2000-10-053917SENATE1791102000-10-05—————The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Notices179111791109:30:0017911Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I now withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for today.17911Senator Jacinta Collins to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for presentation of the report of the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee on vocational education and training be extended to 9 November 2000. Senator Watson to move, on the next day of sitting:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services on the provisions of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2000 be extended to 28 November 2000.Business1791117911Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That government business order of the day no. 6 [Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Bill 2000] be considered from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm today.17911Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:(1) general business order of the day no. 20—Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998; and(2) consideration of government documents.Notices1791117911Items of business were postponed as follows:General business notice of motion no. 562 standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, relating to the proposed Albury-Wodonga bypass, postponed till 10 October 2000.General business notice of motion no. 698 standing in the name of Senator Stott Despoja for today, relating to alternative meetings to the World Economic Forum, postponed till 10 October 2000.Committees179111791117911Motion (by Senator Forshaw) agreed to:That the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality Beef Export to the European Union) Order 2000, made under section 17 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997, be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 December 2000.1791117911Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to:That the provisions of the Corporate Code of Conduct Bill 2000 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities for inquiry and report by 31 March 2000.1791117911Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Crowley) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of reports of the Community Affairs References Committee be extended as follows: (a) provisions of the Gene Technology Bill 2000—to 1 November 2000; and (b) public hospital funding—to 28 November 2000.1791117911Motion (by Senator Coonan, at the request of Senator Payne) agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 be extended to 10 October 2000. Miscellaneous17912Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the determination of the Federal Court that found in favour of the Wik and Wik-Way Peoples' native title claim over part of their traditional lands and waters on Cape York Penin-sula, (ii) that this decision was made following a 20-year struggle by the indigenous owners to return to their traditional lands, and (iii) that the determination applies to less than one-fifth of the original claim and that a determination over the re-main-ing land and waters is still under consideration; (b) congratulates the Wik and Wik-Way People on this wonderful outcome and determined pursuit of recognition of Wik law; and (c) calls on the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments to do what-ever they can to facilitate a favour-able and speedy outcome for the tradi-tional owners over the remaining lands and waters subject to claim.Miscellaneous17912Motion (by Senator Harris) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), on 7 September 2000, all correspondence, reports, investigations and any other information and documentation from the Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS) in relation to the following: (a) the 1990 report by Zurich Insurance Loss Adjusters, Givens Emerson; (b) the May 1989 Kenworth correspondence to FORS; (c) the report by Andy Read (FORS) arising from his visit to Kenworth in June 1989 and Kenworth's responses; (d) Bob Howell's (FORS) 1991 reports on his visits to Kenworth and the dis-cussions that arose; (e) FORS September 1990 investigation report in relation to the Kenworth steering defects; (f) FORS 1991 records of their meetings with Kenworth in February and May that year; (g) FORS 1997 files involving Trojan Insurance's contact on behalf of their Townsville clients and Peter McLeod's subsequent engineers report; (h) Keith Seyer's (FORS) report on his July 1997 Kenworth visit and the subsequent outcome of this visit; (i) FORS files in relation to the Kenworth T900 Jonsandi Pty Ltd vehicle; (j) all documentation in relation to the tendering process both before, during and after the initiation of the `Investi-gation into the Specifications of Heavy Trucks and Consequent Effects on Truck Dynamics'; (k) all documentation of past and present dealings with RoadUsers International; and (l) all documentation between FORS and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services office involving Mack, Ken-worth and Ford trucks.Miscellaneous17912Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Cook) agreed to: That the Senate notes the continuing failure of the Howard/Costello Government to honour its promise that the goods and services tax would not increase the price of petrol and that for the first time ever the Howard/Costello Government is collecting more in fuel taxes from rural and regional motorists than from city motorists.Bills17912R115117912Bill received from the House of Representatives.Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.Bill read a first time.1791309:37:0017913Campbell, Sen IanSenator IAN CAMPBELLH15Western AustraliaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000 will improve the integrity and fairness of Australia's taxation system. The Government announced on 30 June 2000 that it would proceed to legislate in relation to aggressive tax planning schemes involving superannuation.These schemes attempt to undermine the law by claiming far greater concessions than were originally intended by Parliament. This Bill will prevent individuals reducing their taxable income by entering such schemes.Firstly, the Bill will defeat abuse of controlling interest superannuation schemes by clarifying the definition of eligible employee. The Bill clarifies where an employer is able to claim a deduction. In particular, personal contributions are not deductible through the provisions concerning employer deductions. This does not introduce a change in the meaning of the legislation but expresses more clearly what has always been the effect of the legislation.Secondly, the Bill will defeat abuse of off-shore superannuation schemes by removing the deduction for contributions made to non-complying superannuation funds - superannuation contributions will only be deductible if made to a complying superannuation fund, to be used for retirement incomes purposes, rather than in tax schemes attempting to achieve a complete tax wipe-out. Lastly, the Bill will include amendments to ensure that only superannuation contributions made on behalf of an employee are excluded from fringe benefits tax.Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the Bill.Debate (on motion by Senator O'Brien) adjourned.Bills17913R11161791309:37:0017913Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of Senator Gibson, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 2000, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and documents presented to the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills17913R1085BillsR108617913Consideration resumed from 4 October.RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECT-RICITY CHARGE) BILL 200010000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The committee is considering the Renewable Energy (Electricity Charge) Bill 2000. The question is that the request moved by Senator Allison be agreed to. (Quorum formed) The question is that the request from the Democrats No. (1) on sheet 1889 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative. 09:40:0017913Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—At this stage, could I ask that the bill be deferred till Monday, together with the other bill that we have been debating, in order to give the government and the state governments some time to sort out this particular problem that we have been discussing over the last couple of days. Progress reported.Bills17913R102817913Consideration resumed from 30 August.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The question is that the bill stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye.09:43:0017913Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4New South WalesALPLeader of the Opposition in the Senate00—I am not sure of what opinion we are. 10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I can see that.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I have given serious thought to this issue, as have many other senators in the chamber. I have been particularly interested in the work that has been undertaken by Senator Cook on this very important matter, and I would commend to the chamber the comments he made earlier in debate on this particular issue.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—Yes, what were they?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—Given that because of an important meeting he is unable to be in the chamber at this stage to reiterate those views, I believe it is appropriate in these circumstances to commend the approach of the opposition to the chamber—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—As always.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—As always, and I look forward to the passage of the legislation.09:44:0017914Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—There is one question from Senator Cook outstanding, so I thought I would respond to that. Senator Cook had a query concerning the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. I have sought the advice of the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation in relation to Senator Cook's query. He advised me that the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs at its meeting of 21 July 2000 did not agree to the recommendations contained in the revised paper by New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. There was no consensus at the meeting amongst the states on the recommendations of the revised 10-point plan. Given that there were some political overtones to the paper, it seemed to me to be concerned a little bit more with political point scoring than achieving a good outcome.09:45:0017914Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4New South WalesALPLeader of the Opposition in the Senate00—Of course, Senator Kemp is the last person who should ever talk about political point scoring. The only thing about Senator Kemp's political point scoring is that he tends to get a fairly low score, as you know. He is not very good at it.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Order! Please do not reflect on another member.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER—I think that the committee is aware that Senator Cook is engaged in some very important parliamentary business outside the chamber. I will draw Senator Cook's attention to the comments that Senator Kemp has made and I am sure he will take note of them, very inadequate though the response from Senator Kemp seems. The approach of the opposition now will be to allow this particular matter to proceed, but I am sure that we will hear a great deal more about this issue in the future. As I said before, I commend the approach that the opposition has taken and particularly the expertise that has been demonstrated by Senator Cook on this matterBill agreed to.Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.17914Bill (on motion by Senator Kemp) read a third time.Bills17914R1092BillsR109317914Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed)09:49:0017914O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—This is an important piece of legislation, and the opposition clearly has a senator with portfolio responsibility for it who is on his way to the chamber and will be making the opposition's contribution to this debate shortly. Unfortunately, he has been caught at another meeting. Because of the expedition with which we have dealt with two pieces of legislation this morning, we are unable to have him here precisely at the time he is required. So I am in the position where I am obviously going to keep the batter going until Senator Schacht finds his place and makes his contribution to the chamber.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—Keep the ball in the air! 8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I am grateful for the intervention from Senator Campbell about keeping the ball in the air. It might give me the opportunity to talk about a number of other matters which are in the public mind at the moment. However, they would not be germane to the debate under question, which is the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000. Having said that, I will concede my speaking opportunity to Senator Schacht, who will speak to the bill shortly. 10000Watson, John (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—In the meantime, do you wish to take the call, Senator Bartlett? You are on the list. 09:52:0017915Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—By popular acclaim, I am happy to speak to this legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and a related bill. The legislation is significant and we will be interested to hear the contributions of other speakers as well. It is important and is of interest to a large number of people throughout the Australian community. The main thrust of the bill is the parent visa component of it but, as the title of the bill says, there are other measures as well apart from the parent measure. There are a few of those that are completely separate to the parent visa issue which I think do have some significance and merit. I note also that the government circulated some time back some other amendments, again not specifically relating to the parent visa issue but other components of the migration legislation, and those as well are worth considering. They can be dealt with in the committee stage when they are moved by the government.The main thrust of the legislation and the part I speak to at this stage of the debate is the parent visa component, which is schedule 3 of the legislation. It is the one which virtually all of the public debate has focused on. The issue goes back quite a long period of time to an attempt by the government last year to introduce a separate category of parent visas for people prepared to pay quite a significant extra amount. At the time the Senate chose to support a motion that I moved to disallow that measure, which was brought in by regulation, particularly on the grounds that it provided a mechanism which meant that basically people who have significant amounts of wealth would get an advantage over those who do not. If you are looking at the purpose, the benefit and the value of the parent component of our migration program, the Democrats certainly believe that wealth or otherwise of parents should not be a determining factor in whether or not people can get into the country or, in the case of this original proposal, whether or not people would get fast-tracked. It was basically a mechanism for going into a fast track queue. The term `queue-jumping' is used a lot in terms of another aspect of migration. I think it is very unfairly and inaccurately used in relation to asylum seekers. But in the case of parents there is quite clearly a queue, and in the case of the proposal that the government put forward, people could shift into a queue that moved a lot quicker if they paid a substantial amount of money. The Senate chose to disallow that measure, and the government and the minister in particular, Minister Ruddock, as a consequence acted, I believe, in a very inappropriate way—in a fit of pique, if you like—by reducing the overall numbers allowed in through the parent category to 500. That was the threat that he made to the Senate at the time and he carried through with that. I suppose in that sense at least he is a person of his word: if he makes a threat, he carries it through. But the carrying through of that threat has meant a lot of hardship to a lot of Australian families and a lot of people who are seeking to reunite with their families in Australia. For parents who are seeking to migrate to Australia to join their families here, 500 a year is a very small number. The numbers of parents who are seeking to get into Australia is in the many thousands, and obviously if you are talking about aged parents then having a potential waiting time stretching beyond a decade it gets completely impractical and very distressing to a lot of people. But that is the situation that people are currently faced with. There are a very large number of people trying to get in and a very small number that are allowed in under the cap that has been imposed by the minister. It was a decision of the minister and the government to put that cap at that level—not the Senate and not anybody else. I believe the government must bear full responsibility and blame for the consequent distress that is felt by many people who are finding it very difficult to reunite their families. That has now led to a situation where this particular proposal put forward by the government in many ways has similar threads to what was put forward originally. This one is done by the fairly unusual mechanism of using legislation to amend regulations. It puts forward a situation where for a couple to have parents come to Australia they need to put forward $64,000 on top of the initial application fee that already exists. It is a particularly sizeable amount of money and clearly eliminates a large number of people. The amount of $64,000 is split up into, firstly, a component that relates to people putting forward a bond so that they will not claim social security payments and they forfeit that bond if they do claim social security in the first 10 years. That amount of $10,000, and $4000 for the second person, is repaid after 10 years if people do not claim social security. The other even more significant component relates to a health charge which people have to pay. It is like a form of health insurance, if you like, and is compulsory. They do not get that back. That amount of $25,000 per person makes a significant impact in terms of the amount of money that people have to pay. It was difficult in the various committee inquiries into this matter through estimates questioning of the department to try and get a clear idea of where that figure was derived from. It seemed to be basically a bit of a stab in the dark. Although technically people can avoid paying it by taking out private health insurance cover that provides health insurance for that 10-year period, there is, as I understand it, no product available in Australia at the moment for people to be able to take out such insurance, so it does not provide an opportunity for people to use that mechanism. In any case, the amount of money that people will be required to provide is a very large amount, and that same principle of people being able to get fast-tracked into Australia if they can put forward large amounts of money is one that the Democrats have a lot of problems with.We were willing to consider the issue purely because, despite having problems with the principle, we are aware—certainly, I am aware—through contact with many people, not just in my state of Queensland but around the country, that the government's extraordinarily small cap is causing a lot of distress to people. The extraordinarily long waiting time for parents is creating a lot of unnecessary hardship and distress. For that reason, it is an issue that we were willing to consider. I consulted widely with as many potentially affected people as I could to see what their views were about whether this option, flawed as it may be, was at least something that they were willing to support, because it would provide an opportunity for more parents to get into the country than is currently available.An even more unfortunate component of what the minister originally proposed and indicated in his second reading speech in the House of Representatives was that he would be completely closing off the existing parent category, which would mean that no parents would be allowed in unless they could pay the $64,000 charge. I think that is a completely unsatisfactory situation. The consultation that I carried out involved seeking comment from as many people as possible throughout the country who are involved in migration issues, ranging from migration agents to community organisations, ethnic organisations, peak bodies and individuals I had had contact with over a number of years in relation to these issues. It was a widespread seeking of opinion.I know the minister had a number of meetings around the country encouraging people, quite specifically, to contact me and my office to let me know whether they supported the government's measure and to suggest that the Democrats should support it to allow it through. Despite the philosophical objections that the Democrats had to the measure, which we expressed a number of times—indeed, we expressed them in the debate on the regulation disallowance last year—we were willing to consider that issue. That was why I undertook to seek the views of as many people as possible. Basically, the feedback I got was, surprisingly, overwhelmingly against the proposal that the government has put forward. While many people recognise the hardship that the very low cap the government has imposed is causing, they believe that the principle of what the government was putting forward was nonetheless so objectionable and inappropriate and that the precedent that would be set was so undesirable that they very much urged me and the Democrats to oppose this measure. Obviously, a substantial amount of revenue would be generated by this measure. Once in place, it would be very difficult for a future government, of whatever persuasion, and any future minister to be able to remove such a measure and such a charge. I think we would be stuck with it. Nonetheless, we are in a situation at the moment where the government is maintaining a very low number of parents who are allowed in, and that is causing significant hardship. I hope that a future government reviews that, and after the next election we have an opportunity to increase those numbers significantly.It is that principle that I would like to focus on in the rest of my comments. What this measure and a lot of the justification for it, by the minister in particular and a few other people who have supported it, are putting forward is once again the flawed and, I believe, very unfortunate suggestion that migrants are a cost to the community and an economic burden and that, if we are going to allow people into the country as Australian residents, they should have to pay for the privilege and pay their own way. Certainly, I do not deny that when people migrate here they can be a cost to public resources, through the health system in particular. All of us can be costs to public resources. All of us pay taxes to help cover that. Certainly now, with the expanded indirect tax base, even if people are not paying income tax, they are contributing significantly to the tax and revenue base of this country by virtue of being here.The suggestion and the principle that somehow migrants are a cost and a burden to the community presents a very narrow view. While there may be some revenue cost as a result of people being here, that completely ignores the very significant contribution and benefit that people make when they are part of the Australian community. They make that indirectly in economic terms and also in other ways which are not so easily measured in dollars and cents but contribute enormously to the richness and the strength of Australian society and the community. If you are looking at parents, as the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 is, obviously having parents here assists and contributes in many ways to the people they are reuniting with—their children. In many cases, they provide extra care for grandchildren that would not otherwise be provided. That is not measured or recognised when all these supposed costs are put forward by the government. It is a continual inappropriate emphasis on trying to highlight how much people supposedly cost us when they migrate here and completely ignores the benefits that they bring, not just to their immediate family but to the broader community. I think it is very unfortunate that that emphasis is being repeated by the government to justify this measure. A number of times, over recent years in particular, we have needed to make people aware of and re-emphasise the value of migration. It is widely acknowledged that there has been a decline in faith in the migration program within Australia. Part of that is because of a reticence or an unwillingness by some people in the community and those in leadership roles to emphasise the positive benefits of migration and to emphasise the value that migrants bring to the Australian community. We have seen messages about that emphasised over recent weeks through the Olympics when we had the very positive examples of the great contributions that people from so many different nations have brought to Australia—not just people with sporting talent and lots of money or business skills. One of the issues continually emphasised was the importance of family support. For a government that speaks so much about being pro-family to put forward measures and to emphasise restrictions on parents being able to reunite with families goes completely against that rhetoric. The approach that the government has taken on parent visa issues in general over recent years is completely anti-family. It keeps families apart, it prevents them from reuniting and it also undermines the fabric of multiculturalism itself. Despite all the words again from the government saying that it supports multiculturalism, one of the significant components of it is that connection with people's histories, that connection with their origins. The value of what parents can bring as part of that is inestimable. It is particularly important to maintain those connections and to emphasise those bonds and those links that enrich the Australian community and our understanding of and our links with the wider world. Keeping parents apart from their children in such a restricted way as this government has done is not just an anti-family measure but indeed, from the Democrats' point of view, weakens the fabric of multiculturalism which is so important to the past, present and future success of Australia.It is a measure that the Democrats have a problem with both in terms of our philosophical point of view and in terms of the message it sends to the Australian community. It sends a wrong message that migrants are a cost, whereas from the Democrats' point of view we should be emphasising the benefits that migrants bring to the Australian economy and the community. It is a measure which weakens multiculturalism, which the Democrats are very strongly supportive of, and it is a measure which is quite significantly discriminatory on the basis of wealth. It is a significant amount of money: $64,000 for a couple. It is one that many families would not be able to afford and one that basically means that, if you have a stack of dough, you can get into the country; if you do not, then bad luck. That is not an appropriate basis on which to formulate our migration program, particularly in the family area.Obviously there is a business component to our migration program. If you are looking at people being able to enter the country under those sorts of measures, then perhaps things like qualifications and money available for investment might be factored in—but not if you are simply looking at parents. The reason there is a component of our migration program for parent reunion is that we recognise the value of reuniting families and of keeping those bonds and all the benefits that that brings. That is why we have that tradition as part of our migration program. That valuable component of our migration program has been severely weakened in recent years by this government. This particular measure would continue to weaken that and, in my view, contaminate the family reunion component of the migration program by linking it very closely with financial resources. That is not an appropriate mechanism, in the Democrats view, for determining entry into Australia under the family component of the migration program. That is why we are opposed to this measure. It is unfortunate that, under the ongoing approach that this government is taking, so small a number will be able to migrate here through the parent category. But that is a decision of the government and it is one that, hopefully, will be changed—if not by this government then by a future one.10:11:0017918McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the measures contained in the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000. Whilst I am pleased to be addressing it, I am not pleased with the content of the bill. This morning I will be speaking against the contents of the bill and indeed against the purpose of the bill. I take up the theme of Senator Bartlett that this is an anti-family bill. It is not a bill that will seek to reunite families in this country and allow individuals who are long-term migrants in this country to be reunited with their parents, except for those who are quite wealthy and can afford it. That is clearly and utterly discriminatory and should not be allowed. Indeed, I do not think the Senate will allow it when this bill reaches its vote in the second reading stage because, on behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will be voting against the measures contained in the bill. That is not to say that we oppose each and every element of the bill itself. There are some measures contained in schedule 1 that we are quite pleased to see being put in place. Hopefully some arrangements can be made to allow the provisions that are contained in schedule 1 to be enacted, to be brought into law, because they will improve matters for those who would be impacted by the measures contained in schedule 1. There are number of matters contained in the bill that I want to address. There are number of matters which were canvassed earlier in the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee during the estimates process, when we addressed questions to the departmental officers about the contents of the bill and the various measures that were covered within it. The budgetary papers that the parliament was given in May of this year indicated that the measures contained in this bill would raise revenue to the tune of $155 million over five years from the introduction of the new visa class. We will get to the detail of what the visa class is. However, when we look to the explanatory memorandum to this bill, which was circulated by the minister the Hon. Philip Ruddock at the presentation of the bill to the parliament, in item 12, page 3, it states:The net positive financial impact of the amendments contained in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill is estimated to be $13.8m in the first year, $84.6m in the second year, $13.9m in the third year, and $14.7m in the fourth year (for a total of $127m over the first four years).That is quite a discrepancy in the amount of money that was scheduled to be raised from May of this year to when this bill was introduced, which is just a matter of months now—it has not gone through the usual process of waiting on the Senate Notice Paper like other bills. It would be useful to have the opportunity to talk further with departmental officers about this particular discrepancy but, unfortunately, we will not have that opportunity until late next month. By then this bill will either have failed or be going through some other process. But there is a dramatic discrepancy—over a very short period of time—between the various projections coming from the bill and the moneys that would be raised from it.The matters that we really do have problems with are those matters contained in schedule 2. The provision in schedule 2 is a technical amendment which will allow for the raising of a new visa application charge to comply with the charges proposed in a new aged parent visa category. It is interesting to note that, while the new visa charge has been set at $25,000 per applicant, the new threshold of this schedule allows for up to $30,000 to be charged, along with mechanisms to index the charge to the CPI. Clearly, $25,000 is a lot of money for a lot of people. There are some in our community for whom the raising of $25,000 for a service charge to pay a health benefit to people would not be a dramatic or very serious problem but, for many others in our community, it will mean the difference between whether the sponsorship for their parents to come and settle in this country is or is not lodged. For many of the constituents I talked with in my electorate office back in Perth it means that they are going to be locked out of the system, because there is absolutely no way that they can raise that type of money to make a lodgment. These are points that we made last year when there was in place a total charge of $17,000 for the lodgment of aged parent visa applications to come to Australia. We, and indeed the Senate, felt at that time that $17,000 was far too much money to be charging people for their applications to come to Australia. The Senate at that time—rightly, I feel—voted against the provision and rejected the regulations that brought that into being. It is regrettable that the minister, on the rejection of those regulations, spat the dummy and went and restricted the number of visas that were going to be issued—halved them, in fact, from 1,000 per year to 500 per year—therefore compounding the problem in the pipeline, and then moved to reintroduce the measures that were going to be introduced in regulation in the form of this particular bill.Were this bill to be simply a grab for money, you could give it some thought and some serious consideration, but with the budget surplus that is hanging over the government now from the windfalls they have gained from things such as petrol and the prices that the Australian population is paying for petrol, this is indeed a very callous measure. I notice Senator Patterson is shaking her head. I suspect that Senator Patterson is feeling the heat from the constituents in Victoria who are paying those higher prices for petrol, as is every other member of parliament. LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—What would you do about petrol prices? Tell the public.1I4McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN—I will not be diverted from talking about the callous measures contained in this bill, Senator Patterson. How callous can you be? I hope that when a representative of the government gets up and speaks to this bill they will justify the fact that there are over 20,000 applications for aged parent visas in the pipeline at the moment. The applications are actually there; people have paid their money, sponsors have paid the application fees—many thousands of dollars in some instances. Where is that money sitting? It is sitting in consolidated revenue. It is sitting with all those windfall gains that the government have made from things such as petrol and the GST. No measures have been put in place to communicate with the sponsors and the applicants or to give them an opportunity when they know that they are at the end of a queue and that it may take 20-odd years for their applications to be processed. In fact, many of those applications are not going to be processed or successful at all.But the callous measures of the government continue and no thought has been given to those people or their relatives who are sponsoring them and making applications for them to join them in Australia. The only thought is for those who have a bit of wealth, those who have money that they can put forward—quite significant amounts—to lodge applications to bring their parents to Australia and allow them to settle here on a permanent basis. And that is, as I said before, callous and has no regard for the human being or the human sense or what, indeed, a family is about. In many cases when a parent is sponsored to come to Australia it is often only one parent because the other parent is recently deceased and the remaining parent has no-one left to look after them, and the only thing the family can do is seek to bring them to this country. Rather than the applicant paying an up-front fee of $25,000—and I want to say something about how the $25,000 up-front fee was arrived at—the government is offering them the choice of either obtaining suitable private health insurance for the first 10 years in Australia or paying an up-front fee of $25,000. That seems quite reasonable at face value, and one would have thought that the government, the minister and his department would be in a position to answer questions about the various insurance organisations that would offer this private health insurance in lieu of the $25,000 up-front fee. This is not a new idea; some suggestions were made on the matter, as I recall, quite a number of years ago at hearings of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration. The minister has now picked up this ball and is seeking to offer it to people. The department were not in a position in June of this year—and I hope they are in a position now—to tell the committee the name of the private health insurance company or indeed any insurance company offering such insurance. They do not exist. Yet the minister is giving applicants and their parents the option of obtaining suitable private health insurance. What sort of an option is it if in fact there is no-one in the market, and nothing has been offered?It really comes back to the fact that you need the $25,000 up front, on top of all the other dollars needed to get the application through. Why should the fee be $25,000? Senator Bartlett in his contribution said that it was a `stab in the dark'. I would suggest that Senator Bartlett was only partly right: it was a stab in the dark, but I would suggest that the person stabbing in the dark was also wearing a blindfold at the same time. When you go through the estimates process and you are talking about revenue to the tune of $155 million that will be raised by these provisions, you would expect the department to know how the figures were arrived at. Regrettably, when the minister at the table, who was Senator Vanstone, and her advisers were asked for the details of how the figure of $25,000 for the health service charge was arrived at, the question had to be taken on notice. The answer came back, and I quote it in full: The Government took a policy decision to set the health services charge at $25,000, around a fifth of the potential residual lifetime health costs of a person entering the country at pensionable age, or the equivalent of about four years average annual health costs for this group of people.That is how it was arrived at. But we were offered more detail as to how this significant figure was arrived at. It goes on:In reaching this decision it took into account:· Department of Health and Aged Care estimates of the average annual health costs (including Medicare benefits, pharmaceutical benefits, hospital costs and residential aged care costs) for a person of pensionable age to be about $6000.Probably this is the point at which the blindfold was put on. The answer continues:· Data provided by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (`Deaths' catalogue, 1998, 3302.0) showing that the average life expectancy of 65 year old males is 16.3 years and for 61 year old females, 24 years. The average of the male and female life expectancy after retirement age can be taken to be about 20 years.· For a person with the remaining lifespan of 20 years the potential average health costs per person of pensionable age is around $120,000 in today's cash terms.So there you have it: that is how the figure of $25,000 was arrived at. I am not sure what the individual who arrived at this wonderful answer is or was being paid but they deserve everything they get, because what we have here as justification for the levying of $25,000 is, I would suggest, quite a deal of gobbledegook. There is nothing scientific about what we have here. It seems to me that a figure was arrived at that had to be larger than the $17,000 in existence last year in the regulations. Probably it was a figure that was arrived at in order to match the amount of revenue the government were seeking to raise by the introduction of this new visa class. They have done the figures on how many they can bring in per year and arrived at $25,000. Instead, we get a gobbledegook answer like this that does not, quite frankly, in the detail that should be provided to a Senate estimates committee, explain how such figures are arrived at or what scientific measures are in place to justify such enormous charges.As I said in my opening comments, we agree with some measures, such as schedule 1—and we will look for separate votes on schedule 1, schedule 2 and schedule 3—but we certainly will not be supporting the measures to raise revenue for the government by the introduction of application fees, health service levies and bonds to the tune of up to $60,000 to allow people to come into this country on a permanent basis. Those are callous, unfair and discriminatory measures, and if the Senate were to allow them to pass through, we would be rightly condemned. But I would suggest that right will prevail and the measures will not proceed.10:31:0017921Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4South AustraliaALP00—I rise on behalf of the opposition, as has Senator McKiernan, to indicate that, although there are some small parts of this Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 which we support, we substantially oppose it. Senator McKiernan has outlined the major areas of the bill and has explained why we strongly oppose them, as has the shadow minister for immigration in the House of Representatives, Mr Sciacca. I want to take this moment to pay tribute to the work of my colleagues Senator McKiernan and Senator Cooney at recent hearings of the Senate committee dealing with immigration, where they pointed out the discrepancies and lack of rationality by the government in trying to explain how they arrived at the figure of $25,000 as an up-front cash charge. There seems to be a complete lack of an ethical or moral basis in the way this proposal has been put forward. As has been explained by my colleagues here and by Mr Sciacca, the Senate rejected late last year regulations that attempted to achieve what this bill is now doing. So the Senate has expressed its view at least once already in a vote on this matter. It seems to me and to the opposition that the government has a long list of other important bills it wants to put before the Senate. The government has put this bill up knowing that the Senate has already expressed its opposition, in principle, to such measures. I think the government is doing it for political purposes, to appeal to that section of the Australian community that, for various reasons—and for reasons which I find socially objectionable—oppose immigration. Either they just do not want immigrants, or they do not want immigrants who come from countries or cultures which they believe are not within the narrow stream of the history of Australia. The opposition, of course, reject that view. The government will say it rejects that view as well, yet it has produced this bill knowing full well the Senate's previous view. I think it wants to appeal, for political purposes, to those segments of the community in certain areas of Australia that it wants to get back onside before the next federal election. We find this bill objectionable in philosophical terms, because it can be seen as discriminatory on the basis of income, culture and race, and, ultimately, on the basis of ethnicity or where people come from. There is no doubt that people who come from the old-style northern European communities—or North America, but particularly northern Europe—are on high incomes, have children who have been here a long time, who have done well in this country and who have made a major contribution, and would not have much difficulty in finding the $50,000 up-front payment, as Senator McKiernan said. But people who come from Third World countries, Africa, South-East Asia, people who were originally boat people from Vietnam back in the late 1970s or early 1980s, or people who were refugees from any number of countries where people have been given refugee status—quite rightly because of a well-founded fear of persecution—although they have worked hard in Australia, may not have built up $50,000 in the bank. If your parents lived in a Third World country, they may not have $50,000 sitting in a bank account. If they even trusted the banks of those countries, they may not have $50,000 worth of gold, gems or something else hidden in the backyard of their peasant house. Those people are going to be discriminated against, and we find that objectionable—very objectionable indeed.We are not opposed to some modest contribution being asked for, as the government rightly pointed out in the second reading speech. We would consider reasonable charges being paid, but not something that is clearly discriminatory and is aimed, as this bill is aimed, at wiping out a whole category of people who know they will never, ever be able to get their parents to come into Australia under these regulations. That is what we find particularly objectionable. Only today, in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian, there was a study that showed that, if it had not been for migration from dozens and dozens of different countries since the Second World War, Australia would have a population of around 12 million, according to a demographer. A population of 12 million would mean that, in economic terms, we would be a lot weaker in the world and we would have less prosperity for our people. We all know that immigration to Australia since the Second World War has made this country a stronger and more vibrant place to be. If anyone wanted to see a living example of that, they would have seen it in the previous two weeks during the Sydney Olympic Games. As a person who had the good fortune, because of my position as President of Volleyball Australia, to attend the two weeks of the games, I had many opportunities to meet visitors from overseas. The comment they made was that Sydney is now a great city of the world not only because it has 3½ million or four million people in it but also because it has a diversity and a vibrancy about it that our immigrants have brought to the city. That makes it a very interesting place. That is why the Olympics were so successful. The many streams of immigrants who have come to Australia and made Sydney what it is helped with the success. I had one senior American representative say to me that the comparison between Sydney and Salt Lake City—the city of the Winter Olympics in 2002—is quite stark. Salt Lake City, as we well know, was founded by the Mormon religion over 100 years ago, but it is a monoculture city. It is a monoculture city in every sense of the word. The comment was made that, `We just cannot see how such a monoculture city will be able to hold and present an exciting Olympic Games as has Sydney.' An advantage of immigration to Australia was that amongst those many tens of thousands of magnificent volunteers who helped the Sydney Olympics to be so successful were people who were migrants to Australia or were descendants of migrants. They were able to speak two or three languages and were able to help visitors who did not speak English and who came to Australia for the Sydney Olympics. They were able to help the 12,000 athletes who came to Australia, many of them not able to speak English, and make them feel right at home. They were able to explain and give them advice every day about what was going on. That is an advantage of the multicultural immigration program that has been going on in this country for the last 50 years.The government with this bill is turning its face away from the success of the philosophy of that program. That is what we find objectionable. We know that, if this bill goes through, it will be the rich northern Europeans who will be able to afford to bring out their parents. There will be some other rich people who will be successful, but if you are poor or on an average income you will be excluded. We will be moving a second reading amendment which we moved in the House of Representatives. It will be as follows: the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for an increase in the quota for parent visas based on:(1) a fair contribution by parents or their sponsors towards the costs to be met by Medicare for parents' general health care;(2) any health contributions to be used to offset the increased costs for Medicare and public hospital services; and(3) the size of any contribution not being such as to exclude access to visas by parents of Australian families with limited means.That is the second reading amendment we will move. I trust the Senate will carry it. If the Senate does not carry it and the government does not withdraw and redraft the bill, in the committee stage we will oppose—10000McKiernan, Jim (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—Do you have that amendment ready to move now, Senator Schacht?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—I do not have it. I am just waiting for it to be run off by the Senate staff. It will be circulated as soon as possible. I took the opportunity to read the amendment out so that people know what is coming. If the bill does go into the committee stage and the government does not withdraw it, we will then move amendments to oppose schedules 2 and 3, which have these iniquitous measures.Again—as you, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, mentioned in your contribution just a few moments ago—I ask where this figure of $25,000 came from. I absolutely agree with your remark, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it seems that the government put a target up on a wall, threw a dart at it and when it hit $25,000 it seemed like a nice round figure. But everyone knows that, despite all the explanations of the government, it was devised to be large enough to scare people out of making applications to bring their parents out. It is a disgrace that the government could not explain in any actuarial terms that are reasonable how the $25,000 figure was arrived at. The other thing that came out that was inequitable was that the government said, `If you don't want to pay the $25,000 you can take out private health insurance for 10 years to give the equivalent amount of coverage that $25,000 would cover,' but in the committee hearing it was exposed that there is no product available in any private health insurance organisation in Australia that fits that description. So if someone said, `We can't pay the $25,000 but we will take out appropriate health insurance,' they would not be able to get an appropriate package or product from a private health insurance company that would do the same. So, again, this is just a mockery of an explanation. If the government has convinced one of its friends in a private health insurance company and has scraped up a product, we would like to see it. We would like to see what it delivers. What will be the annual premium that will be charged? What will be the benefits of a $25,000 package? Will it give complete private health insurance? Will it just cover part of it? Will it give all the ancillary benefits? We do not know. It is a joke for the government to say that it could be available. That is just another very weak excuse. My colleague Mr Sciacca and my other Senate colleagues have pointed out that, if both the husband's and wife's parents are coming out, it will be over $60,000 that they will have to front up with. That is twice the average income of ordinary Australians. The median wage in Australia is about $32,000. The average male earnings is about $38,000 to $39,000. So the government is insisting that parents who come out to Australia have to pay the equivalent of over twice the median wage or salary of ordinary Australians. I do not care what people say; that is a sizeable impost. I agree with your remarks, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, that there will be people who will be able to afford that. I have no doubt that those people who have been in Australia a long time, who have been very successful and want to bring their parents out will be able to find the money. Or their wealthy parents back in northern Europe may well have a house or an apartment that they could sell—which would mean that they would have the money to make the payment. I have no doubt that people who were issued with business visas to come here from South East Asia in the last decade or so will be able to find the money. But there is no way someone who has been given refugee status—quite appropriately—and has come from the Middle East area, from Latin America or from some areas of South East Asia or Africa would be able to afford that amount of money. So we find this bill particularly iniquitous.We have no doubt it has been put forward by the government for cynical political motives. I would not have said that of this minister, Mr Ruddock, three or four years ago when he first became minister. I have had the opportunity to serve on the foreign affairs committee with Mr Ruddock. I have been a member of Amnesty International all my parliamentary life while Mr Ruddock has been a very active member of Amnesty International. Mr Ruddock arranged for me to make my first visit to Cambodia as a backbench member of parliament in 1988. He has an excellent track record. But it is clear that he has been forced—I think against his own philosophical basis—to adopt a range of mean-spirited measures on immigration that are aimed at achieving a political agenda for some of the hard men and women of this coalition. We know that Amnesty International has demanded that he stop wearing the Amnesty International badge in his lapel because they find it insulting that a minister who has carried out measures that are against the spirit of what Amnesty International stands for—measures that discriminate against people and their human rights—is still wearing the badge. So it is sad that this minister, who had a very good record in this parliament as a backbencher serving in many different capacities and is one of the true small `l' liberals on issues of human rights, has now fallen on hard times because of the attitude of the Prime Minister and other hard people in the ministry who, for political purposes, are trying to appeal to base motive in this community—to what is sometimes called the `redneck' vote. I do not like using that term myself, but that is certainly what this government is about.I conclude with a couple of questions the minister may choose to answer. It may be a very simple answer and it may be a very naïve question I ask. On page 3 of the explanatory memorandum of the bill at paragraph 12 it says:The net positive financial impact of the amendments contained in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill is estimated to be $13.8m in the first year.Then it jumps to $84.6 million in the second year and it is back to $13.9 million in the third year and $14.7 million in the fourth year—for a total of $127 million over the first four years. I have not had a chance to examine this myself, but perhaps in your second reading summing up, Minister, there might be a very logical reason you can give as to why in the second year the savings to the government jump to $84 million. Over a four-year period that gives a total saving of $127 million. If it were not for that $84 million, you would be averaging it out at $13 million to $14 million over the four years, which is about $50 million. We in the opposition are not opposed to savings and to good management and efficiency of government— LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—You could've fooled me.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT—Senator, some of us have had experience in government. We know what it is like to try to put a budget together and about the arguments over priorities. But I do not think I have ever seen, in the immigration area or any other areas—even from this government—such a base measure as this being proposed. It is not only base on the financial savings side but also morally and ethically repugnant to dis-crim-inate against immigrants in this country purely on the basis of their wealth. It is a shameful day for Australia and a shame-ful day for this government. That is why we hope the Senate will carry our second read-ing amendment. If they do not, we will vigorously oppose these measures in the committee stage.10:50:0017925Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—I must continue the theme that has been set by Senator Schacht and you, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and a related bill are strange pieces of legislation for the reasons you and Senator Schacht have pointed out. The legislation is based on a concept that has infected the department—that is, that money and discipline are the only things that matter. The department would have been a good instrument to have run boarding schools in the 19th century in England, where discipline, cold showers and the cane were all the go. The department has the approach that the only things that matter are money and control. Yet at the same time it is conscious that there are some higher values in the world besides money.I have at times quoted the Gospel in this place—not on the basis that everybody accepts the Gospel as divine word but on the basis that it contains some good matters of commonsense. One of the famous statements from that book is that you cannot serve God and mammon. If you do not believe in God, I suppose the quote would have to be: you cannot serve good principle, you cannot serve high ideals, and money. I think that that is correct and that this particular piece of legislation shows the truth of that. The person who made the second reading speech understands that as well. I will just go through it a bit. In the speech, the minister says:During my community consultations on the 2000-01 immigration intake, many participants who wished to bring their parents to Australia indicated that they would meet all the costs associated with the migration of their parents.In response to the preparedness of sponsors to contribute to the cost of aged parents migrating to Australia, I announced on 3 April 2000 that the government would introduce new entry arrangements for parents in the 2000-01 program year.The minister is saying, `Look, as soon as I saw that we could get money out of this system, into the coffers and that it would not cost Australia anything at all, I was quite happy with that. If people can pay, they can come.' As you, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, and Senator Schacht have said, it might have been asked: how great is the need of any particular family to have their parents? Would it be reasonable to see what merit there is in the case, other than the ability to pay? Are there such things as feelings of decency, feelings that the family matters, feelings that it might be a good thing to have a family reunited in spite of the fact that they have not got any money? These are just passing thoughts that people who consider themselves decent might entertain. But, no, not the department. The department do not think about that. They say—as expressed by the minister—`If you have got the money, you can come; if you have not got the money, you cannot.' It is not that the department do not see that it would be a good thing to have families reunited. As an intellectual concept, the department understand that. They do not understand it as a matter of the heart and soul, but they understand it as a matter of intellectual perception. The minister, in his second reading speech, says:These new arrangements will provide for a significant increase in the number of parents who will be able to come to Australia to be reunited with their children.The second reading speech points out that, yes, there is an understanding at some level—I do not think at a very elevated level—that it is a good thing to have families reunited. People in the department have probably been told at school or somewhere else that that is a good thing, and they have accepted that. But there is certainly no sort of commitment to that proposition. If there were a commitment to that proposition, then they would say, `Let us see if we can help these people, even if they have not got the sort of money that we might want people to have.' Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, as you and Senator Schacht have pointed out, the opposition's proposition is not that there should be no contribution from these people. In fact, as the second reading speech points out, it was the Labor government that introduced the assurance of support bond. We, on this side of the chamber, are not a group of people who say that there should not be some sort of approach to this issue that takes into account the cost. We are saying that there should not be an approach to this issue which simply says: if you can pay, you can get in; if you cannot, that is bad luck. We say that there are other things besides the ability to pay which should affect whether a person gets in or not.In the second reading speech, the minister says:The government was not creating a visa class for the rich. Of course it was attempting to create a visa class for the rich when it attempted to bring in the regulation which said that if you could pay, you could get in; but if you cannot, you cannot. What other proposition is there to describe that, other than that the government was creating a visa class for the rich? It goes on:We wanted to allow more parents to live in Australia, in a way which ensured a fair deal for the Australian taxpayer.That is another very peculiar concept. It says that the only way you can get a return for the taxpayer is in terms of money. But if the parents made a contribution to the family—and this point has been made again and again—by helping to look after their children or if they make a contribution to the intellectual content of Australia or if they made a contribution to the working pool of Australia—all that is to be ignored. The only way that the Australian taxpayer can get a fair deal, according to this second reading speech, is if the taxpayer gets back what he or she puts in. There is no concept of what is good for Australia as a whole, what makes Australia a great nation—the sorts of things we saw expressed at the Olympic Games. This department would say, `We should give a gold medal only if the person can pay for it. If you cannot pay for the gold medal, you do not get one. It does not matter how fast you run; it does not matter how high you jump; it does not matter how strong you show yourself to be—unless you can pay for it, you do not get the medal. That is the way you have got to be, to be fair to the taxpayer.'The department would maintain that it would be unfair to the taxpayer to give a person a medal simply because he or she jumped higher, he or she ran faster or he or she showed greater strength. I suppose that would take the medal off Cathy Freeman because she certainly did not pay for her medal. The department would say that she has not contributed much, that she has not added to the economic wellbeing of the nation. A most peculiar approach lies behind this legislation. The problem with the legislation in a certain sense is not its terms—although they are bad enough. The problem with this legislation is the concept, the thinking, the beliefs that stand behind it. They are very nasty. As Mr Sciacca said in the debate in the House of Representatives, a lot of these problems arise from the culture that infects the department. This legislation, if passed, would be a blight on this country because it expresses concepts that are better not expressed. I was at the Olympic Games. I was present when Cathy Freeman ran the race. At the same time Tatiana Grigorieva was coming second in the pole vault. It was a very eloquent and moving illustration of what Australia is all about. We had the original inhabitants—WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGauran—It sounds like Telstra to me. SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—This shows exactly what I am saying. I am saying that the trouble with the government benches is that they are obsessed with money, and that comment illustrates what I mean. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Narrow-minded. SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Senator McGauran is narrow-minded, conceives of things only in terms of money, has no heart, has no soul, is not moved by the actions of Tatiana Grigorieva or Cathy Freeman. He simply says: `Is there a quid in it?' `Can Telstra make a dollar out of this?' `Did he pay you off?' That is the thinking that is behind this legislation. Perhaps that is the greatest illustration of exactly what we are on about on this side. They have not got a concept over there of what humanity is all about, of what it means to be a human being, of what we are on about. Senator McGauran is a great example of a person who has lived in comfort and riches all his life who comes in here and cannot see what the difficulties for the ordinary person are. That is exactly what this bill is about. It is not about the ordinary person; it is about the person who can pay to get into this country. That is the only consideration that is taken into account. Senator Schacht and you, Mr Acting Deputy President McKiernan, have gone into the issue of how these figures were arrived at. Nothing set out in the second reading speech gives any indication of how these figures were arrived at. If the government is going to impose these burdens on the parents of Australians, then it should tell all Australians exactly how these figures were arrived at. Mr Sciacca, in the House of Representatives, who would make an outstanding minister for immigration and multicultural affairs, and who will soon be minister—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—He would certainly be a sympathetic minister. SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—He would be a sympathetic minister, and have some heart—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—On an ethical base. SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Yes, he has talked about the culture. I think that is right. We have approached this area as gatekeepers. We should be gatekeepers to the extent that we should regulate those who come to Australia. That is absolutely a fundamental principle, and we should be gatekeepers in that sense. We should have a say in who comes in here. We have a country to run and we have to run it on proper principles. We do that by deciding what people to let in. But we should also be a country that facilitates people who come here and who are in need. The department tends to concentrate on the first issue, which is the regulating function, rather than the second issue, which is the facilitating function. There are some symbols of that. Woomera, for example, in the desert, where we keep people locked up, is a symbol of the approach we have here. I have met with some of the people who have been through there, people who have fled from the oppression of the regime of Saddam Hussein. They have suffered much, unfortunately not only overseas but here as well. It is the thinking behind the department's administration of all these issues that leads to that situation. We should never hold anybody in contempt. When we regard people as the opponent, as the other side, as different from us, we get the situation that pertained in Northern Ireland. We get the situation that exists now in the Middle East, where the tragedy is absolutely awful. We get the tragedy of Sri Lanka. As we witness the scenes each night of what is happening in Israel, we understand that, unless people see each other as people and as worthy of respect because they are people, we will get that situation.Here, arising from this second reading speech, people are given value only because of the money that they have. That is bad not only for Australia but for the concept that people have of other people around the world. If we are going to measure people only in terms of their ability to pay, then we stop regarding people as worthwhile for other reasons. The point has been made again and again, and I make it again now, that we have to see ourselves as a migrant country. At the Olympics the other night, when Cathy Freeman was running and Tatiana Grigorieva was vaulting, there was the symbol of the people who originally had this country and the people who have most recently arrived. And in between there is all of us. But we do not seem to have the sort of regard we ought to have for our situation. WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGauran—You're getting full of it, Barney.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—What terrible contribution are you going to make now?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGauran—I said you're getting full of it.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator Gibbs—Very, very rude.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Very, very rude. It illustrates again the absolute disregard Senator McGauran has for any sort of thing other than money. Money is the concept he has. If you start talking about the higher things, he just treats it with contempt, and that is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. If we start talking about issues in migration other than money, what you get from the other side is just a tremendous contempt and an approach that ridicules all this sort of thing.Because of what this legislation represents, because of Australia and its history, we should reject it. We rejected it when the concept came forward in terms of regulations and we should reject it now when it comes before us unamended as a bill. We have to remember that these parents are parents of Australian people. Australia, fortunately, has never gone ahead simply on the basis of money, of lords and ladies in the 19th century or of growth of companies in the 20th century. Throughout all that, we have always retained the idea of a fair go. In the end, the concept of a fair go requires us to reject this legislation in its present form.11:10:0017928Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QueenslandALP00—I congratulate my colleague Senator Cooney on his excellent speech. Contrary to what Senator McGauran thinks, Senator Cooney is a very, very caring person. He is quite right: this Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 should be rejected by the Senate. The purpose of this bill is to amend the 1958 Migration Act to establish a new parent visa category, and it will provide for an intake of 4,000 applicants over the first two years of the program. The new category is quite similar to the one that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs tried to set up under regulation last year. The Senate rejected the regulation because it was considered to be discriminatory, elitist and unfair. The new supported aged parent (migrant) and supported aged parent (residence) classes replace the parent migrant visa class, presently containing about 20,000 applicants. The new class categories are based on the principle that, if aged parents want to be reunited with their families in Australia, they must lodge substantial social security bonds and pay substantial health levies. This money is paid to offset any possible demands that might be made by them on the social security and health systems during the next 10 years. This proposition will result in the creation of an elitist visa class whereby aged parents will be allowed to jump the queue if they can afford to pay $65,000 per couple in fees, levies and bonds. Alternatively, they may purchase a 10-year private health insurance policy and, of course, they pay for their transport costs to get to Australia.This is a very emotive issue. Just over a month ago, a number of illegal immigrants housed at the Woomera detention centre rioted after learning they were not going to be allowed to remain in Australia. After finding out that they were to be sent back to their original countries, a number of the people attacked guards and set fire to buildings. The opposition certainly does not condone this sort of behaviour, and I do not think any of us should allow such events to affect our decision making. After the incident, the minister said that the people responsible for the actions would be dealt with in the appropriate way. He said that Australia would not be held to ransom by violence—and rightly so. Unfortunately, with this bill the minister is creating one class of favoured immigrants. He is bowing to an area of pressure, and that is money. The minister is saying through this bill: `It is not right to queue jump unless you have a few extra dollars in your back pocket. We won't give you any special consideration unless of course you have an extra $65,000 to give us.' What sort of message would that send to the illegal immigrants housed at Woomera?Before I discuss this bill, there is the question of why we are debating it at all. As I mentioned previously, more than a year ago the Senate disallowed a policy measure that was quite similar to this legislation. The Senate disallowed the regulation because it was discriminatory and outright unfair. So we on this side of the chamber are trying hard to understand why the minister has introduced it again in the form of this legislation. The shadow minister for immigration, Mr Con Sciacca, in his speech on the second reading raised the possibility that perhaps the minister was introducing these measures in legislation because he wanted a substantial debate on this issue. I hope Mr Sciacca is right and that that is what the minister is doing, because the opposition would welcome debate on such an important issue. The issue does need serious debate because the government is essentially setting up a culture of queue jumping. Over the past few years there has been an increase in illegal immigration, with a big increase in the number of people coming into the country from places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, China and Palestine. One of the major problems with illegal immigration is the market it creates for people smuggling. Wherever there is higher demand than supply, the criminal element is likely to set up shop. Unfortunately, in the case of illegal immigration people's hopes, aspirations and, more importantly, their lives are often at stake. That is why the opposition has supported and indeed encouraged logical and effective methods to help combat illegal immigration in general and people smuggling in particular.Along with the increase in illegal immigration, we have also had an increase in the claims of many of those people seeking asylum. The term `queue jumper' has emerged, and it is something that we all recognise as an un-Australian act. At the time, the minister was suggesting that thousands and thousands of illegal immigrants were getting set to swamp Australia. Just last year he was indicating that 10,000 boat people were about to land on our shores. He used these figures to whip up boat people hysteria around the country, but the boat people `invasion'—as it was portrayed at the time—never materialised. LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—Why not? I'll give you a briefing on why it didn't happen.6L6Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS—Over the past year and a half, about 3,500 illegal immigrants reached our shores—that is 3,500, not 10,000, Senator. That is way short of the estimates we had from the minister—way short. The Labor Party supported all of the reasonable measures that the minister put forward to help combat these problems, including increasing levels of information exchange and data matching between various agencies to improve the tracking of illegal workers and visitors overstaying their visas. Labor supported moves to change refugee regulations to address unfounded claims for refugee status. Labor supported a big increase in fines for people smugglers. Labor even went further, suggesting Australia should establish a dedicated coastguard to protect our shores. The opposition supported the temporary protection visa scheme, providing the government with the powers that it said it needed to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Overall, it is fair to say that the Labor opposition has been very helpful in cooperating with this government in enacting measures to stop, or at least reduce, queue jumping by desperate people coming to our country.It is for that reason that we will not be supporting these measures. How could we be expected to support a bill that creates a double standard and that allows those people who can afford $65,000 per couple to be given favourable treatment? How could we be expected to support such measures when over the past few years we have backed moves to send out the strongest message that queue jumping would not be tolerated by Australians in any way, shape or form? This bill legitimises queue jumping for rich people to the detriment of those who do the right thing, wait their turn and cannot afford to pay this amount of money. That is why the Labor Party is not supporting it. What Labor does support is a reasonable contribution to our social security and health base by aged parents or dependent couples wanting to immigrate here. It would be a very costly and unfair burden if taxpayers were expected to fund all of the costs of medical treatment for thousands of aged-parent immigrants. The opposition is in favour of aged parents who come into Australia making a worthwhile contribution to the community that they are going to become a part of. Under the immigration cost structure introduced by the previous Labor government, aged parents migrating to Australia are already required to pay about $8,000 to come into the country. In his second reading speech, the minister commented that allowing all 20,000 aged parents waiting under current financial arrangements into the country may result in billions of dollars of taxpayers' money being spent supporting them through the health and social security systems. There is not one person who is suggesting that all of those 20,000 aged parents on the waiting list should be allowed into the country straightaway. That is not the Labor Party's position and never has been. The current intake is 500 people a year. That statement and the statement by the minister saying that 10,000 boat people were going to come to Australia were simply scare tactics. The minister is having more and more trouble justifying his arguments, and so he is increasing his rhetoric. Furthermore, the minister has also commented that research has shown that those who migrate to this country late in their lives do make a large contribution to revenue but cost the country a lot in terms of health and social security expenditure. What a comment typical of this economic-rationalist government! What a typical sort of statement from a government that has shown so little respect for the elderly of its own country, let alone for those from overseas wanting to come here. Senator Cooney is quite right when he says that on your side of the chamber all you think of is money, money, money. You are so tunnel-visioned. The comment of the minister ignores the significant contribution that older people of all cultures make to the country. This comment sends a message—one that the Howard government seems increasingly comfortable with—that people are only valued for the economic contribution they can make. It seems that they are only valued for how much money they can directly contribute to the tax base.Unfortunately, that approach devalues the significant contribution older people make to this community and to any community. Older people provide stability and guidance for their families in an ever-changing world. And, in purely economic terms, aged parents provide an extended family, caring for their grandchildren, allowing younger adult members of the family to become more productive in the traditional economy. If there are 20,000 in the queue to come into Australia under the aged parents category, there could be more than 50,000 Australians waiting for people to come through. With only 500 being allowed in every year, the sad reality is that most will die before they reach our shores. It is grossly unfair for this government to ask Australian families that want to sponsor their aged parents to hand over what is quite a substantial amount of money. Even more telling than this is the fact that the whole basis of the charge is wrong. The bills require that aged parent immigrants pay $25,000 or buy health insurance for 10 years in advance. The problem with that proposal is that such a private health insurance product does not exist and there is a lot of doubt that the rules as they apply to health funds would permit such a policy to be paid up-front. There are just so many questions about how such a policy would work, including whether part of the fee would be refunded if the person dies. Notwithstanding that, the government's maths on those figures does not add up. The figures do not add up because the government seems to have ignored the way Medicare works. The 10-year private health insurance policies would not be a replacement for Medicare. Every year the Commonwealth spends $6 billion on medical services provided by GPs and specialists. Not one cent of this is covered by private health funds. Medicare itself funds three-quarters of the medical costs of private patients for private in-hospital treatment and private health insurance covers the remaining quarter of the cost. Although the government has spent a lot of time trumpeting the success of measures designed to increase private health insurance, it has yet to show that demand for public hospital services has actually declined. So what would happen is this: if the 4,000 people allowed into the country took out 10-year private health insurance policies at $25,000 each, it would mean an extra $100 million for the insurance funds. The government would pay $30 million of that through the 30 per cent rebate. Because people would be issued with Medicare cards, they would be just as entitled to use the public health system as everybody else. There would be no saving to Medicare because all of those people would still have access to regular medical services. In short, this measure would be another attack on the public health system. In summary, I reiterate why Labor will not be supporting this bill. Over the past two years the government, with our support, has implemented a number of changes to immigration laws to deter people from entering Australia illegally. This was done because of the rise in the numbers of illegal immigrants over the period, but that rise was not anything like the minister suggested it would be. We supported the measures because, along with most Australians, we recognise queue jumping as being inherently unfair. We supported the measures because we wanted to send the message that queue jumping was wrong; it was un-Australian. We wanted to join the government in sending the message that if you want to come to Australia you must do it through the proper channels. Unfortunately, with this bill the government is sanctioning a form of queue jumping. The government is saying: `If you can afford these tens of thousands of dollars then it doesn't matter if you've been waiting for only a year when others have been waiting for five, we'll let you in. It doesn't matter how the merits of your case stack up against others. If you've got the money, we'll let you in.' That is not how our immigration policy should work. It is not how any of our policies should work. Senator Cooney in his speech went into great detail about what makes Australia a great place to live in and a great nation. He was quite right. We have to have compassion, we have to have rules and we have to look at the suffering and distress it would cause people who are doing the right thing, who are waiting for their parents to come to this country. If people queue jump, it is wrong. It causes great distress. That somebody should be let in over others simply because they have the extra money, they are wealthy, is absolutely wrong, and it is not something that the Labor Party can support.11:28:0017931Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I rise in the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 and a related bill to indicate that One Nation will be supporting the government's legislation but we have some concerns regarding some of sections of the bill, and we will indicate those later in the debate. Australia has an enviable reputation in its acceptance of migrants to these shores over the last 200 years. The contribution by these migrants in the establishment of this country has been considerable, and the country must acknowledge that fact. However, Australia has a current debt which is continuing to increase on a monthly basis and at the present moment stands at $268 million. This equates to $14,000 for every Australian citizen and represents 43 per cent of our gross domestic product. Any further addition to our debt needs to be very carefully considered. The legislation will impose costs on migrants and their families of minimal proportion in comparison to the cost the taxpayer will be required to bear should this bill proceed in its present form. The migration source being considered for this bill will cover the only category of migration where the Australian taxpayer funded costs to our budget will increase rather than decrease, and at no time will these people have contributed one tax dollar to general revenue.With Australia's ageing population, these migration costs will become more critical over time. Figures show that the Australian born population 60 years and over increased by 25 per cent over the last 20 years, while the overseas born portion increased by 110 per cent over the same time. Due to the fact that these migrants will overwhelmingly be of retirement age and unless the migrants or their families are able to fully fund these people, I do not believe we have the right to impose these additional costs on the average worker and taxpayer of this country. One Nation supports full maintenance requirements for a period of 10 years but would prefer the period to be for a lifetime. Keep the financial responsibility solely between the applicant and their sponsors and leave the Australian taxpayer out of the equation. The requirement to finance their health care by either a $25,000 up-front payment or 10 years private insurance fails to acknowledge the fact that, once residence status is acquired, these applicants will automatically be given a Medicare card and all its taxpayer funded benefits, with no prerequisite to financial contribution at any stage. The contributions to Medicare by the Australian worker on lower to average income amounts to approximately $26,000 over a working life of approximately 45 years. Based on the average rate of pay, a contribution of $10,000 would be totally inadequate. Health costs for the over 65 years age group averages approximately $5,200 per person per annum, four times the amount for the under-65s. That equates to a cost of $52,000 over the equivalent 10-year qualifying period that is being asked of the applicants.The bill fails to make provision for failures of signatories to agreements of support. Figures show the outstanding failure of these agreements. Of the migrants over 65 who have arrived in Australia over the last five to 10 years, nearly 85 per cent are on welfare, compared to 66 per cent of Australians of the same age. Most of these migrants were permitted entry under family agreements of support and have subsequently reneged on their agreements. Due to the obvious loopholes and the possibility for deliberate fraud that the agreements of support present, One Nation would like to see provisions in the bill that are similar to those presently existing in the Migration Act 1958, giving the minister the power to cancel a visa should the circumstances which permitted the granting of the visa no longer exist—that is in section 116(1)(a) of the Migration Act. With a single stroke of a pen, this would solve the problem of the default on the part of either the applicant or the sponsoring family in relation to an AOS. The bill also fails to allow for any circumstances or information that may arise subsequent to the soundness of character of the applicant being proven. As Australia has a good history of its own dubious characters, I see no reason to import any more. How many more Konrad Kalejs outrages do we have to have before we learn our lesson?Australia sources immigrants from over 70 countries. This has given us a richness of character second to none. We have benefited greatly from this mix and want that balance to continue in future. However, again we have to think of the benefits that these migrants must be able to offer to the Australian community and at the same time minimise the economic costs that will arise. Issues arising with immigrants from our vast range of source countries include the problem of communication. Should applicants be unable to speak English with some degree of fluency, this will create problems in the provision of health services for those people. Hence, we will be placed in the position of funding old-age homes and nursing homes with specific cultural and linguistic prerequisites applicable to the source nation from which people have migrated. How many institutions will this necessitate? Who will be required to fund them? The solution to this problem is that applicants should be reasonably fluent in English, thus enabling Australia to provide a more rational accommodation for their health and residential requirements.As I previously mentioned, Australia's present illustrious national debt has skyrocketed from $5 billion in 1972 to a very healthy $269 million recently, and someone has to keep the bottom line in mind. Anyone who is genuine and has Australia's best interests at heart, as against somebody who is opportunistic, will support my next proposal—that is, that migrants be required to take out Australian citizenship within five years of arriving here. While not denigrating their country of origin in any way, I maintain that, if the reasons for migration to Australia are genuine and are not purely altruistic, and the applicant has a true regard for Australia and what this country is doing for them, the subsequent uptake of Australian citizenship should not be a problem.The Labor Party's proposal to introduce a direct Medicare contribution by the applicant does not take into account two major issues: firstly, the fact that those people will not have made any contribution to the public health care system and, secondly, that considering the age of the applicants they will, in all probability, make heavy demands upon the system once they start to access its services. Australian taxpayers who have made long-term contributions to the system over their lifetime require minimum usage during their young, healthy years but generally impose heavier costs upon the system during their old age. What we are clearly saying is that the Australian people contribute all through their lives. In the earlier part of their lives they draw a minimal amount from the system, and that balances that heavier drawing at the later part of their lives. This pattern of contribution and usage of Medicare by Australian citizens contrasts vastly with that of those who come in as aged migrants. Senator Cooney spoke earlier about taking sides. I believe it is the responsibility of this chamber to assess the legislation relative to its benefits to the Australian nation. It is not a matter of people taking sides. The opposition has also charged the government with being purely driven by dollar value. I do not believe that is correct, but I would also point out to the Labor Party that they would be equally negligent if they did not take into account the cost to the Australian taxpayer of any amendments that they move to this bill. Successful migrants who have come to this country will have a natural desire to be reunited with their parents. That is understandable. But it would be derelict of this Senate to pass legislation that would impose an excessive additional cost on the taxpayers of Australia. One Nation will support the bill and seek the support of the chamber to ensure that the bill passes in a way in which it minimises the cost to the Australian people.A further issue that we have with the bill in its present form is that it also refers to New Zealand citizens who are resident in Australia as being able to access the ability to be reunited with their parents. That is quite an understandable situation between Australia and New Zealand, but I have extreme concerns based on the issue of the New Zealand government presently having an amnesty in New Zealand for illegal immigrants. We could have the scenario of illegal immigrants in New Zealand being able to achieve citizenship in New Zealand, moving over to Australia and actually being eligible to have their parents brought out here under this scheme. I believe that, if this bill does progress, that is one issue that we need to address in a real way to ensure that none of those illegal immigrants to New Zealand who came through during this amnesty period would be able to access the benefits of this bill.There are several other issues that we need to look at in the progression of the bill, including the average costs of major operations in public hospitals. In Australia, bypass surgery will cost somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000. A hip replacement will be somewhere in the vicinity of $14,000. These aged parents will most certainly fall into those areas if you consider that the majority of these operations are performed on patients who are 60 years and over. So there is the potential for a huge increase in Medicare costs.As I indicated earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to require a reasonable standard of fluency in English. The reason behind this, as I said earlier, is that there are over 70 countries from which Australia accesses its migrant intake and a large proportion of those are non-English speaking. In Australia today, when there is a non-English speaking patient, hospitals are paying $65 per hour for an interpreter. Again, that is an additional cost. That would be alleviated by one of the requirements of these people being that they be able to converse in English. The second reason obviously relates to the difficulties that occur when patients find themselves with emergency complications. The other issue that we have to address is that, because of some of the cultures of these aged immigrants from other regions, there are additional costs to the hospital system—for example, through requests for the special provision of food and special medical staff requirements. These requests impose additional costs for services that the majority of Australian patients do not require. In closing, as I indicated earlier, One Nation will support the bill but, because of the issues and concerns that I have raised, we will be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that the impact on the taxpayers of Australia is minimised. 10000Watson, John (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Schacht, do you wish to move the amendment you foreshadowed?4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—In view of discussions with the government where they indicated the direction in which they will be proceeding, it is not necessary for us to proceed to move our second reading amendment.11:46:0017934Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VictoriaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank honourable senators for their contribution to the debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000. I would like to put on the record what the bill is proposing because some figures have been used fairly loosely in the debate; they were not quite correct and I want to put the record straight. During the debate the figures ranged from $50,000 to $60,000 to $64,000 per person.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—That is per double.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I think someone said per person. I just want to put it straight. The health contribution for a single person would be $25,000 and for a married couple it would be $50,000, or health insurance when gazetted, and $10,000 assurance of support for the primary applicant and $4,000 for the secondary applicant. The same processes are involved in the assurance of support now—the bond, with interest, would be given back after 10 years. So the up-front cost would be $25,000 per person and $50,000 for a married couple plus the assurance of support, which is refundable at the end of 10 years if the person or couple have not received welfare benefits. An assurance of support is a commitment that the person will not be a cost to the Australian taxpayer. That is just to get the record straight.I did a quick calculation while I was sitting here. On average, parents migrating to Australia live for 20 years. A cost of $25,000 works out at around $1,200 per year, which is about equivalent to a very basic health insurance cover. There are other reasons why we chose that figure, but most Australians would say that we need a fair system which recognises the contribution that Australians who are born here or who migrate here early in their lives make to the tax system over their lifetime of working and that acknowledges that people who come from overseas later in their lives have not made that same contribution to the tax system and are on average going to cost the Australian community a significant amount as they age.Senator Gibbs said a couple of things. First of all, she said that it does not acknowledge the significant contribution that older people make to this country. She said that with me sitting here in the chamber—of all the people to say that to. I do not claim much credit, but I do claim credit for being one of the few people in this chamber who have constantly championed the contribution that older people make to our community. This is not denying that people who come from overseas make a contribution to the Australian community in terms of culture and the wisdom they bring to their families. We acknowledge that but we also acknowledge on the other hand that there is a significant cost to the Australian community associated with people who come in their later years. In the last year of the Labor government we had 9,000 parents coming to Australia. We believe that that was financially unsustainable.A couple—a husband and wife—who migrated here from overseas in their early 20s and worked here, one as a market gardener and the other as a tailor, said to me, `With the means-tested targeted social security system we just miss out on the pension, and we have contributed all our lives. We see it as unfair that people can come from our country as parents later in their lives and not contribute yet be a cost.' That is the sort of view that is being expressed. I have a pile of letters here. I receive and respond to a large number of the letters that are written to Mr Ruddock. People say that they are willing to pay bonds: `I am even willing to pay for their everyday needs—medical, which I'm doing at present—and even take out a pension if need be. I do not want financial assistance from anybody; it is my responsibility. I have stated this to Immigration in numerous letters but no-one is prepared to listen.' We have listened and we are trying to do something about it. The letters go on: `We are willing to pay on this and still we wait,' and `With other immigration issues presently absorbing most public attention we are grateful that you made the considerable time and effort to resolve this problem for families like ours who are prepared to accept responsibility for their aged parents so they may spend their final years with their family.' That referred to the previous regulations, which the Senate disallowed. Another letter says: `They will not be a charge for the Australian government as they will pay for their own health cover and everything necessary.' They are prepared to pay for everything—we are asking for a contribution which is not in any way going to pay for everything. Another letter states, `I hope this bill will be allowed by the Senate—by the opposition and Democrats. We will fully support our parents in Australia. They will not be a burden on Australian taxpayers.' Another letter states: `I wish to stress that they will not be a burden to the Australian government as we will be supporting them fully.' These are people who are asking for their parents to come. As I said, in this bill we are not asking for full support. I could go on, quoting from letter after letter from people.Unlike Senator Bolkus when he was minister for immigration and he invited people to come to consultations, Mr Ruddock, since he has been minister, has had consultations right around Australia, in major capital cities and in regional areas outside those cities. Sometimes he goes to the east of a city one year and to the west the next year, and then he might go into a different regional area. Anything from 400 to 500 people attend those consultations and, when I can, I go with him. Those consultations are publicly advertised and people come to them. We have had them right throughout Australia; we have had them in Western Australia, North Queensland, Tasmania—in every state in Australia, in regional areas and in cities. The issue that comes up over and over again is that of parents. When the issue is raised, it is prefaced by the comments, `We don't want them to be a burden on the Australian public. We realise that they haven't contributed through their taxes. We want to be able to support them; we want them to be able to come. Can you do something about it?' Minister Ruddock in the last series of regulations responded to that.Despite what Senator Gibbs said about us thinking only of money, it is unsustainable. I will talk in a moment, if I have the time, about the estimated costs of someone in their later years who comes to Australia. We cannot sustain that if everyone, or even the ones who are currently in the pipeline, wishes to come to Australia. Senator Gibbs said that there are 20,000 in the pipeline, and that is right, and that they do not think they should all come. Well, let the Labor Party tell us how many they think should come. They had 9,000 come during their last year in government. Is Senator Gibbs telling us that that 20,000 should come in over the next two years? If so, we will add that to the budget cost. We will add it to the roll-back of the GST. We will add it to the freezing of the petrol price that Senator Schacht or somebody in the chamber said they were planning. We will add all that and see how much debt we are going to go into again. It was $10 million in the last year that Labor were in power. We were borrowing $10 million from the future generations of Australia to pay.We will have those parents in if the Labor Party gets back in, but we will not be paying for them; the children of Australia will pay for them in the debt we will rack up. All of us would like to see parents being reunited with their children, but it is not practical and it is not possible financially. So we are looking at a way of responding to the letters we receive and to the consultations we have had right throughout Australia, where the community who are wishing to bring their parents here indicate that they realise there is a cost. They realise it is not fair to those people who have contributed taxation all their lives and who are prepared to make a fair contribution to that cost. Just to clear up a technical point, Senator Schacht raised the issue of the budgetary statement and the savings figures. They were based on 500 places in the first year, 3,500 in the second year and 1,000 a year in the third and fourth years, and the revenue figures reflect the charge payments made in each year in out turn prices.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Why is it so high in the second year? Why do you get 3½ thousand in the second year?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—I have just explained that, Senator Schacht, so maybe you could go back over the Hansard and read it. Senator McKiernan and Senator Gibbs commented that Mr Ruddock said that, if the 20,000 in the pipeline were allowed to migrate, it would cost millions of dollars. That is actually true. Senator McKiernan said that the figures arrived at were gobbledygook and that the Labor Party realises that there has to be a fair charge. I do not think he used the word `charge' but he intimated that it should be fair. We want to know what the Labor Party thinks is fair. We have put up two propositions now. Were the $960 contribution towards the health cost, the $3,500 bond for a primary applicant and the $1,500 for a secondary applicant fair under Labor? Is that what you are going to go back to? If that is fair, let us know. You have not told us because you have not got any policies on anything. What is your policy? Is it $960 per person for health costs, a $3,500 bond for a primary application and $1,500 for a secondary application? If that is fair, tell us. Senator Gibbs says that we should not have the whole 20,000 in at once. Tell us what your cap would be. We need to know both those things. We can keep bringing bills in here until we are blue in the face, but unless the Labor Party or the Democrats tell us what is fair, we are going to have to restrict the number of people because it has huge budgetary implications. So get together and have some policy meetings. I know that your leader could not get you all to Ballarat when the Olympics were on and that half of you were AWOL. Get together when you have not got other things on, develop some policies and tell us what you think is fair and then we can work in conjunction with you to deal with this issue. We have now put up two propositions, neither of which has been accepted, despite communities of people who want to bring their parents here saying that they believe they should make a contribution. Some people would say that they should pay for it totally.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Communities of rich people.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Schacht says, `It's rich people.' I can tell you that some of the people I have spoken to are not rich.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—I said `communities of rich people'.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—They are prepared to make a sacrifice, a contribution, because they realise there are other people who have come here who have contributed through the tax system and people who were born in Australia who have contributed through the tax system. I think Senator Schacht also said that the Labor Party was not opposed to a moderate contribution or reasonable charges. So, again, Senator Schacht has admitted—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—When we were in government—that is what I said in my contribution. I said we introduced a moderate contribution.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Senator Schacht is saying that when they were in government they did not object to moderate contributions or reasonable charges. As I said, the contribution was $965 for health, a bond of $3,500 for the first applicant and $1,500 for the second applicant.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—It's a bit different from $25,000.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—If he thinks that is a moderate charge and that is appropriate, then that is fine. When they ever develop a policy, we will calculate that and look at the cost. We want to know how many people they are going to allow in. Senator Gibbs said 20,000 is too many, so let's ask them: how many per program year? Is it 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000? Or is it the whole 20,000 and then we start a waiting list? I do not know; they cannot tell me what their policy is. So much for their contribution. The other thing I cannot let go before I talk about the relative cost is that Senator Gibbs slurred Minister Ruddock, I thought very unfairly, when she said that he had whipped up hysteria and opposition to unauthorised arrivals by claiming that there were going to be 10,000 unauthorised arrivals. I would offer to Senator Gibbs—she is not in the chamber at the moment—a briefing, in my office or in her office, with departmental officers about the enormous changes that we have undertaken to stem the tide of unauthorised arrivals. Minister Ruddock and senior officials of the bureaucracy—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—There are 60,000 visa overstays a year in Australia. What have you done about that?LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—That is on another topic. He talks about the overstayers. We could look at the compliance activity under Labor and the compliance activity under the coalition, but we are not going to talk about that. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—We were told thousands were coming, but they never turned up.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—It is amazing, you know. I can actually sit and listen to Senator Schacht, when I am so irritated, without interjecting and he cannot refrain from interjecting. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—When you insult the opposition you are going to get it back. I do not cast aspersions on the government when I speak.10000Watson, John (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson)—Senator Patterson has the call.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSON—Thank you very much. I thought Senator Schacht had had his turn. He thinks he would like a second turn. As I was saying, Mr Ruddock has undertaken, as have senior members of the department, visits to countries which people have been using as transition countries to come to Australia. He has worked assiduously to inform people about the misinformation they are being given by people smugglers. There have been all sorts of strategies to reduce the number of unauthorised arrivals. It is not a problem faced by just Australia. In the last two weeks I have been talking to diplomats from Europe, and some countries with a population of six million people have had 90,000 unauthorised arrivals. So it was not extremist and it was not playing into the hands of people who are opposed to immigration. It was a genuine attempt to alert Australia to the possibility of a problem that needed to be addressed, and I think credit should be given to Minister Ruddock and his department for the work they have done to reduce that flow of unauthorised arrivals and people being subjected to incredible misinformation by people smugglers who profit from the misfortune of those people who are seeking another place to live.Let me go back to the issue in the bill. As Minister Ruddock said in his second reading speech, he understands people's wishes to bring their parents to Australia, but there is a significant cost to taxpayers. While parents coming into Australia assist in providing support for their Australian sponsors—I have mentioned before that they assist in all sorts of ways, including child care and reminding children of the culture of their parents or their own birthplace—the research shows that people who migrate to Australia late in life make a minimal contribution to revenue but incur very substantial costs in terms of social security and health. The Department of Health and Aged Care estimates that health costs for a person aged 65 can be around $6,000 per annum. Of course, some people are very fortunate and have good health and do not cost that much. Others require expensive surgery or drugs. On average it is about $6,000 per annum.The cost of special benefits from the Department of Family and Community Services that a parent can access in lieu of the age pension is around $8,500 per person per annum and can be accessed with no recourse to refund once the current two-year assurance of support period is passed. After 10 years residence, a person can access an age pension of around $9,500 per annum. As I said, because parents have very low labour force participation rates and very high unemployment rates, very little of these costs are currently recovered via taxes paid. That is a major issue and, despite all of our best wishes and despite the fact that we would like to see all families reunited with their parents who want to come from overseas, it is not practical or affordable. In response to the preparedness of sponsors to contribute to the cost of aged parents, as I said, through the correspondence we have received and through consultations the minister has been involved in, we introduced these new entry arrangements. But it seems that the opposition parties are not going to agree to this legislation. To save us from having to go through the committee stage of the bills, we have agreed to defer the debate on the bills after the second reading debate to look at schedule 1 outside the chamber before we return the bills to the chamber to discuss schedule 1. I appreciate honourable senators' cooperation in that, because it will save the time of the Senate, make the passage of these bills more speedy, and lead to the acceptance, I hope, of schedule 1, which the opposition have indicated they would support.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills read a second time.Ordered that consideration of these bills in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Bills17938R108817938Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Heffernan:That this bill be now read a second time.12:07:0017938Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 provides for the long overdue amendment of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 to end the exemption that applies to international sporting events. This exemption was provided in the 1992 act because of the potential for Australia to lose international events in an environment where tobacco advertising was the norm. Regrettably, over the last five years Australia has slipped from a world leader to become one of the backmarkers in phasing out tobacco promotion. In 1996 Mr Allan Rassaby completed a report into the operation of section 18 and the significance of tobacco sponsorship to international events and the impact these events had on local state economies. The Rassaby report remains the authoritative source on this issue and it looks at all sides of the issue. The Minister for Health and Aged Care has had this report on his desk since it was completed in July 1996 but, regrettably, failed to take the prompt action that was recommended. Mr Rassaby's recommendation was for the exemption in section 18 to be repealed with effect from 2001, which would have given the industry five years notice. Now we find ourselves in 2000 still having to give five years notice. Now the phase-out will not be completed until 2006. Another important report on tobacco at that time was produced by the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, chaired by Senator Herron. He seems to have done most of his best work when in opposition. This report was tabled in December 1995 and included many wide-ranging recommendations, most of which remain unimplemented to this day. On the question of the advertising exemption for tobacco, Senator Herron and his committee recommended that the exemption be phased out by 2000. The government response to both of these recommendations was not tabled until December 1997—almost two years after the Senate report and 14 months after the Rassaby report was completed. Unfortunately, the Minister for Health and Aged Care made a very weak reply claiming that he had tightened the exemption but that it was necessary to retain it. It was only after another year, in September 1998, and in the run-up to the last election that the Minister for Health and Aged Care took the next step of establishing a phase-out timetable. This is the timetable that is contained in the bill before us and which the European Community adopted in July 1998. It took another two years for this bill to be presented, despite several public promises to introduce it in early 1999 or early 2000. It has now taken a further five months for the bill to make its way through to the Senate, which indicates the low priority being given to this particular piece of legislation. If the minister had accepted the original recommendation, we could have been five years ahead of where we are today and tobacco smoking would not be at the level it is now. The government has wrongly claimed that the campaign against smoking stalled under Labor in the early 1990s and was only reinvigorated by the round of anti-smoking advertising in 1997. But we need only go to no less a source than Philip Morris to see that these claims are not correct. I refer senators to a graph which was provided by Philip Morris to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee on 4 August. It shows that there was a steady decline in cigarette consumption in the early 1990s. In the four years from 1993 to 1997, there was a drop of four billion cigarettes a year smoked in Australia—a drop of about 13 per cent. In the following three years under the Howard government's policies there was effectively no change in consumption. The push to reduce smoking has stalled. There was a decline in smoking during 1997, coinciding with the Quit advertisements run during that year. This can be seen in the graph provided, confirming that the advertisements had some effect. But the graph puts the facts into perspective: the decline in smoking in 1997 was the tail end of the campaign commenced and funded by Labor, not the first action by the new coalition government. There has been no action since and, until very recently, the consumption pattern had been very flat. The graph does record a sharp drop in industry sales in recent months. Unfortunately, that does not reflect an actual cut in smoking in Australia. Since the rise in tobacco excise last November, there has been an explosion in illegal chop chop tobacco sales. I am advised that a large part of the recent decline can be accounted for by these illegal sales which the government has now belatedly moved to curb. We need to do more. We need to pass this bill and speed up the way in which tobacco promotion is phased out.The government originally proposed that the exemption be ended for new events from 2002 and that existing events would lose their tobacco sponsorship by 2006. The opposition rejected the government's argument that more time was required to allow even new events to apply up to the year 2002. You cannot start a phase-out by increasing the number of approved events. I am pleased that the government conceded this point in the House of Representatives debate and that the date has now been brought back to October 2000. There are five existing events that will continue to have exemptions: the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix, the Australian Ladies Masters Golf, IndyCar Australia and Rally Australia. In recent years there has been a general move worldwide to phase out tobacco advertising. As Australia will not be moving faster than the last countries in Europe, there can be no argument that Australia's ability to attract events will be damaged. Labor's amendment means that, although the existing five events will continue to have their special status until 2006, there will be no new ones. Senators should shed no tears of concern for the tobacco industry being forced to relinquish their grip on Australia's major motor sports events, nor should we fear for the future of these events. The recent deluge of tobacco papers released onto the Internet in the United States outlines clearly how the major tobacco companies made a concerted effort to get into the sponsorship of Australian sport once tobacco advertising was limited in the mid-1970s. They saw sport as an effective way to advertise their product and to give it a cachet of glamour, excitement and success—and we know that that worked. Studies have shown that brand recall was heightened among children who viewed sponsored events. Clear links could be shown between the preferred brands of children who smoked and the sponsorship of major sports in Australian states. Children, especially those who smoke, are adept at recognising even cryptic tobacco advertisements. It is enough that the Marlboro colours are on the car, helmet and suit of their favourite motor racing hero. We should also not worry about the future sponsorship of these events in the absence of tobacco money; cricket and rugby league continue to thrive in its absence. Ultimately, however, this bill and this issue are about something far more important than how to fund sports events. This is about inappropriately glamorising and promoting a serious health risk. We must tackle the harm caused by tobacco use at every opportunity and undertake and support a wide range of well-targeted initiatives. I now wish to turn to the government's general record on discouraging the use of tobacco. The government has made much of its concern about tobacco smoking but has done precious little to put its words into action. Since the last injection of funds for the national tobacco campaign in 1995, the level of Commonwealth funding for anti-tobacco programs has been going backwards. The real achievements that should be acknowledged are being made out in the community by underfunded health professionals, the initiatives of state governments and non-government organisations, and the promoters of nicotine replacement therapy. These groups have worked hard to make some impact but their efforts have lost much of their bite as the budget dried up. Although overall smoking prevalence has declined, the number of cigarettes smoked has plateaued—other than the recent decline due to the chop chop tobacco development. Alarmingly, since 1995 smoking prevalence amongst young women has risen from 19 per cent to 26 per cent. Smoking rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still over 54 per cent. This is an appallingly high rate when compared to the 21.8 per cent average for the community as a whole. It is no doubt a contributing factor to the 20-year gap between life expectancy in the general community and that of Aboriginal people. It is an issue about which something can be done—and it is an issue on which something should have been done already.Eighteen thousand Australians die every year from smoking. The economic and social costs are in the billions. Our hospitals are full of patients suffering from diseases caused by smoking. At a time when we are investing sizeable sums to reduce other health problems, smoking, which has the largest impact of all, remains the poor relative when it comes to federal funding.Despite the incontrovertible facts about tobacco's relationship to a plethora of health problems, there is not enough being done. The government has gone strangely quiet about the number one preventable cause of death in Australia. I do not know if this lack of action is linked to the fact that the Liberal Party has a close and well-documented relationship with the tobacco industry. Only recently the Liberal Party conference had a major dinner sponsored by Philip Morris, with much protestation that this was entirely appropriate until such time as tobacco smoking is made illegal. While it is illegal to sell tobacco to minors and it is illegal to promote tobacco in most forms, the government is now moving to end the few remaining exemptions to tobacco sponsorship but continues to feel free to continue to accept its own sponsorship from the industry. When this bill was debated in the House, the minister was asked to support a ban on sponsorship of political party events by tobacco companies in the same way it will be banned from sporting and cultural events. I understand that the Democrats will be moving an amendment on that, and I will outline our position at that time. The government needs to wake up to the seriousness of this problem. The minister recently presented himself to Chelsea Clinton as a pioneer of the anti-tobacco cause. In fact, I think he is lagging well behind the Australian public on this issue. The states have long since gone past what the Howard government is prepared to support, and the minister's actions have failed to keep up with his rhetoric.In summary, it is important that Australia sets some meaningful goals to hasten the reduction in tobacco usage in Australia. We have lost a lot of momentum in the last five years, as the increase in smoking amongst young women demonstrates. The opposition is committed to reinvigorating this debate and will bring a new approach and a new set of strategies to achieve real results. This bill represents a long overdue step that the government appears to be taking rather unwillingly. The opposition will support the bill and we will look at the Democrat amendments when we are in the committee stage. Labor look forward to working closely with community groups, including the anti-cancer councils, to speed the decline in tobacco usage. 