015066Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator, that is a slightly different question. It is again relevant to the bill before the Senate and is one which I am happy to answer. It is really not a question of the Treasurer overriding the population figures. That is not allowed. The population assumptions are, in the end result, mine and mine alone—or those of whoever holds this position in the future—after consultation with the Statistician. So that is that issue. The Treasurer does not have power himself to alter the population figures. The current act that was in vogue in 1995, an act that was passed by the previous government—with our support, if I recall correctly—provides that the Treasurer then has a very wide discretion to alter the escalation figure. Under the current act, I think it is fair to say, there is very little constraint upon the Treasurer. Subsection (2) of section 8 of the current act talks about determining the final factor. Subsection (2) says:In making a decision ... whether to increase or decrease a sum, the Treasurer is to have regard to the following matters:(a) underlying movements in general purpose Commonwealth payments to the States ...Of course, that is no longer relevant because we will not be paying money to the states anymore. They will be getting all the GST moneys, and so they will not be getting general purpose grants from the Commonwealth in future. It continues:(b) changes to the classification of any relevant Commonwealth payments to the States;(c) changes to the distribution of the financial responsibilities as between the Commonwealth and the States;(d) any other matters that the Treasurer thinks relevant.That is the current bill introduced by the former government. We are proposing in this bill to retain the provisions which give the Treasurer discretion to increase or decrease the escalation factor in special circum-stances. But the bill inserts new provisions specifying that there must be special circumstances before the Treasurer can adjust the escalation factor and that, in doing so, he must have regard to the objects of the act. Senator, as you would well appreciate from that, there is no such specification in the current legislation. Under the current act, the discretion of the Treasurer is unfettered. Now we are imposing upon the Treasurer the requirement that there have to be special circumstances and that he must have regard to the actual objects of the act. Those constraints were not present under the previous act introduced by the former government, but they are in this proposal.NaN:00:0015066Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—The difference being, of course, that the change in the role of the Statistician is inherent in this act in relation to the figures. What are the special circumstances, Minister?13:45:0015066Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Again, your comment about the population is not relevant. Under the previous act it was still an estimate of population. It cannot be anything else but an estimate because the formal figures are not done—nobody in the world has the data, and an estimate had to be made previously. What the Statistician said he would prefer—not `objected to'; I think that is putting it too strongly—is that he should not be required, as a professional, independent public servant, to agree with an estimation of formal figures which he is charged with providing. He said he is quite happy to continue discussing it with the minister of the day, he is quite happy to put his ideas forward, and, as I say, the minister of the day will obviously draw on those to get the estimate of population variations. That estimate, whether it be right or whether it be wrong, is only for a short period of time because, when the true figures are made available, an adjustment is made to bring in the true figures and the money that follows from the true figures. So that, with respect, is not relevant. Under the current act the Treasurer has unfettered discretion. As you will see from the existing act, Senator, the amount has to be agreed upon by the Treasurer, and it is actually the Treasurer that causes the factor in relation to the current year to be worked out by the formula, a quite complicated formula, that is set out in the current act. Hav-ing got to that factor, he can then alter it—and I quote the current act—`taking into account any other matters that he thinks are relevant'. I am sure you have got the bill, Senator, but I will point out the actual words that we are using in the amending bill. It says now that if the Treasurer considers there are special circumstances for doing so, the factor calculated under paragraph (a) is increased under paragraph (b) by such amount as the Treasurer considers appropriate. But then it goes on to say that in doing so the Treasurer must take heed of the objects of parliament in enacting this act as set out in section 3. So that does provide a constraint over and above what it was under the previous legislation, and it is, we think, in those circumstances appropriate.13:49:0015067Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—I just want to repeat my question: what are the special circumstances?13:49:0015067Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—English usage as we know in interpretation of statutes relies on what the words actually say, and `special circumstances' means what it says—special circumstances. The Treasurer has to demonstrate what special circumstances are. It is not for me to pre-empt or guess or conceptualise what might happen in the future; in fact, that is contrary to standing orders. But one might imagine a new government coming to power when an older government that had been there for 13 years had been going around saying to everyone, `Look, we've got a big surplus in our budget. We've got a lot of cash money in the till. Things are going swimmingly.' If that government had gone around saying that, and then there was an election and a different government came into power and that new government had a look at the books, sent them out to the best auditors in the world, and suddenly found out that the previous government was telling little porkies—in fact, not just little porkies but very big lies—if that occasioned and the government suddenly found that it had $10 billion less in the kitty than the previous government had been promising everyone it did have, and the incoming government, having based its election policies on the published data, that is, that things were going swimmingly and that there was a lot of money around in the country, comes in and finds out that the previous government had deliberately lied to the Australian public, one might then think that they might be classed as `special circumstances'. The Treasurer might then say, `Well, we can't allow a full range of government spending; not just this one but a full range of government spending. We cannot provide more money.' That, I suspect, might be considered to be a special circumstance.Under the current act the Treasurer did not need special circumstances. Under the present act—the act of the previous government—the Treasurer only had to take into account any other matters that he thought relevant. Under our bill there has to be special circumstances, and he has to exercise that discretion taking account of and complying with the objects of the act as it will then stand upon the passing of this amendment. 13:52:0015068Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—That is extremely interesting, I have to say. The reason it is interesting is that about 10 minutes ago the minister said the adjustments are minor until the formal figures in fact come in. Now we have a situation—which is of course what happened in 1997-98—where the escalation figures could be varied or frozen, depending on exigencies in relation to policy. So, Minister, are you saying that the Treasurer will exercise this discretion in the way that you have indicated—for example, if there is a potential blow-out in government spending? What is the certainty that between the decision being made and the final figures coming in there will not be changes? That is the point. The way you did it before was you froze it. This time—I know it is a difficult concept for you to get your head around, Senator Macdonald—what has happened is the Statistician is saying, `I'm not prepared to sign up to preliminary figures.' That is fair enough. But we want to know, given the Statistician does not want to sign up to preliminary figures—which is fair enough—under what special circumstances the Treasurer may in fact vary the escalation factors. You have cited one, which is a political one, I have to say. You may regard that as fair enough, but I do not think local government regards it as fair enough.What I would like you, Minister, to do is come back to us with a list of the special circumstances. I understand you cannot talk on behalf of the Treasurer about what those special circumstances may be, but we would like a list of the special circumstances so we can relay them to local government. Also, can you, as the minister who will be in fact undertaking this process, provide the precise process you will undertake for the population estimate in relation to discussions with the Statistician? Will you go beyond discussions with the Statistician, or will you adhere to the preliminary estimates of the Statistician in relation to this, bearing in mind that he has not formally signed up to that? The other issue is what capacity there is for the Treasurer to consult with other groups when determining what the escalation factor may well be. This comes back to the issue of special circumstances—for example, ministers or whatever. Also, are there any realistic limitations on the use of the escalation factor in this fashion?These are all appropriate questions. So if you can come back and provide us with answers to all of those, then we will ask an-other series of questions in relation to this legislation. After that, we will go back to our in order questions and we will go through the second set of questions we had. We still have not had a response from you in relation to the jurisdiction over the ACCC. We still have not had a response from you as to why the LGIP was underspent by $1 million this financial year, and we still have not had a response from the government as to whether it intends to put back in the $15 million that it took out in 1997-98. So I would like the minister to take all of those questions away and come back. The minister in his response—YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian Macdonald—Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I do not need to take away the questions on the bill. I can answer them straightaway, if Senator Mackay is interested in answers to the questions on the bill. If she sits down now, in the three minutes available to me I can answer those questions about the Treasurer.10000Knowles, Sue (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—There is no point of order.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY—That is good. Can the minister answer those questions that I just gave him and also the other questions that we talked about before in relation to the Local Government Incentive Program, the jurisdictional aspect of the ACCC, and whether the government will ever consider putting back in the $15 million that it took out in 1997-98, which has now reached a total of $61.4 million. If you can answer those in the next 2½ minutes I can move on to my second set of questions. 13:57:0015069Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—In relation to the only two questions that are relevant to the bill—which are the only ones I am answering—Senator Mackay, with respect, cannot understand—9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay—Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. Chair—I know you have been in the chair, and I appreciate this—we have been through this several times. We have received advice from the Clerk of the Senate. We have quoted the section of Odgers which provides that the minister has to answer questions. The questions we are asking are not out of order—they are in order—and it is out of order for the minister to continue to assert that these questions are not in order. They are. If he asserts they are not in order, then he should seek his own advice from the Clerk of the Senate and find out for himself whether they are in order. We have got written advice from the Clerk of the Senate, and we have a section of Odgers. If the minister wishes to in fact get his own advice I would appreciate it, because it would expedite this debate immensely. But our advice is every single question we have asked and we intend to ask is in order.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—There is no point of order. I have not been asked to rule on the relevance of the question. However, as it is now 2 p.m., I propose that the committee report progress.Progress reported.Ministerial Arrangements1506914:00:0015069Hill, Robert (Leader of the Government in the Senate)Senator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPLeader of the Government in the Senate10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Amanda Vanstone, Minister for Justice and Customs, Minister representing the Attorney-General and Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, will be absent from the Senate for question time this week. Senator Vanstone is attending the first meeting of the executive committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency in Lausanne. During Senator Vanstone's absence Senator Ellison will take questions relating to the justice and Customs portfolio, the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio. Questions Without Notice150691506914:00:0015069Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Prime Minister. Isn't Garry Nehl, the member for Cowper, correct in claiming—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—`Mr Nehl', Senator. 7L6Senator HOGG—Isn't Mr Garry Nehl, the member for Cowper, correct in claiming that his integrity and that of the coalition parties have been impugned by the government's decision to apply a 5.5 per cent GST to mobile home and long-term caravan park rentals? Given that the government had promised prior to the election that there would be no GST on residential rent, why is the government persisting in discriminating against the approximately 160,000 long-term residents of caravan and mobile home parks? 15069Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—Obviously the honourable senator on the other side is mistaken. The position of long-term renters, whether they be in mobile homes or whether they be in flats or houses, is approximately the same. In relation to caravan parks, certainly be-cause such parks include a mixture of short-term and long-term renters, a different formula has been applied. But equity has remained. So the position of long-term renters in caravan parks is not, in terms of cost to the renters, different from that of those living in long-term housing accommodation. That is a fair situation that has been developed to meet the requirement of caravan parks which are a mixture of long-term and short-term. It is fair to the residents. I am sorry that the honour-able senator on the other side does not understand. 15070Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—I have a supplementary question, Madam President. The minister, in answering my question, failed to address part of the question. Maybe he can have a shot at it this time. Is it true that the government promised prior to the election that there would be no GST on residential rent? That was the first part of the question that he did not answer. Is it also true that the government is applying a 5.5 per cent GST to residential rent which is paid for mobile homes and caravans? Isn't this a cut and dried broken promise? 15070Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—Of course not. This government is not in the business of breaking promises. This government is in the business of reforming the taxation system to the benefit of all Australians, whether they live in short-term or long-term accommodation. It has made considerable efforts to ensure that equity is retained between such renters. When you look at the benefit to all Australians from this tax reform and the large range of taxes that are reduced to enable its implementation, the bottom line is that all Australians are better off. Contrast this with the position of the Australian Labor Party. What does it say in relation to caravan parks? Mr Beazley said, `We might roll it back.' Did Mr Beazley come out and say, `No, we will change the policy'? Of course not—another demonstration of Labor: no policies, no alternatives, just miserable, negative nonsense. 1507014:05:0015070Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15New South WalesLP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Local Government and Territories, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister advise the Senate on the new federal government initiatives that will further boost communities in regional and rural Australia and help them enhance their economic base? 15070Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Tierney and all government senators, particularly those from regional areas, will be delighted in the weekend announcement of the government's new four-year, $90 million federal government grants program, the Regional Solutions Program. The Regional Solutions Program is designed to help communities build up their economic bases. Senator Tierney, as he travels around re-gional New South Wales, will be well aware of the need of many communities to build their economic bases. Grants will be available for community planning, for implementing local projects, for community adjustment initiatives, for regionally based enterprises and infrastructure projects and to employ community based development offices. This new program will be a flexible one. It will allow communities to identify and implement development opportunities which meet their particular needs and overcome their specific problems. Small and large scale projects will be catered for and the grants will be from $1,000 up to $500,000. I want to pay particular credit to Mr Anderson, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, and the Regional Australia Summit held last year for getting this initiative together. It is the sort of thing that was asked for at the regional summit. The government is delighted to have been able to announce this new program. It builds upon many other initiatives by the Howard government for rural and regional Australia: the Regional Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund, the Natural Heritage Fund, the Rural Transaction Centre Program, the $562 million health package, and the $240 million Stronger Families and Communities Strat-egy.While the government is out there doing it, the Labor Party, which had 13 years to do something for rural and regional Australia, did absolutely nothing. Their major rural and regional policy was called Better Cities. That is what the Labor Party could do. They spent money building up a bureaucracy but doing nothing for people on the ground. What else do Labor do to try and fool the Australian public into thinking they are interested in rural and regional Australia? They set up a new element—a new faction, one might say—of the Labor Party and call it Country Labor. As I explained in the Senate some time ago, you click on the Country Labor web site and it takes you straight to Sussex Street—one click straight to Sussex Street. I understand that Country Labor put out a newsletter and are currently embarking on a competition to name the newsletter. Currently it is just called Country Labor: other news. I want to enter the competition, and my contribution is going to be Pulling the wool over our eyes. How about that one? Or how about Mutton dressed as lamb or perhaps A wolf in sheep's clothing? Now that would be good. I am particularly encouraged by the support I am getting from my people because I want to win the prize. Do you know what the prize is, Madam President? The prize, if I get this right, is an inspirational video of Paul Keating's thoughts. If I win it, I will get an inspirational video by Paul Keating, and I just cannot wait to get that! There are my suggestions. All jokes aside, why don't you do something positive like our regional solutions fund, rather than mucking around with the semantics? (Time expired)1507114:09:0015071Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, the Minister for Family and Community Services. Is it true that a report prepared by Mr Chris Murphy from Econtech shows that people living in caravans, mobile homes and boarding houses, who will be forced to pay a 5.5 per cent up-front GST, will be worse off than every other Australian renter, who will be input taxed?15071Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have been asked questions about the Econtech report before. Obviously, Senator Sherry cannot have been listening at the various times I answered this question. The point is that this report was requested by the Treasury, and the Treasury asked my department to manage the consultant's work and to present it to the Treasury. They managed it instead of the Treasury. As soon as the report was received by my department, it was conveyed to the Treasury. I cannot help him with the contents of it at all.15071Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Aren't these damaging figures actually produced by the Prime Minister's preferred economic mod-eller, Chris Murphy? Is the minister aware that her department admitted in Senate estimates hearings on 24 May that increases to rent assistance to compensate for the GST would not protect all people living in boarding houses, as well as other renters? Isn't this the real reason why the Econtech report has been buried away? It should have been released in January, and you announced that it would be released in January. When will this report be released as the government promised to do?15071Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I do not know who Senator Sherry suggests promised it would be released in January. I have no recollection that anybody has said such a thing. Let me make this absolutely clear—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—Where is the report?BE4Senator NEWMAN—Ask the Assistant Treasurer or put a question on notice to the Treasurer. It is a report for them. It is not a matter that I have had any involvement in. My department acted as agent for the Treasury. But it would be remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity that this supplementary question provides to emphasise that rents for people renting in Australia will increase with the new tax system. Nobody in the government has ever pretended otherwise. Whether they are renting a private home or whether they are renting an apartment or whether they are renting a site in a caravan park, the point is that compensation will be provided under the new tax system at the rate of seven per cent for rent assistance, four per cent for parents and tax assistance for those who are paying tax. (Time expired)1507214:12:0015072Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TasmaniaLP10—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Will the minister inform the Senate of the benefits which are flowing to Australian families of the Howard government's sound economic management? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches?15072Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I thank Senator Watson for that very important question. I am happy to report to the Senate that, under this government, Australia has been one of the world's best performing economies. Just last Wednesday this was confirmed by the ABS when the ABS released the national accounts for the March quarter. They confirm the very strong performance of the Australian economy.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—We had a wholesale sales tax.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry calls out, `The wholesale sales tax'. Hasn't Senator Sherry heard that Mr Beazley is now on record as saying that he will not now repeal the GST—that Mr Beazley now supports the GST?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—But you argued the wholesale sales tax was inefficient.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Sherry, you are shouting and behaving in a disorderly fashion.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President, for that protection from the hysteria of Senator Sherry. The national accounts were very good news for the economy, and they showed that the GDP increased by just over one per cent during the quarter. This exceptionally good result represents a through-the-year growth figure of 4.3 per cent. I stress that this is the 12th consecutive quarter of through-year growth above four per cent. It truly is a remarkable performance, and it reflects the very sound management of the economy by the Howard government. In addition, the national accounts confirm that this growth is occurring in a low inflation environment. That is another example of good news on the economic front.Let me turn to some other aspects of good news which have come through. The export earnings by the minerals and energy sector increased by seven per cent in the March quarter, and home loan affordability improved during the March quarter according to the Real Estate Institute of Australia. By any benchmark, the Australian economy is one of the world's best performing economies, and it is not surprising that the results of strong growth and good management of the economy are flowing through to all Australians. The unemployment rate for May has fallen to 6.7 per cent—well below the figure that we inherited when we came into government. Many senators will remember that the unemployment level under the Labor Party peaked at some 11 per cent—11 per cent versus 6.7 per cent today.Also, real wages are rising under the government, unlike when Labor was in government. Senator George Campbell has pointed out the very poor performance of the Keating government on real wage growth for those 13 years. I suspect, Senator Macdonald, that that particular appalling performance will not be mentioned on the tape which will be given to the winner of the naming contest. The remarkable results being achieved in the economy are not an accident; they are a result of the economic policies being pursued by the government. All of us can remember the 13 years of hard Labor under the Hawke and Keating governments. We are now continuing the reform program which has delivered this strong growth. We are of course seeking to further improve the flexibility of our labour markets and, most importantly of all, on 1 July we are providing the largest tax cuts in Australian history. (Time expired)1507314:17:0015073Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6South AustraliaALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Does the minister stand by his statement at the last round of estimates that a `greenhouse trigger' is essential if we are to meet our Kyoto target commitments? Given that government undertakings in relation to a greenhouse trigger were part of the deal with the Democrats to get the government's environmental legislation through the Senate, will the minister deliver on those undertakings and his own public statements about a trigger, or will he bow to pressure from the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Minchin and others and abandon this proposal?15073Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I am glad Senator Quirke has time for questions. He has obviously now pulled the knife out of Senator Schacht's back and he can get back to real business.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickBH4Senator HILL—Senator Bolkus intervenes! Of course, it was the pincer move-ment between the left and the right, with poor Senator Schacht the victim. We on this side think that Senator Schacht was treated extremely poorly, Senator Quirke. Although Senator Quirke has returned to the table, I think he has somewhat misquoted what I said in the estimates committee. Let us check the Hansard because I do not recall saying that I believed it was essential. What I would have said is that it would have been a useful—AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—What you should have said!BH4Senator HILL—What I would have said is in all likelihood what I did say. What I would have said is that it would be a useful tool for the federal government because of course the federal government is the level of government that has accepted obligations under the Kyoto protocol.Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner! Senator Bolkus! I draw your attention to the standing orders.BH4Senator HILL—Under a greenhouse trigger major developments planned, very high emission developments—I am talking about very large developments, the equivalent of 10 per cent of total increased emissions in Australia within each year—would come to the Commonwealth government for analysis as to their greenhouse conse-quences. As a result of that, the Commonwealth government might well provide input to the developer, which could lead to modifications of the project and perhaps a better greenhouse outcome. That is what a Commonwealth greenhouse trigger would be all about.The government has commenced a process of consultation with the states pursuant to the COAG agreement entered into between the Commonwealth and the states that set out matters of national environmental significance ultimately included under the current EPBC Act. That process of consultation is taking place. A paper was written by a consultant and distributed to all interested parties. Many submissions were received on it. As a result of that, a preferred model was developed, which was then distributed to the states for further consultation. That is the stage the matter has reached. When consultations have been completed, I will take to cabinet a final preferred model which will best meet the wishes of government if it seeks to introduce a regulatory greenhouse trigger as a matter of national environmental significance. That is the process that is taking place. Nothing has changed thereunder. If Senator Quirke remains patient, he will find out the final outcome in due course.15074Quirke, Sen JohnSenator QUIRKEZS6South AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I have a supplementary question. Is it true that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is eventually to be stripped of responsibility for greenhouse matters and that this responsibility will be taken over by Senator Minchin? Does the minister propose to implement his greenhouse trigger before Senator Minchin takes over? How is Mr Brindal's health, Minister? 15074Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—How is Mr Brindal's health?ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator Quirke—You in your office, knifing Brindal.BH4Senator HILL—Don't you talk about knives, Senator! Look at Senator Schacht. I could say that Australia's domestic response to the greenhouse challenge is as good as, if not better than, that of any country in the world. We are proud of what we have done since the end of 1997 to modify the Australian economy in different ways so that we can meet the target we agreed to at Kyoto—a fair target. We are pleased that we have a ministerial council which includes all relevant ministers, including Senator Minchin, and which is guiding the Australian Greenhouse Office towards the implementation of the best mix of policies to achieve the target that Australia committed to. That is what this debate is all about—Australia paying a fair price for moving towards a better global outcome. (Time expired)1507414:22:0015074Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I am wondering if the minister can explain how the government's new amendments to the Gene Technology Bill 2000 will protect the environment from any adverse impacts of genetically modified organisms, given that there is no requirement for advice from the minister for the environment or incorporation of any advice on the release of GMOs if offered. Is the minister aware of the comments by the Executive Director of the National Farmers Federation, Dr Wendy Craik, that the Democrat proposal `emphasise(d) environmental issues above other issues'? Is this not an appropriate objective for the proposed office of gene technology and, of course, in keeping with the wishes of the Australian people? So, could the minister explain if this government backdown—and also now the Prime Minister's intervention in the food labelling issue—is indicative of the disregard that this government has not only for public concerns about GMOs but the public consultations conducted by the health department about this bill?15074Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Stott Despoja for the question. To respond to the last one, no, the government has a very serious concern about public concern, but I can draw her attention to the fact that the minister is aware of media criticisms of the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in relation to its ability to investigate breaches and take remedial action. I am also aware that there has been some speculation that the ability of the environment minister to provide appropriate advice has been eroded. The minister has received a progress report on the investigation of breaches in the Mount Gambier region and expects that the final report will be provided to him in the near future. He is aware that the office has taken the time to be most thorough in its examination of the alleged breaches while remaining cognisant of the need to provide natural justice to the company concerned.Referring now to the legislation currently being developed by the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, the minister believes that will strengthen the current regulatory framework to prevent breaches like those just mentioned. It will also provide the environment minister with the ability to provide him and the Office of Gene Tech-nology Regulator with advice. That Gene Technology Bill 2000, which will be introduced into parliament shortly, will create a statutory office holder, to be known as the Gene Technology Regulator, who will have the power to enforce stringent safeguards for the research, development, production and use of genetically modified organisms for the health and environmental safety of Australians. The bill is the result of an extensive consultation process which commenced in October last year and involved all relevant Commonwealth portfolios, all state and territory governments and interested stakeholders as well as the general public. The object of the legislation is to protect the health and safety of people and to protect the environment from any risks posed by genetically modified organisms. The proposed legislation therefore places very strong emphasis on environmental issues. The Gene Technology Regulator will be required to seek and take account of the environment minister's advice in relation to all applications for the intentional release of a genetically modified organism into the environment. No other minister, state or Commonwealth, is afforded such a specific role, and this provides additional assurance that appropriate environmental assessments are made in relation to genetically modified organisms. Where risks to the environment and/or public health cannot be properly managed, releases will not be permitted. The introduction of the bill into parlia-ment is consistent with the government's aim to have the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator fully operational by January 2001. The new legislation will also create a much stronger regulatory regime than exists under the current interim arrangements. It proposes that the regulator or person authorised by the regulator will be able to enter into any premises covered by a licence to deal with genetically modified organisms in order to monitor compliance with the legislation. And the regulator is not required to give prior notice or advance warning of spot checks. Inspectors under the bill will have entry and search powers akin to the Australian Federal Police. Penalties for criminal offences under the draft bill are significant: up to $1.1 million for each individual breach of the law and relevant parts of the criminal code has been included in the draft Gene Technology Bill 2000. The proposed regulatory system for genetically modified organisms is rigorous and stringent. I am not aware of the statement made by Wendy Craik, but I will refer that to the minister.15075Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his response, but I do not understand how the minister can argue that there is an emphasis on environmental issues in this bill or claim that he wants to see strong protections for the environment when the role of the minister for the environment under the proposed amendments, the new amendments, has been completely undermined. The role of the environment minister has been completely undermined under the new proposed amendments as opposed to the Democrat amendments. I ask once again if this government has complete disregard for public and community concerns about GMOs, as well as the adverse impact of GMOs on the environment, as well as health and safety concerns?15075Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Madam President, the answer is no.1507514:28:0015075Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4Western AustraliaALPDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of the following statement by Minister Reith on the SundaySunrise program yesterday:We are talking about a lot of black economy here. Treasury's estimates have been an extra $3.5 billion from the black economy.Can the minister confirm that Treasury officials have on a number of occasions told Senate committees that no estimates of the black economy have been undertaken? Who is telling the truth on this issue of Treasury estimates—Minister Reith or the Treasury officials?15076Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Mr Reith was expressing his own personal views. XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—You'd be on his side, would you?WW4Senator KEMP—Let me go through some of the issues which were raised at Senate estimates. I believe Senator Cook was there. There were discussions about the size of the cash economy. Not surprisingly, the estimates involved ranged considerably.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—If you weren't before, you would be now.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Bolkus, if you would like to listen for a change, you might actually learn something.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—Not from you, I wouldn't.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, cease interjecting.WW4Senator KEMP—Thank you, Madam President. The new tax system will make inroads on the cash economy. The estimate of the increased revenue from the cash economy under the new tax system is some $3.5 billion. There has been no change to this estimate.15076Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4Western AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, when you say that Mr Reith was talking for himself, are you talking about the part where he said that he estimates the black economy would be double that figure—namely, extra GST receipts of $7 billion? Can the Assistant Treasurer shed light on the embarrassing contradiction of Mr Reith's statement by the Treasurer's spokeswoman, who said that there was no additional revenue in the forecast? Or has the Treasurer's spokeswoman not yet been nicked for this blatant manoeuvre in the leadership stakes?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—The second part of the question is quite irrelevant. If there is anything in the first part of the supplementary question you wish to comment upon, Senator Kemp, please do so.15076Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The questions get worse and worse during the day. That one was a classic Senator Cook non-question. The only people making complete fools of themselves at the moment are the Labor Party. The Labor Party are in total confusion on their tax policy. They go around attempting to promote scares, but as soon as the question is asked, `What do the Labor Party propose to do about it?' the answer is, `The Labor Party propose to keep the GST.' But the really dopey aspect of the Labor Party is that, because of the very big tax cuts coming through on 1 July, the Labor Party are asked to guarantee that their policy will confirm these tax cuts, and do they run for cover. We are going to deliver major tax cuts to the Australian public against the wishes of the Australian Labor Party.1507614:32:0015076Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Hill. Would the min-ister inform the Senate how communities in rural and regional Australia will benefit from the new tax system? Is the minister aware of alternative policies? What would be the impact of these policies?15076Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The effect of the new tax system on rural and regional Australia is a very important issue. I can assure you, Madam President, that the new tax system will deliver major benefits to our rural and regional communities. They will share in the $12 billion of personal income tax cuts, which will be delivered in full and on time in just 11 days. What a contrast to Labor's l-a- w law tax cuts, which disappeared after the 1993 election. The new tax system will also deliver major cuts in the cost of transport by reducing the cost of diesel in rural areas by 24c a litre. That will be a major benefit to our rural exporters, who rely on the transport industry to get their produce to Australian ports. The new tax system will ensure that all exports are GST free. In all, an estimated $3.5 billion tax burden will be lifted off the backs of Australian exporters. It is a simple equation. More exports mean more jobs, and that is good news for the Australian community. Even the Labor spokesman, Mr McMullan agrees. He said: Well, the GST overall should be good for exports.Government senators interjecting—BH4Senator HILL—Yes, I will repeat it, if you like. Mr McMullan said, with a touch of honesty, that overall the GST will be good for exports. Rural and regional economies will also benefit from the changes to the business tax system. I quote the President of the National Farmers Federation, who said:It's worth remembering that the all-up savings for the farm sector from the introduction of the indirect tax package including the GST, and consequent reductions in fuel excise, are estimated to be around $900 million—every year—and, of course, there will be flow-on benefits to the whole community.He was absolutely right. So the new tax system will be good for all Australians but especially for our farmers and regional communities, who were ignored by the La-bor Party for years. In politics there are always two sides. What is the Labor alternative? Labor hate the GST so much that they are going to keep it. They are trying to get away with scaring the public about individ-ual aspects of the tax package whilst promising to keep the GST. We have seen it in relation to caravan parks over the weekend. Labor say that it is terrible, but what are they going to do about it? They say that they will look at it as a matter of priority. But we thought books were Labor's highest priority—or was it tampons, or education, or beer, or clothing or the car industry? Labor's problem is that, after the l-a-w law tax cuts that disappeared, nobody believes Labor on tax. There is all of this, with no guarantees that Labor will keep the income tax cuts delivered by the Howard government. It is time for Labor to get serious about tax reform—either to put up or to shut up.1507714:36:0015077Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Just what is the difference be-tween GSTable sushi and GST-free sashimi?15077Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President, isn't it wonderful that we get these sorts of questions from the Labor Party? The fact of the matter is that, under our policy, the cost of many basic foods will fall. I am pointing out a very important fact which I do not think Senator Crowley is fully aware of: the fact of the matter is that, under our policy, the cost of many basic foods will fall.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—It's Democrat policy that you condemned.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Sherry, I have drawn attention earlier to the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—The Labor Party, it should be noted, voted against this particular amendment. We have issued to the public a very useful booklet which contains a discussion on the GST food guide, and I would urge people and Senator Crowley to obtain a copy of that if they want to. If Senator Crowley wants to get into the specifics of this, there is also a food index. In relation to your specific question, Senator Crowley, I will take myself to a Japanese restaurant and I will be able to provide you with further information.15077Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—I find it some comment on the GST that the minister says he will take himself to a Japanese restaurant to find out the answer. If that is his way of dealing with the GST, good luck to him. I do have a supplementary question.BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—I suppose all the battlers are eating sashimi.ZF4Senator CROWLEY—Senator Hill suggests that this may not be the food for the battlers, but the supplementary question goes to the price of rice, which I do believe is fairly much a staple in most homes. My supplementary is: given that rice on its own is GST free, why is it GSTable when it is wrapped up in fish as sushi? 15078Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Madam President—Honourable senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! The level of noise in the chamber is absolutely unacceptable and there are many senators behaving in breach of the standing orders.WW4Senator KEMP—The answer is that take-away food is subject to GST. Basic food which one can buy at a supermarket, like rice, is not subject to GST.1507814:40:0015078Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp and it relates to the NATSEM study which shows that in Australia the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the gap is extending. Would the minister agree that this is a tragic social problem requiring urgent action by all of us, particularly the government? What action is the government proposing to redress that serious social problem-lem?15078Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—One of the reasons for the gap between the rich and poor in this country is the comparatively high level of unemployment which we inherited when we came into government. A lot of the government's attention quite rightly is devoted to ensuring that we can bring down that level of unemployment and create sustainable jobs. I think our record, Senator Harradine, has been particularly good in this respect. When you think that the level of unemployment under Labor rose as high as 11 per cent and now it is, as I mentioned in my earlier response, 6.7 per cent, that shows that it is just one of the major factors that this government is focusing on to address the gap between rich and poor in this country.Another area which I would suggest Senator Harradine look very closely at is the issue of tax reform. We believe that tax reform will make a major contribution to establishing an equitable tax system in this country. One of the things that you have been particularly concerned about, Senator Harradine, as we have, is the sort of assistance which is being provided to families. Of course under our tax system there is major assistance for families; this major tax package which will be of great benefit to families. Another area which I think is important is the huge effort which is being made to improve access to jobs by young people. In this area, we would point to the increased flexibility that the government's reforms have brought in in industrial relations. Look at the sorts of policies that are being pursued in the education area to encourage people to obtain the skills so that they can find jobs.Senator Harradine, if we want to address issues of poverty in this country, one of the biggest things we can do is provide jobs. That was a key thing which the former Labor government failed to provide. This government, with its policies across a wide range of areas, is doing a great deal to redress the inequities which Labor left this country.15078Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Going to the question of reducing unemployment, why is the gap getting wider as unemployment is dropping? In respect of workplace relations, why is the gap getting wider when membership of trade unions is dropping? Through you, Madam President, could the minister advise the Senate whether or not the government is treating this with such importance that it will prepare a paper for presentation to the parliament?15078Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Let me assure Senator Harradine that the government regards issues of employment and issues of poverty as ones of great importance. In fact, as I indicated to you in my earlier response, Senator Harradine, we are addressing these issues across a wide range of areas, and I believe that this government is showing results on this score. It is absolutely unarguable that the—Opposition senators interjecting—WW4Senator KEMP—Well, when you reduce unemployment from the 11 per cent peak under the Labor Party to the 6.7 per cent of today, you are doing a great deal to help the people who are the most deprived in this community. Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators should stop shouting.WW4Senator KEMP—When you are bringing in a tax reform system which will direct very large benefits to families, which will provide for real rises in pensions and benefits, the fact of the matter is that this government has a very proud record in this area. We do not deny, Senator Harradine, that there is more work to be done. That is why this government seeks to pursue its major reform program. (Time expired)1507914:45:0015079Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister explain why breakfast bars are GST free when muesli bars are GSTable? What is the difference between a breakfast bar and a muesli bar for GST purposes?15079Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—In the book that I referred to earlier, we have set out those aspects of food which are subject to GST and those which are GST free. There is a comprehensive index there. If the senator wishes to find out more about it, I refer her to this particular book.15079Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Unfortunately the booklet does not provide answers to these questions, which is why we have question time, Minister. As a supplementary question, can the minister also explain why muesli sold in a cereal box is GST free yet when sold as a muesli bar it is GSTable?15079Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—In the context of fulfilling our commitment to provide basic food GST free, the fact of the matter is that a boundary line has to be drawn. We believe that the boundary line we have drawn is fair and equitable; it was discussed with the grocery council. There will always be arguments between what should be in and what should be out. But we believe that, as a result of consultation, we have drawn a fair boundary line.1507914:47:0015079Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—My question is addressed to Senator Alston as the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. I refer to last week's decision by cabinet to renege on a commitment made last year by the government to the Senate to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to require all proposed releases of genetically modified organisms to be referred to the environment minister. Is the minister aware that, in a recent survey, 55 per cent of Australian farmers expressed strong concern at the potential consequences of the release of these organisms? Is he also aware of a recent AC Neilsen poll that found that 68 per cent of Australians would avoid genetically modified foods, if given the choice? Minister, was the cabinet aware when it made its decision that it would be breaking this commitment that it made to the Australian people, including the farming community? If so, how can the minister justify such a flagrant, arrogant and obvious breach of such a clear-cut and straightforward promise?15079Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—There is no doubt that the government is always interested in the views of farmers and any other community groups, but I do not think it is a sufficient basis for sensible policy making to simply refer to expressed concerns in terms of issues. The fact is that these matters will be properly considered by the environment minister, who will have the necessary opportunity to ensure that his views are heard. As the government has already made plain, it is important that proper procedures are followed, that there is integrity in the system, that it does not simply become a political football and that decisions are not made for other than proper reasons. There will be an opportunity for the environment minister's views to be taken into account at the appropriate stage. That, I think, is what Senator Bartlett should be concerned about, rather than simply trying to run off the back of scare campaigns that are usually run by the Labor Party and which somehow can be identified as showing up a level of public concern in research. That is not the proper basis for decision making. The approach that we have taken is a much more responsible one.15080Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given this display of bad faith by the government in reversing its own commitment it made to the Australian community, how is the public expected to believe anything the government says? Can the minister explain why cabinet decided to put the wishes and convenience of large agribusiness interests ahead of the community's concern about environmental protection and ahead of the government's own commitment to the Senate and the Australian people?15080Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I trust that Senator Bartlett's approach to this issue does not reflect that of the Australian Democrats because it is not only crude populism; it is also playing to the usual conspiracy theories. I suppose that you were out there in the 1970s, bagging multinationals as hard as you could go, trying to ensure that somehow you could dig up a demon or two to run a policy off. It probably got you preselection for your efforts, but that is no substitute for sensible policy making and sensible governmental approaches and processes. We are not in the business of pandering to particular interest groups. This is not about putting the interests of agribusinesses or anyone else ahead of those that you might, on this particular day, want to advocate the cause for. It is all about putting a system in place that will stand up to proper scrutiny and that will not simply pander to the sort of populism and scare campaigns that you would like to run. (Time expired)1508014:52:0015080Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—My question is directed to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. Can the minister explain why a nacho kit containing corn chips is GSTable whilst taco shells and kits are GST free? Just what is the difference between a corn chip and a taco shell for GST purposes? 15080Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I am intrigued that the Labor Party is pursuing this track because the obvious question that one might ask is: what is the Labor Party's policy in this area? What does the Labor Party propose to do in relation to food? This is going to be one of the big issues as we go towards the next election—whether there will be a roll-back in food. As I have pointed out, the government has worked closely with a wide range of bodies to look at the boundary lines between basic food and food which is taxable. We have consulted extensively with the Australian Food and Grocery Council. There will always be an argument over boundary lines but we believe that what we have done is fair and it is based, as I said, on extensive consultation. 15080Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—Madam Presi-dent, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, can you also explain why raw nuts are GST free while salted nuts are GSTable? Why does the addition of salt make nuts GSTable? 15080Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I think the best thing I can do for the senator is, first of all, send him a copy of the book and, secondly, point out that in these issues there is always a question of boundary lines. We believe the ones we have drawn are fair and appropriate based on wider consultation. But the big issue is: what do the Labor Party propose to do in this area? The answer is: they have not got a clue. 1508114:54:0015081Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4Western AustraliaLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Herron. Will the minister inform the Senate of the latest private health insurance figures and the success of the government's private health insurance reforms? 15081Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Knowles for the question because it is a good question and, once again, it is good news—bad news for the Labor Party, but good news for the Australian public. During May more than 176,000 people took out private health insurance. That is the largest ever surge in private health insurance membership and represents a massive vote of confidence in the government's reforms of an industry that was left to decay by the Labor Party. You will recall, Madam President, the percentage of fallout from private health insurance intentionally engineered by the Labor Party when they were in office over a 13-year period. This increase last month is the largest monthly increase in membership levels since the introduction of the government's 30 per cent rebate scheme—the largest monthly increase. This has never happened since private health participation figures were first published in quarterly form in 1989. The largest increase continues to be in the 30 to 34 age group. That was the group that was particularly dropping out and needed to come into the pool arrangement so that they could subsidise people like Senator Crowley as she retires from the chamber. Senator Crowley's situation is probably not rare. Perhaps Senator Schacht could say to Senator Gibbs—although I do not know who the Caesar was in Queensland—`Et tu, Brenda?' In answering the question about health care, the largest increase, as I mentioned, is in the 30- to 34-year-old age group, and the best news is that there are now 6.4 million Australians privately insured, or 33.5 per cent of the population. Quite simply, this is a fantastic result. I would encourage anyone who is considering joining a private health fund to do so in order to qualify for the rebate by 30 June. We have turned the tide for two reasons: the introduction of the 30 per cent rebate and the imminent introduction of Lifetime Health Cover. The coalition are about giving Australians choice in their health care needs and we have delivered on choice. The Labor Party cannot say the same. The Labor Party have opposed every initiative we have introduced to improve choice for all Australians. They had no interest in private health care, even though a significant proportion of the people they pretend to represent have got private health insurance. Importantly, our commitment to improving choice is underpinned by our commitment to Medicare and the public health system. As I said the other day, this government is the best friend Medicare has ever had. This government spends almost $1 billion a year more on Medicare than Labor did. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnVW4Senator HERRON—Senator Faulkner did not hear that because he was interjecting across the chamber. This government has spent almost $1 billion a year more on Medicare than Labor did. We have expanded access to Medicare and we have introduced new services which are now provided under Medicare. We have also increased funding to our public hospitals by 25 per cent. That bears repeating too: we have increased funding to the public hospital system by 25 per cent. Only the Labor Party could argue that this represents some sort of threat to Medicare and our public hospital system. It should also be added that the whole of the GST is going to the states so that they can provide upgraded hospital system care. The simple fact is that the biggest threat to our health care system is Labor and their ideologically driven hatred of private health care. We are all about choice, giving people the choice of two very strong and complimentary systems; Labor are about taking it away. They have not announced their policy. We are totally unaware of what Labor Party policy is in relation to health. (Time expired)15082Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4Western AustraliaLP10—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that the Labor Party was the party that ran down private health insurance participation over so long, could the minister please advise the Senate as to what the broader ramifications have been of the increases in private health insurance participation to the wider community who now have access—NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—What's the question? TH4Senator KNOWLES—If you listened to the question, I am asking it. NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—You haven't asked it. TH4Senator KNOWLES—For heaven's sake. You are as bright as a blown globe—that is your problem. Madam President, I am keen to know what—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—What's the question?NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—That is the longest preamble we have heard for weeks.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my left! The senator has asked a question and is concluding it. TH4Senator KNOWLES—The final part of my question to the minister is: what is the benefit to the broader community of broadening the access to hospitals for people who the Labor Party had locked out after 13 years of government?15082Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—If I may editorialise, that was a great supplementary question. The one problem with the Labor Party is that they are locked in ideology. They do not understand the dynamic of change that has occurred in the public hospital systems in Australia. For the 13 years they were in government they were unaware that a lot of technology driven changes had occurred within the health system—laparoscopic cholecystectomy, CAT scans, MRI scans, everything of that nature. They knew how to run on the politics—Opposition senators interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—They shout out `MRI'—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too much shouting. