2000-12-043917SENATE2048502000-12-04—————The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Bills20485R1069BillsR1070BillsR107120485GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL 2000Consideration resumed from 1 December.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering opposition amendment No. 4 on sheet 2026, moved by Senator Forshaw. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.12:31:0020485Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—At the time of the adjournment on Friday, we had just commenced considering opposition amendment No. 4. This amendment deals with the establishment of GM-free zones. It relates to the right of a state to accept or reject certain GMO dealings licensed by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator on a marketing and/or an environmental basis. This is an issue that has been of some moment for a long time, particularly in relation to Tasmania. Tasmania, being an island state, has argued quite vigorously that it should have the right to declare some, if not the whole, of the state as a GM-free zone, particularly in relation to its reputation for providing world-class clean, green products. That is not to say that world-class clean, green products are not produced in other parts of Australia—they certainly are—but, given that Senator Calvert is sitting directly opposite me, I probably have to give a plug to Tasmania in this regard.As we are all aware, in recent times there have been some issues of significance with regard to the agriculture and fisheries industries in Tasmania. Those issues relate to the protection of their disease-free industries. That is another debate, one that we no doubt will have in due course when the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee undertakes its inquiry into the import risk assessment of New Zealand apples and pears. It is a different issue in that it is related to quarantine issues, but it is nevertheless integral to the state government ensuring that genetically modified organisms do not become a major problem for their industries in the future. The Tasmanian government and various industry groups have argued that Tasmania should be a GM-free zone.This amendment is the result of a lot of hard work by the Labor Party to try to bring about a position whereby the rights of Tasmania and other states to declare GM-zones within their state's boundaries are recognised in this legislation. This was not something that the government wanted to accept at the outset but, through the good work of the Labor Party, we have managed to reach a position whereby this amendment recognises areas designated under state law as GM-free zones for marketing purposes.We will come to amendment No. 16 in due course, but I will make mention of it now. Amendment No. 16 will allow a state, where it believes the regulator has not taken account of a state-specific environmental concern, to appeal such a decision to the Federal Court. We are therefore looking at promoting the rights of states to have GM-free zones in a marketing context—which is dealt with by the amendment currently before the chair—and also with respect to environmental issues, which we will come to when we get to amendment No. 16. With those remarks, I urge the Senate to support this amendment.12:37:0020485Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government is pleased to accept this amendment, which reflects the approach agreed by all states and territories and ensures that the ministerial council may issue policy principles recognising GM-free zones established under state legislation for marketing purposes. It is also important to note that the government has no problem with providing for GM-free zones under this legislation, where these are necessary to protect markets or for economic concerns. I note that the explanatory material issued in connection with the legislation some 12 months ago flagged that the legislation would deal with this, and it does. The ALP has moved an amendment which makes this explicit. The concentration on GM-free zones and the suggestion that there is some sort of problem is misleading in the extreme. 12:38:0020486Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I would like some explanation. We have just had the Labor Party turn down the right of local government to declare itself a GM-free zone. Labor blocked that, with the government. Now we have a Labor amendment which says:The Ministerial Council—That is the collective of states and the Commonwealth—may issue policy principles in relation to recognising areas, if any, designated under State law for the purpose of preserving the identity of one or both of the following:(i) GM crops;(ii) non-GM crops;for marketing purposes.What about for health purposes? What about for environmental purposes? And what is this `may'? One might read into this that there is a veto by the ministerial council over any state. Senator Forshaw has indicated that that is not the case. Then why have it? 656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—I said you might read that into it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Senator, you will get your opportunity to tell me whether I am right or wrong on this.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—We have been going seven minutes and you are verballing me again.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, exactly. The senator says that I am verballing him again. He is very bright this afternoon. What I am doing is asking the senator to explain why Labor has come up with such wish-wash on this matter. The amendment says that `the ministerial council may issue policy principles in relation to recognising areas, if any, designated under the state law.' Then we get to the interesting thing where we find that it is not just to meet the community concern about GM crops but also to meet the concerns, no doubt, of the Monsantos of the world that there can be areas designated under state law for their crops to be put in.The debate is about keeping areas GM free, but we have the Labor Party saying, `Maybe the debate should be about areas being specifically designated for GM crops.' That is a new one. Then there is a limitation at the end, where it says that the council can look at designating areas under state law for being GM or GM free for marketing purposes. The question I would like clarified is: why only for marketing purposes? And where is the corresponding Labor amendment to look at the other important concerns which people in the community have expressed and which are giving rise to such a big public debate?12:41:0020486Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—We are considering the Labor Party amendment, which the government is pleased to accept. With regard to the issues raised by Senator Brown, it is a matter of acknowledging that where a GM-free zone is required is very often because of market or economic concerns and issues. Senator Brown raised a couple of issues with regard to the matter of state responsibility, and I think I covered that the other day when we were pursuing the issue relating to local government. We said that these are certainly matters for involvement of the state government but certainly not for veto by local government. The issue of whether it is a health or an environmental concern would be first addressed by the regulator, who would not allow the release in the first instance. So the GM-free zones do become very much a matter of the market and economy, because of the level and the basis on which these things are considered. Health and environment are already covered by the regulator. If an environmental issue arises, the regulator will not approve it. This is certainly about marketability.12:42:0020486Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats, possibly like other members of the crossbenches, probably have little choice but to support this amendment. That is not to say that I do not endorse, on behalf of my party, the concerns outlined by Senator Brown. I acknowledge the point made by the parliamentary secretary that the regulator would have already made a judgment or an assessment in relation to health and environmental considerations. Whether or not the criteria by which those judgments are made are strong enough is another part of this debate. But certainly we believe that these zones, states, territories and—as we heard in the debate on Friday—local councils should have the right to take the regulator's judgment and then decide whether or not they are satisfied with the regulator's assessment of the health and environmental aspects. There may be areas that have determined that, regardless of the regulator's assessment, they do not want GM crops in their area, and that is the right we sought to give not only states and territories but also local government when we debated the relevant Greens amendment on Friday. Once again I remind the chamber of Senator Tambling's glowing defence, in fact promotion, of local government. I am paraphrasing Senator Ian Macdonald's view, Senator Tambling—through you, Madam Temporary Chair—that you recognised that local government was the closest form of government to the people and therefore the most democratic form of government. So I am sorry to hear your comments again today in terms of excluding local government from having a say.In relation to marketability, the Democrats are on record as recognising that places—particularly those with a unique geographical advantage, such as the island of Tasmania—should be given the right to opt out. Yes, it does give them a niche in a market sense, not to mention the health and environmental advantages. We are on record in our committee report as acknowledging that an opt-out provision is the `most appropriate mechanism to ensure domestic and export market diversity while effectively containing the impact of gene technologies on the environment'. So at all times we were arguing for consumer choice, for market differentiation—for a niche, if you like—in the market. We know from surveys conducted that something like 70 per cent of Japanese customers polled, for example, said that they would happily import and buy GE or GM-free goods from a country like Australia. So there is no denying that there is a market advantage there. But we certainly couched our arguments in favour of an opt-out provision in the context of environmental and health safety. I have to agree with you, Senator Brown: it is extraordinary that the amendment that finally will get up is one that relates to marketing purposes specifically. I put on record our disappointment on behalf of the Democrats that this is not a stronger amendment, but I advise that we will be supporting it as at least an option in relation to this issue.12:46:0020487Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00— I would like to respond to a couple of points. Firstly, once again we have this issue of local government raised and, once again, it is said by various senators from both the Greens and the Democrats that we are about excluding local government. That is simply not true. As I said the other day, a proposition to have local government declare GM-free zones raises substantial constitutional issues, because it is the states that regulate local government. The fact of the matter is that if, you attempt to do that, (1) it is most likely beyond power and, (2) it will cause the states to walk away from the agreement for complementary legislation to regulate gene technology on the basis of having a national scheme. It is simply not possible to do it under the current arrangements. Local government will clearly have a say by working with their state governments to focus upon those areas where they would wish to have a GM-free zone within their local government area or covering their local government area. That is not outlawed by this legislation. Our amendment recognises that a state can declare a region or an area a GM-free zone, and that could include a local government area. But the fact of the matter is that this parliament cannot do what you want it to do with respect to local government having an automatic right on their own to do it. As I said, this is an agreement between the states and the Commonwealth, and it is the states that have the power to regulate local government.It is also the states that have the power to regulate agriculture, for instance. Anybody who understands anything about the way in which agriculture works in this country would know that you have areas of a state—for instance, in my home state of New South Wales—which are not necessarily relevant to a single local government area. For instance, they could be under pasture protection control boards which operate across a range of local government areas. But we cannot give a pasture protection control board—which is probably a more relevant benchmark to look at than even local government—authority to declare an area a GM-free zone under their jurisdiction within the state power because it particularly focuses on agriculture; it is ultimately regulated through the states, through the various departments of agriculture or parks and wildlife. With respect to the second issue about environmental considerations, I said at the outset that we would be moving a further amendment, No. 16, which will provide a mechanism for bringing about GM-free zones on the basis of environmental considerations. 12:50:0020488Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I spent some time in the period between when we were last discussing this issue and this morning to try to find the link between the government's acceptance of Labor's amendment and the amendments that the government and the opposition voted down last Friday. I believe it pertains to two areas: one is the area in the bill in which Labor's proposed amendment will actually sit. It will sit in a section of the bill that gives the ministerial council the ability to issue policy principles. The Labor amendment states:recognising areas, if any, designated under State law for the purpose of preserving the identity of one or both of the following:(i) GM crops;(ii) non-GM cropsBy being situated in this section of the bill it will require the ministerial council to actually effect it. So if they do not go ahead and effect it, there is no problem with putting Labor's amendment in there. Conversely, the One Nation amendment proposed last week would sit within section 72 of the bill, which requires the regulator to notify specific people in relation to the issue—the proposed suspension, cancellation or variation of a dealing; in other words, a licence. That covers the different approaches that were being made by the two amendments. Labor's amendment will require the ministerial council to effect it; whereas, in actuality, One Nation's amendment would require the Gene Technology Regulator to notify not only the local councils but also the state.There is another concern I have with this amendment, and I put this forward for the benefit of other senators in this chamber. I believe that this amendment, because of the way it is drafted, could actually work in the reverse—that is, it could be used as an advantage in protecting a GM area to the detriment of anyone in the surrounding areas. I believe there is a need for some scrutiny before we vote on this particular amendment. The amendment says that it recognises areas, if any, of a GM crop. If this amendment is passed—and it would appear that it is going to be because the government has indicated support for it—it will work to protect a GM area. I believe that that could be to the detriment of properties surrounding a property on which a genetically modified crop is grown. Where are the rights of those property owners who adjoin or are adjacent to a property on which a dealing is being carried out? Where are their rights if they wish to remain genetically modified free, particularly if they have similar crops? We have only to go back to the StarLink incident and the problems it has raised in the United States to be aware of the ramifications of a person claiming they have a GM-free product that can be contaminated by the cross flow of pollination of a genetically modified crop within that same area. That is the issue that really concerns me in relation to Labor's amendment. If this amendment is passed, it will, as much as anything, guarantee that a GM crop can go ahead irrespective of the objections of anyone in the immediate area—let alone any health or environmental issues—and that GM crop could take precedence over the rights of anyone in that area objecting to it. I have enormous concerns about the way the amendment is framed. I take nothing from the opposition's position of allowing for areas to remain non-GM free. I support that 100 per cent. But I most certainly have some concerns as to the wording of the amendment. 