12:18:0017941Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—If I sound a bit hoarse in this debate on the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2000 and someone wants to attribute it to cigarette smoking, they would be very wrong. Firstly, I have the flu but, secondly, I also have a very proud record of having smoked three cigarettes in my life. So, whilst in many senses I need to make that declaration of interest at the outset on this important piece of legislation, I would ask the indulgence of senators with respect to my delivery because of the problem on my chest that I can assure you is not caused by cigarette or tobacco smoking.The bill highlights the government's continuing commitment to minimising the harm caused by tobacco smoking in Australia. The health effects of tobacco consumption continue to be a major burden on Australian society. Tobacco is the single largest cause of avoidable death and disease in Australia. The use of tobacco costs the Australian community almost $13 billion a year, and around 18,000 Australians die every year from smoking related illnesses. Yet despite all we know about tobacco's harm, we continue to see some worrying trends. After seeing smoking rates consistently fall in the 1970s and 1980s, we are now seeing the rates of smoking increase among our young people, particularly our young women. Young smokers represent a new cohort that will contribute to an even greater burden of disease associated with smoking in the future. If we are unsuccessful in preventing uptake and encouraging quitting, these trends have the potential to reverse the downward trend in prevalence that we have recently achieved. This is symptomatic of the challenges we face in tobacco control in Australia and points to the need for sustained and vigilant action.This bill is yet another of the responses we need to consolidate and build on Australia's world-class tobacco control record. Young people are particularly vulnerable to images encouraging them to take up smoking by associating smoking behaviour with glamour, fast cars and heroes. The government is committed to ending all association between tobacco sponsorship and sport in this country. There has been no tobacco advertising and sponsorship in connection with domestic sporting competitions since 1996. However, major international sporting and cultural events have been able to apply for an exemption to this ban under certain conditions.When the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 was introduced, some exemptions were specified to ensure a moderate introduction of tobacco advertising bans in Australia. One of these exemptions is section 18, which allows international sporting or cultural events held in Australia to carry tobacco advertising provided that certain conditions are met. There has never been an application for an exemption for a cultural event, and only a handful of sporting events continue to apply for, and receive, the exemption, within a climate of increasing restrictions. On the international stage, Australia is a world leader in tobacco control. In June 1999, the Commonwealth and all states and territories endorsed a National Tobacco Strategy. The strategy provides a framework for all jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, to develop their own action plans for tobacco control. The strategy not only is the first attempt to coordinate tobacco control nationally but also places Australia among a handful of countries globally which can say they have tobacco control strategies that reflect those interventions deemed by the World Health Organisation as best practice.The government is committed to maintaining, and improving on, Australia's excellent track record in tobacco control by consistently implementing new initiatives. In 1998, the European Parliament voted for a ban on tobacco advertising, including a ban to be placed on sponsorship advertising of events or activities organised at an international level. This bill before the Senate is consistent with the decisions made by the European Parliament and introduces the same time frames for introducing these bans. The phase-out of all tobacco advertising in Australia also represents a major contribution to the National Tobacco Strategy, in particular the Commonwealth's commitment under this strategy. Under this bill, there will be no tobacco advertising at any sporting or cultural event, under any circumstances, after 1 October 2006. There is to be a phase-out period between 1 October 2000 and 1 October 2006. With the passage of this bill, any event that has not previously received an exemption before 1 October 2000 will be able to apply for an exemption under section 18. Events that have previously received an exemption may continue to apply, but they will receive no expansion on the advertising permitted, and it is our intention that advertising be progressively restricted. It should be noted that, where exemptions are given, they are very prescriptive as to the amount, size and placement of any advertising. These exemptions are then monitored by officers from the Department of Health and Aged Care, and any infringements jeopardise future exemptions. This bill represents several years of negotiation with international motor sport, particularly the FIA—the Federation Internationale d'Auto-mobile—and the international Grand Prix Corporation. Australia, because of its relative geographic isolation, was always at risk of losing such events—a risk that was not present for European countries. We have been able to negotiate an arrangement whereby, with these time frames, international motor sport has given undertakings that Australia will not be placed at any disadvantage in future negotiations. This bill deserves the support of all members and senators. It will break the few remaining links between international sport and tobacco in Australia. The bill has received strong support from the health community. It will provide the opportunity for all Australians to enjoy major international events even more, since they will no longer be associated with tobacco.One of the issues touched on in the amendments circulated by the Australian Democrats relates to the issue of political sponsorship. This bill is among the tobacco control cornerstones that this government has advanced. It successfully balances two important objectives: it achieves the public health objective of closing the final loophole that allows the association between smoking and sport; and the negotiations around the bill have ensured that the economic benefit from major international sporting events are not lost to Australia. Senator Allison appears intent on jeopardising this sound public health initiative. She has diverted the public debate away from the central issue of minimising tobacco advertising in this country to matters that are either entirely tangential and well beyond the scope of the bill or unreasonable and impracticable. This government has approached the passage of this legislation with commitment and goodwill, accepting the challenge of the opposition's amendments to bring forward the deadline for the ban on new events to October 2000. Certainly, the Senate will be challenged to pass the bill so that the negotiations can be brought to a particular area of achievement.We should also acknowledge that this legislation is only one part of the government's very comprehensive approach to tobacco control. As I have said before, on the international stage Australia is considered a world leader in tobacco control. In June 1999, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy endorsed that very important National Tobacco Strategy which provides a framework for all jurisdictions to develop their own tobacco action plans for tobacco control. The National Tobacco Strategy encompasses all of the measures recommended by the World Health Organisation in developing national control action plans, particularly in the areas of education and information, data collection, legislation, pricing policies to deter tobacco consumption, health advocacy, and comprehensive national policies and programs on tobacco control, placing Australia's standards among 10 countries which comply with World Health Organisation best practice standards. One of the key areas of the national strategy is reducing tobacco promotion by reducing the exposure of the public, in particular young people, to messages and images that start them along the road to, or sustain them in, the practice of smoking. This bill is, therefore, a step very much in the right direction. One of the priorities for Commonwealth action identified under the National Tobacco Strategy is to commission research to identify the level of accidental and incidental advertising in film, television, music and print sources in Australia. This government has recently introduced a number of measures in tobacco control: for example, the introduction of a per stick method for calculating tobacco excise to provide price disincentives to smokers, a review of the current health warnings and the negotiation of a voluntary agreement with Australian cigarette manufacturers on the disclosure of ingredients in Australian cigarettes. The government has also provided national leadership in the development of a national response to passive smoking. As well, the government continues to contribute to international and regional tobacco control initiatives within the Department of Health and Aged Care, where it takes a lead policy role in coordinating Australia's participation in the development of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Similarly, the government continues to support the World Health Organisation tobacco-free initiative by funding a two-year post in the Western Pacific office of the World Health Organisation to facilitate work in the region in relation to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and to build tobacco control capacity in developing countries in the region. You may well ask: why is the government waiting until 1 October 2006 to end the association between tobacco and sport? The 1 October 2006 deadline was set to be consistent with international trends—in particular, the directive of the European Union which bans all tobacco advertising in the union from this date. This directive notes that the sponsorship advertising of events or activities at world level is to be banned from 1 October 2006. This deadline has been given to event organisers to ensure that they have sufficient time to work towards developing alternative sponsorship, thereby ensuring that the staging of international events in Australia will not be jeopardised. These events generate considerable employment in the areas in which they are staged and provide a boost to the local economy. In the interim the minister has progressively tightened, and will continue to tighten, conditions for exemptions and has encouraged all event organisers to be tobacco free in the lead-up to the 2006 deadline by actively seeking alternative sponsorship. I understand that this directive may well be challenged by the Advocate-General of the European Court of Justice. However, Australia will pursue a ban on sponsorship regardless of the outcome of the European deliberations as per the commitment under the National Tobacco Strategy. How many events currently receive an exemption under section 18 of the act and how long this exemption remains in force are probably very relevant questions. Currently five events receive an exemption. These are the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix, the IndyCar 300, Rally Australia, and the Ladies Masters Golf Tournament. Event organisers are required to submit an application for each event that is assessed against the guidelines made under section 18 of the act and departmental officers attend each event to ensure compliance with conditions of exemption. The exemption period is specified in the notice of exemption that is published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette and the period usually extends from a few days before the event to a few days after completion of the event. A number of comments have been made by Senator Evans with regard to this debate and the issues it has raised. I found it rather ironic that Senator Evans sought to take the government to task on issues relating to sponsorship. Unfortunately, he did not take the time to also look carefully at the Australian Electoral Commission returns on such matters as they pertain to the Australian Labor Party. I am informed, for example, that the ALP accepted $134,000 in tobacco sponsorship in 1998-99—so very recently—but declared the matter as needing attention. It was also interesting to note that Senator Evans took issue with Senator Herron, who, as we know, did some very good work in building up Senate committee work in this area. Opposition senator interjecting—6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I take issue with that. I take it a lot further and commend the work that Senator Herron has done in the policy areas of his portfolio, particularly those that relate to the employment of young people in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and the cooperation with Army projects. I can speak of those from knowledge of my own electorate. Young people are actively engaged in very proper activities that are a major deterrent to substance abuse, which is such an important issue in Aboriginal communities, particularly those communities in tobacco areas. I could spend a lot of time detailing the many areas where Senator Herron in the last few years has made major advances for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as health, because of his professional discipline. I also noted with great interest, being a senator for the Northern Territory, the comments made by Mr Snowdon, the member for the Northern Territory, in speaking on this bill in the other place. He made a number of comments about government achievements in health. He suggested that this government had made a number of claims about its achievement in health but ignored tobacco. Let me spend a few moments reminding senators of the government's key achievements in health. The fifth budget of the Howard government continues our approach of steady but substantial reform to build a high performing and sustainable health system. We have improved the cost effectiveness of Medicare, increased hospital spending and addressed important public health issues such as immunisation and drug abuse, and we continue to make progress on Aboriginal health issues. The government is committed to improving the health outcomes of all Australians, including those living in rural and remote parts of Australia, particularly the poor health status of indigenous Australians. Can I refer the Senate to the Regional Health Strategy, which was announced in the 2000-01 budget, as something which we should all be very proud of. That budget is a cornerstone: it builds on so many areas that particularly cover issues that are reflected in this area. And of course we have ensured that the public health sector is complemented by the private sector in a way that is fair, affordable, customer friendly and represents good value for money.When we get to the committee stage, it is going to be very interesting to discover why the Democrats did not come in here today and participate in this second reading debate, given the issues that they have raised in this important debate. (Extension of time granted) I was talking about the areas where the government has sought very deliberately to improve health outcomes in a very broad and special way across the portfolio. I was also commenting on the fact that the Australian Democrats had not taken the opportunity come in and speak to a very wide range of issues that they have canvassed in distributed amendments on this particular legislation. I return for a moment to look at the issue of why in particular this bill is a low-cost measure and levels of funding for tobacco control remain low. You could ask the question: what else is the government doing to boost spending in these areas? Well, over the last five years the government has substantially increased the level of funding for anti-tobacco campaigns, with a commitment by the government of more than $17 million between the 1995-96 and 1999-2000 financial years. That stands in stark contrast to the Labor Party's record. It often put forward, in various budget proposals, funding initiatives in this area which were then never achieved by the Labor government.The recent national tobacco campaign has been the largest and most successful anti-smoking campaign in Australia's history, with a sustained 1.7 per cent decline in the prevalence of smoking since the start of the campaign. The evaluation report of the second six-month phase, launched on World Tobacco Day, 31 May 2000, concludes that that campaign is excellent value for money. The report indicates that, incorporating both state and Commonwealth resource commitments, the total cost offsets achieved paid for the campaign more than twice over. Commonwealth expenditure on the campaign, on the basis of the target group of 18- to 40-year-old smokers, has been in the order of $2.08 per smoker per annum. The government has committed a minimum of $6.1 million over the life of the National Tobacco Strategy from 1999 to 2002-03. Senator Evans claims that this government's spending record on tobacco control is not enough. It is amusing and indeed frustrating that we continue to get compared to Labor's supposed spending. It is easy for a minister to get up and say some numbers, perhaps very big numbers, and imply that these will translate in actual spending and activity. Labor did this but they did not spend. They hardly spent anything at all. This is an important debate. There are important comparisons between both sides of the debate in this issue. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that consideration of this bill in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.Business179451794512:43:0017945Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I move:That government business, order of the day No. 5, Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, be considered after the completion of consideration of government business order of the day No. 6 Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personel) Bill 2000 till not later than 2 p.m.I indicate that after the second reading I will move that the committee stage of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills17945R109717945Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Senator Ian Campbell:That this bill be now read a second time.12:44:0017945O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—The Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Bill 2000 is a measure the opposition supports. It is important that Australia put in place an effective legal framework for the protection of UN personnel and those who serve with the United Nations. This bill is a small measure towards ensuring that United Nations personnel are adequately and properly protected, and the opposition has pleasure in supporting it. The bill complies with the obligation under article 9 of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel to make certain crimes against UN and associated personnel punishable by adequate penalties under domestic law. It also enables Australia to ratify the convention. Australia became a party to the convention in December 1995.This bill establishes the individual criminal responsibility of persons who attack United Nations personnel and associated personnel in situations other than a United Nations enforcement action. The law of international armed conflict applies in the situation where United Nations or associated personnel are connected with authorised enforcement actions and engaged in combat against organised armed forces. Associated personnel are defined as persons assigned to the United Nations or deployed by a humanitarian non-governmental organisation under an agreement with the United Nations to carry out activities in support of a United Nations operation. The bill establishes the offences of intentional and reckless murder, manslaughter, serious harm, harm, sexual penetration, kidnapping, detention, damage to property and threatening to commit an offence. The definitions of the offences and the prescribed penalties accord with the recommendations of the relevant reports of the model criminal code committee.This bill's jurisdiction extends to the circumstances where either the victim or the offender is an Australian or where the offence occurs within Australia or on an Australian ship or aircraft. If the conduct constituting an offence under this bill also constitutes an offence against the law of a state or territory, state and territory courts will have no jurisdiction to convict a person under this bill. In those circumstances, the appropriate state and/or territory criminal laws are expressly preserved. In any case, proceedings cannot be commenced under this bill without the written consent of the Attorney-General. As I said at the outset, the opposition supports this measure and wishes its speedy passage through the Senate. 12:47:0017946Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VictoriaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—The Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel is intended to reduce a number of violent attacks against UN personnel by making it more likely that the individuals who commit such crimes will be brought before a criminal court. The Criminal Code Amendment (United Nations and Associated Personnel) Bill 2000 will make crimes against UN personnel as set out in the convention offences under Australian law. Subject to provisions saving state and territory law, the offences in the legislation will apply where a convention crime is committed in Australia or on board an Australian aircraft or ship.The legislation will also strengthen the ability of the Australian authorities to take action in respect of convention crimes committed outside Australia. Jurisdiction is established over a convention crime committed outside Australia where there is a relevant Australian connection, including where the alleged offender is an Australian citizen or a stateless person habitually resident in Australia, where the crime is committed against an Australian citizen or where the offender intends by the crime to compel an Australian legislative, executive or judicial institution to do, or omit to do, an act. This extended jurisdiction will be supported by the extradition obligations accepted by the parties to the convention. If Australia seeks the extradition of a person from another party for a convention offence over which it has established jurisdiction under this legislation, the requested party will be able, and in many cases obliged, to treat the offence as extraditable, irrespective of where the offence is committed. This is a significant advance on the position under our bilateral extradition treaties and arrangements, which at most have only limited application to cases where the offence was committed in a third state. Moreover, the obligation on parties is to extradite or prosecute, so the prospects of bringing the offender to justice, either in Australia or before the courts of the requested party, will be significantly enhanced.One may ask which Australians would be protected in this instance. The legislation applies to attacks on United Nations personnel and associated personnel, and these terms are defined in the bill consistently with the definitions used in the convention. The term `United Nations personnel' covers persons engaged or deployed as members of the military, police or civilian components of a UN operation, as well as officials or experts of the UN, specialised agencies or the IAEA who are present in an official capacity in the area where a UN operation is being conducted. The convention and the implementing legislation will also protect other associated personnel carrying out activities in support of the mandate of a UN operation under an agreement with the UN. However, the convention does not apply to humanitarian non-government agencies operating independently and without a required connection with the UN.As I said, this bill will add new offences to the Commonwealth criminal code dealing with crimes against United Nations and associated personnel. The establishment of those offences in Australian domestic law will enable Australia to ratify the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. And, as I said, this convention gives protection to the men and women, in particular Australian men and women, who put themselves at risk by taking part in United Nations operations to maintain international peace and security. I suppose that all Australians are very aware of that risk, as our attention has been drawn in recent years to our peacekeeping forces with Australians working under the UN banner in many countries throughout the world. I think this is an important piece of legislation to ensure we are reducing the risk to them. Penny Wensley, our Ambassador to the United Nations, in discussing this issue, said in a recent speech:It is a deeply disturbing truth that UN personnel ... have increasingly become the targets of violence. It seems that the principles of neutrality and impartiality, the provisions of international humanitarian law, the emblems of the United Nations ... are no longer sufficient to ensure the safety of international humanitarian organisations.She is referring to the fact that there have been quite significant changes in adhering to what were considered rules, if there can be rules, in conflict and the fact that once upon a time it was deemed that there was a symbol that would protect some individuals—in the Second World War the Red Cross and in later years the symbol of the United Nations—but that they are no longer sufficient to assure the safety of international humanitarian organisations. Recent events in Timor illustrate tragically the dangers faced by UN personnel, and I note the recent appeal by the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to member states to do more to protect the safety of UN workers. Governments should recognise and respect the independence and impartiality of UN personnel and allow them to operate without threat or hindrance. They should guarantee immunity and protection according to law and provide whatever physical protection and assistance is possible. They should also denounce attacks against UN personnel and take all measures to bring perpetrators to justice. Immunity cannot be allowed. The Australian government is committed to joining with the international community in doing everything to protect United Nations workers. This legislation demonstrates that commitment by strengthening the ability of Australian auth-orities to take action against such perpetrators.I am pleased that the bill has received a large measure of bipartisan support. The convention was signed by Australia under the former government and the present government will be taking the steps necessary for Australia to become a party to this international instrument. I strongly urge member states that have not already done so to take the necessary steps to ratify this important convention. I commend the bill to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.Bills17947S25817947Debate resumed from 17 August, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.12:57:0017947Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6Australian Capital TerritoryALP00—In speaking to the second reading of the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, I would like to move an amendment on behalf of the opposition:At the end of the motion, add:“but the Senate: (a) condemns the Government for introducing a bill which: (i) does not provide strong regulation of interactive gambling as the most practical and effective way of reducing social harm arising from gambling; (ii) may exacerbate problem gambling in Australia by barring access to regulated on-line gambling services with in-built safeguards but allows access to unregulated offshore on-line gambling sites that do not offer consumer protection or probity; (iii) does not extend current regulatory and consumer protection requirements applying to off-line and land-based casinos, clubs or wagering venues to on-line casinos and on-line wagering facilities; (iv) damages Australia's international reputation for effective consumer protection laws and strong, work-able gambling regulations; (v) singles out one form of gambling in an attempt to create the impres-sion of placating community concern about the adverse social con-sequences of gambling but does not address more prevalent forms of gambling in Australian society; (vi) is not technology neutral or technically feasible. (vii) is contrary to the best interests of the Australian Internet industry and the development of e-com-merce in Australia; (b) calls on the Government to show national leadership on this issue by: (i) addressing harm minimisation and consumer protection as well as criminal issues that may arise from on-line gambling; (ii) ensuring a quality gambling product through financial probity checks on providers and their staff; (iii) maintaining the integrity of games and the proper working of gaming equipment; (iv) providing mechanisms to exclude those not eligible to gamble under Australian law; (v) implementing problem gambling controls, such as exclusion from facilities, expenditure thresholds, no credit betting, and the regular provision of transaction records; (vi) introducing measures to minimise any criminal activity linked to interactive gambling; (vii) providing effective privacy protection for on-line gamblers; (viii) containing social costs by ensuring that adequate ongoing funds are available to assist those with gambling problems; (ix) addressing revenue issues that impact upon state government decisions relating to interactive gambling; (x) establishing consistent standards for all interactive gambling operators; (xi) examining international protocols with the aim of achieving multilateral agreements on sports betting and other forms of interactive gambling; (xii) ensuring appropriate standards in advertising, in particular, to prevent advertising from targeting minors; (xiii) investigating mechanisms to ensure that some of the benefits of on-line gambling accrue more directly to the local community; (xiv) working with State and Territory governments to ensure that on-line and interactive gambling operators meet the highest standards of probity and auditing through licensing agreements; (xv) seeking co-regulation of interactive gambling by establishing a national regulatory framework that provides consumer safeguards and industry Codes of Practice; and (xvi) coordinating the development of a co-regulatory regime through the Ministerial Council comprising of relevant State and Federal Ministers”.10000McKiernan, Jim (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McKiernan)—I take it, Senator Lundy, that you are giving notice of moving that amendment. It has not yet been circulated in the chamber and the actual fact of giving notice of moving it would fit more appropriately into the theme of this lunchtime discussion on non-controversial matters.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Can I draw to your attention that it was not anticipated that this bill would arise in non-controversial matters time. My understanding is that that period of time has in fact concluded and that we are now on general business that the government notified. I am in a position to circulate that second reading amendment now.FF4Chapman, Sen Grant7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Chair, can I get your clarification? There was an interjection across the chamber saying we are still in the time for non-controversial legislation. This is not non-controversial legislation as far as the opposition is concerned and that has been made very clear to the government; so I seek advice. 10000ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT, TheThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESI-DENT—Order! I suggest that the best thing you can do is ignore the interjections. They are not only unlawful but they are not making much sense. I will take it, Senator Lundy, because you are in a position to circulate the amendment, that you have moved the amendment. We will not, because of the list of speakers, be voting upon the amendment. We are still in non-controversial business time, though.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY—Thank you, Chair. I will continue with my second reading contribution to this bill. The issue here—and let us be very clear about this—is not about gambling in Australia; it is about managing the Internet and Internet content. This debate is not so much about gambling or, for that matter, any other type of Internet content online. It is about the management of online or Internet content. In this respect, the coalition has failed dismally to provide a workable and practicable solution. It is very clear by the extent of the points made in the second reading amendment which I have just moved that, in fact, there is much the government is in a position to do in a positive and active sense to draw the attention of the community to the real issues surrounding online gambling, and in fact this bill demonstrates that it has chosen not to do so. The government has talked about a moratorium and a ban on Internet gambling interchangeably. We know that what it is trying to do is ban online gambling outright without actually addressing the underlying problems of gambling in society or looking at Internet content specifically.Let me begin by examining the particulars of this bill before I discuss the broader implications underlying the coalition's bill. Internet gambling involves the placing of bets on sports or casino type games over the Internet. It may also involve telephone sports betting via the Internet, and the nature of this betting can range from sports bets to casino style games, lotteries, bingo and keno. As it stands, an Australian citizen can, via the interactive medium of the telephone, place a wager on a sporting event. However, the coalition is seeking to ban this same activity if it is conducted not through the telephone but in fact via a computer.The coalition's proposed moratorium does not stop problem gamblers playing poker machines or frequenting TABs or betting on sporting events. This is where, as identified in the Productivity Commission, the real social problems of gambling lie. There is nothing in this legislation designed to provide safeguards or surety for those Australian punters. What the coalition is proposing is technically unfeasible and unworkable window dressing so it can say, `Look, we've tried to do something about gambling in Australia. We've told our punters to go offshore if they want to do Internet gambling and we've suggested to them that we prefer them to go to the dodgy sites and get ripped off.' That is the essence of the government's message to those people who choose to gamble on the Internet.Of course, Labor do have concerns about Internet gambling, and we are very conscious of community concerns about an increased level of gambling in society. There is a well-known community apprehension about social dysfunction stemming from problem gambling. However, I reiterate: the coalition's proposal contained in this bill will not prevent problem gamblers from betting. This bill will simply drive these problem gamblers, if they are involved with Internet gambling, offshore to further unregulated sites. There are approximately 800 unregulated offshore Internet casinos worldwide, and personal security, including credit card details and other private information, is not guaranteed by these operators. Many online sports betting organisations have moved offshore already to avoid regulation, including to Gibraltar, where British bookmakers have moved; to Vanuatu; to South Africa; and to South-East Asia.One of the concerns about Internet gambling is the possible corruption of sport from online gambling, and recent match fixing and betting scams have certainly eroded consumer confidence. This issue is being addressed by Australia's sporting bodies, who, at a recent meeting convened by the Australian Cricket Board chair, Malcolm Speed, called on the federal government to provide workable legislative policy for corruption in sport. The gambling in sport roundtable recommended that the federal government develop proper regulations for gambling in sport so that the interests of all participants are protected. Australia's peak sporting organisations recognise that a ban on Internet gambling will not prevent corruption in sport. In fact, it could potentially have the opposite effect. We have seen, to our great dismay, what happens to international sport when unregulated and uncontrolled gambling is allowed to flourish. Unfortunately, the call for the coalition to initiate these positive steps to create a workable legislative framework has fallen consistently on very deaf ears. Not only are the national sporting organisations opposed to this bill but the majority of states and territories are opposed to it also. The Northern Territory government indicated in June this year that a High Court challenge may be mounted if this bill is in fact passed. Both the ACT government and the Tasmanian government issued online gambling licences after the coalition announced its proposed ban. It remains unclear what powers the Commonwealth has to retrospectively stop these agencies from operating. This bill, as my colleagues would know, proposes that a retrospective moratorium or ban be placed on interactive gambling that was not actually operating online prior to 19 May this year.We are also concerned about the potential loss of revenue and jobs if this bill proceeds. It will potentially cost Australia a lot in revenue and jobs that, if not in place now, will potentially be in place in the future. But that is a minor concern and it is certainly not the motivation for the opposition to this bill. Our principal concern is that this does not address the broad issue of gambling in Australia, and it is a complete furphy to suggest that it does. It is about scapegoating the Internet so Mr Howard can say to the public, `We tried to do something about it.'As we witnessed with the online services bill, the coalition is completely ignorant about how the Internet operates and what is required to ensure that community concerns about access to inappropriate material are properly addressed. The ALP is opposed to this legislation for a number of reasons, which I will go through in detail. Firstly, the bill does not provide strong regulation of interactive gambling, which is the most practical and effective way of reducing the social harm arising from gambling. As colleagues would know, this role of regulating gambling is under the jurisdiction of the states. The states have consistently made a very significant effort to take the regulation of online gambling very seriously, and many of those states have in place licensing and regulatory regimes to address this very specific issue.It is in fact the case that this bill may exacerbate problem gambling by barring, or making illegal, access to regulated online gambling services that provide in-built safeguards. The coalition appears unconcerned that Australians will still have access to unregulated offshore gambling sites that do not offer consumer protection or probity. This is a very interesting point, because this bill does not in fact attempt to block access to those sites; it just makes hosting a site or operating a site outside of the retrospective operation of the moratorium illegal. It creates a new criminal offence. Secondly, the bill does not extend current regulatory and consumer protection requirements that apply to offline and land based casinos, clubs or wagering venues to online casinos and online wagering facilities. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to say that consumer protection and harm minimisation are needed for one type of technology but not needed for another. Labor believes the moratorium has the potential to damage Australia's international reputation as a leader in providing effective consumer protection laws and strong workable gambling regulations.Thirdly, it appears that the Howard government are singling out one form of gambling in an attempt to create the impression that they are placating community concern about the adverse social consequences of gambling. In truth, this bill does not address the more prevalent forms of gambling in Australian society. I mention again the Productivity Commission report into the Australian gambling industry that acknowledged that the Internet, in fact, offers greater levels of consumer protection and safeguards than other forms of gambling. This has been ignored in the preparation of this bill. Fourthly, this bill signals to the international community that the Howard government legislation is neither technologically neutral nor technically feasible. No wonder Australia is being seen as the global village idiot. Banning interactive gambling but doing nothing about other aspects of gaming and wagering that are problems in society is contrary to the best interests of Australia and, indeed, the Australian Internet industry and the development of e-commerce. On the one hand, we have Minister Alston telling the world how technologically advanced we are and now that minister is saying that banning certain things on the Internet will somehow solve a problem. This bill will not stop problem gamblers from betting online because it does not seek to ban online gambling completely. It allows those operators that had an online offering prior to 19 May to continue that offering so it sustains the already established interests in the online gambling area. Secondly, it does not seek to stop access to offshore Internet gambling sites which, I have already mentioned, are potentially unregulated. It also defies the efforts of the states to date to regulate online or interactive gambling services emanating from their jurisdictions.This bill also does not stop Australian punters from being ripped off or having personal details misused. I mentioned the efforts of the states. Those regulations are comprehensive and strident in protecting both the interests of Australian citizens as consumers and their personal privacy and financial security.Thirdly, it will not address the overarching social issues I have mentioned, including problem gambling. I am sure you will hear from the coalition about the associated social problems with problem gambling such as domestic violence and family breakdowns. There is no denying these issues are absolutely important and take a high political priority, but this bill should not be seen as addressing these concerns in some way. It is a real furphy in that regard.What will address these issues is a workable, coordinated legislative framework, and this is Labor's position. Labor maintains that the principal objectives of any gambling regulation should include: consumer protection ensuring a quality gambling product by financial probity checks on providers and their staff maintaining the integrity of games and the proper working of gaming equipment; education—be it for athletes, punters or the general community—in understanding people's role, rights and powers when using interactive gambling; minimising any criminal activity linked to gambling; and containing the social cost of gambling by limiting access, particularly to minors, and ensuring that funds are available to assist those with gambling problems—and there are some very real regulatory concerns in there that can be handled effectively under a state based regulatory regime with a genuine coregulatory role of the federal government. Maintaining and protecting a significant revenue base is, as I said, not a priority, but it is certainly a key issue for state governments and the businesses actually involved in an online gambling endeavour. And, importantly for regulators, there should be universal standards for all operators.Also required is an examination of international protocols with the aim of achieving multilateral agreements on sports betting. This is particularly important in the context of the international nature of the Internet. It is not something that is possible to regulate within a national jurisdiction and international cooperation is required if standards are to be attempted to be set.The next point is limiting the exploitation of monopoly market positions and ensuring that some of the benefits accrue more directly to the local community. The opposition has called on the government to show national leadership on these issues and, instead of an unworkable ban, we suggest the coalition should be addressing harm minimisation and consumer protection as well as criminal issues that may arise from online gambling. We have called on the coalition to ensure a quality gambling product through financial probity checks with the operators of these businesses. The coalition should provide regulatory mechanisms to exclude those not eligible to gamble under Australian law—and this is the lead set, certainly by the states in their regulations—and not proceed down the path of implementing a ban or moratorium which in fact does nothing to restrict the capability of minors to bet on unregulated offshore sites. The coalition should be implementing problem gambling controls such as exclusion from facilities, expenditure thresholds, no-credit betting and the regular provision of transaction records. All of these things can be applied through the regulatory base. In closing, our position is that the existing regulatory requirements for land based gambling and gaming agencies be extended to include online gambling and casinos which would be required to meet the same licensing requirements of auditing and probity. Without a national regulatory framework, Australia's reputation as a leading regulator of gaming and gambling will be diminished and Australian citizens will be open to unscrupulous manipulation and rip-offs from dodgy offshore gambling sites. In essence, this bill, proposing a retrospective moratorium on interactive gambling, achieves none of these aims or positive steps that could in fact be taken right now by the coalition to implement an effective coregulatory regime; and that is what has provoked our opposition to this bill and our moving of the second reading amendment, which I urge you to support. (Time expired)13:17:0017952Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6Western AustraliaALP00—The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 implements the government's misguided policy of restricting interactive gambling to services which were already available on 19 May of this year. I say that the government's policy is misguided because it does not address any of the concerns about interactive gambling that were raised in the Senate IT committee's `Netbets' inquiry and in the more recent inquiry into this bill by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee. In fact, the recent inquiry into this bill provided considerable evidence that this legislation is no more than a deceptive attempt by the government to reassure Australians that it is concerned about problem gambling. Of course, this bill does nothing to prevent or restrict problem gambling.The bill seeks to impose a 12-month moratorium on the further development of the online gambling industry in Australia. It achieves this by creating a new criminal offence of the provision of an interactive gambling service unless that service was already being provided when the moratorium commenced on 19 May this year. It is pertinent to note that the bill does not prohibit existing Australian interactive gambling services from continuing to operate. The explanatory memorandum to the bill contains this confession:The moratorium will not restrict Australian gamblers' current ability to access offshore sites... the moratorium will not prevent the expansion of the offshore industry or the availability of traditional gambling products...It will not restrict access to existing online gambling services in any way at all. Consequently, the bill will not affect existing accessibility of gambling services. Rather, instead of permitting strictly regulated options for online gamblers, overseas sites of dubious probity will continue unabated, potentially facilitating problem gambling. The impacts of the bill have resulted in considerable concerns being expressed by a number of interested groups. These concerns are the impact of the bill on existing and aspirant interactive gambling service providers; the bill's impact on existing and aspirant interactive wagering and lottery service providers; the impact of the bill on the availability of interactive gambling services and on problem gambling levels; the impact of the bill on consumers; the impact of the bill on Australia's IT industry; the fulfilment or otherwise of the stated purposes of the bill and of public policy objectives; the impact on a growing export industry; and, finally, legal rights that might accrue to interactive gambling service providers and state and territory governments resulting from the imposition of the moratorium. The minister's second reading speech indicated that a moratorium `puts the interactive gambling industry on notice that its future is uncertain and that it should hold off introducing new services until its future is resolved'. No wonder the Australian dollar is in such strife. The government has in recent weeks denied that Australia is perceived as an old economy in spite of criticism that it is failing to foster new areas of economic growth. Yet here we have this bill which is seeking to discourage investment in a field where Australia is, in terms of technology, investment and expertise, a world leader. The government has consistently reacted to issues relevant to Australia's technological advancement in an overly restrictive and backward way. Examples of this approach include the government's excessive restriction on the potential datacasting industry to the point of rendering it unviable and the ill-conceived and futile attempts to regulate Internet content. This moratorium is another instance where the government is failing to allow Australian industry to excel and lead the world in technological innovation.It is the government's contention that issues relating to banning interactive gambling are irrelevant to the bill and were not relevant to the bill inquiry. However, the government's explanatory memorandum to the bill explicitly raises the issue of a permanent ban, stating that the government is disposed to banning and that the moratorium will give the government time to investigate `the consequences of any banning option on consumers and problem gamblers'. This statement gives a specific context to the debate surrounding the rationale of a moratorium and it is in this context that the bill needs to be considered.The opposition have repeatedly stated the view that we do not support an outright ban of gambling on the Internet because we do not consider it to be technically feasible or necessary. Labor consider that a moratorium or partial ban on interactive gambling will not prevent access to online gambling and will not prevent Australian gamblers from contacting offshore sites that are unregulated and do not offer consumer protection or probity. It is noteworthy that the government does not mention in its explanatory memorandum that it intends to take into account any consequences of a ban on the relevant industries, because it obviously has not taken into account these consequences or it chooses to ignore them. The bill is evidence of the government's unenlightened approach to the importance of IT investment in Australia's economy. A short-term moratorium on the online gambling industry is likely to create an atmosphere of uncertainty for IT investment in Australia.The government has stated that it is seeking to impose a moratorium on online gambling services in order to limit the threat to potential and existing problem gamblers. The moratorium will not, however, restrict the accessibility of interactive gambling or the incidence of problem gambling online. There are already numerous gambling sites overseas and several in Australia which can be accessed via the Internet. Arguments that the community needs to be protected by restricting Australian interactive gambling sites to the number and range of services offered as at 19 May this year demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the Internet. The only way to restrict accessibility will be to limit Australia's growing access to the Internet, and that is clearly undesirable.As ALP senators stated in the Netbets inquiry report, a strictly regulated Australian industry in terms of probity of providers and consumer protections remains the most effective means of avoiding potential gambling problems arising from interactive gambling. It is not a feasible policy option to prevent Australians from accessing interactive gambling via the Internet. The government knows this yet it persists with its futile investigations into feasibility. If the government were serious about problem gambling, it would implement policies to control the problems rather than allow problems to emerge while it stalls on making a decision.A number of objections to the bill have been founded on the basis that the government's approach does not represent good public policy. The changing public policy environment in Australia, particularly as it relates to technology, requires regulatory approaches that are not technology specific. To make something illegal selectively on the basis of what communications technology is used is not good public policy. A product or service can be legal or illegal, but not solely because of its means of delivery or reception. Still the government persists with that technology specific regulation, in spite of warnings that it is both inappropriate and detrimental to Australia's long-term interests. Clearly, the government is looking to appease community concerns about the Internet potentially increasing gambling problems. This being the case, the government legislation is inappropriate and inadequate to properly achieve this purpose and any sense of security it offers is false. A moratorium on interactive gambling will predominantly impact the industry by preventing its further development. Businesses that have invested in product development will not be able to use that investment if they were not operating as at 19 May this year. Investment and innovation in the industry will effectively be put on hold for the period of the moratorium. The prospect of a ban at the end of the moratorium will further discourage any innovation or investment that might otherwise have occurred during the moratorium period.Some witnesses to the inquiry suggested that the bill would defeat its stated purpose of minimising the harm arising from interactive gambling by forcing Internet punters to go offshore to unregulated environments. Australia's economy could potentially lose the benefits that a local industry could provide by discouraging investment, notwithstanding the benefits, guarantees and protections that Australia has to offer. Even though there are marketing advantages resulting from Australia's international reputation for a well-regulated gambling industry, those advantages are unlikely to ensure that the industry does not move overseas, particularly in the case of relocation of these kinds of companies. Expansion of existing businesses will apparently have to be put on hold due to the restrictiveness of the moratorium legislation. Furthermore, it has been argued that this moratorium places companies in a position that is inconsistent with their obligations to their shareholders because to remain in Australia will compromise growth of profits and business expansion. Concerns have been raised that legal rights will accrue to interested parties as a result of the passing of this bill. In view of the magnitude of potential litigation claims, this is another valid reason against the imposition of the moratorium. The interventionist approach that this bill takes to the interactive gambling industry is not warranted by the additional dangers of the online industry compared with the physical or land based gambling industry. Many dangers of problem gambling would be most successfully addressed by harm minimisation strategies and strict regulation of the industry beyond strategies available in the physical environment. One final point that I wish to make is that evidence from the inquiry process into this bill suggested that wagering and gaming are very different forms of gambling. As such, it was argued that the strict controls imposed by state and territory governments and regulators are the appropriate level of regulation for the wagering industry and there is no need for those services to be subject to a moratorium or ban. The wagering industry would have us believe that the social evils of gambling found by the Productivity Commission were all related to gambling, principally in the form of poker machines. This is obviously not the case, as the Productivity Commission actually identified a higher incidence of problem gambling associated with wagering than with casino games, which are a form of gaming. Arguably, wagering is technologically different to other forms of gambling. The way it is operated, the frequency of bets and the intensity of wagering provide a contrast to gaming. Additionally, the only apparent differences between phone betting and Internet betting is who performs the input into a computer terminal. Providers of wagering services consider it artificial and arbitrary for the moratorium to be imposed on those bets placed by a specific means of communication. However, as far as the opposition is concerned, there is no need to distinguish wagering from gaming if the government's bill is wholly rejected. Selective regulation of the Internet—and by that I mean technology specific regulation—is not an appropriate policy for dealing with the issues that the government says it is addressing in this bill. Labor has previously stated its position that the most effective way to manage online gambling is through a national regulatory framework formulated with the cooperation of states and territories. This would include industry-wide codes of practice to address harm minimisation issues such as gambling by minors and problem gambling. Given that a ban or moratorium will not achieve, or will obstruct achievement of, desired policy outcomes which are ultimately aimed at protecting Australian consumers, the opposition continues to support the development of an effective coregulatory scheme. The opposition will oppose this bill in its entirety because it does not achieve the policy objectives that it purports to and will, in all likelihood, have a detrimental impact on problem online gambling and growth in this Australian IT sector. This bill is contrary to the interests of Australia and Australians.13:30:0017955Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—In speaking to the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, I have to say it puzzles me greatly as to just what the government will achieve by the implementation of this bill. Australia's Internet gambling services would have to be the envy of the rest of the world, while its regulations ensure world's best practice. I am well aware of the social problems arising from problem gambling and One Nation would strongly support any worthwhile programs and legislation that would assist in reducing this problem. However, as long as the Internet exists I can see no viable means of barricading those problem gamblers from the services being offered by the www dot. Research suggests that the major area of concern lies with the one-armed bandits and not with the Internet based businesses. I suggest that if anyone is not sure about that, they should consult the research that has been done in that area.The government, with its head in the sand attitude, has failed to acknowledge that many factors are at play in this argument. The businesses that have invested millions of dollars in Australia to set up legal and perfectly legitimate enterprises are one area that will be impacted by this legislation. The Australian shareholders of the companies that bought the state government owned TABs when they were listed are another group of people who will be adversely affected with the introduction of this bill. The jobs of many of the people who are in the information technology field that are actually operating at the moment are also in jeopardy. And many of those jobs lie in Australian states and territories, such as Tasmania and the Northern Territory, that have difficulty in attracting employment in general opportunities. Australia has an embarrassing balance of trade figure and the government, with the implementation of this bill, is in the throes of increasing that figure by blocking off the generous dollars that are brought into this country by overseas players. As far as I can see, for Australia it is a lose-lose scenario. It is a well-known joke that Australians are only too willing to bet on two flies crawling up a wall, and any belief that anyone may have of stopping this reeks of naivety in the extreme. Wagering has been going on in every society since Adam was a boy and, irrespective of the Internet, it will continue to take place. The reason for including wagering in this bill defies all logic. The difference between using a phone line for placing a bet with a TAB or using the Internet via that exact same phone line totally eludes me. A person, after the introduction of this bill, will still be able to pick up their mobile phone or their house phone, ring the local TAB and place a bet, but they will not be able to do the same thing with a PC that is connected by a modem to exactly the same phone line that they have in their home. I would like to just quote a couple of substantial comments by some of the industry people who are actually going to be impacted on by this bill. I would like to quote from Lasseters Online. In a letter to me they state: The government cannot achieve its objective of preventing the potential to put a virtual poker machine in every home unless international sites are also blocked. If the moratorium is passed Australians will still have access to gambling 24 hours a day, 365 days a year but will not have the resource of information to measure or combat any problems that may arise. There are more than 1,000 international Internet gaming service providers and their numbers grow around 20 per week. These include sites that actually claim to be Australian by their name and design but in fact they are not. I would like to put on record a sample of these offshore companies that are actually suggesting to the Australian people that they are Australian companies. One is Star Online Casino. Their Internet address is staractive.com.au. The Australian public would assume by the Internet site, by the web address, that that is an Australian company and it is not. With Australiancasino.com, the name indicates an Australian based company. It is not. What about Captain Cook Casinos? How much more Australian could you get than something that refers to Captain Cook, and the website is www.captaincookcasino.com. It is not Australian. With My Casino, again, it is www.mycasino.com. These are examples of how the Australian people will be duped into considering that they are actually gambling with an Australian company where in actuality they are not. What if the government does not include in the moratorium a blockage against international sites? Lasseters Casino goes on to say:The inclusion of export only services within the moratorium is inconsistent with the objectives to reduce problem gambling in Australia. However, it will have a great impact on existing operators such as Lasseters, which apart from a small region in the Northern Territory only offers export services.The income from that existing operation will also terminate. They go on to say that interactive gambling is not in its infancy:The belief that the interactive gaming market is in its very infancy and will not change significantly within a 12 months period ignores global industry predictions that over 34 million people world wide are expected to spend US$1.5 billion this calendar year on Internet gaming service providers. We have an Australian company that is effectively operating, with the small exception in the Northern Territory totally operating, with overseas service providers. It is no longer a new market and is very much a rapidly growing market in which Australian operators have already invested heavily. The government is saying that if we do implement the moratorium for 12 months it will not adversely affect these Australian operators who are up and operating where in reality it clearly will. In Lasseters case this risks the commercial returns on investments of approximately $10 million over 3.5 years of research, development and operation and the work of 45 people. There are 45 employees whose jobs will effectively be in jeopardy if the government goes ahead with the moratorium.For example, Lasseters currently have approximately $3 million in research and development work in progress which could not be launched during the moratorium and on which they could not gain a return for over eight months. I come back to my initial comment relating to the people who have purchased shares and made investments in these companies. Lasseters go on further to say that two inquiries—the Productivity Commission and the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies—have already noted the belief for regulation and the need for action on a national approach. The Chairman of the Productivity Commission, Mr Gary Banks, recognised that the controls utilised by Lasseters represent an appropriate level of protection. Lasseters Holdings says that, based on their experience of operations in a regulated online environment for more than 16 months, they do not support the moratorium. All it will achieve is the prevention of regulated Australian operators offering a sale. That sale will then go to overseas sites, and there is no way that the Australian government can guarantee the integrity of those sites.I know I have largely referred to only one of the members—that is, Lasseters—but the Queensland Principal Club, which is part of the Queensland racing industry, also has concerns regarding this bill. I would just like to briefly place on record some of its concerns. It said: I wish to bring to your attention matters affecting the Queensland racing industry that are relevant to the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. As you are aware, the racing industry is a substantial contributor to the Queensland economy and a major provider of jobs. This is particularly important in regional and rural Queensland, as 40 per cent of the industry's contribution to gross state product and state employment levels is generated in regional Queensland, often in areas where genuine local employment opportunities are scarce. The relevance of this interactive gambling bill is that the Queensland racing industry is heavily reliant for its income flows on the wagering that is conducted by the TAB and bookmakers. Indeed, some 70 per cent of the revenue that the industry receives is from the TAB income, which is not replaceable from any other source and the loss of which would inevitably mean a contraction in the industry and a shedding of jobs.So the industry is very clearly indicating that it has problems with this bill.It is the intention of One Nation to move amendments to this bill in the committee stage. The first of those would remove wagering from the bill. The second amendment would propose that a moratorium of a maximum of three months would be implemented by the bill. The third proposes that the bill should include that all of those people who are being granted licences before 19 May 2000—and that includes those who have been granted licences but who did not actually have their web pages up and operating—be allowed to operate overseas. If the moratorium is to be put in place, then it should not exclude those companies that have outlaid money, set themselves up and purchased licences at great expense, of which the government is the beneficiary. So the proposed amendment will allow those people who held a licence by 19 May to operate offshore.In conclusion, I would like to raise the issues of concern about the staff lay-offs in Tasmania as a result of this moratorium, and the loss of business and investment opportunities for Australian businesses—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—Will the Tasmanian Liberal senators raise those issues, though?8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—That is quite a good point. I am sure they will. I would also question whether the bill is an improvement on the process of addressing the gambling problem we have.The other issue that I would like to raise is the lack of warning that the government has given to businesses that over a long period of time have committed substantial expense and labour into the process in R&D in setting up this Internet operation. Interactive gambling is not in its infancy as the government is saying. It is a well-established industry with a turnover of $1.5 billion annually. That is a substantial business in anyone's assessment.We also have to look at the issue of the government not showing in any practical way that they are going to block the access to international Internet sites. America does have in place legislation which prohibits offshore Internet operators from operating in certain states of America. If America can achieve that, then I believe that it would be achievable by the Australian government to also block offshore operations, if they are genuine in having a moratorium that will be effective to stop the gambling on the Internet. This is the real hub.The whole basis of what the government are saying is: `We want the people of Australia to sit back for 12 months and not participate in Internet gambling in Australia.' If the government did genuinely put forward amendments that would effectively block out all offshore Internet sites, it would be achieving the purpose of their bill. If they did do that, we would reassess the bill in its entirety. The government would also need then to address the situation where they may, by putting this moratorium in, jeopardise the genuine Australian businesses that have contributed substantial funds into research and development into Internet gambling. They would also be putting at jeopardy the wages of the people employed by those operations.13:50:0017957Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4South AustraliaLP10—It is good to know, at least, that Senator Harris has become the spokesman for the Internet gambling industry rather than for the wishes and what I am sure are the interests of his own constituency on this issue. Senator Harris complains that this legislation does not remove access to offshore Internet gambling sites. It does not remove access to onshore Internet gambling sites either. It is not the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of this legislation is to establish a moratorium against the establishment of any further sites in Australia for the next 12 months while the government examines the feasibility of a ban on Internet gambling—period. If that ban is feasible and then implemented, at that time access to sites both onshore and offshore, I am sure, would be denied. But this is not the purpose of that legislation. Senator Harris also talked about his concern about staff lay-offs. What Senator Harris, of course, ignores is that gambling is a zero sum game. Gambling does not add value. When someone wins at gambling, someone else loses; it is not a value adding activity. That was shown quite clearly in South Australia with the introduction of poker machines— ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—What about alcohol and tobacco? Do you want to ban drinking and smoking?FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—There was clear evidence that a decline in small business activity in South Australia was directly attributed to the arrival of poker machines in that state, Senator Sherry.Senator Harris referred to letters he had received from various sectors of the industry. I read those letters, too, and what appalled me about those letters was the fact that they were completely oblivious to the potential devastating personal and social consequences of this new and insidious form of gambling. For the dedicated gambler there are more than enough opportunities already available in Australia to participate in that activity. Do we want young people in Australia to be able to gamble at home with just the push of a button on whether Shane Warne's next ball will be a leg spinner, a googly or a zooter?WW4Kemp, Sen RodSenator Kemp—We certainly do not.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—We certainly do not, Minister. Do we want young people in Australia to be able to gamble with the push of a button on who is going to kick the next goal in an AFL Grand Final? I say that we do not. Members of the Labor Party are as guilty as Senator Harris on this issue. That is exactly what will happen if we do not nip interactive gambling in the bud through this moratorium legislation and then use that time to move on towards a ban.Young people are the ones who are most familiar with and fascinated by computer technology, the very technology that makes Internet gambling possible. Studies clearly show that people who become problem gamblers begin gambling in their teenage years. It is a fact that young people are already grossly overrepresented in the number of people participating in Internet gambling. It is also a fact that when any new form of gambling is allowed more people gamble and more problem gamblers emerge. New forms of gambling do not just transfer gambling activity among those who are already gamblers from the old forms of gambling to the new forms. They actually result in a significant increase in the number of people participating in gambling activity. Of course, the Labor Party, along with Senator Harris, want to ignore all these facts and they want to try, as Senator Lundy did, to shift the debate to one about Internet content. It is not a debate about Internet content; it is a debate about a new and insidious form of gambling activity. Senator Lundy also talked about the lack of initiatives by the Commonwealth government in relation to sports corruption. I say to Senator Lundy that in the United States the Kyle bill, which is before the Congress to ban Internet gambling in America, has 100 per cent support from all of the national sports organisations in America. So that is the attitude of sports organisations to Internet gambling.