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—Are you going to take Wellington?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner! I am drawing to the attention of senators the breaches of standing orders that are going on at the present time. Some senators are interjecting persistently and I think some wilfully.VW4Senator HERRON—MRI was a classic example because the teaching hospital had 16 MRIs for the whole of Australia.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—Scandal!10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have just drawn attention to the behaviour of the Senate.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Now we have 80, and we are still paying for them.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Evans, stop shouting.VW4Senator HERRON—What did we do? We expanded it into the private sector so that people could have access to it. That is what they did not understand in the whole of this—that it is a dynamic; it is constantly changing. We need to get the two sectors into equilibrium—a dynamic private hospital system and a dynamic public hospital system. That is the answer to the honourable senator's question. (Time expired)BH4Hill, Sen RobertSenator Hill—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice PaperQuestions Without Notice150821508215:01:0015082Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Evans asked me a question on 8 June, and I undertook to get an answer from the Minister for Aged Care. She has provided me with the following answer, which I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard. Leave granted.The answer read as follows—SENATOR EVANS - My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that 78 of the former employees of the Riverside Nursing Home were owed $320,000 when the facility was closed by the government on 6 March this year? Can he explain why the Minister for Aged Care has not even bothered to respond to three requests from the ANF calling on the Commonwealth to take some responsibility for those employees' entitlements? Now that media attention has shifted from Riverside, is the government hoping that the 78 employees will simply go away? Don't the former staff of Riverside deserve much better, particularly since some of them were responsible for reporting the poor care and the kerosene bath incident to the appropriate authorities? What signal does this shabby treatment of these workers send to other health workers about reporting poor care in our nursing homes? When will the government provide some justice to those former employees?SENATOR EVANS - Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the minister saying he will get me an answer. I would appreciate it if he could do that as soon as possible, but he did not address the question as to why some action has not occurred and why the minister has not even bothered to respond to three letters from the Nurses Federation asking for assistance with this matter. I would appreciate it if he could find out what has occurred and whether or not the government is going to do anything to help these former employees who lost a total of $320,000 worth of entitlements when the government closed Riverside Nursing Home.SENATOR HERRON - The Minister for Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question in accordance with information supplied to her:A reply was sent to the Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) on 13 June 2000.As outlined in the Minister's response to the ANF, employee entitlements are covered under corporations law and are the responsibility of providers. Under the Government's Employee Entitlement Safety Net Scheme, while an employer remains liable for the payment of their employee's full entitlements, taxpayer funded safety net payments are able to be made from the scheme up front to eligible employees, with the scheme then claiming those monies back from the employer if and when they become available.1508315:02:0015083Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4Western AustraliaALPDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cook today, relating to taxation.Mr Peter Reith is of course in the news again today. Is he in the news this time because he is beating up on working people? No. Is he in the news this time because he is intervening in a wage case to cut wages for ordinary Australians? No. Is he in the news because he is giving a handout to a textile company that has John Howard's brother, Stan Howard, as the managing director? No, he is not in the news for that. Is Mr Reith in the news today because he has put guard dogs and balaclavas on the Australian waterfront, or because he has been censured by the UN's ILO for contravention of international conventions? No, that is not the reason he is in the news today. Is Mr Reith in the news today because he—Penthouse Peter Reith—has bought a cheap, for him, penthouse in the Domain Apartments, the tower of power in Melbourne, from Liberal Party Treasurer Ron Walker's construction company, Hudson Conway? No, he is not in the news for that. Nor is he in the news for the fact that that apartment can be let GST free while Mr Reith supports the imposition of GST on Australian battlers in caravan parks. No, he is not in the news for that.The reason why the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is in the news today is that the Prime Minister has told us, yet again, that Mr Reith is wrong, that Mr Reith has just misunderstood or does not know. Let me go to the actual transcript of the interview with the Prime Minister. The reporter said: Well, Peter Reith on another issue today said that cracking down on the black economy would reap $7 billion estimated windfall for the States, and the Shadow Treasurer Simon Crean said that proves the government's going to collect more tax than it ever said.The Prime Minister, John Howard—and this is a classic answer—said:Well, that was Peter's personal calculation. It's not based on any Treasury estimate. And the Treasury advice is what is in the budget. And we have no evidence before us from Treasury or any other official source to say that the increase collection will be greater. So there's no official or indeed semi-official figure of $7 billion.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—That is a comprehensive put-down.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—Yes, it is a comprehensive put-down. The Prime Minister went on to say:Mr Reith was expressing a view that he thought the new system would be good in cracking down on tax cheats ...Here is a minister comprehensively de-molished by the Prime Minister. This is a minister—Mr Reith—who has an image problem in the Australian electorate. Many people in Australia do not believe that this minister tells the truth. Many people in Australia regard him as loose with the facts. Many people in Australia believe that, in his case, he would never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.The Prime Minister nailed him today; the Prime Minister joined the majority. The Prime Minister expressed a view that what Mr Reith was telling the Australian punters was not true either. There is a possibility that maybe in all these circumstances we have it wrong. There is the possibility that yesterday Mr Reith might have been—for the first time in a long time, if ever—actually telling the truth, and that there is in fact a bigger windfall than the government is disclosing. There is possibly truth in the front page we saw in the Weekend Australian not last Saturday but the Saturday before, which said that the government is building up a massive war chest by overtaxing Australians, and that it is not coming clean about how much tax it will raise because in the 2001 federal election it wants to pork-barrel its way to victory, buy votes, placate the National Party and do a number of other things. That is a possibility.When I balance the two possibilities—is Mr Reith telling the truth and it is the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Treasury officials who have misled us; or are the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Treasury officials telling the truth and is Mr Reith expressing his personal opinion?—I must say that, on the balance of probability, no court in the land would come down on Mr Reith's side. Every court I know of where credibility counts in a witness would be on the other side of the fence, and that is not because they think the Prime Minister is any great shakes in the truth stakes either. They know about the `never ever' promise; they know that Mr Costello does not go to the country anymore because he is regarded as the man who has taken away jobs from the bush. They all know that, but it is a terrible slight that their credibility is greater than Mr Reith's. (Time expired)15:07:0015084Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4South AustraliaLP10—Yet again we have heard from the Labor Party in the taking note of answers debate which we have had for weeks and weeks now on issues related to the implementation of the new tax system. Of course, we have had scaremonger after scaremonger on the part of the opposition in this chamber as the weeks have gone by. Today, they have resorted to personal attack and have launched a personal attack on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in regard to his comments on the impact of the new tax system on the black economy. What has Senator Cook just said? He has said that Mr Reith was put down by the Prime Minister. What the Prime Minister said was that no detailed calculations had been done in relation to the revenue that might be derived from the black economy as a result of the tax changes, following on the registrations that have been achieved for the Australian business number. The fact with regard to those registrations is that, as I understand it, it was expected that some 2.3 million businesses would be registered for an Australian business number under the new tax system and registered for GST and that, at present, some 2.7 million businesses have registered. So, on the one hand, it is accurate for the Prime Minister to say that no detailed calculations have been done with regard to the revenue implications of that; but it is also reasonable for Peter Reith to say that, given that the registrations are higher than expected, Senator Cook, there will be more revenue generated as a result of that. RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—That is not what he said. Read the Hansard.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Of course, this revenue is being generated, Senator Cook, from the black economy, because those extra 400,000 businesses that are registered are businesses that were unknown prior to this new tax system being introduced. They are businesses that were, clearly, operating in the black economy and not paying their fair share of tax. As a consequence of them not paying their fair share of tax, many other people in Australia were paying more than their fair share of tax. I remember, Senator Cook, that in the various committee hearings we had with regard to the introduction of the new tax system, you argued quite strenu-ously that the new tax system would have absolutely no effect on the black economy and that the black economy would continue unabated. Yet, here today in your debate, you claim that the government is hiding something and that in fact we are going to raise more revenue from the new tax system because of its impact on the black economy. You have directly contradicted the view that you put when we were working on the committee hearings last year in relation to the new tax system.Senator Cook has directly contradicted himself in that regard. Of course, there is absolutely no doubt that the new tax system will make an impact with regard to raising revenue from the black economy, because it is shifting the tax structure to an indirect tax system. It is ensuring that those who avoid their fair share of income tax because of tax avoidance mechanisms will pay at least some of that tax when they purchase goods and services, because they will be paying the GST to which they were not previously subject.RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—It doesn't work in the other OECD countries.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Senator Cook should be well aware of that. There is absolutely no doubt that that will have an impact on bringing those businesses previously operating in the black economy out into the open as taxpayers—not only because they will now be paying tax on goods and serv-ices they purchase, even if they might continue to avoid some income tax through various schemes, but because the fact that the goods and services tax operates as a value added tax means that, if they are operating bus-inesses and they want to get their refunds at each point of production, they have to reg-is-ter to achieve that. That is exactly what has happened, I would remind Senator Cook. That is exactly what has happened: these bus-inesses have registered because they need to be able to reclaim their business input taxes at each stage of production, and so we now have some 2.7 million businesses apply-ing for registration under the goods and ser-vices tax structure, as against the 2.3 million bus-inesses that were expected and predicted to do so by the tax office. That obviously will ensure that there is a fairer tax system and that there will be a capacity for the government to return tax to the community, either in the form of additional programs to their benefit or in the form of future tax cuts if it eventuates that, as a consequence of that, more revenue is raised. As the Prime Minister has said, no analysis of that has yet been done, and so we do not know the effect of that yet. (Time expired)15:12:0015086Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—This morning on AM the Prime Minister made great claims about his honesty and integrity. Of course, these are very lofty ideals which, if true, one should expect from gov-ernment. However, it is quite clear that these lofty ideals are not shared by Mr Reith. Yester-day Mr Reith made claims about the black economy that there were double the Treasury estimates in terms of returns to the Com-monwealth. When questioned about the sources for these claims, Mr Reith muttered something about collecting various evidence from his travels through the world of bus-iness. It was the Prime Minister who in-dicated this morning that there was no official support for those claims—no statis-tics, no evidence for that proposition. In fact, when we examine the claims, we notice that in particular it is now apparent that Mr Reith simply made it up. He is well practised at fabrication. We have seen this over recent times. With regard to the Dubai fiasco, he made claims about his involvement in that matter that he had nothing to do with the thugs in balaclavas or the guard dogs and that the waterfront reform initiative that he pro-posed was, of course, a completely innocent exercise. The conspiracy pro-ceedings before the Federal Court demon-strated that to be completely untrue.We saw in other examples that this minister has made claims before the parliament that simply do not bear scrutiny when it comes to the detailed examination of what he is actually saying. We have seen the repudiation of this minister now by the Prime Minister and by the Treasurer, where he simply stated in the press this morning that Mr Reith was mistaken. We noticed on commercial radio today claims that in fact Mr Reith is a liar, according to the statements by the spokes-person for the Treasurer. A woman spokes-person for the Treasurer is cited as saying that, this morning.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The senator is not quoting what he purported to have read in the paper, and to refer to the minister as a liar is completely out of order. He should be asked to retract it and apologise.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, it is unparliamentary to use those words whether they are true or not, so I would ask you to withdraw, please.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I withdraw. I notice the claims are made by others in the press in recent times. It seems that Mr Reith comes from a particular brand of Liberal Party apparatchiks in Victoria. A Brighton Grammar clique is operating. We have seen a whole series of them come forward—the `Hooray Harrys' out of Melbourne. We have seen Alan Stockdale. We have seen `Punchy' John Rossiter. A whole series of them have moved through the ranks of the Liberal Party and sought to establish themselves as the saviours of the country. Mr Reith now sees himself particularly as the saviour of this government. He has this strange notion that if something is not cooking too well you turn up the heat. That is essentially what he is seeking to do by his various outlandish statements, his extraordinary claims and the head-kicking techniques that he has sought to develop. What we have noticed again and again is that Mr Reith is simply out of control. This government has a real problem on its hands. One gaffe after another has been made by this minister who seeks to establish himself as the saviour of the government. He clearly has a huge credibility problem, and no matter what sort of puff pieces are presented by various journalists in this country there will not be any movement away from that basic problem. Mr Reith's role in the waterfront dispute became a national and even an international scandal, and it is well known that his actions were not able to bear the scrutiny of the Federal Court of this country. What is not so well known is his activity in a number of other affairs; for instance, the minister's role, and his constant denial of his role, in the case of the lockout of meatworkers at O'Connor's at Packenham. He sought to encourage and develop support for the owners of that particular enterprise who have slashed the wages and conditions of workers by up to $200 a week. We have seen a proposition imposed upon the workers at that site where there is no job security and where they have been stood down without pay. They can in fact be paid for as little as five hours a week. This minister has claimed over and over again that he has no knowledge of the development in that particular case; yet there are 750 files kept by his department relating to this dispute. We know that he is deeply involved in this particular matter; yet he claims that he has no knowledge of it. A pattern is being established where the minister is quite prepared to say one thing, when it can be demonstrated that he is doing another. This is a minister who is quite happy to go through his political life and for it to be known that he has no credibility. But increasingly he seems to be able to present himself as the saviour of the government by seeking to be the head kicker and making outlandish statements. He is quite clearly losing control of himself and his political credibility as a consequence. (Time expired)15:17:0015087Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6Western AustraliaLP10—I also rise to take note of the question with respect to Mr Reith. I make the opening comment that the real purpose of trying to bring discredit upon Mr Reith—which has failed so far—is that Mr Reith took on the Maritime Union of Australia and won. Why wouldn't you do that when you had a bottleneck there creating problems for the Australian public? Also, the question has to be asked: why, when only 20 per cent of people in the work force today are unionised, do 60 per cent of the people on the other side come from the Australian union movement? I think that is where the scandal is. The scandal is not in a minister being open, transparent, forthright and honest with the Australian people prior to the introduction of the new tax system on 1 July. We know that it is going to work. We know that the propaganda is waning at the moment. Do you know why it is waning? It is waning because even the media, the people that do the doorstops, know that they are going to get tax reimbursements. They are going to get tax back. They are going to get a pay rise of between $50 and perhaps $100 a fortnight in their pay packages. That is why they are not supporting the Labor Party's position of knocking the GST and the new tax system in itself.There is another avenue of support for the coalition government's GST—the Howard-Beazley-Lees GST—and it is coming from the closest counterpart that the Australian Labor Party has in the Southern Hemisphere; it is coming from our cousins in New Zealand. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, said she likes it. She is never going to take it back. It is working. She is quite happy with it. And why wouldn't she be happy with it? She is getting more revenue in than she anticipated. She inherited it, of course, from the National Party, which is somewhat like a counterpart of the coalition party of Australia that is currently in power here. Not only that: the revered intellectual David Lange, former—I might say successful—Prime Minister of New Zealand also said, `It works.' Two Labour Party prime ministers from New Zealand said it works. No-one could argue rationally New Zealand is not a microcosm of Australia over there. Both said it works. They are not going to roll it back. Do you know what, Madam Deputy President? I would vouch for the fact that if Mr Beazley—God forbid—ever got onto the treasury bench he would not roll it back. He knows that if he rolls it back he will have to raise income taxes, company taxes and excises. He will have to put everything back into place that is so bad, so debilitating, for Australia—everything that is so negative with respect to our exports that we would be the poor white trash of Asia again, as Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew once referred to Australia. We know through our research, particularly using New Zealand, that the black economy will bring in far more than the anticipated $3 billion. Why wouldn't Mr Reith, being honest, open and forthright with the Australian public, when he was reasonably sure, when he said it was his personal opinion, say the $3 billion would extend to $7 billion? Of course it will. We know by the rate of the Australian business numbers that are being issued that the black economy out there is something that had to be controlled, and they are going to get caught.We also know that tax cuts are not going to amount to just $12 billion. I anticipate, on the information that I have been given, that the tax cuts are going to be closer to $15 billion, and that is going to create something of a spending boom in Australia. We never, ever taxed tourists here with respect to a GST. The $17 billion tourism industry is also going to attract a $1.7 billion GST if the same amount applies across the board there too, and I anticipate that it will. All of these aggregations add up to good news for Australia. It is a great new tax. It is great for exports. Roll on 1 July: we are going to go gang busters. (Time expired)15:22:0015088O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I was going to say that in describing Mr Reith as open, forthright, transparent and honest Senator Lightfoot was deliberately misleading, but of course that would be unparliamentary, so I will not do that. But the fact of the matter is that no-one could accept that as a description of this minister. In fact, the answer from Senator Kemp to the question that was asked of him today was essentially that the comments that Mr Reith made were all his own work. He said:We are talking about a lot of black economy here. Treasury's estimates have been an extra $3.5 billion from the black economy.Mr Costello's spokeswoman was straight off the blocks to completely repudiate that. If you look at the Hansard transcripts of the estimates they show that Treasury has not made any estimates which show any such additional money coming from the black economy. These comments—not what he estimates might be growth on top of the Treasury estimates but in fact the basic comments that he made—have been utterly repudiated by Mr Costello's spokeswoman. They are utterly repudiated if you look at the Hansard. They are utterly repudiated if you look at the Prime Minister's comments. These comments were all Mr Reith's own work and, frankly, quite misleading. But let us face facts: Mr Reith is not very good at doing numbers. He has totally shot his campaign for leadership of the Liberal Party. He has blown it away out of his own mouth. But he has never been very good at making promises to the Australian people that he can keep.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—Didn't do the Maritime Union of Australia—8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am very glad that Senator Lightfoot has raised the issue of the waterfront, because here is one of the prime examples of where Mr Reith misled the Australian people. He disrupted the waterfront, caused a lot of anguish, grief and pain across Australia, disrupted businesses, spent millions of dollars and then got caught out. But what did he say? When he finally got a deal from the waterfront he said, `I have got these promises in writing from the steve-dores about what they are going to achieve, and they are going to achieve it very quickly.' Of course he never had one thing in writing, and they were quick to repudiate that comment when they got a chance to on the Hansard. But what did Mr Reith say back in April of 1998? He said that by April of the next year he was going to have a national five- port average of 25 crane movements per hour. That is what he was going to achieve. All of this was going to be fixed he said. And, of course, that is not the case. In fact, in the last quarter the productivity rate—after spending all of this money and causing all of this anguish—went down. It went down from 19.6 to 19. And one of the key issues, particularly in the fall in the performance on the docks, was a shortage of labour and equipment breakdowns at P&O in Melbourne and industrial problems at Patrick in Sydney. Far from the problem being solved, it is going backwards.But another one of Mr Reith's indica-tors—and these were all going to be fixed by April of 1999; `It is all going to be hunky-dory. We have spent all this money. It is all going to be fixed,' Mr Reith told us—was that we were going to have 97 per cent of ship calls finding a berth available within four hours of the scheduled time. What happened? In the last quarter it went down from 93 per cent to 88 per cent—far from going up, it is going down. Mr Reith is telling us we are going to solve these problems, and the actuality is that the indicators are going in the reverse direction. So the berth availability indicator was wrong; it has gone down. The average waiting time for ships—and Senator Lightfoot, I am sure, will be keen to know this—unable to obtain a berth in December was 21 hours. This is the great achievement of Mr Reith.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—Because the economy is booming.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Lightfoot, you have had your time.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—This is a great achievement. Mr Reith is seeing all of the indicators on the waterfront go backwards. I am glad you introduced this issue, Senator Lightfoot, in this debate about Mr Reith, because it clearly demonstrates the point: it is easy to say things, it is easy to tell the Australian people what you think they want to hear, but the reality in this case is that Mr Reith on the issue of the tax cheats has been proven wrong. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.1508915:28:0015089Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to questions without notice asked by Senators Stott Despoja and Bartlett today, relating to genetically-modified organisms.The concerns that the Democrats raised in question time today related to the fact that the new amendments—the amendments being proposed by the government to the Gene Technology Bill 2000—will no longer have a requirement for advice from the Minister for the Environment and Heritage or any advice regarding the release of GMOs if it is vol-unteered in relation to, say, potential adverse effect of the release of genetically modified organisms to be incorporated. The Demo-crats are concerned for two reasons: not only that the government has blatantly and arrogantly reneged on an agreement, on a deal, between the Australian Democrats and the government on this pressing environmental and health issue but also, obviously, that there is not equal weighting being given to the issue of the health impacts and the environmental impacts of the release of GMOs into our community.I draw the Senate's attention to the remarks by Senator Herron today. He seemed to think that health and safety concerns and environmental concerns were going to be given equal consideration. He emphasised the government's so-called strong concern for including environmental protections but the same time of course had to acknowledge that the role of the environment minister has been completely undermined under this new proposal—not the original amendments, not the original proposal that the Democrats and the government agreed to, but these new proposals coming from the government over this weekend. I note for the record that Senator Hill outlined his own commitment to the issue of genetically modified organisms in regard to their environmental impact and the environment minister having a role in the approval of GMOs. This is in the Senate Hansard. He said on 26 June last year: There are new areas that people are recognising in which the Commonwealth has a particular responsibility. Genetically modified organisms is one such area and, as honourable senators will know, the government is setting up the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator within the Department of Health to provide approvals. What I can say to the Senate tonight is that matters that affect the environment will be referred to the environment minister for assessment and advice by that independent regulator. That will ultimately be provided for through an amendment to this legislation when it passes in conjunction with the law that is going to be put in place to set up the new GTR. That is a quote from Senator Robert Hill confirming, believing, that the environment minister would have a decisive role in whether or not GMOs were released and whether or not they would be responsible for assessing their potential impact on the environment. Of course, he has been rolled in cabinet; we all know that. It is particularly unfortunate. But it does go to the heart of the matter, and that is this government's blatant disregard for consumer and community concerns in relation to the issue of GMOs. We see this emphasised in the last couple of weeks yet again by the Prime Minister, who last year—in December I believe, at the eleventh hour—stepped in and interfered with the state and territory health ministers' deliberations concerning a national mandatory labelling scheme for GMOs in relation to food. Now the Prime Minister has put to the states and territories, in an extraordinary fashion, that not only did he see fit to postpone the introduction of those labelling laws, but that he has sought to water them down. Understandably, that has been met with outrage, not only from the relevant state and territory ministers, but from the community. Again it goes to the very heart of the matter, and that is that this government just is not in touch with what the community is thinking. This is not about setting back the agenda in relation to scientific or biotechnology discovery or research. It is not about clamping down on GMOs that might have future benefit for the community, whether it is in a health, environmental or food sense. It is about good public practice, ensuring that the community is not scared off. We know—and certainly it was quoted in question time today by the Democrats—that at least 90 per cent of consumers, if given the choice, would reject GM products. That partly arises from the community's lack of awareness or understanding of what is available at the moment. They, like most Australians, recognise that these products crept in by stealth in the mid-1990s due to a lack of regulation. The government's response to that minimal regulation now is to come up with the gene technology bill, which we should have been debating in the parliament roughly about this time. There are problems with that bill, however, as we have seen from the draft legislation and from the public consultation processes, including issues of liability, commercial-in-confidence and, of course, the role of the environment minister. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.150901The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:150907923ZF4CrowleyTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows:We strongly support Medicare, our universal public health system. Medicare is an efficient, effective and fair system. Under Medicare, access to care is based on health needs rather than ability to pay.Access to quality health care for all Australians is a basic human right.Your Petitioners request that the Senate should:Do all within its power to ensure the continued viability and strengthening of Medicare by supporting a substantial funding increase for the public health system. Further to this, we strongly urge you to continue to support adequate funding for public health and oppose all government policy initiatives that would undermine the integrity and ongoing viability of Medicare.7923Senator CrowleyZF4Senator Crowley (from 7,923 citizens).1509155LI4PattersonTo the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of St Michael and All Angels' Anglican Church, Burwood, Victoria 3185, petition the Senate in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.55Senator PattersonLI4Senator Patterson (from 55 citizens).Petitions received.Notices1509115091Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the grey headed flying fox colony in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens is the only permanent colony existing in Victoria, (ii) the Victorian Scientific Advisory Committee has made a preliminary recommendation in favour of the International Humane Society's nomination to list the grey headed flying fox as a threatened species, (iii) the grey headed flying fox is vulnerable to extinction in Victoria and its numbers have dropped dramatically due to habitat loss, shooting, disease and lead pollution, (iv) if the Melbourne Botanical Gardens is not listed as a critical habitat then we could easily see the demise of the grey headed flying fox in Victoria, (v) the Melbourne Botanical Gardens proposed until recently to exterminate the grey headed flying foxes in the gardens despite the concerns of the community, and (vi) there are alternative measures available to control the grey headed flying fox colony in the gardens that are more humane and ecologically responsible; and (b) urges the Victorian State Government to: (i) issue an interim conservation order as a matter of urgency declaring the Melbourne Botanical Gardens critical habitat for the grey headed flying fox, and (ii) ensure the protection and survival of the grey headed flying fox colony in the Melbourne Botanical Gardens.Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), no later than 11 am on 22 June 2000, the correspondence from the Australian Taxation Commissioner to the Australian Electoral Commissioner of 19 April 2000 and any written response to such correspondence by the Australian Electoral Commission. Senator Bolkus to move, on the next day of sitting:That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources (Senator Minchin), no later than 4 pm on 26 June 2000, any documents, including (but not limited to) internal memos, internal reports, consultants' reports, tender documentation, tender submissions or appendices to tender submissions, held by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation relating to: (a) the nature of the fuel required in the new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights; and (b) the implications of the fuel specification for the type and nature of waste produced by the reactor.Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) Amnesty International Australia has launched its `Human Rights are Women's Rights' campaign, which aims to make Australians more aware of the violence and other human rights abuses perpetrated against women around the globe, and (ii) the capacity of Amnesty International to continue advocating on behalf of women's rights is very much dependent on the support of individuals; and (b) endorses the campaign and urges the Government and Australians to show similar support.15:33:0015092Calvert, 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 Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 2000 No. 41 and made under the Defence Act 1903, 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—Defence (Prohibited Words and Letters) Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), Statutory Rules 2000 No.41The Regulations include `Australian Army' as a phrase which may not be used in connection with a business or profession without the consent of the Minister, and permit the Minister to impose conditions on the grant of consent to a business to use a phrase, word or letters.New subregulation 4(2), which is inserted by item 3 of the Schedule to these Regulations, provides the Minister with the discretion to grant permission to use a phrase, word or letter with or without conditions. The exercise of this discretion does not appear to be subject to external merits review (or, indeed, any review at all). The exercise of the Minister's discretion to consent to the use of a phrase, word or group of letters, in existing subregulation 4(1), is also not subject to any form of review, and that some form of external merits review may be appropriate. The Committee wrote to the Minister seeking his advice as to whether review of these discretions would be appropriate.In response, the Minister indicated that in light of the Committee's concerns, fresh consideration was being given to whether external merit review was appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Committee gives this notice of notice to disallow in order to allow further correspondence with the Minister.Senator Brown to move, on Wednesday, 21 June 2000: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) in 1992, following the sacking of Mr Alwyn Johnson from the Tasmania Bank, the Member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) wrote to the Tasmanian Government saying that Mr Johnson's actions may well have preserved jobs and saved millions of dollars, (ii) the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Hill) informed the Senate, on 7 December 1999, that the Commonwealth is prepared to take the matter up with the Tasmanian Government and see whether there is any avenue open to further assist Mr Johnson, and (iii) no action has been forthcoming; and (b) calls on the Government to fulfil its commitment and write to the Tasmanian Government to see what assistance can be provided to Mr Johnson, including the appointment of an independent arbitrator to assess the matter.15:34:0015093Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw 12 disallowance motions, the full terms of which have been circulated in the chamber, and which I now hand to the Clerk.The list read as follows—Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.Direction No.NPFD 30, made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.Exemption Order, made under section 8G of the Christmas Island Act 1958.Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.324 and made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.337 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996.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.National Television Conversion Scheme 1999, made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 2000 No.5 and made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.Marine Orders Part 47 - Mobile Offshore Drilling Units - Issue 2, as contained in Marine Order No.1 of 2000 made under section 425(1AA) of the Navigation Act 1912.Marine Orders Part 60 - Floating Offshore Facilities - Issue 1, as contained in Marine Order No.2 of 2000 made under section 425(1AA) of the Navigation Act 1912.Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 164(5A) of the Customs Act 1901.Notice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 1901.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments. Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 199113 April 2000The Hon Peter Reith MPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relationsand Small BusinessParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterThank you for your letter of 6 April 2000 relating to the Committee's concerns with the Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.In your response, you referred to `the recent accidental death of a cadet' which `brought to light problems with the limitations of the application of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991'. The Committee would appreciate further information on the nature of these limitations.The Committee notes that the circumstances of the accidental death of the cadet may not have been covered by the Act and that your Declaration has prevented such an outcome occurring again. However, this raises the further question whether the cadet and his or her family were seriously disadvantaged by lack of coverage under the Act. The Committee would appreciate your response as soon as possible as this Declaration is subject to a notice of disallowance that will expire on 26 June 2000.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair23 MAY 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter dated 13 April 2000 relating to the concerns of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances regarding the Declaration of Persons Taken to be Employed by the Commonwealth under subsection 9(5) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 (the OHS(CE) Act).The limitations of the application of the OHS(CE) Act to which I referred in my letter of 6 April 2000 relates to the definition of “employees” (section 9) who are covered by the Act. Similar limitations apply to coverage under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) which provides workers' compensation for Commonwealth employees. Under both Acts, the Minister has the authority to issue a declaration of the type referred to above to overcome such limitations in respect of coverage where deemed appropriate by the Minister. Members of the Australian Services Cadet Scheme (ASCS) do not fall within the definition of employees under both Acts. A declaration providing continued workers' compensation coverage for ASCS members was made when the SRC Act was introduced in 1988, but no such declaration under the OHS(CE) Act was made by the relevant Minister in 1991 when that Act was enacted.You also asked whether the cadet killed in the accident, or her family, were seriously disadvantaged by a lack of coverage. The short answer is no. I am advised that the Australian Government Solicitor recently confirmed that the cadet was covered as a third party by the operation of section 17 of the OHS(CE) Act. Acting on this advice, Comcare has now carried out an investigation which has concluded that there has been a breach of the “third party” provisions of the Act. The results of that investigation have been conveyed to the Department of Defence (the employer for the purposes of the Act) which has been asked for a response detailing what action it has taken or proposes to take in relation to exercising its duty of care towards members of the ASCS. In particular, it has been asked how it will structure activities to ensure adequate supervision of cadets.In terms of entitlement to compensation for ASCS members and their dependents, there is no financial payment available to dependents or other relatives of deceased employees under the OHS(CE) Act. However, as mentioned, members of the ASCS have coverage under the SRC Act. In the event of the death of a person covered under the SRC Act, there is provision for reimbursement of funeral expenses and, subject to dependency, there may also be an entitlement to death benefits.For completeness, I mention that the Commonwealth and its agencies (other than Government Business Enterprises) have the Shield of the Crown under the OHS(CE) Act. This is in line with long standing Commonwealth policy.I hope this additional information will be sufficient for the Committee to finalise its consideration of this matter.Yours sincerelyPETER REITHMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small BusinessDirection No.NPFD 30, made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 199117 February 2000The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear MinisterI refer to Direction No. NPFD 30 made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and subclause 25.1 of the Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995.The Committee notes that this Direction imposes requirements on the gear used by licensees in the fishery as a means of seeking to reduce the incidental catch of species other than prawns and those ecologically related to prawns.Clause 2 of this Direction provides that it commences on 15 April 2000. Unfortunately, neither the Explanatory Statement nor the Regulation Impact Statement indicates the reason for this choice of date. The Explanatory Statement notes that there are two fishing seasons in the Northern Prawn Fishery, and the Regulation Impact Statement observes that the fishery is subject to various closures, both temporal and spatial, but neither Statement indicates how the date of commencement of this Direction correlates with any such closure. The Committee would appreciate your advice as to the reason for this commencement date.The Regulation Impact Statement notes, on page 8, that compliance with this Direction is likely to cost `between $400 and $2,000 per boat depending on the type, construction, accessories and any spares decided on by the owner.' The Committee would appreciate your advice as to whether the five months between the making of this Direction and its commencement is sufficient to allow an opportunity for the operators affected by this Direction to comply with it.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair12 April 2000Senator Helen CoonanChair,Senate Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesAustralian SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2601Dear HelenI refer to your letter of 17 February 2000 (Cttee/23/2000) concerning Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) Management Plan 1995 Direction No. NPFD 30. This direction, which was made under subsection 17(5A) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 requires Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) and Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) to be used in the NPF from 15 April 2000.I have sought advice from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in responding to your queries about the commencement date on 15 April 2000; and whether the time of five months between the making of the Direction and its commencement is sufficient to allow the affected operators to comply.The Northern Prawn Management Advisory Committee (NORMAC) and AFMA agreed, in 1998, to the mandatory introduction of TEDs and BRDs on all vessels in the NPF from the start of the fishing season in 2000. However, as a result of subsequent consultations and analysis of data the requirement will now commence on 15 April 2000.In arriving at the decision to implement TEDs and BRDs, NORMAC and its Research and Environment Committee considered a number of factors affecting turtle bycatch and mortality. For example they considered fishing gear, seasonal, shot duration, target species and spatial influences. On the basis of logbook data and research programs NORMAC determined that TEDs and BRDs would apply to all vessels operating in all areas throughout the season. A particular factor which was considered was whether TEDs should be required while operators are targeting banana rather than tiger prawns.During the first part of the season commencing on 1 April 2000, NPF operators mainly target banana prawns and evidence suggests that the average duration of each shot of prawn nets during the early part of the season is 60 minutes but that after the first half of April tends to lengthen to 90 minutes as the targeting of banana prawns diminishes and the targeting of tiger prawns begins. Evidence also suggests that turtles caught in a net have a relatively higher chance of survival when the duration of the shot is shorter.NPF operators believe that because of the nature of the banana prawn fishery, there is a high probability of prawn loss with TEDs and further study in this area is needed. At this stage the two week exemption only applies for the 2000 fishing season. The TED/BRD sub-committee established by NORMAC has suggested a process to assess how turtle bycatch and prawn catch will be affected by TED/BRDs while targeting banana prawns, which will be considered by NORMAC on 17 March 2000. In summary, the Direction does not require TEDs/BRDs to be used in the first two weeks of the 2000 fishing season because of:short shot duration;expected low rates of turtle mortality;very little trialing of TEDs when targeting bananas; andexpected high rates of prawn loss.There has been adequate notice of commencement. Although NPFD 30 was gazetted on 16 November 1999, the decision to introduce TEDs in the NPF dates back to 1998. Since that decision until the gazettal there has been extensive consultation with industry, workshops and trials of appropriate TEDs. The NORMAC TED/BRD sub-committee that considered research undertaken in the development of TED/BRDs and developed appropriate definitions would like to allow for the development of even more effective devices by industry. A process by which operators who wish to continue refining TED/BRDs can do so is provided through scientific permits being granted for an alternative TED or BRD. Such a scientific permit exempts the operator from NPFD 30. The sub-committee also considered an approach for more extensive testing of TED/BRDs during banana prawn targeting. This approach was considered by NORMAC on 17 March 2000. Operators have been kept informed of the work of the sub-committee and of NORMAC recommendations and AFMA decisions.I trust that this response adequately addresses your concerns.Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSSExemption Order, made under section 8G of the Christmas Island Act 19589 March 2000Senator the Hon Ian MacdonaldMinister for Regional Services, Territories andLocal GovernmentParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Exemption Order made under paragraph 6(1)(a) of the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA)(CI) which exempts Skyfern Pty Ltd and Christmas Island Tour & Travel from becoming participants in the Travel Compensation Fund.The Committee notes that there is no unique identifying number by which this Order may be referred to. If it were likely to be the only one that will be made under the enabling Act, then numbering would not be necessary. However, if future Orders are made under paragraph 6(1)(a), then the Committee suggests that they should be given a unique number or other identifying notation for ease of future reference and citation.It appears that clause (2), which provides that “this exemption order has effect until revoked”, is unnecessary as the exemption order would have that effect, whether clause (2) were included or not.Paragraph 5(a) requires the Minister to notify an applicant of the decision to refuse to approve a policy of insurance, but the paragraph does not indicate the period within which this notification must take place. It might be thought that paragraph 5(a) should expressly provide that the Minister is to provide the notification forthwith, or as soon as possible.Finally, the Explanatory Statement notes, at the conclusion of the fourth paragraph, that this order “is a temporary measure to enable the applicants to operate lawfully until permanent compensation arrangements are made.” However, on 29 October 1997 the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development made a similar Exemption Order, on that occasion exempting AustAsia Travel Pty Ltd and Christmas Island Travel Pty Ltd from the need to comply with paragraph 9(3)(e) of the Act, and on that occasion also the Order was described as being a “temporary measure”. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice on how long the “temporary” arrangement made in the current Order is likely to last.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator Helen Coonan ChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 concerning the exemption order made under the Travel Agents Act 1985 (WA)(CI) (the Act). I note that, although the order was made in the format agreed with the Committee previously, the Committee has some further concerns.I note your comments on a unique identifying number and I undertake to ensure that any future orders are numbered.As the previous Minister, the Hon Alex Somlyay MP, advised in his letter to the Committee of 21 January 1998, the statement in clause 2 of the order was included because paragraph 6(2)(a) of the Act provides that an order may specify the period during which that order shall remain in force.I have already approved the policies of insurance for the two organisations named in the order. Therefore it is not necessary to amend clause 5 of the order to include a period within which I must notify an applicant of my decision to refuse to approve a policy of insurance. I undertake to include appropriate wording in a future order.A decision on permanent arrangements is being delayed until the outcome of a review of legislation regulating travel agents in Australia by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs is known. I understand that the report of the review will be released to the public some time in May.Yours sincerelyIan MacdonaldTherapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.32417 February 2000Senator the Hon Grant TamblingParliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Aged CareParliament HouseCANBERA ACT 2600Dear Parliamentary SecretaryI refer to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Regulations 1999 (No. 3), Statutory Rules 1999 No. 324.Item 35 of Schedule 1 to these Regulations increases the fees charged for an application for approval of an advertisement under regulation 5F. However, the Explanatory Statement does not indicate the reason for that increase, and does not point out that for the matters listed in paragraph (a) of that item, the increase is 150 per cent over the fees charged when regulation 5F was inserted into the Principal Regulations (Statutory Rules 1997 No. 400, with effect from 24 December 1997). The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice on the reason for and extent of that increase.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChairSenator H. CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 17 February 2000 concerning increases to the fees charged for an application to approve an advertisement lodged under regulation 5F of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations (the Regulations). I apologise for the delay in responding.The functions set out in regulation 5G of the Regulations, for the Secretary to approve applications for advertisements published in mainstream print media, have been delegated to two peak industry bodies in accordance with subregulations 5Q(2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Regulations. The two peak bodies are the Proprietary Medicines Association of Australia (PMAA), and the Complementary HealthCare Council of Australia (CHCA). The Secretary's power to approve applications under regulation 5G has not been delegated to any other person.At the time the fees were set in 1997 for the function of pre-clearing advertisements intended for publication in mainstream print media, the amounts calculated by industry were based on fees charged by the two industry bodies under a voluntary self-regulatory system of controls, before the controls were incorporated into the Regulations. Following the incorporation of the pre-clearance function under the statute, the cost to industry of performing statutory functions has risen considerably. Reasons for the additional costs include:a much higher level of accountability for decisions made, now that these decisions have legal consequences under both the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and Regulations and may be the subject of review by both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and also the Federal Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977;new quarterly reporting requirements imposed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to enable the latter to monitor the exercise of the Secretary's power and functions under regulations 5G and 5L, requiring additional resources; the increase in the number of applications for pre-clearance of advertisements published in mainstream print media, now that pre-clearance is legally required under statute whereas before December 1997 this was not a statutory requirement:the level of complexity and sophistication of advertisements published over time, particularly in relation to increased numbers of lengthy advertorials, as some advertisers seek to find loopholes or weaknesses in the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code. This has led to a considerable increase in the amount of time required to be spent on the pre-clearance function;involvement in statutory committees established under the Regulations, such as the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code Council (RR 42B and 42C), relevant to the industry's involvement in implementing the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code through the pre-clearance function it performs; andthe need for industry to fully recover its costs in performing statutory functions under the Regulations to a high standard.All these factors have contributed to the increase in the fees being charged by the PMAA and CHCA in fully discharging statutory responsibilities under the Regulations. The change in the structure of the fees more accurately reflects the actual costs incurred by the delegates when performing functions under R. 5G of the Regulations.I hope this information meets with the concerns raised by the Committee.Yours sincerelyGRANT TAMBLINGWorkplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1999 (No.9), as contained in Statutory Rules 1999 No.33717 February 2000The Hon Peter Reith MPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relationsand Small BusinessParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1999 (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules 1999 Nos. 336 and 337 respectively.Statutory Rules No. 336These Statutory Rules amend the references to `employing authority' and `prescribed person' as a consequence of changes to legislation in the Australian Capital Territory passed in 1994. The Committee would appreciate your advice as to why there was a delay of five years in implementing these changes and whether any member of the Australian Capital Territory Public Service was disadvantaged by that delay.Statutory Rules 1999 No. 337The Explanatory Statement observes that the purpose of these Statutory Rules is to `establish a new sunset clause [for regulation 30BD of the Principal Regulations], expressed to operate until 31 December 2000.' But the Explanatory Statement does not give the reason for this extension, nor does it advise that, although regulation 30BD was inserted in 1996 (by Statutory Rules 1996 No. 307), the sunset provision was not included until 7 May 1997, when Statutory Rules 1997 No. 101 inserted subregulation 30BD(4), providing that subregulation 30BD(1) and (2) would cease to have effect on 30 June 1998. The Explanatory Statement also fails to observe that this sunset provision was subsequently extended to 31 December 1998 (by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 187), omitted by Statutory Rules 1998 No. 353, and then restored and extended to 31 December 1999 by Statutory Rules 1999 No. 43. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice on the reason for this extension of the sunset clause and whether any further extensions are expected. Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair9 MAR 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 17 February 2000 concerning Statutory Rules 1999 Nos. 336 and 337.Statutory Rules 1999 No. 336In your letter, you ask why it took five years for SR 1999 No. 336 to be made, and whether any member of the Australian Capital Territory Public Service was disadvantaged by the delay.My Department was first made aware of the need to amend the Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 in relation to ACT Government employment when the Chief Minister's Department raised the matter by facsimile letter of 28 June 1999. Discussions ensued between the two Departments, and I received a formal letter of request dated 13 September 1999 from Chief Minister Carnell. Regulations were then drafted and settled in consultation with the Chief Minister's Department.The Chief Minister's Department has advised that, to the best of their knowledge, no member of the ACT Public Service was disadvantaged by the delay in these minor amendments. The amendment to the definition of `employing authority' corrects the regulations as to who may enter into a workplace agreement on behalf of the Territory. The amendment to the definition of `prescribed person' clarifies who is entitled to appear on behalf of the Territory in proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Federal Court.Statutory Rules 1999 No. 337Your letter notes that the Explanatory Statement to SR 1999 No. 337 does not set out the full history of the lodgement fee for applications in respect of termination of employment, nor does it provide a reason for the extension of the sunset provision.In relation to the first point, the history of the regulation is well-known, and can be ascertained from reading the Explanatory Statements to the previous Statutory Rules that amended Regulation 30BD. As for the reason for extending the sunset date, the Explanatory Statement makes clear that it is to discourage prospective applicants from lodging frivolous or vexatious applications in respect of termination of employment.It should be noted that regulation 30BD also contains provisions allowing for waiver of the lodgement fee where the requirement to pay it would cause serious hardship to an applicant, and refund of the fee where a matter is discontinued at least 2 days before the day on which it is first listed for attention by the Commission. These provisions ensure that a genuine claimant is not deterred from making an application in respect of termination of employment because he or she cannot afford the lodgement fee.For your convenience, the history of Regulation 30BD is as follows.In its original form, subregulation 30BD(1) (introduced by SR 1996 No. 307) set a lodgement fee of $50. The lodgement fee was introduced by the Government to discourage prospective applicants from lodging frivolous or vexatious claims in respect of termination of employment. Subregulation 30BD(2) conferred a discretion on a Registrar of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission to waive the requirement to pay the lodgement fee, where he or she was satisfied that payment would cause serious hardship to the applicant.As the result of an agreement between the Government and the Australian Democrats, the Government amended regulation 30BD (by SR 1997 No. 101) to:provide for the refund of the lodgement fee if the applicant discontinues his or her application at least 2 days before the day on which the matter has been first listed for attention by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission [subregulation 30BD(3)]; and insert a sunset clause on the operation of the filing fee [subregulation 30BD(4)].In its original form, subregulation 30BD(4) established a sunset date of 30 June 1998. As part of the agreement between the Government and the Australian Democrats, the Government undertook to review the operation of the lodgement fee, as part of a broader review of the unfair dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the broader review was conducted pursuant to More Time for Business, the Government's response to Time for Business, the Report of the Small Business Deregulation Task Force). The sunset period was extended to 31 December 1998 (by SR 1998 No. 101) after it became apparent that the review would not be completed by 30 June 1998.In September 1998, the Coalition released its workplace relations election policy, More Jobs, Better Pay. Among other things, the policy contained a commitment to permanently implement the lodgement fee (i.e. remove the sunset clause) and to increase the level of the fee to $100.Similarly, the Coalition Government, in its response to the Twelve Month Review of Federal Unfair Dismissal Provisions (released 17 December 1998) recommended an increase in the filing fee from $50 to $100.Accordingly, the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 3) (SR 1998 No. 353) were made on 17 December 1998. These regulations amended subregulation 30BD(1) to increase the amount of the lodgement fee from $50 to $100 with effect from 1 January 1999, and removed subregulation 30BD(4). On 16 February 1999, the regulations were disallowed by the Senate. As the disallowance had the effect of reinstating subregulation 30BD(4), subregulations, 30BD(1) and 30BD(2) ceased to have effect on 31 December 1998.Regulation 30BD was remade by SR 1999 No. 42, which came into force on 24 March 1999. This had the effect of reinstating the $50 lodgement fee, with a new sunset date of 31 December 1999. As this regulation was made within 6 months of the disallowance of the previous regulation (given the need to reinstate a lodgement fee as soon as possible) it was necessary to include a sunset clause. Had the sunset clause not been included, the regulation would probably have been regarded as having been the same in substance as the disallowed regulation, and therefore would have attracted the operation of section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.The sunset clause was extended to 31 December 2000 by SR 1999 No. 337, which took effect on 22 December 1999.In your letter, you ask whether further extensions of the sunset date are expected. The Government considers that the lodgement fee is instrumental to the discouragement of frivolous and vexatious claims, in turn helping to ensure that genuine termination of employment applications are dealt with efficiently. Accordingly, the Government will make regulations to extend the sunset date as appropriate.I trust that this letter answers your queries. Thank you for taking the time to bring the concerns of the Committee to my attention.Yours SincerelyPETER REITH16 March 2000The Hon Peter Reith MPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relationsand Small BusinessParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterThank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 on the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules Nos.336 and 337.The Committee has considered your advice on Statutory Rules No.336 and considers that the information has met its concerns. In relation to Statutory Rules No.337, the Committee notes that in your response you state that `the Government will make regulations to extend the sunset clause as appropriate'. The Committee is of the view that to continue to extend the sunset clause may be a breach of Parliamentary propriety and would therefore appreciate your advice as to whether consideration has been given to making the application fee a permanent provision of these Regulations.Yours sincerelyHelen Coonan Chair9 MAY 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 16 March 2000 concerning the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations (Nos. 8 and 9), Statutory Rules 1999 Nos. 336 and 337.Firstly, I am pleased that the information provided in my letter of 9 March 2000 concerning Statutory Rules 1999 No. 336 meets the Committee's concerns.Regarding Statutory Rules No. 337, you ask whether consideration has been given to making the lodgement fee for termination of employment claims a permanent feature of the Workplace Relations Regulations 1996 (the Regulations).I appreciate the Committee's concern about continued extensions to the sunset clause in subregulation 30BD(4). It has always been the Government's intention that the lodgement fee for termination of employment claims should be a permanent feature of the Regulations.When the fee was first introduced (in SR 1996 No. 307), it did not have a sunset provision. However, Senator Sherry moved a motion to disallow the regulation, and in order to secure support for the fee, I agreed to amend regulation 30BD to, among other matters, insert a sunset clause on the operation of the lodgement fee. Subregulation 30BD(4) was introduced into the Regulations by SR 1997 No. 101.More Jobs, Better Pay, the Workplace Relations policy that the Coalition took to the 1998 Federal Election, contained a commitment to permanently implement the lodgement fee. To give effect to this election commitment, the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1998 (No. 3) (SR 1998 No. 353) were made on 17 December 1998. (As well as repealing the sunset provision contained in subregulation 30BD(4), subregulation 30BD(1) was also amended to increase the amount of the lodgement fee to $100.) On 16 February 1999, the Senate disallowed the amending regulations. The disallowance had the effect of reinstating the previous sunset date (31 December 1998), with the effect that the fee ceased to be payable.Regulation 30BD was remade by SR 1999 No. 42, which came into force on 24 March 1999. As I explained in my previous letter to you, the need to reinstate the fee as soon as possible and the limitation in subsection 49(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 made it necessary to include a sunset clause in the regulation, with the sunset date being 31 December 1999.As the Committee is aware, the Government considers that the lodgement fee is important to discourage frivolous and vexatious claims in respect of termination of employment (in return for helping to ensure that genuine termination of employment claims are dealt with efficiently).In the context of considering the approach to take to the expiry of the sunset provision, I considered repealing subregulation 30BD(4). However, in light of what has happened previously, I did not consider it desirable to risk disallowance of the regulation.I trust that this information meets the concerns of the Committee.Yours sincerelyPETER REITHAustralian 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 19979 March 2000The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to 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 which permits the export of lamb to the United States beyond the amount of the quota on that trade set by the two countries.The Committee was pleased to note that a very good explanatory statement, which provides the reader with a full description of the contents and effect of the amendment, accompanied this Order. However, the Committee would appreciate your advice on the following matter. 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.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair4 APR 2000Senator the Hon Helen CoonanChair, Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter dated 9 March 2000 concerning the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) (the Amending Order) made under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997.Whilst you note that the Amending Order was accompanied by a very good explanatory statement, you have a specific concern regarding clause 20 as inserted into the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2) by the Amending, Order.The concern of the Committee is that there is no indication of what would happen if the Secretary does not agree to the granting of a US lamb certificate and whether the exercise of that discretion is subject to external merits review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.I am advised that the Secretary's delegate, before making the Amending Order, considered carefully the issue of whether to include the discretion. He decided in favour of including it provided that it be exercised in favour of the applicant “in the normal course of events”.The normal course of events occurs when the in-formation submitted in the eligible exporter's US lamb certificate application shows that the size of the consignment is less than or equal to the balance in that exporter's quota entitlement account.In the event of the amount in the US lamb certificate application not reconciling with the exporter's quota entitlement account, quota administration staff ordinarily would make inquiries of the exporter. It is important for there to be some background sanction, such as a discretion in the Secretary to refuse the issue of a US lamb certificate, to ensure cooperation in resolving a non-reconciliation issue such as where the amount of the consignments would overrun the exporter's quota entitlement account. The Committee may be interested to know that, to date, there has not arisen an occasion when the discretion has been exercised (or raised) against an applicant.It is obviously very important that the government, exporters and the US authorities have confidence in the integrity of the Australian quota administration system. In these circumstances I agree with the Secretary that a discretion of the type in clause 20 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2) is justified without the need for review rights to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.However, I also agree with the Committee's obvious general position that the government should maintain high standards of administrative review policy and this should be evident in subordinate legislation. The Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 2) will apply to the end of the quota year which finishes on 21 July 2000. If there are quota arrangements for the year commencing on 22 July 2000, another order will need to be made. The Secretary, in making any such order, will take into account the issues you have raised and any other matters you may wish to submit to me for the Secretary's attention.Any discretions in the order (if made) will be accompanied by explanatory material contained in either the order itself or the accompanying explanatory statement. Thank you for raising this with me and I trust that I have addressed adequately the Committee's concerns. Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSS13 April 2000The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterThank you for your letter of 4 April 2000 relating to the Committee's concerns with the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No.3).You advised the Committee that the Secretary's discretion to issue a US lamb certificate would be exercised favourably when an exporter's application shows that the size of their consignment is less than or equal to the balance in that exporter's quota entitlement account. It would therefore appear that the Secretary's discretion to refuse such a licence would be decided on matters of fact such as that the consignment did not reconcile with the quota entitlement account. If such were the case, then review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would not appear to be appropriate. The Committee would therefore appreciate your confirmation that any exercise of this discretion is decided on matters of fact.The Committee would appreciate your response as soon as possible as this Order is subject to a notice of disallowance that will expire on 27 June 2000.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair19 MAY 2000Senator Helen CoonanChair,Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesThe SenateParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear HelenThank you for your letter dated 13 April 2000 concerning the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Lamb Export to the United States of America) Amendment Order 1999 (No. 3) (the Amending Order) made under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997.You advise that the review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would not appear to be appropriate if the Secretary's discretion to refuse a US lamb certificate would be decided on matters of fact. I can assure the Committee that the exercise of the discretion to refuse a US lamb certificate would be decided only on matters of fact. For example, the discretion would be exercised against the applicant if, as a matter of fact, the size of the proposed consignment requiring a certificate would be greater than the applicant's quota entitlement account.I trust that this sufficiently addresses all of the Committee's concerns.Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSSNational Television Conversion Scheme 1999, made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 19929 March 2000Senator the Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Communications, Information Technologyand the ArtsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the National Television Conversion Scheme 1999 made under subclause 19(1) of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which is 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. The Committee notes that 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 Committee is concerned that 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 Committee would appreciate your advice on this matter. The Committee also draws your attention to 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.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair19 April 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCanberra Australian Capital Territory 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances concerning consultation by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) when revising a draft digital channel plan under section 11 of the National Television Conversion Scheme 1999 (the Scheme). I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter.I have referred the Committee's concerns to the ABA. The ABA has advised that, while the Scheme does not provide guidance regarding the appropriateness of inviting comments in relation to the variation of a draft digital channel plan, the Explanatory Paper to the Scheme outlines the circumstances in which the ABA would consider it appropriate to invite comments and initiate a consultation process where it intended to vary a digital channel plan. The Explanatory Paper to the Scheme provides (at page 10):The ABA would regard it as appropriate to carry out a consultation process in all situations in which a variation would materially affect any person. There may, however, be occasions in which the proposed variation is of a minor nature with no, or little, effect on other broadcasters or the general public. Variations of this nature would not benefit from a costly and time consuming consultation process and the ABA may, in these circumstances, confine discussions to those people who are directly affected.The ABA has advised that it would apply these principles to any draft digital channel plan the ABA intends to revise.I have noted the absence of a section-by-section explanation of the terms of the Scheme in the Explanatory Paper, and your comments have been forwarded to the ABA for its consideration in the context of preparing future Explanatory Papers.Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention on the Committee's behalf. I trust that this response appropriately addresses the Committee's concerns with the National Television Conversion Scheme.Yours sincerelyRICHARD ALSTONMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), as contained in Statutory Rules 2000 No.5 and made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 19759 March 2000Senator the Hon Robert HillMinister for Environment and HeritageParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No.1), Statutory Rules 2000 No.5 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000, Statutory Rules 2000 No.6. Statutory Rules 2000 No.5The Committee notes that the Explanatory Statement to these Statutory Rules does not include a regulation-by-regulation description of the amendments made by them.Although the Explanatory Statement notes that the purpose of these Regulations is “to provide for a register of permissions to be kept by the [Great Barrier Reef Marine Park] Authority, and for members of the public to have access to documents in the register”, new subregulation 59A(1) is permissive only, and not mandatory. The Committee would appreciate advice on whether that subregulation should be mandatory.New subregulation 59C(2) specifies the fees that the Authority is to charge for copies of documents on the register. In the absence of a regulation-by-regulation explanation of the amendments, it is unclear what basis has been used to set these fees. [Statutory Rules 2000 No.6 still being considered by the Committee]Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair17 APR 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesDear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 9 March 2000 regarding the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No 1) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No 1)The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Regulations 2000 (No. 1) (“the Amendment Regulations”) were gazetted on 23 February 2000. The purpose of these Regulations is to provide for a Register of permissions to be kept by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority “the Authority”), and for members of the public to have access to the documents in the Register.Whilst the Explanatory Statement to these Regulations does not include a regulation-by-regulation description of the amendments made by them, the Explanatory Memorandum did provide such details; both documents being approved by, and forwarded to, the Executive Council Secretariat. A copy of the Explanatory Memorandum is attached.Regulations 59A(1) and.(2) of the Amendment Regulations allow the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to establish and maintain a Register of permissions. Such a Register will contain details of applications for permissions and transfers, and variations of applications, details of permissions granted and copies of any statements of reason given for decisions. However, subregulation (3) provides that the Register must not include any confidential information.Although regulation 59A provides the mechanism for the Authority to establish a Register of permissions, resource implications mean that at present, the Register will only contain details of permissions for moorings in the Cairns Planning Area (that is, the areas covered by the Cairns Area Plan of Management). This is to ensure that any adverse effects on the Marine Park from high levels of use in the Cairns Planning Area are minimised by encouraging the sharing of moorings. However, it is envisaged that at a later date, the Register will extend to all permissions issued by the Authority.Regulation 59B requires the Authority to show the Register to any person who asks to see it at the Authority's office during business hours.Regulation 59C requires the Authority to provide a copy of the documents in the Register to persons who request such copies and pay the fees set out in that regulation. Subregulation (2) provides that the fee for access to the Register is $10.00 plus 50 cents for each page copied. These amounts are reflective of the likely staffing costs associated with the retrieval and photocopying of the documents. The fees being charged by the Authority are less than that currently provided for by the Commonwealth's Freedom of Information Act.I trust this letter adequately addresses your queries.Yours sincerelyRobert HillMarine Orders Part 47 - Mobile Offshore Drilling Units - Issue 2, as contained in Marine Order No.1 of 2000 and Marine Orders Part 60 - Floating Offshore Facilities - Issue 1, as contained in Marine Order No.2 of 2000 made under section 425(1AA) of the Navigation Act 19126 April 2000The Hon John Anderson MPMinister for Transport and Regional ServicesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to Marine Orders Nos. 1 and 2 of 2000 made under subsection 425(1AA) of the Navigation Act 1912.Marine Order No. 1 of 2000The Order gives effect to both the 1979 and the 1989 Codes for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units as adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. Al-though the Explanatory Statement asserts that this Order gives effect to these Codes, there does not appear to be any provision in the Order which expressly makes clear that purported effect.Provision 2.2.2 appears to grant to the Chief Marine Surveyor a discretion to determine the extent to which compliance with the provisions in Part 47 is unreasonable or impractical. However, although the exercise of all the other discretions in this Marine Order is subject to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the exercise of the discretion in provision 2.2.2 is not so reviewable.Provision 4.2 appears to be merely directory, in providing that a decision maker may give written notice of that decision to a person whose interests are affected thereby. This appears to be in conflict with the heading to that provision, which suggests, by using the words “Statements to accompany decisions” that it is mandatory. The provision is also contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of subsection 27A(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which requires a de-cision maker to “take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances” to bring a decision to the notice of any person whose interests are affected thereby. These comments also apply to an identical provision in Marine Order No.2 of 2000—provision 4.2.Provision 5.2 provides, among other things, that the failure to comply with provision 7 “consti-tutes an offence by the owner and person-in-charge.” Provision 7 states merely: “A MODU must be provided with personnel in accordance with Appendix 1.” In Appendix 1, the only provisions that appear to impose a duty relating to the manning of a MODU are clauses 3.1 and 3.3, both of which are expressed to apply only to the owner.The Note at the end of provision 8.4.2 states “In the case of a MODU to which the 1989 MODU Code applies, the muster list must comply with that Code.” Since, by virtue of provision 1.8(c), “a note included in the text and printed in italics is not part of the Part”, it is difficult to ascertain the basis for the Note at the end of provision 8.4.2.Clause 3.1 of Schedule 1 requires the owner of a MODU to ensure that the manning of the MODU comprises at least “such number of competent persons determined by the owner to be sufficient to undertake” the operations in question. Since this clause is, by virtue of provisions 5.1 and 7, a penal provision, it may be questioned whether it could readily be determined, on any particular occasion, whether the owner was guilty of an offence.Marine Order No. 2 of 2000The Order prescribes requirements for the construction and equipment of Floating Production, Storage and Offshore ships and Floating Storage Units.Provision 8 imposes various obligations on those involved with the transfer of material, appliances and personnel and with the arrival and departure of helicopters. However, provision 5 does not list that provision as a penal provision, even though the identical provisions in Marine Order No. 1 of 2000 - provisions 8.8 and 8.9 - are listed in that Order as penal provisions.The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair3 May 2000 Senator Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 6 April 2000 concerning Marine Orders Nos. 1 and 2 of 2000.The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) has provided the following advice.MARINE ORDER NO. 1 OF 2000Giving effect to CodesSection 193 of the Navigation Act 1912 requires a ship to be surveyed at least once during each period of 12 months. A Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU), being a ship, must be surveyed accordingly. Provision 9 of Part 47 provides that a MODU will be issued with the appropriate MODU Safety Certificate if it is found to be in compliance with the 1979 or 1989 Codes for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. Provision 6.1 provides that if the MODU does not have a certificate in force, it cannot move from its current location.Provision 2.2.2It was not intended that Provision 2.2.2 should provide a separate, non-reviewable power of exemption. Rather, it is a specific use of the power of exemption. in Provision 3.2. As such, it might be expressed better as a note rather than as a separate provision and a suitable amendment will be made as soon as practicable. In the meantime, any exemptions given will be under Provision 3.2 and will therefore be reviewable.Provision 4.2Provision 4.2, which is based on section 377M of the Navigation Act 1912, is intended to apply to decisions in writing. Although most decisions are conveyed in writing, some are of necessity made in an operational context and initially conveyed orally. These are followed up where appropriate by confirmation in writing.The intent of section 27A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is appreciated by AMSA; however, it would not be practicable to require that all decisions be notified in writing.With regard to the heading to Provision 4.2, it would be clearer if it read “Statements to accompany written notice of decisions”. The heading will be amended as soon as practicable. A similar amendment will be made to the identical provision in Marine Order No. 2 of 2000.Provision 5.2You have drawn attention to a deficiency in Provision 7, which should contain a second sentence requiring a person-in-charge to discharge the responsibilities specified in Appendix 1. A suitable amendment will be made as soon as possible.Note to Provision 8.4.2Provision 9.1.2 requires compliance with the 1989 Code before issue of the MODU Safety Certificate (1989). Accordingly, the provisions of the 1989 Code are mandatory in respect of MODUs to which the 1989 Code applies. Hence the footnote to Provision 8.4.2 is merely a reminder of an existing requirement.Clause 3.1 of Appendix 113.1(e) of Appendix 2 provides that there must be carried on board a MODU a document specifying the persons who may be appointed person-in-charge in the various modes of operation, towage, standby or stacked, and the minimum number and qualifications of persons required aboard the MODU in the various modes of operation, including towing.MARINE ORDER NO. 2 OF 2000Provision 8 should be identified as a penal provision and a suitable amendment will be made as soon as possible.Yours sincerelyJOHN ANDERSONNotice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 164(5A) of the Customs Act 19019 March 2000Senator the Hon Amanda VanstoneMinister for Justice and CustomsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Notice No.1 (2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 154(5A) of the Customs Act 1901 which sets the rate of rebate payable in respect of diesel fuel purchased for use for five specific purposes. This notice (issued under the Customs Act 1901) is stated to have effect “on and after 2 February 2000”, but the Explanatory Statement observes that it was not notified in the Gazette until 3 February 2000. It appears from the terms of the Notice that this retrospectivity would not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth, and that the notice is not rendered ineffective by subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.The Committee draws this matter to your attention and would appreciate confirmation that the notice does not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair12 APR 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanI refer to your letter of 9 March 2000, in which you seek confirmation that the Notice No. 1 (2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 164(5A) of the Customs Act 1901 does not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth.The purpose of the Notice is to increase the amount of diesel fuel rebate payable under subsection 164(1) of the Customs Act 1901.In accordance with longstanding policy, where rates of customs duty are indexed in accordance with the indexation provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, complementary increases in the rates of diesel duel rebate are also made.The result of the Notice is that those persons entitled to claim diesel fuel rebate under subsection 164(1) of the Customs Act 1901 are entitled to claim the higher rate from 2 February 2000. Any benefit that actually accrues as a result of an increase in rebate payable will take effect for rebates paid in the period March - August 2000, as rebates are calculated on a rolling average of the previous six months' rebate. Thus the fact that the Notice takes effect before the date of notification confers a prospective benefit and not a liability on those persons.The retrospective application of the Notice does not prejudicially affect the rights of, or impose liabilities on any person other than the Commonwealth.Yours sincerelyAMANDA VANSTONENotice No.1(2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 19019 March 2000Senator the Hon Rod KempAssistant TreasurerParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Notice No.1 (2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate made under subsection 78A(5A) of the Excise Act 1901 which sets the rate of rebate payable in respect of diesel fuel purchased for use for five specific purposes.This notice (issued under the Excise Act 1901) is stated to have effect “on and after 2 February 2000”, but the Explanatory Statement observes that it was not notified in the Gazette until 3 February 2000. It appears from the terms of the Notice that this retrospectivity would not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth, and that the notice is not rendered ineffective by subsection 48(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.The Committee draws this matter to your attention and would appreciate confirmation that the notice does not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair24 May 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your personal representations of 9 March 2000, concerning Notice No. 1 (2000) of Declared Rate in respect of Diesel Fuel Rebate. The notice was notified in the Special Gazette No. S49 on 3 February 2000 and has effect from 2 February 2000. You sought confirmation that it does not prejudicially affect any person other than the Commonwealth.The purpose of the Notice is to increase the amount of diesel fuel rebate payable under subsection 78(1) of the Excise Act 1901.In accordance with long-standing policy, where rates of excise duty are indexed in accordance with the indexation provisions of the Excise Tariff Act 1921, complementary increases in the rates of diesel fuel rebate are also made.The result of the Notice is that those persons entitled to claim diesel fuel rebate under subsection 78(1) of the Excise Act 1921 are entitled to do so at a higher rate. The rebate payable is calculated on a rolling average of the previous six month's Declared Rates and any benefit that accrues as a result of an increase in the February 2000 Declared Rates will only take effect for rebates paid the period 1 March - 31 August 2000.The retrospective application of the Notice does not prejudicially affect the rights of, or impose liabilities on any person other than the Commonwealth.I trust this information will be of assistance to you.Yours SincerelyROD KEMPLeave of Absence15109Motion (by Senator Calvert)—by leave—agreed to:That leave of absence be granted to: (a) Senator Vanstone for the period 19 to 23 June 2000, on account of ministerial business overseas; and (b) Senators Ferguson and Murray for the period 19 to 30 June 2000, on account of parliamentary business overseas.Notices1510915109Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 489 standing in the name of Senator Murray for 28 June 2000, proposing an order for the production of documents relating to lists of departmental and agency contracts, postponed till 16 August 2000.Committees151091510915109Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Coonan) agreed to:That so much of standing order 36 be suspended as would prevent the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances holding a private deliberative meeting on 22 June 2000 with members of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee of the Victorian Parliament in attendance.Documents15109151091510910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing order 166, I present report No. 46 of the Auditor-General entitled High Wealth Individuals Taskforce: Australian Taxation Office, which was presented to the Deputy President on 13 June 2000. In accordance with the terms of the standing order, the publication of the document was authorised.1510910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General Act 1997, I present the following report of the Auditor-General: Report No. 48 of 1999-2000-Follow-up Performance Audit-Follow-up Audit of Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs International Services: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.15:38:0015109Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.I have only just received the audited findings on this particular issue, that is, Audit Office performance report No. 48. While this is a report into the operations of DETYA International Services, that is, the consulting and technical assistance service that is provided to the international education industry—it has been in operation since 1993—I do note that there are some issues that require the attention of the department. I notice that it is a follow-up audit and I notice that the Audit Office has advised the parliament that some issues have yet to be attended to, despite assurances that have been made by DETYA in the past about this particular service. I note at 2.4 amongst the findings that the officers of the department have yet to implement the proposed project costing methodology as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit was previously advised and that `the proposed methodology will improve the service's direct project input and cost estimates we are calculating'. The point I raise is that, while this appears to be a relatively minor matter in regard to the general scheme of the administrative arrangements—the Audit Office draws to our attention that only 1.5 staff are actually involved in the service—I find it unfortunate that the Audit Office has to draw to our attention a problem where the department makes assurances that are then not followed through. That issue requires the attention of the management of DETYA. However, the general issue of interna-tional education is much more serious than is implied by this particular report. In the past, the opposition has drawn attention to a number of quite serious legislative problems that have arisen within international education as a result of the operations of a small group of unscrupulous and shady operators, which have seen a series of what I believe to be very serious problems arising from what in normal circumstances would be criminal acts. Unfortunately, the way the laws of this country currently operate, apparently very little can be done to prevent these operations from occurring within the existing legislative framework.I am not surprised that it has taken the Senate processes to draw the department's attention to a whole series of quite dramatic irregularities in regard to the monitoring of attendance records in international colleges, the tracking of students, abuses of trust accounts, problems in regard to the administration of the tuition assurance schemes, fraudulent use of the confirmation of enrolment forms and serious breaches of the various arrangements that are entered into that allow for the licensing of international colleges. These have occurred as a result of the failure of states to administer quality assurance mechanisms to ensure that conditions are maintained. I note that, within the existing framework, various sanctions and disciplinary decisions are allowed for in theory but have not been used to date. The reason I put these matters before the Senate again is that it is important to highlight the general question that, while we have a very substantial international education industry in this country which has grown from 48,000 students in 1991 to 158,000 in 1999, all of this is essentially dependent upon our international reputation for quality. That reputation has been put at risk as a result of the operations of a few unsavoury characters. These are clearly matters that the department should have paid greater attention to earlier. It is quite clearly the case that, if it had not been the processes of the Senate that they had to confront, we may not have seen the announcement of the government that there is a rewrite of the international education services legislation and that that rewrite is in response to the various concerns that have been expressed. It will not change the fact that was an appalling lack of administrative coherence and cooperation between the departments of immigration and education and the departments of foreign affairs and trade and education and between the federal government and the state governments. Those are all problems that were drawn out through the various processes of the Senate. This legislation will not change that central problem; it is effectively a policy matter which the government must undertake to address seriously. However, there has been acknowledgment that fraudulent confirmation of enrolment actually is occurring, that quality assurance matters require much tighter guidance, that financial and tuition assurance arrangements for overseas students need to be tightened up and that there needs to be coordination between the departments of immigration and education. But I say, on top of that, there needs to be coordination between the Commonwealth and the state governments and between the departments of education and immigration and the departments of trade and foreign affairs. Of course, there needs to be a much higher level of understanding of the quality assurance problems that have existed for some time in this industry.Essentially, this ANAO report does not tend to any of those issues because it deals with a very small component of the international education program. I am concerned, though, that one of the reasons the ANAO states that these issues are not particularly significant is that the number of staff involved in this program is not particularly high. It says it is potentially 1.5 staff. One of the reasons the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs is not able to cope with its responsibilities, in my judgment, is that its staffing numbers have been cut so drastically. The number of people involved in monitoring international education has been reduced by about half. The government's response is to increase the levies and charges on industry, to rely upon a whole range of technologies and to say that a better eye is being kept on the industry. The fact remains that you will never be able to replace humans with machines with regard to an understanding of what is actually occurring within an industry. Automation in itself is not a solution to the problems of public administration.One of the problems we have been faced with in this industry for too long is that there have been too few people with a corporate understanding of what is occurring in the industry such that people have confidence in the players and are able to talk to them in a manner that would lead to the problems being addressed before they get out of control. I am afraid that suggestions by the Australian National Audit Office that we can determine efficiency entirely on the basis of costs and staffing numbers will not attend to that particular problem. There are in fact a number of staff needed in any particular operation who have a long-term understanding of an industry and the problems of it so as to allow public servants to be able to act creatively and to provide advice to government to address problems in a manner that will be way out of the reach of any automated computer program. These programs are the fashion of the day.This report is limited and is only a small part of the general picture. I note that the broader questions of the rewriting of the legislative framework for international education will require much closer attention from this parliament. I look forward to the government actually coming forward with their proposed new code of conduct between the Commonwealth and the states to ensure that the legislative package that they are proposing is available to the parliament with sufficient time for the matters to be given proper scrutiny and to ensure that the legislation does attend to some of the problems that I have been speaking of in recent months.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees15111151111511115:47:0015111Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VictoriaALP00—I present the 91st report of the Committee of Privileges relating to a person referred to in the Senate. Ordered that the report be printed.UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted. UI4Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the report be adopted.This report is the 35th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be accorded to persons who claim to be adversely affected by being referred to either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified in the Senate. On 30 May 2000, the President referred a letter from Mr Noel Crichton-Browne to the Committee of Privileges as a submission under privilege resolution 5. The letter responded to remarks made by Senator Knowles in the Senate during the debate on 10 April 2000 on a motion that the Senate adopt the committee's 88th report. That report had recommended that an earlier response from Mr Crichton-Browne to remarks made by Senator Knowles in December 1999 be incorporated in Hansard. The President advised the committee that, in making a decision whether to refer the letter to the committee as a further submission, she had concluded that on balance it was for the committee to determine whether publication of a second submission was justified.At its meeting on 8 June 2000, the committee in turn examined the matter closely on two grounds. Firstly, it considered whether the trading of allegations between a senator and a person who regarded himself as adversely affected by the senator's comments should continue indefinitely. Secondly, it noted that the response contained material which it does not normally recommend for publication. It has reluctantly concluded that it should recommend the publication of this present submission in full in the expectation that no further submissions will be forthcoming. The committee observes that no other person has ever attempted a third right of reply and only twice before has a person sought, and been given, a second response. The committee emphasises, as it has in other reports relating to this matter, that it does not endorse the comments made in the submission and judges neither the truth nor the merits of the response. I commend the report to the Senate.The response read as follows—APPENDIX ONERESPONSE BY MR NOEL CRICHTON-BROWNEPURSUANT TO RESOLUTION 5(7)(B) OF THE SENATEOF 25 FEBRUARY 1988I again write to you pursuant to Resolution 5 (7) (B) of the Senate of 25 February 1988. In particular I write in response to a speech made by Senator Knowles on 4 April 2000. I ask that this letter be referred to the Privileges Committee under that resolution.Senator Knowles speech followed the tabling in the Senate by the Chairman of the Senate Committee of Privileges, a response by me to an earlier speech Senator Knowles had made in which she made various untrue and malicious statements about me.In Senator Knowles' speech of 4 April 2000, she began by stating that my response as contained in the Committee's Report was a “further attempt by Crichton-Browne to abuse me” and later went on to describe my response as “a truck load of abuse” and “continual harassment.”Not only are these statements by Senator Knowles wilfully untruthful, she alleges that contrary to the provisions of the Senate's Resolution, my statement is vexatious and offensive in character. The Senate Resolution states that the President shall not refer a matter to the Committee if it is vexatious and that the Committee shall not table a document that includes offensive material.Senator Knowles therefore claims that my statement was not in accordance with the Senate Resolution and accordingly both the President and the Committee have breached the terms of the same Resolution.Senator Knowles states in her speech that “I am now entering my 13th year of abuse, vilification and harassment from this man..”Senator Knowles knows these allegations are fabrications and lies concocted by her without a shred of substance. Senator Knowles has previously made these allegations without parliamentary privilege and was forced to admit to the untruthfulness of her statements and to apologise to me in the Western Australian Supreme Court. Senator Knowles also paid me $20,000 in legal fees for making her untruthful allegations. These earlier allegations by Senator Knowles which resulted in her Supreme Court admissions of untruthfulness, included claims that as a result of death threats by me she feared for her life and was under police protection. Both the Federal Police and the Western Australian Police denied her claims.Senator Knowles' description of my response to her criminal defamation of me under parliamentary privilege, as “abuse” is a bizarre attempt to portray herself as the victim, rather than the perpetrator.Senator Knowles apparently takes the view that she has a right to criminally defame me with outrageous and false allegations. An objective, rational and truthful response from me to those allegations, is to her, “vilification and harassment.” The abusive nature of her speech is clear evidence of that. Senator Knowles seems incapable or unprepared to understand the enormity of her misconduct and misbehaviour.The essential elements of my statement to the Senate are a record of the proceedings of the Western Australian Supreme Court and the correspondence between lawyers acting for Senator Knowles and myself. Those indisputable facts are now described by Senator Knowles as “abuse, vilification and harassment.”Senator Knowles' attitude and state of mind in respect to this matter is exposed in her response to my statement of the facts in defence of myself from her untruthful allegations, wherein she describes me as “a particularly vicious, bitter and nasty man whose sole motivation in life is to harass and intimidate anyone who disagrees with him...” A factual response to Senator Knowles' untruthfulness and dishonesty to which she admitted in the Western Australian Supreme Court, invokes such an outburst.Senator Knowles further states in her response to my statement that “many thought when the party made its third decision in support of me and against his malicious, deceitful and dishonest claims that it would be the end of the matter.”Senator Knowles is obviously referring to the complaints made against her by constituent bodies of the Liberal Party which were heard by the Liberal Party's Appeals and Disciplinary Committee. It is self evident that the complaints were not made by me. They were made by the Liberal Party.Senator Knowles was found guilty and expelled from the Liberal Party and was reinstated upon appeal. Two separate Appeals and Disciplinary Committees of the Liberal Party found her guilty of the various charges which included her claim to Mr James McGinty, the then Leader of the Western Australian State Parliamentary Labor Party that she had received death threats from me and that she was under police protection.Mr McGinty has subsequently accused Senator Knowles of “lying” to him. He has done so outside the parliament and without privilege. Senator Knowles has not taken action against him. Senator Knowles refused to provide sworn evidence to the Appeals and Disciplinary Committee and offered only unsworn evidence to the body which reinstated her.Counsel for the Liberal Party found the case against Senator Knowles very strong and recommended that the matter be re-heard. The State President in his written report as Chairman of the Appeals and Disciplinary Committee also found the case against Senator Knowles overwhelming and he has stated that but for defects with the hearing, he would have on the evidence, voted for Senator Knowles' expulsion from the Liberal Party.Senator Knowles further states that my account of the legal proceedings are “the same lies, the same dishonesty.” The one unimpeachable truth of the Supreme Court proceedings against which Senator Knowles rails, can be found in a transcript of the court proceedings. I attach a certified copy of the Western Australian Supreme Court proceedings in the matter of Crichton-Browne v Senator Knowles which I respectfully request be incorporated as part of my statement.I draw to your attention the fact that Senator Knowles has in response to two earlier statements, deliberately mislead the Senate. Senator Knowles' untrue statements are clearly misconduct by a Senator and she is guilty of `grave contempt' of the Senate. I take it that by any measure, for a Senator to deliberately and knowingly tell a lie to the Senate is considered to be a very serious offence. Senator Knowles has repeatedly lied to the Senate and in so doing deceived the public by her dishonesty.There is no question that on 8 December 1999 and 4 April 2000, Senator Knowles lied to the Senate in respect to proceedings of which she was a party in the Western Australian Supreme Court.On 8 December 1999, Senator Knowles informed the Senate that:“It, like so many other articles written by Burns, claims that I have apologised for alleging that Crichton-Browne has made death threats against me. I have not.”“There is no person I have spoken to or interview I have done that says anything other than the fact that I sought police advice on security matters follow in two unidentified phone calls in the middle of the night that contained threats.”On 4 April 2000, Senator Knowles informed the Senate that:“I do not care what he [Mincherton] writes about the Supreme Court and everything that I specifically apologised for in the comments I made — I covered all that in December. His affidavit was absolutely and utterly wrong. I have said that all the way along the line, and I will say it and say it again.”“Not only did he constantly repeat these wrong allegations about me at all forums of the Liberal Party; he also telephoned around Western Australia doing exactly the same. He has constantly lied about me...”“I still stand by what I said in December absolutely and unequivocally, except with interest.”Senator Knowles' untruthfulness in her speeches is further aggravated by her allegations that others have lied in their statements to the Senate, in sworn affidavits to the Supreme Court, in sworn affidavits to the disciplinary Committee of the Liberal Party of Western Australia and to the public at large.The certified copy of the Western Australian Supreme Court proceedings in which Senator Knowles apologised for claiming to Mr Mincherton that I had made death threats against her, clearly and unequivocally shows that Senator Knowles statements to the Senate are wilfully untrue.The Liberal Party of Western Australia has obtained its own legal advice from the law firm of Freehill Hollingdale and Page on the status of Senator Knowles' admissions in the Supreme Court. The Liberal Party was advised that:“The matters, the subject of the defamation action by Mr Crichton-Browne against Senator Knowles, are in the public arena. They have been widely reported, have been stated in open court and have been subject of a public apology.It must be clearly understood that the statements made by Senator Knowles have been acknowledged by her to be untrue. She unreservedly withdrew and retracted the allegations and unreservedly apologised. In the context of the apology read to the Court and published in newspapers, that is an admission by her that she made the allegations and that they were untrue. There is no scope for denial by Senator Knowles of these matters. That being so, it would seem that there is no need for discussion on the truth or otherwise of what was said.”I enclose a copy of that advice.*I have not drawn your attention to the various other dishonest statements made by Senator Knowles to the Senate about this matter, however they are readily demonstrated.The Western Australian Police have issued a statement that Senator Knowles did not even receive two phone calls “that contained threats” as she alleged in her speech on 8 December. Her statement to the police will confirm that.The other further statements made by Senator Knowles in the Senate are equally readily proved to be deliberately untruthful.1 respectfully request that the Privileges Committee consider what steps may be taken to address this very serious matter.Noel Crichton-Browne*Not received by Committee of PrivilegesCOPYCopyright in this document is reserved to the crown in right of the state of Western Australia.Reproduction or dissemination of this document(or part thereof, in any format) except with theconsent of the attorney-general is prohibited.THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA2141 of 1996NOEL ASHLEY CRICHTON-BROWNEandSUSAN CHRISTINE KNOWLESWHEELER JTRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSAT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 21 OCTOBER 1998, AT 10.27 AMMR R.W. RICHARDSON appeared for the plaintiff.MR E.J. PICTON-WARLOW appeared for the defendant.21/10/98(s&c)1-2/2/1p2141/96WHEELER J: Mr Richardson?RICHARDSON, MR: May it please your Honour, I appear on behalf of the plaintiff.WHEELER J: Thank you, and Mr Picton-Warlow?PICTON-WARLOW, MR: May it please your Honour, I appear on behalf of the defendant.WHEELER J: Thank you. Mr Richardson?RICHARDSON, MR: Your Honour, I am pleased to advise that this matter has been settled, and in fact was settled on 25 September 1998. The reason for the delay in bringing the settlement to the court's attention was a result of two conditions imposed in the settlement agreement by the defendant, and they were that the apology, although to be read in open court at a date convenient, was not to be read on or before 3 October 1998, and my client also gave an undertaking at the request of the defendant not to publish to any person the apology or the details of the settlement of the action prior to 3 October 1998.WHEELER J: All right.RICHARDSON, MR: Your Honour, there has been a minute signed by the parties consenting to the orders to be made today to dispose of this action, if I could hand the original of that to your Honour.WHEELER J: Thank you.RICHARDSON, MR: You will see from that that the terms of the settlement comprise, firstly, in order 2 a publication of an apology in three newspapers by the defendant, that to be done within 7 days and to be published in The West Australian, The Australian, and The Canberra Times. In addition, the defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of $20,000 and the defendant has agreed to read an apology in open court by her counsel in terms of the annexure to the minute that you have. Prior to the reading of that apology, it is important that the causes of action identified in the apology are identified in court, for two reasons: firstly, to ensure that the plaintiff has proper vindication for the apology which doesn't itemise, which is the usual course, the articles or the publications complained of, and of course that is also an important consideration for the defendant that the apologies granted are identified in open court, because it is to those publications that the apology relates.21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 2Spark & Cannon1-2/3/1p 2141/96If your Honour has the substituted of statement of claim - I am not sure whether you have the papers, but - - -WHEELER J: I have them here, but what is the date of the substituted statement of claim?RICHARDSON, MR: As counsel we never get them dated. It simply says May 98, but it should be the last document on the file.WHEELER J: All right, we will see if we can find it.RICHARDSON, MR: It's not that; it is very voluminous. It is in fact 59 pages.WHEELER J: That looks like it, yes.RICHARDSON, MR: The first publication, your Honour, appears at page 2 and that publication is an allegation of slander and it is a publication made to a Richard Minchinton and it was made in or about May of 1995 at the defendant's West Perth office. The words were spoken to Richard Minchinton, and the allegation was that the words were as follows - - WHEELER J: Do we need to go through, actually read out, all of the allegations?RICHARDSON, MR: What I propose to do is very briefly identify them. I won't read it all out, but the essence of the publication was, “Noel Crichton-Browne made life-threatening threats to me by phone, and as a result of that I have sought police protection.” WHEELER J: Yes.RICHARDSON, MR: The second publication was a publication made to Richard Utting, then of ABC Radio 726WF, on the morning of 11 September 1995, so that was a publication of a slander plus the libel of the republication on ABC Radio. Mr Utting there referred to public allegations that “Senator Crichton-Browne has perhaps in some way threatened you and then you went to the police about it. What's the story behind that?” The defendant was asked various questions about it by Mr Utting, and at the conclusion it was unclear as to who the person was. Mr Utting said, “All right, the `him' that you were referring to there is Noel Crichton-Browne,” and the defendant replied, “Yeah.” The next publication was to Liana Strutt on Radio 6PR.WHEELER J: What page is that one?RICHARDSON, MR: Page 33, I apologise.WHEELER J: Thank you.21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 3Spark & Cannon1-2/4/1p 2141/96RICHARDSON, MR: That is to similar effect, other than Liana Strutt said that the allegations had been denied by Mr Crichton-Browne. “He calls it a total fabrication. It was suggested that you find alternative accommodation at that time.” The defendant then repeated that she had taken precautions in updating her security, both in Perth and in Canberra and she hadn't made a formal complaint because she didn't want any person being interviewed or him being interviewed. As a result of these publications on the radio, your Honour, as one would expect, they received considerable publication in the print media and were published, or the contents of those allegations were published — this is at page 38 — in The West Australian on 12 September 1995 under the heading Senators Clash on Threat Claim, and the start of that article reads, “Liberal senator Sue Knowles renewed her public rivalry with former Liberal senator Noel Crichton-Browne yesterday by claiming he had once threatened her, a charge he vigorously denied.” Basically that was reported on the radio, ABC Radio program. It also received a report in The Australian on 12 September 1995 under Lib Tells of Disgraced Senator Fear, and that article commenced, “Liberal senator Sue Knowles revealed yesterday that she was the MP who complained to the police about being concerned about her safety in relation to disgraced senator, Noel Crichton-Browne.” A further report was contained in The Canberra Times on 12 September 1995, and that article at page 47 stated inter alia, “Senator Sue Knowles names Senator Crichton-Browne as the person about whom she had complained to West Australian police this year, she told ABC Radio in Perth.” They are the causes of action that the plaintiff sued upon to seek vindication of his reputation. He, during the course of those, as you will have already noted, vigorously denied the allegations that he had made any threats whatsoever to the defendant, and it is now his opportunity to be vindicated from that allegation, and the defendant has agreed to do so by the reading of the apology that has been agreed between the parties' solicitors. I would seek orders in terms of the minute by consent. WHEELER J: Yes, Mr Picton-Warlow?PICTON-WARLOW, MR: Your Honour, before reading that there is one point that I should make to you and that is that the $20,000 contribution to which my learned friend referred is not an issue and not damages. It is a contribution towards costs, and I think that should be clear on the record.WHEELER J: Towards costs, yes.RICHARDSON, MR: Yes, I agree.21/10/98 RICHARDSON, MR 4Spark & Cannon1-2/5/1p 2141/96WHEELER J: Yes, thank you.PICTON-WARLOW, MR: I will read the agreed statement, may it please your Honour.WHEELER J: Thank you.PICTON-WARLOW, MR: Statements that I made to various individuals and on the radio during 1995 have been construed by some as meaning that Mr Noel Crichton-Browne had made threats upon my physical safety by telephone. It was not my intention to convey that meaning. I unreservedly withdraw and retract the allegation that Mr Crichton-Browne threatened me on the telephone and unreservedly apologise to him for any damage, distress or embarrassment caused thereby. WHEELER J: Thank you, Mr Picton-Warlow. In that case, there will be orders in terms of the minute of agreed orders dated 21 October 1998.RICHARDSON, MR: May it please your Honour.WHEELER J: Thank youAT 10.37 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY21/10/98 PICTON-WARLOW, MR 5Spark & Cannon15:50:0015117Knowles, Sen SusanSenator KNOWLESTH4Western AustraliaLP10—I am pleased that the Committee of Privileges has, in its wisdom, decided not to accept any more information from Crichton-Browne. I am also pleased that at last one method of this convicted criminal's 13-year harassment will ultimately be closed off. Needless to say, I reject the contents of his response, and I am pleased that this convicted criminal will have one source closed off.Question resolved in the affirmative.1511710000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The President has received a letter from a party leader requesting a change in the membership of a committee.Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald)—by leave—agreed to:That Senator Stott Despoja be discharged from and Senator Greig be appointed to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority.Miscellaneous15117Message received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the following bill:Product Grants and Benefits Administration Bill 2000Bills15117R100015117Message received from the House of Representatives returning the Health Legislation Amendment (Gap Cover Schemes) Bill 2000, and acquainting the Senate that the House has agreed to amendments Nos 1, 2 and 4 to 8 and has agreed to amendment No. 3 with an amendment.Ordered that the message be considered in committee of the whole immediately.House of Representatives amendment—(1) Senate amendment (3) (proposed new paragraph 73BDD(5)(d) of the National Health Act 1953):Omit the paragraph, substitute: ; and (d) an index or method for measuring the inflationary impact of gap cover schemes on the total cost of treatment and the rise in private health insurance premiums.Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) proposed:That the committee agrees to the amendment made by the House of Representatives to its amendment No. 3.15:53:0015117O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I can indicate that the opposition will agree with the amendment of the House in this matter.Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted.Bills15117R104015117Bills received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time.1511815:54:0015118Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That these bills be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—BROADCASTING SERVICES AMENDMENT (DIGITAL TELEVISION AND DATA-CAST-ING) BILL 2000The introduction of digital television and datacasting services in Australia from 1 January 2001 is a very significant development in the history of television. Consumers will be able to view clearer, sharper pictures, and choose between different types of television viewing - such as wide screen movie quality programs, or multiple camera angles for sporting programs. They will also, through their television set, be able to have access to new datacasting services which are likely to include a wide variety of information, education, advertising, and shopping services.In 1998 the foundations were laid for Australia to enter the digital television era when the Parliament passed legislation to establish the basic framework for conversion to digital television. This legislation sets out the broad framework for converting free to air commercial and national television from analog to digital. The rules governing the operation of digital television and datacasting services were to be determined following a series of statutory reviews.The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Digital Television and Datacasting) Bill 2000 sets out the operating rules for digital television and datacasting services following a review process which included extensive consultation with stakeholders and the public about options for appropriate regulatory solutions for the digital conversion process. Reports of the eight completed reviews are to be tabled in Parliament during the current sitting period. One review remains to be completed and will be tabled as soon as the Government's decisions on the spectrum allocation process have been finalised.The Bill also sets out a framework relating to HDTV standards and levels, the nature of datacasting and program enhancements, and on arrangements relating to captioning, the provision of new services in underserved areas and arrangements for the hand-back of analog spectrum. Must carry standard definition television (SDTV) and HDTV QuotasA key feature of the Government's digital television policy has been to minimise the disruption to consumers during the conversion period and to minimise the costs of conversion.The Bill requires free to air broadcasters to provide a standard definition digital simulcast of their transmission in analog mode at all times in addition to meeting HDTV quota requirements.The requirement to provide SDTV provides real choice for consumers. SDTV receivers will be more affordable and are expected to be more widely available in the initial phase of introduction of digital television. Consumers will be able to choose whether they want:cinema quality pictures with access to datacasting services through a more expensive HDTV set; access to new services and a higher quality picture through a cheaper SDTV set; access to new services on their existing analog television set through a set top box; or continuing, for the time being, to watch their existing analog programs but without the additional services available via digital transmission through their existing analog set.Because SDTV receivers will be more affordable, this measure will encourage more rapid take-up of digital television and datacasting. More rapid take-up may also lead to a more rapid reduction in prices of equipment. In addition, the faster the conversion to digital, the sooner the Government will be able to turn off analog services and regain valuable analog spectrum for re-use.Requiring the simulcast transmission of SDTV at all times also means that consumers can buy SDTV equipment and know they will always get a picture. If this requirement was not included, it would mean that when programs were broadcast only in HDTV, those with SDTV sets would not receive a picture.SDTV pictures, while they will not have the “cinema” quality clarity of HDTV pictures, will still provide viewers a very high quality picture free of the “ghosting” and “snow” that characterise the reception experienced by some viewers. As part of the requirement to provide SDTV at all times, the Government expects that broadcasters will provide an audio stream using the MPEG sound standard. The Government would encourage the industry to reach a common position on this issue, but may be willing to consider regulating a standard, using existing powers in the legislation, if this appears necessary in the interests of consumers.The Government remains committed to HDTV as a key feature of digital television and is moving to implement the mandatory HDTV requirement as agreed by Parliament. The spectrum loaned to television broadcasters will provide sufficient spectrum capacity for HDTV. The Bill puts in place the following requirements for HDTV.Free to air broadcasters are required to commence HDTV as soon as practicable after the commencement of digital services in a licence area.Within two years of commencement of digital transmissions, commercial and national broadcasters must provide at least 20 hours per week of HDTV programs.Commercial broadcasters must meet this target with material originally produced in HDTV. The HDTV requirements for the national broadcasters (ABC and SBS) are more flexible to take into account their diverse programming sources and may include upconverted SDTV material. A review will be held in 2003 on HDTV quotas and the provision of HDTV in remote areas.The provisions contained in the Bill impose a modest target, which will ensure that HDTV programming is made available to those who choose to purchase HDTV sets. DatacastingThe 1998 legislation introduced an interim definition of datacasting. Following a review of the scope of datacasting services, the Government considers that this definition should be modified. The legislation needs to be clearer about what kinds of services can be provided and about the distinction between datacasting and broadcasting services.The Parliament has legislated that no new commercial television licences can be issued until after 2006. Therefore, the regulatory regime needs to prevent this being circumvented by ensuring that datacasters do not become de facto broadcasters.The Parliament also prohibited multi-channelling by broadcasters at least until a scheduled review in 2005. Therefore, the legislation needs to eliminate the possibility of broadcasters using their datacasting services to provide multiple television broadcasting channels and thus contravening the multi-channelling ban.The regulatory regime for datacasting will be implemented through a new schedule 6 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA). The regulatory approach will focus on the kinds, or “genres” of programs and services which datacasters are allowed to provide. Datacasters will be prevented from providing content in genres regarded as free to air television, for example drama, current affairs, sporting programs and events, music programs, infotainment and lifestyle programs, light entertainment and variety programs, compilation programs, quiz programs and games shows. The Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) may make written determinations concerning whether or not programs fit within a particular genre.Datacasters will be able to provide short extracts of these television program genres, as long as the extracts are not self-contained, and are not provided in a way that facilitates their combination to form a television program.There will be limitations placed on the audio material datacasters can provide. This is primarily intended to prevent them from operating as radio broadcasters, and will not prevent them from providing a wide range of permitted audio material.The ability to provide news, financial, market and business information is likely to enhance datacasting services and their attraction to audiences. Therefore, datacasters will be able to provide short news, business information or weather overview bulletins. In addition, bulletins may be provided on an individual news item, on a topic of business or financial information and on weather information, if they are made available to a viewer by selecting from a menu on the screen.Outside the restricted genres, datacasters will be able to provide any services. These include (but are not restricted to): programs providing information on products, services and a range of activities;educational programs associated with courses of study;foreign language news bulletins;transactions such as home shopping; banking and bill paying;any matter which is in the form of text and still pictures, including Internet web sites;Internet carriage services which provide individual end users with point to point access to the Internet;interactive games; and Parliamentary broadcasts, or broadcasts of the proceedings of a court, Royal Commission or similar body. Datacasting licensees will be able to provide their customers with individual point-to-point connections to the Internet. This will increase the range of business models available to datacasters. For example, it will allow a datacaster to function as an Internet service provider, providing connections to the Internet rather than just content. In common with all other means of accessing the Internet, this would allow users of datacasting services to have access to programs such as video clips of news stories, or streamed audio and video services, where they are made available on web sites. The moratorium in the BSA on new commercial television services applies to services delivered by any technological means including the Internet. However, there is currently some uncertainty whether services such as streamed audio and video obtainable on the Internet are, legally, broadcasting services. This is a generic issue relating to the convergence of broadcasting with other services, and it is therefore proposed to refer the matter to the ABA for their detailed consideration over the next twelve months.Rules applying to datacasting services under this legislation will apply only to services provided in the broadcasting services bands spectrum, and will not affect services delivered by other technical means. Subject to this limitation, they will apply in respect of all datacasting services, whether by commercial broadcasters, national broadcasters or other datacasters.The ABA will be provided with strong powers to enforce the distinction between datacasting and broadcasting. The ABA will issue datacasting content licences and oversee their use. It will be an offence to provide a datacasting service without a datacasting licence, or in breach of the conditions of a licence. Licences can be suspended or cancelled. The ABA will have the power to apply to the Federal Court for an injunction to prevent a datacaster from continuing to provide a datacasting service without a licence or in breach of a licence. The ABA can also issue remedial directions towards ensuring a datacaster complies with licence conditions.Datacasters must also, as a group, develop codes of practice dealing with, for example, access to undesirable material, and handling of complaints.The Bill also prevents national broadcasters or commercial broadcasting licensees or those in a position to control such licenses from controlling a datacasting licence. These measures give effect to the Government's policy that free to air broadcasters should not be allowed to purchase or control additional spectrum.The provisions for the licensing of datacasting content outlined earlier will be separate from provisions for the licensing of datacasting carriage. The Bill provides for datacasting transmitter licences to be issued. Until 2007, these licences can only be used to transmit services provided under a datacasting content licence issued by the ABA. Datacasting transmitter licences will have a term of 10 years with the expectation of a single renewal for 5 years only. The statutory moratorium on the issue of new commercial television broadcasting licences is scheduled to end in 2006. From 1 January 2007 therefore, spectrum licensed to datacasters will be able to be used for any other service licensed under the BSA, in addition to licensed datacasting. The regulatory arrangements applying to the use of this spectrum from 1 January 2007 will be the subject of a statutory review in 2005. The review will also examine what charges and other finan-cial arrangements (if any) should apply to this spectrum.Program enhancementsThe ability to provide enhanced services will make digital television more attractive to consumers. The Bill provides that free to air broadcasters will be allowed to provide digital enhancements to their main simulcast programs. These enhancements may be in any form (such as text, audio or video) provided that:the sole purpose of the transmission is to enhance a television program;there is a direct and close linkage between the enhancement and the primary program; andenhancements are transmitted simultaneously with the primary programs to which they are linked.The Bill will also allow enhanced programming in the form of live coverage of a different sporting event to that being broadcast as a primary program, provided the event is being played at the same venue, is in the same sport and overlaps in time with the primary program.This will allow, for example, broadcasters to enhance a program providing live coverage of a tennis match by also providing different camera angles; each players' results in past matches; video highlights from these past matches and each player's ranking and career highlights. They will also be allowed to provide coverage of another tennis match taking place at the same time in the same venue.Broadcasters will also be able to use the flexibil-ity provided by digital technology to deal with problems created by program `overlaps'. The Bill will allow free to air broadcasters to use their additional channel capacity in dealing with `overlaps' where the end of a sporting match, or the telecast of other significant events (designated by the ABA) runs over time due to circumstances outside the control of the broadcaster, and as a result clashes with another program which commences at its scheduled time. This means that viewers will have the choice whether to switch to the other program or watch the end of the event.National BroadcastersThe Government recognises the important role of the ABC and SBS in providing digital television services to viewers. With the start up of digital television, the ABC and SBS will be obliged to simulcast their analog programs in digital mode and to meet HDTV format and captioning requirements. Under the provisions in this Bill, the national broadcasters will be able to televise enhancements of their analog programming. They will also have the flexibility to provide innovative datacasting services. This will ensure that the national broadcasters are able to use digital technology to enhance their Charter functions, that they are placed on the same footing as the commercial television broadcasters in terms of the permitted range of digital television programming and that there is a common regulatory regime for all datacasting services.It is not proposed, however, to amend the Broadcasting Services Act to lift the current statutory prohibition on national broadcasters providing “multi-channel” television programming. There is a legitimate concern that free to air multi-channel television programming would unfairly compete with the developing pay TV sector. It would also be inequitable to lift the ban on ABC / SBS multi-channel programming while maintaining the current prohibition on commercial free to air multichanneling. This issue is best addressed as part of the statutory review of multichannelling that is to be conducted in 2005, in the light of experience with the introduction of digital technology and further developments in the pay TV industry.CaptioningFree to air television plays a major role in providing entertainment, education and information to audiences throughout Australia. The advent of digital television provides the opportunity to significantly improve access by the deaf and hearing impaired to television services.The BSA requires that standards must be determined that, as far as practicable, require broadcasters to caption programs transmitted during prime viewing hours and all news and current affairs transmitted at any time. The Government has carefully considered the advice from broadcasters, the deaf and hearing impaired community and other stakeholders on the effect of this requirement and whether it should be amended. As a result of these considerations, the Government has decided to limit exemptions only to programs or parts of programs in a language other than English, programs or parts of programs providing music without English words, and incidental or background music.These requirements will bring Australia closer into line with developments in countries such as the USA, Canada and the UK. Underserved AreasIn regional Australia there are currently a number of areas which have fewer than three commercial television services. There are currently four “solus” markets - markets which have only one commercial channel. There are ten other markets which have only two commercial services available.The Government wishes to encourage the provision in these underserved regional licence areas of up to the same number of commercial television broadcasting services as are provided in most metropolitan areas.The Government is mindful of the particular economics of underserved markets, with small widely dispersed populations requiring extensive transmission infrastructure, and a low advertising revenue base. Therefore, the most effective way to introduce new services in these markets within a reasonable timeframe is to allow existing broadcasters to provide such services. This is also consistent with the moratorium on new commercial licences in other areas.Additional services would be supplied in regional solus markets principally through the existing legislative provisions which allow the granting of a second licence to the incumbent in a solus market if spectrum for a second analog service is available. Incumbents granted a second licence in these markets will be allowed, under the Bill, to multi-channel the digital transmission of the existing and new services in SDTV format. This will allow these broadcasters, if they wish, to minimise their conversion costs by using the same infrastructure to transmit both digital services. These multi-channelled services will be exempt from the HDTV requirements, subject to review in 2005. Digital transmission of the original and second analog service is required to commence by 1 January 2004.In the case of two station markets, the Bill will provide for a third digital-only service to be provided either by one of the existing incumbents or by a joint venture by the two incumbents. If only one of the incumbents provides the new service they can elect to do so by multi-channelling in SDTV format - with exemption from HDTV requirements (subject to review in 2005). The new service is required to commence by 1 January 2004, or any earlier time notified by the ABA.These changes will provide the opportunity for incumbent broadcasters in solus and two-service markets to provide new digital services with lower rollout costs, and provide the potential for new services for consumers in these regions.Spectrum PlanningFree to air television broadcasters are to be loaned sufficient additional spectrum, free of charge, to enable them to simulcast their existing service in analog and digital format for at least 8 years. At the end of this period they will be required to hand back the spectrum no longer required for analog transmission. It is important that at this time the ABA has the maximum capacity to plan future spectrum efficiently.The current legislative provisions could limit the ABA's flexibility and restrict its ability to take advantage of the spectrum efficiencies arising from digital technologies. The Bill will amend the legislation to ensure that the ABA has the power to allot the channels that will be used by the broadcasters for digital services after the end of the simulcast period having regard to the most efficient use of spectrum.ConclusionThis Bill represents a significant step forward in the process of implementing digital television in Australia. It puts in place all the major requirements for digital television conversion and for the establishment of datacasting and provides a comprehensive framework under which broadcasters can embark on the provision of the new and exciting digital services.It also provides broadcasters and datacasters the maximum certainty through legislation.There will, of course, be a need for some review of progress given that we are entering a new environment in which technology is constantly changing and developing. The Bill provides for such reviews, which will facilitate adjustments of the framework in the light of experience and the take-up of digital television.DATACASTING CHARGE (IMPOSITION) AMEND-MENT BILL 2000The Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Amendment Bill 2000amends the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Act 1998 to reflect the new approach to defining datacasting services in the Broadcasting Services Act, and to clarify that the datacasting charge will not be imposed on a transmitter licence for current teletext services as long as they remain substantially the same as the services currently provided. Some broadcasters currently provide teletext services which provide a number of text-based information services to the viewing public. It is not appropriate to impose a new charge on these existing services, which have been in place for a number of years in their analog form.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills15123R10731512315:55:0015123Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I present the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, together with submissions received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills15123R100515123Consideration resumed.15:56:0015123Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—Before we adjourned this debate, the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government was going to respond to several questions we raised. Now may be the appropriate juncture for the minister to do so.15:56:0015123Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Just before question time, Senator Mackay made a speech in which there were a couple of questions relating to the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000 to which I will respond. I am just reading the amendment that has come in: it is trivialising the processes of the Senate. I wonder sometimes what the opposition is doing here, but that will not distract me from my duties.With respect, Senator Mackay confuses two issues in the bill and does not seem to understand—and I am not being critical in saying that; it is a technical area. I will explain yet again the way the escalation factors will operate. I will try to explain in a different way the points I have been explaining to Senator Mackay for some time. Perhaps I will use an example. In April, an estimate of the escalation factor is made for the budget process. That estimate is made on the basis of the CPI for the next following financial year so it is an estimate of that CPI, and it is also an estimate of the population figures for the end of December of the previous calendar year. The population figures can only be based at that time, in April, on assumptions, not data. The estimated distribution to the states, as the Senate will know, is based upon the population estimates, so financial assistance grants to local authorities go to the states per capita. In April, we estimate what the population would have been at the previous December, and we have to do the estimation, the assumption, because those figures are not available at that time.In June of the same year the revised estimate for the CPI for the next financial year and the revised population estimate for the end of December of the previous year are to hand, and this revises the budget estimate and feeds into the additional estimates processes. At the end of the following financial year—that is, at the end of June 2001—the final escalation factor can be determined to adjust the grants. At that time, we will have the actual CPI for the March quarter 2001 and the population, as actually determined by the Statistician, as at December 1999. So the final distribution between the states is then determined on the actual Statistician's determination of population. The Treasurer has no impact on the determination of population, Senator Mackay, and that is where I think you have misdirected yourself on the way through. He gets the factor by looking at the population and looking at the grants. He does not alter the population. He gets the factor, which is based on estimated things in the beginning and then actual things in the end, and with the factor he can then under the current act—passed by the previous government—vary that for any reason that he considers relevant. So that is how it works. It is not really being amended by our amendment, except to comply with the request by the Statistician, for the reasons I mentioned before, and also to put some inhibitions on the absolute discretion the Treasurer has under the current act to make the variation of the factor.16:02:0015124Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—I would like to ask some questions of the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, but first I would like to make some opening comments. When we last dealt with this legislation, in the last session of parliament, I made a number of statements concerning one of the areas I look after, Parramatta. Parramatta council advised me that they believed there would be an additional cost of $35,640 to their ratepayers for the use of swimming pools, an additional $10,908 for sporting fields, another $5,172 for library fees and services, $315,000 for parking fees and $74,000 for golf course fees, plus an additional cost to their ratepayers of $16,000 for the hire of council halls. They have budgeted only $160,000 to look at the implementation of the GST and the compliance costs. I made the point in my submission at the last sitting of parliament that the government has budgeted only $2.5 million to assist councils throughout Australia with the implementation of the GST. Have I missed any area through which councils can claim to assist them with the setting-up costs of the GST?16:04:0015124Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—I think Senator Hutchins is entitled to an answer to his question, which is: are there any alternative revenue streams that councils can access in relation to start-up costs for the GST? The opposition is due the courtesy of an indication as to whether the minister is going to answer the question.16:05:0015124Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—Another council area that I look after is Penrith council. I did mention them in my speech of 7 June. I mentioned that they were also coming to terms with a number of areas that they saw would increase as a result of the GST. As we are aware, domestic garbage services are exempt from the GST. However, the tips where people—not only councils but private citizens and companies—operate, particularly in Western Sydney, will have to charge a GST. One of the concerns that councils like Penrith have expressed is that the introduction of the GST on these private tip costs will lead to an increase in the illegal dumping of refuse in the Western Sydney area. I wonder if that has been taken into account and if there is any other scheme that may be available to councils to assist in ensuring that the blight of illegal dumping of waste is not encouraged as a result of people wishing to avoid additional costs.Penrith council does not have a Labor majority. There are 15 people on the council: seven from the Labor Party, three Liberals and five Independents. In fact, one of the Liberal councillors works for the member for Lindsay, Jackie Kelly. Once again, through talking to those on the Penrith council, I am aware that $7,555,644 in financial assistance grants was received by the Penrith council in the 1998-99 year, yet a year later it received only $7,439,616. That is a reduction of just over $100,000 in moneys being made available to the City of Penrith, which is one of the growth regions in not only New South Wales but Australia. So, effectively, the assistance grants to that region have been cut, even though we have a marginal seat member in Miss Kelly. I have been advised by the council that, even though they have been told that they will not be liable for GST costs, a number of other areas that they are required to supply or need to have as services will attract GST components—in particular, their insurance costs, which are not exempted. As I understand it, their insurance on contract works will have to have a GST component, as will fidelity guarantee and their property protection insurance, which has now gone up by an additional $8,000. Even though one might not think it, there is an insurance that they have to apply for called `marine hull cover', which is for their runabouts and dinghies. I wonder whether or not these sorts of costs were taken into account when the divvy up occurred of how much money might be needed to be supplied for local government.Another area which does concern me greatly and which I did mention in my June speech is that, even though, as I think we have been advised, local government has been exempted from the GST and will not have to pay a GST component, there are a number of areas which will have to fall into line in relation to complying with the legis-lation. Some Penrith councillors have ad-vised me that a number of people on the management committees of these halls, child-care centres or other council-run facilities will have to be trained and will be obliged to consider keeping records so that they are not put in a position where they have been seen to cheat, I suppose, this new system. That is difficult for people who would not see their primary function as being bookkeepers, accountants or anything else like that. These committees are primarily involved with, as I said, making sure the child-care centre is run correctly, making sure the hall is cleaned after the 21st on Sat-urday night and making sure the garbage is put out and all those things are done that one would associate with social functions like that.I have spoken to a number of committee members who feel that they are not equipped to comply with this level of bureaucracy that is now being imposed upon them as a result of this new taxation system. A number of these honourable men and women, who essentially are volunteers, will now be put in a position where they feel that, if they make some sort of mistake, not only will their group be censored, but they may even be dismissed or penalised as a result of not keeping the proper records. I am sure that that is not the intention of the government, but the fact is that a number of people are concerned that this will be the net result of some of the actions that they believe are required in order to comply with these schemes.Another area that I have been advised of is the compliance costs as they relate to setting up these new computer systems and the new software that will need to be developed to comply with them. I suppose if the tax had been kept simple we would never have known where this may have taken us. But all this money is now being spent on setting up a system that is starting to become more and more complicated to enforce. I think that is where the government will come unstuck: a lot of people will get very angry with the complexity of trying to comply with this new tax system. I do not think this system will be the saviour that the government suggests it might be. Already this afternoon we heard the position being put about by Mr Reith and his claims that there will be all this money collected in the black economy. He may be right, he may be wrong; who knows. I suppose we will find out sooner or later. But from my understanding, fewer than 100,000 sites in Australia used to collect the wholesale sales tax; now, as a result of this legislation, we will be asking 1.4 million to 1.5 million sites in this country to collect this new tax and report on it. So it will be a massive effort, and it is one that is being made more and more complicated by the necessity of this compliance that we are being asked to consider. As I said earlier, councils are confronting a number of difficulties in looking at how they will administer this scheme. As was said earlier, if a council like Penrith has found its financial assistance from the Commonwealth reduced in last year's budget, one wonders what will be available to it next year. There is now certainly a major push by local communities to expect councils to do more, and more than they have ever done before. Indeed, I think there is an expectation on political parties or governments, or anybody in political authority, to do a lot more than they ever have been expected to do before. However, this expectation does not seem to lessen the alienation from the system that people feel.Particularly in local government—and I know that the minister himself is a former local government representative, and he would know this—I find that there is a much greater expectation on local councillors to deliver than there may be on even federal or state members of parliament. Local councillors can get the roads sealed, they can get the hall lit up over the weekend, they can get the grass mown on the median strip, and they can get a gate opened to assist people in getting from one point to another where previously that gate has been locked. So there is a much greater expectation on local councillors. By and large, I think they do a very honourable job and are very honest people.I am sure that the minister, when he was part of a council, had a lot of respect, just as he has here today. We hope that the minister will have the opportunity to at least reply to some of what I suppose I would call our criticism of this bill and what this bill will essentially do to local government in Australia. So, as I have said, there is this expectation from people that those in authority will deliver despite the fact that it seems they are becoming more and more alienated. My view is that local councillors in particular are in a much better position than sometimes even state or federal MPs are to affect that immediate quality of life that people so much want us to affect.In my earlier days as a union official, I used to deal with a lot of councils, mainly in connection with their garbage contracts. I knew the pressure that council officers and councillors were under to make sure that there was a reliable, efficient and well-run domestic garbage service. As I commented earlier, I believe that there is a real fear, particularly in Western Sydney, that, as a result of the introduction of the GST, the private companies, when they do apply the GST, will discourage people from going to them and that people will dump their rubbish in the many vacant parts of Sydney.Illegal dumping already is a problem in Sydney. It is something that the New South Wales government and the local government authorities are trying to deal with. This is being done through heavy fines and, in some cases, for environmental reasons, the imprisonment of people who have done some pretty horrible environmental destruction with the dumping of illegal waste, particularly liquid waste in parts of the rivers and streams of Western Sydney. I hope that the introduction of the GST will not lead to a sort of blossoming of this matter out my way, because it is a problem. If you drive along the streets of a number of the council areas, you can see where people have just dumped their green garbage bags. Then, of course, cats and dogs get into them and spread the contents out in the streets. Then the garbage goes all over the footpath and into the drains and, of course, it then goes into the river system or into the water system in Sydney. This is something that, as a community, we have had to deal with out in the west. One of our difficulties is that we have large vacant blocks of land that are still semi-rural where we have not been able to make sure that illegal dumping has ceased. I would be interested to see whether the minister is willing to reply in relation to that. There may be some other schemes or areas of encouragement that the government could offer local authorities so that they can prosecute people and persuade them not to go down this path.16:20:0015127Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—It is pretty clear that the minister is not going to answer any questions at all in relation to local government and the GST. I thank Senator Hutchins for his contribution, but I would say that it is ironic because that was, in fact, directly from non-Labor councils. Of course, the minister is refusing—in breach of the advice received from the Clerk, in breach of Odgers, in breach of the standing orders—to answer any questions on the GST and local government.I want to take this opportunity to read out a letter that I received this morning—in fact, from your home state, Chair—from the Western Australian Municipal Association in relation to this bill. That letter states:Dear SueIt is heartening and encouraging for those of us in Local Government in Western Australia that the Federal Labor Party has supported—or will support—the passage of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Amendment Bill 2000.I recognise your role in guaranteeing that the Bill will go through Parliament before 30 June 2000.WAMA values the continued pressure that the Opposition is bringing to bear on the Government over the impact of the GST on Local Government.... .. ...Yours sincerelyJamie EdwardsPresidentWe received that today from WAMA, the Western Australian Municipal Association, in your home state, Chair. Unfortunately, I will have to write back to Mr Edwards, with whom I have a good relationship and for whom I have a lot of respect, and say that the Labor Party asked and asked and asked about the GST and local government, and this minister refused to answer any questions whatsoever. The other thing that the opposition unfortunately will be saying to local government is that, at a time when this government is spending $440 million on advertising the new tax package and the goods and services tax, this minister is refusing to use the free forum of parliament, the free forum of this chamber, to answer legitimate questions in relation to them.This fiasco has gone far enough. An amendment, which I intend to move to the motion `that the report of the committee be adopted', has been circulated in the chamber. It states:(1) At the end of the motion, add:“and that the Senate notes: (a) advice from the Clerk of the Senate about the relevance of Senator Mackay's questions to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) during the committee stage of the bill; (b) that the Minister persistently failed to answer relevant questions; and (c) the inability of the Minister to provide the Opposition with the information it sought with regard to the local government sector's rele-vant interest in the bill ”.We will be moving that amendment at the appropriate time. We will also be telling every council in Australia that this minister has refused to answer any questions at all in relation to the GST and local government and in fact any matters outside a very narrow definition of this bill that go to GST compliance and that go to the role of the ACCC—all pertinent questions. We will also be telling local government that this minister alleges that nobody, not one council, has raised any of these matters with him and that he has had to raise these matters with them. We do not want to hold up this legislation any further. I understand, through discussions with Senator Greig, that the Democrats have no major difficulties with this amendment. So, in the interests of expediting proceedings, I think it is probably appropriate now to call an end to this fiasco. If the minister responds, I will get up and respond again. I simply say that it is a disgrace that there is a minister in this portfolio who is either incapable of answering or unwilling to answer questions that are totally germane to the sector he supposedly represents on a huge issue—not simply the GST but on a number of issues. This is a pattern that we on this side are used to in terms of estimates, and this minister gives a response to dorothy dixers in question time only when he has a prepared answer. Unless the minister wants to respond, in which case I will get up again, having foreshadowed the amendment that we intend to move and having advised the chamber of the letter we have received from WAMA—and it is sad for local government that they have not got the answers that they want—the opposition will leave it at that. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment.15128Motion (by Senator Ian Macdonald) proposed:That the report of the committee be adopted. Amendment (by Senator Mackay) proposed:(1) At the end of the motion, add:“and that the Senate notes: (a) advice from the Clerk of the Senate about the relevance of Senator Mackay's questions to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government (Senator Ian Macdonald) during the committee stage of the bill; (b) that the Minister persistently failed to answer relevant questions; and (c) the inability of the Minister to provide the Opposition with the information it sought with regard to the local government sector's relevant interest in the bill”.16:26:0015128Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I am pleased that we have reported the bill, and I thank those senators who spoke on aspects of the bill for their contributions. I must say to Senator Hutchins that his flattery almost elicited a response from me. Senator, in the interests of consistency, whilst your comments were very interesting and something I would like to take up with you—and I encourage you to drop me a note or give me a call so that I can answer those issues and try to help a couple of councils which you are obviously very interested in, and I accept your genuine interest in representing them—you mentioned that a staffer of Miss Kelly is on the Penrith council but you forgot to mention that a staffer of yours is trying to get on to the council. 84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator Hutchins—He is on it.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Oh, he is on the council, trying to run for preselection for the Labor Party. Good luck to him. I do not relish his chances against Miss Kelly, but good for him. Senator, you mentioned Penrith had a reduction in the amount of their grant. The Commonwealth gave New South Wales an additional $18 million this year. The grants are distributed within New South Wales by the New South Wales state government Grants Commission and they work on a formula that they prepare. I do not know the particulars of the Penrith—84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator Hutchins—You reduced New South Wales's money. YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—No. It increased by $18 million. 84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator Hutchins—You cut it by $15 million. YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—No. I can give you the figures. I do have good news for councils: Mr Costello announced today that councils that convert some of their businesses into private companies under the national competition policy arrangements will be income tax exempt—that is, exempt from the payment of tax on their earnings. That is something they would be looking for. That is good news and it helps with our national competition policy. I just mention that as an aside. On the amendment before the chair, it is a bit of political rhetoric. It is something that seems to have been adopted by the Labor Party in recent times—to play the man and not the ball. I do not intend to prolong the debate but I simply say that if it gives some people some excitement to be able to say nasty things about me, then so be it. It will not worry me. I do appreciate the voting action of the Labor Party and the Democrats in supporting the amending bill. I particularly thank the Democrats for their contribution to this debate and the confirmation from Senator Greig, as a former councillor, as someone who knows about local authorities, as someone who said that he understood—3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—I am a former councillor. YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Yes, you are, Senator Conroy. 10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Will you please refrain from responding to interjections, particularly when they are coming from senators who are not in their rightful place.YW4Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALD—Senator Conroy was a member of the Melbourne City Council, as I understand it, for a very short period of time. Senator Conroy, as a former member of a council, would probably agree with Senator Greig, who does have some intimate knowledge of this and who obviously deals with councils a lot, when he said—and I do not want to quote Senator Greig because I do not have his words in front of me—something along the lines that he understood that councils did not have a particular problem with the GST and certainly not with this. With those words, I again thank the Labor Party and the Democrats for supporting the bill.16:31:0015129Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—With some reluctance, I support Senator Mackay's amendment. I say `reluctance' on the grounds that, while this motion is critical of the minister's lack of response to what I felt were reasonable questions by the opposition, I think the opposition's behaviour throughout this debate has been less than exemplary also. Along with a lot of other people, I found it very frustrating to see a largely benign bill—benign because long ago the government, the opposition and the Democrats indicated their support for it and stated that—being held up. There has been considerable filibustering and obfuscation, which has dragged this relatively benign bill into its third day. I really feel there are plenty more important things that we could and should have gotten on with.In a general sense, Madam Deputy President, you would be aware that the Democrats have long campaigned and maintained a stance of accountability on all matters. It is a matter very dear to my colleague Senator Murray who, as it happens, is in Zimbabwe at the moment ensuring that accountability takes place in the elections over there. I am sure that, if he were here today, he would probably want to speak to this motion also. In terms of general accountability, I think it is not appropriate that any minister, let alone Minister Macdonald, should be in a position of not giving reasonable and deserving questions a reasonable response. I first encountered the kind of ministerial silence roughly a year ago when I was engaged in the very protracted debate on the RFA. As a newcomer to the Senate, I was a bit surprised that a minister was able to not answer a question. As a senator—let alone as a citizen, a taxpayer—I do not think that is acceptable. I think ministers should, to the best of their ability, always endeavour to answer questions. That is, after all, why we are here. So, in terms of general accountability, I support the amendment by Senator Mackay. Amendment agreed to.Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.15130Bill (on motion by Senator Ian Macdonald) read a third time.Bills15130R97315130Debate resumed from 13 April, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.16:34:0015130Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to amend the four social security acts: the Social Security Act 1991, the A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Act 1999, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and the Social Security (Administration and International Agreements) (Consequential Amendments) Act 1999. The bill also seeks to amend the A New Tax System (Bonuses for Older Australians) Act 1999 to ensure that the disqualifying period for self-funded retirees bonus ends on 30 June rather than 1 July, thus avoiding a one-day overlap of the government's revised income support provisions.The majority of these changes are technical in nature, seeking to correct errors and to clean up various provisions. However, some of the areas affected by the bill are currently in the public spotlight. It is thus appropriate that I flesh out Labor's concern with the government's limited and limiting approach to social policy—much more is needed. In particular, I want to focus on two areas: the so-called bonus for older Australians and the government's treatment of pensioners applying for the pensioner education supplement. The first issue lies at the centre of the government's inadequate GST compensation package. The second is integral to the government's failure to assist people in making the transition from welfare to work.There is a widening gap in the living standards of the elderly under the policies of John Howard. The GST is set to make that situation even worse. A couple of weeks ago a spokesperson for Senator Newman said that, under this government, pensioners were in a privileged position. I do not think pensioners feel privileged. This government has failed to meet the promise to keep pensions above 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Under the Howard government the age pension has fallen to its lowest level in more than a decade when compared with the level of wages in the broader community. In doing so, the single rate of pension has plunged below the benchmark of 25 per cent of the male total average weekly earnings, the MTAWE, breaking a core election promise made by John Howard in 1996.The failure to meet this commitment has already cost each age pensioner an average of $225. In effect, the government has taken more than a week's pension from the pockets of our poorest senior citizens. It is a trick that the Prime Minister has practised before. In 1978, in one of his first acts as Treasurer in the Fraser government, Mr Howard withdrew a scheduled pension increase. This left pensioners without any rise in their pensions for over a year. As Treasurer, John Howard presided over a decline in pensions from 25 per cent of MTAWE under the Whitlam Labor government to just 22.6 per cent when the coalition lost government in 1983. These actions of the Howard government stand in stark contrast to the commitment by Labor, and achieved in 1990, to ensure that the single rate of age pension remained at all times at least 25 per cent of MTAWE. Labor ensured that pensioners' incomes kept pace with wage increases in the broader community. Now, with the GST just 25 days away, pensioners know they will again face a tougher and tighter world at the hands of John Howard. The government's GST ad-vertising campaign guarantees that pensions will remain above any rise in the cost of living. It is a guarantee that cannot be made, because the indexation mechanism for pensions is retrospective. Put simply, GST price rises will not flow through to higher pensions until well after the GST is introduced. In the interim, the spending power of age pensioners will fall. The government is yet to ex-plain how the four per cent increase for full age pensioners on 1 July could possibly compensate for the expected 6.75 per cent increase in prices for the September quarter. They cannot make a case because pensioners will have to wait until March 2001 to have these increased prices reflected in their pensions. This is a full nine months after the introduction of the GST. The increase in September will not help, because it will only reflect pre-GST price increases up until 30 June, not the full 6.7 per cent cost of living increase predicted in the government's own budget papers. Mr Howard simply cannot be trusted to protect the living standards of Australia's pensioners. You do not need to take just my word for it: even the most optimistic estimates from NATSEM's most recent modelling show that pensioners and retirees will suffer. This modelling uses the Treasury's unrealistic assumptions about inflationary impacts and pass-through of savings.The double taxation of pensioners and self-funded retirees means that there is probably no group more punished by the government's tax package. A pensioner with savings of $30,000 will see the value of those savings eroded by 5 per cent or $1,725 in the coming financial year, because of GST induced inflation. A pensioner in this situation is only entitled to a maximum aged persons savings bonus of $1,000, leaving them at least $725 worse off in the first year alone. The government's own figures show that just one in 10 aged over 60 will be eligible for an aged persons savings bonus of $500 or more. That means that nine in every 10 people over the age of 60 will get a bonus of less than $500 or they will get nothing at all—and there will be plenty who get nothing at all. Take the example of someone aged 59 who has just retired. Even if they have enough savings to get the maximum $2,000 self-funded bonus, they cannot get it because they may have earned in excess of $1,000 in the past financial year. The best they could expect is the $120 one-off GST assistance scheme compensation—little more than $2 per week.It is becoming increasingly clear that people under 60 who have recently left work are going to lose under the GST; but the problems with the bonuses go further. The aged persons savings bonus that is supposed to compensate for the GST's devaluation of pensioners' savings is not assets test exempt. Under the pensions asset test, a pensioner who receives the $1,000 bonus in full will have their pension cut by up to $3 per fortnight. This effectively wipes out one-fifth of the 1 July pension increase. This truly is a case of giving with one hand while taking with the other. This bill provides the gov-ernment with an opportunity to do the right thing by pensioners and self-funded retirees, yet all we see are technical amendments. All this does is strengthen the government's existing inadequate approach to compensating older Australians for the onset of the GST. These are mean-spirited measures.I want to make some remarks about the pensioner education supplement. The provisions relating to this supplement were moved to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 as part of the standardisation and consolidation exercise undertaken by that act. During that process, the dates of com-mencement of payment of the supplement were apparently inadvertently altered. As a result, persons who successfully apply for the pension education supplement after 20 March 2000 are entitled to be paid according to the semester in which they undertake the course: that is, 1 January each year for first semester courses, and 1 July each year for second semester courses. The government intended that new recipients actually commence their course of study before the pensioner education supplement would become payable. There is some precedent for using 1 January and 1 July as the starting date for payments designed to support and facilitate participation in education. It was commonly part of Labor's way of doing business. Under Labor, only persons who started a course mid-semester were paid from the date of commencement. Backdating was a more general principle. When this government introduced the common Youth Allowance in 1997, they applied the date of commencement as the starting date for payments. This raises the question as to why Labor is opposing an amendment which would bring the PES into line with other major education payments. The answer is that the PES differs from payments like Youth Allowance and Austudy in important ways, and we do not believe the government have made the case for effectively reducing the level of PES that will be paid to new recipients. Unlike Youth Allowance and Austudy, the PES is a top-up payment and it is not indexed. Indeed the rate of PES—$60 per fortnight for full-time students and $30 per fortnight for part-time stu-dents—has not increased since Labor introduced it in 1989. The failure to lift the level of payment in more than 10 years of operation, despite increases in general prices and the cost of education, raises serious questions about the adequacy of the PES. In 1998-99, the department conducted a review of the pensioner education supplement, which involved statistical work, focus groups with PES recipients and a telephone survey, I believe, of former and current recipients about their experiences with the payment. I requested a copy of the evaluation in the estimates hearing on 8 February 2000, only to be told that the report has yet to be finalised. So what we have is the government proposing to wind back the payment period for new recipients of PES before, it seems, they have considered whether the more generous arrangements that currently apply are themselves adequate. The officer did tell me in the hearing:In terms of adequacy of payment, we had some mixed reports on whether or not PES actually met, or contributed significantly to, the costs of education.Labor's view is that we are not prepared to support the government's amendment at this stage, because we are not convinced of the need to reduce a supplement designed to facilitate educational opportunity, without any information or substantive argument from the government about the adequacy of the provisions it recommends. I want to stress that we would prefer not to be in the situation of having to vote for a drafting er-ror but, if the minister fails in the debate to assure us that the evaluative work carried out more than 12 months ago is available and supports the change, then we believe we are left with little choice: we basically do not want to see a reduction in the benefits for these people, when our evidence is that the payments are already inadequate to meet the very needs that they are designed to meet.Our only choice would be to place at risk, we think, the educational aspirations of the 45,000 sole parents and disability support pensioners currently in receipt of PES and the aspirations of those who might access it in the future. According to the department, well over half the participants in the pensioner education scheme are studying at ter-tiary level, the bulk of whom are undertaking TAFE courses. In the context of the welfare review, I think it is disappointing that the government is prepared to engage in what is essentially uninformed debate when we are talking about a supplement designed to enhance the life chances of disadvantaged groups. While the minister claims to embrace the concepts of economic and social participation, we are concerned about the impact of the proposed amendments on participation in education. We want to know why it is that this measure will assist this participation when it seems to provide exactly the opposite. I do not believe that the Labor amendment proposed will somehow generate a standard education payment system. The govern-ment's proposal will mean that the pensioner education supplement will not be payable to a new recipient until that person commences their course of study. However, as I understand it, those currently in receipt of PES will continue to receive payment for the semester in which they undertake the course. In effect, therefore, there will be two classes of recipients, and I am yet to understand why newcomers should be asked to endure a relative disadvantage. I think what we are proposing is fiscally responsible. It is not wasteful. We supported the government proposals to pay part-time PES to part-time students but we remain concerned about the ade-quacy. It is because of that concern that we are not prepared to support the amendments proposed by the government. Given that more than half the current PES recipients are enrolled in courses which run for longer than 12 months, new starts are not likely to ex-ceed 15,000 each year. Further, many new recipients will study part time, thereby ensuring they receive only half the full-time payment.This position we adopt on the PES is one which we have come to with some reluctance. But, given our concerns about the adequacy of the payment, we have not been convinced of the need to effectively reduce the total payment being made to those in receipt of PES, and so we will be putting that propo0sition to retain the status quo during the debate at the committee stage. Obviously we will have further debate about that during the committee stage of the bill.16:47:0015133Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats to this particular piece of legislation, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The bill makes a number of amendments which are not particularly connected with each other. The particular issue which I expect we will look at in a bit more detail relates to the pensioner education supplement, and I will leave any extended remarks on that until we get to the committee stage of the bill. It is worth emphasising that, much as we tend to quite appropriately voice our concerns—and we tend to highlight them—when the government is putting forward something that we do not agree with, we should in balance acknowledge also the positives put forward by the government, and there are a number of positives in this legislation. They are not monumental, huge changes; nonetheless there are some amendments contained in this bill which I think are in response to the reality of the situations facing people, particularly in relation to the double orphan pension. This should be of assistance to a number of people in that regard, and it is appropriate to acknowledge that there is a positive change in that area. That is the main area in terms of financial impact. As I say, it will not have a significant impact on a huge number of people; nonetheless it will be positive where it does have an impact on people who, as may be guessed by the name `double orphan pension', are not necessarily having the best time in life at the time when they qualify for a double orphan pension.There are other modifications which ensure that some of the mechanisms that come into play as part of the new bonus system for older Australians under the new tax system are fully available to all people. It is appropriate, given these amendments relate to the bonuses for older Australians, to mention the significant improvements in the overall compensation package that the Democrats were able to achieve as part of the negotiations with the government about the new tax system. The fact that I as an individual did not support the shift to a new tax system should not take away from acknowledging the improvements that were made in the original package that was put forward by the coalition, including in the area of bonuses for older Australians where the Democrats were able to have the age where that applied reduced to 55, which assisted a significant extra number of self-funded retirees. It is probable that a small number of those will be positively affected by the amendment that is contained within this bill. The specific issue of the pensioner education supplement is actually a very small component of this overall bill, but it is one that, quite appropriately, some in the Senate have chosen to focus on. The pensioner education supplement is an important payment as part of encouraging people to undertake higher education and improve their skills, improve their ability to gain paid employment or, indeed, improve their ability to undertake unpaid employment or other activities in the community as well. It is an im-portant extra supplement that should be acknowledged as positive assistance for peo-ple. I find it ironic that the ALP is com-plaining about the lack of increase in the value of it when they supported a reduction in its value for many people through voting in support of the government's changes not too long ago in this place to reduce the amount that is paid to part-time students. The amount of pensioner education supplement for part-time students has now been halved, and unless my memory is completely failing me the opposition supported that halving of the pensioner education supplement for part-time students.