12:56:0020489Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Senator Harris has actually raised a related point—that is, that I am curious about the workability of this amendment. I put on record that I support the amendment, but I am curious about ensuring the protection of non-GM crops. I am wondering if we can gain some assurances from the government in the situation where you have both a GM site and a non-GM site and you have open trucks with GM crops and product coming past. As I say, I am all in favour of opt-out provisions and GE-free zones, but I just want to make sure that people who are into non-GM crops, food and trade will be given assurances that their non-GM foodstuffs or crops are going to be protected, especially where they may be next to a GM field and you have, for example, open trucks and possible contamination. I thank Senator Harris for putting StarLink on the record. Even though we got chastised last week for speaking about it, I think it is particularly relevant—certainly the Americans thought it was anyway.12:57:0020489Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I appreciate some of the issues raised by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Harris, but I would ask them to come back to the fundamentals of the legislation and the fundamental role of the regulator. If Senator Harris still has any confusion about the actual functions and role of the regulator, I would be happy to make staff available to him to take him through the many other aspects of the legislation where he will find that the issues that he raised will quite rightly and properly be the functions and role of the regulator. The use of policy principles to achieve an opt-out is the preferred option for all states and territories. This is a very important issue when we are looking at this particular amendment as proposed by the Labor Party. With regard to the issues raised by Senator Stott Despoja, I advise that the states are not seeking the rights that she initially referenced. The states have confidence in the provisions of this bill and will also support the additional capacity to deal with marketability which will be provided through this amendment. In relation to Tasmania, which was mentioned earlier, the Tasmanian government supports the bill and this amendment as meeting that state's needs. So, in the interests of timing on this bill, on which I am keen to make progress today, I would ask that we give good consideration to the Labor Party amendment.12:59:0020489Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—First of all, I am aware of the things that Senator Tambling just mentioned in response to me. I am aware of the position of the states. I am aware of the position of Tasmania. I am aware of what has been negotiated in recent months. That is why I am not moving the amendments that we originally talked about as Democrats—that is, to ensure an opt-out provision—although, of course, the crossbenches have actually moved amendments along those lines which I support. So I understand all of that. I did not ask the parliamentary secretary for the patronising response he gave to Senator Harris's question; I asked about the workability of the amendment. I know what the regulator does. I have read the legislation. I understand the opt-out provisions and what has been negotiated. I want to know about the workability of the amendment that is before the chair and that was moved by the Labor Party and agreed to by the government.13:00:0020489Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—While the government representative gets time to answer Senator Stott Despoja's telling point there, I ask the mover of the amendment why it is limited to marketing and what the Labor Party has in mind for GM zones marketing. There is a specific provision here that GM zones should be marketed. So I ask what the Labor Party has in mind there. I remind the Labor Party that it turned down the amendments put forward earlier by the Greens and One Nation which would have given local government the facility to make its own mind up or at least not be excluded from that facility. The Labor Party did not support that. While Senator Tambling is being informed by his advisers, I draw his attention again to a document I brought before the Senate last week headed `Why GM foods are a key to successful organic farming and sustainable agriculture'. This attack on organic farming coming out of the University of Queensland's Botany Department was apparently endorsed by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority and the Office of Gene Technology. I asked the government to find out whether or not those two government authorities had, in effect, endorsed this amazing document from the University of Queensland. I will be pressing that as the day goes on, and I would be happy to have an answer from the government now that it has had the weekend to find out. 13:02:0020490Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—In relation to the issue of workability raised by Senator Stott Despoja, while the states, the territories and the Commonwealth are confident of the sense of this amendment, all jurisdictions recognise there is work to do in implementing it. I am very confident that the collaborative approach that has resulted in this legislation and that seeks across the board support for the amendment will result in a very workable system. I appreciate there is still detail to be worked out, and I would be happy to keep the Australian Democrats across the issue and informed as this particular process develops. Senator Brown has previously referred to the issue that he also just raised with regard to a document that includes an article on GM and organic farming. On Friday afternoon he asked me to clarify that particular matter. The document also contains the ANZFA logo and ANZFA information sheets on the back page. I can confirm that, with regard to the article and the document generally, the Australia New Zealand Food Authority has absolutely no affiliation or connection now or in the past with the articles on GM food printed in that document. The information and opinions with respect to organic farming contained in the document are those of the authors. No contact with ANZFA has ever been made by the author or the institution involved with regard to the document or the article. While it is true that the ANZFA logo appears on the document, no permission was ever given by ANZFA to use the logo. ANZFA is currently taking steps to rectify the situation. Approaches are being made to demand an explanation from those responsible for the publication of the document as to why there has been unauthorised use of the ANZFA logo. ANZFA will be insisting on immediate cessation of this practice and the immediate removal of the logo or any unauthorised reference to ANZFA in relation to this publication.13:04:0020490Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Does that apply to the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee, whose logo appears to be placed right next to that of ANZFA? Does the action that the government is contemplating include legal action?13:04:0020490Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I will certainly refer that to GMAC. I would presume under the circumstances in which the ANZFA advice has been given to me—I have not checked specifically with respect to GMAC—that the same comments would apply.13:05:0020490Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I asked the Labor Party what sort of advantage it saw in this clause allowing for genetically modified crops or areas where genetically modified crops are being planted to be marketed. What is the marketing edge that the Labor Party sees and that it wants to push through with this amendment?13:05:0020490Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—As I said in my opening remarks in support of the amendment, it was the Tasmanian government in particular which raised the issue of the need to protect its clean green image. The amendment we have moved was what ultimately was negotiated and agreed to by the states.13:06:0020490Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—No, it is not. I will not go on with this because I do not think Senator Forshaw can answer it. We are talking about his Labor colleagues in Tasmania, who probably do not understand what this clause means anyway. This clause is about recognising areas designated under state law for GM crops for marketing purposes. 656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—It covers both GM crops and non-GM crops.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, I can understand and everybody in here can understand why you would want to advertise yourself as GE free. I am asking what tortured logic and thinking is behind a Labor amendment which says that, on the other hand, people might want to advertise themselves as being `GE contaminated'—as being in places where GE crops are being grown. Can the Labor Party talk about anywhere in the world that has seen this as a marketing advantage?13:07:0020491Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I wish to comment briefly on Senator Tambling's response to me and place on record that I do appreciate the briefings from his department—they have been helpful—but what is important is not the briefings that the minister can provide me with after the bill is passed but the actual structure of the bill. No matter how many briefings I receive from Senator Tambling's office after the bill is passed, it is not going to have any effect on the bill. This opposition amendment is going to have an effect on the bill. It will have an effect on the bill in a way that is quite curious, because the amendment proposes to protect the rights of two totally opposite positions. This is the point that I am trying to make in the chamber. How can the amendment preserve the right—and I put it in the positive tense—of somebody who wants to market himself as a producer of GM crops and, at the same time, protect the rights of someone in the same area who wants to stay GM free? I do not believe that this amendment can be workable.I ask a question of Senator Tambling relating to the workability of the bill in GM-free areas. In certain areas around Emerald where large cotton crops are grown, one has only to drive through the region to know when the cotton crop is being taken off. It is evident because both cotton by-product and cotton seed are strewn along the side of the road. I will be very interested in Senator Tambling's answer as to how the government is going to ensure that, if an area is established as GM free, the integrity of that GM-free status will not be voided by somebody transporting GM crops through it and spilling them on the side of the roadway. These are the issues where, as I believe Senator Tambling himself has said, there are lots of things to work out. I think we had better start working a few things out. As I said earlier regarding the advice and the offer of advice from his department, that will not help the people in a GM-free area who find a GM crop transported through it and have spillage of that crop in the area. Rather than pushing the bill through in such haste, we should be having a very detailed discussion on not only the bill but also the regulations. We should be looking at how the government intends, eventually, to be able to protect, as this amendment states, the rights of the area that wishes to market itself as producing GM crops as against the rights of the people who wish to stay non-GM, which is contained in the same amendment.Amendment agreed to.13:12:0020491Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Greens amendments (23), (24) and (25):(23) Clause 21, page 16 (lines 25 to 29), omit subclause (1) (but not the notes), substitute: (1) The Ministerial Council may issue policy principles in relation to any issue concerning the development, use or release of GMOs or GM products.(24) Clause 22, page 17 (line 26), at the end of subclause (1), add: ; (h) any other person that the Ministerial Council considers appropriate.(25) Clause 22, page 17 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Before issuing a policy principle, the Ministerial Council must publish a notice: (a) in the Gazette; and (b) in a newspaper circulating generally in each State; and (c) on the Regulator's Internet website;containing details of the proposed policy principle and inviting submissions from the public. (4) A notice published under subsection (3) must include an address where submissions may be lodged and specify the closing date for submissions, which must not be earlier than 30 days after the date on which the notice was published. (5) In finalising a policy principle, the Ministerial Council must consider all submissions received on or before the date contained in a notice under subsection (3).Clause 21 states that the ministerial council may issue policy principles. This is the council made up of state and territory ministers, along with the federal minister. The clause states:The Ministerial Council may issue policy principles in relation to the following:(a) ethical issues relating to dealings with GMOs;(b) matters relating to dealings with GMOs prescribed by the regulations ...Why limit it to that? The Greens amendment would swap that wording for:The Ministerial Council may issue policy principles in relation to any issue concerning the development, use or release of GMOs or GM products.Clause 22 would allow for policy principles to be developed in consultation with anyone, and there is a list of people to whom the council may go to get assistance and advice. It seems sensible—and I think the government might see the sense in this—that it should include any other person that the ministerial council considers appropriate. It may be an expert in the field who is not on the ethics committee or is not the regulator, et cetera, that the ministerial council wants to use for advice. That is a sensible and practical amendment.Finally, the Greens are saying that, before issuing these policy principles that it has deliberated on, the ministerial council has to let the public in on this by both advertising what the policy principles proposed are and giving time for public feedback. That is very important. It means that the Australian public can be involved in the development of policy by this council as it goes along. It is a simple democratic move and I am sure the government and the Labor Party will support these amendments.13:14:0020492Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—These are fairly straightforward and sensible amendments in relation to the policy principles. As I have said a number of times, the Democrats believe that the only way that we will instil public faith in this new technology is to ensure that there is a level of public awareness and, more importantly, community education and empowerment. That is what these amendments seek to do—not only going through usual means but including the Internet web site as a means by which people can have input into the policy principle formulation process. I think the idea of feedback and community input in the form of submissions is highly commendable. The Democrats will be supporting the amendments. 