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—That is the party that was dragged kicking and screaming onto the soccer inquiry.FF4Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMAN—Indeed. Senator Lundy also talked about federal government inaction about other forms of gambling. She completely ignores the fact that the Commonwealth government does not have jurisdiction in relation to other forms of gambling. But it does have constitutional jurisdiction over this form of gambling. She seems so besotted with technology that she does not believe it should be regulated in any way. We believe that technology should be here to serve the community and, therefore, where its application is detrimental to the community, clearly there should be controls. Senator Lundy talked about the need for harm minimisation. We on this side of the chamber believe in harm prevention, not harm minimisation. Mr McRae from the CSIRO, in the work that he was contracted to do by Minister Alston a year or two ago, has shown that a ban on Internet gambling is feasible. If we have an effective approach, then there is absolutely no doubt that the goal can be achieved. I support this moratorium because it gives us a breathing space and the opportunity to examine the way in which a ban can be implemented.13:55:0017959Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 proposes a 12-month ban on the development of the interactive gambling industry in Australia. I might say to the Senate that I start from the premise of not agreeing with gambling, nor do I agree with excessive drinking, and nor do I agree with smoking, although I do smoke. The issue before us is: what effectively can we do to minimise the harm caused by these particular social activities? That is the issue that is before us. If we follow the logic of Senator Chapman, representing the Liberal-National government, then a Liberal-National government to be consistent would not only seek to ban Internet gambling, they would seek to ban all forms of gambling. Indeed, if you follow the logic of Senator Chapman's argument you would seek to ban smoking and you would seek to ban alcohol consumption because they are all zero sum games, to use the description that Senator Chapman outlines. I certainly recognise that there is significant social harm caused by gambling. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Gambling in its various forms, if carried out to excess, does cause significant harm in the community, particularly to low and middle income earners in Australian society. If you look at the Productivity Commission report on gambling in Australia—and I did make a contribution in this place on that report—it highlights some very depressing statistics about the social harm that is caused not only in terms of income transfer and expenditure transfer, because some people spend excessive amounts of money on gambling, on smoking and on alcohol consumption, but also in terms of the link between crime and depression in respect of excessive activity in the three areas that I outlined.The critical issue is, when we are considering this legislation: does this legislation effectively carry out what it claims to do? And for the reasons that I will present on another day, this legislation does not effectively deal with the issues related to Internet gambling in this country. The bill is designed to halt the development of this industry while the government investigates the feasibility and consequences of extending the ban to all Internet gambling in Australia. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has declared his intention to pursue extending the ban to a permanent ban. If the Prime Minister is fair dinkum, if he is consistent in his moral, social view of Australian society and the activities that Australians should engage in, why doesn't he attempt to ban all gambling in this country? Why doesn't he attempt to ban smoking? Why doesn't he attempt to ban alcohol consumption? Of course, the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, is not consistent. The legislation that is presented to this Senate is hypocrisy at its worst. The Liberal-National Party government, and particularly the moralising Prime Minister, Mr Howard, are attempting to wipe out one particular form of gambling when in fact they will not be consistent in their moral approach and attempt to ban all forms of gambling, and, indeed, to ban smoking and alcohol consumption in this country.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator Alston—Do you want us to ban them?ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRY—I do not want to, but I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your government, Senator Alston. If you are consistent in your moral position then you will do your level best as a national government to prohibit those forms of activity as well, but you are not seeking to do that.Debate interrupted. Questions Without Notice179601796014:00:0017960Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—My question is addressed to Senator Alston representing the Prime Minister. I ask the minister: does he endorse the views expressed by Mr Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, that Aboriginal disadvantage is due to the fact that they came into contact with developed civilisation late, did not invent the wheel and did not have chariots?17960Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Anyone who heard Mr McMullan on AM this morning would have to have been profoundly disappointed. What ought to be at the heart of this debate is the extent to which those in positions of public authority are prepared to contribute constructively to practical reconciliation. Mr Ruddock made factual statements about a number of matters which are of accurate historical record, and I do not think anyone has complained about that. The opposition has engaged in a very shabby game of semantics, designed to try to turn Aboriginal affairs into a political football, as a substitute for taking any serious policy initiatives. The government are committed to practical reconciliation. We have spent in the order of $2.3 billion on indigenous specific programs. That is more in real terms than any government before us. Three-quarters of that funding is targeted at practical measures to address indigenous disadvantage in health, housing, education and employment. So the real question here is not whether we should, as a nation, engage in semantic games and look at what—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—Do you endorse his views or not?LD4Senator ALSTON—I certainly deplore in the strongest terms the way in which Mr McMullan, in his first visit to the arena—he has been in the change rooms for some time—XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—On a point of order, Madam President: the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate is straying from the question. His answer is totally irrelevant to the question I asked. I asked him: does the government endorse those views of Mr Ruddock? I did not ask him about anyone on AM this morning. Does he endorse the views of Mr Ruddock that the disadvantage is due to the fact that Aboriginals came into contact with developed civilisation late, that they did not invent the wheel and did not have chariots? What he has been saying in the last few minutes has been totally irrelevant to the question I asked him. I ask you to bring him to the question.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. LD4Senator ALSTON—It is also very important that Sir Gus Nossal, after having a discussion with Mr Ruddock, said that he did not believe Mr Ruddock in any way intended to insult or hurt our indigenous colleagues.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—But he did.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, he did not. You see, you and your ilk—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, address your remarks to the chair, not across the chamber to Senator Bolkus.LD4Senator ALSTON—Senator Bolkus and his ilk are determined to turn Aboriginal affairs into a game of words. In other words, as a substitute for action, as a substitute for practical reconciliation—when we all know the enormous health and educational disadvantages being suffered by Aboriginal Australians and when we look at the constructive contribution to the debate of someone like Noel Pearson—the opposition does not ever come up with anything that would address those problems. They do not go out there, by and large. They sit back here and trawl through press releases and the like looking for words they can play games with. That is an insult to the Aboriginal community.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—Do you endorse the comments or not?LD4Senator ALSTON—I have explained to you that I think all that Mr Ruddock has said is very much in line with the facts of the matter. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—So you do endorse what he said?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop shouting. LD4Senator ALSTON—Mr Ruddock is supported entirely by the government, by the Prime Minister, by me and by all of his colleagues. He has our full support. We certainly welcome the fact that Mr Ruddock is wanting to see a significant improvement in the quality of life for the Aboriginal community. He is not interested in playing word games. He is not interested in scoring points in the parliamentary arena. He is actually serious about the real issues at hand. It is a great shame that the Labor Party does not have the same approach.17961Bolkus, Sen NickSenator BOLKUSXE4South AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am stunned that the minister would endorse Mr Ruddock's comments. How can Mr Ruddock and his defenders, including this minister and the Prime Minister, possibly claim that Mr Ruddock's comments were taken out of context when they have been quoted in similar terms in two major international newspapers—Le Monde and the Washington Post? Minister, does this not indicate that the views are firmly held? Why will you not take this opportunity to repudiate them?17961Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The whole nub of this approach is that what Mr Ruddock said is absolutely wrong and all that we are engaged in is a cover up.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—It's wrong and it's offensive.LD4Senator ALSTON—It's wrong, is it? Of course it's wrong! I do not know that he even said they were taken out of context. They were made in response to a question posed in relation to why indigenous people in Australia remained the most disadvantaged minority in the country. Mr Ruddock responded by stating that the process of adjusting to Western civilisation had happened more slowly since other indigenous populations, namely those in North America, had had a significantly longer period—some four centuries—to adjust. Mr Ruddock praised the ingenuity of indigenous Australians, which enabled them to survive in a very difficult environment. In other words, Mr Ruddock's remarks were entirely sympathetic. He was trying to paint a historical picture for the benefit of those outside this country who are not interested in point scoring. The tragedy is that the opposition are compounding the problem. They are trying to create an image, to say that there are a set of no go areas where we cannot even have a sensible debate. We will not accept that. (Time expired)1796114:06:0017961Tchen, Sen TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVictoriaLP10—My question without notice is to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Will the minister inform the Senate whether the government has been up-front and honest with the Australian people in its position on the sale of Telstra? How does this honesty contrast with other policy approaches? Minister, what would be the impact if these other approaches were implemented?17961Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—That is a crucially important question and one that will deserve a great deal of attention over coming days. The government have been totally honest and up front in relation to the sale of Telstra. Before the 1996 election we were up front. We said that we would sell one-third of Telstra, and we did. We spelt out what we would do with the proceeds, and we have applied them. Before the 1998 election we said that we would not sell any more than 49 per cent of Telstra until an independent inquiry had been held. That process is, of course, well under way. We have always adhered to our commitments. We have always wanted an up-front and honest position of leadership on this issue.All senators would know that Mr Beazley has a list of prior convictions in this area as long as Luc Longley's arm. It is just a long litany of obfuscation that we have been confronted with. But now the Labor Party have been caught red handed. It was only a month or two back that Mr Beazley was saying, `No Labor government presided over by me will continue the privatisation of Telstra.' He told the Sydney Institute recently that it was not sensible for Telstra to sell off Telstra's best assets for the future. Today I can reveal, once and for all, that Mr Beazley cannot be believed because the Macquarie Bank, in the latest feature article by Macquarie Research Equities on 8 September, under the heading of `Should Telstra spin off its network business?', says this: The ALP Is Considering Such a Break-Up For Telstra.Our discussions with senior members of the Opposition has indicated that a split between Telstra's network and its retail businesses is an option being considered by the ALP. It has been mooted that the government could 100% own the network business. The retail business could then be either fully or partially privatised. Note that such an idea was discussed by the previous ALP government when Paul Keating was Prime Minister.What this is all about is pandering to the unions so that on the one hand you keep the low price commodity utility, with all the regulatory burdens imposed on it, in the hands of the government and on the other hand you sell off all the sexy stuff so you can load yourself up with a war chest to throw around on roll-back or rollover or whatever else you might come up with between now and the next election. A couple of cents in fuel reduction would be $300 million. You have to get this money from somewhere. Where is the rebate on fuel, worth $500 million, going to come from? This is where it is going to come from.At the very time that Mr Beazley has been out there saying he does not know what is going on, it is quite clear that he has condoned this whole operation. If he is to have any credibility as a leader, he has to detail his own involvement in this secret plan and have the courage to expose who these senior members of the opposition are. Mr Beazley must categorically rule out any attempt to sell down, break up or spin off Telstra in whole or in part. Mr Wombat has tried to turn a blind eye; he has turned being asleep at the wheel into an art form, saying that he does not know what goes on in the Senate when he clearly does. He is happy to let Senators Faulkner and Ray run rampant while he closes his eyes. He cannot close his eyes to this report. What he has to do is to come out and explain precisely who is giving what commitments and then categorically rule out going down that path. If he does not do that, then we know what the public already knows—and that is what he told John Lyons—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—You've gone mad. Sit down.LD4Senator ALSTON—Someone is going mad, I can tell you, but it sure isn't us. This guy has taken leave of his senses. Everyone knows that Mr Beazley's fingerprints have been over the privatisation of Telstra for some years, with Mr Prescott, with Mr Blount and with the Bulletin magazine—but now we have the smoking gun. (Time expired)1796214:11:0017962Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6Australian Capital TerritoryALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Does the minister agree with Mr James Wolfensohn, the President of World Bank, that the dollar is falling because the Howard government `have not put your money into research and development and have not expanded your markets.' Is the government concerned that key leaders of industry and education have seen fit to publish a letter in the national newspapers on Tuesday of this week calling on the Howard government to urgently develop and implement an innovation action plan to underpin the growth of the knowledge economy? Why does the government continue to be in a state of denial in the face of such powerful evidence that it is simply not doing enough to implement policies that reflect and respond to the massive technological changes facing the world?17962Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I am very much aware of some of the comments that have been made in recent times by people visiting Australia and I am certainly aware of the campaign that is under way, quite properly, to achieve a sympathetic response to the reports from David Miles and from the chief scientist, Robin Batterham. Quite clearly it is a matter of considerable concern to us to ensure that Australia is at the leading edge, that the skills base that we already have here is built on, and that we both attract world-class players and do not lose too many of our own for too long a period. I do not accept the proposition that we should mark down those who leave Australia's shores. Many of them come back much better informed, much better aware and offering a great level of expertise. I did read Mr Wolfensohn's comments but I did also read remarks from John Roth, the CEO of Nortel, who said:Right now Australia is actually in a position to potentially lead the world ...He had met with a couple of ministers and he said:I see in these people a tremendous forward looking sense of what we have to do.So there you go, Senator Minchin—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—He obviously didn't meet you.LD4Senator ALSTON—He certainly did. Mr Jack Welch said:And I think you'll see some real benefit.He also said that Australia:... will be a great source of intellectual talent and I think it's in many ways a laboratory.He went on to say:You've got a great educated people, you've got a great spirit, you've got a great country ...In terms of brain power, he said that Australia has natural resources and brains. He was obviously not thinking of the Labor Party when he said that. I suppose he was being generous as he visited this country. Of course, there were people like Bill Gates, and Carly Fiorina from Hewlett Packard said:... there's a burgeoning opportunity here for IT ...She went on:I think Australia has a wonderful opportunity to be a major player in the Internet economy ...So there are plenty of glowing endorsements. There are plenty of people coming out here wanting to invest. There is a lot of leading edge research occurring, whether it is in wireless technology, whether it is in photonics, whether it is in mobile chip manufacturing or whether it is in quantum computing. All of these things are attracting people out here because of the depth and breadth of our scientific base.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Why is the dollar going down?LD4Senator ALSTON—Probably because people like you are talking it down. That is probably the major problem. The fact is that what I paid most attention to in Mr Wolfensohn's remarks was the suggestion that we could have a virtual Columbo Plan. If you paid close attention to that you would see that he recognised the significant online opportunities there are for Australia to promote its educational base, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region.RF4Cook, Sen PeterLD4Senator ALSTON—So you are scoffing at it? Right, we can mark that down: Senator Cook thinks that is a very poor idea. We don't. We are prepared to consider that sympathetically, but we will note that Labor is not interested—and I can understand why. Because they are terrified that we might continue to make successes in this very important area. 17963Lundy, Sen KateSenator LUNDY7G6Australian Capital TerritoryALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. If the minister is so adamant that the government is indeed giving priority to making this nation a knowledge economy, how does he explain his own inability to fill the vacant chief executive position at the National Office of the Information Economy, which has been left vacant since the departure of Dr Paul Twomey in July this year?17963Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—That is a process that is well under way. We have already achieved enormous strides in the creation of the National Office of the Information Economy. Its report E-commerce beyond 2000 was ground breaking. We are in the process of finding a replacement for Dr Twomey, who remains a consultant to the government but felt that he had had enough in that area and it was time to move on. We accept that there are other opportunities that might appeal to people. I certainly credit him with making a very significant contribution. It remains a very important area. I am not about to unveil some of the other changes that might be in store in that area. Suffice it to say that the National Office of the Information Economy is our invention; we got no thanks at all, no support from the other side. We will continue to make sure it leads the way. (Time expired)1796414:15:0017964Mason, Sen BrettSenator MASON84MQueenslandLP10—My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, Senator Ellison. Have the coalition parties been entirely consistent in their support of the sale of major government assets such as Telstra and the Commonwealth Bank? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches and do they demonstrate a similar level of consistency?17964Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I thank Senator Mason for that excellent question because this is an excellent opportunity to outline to the Australian people just how inconsistent the opposition have been. Before I do that, let me say that in the 1996 and 1998 elections we told the Australian people what we would do in relation to Telstra, and we did it. When the Labor opposition were in government—they sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, don't forget—we, as a responsible opposition, supported them. Earlier this year the Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, stated:From time to time it is necessary to restate the importance of our privatisation policy and remember while privatisation is not a goal in itself, it is a way of achieving a more efficient and productive economy that benefits all Australians.That is obviously what Labor thought when they were in government and sold off Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank, but now that Labor are in opposition they are blocking this government's moves in relation to the sale of Telstra. In fact, we had the Leader of the Opposition saying that he is not going to lead a government which would sell Telstra. But that is very different to what he said when he was in government. I look back to Meet the Press in 1994 when Mr Beazley said:Privatisation in the limited sense would work. I mean, you could privatise Telecom if you set your mind to it.In 1994 he thought it was a good idea, but now he is opposing this government's very good initiative in relation to selling Telstra.But what do we have this week? This week we have evidence that, in fact, nothing has changed. Labor still wants to sell Telstra. As Senator Alston pointed out in the publication issued by the Macquarie Bank, the Telco Weekly Report states—and I will repeat it for the benefit of the Senate and those listening:The ALP is considering such a break-up for Telstra. Our discussions with senior members of the opposition have indicated that a split between Telstra's network and its retail businesses is an option being considered by the ALP. It has been mooted that the government could own 100 per cent of the network business. The retail business could then be either fully or partly privatised. The current state of the polls indicates the views of the ALP should be considered by investors. Note that such an idea was discussed by the previous ALP government when Paul Keating was Prime Minister.What we have here is a secret plan by the ALP to sell Telstra, as it always intended to do: to sell Telstra if it was in government. But because it is in opposition it is going to be churlish and block the initiatives of this government in seeking to sell Telstra. We have been so consistent throughout. We told the people of Australia what we would do in 1996 and 1998 when we went to the polls, and we have done it. This opposition, when it was in government, wanted to sell Telstra but now it is in opposition it does not want to and when it gets back into government it will sell Telstra, and that has just been shown to be the case by this very document. Who are those senior ALP people who want to sell Telstra? For the benefit of Senator George Campbell, it states, `Senior ALP people want to sell Telstra.'It is time Mr Beazley came clean and told us who they were. Hands up all those over the other side who have been in the boardrooms of multinationals of this country and the Macquarie Bank saying, `We want to sell Telstra'? Hands up those over there who have been saying it? Obviously they have been saying it. The Leader of the Opposition said it when they were in government in 1994. He said it in the 1990s. Don't forget: they sold Qantas and they sold the Commonwealth Bank and they will sell Telstra if they ever get to government. 1796414:21:0017964Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate. Does the acting leader stand by his statement yesterday regarding Mr Murray's $2 million Commonwealth Bank share options, worth over $50 million, when he said: I would presume that he was more concerned to ensure that not just employees of the Commonwealth Bank but employees generally ... able to get some rewards for their commitment ... Is it not true that a shareholder explanatory memorandum sets out clear limitations on employees' eligibility for share options under the CBA Equity Reward Plan in the following way—and I quote from the document:Directors envisage the option component of the plan will apply to no more than 100 executives.Of the 37,131 full-time Commonwealth Bank staff, aside from the part-time staff, just how many bank tellers or call centre operators does the minister think will be among the lucky 100 CBA option recipients?17965Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—That's probably the best she can do.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—See if you can improve on that.LD4Senator ALSTON—I will do my best for you.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—I know its a long way; shoot for the stars.LD4Senator ALSTON—I am happy to settle for a PB, all right? If you want to go for gold, go for it.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—You certainly haven't scored a PB this week.LD4Senator ALSTON—You are not in the stadium yet, I can assure you.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, you have been speaking loudly ever since I called the minister to answer Senator Collins's question. You are behaving in a disorderly fashion.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—So is he.LD4Senator ALSTON—Oh, there, there! The first part of the question asks whether I—TH4Knowles, Sen SusanSenator Knowles—Madam President, I raise a point of order under standing order 203, infringement of order in the Senate. All this week we have sat here while Senator Faulkner has consistently interjected and back-answered and abused you, as he did yesterday, many of those times with his back to you. In fact, on two or three occasions yesterday, he abused you directly to your face. Today, he has consistently overruled your rulings on order, as has Senator Bolkus. Senator Bolkus and Senator Cook have consistently done the same this week, as has Senator Carr.Madam President, I simply ask, in accordance with standing order 203(b)—a senator `is guilty of disorderly conduct'; standing order 203(d)—`persistently and wilfully refuses to conform to the standing orders'; and standing order 203(e)—`persistently and wilfully disregards the authority of the chair', that action be taken against these senators who consistently disrupt the proceedings of the Senate, against your instructions.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—On the point of order, Madam President: these points of order are taken on a weekly basis by Senator Knowles deliberately to allow a minister who cannot find their brief to find their brief and give them time to try to get a script to answer a difficult question from the opposition. Treat the point of order with the contempt it deserves from a senator who deserves only contempt in this chamber.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—I had already drawn Senator Faulkner's attention to his behaviour. I think it is time we got on with question time.LD4Senator ALSTON—Thank you, Madam President.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Do you have the brief, Richard?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht!LD4Senator ALSTON—No, I do not think we actually need a brief for this one. I did see some further comments this morning. The first part of the question was: do I stand by my remarks of yesterday? And the answer to that is yes. The second part of the question seemed to relate to the fact that you say that, under the current CBA rules, equity or stock options are available only to some 100 senior executives. Therefore, you say that Mr Murray was talking only about them. What was suggested to me today was that he was not talking just about the CBA at all; he was talking about senior executives in large companies. I did say yesterday that, as far as the rest of the company is concerned—in other words, the bulk of the rank and file, as you would describe them—the report from the House of Representatives committee, chaired by Dr Brendan Nelson, will be very important in informing future government decision making in relation to employee share ownership schemes. That will canvass a lot of those issues, and it will do it in relation to both large companies and small companies. But if the question is whether I somehow resent the fact that Mr Murray is calling for more sympathetic consideration in relation to senior executives, I take that as the starting point for a sensible debate for an examination of whether, for example, the remarks made by Mr Paul Anderson yesterday are accurate in the sense that they may well discourage people from staying in this country as long as we would like them to be here—in other words, whether there are changes to the incentive structures that need to be made to ensure that we have the world's best quality executives running some of our leading companies. The Labor Party's approach seems to be, `We don't represent the top end of town so we will do everything to basically drag them down. We don't care whether you end up with mediocre executives running failing companies'—which then have to put off your union members—`because we're only interested in scoring the points against the rich because we purport to represent the poor.' We know that is not true in any shape or form. I would have thought that Senator Collins should be much more interested in looking at what is necessary in this country to ensure that incentive structures apply at all levels of the company: to senior executives—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator Jacinta Collins—Precisely.LD4Senator ALSTON—Precisely. If Mr Murray was not talking about, that does not make—GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator Jacinta Collins—He was.LD4Senator ALSTON—He was, all right; I thought you said he was confining his remarks to the top 100. Now you are saying he is talking about the entirety of the work force. If he was, well and good. I am saying to you that there is a report coming out that will throw a lot of light on what happens to those other than senior executives. If any of you can read, you ought to give that a good going over and come up with a sensible report. As I understand it, the Labor Party are hell bent on coming up with a dissenting report. That is the likelihood. No doubt that is because, once again, they take their instructions from outside the chamber. They are not interested in how we can make Australia efficient and how we can make the reward structures encouraging. All they are interested in doing is dragging down those who happen to be running some of Australia's largest companies.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—Have you seen the report?LD4Senator ALSTON—No, I have not.17966Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the acting leader aware that his comments yesterday generally supporting the exorbitant Commonwealth Bank's executive and elite share option scheme are in direct contradiction to the statement by the Prime Minister late last year in the context of the equally exorbitant AMP and Coles-Myer share option plans? Didn't the Prime Minister say back then:Just as people in public life are required to exercise reasonable restraint, so it is people in corporate life have got to do so.And further:I think the perception of some of (these salary packages) is over the top. Absolutely.What are the differences, Minister, between the Commonwealth Bank and the Coles-Myer and AMP schemes, or will you apologise to the Prime Minister for this gaffe during Senator Hill's absence?17966Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I agree with every word he says.Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You do not understand. This is a bit more of a sophisticated argument than you are prepared to accept. What the Prime Minister has said—and what I think a number of people have said on both sides of this chamber—is that one does not appreciate seeing senior executives awarding themselves substantial increases in salary irrespective of performances. What you do not seem to understand is that options schemes and other share entitlements are based on incentive structures. In other words, you do not just get them automatically; you get them because you reach a hurdle rate. You then exercise the strike price and you make a profit. If they do not get there, you do not. In other words, it is fundamentally different from simply giving someone an increase in salary irrespective of performance. I do not for a moment support companies whose CEOs' salary levels go up when the company performance goes down. I would not have thought the CBA was in the category of a failing Australian company. (Time expired)1796714:31:0017967Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6New South WalesAD00—My question is to the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister, Senator Alston. Minister, despite the government's much-trumpeted support for the reconciliation process, is it not the case that in three months time you will shut down the secretariat to the Council for Reconciliation, which is staffed by some 20 people? Minister, could you provide some indication of when the decision was taken to wind up the secretariat and outline the steps that have been taken to make the staff redundant or to redeploy permanent staff to other departments?17967Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not think I can give Senator Ridgeway the detail that he is seeking, but I can certainly tell him that the government has given in principle support for the council's proposed foundation called Reconciliation Australia. The council will continue to work to ensure that the foundation begins its work on 1 January 2001. In other words, we accept the process; we accept the commitment; we accept the end objective. There will often be disagreements about the most appropriate process for going forward. To the extent that you want items of detail that I do not have, I will ensure that they are made available to you.17967Ridgeway, Sen AdenSenator RIDGEWAY8G6New South WalesAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Would the minister consider also perhaps making some comments in relation to the Council for Reconciliation's mandate and the idea of creating a foundation and that this appears to be—in the absence of any concrete decisions within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to have staff deal with the issues—the government washing its hands of any responsibility for progressing the reconciliation process in this country, despite the fact that it is regarded as one of the most crucial social issues of our times? Minister, is this the real reason why the Prime Minister is prepared to back his minister on reconciliation 100 per cent even though his personal beliefs about indigenous culture are so out of step with those of the community and at odds with the goal of bringing black and white Australians together?17968Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—As I think I have already said, I do not believe that Mr Ruddock was simply expressing personal beliefs. The matters that some people take exception to were what he regarded as statements of fact. He was also, I think, very sympathetic in his general comments, as he has always been. Mr Ruddock is one of the most sensitive individuals in this parliament. He has had a longstanding commitment to various aspects of welfare—certainly in terms of immigration and ethnic affairs and social security. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisLD4Senator ALSTON—Why do you think he has been a member of Amnesty for the last 20-odd years? Because he has a commitment to improving the welfare and human rights of those who are seriously disadvantaged. The government very much supports the reconciliation process. It is crucially important for not only social cohesion but also the true advancement of the Aboriginal people. We obviously need to make changes in the way in which these matters are progressed from time to time. I do not think you should jump to any premature conclusions about why it might be that some announcements may or may not have been made to date. I am not aware of what has already been said, but I can assure you that we are fully committed. (Time expired)1796814:35:0017968Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QueenslandALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Minister, why has the coalition government not provided funding beyond the end of this financial year for rural counselling services? 4J4Schacht, Sen Chris17968Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—No, I think we might be in business here.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Schacht, you are being totally disorderly.4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—I was just trying to help him.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, you are not assisting; you are behaving in a disorderly fashion.LD4Senator ALSTON—Actually, I think Senator Schacht might have for once in his life been quite helpful, Madam President, because it did enable me to turn up a note on financial counselling services, which is what I presume Senator Gibbs is referring to. Funding for those services—an element of the Rural Communities Program—is due to cease in June 2001. I think Senator Gibbs said the end of this year. 5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—No, she said the end of the financial year. She was quite right. Just apologise.LD4Senator ALSTON—Okay, she said it; I apologise. Financial counselling services is an element of the Rural Communities Program, and future arrangements will be considered in the forthcoming budget context. Rural financial counsellors provide valuable support to farmers and small business people. ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator Crowley—We know that.LD4Senator ALSTON—But it is helpful to know the basis on which you approach these issues, Senator Crowley; otherwise you might not be able to put things in context—and we would hate to see you take something out of context. Since 1996 the government has provided $25 million through the Rural Communities Program, including 11.7 per cent for financial counselling to assist rural communities. The entire program has been reviewed by the Bureau of Rural Sciences to examine its effectiveness—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—We read all that in the press release.LD4Senator ALSTON—No, it is not a press release; it is a briefing note. I am sorry you cannot read these things. You will have to win the next election to be in that position, and I really do not like your chances. The Bureau of Rural Sciences has conducted that review to examine the effectiveness and we are now considering the findings. It sounds to me like a very sensible approach to adopt. In other words, after it has been in place for some years, you have a look at whether it is working. You do not just take instructions from the ACTU; you actually get someone who knows a bit about it. You get an arm's length assessment—Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—You take exception to that, do you? I can understand why. You would probably lose your preselection if you took exception, wouldn't you? Madam President, I think what you will find in this instance, as in all others, is that we are following due process. We are committed to ensuring that there are effective financial counselling services available, and we will make an announcement in the budget context.17968Gibbs, Sen BrendaSenator GIBBS6L6QueenslandALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I could not quite hear the answer—LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator Alston—I know why.6L6Senator GIBBS—But did I hear you say, Minister, that the funding will be continued or will this government be shutting them down? Did I hear you say that they would be continued? And is the minister aware that rural counselling services throughout Australia play a very important role in providing advice and support to farm families and others facing difficult financial times? If you did say that funding was to continue and that they would not be shut down, when will rural communities find out whether they are going to have a financial counselling service in the future?17968Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think I made it clear that the review has been conducted. We expect to release the results of that review in order to consult with the various stakeholders, and then we will make announcements in the budget context about future arrangements. In other words, the current program, as you rightly say, will cease on 30 June 2001. After we have gone through the consultation process, presumably we will have a budget initiative that will address the issue. I do not think it can be any clearer than that. I hope that at least you are aware of what is involved. 1796914:39:0017969Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—My question is directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Minister, since the government introduced the changes to the legislation affecting the low volume, second-hand vehicle industry, are you aware that with a stroke of the pen the government has effectively closed off 1,500 small businesses from importing cars under the low volume scheme, leaving 5,000 jobs in jeopardy and sending some of those businesses into bankruptcy? Is it true that the Department of FORS, now VSS, issued compliances to vehicles imported under the LVS for the life of the model? This was a contract that gave all of those small businesses the basis on which they could establish their businesses and make long-term production forecasts. Your government has broken that contract. (Time expired)17969Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I thank Senator Harris for his question, which relates to a quite complex and difficult issue, that is, the question of the import of used motor vehicles into Australia, and the circumstances under which that will be allowed and dealt with. The government recently announced its decision on this matter in response to a review of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act. We had to take account of the views on both sides of this debate, that is, those who import these vehicles in low volume and those who retail vehicles that are brought into this country and manufactured in this country under the normal arrangements. It has to be borne in mind that those who import used vehicles into this country under the low volume scheme do so under concessional arrangements. They do not have to meet the same very stringent standards that apply to those who both manufacture and import vehicles in full volume into this country. We are one of the few countries that produces motor vehicles that actually allows relatively generous arrangements for the importation of used vehicles into this country.As a result of the review and deliberation and consultation with both the industry that imports these vehicles in low volume and the regular motor dealers and the manufacturers of motor vehicles in this country, we have made changes to the arrangements that we think are fair and reasonable. The bottom line of those arrangements is that there will still be around 140 different models able to be imported into this country in low volume that meet the specialist and enthusiast vehicle criteria that we have established. We believe that numbers will probably be maintained at their current levels of about 15,000. Senator Harris ought to be aware that numbers of imports have exploded in this country. One of the concerns of the government was that the importation of these vehicles has grown exponentially in the last five years, since the last changes were made by the previous government in 1995. Without reform, almost the sky was the limit. So we have brought in changes that will stabilise the number of vehicles coming in under this scheme, we believe, at around the current level. The current level is almost twice what it was just two years ago. There is a still a wide range of vehicles that can be brought in. We do not believe it will result in any serious unemployment in this industry. Most of the businesses that import these vehicles in low volume are engaged in a whole range of different activities in relation to the automobile industry, including normal used car dealerships. We had a very difficult decision, Senator Harris—through you, Madam President. The motor vehicle industry comprises a whole range of motor dealers whose livelihoods were under threat from any further explosion in the importation of these used vehicles. We had a situation where motor vehicle manufacturers in this country were extremely concerned about the explosion in the importation of these used vehicles, which you must recall are vehicles that are essentially dumped here from Japan because of Japan's measures to protect their own car industry. Senator Harris, I would be happy to give you a full briefing on this, to reassure you that we do not believe there will be serious adverse consequences, and I invite you to consider all the facts on this matter. 17970Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I thank the minister for his answer. Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that there are no four-wheel drives manufactured in Australia and thus no threat to the Australian automotive industry? The minister made reference to 15,000 units coming in. Is the minister aware that last year 530,000 new vehicles were imported into Australia by the multinationals, with not one cent being spent on them in Australia, while the low volume vehicles have between $3,000 and $5,000 spent on the Japanese imports and $15,000 on American vehicles using Australian labour and materials?17970Minchin, Sen NickSenator MINCHINJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The biggest loophole in the importation of used vehicles has been in relation to diesel variants of four-wheel drives available under the full volume scheme in Australia. Through you, Madam President: Senator Harris, if you read some of the four-wheel drive magazines, as I do, you will find those magazines warning their readers to be very careful about purchasing some of these imported four-wheel drive vehicles which are not set up for Australian conditions. They are made in Japan for Japanese conditions. Their specifications do not suit Australia at all. They suffer significant problems with overheating, they have radiators and other things that are made not for Australian conditions but for Japanese conditions. So there are serious problems with them. We have put very strict limits on the extent to which you can bring in diesel variants of four-wheel drive vehicles that are available in Australia and that meet Australian design conditions and standards. There is a huge range of four-wheel drive vehicles available to Australian purchasers in this country. It is one of the most open markets in the world.1797014:45:0017970Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5New South WalesALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. In light of the gross blow-outs in budget and time frames being experienced in the Howard government's headlong rush to outsource every scrap of its information technology framework, can the minister inform the Senate just what the American consultants Shaw Pittman have achieved for the Australian public interest in return for the exorbitant and outrageous amounts of taxpayers' money they are being paid? How has this American firm actually earned their $85,000 per month for a single consultant, or a total contract worth $25.78 million for three individual contractors? In light of these blow-outs in budget and time frames and the poor quality end results, will the government be considering suing Shaw Pittman for the return of these millions? 17970Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I know that the Labor Party hate IT outsourcing. They hate it so much that they are prepared to continue with it as their policy if they get into government, which tells you that there is just the usual ongoing struggle with the trade unions, who would like to see all this work done in-house—where the membership is—and who are terrified that it might actually go outside government and therefore represent a significant benefit to Australia. The Auditor's report on this has confirmed that there have been considerable savings to government. It has made some suggestions about how the process might be improved, but it ought to be quite clear that there are still considerable benefits to be gained from going down the IT outsourcing track. The predicted savings, for example, for cluster 3, group 5, the Australian tax office, the health group and group 8 contracts over the initial five-year term is over $265 million, a significant achievement for the government. So the estimates of ultimate value might be disputed but I do not think anyone can seriously claim that this is a process that has not been of benefit to Australia. I am not in a position to reveal what Shaw Pittman might have reported to the government. As to some of the more draconian suggestions by Senator Campbell, I presume that is just pure vitriol and he wants to get something off his chest. 17971Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator GEORGE CAMPBELLNB5New South WalesALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, isn't Shaw Pittman one of the prime examples of blow-outs in consul-tancy fees paid in overseas currency which have recently been so roundly criticised by the Commonwealth Auditor-General? What is the government's response to the Auditor-General when he states: Contracts requiring foreign currency payments expose the Commonwealth to foreign exchange risk and reduce the certainty associated with the costs of the contract. Isn't the Shaw Pittman IT outsourcing contract an absolute case in point, Minister? 17971Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think it is an example of how you can have cost overruns or costs being incurred beyond the original budget. You ought to know a lot about that because you have been past masters in your day. The ANAO itself calculates that the implementation costs represent about 3.2 per cent of the value of the five contracts awarded to date. So, whilst Senator Campbell might find it convenient to nibble away at the edges and to criticise the fact that the ultimate cost in relation to Shaw Pittman is higher than originally expected, he should be concentrating on the main game, which is whether or not there is a significant benefit to Australia from these outsourcing arrangements. It is the government's view that not only is outsourcing something that this government is doing; it is something that governments around the world are doing and that all the major corporates are doing. If you look at the way in which organisations like Cisco operate, even though the product might be badged `Cisco' it is all done by 100 or more equipment manufacturers. It is about time you got with the strength and buried your trade union hatreds. (Time expired)1797114:50:0017971Ferris, Sen JeannieSenator FERRIS5L6South AustraliaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the minister outline to the Senate the significant benefits for regional and remote Australia from the first two partial sales of Telstra? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the provision of additional funding for regional Australia from the partial sales of Telstra? 17971Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—Senator Ferris has a real interest in rural and regional Australia and in the environment. She will know that this government has made the biggest investment ever in the environment—some $1 billion. Senator Ferris, that $1 billion investment in the environment—the biggest made by any government in Australia—was as a result of the sale of Telstra. That was opposed by the Labor Party then and still is, which shows they have no interest in the environment and no interest in helping in rural and regional Australia. As well as that, the sale of Telstra 1 and 2 has meant that the government have been able to provide very significant enhancements to life in rural and regional Australia in the telecommunications area. We are providing $120 million for a television fund which will extend SBS into rural and regional Australia and $45 million to local government to help get them on-line, mainly in rural and regional Australia. We are spending $28 million from the sale of Telstra to expand mobile phone coverage and $150 million to provide untimed local calls to rural and regional Australians. These are all things that are very much appreciated in rural and regional Australia and are all things which have been opposed from day one by the Australian Labor Party.I am asked by Senator Ferris as well: do I know of any other policy approaches? I am aware that the Labor Party always promised they would not sell Qantas and Australian Airlines, and yet when they had the opportunity, what did they do? They sold Qantas and they sold Australian Airlines. They promised they would never sell the Commonwealth Bank. Never, never, never would they sell the Commonwealth Bank. And yet what did the Australian Labor Party do? They sold it as soon as they had the opportunity. They promised never to sell CSL, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. They sold that too. In fact, they sold everything they could get their hands on, and Mr Beazley said a few years ago that he would also sell Telstra. Then a couple of months back, Mr Beazley said this: No Labor government presided over by me will continue the privatisation of Telstra, full stop—meaning he would never sell it. But we know Mr Beazley finds it difficult to understand the truth. We know from his previous actions that he will sell Telstra as soon as possible, but he still denies it. Now we have confirmation in the Macquarie search equities newsletter, in which it is quite clearly shown that senior members of the Labor Party are now talking to the major finance people about selling Telstra—about privatising Telstra, when Mr Beazley is promising not to do it. Senator Cook, I suggest, it may have been; it is in his area; or Senator Conroy, not here today; or Senator Forshaw, from the right; it is something he would agree with. Mr Beazley says he doesn't know who these senior people in the Labor Party are—the people who are proposing to sell Telstra. We ought to get the inquiry into who said the comment about the toilet brush on the Titanic—that inquiry that Mr Beazley implemented, which is pretty slow coming to a conclusion—to have a look at who leaked this. Was it Senator Cook? Was it Senator Forshaw? Was it Senator Conroy? Who was it? Who is it that actually is speaking with these senior finance houses? While they are at it, looking for these lost things in the Labor Party, perhaps they could implement an inquiry into what happened to the word `roll-back', which also seems to have been lost. It is now `roll over'. We have a good inquiry up my way in Townsville into ALP vote rigging—deliberate vote rigging. Perhaps we should have these other inquiries as well. (Time expired)1797214:54:0017972Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—My question is to Senator Alston, representing the Prime Minister. How does the minister justify the government's decision to back away from signing the UN optional protocol to the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women?17972Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—Australia has an excellent record on women's rights. We should be agreed on that. Are we agreed on that? We took a leadership position by ratifying CEDAW in 1983. Australia has a world-class regime of legislation and institutional mechanisms to protect women against discrimination.GB6Collins, Sen JacintaSenator Jacinta Collins—That was us in 1983.LD4Senator ALSTON—Well, if you don't think we are part of the country, then you are part of the problem. We remain very strongly committed to protecting and supporting the rights of women. In other words, we are not walking away from our UN obligations or our human rights goals.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien—What about your mother—what does she say about it? What about your brother?Opposition senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—I told you I was the failure of the family!Opposition senators interjecting—10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! I am waiting for a level of order in the chamber so that we may proceed. The chamber is behaving in a disorderly fashion.AX5Evans, Sen ChrisSenator Chris Evans—You might be the next centrefold, Richard.LD4Senator ALSTON—One thing is for sure: I don't think I will be competing with you. I think our concerns with the UN treaty system are well known. They were identified many long years ago by Senator Kemp.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—Your brother doesn't agree.LD4Senator ALSTON—I think you might find that Senator Kemp and my brother have more in common than you might suspect. The problems with the UN treaty system are deep-seated. They do need sensible economic analysis, and on the basis of that Senator Kemp was able to come up with a very intelligent contribution to policy debate. In fact, that is one of the main reasons that he is with us today on the front bench, because he made such an outstanding contribution to this debate. What it did was to cause the government to have a look at whether or not there was room for improvement in the UN committee system. The UN Human Rights Commissioner shares our concerns that there is room for improvement. In fact, I think you will find that many people on the international stage, even if they don't agree, say more money ought to be spent on the issue. But no-one is terribly happy with current arrangements. So in those circumstances we do not think it is appropriate for Australia to sign the optional protocol while those concerns remain. Like any organisation that has been in business now for more than 50 years, you can get some arteriosclerosis; you can find that parts of the organisation need to be reformed. We believe that in the UN treaty system we do not like to be pontificated towards; we do think that there can be a much more constructive approach taken. When those concerns have been addressed, then of course we will revisit the issue. 17973Mackay, Sen SueSenator MACKAY9L6TasmaniaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the government reconsider its refusal to sign the optional protocol in the light of a letter of protest to the Prime Minister which has been sent by 200 women's groups, including the Young Women's Christian Association, from right across the political spectrum?17973Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I do not know about that. I would not have thought that `right across the political spectrum' necessarily means one Christian group and 199 others. I can remember that during the 1993 election, when I was in the child-care portfolio, there were about 15 groups suddenly popped up criticising our child-care policy. We tracked them all back to the Trades Hall Council. The mere fact that there were 15 bodies does not represent a spectrum of political opinion. I think you might be overstating the case a tad. I think what you are really saying is that around the world you are able to mobilise a group of people who do not share our view of the world. That is not surprising—there may well be a lot of people who do not agree with us on a number of issues. But, again, we accept that in a democracy that is their right, and no doubt they will continue to vociferously argue their position. We, on the other hand, will argue ours. We will push for constructive reform. It is sad, really, that you just feel yourself obliged to blindly pursue what you see as a political opportunity.1797315:00:0017973Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4South AustraliaAD00—I have a very similar question, but I would now like to ask it of Senator Newman in the hope that we really can get an answer. Given that we now have some 200 women's groups that have signed the letter of protest—indeed, I would also like to ask the minister whether she knows of any women's groups that have not signed this letter—is it not the case that Australia would be far—5K4Faulkner, Sen John10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Faulkner, I need to hear the question.8U4Senator LEES—I ask the minister: does she not believe that it is far better to work from within for the reforms that this government is claiming are necessary rather than send a message to those countries that regularly and actively discriminate against women that it is fine to pull away from the table and not sign this optional protocol?17973Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—I have a list here of the non-signatories to the optional protocol, a list which goes for several pages. Australia is not out on a limb on this matter. Certainly, in terms of our dissatisfaction—5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnBE4Senator NEWMAN—Madam President, I cannot speak over the constant conversation from Senator Faulkner.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Lees is entitled to hear the answer.NB5Campbell, Sen GeorgeSenator George Campbell—If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, I have just drawn the opposition's attention to the fact that Senator Lees is entitled to hear the answer. You should stop shouting.BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Campbell might not realise that before he came to the Senate it was a much more polite and courteous place. Australia does believe in UN obligations—Opposition senators interjecting—BE4Senator NEWMAN—Senator Lees asked me a question and I am trying to give her the answer. The government do believe in honouring our UN treaty obligations, and we have continued to do that constantly throughout our 4½ years in government in terms of women and CEDAW. In June we supported women's NGOs to go with us to the UN to report on our activities in this country since Beijing. It was the Beijing Plus Five meeting. After that meeting, when we came back to Australia, I had a number of letters from women's NGOs saying how much they appreciated the support which I, the Office of the Status of Women and the government had given to their representation and their effort there. I think that these were genuine letters that were appreciative of the support that we give to women, both within Australia and overseas. Nevertheless, many people in the UN, on its staff, will say to you that this is an organisation which needs reform. It is entirely unsatisfactory that our reports on CEDAW are reviewed by the UN committee concerned two years at least after they are submitted, by which time obviously they are pretty much out of date and things have changed quite considerably. If we could get the UN committees to be more efficient, this government would have a great deal more time for the claims that are being made about our representations on women. We are supportive of women's rights in this country and we support women's rights overseas. But we do not support the right of unelected officials in the UN to not do their job and to take a perspective on various committees which is not consistent with the information that is given to them by governments. All of this has been spelled out by the foreign minister quite clearly. As you people have highlighted, the optional protocol is one that we helped with; we worked towards trying to get language that was better. Australia was there during that working process over quite a long time. So you cannot extrapolate from the fact that we have refused to sign the optional protocol and say that we are not supportive of the UN, that we are not supportive of women and that we are not supportive of the role of the UN in looking to see that women's rights are upheld around the world. Nevertheless, something has to be done at the UN to make it a more efficient body which is doing its job properly.