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisDT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETT—I think in that circumstance to be expressing concern about the reduction in value of the pensioner education supplement is a bit curious. Nonetheless, we will debate that further at the committee stage. Perhaps Senator Evans can correct me in any miscomprehension I have about that particular issue. I will not speak further on that at the moment. In order to move the debate along to the point that is being raised and which will be debated at the committee stage, I will leave further comments on that until then.16:52:0015134West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—I wish to address the part of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 that deals with the pension bonus scheme, raise in this place questions I asked at estimates and also some of the answers that I received, and also note that today was supposed to be the day we received answers to questions taken on no-tice and I have not received an answer to a question.I raised the scenario of a couple who are on a pension—one is on a disability pension, the other is on a carers pension. They are 58½ years old. They receive a small amount of income from their savings, but they are not self-funded retirees in any way, shape or form. If they had been 60 years of age on 30 June, they would be eligible for the pension bonus scheme, but because they will be only 58½ they will not be eligible for the pension bonus scheme. If they were self-funded retirees they would be eligible on age criteria for the bonus scheme but, because they are not, they are not eligible. This is rather arbitrary. It is also somewhat discriminatory and misleading. We have actually had some of the myths around this exposed. The government have had to come forward and say, `Not everybody will benefit from it,' and they have put in a clause for hardship cases. That is a small amount of money, but it is certainly not the $1,000.I also asked what number of people the department thought would be eligible, and they said that Centrelink was writing to 1,160,340 pensioners. They also responded in answer to a question that they thought that of that group 838,818 would receive less than $500 under this scheme. That is not clear in the minds of most pensioners and people in receipt of benefits in the community. They all think they are going to be eli-gible for the $1,000. I can now say that the forms are appearing in people's letter boxes and they are very confusing. We have not had so many phone calls into our electorate office in recent times about Centrelink—or what used to be called social security—is-sues as we have about this one. People are very confused. When they actually look closely at the fine print most of the people who are contacting my office fall into the category of the 838,000-odd who are not going to get even half of the amount that this government have promised them to alleviate the suffering and the financial burden that they are going to be experiencing because of the introduction of the GST. This is inherently unfair, like everything this government are touching at present. It is very interesting to try to get figures. The department did take on notice—and maybe the minister can actually give me the figures here today in her summing up in re-ply or during the committee stage; they certainly have not been in the bundle of answers that have come back, and I would love to have some idea of this—the number of people who will be getting nothing to $50, the number of people will be getting $50 to $100, and the number of people they esti-mate are going to get $100 to $150. It might be that this information has been given and the figures are somewhere in the pipeline between the department and the minister's office and my office. If they are, that is wonderful. But I think that it is very important that we highlight to people that this scheme is misunderstood by most pensioners that I have come into contact with. Most people seem to think that they are definitely going to get a $1,000 bonus. They are not. They will get their four per cent increase, which is going to be eroded, particularly for those living in country areas, because the government will not be able to keep petrol prices down. It is also discriminatory, because there are groups of people who, by virtue of their age, their date of birth, are going to fall in or out of the category which means they will be eligible.Just imagine if your birthday fell a couple of days after the due date and you were in receipt of a benefit. You would not be eligible for the full $1,000, even if you had saved that amount of money during the year. What did the minister tell me about this? I think it is very interesting to see what the minister told me about this, because it was along the lines of: `As with all things, there are win-ners and there are losers.' That comment is very sad, to say the least. We need people to understand what the impact upon them is going to be. We need to have compassion. But this is not being compassionate. This is putting up a smokescreen. This is putting up publicity that there is this program out here. And what is it offering? It is offering nearly 840,000 pensioners less than $500. That is out of a number, they estimate, of 1,160,000. That is nearly three-quarters of them. My maths is getting rusty. It is certainly over two-thirds. Nearly three-quarters of them are going to actually have less than $500, when what has been spread around in all of the newspapers is the $1,000 pension bonus scheme.Why is it that for self-funded retirees it kicks in at the age of 55 but for people in receipt of benefits it does not kick in until the age of 60? Why is it that you have couples, like the couple I have mentioned—where one is on a disability pension and the other has had to give up work to care for that person—who at the age of 58½ will not be eli-gible for the full $1,000, even if they had managed to have some sort of income that took them up to that level? They will be the sorts of people affected. They will be amongst those about whom the minister has so offhandedly said there are winners and losers on each side of the line. That sort of comment saddens me greatly, because these are people who have made an invaluable contribution to this country. They still make a valuable contribution. We should be valuing that contribution, but we are not. I have also had a letter today from somebody who is concerned because he falls out of the self-funded retirees categories by maybe a couple of months—he is 54½—and he wants to know why. There are people who are very concerned about this. My office has never received so many phone calls as it has recently. People are asking for this to be explained to them because they are finding the information in the packages, particularly the one from the ATO, very confusing indeed. It is not designed for elderly people. It is not designed for people who are finding life a little tough. I had to explain it to my mother. I tried to read and make sense of the documentation myself. It was not easy. It was very confusing. I looked at it as someone who is familiar with the documentation that comes out of departments and I also found it confusing and not clear. It is something that the department and the minister should be very careful about, particularly the minister. I remain appalled at comments like, `There are winners and there are losers.' That is a very sad situation. It is very important that we draw the attention of people to the fact that this pensioner bonus scheme is not going to benefit very many people. The government said that once the publicity started they would introduce a hardship clause. The amount of money available there is almost laughable. It is not fair—unless the government has changed it in the last few hours. It would only mean another couple of hundred amendments to this GST that they have already introduced. It is something that we need to make sure that people are aware of. The general community out there are aware of it. They are aware that they are not going to benefit as they thought they had. They are aware of what the GST is going to cost them, of what they will have to find more money for. They do not like it and they are waiting for this government at the next election. 17:02:0015136Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I understand that Senator West's questions were provided to the committee at 3.30 this afternoon, but she might let me know if she has not re-ceived them. As Senator West would well understand, the purpose of the pension bonus funding for people who are retired or who are on pensions was not to address equity between older people. Its purpose was to make sure that the value of older people's assets was maintained at a time when, it is acknowledged, there will be an increase in inflation. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that some people will have larger payments than others. In fact, I understand from the material that has been provided from the department that a very high proportion of people will have a substantial amount paid to them under this scheme and very few, relatively speaking, will have no payment. We have heard from Senator West about her belief that everybody should get a lump sum, but the purpose of it was quite different. It has been explained in Age Pension News, I think at least a couple of times. The government has never claimed that everybody was going to get $1,000. If that was people's understanding or expectation it is unfortunate. It means that the material that has been going out to them has not been taken in or has not been read. It demonstrates why there is such a need for an education and information exercise such as the one the government has been funding. However, going to the bill which is before us, which has nothing to do with whatever Senator West was talking about, I must say I appreciate Senator Bartlett's comment about there being some good things in this bill which need acknowledging. I am particularly pleased that we are bringing forward this measure dealing with the circumstances of double orphans. It was occasioned by representations that were made to me by Mrs Fran Bailey in the other House, who had constituents who took over the care of their grandchildren after the two parents both overdosed. In extremely sad family circumstances a large family, of about five children, were left to be taken on by relations. It might have been uncle and aunt; I cannot quite remember now. I was amazed to find that there was inadequate ability in our social security system to look after those who are caring in this role. As Senator Bartlett said, there will not be a lot of people who stand to benefit from that measure, but I am glad to think that people who are doing something very important in caring for other people's children will get the assistance that this bill provides. As to the other matters that are going to be discussed, it is probably best to leave them to the committee stage. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 15137The bill.17:07:0015137Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I am not sure whether you are too fast for me in terms of treating it as a whole, but we obviously want to oppose schedule 4, items 2 and 3.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I have not put anything yet.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I want to oppose that section. If you put that as a separate section, I will formally speak against that.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Thank you, that is fine. The question is that schedule 4, items 2 and 3, page 15, lines 11 to 16, stand as printed.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I outlined in my second reading contribution the basis for the Labor opposition's opposition to this section of the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. Senator Bartlett was right in a factual sense—I perhaps do not agree with his interpretation—that when we last debated the pension education supplement Labor did support the government inserting a part-time provision which provided that those people who were studying part time received half the rate, and I made no apology for that. I think this is part of a consistent approach. Obviously, we think you have to be responsible about these payments, and our view is that on this occasion the government's proposition is effectively to reduce the total payment of the pensioner education supplement going to new applicants. By changing the date at which they become eligible from 1 January or 1 July to the date they start the course, the government effectively reduces the number of weeks for which someone is eligible for the supplement. Therefore, the total payment of PES is reduced by the number of weeks that are excluded. So, if someone starts their course in the middle of February, they effectively lose six weeks of the supplement if it had been effective from 1 January.As I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, I know the government moved to that system with a range of other payments. We have been after an evaluation of the PES, and we are concerned that we are getting a lot of feedback that it is not sufficient to allow recipients to meet the costs of study, that it does not provide enough incentive for them to further themselves by studying and that it is a savings measure for the government. We are not convinced that, on balance, these people should not receive greater assistance. It is the case that that is probably more appropriately done by changing the rate. I am the first to concede that the logic of the position is probably to argue about the rate, and we have been keen to get the proper assessment of the supplement and the work that has been done by the department to have that debate. This is our opportunity to look at this question. The government is looking to reduce the total payment of the PES to recipients by not providing it for those other weeks. On balance, we remain unconvinced that that is a good thing to do. We are inclined to support the measure that provides for 1 January and 1 July as the starting dates and not to support the government's measure to move it to the date of the start of the course. The government's measure only applies to new starters. In fact, the system that we are proposing will continue to apply to those currently enrolled, as I understand it. So we think it is not an unreasonable proposition, and we prefer that approach to the one proposed by the government.17:11:0015138Bartlett, Senator AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I would like to ask a couple of questions in relation to this issue, firstly, to Senator Evans, given the assumption behind his argument that the PES is inadequate, which I think is probably a reasonable assumption. I am not sure you need a government to report to tell you that the PES is inadequate to meet educational expenses. Any extra assistance that can be provided as part of an increase in the rate would obviously be beneficial, and I ask whether the opposition will commit to raising the rate of PES if they gained government, which is the logical extension of what they are trying to do here. As Senator Evans himself said, that is the better way to go, so it would be good to get a specific commitment from the opposition that that is the way they would go if they were in government and able to do it.I would also like the minister to say if and when the department is likely to release the assessment to the public. I would also like to query, in relation to the part of the bill we are debating, what the explanatory memorandum says: that the remainder of the bill, that is, apart from the part to do with double orphan pension, has no financial impact. As I understand it, the opposition are suggesting that the course they are now proposing we go down would have a cost—I do not know if it is something you have provided to me be-fore, or I heard you say—of about $4 million dollars. In any case, it is obviously going to have some extra cost—a significant number of people will get payment for an extra number of weeks. I would therefore have thought the flip side of that would be that, by making this change, there would be a saving to government and that that would be reflected in the financial impact statement in the explanatory memorandum. I would like the minister to either point out the error in my logic or outline how much the Labor amendment is going to cost or, put the other way, indicate how much the bill as it stands—the change that is proposed in the bill—will save.17:13:0015138Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am a bit surprised at Senator Evans's comments. I thought he understood that in 1993 his government introduced the `Statutory rules No. 367, explanatory statement', which I have before me now. Regulation 5 states when Austudy is payable from. Subregulation 5.1 inserts new subregulation 7(1A) in the Austudy regulations. Subregulation 7(1A) provides that students returning to study after a break in study of more than one semester, not counting the normal vacation periods, will be paid only from the commencement of their courses without backdating to 1 January for students returning to study at the beginning of the year or 1 July for students returning to study in the second semester. A concession will apply in the case of students whose break from study was caused by illness or other circumstances beyond their control.It was Labor which recognised that there was a need for payments not to be backdated to 1 January, but that is what they are trying to do now. I find it very strange that this is something which Labor recognised. Labor had a system in place that allowed for people to be paid right back to 1 January rather than from when people started their course. In 1993, the Labor Party changed the arrangements so that people were paid from the time of their course. There was a concession for students who had circumstances beyond their control so that they could be picked up, and that has been a continuing feature of the PES system. We have here a government amendment which needs to be made because of a technical error which was introduced into the passage of the Social Security (Administration) Act. The government are trying to put back what we inherited, essentially, and what we inherited we inherited from the Labor Party. We inherited, as I have just described, a system that said payments should be made to students from the beginning of their course. If you do not do that, you have a position where somebody could be working right up to the date that they start a course. They may not even be on any social security payment at all. The Labor Party's position would actually allow people in that circumstance to have PES paid to them from 1 January. Somebody could be in the workforce, go on to parenting payment (single), for example, and have their payment backdated to 1 January when they were in full-time work.I cannot believe that the Labor Party, which saw the rationale for not having that back in 1993, would now turn around and reverse their position. It was an eminently sensible position that they took in 1993. The position they are taking now does not seem to make sense at all. In 1993, the Labor Party recognised the imbalance of back paying assistance to 1 January to students who were in those circumstances, particularly of course for people moving to study from employment, and Labor amended the former Austudy scheme to correct the imbalance.Without our technical amendment, PES will be back paid to 1 January 2000 for any student claiming PES by 31 March or to 1 July for any student claiming PES between 1 July and 31 July. Without our technical amendment, some customers will be back paid PES for up to 10 weeks when they have not been studying during that period. They can be paid PES if they were not receiving social security payments at all for that period. They could have been working at the time, as I said. Without our amendment, a significant policy anomaly will be introduced between the treatment of those students receiving PES and those receiving other student payments, such as youth allowance and Austudy. Receipt of these payments is not backdated to 1 January or 1 July in similar circumstances, and I wonder whether the Labor Party is thinking of moving some amendments to backdate those to those dates.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—When did that apply from?BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Which?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Those changes.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Your changes?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—The youth allowance—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—But I am talking about these people who—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Up until that time they were back paid.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—No, Austudy—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Austudy is the one example but there is—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Youth allowance and Austudy are in a similar position. They are not backdated and PES has not been backdated, and you were the ones who put that down in regulation. I am just surprised at Labor. Are they doing this clumsily or doing it just to be bloody-minded? I am not quite sure what it can be. I would have thought that we all believed in simplifying, wherever possible, social security rules and payments. It has been emphasised to me ever since I got the job of Minister for Social Security back in 1996. The Welfare Rights people and ACOSS came to me early on and said that one of the most important things that could be done in this portfolio was to improve simplification. They put a real emphasis on that, and I have done that to the best of my ability. But here we are being pushed to reduce the simplicity of the system. The Labor amendments that seek to add unnecessary complexity— AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—There are no Labor amendments.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Labor's approach, I beg your pardon, through anomalous treatment of different student payments. Senator Bartlett did challenge the Labor Party to say what their commitment would be on this matter when in government, and I did not notice Senator Evans jumping up to explain to Senator Bartlett.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Ladies first.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You are still going to have a go, are you?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—Yes.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Good. We wait with enthusiasm to see whether you can really make a commitment on anything. Senator Bartlett also referred to the question of financial impact. It is difficult to assess that, but I have received some advice as follows. The cost of not amending the legislation is difficult to quantify, but it could be around $8 million annually. That has come to me from the department, but they emphasise that it is difficult to quantify. I do not know how the $4 million figure is arrived at, but the $8 million is what has been suggested to me by my department. I wait to see what Senator Evans has to say about his commitment.17:21:0015140Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—As you would well un-derstand, Senator Newman, I am not going to be announcing Labor Party election policy on the run.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—I do not think you are ever announcing any Labor Party policy.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—I certainly will not be announcing the social security policy. I will leave that to the appropriate spokesperson, and that is my message to Senator Bartlett in answer to his question. I think it is fair to say, Senator Bartlett, that that is a recognition that Labor accepts that there are concerns about the adequacy of the PES. I said in my introductory remarks that we would rather be having a debate about the adequacy of the PES. We would rather be having a debate about the department's report. I notice that the minister did not give us any further information about that. She is happy to debate changes to the entitlement of the PES for recipients and floats a figure of $8 million but then says she cannot stand by that figure because it is hard to estimate. I concede that it may well be. In effect, the minister is saying she is going to take the $8 million from pensioners that is currently being paid to them. If that is the saving, it is a saving taken from those persons.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator Newman—No.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANS—If it is not, I would be happy for you to explain. Senator Bartlett asked you that question. You clearly did not answer it in the sense that, if you are saying there is a saving of $8 million, I assume it is because you are going to spend $8 million less, and I assume that means you are going to spend $8 million less in supporting pensioners' education costs. That is the obvious conclusion to draw, but if that is wrong no doubt you will re-enter the debate.The point I want to make is that the Labor Party is suggesting that we oppose a gov-ernment attempt to change its own legisla-tion to reduce entitlements. We say that we are not convinced that the government's attempts to reduce those entitlements are warranted, given what we understand to be the general concern about the adequacy of the PES. The better way to do that, obviously, is to have a debate about the department's analysis of the PES, its adequacy and what might be done to better improve that education supplement and assist people to make the transition to work through improving their qualifications. That is obviously the preferable approach. From opposition you have to take opportunities as they arise. What we are saying is that the government amended the legislation to provide this pro-vision. We are not moving any amendments. We are saying that the legislation that the parliament passed earlier this year at the government's initiation ought to stay as is. We are not convinced that the change is warranted. As I understand it, the minister seized on the question of the Austudy and some regulation from 1983 or 1993, which I must admit did not immediately come to mind. As I understand it, the history of these payments—and the supplements in particular—has involved a mixture of treatment over the years by governments of both persuasions. There is an argument about whether a supplement is treated the same as a primary payment. Putting all that to one side, at the end of the day you have to decide what position you want to adopt with the PES today. Our view is that it is better that the payment be made for the whole of the period under which people are required, if you like, to be available for or commit themselves to study and that that is a preferable position. It is one that existed in the past. I accept that when the Youth Allowance changes were made you went to the alternative approach. I guess I would argue that as a supplement you might be able to argue for different treatment, but we think that as a top-up payment on this occasion it is preferable that we start from 1 January or 1 July. As I say, the government's measure is about whether or not we vote today to reduce the total payment paid to those persons. There are probably better, more thorough approaches in terms of debating the adequacy of the payment but, when asked today to vote on a proposition from the government to reduce that payment, our view is that it ought not be supported and we will not be supporting it. That obviously says something about the direction Labor takes in terms of the PES and our views about that, Senator Bartlett, but obviously I will not be making specific commitments about Labor policy for the next election in relation to that today, as I am sure you will not be about the Democrats' position. But the issue today is whether or not we support the government's attempt to reduce those payments and what seems now like an attempt to make a reduction in payments of $8 million. I am not sure whether the minister stands by that but our view is that, on balance, we will not support that.17:26:0015141Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I think Senator Evans needs to go back to the shadow minister, Mr Swan, and ask why it was that he was not properly briefed on this matter. My department has advised me that his office was briefed and given a copy of the Austudy regulation changes that I referred to earlier which I read from. I have here a copy of a facsimile to Michael Lye dated 16 June which says, `A copy of the explanatory statement which accompanied Austudy regulation changes brought in to stop back paying Austudy and Austudy PES.' It is signed by Jenny Myers from my department.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—That is not in dispute, Minister.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—You were asking about the regulations and saying you doubted—AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—I am just saying that is one example of regulations. There has been a range of regulations.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—I understood from what you said that Mr Swan had not briefed you on that. It seems pretty unfair that you are sent in here to battle for the opposition when you have not been given sufficient background. Let me go back to the guts of what Senator Evans has just been saying. We are not reducing entitlements; we are fixing up a technical problem in a new bill that came in a little while ago. Therefore, there are no savings. We are not in fact changing or were we ever intending to change the situation. It was changed accidentally temporarily. So we are not reducing entitlements, therefore there are no savings, therefore the financial impact of this was not included in the explanatory memorandum because it is a technical amendment reverting to the original intention of the act. AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—I would like you to read the Hansard of that.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—Can't you understand it?AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—I know what you are trying to say but I suspect—BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—There will be a new cost if it is not amended. That is what we are saying in response to Senator Bartlett about the question of the $8 million. We are trying to assess what the $8 million cost will be if we do not revert to the existing situation. Your approach will mean that the taxpayer will be up for something of the order of $8 million if we do not go back to the original situation. People will not have a reduction in payment. This is not a question of reducing payments to people. They have not been previously entitled to them: they have become entitled for a short period because of the drafting changes. So we are not reducing entitlements, therefore there are no saving but, if the amendment does not go through to fix up the drafting failure, then there will be a cost. I think that is pretty clear; I hope you find it clear.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—It is logically nonsense!BE4Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMAN—It is absolutely truthful and logical. Senator Bartlett appears to understand this a bit better than you, Senator Evans. But I want to put this on the record because I am responding to some of the comments that you have made in the committee stage. I am afraid you do not have too many wings to fly with on this one. It was your government that recognised the problem back in 1993. It was accidentally amended in recent legislation. We are trying to put it back to what you put in, and if you do not support it and if we lose this then you will be causing the taxpayer to foot the bill for people who may be in the work force up to the time that they go on to study. That is an unintended consequence that nobody would think was appropriate. If there is any spare money to spend on income support for people, it should be on those who really need it, not people in those circumstances.17:30:0015142Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I would like the Minister for Family and Community Services to respond to my and Senator Evans's question about whether the departmental assessment would be released and, if so, when.17:31:0015142Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I am sorry, Senator Bartlett, I did not mean to ignore your comments on this. The advice that I have here on a handwritten note is that it is correct to say that the PES evaluation is being reconsidered in the context of welfare reform. I cannot give you any further advice.17:31:0015142Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I will outline the conclusion I have come to in listening to the various positions put forward. I can point to some inconsistencies in the positions of both the government and the opposition. But I am sure that, if I sat down, they would point to some inconsistencies in my argument if they wanted to look at it. That is the situation you get when there is an argument from both sides.I understand the point the Minister for Family and Community Services is making about there being no savings and therefore no need to note it in the financial impact statement. I am not quite sure that the distinction between a new cost and there being no savings measure in the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is something that I understand. I understand the argument the minister has put forward, but it is a fine, if not artificial, distinction. As someone that tries to examine all the legislation that comes before us in the social security area—and all senators would agree that it is a very complex act—one of the things you do look at is the financial impact statement. A lot of bills tend to have clauses that say, `These are just technical amendments, minor modifications, clarifications and the like.' You are more likely to assume that is the case if it also says that there is no financial impact. Clearly, there is a financial impact in passing this particular item in the bill. It is $8 million—or whatever the figure is—that the government would otherwise have had to spend that it is not spending. In that circumstance, it is appropriate to list that as a saving or as a cost that would otherwise have to be met were the amendment not to be made so that we can see up-front the estimated cost. I accept that sometimes you cannot be precise about these things, but given that you have detailed the cost of the double orphan pension measure down to $200,000 in one year—which was a fairly finetuned cost-ing—I do not think it would hurt to indicate what the costs or savings may be for other measures, even if they are not spot-on to the last cent.I realise the impact statements and such are not drafted personally by the minister, but I would make an appeal that, for future legislation and future drafting of explanatory memorandums, a re-examination of the definition of what is a cost and a saving be conducted by the department. One could suggest that it is quite misleading to say that this section has no financial impact. It does not help, when trying to form an opinion, that the government is being up-front about eve-rything if you get parts of bills that you assume have no financial impact, because the financial impact statement says so, and then you find out that $8 million, $6 million or whatever would be the cost if we were not to pass the particular bit in this bill. It is im-portant to re-examine that for future legislation.I recognise Senator Evans's statement about not being able to give commitments on the Labor Party's policy for the next election. I could spout at length about Democrat commitments and what we would do if we won government at the next election. I suspect it would not be taken too seriously, so I will not go down that path, but it is appropriate to point out that, if an area is perceived to be inadequate, there should be something fairly solid on the record from the opposition about what they are going to do about it. I do think it would be desirable to have the departmental assessment of the program sooner, despite the ongoing welfare reform process. But you do not necessarily need a comprehensive departmental assessment to recognise the supplement would not be adequate on its own to meet all the extra educational costs of a pensioner, and the fact that it has not been increased since 1989 would in itself make one assume that that is the case.There is still—and I think Senator Evans concedes this himself—an issue in terms of what is being proposed here by the Labor Party, which is that it is not the best mechanism for trying to address inadequacies in the pensioner education supplement. We would basically end up with a situation where people would be getting a supplement to their pension when they were not actually eligible for the pension in some of the period when they are getting the supplement, which seems like a misnomer and an anomaly. I am one of those people who tend to go on quite frequently about the need to reduce anomalies where possible in the Social Security Act to provide simplification, and this is a mechanism which would not only generate an anomaly between this payment and others but also, in my view, be a bit of an absurdity—where you are getting a supplement for a pension that you are not actually receiving. It is not the best way to do it and, as someone who speaks frequently about the need to avoid anomalies where possible, I think it is difficult to justify making that change. I want to say something about the minister's statements about this correcting an inadvertent change when we passed the Social Security (Administration) Act last year and did not realise that this change was in here or that this bit was not being addressed so we have to now make this change to reflect the original intent of what was passed. It is an understandable argument, I suppose, but I do recall that we debated a bill in this place not too long ago about the new family tax payment where a very significant change was made to shared care arrangements. I think it is fair to say that that was done without our being aware—certainly the Democrats were not, and I think the opposition conceded it—that it was part of the changes that were being made, that it was one change amongst many, many changes.If you are going to use the argument here that, if we pass something inadvertently, we should go back to the original intent of what was put forward, then I would not mind trying to use that argument as well in terms of the family tax payment, because that change was made without the parliament being aware of it. It would have been nice to have been able to revisit it, but unfortunately we were not able to do so. I think it is fair enough for Senator Evans to say that we are dealing with the act as it was passed by the parliament. Who is to say what the intent of the Senate as a whole was when it passed that bill originally? We have to look at what the situation is now rather than just try to automatically fall back on the excuse that we have to follow the original intent. No-one can say for sure what the intent of the Senate was when it passed that bill, and we really should stick to the act as it stands now. Nonetheless, I do think in this situation it would introduce a significant anomaly. To try to provide people with a supplement to a pension when they are not actually eligible to receive the pension itself is not the best way forward in terms of trying to address inadequacies with an existing payment. In that circumstance, whilst one naturally is tempted to support changes that may provide extra payments for particular people, it would be bad policy and bad law making. As Senator Evans himself said, we have to take a consistent approach on these issues and be responsible with these payments. In this particular circumstance, I think it is responsible and consistent to support the bill as it stands.I think it is important that the government takes on board the inadequacies and the over-all support for students across the board —not just pensioners, I might add—and examines ways to provide more assis-tance than it has. Trying to redress that fail-ure in a small way by introducing an anom-aly such as this is not the best way to do that. It does leave the Democrats open to cheap shots from the opposition that we have oppos-ed an attempt to increase the pensioner edu-cation supplement. I am sure that Senator Evans is not one for cheap shots, but there are always a few others out there who would do that. As I said before, whilst Senator Evans outlined the rationale behind the Labor Party's support of the part-time rate for PES, nonetheless the impact of the act was a reduction in payment. He stands by his rea-sons which he outlined, and I accept that. But at the end of the day, if you are simply go-ing to look at total dollars in people's pock-ets and nothing else, we can both do that.Nonetheless, at this stage, in the absence of any other arguments put forward by the government or the opposition, the Democrats believe that this is not an appropriate way to go. It would create a significant and in many ways nonsensical anomaly within the act, and we believe that the change in the bill as put forward should stand.17:42:0015144Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—I do not want to delay the chamber unnecessarily, but I do want to respond to a couple of things that have been put in the debate. I understood that we were not likely to get Democrat support, and I appreciate now that we are not going to get it. I can count and, as I said, I do not want to delay the debate by labouring the point. Senator Bartlett seems to have strongly taken the line from the government that this was a great anomaly and that there was concern that people who were not eligible for the pension would be able to receive the supplement, and the minister also laboured that point as being the main argument. I think, quite frankly, it is a furphy but, in any event, if the legislative will of the chamber is to make this work and that we need to have some further amendment which makes it clear that it applies only to those in receipt of the pension, I think we are more than capable of doing that. I always find that Senator Newman's approach to these things is to argue some sort of minor technical thing to try to blow out of the water the whole argument rather than to get to the heart of the matter. We have had that debate before about maybe getting a more constructive approach.The department made it clear to us at the estimates hearing that, of the 45,000 people currently on the PES, 75 per cent came off the sole parent pension and the vast majority of the remainder are on the DSP. So this suggestion that somehow we are dealing with all these people who quit work and quit well-paying jobs to get on to benefits in order to then claim this windfall on the PES is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. We are talking about a program designed to assist sole parents to further their education and to assist them to make the transition from welfare to work. We are talking about allowing people on the disability support pension to have access to further study. The minister has once again espoused the dole bludger, welfare fraud line. People talk now about the welfare review; it is the welfare dependency review. It is not about a welfare review; it is about a welfare dependency review. It is all about lowbrow, wedge politics and attacking those people on pensions.However, I just want to make one point. I am disappointed that in this debate Senator Bartlett somehow took the minister's suggest-gestion hook, line and sinker.That one or two people who might have been in work might have come onto the pension and might get the PES for those four or five weeks they were not actually on the pension is reason to defeat the measure is, I think, very disappointing. The point is that, if there were a problem with that, we could address it and fix it up as a parliament. So I think that is a false debate. The majority of these people, 75 per cent, are on the sole parent pension, with most of the remainder on the disability support pension, the DSP. So we are not talking about people who are resigning from well-paid jobs to take advantage of this windfall in the PES; it is a complete nonsense. I just want to put that on the record because I think the debate has been shifted a little from what should have been its main focus by the use of that example and with the Democrats regurgitating it as a reason for defeating the amendment.The other thing I want to say, Senator Bartlett, is that I will not be taking cheap shots. Unlike the same sex debate where I think the Democrats could be accused of having done so, I always resist that temptation as much as I can. This is a difficult is-sue. I accept that the Democrats have come to a different view. We thought, on balance, that opposing this amendment by the government was the preferred way to proceed.I make the point to the minister that I think what she said about the effect of this amendment was complete nonsense. The fact is that the law of the land currently provides an entitlement to people to have that benefit, the PES, paid from 1 January to 1 July. She seeks to get the parliament to change it to-day. In the absence of that change, they are entitled to it. What we are doing today will remove that entitlement. You cannot get any clearer than that. I accept the minister's explanation when she says that it was inadvertent, et cetera, and that it was not the government's intention. That is fine. But what we are voting on today is a proposition from the government to remove the current legal entitlement of people who are on the sole parent pension and the DSP. By supporting the government amendment, we remove their entitlement or we reduce their entitlement to PES. That is the point we have made. That is the reason why the Labor Party sought to oppose that today. With that, I will end my comments. 10000Knowles, Sue (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—The question is that schedule 4, items 2 and 3 stand as printed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.15146Bill (on motion by Senator Newman) read a third time.Bills15146S24515146Debate resumed from 8 December 1999, on motion by Senator Tambling:That this bill be now read a second time.17:49:0015146Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—I rise to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and I do so without much notice at all. In saying that, perhaps I can indicate that this has been very much the process over recent months in relation to this legislation. It is legislation which the government has tried to drive through this parliament, without adequate public discussion and debate and, in doing so, it has missed a historic opportunity to get it right, and to get it right in consultation and cooperation with interested parties to these lands.We are not talking here of just any particular area of land; we are talking of land which is of both historic and ongoing significance. We are talking about having before this parliament on this occasion a historic opportunity to convert old Defence lands in prime positions around Sydney Harbour for long-term public ownership and public use. As I say, this has been a shoddy process. We come to this debate at this particular time as probably the third phase of recent chicanery by the government. In 1998 the Prime Minister made a commitment in respect of this land—a commitment that after the election he did not meet. In the budget, just a few weeks ago, a further commitment was made. Once we read the fine print, we found then also that the government was trying to con interested parties on this issue.It was only last week that we were able to get our amendments to the government and only on Friday afternoon that the govern-ment was able to come back to us with its amendments on this particularly important legislation. These are amendments which reflect, on our part at least, a public consul-tation process which was embarked upon by the Senate committee on environment and heritage, a consultative process which gave interested parties the opportunity to make a contribution and a consultative process which drew out quite a number of issues from a whole range of interested parties—issues that the government had chosen to ignore, issues that the government had chosen to ride roughshod over, issues which the government did not take into account be-cause it did not suit an immediate political agenda.As I have said, it is not often in this place that we get an opportunity to decide the fate of significant tracts of land that have been preserved more by good luck, I suppose, than by good management. We have before us this historic opportunity to convert these old Defence lands. In the Prime Minister's own words—words spoken before the 1998 election—he said that the foreshores we are talking about here are: ... one of Sydney's prized assets indeed one of the nation's prized assets ... a jewel in the Australian crown—the Harbour foreshores of Sydney—a real jewel in the crown.He would know because this is the Prime Minister who shifted his residence lock, stock and barrel from Canberra to the foreshores of Sydney—the Prime Minister who indulges himself and his family at the expense of Australian taxpayers. They were his words and they follow a long history of debate and discussion on this issue. In 1979 the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, and the then Premier of New South Wales, Neville Wran, agreed to a transfer of Commonwealth land to New South Wales including the North Head foreshore, Do-broyd Point, Middle Head foreshore from HMAS Penguin around to Charter Bay and part of South Head. It was also agreed that when the Commonwealth no longer needed the remaining Defence land it would be handed over to New South Wales for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. In September 1998, Prime Minister Howard announced that the government would establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to assume responsibility for the remediation and management of five foreshore sites be-ing vacated by Defence. We are concerned that this legislation does not do a number of things. It does not recognise the importance and ongoing significance of these lands to not just the people of the North Shore, not just the people of Sydney but also the nation of Australia. It does not provide any additional protection to the lands than they currently have. It does not guarantee delivery of the Prime Minister's promise of inclusion of the lands in the Sydney Harbour National Park. This is fundamentally flawed legislation. It does not do what the government set out to do and promised the people it would do and, in not doing so, has quite a number of gaps that need to be addressed by amendment. So the government's response, the government's attempt to protect this `jewel', as the Prime Minister called it, is faulty. For instance, the trust allows the minister to bypass due process. This bill removes parliamentary accountability for financial management of the trust. It provides exemptions from state planning and environmental laws. It allows for sole ministerial discretion in the sale of these lands. So a commitment to remediate, protect and hand over is not reflected in this faulty and flawed legislation. We set up a trust. The trust is meant to be a transitional management arrangement. After a period of 10 years the Prime Minister has indicated that North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights will be transferred to the New South Wales government for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. At that time, future management arrange-ments for Cockatoo Island and the Woolwich site will be decided. Yet this bill does not ensure that this will happen. The bill has no sunset clause. It has no transfer mechanism. It does not mention the transfer of the land to New South Wales. It does not guarantee ongoing public ownership. As I say, it is hollow in nature and fundamentally flawed. The bill fails to reflect and incorporate the intention of either the 1979 Fraser-Wran agreement or the election promise made by the Prime Minister. In doing so, once again, the Prime Minister is misleading the Australian community and failing to deliver on his stated intent on this issue. This bill was referred to a committee and through that committee process we had the opportunity to hear submissions from quite a number of interested parties, including the New South Wales government and a whole raft of councils who are involved in the areas that are subject to this legislation. At this particular stage, we have seen reflected in and around that committee process a pretty broad and highly sophisticated level of pub-lic debate. That debate was reflected in the submissions put to the committee. That debate was reflected by the personnel putting those submissions. That debate, after hours and hours of community application time devoted to this issue, is continuing to be reflected in parts of Sydney by the community interests surrounding this issue. I think the overwhelming view of all those communities is that this bill is, as we say, fundamentally flawed. They have said to us—and we did not have to wait for them to tell us this—that this parliament should not adopt this legislation pending some wholesale amendment to it. As I said, in 1998 the Prime Minister—pre-election, seeking votes—announced that the government would establish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to assume responsibility for remediation and management of five foreshore sites being vacated by the Department of Defence with the intention of transferring the sites for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. All those community groups relied on that commitment. But the Senate process made it obviously clear that they felt they had been misled and they also felt that quite wholesale amendment needed wholesale amendment needed to take place before this bill could even meet the commitment made by the Prime Minister. Let us start listing some of the flaws in the legislation. The bill does not identify what the key object of the land is. The bill does not identify the importance of the land. The bill does not do the land justice in that it does not reflect, either by way of preamble or by way of objects, a recognition of the importance of this land in Australia's history and the importance of this land as an ongoing environmental and historic concern. The bill does not do this, as I said, in its key objects, nor does it have any preamble that may reflect the importance of the land we are talking about. When you come to this debate, as we do here, rushed at this last moment, we may be tempted to ignore the historical importance of what we are talking about, and we may be tempted to ignore the reality of how other nations handle their historic sites and their historic parks. One has only to go to the United States of America to see how a sense of history has developed in that nation through recognition, preservation and promotion of not just monuments but also historical areas. We in Australia have not built up that sense of history. We tend to treat quite dismissively areas such as this and do not accord them the same degree of recognition, respect and promotion that other nations do. It is not just this particular spot and this particular location that misses out. By not giving sufficient recognition to the important historic aspects of these sites, we deny ourselves and our children the sense of history that we should be building up around our nation. We are a lot more hollow, for instance, in recognising and respecting our history than the United States of America are in respect of theirs.This is one lost opportunity out of so many in that we do not have significant recognition of the significance of this land, even in this legislation. The commitment was for the ownership of the land to be transferred to the Sydney Harbour National Park, but the bill does not do that. Nor—and this is an-other fundamental flaw—does it define which areas of land will be transferred. We believe the government should clearly state in this legislation that the trust is being established to transfer ownership of the sites to New South Wales, and it should provide a timetable and a process for doing so. As promised, all land should be transferred to the Sydney Harbour National Park and no land should be retained for Commonwealth ownership—that was a commitment that was made. One of the more worrying concerns is that this piece of legislation, which implements a pre-election commitment, does not even clearly define the area of the land, nor its tenure status. We believe that each site should be mapped and specified, with the ability to add additional sites by regulation. The government's intentions are very UN-clear. The land should be defined on a map accompanying the bill, and it should be clearly defined which areas are intended to be transferred to the Sydney Harbour National Park. Another issue is whether ownership transition needs to wait for 10 years. Once contamination has been remediated and disused buildings removed, there is no reason that a site could not be immediately transferred to the Sydney Harbour National Park. Transferral of ownership to New South Wales, we believe, should be undertaken as soon as remediation of each site is complete. Legislation should provide for handover in a staged manner following remediation. No rationale, for instance, has been given for a 10-year life for transitional management arrangements. Once decontamination has taken place and disused buildings removed, there is no rea-son why there cannot be a transfer.Also, the legislation does not identify that the function of the trust is to remediate the land and prepare it for handover to New South Wales. This is the Prime Minister's commitment, and it is not delivered in this legislation. Under the draft bill the land is exempted from state planning and environmental protection legislation. We are concerned as to what the government really wants to happen with this land as it has not already worked out what regime should be able to operate in respect of it. We are concerned that there should be management plans, and they should be consistent with state regimes with SEPP 56, which states that regional planning and Sydney Harbour National Park management practices should ensure a smooth transition of its ownership to the New South Wales government.Let me say at this particular stage that we will be going through all of these concerns in the committee stage. We have a bundle of amendments to be moved co-jointly with the Australian Democrats, and the government has its amendments. Another concern is that this legislation proposes that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage have sole discretion on the sale of land and is able to make commercial leasing arrangements beyond the 10-year existence of the trust. Talk about demanding and keeping for itself a blank cheque in respect of this particular area of land. We believe that management plans for each area of land should be subject to parliamentary