13:15:0020492Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government will not be agreeing to these amendments. These amendments propose to set out in even more detail the processes that the ministerial council must undertake before issuing a policy principle. The bill already provides that extensive consultation must be undertaken before a policy principle is issued by the ministerial council. It is entirely unnecessary for more detailed provisions to be included about how such consultation should be undertaken. This is, apparently, a matter for ministerial council to determine. However, Senator Brown can be assured that, consistent with the extensive consultation reflected throughout the bill, the ministers will advertise widely and call for comment from the public upon policy principles. 13:16:0020492Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I rise in support of the Greens amendments and relay to the chamber that the difficulty that I have with the bill as it stands printed is that it allows the ministerial council total consideration over all of the people involved, particularly in regard to the industry and the environment. The other group that is totally missing in section 22 of the bill is the consumers. The bill itself says that the policy principles will be developed in consultation with the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee, the regulator, the consultative group, the ethics committee, such Commonwealth and state agencies and such regulatory services as the ministerial council considers appropriate, such industry groups as the ministerial council considers appropriate, and such environmental consumer and other groups as the ministerial council considers appropriate. So if the ministerial council does not consider it appropriate to consult with you on policy principles, then you have no way of addressing the issues that you would like addressed. I believe that Senator Brown's amendment goes part of the way to ensuring that people are aware of the policy principle that is being developed, but it still concerns me that it is at the total discretion of the ministerial council as to whether any of the environmental, consumer or other groups are consulted. 13:18:0020493Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—The opposition will not be supporting the amendments. I have heard the comments of the parliamentary secretary, and we agree with them. But we make a further point—which is that the policy principles have to ultimately relate back to the objects of the act. They relate to the regulation of GMOs under this act. Therefore, the proposals put forward by Senator Brown go well beyond the ambit of the legislation in that regard in going to other areas regulated elsewhere. We believe there is scope for very extensive consultation through the regulatory scheme that is included in the legislation.Amendments not agreed to.13:19:0020493Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Greens amendments (26), (27) and (28): (26) Clause 24, page 18 (line 23), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; (g) any other person that the Ministerial Council considers appropriate. (27) Clause 24, page 18 (line 23), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; and in accordance with subsections (2A) and (2C). (28) Clause 24, page 18 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) Before finalising a code of practice for submission to the Ministerial Council, the Regulator must publish a notice: (a) in the Gazette; and (b) in a newspaper circulating generally in each State; and (c) on the Regulator's Internet website;containing details of the proposed code of practice and inviting submissions from the public. (2B) A noticed published under subsection (2A) must include an address where submissions may be lodged and specify the closing date for submissions, which must not be earlier than 30 days after the date on which the notice was published. (2C) In finalising a code of practice for submission to the Ministerial Council, the Regulator must consider all submissions received on or before the date contained in a notice under subsection (2B).These amendments apply the same improved rules of public consultation and transparency to the codes of practice as the previous amendments would have to the policy principles. I commend them to the house. 13:20:0020493Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Again, the government will be opposing the Greens amendments on this occasion. These amendments are entirely unnecessary. They simply describe in more detail how the ministerial council must undertake consultation on codes of practice. This level of prescription and detail in the bill is unnecessary. The legislation already requires that the ministerial council undertake consultation with all of the committees under the legislation, Commonwealth and state agencies, industry groups and environmental, consumer and other groups. Furthermore, the codes of practice are then subject to parliamentary scrutiny as disallowable instruments. So once again, these amendments are unnecessary and the government opposes them. 13:21:0020493Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Again, the Democrats will be supporting these amendments for the same reasons I outlined earlier in relation to the policy principles. I take on board the minister's claim that they are unnecessarily prescriptive. I do not agree with that, certainly in regard to the first two amendments. Senator Harris mentioned in regard to the last set of amendments the phrase `any other person that the ministerial council considers appropriate'. I do not think that is particularly binding or prescriptive. Amendment (28) essentially allows for, again, the publication of a notice and the opportunity for the public to have input through a submission process basically containing details of the proposed code of practice and inviting submissions from the public. I still do not understand why this is unnecessarily prescriptive or why this is going to interfere with the process that has been agreed to with the states or the territories or the Commonwealth or what have you. In response to the last set of amendments, Senator Forshaw was talking about how the policy principles would have to be formulated in accordance with the objects of the act. I put on record again the fact that— 8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator Harris—We haven't debated them.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Yes, we have still not debated the objects of the act. I understand that there were good reasons on Thursday and Friday. I am just wondering whether perhaps at some stage procedurally we will want to get back to those issues, because, as I mentioned a number of times in the debate on Friday, I think any discussion about amendments or the rest of the clauses in the bill should be within the context of what the objects of the bill are. That aside, I do not see that claiming that there is a prescription there that is too harsh is really an argument. I think it is a bit of a furphy and once again an attempt to ensure that there is minimal public involvement—not simply consultation but public involvement. I do not see the harm in it; it might actually see quite a few more Australians having some faith in the regulatory system, the regulator and the rules that we come up with.13:23:0020494Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I rise to speak in support of the Greens amendments and I would just like to comment on Senator Tambling's comment about unnecessary detail. I believe any detail we can put in this legislation that will clarify the process definitely cannot be just brushed aside as unnecessary detail. I believe this bill, as well as setting out the duties of the Gene Technology Regulator, also has another very important function—that is, to facilitate making the public aware of what is happening in relation to genetically modified food. The amendments that the Greens have put forward would actually bring that process very, very clearly into the legislation.We have an obligation when drafting legislation to see that it has the clarity and also the detail that give everybody an understanding—not only the regulator and the industry, but also the general public—as to how they can have an input into the process. I believe the public having that input into it will also lift the level of public knowledge of the issues, because the more this process is discussed at the local area level, the more we lift the awareness of the public and the right of the public to actually have an input into and a say on what they are consuming. So, for clarity, I believe the details are necessary.Senator Tambling also said that the ministerial council has to be in touch with and confer with all of the committees. But we find, as I mentioned earlier in relation to the policy principles, that the bill is drafted with the prhase `as the ministerial council considers appropriate', so there is no guarantee that these people will be consulted. Senator Tambling also raised the issue of disallowable instruments. The difficulty this place has is that there is no opportunity to have any input into regulations: you have the option of accepting them or moving a disallowance motion. In actuality the desirable situation would be to have the clarity in the bill, have the debate on the issues and put all the issues on the table so that, when the regulations came through, there would be far fewer regulations that would have disallowance motions moved against them. So, rather than the detail being unnecessary, I believe the detail is critical in relation to the bill. I support the amendments.Amendments not agreed to.13:27:0020495Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—by leave—I move amendments (11) and (12) on sheet 2030: (11) Clause 23, page 18 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Before issuing a policy guideline, the Ministerial Council must be satisfied that the policy guideline was developed in accordance with section 23A.(12) Page 18 (after line 6), after clause 23), insert:23A Consultation on policy guidelines (1) The guidelines are to be developed in consultation with the following: (a) the Gene Technology Advisory Committee; (b) the Regulator; (c) the Consultative Group; (d) the Ethics Committee. (2) Consultation under subsection (1) must be in accordance with guidelines (if any) issued by the Ministerial Council for the purposes of this section.The purpose of amendment (11) is to place into the bill on page 18 a linkage for a new section 23A. This is in relation to the ministerial council issuing policy guidelines. The clause that One Nation is putting forward in amendment (12) is in relation to consultation on policy guidelines: (1) The guidelines are to be developed in consultation with the following: (a) the Gene Technology Advisory Committee; (b) the Regulator—Madam Temporary Chair, I seek guidance from you. This amendment refers to `the Consultative Group' and a previous amendment that has been passed and accepted has changed that to `Committee'. Do I need to seek leave to amend that amendment?10000Knowles, Sue (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Yes, you do, Senator Harris.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—I seek leave to amend amendment (12) to delete the reference to `Group' under (1)(c) and replace it with `Committee'.Leave granted.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—This goes to the issue that I have been raising all the way through—particularly in regard to Senator Brown's amendments, which have just been voted down—which is that we must have clarity and that the guidelines must be developed through consultation. These amendments remove the ability of the ministerial council to not consult. Subsection (2) in amendment 12 reads:Consultation under subsection (1) must be in accordance with guidelines (if any) issued by the Ministerial Council for the purposes of this section.This is to clarify the situation to the effect that the ministerial council is required to develop policy guidelines in consultation. It does not say that the ministerial council is bound by any suggestions of those committees. It leaves the ability of the ministerial council to determine what the outcomes will be, but it most certainly and very clearly binds the ministerial council to consult with those groups.13:31:0020495Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats will be supporting these amendments, which seek to emulate the same consultation processes that exist for the policy principles. If, for some reason, the government will not be supporting these amendments, I would be happy to hear it elaborate on why.13:31:0020495Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government does not support the amendments moved by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The point of the guidelines is for the ministerial council to discuss various things and, like the AHMC or other ministerial councils, to issue guidance to the Gene Technology Regulator. The guidelines could therefore be as brief as a couple of lines. The ministerial council could issue guidelines either following the six-monthly meetings or out of session. In the initial stages of the establishment of the regulatory system, we expect a reasonably high number of guidelines to be issued. These would be publicly available but, because of their nature, would not be the subject of consultation. The guidelines would be in the nature of communiques that come out of the health ministerial council. The government believes that consultation with committees and interested parties on policy guidelines is important. It would not, however, be practical to have a mandatory and detailed consultation process written into the bill. This is because ministers must be able to react quickly and provide guidelines to the regulator. ALP senators and other senators can be assured that all policy guidelines issued by the ministerial council will be publicly released. Given this, the government believes it is inappropriate to require consultation before the ministerial council issues guidelines—as opposed to policy principles, which will be subject to extensive consultation as already provided for under the bill. The government opposes these amendments. 13:33:0020496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Generally speaking, for the reasons that the government opposes the amendments, I support them.Amendments not agreed to.13:33:0020496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (5), (7) and (8):(1) Clause 31, page 22 (line 12), omit paragraph (c).(2) Clause 32, page 23 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph (d).(3) Clause 32, page 23 (line 25) to page 24 (line 2), omit subsections (3) and (4).(4) Clause 33, page 24 (line 10), omit paragraph (d).(5) Clause 33, page 24 (lines 21 and 22), omit subclause (4).(7) Clause 142, page 88 (line 27), omit "or 141".