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemaryBE4Senator NEWMAN—I can hear Senator Crowley chirping in the back. As a former minister, she should know very well that women are not served by an organisation that cannot even run its committees efficiently. If the committees are not up to date, if they are two to three years out of date in reviewing countries' reports, then they are doing the women of the world no favour whatsoever.17974Lees, Sen MegSenator LEES8U4South AustraliaAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. The minister certainly is correct in saying that Australian women have been actively involved in the process of drawing this up—that is why so many are very disappointed in this government's decision not to sign. I ask the minister: surely she would agree that we have now sent a very clear message that we are not happy with the UN process and the fact that, thanks to the lack of resources, often time lines are not adequate and are not met. But now that we have sent the message, isn't it time to send another message to many of those countries that you indicated have not signed? I would suggest that most of the Western democracies have signed or are going to sign. Many of the countries on that list are those that actively discriminate against women. Isn't it now about time that we put our signatures there? Doesn't that send the clearest message possible that we are supportive of the document?17974Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The answer to that is no, it doesn't, unless you keep the pressure on, and you have got to see results to know whether the pressure has been successful. As to the countries signing or ratifying this agreement, a number of Western countries have not done either, and of course the United States has never ever signed the basic CEDAW convention. Does that mean—and it clearly does not—that the United States does not believe in the rights of women? That is not true.LD4AlstonSenator Alston—Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Questions Without Notice179751797515:07:0017975Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—On Wednesday, 4 October 2000 Senator Ludwig asked me a question concerning a Sydney based tax officer, Mr Lowman Chow, and a visit that was made to Canberra. I seek leave to have the answer now incorporated in the Hansard.Leave granted.The answer read as follows—It is assumed that the Senator read this in the Business Review Weekly of 22 September 2000 on page 53 in the context of speculation about claims to be made by the defence in a case currently before the courts relating to Mr Petroulias. As the Opposition is aware, those issues are sub judice and the ATO has received advice that they should not comment on anything before the Court.However, the ATO has been able to make some general comments. The ATO advises that during 1998, meetings were held in Canberra within the ATO which included discussions and input on issues involving employee share benefit arrangements. ATO meetings to discuss current tax matters are routine.It was concluded that no changes to FBT legislation was necessary in respect of the employee share benefit arrangements being discussed at that time, because the schemes were not effective under the existing law.The Government received advice from the ATO that the existing law was sufficient.When the Government received advice in mid-June 2000 regarding legislation changes needed to address continued promotion of some arrangements. This was on the basis that such schemes were still being marketed. The Government responded quickly to announce legislative amendment on 30 June.1797515:08:0017975McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQueenslandALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts (Senator Alston), to a question without notice asked by Sen-ator Bolkus today, relating to comments made by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation (Mr Ruddock) concerning Aborigines.Senator Alston's defence of Mr Ruddock's comments in Le Monde in question time today continued the myth making about indigenous issues that this government is continuing to perpetuate, continued the rewriting of history that this government seems to want to do and continued the denial of truth on indigenous affairs in this community. Senator Alston gave Mr Ruddock his full support, we heard. He said that he was trying to paint a historical picture. By saying this, Senator Alston has shown his ignorance of fact and his lack of understanding of cultural difference. Mr Ruddock's comments, coming at a time when the international view of Australia's relationships with indigenous peoples was improving due to the positive images of reconciliation portrayed by the Olympics, can only be described as ignorance in the extreme. As minister with responsibility for reconciliation, it is simply outrageous that he shows no respect for cultural difference, simply viewing other cultures through his own personal cultural mores. This is very basic stuff. There are principles taught through cross-cultural training—training that would be funded by his own department that goes to concepts like recognition and respect. These are fundamentals to the concept of reconciliation—fundamentals that this minister, and the Prime Minister, by not repudiating his words, have obviously abandoned. I suggest that Mr Ruddock take the opportunity of undertaking some cross-cultural training in order to stop the embarrassment of us as a nation in the international community. I would like to quote from the Australian Anthropological Society, who have made a response to Mr Ruddock's comments in Le Monde. They say:The Australian Anthropological Society takes issue with the minister over both his original remarks and his subsequent defence of them as factual. As Minister for Reconciliation, Mr Ruddock should be very well aware that while indigenous Australian societies had not invented the wheel, at least for transport, this should play no objective part in an explanation of the indigenous history of poor and discriminatory treatment by governments, government agents and individual citizens. H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—What an ignorant remark.84LMcLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS—This is a letter from the Australian Anthropological Society. To call them ignorant is ignorance itself. They go on:Technological sophistication as measured by the standards of western civilisations has absolutely nothing to do with the sophistication of social, religious, linguistic or other dimensions of a given society. Indeed, the human capacity to learn and change is universal and is not tied specifically to any particular technological process. Mr Ruddock should be well aware that such `facts' he refers to are precisely the kind that have been, and continually are, used to legitimate exclusion, and disadvantage.H15Campbell, Sen Ian4J4Schacht, Sen Chris10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell and Senator Schacht, if you wish to have a conversation, don't do it across the chamber.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—It is better than listening to this twaddle.10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Campbell! I would ask you to all come to order and not to reflect on other senators.84LMcLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS—They go on to say:We fail to see the relevance of his reference to the time of contact. Taken at face value it appears to be based more on the fallacious view of the inevitable evolution of less complex societies into more complex ones as a result of contact history. Anthropology teaches amongst other things, that such views are factually erroneous.I suggest that Minister Ruddock take the opportunity of undertaking some cross-cultural training in order to ensure that he does not continue to embarrass us as a community internationally.Honourable senators interjecting—10000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Ian Campbell, you are out of order, as is Senator Forshaw. It is most difficult to call somebody if there are other people standing around and not letting me have a fair look.15:13:0017976Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6Western AustraliaLP10—What a lot of nonsense it is for the Labor Party to think that what Mr Ruddock said is in any way surprising in terms of the history of the way indigenous people around the world have been treated under colonial powers. Indigenous people of Australia of course have been put at some disadvantage, as were the North American Indians, the Eskimos, the South American indigenous people and indigenous people everywhere when sophisticated European powers moved in on hunter-gatherer type populations. But the difference, and the big difference, which the Labor Party should acknowledge with the Australian population is that the Australian government, especially in more recent years, has recognised the problems that our indigenous people face. It has done an enormous amount to seek to overcome these problems and to ensure that their disadvantage ends and that they are able to participate in the society which is modern Australia in a manner which is consistent with their community values and culture.It is an absolute beat-up, this whole debate and criticism of Philip Ruddock. The Labor Party is just beating the Aboriginal drum, seeking to make it look as if the people of this country are not concerned about and determined to improve the disadvantage suffered by the Aboriginal people. Since the 1967 referendum which gave the federal government power to make laws specifically for indigenous Australians, the Commonwealth government has spent some $24 billion on indigenous specific programs, including $20 billion in the last 15 years. That is a very mighty statement of the recognition which the Commonwealth government—when it has been in the hands of the Labor Party as well as the coalition—has given to programs to overcome the disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. I think it is pretty important to say, however, that it was the Fraser government which, more than any other government, recognised the need for Aborigines to be provided with land. The Fraser government conducted a program of purchasing stations in remote areas around Australia so that the Aborigines who had become fringe dwellers could return to properties and re-establish their community structure according to their own cultural system, which is to share and not to put total emphasis on the individual and the rights of the individual. In these communities the Aborigines were able to re-establish a sharing culture. It was very important that that was recognised. It is one of the things that has happened in recent years: there has been a great recognition of, and respect for, the fact that the Aborigines do have a different kind of culture from us In recent years, Aboriginal housing and home ownership have improved remarkably. School retention rates have improved significantly. It is true that they lag behind non-indigenous rates. But the point is that it is recognised that education is the key to the door of the world for Aborigines, so making sure they have a formal education as well as job skill education is a high priority of this government. This government has an indigenous employment strategy which emphasises the need for job skill education and provides special funding for Aborigines who wish to establish small businesses. Infant mortality rates have dropped substantially. In general, Aboriginal indigenous health has improved incredibly over the last 20 years because the Commonwealth government has recognised the problems indigenous people face. As I said, it is total and absolute hypocrisy for the Labor Party to be criticising Philip Ruddock in this matter. Everybody knows there was a terrible problem with the Aborigines in terms of health and in terms of their level of disadvantage in the community, but Australia has a proud record now. All legal discrimination on the basis of race and colour has gone, and we have bent over backwards to ensure that Aborigines have an equal chance in our society. (Time expired)15:18:0017977Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—As Senator Eggleston has said, all legal discrimination has gone in this area, but I do not think that is the issue that is before us. The issue before us is the fact that the Aboriginals are still at a disadvantage in terms of the attitude of many people to them and in terms of their ability to get a fair deal in society. What happens in that situation is that people are going to feel very vulnerable—and so they should. And if words are said in that situation—and I do not say that Mr Ruddock said these words to wound—then that ought to be corrected. What this debate is all about is that the impression that has been created by the words of the minister for reconciliation has not been repudiated, has not been set aside in the strong terms one would hope it would be. We are not saying that, in the course of an hour's discussion with people overseas, Mr Ruddock has deliberately gone about trying to wreck reconciliation; we are not saying that at all. What we are saying is that having made that error, it ought to be corrected by government, by people who are here—by the government generally—and that has not been done. That is the problem in this instance.The use of words, the context in which they are used and the people that say them are vital to the interpretation that you make of them. If a sentence like `You do not look well' is said by my wife Lillian, I take it that it is said with a great deal of tenderness and with care for my health. If my doctor says, `You do not look well', I take that as a statement of fact. If people on the preselection panel say, `You do not look well', I would say that had an ominous tone about it.LI4Patterson, Sen KaySenator Patterson—You know they want your job, Barney.SF4Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEY—Exactly, Senator Patterson. And if that sentence is said by a gunman, I would say it had a sinister connotation to it. So when these words are used by the minister for reconciliation overseas in an interview with the media in France and in the United States, those words are going to take on a particular meaning. The meaning is going to be that somehow we in Australia regard Aboriginals, the indigenous people, as inferior, as some group of people that need to be raised up by us because they are not capable of being raised up by themselves; that they do not have a dignity that is commensurate with ours; that their cultural life is somehow inferior to ours; and that they have a history that is to be pitied. If those are the connotations that the words might have, then it is incumbent on the government of which Mr Ruddock is a member to make it very clear here and now that that is not what was intended. As Senator Schacht has said, Mr Ruddock has a fine record in this area. But on this occasion he has created a situation where the press has reported in a particular way. Now, the press can be wrong but, if it has reported in a particular way, it is then incumbent on the government to come out and to state that any incorrect inference that might have been drawn from the statements by the minister is wrong. That has not happened. Senator Eggleston did not get up and say, `Look, you've got it wrong. If Mr Ruddock has said that, and that has led to a particular interpretation being made, this government apologises. It is wrong. It is not correct at all.' Senator Eggleston did not get up and do that. He got up and said what a fine record the government has in this area. What we need is a strong affirmation that any wrong interpretation of Mr Ruddock's statements is incorrect and is repudiated by the government. That is what ought to happen here and now before this debate finishes. (Time expired)15:23:0017978Tchen, Senator TsebinSenator TCHEN86YVictoriaLP10—In my first speech in this chamber I had occasion to describe Senator Cooney, whom I knew before I came into this chamber, as a gentleman, which caused a bit of mirth on both sides of the chamber. But nobody actually objected to my description of him as a gentleman. Since then, and I have been here for a year, my description of him has only been reinforced. Today we have seen Senator Cooney again behave in a gentlemanly manner because, instead of being like other opposition members, who habitually make any comments about people on the government side into a personal attack and personal vilification, Senator Cooney generously said that Mr Philip Ruddock has an outstanding record in his advocacy of human rights and that his words might have been misinterpreted. I think he is quite correct both in his sentiment and also in his interpretation. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr Philip Ruddock's words have been wrongly interpreted and given the wrong connotation.However, Senator Cooney also said that the government should very firmly put the record straight by saying, `He did not say that. That was not his intention.' Senator Cooney said the debate is about the wrong impression having been made which must be forcefully set aside. I think there Senator Cooney is wrong, because the debate is not about setting aside a wrong impression; the debate is not about Aboriginals in Australia still being disadvantaged, therefore they feel vulnerable and therefore they should be reassured at all times. I think we have gone beyond that. In Australia everyone who is Australian should feel the same confidence that he or she is a citizen of this country of equal standing. They do not need people to pander to their self-esteem. They should by right have their self-esteem. This is what the government's programs are all about. The government's programs are aimed at emphasising and repairing those inadequacies facing the indigenous community in our society so that they have every opportunity to restore them with the full citizenship rights in this country, like everyone else. And part of that is not to pamper them, not to nurse them. They must face facts and we must face facts that every one of us faces the same issue in this nation, and part of this issue is the facts of history. History has happened, and what happened in the past should not dominate how we face the future. That is the important issue. That is the government's position. Our entire program of providing assistance to those people in our community from an indigenous background is to give them the opportunity and all the resources they need so that they could confidently stand on their feet without having to depend on other people sparing their feelings.Senator McLucas in her opening comments did a very credible job as a spokesman for the anthropological society who had a particular view of what history meant. It is not Mr Philip Ruddock who is trying to rewrite history. History is what happened. It is those who deny that history has happened who are trying to rewrite history, such as those senators on the opposite side who are members of the Labor Party, because it suits their political purpose at the moment. She was quite right to say the Olympics that have just finished portrayed a positive image of reconciliation in Australia. That is exactly what happened, and the government supports that approach completely. It is not a case of pointing the finger and saying, `Wrongs were done to the Aboriginals in the past, therefore we must always carry this guilt.' It is not a question of guilt. What happened in history has happened in history. We need to face the future. The rewriting of history has many reasons. (Time expired)15:28:0017979Schacht, Senator ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4South AustraliaALP00—I rise to speak to this motion about the amazing remarks made by Mr Philip Ruddock, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation, recently and questions about it in the Senate today. One, the government did not repudiate his remarks. The minister, Senator Alston, on behalf of the government supported his remarks. Mr Ruddock has put out a statement or made comment that what he was reported as saying in Le Monde magazine of 2 September were taken out of context. I have read part of the interview and the questions and the answers and I do not think the reporting in the Australian press can be taken out of context. The question was:Why are Aborigines still the most disadvantaged minority in Australia?The answer was:Of all indigenous peoples on the planet, if you compare them with Canadian or American Indians, Australian Aborigines came into contact with developed civilisations the latest. The Aborigines were hunter-gatherers. They had no knowledge of the wheel. They survived, thanks to their ingenuity, in a very difficult environment.And on it goes. I do not think you can claim that that is taken out of context at all. More importantly, I point out to the minister that today's news clips from Media Monitors has a report from the Washington Post saying that it is revealed that Mr Ruddock made similar statements to what appeared in Le Monde. It states:Indigenous Australians did not invent the wheel or have chariots and had little contact with developed civilisations.So, on two different occasions, Mr Ruddock has made similar remarks. I do not you think can use the first offence of a politician caught out or taken out of context. His remarks are totally in context and have been accurately reported. We have always pointed out that it is a bit odd that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs is not entrusted with the job of minister for reconciliation. We all know that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, who was given the reconciliation job, in his own ham-fisted way and foot-in-the-mouth ability, would make such a mess of it that it would destroy any opportunity. So the job has been handed over to somebody else. It was given by the Prime Minister, you might say as a poison chalice, to Mr Ruddock, a factional opponent within the Liberal Party of New South Wales.As I mentioned earlier today in the debate on immigration, Mr Ruddock has a long history of being a small `l' Liberal with a commitment to human rights both within Australia and overseas. I have been a member of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group as long as I have been in this place—since 1987. In the past, Philip Ruddock has been an executive member of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group and has been vigorous and without fear or favour when he held positions promoting and supporting human rights all around the world. I compliment him for that. But since he became a minister in this government, dominated by the mean-spirited attitude of the present Prime Minister, we have seen what I would call the sad demise of Philip Ruddock as a small `l' Liberal.We have now had what I think is the ultimate commentary on his position. Amnesty International has asked him to stop wearing their badge in his lapel. It embarrasses them to have him identified as a member of Amnesty International when he has put legislation through this parliament on immigration matters which is contrary to Amnesty International's notion of human rights. He has now made remarks on reconciliation which I suspect would go down well in some areas of the conservative or racist sector of our Australian society, and he would be clapped and cheered for them. Senator Ross Lightfoot has made similar remarks and has had to withdraw them. That is what those remarks go to. What we need from this government and from the minister is a complete apology so that we can get on with the basis of decent reconciliation in Australia. Until we get that simple statement from the Prime Minister `I am sorry' or `We are sorry,' we will not get on with decent reconciliation in this country. That is the major barrier to it. Then we will no longer have the sad case of Minister Ruddock being an apologist for the policies of this government on reconciliation. (Time expired).15:33:0017980McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VictoriaNP10—In response, I am not sure I can be as gracious towards Senator Cooney as my colleague Senator Tchen was in calling him a gentleman and more than that, but I will agree with Senator Cooney on one point—that is, words are bullets. That is where our agreement begins and ends. Also, I want to requote what Senator Schacht said—that is, he seemed to think that Minister Ruddock was given a poison chalice. The point I am leading to is, if words are bullets, then who was it from your side who said that to take the shadow ministry of Aboriginal affairs was indeed nothing short of being a toilet cleaner on the Titanic? Who said that? Words are bullets, Senator Cooney, as you and Senator Schacht get up to leave the chamber. You talk about poison chalices. The opposition believe it is a poison chalice to take the shadow ministry of Aboriginal affairs. Who said it? Where is your inquiry? Find that culprit. Until you do, I think those words have done more to damage reconciliation than anything else because the veil has fallen on the Labor Party. All they do with respect to Aboriginal affairs is try to make it a politically correct issue, squeezing everyone into their own political correctness. They mealy-mouth words for the public, but behind the scenes the truth is that no-one wants that portfolio and no-one really believes what they are saying.We have a minister in Philip Ruddock with a very good record in this area. Even the Deputy Chair of the Aboriginal Reconciliation Council, Sir Gus Nossal, has accepted that Mr Ruddock meant no offence at all by those words, and said that he fully accepted the words of Mr Ruddock when he said:I think he would have in no way intended insult or hurt to our indigenous colleagues.That is utterly correct because this minister has a fine record with respect to Amnesty International. And the nerve of one certain person in Amnesty International to contact Mr Ruddock and ask him to take off his badge—there was no more than one lowly, junior state leader of Amnesty International who had such sour grapes, and with this minister's record. I would like that person to retract their words. What an insult to a fine and competent minister.I think the Labor Party have a duty to find the culprit who said that taking the shadow ministry for Aboriginal affairs was nothing more than being the cleaner on the Titanic. Until they do, they will have damaged reconciliation. The veil has really fallen on what the Labor Party believe in terms of the regard in which they hold Aboriginal affairs. They are fakes and they are frauds. They politicised it on every single level and while they were in government they actually failed to act. In contrast, this government believes not in the political correctness of the issue but in the reality—the practical reconciliation. I know you do not like hearing that word. You do not believe in that word. We do and we will continue to say it to counter your political correctness with regard to reconciliation. We are spending over $2.3 billion on indigenous affairs and that is in real terms. It is going straight to the heart of the need in health and in education. That is practical reconciliation. We accept that there is no quick fix on this but we certainly will not be bullied into political correctness and poring over words; rather, we will maintain our focus on practical reconciliation.Question resolved in the affirmative. Miscellaneous179801798015:38:0017980Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—Yesterday the Senate ordered Senator Minchin, as the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, to present the Senate with a copy of a KPMG report on the Derby Tidal Energy Project commissioned by the Australian Greenhouse Office. The report was a due diligence report designed to provide the Commonwealth government with advice on the financial, technical and environmental viability of the project to allow the Commonwealth to assess proposals that it support the project. I am advised that a proviso of the Commonwealth's agreement with the consultant was that the report not be provided to a third party without the consultant's consent to protect the consultant's rights. I am advised that the report contains information provided on a commercial-in-confidence basis. I also am advised that publication of the report would coincide with the Western Australian government's tender process for the supply of electricity to the West Kimberley region. For these reasons, the government is not inclined to publish the report. 15:39:0017981O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—I am not sure whether notice was given to the shadow minister, Senator Bolkus, in relation to this matter to enable him to be aware of what was taking place. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the statement:Leave granted.8O6O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN—I move:That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Committees179811798115:40:0017981Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I present government responses to the following committee reports: the 25th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on eight treaties tabled on 11 August 1999; the 29th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Singapore's use of Shoalwater Bay, development cooperation with PNG and protection of new varieties of plants; the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee entitled Sale of ADI Limited; and the report of the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Visit to Defence establishments in northern Australia, 26 to 29 July 1999. I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.Leave granted.The documents read as follows—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE 25TH REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE OF TREATIESThe Government thanks the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for the comprehensive consideration given to the eight treaty actions considered in the 25th Report. The Report makes recommendations relating to four treaty actions. The Government response to the recommendations is provided below.Double Taxation Agreements with South Africa and MalaysiaThe Government is pleased to note that the Committee recommended that binding treaty action be taken in respect of the following three taxation treaty actions:Agreement with South Africa for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 1 July 1999 (6.46). The Agreement entered into force on 21 December 1999.Protocol, done at Sydney on 2 August 1999, to amend the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income of 20 August 1980 (6.47). The Protocol to amend the Agreement entered into force on 27 June 2000.Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement to extend the Application of Certain Provisions of Article 23 of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income of 20 August 1980 (6.48). Binding treaty action was taken on 9 November 1999. The Government offers the following response to the recommendation put forward by the Committee in relation to the taxation treaty actions considered by the Committee.6.51 The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that:the Australian Taxation Office extend its community and industry consultation program by inviting representatives of country-specific business organisations to participate in meetings of the Treaties Advisory Panel when treaty proposals relating to those countries are being considered.The Government has taken on board the Committee's recommendation and invited representatives from the country specific Business Councils to attend the Tax Treaties Advisory Panel Meeting on 5 May 2000.For that meeting several Councils were invited to attend and asked for comment, but only a representative from the Russia-Australia Business Council was able to attend. Alternative methods of consulting interested Councils will be used where this is more convenient. For example, a presentation on proposed double taxation agreements was held for a Business Council in Sydney in August 2000.Fourth Amendment to the IMF's Articles of AgreementThe Government is pleased that the Committee supported acceptance of the Fourth Amendment, done at Hong Kong on 23 September 1997, of the Articles of the Agreement of the International Monetary Fund of 27 December 1945 (3.68). Australia's instrument of acceptance is yet to be lodged.The Government offers the following response to the recommendation put forward by the Committee in relation to the amendment.3.66 The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends that:The Australian Government, at meetings of the governing bodies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, actively support reform of these institutions, with a view to reducing duplication and waste in their operations and, as a longer term goal, their amalgamation.Australia has been an active participant in discussions about reform of the international financial system and these discussions include, as a key part, ensuring that the international financial institutions (IFIs), such as the IMF and World Bank, operate effectively.In recent years, reform of the IFIs has included a number of measures:a clearer focus by both institutions on their `core' mandates - with the IMF more focussed on promoting international macroeconomic stability and providing temporary financial assistance for balance of payments needs, and the World Bank focussed on longer-term development issues;for the IMF, this has involved a strengthening of its economic surveillance role;for the World Bank, this has involved a greater focus on the developmental impact of its activities rather than on inputs (eg loans processed, amount of funds lent);both institutions have focussed on the elimination of unnecessary duplication and more effective collaboration (including recent pilot surveys of member country financial vulnerability and observance of internationally accepted standards and codes);greater transparency of the policies, work and operations of the two institutions; andan improvement of the range of financing facilities which better serve the needs of members of each institution. The issue of reform of the IMF and World Bank will remain an important part of the discussions for reform of the international financial system in the period ahead.The Australian Government will continue to actively participate in these discussions.GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN REPORT 29: SINGAPORE'S USE OF SHOALWATER BAY, DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION WITH PNG AND PROTECTION OF NEW VARIETIES OF PLANTS - JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES:Recommendation 1: The Department of Defence consult with the local business community during the preparation of future agreements with the Republic of Singapore and other countries on the use of Shoalwater Bay Training Area to ensure that its interests are incorporated to the maximum extent practicable (paragraph 2.148).Defence Corporate Support staff at Rockhampton and Enoggera will continue to develop appropriate links with the local business community to ensure its interests are incorporated to the maximum extent practicable.Recommendation 2: The Environment Advisory Committee hold extra-ordinary meetings prior to each major exercise to discuss potential issues if an exercise is proposed prior to the next proposed meeting (paragraph 2.166).The Environment Advisory Committee will hold such meetings, and will continue to visit areas involved in training before and after exercises are held. Defence Corporate Support will continue to support and assist this process.Recommendation 3: The Department of Defence circulate copies of all public documents concerning the en-viron-mental management of the training area to each member of the Environment Advisory Committee as soon as practicable after publication (paragraph 2.168).a. The Environment Advisory Committee will continue to circulate copies concerned with the environmental management of the training area to each member, supported and assisted by Defence Corporate Support; b. The process of circulation of relevant reports and other documentation pertaining to the environmental management of the training area will be reviewed.Recommendation 4: Binding treaty action be taken on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore concerning the Use of the Shoalwater Bay Training Area and the Associated Use of Storage Facilities in Australia (paragraph 2.173).a. All necessary legal and constitutional processes necessary for Australia to give effect to the Agreement have been completed;b. A Third Party Note in these terms was forwarded to Singapore on 17 January 2000;c. Singapore acknowledged the Australian Note on 17 January 2000 and advised that Singapore has completed all domestic requirements for entry into force of the Agreement;d. Consequently the Agreement entered into force on that date.RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE INTO THE SALE OF ADI LIMITEDThe Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducted an inquiry into whether the ADI sale had been conducted with prudence, discretion, integrity, skill and necessary propriety. The Committee released its report on 16 February 2000.Under the terms of reference, the Senate Committee investigated whether the value of ADI and its assets were protected, whether a maximum price was realised and whether Australian national security and defence interest had been protected.The Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing (OASITO) in consultation with Defence provided written submissions to the Committee. Government Sale Team representatives (including Defence representatives) attended hearings conducted by the Committee on 26 October and 29 November 1999.The Committee endorsed the sale process undertaken for the sale of ADI, providing no recommendations for consideration by Government. Specifically, the Committee found that: OASITO and its advisers went to considerable lengths to ensure the integrity of the sale;OASITO did the best it could to maximise the sale proceeds; andThere was no evidence that the sale of ADI to Transfield Thompson-CSF was likely to cause concern in the United States to the detriment of the close co-operation existing between Australia and the United States in relation to transfer of technology or related matters.In Chapter 5, Structure of the Australian Defence Industry, Defence notes the concern expressed in evidence to the Committee `about the extent of consultation and co-operation between Defence and industry about acquisition policies and practices and their effect on the evolving structure of the industry'. These issues are currently on Defence's agenda, with the question of industry structure being a particular interest for the Defence and Industry Advisory Council.A consistent theme in Defence industry policy over the last decade has been improvement of the Defence-industry relationship. The most recent review of this policy, the 1998 Defence and Industry Strategic Policy Statement, had as a major topic `culture and communication'. Eight of the forty-nine initiatives announced in the Statement addressed this issue. The most significant of these saw the revamping and extension of Defence's consultative arrangements with industry, including the establishment of the Defence and Industry Advisory Council (chaired by the Minister for Defence) the Capability Development Advisory Forum and the Industry Policy Consultative Forum. These bodies supplement on-going Defence-industry consultative forums namely:Commercial Support Program Consultative ForumContracting Consultative ForumDefence Exporters CouncilIn addition, Defence continues to incorporate industry associations and networks, and individual companies, into its decision-making processes on every appropriate occasion. A recent example of this has been the Private Financing Initiative workshop, co-hosted by the Australian Industry Group, at which approximately eighty industry participants contributed to the development of Defence's policy in this area.GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEFENCE SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE: REPORT ON THE VISIT TO DEFENCE ESTABLISHMENTS IN NORTHERN AUSTRALIA 26-29 JULY 1999Recommendation 1: The Sub-Committee recommends that the Government conduct a review of the financial allowances paid to caretaker staff at the bare bases Scherger, Learmonth and CurtinResponse: Many of the issues raised by personnel at RAAF Base Scherger involved matters already compensated for by the provision of District Allowance (the allowance that applies to all remote localities) and personal expenses unrelated to a posting.However, the remaining issues were addressed in a depart-mental review, which concluded in November 1999, since the date of the Sub-Committee's visit. The outcome of the review was a payment, in addition to District Allowance, to all bare base caretakers of $1250 pa. An additional payment is also made to Scherger caretakers of $3750 pa, in recognition of the difficulties arising from regular use of the unsealed road between the base and Weipa township. Bare base allowance is payable fortnightly with District Allowance.In accordance with the ADF Enterprise Productivity Arrangement: 1999-2002, the amounts of bare base allowance were increased on 8 June 2000 to $1290 and $3870 respectively, making a current payment of bare base allowance for Scherger caretakers of $5160 pa.Recommendation 2: The Sub-Committee recommends that the proposed changes to the Fringe Benefits Tax reporting requirements should be further reviewed to ensure that Australian Defence Force personnel are not disadvantaged by the unique circumstances and conditions under which they serveResponse: Since the date of the Sub-Committee's visit, but prior to its report, the Government did conduct such a review, and provided an extensive range of exclusions from fringe bene-fits reporting for members of the ADF beyond the exclusion of housing assistance already noted by the Sub-Committee.The legislation to report fringe benefits on Group Certificates was introduced to improve the fairness of the social security system. It is intended to ensure that the full value of remuneration is captured in respect to taxpayers' responsibilities for the various surcharges and child support payments, and to assess eligibility for access to social security benefits. The FBT is not paid by ADF members, but by Defence, as has been the case since 1986.The many exclusions from FBT reporting requirements, additional to the total exclusion of housing assistance, are excellent results for ADF personnel and their families. They are the widest exclusions provided for any sector of the Australian community, reflecting the Government's recognition of the nature of military service.Action continues within the Defence Organisation to address minor anomalies in the fringe benefits reporting requirements, as they become known.Documents179841798415:41:0017984Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I table the following document:Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report for the year ended 30 June 2000.Committees179841798410000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The President has received letters from a party leader and Senator Harris seeking variations to the membership of committees.Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to:That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:Lucas Heights Reactor—Select Committee—Discharged: Senator Stott DespojaAppointed: Senator Allison from 10 October 2000; andAll legislation and references committees—Participating member: Senator Harris.Bills17984S15617984Debate resumed from 11 March 1998, on motion by Senator Stott Despoja:That this bill be now read a second time.15:42:0017984Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I rise to address this private senator's bill, the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. I am quite pleased to be able to speak to it. I think it is a very important piece of legislation and it is pleasing that the Senate has an opportunity to debate it. The bill, of course, was introduced by my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Democrats, Senator Stott Despoja. She obviously tabled a second reading speech at the time. She is not able to speak to the bill as part of this debate until we get to the stage of closing the second reading stage, but certainly I am quite keen to outline and air some of the issues that the bill raises. The debate on the bill and on the issues it contains has been a long time coming. The bill that we are now debating was introduced by Senator Stott Despoja in March 1998 and the committee looking into the bill reported in March 1999. Since then there has been little action from the government on the issues that are raised in the report. I would recommend the report to anybody who is interested in this issue. It is quite a comprehensive report that was done by the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The body of the report gives a good outline of the evidence and issues that were considered through the inquiry. There is a very detailed supplementary report, if you like, by Senator Stott Despoja. It is incredibly detailed. There are lots of footnotes and lots of good detail in that outline, which talks in great depth about not just the value and benefit of the bill but also the importance of the issues contained within it.Currently, our privacy and discrimination laws are inadequate to deal with the unique and pressing issue of genetic information. It is of great concern to the Democrats that we have seen so little action in relation to this issue, despite many attempts to raise these concerns. We have had a glaring loophole in our laws which has allowed the first reported cases of discrimination on the basis of someone's genetic information to occur and go unpunished or even discouraged. These cases, and the probability of such discrimination, were not without warning. For years the Democrats have raised these pressing concerns in the parliament and in the community. Every attempt to have issues of genetics and, up until recently, gene technology adequately debated and explored has fallen flat. It has been a source of ongoing frustration to the Democrats that we have not been able to gain support from the larger parties for more comprehensive examination of some of these issues.After the recent cases of discrimination were reported, there was understandable public outcry about the fact that there is no legislation in place to protect people's genetic privacy or to ensure that they cannot be discriminated against using that genetic information. The debate on this bill represents an ideal opportunity for the parliament to catch up and to adopt legislation that will protect the health information of Australians. We have lagged behind countries, such as the United States, which have implemented legislation designed to ensure an individual's genetic information cannot be used against them nor disclosed without their permission. It is worth emphasising the fundamental aims of this bill. Its primary purposes are these: to establish an enforceable right to the privacy of genetic information of an individual by proscribing disclosure of such genetic information except with the authorisation of the individual or in other limited circumstances; to prevent any person from collecting a DNA sample from an individual for genetic analysis or storing or conducting a genetic analysis of such a sample except with that individual's authorisation; and to make discrimination based on genetic information unlawful. They are fairly fundamental and important aims, and worthy of support. They are also clearly a matter of concern. The fact that the Democrats are seeking to put such measures into legislation highlights the fact that currently people do not have that protection.The views of the majority of the senators on the committee, whilst noting the importance of the issues raised by the bill that Senator Stott Despoja has introduced, suggested that we should not support the bill but instead suggested that the government should basically act on the issues, set up a national working party and give consideration to a reference to the Senate committee to undertake a more thorough examination of the issues and to draft legislation required to address these issues. Unfortunately, none of that has happened. It is a great concern that, despite this bill being around for more than two years—the issue has being raised for longer than that—and the report itself being around for now over a year and a half, no action has been taken by the government in this area. I urge senators to redress that situation by supporting this bill. As I mentioned before, there are laws in other parts of the world that do address these issues. I know that Senator Stott Despoja has studied these laws around the world, just as I believe this bill has been discussed in other political institutions and by legislators around the world. In some ways, it has had more focus and debate in other countries than it has had here, which, again, is a great shame. The issues that the bill raises are ones that are important around the world. They are being acted on by governments such as the United States and individual states within the USA. To have no legislation of this type in any jurisdiction in Australia is a great omission.The Democrats believe that an individual's genetic information should not be disclosed to any person or organisation without informed specific consent from that individual. That is what this bill seeks to enforce. At the same time, we know that the special place of research and its needs in Australia must also be balanced against the individual's right to privacy. For example, the disclosure of genetic information that does not contain personal identifiers for statistical or epidemiological studies should be possible with specific individual consent. Such exemptions from a general rule of individual specific consent allows for both the protection of individual privacy and the promotion of genetic research—two objectives which are often seen to be in conflict.This bill was introduced in order to provide policy initiatives for the federal government because Australians' genetic information was at the time, and still remains, unprotected. The bill was also brought forward to raise related issues, including the regulation of Australian research and the property rights of genetic materials. The fundamental principle underlying this bill is that genetic privacy is unique and our legislation should recognise that. The other members of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee suggested that diagnostic genetic testing is not substantially different from any other diagnostic tests and generates few privacy and discrimination issues. That is something that the Democrats have a fundamental disagreement with. Unlike all other forms of information issues, including the information of an individual, genetic information crosses generational barriers. Disclosure of genetic information of an individual extends beyond the individual to surrounding blood relatives. It raises new and unique privacy and discrimination issues, and issues that are not protected currently under existing Australian legislation. It is something that many legislators, insurance companies and even the public service have failed to come to grips with, as is evidenced by the recent cases where people have been denied job opportunities, bank loans or health insurance, or had those threatened because of genetic information. One of the criticisms or arguments against this bill has been that it is futuristic and that it is unnecessary because there are no cases of discrimination. However, that has clearly been proved to be wrong. The lack of action by this government has now been exposed. The clearly identified cases of discrimination against Australians who do not have protection highlights the gaps that currently exist.The Democrats welcome the government's recently announced inquiry into the issue, but we call for a ban on the use of genetic information for any purpose besides personal, medical and limited employment cases in the interim. The issue has been around for a long time and the discrimination is happening now. Action now is important. Without a ban, Australians will remain unprotected and will continue to be discriminated against.We also recognise that this bill cannot stand alone and that genetic privacy is best dealt with specifically and as part of a comprehensive privacy regime. I think it is worth noting that, again, it is the legal and constitutional committee that is currently considering the government's privacy legislation, which was sent there at the instigation of the Democrats to ensure that these issues are properly looked at, including the issue of genetic privacy. It is worth noting the need to continually push for issues such as this to be considered. I think it would be useful to bring to the attention of the Senate some of the examples of genetic discrimination that have been brought to light over the past few months, just to highlight how the lack of protection is affecting Australians now. I know that Senator Stott Despoja has repeatedly drawn the attention of the chamber to these cases, including during question time. In the context of this debate, they are more relevant than ever. A report of a research project in New South Wales released in August demonstrated that 54 people had indicated they had been discriminated against on the basis of the results of genetic testing. When the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this place was asked a question about this report and other related issues of genetic discrimination, not only did she have no knowledge of the report; she failed to offer any hope or indication that the government would seek to address this issue quickly and comprehensively.One example of this discrimination is that of a 34-year-old ophthalmologist who was refused a bank loan for equipment unless he took out income insurance. The insurance company required him to pass a genetic test for myotonic dystrophy, a muscle disease that runs in his family. His loan was contingent on that genetic information being provided and his having to, if you like, pass the test to show that he did not have the gene. Fortunately, he discovered that was the case and he got the loan. Obviously, the question arises: what would have happened if he had discovered that he did have that gene?Another case is that of a 37-year-old quality assurance manager who was refused an increase in an income insurance policy after a genetic test showed that he had a predisposition to Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, or CMT, which is a hereditary progressive disorder that primarily affects the feet, legs and hands. In another example, an 18-year-old school leaver was refused a Public Service job—so we are talking about the Australian Public Service also being culpable on this issue—unless he took a test for late onset Huntington's disease. Having seen his mother suffer from this, he did not want to take the test because he preferred not to know. He had to appeal twice before he was able to overturn this refusal. He was eventually offered the job, but with reduced superannuation benefits.These are cases that have been documented already, but they are only those that have been sought out and documented. We do not really know to what extent discrimination is taking place or, for that matter, how often a patient's information is being used for research or other purposes without his or her consent. The Democrats maintain that genetic information should not be used to discriminate between individuals for health insurance or some other purpose.The Investment and Financial Services Association has developed a draft policy, which we have some difficulties with and criticism of. But it is an attempt by the health insurance industry to grapple with an issue that the larger parties in this place have refused to grapple with and have refused to take a position on. We do have examples of insurance clients being charged higher premiums. For example, in Victoria we know that people with the Huntington's disease gene are being charged higher premiums; they are paying more for their health insurance. We have newspaper reports of insurance giants AXA, Colonial AMP and MLC using genetic information as part of an assessment of people's medical history.IFSA maintains that it is a legal practice, and under current government laws it is. Unlike IFSA, the Democrats maintain that genetic information is not like other health information. It was certainly a matter of concern to us during the recent Senate committee hearings into the government's privacy bill when, despite all the privacy experts insisting that there is a difference between ordinary health information and genetic information, the insurance representatives maintained there is no such difference.We are concerned that IFSA's policy, which is currently before the ACCC, will discourage sectors of the Australian community from undertaking possibly helpful gene tests. This is something that I think it is important to emphasise and something that the Democrats have certainly tried to emphasise. We also recognise that there are potentially enormous benefits from these new technologies, not least in the area of health. We do not want people to be discouraged from benefiting through the use of this technology. I highlight the concerns expressed by no less a person than the US President, Bill Clinton, when he said: We ... know that one of the main reasons women refuse genetic testing for susceptibility to breast cancer is the fear that the insurance companies may either deny them coverage or raise their rates to unaffordable levels.We should not fear a technology that has the potential to significantly reduce human suffering. We should not have a situation where people are reluctant to use beneficial technology because of a legitimate concern that information that comes to light may then be used against them. This responsible and comprehensive legislation we are debating today is fundamental to appeasing these fears. While we recognise the attempt by the insurance industry to develop codes on this issue, we are concerned about the loopholes contained in those proposed guidelines and we are also concerned about voluntary codes. We know that, when it comes to self-regulation, voluntary codes can hide the potential activities of disreputable organisations and may disguise the fact that there is no legally enforceable guarantee of protection. We must have clear, accountable and transparent guidelines if the community is to have any faith in this technology and its benefits.The other factor that is the key to achieving public faith and goodwill in the use of this technology is to ensure that the public is involved in these debates and that the parliament leads on these issues and does not sit back and leave it to the industry organisations. That is the aim, and has always been the aim, of this legislation: to bring about a realistic debate and consideration of genetic privacy issues.The comprehensive report into this particular legislation was tabled last year, and the conclusions arising from it included the creation of a national working party and ongoing responsibility for the appropriate Commonwealth departments to monitor developments with a view to drafting legislation. Those were put forward instead of support for the bill. The report did recommend that the bill not proceed, pending further examination of the issues and the development of appropriate amendments to existing legislation. Unfortunately, more than 18 months later, this has not happened, despite the fact that the committee report was tabled back in March 1999. Certainly I am very supportive of this legislation and am very keen and pleased to contribute to the ongoing attempt by the Democrats to press this issue, highlighted through the parliamentary process and through other areas of community debate.I would emphasise that genetic technology has the potential to bring great benefits to all humans. It is worth quoting from Senator Stott Despoja. You may be interested in her words which are contained in another interesting book that is also worth reading, Goodbye Normal Gene—a book that examines the wider social questions and impacts that genetic technology will bring to the new century. I think it is very important for legislators as well as the public to be familiar with this book. The foreword for that book was written by Senator Stott Despoja, and I endorse her words. She said:Genetic technology has the potential to bring great benefits ... based on the diversity of solutions contained in the genetic material of living organisms. At the same time, however, the rate of development of this powerful technology has raised new and complex ... issues.These are issues that this parliament—like parliaments all over the world—must address. We must start to act to address them. This bill provides a starting point in this debate. It is with a sense of pride that I note the role of the Democrats in bringing these cutting edge issues to the attention of the community and politicians. I urge other senators, other parties and others in the community to also contribute to the debate, to get more understanding of the issues and some of the real concerns that are expressed by people and to be more committed to acting to get protection in these important areas of genetic privacy and non-discrimination into our legislative regime. The bill is significantly based on legislation that has come into law in the United States. On one level I think it is important to emphasise, as a way of demonstrating that it is quite a workable approach that is put forward, that it has been adopted in other jurisdictions. Some would suggest that it is not appropriate—indeed, others in the committee suggested that it was not appropriate—because of our different health care systems, if we compare health insurance situations between the US and Australia. But the Democrats believe that that is not an adequate argument; it is a furphy. Obviously there are differences in our health care systems but the fundamental issues of protecting genetic privacy and of being protected from discrimination on the grounds of genetic information are not things that are based on your health system; they are fundamental rights that people should have and currently do not have. So we do not endorse that suggestion. We believe it is appropriate and worth while to compare and, where workable, employ situations and legislation that have been adopted in other jurisdictions—and, clearly, this is one case where that is appropriate. (Time expired)16:02:0017989Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—In rising to speak on the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 let me say at the outset that the issues that are raised as a result of consideration of this legislation are most profound and complex. They warrant the most thorough scrutiny, examination and consideration of the parliament as well as, of course, the community at large. This has been recognised on a number of occasions when issues relating to the rapidly developing areas of gene technology and of research into human cloning and the whole gamut of technologies involved have been discussed previously in the parliament. It is also important to note that, currently, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee is undertaking a detailed examination of the Gene Technology Bill which has been introduced into this parliament in order to ensure that the community has the opportunity to participate fully in consideration of the issues surrounding that legislation. It is important that honourable senators are fully apprised of as much information as they can be when considering the legislation and its impact.The Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 was introduced into the parliament by Senator Stott Despoja in 1998. At that time the opposition's position was that there were extremely important issues for consideration in this legislation and that it was appropriate that the legislation be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. I note that following speakers, including Senator Payne, who was the chair of that inquiry, and also my colleague Senator Cooney, were involved in that inquiry and, no doubt, they will wish to go into some greater detail about the issues that they considered at that time. But I think it is important at the outset, given that some period of time has passed since the bill was first introduced, to recap what the recommendations of that committee were. The committee undertook a reasonably wide-ranging inquiry and took submissions from across the spectrum of interested groups and individuals. I was not a member of the committee but, from my reading of the report, I believe that they did an excellent job in identifying the problems associated with the legislation that had been introduced at the time and the complexity of the issues that needed to be examined. They identified that there was further detailed work to be done in advance of considering what the appropriate legislative framework would be.As I understand it, all committee members recognise the need for a legislative framework to deal with this complex issue—but to what extent such a legislative framework should be was a matter that required some more detailed examination. I note that, on page 36 of the report, the committee states: Although it is probably too early to attempt to legislate in this area, the committee considers that, in the future, the issues raised in Chapter 4 will inevitably generate legislation.I might say that chapter 4 of the report directed its attention particularly to privacy and discrimination issues, which of course was the central aspect of Senator Stott Despoja's bill. It goes on: For this reason, the committee considers that to do nothing at this time is inappropriate. Simply awaiting overseas developments will be disadvantageous to all parties as it runs the risk of causing significant injustice to individuals, as well as failing to provide a desirable level of certainty and clarity to researchers and industry.It continues:Rather, the committee considers that further examination of the issues is necessary. This examination will have three important objectives. The first is to monitor developments in genetic technology, particularly the ethics and legal implications. The second is to contribute to and sponsor an informed public debate that will lead to community feedback on the acceptable uses for, and controls on, genetic technology.The committee further states, after quoting from one submission:This will provide the basis for the third objective, which is to recommend a framework for the appropriate regulatory framework. This would include consideration of other legislative models that have been developed overseas to determine whether there are elements of these approaches that may be worth adopting. In particular, the committee considers that it is important to clarify the appropriate balance between protecting privacy rights of individuals, and the extent to which law enforcement agencies, insurers, employers or researchers may collect and use individuals' personal genetic information. It is also important that a proper consultation process occurs between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, to determine an optimum regulatory structure that avoids uncertainty and conflict between existing laws. The committee notes that no such dialogue has yet occurred. This is particularly necessary in light of the subject matter that runs across a number of areas of regulation, and a mass of existing legislation in all jurisdictions.Those comments are worth recalling because they put into context the committee's position at the time with this bill and set down a pathway which would lead to this parliament considering an appropriate legislative frame-work in due course. Of course, this report was tabled in March 1999. The committee made some particularly important recommendations, which are set out. I should also read those into the record. They provide the framework, I believe, for where these matters should have gone and should go in the future. Recommendation 1 of the committee states:For the purposes of further examination of the issues, the committee recommends consideration of the following options: · Creation of a national working party. The appropriate Commonwealth departments would be tasked with the administration of the consultation process, and the establishment of a working group, including State and Territory representatives, experts and representatives of stakeholder groups.