approval. The fate of such significant areas as the Sydney Harbour foreshore should not be decided at the discretion of Minister Hill at the behest of Minister Minchin, as so often happens, with no opportunity for public discussion, public debate or appeal. Sale of land was not to be for commercial use. We believe that that commitment should be reflected in this legislation. Management plans for each area of land should be subject to parliamentary approval, and the fate of these areas should not be at the whim of a minister.The prime ministerial commitment and this legislation, which pretends to reflect it, are basically an attempt by the Commonwealth to preserve their control over this area. If they are serious about this being a transitional arrangement, they should in fact be more serious about ensuring that the trust responsible for the management of this area has a more balanced composition. We will move amendments to ensure that the composition of the trust is more balanced.I will not go on for too much longer, but there are issues such as conflict of interest arising in trust membership, the role trust members play and so on that need to be discussed. Also, there needs to be another observation made in respect of the government's commitment to the decontamination and remediation of this area and to its continued protection. The government's commitment of $96 million to remediate and preserve the land has gone, in major part, to decontamination of the defence department's sites. We do not have an ongoing budget—apart from the attempt just a few weeks ago in the budget to confuse the community when the government claimed that it was putting extra money into this area—to do the sorts of things in this area that really, if we were serious about preserving and promoting the historical significance of the site, we should be doing. The community feels that it has been short-changed by the government because, although the government announced a $96 million commitment to remed-iate, promote and preserve, it is not putting anywhere near that amount of money towards those functions. So we have legislation which is flawed and which does not reflect the commitment made by the Prime Minister. We have legislation which is in need of quite substantial amendment. We have legislation which has been identified by council after council after council with direct interests in this area of land as being flawed. We have legislation which has been criticised by just about every community group that made a submission before the Senate committee. I must say that I do not think there was one group that actually defended the legislation. We have legislation which is a missed opportunity, legislation which could be quite useful in defining and promoting the historical and environmental issues that relate to this land. We have legislation which in no part recognises the particular significance this land has in terms of indigenous Australian history. This is one of those issues that the government always tends to ignore and to forget. Indigenous issues are quite important here, and one of the amendments that we will be moving will reflect our concern that indigenous issues be taken into account.This is legislation which is fundamentally flawed, legislation which the Senate would have needed more time to get to. If the government were serious, we would have had more time for them to assess our amend-ments and us to assess theirs—but obviously they are not. Having said that we think this legislation is fundamentally flawed and in need of major amendment, I indicate now that there are copious amendments that will be moved by the opposition in the committee stage.18:08:0015150Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—It is my pleasure to rise after Senator Bolkus and make a contribution here this evening in the debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999. Senator Bolkus has outlined—but not in detail yet, because we will come to that at the committee stage—a number of our significant objections to the proposed legislation. I am fortunate that I am going to be succeeded in speaking by Senator Forshaw, another New South Welshman, in that we feel uniquely placed to comment on the natural beauty and history of our city of Sydney. I see Senator Coonan here tonight, another New South Wales person. I am sure Senator Coonan would agree with me about our city and that many of its natural heritages should be preserved for generations to come.I will come later specifically to the bill, but I do not know that any other nation in the world that has had any respect for its history would take a gamble, in the way we see that proposed parts of this legislation do, with its natural and national heritage. I was at the bicentenary celebrations at the Opera House in 1988 and I remember how proud I was to be not only an Australian but a Sydneysider and to see our achievements paraded before the world that after 200 years of continuous European occupation we were able to make significant contributions. We have made a lot of mistakes but we have made significant contributions in and around our city. Of course, the city of Sydney itself has been, until only recently, for almost its entire history, a defence base. Anybody who goes around Sydney Harbour will see a number of defence sites, as have been mentioned here, and a number that have become tourist attractions, such as Fort Denison. You may not be aware that it was constructed to keep the Russians out. Even back in those days we were concerned about— ZS6Quirke, Sen JohnSenator Quirke—It worked: they never came!84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—It did; they never came. They had that constructed to keep the Russians out, and the guns were placed there appropriately to make sure that they did not invade, and they never did. In the history of Sydney's defence, we have had mini submarines come in there. During the American Civil War—this is not necessarily in Sydney, but in Melbourne, a Confederate ship went down there. Maybe we had some German ship during World War I—656Forshaw, Sen Michael84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—Some might say that they deserved it, but we would not say that from New South Wales. Sydney has always been a significant defence establishment and as, over the years, both parties have seen fit to move our defence capabili-ties closer to where the points of conflict might be, naturally those former defence sites needed to revert back to the community. The Prime Minister made certain undertakings before the 1998 election and, as has been mentioned by Senator Bolkus, the Prime Minister is ideally placed to comment on the scenery and topography of the city of Sydney, considering that he now resides in one of the most beautiful spots that one could reside in. I have never actually been there. I have been around it on a boat once or twice and had a look at it. I am told that years ago a former journalist, Wendy Bacon, tried to make some sort of protest and swam over there—not while Prime Minister Howard was Prime Minister. She thought that she and her friend would be able to get there, make their protest—I think this was during the Vietnam War—and then walk up and be collected by their mates up the road. Well, the security staff did not think so and made Ms Bacon jump back into the water and swim away, and so she did not get her way then. This is an area about which the Labor Party is very concerned: this is special not only for indigenous people, as Senator Bolkus has said, but also for the descendants of the early European settlers, who also feel—and rightly so—that there are areas of this part of Australia that should be preserved.I did not have much time this evening to go into the history of the two particular sites that probably will be available for redevelopment; that is, Woolwich and Cockatoo Island. Over the years I have seen a lot of the ships and the work forces at Cockatoo Is-land, so I am pretty familiar with where that is, as I am with Woolwich. I am sure our New South Wales senators would know that the port of Sydney was—and still is, to a degree—a major terminal for oil and petroleum products to be dropped. There were a number of sites. I remember that there were some at Balmain and further along at Hunt-ers Hill there were the ones operated by Ampol and Caltex, as it was at the time. So we have these areas around Sydney that are of immense value to Sydneysiders. We are concerned that a rush of `yuppiedom' could occur in these areas if this bill went through in its current state. These areas should be returned to the people of Sydney. They should not be redeveloped because what would happen is what is happening on the foreshores of Sydney now: particularly in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, units are built almost on the sand. They are fairly ugly sorts of buildings and fairly ugly contributions to the ambience of those areas. I think that that is what will inevitably happen if Cockatoo and Woolwich are able to be redeveloped. We will lose an area that could be returned to its natural state, and we will lose the ability to preserve a number of the sandstone buildings which, as I recall, are there on Cockatoo Island. I may be wrong about that, but I think there are a number of sandstone buildings that date from British and Australian naval occupa-tion. We are concerned that this bill may lead to these sites being redeveloped. The bill, as it is drafted, ensures that the committees have to work out how to finance the rehabilitation of those two sites, and they are encouraged to think of commercial activities and redevelopment of parts of the sites. There is a direct reference in the legislation to this occurring. As I say, it is of extreme concern to us on this side, particularly to me and my colleagues who are Sydney-siders, that the ability to redevelop these areas is well and truly entrenched in this legislation.We also have concerns that of the original federation funding that was allocated—$90 million—$50 million has been given to the Department of Defence to relocate from those sites and remove surplus buildings. A further $40 million has been allocated to support the clean up of what might be contaminated areas of Cockatoo Island. Forty million dollars is a lot of money. I hope that there is not too much contamination there. I remember the old Union Carbide site out at Rhodes. That company, along with a number of other companies that were located in that area, decided to relocate their premises from those areas, obviously so they could capitalise on their ability to redevelop the sites. If I remember correctly, Union Carbide and the other companies—this was either before or during the time of the problems they had in India—were up for a huge amount of money to redevelop those sites and remove the contamination. It was nothing that that generation of senior management had contributed to; it was just the way things were done in those days. So I am not sure that $40 million, if it is done in those terms, will be enough to clean up the contamination that might be there. People in bygone days did not pay as much attention to what they were pouring on the ground or into the water, so we may find, particularly on a defence related site which has had a lot of heavy industry involved with it, that it has a lot more contamination that can be dealt with, given the money that has been put forward for it. We have concerns about that.Equally, I understand from the legislation that there is no money available for the trust to clean up any of the other sites. I am not, like the speaker to follow me, from that part of Sydney—I am originally from the southern parts—but I did have an opportunity during my childhood when my family was going to Luna Park or somewhere like that to look at some of these places. It would appear to me, knowing something about some of these sites, that there is a possibility of even more contamination there than has been outlined. As I said, these are former defence sites. Unless we delved into the records we would not have an idea of what has been based on these sites since their occupation as military or naval buildings. We would not have known at the time, nor should we have known, what they were being used for. Given my experience of defence sites, I very much doubt that when it has been an active site—I am not sure what the actual military term is—there would not be any number of little bugs there that need to be cleaned up. I am concerned that as a result of this legislation the trust does not have any money to clean up any of these other sites.I mentioned earlier that we have concerns about the commercial activities in the redevelopment of the sites. In fact, the New South Wales government has been making responses to this draft bill. If the Senate would indulge me for a moment, I will quote the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority, which has been set up by the New South Wales government under the direction of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning. It said in its submission:... the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (the Trust), seems to contradict the positive steps taken recently by the NSW State Government to provide greater coordination in the planning and management of Sydney's harbour foreshores, including a decrease in the number of authorities.It goes on:The lack of compliance with NSW laws will have a major impact on the ability of the State to control future use and management, access, public alienation, built form and site development. There are inherent problems in setting up alternative planning systems to the NSW system and in excluding NSW laws from applying to the sites. The creation of the Trust at Commonwealth Government level does not assist in the integration of good urban design and planning decisions for the Harbour, but continues the ad-hoc management of neighbouring pieces of land. This is not in the best interests of the people of NSW.It concludes:It is hoped that the management of the land under Commonwealth legislation will not continue the segregation of the land from the rest of the Harbour foreshore. This currently occurs with Defence land, which is why it is raised in this instance.That is a very important point, which should not be lost on you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that is, as I mentioned earlier, if you have an opportunity to cruise around Sydney Harbour you will see the legacy of generations of misplanning on one beautiful part of our country, part of our country that is known and loved abroad and universally. We will have an opportunity here when we consider the Labor amendments to allow for this plea by the New South Wales government to be entertained, when we are able to put these forward to the parliament.You could not imagine any of the other great cities of the world allowing what might be seen to be natural and historical regions of their cities or their states to be redeveloped or used for commercial activities. These are important sites. Whether they were important to the indigenous people or to the European settlers and their descendants, they are important sites. We should not in this legislation allow those sites to be handed over for what might be commercial activities or redevelopment. They are important, and we should keep them in our hands. That is why I am disturbed at this. As I said earlier, you could not imagine that occurring in similar sites in Washington, London or Rio de Janeiro, or in places where there has been colonisation and conflict and then amelioration. You could not imagine that occurring in any other parts of the world.I have seen in my own lifetime the degradation of lots of the city area and city buildings and the foreshore. My uncle used to be a tip truck driver, and I remember when I worked with him sometimes in the early sixties. We would go to Mosman or to places like Cremorne or Balmain. We would go to all of those beautiful parts of Sydney, and we would be involved in the carting away after beautiful old houses had been destroyed. I know that if we went 20 years forward we would not allow those beautiful houses to be destroyed. We would preserve them. In the space of my lifetime I have seen so many historic homes and parks, gardens and monuments being discarded, destroyed or not preserved. We have an opportunity in the legislation here this evening and in the amendments that we will be putting forward to ensure that that does not occur. It is in our hands now. Once this passes out of our hands we do not believe that the opportunity will exist for us to reclaim it. I want to make sure that my children have an opportunity to see these fine monuments—whether to indigenous continuous occupation or to the European settlers and their descendants. We, as people, are entitled to demand that our government do that.I thought that the Prime Minister had a bit more of a historical contribution to make than to allow this to occur. If you read the Prime Minister's speeches and hear his statements he is very proud of his own family's contributions not only to Australia's military history but, obviously, in the way that they have risen in this country. I would be surprised if the Prime Minister has not seen—like I have and like my colleagues who live in Sydney and in New South Wales have seen—the destruction of so many historic homes and gardens and monuments. At this late stage we have a perfect opportunity for these harbour foreshore lands to be reclaimed by the citizens of New South Wales and Sydney for our country, to make sure that they are preserved not only for this generation but for generations to come as a real testimony to the integration of this country through colonisation and, subsequently, the building up of these monuments to make sure that they are available for the future. Sitting suspended from 6.28 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.19:30:0015154Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—I rise to speak on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge, like the previous speakers, Senator Bolkus and Senator Hutchins, that this is a very important piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it is flawed in many respects, and we therefore look forward to the committee stage, when we will be able to debate in more detail the specific provisions of the bill. Hopefully, the amendments that will be moved by the opposition and have been circulated will find favour with the Senate. I am quite pleased to be able to speak on this legislation, firstly, because I am a sena-tor from New South Wales and, living in Sydney, I understand and appreciate the importance of Sydney Harbour to the cultural and environmental heritage and future of our nation. Secondly, I would obviously be particularly interested in ensuring that any legislation that has as its objective `protecting foreshores' is most thorough in carrying out that noble objective! Maybe the first flaw is the spelling of the word `foreshore' in the explanatory memorandum and in the second reading speech. But let me move on from that to indicate that this is a very serious piece of legislation. It has as its objective the establishment of a management plan and a management regime for rehabilitating the defence land around Sydney Harbour that is no longer of use to our defence forces.In the past, as we all acknowledge, decisions were made that would never be made today. It is doubtful whether some of the most beautiful land around Sydney Harbour would today be allocated to the purposes, such as defence and heavy industry, that it was many years ago. Of course, we live in different times—not necessarily more enlightened times—in which there is a recognition that we have a duty to current and future generations to preserve as far as possible our environmental heritage. It would be very difficult to find many other areas in metropolitan parts of Australia that are deserving of attention in that regard.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—What about Hobart?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—My friend and colleague Senator Sherry interjects and mentions Hobart. We will get an opportunity in a few weeks time, Senator Sherry, to once again attend the ALP national conference at Hobart. That historic occasion will also see many of the broad policy parameters enunciated that will set us up for government. For those of us who have visited Hobart—you do not need long to do it—it is a city that has carried out very well the task of protecting both the environmental heritage of the area and also the significant historic cultural heritage. That is what we wish for Sydney. I had the opportunity last Saturday night to attend a function at Darling Harbour. It was a fundraising ball for Boys' Town, which is located in my home suburb of Engadine.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator Hutchins—Your old school!656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—It is not my old school. Boys' Town, as I think people know—and I do not want to digress too much—is an establishment that has been in operation for many years providing support to homeless youth or youth in difficulties. The function was held at Darling Harbour. It was a wonderful Sydney night, and the vista from the Convention Centre at Darling Harbour as you look back across the water to the city is truly fantastic. As is noted here in this second reading speech, the focus of the world will be on Sydney in a couple of months time for the 2000 Olympics, and it will be specifically focused upon our harbour—we can all envisage the television images going out to the rest of the world. My first memory of Darling Harbour is when I was a young child. My uncle was working on the railways, and my father used to take us into Sydney to go out to the cricket ground to watch the football. We would often meet of a Saturday morning either at Central railway or at Darling Harbour. Darling Harbour was an old railway goods yard right on the edge of an expanse of water in Sydney Harbour. As Senator Hutchins pointed out, there are a range of other sites around Sydney that in years gone by were centres of industrial activity, whether it be the railway goods yards such as at Darling Harbour, the shipbuilding industry at Cockatoo Island, the oil industry terminals at a range of sites around the Balmain region or any number of other activities.What we have seen in more recent years is those areas being rehabilitated and diverted to public use. In the case of Darling Harbour, it is not pristine parkland, but it is a focal point for community social activity in Sydney. I was particularly struck by how well that facility is now operating and is utilised by the people of Sydney. Before I turn particularly to the legislation, I should also comment on some remarks made by Senator Hutchins on the now historic site of Fort Denison, which was built to keep out the Russians. He said we successfully ensured that there was never a Russian naval invasion of Sydney Harbour. I have to correct the record. There was one Russian who actually managed to get through the net. I cannot remember her name, and I have not had a chance to check with the Parliamentary Library—I am sure they would know. I am sure many of us will remember the girl in the red bikini who jumped off a Russian ship. It was a bit hard to forget. It was in the headlines in the Daily Mirror and the other papers at the time. So there was one person who actually managed to get past Fort Denison and land in Australia and has since become a rather famous personality in Sydney.I should also mention that one of the interesting features of Cockatoo Island is that, whilst the docks there were used for many years as a ship repair and shipbuilding facility amongst other things, there was a requirement that I understand was instituted many years ago, probably the century before last, that there always had to be sheep grazing on Cockatoo Island. It was a feature I remember from when I was an official of the Australian Workers Union. Each year, somebody—one of the officials, usually—would go across to Cockatoo Island and shear the sheep. Historically, that requirement remained in place. I hope that continues. I am not sure whether it still exists today.Let me turn to this legislation. As I said, it has a very noble purpose. The second reading speech states:As the cradle of European settlement and the focus of Australia's most populous city, the Harbour is the quintessential image of our nation abroad. It will be the centre of international attention during the 2000 Olympic Games.For the people of Sydney, the Harbour provides an avenue for commerce and the transport of people. The Harbour and its foreshores are a focus of city living and of recreational pursuits.For these reasons the Government is committed to preserving the Harbour and its foreshore for future generations.They are very noble sentiments indeed. It is a pity, therefore, that this legislation, when examined closely, has a number of flaws. In particular, it has quite a number of omissions, which would suggest that there is a significant gap between the spirit or the intent of those objectives as outlined in the second reading speech and outlined in the Prime Minister's policy speech in 1998 and the letter of the legislation that we are considering and will be considering in more detail in committee. The speech goes on to indicate what the objectives of the trust will be. It will be established to manage the land over the course of the next 10 years.One really has to question many of the provisions of this bill. As Senator Bolkus has already pointed out, one primary concern that the opposition has is that this legislation does not specify in any detail one of the prime objectives of this whole proposal, and that is to facilitate the transfer of ownership and management of this land to the Sydney Harbour National Park. Nor does the legislation have in its objects clause the very specific and primary purpose, which is the rehabilitation of this land, because much of it is Defence land and other land which needs to be properly cleared and rehabilitated before it can be safely used by the public. Those objectives are not spelt out in any detail in the legislation. We are very concerned about that. Not only does this legislation not reflect those key objectives but at the same time it also vests in the minister substantial, if not almost absolute, discretion in the management of this land. Sure, there is a trust put in place, but of the six members of that trust four are to be appointed from the Commonwealth and only two from the state of New South Wales. I see Senator Lightfoot shrugs his shoulders. WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—Maybe six will come from the state of New South Wales.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—Two are to be appointed by the New South Wales government. We will be moving an amendment in due course which will seek to change that balance. The ultimate objective of this whole proposal is, firstly, to rehabilitate the land and, secondly, to hand it over as part of the Sydney Harbour National Park.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—You did say it was a national asset.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW—The management of national assets, as Senator Lightfoot well knows, ultimately remains with the state governments in the areas with those facilities. Whether they be national parks, part of the national forest estate, areas such as Jervis Bay or other parts of Australia, the management ultimately rests with the state governments.While we do not in any way walk away from the national responsibilities and we have at times had to act to prevent backward, redneck state governments in the past from destroying some of those valuable assets, that valuable heritage, the fact remains that the proposal in this legislation is for that land to go back and become part of the Sydney Harbour National Park. One then has to ask the question: why is it that this trust ar-rangement will last for 10 years? Surely in a transitional arrangement you do not have a transitional arrangement that lasts for 10 years. That land can be rehabilitated and in some cases very quickly returned to the responsibility of the New South Wales government and the local governments that are involved around the harbour. That could be done in a much quicker time than 10 years. But no, this proposal is to vest the continuing control with the Commonwealth through that trust and through the minister for up to 10 years.As I said earlier, the representation from the New South Wales government and also, we would say, from local government needs to be increased to more properly reflect the important role that the New South Wales government and local governments in those areas will play. We apprehend that, despite the noble objectives outlined, as I said, in the second reading speech, what we have here is a proposal to promise to hand the land back as part of the Sydney Harbour National Park but at the same time to try to retain as much as possible and for as long as possible Commonwealth control of these assets. That is also borne out by the fact that the management of this land during these next 10 years at least, and thereon potentially into the future after that 10-year period, is exempted from state planning and environmental protection legislation. We see no good purpose for that—certainly we see no good public purpose for that. Why should that power be retained within the Commonwealth and ultimately within the control of the Commonwealth minister? Ultimately this land, if it is to be used for public purposes as part of the Sydney Harbour National Park and if it is land that is being managed and handed over under the principles of the Federation Trust—recognising heritage, cultural and environmental benefits—why is it that state planning and environmental laws are exempted? I would venture to say that in New South Wales the environmental and planning laws for the protection of culture and heritage are among the best in this country, and certainly they are adequate ultimately for the purposes of protecting this land. But we have a situation here where some of that land could be sold off for private purposes or leased under certain arrangements for periods well in excess of this initial 10-year supposed `transitional' period. In that case, state planning and environmental laws might well not operate even beyond the 10 years or be ineffective.So a whole range of concerns have been identified. There is of course the issue of inadequate parliamentary scrutiny—the extensive level of ministerial discretion. We will certainly be taking the opportunity in the committee stage to examine in detail the provisions relating to that and to move amendments accordingly. As I said at the outset, we in the opposition are vitally interested in ensuring that any legislation going through this parliament that protects the great foreshores of our island continent is world's best practice and that it will carry out that noble task properly.19:50:0015157Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I oppose this legislation as it stands and I will continue to do so unless the amendments coming from the opposition and the Democrats are passed so that this legislation does indeed become a matter of ensuring the long-term protection and viability of this unparalleled opportunity for one of the great cities of the world to have a living, breathing, fantastic natural and historic precinct in its centre. Many prominent people, as well as many ordinary citizens like me, who have had a passing, long-term or life-term association with Sydney want to see that all of the lands involved in this legislation are protected into the future for all future generations of both the citizens of Sydney and the visitors to this great first city of Australia so that they can enjoy this amenity. There are a number of concerns of course with the legislation, not least, as earlier speakers have said, that the environmental legislation of New South Wales can be overwritten in the management of the future of the harbour foreshores and that land can be sold off from this area which should be protected. The word `significant' comes into determining which lands might be sold in the future because, if they do not have what is called `significant heritage' or `natural values', they become vulnerable. One does not have to have a long experience in politics to know how that word can be used to mean anything, and so everything becomes vulnerable.I note also that, of the $96 million allocated to fund this transition to the protection of these great lands, more than 50 per cent goes to the relocation of Defence facilities. After so many years with a clean-up on Cockatoo Island, for example, assessed by some to be requiring of some $80 million, not the $40 million that is listed here, if full decontamination and so on is to be brought about, I would have thought that meant that Defence should be dipping into the funding of the future of these lands rather than taking from them. By the way, the Friends of Cockatoo Island include Robin Copeland, Elizabeth Kirkby, Wendy McCarthy, George McGoogan and Jack Mundey, as well as Tom Uren. That is just some indication of the eminence of people who are concerned about the future of the Sydney Harbour precinct.I want to take from the very words of Tom Uren, who I think is one of the most mag-nificent living beings on the face of the planet, of not just Australian but global citizens, and one who has certainly inspired me, right back to the days of Lake Pedder. He is quite remarkable in that he has gone through a long life of service to Australia, to the people, including a long life of politics and is, at the end of that, such a remarkably wonderful human being. It is as if he was not tainted in the way that so many of us who end up in politics can be. I will not go further than that, except to say that it is an honour for me to be able to read from his submission to the Senate environment legislative committee looking into this matter. He sums up the case against this bill and certainly for its comprehensive amendment in that submission. Tom Uren thanked the committee for hearing him and went on to say: Your Committee's report could be historic. Let me explain my position. I do not believe party politics should play a part. The future of the Defence lands on the shores of Sydney Harbour, if retained in totality, could create one of the greatest urban national parks on our planet.Although my political position is well known, many, including some of your Committee members, may not be aware that I was the Minister responsible for the creation and introduction of the Australian Heritage Commission, which includes the National Register, into the Australian Parliament. These foreshore lands are part of the National Register.On the issue of the Defence lands, I have stood on a platform with Bronwyn Bishop in 1988 to oppose the Hawke Government's sale of land on Georges Heights. I have also shared a platform with Tony Abbott in the early 1990s against certain aspects of the disposal of land at North Head.I have had a love affair with Sydney Harbour and its shores since I was a boy of 13. I commenced employment at that age and travelled daily from our home on the Manly ferry until I was 18. I then joined the Army at 18 and for approximately the next two years served in the Royal Australian Artillery of North Head. The deafness in my left ear is due to recording gun elevation of the Mark VII on Middle Heads. From North Head I saw the great troop ships of World War II—the Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth and Aquitania—sail out through the Heads taking with them the cream of our nationhood to war. So, my friends, the seed of love was sown early in my life for our Harbour and its shores.The visionary who inspired me most was Niel Nielsen, Minister for Lands in the McGowen Government from 1910-11. He was able to acquire, with a land acquisition fund of 150,000 pounds, the park that now carries his name, Strickland House and the Hermitage Reserve. His vision was that progressively we should try to create a green belt around the shores of Sydney Harbour.There are others. A public servant when issuing a land grant around Cremorne Point in 1833, stipulated that 100 feet above the high tide water mark should be retained for public access. Balls Head and Berry's Island were publicly acquired by the Lang Government in 1926. The open space on the Harbour shores around Castlecrag was created by the intelligent and visionary planning of Walter Burley Griffin.In my view the greatest vision for the creation of a Sydney Harbour National Park was the 1979 Agreement of Prime Minister Fraser and Premier Wran when the Commonwealth transferred Dobroyd Point and the North Head shores, including the Quarantine Station, all the Middle Head shores from HMAS Penguin around to Chowder Bay, and the shores and land which are part of South Head to the NSW Government. A part of the Agreement was that when the Commonwealth no longer needed remaining Harbour Defence lands, it would also be transferred to NSW.I am not trying to isolate the Howard Government because the Hawke and Keating Governments also failed to proceed with the 1979 Agreement. The economic drys in Treasury and the Department of Finance together with the Defence bureaucrats, believed the land was theirs and did not belong to the people.Let me now turn to when the present crisis began—October 1996. The Howard Government announced an outcome, as proposed by a Steering Committee that 120 residential sites would be sold to private developers. In fairness to the Howard Government this Committee was set up during the period of the Keating Government. The Committee included two NSW Government public servants, a representative of the National Parks and Wildlife Service and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.I was appalled with the proposal and wrote a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald, published on 5 November 1996 and I include it with my statement. There was an avalanche of protest. Groups around the Harbour which were functioning independently of one another came together and created an organisation, the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores and they asked me to be their Patron. They had an influence on the NSW Government and Premier Carr made an important statement at Woolwich on 19 August 1997 relating to his Government's policy on Harbour shore land where he dealt with public lands owned by the Commonwealth and State Governments. He also dealt with future use of private land developments on the Harbour and the Parramatta River shores. Mr Uren says:I wrote to the Prime Minister, John Howard, on 28 March 1997 seeking an interview which took place on 23 May 1997. I include a copy of a letter handed to the Prime Minister on that occasion. You will note that I concentrated mainly on Middle Head/Georges Heights which is the epicentre of Sydney Harbour. My request was that the Howard Government rehabilitate Middle Head/Georges Heights land and transfer it to the Sydney Harbour National Park. It could be a gift to the nation as a part of the 2001 centenary celebration of our federation.Post World War II the Army have not been sensitive or good tenants of the Middle Head land. They have scarred the landscape with buildings, many of which will have to be removed in its rehabilitation. I recommend to the committee—that is, of course, to the Senate committee before which he was making this state-ment—as I did to the Prime Minister—that if you want to examine the grandeur of this land which is the epicentre of the Harbour, as a group you should visit it. Do not take the Middle Head Road but follow the Taronga Park Road, turn left at Cross Street, park near the Army Drill Hall and walk across to the eastern side of Rawson Park. The panoramic view spreading from Manly in the north, over North Head, through the Heads, South Head, Nielsen Park, Bradley's Head and towards Sydney's CBD, is a breathtaking experience. I am sure it will captivate you as it has me.The Commonwealth Government have a responsibility to rehabilitate Middle Head and Georges Heights. If it is good enough for the Commonwealth and State Governments to make mining companies rehabilitate their land, the Defence Department, ie the Commonwealth, should meet their responsibilities.In May 1997, I left with the Prime Minister photographs of the panoramic views, the early heritage buildings which were constructed with sen-sitivity to the landscape and the post World War II structures that scar the landscape. I leave copies of these photos with the Committee.Mr Uren then went on to say:On 5 September 1998 the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. The Howard Government's Cabinet Decision allocated $96 million from the Federation Fund to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust to be distributed as follows:. $40 million for cleaning up contaminated areas on Cockatoo Island;. $6 million for establishing permanent public access to parts of Garden Island; and. $50 million for assisting Defence relocation costs.The Prime Minister went on to say:... the Trust will finance ... from commercial activities and the redevelopment of parts of the sites.Many were concerned with the proposed Trust, raising the following questions:. Does `commercial activities' mean the sale of some of the Defence lands to private developers?. After decontamination, what is the future of Cockatoo Island?. What is to happen to the Defence lands at Woolwich?. Why should the Army be paid to vacate the sites?. Why create a Trust when the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service already administer the existing National Park areas on Sydney Harbour?. Why 10 years before handing over the Defence lands?These questions were not answered before the 1998 Federal Election.At that time, when Mr Howard announced the formation of the Federal Trust, supporters of the Howard Government, some of whom were also members of the Defenders Committee, argued that no land would be sold and that extra Federal revenue would be supplied in future Federal budgets to carry out rehabilitation work. I questioned their argument, stating that it will take many millions of dollars—some estimate well over $100 million—to rehabilitate the Defence lands. If their contentions were sound, why didn't the Cabinet Decision cover such a proposal. Our fear was, and remains, that a substantial amount of land would be sold off to private developers to pay for any rehabilitation that is carried out.In August 1999 a Draft Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999, an Explanatory Memorandum and a document, `Facts about the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill' were circulated for public comment, requesting that comments be made by the end of September and advising that the Bill would be introduced before Parliament adjourned. It was introduced into the Senate before the Christmas adjournment. On 8 December 1999 it was referred to the Senate Environmental Legislative Committee the same day.The Draft Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 is from many aspects a devious and deceptive document because:. the purpose of the Trust's establishment is not stated;. it does not specify the nomination of the Trust land;. the Trust can sell land;. it exempts the Trust, Trust lands, any sale or leases, or anything undertaken by the Trust from State laws;. there is no proviso to preserve our Sydney Harbour foreshore lands; and. it also gives excessive power to the Minister for the Environment.If I may give an example of why an amendment would be required as a consequence of the Bill being accepted as legislation.During the period of drafting the Australian Heritage Commission Bill 1975 the bureaucrats in the Department of Urban and Regional Development were advocating strong Ministerial control over the Commission. David Yenchen, who was interim Chairperson of the National Estate and played an important role in drafting the Bill, argued that the Commission should not be controlled or directed by the Minister. At the time I had the National Capital Development Commission under my administration with a similar power that Yenchen was advocating. I came down against my Department's bureaucrats and in favour of David Yenchen, who became the first Chairperson of the Commission.I make it quite clear that the overwhelming support among the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores in protection of the Defence lands on Sydney Harbour supported the implementation of the Fraser/Wran 1979 Agreement. Sadly, certain people who are members or supporters of the Liberal Party continue to denigrate the NSW Parks and Wildlife Service. They continue to claim that if the Federal Trust is agreed to by Parliament no land will be sold and Federal revenue grants will be given to the Trust in future budgets.They don't, or will not, acknowledge the Howard Government's 1999/2000 Budget which states that $96 million would be allocated from the Fed-eration Fund. To facilitate the establishment of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, a loan of $770,000 in 1999/2000 and $45,000 in 2000/2001 is to be made available through the Department of the Environment. According to the Budget pa-pers:The loan will be used to provide for the costs associated with the development of legislation, financial plans, community consultation and other operational arrangements. Once the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust has been established it should be able to finance its activities through limited commercial activities including property trading, etc.There is no doubt in my mind, that the majority of the Howard Cabinet want `commercial activities' to pay for the rehabilitation and decontamination of Middle Head, Georges Heights and other Harbour sites with the sale of `surplus' lands.I strongly believe the Bill should be rejected by the Senate. If it is not rejected and amended, do not give the Trust the power to sell land nor the authority to bypass NSW State laws. The Bill should also limit the powers of the Federal Minister over the Trust.I conclude my contribution by requesting that party politics be set aside. We need Prime Minister Howard and Premier Carr to work in a spirit of cooperation in the interests of the Australian people in a visionary way and the 1979 Fraser/Wran Agreement could be a basis for such an arrangement. If the Commonwealth are not happy with how the lands are administered by the State Government they have the ability and the authority to set financial guidelines. My vision for the future is that the NSW Gov-ernment should create a special authority to administer all publicly-owned lands on Sydney Harbour shores and create one of the great urban national parks in the world which would encompass a living heritage, maritime support activities, urban waterfront life and recreational/passive parklands.What a great vision. What a great Austra-lian. What a great lead for us in the Senate to follow. I note that some of Mr Uren's pro-posals were taken up by the overall recommendations of that committee; some were not. But I have spoken to Tom Uren and others on this matter and I am convinced that he is right. His is the sort of vision which will ensure that in the centuries to come Sydney has one of the greatest urban central national parks of any city on the face of this planet. It is a vision I totally endorse. That is why I cannot support this bill.20:09:0015161West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—I rise today to support the opposition's position on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and to oppose what the government is planning to do—and I certainly support the opposition's foreshadowed committee stage amendments. Sydney Harbour is undoubtedly one of the world's most beautiful natural wonders. It stands out in my mind as probably one of the most spectacular harbours you could ever wish to see. It is there with San Francisco and it is there with—and a hell of a lot cleaner than—Hong Kong. It is truly beautiful. On a cool winter's day when there is no fog, no smog, with the sun shining through the blue sky, reflecting off the crystal clear water, there is no more beautiful sight than that foreshore and that harbour. It is said that a thousand of the line could rest at safe anchor there. Last year we saw Alex the whale—I think they called the whale Alex—come into that harbour and spend a fortnight there, providing joy and enlightenment to many people as they saw nature in their midst at its best.It is a very important waterway, especially to the west, and many parts of it are bordered by parkland. Certainly one of the main desires of Neville Wran was to make sure that all of the land on the foreshore of the harbour was accessible to the public. Access to the foreshore was regarded, and still is regarded by many people who live in Sydney and elsewhere, as the right of everybody.But what we have here is the Commonwealth government selling off remaining tracts of its land. Whether it actually needs to put legislation through is debatable because of the agreement that Mr Fraser and Neville Wran reached in 1979. But the government is taking credit for this. When did it start to take credit for it? Prior to the general election of 1998. The federal government had the Federation Fund that it used to pork-barrel its way through the election campaign, and this proposal comes 10 years down the track. When you read the Bills Digest, it becomes quite clear that the government probably does need to put this money from the Federation Fund aside, because there is probably no other way that it can undertake the clean-up that would be required in a number of these areas.An amount of $90 million was allocated to it: $50 million to the Department of Defence to meet costs associated with relocation from sites and to remove surplus buildings, and the remaining $40 million to be allocated to the trust to support the clean-up of contaminated areas on Cockatoo Island—and I think the word `support' is of great importance. The Department of Defence was also to receive an additional $6 million to establish public access to parts of the Garden Island Naval Base.I am of the understanding that there is no legal requirement for the government to clean up Defence land; it can just leave it if it wishes to. But it says, `Support the clean-up of contaminated land.' The government therefore intends, presumably—it has done a survey—to leave the remainder of the clean-up costs to whoever has it. But it is of grave concern to people that this land will now, for 10 years, be exempt from state environ-mental planning and tenancy laws. This is totally contradictory to what the New South Wales legislation is for, in that it incorporates the concept of `polluter pays' in relation to contaminated lands. A lot of work has been done by the New South Wales government to actually overcome contamination, to remove pollution and to reduce pollution—to actually make this area even more beautiful, cleaner and freer of pollution than it is at present. The New South Wales government wants to see more whales visit Sydney Harbour and it wants to see more fish in the Parramatta River. We are also talking about the land around these areas. There is a concern that people leasing the trust land will not be answerable to state laws and that the land will still be considered to be Commonwealth land. There is the high likelihood that they can sell off parts of this land to other people and allow them to build whatever they want to build. There are certainly significant pushes in parts of Sydney in the real estate area to build very prestigious, expensive accommodation running right down to the foreshore. You can see it in other areas. The last thing that these parkland areas need is more high-density or medium-density accommodation going right down to the water's edge.Sydney is pretty close to being full in terms of its population density. It is highly and heavily populated. Parkland areas are needed and need to be maintained to be the lungs of that great city. I have grave concerns that the New South Wales legislation has the capacity to be totally overrun and overruled. The explanatory memorandum states that while much of the land will ultimately be transferred, `some land may be identified in the management planning process as unsuitable for park or community use and sold'. If it is unsuitable for park and community use, who would want to buy it? What big plans does the government have for the land? The outline of the management planning process in the legislation is obviously quite sketchy because the Democrats and the Labor Party feel that it is necessary to move a considerable number of amendments. As I look through the pieces of paper, the fallen trees, that are deposited upon my desk, I see one bundle containing 99 amendments—sheet 1778—to be moved by the opposition and the Democrats in the committee stage. The Democrats have a further two amendments and the opposition have a further two amendments and, after a quick perusal, they look fairly similar as well. The government has obviously found a couple of mistakes to fix because it will be moving 41 amendments. So we are talking about a bill here tonight to which there are currently, circulated in the chamber, close to 145 amendments to be moved in the committee stage of the bill. I can only presume that someone is doing a running sheet for us because we are certainly going to need it. When I look at the amendments, I become very concerned because the amendments are to clarify what the objects of the trust will be, what the functions of the trust will be—and this is the body that is going to look after the land—and what the powers of the trust will be. It is of great concern that it is felt necessary to move amendments to include what one would consider elementary material in a bill that is to set up a trust to look after something. Some of these amendments should have been automatic. If it were good governance, if there were transparency, this would have been done automatically. It would not have required amendments. It is also interesting to note that the sale of the land is solely at the discretion of the minister. The trust will manage the land and make recommendations to the minister, but the minister has the sole responsibility for the sale of it. The New South Wales government has already brought in new bodies to regulate Sydney Harbour foreshore land. The establishment of yet another entity in the form of this trust seems contradictory to the positive steps taken by the New South Wales government to provide greater coordination and planning for the Sydney Harbour foreshore in New South Wales. But we now have another entity which is on its own. There are some other very interesting things in the bill. The trust may borrow money from the Commonwealth or private sources using trust land as collateral. This may result in the trust land being exposed to possible court action to recover any default by the trust. The bill does not specify what land is covered—what is up for grabs—or is it a case of `you name it and we will ensure you do not have to deal with nasty state planning laws'? One is very suspicious about this. This all started pre the 1998 federal election. From my understanding, all of the land is in Liberal Party held seats. So one could become a bit suspicious if one were into conspiracy theories. The ministerial directions are to be published in the trust's annual report, which will result in considerable delay in the directions being publicly known. This may cause problems due to a large amount of public interest in the issues. Am I being suspicious and paranoid here in saying that the government does not really want the general public to know? That is very much what it looks like to me, and it is of grave concern. I recommend that government members read the Bills Digest because it outlines many areas of concern in relation to this bill. I certainly recommend that people look at page 10 and the concluding comments, which state: One of the Trusts more challenging tasks will be to reconcile possible perceptions of competition between `preserving the amenity' and `maximising public access' objectives on the one hand and establishing a `sustainable financial base' on the other. As indicated, the Government has said that, in relation to Woolwich and Cockatoo Island, `the ultimate ownership of these sites will be determined on the basis of the best outcome in maintaining these sites as community assets'. It is interesting to note that, in relation to the power to dispose of trust land, the explanatory memorandum contains the rather cryptic comment that [w]hile much of the land will [ultimately] be transferred to NSW, some land may be identified in the management planning process as unsuitable for park and community use, and sold. It should be noted that the sale of Trust land can only occur with the approval of the Minister. Approval could only be granted if a sale was in accordance with the relevant Management Plan—which in turn must accord with the objects of the Trust—although it may be technically possible for the Minister to approve the sale of land prior to the development of a Management Plan.It goes on to say:The Bill also provides that the Trust may borrow money from either the Commonwealth or other sources and, in doing so, it may put Trust land up for collateral. Presumably this is to provide the Trust with greater flexibility in managing its financial affairs. This has a precedent in section 50 of the Federal Airports Corporations Act 1986. However, it is unclear how this provision will operate in practice as presumably Trust land would only be attractive as collateral to a private sector financier if the land could be built upon or otherwise redeveloped to provide a commercial return. Given this, it may be questionable whether a loan contract that exposed Trust land to a possible court action to recover any default by the Trust would be consistent with the objectives of the Trust.This is pretty damning sort of stuff. It is not me saying this; it is the Bills Digest saying this. I have a great deal of respect for the people who write this. It is also important to look at the operation of the trust. It says on page 12 of the Bills Digest:The Minister may give written directions to the Trust instructing it [to] perform its functions and exercise its powers in a certain manner. The Trust is obliged to follow any such direction provided they do not conflict with the objects of the Act. Any direction must be published in the Trust's Annual Report. The provision for the relevant Minister to give directions to a statutory authority is relatively common in Commonwealth legislation. Depending on the legislation, the public recording of such directions can be through tabling in the Parliament, publishing in the Gazette or inclusion in the authority's annual report. Obviously in the last case, there may be considerable delay in the directions being publicly known, unless the Minister or relevant authority also chooses to publicise them in [a] more informal manner, such as through a press release. No explanation is given in the Explanatory Memorandum or the second reading speech as to why the Government has chosen the annual report option given the likely level of public interest in the operation of the Trust. It really strikes me that, when it has three options in the way it can do this, the government chooses to go the way that leads to the least public scrutiny, or certainly the least public scrutiny at an immediate time. There can be public scrutiny after the fact, but that is too late—that would be after the land was sold, after the event, and there would be nothing that anybody could do. If you were to carefully time the sale of the land and the publication of the annual report, you could be looking at almost 18 months before this became public. This is not good governance; this is not transparency. I am critical of whoever is responsible for this.The other area that I have grave concerns about—and we are moving a number of amendments in regard to this—relates to a conflict of interest of trust members' provisions, and they are not clearly defined. There is a need to include in the legislation, as well as the objects of the trust, the functions and the powers of the trust and the terms of office and conditions of appointment. There is also a need for the legislation to clearly spell out that meetings will be public; that notices of meetings, the conduct of meetings, the minutes of meetings and other documents will be made public; and that pecuniary interests will be disclosed. I would have thought that any government worth its salt would not have put legislation up that requires amendments as elementary as these types of things. These are the nuts and bolts of it all. As I said before, this is about good governance, transparency and doing the right thing. It is not just seeing that the right thing is done; it is the perception as well.I am appalled that this government has introduced legislation that requires amendments to tighten up on the disclosure of pecuniary interests and on making public the conduct of meetings and the minutes of meetings and other documents. To me, this just seems like sloppy work. There is also the need to spell out more clearly, of course, the transfer of assets and the repeal of this act. There is a very great need in this legis-lation for an amendment that makes sure that New South Wales laws will apply, particularly the en-vir-onment and planning laws of that state. If you do not do that, you run the risk of loading up the state in the future with considerable financial penalties and also possibly leaving open that particularly beautiful sec-tion of this country to things that should not be done.There is also concern about membership of the trust. It is heavily weighted towards Commonwealth government representation. There is no requirement for local government or community representation on the trust. The minimum we would support would be two positions nominated by the Commonwealth, two by the state, one by local government and one by the community. These are the sorts of elementary things that this government has failed to actually undertake. It has failed to make sure that the legislation it has introduced for this particularly beautiful piece of land and wonderful harbour is correct and clear. It is not appropriate. This government's legislation is sloppy and slack. It lacks transparency and it does not indicate good governance.20:28:0015165Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Democrats in relation to this important piece of legislation, the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. I would like to begin by giving particular thanks for the substantial and ongoing input by many people from the community surrounding the relevant areas that this bill relates to—such people as the Defenders of Sydney Harbour Foreshores and their member groups; and others such as the local councils from the area, from Mosman, Hunters Hill and Manly. They