(8) Clause 143, page 89 (lines 28 to 32), omit subclause (3).I indicate that clause 141 will be opposed in the following terms:(6) Clause 141, page 88 (lines 16 to 23), TO BE OPPOSED.I ask the government: what is an exempt dealing?13:34:0020496Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that an exempt dealing is something that is exempt from the provisions of the act. 13:34:0020496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—He has been reading Alice in Wonderland again! I am not going to accept that. In answer to an important question like this—because exempt dealings are at the heart of public concern in this matter—I expect a definition and some examples from the government. It appears that an exempt dealing is any matter relating to genetically modified organisms that the regulator wants to call exempt—in other words, that are exempt from the provisions of the legislation. That is pretty important stuff, and I expect the minister to give a pretty detailed account of exactly what is meant by the government—which drew up the legislation—by `exempt dealing'. If you look at the definitions at the front of the bill, there is no definition of `exempt dealing'—let us have one.13:35:0020496Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the issue raised by Senator Brown has been comprehensively addressed since last August. The draft regulations have been widely distributed and available. In fact, the government made it very much a part of the consultation process that those regulations were distributed well in advance of any debate on this legislation. Those issues have been addressed fully in the regulations. I refer to pages 22 and 23 of the draft document `Gene Technology Regulations 2000', issued in August 2000. I do not think Senator Brown would want me to read it, but there is a description of dealings and there are five major subsections that deal with that area.13:36:0020496Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I would like the minister to explain what he means by `exempt dealings' and why there is no definition in the bill.13:37:0020496Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Let me give Senator Brown a concise definition that has been available to him since August of last year under the explanatory guide to the regulations. At page 39 of that document it reads: The exemptions described in Part 1 of Schedule 1 have been based on the current exemptions described in the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee guidelines for small-scale genetic manipulation work. The GMAC exemptions have been developed over the past 25 years based on the experience of assessing applications in Australia. The exemptions apply to a very limited number of dealings with GMOs that have been assessed over time as presenting no significant biosafety risks to public health and safety, including occupational health and safety or the environment, and are undertaken within contained facilities, that is, they do not involve intentional release of a GMO into the environment.And, as I said, at pages 22 and 23 of the draft regulations the full descriptions are set out in over a page and a half.ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator Crowley—What page were you reading from, Senator?6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING—The draft Gene Technology Regulations of August 2000 is the document that has been distributed since August of last year, and the explanatory guide to the draft Gene Technology Regulations was issued at the same time. It is in those two documents.13:39:0020497Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I ask Senator Tambling whether he could give us an example of a GMO exempt dealing.13:39:0020497Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I have been advised to inform the senator of item 3 specifically from the regulations, which reads `any dealing involving the introduction of genetically modified somatic cells into an animal, unless the cells are capable of giving rise to infectious agents'.13:39:0020497Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Could the minister give an example of where that sort of dealing is occurring in Australia which would be exempt?13:40:0020497Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised it is low-risk laboratory work done in contained situations.13:40:0020497Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Let us get out of the circle of non-specificity here. Could I please have an example put to the committee of an exempt dealing that is occurring in Australia or has occurred? A specific piece of experimentation will do—any one of these pieces of experimentation that is occurring in a laboratory that is safe and is not intended to be released. I think this is pretty important and I think Senator Tambling ought to be able to give a very clear example of what an exempt dealing is. Apparently there are exempt dealings occurring in Australia and they are going to continue to occur, so if he could just give us the details of one of them—where it is occurring, who is doing it and what the experimentation is aimed to achieve—that would help the committee.13:41:0020497Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—As Senator Brown would know, all this documentation was made comprehensively available to the Senate committee that undertook the work in this area. Furthermore, we have actively invited people to tell us which activities should be removed from the current exempt list, and we will continue to consult on the exempt list over the coming months. If there are scientific reasons for taking something off the exempt list, that will be accommodated.13:41:0020497Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—He cannot. I am not going to delay the committee, but we have got this extraordinary situation where the government cannot give an example of what is going on. If you want to explain a very important part of legislation, you give an example of how that legislation would be used. What the government representative has said is that there are exempt dealings that have been listed already, but he cannot give an example of one; he can only use general terms. He cannot say whether it is happening at the University of Tasmania, at the TAFE college in Darwin or in somebody's laboratory somewhere. I would have expected that he could do that so that we could get a clear bead on what the government sees or what the authorities have previously seen as an exempt dealing. I think it is wholly unsatisfactory that the government cannot come up with a list of these and give some specific examples here and now. We should not be dealing with generalities. Genetic manipulation and scientific experimentation are major features of the day. They are occurring all around the world. We do not have to be dealing with concepts here; we are dealing with reality. We should be able to get an example or two of what is occurring now behind closed doors in laboratories in Australia, and waving the regulations about, proposed or otherwise, is not good enough. I ask the parliamentary secretary if he could please enlighten the committee. If he cannot, then he should say so, and we can move into a further debate about the Greens amendments, which will remove this provision for exempt dealings. There should be a very clear understanding, I believe, that this legislation should make all dealings subject to a decision rather than an exemption and should put conditions on those dealings. We are concerned that influence will be brought to bear on the regulator down the line by corporate interests, for example, to exempt a matter that they want to experiment with or to have trial plantings of. We need to know exactly what the government has in mind if there is not going to be a great deal of legitimate concern that this exemption clause will be used to get around the provisions of the bill which meet the concerns of the Australian public about genetic experimentation in the wider sense of the term.13:44:0020498Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I have asked the attendants to pass to Senator Brown some very detailed and scientific language from the draft documentation issued last August which has been available to the senator since that time. I refer him to what was listed on pages 23 and 24 relating to bacteria, fungi, slime moulds and tissue culture. I could read all of these particular issues out, but they are in themselves very scientific and specific. We have invited information from the wider community on these issues. If any of these issues need to be removed, the consultation process would be available to accommodate that. That has been the purpose of having this documentation distributed and widely available since last August. I hope that Senator Brown finds pages 23 and 24 of some help.13:45:0020498Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Senator Tambling made the comment that exempt dealings would be carried out in a confined environment. Could Senator Tambling clarify what level of containment would be used in those laboratories, whether schedule 1, 2 or 3, or could we see an exempt dealing being carried out in a schedule 4 laboratory? That would assist the committee in understanding the type of work that could be carried out as an exempt dealing.13:47:0020498Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I refer to the specific and very special questions which have been asked by Senator Harris. I would have hoped he would have taken the opportunity to ask previously if he had this complex detailed requirement. In respect to schedule 1, this is always in a secure working environment, whereas schedule 2 is in a physical containment 2 laboratory—it is a matter of definition.13:48:0020498Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I thank Senator Tambling and seek clarification that exempt dealings would be carried out not in an open environment but only within a confined area. I specifically refer to the situation in Mount Gambier which was brought to the committee's notice where, under that licence, there was a requirement to have confined environments but it was proven by photographs of that trial that those confined environments had been breached by being torn in some cases and totally blown away in others. Could Senator Tambling assure the committee that there would be no exempt dealings that would be carried out in the open environment and that exempt dealings would be carried out within a confined area only?13:49:0020498Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I can give Senator Harris the assurance he is seeking.13:49:0020499Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I want to take this first opportunity to explain a certain matter which arose on Friday. As we are talking about exemptions, I thought this might be an appropriate place to do this. Senator Brown has raised the issue of the problems in certain laboratories. We do not know what is happening. I also made mention of that on Friday and commented in relation to an experiment referring to: ... cloning which took place in Dr Trounson's unit in Melbourne whereby they transferred the nucleus of a human somatic cell into a denucleated pig's ovum.That experiment took place but not in Dr Trounson's laboratories. It is a matter which was included in a patent submitted by the Melbourne company Stem Cell Sciences Pty Ltd of which Dr Peter Scott Mountford is a director. I had the wrong doctor, obviously. I regret it if Dr Trounson has been offended by that, although I do not know whether or not he has. It was not my intention to mislead. The mistake was made because I connected comments made in the media at the time of the pig ovum story with comments that Dr Trounson made earlier in the inquiry into human cloning being conducted by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, in which Dr Trounson commented on 2 March this year:There are only two groups in the world that are working on human embryonic stem cells that we know of ... that is Wisconsin and ourselves.He said that if the work was being done in Australia on somatic cell transfer from a human to an animal ova:... it would be most likely done in our laboratories—that is, `our' meaning Dr Trounson's laboratories. You see, I jumped to a conclusion which, in the end, was not correct. However, the experiment was done and we did not know about it. The point I am making about this is that, when the story broke that a Melbourne company had done the procedure and was seeking patents on the process, the mistake was made of presuming that the laboratory was one of those belonging to Dr Trounson. I do apologise, but you can see the problem that I had. However, it has been done. There had been a patent sought for the process, and we would not have known about this experiment had it not been for the fact that the patent had been applied for. That is one of the reasons—not the major reason—for my amendments to the Gene Technology Bill 2000: to ensure that that type of experiment is not allowed to continue to be done should any other scientist wish to undertake that type of experiment.On the question of exclusion, I will be making some comments about that whole area when the committee deals with the amendments, but I wanted to use this occasion to express my regret to Dr Trounson and to indicate that it was a case of mistaken identity; albeit, I appeal to him, with some justification given his own words before the committee in March. Perhaps some mitigation of guilt is there!13:54:0020499Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I would just comment briefly on the issues raised by Senator Harradine in that area. I am pleased to note that he has acknowledged the points that he has just made with regard to this issue. Certainly, it is more appropriate that we deal with the substantive matters with regard to both Senator Harradine's amendment that we will hopefully deal with later in the day and any other proposed amendments that might arise in this area. I was also given a copy of Professor Trounson's letter to the President of the Senate dated 4 December, in which Professor Trounson says, referring to the Senate Hansard of Friday, 1 December:A brief note to follow up our conversation on Friday 1st December, 2000.Senator Harradine referred to "the cloning which took place in Dr. Trounson's unit in Melbourne whereby they transferred the nucleus of a human somatic cell into a denucleated pig's ovum".This is not true and no such work was ever done in any of my laboratories.Senator Harradine refers to a matter that is included in a patent submitted by the company, Stem Cell Sciences Pty Ltd. None of this work was ever done in my laboratory. There has never been any proposal to our Animal or Human Ethics Committees for any such research at the Institute of Reproduction and Development. It is signed by Professor Trounson, Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology/Paediatrics. I hoped Senator Harradine would have taken the opportunities in the last 12 months whilst this issue has been under major consideration, both by Senator Crowley's committee and in the other consultation processes, going on, as I said, over 12 months in the development of this particular legislation. I accept the point that Senator Harradine makes that it is more appropriate to return to this debate on both his amendment and those that may be made at a later hour in the debate on this particular issue.13:56:0020500Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I think that was quite ungenerous of the parliamentary secretary to suggest that I should have been at this committee or that committee. I think I am on, at the present moment, around 15 committees of this parliament.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—What do you do with your spare time?