· That the Commonwealth Government give consideration to a reference to the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee to undertake a thorough examination of the issues relating to genetic privacy and discrimination, including consideration of insurance, employment, provision of goods and services, clinical diagnosis and treatment, conduct of medical and other research and genetic information concerning children. · An ongoing responsibility for the appropriate Commonwealth departments to monitor developments with a view to drafting legislation as required.With respect to specific legislation and the specific bill that the committee was dealing with at the time, and which is now the subject of this general business debate, the committee said:The committee therefore recommends that the bill not proceed, pending the further examination of the issues as recommended above and the development of appropriate amendments to existing legislation, in relation to genetic privacy and discrimination.The ALP position is that what was laid down in the committee report is as relevant today as it was at that time. I have to agree with the closing remarks of Senator Bartlett when he pointed out that the government has really done very little—it has dragged its feet—on this issue since that time. There were very specific recommendations made by the Senate legal and constitutional committee at that time which pointed the way to further action. It is unfortunate that it has not been until the last few weeks that the government has caught up with what should have been a matter of some urgency at that time. The next event in this scenario since the bill was introduced and the committee report recommended that it not proceed at that time was that the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council released an information paper on the ethical aspects of human genetic testing. That information paper was released in April this year. It was a quite detailed summary of the important and complex issues surrounding this question. As the Health Ethics Committee itself said:The information paper is not in the format of the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines and therefore does not prescribe a specific approach. I am quoting here from the preamble to the report. Rather, it says:It aims to promote thought about the best way to proceed by identifying issues and options to be considered by health professionals and researchers who are involved in genetic testing and who will frequently need to strike a balance between competing factors. That report was released in April of this year. At about that time—in March this year—Senator Stott Despoja will recall that she had given a notice of motion calling for the publication of that report and raising other issues related to consideration of the legislation she had introduced and consideration of the recommendations of the Senate legal and constitutional committee. I am paraphrasing the notice of motion here. In particular the notice of motion noted that nothing much had happened by way of following up on the recommendations of the Senate committee in the 12 months since it had brought down its report. That notice of motion was ultimately amended, as I am advised, following consultation between the opposition and the Democrats and a motion was agreed to by the Senate on 4 April this year. That motion recognised a number of facts. Firstly, it recognised that 12 months had passed since the Senate considered the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill of 1998 without implementation of any of the recommendations of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Senate recognised by carrying that motion that 12 months had passed and the government had really done nothing to take up those recommendations. It also recognised that the Health Ethics Committee report had been recently released. I referred to that a moment ago. The motion, very importantly, called on the government, firstly, to ensure that effective laws on privacy and discrimination form part of the overall regulatory framework for the application of gene technologies in Australia; secondly, to publicise the availability of the Health Ethics Committee's report calling for public submissions; and, thirdly, to refer the report and all submissions received to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee to undertake a thorough review of the issues relating to genetic privacy and discrimination. That motion was agreed to by the Senate on 4 April. We are now in September. It is clear that the government paid absolutely no attention to, or took no notice of, the motion that was ultimately agreed to by the Senate on that day. Therefore, it is quite clear that this government has been very tardy in taking up what was clearly a unanimous position of all the parties represented in this chamber as to the importance of the issue, the need to get inquiries, to get work under way and to work towards bringing forward an appropriate legislative framework for consideration by the parliament. It has been a major failing of this government that it has not taken up these opportunities or taken notice of the Senate's determination until very recently. It has also been aware—it has been raised on a number of occasions in this chamber, and again I note the particular interest of Senator Stott Despoja in this regard—of the concerns regarding issues arising in the insurance industry with respect to applications by that industry to get the approval of the ACCC to access genetic test results. I think it has been the public disquiet, the media attention that has been given to that issue and the reported discrimination based on genetic testing that has motivated or shocked the government into being a little more cognisant of the concerns of the general public; and that has led to some recent action. Firstly, the ACCC announced that it would review its decisions in regard to these applications. Secondly, the government announced—as I said, belatedly—that an inquiry would be conducted by the Australian Health Ethics Committee and the Australian Law Reform Commission into these issues. It is, as I said, unfortunate that the government's response has been by way of a panic response to the recent media focus in that area. Nevertheless, it has finally done something. The position of the ALP is still that it does very much agree with the principles and concerns that have been acknowledged by Senator Stott Despoja and by other senators. As each week goes by, we read reports of further technological developments in this area that, certainly for many people, appear quite frightening, and we urge that the inquiry work announced by the government be done as soon as possible. (Time expired)16:23:0017992Payne, Sen MariseSenator PAYNEM56New South WalesLP10—As previous speakers this afternoon, Senator Bartlett and Senator Forshaw, have said, I also very much appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. The development of protection of privacy in this country is a matter of great personal and professional interest to me, and has been for some long period of time—certainly since before I was elevated to the august position of chair of the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. I am pleased to have the chance to participate in this debate on the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 today, for a number of reasons. I think there are some very important issues which need to be placed on the record and which need to be clarified. There are some points which Senator Bartlett and Senator Forshaw have made which I wish to address.This bill was introduced over two years ago, in March 1998. As previous speakers have indicated, it was referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, and the committee's report was tabled in March 1999. As most senators would be aware, the collection, storage and use of human genetic samples and information is increasingly a matter of concern to all Australians. These developments, whether in genetic research or testing or manipulation, attract the attention and fears of the community in many ways, and they are reflected in what could be described as `substantial media interest'. Some media commentary is more informed and more sensible than some other; on many occasions it falls somewhere between the tabloid and the broadsheet in its analysis of these developments. I think that is unfortunate. It is not helpful at all to the community to scaremonger on this particular issue—but such is often the way of media that perhaps do not take an entirely adequate time to address and consider the issues.In responding to some of the issues that Senator Forshaw raised, I suspect the government, no matter what its colour, really cannot win in a situation like this. For several minutes, the opposition described the government as `making a response which took too long' and as `leaving the field bare for far too long', and then began to term the government's recent announcement in relation to examination of gene technology as a `panic response'. I see those as slightly diverging views. What I would like to say on the approach that has been taken is that the government is concerned to consult, to take into account community concerns on this particularly serious issue, and to make sure that that is a broad consultation—not to put into the parliament in this manner a bill which, notwithstanding it is a very substantial and considered development, as far as I am aware is not the product of public consultation.Senator Bartlett, in his reference to the additional comments of Senator Stott Despoja to the Legal and Constitutional Leg-is-lation Committee's report on the provisions of the Genetic Privacy and Non-dis-crimina-tion Bill 1998, described that report of Senator Stott Despoja's as a `very detailed' report and `well footnoted'. Well, if that is the measure of a good report, I have to say the majority of the members of the committee also produced an equally substantial and well-footnoted report of which we are entirely proud. But it did make some very important points that I wish to pursue this afternoon. They are points about the issues involved in genetic privacy and discrimination which the community regard as particularly sensitive. That is because human genetic information has a number of characteristics that raise special privacy and discrimination concerns. As individuals and as a community we are, I think you would say, uneasy about easy access to our genetic information because it is our DNA, which influences traits which make up our personal identity. And it is not just about the individual; it is also information which is relevant to a person's relatives—to their family. It has implications for access to that information by family members. It is also important to note that another special characteristic of genetic information is that, because a person's genetic make-up does not change throughout their life, if they are categorised early according to their genetic make-up, they can face very longstanding and serious effects from that categorisation. Genetic testing of course deals not only with certainties but with probabilities, and its predictive nature is one issue that has been discussed in many of the reports that have explored this particular area. Most importantly, I would note that this is an enormously rapidly developing area of scientific learning. There are tests being developed at the most extraordinary rate for an increasing number of conditions, and we cannot really predict what the implications of that explosion in technological advancement will be for the world community, let alone the Australian community. Genetic information has and will continue to have many important scientific and medical implications which are and which will be of benefit to the community as a whole, and that is a point that needs to be borne in mind during any debate on the privacy and discrimination issues that concern human genetic samples and information.Not the least of those in terms of importance in our debate on this bill, and one which perhaps has not been fully canvassed, is the ethical implications—the ethical considerations in relation to human genetic samples and information. There are a number of unanswered questions which need to be considered. That is why the government and, in its consideration of this bill, the committee did not consider it appropriate to support the enactment of the bill at this stage. The complexity of this particular policy area of gene technology and genetic information cannot be understated. At a minimum, we are talking about issues that affect the areas of employment; health, including medical research; pharmaceuticals; health administration; insurance; and superannuation. And, increasingly, we are looking at how genetic information opens up new possibilities in the field of law enforcement.I want to refer briefly to evidence given by one of the witnesses to the inquiry that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee held in 1998. In the submissions of the Research Group for the Study of the Legal and Ethical Implications of Human and Genetic Research in Australia and also the Muscular Dystrophy Association of New South Wales, a point which was made very saliently was:Genetics is a rapidly developing scientific area and it is not possible to take a snap-shot of current practices and project a regulatory system into the future with confidence.These are the sorts of caveats and the sorts of issues which the government has had in mind in the process of examining and considering where to go on this issue. The bill which we are now debating considers only some of the very complex issues which human genetic testing raises for all Australians. The timing of the debate for the bill is particularly interesting. I have just referred to the issues of rapid development in this area, but just recently the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health and Aged Care announced that they would ask the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to inquire jointly into human genetic information privacy and discrimination issues. There are some comments made by the Attorney and the Minister for Health and Aged Care that I would like to place on the record. I will read briefly from the statement that they made:The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, introduced into the Parliament in April, covers the collection, use, storage and disclosure of personal information by private sector organisations. This includes genetic information to the extent that it is personal health information. While gene technology is still in its developmental stages, Mr Williams and Dr Wooldridge acknowledge that it raises unique challenges for the future. They share the community's concerns that genetic information should be treated sensitively to prevent the potential for abuse or discrimination on the basis of actual or imputed genetic characteristics.Mr Williams and Dr Wooldridge agreed yesterday to ask the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to jointly inquire into these issues. The terms of reference will be settled shortly. It is intended that these bodies will engage in extensive consultation with the public and interested parties throughout the inquiry.It is important to note the emphasis there on `extensive consultation with the public and interested parties throughout the inquiry'. This is a decision which was not lightly made by the government, and it was made for the very reason that they are very complex issues and they need a thorough examination before you can make the decision to legislate, so the Senate would be well minded not to act hastily in relation to this bill before the Senate today. I was pleased to hear Senator Bartlett welcome this inquiry and applaud the government for commencing the inquiry.Senator Forshaw referred to a number of recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee in relation to this bill. One of those was specifically in relation to the creation of a national working party which would administer the consultation process and which would include state and territory representatives, experts and representatives of stakeholder groups. As just one member of that committee—and certainly not representing the views of the committee in this contribution—I note that I think the government's decision to move to the inquiry between the ALRC and the NHMRC's ethics committee is a very good way to go and a good acknowledgment of that recommendation of the Senate committee.I have said that it is important to pursue an extensive process of public consultation, and I want to reinforce that view and say that I think this bill could perhaps benefit from that process. We as members of the government share the community's concern that genetic information be treated sensitively to prevent the potential for abuse or discrimination on the basis of actual or imputed genetic characteristics, so the considered approach in the form of the joint inquiry is a far preferable one.Privacy is obviously a key component of this bill, and the privacy of personal information is of critical importance in the era of a global environment where science has moved us forward to the point where it can so easily analyse our genetic make-up and technology and where that information can be moved so easily around that global environment. The privacy of individuals and of their genetic information is an issue that has to be addressed in the context of all of the other issues concerning genetic information, and that is another important factor to bear in mind as we look at this bill. The government has taken a series of initiatives in respect of privacy in general and privacy protection for health information in particular, given that genetic information is health information. In the House of Representatives at the moment we have the government's Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, which the Senate's Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee considered recently in another inquiry and is due to report on next week.Before I move to discussing that, I want to look at a couple of specific issues which were raised before the committee in its previous inquiry into this bill and to look at why the committee chose at that stage not to support the bill. I will make reference to a couple of comments from that report, because I think it is important to reinforce the views that the committee had about the bill at that time. I note that Senator Forshaw said, `Well, we are now about 18 months down the road.' I acknowledge that, but I do not think that that detracts at all from the vast majority of the comments that the committee made at that time. On page 13 of our report, we said: There are significant privacy and ethical issues in relation to access to, and control over—for example—personal medical records containing genetic information. The committee does not consider current protections—as they stood then—nor those proposed by the bill—that is, Senator Stott Despoja's bill—to be adequate, particularly in relation to the private sector.The committee was concerned to say at that point in relation to health care that it thought that more work could be done, and we are pleased to see that the government has proceeded down that road with the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. In relation to medical research, the committee said on page 17:The committee also acknowledges that although the bill seeks to deal with the relevant issues, several of these issues, raised in the submissions, require further consideration and consultation: in particular, ownership of genetic material, and ownership of information derived from such material; and recognition of group rights.We as a committee spent a great deal of time examining those very specific issues relating to genetic privacy and discrimination and have formed a view on a number of those, as I have said. Again in relation to employment records, I note that the committee said on page 20:The committee acknowledges that there is little evidence that Australian employers are seeking genetic information. Nevertheless, it appears certain that genetic testing will assume increasing prominence in Australian employment practices and consequently give rise to privacy and anti-discrimination issues. Although the bill prohibits discrimination by potential employers, and provides for individuals to make privacy and discrimination complaints, it does not fully address the issues covered in paragraphs 4.43 to 4.50—those being a reference to the employment section of chapter 4 of our report. So, while we acknowledge the need for some changes in that area, we were concerned that this particular bill did not do the job. In relation to insurance, I quote from page 25 of the committee's report:The committee believes that the privacy and discrimination issues arising from the use of genetic information by insurers require further consideration and consultation, particularly in regard to the ability of insurers to use actuarial or statistical data, derived from genetic test results, for the calculation of premiums and the determination of their insurance policies.Senator Forshaw in his remarks referred to the draft policy on genetic testing, which I think was tabled in that particular inquiry by the Investment and Financial Services Association, as going some way down that road. But as a committee at that time we thought that there was more to be done. Similarly, in relation to forensics and data banks, the view of the committee was that this bill, in its then form and now current form, did not adequately address those particular issues. I would like to refer briefly to the committee's conclusion on that occasion before I return to discussing the government's current Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill and its implications in this area. The committee said in its final remarks on page 39:Recognising the complex benefits and dangers inherent in emerging genetic technology, the committee considers that the development of a national approach to issues of genetic privacy and discrimination, led by the Commonwealth, is needed. However, the committee also considers that a legislative response is not appropriate at a time when the exact nature of the technology and the ensuing ethics and legal issues are still unclear. For these reasons, the committee recommends further examinations of the issues involved ... In general, the committee does not consider that a specific law covering genetic privacy and discrimination should be enacted, and recommends that the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 not proceed ...I think that states quite clearly the views of the majority of the committee on this particular report at the time. I believe that it was important to put those on the record to ensure that the Senate was aware of the full deliberations of the committee in that regard.The government's Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill has, as I said, been comprehensively considered in a number of committees in this place: in the House of Representatives committee chaired by my colleague Mr Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies, by the Senate committee and, I believe, by another committee of the Senate inquiring into e-privacy. The government's concern has been to promote a light touch coregulatory approach to privacy protection, to put in place minimum benchmark standards for the handling of personal information by private sector organisations, including those in the private health sector. It would be invidious of me to canvass any deliberations of the committee before our report is tabled next week, but I can make a few comments about how long this process has been going on. The implication from one of the previous speakers was that this particular announcement by the government in relation to gene technology is somehow a bolt out of the blue. The government has been considering the implications of privacy protection in the private sector for some years now. In fact, in December 1998 it was announced that the government would legislate in this area and a core consultative group was formed for that purpose. That was a group which comprised representatives from industry and consumer groups, privacy advocates and the Privacy Commissioner. In what could be described as a previous life, I was a member of that consultative group for a period of time, and I note in particular the strong support of the Insurance Council of Australia and other insurance based organisations, who continue to maintain a very strong interest in this area. In evidence given to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on 8 September, just recently, Ms Ralph of IFSA made comments in relation to genetic information which I would like to refer to at the stage. She said: Obviously, there has been a lot of media attention recently on the issue of genetic testing and life insurance. We support the government in its establishment of an inquiry to review all aspects of this emerging technology and its implications for the community. In advance of the findings and recommendations of that inquiry, and because we are aware that some people are calling for restrictions on the ability of life insurance companies to collect and use any genetic testing results, we thought it was appropriate to at least make clear our position to you today in relation to privacy and genetic testing. IFSA's position basically is that all health information, including genetic information, should be subject to the privacy bill.So they have taken an ongoing interest in this debate for some time. That bill will, of course, be based on the consultations of the Privacy Commissioner in developing national principles for the fair handling of personal information done during 1999. In December 1999 key provisions of the bill were released to stakeholders and interested persons who had made submissions. This has been a very consultative approach, an ongoing and public process by the Attorney-General to ensure that there is a great deal of input into the development of privacy protection in the private sector in this country. That is going to now continue in relation to gene technology with the new inquiry. (Time expired)16:43:0017996Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—I sometimes think it would be terrific if we could completely scrap the government legislative agenda that appears on our desks day after day and just spend a month or two doing private members' bills. To my way of thinking, that is where the really interesting legislation is. It is where very often the far more progressive legislation is. It seems to me that if you want to find out what modern, progressive Western democracies are doing around the world then look in the private members' bills bin and in 10 years time that will be happening in Australia. I was also struck by the timing of the introduction of this bill, the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. I read just today in the West Australian newspaper, which I am sure you scrutinise, Madam Acting Deputy President Knowles, an article informing readers that a new law will be introduced into Western Australia in relation to data pooling of DNA testing of criminals or suspected criminals. I am well aware of the fact that this bill does not cover that aspect of DNA testing, but there is certainly crossover in terms of the general issue.The heading of the article reads `DNA Law Would Lift Police Power'. What concerns me about headlines like that is that they should really say `DNA Law Would Lift Government Responsibility'. What we are really dealing with here, I believe, is a fundamental question of one of those difficult questions of rights and responsibilities. There is no question that the technology and the scientific expertise we have now in terms of investigating, checking and recording genetic information and DNA generally is hugely exciting and offers tremendous poten-tial. I do not think we really can judge at this stage exactly what in the future can and might be done with this sort of stuff and what might be found. This is really very excit-ing. It is also a bit scary because the res-pon-sibilities that go with the taking and record-ing of that information are not matched with the necessary legislation. That is why this private member's bill of my colleague Sena-tor Stott Despoja is really quite urgent, in my view. I cannot understand why the gov-ernment could not give it the attention and seriousness it deserves. We have seen, as other speakers have said here today already, that we are behind some other countries—cer-tainly the United States—in terms of dealing with this issue within our legislative framework. I am pleased to be supporting this bill. We really are moving into what are uncharted waters with regard to genetics, and our understanding of the human body is mak-ing rapid advances via such extraordinary scientific collaborations as the human genome project. I would like to reinforce the view held firmly by the Australian Democrats that genetic information is unlike any other kind of information. Senator Stott Despoja has highlighted the fact that personal information and personal genetic inform-ation are different and that the key differ-ence between personal information and per-sonal genetic information is that genetic in-formation is a permanent part of our lives and those of our biological relatives. This in-formation is often shared and requires special measures and procedures to protect it. It is vital that we tread very carefully when collat-ing and making available such informa-tion. It is vital that an individual's genetic in-forma-tion is not disclosed to any person or organ-isation without specific informed consent from that individual. This historic bill will ensure that that consent is obtained. I encourage honourable senators to consider the rights of the constituents in their own states and to give this bill the support it warrants. Genetic information, the stuff of life, re-mains unprotected in Australia. I think most people will be fairly horrified to realise that the most private of privacy matters is ess-entially unregulated and that this is an issue of unfathomed proportions. The govern-ment is seemingly content to coast along in a policy vacuum while, day by day, a strong case mounts for legislation to protect Aust-ralians from discrimination that will im-pact upon them in the areas of employment, insurance and yet to be seen circumstances. I had the experience not so long ago of applying for a bank loan—many Australians do, of course. During that process I was asked to also apply for health insurance—as a guarantee to the bank that I was not about to drop dead. That was understandable. So I was presented with the forms and was asked a range of relatively personal questions, which I answered honestly and which in turn led to a second set of questions, simply based upon the fact that I identified as a gay man. Those questions were so offensive, so invasive and so personal that I wrote back to the bank and told them to stick the loan up their jumper.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay—Which bank?86XGreig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG—I am not about to lose my loan. I understand that most banks adopt the same attitude. What I did learn, however, was that there were a large number of questions that banks—and I dare say other institutions—ask only of gay men and not of heterosexual couples. I did find that there were other organisations that did not ask such offensive and invasive questions, and I was able to secure health insurance and get the loan.But I wonder what might happen, theoretically, with any bank if they were to be in receipt of information on people's genetic privacy—or an insurance company, for that matter. Frankly, the answer is that they will do what they like. There is no question that insurance companies, which are not benevolent institutions, can and do discriminate significantly in those areas. We know, for example, that genetic testing can, amongst other things, indicate or in some cases demonstrate a propensity or predisposition towards cancer and/or other illnesses. But that is not to say the person will acquire or develop those things. So the Democrats maintain that genetic information should not be used to discriminate between individuals for the purposes of health insurance. This is a particularly insidious application of such information, and people without a pre-existing condition should not be denied the right to take out such insurance on the off-chance that they may develop a disease simply because a certain gene predisposes them to the possibility of developing a disease or a condition.At the time of Senator Stott Despoja's second reading speech in March of 1998, my colleague remarked:Although there are no reported cases of genetic discrimination in Australia and worldwide the data is limited, such discrimination most probably does occur.In August of this year, Senator Stott Despoja listed in this place three examples of people who had experienced discrimination, so events have clearly moved along considerably—and again reinforce the need for this legislation.Senator Payne made reference to the timing of the Democrats presenting or persisting, as it were, with this bill here today. I should make the point that the only reason the Democrats have the opportunity to address this bill today is that of chance. Our opportunities to speak to private members' bills during general business is extremely limited, despite our anxiety to discuss many issues. It was through the Labor Party relinquishing their opportunity to speak to an issue of theirs that we can have this debate here today. So there is no particular agenda running here. The public's vulnerability to genetic discrimination has been highlighted with the release of a report outlining the cases of some 54 people who feel that they have suffered discrimination as a result of genetic tests. Victorians with Huntington's disease are paying higher life insurance premiums, and other major insurance companies are using genetic information as part of an assessment of the medical histories of Australians. We are witnessing an industry move from one that has always worked on risks and probabilities to one that is determining the viability of policy applications on the basis of genetic information they are now obtaining. The Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 will address this issue. It brings us into line with other countries such as the United States of America where the rights of the individual are highly valued and its citizens quick to litigate in order to protect these rights. We need legislation as an effective legislative guidepost to protect the individual's genetic information. We need it now and for the future. In many respects, the future is already here with estimates of perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 hereditary genetic diseases and conditions already identified and with significant breakthroughs occurring constantly. Many more of these conditions are being identified each year. As my colleague has mentioned before, the Australian Democrats seek to balance the special place of research in Australia with the need to disclose genetic information without personal identifiers for epidemiological, statistical and other research purposes. The genetic privacy debate is complex, but that does not mean we should be delaying the implementation of this legislation. It is a starting point and an excellent guide as to what we as a society can use to determine what is right and what is wrong with the use of genetic information, and that is a point that Senator Stott Despoja has made since the introduction of this bill. Senator Payne said in her speech on the second reading words to the effect of: `This bill will not proceed. The government views it as either unnecessary or inadequate.' But in firing the debate on this issue through the introduction of this bill, what Senator Stott Despoja has successfully done is raise the issue. It is something that we must talk about. It simply will not go away. I think the government underestimates the extent to which there is some anxiety in the general community on this issue, amongst others. It is not a fringe issue which only a tiny percentage of the population are concerned about—not by any means. Indeed, there is even an international aspect to legislation of this type. Professor Paul Billings of the Division of Genetic Medicine at California Pacific Medical Center in the USA provided a prophetic analysis of the issues surrounding genetic privacy some years ago. It is a debate that the Senate will no doubt revisit many times in the future as advances in medicine and genetics occur and as amendments are added to this new legislative framework. But, as a starting point, it is the first step in a journey. That time has come. I am very proud of the fact that it is the Australian Democrats who have taken this initiative to protect the rights of Australians both now and in the future. Because it has been roughly two years since the bill was first introduced, it is worth recapping on the key elements of the bill as stated by Senator Stott Despoja in her second reading speech at the time. In part, she said:The rapid developments of genetic technology have changed the basic identity of individuals so that it is now possible to distinguish between individuals on the basis of their genetic material—the sequence code that makes up genes and chromosomes in every cell of our bodies. This achieve-ment is significant and has the potential to pro-vide considerable benefits through improved medicine and treatment of diseases. However, these advances also bring the need to develop new laws to deal with the new possibilities to make sure that we achieve the full benefit of the new technologies.I was reminded of the television imagery that many of us would have seen six months ago or so with an horrific rape case—I think it was in Queensland; Senator Boswell may recall—involving a very elderly woman, and in that case there was a general call for the males in that small country town to voluntarily present themselves for DNA testing. Of course, the vast majority of them enthusiastically did so. I grew up in a country town and I am familiar with the camaraderie and friendship that exists in those kinds of communities. It is perfectly understandable, given that horrendous case, that those guys would present themselves. I could not help thinking at the same time: where are we going with this technology? What are the responsibilities? Do those people volunteering their genetic code know what can and will be done with it? What are their rights? It concerns me that it is too easy in such cases for the general community to think: `That is fantastic. This is a magical, wonderful breakthrough. This is an incredible way of successfully'—theoretically—`catching criminals, particularly those convicted of particularly violent rape cases.' Because of the general concern in the community about law and order, it is understandable that people are keen to embrace new technologies that may assist with that. But the legislation protecting the rights surrounding both the victims and the alleged perpetrators is not in place. Of course, complicating that is the fact that we have a country where states and territories determine some laws and the federal government determines others, and the crossover can become conflicting and confusing. Certainly, this is not the only piece of legislation to experience that. As one illustration, I think it demonstrates a rapid community response to embrace what appears to be a panacea but is more a Pandora's box. I wonder, too, given the federal government's proposed changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—to do away with specialist commissioners and instead have a president and three general commissioners—whether this kind of right and responsibility ought not also come under the ambit of that federal body. That is something which we may pursue when that bill sees the light of day in this chamber.Senator Payne made the point that the federal government's privacy legislation may have application in genetic privacy. I think it is important to state for the record that it does not. As it stands, the proposed act would not cover genetic privacy. However, we Democrats are here to fix that up in the Senate. I have no doubt that Senator Stott Despoja will be moving the appropriate amendments to ensure that that takes place.In general, I think that what we have before us is exciting scientific technology which brings with it tremendous responsibilities that must match that. The responsibility principally lies with the government. For that reason, I commend Senator Stott Despoja for the introduction of this bill. I strongly encourage opposition colleagues to support it and express great disappointment that the government is not going to support the passage of this bill. However, as I have stated already, I suspect that the community con-cern surrounding this issue is greater than the government anticipates. There is a general increasing fear of technology in the com-munity, which was expressed very well recently through comments by Mr Tim Fischer, particularly in terms of senior citizens and people in rural and regional areas, who do not necessarily have the same access to information technology and its facilities and resources as do those of us who live in the city. Mr Fischer was expressing his concern about two classes of people developing in Australia—the technology user friendly set and those who have yet to bring themselves up to speed with information technology and have not had the opportunity to do so. I think he is right. There is significant fear and concern in the community on issues such as this which can and should be addressed through the passage of this legislation. I commend the bill to the Senate. 17:03:0018000Eggleston, Sen AlanSenator EGGLESTON4L6Western AustraliaLP10—I rise to speak on the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. Genetic privacy is a matter of genuine and great seriousness which we all have to consider very carefully. One has to be sympathetic to the kinds of concerns that have been raised. What has brought this about is that, whereas in the past people simply accepted differences between people and simply accepted that in some strange way members of the same family often got the same diseases or had similar appearances, now we know that it is all related to the genetic code in our bodies and that in fact there are many diseases which are genetically controlled.With progress in the human genome project, it is now becoming possible to begin to identify the specific gene or genes which might be responsible for various diseases and characteristics in people. The human genome project has to be recognised for the tremendous achievement that it is. It is an unprecedented international endeavour to locate and map the estimated 100,000 genes of the human genome by the year 2005. With modern computer technology, that goal date will certainly be reached, perhaps sooner than expected. The identification and mapping of the genes of the human genome has given rise to a number of ethical dilemmas, particularly regarding issues of privacy and, as Senator Greig has said, the possibility of genetic discrimination. These are very serious issues. As Senator Greig also said, this is just the beginning because, once we have really established the genes that are involved in the determination of characteristics of people and the diseases that they get, then the world will never be the same. We are moving into a very different society where it is possible for the state or individuals to have control over the way people are and the kind of people we have in our society. The implications of this for society are profound. At the end of the 19th century and during the 20th century, the science of eugenics became very popular in countries like France. That concern about eugenics was then picked up in Germany in the 1930s by the National Socialist Party, or the Nazis, who felt that they should remove from society people who did not meet the strict physical standards which the German government of the time felt were appropriate for their population and for the population of the world. They were in fact concerned that the calibre and quality of human society would deteriorate if people with diabetes and various other genetic disorders were allowed to remain in the community and breed, and that they would add to the number of unsuitable people in the community. As we all know, the German government took quite dramatic action in terms of removing such people from their society. They gassed people under the T4 program in German hospitals who had psychiatric disorders, chronic illnesses and so on. That is a precedent which perhaps we should bear in mind when considering the issues which the human genome project will raise for society in coming times.As I said, it is still very early days yet, but as time goes on the knowledge will become more detailed of which genes control which characteristics and diseases in individuals. It is possible that we could see discrimination arise from that knowledge. Already today discrimination in the area of insurance has been mentioned as being something which is a real possibility. But, of course, it could also occur in the area of employment. It is possible to conceive of a future when a person's genetic code and potential are taken into consideration in terms of their education and the education services that they are allowed to access, and basically in terms of marriage and reproduction. We know that there are a number of diseases which are genetic—diseases like cancer of the breast, cancer of the bowel and polyposis coli. We know that Huntington's disease and the bleeding disorders which the British royal family have suffered are genetic hereditary diseases. We know that in some psychiatric diseases there is a genetic component. In Australia, under our health insurance legislation, it is not possible to discriminate against people on the basis of their medical history. Under the Health Insurance Act 1953, in the Australian health insurance field, everybody has an equal right to be insured, regardless of their medical history. Australian health insurance funds operate as mutual funds. But that does not occur everywhere in the world. In the United States, for example, people are discriminated against on the basis of their medical history. If you have a medical history of diabetes, heart disease or, say, depression either personally or in your family, you will find it very difficult to get health insurance in the United States. That also occurs in Germany, where health insurance is provided by employers. One can envisage a situation where, if there is identification in the human genome of the genes responsible for diseases, it is possible that employers responsible for providing health insurance to employees, which occurs in the United States as well as in Germany and in other parts of Europe, will say, `No, you've got genes for this, that or the other.' Therefore, they will either not provide health insurance cover or they will not employ the individual. There are real possibilities for discrimination against individuals which could flow on from the human genome project and the identification of the specific genes responsible for various diseases and characteristics in human beings.The government does understand this. The government is well aware that this kind of possibility exists and it understands the Democrats' point of view. But the government believes that it is important, with such a big issue as this, to make sure that we do not rush in and that we move forward cautiously to ensure that whatever legislative protection is eventually introduced is correct and appropriate. Accordingly, the government has moved to set up an inquiry. I would like to quote from a press release issued jointly by the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, and the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Michael Wooldridge, on 9 August this year. It said:While gene technology is still in developmental stage, Mr Williams and Dr Wooldridge acknowledge that it raises unique challenges for the future.The press release also said:They (the ministers) share the community's concerns that genetic information should be treated sensitively to prevent the potential for abuse or discrimination on the basis of actual or imputed genetic characteristics.The press release went on to say that the ministers had agreed:... to ask the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to jointly inquire into these issues.The terms of references, it was said, were still to be settled. The point of it all is that the government recognises the complexity of these issues. It has recognised the profound significance that these issues could have on the future of our society. It is taking a very steady and cautious approach to establishing legislation to deal with any possible discrimination which might as arise as a result of the knowledge which we now have and in the future, the more detailed knowledge we will have of the genome.I think it is a very sensible and sensitive approach by the Australian government. It is timely and important considering that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has made a draft determination relating to life insurance and genetic testing. There had been reports of discrimination by employers and insurers on the basis of an individual's genetic test result or family history of a genetic disorder, and the insurance companies wished to charge differential premiums for people who had adverse genetic backgrounds. The ACCC had the view that such differential premiums might be justified. There we see the beginning of a form of discrimination. The issues in this matter are so profound that it is important that the whole matter be con-sidered very carefully. On that basis, it is quite wise and prudent that the government follow the course that it has and conduct this in-quiry into this issue and then, in due course, come back to the Senate with very well considered legislation to protect the rights of the individual in this field. While I am sure that all senators and all members of the community would sympathise with the gen-eral point of view that Senator Stott Despoja is raising, it is important that we not rush into this and that recognition is given to the fact that the joint approach of the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health and Aged Care is a very wise and prudent approach. We should endorse the caution which gov-ernment has adopted, await the outcome of the report that has been commissioned and then consider the legislation which is brought down as a consequence of that when, in due course, it comes into the parliament.17:16:0018002Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I thank Senator Cooney and Senator Ludwig for allowing me to take some time. It will be a very brief intervention because of the time and other speakers. Senator Stott Despoja should be supported for bringing this measure before the parliament. It has been here now for two years. It should be noted too that Senator Stott Despoja has had an interest in this matter since she came into the place. From memory, about three or four motions have been adopted in her name in this general field. I think that should be recognised. I have also had a longstanding interest in this field. I dug out a speech I gave entitled `Gene therapy—the political issues' that was an address I made to the seventh annual conference on bio-ethics, `Collaboration in health care: liberties, rights and policy making', which was held on 8 May 1989. I will read one brief paragraph from this:Were human gene therapy simply an extension of curative medicine there would be limited scope for Parliament. However human gene therapy and associated technologies involve issues of major public policy.Issues of great concern to the people in general. Issues such as new organisms and the environment; the genetic characteristics of future humans; privacy; genetic discrimination; the status of the disabled; genetic screening work tests and more immediately the development of a system enabling the screening and elimination of those humans deemed to be imperfect.One of the major problems is this: there is a philosophy of reductionism of personhood to genetic identity—your identity equals your personhood. Once you accept that, you are on the track of undermining the essential human dignity of each and every human being. Whether that is adopted by an insurance company, an employer or whatever, it is a real problem we have to face here and now, I believe. I am supportive of a number of the measures that are included in the legislation that is currently before us—the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998.There is one area of discrimination that needs to be covered by this bill as well, and that is the area to which I briefly adverted: the use of DNA testing to discriminate against the unborn; in other words, the use of DNA testing for perceived diseases, not for the cure of the disorder but for the elimination of the bearer. That needs to be looked at very seriously when further consideration of this bill takes place.I listened carefully to what Senator Eggleston said. I think he made a major contribution to the debate. He talked about the German eugenics control. We have to be careful that we do not go down that path. But in effect we are going down that path when it comes to the use of DNA testing for the elimination of the unborn because of their perceived imperfections. It is `Lebensunwertes leben'; it is life unworthy of life. We do need to look at that situation when we come back. As for the NHMRC's Australian Health Ethics Committee and the Law Reform Commission looking at it, the matter is very urgent, in my view. I hope this is not going to be another effort we see go on and on and on. There should be decisions taken in respect of issues that now violate the dignity of human beings and destroy life. In the over 25 years that I have been here, the NHMRC and I have had our differences. In 1991 they decided that you could set up genetic registers that would contain the `pedi-gree' and health status of family members. `Pedigree' is rather an interesting term to be used when referring to humans, I would have thought. I do hope that AHEC in its con-siderations will not go along those particu-lar lines. In short, I am pleased that this mea-sure has come before us at last. I support a number of the measures contained in the pro-posed legislation, but I indicate that there needs to be some discussion to ensure there is some improvement in the area that I mentioned.17:25:0018003Cooney, Sen BarneySenator COONEYSF4VictoriaALP00—No man or woman or child should have his or her person violated in an arbitrary or unlawful way. That might be done physically by assault. If somebody comes and invades your house and assaults you, Madam Deputy President—and I am using the word `you' in a generic sense, of course—then he or she is violating your person. But it can also be done in a non physical way. It can be done by using words. It can be done by innuendo and by informing on people. Your parents would have told you about a radio broadcast by Winston Churchill to the USA on 16 October 1938, Madam Acting Deputy President, when he was talking about the sort of society that had developed in Nazi Germany. Senator Eggleston made some reference to Nazi Germany. During the course of his broadcast, Winston Churchill said:A state of society where men may not speak their minds. Where children denounce their parents to the police. Where a business man or small shop keeper ruins a competitor by telling tales about his private opinion.Sir Winston was illustrating how great harm can befall people by means other than physical. Great harm can be done to people if their privacy is not preserved, as it should be in normal circumstances. I think the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998 before us today, which has been brought into the chamber by Senator Stott Despoja, is a very timely and appropriate bill. Senator Eggleston said yes, that was so, but that more time should be given so that the government can bring in its bill to cover this area. There are two things I want to say about that. Firstly, as Senator Harradine has said, this bill has been before the chamber for two years and does not seem to have gone far. It could have been used as a basis by the government to build another bill. Secondly, the sort of legislation that the government is now proposing for the private sector is very poor legislation indeed. The government's bill sets out to protect privacy and then makes so many exceptions that it really ends up not preserving privacy at all. If the government comes in with a similar bill for genetic privacy where it says, `We're going to protect the privacy of the history of a person's genes,' and then makes numerous exceptions, it is hardly worth while waiting for. I think we ought to proceed with the bill that Senator Stott Despoja has introduced as a basis for going forward.My thoughts about the need for privacy and how privacy is needed to preserve the feeling that a person has that his or her integrity is being preserved is not by any means new. It was one of the articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was declared on 10 December 1948. Madam Act-ing Deputy President Crowley, if you were there then, you were there by only a very small margin—you would have been very young. Madam Acting Deputy President, you were part of the great generation in human his-tory—one that I belong to. People like Sen-ator Stott Despoja and Senator Ludwig were not there when these great events occur-red, and I think that has been a big disadvan-tage to them. In any event, article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.That concept has been brought forward again in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular article 17 which reads: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.Privacy is really all about who possesses knowledge about a person. One way out of this issue of privacy is for the government to simply abandon the legislation it presently has before us—which, as I say, makes so many exceptions that it really does not preserve privacy or, if it does preserve privacy, it preserves only the privacy of the powerful—and bring in a regime where everybody has to tell everybody else their innermost secrets. In that case, not only would insurance companies have access to the gene history of people but also a person would have access to the gene history of everybody in the insurance company plus access to the books so that that person could be assured that the company is completely sound. So everything would be out in the open and there would be no laws such as the laws that have been invoked against the adviser to Mr Brereton. There would be no secrets and we would all tell everybody, in a universal confession, all our innermost secrets.I remember reading a book about a person who used to make money by going up to somebody in a restaurant and saying to that person, `I know your secrets.' The person thought he did and would pay him money to preserve his secrets. What that illustrated is that we all have privacy concerns. We all have things that we would like to keep private and which we are entitled to keep private. That is borne out by applying that test. How would it pan out if everybody had to say absolutely everything about his or her life or his or her family history? Some of us have a history of convicts in the family in Tasmania. I remember the grandparents trying to keep knowledge about that quiet. It does not seem to matter terribly much; in fact, it is a badge of honour now to have been exported to Tasmania. In any event, the point I want to make is that privacy is something that concerns us all. Privacy is about control of knowledge, amongst other things, and legislation which confines the possession of knowledge to certain people only is not good legislation. I think Senator Harradine made a great point. He said privacy and the use of information has much to do with the concept of the family, the concept of the home and who should be able to embrace life and who should not. That concept is borne out in those articles that I quoted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. What science does, amongst other things, is to create new situations where the issue of priv-acy becomes a matter of great moment. Gen-etic privacy is something that is upon us and is something that ought to be dealt with rap-idly. The general idea—and, indeed, the gov-ernment legislation would not differ from this—behind Senator Stott Despoja's bill is that as a matter of general principle people should not have to disclose information about their genetic history and people should not be able to get possession of information about the genetic history of a person except in certain circumstances. In her bill she sets out certain exceptions that should be available to make such information available. For ex-ample, part 5 of the bill talks about research involving a genetic analysis—and that is understandable. There always has to be a bal-ance. Nobody can have absolute privacy, but people are entitled to a lot more privacy than the present legislation which the government has before the chamber allows them to have. The other point I want to make about possession of knowledge is that when people say, as the government's bill does—and when it comes on I will be addressing this—that political parties or employers, especially small business, can intrude upon people's privacy and so on for their purposes, they are supporting legislation that places information in the hands of people who are not necessarily fit to have it. There are two things about this. The presumption seems to be that the people who get the information through the exceptions that are made will treat it justly and fairly. I think there are very few people who can be just and fair about other people, or about themselves for that matter. We always interpret knowledge about ourselves in a most kind manner, and we tend to interpret knowledge about others in a most unfair manner. The presumption behind the government's legislation is that those who get the knowledge—the employer or the small business person or the media or whoever—will treat it fairly. I reckon what we ought to have along with privacy legislation is legislation that says people who get this information must treat it fairly—not in the sense of how they keep it, but how they interpret it. A lot of the people who will get hold of this genetic information, if it becomes available, will not treat it fairly. In approaching this debate, we ought to keep that in mind. I know that in political parties—for example, in our caucus in particular, Madam Acting Deputy President Crowley—we always treat everybody else with the greatest of fairness. We treat the government with the great-est of fairness when we get a bit of knowled-ge about their position. I think there should be no secrets between the party rooms. I am sure that each party room would treat the other party room's secrets in a very fair man-ner. But people other than politicians might not have that ability. I am sure that, when Senator Ludwig was advocating in the courts for the Australian Workers Union, he always acted fairly and never in any way put a spin on information that came into his possession. He would never give a twist to the facts so as to advantage the workers for whom he was appearing. Likewise, I am sure his opponents would have followed a similar course. This is an important bill—whether it ever becomes legislation is another matter; that is the reality of this place—and it is a great contribution to the development of the law in this area. I think it is a matter for which we have to legislate, and fairly promptly. That will not be the end of things. This is an area where we need to keep up-front. As I say, there have to be exceptions to the rule against privacy, but I think all legislation agrees that, as a general principle, privacy is important in terms of the integrity of a person's reputation, his or her home life and his or her life generally. I have to get the `his' and `hers' in, Madam Acting Deputy President, particularly with you in the chair. I simply say that it would be good if this legislation put forward by Senator Stott Despoja could form the basis of a fairly prompt bit of legislation through this chamber.17:42:0018005Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—I am pleased to speak in the debate this afternoon on the Genetic Privacy and Non-discrimination Bill 1998. It is a bill for an act to protect the genetic privacy of individuals, to prohibit genetic discrimination and to provide for the collection, storage and analysis of DNA samples and for related purposes. As other speakers have noted this afternoon, this bill was introduced by Senator Stott Despoja, and I think we