should be thanked for their representations on behalf of the community in ensuring that public access to former defence lands is maximised and that these lands remain, as far as is possible, in public ownership for future generations. It has been a good example of people who share a common interest, a passion and love for this area and the particular lands that the bill relates to, making an attempt to work together to ensure a positive outcome not just for themselves but for future generations and to ensure that the values of these lands are maintained, preserved and, hopefully, enhanced. The Democrats do not support the sale of public land around the Sydney Harbour foreshores. It should be remediated and returned to the people, wherever possible. One only has to look at the totally inadequate provision of open space in the Pyrmont former industrial area to realise what a precious resource public open space around Sydney Harbour is becoming. It has been estimated that, since the redevelopment of the Pyrmont area for residential uses, there will be something like just 1.2 square metres of public open space for every resident, when the conversion to residential is complete. We have had a number of speeches in this debate from senators representing the state of New South Wales. Not unreasonably, they have a special interest in speaking in considering this issue. As a senator from Queensland, I would probably make a few comments in relation to that. Firstly, it is quite fair and appropriate to note and to recognise that Sydney Harbour—whilst it is obviously part of New South Wales; and, indeed, the lands in this particular debate here tonight cover some specific local council areas—is a national asset, something that in many ways is one of a small number of landmarks of natural features that represent Australia to the world. All of us have a responsibility to try to ensure that that national landmark and national asset is maintained and protected in whatever way possible.There are lots of aspects of Sydney Harbour—which is, of course, a large area—that have been mismanaged over the years. Certainly, many of those have been the respon-sibility not of the federal government but of the state government: alienation of harbour foreshore lands; as I have stated, a lot of closing off of lands from access to the pub-lic; and obviously a substantial loss of bushland and other natural and environmental features. There has been a lot of change, not surprisingly, in this area in the 212 years since British settlement occurred in the place. That makes it all the more important that some of those features that we can still retain, in the environmental sense, are not lost; and also that some of those heritage features that have been put in place since that time are not lost as well. There are some amazing heritage assets and values in the Sydney Harbour area and the particular lands that we are talking about. Many of them, even people in Sydney itself would not be aware of; but we really need to make sure that they are not lost.Another perspective I would give, as a person from outside of New South Wales, is that as a senator for Queensland I often speak with strong pride of some of the fabulous assets that Queensland has: the Great Barrier Reef, Moreton Island, Moreton Bay, Fraser Island—there is quite a large list; a much larger list than you could get for New South Wales, actually—which makes it all the more important that one of those particular assets of New South Wales that is of value and particular significance, Sydney Harbour, is protected. I know that during the Senate committee hearings when we had some hearings in Sydney, taking representations from councils and others interested in this issue, we took a visit—briefer than I would have liked—around the areas in question. Some members of the committee—and Senator Eggleston, who, as members will know, is from Western Australia—accompanied us on that visit around Sydney Harbour and some of the sites. I think I recall Senator Eggleston trying to suggest that the Swan River was equal in magnificence to Sydney Harbour. I am not sure that I would go along with that. Despite being a parochial Queenslander, I do not think I would say that the Brisbane River quite matches up, either. I would say that Sydney does not necessarily have a hell of a lot going for it in many aspects, but the harbour is one thing that it does have going for it. Whether you are from New South Wales or not, it is crucial that we do make sure that the values of the harbour remain and that the foreshores and the former Defence Force lands in question under this bill are protected, preserved and enhanced for future generations. One of the areas of significance that I certainly was not particularly aware of is Cockatoo Island. The Friends of Cockatoo Island appeared before the committee and put in submissions, and they have been referred to by other speakers in this debate. During the course of the inquiry, some of the incredible heritage features of Cockatoo Island were pointed out to the committee. It is worth emphasising, or noting with disappointment, the lack of resources put in by the Department of Defence as the former tenants of that area, in preserving, protecting and maintaining that island—particularly its heritage values, but not only that. It is an area that does have immense potential for all Australians—and, indeed, for people around the world—in terms of some amazing heritage aspects in that particular area that we really need to make sure are preserved. It is at a crunch point with that particular area: we are at a situation where it is far from guaranteed that some of the many assets of that particular island will be preserved if we do not do it properly. In fact, there have already been competitions for future uses of sites for areas such as Cockatoo Island.The Democrats have their own views about how best that may be used as part of a working harbour with a range of end uses. It is an area that provides lots of opportunity for highlighting and showcasing the heritage values of that particular island and of the harbour more broadly. But it also presents a lot of difficulties in terms of being able to do that adequately. It is something that will not be able to be done cheaply and it is certainly not something that one could guarantee would be able to be done in a self-funding way. Indeed, it is very hard to see how it could be done in a self-funding way. I should at this stage pay tribute to the former New South Wales Democrat MLC Liz Kirby, who was a patron of the Friends of Cockatoo Island for many years and highlighted through the state parliament the importance of trying to preserve the heritage values of that particular area.20:35:0015166Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—Whilst the Democrats and Labor have been able to agree on many of the community groups' concerns in amendments to the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000], I have not actually counted them up, but I take Senator West at her word that there are 99 that we have moved jointly and will deal with in the committee stage. We do have a difference on the make-up of the membership of the trust and how it should be con-stituted. We will be moving our preferred model in the committee stage of the debate.I think it is worth emphasising some of the core aspects of what causes concern about this particular bill to many people, including those that I have mentioned—the local councils and others who have worked to protect and preserve the foreshores and the former Defence Force lands. Certainly I think no- one has objection to—indeed, everyone welcomes—the stated objective of the federal government to preserve these lands, to manage them and to transfer them back to the ownership of the New South Wales state government with the aim of future generations being able to enjoy them and ensuring that they are not degraded and that some of the benefits they bring to the Sydney Har-bour area are not lost. That is an aim that I think everybody shares. What we need to ensure as a parliament at the federal level is that the model that is put forward to try to achieve that goal is as strong and as capable as possible of delivering that outcome. The legislation as it presents itself at the moment certainly falls far short of the mark in that regard. Indeed, the committee examination of, and report into, this particular legislation identified a number of problems that needed rectification, and the government members of that committee themselves highlighted a number of areas that needed modification. The government has circulated some amendments which address some of those areas. I do not think they go all the way to addressing even the concerns expressed by the government members of the committee. They certainly do not go far enough to addressing the long held and quite clear, open and well-known concerns of local councils and communities about this issue. There are fundamental issues like the proper identification of the sites that the Sydney Harbour Trust will manage, a particularly important issue in selling off the land. As some senators would know, there is an area within the lands in question which contains Defence Force housing; it is basically just a suburban street. Obviously it may be able to be used to generate money for the trust, whether it is released or rented or whatever. That is not a foreshore area. It is not harbour-front housing. It is back away from the harbour itself, but it is part of the lands that will be managed by the trust. To leave open ended the ability of the trust to choose for itself how the lands will be used to derive income is a very dangerous approach, particularly when the federal government will not guarantee a specific amount of funding to assist the trust in managing these lands over the course of the period un-til they are transferred back to state ownership. It is fine for the federal government to say, `Oh well, we'll provide funds if necessary.' But to not actually specify how much funding will be available unavoidably leaves the trust in a situation where it has an incredible imperative to try to raise as much money as possible, a commercial imperative to derive funds to the maximum amount, to ensure it has got the money to adequately manage the lands. As previous speakers have pointed out, deriving funds and ensuring that the land is managed to preserve its heritage and natural values should not be in conflict; there should be no doubt about which has primacy. The absolute primacy and the fundamental, incontrovertible aim and purpose of this trust must be to preserve the heritage and natural values of these lands to maximise public access for future generations. Raising money must come second to that. There is no doubt that some parts of these areas could be used to raise money and, indeed, should be used to raise money: if people use docking facilities in Cockatoo Island in the future, why not charge them to do so? But to leave it open for the trust to have to raise the maximum amount of money inevitably puts it in a po-sition where it will have incredible pressure on it to compromise what should be its primary goal of preserving the heritage and natural values of these lands—preserving them for public access by future generations. That is something that should not be allowed. That loophole, that gap, should not be maintained in this particular piece of legislation.There is the issue of the application of New South Wales law which this bill seeks to exempt the trust from. All the communities and councils have been very strong in calling for state planning laws to apply. There are issues in terms of the amount of control exercised by the minister over the trust. There are issues in terms of inadequate mechanisms for ensuring community input. I am sure the government could say the mechanisms are there to enable community input, but there is a difference between having a mechanism that enables community input if the trust happens to operate in that way and having a mechanism in place which ensures community input, which ensures community awareness, knowledge and consultation about what is planned, what is proposed, what is being considered. There are issues in terms of the overall management plan for these areas: who decides, how it is decided and how much control there is over the final outcome. Those are all things that the government has not adequately addressed in the bill and, in the time I have had to look at them, are not adequately addressed in the government amendments either. It is worth mentioning that, ironically, at the same time as describing this as a national asset that all of us in the national parliament have a responsibility to ensure is protected, preserved and maintained, in many ways it will be local government—not the state government or the federal government but local government—that will be closest to these areas and that will be working at a grassroots level to ensure they are properly maintained and protected. They are the ones at the coalface, and I think their views on this issue need to be taken very strongly into account. I would draw a differentiation between the approach and the representations of local government in New South Wales and that of the state government. While I have criticised the federal government for not guaranteeing up-front funds, about adequately managing this trust, let us remember that this trust is being established with an aim, with a purpose of transferring these lands back to the New South Wales government, to New South Wales public ownership; yet the New South Wales government has also not guaranteed any extra funding. When it gets these extra lands, these particularly precious and im-portant lands, back it has not guaranteed any extra funds to manage them—and this is a state which is already, in my view, underfunding its national park areas. It does not have enough funds to adequately manage its existing national parks, and we are going to put these extra areas into its ownership with no guarantee from the New South Wales state government that it is going to provide extra funds for these areas, which have very special and particular heritage and natural values that need special management. In expressing concerns about the federal government I do not want to suggest that the New South Wales government is taking a better approach to this.The state government has not cooperated with the operation of the interim trust, and I think that is a pity. We have a situation now where in many ways the future of these areas has become a bit of a political football where both federal and state leaders are wanting to get the kudos of protecting what are un-doubtedly very special areas. I am sure any person would like to be able to put their personal seal of approval on them and say, `I was responsible for saving this,' or, `I was responsible for delivering this to future generations.' Whilst that is an understandable human feeling, this is an area where we really need to try to cut through all of that state-federal garbage and just try to ensure we get an outcome that delivers for the whole community. I do not think that the community really cares, as long as we get an outcome that delivers these areas back to the people and preserves them and protects them for future generations.In that sense, it is worth re-emphasising the constructive role that local government has tried to play with this. They have not just said, `We are not cooperating. Get lost. We do not support you. Just give us the lands back. We know what to do.' They have tried to engage with the federal government. They have put forward constructive amendments, constructive suggestions, about how they believe we can best guarantee the protection of these areas. That is what we are about with this bill. We are trying to guarantee as far as is humanly possible the protection and the preservation of these important areas, the natural and the heritage values. In my view, they have tried to move outside of that state versus federal tug of war that unfortunately stained so many things in the political history of this country, and they have tried to put forward constructive amendments. I think the government have gone a little way towards trying to meet them, but I think they have got a long way to go. Certainly the Democrats' position is strongly influenced by the views of those councils and those communities that are closest to these areas. The detail of the amendments will obviously be debated and discussed in the committee stage of this debate, so I will not go into them in any detail now. But to re-emphasise what this bill should be about: it should be about ensuring the trust is established in a way that leaves no loopholes for misuse of these areas, no loopholes in terms of leaving a risk of these areas being misused, mismanaged or degraded in terms of not having enough funds being made available to ensure they are appropriately handled as part of the process of handing the areas back to the state government. As part of that it is worth re-emphasising when they are handed back to state government, at whatever time in the future, it is crucial that we have a state government in New South Wales—because this is a national asset—that commits enough funds and enough of a legislative framework to protect these areas as well, not just for the people of New South Wales but for all of Australia.20:49:0015169Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6Western AustraliaLP10—As chairman of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, which conducted the hearings into this matter, I would like to just make a few remarks before Senator Hill draws the threads together and closes this debate. As Senator Bartlett said, the Brisbane River is not quite as outstandingly beautiful as Sydney Harbour. While that may be the case, I am not sure that I would agree that the Swan River in Perth does not match it. Although, one has to say that the great thing about Perth and the Swan River is that we have Kings Park, which overlooks the Swan River and provides public open space which will be there for all time so that the people of Perth can enjoy the beauty of the river from the heights of Mount Eliza.Kings Park was created in the 1890s by the then state Premier John Forrest, who with incredible vision saw that preserving 1,000 acres in the centre of the city would be of great value to the people of Perth as time went on. Essentially, what the federal government is seeking to do with this Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] is to create in Sydney something like Kings Park. There is a lot of bushland around Sydney Harbour, which comes as something of a surprise to people like me who come from the other side of Australia and assume that all of the harbour land around Sydney Harbour has been built out. Instead, one finds there is quite a lot of open bushland there.It turns out, of course, that a lot of that land on the harbour has been owned by the defence forces, and what the federal government is proposing to do under this bill is transfer in due course the Defence Force land back to the New South Wales government for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. That will create a great asset for the people of Sydney: to have this great national park around the shores of the harbour, which will be there to be used by the public for all time to come. During his speech Senator Brown quoted at length from the submission Mr Tom Uren made, and he referred to the Fraser-Wran agreement of 1979, which he said would not be honoured. But that really is not the case. As the report produced by the committee and tabled in the Senate said:The intention is that the Trust should complete its task within ten years—which was one of the requirements of the Fraser-Wran agreement—After that time, the Commonwealth intends to transfer suitable lands to the New South Wales government for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. So the Wran-Fraser agreement will be honoured—perhaps not in total detail but certainly in spirit—and a great national park will be created around the harbour.Senator West also referred to the fact that there was need for community consultation, for the people of Sydney and local governments in the area to be consulted, which is a point that Senator Bartlett made as well. But, as the report also states, there is already a strong spirit of cooperation between the local municipal councils, resident and community groups, and the interim Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. Mayor Harvey from the Mosman Council said:We do need the Trust. That is why Mosman Council has made this submission suggesting just how it can be accomplished with this present bill ... So, in other words, there is already consultation with the community and local government. There is a fairly friendly spirit about the way it is all being done.One of the most interesting submissions made to the committee was made by Ms Bergin of the Headland Preservation Group. She referred to the Presidio Park in San Francisco, which is former defence force land which has been turned into a park that will be self-funding in 10 to 15 years. The federal government here in Australia wants this new park to fund its own development through perhaps the sale or lease of land and other commercial activities. That is not an unreasonable thing. The committee found through its inspections that not all of the land involved has unique and beautiful harbour views. As Senator Bartlett said, a lot of the land is really just suburban housing land which has no unique or special features. There is no reason why that land should not be sold off and the funding used to develop the park.My broad view in conclusion is that the federal government's intentions in setting up this trust are excellent. In creating the Sydney Harbour Trust in association with the Sydney Harbour National Park the people of Sydney will have a wonderful asset which will guarantee public access to harbourside land for a very long time to come. I am sure that future generations will be very grateful for the foresight of the federal government in proposing that this trust be set up, just as the people of Western Australia are grateful to Sir John Forrest for his great foresight in setting up Kings Park overlooking the Swan River in Perth.20:56:0015170Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank honourable senators who have participated in the debate on the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000]. I thank Senator Eggleston and the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee for their work on the inquiry into this bill. I thank those who made submissions to that inquiry. A significant number of dedicated community groups participated in the inquiry and put their points of view, which are points that I respect. In some instances we might differ on detail, but I commend their commitment to this wonderful asset that we are wanting to conserve and present to the people of Sydney and Australia. Participation in the democratic process in this way is very important. We as a government are proud of what we are doing in this regard. We have identified a number of pieces of critically important land that have both natural and historic values around Sydney Harbour, land that has been held for defence purposes in the past but will no longer be needed for that purpose. We are setting up this trust to rehabilitate that land and to ensure that it is then transferred to be kept for the people of Australia in perpetuity. We are doing this through the establishment of the trust itself, a group that will be committed to the preparation of management plans and identifying the most important aspects in terms of values of the properties and that will take into account community views through site-specific community plans. The trust will then manage the task of rehabilitation of the properties—and in some instances that will be quite a complex task—so that within a period of 10 years, which is the stated period of the legislation, these properties will be in a condition suitable for transfer to the parties who will maintain the ultimate responsibility for their conservation. We have specified that in relation to three of the properties—North Head, Georges Heights and Middle Head—the objective is to transfer the properties to be part of the New South Wales parks system. We have not specified an ultimate repository in the case of Cockatoo Island and Woolwich where it is a little more complicated, but we have said that the commitment would be for conservation objectives in perpetuity. It may well be that those properties are suitable to be part of the New South Wales parks system, but that is something that can be determined over the next 10 years.We are not necessarily limiting ourselves to the five initial properties that were specified at the time of the announcement of setting up the trusts. Since then we have nominated two further properties that we intend to transfer to the trust for similar objectives. One is the Old Lighthouse in The Point on the southern side of the harbour, and the other is Snapper Island, within the harbour on the Parramatta River, as I recall. Senator Eggleston will be interested to know that we have got our eye on some other properties as well. This is a wonderful opportunity thanks in particular to Defence but, in the case of the lighthouse, to other government authorities that have been able to maintain the properties in a state in which, with some work, they can be transferred as assets suitable for preservation for the public good.There have been few areas of controversy on issues of substance in this project but lots of debate about detail. Of the issues of substance, the most significant one is that we have left open in this bill—and we make no secret of it—the possibility of transferring off some land that may not be of significant environmental value. Most observers—not all—realise that some such land is attached to these properties. As far as this government is concerned, if that can be turned into capital that can be reinvested in the projects, that might be the best usage of those particular pieces of property that are unnecessary to retain for their conservation values. It helps pay for the project and ensure that conservation is properly funded for the future. That has been the area of major dispute. Secondary has been the issue of whether the New South Wales government should have a planning control over the Commonwealth's project. We, of course, say it should not. The New South Wales government, unfortunately, have not been prepared to cooperate in this project, which is somewhat amazing, seeing as they are going to be the repository in the end of land that is being rehabilitated. I guess that for at least short-term political reasons they have not been prepared to cooperate. We have held two seats open to them on the interim trust. They have been unwilling to nominate personnel to hold those seats. In those circumstances to cede a planning control and really a veto to New South Wales is, in our view, unwise. We nevertheless want to cooperate with the government of New South Wales. That is why we have offered them the seats on the interim trust, and this legislation provides for seats on the ultimate trust. We want to cooperate with the local councils and community groups because we see this as a unique opportunity to rehabilitate, to transfer and to properly conserve and present some very special assets that we are lucky enough to be custodians of and therefore have a responsibility to conserve. This bill is about setting up a framework for this work to enable these properties to be transferred from existing government instrumentalities to the trust. With that framework, the trust will be able to get on with the job as set out in the objects of the legislation. In the meantime, as I have hinted at, an interim trust has been established. It is operating very successfully, a small staff is in place, it is taking advice from some of the best architects in the country and work has commenced towards the preparation of the management plans, picking up work that had previously been done by the Department of Defence and other Commonwealth agencies. So time has not been lost. We have been getting on with the job while this legislation has been drafted, and we have been going through the parliamentary process. We have funded the interim trust to meet its responsibility and, in this last budget, have indicated that funding of $6 million will be available to the trust over the course of the next two years for it to meet its responsibilities. I thank honourable senators for their participation in the debate; I look forward to the passage of the bill and the trust getting on with the job of meeting this most important responsibility on behalf of all the Australian people.Question resolved in the affirmative.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—Madam Acting Deputy President, would you record my opposition to that motion?10000Crowley, Rosemary (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Crowley)—Yes, Senator.Bill read a second time. 15172The bill.21:09:0015172Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—Also on behalf of Senator Bartlett, I move amendment No. 1:1) Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 2, insert:2A Purpose of the ActThe purpose of this Act is to estab-lish the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust, for a period not exceeding 10 years, to: (a) remediate, rehabilitate and conserve for present and future generations public land in Sydney Harbour, owned or occupied by the Commonwealth, or Commonwealth bodies, of considerable natural, heritage, historic, indigenous or cultural significance; (b) transfer the right, title and interest in that land to New South Wales, for inclusion in Sydney Harbour National Park or retention by New South Wales in public ownership, for the benefit of the people of Australia; (c) transfer that land as a gift to the nation, and fund the establishment and work of the Trust, in celebration of the centenary of Federation.The government might argue that their preamble seeks to do the same sort of thing, but there are significant holes in it. It goes some way to addressing some of the concerns, but, for instance, it does not recognise the considerable and significant natural heritage, historic, indigenous or cultural aspects of the land we are talking about. The government's preamble is a bit like a skeleton—without any real flesh on it. It is very much in line with preambles that emanate from this government. They do not really reflect much of the soul of this nation or what legislation like this should really be all about. We find the government's alternative inadequate.The government's amendment indicates that the trust will transfer the suitable land, but we do not have a 10-year period in this particular preamble, nor do we have any recognition of some of the antecedent state-Commonwealth activities that have led us to the situation we are in now. Broadly, I suppose, we have a concern that the government's amendments do not address the long-held concerns of the community and of councils and all the other matters, including the proper identification of the sites. There is obviously concern that there be no sales to the private sector. We will get to the government's proposal in that respect later on. There is concern that there is an application of New South Wales law. We have a concern that financial matters, including the trusts, are being commercially driven. There is a gap as to who is responsible for the costs of the interim trust. Of course, with a minister like Senator Hill, insecure as he is in his position, there has to be concern when he tries to claim for himself excessive control. We know full well that, when this minister seeks to control or determine something, it is basically Senator Minchin who makes the decisions. We are actually thinking of hyphenating the name of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill, to call him Senator Minchin-Hill or Senator Hill-Minchin. That might be more appropriate in the circumstances. I think you get the point of what we are getting at. We want a greater sense of security as to the achievement of the objectives of the legislation, and we do not get that sense of security by allowing for the discretion of a minister who basically can exercise it at whim or, more importantly, at the whim of someone else. We do not think there are sufficient references in the objects clause, as I said earlier, to some of the important considerations of the property at hand, and we do not have appropriate clauses dealing with planning and the like.Not only are these matters not dealt with properly or adequately but in some respects some of the government's amendments go further than the original bill. This comes back to the purpose of the act and the preamble—and there will be an opportunity for the government to move their alternative at a later stage. For instance, the government's amendments give the trust the power to sell land to the private sector where such land does not have significant environment and heritage value. However, where the land does have such value, it can be transferred to the Commonwealth, to a relevant council or to a non-government conservation organisation. So you have a situation where, through the amendments, none of the land may in fact finish up in the Sydney Harbour Na-tional Park. That has to be of concern to us today.I think we have one of those pieces of legislation here that is used as a trip mechanism to avoid the actual object of the legislation. In this respect one has to be concerned that through the mechanism of the legislation you end up with a situation where none of the land may finish up in the Sydney Harbour National Park. I have a concern that a lot of the amendments are superficial and do not address some of the legitimate concerns of the community and councils. One concern I have to put on the table right now is that we got these amendments on Friday. I do not know when communities and councils, the stakeholders, got copies of these amendments and I do not know whether in fact the New South Wales government received copies of them. However, I do know that these amendments have not been around long enough for there to have been an exhaustive assessment of them. So in a sense the Senate has been asked to run blind with a set of amendments and we have to use this particular committee process to assess them fully and adequately.As I said, there are gaps. For instance, there is no schedule detailing the lands to be included in the trust, and we will get on to that point at some latter stage. As I mentioned earlier, the amendment that I have moved specifies a period not exceeding 10 years, but under the government's amendments there is no time limit set for the operation of the trust. As I said, there are trip mechanisms that prevent the land being put into the trust and that allow the land to be transferred to the Commonwealth or to a relevant council. When you look at the preamble that the government is proposing as an alternative to our `purpose of the act' provision you can see where a lot of the inadequacy creeps into the government's proposal. The preamble talks about returning to the people of Australia `suitable land with significant environmental and heritage values'. It talks about transferring suitable land to New South Wales or to appropriate non-government conservation organisations. The commitment was that it go to trust for an interim period to be transferred to New South Wales, but what we have in the government's second-rate preamble is basically a couple of paragraphs full of escape clauses. I do not know why the government seems to be constitutionally incapable of meeting the commitment made by the Prime Minister before the 1998 election. It was a commitment made to the people of Sydney and, as I said earlier, this has implications for the broader community—for the people of Australia. As such, there has to be some concern that the government cannot acknowledge, even in the preamble to the legislation, where this land should finish up in terms of the commitment made by the Prime Minister.I would like to ask the minister what he is actually talking about in terms of `non-government conservation organisations'—which organisations? Have any organisations already entered into an arrangement and, if so, which ones? Which organisations does the minister anticipate entering into an agreement? What is an `appropriate' non-government conservation organisation? This legislation was written up in a style similar to a ministerial question time brief for one of Senator Hill's speeches. It puts in the soft words and in doing so conceals what in fact may be behind the minister's motivation and intention. On behalf of Senator Bartlett and the opposition, I have moved amendment (1) and having done so I indicate that we find the government's alternative, which will come up later on, totally inadequate.21:19:0015174Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I will briefly respond to Senator Bolkus. I think Senator Bolkus has reiterated what I have already said to be some of the areas of significant difference. One of those areas is the statement of the government that it will transfer three of these properties at the end of 10 years, or earlier if they are rehabilitated before then, to the New South Wales state national park system. However, the Prime Minister did not state the ultimate repository of the other properties. We have said that we want them to be held in perpetuity for the people of Australia, but we think there is still a debate to be had as to whether the New South Wales government is the appropriate body to undertake that. In relation to Woolwich, for example, as I understand it, there has been some debate within the community and within community groups with a particular commitment to that site as to whether it might not be better if it were held by local government. We do not see a reason to close off on that matter at this stage. We have given the commitment that it is to be held in the public interest for the long term and we do not think it is therefore wise to eliminate options other than the New South Wales government.Of course in clause (1) that Senator Bolkus referred to in his amendment the right to transfer is limited to the New South Wales government. A cynic would wonder, if Labor were not in power in New South Wales, whether the language of the amendment would have come out in quite the same terms. Be that as it may, as I have said, we think the purpose as stated in Senator Bolkus's amendment is unduly restrictive in that regard. There is much in his statement of purpose with which we agree and which is stated in our alternative, which is identified as the preamble. But we prefer our language for the reason that I have just outlined and also, more particularly, for the reason that we think our language better encompasses what is intended. Both sides of the parliament have listened to the community groups on this particular issue. They have sought a statement of purpose or a preamble and the language of both does, as I have said, have some similarity. But in terms of some of the distinctions we think ours is better because Labor's is unduly restrictive. 21:22:0015175Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—As the Democrats are cosponsors of these amendments, we not surprisingly support them and think they are very good amendments. It is worth re-emphasising a couple of aspects of them. As I said in my second reading debate speech, the issue of transferring title to the New South Wales state government has unfortunately become a little bit of a tug of war between state and federal, as happens with so many issues. On the reasonable assumption that the Demo-crats are not likely to be in federal government or state government in that period, we can be a little bit more removed from it. Indeed, putting in place this 10-year time frame, in the year 2010—when Premier Chikarovski holds an unassailable grip on power in New South Wales—it may well be of great comfort to the coalition that this is being transferred to the New South Wales state government.I do not think this issue should be viewed in the state versus federal framework. I can understand—in terms of the future use of the Woolwich area, for example—that it may well be one that local councils should have a particular role in managing, and it would fit in well with some of the other areas that it adjoins that are already managed by the local council there, the council for Hunters Hill. It is worth emphasising that the amendments the Democrats and the ALP have put together have been designed in close consultation with that council, amongst the other particularly affected councils, the Mosman and Manly councils. It is also important to remove the idea of the party political aspect of this. Those areas of the North Shore of Sydney are not exactly Labor Party heartland. I do not think it is helpful to put it into a context of party political advantage.Those councils have worked together, and they have particularly strongly suggested the need to have a time frame put in place. The time frame of 10 years is not contained in the government amendments. That is an upper limit, as the Minister for the Environment and Heritage has acknowledged. If rehabilitation has occurred and other actions have been taken adequately before that time, the land can be transferred. But we do need to put in place a time frame to ensure that, if nothing else, this state versus federal tug of war aspect cannot be continued in perpetuity. There will be a limit, and the transfer will need to be done in that period. That is a particularly important aspect of the Democrat-Labor amendments, as well as the stronger protection of ensuring that the title and the interest in the land is not moved across to private interests. That is clearly a strong concern of all those who have been fighting for the preservation of these areas and following this with interest for many years. It is another aspect of why the amendment Senator Bolkus has moved, in conjunction with me, should be supported to strengthen the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] and to ensure that it will go part of the way to making sure the trust operates in a way which maximises the chances for preserving this area.21:26:0015175Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—The Australian Greens oppose the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 1999 [2000] because it is so far short of the mark of doing justice to the potential for a great Sydney Harbour National Park. Not least, it does—as Senator Bolkus has pointed out—leave quite great powers in the hands of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. One only has to look at the wording in the government purpose of the bill to see the potential dangers to the whole concept of the national park. For example, as Senator Bolkus says, it includes the return of suitable land with significant environmental values as a gift to the nation. I have been in the Senate for four years now, and I can remember this minister talking about the protection of forests with significant environmental values. Under his direction, I have seen in states from New South Wales to Western Australia—and, in particular, Tasmania—a phenomenal destruction. He has handed across, under the authority of the Prime Minister, no less, forests of phenomenal values, way beyond significant environmental values. I have seen pristine, wild forests, amongst the grandest in the Southern Hemisphere—indeed, in the world—full of wildlife being bulldozed, chainsawed, burnt and poisoned every day of the week because this minister determined that they were not significant as far as he was concerned. Yet he holds unto himself very big powers under this legislation to direct the trust to dispose of sites, for example, amongst those that are listed in this legislation. I would be going against my conscience if I were to turn my back on the performance of this minister and allow him to do any such thing—or on this Prime Minister and give him control of any such thing. I agree with those lobbyists in Sydney who have a very long record of true environmental concern and who have led the world right from the period of the green bans through to now when they say that the bill must include a clause that the lands—and they mean all of them—will be handed over to the New South Wales government for inclusion in a Sydney Harbour National Park, that the trust must not be permitted to sell any of the sites or any parts of them and that the trust must, to a large degree, be independent of the minister and the government.These are concerned professional and very experienced citizens of Sydney with a particular working knowledge of the components of the proposed Sydney Harbour National Park—and I agree with them. The preamble which the opposition and the Democrats have brought forward is much more satisfactory. I note that it does fall short of saying that everything should be national park, which is the position that the Greens would want to see. But it is certainly a great improvement on what the government has to offer and, therefore, I will support it.I might say that, if I am to change my opinion about this piece of legislation, I would want to see all of the amendments by the opposition and the Democrats passed. As the bill stands unamended or even with the government amendments, it is so far short of the mark and the vision of those people in Sydney that it needs to be taken back to the drawing board and started again. It would be unconscionable to support it. So I support the preamble that has now been brought forward. I reject the purpose and the fuzz words in the purpose of the act, as outlined by the minister on behalf of the government. I will be speaking on others of these amendments as we move down the line.21:31:0015176Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I think there are 101 amendments from the Australian Democrats and the ALP and I am expecting them all to be passed, with or without Senator Brown's support. So, whilst his words are always welcome in this place, in terms of the outcome of this legislation Senator Brown's vote is totally irrelevant.Senator Brown's contribution made no sense. He suggests some ill intent on the part of the government in transferring this land to a trust with specific responsibilities to rehabilitate it and transfer it for long-term conservation. Yet, if the government had ill intent, it need not transfer the land to the trust at all; it could deal with this land in any way it so wishes. I would have thought that, to most objective observers, the mere fact that the government is transferring it to a trust and doing so through a legislative process would amply demonstrate the government's good faith in this particular instance. It is not its intention to deride the fact that there are disputes on detail, and the Senate committee process is the mechanism through which those disputes are to be resolved. But I would have thought that the government's purpose in this, in terms of its objectives, would be beyond any objective argument. I therefore interpret Senator Brown's piece of theatre as just that: to again pander to a remnant constituency that is left after most genuine conservationists have moved on to the task of genuinely looking to improve Australia's environmental outlook through constructive and positive works—whether they be in rehabilitating and conserving vitally important land such as this on Sydney Harbour, or in on-reserve or off-reserve works across Australia in rehabilitation in removing weeds and ferals and all the inhibiting factors to our passing on our natural assets to future generations in the condition that we would wish.To come in here and offer a few gratuitous slaps against the government might please Senator Brown; he might think that it does him good with what remains of a small constituency. But it really does not constructively advance this debate at all.21:34:0015177Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—I rise to ask the minister a few questions and respond to something he has just said. Minister, I think people are just generally getting sick of your mantra about invoking this role of those who rehabilitate and those who conserve. We all know that they do a good job. But one thing you cannot do, and one thing it has not been possible to do, is take the politics out of the issue of the environment. But your going back to this continual mantra of standing behind those who might be digging holes or digging ditches or whatever but having no time for those who might have been leading the debate for generations and who continue to do so and continue to raise awareness and continue to raise issues in a broader sense is not going to serve the environment in a way that it should be served.You are letting down your constituency and you are letting down the environment by dismissing as ineffectual and irrelevant those who actually do take that leadership issue. Those who dig the holes will not know where to dig them or what to do with them, unless there are broader policies. Alternatively, we get a situation like we have had under your Natural Heritage Trust where they might do so, but the outcomes that we could be buying with the money that we are spending are not being achieved because of this government's piecemeal ad hoc approach to funding and to programs.Your own reports, your own surveys and your own reviews have told you that you are not being as effective as you should be. Why are you not being as effective as you should be? Because you have tried to take politics out of the environment. What you have tried to do—and quite cleverly—is neuter the environmental movement so that it does not have a strong voice to take you to task for the sorts of things that you are pushing. And this is one of them. This is one of those issues where you say, `Well, if there was no intention, then we wouldn't transfer it to a trust.' Minister, the people that you are working with here do not trust you to trans-fer it to a trust in the way that you want to transfer it. They do not trust you because they have the words of the Prime Minister in 1998, before the election, where he says that the trust:... will have 10 years to complete the task and after that time the Commonwealth will transfer North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park. They are some of the properties. But the minister has come in here today with an amendment that says that they may be included in the national park and reserve system or they may go to an appropriate non-government conservation organisation. This is the first time you have raised the concept of something other than the national park as the repository for this particular land. That is why they do not trust you, because at the last minute you come in with an amendment which to them looks tricky and probably is. We do not know which non-government organisations you will deem to be appropriate. We know which ones you will not; you will not deem to be appropriate those sorts of organisations or individuals who are courageous enough to stand up to you and argue about issues of the environment. You will consign them to the political waste bin as you should not. But what do you mean by `appropriate non-government conservation organisations'? Why have you invoked them and put them into legislation now when the Prime Minister quite clearly said something different before the election? And of course we know that things change after an election with this Prime Minister. Why have you tried to now move the final destination of these properties from the Sydney Harbour National Park?As I said, we do not assign to you a positive intention because we can see the changing of the words at this particular part of the debate. Minister, I do not trust state governments of whatever nature. I could say to you that, if Kerry Chikarovski were Premier today—and I will not say tomorrow because she may not even be opposition leader tomorrow—I would have the same degree of scepticism about her government as I would about any other state government in this country at the moment. So often during the native title debate your side of politics and your colleague Senator Minchin—and we know you do not always agree with him—said that land management issues are the province of the states. How often did we get that thrown at us? What the Prime Minister said before the 1998 election was essentially that there is a regime there, there is a Sydney Harbour National Park and, for the good management of this land, this land should go into that park after 10 years. We are now finding the escape clauses, and that is why you are not trusted, Minister.21:39:0015178Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I agree with what Senator Bolkus has just said: when the minister starts talking about appropriate non-government organisations, one begins to wonder whether he is talking about the Forest Protection Society or some new so-called ecotourism venture. This is the minister who currently intends to allow a major tourist resort to be built at Planter Beach in Tasmania in breach of the world heritage management plan. So if that is going to happen to a world heritage listed property—and the Senate will remember that he changed the management plan to remove the ultimate protection from the Middle Franklin; that is, he insisted that the road be kept open there for a small number of commercial interests, against the management plan—what is he going to do with Sydney Harbour?The minister might say, `I'm out on my own when it comes to environmental matters,' but he is a repeat offender in breaching such things as world heritage management plans which have been drawn up by very sober environmental experts after a huge amount of community consultation. It did not matter to him. Along comes the sectional interest with money in their pockets and he changes the management plan. He is, as I said, a repeat offender, and he will certainly do it as far as Sydney Harbour is concerned. The minister says that there is no ill intent in this matter, and I would agree with that. I think the Prime Minister's concept—and it has huge public support—is that these lands, as a celebration of the centenary of Federation, should become part of a Sydney Harbour National Park. But isn't he involved here in wanting to sell off some of these lands? Where is the line going to be drawn? How big are the commercial interests that will come into play on this? Why does he want a majority on the trust appointed by him? What are the exact limits of the powers of that trust under his direction? These are things that are concerning not just me but the people who have lobbied me and all other members, including the minister, about this matter. As I said earlier, they are very distinguished members of the Sydney community and very distinguished environmentalists. The amendments here have their support and therefore they have my support. NaN:00:0015179Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—I have a question to ask the minister. I refer him to the Prime Minister's speech on 5 September 1998 before the election, where he said about the trust:It will have 10 years to complete the task and after that time the Commonwealth will transfer North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights for inclusion in the Sydney Harbour National Park.Where in the legislation does that actually take place?21:43:0015179Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—Perhaps in response to earlier contributions, I will reaffirm my recognition of the community groups in this instance who have done an excellent job in active conservation of these properties. They are committed to their maintenance and preservation and committed to ensuring the long-term preservation of these wonderful assets. The New South Wales national park is not specifically stated in the legislation but has been reiterated by me more than once already tonight. That is the government's intention. There is no reason for it to be specifically stated in the legislation. As Senator Bolkus said, the Prime Minister announced that intention before the election. I have said it in the intervening period and I repeat it again tonight: in relation to the three properties he mentioned, the intention is that they be transferred to the New South Wales national park system.21:44:0015179Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Well, if the intention is there, why not say it? That is the rule, isn't it, with legislation? You legislate to effect what you mean to effect. If the intention is there on the three properties that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage spoke about, it should be spelt out. If I heard correctly, Senator Bolkus listed five properties. The question immediately arises: what about the other two? XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—And the three. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—And the other three—that is right. This legislation should be very specific about all these properties, as if you were establishing a national park, giving the exact parameters of those properties—that is, the geographical parameters. The very fact that that is not the case gives one cause to be concerned. I just wanted to go back to an earlier point. The minister said that it is irrelevant what my vote is in here. I might add to that that it is not irrelevant what I say in here, though, and the minister knows that. That is why he has responded. He ought to do a count. He will find that my vote is quite relevant on this matter, unless the Independent or the One Nation senators are onside—and I would expect that they would both be onside with the people of Sydney on this—in which case, yes, these amendments will all go through anyway. But until we hear that—both honourable gentlemen have not shown their hand yet—I feel that it is very important that the minister take note of what we all have to say. 21:46:0015179Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—In noting the minister's statement that these undertakings do not need to be in the bill because the government has given a commitment to the Senate and it has been stated a number of times and the Prime Minister said so and things like that, I think it is worth making the point that, as the minister would be all too aware—and I am sure much to his own disappointment as well—government commitments, even to the Senate as a whole, do not necessarily pan out in reality, and ongoing apparent reflections of those commitments in public consultation processes and statements on departmental web sites, et cetera, over a number of months show that. I think it reflects on the integrity of this government, and I would not resile from that. But even if the minister wants to take issue with that, there is always a possibility that some other party may come into government in the future and it may not feel bound by statements or commitments given by this particular government and may have no obligation to follow through with them. Given that we are talking about legislation that is setting up a trust to operate for 10 years—or the aim of this amendment is for 10 years; if the government had its way that would not be locked into the legislation either—we cannot sit back and say, `The government said so, so we do not have to worry.' This is partly because of the demonstration that this government has given through decisions of cabinet just last week and partly because future governments obviously do not necessarily need to feel bound by pronouncements, however noble and hand on heart they may have been at the time. There is no guarantee, there is no surety, that the undertakings will be adhered to by a future government. As we know, there is no guarantee that they will be adhered to by this government either. I think that reinforces why we need to ensure that they are clearly spelt out and put into force in legislation.21:48:0015180Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—Is the minister aware of a document put out by the Liberal Party before the last election as a policy statement, titled `Environment: Protecting the Sydney Harbour foreshore'?21:49:0015180Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—This sounds like question time. If Senator Bolkus might give me the chance to briefly peruse the document, I could give a more confident answer.21:49:0015180Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—It is a document authorised by Mr L. Crosby, Liberal Party of Australia, corner of Blackall and Macquarie Streets, Barton, ACT, 2600. It is entitled `Protecting the Sydney Harbour foreshore'. The relevant part I wanted to draw to the attention of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is a paragraph on page 3 of the document, which states:A Coalition government will seek to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the New South Wales government to confirm management arrangements for the sites and conditions of transferral of North Head, Middle Head and Georges Heights to New South Wales at the end of the ten year life of the Sydney Harbour Federation Trust. Progress reported. 