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—That includes participating membership. Senator Bolkus will know; we have seen each other in various areas, including on the refugee issues that came before L&C. Am I to understand from the parliamentary secretary that one cannot move an amendment to a piece of legislation in this chamber, and give notice of it as I have done in this regard, unless one has been to this committee or that committee? That is why the committees make reports, and that is why we can examine those reports and see whether it is appropriate or inappropriate to move amendments. My concern on this occasion is to make sure that this legislation does in fact prevent cloning of human embryos. I do not want to go into that, but the fact of the matter is that this bill has an elaborate structure to deal with genetically modified organisms of a plant and animal variety but not of a human variety. Anything goes in that particular area, unless you are receiving public funding.13:59:0020500Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I would like to ask the government to consider, in the time coming up, what restriction is put on the regulation saying the dealing does not involve an intentional release into the environment. What are the safeguards there?10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question is that clause 141 stand as printed. Those of that opinion, say aye—13:59:0020500Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Mr Temporary Chairman, my understanding is that we are going to defer some of the matters in this debate to a later time and that we are not ready to vote on the amendment before the chair. It might be better to resolve this when we return.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank you for clarifying your intent. Progress reported.Ministerial Arrangements2050014:00:0020500Hill, Robert (Leader of the Government in the Senate)Senator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPLeader of the Government in the Senate10—by leave—I inform the Senate that Senator Vanstone, Minister for Justice and Customs, Minister representing the Attorney-General and Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today. Senator Vanstone is opening the Pacific Region Transnational Crime Seminar in Brisbane. During Senator Vanstone's absence, Senator Ellison will take questions relating to the Justice and Customs portfolio, the Attorney-General's portfolio and the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio.Questions Without Notice205002050014:01:0020500Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—My question is to Senator Newman, representing the Minister for Defence. Does the minister agree that the report by Mr Tony Blunn into the death of Mr Merv Jenkins damns the techniques used by Defence Security and department of foreign affairs officers in their heavy-handed efforts to interview and intimidate Mr Jenkins? Can the minister also confirm that the report exonerates Mr Jenkins from the allegation that he improperly passed information to unauthorised persons?20501Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—The government have always tried to balance the concern we would all have for the Jenkins family and their wishes with the needs of national security. That is why we agreed to allow the release of an unclassified version of the report of the Inspector-General of Intelligence Security. Defence has also accepted the report's criticisms and will follow up the recommendations. A number of changes have already been made. This government have established the Defence Intelligence Board and appointed a new director to DIO. 20501Hogg, Sen JohnSenator HOGG7L6QueenslandALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that this exoneration of Mr Jenkins has been too long in coming, what urgent action will the Howard government now take to ensure that all of the recommendations of the report are implemented and to ensure full access to compensation for Mr Jenkins's family as a clear gesture that the Commonwealth government accepts some degree of responsibility for these tragic circumstances?20501Newman, Sen JocelynSenator NEWMANBE4TasmaniaLPMinster for Family and Community Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women10—As Senator Hogg would realise, there may be legal action stemming from the case. In that context, the minister is not prepared to comment on that. If there is anything that the minister can add to the answer I have given, I am sure he will do his best to help.2050114:03:0020501Chapman, Sen GrantSenator CHAPMANFF4South AustraliaLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Given the weekend's public display of support for reconciliation, will the minister outline how the government is supporting reconciliation through practical initiatives in health, housing, education and employment and by strengthening indigenous families? Will the minister also inform the Senate of any alternative policies?20501Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Chapman for the question and for his continued interest in reconciliation. He has been a strong advocate of that process. I would like to congratulate all those people who walked the talk yesterday in Melbourne and Perth. It was good to see Senator Ray there. Many people participated in both walks, and similar crowds have turned out for previous walks in other states. This is a demonstration of the enormous goodwill between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. Most people want better life outcomes for indigenous people, who remain the most disadvantaged group in our society. That is why the Howard government has committed to practical reconciliation, with initiatives to overcome disadvantage particularly in the areas of health, housing, education, employment and economic empowerment.Lasting reconciliation is something that cannot be achieved overnight. It is something that takes time and must come from the hearts and minds of individuals. Reconciliation will continue as a people's movement, and I congratulate the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation for the great contribution it has made over the past decade. The government's practical approach begins with the record $2.3 billion we are spending on initiatives this year. We are targeting this to achieve realistic and practical outcomes.I have spoken at length in the Senate of the government's outstanding $40 million indigenous community infrastructure Army initiative and the dramatic improvements being made in indigenous communities most in need. In indigenous health, for instance, the government has increased spending by 50 per cent since 1996. The Public Health Association of Australia last week applauded the government's Primary Health Care Access program as `a landmark public health achievement'. This program has many benefits, including improved access to health services in remote areas. Indigenous-specific housing programs now account for 20 per cent of the Commonwealth's total spending on public and community housing. In education, we have increased funding by $100 million, and our policies are starting to achieve rapid improvements—for example, a record number of 8,000 indigenous students undertook tertiary study last year.On the employment front, the government's $115 million indigenous employment policy placed 1,500 people in jobs in its first year. Another 2,500 were assisted through structured training and employment projects. The number of indigenous Australians commencing traineeships and apprenticeships has increased almost sixfold—from around 800 in 1994 to about 4,600 last year. We are also building stronger families by tackling welfare dependency and addressing social issues which lead to indigenous family violence. I thank Senator Newman for her initiative in that regard. When Labor were in government for 13 years they failed indigenous Australians. Everyone knows that. Indigenous leaders know it. Noel Pearson last week endorsed our approach, saying, `In many ways, the coalition are more understanding of our predicament.' He said, `The Labor Party had largely left welfare reform to be articulated by the coalition.' The comments followed a stinging attack on the Labor Party by indigenous leader Tracker Tilmouth and the decision by Maurie Ryan Japarte to establish his own Aboriginal party. Both are present members of the ALP. It is clear that Labor have not learned anything in opposition. We all know their disgraceful description of the portfolio.There is an overwhelming desire by the community to redress the wrongs of the past and to pursue equality in the future. The Howard government's practical reconciliation is something of which all Australians can be proud because we are making a real impact on overcoming disadvantage and improving the lives of indigenous Australians. I am quite confident that all those who marched in the various states and capital cities have an overwhelming desire to put those things of the past behind us, to overcome the disadvantage that is still there and to achieve equality in the future for all indigenous Australians. (Time expired)2050214:08:0020502West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—My question is to Senator Hill, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In relation to the report by Mr Tony Blunn into the death of Mr Merv Jenkins, the DIO liaison officer in Washington, what action is the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade taking to investigate Mr Blunn's finding that key evidence was missing, including letters, tapes and electronic copies of correspondence, from the Defence Intelligence Organisation?20502Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I would take that question on notice. 4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Oh, that's good.BH4Senator HILL—It is a very serious issue and should be treated seriously, Senator. I will take it on notice and, if there is any information I can provide at the end of question time, I will do so.20502West, Sen SueSenator WEST1X4New South WalesALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I am surprised that, considering this was in the media last Friday, the minister has not got an answer for at least some of this. I also ask: what action is the department taking or planning to take in response to the finding of the Blunn inquiry that the conduct of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the investigation into Mr Jenkins's handling of intelligence material was counterproductive and contributed to Mr Jenkins's suicide? 20502Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—As I said, on such a sensitive matter I would prefer to take it on notice and see what I can provide.2050214:09:0020502McGauran, Sen JulianSenator McGAURANWH4VictoriaNP10—My question is to the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald. Given that local government representatives from councils across Australia are meeting in Canberra this week, will the minister outline the government's initiatives to assist local councils to deliver their services, particularly to Australians living in regional and remote areas? 20502Macdonald, Sen IanSenator IAN MACDONALDYW4QueenslandLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I thank Senator McGauran for the question. Senator McGauran has experience in local government, as do many of my colleagues here, including Senator Calvert and Senator Heffernan. A lot of people here have an interest in local government. I am also delighted with the question, because this week local government from right across Australia are meeting in Canberra for their annual conference. I might say that when the Prime Minister opened the conference this morning he was very warmly received, as one would well expect with the good news that the Prime Minister was able to announce this time last week about the additional $1.6 billion investment into roads, including the $1.2 billion investment in local roads being delivered through local councils—people who understand and know what it is all about. Senator McGauran has asked me what programs we have worked on with local governments. Time will not allow me to go through them all, because there are so many: the $45 million local government fund under the Networking the Nation program; the money that has been spent on regional health services; the money spent for the fly in, fly out GP services in rural and regional Australia for women; the $1.5 billion Natural Heritage Trust—most of which went to rural and regional Australia, and in which councils were very closely involved with local government—and $70 million for the Rural Transaction Centre Program. Most of those programs have an element in which the local authorities join with the federal government in looking at them. Local governments are also very much involved with the Regional Flood Mitigation Program. Other Networking the Nation programs are programs that local governments have done a marvellous job with.9L6Mackay, Sen SueSenator Mackay—You couldn't answer questions about that at estimates. You told them to go and ask Richard about it.YW4Senator IAN MACDONALD—I hear Senator Mackay screaming at me from over there. It is a pity she wouldn't ask a question at question time and show some interest in local government, as my colleague Senator McGauran and others on this side do.I am brought to the situation where one might say that what the Howard government has done is fairly well recognised: money going out in many ways—the $1.2 billion package announced last Monday and additional money for local governments over and above what we have given them elsewhere. I am minded to ask: are there alternative proposals? What have the Labor Party done? We have had a lot of promises about things going to happen, but we never seem to actually get down to the nitty-gritty of what the Labor Party might do. We have had Mr Beazley criticising the $1.2 billion local roads package. He calls it `boondoogling'—or boondoggling or whatever the word is. He says there is a smell of pork about it. But down there at the local government conference this morning, I can tell you that every single one of the councils that spoke to me came up to me specifically to say, `Thank you for that.' It is across the whole of Australia; it is not in any one area or another. It is delivered by the state local grants commission, absolutely independently and fairly, and local government are very pleased—not for themselves but for the people they represent, their constituents. They understand what this massive investment will be. We are still waiting for the Labor Party's proposal. All we have from them is criticism, nitpicking, carping and allegations of boondoggling. (Time expired)2050314:14:0020503Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VictoriaALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer. What action does the Howard government propose to take to curb skyrocketing LPG prices? Isn't it a fact that before the introduction of the GST no taxes applied to LPG but now LPG attracts the full 10 per cent GST, thus making LPG more expensive than it would otherwise have been? Isn't it also the case that, due to the GST impact on LPG prices, it is no longer economically viable to convert from petrol to LPG?20503Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—LPG prices in Australia have risen as a result of rising world LPG prices. That is a very important point. As Senator Conroy pointed out, no excise is paid on LPG in Australia. The fact of the matter is that there has been a very sharp rise in LPG prices on world markets and, as a consequence, LPG prices in this country have also risen. That causes us concern, as it should cause you concern, Senator Conroy. I think it is very important that we recognise the reason for this rise in prices, which is that we have experienced rising LPG prices on world markets. I also make the point that the Labor Party, of course, has no policy to deal with this. The issue of the GST was raised by Senator Conroy, which is interesting. As he would know, business users can claim an input tax credit. It is interesting because the GST is in fact Labor Party policy. Senator Conroy, I have to say that, if you are being critical of this government and if you are saying that Labor Party policy is to remove the GST from LPG and from petrol, that is a very big statement of policy. But if you are not proposing to do that, your policy is precisely the same as this government's policy. You should not try to fool taxpayers that your policy is different. What you should do is be honest with people and recognise that, in relation to fuels, this country has faced rising fuel prices because of trends on world markets. 