all agree unreservedly that it deals with important, even profound, personal information and human identity issues. The fact that this bill fails to come to grips with some fundamental problems facing any attempt to regulate the collection, ownership and use of genetic information and that it is simply premature to try to do so does not at all diminish, in my view, the significance of the issues for debate—and I sincerely mean that. On 27 June this year, I spoke in the adjournment debate on the announcement of the working draft of the human genome project—the genetic blueprint of who we are and what we are. In fact, I thought that it was such a milestone that the announcement should not go unremarked in the Senate. Quite simply, this new technology opens up a new world of discovery, and genetic scientists now know the sequence of our genes but not much about what they actually do. One of the distinguishing features of this debate is the fact that it is constantly evolving with new scientific discoveries and applications for emerging technologies, particularly biotechnologies. They appear to be announced from disparate parts of the world, seemingly every other day.The draft map in the genome project of the estimated 120,000 genes in the human body opens up extraordinary scientific possibilities and ethical problems, but it is just the beginning of the journey. It is certainly nowhere near the stage where we can accurately pinpoint, and provide for, a detailed binding legislative regime. Obviously, determining how genes work and how and for whose benefit the knowledge will be used is the difficult part of this exercise. It is fair to say that we all want to see this new technology—indeed, everyone has said so—used for the benefit of humankind, for example to eradicate crippling, painful and even fatal diseases and to treat malfunctioning genes. We all want, without exception, to avoid indiscriminate cloning or the harvesting of body tissue, with its Pandora's box of eugenic possibilities, or a market for the rich and famous to engineer designer babies. A couple of speakers this afternoon have talked about the horrors of eugenics. I think that it is one of the most horrific topics that could ever be discussed in this place. Is it too fanciful to imagine in future Olympic Games, as the beautiful winners get announced and come up to receive their medals, that along with their sporting prowess and achievements you also get some information about their genetic origins, how they got there and who might have designed them? No-one wants the beneficiaries of this fabulous new technology to be limited to biotech billionaires at the expense of humankind. So there is very good reason to be cautious and considered in how we as a parliament deal with a legislative framework. I say again: none of this is to diminish Senator Stott Despoja's efforts in this regard, which are commendable. At the heart of this matter, and one of the problems with this bill, is who owns and controls genetic information. A thought provoking analysis of the issues concerning ownership of one's own personal genetic profile and genetic biotechnologies is contained in an article by Isabel Karpin, a distinguished academic at the University of Sydney Law School, called `The genetic con-nection: opening our genetic heritage'. This article was published in volume 7 of the Journal of Law and Medicine and I commend it to all who have an interest in this area. She notes that what might otherwise be understood as property rights in one's genetic information are characterised in the bill as privacy rights: This privacy framework, which requires the object of the protection to be an autonomous individual, means that the bill fails to address adequately a central dilemma connected with genetic information. The author calls this essential dilemma the `common heritage dilemma', that is, that by its very nature genetic information is not contained to an individual but is information shared between genetically related individuals. That poses some exquisite dilemmas. For example, should a genetic test which reveals that a person may contract a serious disease in the future be provided to a relative? What would be that relative's right to be informed or not, and by whom? Who would take responsibility for conveying the information and ensuring that it is accurate and that it is conveyed only to the proper recipients? What right should a person or a group of genetically related people have over their genetic profiles? What are the respective rights, for example, or autonomous rights between a mother and her foetus? This is an issue that is of concern to Senator Harradine. Ethicists are very much divided on the issue of who has the paramount right with a foetus in utero. Are they one or are they two? In making the point that a genetic profile consists not only of a human tissue sample but also includes the scientific story that unfolds from analysis of the DNA, Dr Karpin rightly asks: how can a single piece of legislation be developed to deal with the gamut of that material, involving, as it surely must, rights over tissue and bodily parts, the actual genetic information and what might be thought of as—at least what I have tried to characterise as—the consequential medical information resulting from genetic analysis, the medical records and so on? It would appear that a fundamental flaw in the bill is that it purports to deal with an autonomous individual within a privacy framework which might address ownership issues of personal tissue and perhaps the personal genetic make-up of an individual but which does not properly distinguish and which certainly fails to address the particular problem of how to impose the regime proposed in the bill on genetic information which is shared. There are other distinguishing characteristics that pertain specifically to genetic information that are highly relevant to any attempt to provide some regulation of these myriad areas affected by genetic privacy. One of them is that a person's genetic make-up does not change throughout their life, which means that, if a person is characterised according to their genetic make-up, they may face longstanding and serious effects of such categorisation. For example, a person so categorised might find that they had received some loading on an insurance premium and have great difficulty in being able to argue their case, although I hasten to say that most responsible insurers these days have mechanisms to enable those affected by those sorts of decisions to be able to at least discuss those problems with the insurer. Another characteristic is that genetic testing does not deal any more with certainties, but only really deals with probabilities and of course some of the statistical information is so scant it is very difficult to make any predictions at all. Many positive genetic tests are capable of indicating only what may or not happen, for example to a person's health. At the moment they certainly cannot predict with certainty when those effects on health, if they do occur, will occur or how profound those effects may be if they have an onset. If this information were available it might be that you could confidently undertake insurance and be able to say that you would be free of any onset of symptoms for some ten years, if that information could be that precise—but it is not. So we are only dealing with probabilities, not certainties, and that can drastically affect the sorts of conclusions and difficulties that an affected individual can face.The other thing that I mentioned a little earlier in my contribution this afternoon is that human genetic testing is such a rapidly evolving area of scientific learning that it is very difficult to pin it down at any one point. Tests are being developed for increasing numbers of conditions at a truly astonishing rate. It is clear that we cannot predict what the implications of this scientific explosion and technological advancement will be for the Australian community, but it would be irresponsible of us to be looking at imposing some regime without at least understanding that this is constantly evolving. It is like standing on shifting sand. Genetic information has and will have many important scientific and medical applications which are and will be of potential benefit to the community as a whole, and this point needs to be borne in mind during any debate on privacy and discrimination issues concerning human genetic samples and information. Traditionally, an individual's right to privacy has been accorded some paramount position, but obviously community concerns need to be taken into account in relation to access to this sort of information.Another point, not least in importance in the debate today on this bill, which has prob-ably not been fully canvassed, is the very difficult ethical considerations in relation to the taking of genetic samples and the retaining, storing and conveying of that information. There are obviously many complex quest-ions which need careful consideration. At the moment it is difficult even to formulate the right questions, let alone prescribe a reg-ime on the basis that we have the answers. Gene technology and genetic informa-tion involve issues that affect such a wide range of sectors in the Australian community and indeed commercial activity. They could, at a minimum, affect the areas of employment; health, including medical research; the phar-maceutical industry; the health administ-ra-tion industry; and certainly insurance and sup-erannuation; and increasingly we have seen how genetic information opens under new possibilities in the field of law enforcement. That is before we even get near looking at some of the applications of gene technol-ogy in issues such as modification of crops; here we are just looking at human beings.The bill which we are now debating considers only some of the very complex issues which human genetic testing raises for Australians. But the great value of the debate this afternoon is that it gives us an opportunity for a range of speakers to put on the record the fact that there are some very serious and far-reaching concerns that we need to take into account. That complexity has been recognised in the fact, as was mentioned earlier, that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Health and Aged Care have asked the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to jointly inquire into human genetic information privacy and discrimination issues. The decision to refer the issue to a wide ranging inquiry by expert bodies certainly was not lightly made. This is not an issue that the government is ducking. The decision was made for the very reason that the issues are complex and need very thorough examination before any decision to legislate can be made. In my view, it cannot be appropriate to act hastily in this matter in relation to the bill currently before us, before all the issues raised by advances in gene technology have been carefully considered and consideration has been given to whether there should be a specific regulatory regime, how it would relate to existing legislation—and indeed there are some specific pieces of legislation that directly affect some of these areas—or indeed whether legislation is required at all. It may be that guidelines are needed. Perhaps national guidelines might be the answer. I think the inevitable conclusion is that we are embarking on a genetic revolution with the capacity to transform what it means to be human. We have serious responsibilities, as legislators, lawyers, regulators and social scientists, to not get this wrong. We need to have community confidence as we go forward, and we certainly cannot do this in the absence of an extensive range of consultation. We certainly need a proper process of consultation, to be as well informed as we can be before we embark on further consideration of the issues that have been thrown up in this bill and canvassed in a very responsible and constructive way by the many speakers this afternoon. We do not need a debate on this on the basis that this bill is the be-all and end-all. We need a debate to continue to identify the issues that emerge from this technology. Debate interrupted.Documents1800810000Knowles, Sue (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! It being 6.00 p.m., we now move to consideration of government documents.18008Debate resumed from 31 August 2000, on motion by Senator Hogg:That the Senate take note of the document.18:00:0018008Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—I was speaking on HREOC's report Age Discrimination in the Australian Defence Force on a previous occasion. In particular, I was looking at the case of what had happened to a RAAF personnel by the name of Mr Ken Van Den Heuvel. Mr Van Den Heuvel was seeking to be an applicant for the position of aircraft loadmaster; at that stage he was a ground support fitter. This report brought out some interesting facts. He was 37 at the time of his application for the improved position, but apparently he had gone beyond the upper age limit of 35. The reason I wanted to draw attention to this report is that the comments made by the relevant contact person from the RAAF, Dr Leonie Ryder, are very interesting. The report stated:He—being Mr Van Den Heuvel—telephoned the relevant RAAF contact person, Dr Leonie Ryder, to clarify why there was an age restriction. He claims Dr Ryder stated that the statistics indicated there were two reasons for not accepting a person over this age. First, a person's ability to learn diminishes at this age. Second, a person is less likely to be able to change his or her lifestyle past this age. I found this extraordinary. It really highlights the reason why we have the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission when you find that people such as this are being discriminated against—in this case, on two grounds. The first is that they have passed their use-by date—that is, their age. They have passed 35 and apparently their learning ability diminishes. That would be an interesting fact for many people throughout this country where we have an ageing population, and it would also be a very interesting fact for many people in this chamber. The second item of interest, if Dr Ryder is correct, is the claim that a person is unable to change his or her lifestyle past this age and that that was the reason why the gentleman was not being considered for the position. According to the report, Mr Van Den Heuvel claimed: ... Dr Ryder replied that she was not saying that he could not apply but that she would be on the selection board.A real problem indeed! As one reads on in the report, one finds that this situation has been remedied by the Defence Force, which is pleasing. Nonetheless, Chris Sidoti from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission said: I have also considered the complainant's submissions including his service in the RAAF for approximately 20 years at the time of his application for the position as Aircraft Loadmaster, that he had cleared all of the necessary fitness tests and medical checks for the position, that he was obviously well respected by his peers and that he had an excellent history of service.He made a number of recommendations, of which I will quote one:I recommend that the upper age limit contained in the selection criteria for Aircraft Loadmaster positions be abolished. It appears that, if the upper age limit is abolished, it is unnecessary to make any recommendation concerning age waivers on the basis of exceptional skill.He also said:In the circumstances, I also recommend that the respondent provide an apology to the complainant.As I said, I understand that this situation has now been corrected, but it really shows that there is a need for people who are aggrieved on an age discrimination basis to seek remedy. If 35 or 37 is the use-by date, then there are a lot of people out of date not only in this chamber but in many parts of this nation. Of course, I believe that many people who have reached that age still have a lot to offer, and I believe that this was recognised in this report.Question resolved in the affirmative. 1800918:05:0018009Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.ZW4Sherry, Sen Nick7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—This one will interest you, Senator Sherry.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—The last one did.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—This HREOC report is titled Discrimination on the Ground of Trade Union Activity, and I thought it would touch a raw nerve in some of my colleagues and of course in me, being a former trade union official. Opposition senators interjecting—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG—Some of my colleagues are calling for someone else on your side to come to the chamber, Senator McGauran. In this case, the complaint considered by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission was in respect of a number of personnel who worked for O'Brien Metals Products Pty Ltd—a small steel fabrication operation comprising a metal section and warehouse. These people sought to join a trade union purely and simply on the basis of the unsafe work conditions that were confronting them. As a result of the conditions, they agreed to join the trade union. It was not an issue over wages or any other claims as such; it was purely and simply to do with the unsafe working conditions facing these people.It is interesting, but not a surprise to me, the ends that the management went to to ensure that these people withdrew from the union or to actively discourage others from the workplace not to join the union in the same way as did Messrs Edwards, Farrell and Moate, who were the subject of this matter before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Messrs Edwards and Farrell, according to the report, claimed in their statements that they were told at a meeting by Mr Jacobs, who was one of the management, not to join the union and if they did their pay would be cut or they would be sacked. Of course, this is something that in my 20 years as a trade union official I came across on numerous occasions, where people were actively intimidated by management not to join the union in order that they could claim their legitimate rights to not only reasonable wages and working conditions but in this case to safe working conditions. Briefly, the findings of the commission are found at page 23:The weight of the evidence supports the claims of Messrs Edwards, Farrell and Moate that the actions of the Company through its managers occurred solely or partly because of their trade union activity. Remember I said their trade union activity came about purely and simply because they were seeking safe working conditions. The report goes on:There was a clear atmosphere of hostility towards the union in the Company from the time some of the employees joined it. This hostility was exacerbated by the retrenchments of 2 July 1997 and the strike action taken on 3 July 1997.The report goes on:I am therefore satisfied that ... 1. the less favourable treatment of the complainants in their terms and conditions of employment was a distinction or exclusion on the basis of trade union activity and 2. the less favourable treatment of the complainants, including their forced departures, had the effect of nullifying their equality of opportunity or treatment in employment in that they were denied fair and just conditions of work and in the end employment itself.So, for all that this government touts in terms of its industrial relations policies, the sorts of activities that I found and stopped where I could over a long period of time are still alive and well today. There is no doubt that the balance still lies with the employer, and this report draws attention to the fact that there are opportunities, there are avenues, for people to seek redress where they are being prejudiced in their employment by virtue of the fact that they seek to have their working conditions, in this case their safety, protected by a trade union. One would hope that that will still be the way in which our society operates, that people still will have the courage to come forward to seek the protection of the trade union movement where they find themselves in difficulties such as outlined in this particular report.Question resolved in the affirmative.1801018:11:0018010Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the document.This report from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is entitled Report of an inquiry into complaints of acts or practices inconsistent with or contrary to human rights in an immigration detention centre. I think it is a very important report brought down by the now former Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti. Detention centres have had a lot of focus in Australian political and public debate in recent times, and this report deals with some allegations and complaints from an incident back in 1997 at Perth Immigration Detention Centre. I think it is important not just in terms of the specific allegations and the findings that are contained in this report but also in terms of some of the broader issues it raises about detention. The commissioner has made a broader report into mandatory detention called For those who come across the seas, which is also an important document, and to some extent it expands further on those issues in that report. It does highlight the difficulties of detaining for long periods of time people who have not been convicted of any offence, and often in circumstances and conditions that are not particularly well suited. The detention centre in Perth, which is one that I have visited, is quite a small establishment, and the case of people such as this person, who was in this detention centre for over 12 months, clearly highlights the inappropriateness of the policy pursued by this government of compulsorily locking up every single person who arrives unauthorised, many of whom are asylum seekers. The findings are worth examining, and I think the response of the department to it is also worth examining. It highlights the difficulties with accountability. 10000Knowles, Sue (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! The time for general business has expired.18010The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:Australian Institute of Health and Welfare—Report—Australia's health 2000. Motion of Senator West to take note of document agreed to.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Reports—Report—Age matters: A report on age discrimination, May 2000. Motion of Senator Cooney to take note of document agreed to.Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission—Reports—National Inquiry into Rural and Remote Education—Report—Recommendations, May 2000. Motion of Senator Ludwig to take note of document agreed to. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry—Report of the Black and Blue Marlin Working Group—Assessment of black marlin and blue marlin in the Australian fishing zone, June 2000. Motion of Senator Bartlett to take note of document agreed to.Committees180111801118011Debate resumed from 4 October, on motion by Senator Coonan:That the Senate take note of the report.18:13:0018011Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—This is the committee's 377th report, on guidelines for government advertising. I rise to speak on this report this evening because I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and in particular the sectional subcommittee which considered this particular issue. The issue arose, as we know, out of the community education and information program that was conducted in the run-up to the 1998 election by the government, espousing the virtues of a goods and services tax. Of course, there were substantial amounts of taxpayers' money spent in espousing that particular government policy—in the order of some $15 million or $16 million was spent by the government basically laying down their platform for the forthcoming election. This placed the opposition and the minor parties at a severe disadvantage because they were not afforded the same opportunities.This led to an inquiry by the Audit Office, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Faulkner. Ultimately, after the report of the Australian National Audit Office was handed down, the opposition members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit pressed for a set of guidelines which would guide the government of the day—and us as the future government of this country—on the expenditure of public money in respect of advertising campaigns.The report is quite short—it is only about 10 or 11 pages—and does not go into the volumes that many reports do. Nonetheless it is a very important report because, at the end of the day, whilst the guidelines do not give everything that the opposition had hoped for in a set of guidelines on the expenditure by government of money on advertising, particularly in the lead-up to elections, they nonetheless put in place a set of principles which, if they were there previously in some form, the government paid scant attention to.Given the difficulty of the situation that faced the members of the committee, I think the report is well put together in that it gives fairly cogent reasoning as to why there should be constraints on government spending. The report outlines a set of underlying principles and then goes into a set of guidelines, which say:Material should be relevant to government responsibilitiesIn developing material to be communicated to the public:· the subject matter should be directly related to the Government's responsibilities;· consideration should be given to an information strategy as part of policy development and program planning; but· information campaigns should:—not be instigated unless a need is demonstrated;—clearly identify target recipients; and—be based on appropriate researchThe report gives examples. It says:Examples of suitable uses for government advertising include to:· inform the public of new, existing or proposed government policies, or policy revisions;· provide information on government programs or services or revisions to programs or services to which the public are entitled;· disseminate scientific, medical or health and safety information; or· provide information on the performance of government to facilitate accountability to the public.So it is not to be used for an advertising program to promote the government and its policies. There obviously has to be an underlying responsibility to the public—to the taxpayer, whose money is being used in these programs—to ensure that it is not just a blatant misuse of public funds, as we maintained the CEIP program was. The report goes on to state that material should be presented in an objective, fair, and accessible manner and lists a number of points. More importantly, towards the end of the report it says:Material should not be liable to misrepresentation as party political· The dissemination of information using public funds should not be directed at promoting party political interests.Whilst this report does not necessarily satisfy everything that the opposition want—and it might not have satisfied all that the government members wanted—nonetheless at the end of the day it was an agreed document. The government has to live by it as much as the opposition do. In future, when we are in government, we will have to live by it. According to this report, the government should not be promoting party political interests. It says:For the purpose of these guidelines, advertising for party political purposes is defined as any information involving the production and dissemination of material to the public which promotes activities, programs or initiatives of the Government in a politically partisan or biased manner.Dissemination of information may be perceived as being party-political because of any one of a number of factors, including: —what is communicated;—who communicates it;—why it is communicated;—what it is meant to do;—how, when and where it is communicated;—the environment in which it is communicated; or—the effect it is designed to have.The committee, following a fair degree of deliberation on this matter—and given the scandal of this government spending $15 million of taxpayers' money—believes that, whilst the guidelines might not be everything that everyone would like to see in a set of guidelines, they nonetheless put a number of hurdles in the path of a government regarding the expenditure of public moneys on advertising. Of course, the report looks at advertising not just simply in terms of the daily press but in the form of letterbox drops and radio, TV and other campaigns. It embraces all forms of advertising indeed. The report says:· Material should be presented in a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy and political argument, and in unbiased and objective language. · Material should not directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others such as the policies and opinions of opposition parties or groups. · Information should avoid party-political slogans or images.Whilst it will be open to some interpretation, that again starts to tie down the hands of any government seeking to recklessly use the funds of the taxpayer as we have seen on a couple of occasions by this government. Last but not least, I will refer to the last major heading `Material should be produced and distributed in an efficient, effective and relevant manner, with due regard to accountability'. The issue of accountability at the end of the day is what this report is really about: holding a government accountable for the expenditure of taxpayers' money and ensuring that that is not put to the perverse use that it was in the case of the CEIP program. I commend the report to the Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Documents180121801218012Debate resumed from 31 August, on motion by Senator Ludwig:That the Senate take note of the document.18:24:0018012Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—The Auditor-General's Report No. 7 of 2000-01, which is entitled Performance Audit—ATO's use of AUSTRAC data: Australian Taxation Office, is an important report because it highlights that the Commonwealth's principal revenue collection agency, the Australian Taxation Office, collected a total net tax revenue of $135.3 billion in 1998-99. One of the Australian Taxation Office's strategic directions aligning with the outcomes of the tax collection is to ensure `increased strategic intelligence activities at the corporate and business line levels, based on an integrated approach to identifying, gathering, analysing and acting on intelligence'. The information and service provided to the Australian tax office by what is known as the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, or AUSTRAC, supports that strategic direction. In the AUSTRAC database there are apparently 45 million financial transaction reports with approximately 30,000 financial transactions being added to the data each day. This is a valuable addition to ensuring that the Australian tax office maximises the collection of revenue to which it is legally entitled on behalf of the Commonwealth government in respect of a range of taxes that apply in this country. It interesting to look at page 31 because it highlights the additional revenue raised by the Australian tax office using the AUSTRAC data. In 1998-99, approximately $47 million in additional revenue was raised from a variety of sources using AUSTRAC data. It was slightly higher in 1997-98 at almost $50 million. If we look back to 1990-91, there was about $5 million raised in additional government revenue using AUSTRAC data. As I mentioned earlier, this is a very important system in the armoury of the Australian tax office to ensure the collection of tax revenue.Some might recall that we were subjected to a range of misleading propaganda prior to the last election about the alleged ineffectiveness of the Australian tax system prior to the changes made on 1 July of this year; namely, the introduction of a goods and services tax. Some might recall the claims that were made, and I will quote from what is known as the ANTS document issued by the government on Australia's proposed new tax system:The current tax system is ineffective. It provides a crumbling base from which to derive the necessary revenue to fund essential government services, including those provided to rural and regional areas as well as those provided through the social security system.I emphasise the words `it provides a crumbling base'. The AUSTRAC system is very important in ensuring the maximum collection of government revenue. If we look at the outcomes of tax collection by the Australian tax office, there is absolutely no evidence in the data that has been released recently that the base of the Australian tax system was crumbling. I had a look at revenue figures as a percentage of gross domestic product over the last six years. It is interesting that tax revenue in 1993-94 to the Commonwealth government was 20.8 per cent of gross domestic product; in 1994-95, it was 22.2 per cent; and, in 1995-96, 22.8 per cent. Of course, the significance of those three years is that they were the last three years of the Labor government. What happened in 1996-97 up until 1998-99? Tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product increased. In 1996-97, tax revenues were 23.4 per cent of gross domestic product; in 1997-98, 22.2 per cent of gross domestic product; and, in 1998-99, 23.7 per cent of gross domestic product. In other words, those figures starkly highlight the fact, firstly, that the tax base was not crumbling and, secondly, that during those three years of a Liberal-National Party government tax collection as a percentage of gross domestic product was higher than that during the last three years of the Labor government—I stress gross domestic product was higher.We have been subjected to some unjustified criticism that the Labor Party in government was a high tax party. Here we have figures that quite clearly refute this claim. There were some other figures that were interesting as well. I have referred to the alleged crumbling tax base. If we look at revenue collected in a variety of areas on the last available figures that have been publicly released, again tax collection in most areas of government revenue under the old tax system, prior to the introduction of the GST, was far from crumbling. In fact, tax revenues reached record levels across most categories of tax collected. For example, let us have a look at total income tax. In the years 1999-2000, the outcome was $113,687 million collected and the estimate of tax revenue to be collected from income tax was supposed to be $112,607 million. In other words, the Commonwealth collected significantly more revenue prior to the introduction of a GST in income taxes. When we look at petroleum excise duty—a particularly sensitive issue at the present time—we see that the Commonwealth collected $11,418 million, which was $1 million below what it believed it would collect—the estimate was $11,419 million. If we look at total excise duty, the revenue collected was $14,091 million, versus the estimate of $14,202 million.Obviously, other indirect taxation is a reference to wholesale sales tax, which was alleged to be part of the crumbling tax base and has been replaced by the GST. What is interesting about other indirect taxes is, firstly, that they are not described as wholesale sales taxes. I think this is a deliberate attempt to cover up this category of revenue collection. Other indirect taxes—wholesale sales taxes—collected $15,644 million in the year 1999-2000. What was the estimate of tax to be collected from wholesale sales tax? It was $15,497 million; in other words, in the last year of the wholesale sales tax, according to the latest figures, it was over $100 million in additional revenue collected largely from wholesale sales tax. That is hardly an indication of a crumbling tax base, as was made out by the Liberal-National Party government prior to the last election.18:33:0018014McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VictoriaNP10—I rise to speak on the same matter. I cannot allow Senator Sherry's comments to go unchallenged. There he goes again and there goes the other side defending the old tax system which was designed in 1930 for a manufacturing base. There were very few service industries then. The tax base was crumbling and riddled with anomalies. There were five different wholesale sales tax levels; some were in those levels, some were out of those levels. There was utter confusion. I know you long for the return of the wholesale sales tax system but the fact is that we now have a new tax system which was introduced successfully with just a few minor bumps along the way. What is more, you support that tax system. I do not know why you long to hark back to the old days—it is not going to happen.Senator Sherry quoted several figures and said that the Labor Party has often been accused of being a high tax party. Do you blame us for making that accusation when it has come from Senator Cook himself? He has confessed. The Labor Party is a self-confessed high tax party. If you think that it was not a crumbling system and you dare put up that defence, I suggest you check with businesses on the ground which were paying as high as 48 cents in the dollar and the rate for average income earners was 42 cents in the dollar. It was the Labor Party that introduced capital gains tax; we have since halved it. The Labor Party introduced the confusing and burdensome fringe benefits tax; we have untangled that problem. The Labor Party left government with company tax at 36 cents in the dollar; we have reduced it to 30 cents in the dollar. With respect to income tax, since 1 July the largest cut in income tax since Federation has been implemented. The Labor Party record on income tax is appalling. You made a promise and you withdrew it.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—What about total tax collected?WH4McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURAN—Senator Sherry, that has a lot to do with a very healthy economy. If you have more people employed, naturally income tax is going to increase and that is what has happened. The unemployment rate has been coming down and more people are in work. Thus the collection of income tax has risen and the burden is off the social welfare system. The same goes for increased company taxes. Companies are returning greater profits. There has been growth in company profits for the last four years. Naturally, the company tax take will increase. So that is the explanation of why there would be a greater take for this government—it has to do with a very healthy economy.18014The following orders of the day relating to reports of the Auditor-General were considered:Auditor-General—Audit report no. 6 of 2000-01—Performance audit—Fraud control arrangements in the Department of Health and Aged Care: Department of Health and Aged Care. Motion of Senator Ludwig to take note of document agreed to. Auditor-General—Audit report no. 9 of 2000-01—Performance audit—Implementation of whole-of-government information technology infrastructure consolidation and outsourcing initiative. Motion of Senator Lundy to take note of the document agreed to.Orders of the day nos 4 to 9 were called on but no motion was moved.Committees180151801518015Debate resumed from 4 September, on motion by Senator Calvert:That the Senate take note of the report.18:37:0018015Ray, Sen RobertSenator ROBERT RAYUI4VictoriaALP00—by leave—This report, entitled A watching brief: the nature, scope and appropriateness of ASIO's public reporting activities, was tabled by Senator Calvert some weeks ago. I would like to start by thanking the staff of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Joint Statutory Committee for the work that they put into this report. I would also like to thank all of the witnesses who came along and gave evidence. I would like to pay tribute to Mr David Jull, who chairs that committee with the sort of alacrity you would expect from such an experienced parliamentarian. This was an inquiry into the nature, scope and appropriateness of ASIO's public reporting activities. Any body such as ASIO will always engender a degree of paranoia, but the attitude of the Australian public to ASIO today compared to, let us say, 30 years ago has changed enormously—and that is a credit to ASIO. It is now an organisation that operates strictly within the confines of the directions of legislation and government. It is an organisation that is ethically based and it is an organisation that is very effective.One of the great nightmares for ASIO was surely the Olympic Games. It had to play a major security role in the Olympic Games. I know, from both my public knowledge and any private knowledge from any sources that I have, that there was not an incident to do with this Olympic Games. That is a tribute to ASIO and it is also a tribute to the activities of the New South Wales government and the Commonwealth, and to the cooperation shown in this particular area. On the last Saturday morning of the Olympics, I was thinking only one thing above all else: one day to go to having a secure games. Sure, I was thinking about a lot of other things to do with the Olympics, but that alone was the most crucial ingredient in the Olympic Games—to have a secure and incident free Olympics. So congratulations to all the governments concerned and to all the agencies involved in procuring that result.There are two major ways in which ASIO reports to the Australian public. One is by its annual report, which is tabled in this parliament every year. The other is through the web site that was recently set up, which puts out a whole range of information that can be accessed by those who are computer literate. I, of course, concentrate on the written annual report on most occasions. I think one of the ways of assessing whether ASIO's annual report is adequate enough is to do the international comparisons. This the committee did. We compared ASIO's annual report with those of like-minded agencies around the world and, for the most part, we found it as transparent as the reports of nearly all of those agencies. It must be very encouraging for those who still harbour some doubts about having `a spy organisation' that it is so transparent and that it transmits such a degree of information to the public. Its web site is new and an innovation. It has been going for less than 12 months, but the amount of hits on the web site shows that it is being accessed by a whole range of people. We have made some recommendations to improve this, especially in terms of multilingual access.But the really crucial issue is how much is in the declassified report that you all read in this chamber and how much is in the classified report that goes to executive government. Very generously, ASIO and the Attorney-General agreed to Mr Jull as chairman and me as probably the senior opposition member of the committee comparing the two reports. It was a recent report, too. Our request was to compare a fairly old classified report with the declassified report, but the Attorney-General and ASIO thought it would be much more relevant for us to compare a fairly recent report. Mr Jull and I went through the classified report, line by line, and compared it with the declassified report. I would have to say that every judgment exercised by Mr Williams and ASIO was correct. I could see the reason for every deletion from the declassified report and I could be in agreeance with why it was not in the declassified report. That was very reassuring to me. I had the opportunity in government for six years, as a member of the National Security Committee, to make those comparisons then. I cannot say that I ever did it as rigorously as I did it on the more recent occasion, but having done so I can say to colleagues here with absolute confidence that nothing is contained in the classified report and then deleted from the declassified report that should not have been deleted. That is very reassuring. I think it is the best benchmark you can put on ASIO, to have a couple of people from outside go through the reports line by line and make that particular judgment.A side issue did come up, and that was the 30-year rule. Most ASIO documents are covered by the 30-year rule, as are most government documents. But some historians have complained about lack of access. Also, I think they have postulated that it is post-Cold War and so access should be given. But you have to go back to the basic point that informants—and none of us particularly like informants—putting information into ASIO were given the guarantee of protection. The one recommendation we do make here is that at least the list of files should be made more readily available to historians and to members of the public so that, when they need access and they are entitled to be granted access, that can occur. But, on the whole, I do not think that we would have agreed with scrapping the 30-year rule.On a final point, we have made seven or eight recommendations here, none of which are terribly radical and none of which are terribly dramatic. We think they would simply add to the transparency of ASIO and would mean that the public could access information in a much easier way. I do recommend that those who have an interest in security matters read our report. I hope the government will, at some stage, come back with a response. I do not think that there is anything in this report that would at all embarrass the Attorney-General. It is good to know that, having put the microscope over ASIO, it has polished up remarkably well.Question resolved in the affirmative.18016The following orders of the day relating to committee reports and government responses were considered:National Crime Authority—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Witnesses for the prosecution: Protected witnesses in the National Crime Authority. Motion of Senator O'Brien to take note of report agreed to.Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund—Joint Statutory Committee—Report—Examination of annual reports for 1998-99. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ferris) to take note of report agreed to.Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—Report—From phantom to force: Towards a more efficient and effective army. Motion of Senator Calvert to take note of report agreed to.Privileges—Standing Committee—95th report—Penalties for contempt: Information paper. Motion of the chair of the committee (Senator Ray) to take note of report agreed to.Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—34th report—Two treaties tabled on 6 June 2000. Motion of Senator O'Brien to take note of report agreed to.Adjournment1801610000Knowles, Sue (The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT)The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Knowles)—Order! Consideration of committee reports is now concluded. I propose the question:That the Senate do now adjourn.1801618:44:0018016Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Last week saw the announcement of the year 2000 Telstra Indigenous Art Awards, currently being hosted by the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in Darwin. Northern Territory artist Kenny Williams Tjampitjinpa took out the $20,000 first prize with his painting, Snake Yjukurrpa, in the style of the Western Desert painters. The announcement itself attracted, as always, a great deal of local interest as the biggest award of its type. In that environment, I believe it is timely and appropriate to reflect in this chamber on the current state of the Aboriginal art industry in the Northern Territory. I seek leave to table a discussion paper recently prepared in my office on the indigenous art industry in the Northern Territory. Leave granted.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—I thank the Senate. The report was compiled by Bela Kover, a commerce student at the University of Canberra, after we consulted with indigenous art organisations, five community art centres, galleries in Alice Springs and Darwin and private collectors.Let me say first off that the Aboriginal art industry in the Northern Territory is undervalued in its intrinsic artistic and commercial importance to the Territory's social and economic wellbeing. The industry is a dynamic one that is experiencing much growth at the current time, but it is also one that is fraught with problems centred around a lack of direction and planning, resulting in the ad hoc approach we see today. Underpinning that are the many social and economic problems affecting art centres, communities and artists which I do not need to remind senators about. At the macro level the potential benefits for the Northern Territory economy in terms of tourism development and creating a world standard artistic reputation are boundless.I am keen to support any initiatives that will advance the interests of the artists, their communities and the industry as a whole, and that has been my main purpose in compiling the report. Further to that, I intend to submit a summary report to relevant Northern Territory and federal ministers which will hopefully assist in developing specific policy changes for governments and others to consider.There are many challenges ahead to consider and address before we can claim ownership of an Australian indigenous art industry that is developing according to a plan and bene-fiting artists, galleries, other stake-holders and the general community. In compiling this report, I found a paucity of empirical evidence to quantify the size and economic health of the industry. The growth of the past decade, while substantial and something to be commended and encouraged, has happened by sheer fluke.On a practical level, the complexity of the industry, combined with the geographic, social and economic isolation of many participants, creates considerable barriers to any attempt to implement industry wide planning or consultation with any currently involved organisations. Let me first try to paint a broad picture of the industry. The Northern Territory is the centre of the indigenous art industry in Australia. Visitors to the Northern Territory may account for over half of the total sales of indigenous art throughout the country. Australian indigenous art can be classified as belonging to one of six different categories, and may have originated from one of seven regional areas in the Territory. The indigenous art industry in the Territory is estimated to be worth in the vicinity of $110 million per year; however, there are views held by some that actual sales figures may be considerably higher.The Australia Council estimates that the overall industry growth rate has been somewhere in the vicinity of 2,000 per cent during the 10-year period to 2000. There are 34 art centres in the Northern Territory and approximately 60 other specialty traders. Significant growth has occurred across many of the market segments—auction sales and trading between private collectors, contemporary Aboriginal art markets, licensed art, fine art and tourist art.Increased sales in the industry have been stimulated by increased awareness of, and interest in, indigenous art throughout Australia and overseas. I anticipate that the world focus on Australia throughout the Olympic Games will only heighten that effect. International visitors may account for around 75 per cent of national indigenous art sales. At an operational level, the indigenous art industry is highly dependent on government funding for financial support. While distribution and marketing is most often undertaken by commercial interests, income support for the artists themselves, and in most cases community art centres as well, comes via CDEP funding, ATSIC and the Northern Territory government. There is no doubt that if funding levels were to dramatically decrease, most art centres would be forced to cease operations.ATSIC plays a critical role in determining funding for each centre, but there are few controls over each art centre's end use of that funding. There is no industry-wide strategy that ensures funding is distributed in a coordinated way between these funding bodies. The background circumstances under which the industry operates raise a number of important questions about the role of governments and public moneys in supporting the industry. The lack of clear direction at the core of the industry raises serious questions about its long-term sustainability, especially with regard to production levels and primary sales. Yet it is essential that production continues in order to support not only the growth areas of primary sales—tourist art, licensed art and the like—but also the development of a fine art industry at the Top End.For this to occur, there needs to be the nurturing of a business culture, with consideration of the many stakeholders involved. Many community art centres currently satisfy many roles within the community—social and artistic—with the help of government funding, and any attempt to strengthen the commercial base of these centres is sometimes seen as a threat to the continuation of their social function. It is essential to the long-term viability of the industry's manufacturing base that art centres take a more commercial approach to the sale and administration of art centres.Let me raise a number of potential areas for government input:· Cohesion: what are ways in which the government could assist the industry in becoming more cohesive?· Is there a need for an Aboriginal art board with the power to address pertinent issues at an industry wide level? Alternatively, should an existing body such as ATSIC take up such a role and, if so, what role should governments take in the direction of that body?· Facilitating a business culture: facilitating a professional standard of business practice within publicly funded Aboriginal art organisations.· Data collection: is federal government funding available to support an extensive industry wide study by the ABS that quantifies the proportional characteristics of the Aboriginal art economy? · Funding: is it advantageous for government to restructure the funding process by coordinating funding bodies and improving collaboration between the Northern Territory government and the federal government?· Can governments aid in the development of Aboriginal art foundations?· Sustainability: should governments assist in the formation of an Aboriginal arts worker training program? If we are facilitating Aboriginal involvement, what initiatives can be taken by government to help facilitate greater involvement in the Aboriginal art industry by Aboriginal people? The development of training programs for indigenous art administrators is one such area that could be addressed. · Taxation: what business or commercial support mechanisms can be devised to assist the unique Aboriginal corporate structures? · Social security: can Centrelink provide workshops and facilitate advice to Aboriginal artists? Implications of the new tax system may mean that artists—who mostly supplement their social security benefit with proceeds from their art—will be enticed into the black market.· Intellectual property: is there a need for an Aboriginal art representation and collection agency and, if so, who should be involved in the formation and administration of such an organisation? · Authenticity: what measures, other than market forces, are necessary to ensure that only products of integrity and reasonable quality are sold through sales in the mainstream industry? Should the Northern Territory government play a more active role in the determination of a labelling strategy?· Social agendas: should subsidised art centre functions be restricted to industry only activities?· The black market: are legal penalties for criminal activities sufficiently punitive?· The Internet, of course, has an important role. How can the coordination of quality web sites be achieved?· Artists' issues: there are many issues involved in improving the situation of artists at the ground level that need to be addressed. Certainly in the private sector there are concerns. Should government subsidies and assistance programs be extended or made available to the private sector?I now put this report into the public arena. These are questions vital to the survival of Australia's indigenous art industry, currently at a critical stage of development. I call on governments and other stakeholders to put forth ideas that could assist in the development of suitable policies to encourage this most unique of Australian endeavours. I thank my staff, my researcher, Bela Kover, and the contributors for assisting with this discussion paper. I look forward to working with ministers, in both the federal and the Northern Territory governments, to achieve a very real advance for Aboriginal artists and their important industry in the Northern Territory.1801918:54:0018019Bishop, Sen MarkSenator MARK BISHOP2L6Western AustraliaALP00—The issues that have been raised in submissions to the government's telecommunications service inquiry, which has become commonly known as the Besley inquiry, are not news to Telstra's country customers. Those of us who live in metropolitan areas may be blissfully unaware of the problems with Telstra's service levels, as long as we avoid trying to call for some customer service. Meanwhile, Telstra's country customers face a battle to access the Internet, have faults repaired or new connections installed, or even to hear what the person on the other end of the line is saying because of the paucity of line quality.Notwithstanding accusations that the Besley inquiry failed to adequately advertise in country areas, more than three-quarters of the 1,076 submissions to the inquiry were received from country customers of Telstra. It is a matter of considerable significance that the Besley inquiry has elicited such an enormous response, and the proportion of those responses coming from country areas is very instructive. Critically, complaints and submissions to the inquiry related more to the inadequacy of infrastructure than to any other issue. Over 900 complaints concerning the inadequacy of the infrastructure were contained in submissions. Infrastructure is the backbone of the telecommunications system in Australia and is critical to the standard of telecommunications service. The existing infrastructure, much of it old and outdated, is failing to provide country customers with fundamental voice and data transmission services of an adequate standard, and this is of great concern to the opposition. The sheer volume of submissions from these areas that raised concerns about the adequacy of infrastructure is indicative of the justified fears of country customers that the issue will never be addressed if Telstra is fully privatised. Across Australia, the capacity of exchanges located outside the metropolitan areas does not allow for new lines to be installed within reasonable time frames or for access to call services available in the city.Around 900 complaints that Telstra service levels are inadequate, including delayed and lengthy time frames for fault repairs and new connections, should give the government a clear signal that privatisation must not go ahead. This is a huge number of complaints that directly address the government promised threshold test for flogging off the rest of Telstra. The message is clear: Telstra service levels are not adequate. Many people have discovered that their mobile phones are just not working in the country areas. Well over 400 customers were so incensed about the lack of coverage and standard of reception that they were inspired to raise this matter with the Besley inquiry. It is obvious from the evidence that CDMA coverage is far inferior to that provided by analog, despite government assertions to the contrary. Most of us have, for one reason or another, tried to contact Telstra. We have experienced the frustratingly long queues before a customer service operator answers. We have been transferred from one officer to another before anyone will answer a seemingly simple query or the line mysteriously disappears. Yet how many customers would be moved to write a submission to prove that Telstra is providing inadequate service and should not be sold? Over 450 of those customers in fact did so write. This is an astonishing figure, given a tendency to apathy unless matters are of serious enough concern for the individual to go to the trouble associated with making the effort to be heard. It is even more remarkable, given the limited public awareness of the inquiry and its implications for telecommunications services in Australia.There should be no disparity in the levels of fundamental services on the basis of where we live in Australia. However, the evidence to this inquiry proves more clearly that there is a huge and expanding gap between the levels of service, adequacy of infrastructure, mobile phone coverage and tele-communication costs in metropolitan areas on the one hand and in the country areas beyond those metropolitan areas around Australia. The number of submissions to the inquiry that came from metropolitan areas compared with non-metropolitan areas is quite remarkable. Around five per cent of the total submissions were from city customers. Yet a startling 75 per cent or so of submissions were from customers in receipt of country service, which is obviously very different from city service. It is interesting to note the states and territories of origin of the submissions. From my calculations, almost half of the submissions came from customers in New South Wales; Queensland contributed 16 per cent; Western Australia and Victoria, around 13 per cent each; and less than five per cent of submissions came from the ACT, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Tasmania. It is evident that there are large regional variations in service levels. The Besley inquiry, if it is truly independent, could only find that the evidence in the submissions conclusively demonstrates that service levels are inadequate; hence, in accordance with government policy, Telstra should not be sold.In anticipating the outcome of the Besley inquiry, it is noteworthy that the government compromised the independence and impartiality of this inquiry by refusing to bring it to parliament and make it a legislated inquiry, as originally promised. Given the perceived conflict of interest of the chair of the inquiry, Mr Besley, arising from his previous Telstra share ownership—and given the recently leaked internal Telstra memo, which casts aspersions on the inquiry's independence from political considerations—it will be interesting to see precisely what conclusions the inquiry will reach. Having read the submissions, there is only one logical conclusion to reach from the evidence, and that is that Telstra service levels are inadequate.We hope, for the sake of the future provision of communication services to country Australia, that the evidence will finally convince the government that it is important to retain Telstra's majority public ownership. There is no other way to ensure that country customers have access to this vital service.19:00:0018020Watson, Sen JohnSenator WATSONVJ4TasmaniaLP10—A number of parliamentarians have worked for years for the Auditor-General to be an officer of the parliament. In fact, the movement reached a crescendo during the latter Hawke years with significant budget cuts to the office of the Auditor-General. The domicile of the Auditor-General in the expensive rent domain of the ALP owned Cen-tenary House in Canberra also focused some attention on whether the Auditor-General was expected to be a puppet of the government.Report No. 296 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts highlighted the need for independence of the Auditor-General and for the Auditor to be an officer of the parliament. In an earlier report tabled in 1989, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts informed the parliament that the Australian Audit Office was in a state of crisis, that it was underresourced and that a lot of the problems stemmed from parliamentary complacency. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts also identified confusion about whether the executive or the parliament was responsible for the Auditor-General, with the result that the office was neglected by both. Seven years later, in report No. 346, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts again considered the independence of the Auditor-General to be absolutely fundamental to public accountability in Australia. If the Auditor-General is not properly resourced—or does not have a legislative mandate—to carry out an effective and broad scrutiny of the public sector, then parliament itself is compromised in its ability to hold the executive government to account.In 1996 the government of the day agreed for the Auditor-General to be an officer of the parliament; and that was regarded as a significant win. Additional powers were given to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts to review the budget of the Auditor-General and to have a role in approving the independent auditor to the Auditor-General's office—and that also includes the conducting of performance audits. The Auditor-General also consults parliamentary committees and has something of a coordinating role; hence that committee's extended name now to `Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit'.Some people argue that this new parliamentary involvement has seen the Auditor-General being asked to examine some politically motivated areas more frequently than in the past. However, let me assure the Senate that the Auditor-General has always been a focus where the financial propriety of some public office or officer is being questioned. One may well ask: is the Auditor-General being too conservative in the new role? Too little has changed and many academics who had high expectations of greater accountability today feel somewhat disappointed. Why has the Auditor-General not discharged his wider responsibilities more purposefully and focused on identifying areas of poor system design and underperformance, particularly in circumstances where the manner of the department's discharging of its responsibilities have been limited by unwieldy administrative processes?Recently I had the opportunity to quiz a senior officer from the ANAO about the performance audit conducted some time ago relating to the Australian superannuation guarantee system. No, we were not talking about a regulatory audit but one of those new types of audits called `performance audits'. The Auditor-General Act 1997 defines a performance audit as `a review or examination of any aspect of the operations of a person or body'. Performance audits may evaluate the economy, efficiency and administrative effectiveness of Commonwealth public sector entities and examine governance issues such as risk management and other control structures, such as resource use, information systems, performance measures, reporting and monitoring systems, probity and legal compliance.While some have queried the Auditor-General's technical expertise to conduct such performance audits, others wonder why the ATO got such high praise for the manner in which it discharged its statutory responsibilities in that particular report. However, I remind the Senate that in my view the real issue was: why did the Auditor-General take such a narrow view of the task before him, which amounted to perhaps no more than an extended regulatory audit rather than a full performance audit? Not surprisingly, the response to some of the criticism that I raised was that the Australian National Audit Office does not comment on policy. But what I was referring to was poor administrative design, et cetera.That sort of approach from the Auditor-General is really a well-worn excuse that I believe, in the light of his new responsibilities and mandate, really needs further evaluation. I certainly would like others, including academics, to look at this matter, because I think it deserves some attention—particularly now that the Auditor-General is an officer of the parliament and I believe he has had enough time to evaluate his new roles and responsibilities. I will give you but one example. Government policy of both parties has been for an eight per cent employer contribution on behalf of their employees, rising to nine per cent in 2002 under the superannuation guarantee—not the absurd administrative nightmare of getting certain funds into members' accounts. So I would distinguish between the policy which has been agreed by both parties—that is, the eight per cent employer contribution on behalf of employees which we know legislatively will rise to nine per cent in 2002—and, I repeat, the absurd inefficient nightmare of getting certain funds—not all funds—into members' accounts.I refer to three areas in respect of the superannuation guarantee certainly in need of reform which were not touched on in any way by the Auditor-General's report. Firstly, employers undercontributing are forced to lodge funds through the ATO rather than directly into the members' superannuation accounts. Secondly, contributions received after 28 July in respect of any 12-month period ending on the previous 30th day of June require the issue of an ATO voucher to be redeemed by the relevant fund, and then to find an account. Thirdly, there are the monthly monitoring requirements for employees aged between 65 and 80 years by trustees. Fancy having to report monthly when they are in continuous employment! These trustees really have more responsible duties than being engaged in such non-effective routines.I am aware of a fund, for example, paying member benefits to a 68-year-old employee directly into consolidated revenue—this employee is currently in employment and has been for decades—in circumstances where the employer continues to make regular contributions and has done so without interruption for the past 10 years. But according to law, the fund is perfectly entitled to pay those moneys every quarter back into consolidated revenue. To make matters worse, the poor old employee has been asked when he retires to pay money to an independent investigator to get his money out—which he is rightly entitled to—of consolidated revenue. It is an absolute farce. Most people would expect an Auditor-General to report on such an inefficient mechanism to collect and pay superannuation member entitlements, yet the Auditor-General says, `No; this is a policy issue; it is outside my jurisdiction.' Needed reforms according to such a philosophy cannot come from any other body than the agency itself—in this case the ATO— through the government of the day. And we all know that that takes years and years. It is time for the Auditor-General and this parliament, through its committees, to assess such issues, to enable parliament to fully discharge its responsibilities and for the Auditor-General to discharge his responsibilities as the community expects. I thank the Senate.1802219:10:0018022Hutchins, Sen SteveSenator HUTCHINS84PNew South WalesALP00—An interesting debate occurred in the House of Representatives this afternoon that I think will have a profound effect on the future of the member for Parramatta, Mr Ross Cameron. This debate followed a series of questions asked of the Prime Minister concerning the government's obsession to provide extra funding to the nation's wealthiest schools or, as the Prime Minister put it in August this year, that the new system was designed to:... provide more resources in a more accurate way to those communities in the independent sector that are more deserving of assistance.What we have learnt is that the great divide that this government has perpetrated in almost every aspect of people's lives, whether affecting their health, their workplace, or their entertainment, now is going to be visited upon our children.Why do I say that it will affect the future of the member for Parramatta, Mr Ross Cameron? We learnt today in the House of Representatives—and it was not and has not been challenged—that probably the most elite school in this country, the Kings School at Parramatta, is on the new funding formula proposed by the government. It will receive an extra $1,351 per pupil by the year 2004. Can you believe that this school, which charges $11,595 a year for day students and advertises on the web that it offers the following facilities: 15 cricket fields, five basketball courts, 12 tennis courts, a 50-metre swimming pool, a gym, two climbing walls, indoor rifle range, 13 rugby fields, three soccer fields, a cross-country course and a boat shed, could in any way be—to quote the Prime Minister—`more deserving of assistance'? Would not our Lady of Mercy College, in the heart of Parramatta, qualify under this criteria of the Prime Minister? You might think so; but, no, they will receive no extra funding at all, because the Prime Minister has already told them that they have already `won, won, won'. I challenge the member for Parramatta to go to the parents of those students and say to them, `A school less than six kilometres away, which asks $11,595 for day students, is entitled to a 40 per cent increase in government assistance—and you are supposed to be less deserving! Your school, which does not have a sporting field or a pool, must be less deserving of assistance than the Kings School six kilometres away, which has 15 cricket fields, 12 tennis courts and a swimming pool and which is entitled to a 40 per cent increase in government assistance—and you are less deserving!' I also challenge the member for Parramatta, Mr Cameron, to front the parents of our Lady of Lebanon, with no playing fields, and tell them that they are less deserving than a school less than 10 kilometres from them that has 15 cricket fields and 13 rugby fields.I challenge the member for Parramatta to present himself to the parents of Parramatta High School, whose children's school, under this proposal, will receive only $4,000 for a school that has an enrolment of 740 students, a school that has no fields, no basketball courts and no performing arts or drama area. Yet it is less than seven kilometres away from a school that has all those facilities and more and is to receive an additional $1,351 per student. Once again, the students of Parramatta High are not as deserving as, say, the Kings—the primate of the category 1 schools in Australia. These are questions for which I know that angry parents will be demanding answers of Mr Cameron. Will he front them? I will be interested to hear whether he does front them and what he has to say to them. We already know how Mr Cameron voted on this issue. He will have to go and front these parents, who I am sure will be quite angry, and he will have to justify to them the actions he has taken in supporting this decision, which I believe is mean and ideological.There will be more debate on this issue in the coming session of parliament. The bill will be coming up for us to debate. I sat on the committee and listened to the submissions from a variety of groups. In my short time in parliament I have sat on a number of committees and there are a lot of interest groups and people pushing their own barrows, but I have never seen so much interest as that shown in this issue from a wide spectrum of the community. People are obviously concerned about the education of their children. They want that education carried out correctly. They want government assistance to make sure that all the opportunities are there for their children. Unfortunately, the decision of the government in this legislation has been ideological and mean-spirited. Over the coming months and before the next election, coalition MPs will be called to account for their actions. If they are not made accountable in their electorates over the next few months they can surely bet that we will make them accountable at the next election. 19:16:0018023Senate adjourned at 7.16 p.m.Documents1802318023The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Customs Act—CEO Instruments of Approval Nos 50-54 of 2000.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58H—Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Determinations Nos 18 and 19 of 2000.Migration Act—Certificate under section 502, dated 26 September 2000.Statement for period 1 January to 30 June 2000 under section 91L, dated 26 September 2000. Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act—Declaration under section 9—Amendment to Schedule 4, dated 28 September 2000.Answers to Questions on Notice18025The following answers to questions were circulated:18025(Question No. 1126)112618025Ray, Sen RobertSenator Robert RayUI4VictoriaALP00 asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 June 1999: (1) On how many occasions during the 38th Parliament did the Department of Finance and Administration (or its predecessor) meet the removal and transfer expenses of staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act. (2) Which members and senators authorised the department to meet such expenses on behalf of staff. (3) In each instance, what was the cost to the Commonwealth of: (a) removal; (b) travel costs (including the travel costs of dependants where applicable); and (c) temporary accommodation allowance. (4) In each instance, what was: (a) the previous home base of the staff member; and (b) the new home base after the transfer.18025Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I seek to provide a replacement answer to the answer which appeared in Hansard on 3 April 2000 [Hansard,3 April 2000 P 12798] in response to the honourable senator's questions. The response is as follows: (1) 198 (2) Senator the Hon R Alston, Senator V Bourne, Senator P Calvert, Senator the Hon I Campbell, Senator G Chapman, Senator J Collins, Senator the Hon P Cook, Senator H Coonan, Senator W Crane, Senator the Hon R Crowley, Senator the Hon C Ellison, Senator the Hon J Faulkner, Senator the Hon B Gibson, Senator the Hon B Heffernan, Senator the Hon J Herron, Senator the Hon R Hill, Senator C Kernot, Senator M Lees, Senator the Hon I Macdonald, Senator S. MacDonald, Senator D Margetts, Senator the Hon N Minchin, Senator the Hon J Newman, Senator K O'Brien, Senator B O'Chee, Senator the Hon W Parer, Senator the Hon K Patterson, Senator the Hon C Schacht, Senator the Hon N Sherry, Senator N Stott-Despoja, Senator the Hon G Tambling, Senator the Hon A Vanstone, and Senator S West.The Hon T Abbott MP, The Hon N Andrew MP, The Hon J Anderson MP, The Hon L Anthony MP, Mr P Barresi MP, The Hon K Beazley MP, The Hon B Bishop MP, The Hon B Brown MP, Mr R Cameron MP, The Hon P Costello MP, The Hon N Dondas MP, The Hon A Downer MP, The Hon W Entsch MP, The Hon G Evans MP, The Hon J Fahey MP, The Hon T Fischer MP, Mrs C Gallus MP, Mrs J Gash MP, Ms P Hanson MP, Mr D Hawker MP, The Hon J Howard MP, Ms S Jeanes MP, Mrs R Johnston MP, The Hon D Jull MP, The Hon R Katter MP, The Hon P Keating MP, Mrs D Kelly MP, The Hon D Kemp MP, The Hon D Kerr MP, Mr P Lindsay MP, Ms J Macklin MP, Mr P Marek MP, The Hon B McMullan MP, Mr D Melham MP, The Hon J Moore MP, The Hon J Moylan MP, Mr G Nairn MP, Mr P Neville MP, The Hon N O'Keefe MP, The Hon G Prosser MP, Mr C Pyne MP, The Hon P Reith MP, Mr A Rocher MP, The Hon M Ronaldson MP, The Hon P Ruddock MP, The Hon B Scott MP, The Hon J Sharp MP, The Hon P Slipper MP, Mr T Smith MP, The Hon W Smith MP, Dr A Southcott MP, The Hon A Somlyay MP, The Hon Dr S Stone MP, The Hon A Thomson MP, The Hon W Truss MP, The Hon M Vaile MP, Mr B Wakelin MP, The Hon D Williams MP, The Hon Dr M Wooldridge MP, and The Hon T Worth MP. (3) The total costs of (a) removal, (b) travel and (c) temporary accommodation allowance for each instance were as follows: (a) Removal Cost(b) Travel Cost(c) Temporary Accommodation$446938.76$35254.59$223961.88(4) The changes in home base were as set out below: (a) Previous Home Base(b) New Home BaseNumber of InstancesAdelaide Brisbane 1Adelaide Canberra 14Adelaide Hobart 1Adelaide Melbourne 3Albury Canberra 1Alice Springs Adelaide 1Alice Springs (NT)Whyalla (SA)1Melbourne (VIC)Adelaide (SA)1Bendigo (VIC)Canberra (ACT)1Boronia Heights (QLD)Cairns (QLD)1Bowen (QLD)Mackay (QLD)1Brisbane (QLD)Bundaberg (QLD)1Brisbane (QLD)Cairns (QLD)2Brisbane (QLD)Canberra (ACT)7Brisbane (QLD)Dalby (QLD)2Brisbane (QLD)Hobart (TAS)1Brisbane (QLD)Mackay (QLD)1Brisbane (QLD)Mt Isa (QLD)1Brisbane (QLD)Perth (WA)1Brisbane (QLD)Townsville (QLD)1Bunbury (WA)Canberra (ACT)1Caboolture (QLD)Rockhampton (QLD)1Cairns (QLD)Sydney (NSW)1Cairns (QLD)Townsville (QLD)2Caloundra (QLD)Cairns (QLD)1Caloundra (QLD)Canberra (ACT)1Caloundra (QLD)Mackay (QLD)1Canberra (ACT)Adelaide (SA)2Canberra (ACT)Bendigo (VIC)1Canberra (ACT)Caloundra (QLD)2Canberra (ACT)Darwin (NT)1Canberra (ACT)Melbourne (VIC)3Canberra (ACT)Noosa (QLD)1Canberra (ACT)Perth (WA)3Canberra (ACT)Sydney (NSW)7Canberra (ACT)Tweed Heads (NSW)1Ceduna (SA)Whyalla (SA)1Coffs Harbour (NSW)Brisbane (QLD)1Coffs Harbour (NSW)Sydney (NSW)1Sydney (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Coorparoo (QLD)Canberra (ACT)1Sydney (NSW)Melbourne (VIC)1Darwin (NT)Adelaide (SA)1Darwin (NT)Canberra (ACT)2Sydney (NSW)Canberra (ACT)2Dubbo (NSW)Queanbeyan (NSW)1Melbourne (VIC)Canberra (ACT)1Emerald (QLD)Dalby (QLD)1Emerald (QLD)Rockhampton (QLD)1Sydney (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Eureka (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Glenella (QLD)Rockhampton (QLD)1Gold Coast (QLD)Cairns (QLD)1Gold Coast (QLD)Canberra (ACT)2Melbourne (VIC)Maroochydore (QLD) 1Hobart (TAS)Adelaide (SA)1Hobart (TAS)Brisbane (QLD)1Hobart (TAS)Canberra (ACT)5Hobart (TAS)Devonport (TAS)1Hobart (TAS)Launceston (TAS)3Hobart (TAS)Sydney (NSW)1Imbil (QLD)Mackay (QLD)1Innisfail (QLD)Cairns (QLD)1Innisfail (QLD)Ipswich (QLD)1Launceston (TAS)Canberra (ACT)3Launceston (TAS)Hobart (TAS)1Mackay (QLD)Ballarat (VIC)1Maroochydoore (QLD)Melbourne (VIC)1Maclean (QLD)Caloundra (QLD)1Melbourne (VIC)Adelaide (SA)1Melbourne (VIC)Canberra (ACT)14Melbourne (VIC)Hobart (TAS)1Melbourne (VIC)Mackay (QLD)1Melbourne (VIC)Perth (WA)1Melbourne (VIC)Shepparton (VIC)1Melbourne (VIC)Thursday Is (QLD)1Miles (QLD)Emerald (QLD)1Mooloolaba (QLD)Maryborough (QLD)1Mundingburra (QLD)Townsville (QLD)1Perth (WA)Canberra (ACT)1Newcastle (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Noosa (QLD)Canberra (ACT)1Oakey (QLD)Dalby (QLD)1Orange (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Perth (WA)Cairns (QLD)1Perth (WA)Canberra (ACT)7Perth (WA)Melbourne (VIC)1Perth (WA)Nowra (NSW)1Perth (WA)Sydney (NSW)1Port Macquarie (NSW)Singleton (NSW)1Sydney (NSW)Adelaide (SA)1Sydney (NSW)Canberra (ACT)26Sydney (NSW)Launceston (TAS)1Sydney (NSW)Nowra (NSW)1Sydney (NSW)Townsville (QLD)1Tamworth (NSW)Cairns (QLD)1Tamworth (NSW)Tweed Heads (NSW)1Taree (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Toowong (QLD)Coolum (QLD)1Torquay (VIC)Canberra (ACT)1Townsville (QLD)Cairns (QLD)1Townsville (QLD)Canberra (ACT)2Tweed Heads (NSW)Canberra (ACT)1Wangaratta (VIC)Cairns (QLD)118028(Question No. 2147)214718028O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 10 April 2000: (1) How many agencies within the Minister's portfolio are administered by a board. (2) Are all members of the above boards appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Executive Council; if not, who is responsible for making board appointments. (3) In each case, does the Remuneration Tribunal have a role in the setting of fees, allowances and other benefits for members of the boards; if not: (a) under which section of the relevant legislation are such fees, allowances and benefits authorised; and (b) how is the value of these fees, allowances and other benefits determined. (4) In each case, what is the nature and value of fees paid to board members. (5) What other benefits, such as mobile phones, home computers and home phone/facsimile machines, are provided to board members by virtue of their membership of a government board. (6) What class of air travel, what standard of accommodation and what car allowances are paid to board members and, in each case, what is the value of these benefits and who determines that value. (7) Are board members entitled to, or do they receive, any spouse benefits; if so, what is the nature and value of these benefits. (8) (a) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above fees, allowances and other benefits been varied, (b) what was the reason for each variation; and (c) what was the quantum of each variation. (9) If variations to fees, allowances and other payments to board members were not determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, who determined the quantum and timing of each increase. (10) Do board members qualify for, and are they paid, superannuation benefits; if so, are such payments additional to, and separate from, other allowances they receive. (11) Do board members receive any additional allowances if they are appointed to board sub-committees; if so, are such additional benefits provided for in the relevant legislation.18028Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) 3AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION (2) No. The Chair and up to 6 Commissioners are appointed by the Governor General. The Commission itself can appoint up to 2 co-opted Commissioners for a period not exceeding 12 months. (3) Yes. The Remuneration Tribunal sets the fees, allowances and other benefits for the Chairman and Commissioners. Full-time Commonwealth employees, holding or performing duties of a public office on a part-time basis, are not entitled to be paid any remuneration in accordance with sub-section 7(11) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973). (4) Remuneration: Chairman$38,000 paCommissioner$16,600 paCo-opted Commissioner$16,600 pa (5) The Chairman is provided with a mobile phone; and the Chair and Commissioners are provided with cabcharge cards for Australian Heritage Commission business. No other benefits are provided. (6) Business class travel. The Chairman and Commissioners pay for their own accommodation and meals etc. from their travel allowance which is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. No car allowance is paid. (7) No. (8) (a) One. (b) Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03 effective from 1 March 1999. (c) Annual remuneration was increased by: Chairman$2,300 paCommissioner$650 paCo-opted Commissioner$650 pa (9) Not applicable. (10) To meet the requirements of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefits) Act 1988, where applicable the Commission contributes the prescribed percentage of the Chair's and Commissioners' fees into AGEST or an approved fund. (11) Not applicable.GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE PARK AUTHORITY (GBRMPA) (2) Yes. (3) Yes. The Remuneration Tribunal sets the fees, allowances and other benefits for members of the Board of the GBRMPA. Full-time Commonwealth employees, holding or performing duties of a public office on a part-time basis, are not entitled to be paid any remuneration in accordance with sub-section 7(11) of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973. (4) The Chair of the Board of GBRMPA is a full time member; this position is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and is remunerated at SES Band III level. Part time members of GBRMPA are entitled to be paid an annual sitting fee of $12,600. (5) There are no other benefits provided to members of the Board of GBRMPA. (6) Members of the Board of GBRMPA travel by air on business class; accommodation and travel allowance are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. (7) No. (8) (a) One. (b) Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03 effective from 1 March 1999. (c) Annual remuneration was increased by $470 pa. (9) Not applicable. (10) The current part-time members of GBRMPA do not receive superannuation benefits. To meet the requirements of the Superannuation (Productivity Benefits) Act 1988, where applicable GBRMPA would contribute the prescribed percentage of the Chair's and members' fee into an approved fund. (11) One part-time member of GBRMPA is a member of GBRMPA's Audit Committee. Fees and allowances are set by the Remuneration Tribunal.NATIONAL OCEANS OFFICE (2) No. The National Oceans Office is administered by the National Oceans Ministerial Board. The Government decided that the Board would comprise of Commonwealth Ministers responsible for the environment (Chair), fisheries, resources, shipping, tourism and science, with other relevant Ministers co-opted as required. (3) No. The National Oceans Ministerial Board members do not receive any allowances or other benefits. Participation on the National Oceans Ministerial Board is undertaken by individual Ministers as part of their Ministerial responsibilities. (4) Not applicable. (5) Not applicable. All meetings to date have been held in Canberra. (6) Not Applicable (7) Not applicable. (8) (a)-(c) Not applicable. (9) Not applicable. (10) Not applicable. (11) Not applicable.18030(Question No. 2159)215918030O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 10 April 2000. (1) How many agencies within the Minister's Portfolio are administered by a board. (2) Are all members of the above board appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Executive Council; if not, who is responsible for making board appointments. (3) In each case, does the Remuneration Tribunal have a role in the setting of fees, allowances and other benefits for members of the boards; if not; (a) under which section of the relevant legislation are such fees, allowances and benefits authorised; and (b) how is the value of these fees, allowances and other benefits determined. (4) In each case, what is the nature and value of fees paid to board members. (5) What other benefits, such as mobile phones, home computers and home phone/facsimile machines, are provided to board members by virtue of their membership of a government board. (6) What class of air travel, what standard of accommodation and what car allowances are paid to board members and, in each case, what is the value of these benefits and who determines that value. (7) Are board members entitled to, or do they receive, any spouse benefits; if so, what is the nature and value of these benefits. (8) (a) On how many occasions since January 1998 have the above fees, allowances and other benefits been varied, (b) what was the reason for each variation; and (c) what was the quantum of each variation. (9) If variations to fees, allowances and other payments to board members were not determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, who determined the quantum and timing of each increase. (10) Do board members qualify for, and are they paid, superannuation benefits; if so, are such payments additional to, and separate from, other allowances they receive. (11) Do board members receive any additional allowances if they are appointed to board sub-committees; if so, are such additional benefits provided for in the relevant legislation. 18031Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The following information is provided in response to the honourable senator's question. (1)Six: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), Torres Strait Regional Authority (TSRA), Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation (ATSICDC), Aboriginal Hostels Limited (AHL), and the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) (2) ATSIC - The Minister appoints the Board of CommissionersTSRA - The Minister determines the constitution of the TSRA board under section 142s of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989AIATSIS - five appointed by the Minister and four elected by the Institute's membershipATSICDC - appointments by the MinisterAHL - appointments by the MinisterILC - appointments by the MinisterAll Ministerial appointments are approved by the Prime Minister and/or Cabinet. (3)Yes (4) ATSICChairman - Full time position $157,100 basic salary plus $11,500 supplementary remuneration,Deputy Chairman - Full time position $98,200 basic salary plus $5,750 supplementary remuneration,Commissioners - Full time position $77,800 basic salary plus$5,750 supplementary remunerationTSRAChairman - Full time position $98,200 basic salary plus $5,750 supplementary remuneration. Deputy Chairman - Part time position $340 per day sitting fees and $398.55 per day when acting as Chairperson. Members - Part time position $260.00 per day sitting fee.AIATSISChairperson - $420.00 per day sitting feesCouncil Members - $370.00 per day sitting feesATSICDCChairman - $39,300 per annumDeputy Chairman - $25,800 per annumMembers - $17,200 per annumAudit Committee members - $5,000 per annumAHLChairman - $18,600 per annumMembers - $9,200 per annumILCChairman - $119,600 per annum basic salary plus $8,500 per annum supplementary remuneration (on a pro rata basis of hours worked)Deputy Chairman - $25,800 per annumMembers - $21,200 per annum (5) ATSIC - Board members are provided with the same benefits allowed for Senior Executive Service (SES) employees of the Australian Public Service, including mobile telephone, semi-official telephone allowance and home computers where requested. They may also be provided with a home facsimile machine, where need can be demonstrated. TSRA - The Chairperson is provided with a mobile phone, and can claim for reimbursement on official telephone calls. He is also provided with accommodation on Thursday Island if required but must contribute to the cost of this accommodation. Other Board members do not receive any benefits other than travelling allowance and sitting fees.AIATSIS - NilATSICDC - The Chairman and Deputy Chairman have each been provided with a mobile telephone.AHL - NilILC - The Chairman has been provided with a mobile phone and with a home facsimile machine for her home base in Victoria. No other Board members have been provided with any phones, computers or facsimile machines. (6) ATSIC - Air travel for Commissioners (including the Chairman) is business class consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service. Travelling allowance (including accommodation) is paid at the rate set out in part 6.1 of Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/05. For each overnight stay these rates are $350 for Sydney, $290 for other capital cities and $200 elsewhere. Under determination 1 of 1993, the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs determined that full-time Commissioners are entitled to the same vehicle allowances as an SES officer in the Australian Public Service. The Chairman is entitled to a fully maintained vehicle equivalent to a Departmental Secretary (within the Executive Vehicle Scheme group limit of $51,280). Other Commissioner are entitled to a fully maintained vehicle equivalent to a SES Band 1 or 2 (within the Executive Vehicle Scheme group limit of $37,200). It may be necessary to vary these limits to meet the geographic zone requirements of the particular Commissioner (eg some Commissioners may require four-wheel drive vehicles in consideration of the zone they represent). Each Commissioner contributes $711 per annum towards the costs of registration and insurance of their vehicle.TSRA - Air travel for the Chairman is business class, consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service. Other members travel economy class.Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for the Chairman is paid at the rate set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 2000/05 and under the conditions set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/05 part 6.1 (b) to (g). Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for other members is paid at the rate set out in table 5 of Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03. For all members (including the Chairman) the overnight stay rates are $245 for Sydney, $210 for other capital cities and $175 elsewhere.The Chairman is the only member entitled to a vehicle and is entitled to a fully maintained vehicle equivalent to a SES Band 1 or 2 (within the Executive Vehicle Scheme group limit of $37,200). The Chairman contributes $508 per annum towards the costs of registration and insurance of his vehicle.AIATSIS - Air travel for all Board members is business class, consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service.Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for all Board members is paid at the rate set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03. For all members (including the Chairman) the overnight stay rates are $245 for Sydney, $210 for other capital cities and $175 elsewhere.No member (including the Chairman) is entitled to a vehicle.ATSICDC - Air travel for all Board members is business class, consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service.Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for all Board members is paid at the rate set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03. For all members (including the Chairman) the overnight stay rates are $350 for Sydney, $290 for other capital cities and $200 elsewhere.No member (including the Chairman) is entitled to a vehicle.AHL - Air travel for all Board members is business class, consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service. Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for all Board members is paid at the rate set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03. For all members (including the Chairman) the overnight stay rates are $245 for Sydney, $210 for other capital cities and $175 elsewhere.No member (including the Chairman) is entitled to a vehicle.ILC - Air travel for all Board members is business class, consistent with Senior Executive Service (SES) officers in the Australian Public Service as determined by the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs on 15 June 1995. Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for Board members excluding the Chairman is paid at the rate set out in Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/03. The Travelling allowance (including accommodation) for the Chairman attending a Board meeting is paid at the same rate as other Board members as agreed by the ILC Board. At all other times, the travelling allowance for the Chairman is paid at the rate equivalent to the rate determined for a SES officer at 4 December 1999 consistent with Remuneration Tribunal determination 1999/17. For the Chairman attending a Board meeting and other Board members at all times, the overnight stay rates are $350 for Sydney, $290 for other capital cities and $200 elsewhere. For the Chairman at all other times, the overnight stay rate ranges from $346 for Yulara in the Northern Territory to $140.55 for other country centres (for comparison, the rate for Sydney is $245.50).The Chairman is the only member entitled to a vehicle and is entitled to a fully maintained vehicle equivalent to a SES Band 3 (within the Executive Vehicle Scheme group limit of $43,440). The Chairman contributes $711 per annum towards the costs of registration and insurance of her vehicle. (7) ATSIC - Commissioners are entitled to be accompanied by their spouse (or an immediate family member) once a year, at the equivalent class to that of a Commissioner. Commissioners are entitled to an additional $10 per night accommodation allowance when accompanied by a spouse or immediate family member.TSRA - There is a provision to assist the Chairperson once each year with airfare costs associated with spouse travel within Australia. Cost would not be expected to exceed $3000.AIATSIS - NoATSICDC - Directors are entitled to be accompanied by their spouse on one work related trip per annum within Australia. Similar to SES arrangements this is not expected to exceed $1200.AHL - NoILC - The Chairperson is entitled to be accompanied by their spouse (or an immediate family member) once a year, at the equivalent class to that of a Chairperson. The Chairperson is entitled to an additional $10 per night accommodation allowance when accompanied by a spouse or immediate family member.(8)Full-time holders of public office - base rates of salaryFull-time office holders including all ATSIC Commissioners, the TSRA Chairman and the ILC Chairman are paid an annual salary and are not entitled to the payment of sitting fees. The salary rates for full-time office holders have been varied three times. The variations were determined by the following Remuneration Tribunal Determinations: - 1998/18 of 1 July 1998, providing a 2% increase; - 1999/05 of 24 March 1999, providing a 5% increase; and - 2000/05 of 30 May 2000 providing a 3% increase. The Tribunal also determined that “If appointed on a part-time basis, the Chair of the Indigenous Land Corporation may be paid salary and the office holder supplement specified on a pro-rata basis in accordance with the hours worked, with effect on and from 24 September 1999”.Part-time holders of public office - base rates of feesPart-time office holders, include the Boards of AIATSIS, ATSICDC, AHL and all positions except the Chairman on the Boards of the TSRA and the ILC. Part-time office holders either receive an annualised fee or a per diem fee, depending on the office. The Remuneration Tribunal has reviewed benefits paid to part-time office holders twice since January 1998. The variations were determined by the following Remuneration Tribunal Determinations: - 1999/03 of 26 February 1999, providing a 5.5% increase; and - 2000/05 of 30 May 2000 providing a 3.2% increase. Other BenefitsRemuneration Tribunal Determination 1999/03 also provided for an increase to fees for members who also sit on the organisation's audit committee. This increased from $3,500 to $5,000.Travelling allowance for part-time office holders has been varied once since January 1998. The variation set in place a new schedule of rates that in some cases resulted in a decrease in the rates to some areas. For full-time holders of public office the relevant determination is 1999/05 and for part-time holders of public office, the relevant determination is 1999/03.For all ATSIC Commissioners, all ATSICDC board members and all board members of the ILC except the Chairman, the rates varied as follows: Old RateNew RateNo equivalent$350 Sydney$320 Capital Cities$290 Other Capital Cities$165 Other than a Capital City$200 Other than a Capital CityThe ILC Chairman is paid the same rate as other ILC Board members when attending Board meetings. At other times, the ILC Chairman is entitled to rates equivalent to those determined for SES officers under s82D of the Public Service Act 1922 at 4 December 1999. The final determination made under the Public Service Act 1922 became effective from 13 May 1999. There is no equivalent provision in the Public Service Act 1999 and as such the Remuneration Tribunal determination continues to refer to the former Public Service Act. Under the former Public Service Act, biannual reviews of the Travelling Allowance rates were undertaken, generally around April and October each year, becoming effective in the following month. An indication of the quantum of the three variations made to Travelling Allowance rates since January 1998 follows: Effective DateYularaSydneyOther country centresAt January 1998$335.85$229.35$130.6514 May 1998$336.50$234.00$134.2026 November 1998$334.00$240.00$130.2013 May 1999$346.00$245.50$140.55For all members of the TSRA, AIATSIS, and AHL boards, the rates varied as follows: Old RateNew Rate$245 Sydney$245 Sydney (no variation)$200 Other Capital Cities$210 Other Capital Cities$155 Other than a Capital City$175 Other than a Capital City (9) ATSIC - The Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has determined under Determination No 1 of 1993 that Board members are, in respect to allowances and conditions not determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, entitled to allowances and terms and conditions applicable to Senior Executive Service employees in the Australian Public Service.TSRA - Not applicableAIATSIS - Not applicableATSICDC - Not applicable AHL - Not applicableILC - Not applicable (10) ATSIC - Currently the superannuation options available to Statutory Office Holders, including Board members, are as follows: . Join Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. . Remain in the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. . Remain in a previous superannuation scheme from a previous employer, with ATSIC meeting the appropriate costs. (This option is subject to case by case approval and needs to be referred to the Department of Finance and Administration.) . Renewal of a personal superannuation cover arrangement originally approved under the Superannuation Benefits (Super Mechanisms) Act 1990 before 1 July 1992. . No superannuation coverage apart from the minimum employer sponsored cover provided by the membership of the Australian Government Employees Superannuation Trust (AGEST), or a complying superannuation fund nominated by the employee.Where a Board member elects one of the first four options outlined above, on retirement or cessation from the Commission the superannuation benefits payable would be in accordance with the rules of the relevant superannuation scheme.TSRA - The TSRA pays superannuation on behalf of members based on 7% of their taxable income.AIATSIS - NoATSICDC - The Corporation meets the additional cost of meeting the obligations of the employer superannuation surcharge.AHL - NoILC - The Chairman has the option to join the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. The ILC meets the superannuation guarantee currently at 7%. (11) ATSIC - NoTSRA - NoAIATSIS - NoATSICDC - Remuneration Tribunal determination 2000/03 provides for an additional $5,000 per annum to be paid to Board members who serve on the organisation's Audit Committee.AHL - NoILC - Remuneration Tribunal determination 2000/03 provides for an additional $5,000 per annum to be paid to Board members who serve on the organisation's Audit Committee. Land Enterprise Australia (IEA) is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ILC. All members of the ILC Board are also members of the IEA Board and receive the same sitting fees and entitlements whilst attending IEA Board meetings as they would if sitting on the ILC Board.18035(Questions Nos 2261, 2263 to 2279)2261, 2263 to 227918035O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'Brien8O6TasmaniaALP00 asked the Ministers listed below, upon notice, on 30 May 2000: Minister representing the Prime Minister; Minister representing the Treasurer; Minister representing the Minister for Trade; Minister for the Environment and Heritage; Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts; Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business; Minister for Family and Community Services; Minister representing the Minister for Defence; Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care; Minister representing the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs; Minister for Industry, Science and Resources; Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Minister for Justice and Customs; Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs; Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs; Minister representing the Minister for Sport and Tourism; Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration (1) What resources have been transferred from both the department and its agencies to the Attorney-General's Department following the Government's decision to transfer the legislative drafting function to that department. (2) (a) What legislative drafting resources remain with the department and its agencies following that transfer; and (b) what is the nature of the legislative drafting work that continues to be done within both the department and its agencies. (3) What was the value of the financial transfer to the Attorney-General's Department as part of the implementation of the Government's decision to consolidate the legislative drafting function. (4) Has the Government's decision to transfer the legislative drafting function to the Attorney-General's Department been fully implemented; if not: (a) what resources and functions remain to be transferred; and (b) when are these transfers scheduled to take place.18036Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer, on behalf of those ministers, to the honourable senator's question: The Government has transferred the legislative drafting function and some resources from one agency in the Transport and Regional Services portfolio to the Attorney-General's Department. The legislative drafting function for all other Commonwealth agencies has been the responsibility of the Attorney-General's portfolio for many years. No resources have been transferred to the Attorney-General's Department for this purpose from any other portfolio. The Minister for Transport and Regional Services will provide a separate response to the honourable senator's question.18036(Question No. 2505)250518036Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Since 1 January 1999, have there been any laptop computers lost or stolen from the possession of any officer of the department and/or any agencies within the portfolio; if so: (a) how many have been lost; (b) how many have been stolen; (c) what is the total value of these computers; (d) what is the average replacement value per computer; and (e) have these computers been recovered or replaced. (2) Have the police been requested to investigate any of these incidents; if so: (a) how many were the subject of police investigation; (b) how many police investigations have been concluded; (c) in how many cases has legal action been commenced; and (d) in how many cases has action been concluded and with what result. (3) How many of the lost or stolen items had, on their hard disc drives, or in the form of floppy disc, CD-ROM or any other storage device, departmental documents, content or information other than operating software. (4) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) were classified for security or any other purpose and, if any, what was the security classification involved. (5) (a) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) have been recovered; and (b) how many of the documents referred to in (4) have been recovered. (6) What departmental disciplinary or other actions have been taken in regard to the items referred to in (1) or in relation to the documents etc. referred to in (3) and (4).18036Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:Based on the best presently available information: (1) Yes. (a) Department - 54 (this figure includes 32 laptops where it has not been identified at this stage whether they have been lost or stolen). DHA - 0. (b) Department - 75. DHA - 3 (c) Department - $276,000. DHA - $15,053. (d) Department - approximately $4,000 to $5,000 each for those where data is available. DHA - approximately $2,500 each. (e) Department - 4 recovered and 36 replaced. DHA - 0 recovered, 2 replaced and a third to be replaced. (2) Yes. Civilian or military police have been notified or the loss reported through the appropriate channels. (a) Department - 89. DHA - 3 (b) 50. In a number of cases investigations have been conducted but the offender not identified. DHA - 0. (c) Department - 2. DHA - 0. (d) Department - 8. In only one case have charges been laid. DHA - 0. (3) Department - 33 cases where departmental documents/information is thought to have been present. DHA - the laptops belonged to sales staff and would have had sales information only on them. (4) Department - 13 instances where the information is thought to have been classified. Of these 10 were suspected to be RESTRICTED and 3 were COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE. DHA - 0 (5) (a) Department - 1. DHA - 0 (b) Department - 0. DHA not applicable (6) Departmental action also includes internal investigations which have resulted in a review of auditing and security procedures in a number of areas where the offenders have not been able to be identified. DHA - none.18037(Question No. 2509)250918037Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Since 1 January 1999, have there been any laptop computers lost or stolen from the possession of any officer of the department and/or any agencies within the portfolio; if so: (a) how many have been lost; (b) how many have been stolen; (c) what is the total value of these computers; (d) what is the average replacement value per computer; and (e) have these computers been recovered or replaced. (2) Have the police been requested to investigate any of these incidents; if so: (a) how many were the subject of police investigation; (b) how many police investigations have been concluded; (c) in how many cases has legal action been commenced; and (d) in how many cases has action been concluded and with what result. (3) How many of the lost or stolen computers had, on their hard disc drives, or in the form of floppy disc, CD-ROM or any other storage device, departmental documents, content or information other than operating software. (4) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) were classified for security or any other purpose and, if any, what was the security classification involved. (5) (a) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) have been recovered; and (b) how many documents etc. referred to in (4) have been recovered. (6) What departmental disciplinary or other actions have been taken in regard to the computers referred to in (1) or in relation to the documents etc. referred to in (3) or (4).18038Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes; (a) 12 laptops have been identified as lost; (b) 51 laptops have been identified as stolen; (c) Total value is $198,175; (d) Average replacement value is $5,560 per laptop. Note this is the purchase price. Some parts of the ISR portfolio lease their equipment from a service provider; (e) 6 laptops have been recovered; 41 laptops have been replaced. (2) Yes; (a) 49 incidents are or have been the subject of police investigation; (b) The portfolio is aware of 35 concluded investigations; (c) The portfolio is aware of the commencement of legal action in 4 cases; (d) The portfolio is aware of concluded legal action in 2 cases. This resulted in the recovery of 2 laptops and sentencing of 2 offenders. (3) It is likely that many lost or stolen laptops with storage devices have portfolio documents, content or information other than operating software. The portfolio is only able to confirm the presence of such material on 4 lost or stolen laptops. (4) None of the documents, content or information referred to in (3) were believed to be security classified. (5) (a) The documents, content or information on one of the laptops referred to in (3) have been recovered. (b) Not applicable. (6) A range of portfolio action has been taken in regard to lost or stolen computer laptops and documents. In most cases internal investigations have concluded that no negligence on the part of portfolio officers has been demonstrated, and that disciplinary action has not been necessary. Other action includes: . counselling of an officer after not following agency procedures;. reminding all agency staff of their obligation to ensure that assets are kept in a secure location at all times; . reviewing asset recording and control procedures and implementing upgrades to improve asset management; and . reviewing agency security measures and implementing recommended improvements. 18038(Question No. 2524)252418038Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Since 1 January 1999, have there been any desktop computers, or any other item of computer hardware, other than laptop computers, lost or stolen from the possession of any officer of the department and/or any agencies within the portfolio; if so: (a) what and how many have been lost; (b) what and how many have been stolen; (c) what is the total value of these items; (d) what is the normal replacement value per item; and (e) have these computers been recovered or replaced. (2) Have the police been requested to investigate any of these incidents; if so: (a) how many were the subject of police investigation; (b) how many police investigations have been concluded; (c) in how many cases has legal action been commenced; and (d) in how many cases has action been concluded and with what result. (3) How many of the lost or stolen items had, on their hard disc drives, or in the form of floppy disc, CD-ROM or any other storage device, departmental documents, content or information other than operating software. (4) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) were classified for security or any other purpose and, if any, what was the security classification involved. (5) (a) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) have been recovered; and (b) how many of the documents referred to in (4) have been recovered. (6) What departmental disciplinary or other actions have been taken in regard to the items referred to in (1) or in relation to the documents etc. referred to in (3) and (4).18039Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NewmanBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Based on the best presently available information: (1) Department - Yes. (a) 64 lost. (This figure includes 17 items where it is not known at this stage whether they were lost or stolen. The equipment includes desktop computers, monitors, printers, keyboards, CD writers, speakers, hard disks, random access memory chips, central processing units, a projector, a digital camera and miscellaneous computer components) (b) 81 stolen. (c) $169,000. (d) Approximately $2,500 each for those where data is available. (e) 16 recovered and 45 replaced. (2) Yes. Civilian or military police have been notified or the loss reported through the appropriate channels. (a) 66 (b) 37. In a number of cases investigations have been conducted but the offender not identified. (c) 0 (d) 0 (3) 2 cases where departmental documents/information is thought to have been present. (4) 2 instances where the material is thought to have been classified. These were both suspected to be RESTRICTED. (5) (a) 0 (b) 0 (6) Departmental action also includes internal investigations which have resulted in a review of auditing and security procedures in a number of areas where the offenders have not been able to be identified.18039(Question No. 2528)252818039Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 28 June 2000: (1) Since 1 January 1999, have there been any desktop computers, or any other item of computer hardware, other than laptop computers, lost or stolen from the possession of any officer of the department and/or any agencies within the portfolio; if so: (a) what and how many have been lost; (b) what and how many have been stolen; (c) what is the total value of these items; (d) what is the normal replacement value per item; and (e) have these computers been recovered or replaced. (2) Have the police been requested to investigate any of these incidents; if so: (a) how many were the subject of police investigation; (b) how many police investigations have been concluded; (c) in how many cases has legal action been commenced; and (d) in how many cases has action been concluded and with what result. (3) How many of the lost or stolen items had, on their hard disc drives, or in the form of floppy disc, CD-ROM or any other storage device, departmental documents, content or information other than operating software. (4) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) were classified for security or any other purpose and, if any, what was the security classification involved. (5) (a) How many of the documents etc. referred to in (3) have been recovered; and (b) how many documents etc. referred to in (4) have been recovered. (6) What departmental disciplinary or other actions have been taken in regard to the items referred to in (1) or in relation to the documents etc. referred to in (3) and (4).18040Minchin, Sen NickSenator MinchinJX4South AustraliaLPMinister for Industry, Science and Resources10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Yes; (a) 1 desktop computer and 2 laser printers have been identified as lost; (b) 22 desktop computers and 1 laser printer have been identified as stolen; (c) Total value is $46,658; (d) Average replacement value is $2,940 per computer, and $4,000 per printer. Note this is the purchase price. Some parts of the ISR portfolio lease their equipment from a service provider; (e) 19 desktop computers have been replaced. (2) Yes; (a) 23 incidents are or have been the subject of police investigation; (b) The portfolio is aware of 17 concluded investigations; (c) The portfolio is not aware of the commencement of legal action in any cases; (d) Not applicable. (3) It is likely that many lost or stolen desktop computers with storage devices have portfolio documents, content or information other than operating software. The portfolio is only able to confirm the presence of such material on 3 lost or stolen computers. (4) None of the documents, content or information referred to in (3) were believed to be security classified. (5) (a) None of the documents, content or information referred to in (3) have been recovered. (b) Not applicable. (6) A range of portfolio action has been taken in regard to lost or stolen desktop computers, computer hardware and documents. In most cases internal investigations concluded that no negligence on the part of portfolio officers has been demonstrated, and that disciplinary action has not been necessary. Other action includes: . reviewing asset recording and control procedures and implementing upgrades to improve asset management; and . reviewing agency security measures and implementing recommended improvements.18040(Question No. 2535)253518040Cook, Sen PeterSenator CookRF4Western AustraliaALP00 asked the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 29 June 2000: (1) Will the Warmun community's Cultural Health Development project be considered. as a pilot. project under the national strategy to stop indigenous family violence, being administered by the Ministerial Council for Aboriginal and Torres .9 Strait Islander Affairs. (2) What is. the Aboriginal. and Torres Strait Islander Commission's role in the council's Working group. (3) Who are the indigenous stakeholders to be consulted by the council. (4) What criteria will the council use for the consideration of applications for pilot projects. What progress has the council made to date in identifying pilot projects. 18041Herron, Sen JohnSenator HerronVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question:Question One No, Meekatharra is the Western Australian community nominated as a pilot project under the. Ministerial Council. on' Aboriginal `and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) national indigenous family violence strategy. - It was nominated by the Western Australian government representatives on the working group responsible for implementing the national strategy. Meekatharra was nominated because it. is a community of high need which has strong community support and sufficient supporting infrastructure to trial a whole of government approach to family violence.Question Two The national strategy on indigenous family violence was developed jointly between the Commonwealth and ATSIC. ATSIC has been involved throughout the process, including having representatives on the MCATSIA working group. ATSIC is also assisting in the identification of communities for trials.Question Three The national strategy is based on Senator Herron's 1999 Round Table which was attended by 21 indigenous community workers with practical community-based experience in the area of family violence. The Ministerial Council on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (MCATSIA) Working Group on indigenous family violence is composed of both government and non-government representatives covering all levels of government and including community representatives. Under the strategy, each state and territory in partnership with the Australian Local Government Association, was asked to undertake extensive consultations with indigenous communities to determine whether they are willing to participate in the trials. The trial projects are premised on a community-driven approach to tackling family violence and projects are to be entirely under community control.Question Four While the Ministerial Council provides overall direction to the MCATSIA working group, each nominating state/territory is responsible for providing nominations following widespread consultations. Communities have been nominated on the basis of a number of key criteria: a high level of need; community acceptance and identification of family violence as a major problem; community willingness to work cooperatively with government agencies to address the problem; and the existence of basic infrastructure or coordinating mechanisms to begin implementation. All such nominations have been accepted in principle, however it has been agreed that a staggered approach will be taken, with some trial projects being undertaken immediately and others to be undertaken later.Question Five The MCATSIA Working Group on indigenous family violence has met twice (26 November 1999 and 7 April 2000). At the April meeting, representatives nominated a number of communities around Australia where a whole-of government community-driven approach could be trialed and discussed a suggested methodology for the trials. Trials are to proceed at this stage in the following communities/regions: the Australian Capital Territory, Point Pearce (SA), Walgett, Moree, Bega and Narromine (NSW), Meekatharra (WA), Western Islands in the Torres Strait, and Lajamanu, (NT). Queensland and Tasmania are expected to advise on possible trial communities shortly, while Victoria has indicated its intention to put forward a nomination after further consultations. Discussions with some of the nominating jurisdictions have indicated that projects are progressing well with the creation of steering committees and further consultations to raise community awareness. The third meeting of the working group is planned for October/November 2000.18042(Question No. 2602)260218042Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 25 July 2000: (1) What was the Department's total outlay on salaries and salary-related costs in the financial years: (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) 1999-2000? (2) As a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost of contracts for outsourced services and functions in the financial years: (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) 1999-2000?18042Hill, Sen RobertSenator HillBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:I am advised by my department as follows: (1) (a) $25,002,272(2) (a) $125,573(0.5%)(b) $21,774,436(b) $64,722(0.3%)(c) $26,445,511(c) $457,022(1.7%)(d) $27,081,824(d) $2,112,8791(7.8%) (1) The cost of contracts in 1999-2000 includes IT outsourcing. A significant proportion of IT oursourcing relates to the rental of equipment and other non-salary service charges.18042(Question No. 2619)261918042Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 25 July 2000: (1) What was the Department's total outlay on salaries and salary related costs in the financial years (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) 1999-00. (2) As a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Department's total outlay on salaries, what was the cost of contracts for outsourced services and functions in the financial years (a) 1996-97; (b) 1997-98; (c) 1998-99; and (d) 1999-00.18042Newman, 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: (1) The Department's total outlay on salaries and salary related costs in each financial year was: YearSalaries $(000)1996-97151 6511997-98130 8621998-99127 9011999-00133 248 (2) The cost of contracts for outsourced services and functions as a dollar amount and as a percentage of the Department's total outlay on salaries in each financial year is set out in the table below. These figures are represented by contracts entered into by Information Management Unit for information technology, Strategic Support Branch for audit services and Health Services Division for payments made through the Health Insurance Commission. Contracts for Outsourced FunctionsYearITAuditHealthTotalSalaries%$ (000)$ (000) $ (000)$ (000)$ (000) 1996-976 2453863 81510 446151 6516.91997-9821 3513547 27528 980130 86222.11998-9926 2313566 81033 397127 90126.11999-0032 1091 01514 33447 458133 24835.618043(Question No. 2683)268318043Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 August 2000: (1) Has the department and/or any agency in the portfolio, set a timeframe to market test any of its corporate services; if so, which agency, which functions, and what is the timeframe. (2) In relation to each agency which has, or will, move to market test corporate services, what arrangements have been made to consult with effected employees and their representatives; if such arrangements have not been made, when will these consultations be undertaken.18043Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has already outsourced a number of corporate services, including audit, litigation solicitor services, forms, travel, stores, property facilities management, security and banking services. The Department was the lead agency in the first Commonwealth IT outsourcing (Cluster 3) initiative. To test the market, the remainder of the Department's corporate service functions has been categorised into “market groups”. Requests for Tenders (RFTs) for a number of these market groups are currently being prepared. The groups, in the provisional order they are to be market tested, are: . Accounting Services (RFT to be released early October 2000); . Office services (RFT to be released early October 2000); . Personnel Services (RFT to be released January/February 2001); . Property (RFT to be released June 2001); . Refreshment of external legal advice panel (timeframe to be determined). Planning for the market testing of the remainder of corporate services functions is underway. The Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal have not commenced market testing of corporate services, due to their pending amalgamation with other Commonwealth merits review tribunals into the Administrative Review Tribunal on 01 February 2001. (2) Detailed briefings have been held with all corporate services staff in the Department's Central Office and visits to the State and Territory offices have been made. Consultations will continue during the process to ensure staff have a first hand opportunity to express concerns and to contribute productively to the process. Other communications mechanisms are: . `All Staff' minutes, issued by the Deputy Secretary at regular intervals on current issues and progress; . A Bulletin Board, accessible by all Departmental staff, has been established, which contains key information on the competitive tendering and contracting (CTC) process. This ensures that the communication of relevant information pertaining to CTC is provided to staff on a regular and timely basis; and . National Staff Consultative Forum (NSCF) subcommittee: A CTC subcommittee has been formed under the NSCF to discuss issues resulting from the CTC process and how they impact on staff. The NSCF is the chief consultative body for all activities involving departmental employees and their conditions of employment in the Department. The sub-group comprises the Acting Assistant Secretary, CTC Review Taskforce, the Central Office NSCF staff representative, the Community Public Sector Union (CPSU) Industrial Officer and representatives from corporate services areas currently being market tested. . The CPSU has also been given a detailed initial briefing and further briefings will be provided as necessary. . Staff from affected areas are being closely involved in the specification of service levels and service standards.18044(Question No. 2702)270218044Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner5K4New South WalesALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 9 August 2000: (1) Has the department and/or any agency in the portfolio, set a timeframe to market test any of its functions other than corporate services; if so, which agency, which functions, what is the state and city or town location of staff currently undertaking that function, and what is the timeframe. (2) In relation to each agency which has or will move to market test these functions, what arrangements have been made to consult with effected employees and their representatives; if such arrangements have not been made, when will these consultations be undertaken.18044Vanstone, Sen AmandaSenator Vanstone7E4South AustraliaLPMinister for Justice and Customs10—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has a long-standing record of testing the market for services and delivering services through third parties, and has been managing the provision of services under contract from the private sector for many years. Analysis shows that 69% of all Portfolio resources were under contract, undergoing competitive tendering and contracting (CTC) or fundamental review in March 2000 (63% for departmental resources, and 93% for administered resources). The Department reviews contracts as they come up for renewal. The Department's major effort with regard to CTC priorities for 2000-01 is focussed on corporate services. As the identified non-corporate CTC priorities involve renewing current contracts, there is no anticipated impact on departmental staff. The Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal have not commenced market testing of non-corporate functions due to their pending amalgamation with other Commonwealth merits review tribunals into the Administrative Review Tribunal on 1 February 2001. (2) A communication strategy is developed for each market testing exercise as it is undertaken in the Department.