10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 p.m., I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.Adjournment151801518021:50:0015180O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—There was a story that popped up on the AAP wire service last Friday in the afternoon entitled `We're doing a great job: PM'. Mr Howard, commenting on economic data showing the Australian economy continued to grow in the March quarter, claimed the figures indicated `the country is being well-managed economically'. There are hundreds of thousands of families living in rural and regional Australia that would not agree. It is becoming increasingly difficult for them to identify the benefits of an annual growth in Australia's gross domestic product of four per cent, if it was indeed ever possible. There are certainly 13,500 dairy farming families throughout the country who are aggressively of the opposite view—that the GDP numbers are not providing them with any benefit. All they are seeing is a declining milk cheque. These families are certainly not enjoying Mr Howard's economic sunshine and, without immediate and effective action on the part of the federal government, their lot may deteriorate further. This government continues to tell us and the farmers that deregulation of the dairy industry has nothing to do with it. Mr Anderson repeated that line again at the National Party convention in Tweed Heads. Mr Anderson and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Truss, say that the deregulation of the dairy industry is really a matter for the states and for the industry itself. While the regulation of farm gate milk prices for market milk is a matter for individual states, the reality is that the market is already deregulating itself. Mr Anderson also made that point yesterday. He told National Party delegates that the Victorian industry had enjoyed unbelievable productivity growth and expansion and now accounts for 64 per cent of national production. He inferred that that was the source of the problem. We all encourage industries to improve their productivity and grow their exports. So it is a bit tough to then link Victorian farmers with the wider industry problems, as Mr Anderson did in Tweed Heads.Mr Anderson then went on to say that Victorian farmers and successive state governments had made it plain that they planned to deregulate. He said that section 92 of the Australian Constitution ensures that trade between states cannot be restricted. So, in the light of this market reality, it is also a bit rich to blame the state governments of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia for deregulating the dairy industry. That, frankly, is little more than desperate politics on the part of the federal National Party.The real issue now is who should be responsible for managing the adjustment package to help dairy farmers cope with this further change in their industry. The dairy industry is worth around $7 billion a year. It employs around 50,000 people, mainly in regional and rural Australia. It exports $2 billion worth of product annually. It has delivered massive gains in productivity, with production increasing by 50 per cent over the last decade and with only a marginal increase in the size of the national herd. Its future, however, is very much a matter for Canberra, and so is the management of the regional adjustment that will inevitably flow from the end of market milk quotas. Mr Anderson claimed over the weekend that the federal government has moved to put in place `the biggest restructuring package ever seen in this country'. That claim is misleading.Firstly, it was the industry and not the federal government that came up with the package. The federal government, after all, only endorsed it, finally and reluctantly. Secondly, the government should have been working with the dairy industry to get this package in place at least two years earlier, but it did not. Given the position of the Victorian industry in the national marketplace, it has been clear for some time that a nationally coordinated approach to dealing with this change would be required. This was acknowledged by the former minister, Mr Vaile, at the March 1999 ARMCANZ meeting in Adelaide. He also acknowledged, along with his state colleagues, that the time available to address major issues was critical—remember, that was in March 1999. The Commonwealth's role in the dairy adjustment arrangement was spelt out in the report from the 16th meeting of ARMCANZ in August last year. On page 29, the report states:Issues for the Commonwealth in considering the ADIC proposal include the need to ensure the dairy package facilitates adjustment towards increased international competitiveness while alleviating potential for industry dislocation through addressing the adverse impacts of deregulation at an individual and regional level.It further states:An agreed national response will be an essential element in any package of measures that might be facilitated by the Commonwealth.So, as at August last year, the Howard government accepted that it was responsible for ensuring that adjustment in the dairy industry is properly facilitated. I repeat: the Howard government accepted that responsibility in August last year. And it was the Howard government's role to alleviate the potential for industry dislocation by addressing the adverse impacts of deregulation at both an individual level and a regional level, and it accepted the job of facilitating the whole package. I note that Senator Woodley, who is genuinely committed to advancing the interests of people in the bush, has released a pamphlet which encourages farmers to the view that re-regulation of the Australian dairy industry is an option available to government. He is wrong. Senator Woodley and I spoke to hundreds of dairy farmers right across Australia as part of the Senate's inquiry into this industry last year. And we both reached the same conclusions—as did other senators on that committee. The breakdown of state based milk marketing structures was not only inevitable but in fact already happening.This point was made in an article by Cathy Bolt in the Australian Financial Review in November last year. The article was headed `Milk deregulation—it is already here'. It referred to a one-third drop in the regulated price paid to Tasmanian farmers for milk used in flavoured milks by processors because of the availability of cheaper milk from South Australia. It also pointed to market pressures forcing a cut of 0.3c a litre in the farm gate price of milk in New South Wales. The article also highlighted the fact that Woolworths had put out a tender for the supply of milk to all its New South Wales stores. That tender was won by National Foods. And the article also referred to the fact that Coles had linked up with the Dairy Farmers Group. Cathy Bolt in the article concluded that, given all of these manoeuvrings, deregulation on 1 July was largely academic. The Senate committee, including Senator Woodley, came to the same conclusion.The Australian dairy industry is a model industry. It has achieved everything that has been asked of it by governments, and more. It has dramatically improved its productivity, increasing milk production by 50 per cent over the past decade, with only a marginal increase in the size of the national herd, as I said earlier. It has dramatically increased exports over the last decade, and the export market is where its future lies, given that the domestic liquid milk market is now less than 20 per cent of the total market and is declining. The domestic milk market is expected to grow at a rate of only one or two per cent. As I said earlier, despite Mr Anderson's claim that the government put the adjustment package in place, it was in fact the industry that developed a package, and it was the industry and the Labor Party that forced the government to meet its responsibilities by establishing a satisfactory process through which farmers will receive the financial help they will need. It was the Labor Party in the states that forced the Howard government to look to assist regions that will be adversely affected by the deregulation of the industry. Now is not the time for the federal government to step back from its responsibilities to 13,500 dairy farmers and their families. It is not time for the Deputy Prime Minister to step back from his responsibilities to those dairy regions that will be adversely affected by the changes to the industry that are now under way. It is very much a matter for Mr Anderson and Mr Truss to ensure that Australian dairy farmers get the financial assistance they need and that dairy regions get the financial support they need to enable them to manage what will be a difficult but inevitable process.1518222:00:0015182Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VictoriaAD00—I rise tonight to speak about the Western RFA in Victoria and new research which should establish beyond doubt the relationship between clear-fell logging in Victoria's Otway Ranges and water supplies in the western Victoria region. Current hydrology studies have named the practice of clear-fell logging as detrimental to water yield, but it seems that even more research is needed in order to convince the parties to the Western Regional Forest Agreement that they actually have to make a choice between water and woodchips. I speak, of course, of the Victorian state government, specifically its environment minister Cheryl Garbutt, and of the federal government and its forestry minister, Wilson Tuckey. The regional forest agreement covering western Victoria was signed in April this year, and a week ago that agreement was tabled in the Senate. On the face of it, it was a compromise—as agreements often are—but I have to say that it was a cheerless compromise for the vast majority of people affected by clear-fell logging of a very special island of forest south-west of Melbourne. Groups such as the Otway Ranges Environment Network and the Geelong Community Forum participated in discussions leading up to the signing of this RFA, knowing that the consultation process was flawed but that it would be signed with or without their involvement. I applaud the work of these groups tonight. They have presented consistently powerful and worthy conservation arguments. Their submissions have been very strong on science and logic—an approach that the federal government would do well to note in its setting of regional forest agreements.As a result of their urging, this coalition of environment groups has persuaded the Victorian governments to conduct hydrology research in the Otways. This research will be a welcome follow-on from the study done by Melbourne Water, which found that, in mountain ash forest, clear-fell logging effectively reduces water yield by about half and that it takes 80 years for these forests to recover. It also follows on from hydrology research axed by the Kennett government—before it could be used to criticise the logging regime set up there. From these studies we can already see that more woodchips means less water, and that is not good news for the citizens of towns and cities like Geelong, who have faced ongoing water restrictions for some 3½ years now. This new study promised by the Bracks government will be a welcome addition of scientific evidence to the logging debate—provided, of course, that the state and federal governments do not ignore it.The Otway Ranges Environment Network has now released the terms of reference, which set out a plan for the next stage of hydrology research that is needed. The OREN document recommends that logging within domestic catchment areas should be suspended while the hydrology research is being conducted. I would argue very strongly that suspension of logging until the completion of the research would have a great deal of public support. In fact, surveys that I have done in the area show figures of 85 per cent and thereabouts of people who believe that clear-fell logging does affect water quality and who would prefer that the Otways be spared this kind of logging. The main goal of the research is to determine the relationship between water run-off yields and the age of the forest, with a view to determining the impacts that clear-fell logging has on domestic water supplies. It will look at water quality and water quantity and will examine all water catchments in the area. It will be managed by an independent steering committee.The advantage of this study over its predecessors is that it will examine a variety of forest types and compositions. The main forest types include mountain ash, ash mixed species, and mountain and foothill forest. For each domestic water supply catchment, the research will compare the differences in water yield as a result of logging already executed in the area. It will also forecast the differences in water yield, dependent on whether the government continues to log or not. Water quality is, I would argue, a factor that Australians all care very much about. It has always seemed to me a great puzzle that federal and state governments rarely put any sort of emphasis on water quality when it comes to logging our native forests. The research, as I said, will be conducted in the Otways, and it will examine the impact that logging operations have on water quality, particularly after high rainfall events. There is precious little data of that sort available at present. The Otway Forest Management Plan acknowledges that high rainfall events after logging operations will cause soil erosion and water degradation. Past research in the Otways has failed to take into account the impact that logging operations have on soil erosion and water quality after high rainfall events; so this is very much needed. The concern that logging roads increase environmental hazards will also be investigated. The Otways are naturally prone to landslides. After heavy rainfall, the incidence of landslides along logging roads is very high indeed. One particular landslip made the Barham River run muddy for very many months and caused a lot of community concern in Apollo Bay.There are 21 water catchments in the Otways, affecting the regions of Geelong, Warrnambool, Lorne, Apollo Bay, Aireys Inlet and Colac, so it makes a great deal of sense for us to really know what is going on in the forests. It will be an efficient research project and a worthwhile expenditure of public money. It will use existing data wherever possible and employ powerful and time saving computer software. An analysis of the existing data will include catchment forest characteristics, water yield data from established reservoirs and weirs and weather and temperature data. The guidance of an independent steering committee is, I think, essential to ensure the success of the research. In its state policy the ALP said:An independent committee comprising representatives of relevant government departments, community interests, industry and unions will oversee the study.I sincerely look forward to the ALP keeping this pre-election promise. Many Victorian people were disappointed by the ALP in that state after they were led to believe the ALP would stop logging in the Otways but saw a continuation of old logging levels and logging coupes in very environmentally sensitive areas.This is a much needed hydrological study which, I would argue, should have been done before the Commonwealth and the Victorian state government signed off on the RFA agreement that was tabled in the Senate a week or so ago. Before I conclude I want to make the point that it is important that this does not turn out to be a 10- or a 20-year study. It needs to be completed in one year at the most and, until it is complete, there should be a moratorium on clear-fell logging in catchment areas. I understand that enough information can be gathered on what logging is doing to the catchments within 12 months. I very much fear that delays, procrastination and changes of government are often used to kill valuable initiatives such as this.My office was also informed last week that logging will recommence in the contentious coupe of Rileys Ridge, despite assurances from the Victorian government in April this year when it signed the western region RFA that it would not log that area, this year at least. I would argue that this is a highly provocative step and raises concerns for the biodiversity of that area. Rileys Ridge is a wildlife corridor for the endangered tiger quoll and connects two rare communities of this marsupial. I visited Rileys Ridge in February this year to see again for myself the impact of logging on the environment. I relay this news of the Bracks government's backflip and campaign of antipathy towards forest supporters in the Otway Ranges to the Senate with some disappointment. Under the RFA, Rileys Ridge is in a special management zone. The Flora and Fauna Act acknowledges the need to protect wildlife corridors and acknowledges logging as a threat to them. One of the great flaws of the RFA process is its failure to protect important habitat areas. For this reason the RFA agreement presented a week or so ago in the Senate is hardly worth the paper it is written on. (Time expired)1518522:10:0015185Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—I want to speak tonight about a report that the Australian Trucking Association released last week. The report, by independent analysts Tasman Asia Pacific, questioned the analysis by the Bureau of Transport Economics of the cost savings that would flow as a result of the introduction of the GST and other measures associated with that. The Australian Trucking Association is a successful and honourable group of companies in Australia, and I rise tonight because the Executive Director of the Australian Trucking Association, Mr Andrew Higginson, has been subjected to a variety of threats from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission head, Professor Fels, in which a number of warnings are given to truckers in relation to hire charges. I happen to have a copy of the Tasman Asia Pacific report. It is titled Ups and downs in trucking costs: quantifying the impact of tax reform and market price movement and it was released in June this year.The association decided to analyse a number of positions that had been adopted by the Bureau of Transport Economics in advising—I am assuming the government—what might be seen to be the direct cost benefits of reducing freight costs as a result of the introduction of the GST in July this year. One of the first things that this analysis questioned is the fact that they do not believe that the full tax credit for the GST paid on new trucks will be available for several years, which is obvious because, as anybody who has an understanding of road transport would know, most vehicles are not replaced and are kept for a period of up to seven years. So there will not be any direct reduction in costs immediately; there may be over the longer term, but there certainly will not be immediately. The second thing is that no allowance has been made by the Bureau of Transport Economics for the fact that trucking business must charge a 10 per cent GST on their costs and that these costs will need to be passed on to consumers.One of the things on which BTE did make an assumption was that there would be an expected reduction in costs of about 16 per cent whereas, analysis of the ATA report in the Sydney Morning Herald of 15 June suggests that, with the reduction in diesel and other accompanying GST situations, the cost of the journey between Melbourne and Sydney would rise by 9.2 per cent. Most of that is based on the situation that over the last 12 months—and it continues—diesel has risen 28 per cent. So I very much doubt that the inflation strategy adopted by the government, and undoubtedly to a degree based on information supplied to them by the Bureau of Transport Economics, will be successful because, as is obvious from these reports and a simple analysis, freight costs represent from 27 to 32 per cent of the cost of an item or good.So if these expected reductions in freight rates do not occur—if they in fact increase—then the opportunity that the government has been seeking to reduce the cost of an item or good will not be there. That is even more articulated because of the fact that in the BTE analysis there was no consideration of the nature of the journey, the cost structure of individual businesses or the pending impact—on a number of smaller operators in particular—of the termination of the accelerated depreciation allowances that came in last year.So there is a whole jumble of things that are about to occur in this industry where the government is hoping there will be significant cost reductions, as I say, in the goods or services. But they will not be there because, as I say, there has been a lot of hoo-ha about this and people I have spoken to in the industry believe that this is their opportunity to recover their costs. They have not been able to recover their costs over the last 12 months because of the competitive nature of it. They have been putting this to the government and, of course, as people will do, they will go on and commission an analysis and, I suppose, analyse the analysis that has been put forward to them. I am very much concerned that this industry will be singled out by the government—and, particularly, Professor Fels—because of the fact that they are prepared to question some of the cost models that the government has adopted as part of the government strategy. You might recall—and I am sure Senator Heffernan would recall this—his actions before the next last federal election, when he went and raided some ATA thingo out in Queanbeyan or Yass and disrupted a Labor Party situation. These people are not necessarily Labor supporters, but I think they need to be supported, because one of the things that I see may occur as a result of this pressure that Fels and Co. may be wishing to put on this industry is that in the end the only thing to suffer will be safety, because the companies will not be able to draw any more blood out of what they already are trying to operate on the moment.Madam President, as you may be aware, right at the moment in terms of the diesel fuel grant excise we have the definition of what the boundaries are but still we have got no definition of what a `journey' is. As you may well recall, vehicles that are over 20 tonne have automatic access to the excise, but vehicles between 4½ and 20 tonne do not. I asked the minister—and I have asked on a number of occasions—and the public servants if we could get the definition of a `journey', so that this could be cleared up. At this stage I do not think that that has been cleared up at all. We will have a situation where there are vehicles under 20 tonne operating in metropolitan areas then moving out of a metropolitan area. We are not sure at what stage they become eligible for the grant and what sort of paperwork there will be. In particular, items such as food and electrical goods, which are generally carted by small vehicles, will not be subject to any rebate at all, so one cannot expect that their freight costs will go down as a result of the introduction of the GST that comes in on 1 July.Another aspect of the analysis is the fact that there is no allowance made for the fact that as a result some time later this year—I am not sure of the date—for articulated vehicles the costs will go up significantly for registration, somewhere between $1,200 to $1,500. From my understanding of reading this report by Tasman Asia Pacific—and I may be wrong—that is not taken into account by the Bureau of Transport Economics. So there is a number of areas that have not been considered when people are trying to articulate a view that there will be these significant freight cost reductions. I do not believe that they will be there.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—If that were true, that's a state cost. Registration is a state cost.84PHutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS—No, it is not. That was some years ago. Before they were state costs. They have been handed over to the National Road Transport Commission for some time. Those costs are there, as I have said, from talking to people in the industry. This report here says that they believe it may rise by nine per cent; other people more conservative in the industry believe that the cost for carting goods will not go down on 1 July but that in fact over the next 12 months it will rise by four per cent.1518622:20:0015186Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—I just rise this evening for a few moments to join my colleagues in the other place in their condolence motion for Greg Wilton. Firstly, I would like to offer my deepest sympathy to Greg's family—his wife and children and the family he grew up in. I was quite taken aback to read some of the media accounts of Greg Wilton. They did not describe the man I knew. I had over the last four years or so a number of opportunities to catch up with Greg, and I enjoyed many warm and friendly conversations with him. Around this place warm and friendly conversations are something of an exception, but that was the man I knew. I learned too of some of the things—which he was very pleased to tell me about—that he was doing by way of his electoral responsibilities in his seat. In particular, I remember—and I be-lieve this has been reported—his interest in talking with children in schools and providing bikes for raffles in many of the schools, his commitment to safety, and so on. I remember also joining him on the campaign trail some four years ago in the lead-up to the 1996 election. I just want to make a few comments. I do not wish to take long tonight. I have in the course of my medical experience spent some time with people in psychiatric institutions and with people not in psychiatric institu-tions but who have had psychiatric illnesses. I worked as a young medical graduate for some months in a psychiatric ward. What I learnt from some of those patients who talked to me was that I cannot really know—and I think most of us cannot really know—what is the state of the mind, the soul or the heart of those people at such times when they confront some black despair in their lives that seems overwhelming for them. I have certainly had people try to explain to me—I cannot get the message—and have heard them say, `I can't tell you what it is, but I would do anything to have it stop.' One man once told me that, if the bars were not on the windows, he would have flung himself straight out just to try to finish the hideous, terrible feeling inside of him.That is not by way of offering any explanation of what might have been the last moments of Greg Wilton's life; it is merely for us to know that we do not know. And if we do not know, it is more that we offer sympathy and support than sit in judgment. I think Greg's death is a great sadness and a great loss. I join with others in that message of sympathy.1518722:23:0015187Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4South AustraliaALP00—I want to make a few brief remarks about the death of our colleague Greg Wilton. I did not know Greg Wilton well, but I did know him through being in the Labor Party together in this place and meeting with him on many occasions—at caucus meetings, in the parliamentary dining room and generally around the corridors. I, like everybody, I suspect, was shocked to hear of his mental illness, the incident that took place a few weeks ago and then, of course, his death last week when he took his own life.In the House of Representatives today—in, I suspect, what might well be one of the longest condolence motions for any person—members from both sides spoke eloquently about Greg, his contribution to the parlia-ment and his commitment to his electorate, his friends and his family. I can only endorse those remarks. I believe that, in the years ahead, as his children grow older, they will be able to refer to those many speeches in the House of Representatives and find that their father was a man of high calibre, a genuine Australian and a person who had many friends and had the respect of many on both sides parliament. That is something which in their present anguish they would not find relevant, but in the years ahead I am sure it will be a comfort to them, as it should be.The episode of the demise of Greg Wilton and his suicide is a sad one. Earlier today I asked the Parliamentary Library whether they had any information on other members of parliament in our 100 years of history who have committed suicide. They could find only one other example—Senator Elliott, who committed suicide in 1931. Senator Elliott was a member of the then Nationalist Party. He was a war hero who fought at The Neck at Gallipoli and fought at the Somme. He was mentioned in dispatches on many occasions and rose to be a commander of a brigade, if not a division. Certainly his military exploits were absolutely meritorious. Yet, despite having such a meritorious career, the demons that the First World War let loose meant that for some reason in 1931 he took his own life. WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator Lightfoot—Adam Lindsay Gordon also committed suicide. He was in the Victorian parliament.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Yes. I can go only on the basis of what information is available for federal members of parliament. Therefore, it may well be that Mr Wilton is the first member of the Labor Party who, while being a member of this parliament, has taken his own life. For the parliament, particularly for the Labor Party, it is unbelievably sad that, in our 100th year, one of our members, for reasons which we can only speculate about, has felt the need to take his own life. The impact on all of us in the Labor Party has been profound. You can see that for many members of the Liberal Party who knew him it was just as profound.The only other aspect I want to mention is the press coverage that occurred in the lead-up to his death. When the first incident occurred three or four weeks ago there was massive press coverage of that incident with his children in the national park down near Geelong. No charges were laid up until the time of his death, but clearly there was a problem with Greg and his relationship with his family—his marriage had just broken up. In the two or three weeks leading up to his death, in Melbourne apparently there were a number of stories in the press—I did not see them all—giving more details about his demise and about his state of health. In particular there was speculation about whether he would lose his preselection in the Labor Party. Last Tuesday there was a story in the Herald Sun. I have to say that I do not think the newspaper in any way covered itself in glory in the way it ran a story promoting the fact that Greg Wilton was politically dead and suggesting it was only a matter of sorting out who would be his successor and he would be disendorsed. There were various names mentioned and speculation about whom his successor in that seat would be. It was bad enough that the newspaper ran those stories; I think it was in poor taste, to say the least. Those stories would certainly not be encouraging to Greg Wilton to make a recovery from the mental depression he was clearly suffering. There is another aspect that has to be acknowledged, and some of my colleagues in the other House mentioned it today: in that story of a week ago, unnamed figures and sources in the Labor Party openly speculated that Greg would clearly be succeeded by someone else in the preselection for his seat. I find it disappointing and have to express disappointment that, despite the fact that everybody knew that Greg had an illness, some members of my party—unnamed—clearly gave the newspaper an excuse to run a story about the speculation. I only hope, for the sake of those who made that speculation and gave the Herald Sun an opportunity to run that story, that it was not a contributing factor in Greg taking his life within a matter of 24 hours.We in politics like to think we are pretty tough and rugged. We play it rough and we play it tough in our own party over such issues as preselection and getting the numbers. But I think this went beyond the bounds of what was reasonable, in that we all knew that Greg Wilton had a mental illness and we all knew that the best way for him to recover was to be left alone to seek appropriate treatment and to work the matter out himself without it being given unnecessary publicity. That, unfortunately, did not occur. Tomorrow most of us will go to his funeral in Melbourne—I have to say to celebrate an effective life that was cut short and also to show his children in particular and the rest of his family that we valued Greg Wilton as a colleague and as someone who made a good contribution to Australia. 22:31:0015189Senate adjourned at 10.31 p.m.Documents1518915189The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 110.A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Transition) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 111.A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 112.A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 113.Air Navigation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 Nos 95 and 96.Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 9 of 2000.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Amendment No. 37.Approval of Amendment No. 37.Australian National University Act—Statute No. 262.Banking Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 Nos 114 and 115.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part—105, dated 15 [4], 19 [8], 23 [3], 25 [2], 26, 30 [5] and 31 [33] May 2000; and 1 [2], 2 [23], 6, 7 and 9 [2] June 2000.106, dated 31 May 2000; and 2 [3] and 9 June 2000.Instruments Nos CASA 226/00, CASA 231/00 and CASA 232/00.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph 45(1)(c)—Membership of Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 97.Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 Nos 99 and 100.Dairy Produce Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 98.Defence Act—Determination under section 58B—Defence Determinations 2000/15-2000/18.Electronic Transactions Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 101.Excise Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 116.Federal Magistrates Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 102.Higher Education Funding Act—Determination under section 15—Determination No. T23 of 1999.Income Tax Assessment Act 1936—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 117.Insurance Act—Lloyd's Security Trust Fund Determination No. 1.Lloyd's Security Trust Fund Rules No. 1.Revocation of Lloyd's Security Trust Fund Determination and Rules of 1998.Insurance Contracts Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 118.International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 94.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 108.National Health Act—Determination under Schedule 1—PIB6/2000 and PIB7/2000.Health Benefits Reinsurance (Records of Organisations) Amendment Determination 2000 (No. 1).Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 106. Private Health Insurance Incentives Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 107.Social Security (International Agreements) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 Nos 104 and 105.Superannuation Act 1976—Declaration—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 120.Superannuation (CSS) Deferred Transfer Value Payment (Australia Post Superannuation Scheme) Determination No. 1.Superannuation (CSS) Deferred Transfer Value Payment (AvSuper) Determination No. 1.Superannuation (CSS) Return of Surplus (Australia Post Superannuation Scheme) Determination No. 1.Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 119.Taxation Administration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 109.Telstra Corporation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 103.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 196B—Instruments Nos 13 and 14 of 2000.Proclamations15190A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following provisions of an Act to come into operation on the date specified:Customs Legislation Amendment (Criminal Sanctions and Other Measures) Act 2000—Items of Schedules 1, 2 and 3—26 May 2000 (Gazette No. S 269, 26 May 2000).A proclamation by His Excellency the Governor-General was tabled, notifying that he had proclaimed the following Act to cease to have effect on the date specified:Ballast Water Research and Development Funding Levy Collection Act 1998—30 June 2000 (Gazette No. GN 22, 7 June 2000). Answers to Questions on Notice15191The following answers to questions were circulated:15191(Question No. 1799)179915191Senator BROWN,Senator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 3 December 1999:(1) Is it a fact that more than 630 000 cubic metres of plantation sawlogs and veneer logs were exported unprocessed from Australia in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) Given the Minister's well-known concern about the trade deficit in wood products, what will the Minister do to ensure that sawlogs and veneer logs from plantations are processed in Australia.(3) Why can these plantation sawlogs and veneer logs not be used instead of native forest logs, reducing the destruction of native forests.15191Senator HILL,Senator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) Over 630 000 cubic metres of roundwood were exported from Australian plantations in 1998-99 (Source: Australian Forest Products Statistics, June quarter 1999). The logs exported are predominantly radiata pine with the vast majority classified as either pulp logs or low quality sawlogs. The export market is providing an opportunity for plantation managers to sell their otherwise unmerchantable small-diameter and residual logs from thinning and clearfelling operations. (2) The maximum possible domestic utilisation of plantation sawlogs and veneer logs is being addressed as a matter of priority through the Forest and Wood Products Action Agenda process.(3) Commercial markets do not exist in Australia for these exported log products, which would otherwise remain on the forest floor or lead to the late thinning of plantations. The small diameter sawlogs and pulplogs are generally not found in sufficient amounts within any one region to support an efficient manufacturing process or they are in excess of the regional processor's requirements. The physical and appearance wood characteristics of these logs means that they would not be a suitable substitute for native forest veneer logs and sawlogs.15191(Question No. 1908)190815191O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the following question:(1) How many Major Defect Notices were lodged with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, by month, in 1998, 1999 and so far in 2000.(2) What was the average period of time taken to process the notices over the above period.(3) How many notices lodged during the above period have resulted in the issuing of an Airworthiness Directive.(4) Can the Minister confirm that the time taken to process Major Defect Notices is currently around 2.5 months, if so, why is the period taken to process these notices so long.(5) What are the safety implications for long delays in processing the notices.15191Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following advice:(1) On average, 100 Major Defect Notices per month are lodged with CASA(2) The current Major Defect Report (MDR) system is achieving a 2 month processing period from the time the initial data is entered on the system. However, each MDR is examined on receipt and those that require early action are afforded a priority. In addition, CASA receives verbal reports from industry of defects which have safety implications and these are investigated with minimum delay. (3) Since 1997, CASA has issued 43 Airworthiness Directives resulting from investigation of MDRs, verbal reports and accidents.(4) and (5) See (2) above.15192(Question No. 1939)193915192O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the following question:(1) Since 1 December 1997, on how many occasions have QANTAS and Ansett Australia applied for a new air operating certificate.(2) On each occasion, did QANTAS and Ansett Australia lodge a compliance statement as required by Annex 1.2.1 of the Air Operator Certification Manual.(3) If a compliance statement was not lodged as required by the manual: (a) why not; and (b) on each occasion, what action was taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to require the operator to meet all the conditions of its air operating certificate.15192Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following advice:(1) Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 there is no specific provision for varying the basic authority conferred by an AOC. Accordingly, when an operator requests a change to its AOC (eg adding a new type of aircraft or adding a new route) it is generally necessary to re-issue the AOC. In this context, since December 1997, Qantas has applied for, and been issued with 15 AOCs. Since December 1997, Ansett Australia has applied for, and been issued with 8 AOCs.(2) Qantas has not provided, and was not required to provide, a compliance statement (see answer 3 below). Ansett Australia has been submitting compliance statements since June 1997.(3) The Air Operator Certification Manual does not, and cannot, legally require an AOC applicant to lodge a compliance statement. Compliance Statements for AOC applicants are required in accordance with the “approved forms” issued by the Director of Aviation Safety under section 27AA of the Civil Aviation Act 1988. These forms have changed several times since they were first issued in 1996. In December 1997 the approved form was set out in instrument CASA 82/97. This form was revoked and replaced by a new form in October 1998 (instrument CASA 413/98). This in turn was revoked and replaced in February 2000 (instrument CASA 48/00) and again in March 2000 (instrument CASA 112/00). In December 1997 there was some inconsistency in the application of the approved form provisions as it was not clear whether, in the case of an existing AOC holder, a compliance statement was required for minor changes to the AOC. In October 1998, the new approved form made it clear that, in relation to applications lodged before the end of November 1999, by existing AOC holders, a compliance statement was only required in relation to major changes to an AOC (eg the inclusion of an RPT authorisation in an existing charter AOC or the inclusion of an authorisation to operate an aircraft type with a maximum take-off weight of more than 5,700 kgs). However, all applications by existing AOC holders lodged after 1 December 1999 would require a compliance statement.No AOC applications involving significant changes for Qantas have occurred between 1 December 1997 and 30 November 1999. Therefore, a compliance statement supporting each application was not required. Since 1 December 1999, Qantas has not applied for an AOC issue. Qantas' current AOCs, issued prior to 1 December 1999, expire at the end of June 2000. A Qantas compliance statement is required by 30 June 2000. Ansett Australia have had only one AOC issue since 1 December 1999 and this was supported by a compliance statement. 15193(Question No. 1940)194015193O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the following question:(1) How many airline operators of high performance regular public transport hold current air operating certificates.(2) On what date was each of the above certificates issued(3) Since 1 December 1997, on how many occasions have the above certificates been reissued.15193Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has provided the following advice:(1) Civil Aviation Order 82.0 defines “high capacity aircraft” as “an aircraft that is certified as having a maximum seating capacity exceeding 38 seats or a maximum payload exceeding 4,200 kilograms”. By that definition, there are 18 operators who hold valid Australian AOCs which authorise RPT operations using high capacity aircraft.(2) and (3) Since 1 December 1997, CASA has issued / reissued 80 AOCs for High Capacity Operators. Details are as follows: OPERATORISSUEDNo OF REVISIONSAir Cargo Australia 22/03/003Aircruising Australia29/06/992Air Nauru30/07/996Air Vanuatu29/06/993Ansett Australia31/01/005Ansett International12/10/996Asian Express27/10/994Flight West16/02/005Independent Air Freighters28/06/992Kendell Airlines30/03/006*National Jet Systems12/04/005Nordstress13/03/0011Polynesian Airlines29/06/992Qantas29/10/998Qantas Ltd (Taiwan)29/06/993Skywest Airlines02/09/991Solomon Airlines29/06/991Southern Australia19/04/007* Since becoming a high capacity operator in December 1999.15193(Question No. 1942)194215193O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services the following question:(1) Are minutes kept of all meetings of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Safety Committee. (2) Do those minutes record all matters discussed by the committee; if so, on how many occasions, since 1 December 1997, did the committee discuss breaches by high capacity air operators of the conditions of their air operating certificates; if not, why not.(3) On each occasion that such a breach was discussed: (a) what was the nature of the breach; (b) what action did the committee recommend as a result; and (c) was each recommendation made by the committee carried through by the authority.15194Macdonald, Sen IanSenator Ian MacdonaldYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has provided the following advice:(1) The CASA Board Safety Committee operated until 6 July 1999 and was replaced by an Executive Safety Committee in CASA, which meets bi-monthly. Minutes are kept from the meetings of the Executive Safety Committee and were also kept on meetings of its predecessor. These minutes record all matters discussed.(2) and (3) The information provided to the Executive Safety Committee and its predecessor include reports prepared by Branches of the Aviation Safety Compliance Division, the Safety Promotion Division and, as appropriate, from the Aviation Safety Standards Division. The reports prepared by the Aviation Safety Compliance Division include details of licence and certificate action taken by CASA as a result of surveillance, special audits, show cause notices and other enforcement and compliance activities. The reports also provide updates on issues previously brought to the Committee's attention. The information contained in the Board and Executive Safety Committee reports relates to specific operators and individuals and is regarded as operationally sensitive material. It would not be appropriate to release any details of this information. 15194(Question No. 1982)198215194Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Family and Community Services the following question:(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 the 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 taxpayer-funded research; if so, when; if not, why not.15195Newman, 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:(1) The Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) has commissioned research into the FaCS tax reform communication campaign.(a) Colmar Brunton Social Research (Colmar Brunton).(b) Both.(c) The purpose of the research was to assist in the development of a public information campaign.(d) The total contracted cost of the research is $235 000.(2) In line with usual practice, FaCS developed a list of six consultants (with the assistance of the Government Communications Unit) which was approved by the Minister for Family and Community Services and the MCGC. The consultants were invited to submit proposals to FaCS.(3) No.(4) (a) The research tender brief and list of consultants was approved by the MCGC, as is usual practice.(b) This was approved by the MCGC out of session.(5) (a) Worthington Di Marzio, Elliot and Shanahan and Colmar Brunton were shortlisted.(b) Colmar Brunton.(c) A panel of representatives from the FaCS, Centrelink, Australian Taxation Office, Health Insurance Commission and the Government Communications Unit.(d) Colmar Brunton was rated higher against a set of selection criteria than the other shortlisted agencies, particularly their understanding of the research required and value for money.(6) The research has not been finalised.(7) Creative concept testing results were provided in October 1999, January 2000, February 2000, and March 2000. A report incorporating developmental research was provided to FaCS in November 1999. (8) Topline creative concept testing results were provided to my office and the MCGC.(9) The research was provided to the Government Communications Unit, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.(10) (a)&(b) Benchmark testing results will be available in May. Tracking research results will be reported at intervals leading up to 1 July 2000. Post campaign evaluation results are due by the end of July 2000.(11) No.(12) It has been the practice not to release research results before completion of a public information campaign.15195(Question No. 2089)208915195Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs the following question:(1) What contracts have the department, or any agency of the department, provided to the firm, Ernst and Young in the 1998-99 financial year.(2) In each instance: (a) what was the purpose of the then work undertaken by Ernst and Young; (b) what has been the cost to the department of the contract; and (c) what selection process was used to select Ernst and Young (open tender, short-list, or some other process). 15196Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:The Department entered into two contracts with Ernst and Young in 1998-99 as follows:(1) IT Audit Services(2) (a)To assist in the management and operation of DVA's IT Audit function including assisting with planning, implementing and monitoring the DVA IT Audit Strategic Plan. To provide advice on IT control requirements in relation to systems under development and upgrade of technical support for internal audit functions.(b) The total cost in 1998-99 was $356,229.(c) An open tender process was used. This contract was signed on 2 September 1996. This contract includes a standard clause that provides for other audit tasks to be added. Several tasks were performed under that clause, viz:Telecommunications Costing Model -To develop and report on a telecommunications costing model based on an audit of telephony service delivery costs within DVA at a total cost of $11,153 in 1998/99, andComplaints HandlingSystem - An evaluation of DVA's complaints handling system specification, including a report on the suitability of DVA's existing document management software for the implementation of a department wide Complaints Handling System at a total cost of $48,072 in 1998/99.(1) Agency Banking and Cash Management (2) (a) To provide consultancy support for the implementation of agency banking and cash management in DVA and for post-implementation review.(b) The total cost in 1998-99 was $61,177.20.(c) A select tender process was used.15196(Question No. 2137)213715196Brown, Sen BobSenator BrownQD4TasmaniaAG00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage the following question:(1) Can the Minister confirm that all environmental organisations that are currently on the Register of Environmental Organisations, making gifts to them tax deductible, will automatically retain this status when they apply to the Australian Taxation Office for endorsement of their charitable status.(2) From 1 July 2000, who will be responsible for maintaining the register and deciding on additions and deletions.(3) (a) How does the new tax legislation relate to the register; and (b) will organisations on the register, after 1 July 2000, continue automatically to receive gift-deductible status.15196Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) Organisations currently on the Register of Environmental Organisations will be automatically endorsed as deductible gift recipients when they apply to the Commissioner of Taxation. These organisations would also be expected to be charitable organisations, but separate application is required for them to be endorsed as income tax exempt charities.(2) The Department of the Environment and Heritage will continue to maintain the Register after 1 July 2000. Under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, it is the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Treasurer who enters or removes organisations from the Register.(3) (a) From 1 July 2000, in order to retain gift-deductible status an organisation currently on the Register will need to do two things: 1. Be on the Register, and 2. Be endorsed by the Commissioner of Taxation as a deductible gift recipient. Applications for endorsement should be made to the Commissioner of Taxation as soon as possible. (b) The gift deductible status of organisations on the Register will automatically continue from 1 July 2000 provided they apply to the Commissioner of Taxation for endorsement as a deductible gift recipient.15197(Question No. 2141)214115197Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation the following question:(1) How many Federation Fund applications have been received in each state and territory under either the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program or the Federation Community Projects Program.(2) How many of these applications in each State and Territory have been successful.(3) How many of the applications received from each State or Territory for funding under these programs of the Federation Fund: (a) were from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations; and/or (b) covered indigenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project.(4) (a) How many of the applications received from each State or Territory for funding under the Federation fund, as set out in (3) (a) and (b) above were successful; and (b) what was the dollar value of that funding in each state or territory.15197Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:FEDERATION CULTURAL AND HERITAGE PROJECTS PROGRAM(1) The number of total applications by each State and Territory under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program has been provided in the Auditor-General Audit Report No. 30, Examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, under section 3, Equity of the geographic spread of grants, Table 3, p 50.(2) The number of approved projects under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Program by each State and Territory has been provided in the Auditor-General Audit Report No. 30, Examination of the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, under section 3, Equity of the geographic spread of grants, Table 3, p 50.(3) I refer to my response to Mr Melham's question asked upon notice on 8 February 1999 (Question No. 384), which appeared in Hansard of 11 May 1999. This response addresses how many applications received from each state and territory for funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program were from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations and/or covered indigenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project.(4) (a) I refer to my response to Mr Melham's question asked upon notice on 8 February 1999 (Question No. 384), which appeared in Hansard of 11 May 1999. This response addresses how many applications received from each State or Territory for funding under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program, as set out in (3) above, were successful.(b) The dollar value of that funding in each State or Territory is shown below: ACTNSWNTQLDSATASVICWA-$1.0m$2.3m$2.3m$2.95m--$1.15mFEDERATION COMMUNITY PROJECTS PROGRAM(1) The total number of applications received under the FCP program was 5406. Applications were registered by electorate rather than state.(2) The total number of FCP grants is 1008. (3) (a)61 applications were received from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations: NSWVICQLDWASATASACTNT141116312203(b)The Department is not able to calculate the total number of applications that cover indigenous issues within the purposes of the proposed project without reviewing each of the 5406 individual applications.(4) (a)Of the 61 applications from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations identified under (3)(a), 11 were successful: NSWVICQLDWASATASACTNT33120101(b)The grants to successful Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander organisations identified under (4)(a) total $314,097: NSWVICQLDWASATASACTNT$88,710$77,647$30,740$67,500-$20,000-$29,50015198(Question No. 2164)216415198Murray, Sen AndrewSenator Murray3M6Western AustraliaAD00 asked the Minister for Justice and Customs the following question:With reference to the Community Newspaper Group survey published in the Perth News Chronicle of 28 March 2000 to 3 April 2000:(1) With reference to question 4 of the survey: since 1996, has the crime rate decreased, increased or remained the same in: (a) Australia; and (b) Western Australia.(2) With reference to question 16 of the survey: by and large, is meaningful punishment more effective than rehabilitation programs in achieving lower crime rates.(3) With reference to question 17 of the survey: has the average time served in jail, per offence, for each of the violent offences, increased or decreased over the past few decades in: (a) Australia; and (b) Western Australia.15198Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:(1) From 1996 to 1998 the recorded property crime rate per 100,000 population has increased by 6.1% in Australia and 4.7% in Western Australia. From 1996 to 1998 the recorded violent crime rate per 100,000 population increased by 18.6% in Australia and 33.7% in Western Australia.It should be noted that the interpretation of data in relation to crime is not a straightforward matter. The above data is that reported to or detected by, the police, rather than all crimes which actually occurred.A number of criminologists believe that the general rise in police recorded crimes is perhaps more accurately a reflection of increased reporting of crime to police and improved police productivity rather than a reflection of an increasingly violent community.(2) Research data is inconclusive regarding the efficiency of this kind of `meaningful punishment' in lowering crime rates, compared to `rehabilitation programs'.A large scale evaluation done in the US in 1996 on what works and what does not work in crime prevention found that community residential programs, deterrence programs that increase the punitive impact of the sentence (such as sending juvenile offenders to maximum security prisons, where inmates tell of the horrors of prison life) and very poorly defined rehabilitation programs do not reduce crime.The evaluation also showed that carefully designed and targeted rehabilitation and treatment programs can effectively reduce reoffending. Effective treatment for drug offenders can also have an impact in reducing crime. It is also the case that increased incarceration prevents crime because those who are imprisoned do not have the opportunity to commit crimes. Any comparison of different strategies needs to take account of both reductions in crime and the costs associated with each strategy.(3) Data available for the period 1989 to 1998 does not distinguish between violent and non-violent crime. However, the figures show that in that time the average time served in jail has remained at a fairly constant level of 38 months for Australia in general and just on 30 months for Western Australia.15199(Question No. 2166)216615199Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BourneTW4New South WalesAD00 asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts the following question:(1) Why does Australia Post no longer list individual phone numbers for post offices in the Telstra White Pages.(2) Is the Minister aware that customers must now call a central number and then be diverted to the post office of their choice, a process that is both potentially time consuming and expensive, and that in emergencies, family members will suffer unnecessary and potentially dangerous delays in getting through to relatives working at Australia Post, by virtue of having to go through a call centre first.(3) Was any analysis undertaken on the projected or actual impact of this development on customer service, including: (a) customer waiting times and processing of queries; (b) savings to Australia Post; (c) staff productivity; (d) development of client relationships; and (e) continuity in complaint handling; if so, can the results of this analysis be provided.(4) (a)Was the issue of staff making excessive personal phone calls among the reasons considered; and (b) were there other reasons; if so, can written documentation be provided.15199Alston, Sen RichardSenator AlstonLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:Based on advice received from Australia Post(1) In recent years, Australia Post has been moving progressively to direct customers from post offices and other facilities to dedicated Customer Care Centres (CCCs) in each State, as a first point of contact for inquiries/complaints.This approach ensures that post office staff are not unnecessarily diverted from serving customers to answer routine telephone calls. CCC staff are able to provide customers with advice direct, or switch their call to an appropriate facility (ie corporate post office, licensed post office, delivery centre etc.), as required.(2) Yes. However, Australia Post has advised that the process of contacting a CCC is no more potentially time consuming or expensive than contacting an individual outlet direct.Prior to the introduction of CCCs around 20 percent of customers calling individual outlets were required to leave recorded messages (ie because staff were busy serving customers or out on deliveries) which staff would then have to follow up the next day, as time permitted.CCCs are better equipped to handle large numbers of calls promptly and, if required, staff will switch a call to the appropriate facility at no extra cost to the customer.Family members are not required to call a CCC in the first instance if they wish to make contact with a relative who works in a postal facility. Most families would know the telephone numbers of the facilities at which their relatives work and could, therefore, call the facilities direct.(3) (a) Yes. Prior to the introduction of dedicated CCCs, a survey of calls to post offices and other outlets revealed that calls were taking up to twice as long to answer on average than could be achieved at a CCC. Furthermore, around 50 percent of calls were not office specific and could be answered at any point, while others required network knowledge that was not always available at an individual facility. (b and c) In addition to service-related reasons for the change, there are also general productivity improvements from the use of trained operators with enhanced information systems who are better placed to handle calls more quickly.(d and e) CCCs also enable Australia Post to provide an enhanced service to its business customers through the allocation of dedicated telephone numbers and specially trained staff.Complaints, especially those concerning lost items, are better handled in a centralised manner as more network information and searching capability is available and, in general, systemic problems can be more easily identified and addressed.While there may be some initial delays in answering calls as a new CCC is bedded down, resources and systems can be adjusted to meet changing levels of demand in a way that cannot be achieved at individual outlets.(4) No. Australia Post has been progressively introducing CCCs for the service- related and other reasons outlined above.15200(Question No. 2210)221015200O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care the following question:(1) Do chairpersons of any boards that administer agencies within the Minister's portfolio receive any payments, or other allowance, in addition to those paid to other board members; if so(a) what is the nature of these additional payments or allowances; and(b) how is the quantum of these additional payments determined.(2) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above payments been varied, and in each case:(a) what was the reason for the variation; and(b) what was the quantum of the variation.15200Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The Minister for Health and Aged Care has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:(1) (a)The information is available in the Remuneration Tribunal determinations and in the agency's Annual Report.(b)The Remuneration Tribunal determines the quantum of the additional payments.(2)The variations are published in the Remuneration Tribunal determinations.(a) The reasons for the variation are subject to the Remuneration Tribunal deliberations.(b) The quantum of the variations can be obtained by comparing the Remuneration Tribunal determinations.