3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—And the GST.WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy talks about the GST, but the GST is Labor Party policy. If Senator Conroy is going to stand up and ask me a supplementary question—and I always hope that he does ask me a supplementary question—perhaps he could clarify for people who may be listening whether Labor Party policy is not to have a GST on fuel. We will wait with great interest to see whether he can address that issue or whether, as on so many other issues, there is really no Labor Party policy. In fact, the Labor Party's policy in relation to the GST is the same as the government's policy. If there is a roll-back proposed in this area, you had better tell us, because it is going to cost a lot of money.20504Conroy, Sen StephenSenator CONROY3L6VictoriaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that the Saudi marker contract price for LPG was 33.42c per litre in Australian dollar terms on 1 November 2000? Can he explain why LPG now sells for around 60c per litre? Does the minister believe that LPG producers are exploiting Australian motorists? If so, isn't the Howard government party to this exploitation, given that the GST applies to the price inflated end retail price?20504Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—I indicate to Senator Conroy that the ACCC, in its report on the movement of fuel prices in the September quarter 2000, estimated that LPG prices could have been expected to rise by some 6.7c per litre during the quarter, with 2.5c per litre due to the introduction of the GST and 4.2c per litre due to the increase in the Saudi Arabian contract price in Australian dollar terms.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—So there's no exploitation?WW4Senator KEMP—I am quoting the report from the ACCC, the independent prices monitor. You asked me a question as to what has happened, and I am now quoting to you the report of the ACCC. The ACCC report found that the `average LPG price increase in the five major metropolitan cities over the September quarter was less than 6c per litre'. (Time expired)2050414:20:0020504Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4New South WalesAD00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. Does the minister still stand by the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on ABC Management and Operations, which he chaired? In particular, does he stand by recommendation No. 22, which states:Before the appointment of a person to the board, the proposed nominee should be required to appear before a joint parliamentary committee to enable the Parliament to scrutinise the person's credentials. If so, when will the government's new board appointee, Mr Maurice Newman, be appearing before a joint parliamentary committee?20504Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I know we have spent a lot of time looking at the most effective way of putting in place proper governance arrangements. But, as I am sure Senator Bourne is well aware, whenever we have tried to make constructive suggestions about how one might alter the ABC Act or indeed the charter provisions, we have been constantly told that the Democrats in particular, and no doubt the Labor Party on principle, are opposed to change, which means that we are essentially stuck with the current arrangements. As you know, the requirements for prospective appointees to the board are expressed, as is the charter itself, in very broad terms. They contemplate a range of possible experiences in media, communications and business, to some extent at least. But, in broad terms, I do not think they do impose onerous requirements. That is the system that has operated for many years. It is the first time I have ever heard that Senator Bourne was proposing a change to the ABC Act in that regard. If she is interested in having a discussion about changes to the act and the charter, I am sure we would be happy to have a talk to her. As you will recall, there were specific recommendations from the Mansfield report that priority be given to news and current affairs, children's television and regional coverage—both radio and television. On every occasion we were told, `No thanks very much; we do not want to go down that path.' Indeed, I can recall Mr Johns, the former managing director, saying that there was nothing wrong with the charter because it enabled the ABC to do whatever it wanted to do—which I actually thought was the problem not the solution. Nonetheless, that is where things are at the present time. Therefore, I do not envisage Mr Newman appearing before any parliamentary committee. I think his credentials are impeccable. As I am sure Senator Bourne would acknowledge, he has been a respected leader in the business community for many years. I am sure he is an ABC enthusiast, as many of us are. I have no doubt that he will bring a very useful perspective to its deliberation.20505Bourne, Sen VickiSenator BOURNETW4New South WalesAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer, but it is obvious that my private member's bill, which would put into legislation his recommendation on board appointees going before joint parliamentary committees, has completely passed him by, despite the fact that it has actually been considered by this Senate. That is quite amazing. I ask the minister to have a look at my private member's bill again. I am sure he will enjoy it. It puts into legislation his recommendations from that parliamentary committee. I also ask the minister to please have a look at the recommendations of that report, which of course he chaired, particularly recommendations 15, 16, 17 and 21. I am sure he will be amazed to see that, since he got into the ministry, he appears to have gone against—directly opposite—his own recommendations. So I ask the minister to have a look at those recommendations, have a look at my private member's bill and have a look at the Hansard report of what happened with my private member's bill. (Time expired)20505Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—I think we are going back a fair way in history, are we not? What year was that—about 1994 or 1995?Government senators interjecting—LD4Senator ALSTON—It was 1995, was it? I suspect the world has changed fundamentally since then—not least of all, of course, with new media technologies and the Internet transforming the business case as far as the ABC is concerned. You would probably find that an offensive term, but I would have thought that the ABC would have to focus on priority areas just like anyone else. Indeed, they do espouse the new digital technology with great enthusiasm.I have to make a confession to Senator Bourne: I will not be able to look `again' at her bill, because I do not think it has actually crossed my desk until now. My humblest apologies. I will have a good look at it. I do not actually recall recommendations 16, 17, 18 and 21. But, once again, I will see whether they have any enduring relevance. To the extent that they do, we will have a good think about it. (Time expired)2050514:25:0020505Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—My question is to Senator Kemp as Assistant Treasurer. Minister, what advice can you offer aged pensioners Roy and Doris Barker of Upper Beaconsfield in Victoria who rely on bottled gas to heat their home and who now, due to skyrocketing gas prices, have to go to bed earlier to conserve energy? What answer does the government have when Mr Barker says, as he did on AM last week:We've never wasted it. We just can't possibly afford it on pensioners' money—we can't afford that sort of money.Aren't Roy and Doris Barker just more victims of the Howard government's tax rip-off on gas, given that no tax applied before the introduction of the GST?20505Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The first bit of advice I would give to Roy and Doris Barker would be: `Don't vote Labor.' I would say to Roy and Doris Barker that Senator Jacinta Collins is standing up here and pretending that her tax policy in relation to the GST is different from ours. I would urge Roy and Doris Barker to write to Senator Collins and to say in their letter: `Dear Jacinta, could you make it clear just what your tax policy on the GST and LPG is? Is it correct, as Senator Kemp says, that the Labor Party has endorsed the GST? Or is it correct that you are in some way going to roll back the GST and that this may affect the price of LPG gas?' That is the letter they should write to you. I would ask them to send me a copy of your response because then we would see whether there has been a significant policy decision from the Labor Party or whether this is just the usual bogus nonsense that the Labor Party goes on with. I think we can shortcut this because, after question time, we are going to have a motion to take note of the answer, and Senator Collins will stand up and we will listen very carefully to see whether she is trying to mislead those two pensioners or whether in fact she has a real policy prescription for them. The truth of the matter is that LPG prices have risen as a result of trends on world markets. That is the honest answer.ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—Oh, come on!WW4Senator KEMP—It is interesting that Senator Sherry is getting terribly excited—as he does from time to time, feeling that Senator Collins may rather fluff this in the taking note of the answer debate. When you stand up, Senator Sherry, we will see what the Labor Party's tax policy is. If you are proposing to change the GST as it relates to fuel and LPG, you are making a significant policy decision. The reason why people are turning off the Labor Party in droves is that Labor have no policies. They stand for absolutely nothing. Senator Collins, you are trying to mislead pensioners with that question. GB6Collins, Sen JacintaWW4Senator KEMP—You can correct me, Senator, when we have the motion to take note or even in your supplementary question by making it clear just what your policy is. In relation to tax reform, this government has done many important things to assist aged pensioners, not the least is the guaranteed real rise in pensions and benefits.BE4Newman, Sen JocelynWW4Senator KEMP—Senator Newman has outlined on many occasions the many advantages that aged pensioners and self-funded retirees obtain from the tax reform package. Senator Collins, the challenge is in your hands. Stand up now—you have asked the question—and clarify the Labor Party policy. I bet that, as on every other occasion, Senator Collins will duck the issue. 20506Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. This is the government's question time and I hope the minister will provide an answer on the government's policy. Is the minister aware that the Prime Minister confirmed on 24 November on the Neil Mitchell program on 3AW that the price of LPG has risen as a direct result of the GST? Is the minister aware that his coalition colleagues in the Western Australian government have today expressed concern about the drastic effects of the rising cost of bottled LPG on many older people in rural areas in the state? In view of the Prime Minister's admission, just how does the Howard government—which is in government—intend to alleviate the GST induced cost rises being experienced by low income older people like Roy and Doris Barker of Upper Beaconsfield?20506Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—The point I make to Senator Collins is that raising your voice does not mean you have made it clear what the Labor Party position is. If you had listened to my response to Senator Conroy in which I said that, according to the ACCC, 2.5c per litre is due to the introduction of the GST, you would realise that I have actually answered that part of your question. The substantial rise that you are talking about is not due to the GST; it is due to the rise in world prices. We will have this debate after question time. This may be the big day when the Labor Party announces roll-back. This may be the day that Australia has been waiting for. Of course, if this is not part of roll-back, Senator, you are guilty of seriously misleading Roy and Doris Barker. (Time expired)2050714:32:0020507Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4Western AustraliaLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. I ask: would the minister inform the Senate of recent examples of leading edge computer research and e-commerce business development that are being supported by the government? I ask: is the minister aware of any alternative approaches to the support of Australia's information industries?20507Alston, Sen RichardSenator ALSTONLD4VictoriaLPMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts10—The government has certainly been very active on this front. There are a number of leading edge projects that we think deserve specific government support. Only a few days ago, Senator Minchin, Dr Kemp and I presented a $9 million cheque to the Special Research Centre for Quantum Computing at the University of New South Wales to enable them to progress—7G6Lundy, Sen KateLD4Senator ALSTON—I am sorry you could not make it. It was a great effort and you would have enjoyed it thoroughly. What we were concerned to do was to enable that project to continue in Australia when Australia does have a leading edge and when we do have a real opportunity to develop a prototype quantum computer that would enable miniaturisation to the extent of speeding up computing power to the tune of about one billion times. That is pretty serious business in anyone's language.7G6Lundy, Sen KateSenator Lundy—Are you going to sell it as part of the IT outsourcing?LD4Senator ALSTON—So instead of wandering around bagging IT outsourcing out of one side of your mouth and then conceding out of the other that it is still Labor Party policy, what you should do is get out there and support some of these projects and demonstrate that the Labor Party is serious. Similarly, on behalf of Senator Minchin, I was in Sydney the other night launching the Asia-Pacific IBM innovation e-business centre. Again, with government support, that centre was able to establish itself in Sydney rather than—7G6Lundy, Sen Kate10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, ignore interjections. LD4Senator ALSTON—Yes, I think the old Senator Lundy is getting a bit lost in translation. I am having a problem. That was again a very good example of where the government can make a difference with a modest amount of money, but it made all the difference in the world in terms of whether that e-business innovation centre was located in Australia or in Singapore. I think it is a very big win to Australia. I am sorry Senator Lundy was not around to put out a press release to congratulate the government on its support. Unfortunately, of course, the Labor Party are very much behind the game. I was intrigued to see recently an article headed—I thought quite engagingly—`Bring on the clowns, oh, they're on'. It talked about how, in the mid-nineties, industry were generally telling the Labor Party that the Internet was the way of the future but, unfortunately, Labor Party IT guru, Michael Lee, ignored the tech upstarts and preferred CD-ROMs as his multimedia of choice. Nothing much has changed in the Labor Party—I think we are all aware of that—but they still pretend that somehow this `knowledge nation' is going somewhere. I have read reports saying that there is quite a deal of unhappiness among the frontbench of the ALP because they see poor old Mr Beazley as a sitting duck. He got out there and talked about it more than 12 months ago, but has done nothing ever since. And, of course, it must have been particularly galling to people like Senator Lundy, who are on that task force which was established in Hobart in lieu of any serious policy decision, that once again they outsourced the idea and set up a task force. We read in the Weekend Australian on 14 October: `Vacuum at the heart of Labor's agenda'. So here we are some four months down the track and that committee had not yet met. Senator Lundy, has it met since—in the last six or seven weeks?10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, you should be directing your remarks to the chair and not asking questions across the chamber. LD4Senator ALSTON—Indeed, Madam President. Perhaps I could make the point another way. Senator Lundy spent the first two minutes interjecting constantly—listening to every word I said! The minute I ask whether in fact that committee has met now, nearly six months later, Senator Lundy is too busy talking to Senator Mackay—which I think really answers the question. What it tells you is that the task force still has not met. It is just an empty charade. We know that nothing is going to happen on this front and that there is only one crowd taking the issue seriously. That is very unfortunate for those who have desperate aspirations to become shadow minister for IT, but fortunately we still do not have one on the other side the chamber. (Time expired)2050814:37:0020508Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care. Can the minister confirm that the government is drafting regulations for the Aged Care Act setting out the criteria by which the minister will exempt nursing homes from the 1 January 2001 accreditation deadline? Will the government commit to tabling those regulations before parliament rises? Given that the deadline is now less than a month away, why hasn't the government finalised those regulations earlier? Does the minister think it appropriate that the rules be changed so close to the deadline?20508Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank Senator Evans for the question. I do not have a brief in relation to that question. I will take it on notice and get back to him when I get a response from the minister.20508Evans, Sen ChrisSenator CHRIS EVANSAX5Western AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. I would appreciate his response as soon as possible. Can he also provide information as to how many nursing homes are likely to be affected by the exemption process?20508Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Again, I will take that on notice.2050814:38:0020508Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VictoriaAD00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Minister, is it the case that Australia used undue pressure on the World Heritage Committee members to keep Kakadu off the endangered list at Cairns last week? How many bureaucrats were in Cairns; how many travelled overseas before the meeting; what sorts of deals and threats did they make; and what was the cost?20508Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The World Heritage Committee meeting in Cairns was a great success. I would like to congratulate the Australian delegation. This was a meeting chaired by Australia, being held in Australia, of the body that is principally responsible for the governance of world heritage, certainly between the major UNESCO meetings from time to time. Its agenda included issues such as new listings and reports on listings about which there was some question. As the honourable senator might know, there is a regular reporting process in relation to existing listings. There are some listings that are categorised as `in danger' and there is a report on those listings and such matters.As I said, the meeting was very successful and we are very pleased to have hosted it. It gave delegates from the 30 countries an opportunity to see Australia's management of two very important world heritage areas—the Great Barrier Reef and the wet tropics—and, in particular, to look at the way in which we are managing the multiple use issues in highly complex environments and how work and living activities can take place that are compatible with protecting world heritage values. I might say that, in conjunction with the meeting, as a first, we held a youth forum on world heritage for delegates from the South Pacific. I addressed that. It was a very successful forum. We also held our first indigenous forum in conjunction with this meeting. That was also important because a number of our listings—I think four—are listed for cultural values. The issue of managing cultural values is a highly complex one, one that is evolving, particularly now that part of the contemporary debate is about how you protect living cultures as opposed to sites. The issue of Kakadu was on the agenda because we had to report back. I am pleased that that report was received positively. The independent scientific report was further evidence that no damage had been done by the 20-odd years of mining in the nearby uranium mines in Kakadu. We further advanced, although I must admit only to a small degree, the issue of cultural values in relation to the Jabiluka matter. I was pleased in that regard. I was particularly pleased that at this meeting we were able to have listed the Greater Blue Mountains region in New South Wales. It is important for this wonderful area to be listed for its demonstration of ecological development, particularly in relation to the eucalypt. It has not been an easy task to obtain that listing because of some differences between the scientists. Nevertheless, in the end the World Heritage Committee accepted the advice of the Australian government and I am pleased about that.Whilst on that subject, I acknowledge the support from the New South Wales state government and many conservationists and scientists who supported us in that application. I also mention Kerry Bartlett, the local member for the region. He played a leadership role in relation to that successful application. It will further enhance the tourism appeal of Sydney, as well as demonstrate to the world that we have yet another icon that we recognise as being of world heritage value and that the international community accepts that value as well. (Time expired)20509Allison, Sen LynSenator ALLISON1M6VictoriaAD00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. It is rare for the minister for the environment not to attempt at all to answer any aspect of a question put to him, so I will again ask him: what sort of deals and threats were made in order to get the committee to not place Kakadu on the endangered list? What was the cost? How many bureaucrats travelled overseas? Where did they go, what did they do, and who did they meet with? Minister, why did Australia not vacate the chair when Kakadu was being discussed? Isn't your government concerned that this huge effort to justify a uranium mine so close to a world heritage site is undermining the work of the World Heritage Committee?20509Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—The good news that came out of that meeting was that the independent scientific panel, chosen from around the world, confirmed that Kakadu is safe. That is good news. I would have thought that was something that would have pleased the honourable senator.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—They didn't say that at all. They were very specific and you are lying.BH4Senator HILL—What it demonstrated was that international scientists support the views of the Supervising Scientist, under Australian legislation, that nearby uranium mining is conducted in a way that is totally safe in relation to the world heritage values. That was the big news that came out of Cairns. I would have thought that that should be applauded by all Australians. By the way, there were no threats and no deals.10000PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus, I ask you to withdraw the unparliamentary words that you used during the time you were disorderly.XE4Bolkus, Sen NickSenator Bolkus—I withdraw, Madam President.2050914:45:0020509McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQueenslandALP00—My question is directed to Senator Herron, representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I ask: is the minister aware of a report on dental decay and gum disease prepared for last week's Australian Health Ministers Council meeting which warns that `meeting even minimum acceptable standards of access to general dental care for concession card holders is beyond the capacity of states and territories'? Doesn't this report highlight the shameful consequences of the Howard government's scrapping of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in 1996, including that delays in dental care are resulting in pensioners being `more than twice as likely to have had all of their teeth extracted'? When will the Howard government get health priorities right—fixing pensioners' teeth instead of pulling them out? 20509Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The best thing that Senator McLucas could do would be to convince the Labor Mayor of Brisbane to introduce fluoridation of the Brisbane water, because the lack of fluoridation of Brisbane water has produced dental decay in half the population of Queensland. Councillor Soorley has prevented the fluoridation of water in Brisbane. Every other capital city, as I understand it, has got it. That is the first point I would make. I would suggest that Senator McLucas, as a senator for Queensland, work on the Labor Party to introduce fluoride into the water supplies of Queensland. That would produce a greater improvement in dental health care in the state of Queensland than anything else. The states have been traditionally responsible for the provision of public dental health services in their jurisdiction—every state. In the dying days of the 1993 election campaign, then Prime Minister Paul Keating announced booster funding for the Dental Health Program for a finite period of four years. He set a limit of four years on it. A target was set of treating 1½ million people over that four years. As usual, Labor did this without any thought, without consultation with the states—there was no consultation with the states; we are well aware of that—and without any planning. Senator Crowley interjecting—VW4Senator HERRON—Senator Crowley is shouting out because she should have done something about it and did not. The Commonwealth introduced the Commonwealth Dental Health Program between 1994 and 1997 to assist the states in reducing waiting lists and to implement better management practices for the future. It was never intended to be an ongoing program. The states were always expected to resume responsibility for public dental care once the program had finished. The Labor Party never intended it to be extended. The program at best was a stopgap measure which did very little to address the underlying structural issues affecting the provision of public dental health care. It is fascinating to note that the opposition has not made any commitment to the Dental Health Program. As Senator Kemp said of the Labor Party, Senator McLucas can get up in her supplementary and announce what the Labor Party's policy is in relation to dental health care. They did not have it in their election program for 1996 or for the election and they have not yet announced it as a continuing program. So I would ask Senator McLucas to tell us what they are going to do on that side in relation to the Dental Health Program. Even while their program of booster funding was in operation, there were significant criticisms of the basic range of services, the lack of preventative service and the fee schedule under the program. I remember the Australian Dental Association commenting on it because they had not been consulted. The very providers of the service were not asked—that is how much planning went into it. On the other hand, it is always disappointing to hear about people who have had to wait for treatment for health problems, and dental health problems are no different. However, it is pleasing to see that some states are acknowledging their responsibilities by providing additional funding to their public dental services and by entering into arrangements such as those currently announced in South Australia and the initiatives in Queensland. I would again ask Senator McLucas, as a Labor Party member and as a promoter of dental health care—which is the implication of the question—that she get on to Councillor Soorley and ask him to take the biggest step that could be taken in regard to the prevention of dental decay in the state of Queensland: introducing fluoride into the public water supplies of Brisbane. 20510McLucas, Sen JanSenator McLUCAS84LQueenslandALP00—Madam President, I ask a supplementary question. Doesn't the report graphically describe the effect of the Howard government's scrapping of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program on Australia's 4.7 million adult concession card holders? Can the minister confirm that, as a direct result of this callous action, some 140,000 low income people in New South Wales face a wait of 4½ years; 78,000 South Australians wait for more than 3½ years and 140,000 Victorians wait nearly two years for dental care? Given that these delays are increasingly leading to removal of the teeth rather than enduring the pain, just how much did the scrapping of the Commonwealth dental scheme save the Howard government? 20511Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Even Senator McLucas would be aware that the provision of public care is the responsibility of the states. Under the Medicare agreements, funding was increased to the states. If the states are not accepting their responsibility, I would suggest to Senator McLucas that she write to the premiers of the states—predominantly Labor—and ask them to do something about it. 2051114:50:0020511Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6Western AustraliaLP10—My question is directed to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the minister inform the Senate of details of the policies that have delivered both real growth in wages and falling unemployment under the Howard government? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? What effect would these policies have on the Australian economy? 20511Kemp, Sen RodSenator KEMPWW4VictoriaLPAssistant Treasurer10—Thank you for that important question, Senator. It was a question that I rather would have expected to get from Senator George Campbell, to be quite frank. Senator George Campbell—rightly—was very critical of falling real wages under the former government, under the Keating and Hawke governments. There are many issues in regard to which I differ from Senator George Campbell, but I think that he did a very important community service in nailing the performance of the former Labor government on this issue. I congratulate Senator George Campbell for doing that. Australian families have benefited enormously from the responsive management of the economy by the Howard government. In reforming the budget, in keeping the budget in surplus and in reducing Labor's debt, we have created a climate of lower interest rates, falling unemployment and rising real wages. RF4Cook, Sen PeterWW4Senator KEMP—Senator Cook, who was one of the senior ministers responsible for running up the massive debt under the former government, will be pleased to know that we have managed to cut Labor's debt which they left this country of $96 billion. We have now brought it down to a projected $44 billion by the end of 2000-01. I think that is very good news and that, frankly, the performance of the government across a wide range of areas has delivered real benefits to Australians. Between 1996 and the year 2000—and this is the figure which I think Senator George Campbell will be particularly interested in, as he was successful in nailing the former government on this—real wages for the low paid grew by some nine per cent. Between 1983 and 1996—that is, the term of the former Hawke and Keating governments—real wages for the low paid actually fell by 5.2 per cent. In 13 years a Labor government managed to cut the real wages of low paid workers. The Howard government, in its term of office, has managed to raise real wages by some nine per cent.Another thing that we in this government are particularly proud of is that we have been able to create real jobs. Mr Keating boasted of the recession we had to have and I think most Australians were pretty appalled by that statement. Many people found themselves without jobs and of course many people in business went broke. But we now have a forecast of a further three per cent growth in employment this financial year and of course these benefits—rising real wages, falling unemployment—come on top of the fact that we have been able to cut taxes. We have been able to deliver arguably the largest income tax cut in Australian history.3L6Conroy, Sen StephenSenator Conroy—Why are you the biggest taxing government for 10 years?WW4Senator KEMP—Senator Conroy butts in, but I wonder whether Senator Conroy can stand up after question time—it is going to be very busy after question time today—and guarantee the very substantial income tax cuts that this government has given. This question has been asked on many occasions of the Labor Party—to guarantee the income tax cuts which have been delivered by the Howard government—and each Labor spokesman has ducked that issue. We know what the Labor performance was like on real wages. We know what the Labor performance was like on unemployment. Unemployment at one stage was over 11 per cent. (Time expired)2051214:55:0020512Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—My question is to Senator Herron, the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware that Dr David Vaux of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute and co-winner of this year's Glaxo Wellcome Science Medal has described the government's attitude to medical research as `pathetic'? Isn't it a fact that the government has exaggerated every promise and announced them two and three times over to cover up the fact that Australia is not putting medical research and biotechnology at the top of the agenda in the same way as many overseas countries?20512Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I am not aware of Dr Vaux's statement, but I would expect that any medical researcher would want more money for medical research. The Medical Research Society of Australia are always promoting the desire of their members for more funding in medical research. That is their right to do so and I would expect them to do so. There is never enough money for medical research, whichever government is in power. It is a matter of allocation of resources, and that is a matter of fact. They did that when the Labor Party were in power: the Medical Medical Research Society of Australia were constantly wanting more funding, and got an adequate response consistent with the funding that was available for medical research. We are doing the same: we have increased the funding for medical research.I refute the allegation that Senator Crowley has made, that we are constantly announcing the same funding allocations. Of course we would like to give more money for medical research. But the reality is that it is enormously expensive and there are many more applications put in by researchers than there is funding available. We are doing our best. We appreciate the difficulties that medical researchers have in getting funding, particularly for an ongoing program—they themselves have to constantly attempt to raise funds to keep programs going—but with the allocation of funding through the budget process it is inevitable that there will be a shortfall between demand and supply.20512Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—Madam President, I rise to ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister that it is the government that has exaggerated every promise; it is not a matter of the constant complaints of the medical profession. My supplementary question is: can the minister confirm that the 400 medical research projects which the government has announced it will fund in 2001 is significantly down on the 428 projects funded this year? Can the minister also confirm that the government has shelved its promise to double spending in six years?20512Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—There is a difference between quality and quantity. Senator Crowley seems to imply that, because it has gone down from 440 to 428, somehow that is a dereliction of duty on behalf of the government. It is the quality of research that counts, not the numbers. I would assume, because of that, that, if there is a disparity, then the end product of the research should be the important and significant item that should be taken into consideration rather than a mere matter of numbers. I think, as a generalisation, there are something like four times the requests made to the National Health and Medical Research Council than grants that are given out by the NHMRC.2051214:58:0020512Tierney, Sen JohnSenator TIERNEYO15New South WalesLP10—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Hill. Will the minister inform the Senate how the Howard government is supporting local government, particularly in rural and regional Australia, to restore and protect the natural environment?20512Hill, Sen RobertSenator HILLBH4South AustraliaLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—Local government is a very important partner in the management of a better environment, something that I have to say was underrated by our predecessor, the Labor Party. On coming to government, we quickly recognised the importance of building a partnership with local governments in delivering better on-ground outcomes. I might mention a few subject matters in which that partnership is already bringing rewards. The first I would like to mention is the area of Cities for Climate Change. We recognise that, when it comes to delivering better outcomes on the ground in relation to greenhouse gases, local governments have a particular role that they can play. That is because, firstly, within their own operations they are responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions and, by their own conduct, they can produce a better outcome. Secondly, and more importantly, they have the capacity to influence a broad range of the wider community. So we established a partnership with them under the banner of Cities for Climate Change. That is an international program which I think originated in Canada some years ago in which we set benchmarks for local governments that wish to sign on. They seek to achieve those benchmarks on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and we give them credit for doing so. Since we established that partnership in Australia, Cities for Climate Change in Australia is the most successful of all such projects throughout the world. More Australian local governments have signed up to that program, more Australian local governments are committed to it and are achieving better outcomes, than anywhere else in the world, and I pay credit to local government in that regard.The second area I want to mention—because it is obviously important—is in relation to waste management. Local governments have a critically important role to play in relation to better waste management across the Australian community. We as a government—again, in contrast to our predecessor, the Labor Party—are interested in reducing waste to landfill. But we can only do that successfully if we establish partnerships with those who collect the waste, those who process the waste and those who translate that waste into an asset with value that can therefore help create markets. Local governments are critical players through the kerbside recycling system in the delivery of better waste outcomes in Australia, and I give them great credit for that. It is not always easy, because sometimes they are the so-called meat in the sandwich: they get pressed by the householder on the one side and they get pressed by the corporations that wish to process the waste on the other. It is expensive from time to time for local governments, but it is a great service that they provide to the community in collecting that waste and, in particular, in facilitating the whole movement of recycling, in which Australia, again, has been a world leader. The third area I want to mention—because it is not so well appreciated—is the contribution that local governments can make in relation to biodiversity and conservation. This was neglected in the past by the Labor Party—it is the same old story; they were not interested in local government. When we came to government, we began a partnership with local governments to establish how they could assist us in achieving better biodiversity outcomes, particularly in urban areas. Studies were made; we have done an audit of all local governments in Australia, and many are already committed to projects that can deliver better outcomes in this regard. Rate rebate schemes are being put in place. It is a great success story, and I compliment local government again. (Time expired)Madam President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice205132051315:03:0020513Herron, Sen JohnSenator HERRONVW4QueenslandLPMinister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—Senator Crowley asked me a question today in question time and I have some supplementary information in relation to her question. Senator Crowley asked me about the funding for medical research. A total package of $230.3 million in health and medical research grants was announced, which represents a $32.3 million increase over the year 2000. Included in the funding package is $95.3 million for new grants commencing in 2001. The successful project grants were chosen from 1,834 applications—a four per cent increase over last year. That is a success rate of around 25 per cent, which I mentioned in my answer and which demonstrates that only the very best research grant proposals are funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.Miscellaneous2051415:04:0020514PRESIDENT,TheThe PRESIDENT10000PON/A10—I am pleased to advise honourable senators that on Friday, 1 December 2000 at the Australian Engineering Excellence Awards 2000 the Joint House Department won the inaugural Greenhouse Challenge Award—sponsored by the Australian Greenhouse Office—in the medium to small category, for organisations generating less than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per annum. The Joint House Department won this award in recognition of the percentage reduction achieved over a sustained period of 12 years, with energy consumption in Parliament House being reduced by 52 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 47 per cent. The award demonstrates the commitment to greenhouse gas emission reductions in Parliament House and reflects Joint House Department's focus on having Parliament House lead by example.This award complements and builds on the inaugural award for Best Performance of an Agency Leading by Example, made jointly by the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to the Joint House Department on 15 March this year. That award recognised the efforts of the department in promoting its considerable efforts in maintaining the Australian Parliament House as a showcase for energy and environmental efficiency to the national and international media, and it served as a showcase for a department that is leading by example. The Joint House Department has demonstrated and articulated the substantial environmental, greenhouse and financial rewards available through a comprehensive energy and greenhouse gas abatement program and is proud to have been integrally involved in helping Australian industry in greenhouse abatement programs through technological developments. The award is a credit to Mr Adrian Guilfoyle and to all staff of the department who have contributed to this wonderful achievement, and it demonstrates the value of a long-term strategic approach to achieving lasting results for the environment.Questions Without Notice205142051415:06:0020514Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOKRF4Western AustraliaALPDeputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp), to questions without notice asked by Senators Conroy and Collins today, relating to the goods and services tax and liquefied petroleum gas.I refer to the answers given by Senator Kemp today in question time on questions concerning LPG.Honourable senator interjecting—RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator COOK—I note the interjection: Senator Kemp has left the chamber, despite the fact that he claims to have placed on the record a series of questions that we should answer. Senator Kemp in question time is an interesting study for all budding politicians. Should a question be asked that seeks information genuinely that might have a slight taint of embarrassment for the government, Senator Kemp turns and patronises the questioner, tries to bluster his way through or answers the question with yet another question—does anything but come to grips with the real problem.Today we asked, as we normally do, a number of questions about real problems for real people in real Australia. In the case of all of these questions, what did we get? Bluster, answering of questions with questions and patronising responses from the minister. It is not surprising, because on LPG there is a real case to answer here for the government. Prior to the introduction of the GST, there was no excise tax on LPG in Australia. There was no tax of any sort, but now there is; there is a GST on LPG. In the Australian Labor Party's petrol price inquiry, as we have moved around Australia and taken evidence, particularly in regional and remote Australia, about what people's concerns are about escalating petrol prices, one of the issues that has come through quite clearly in a heartfelt way from real Australians about their own personal concerns is their wanting an explanation for the skyrocketing price of LPG. We understand to some extent that petrol has gone up, but how can you explain how LPG has shot through the roof? What do you say to an ordinary Australian who says, `I converted my car, at the cost of $2,000, to consume LPG instead of petrol, but I cannot now make the saving. It was a bum investment by me. Petrol prices are high, LPG prices are high, and the cost of conversion is a cost I bear because I still cannot make the saving. The two prices have come together'? We asked a question today on behalf of Roy and Doris Barker of Upper Beaconsfield in country Victoria. They are pensioners who rely on LPG for home energy and home fuel. They bought LPG and put the house on it when they thought that would make a saving in a thrifty way in their country household with a meagre income based on the pension. They now cannot make ends meet because of government taxation on their fuel source. What do you say to people like that? Those ordinary Australians, those real Australians, deserve a better answer than being patronised, being rubbished and being asked what the ALP is doing, when this is the government in office and this is the government that takes responsibility for what should be done.We asked today—this is a realistic and reasonable question—whether the minister can confirm that the Saudi market contract price for LPG was, in Australian dollars, 33.42c per litre on 1 November this year. We asked the minister to explain why LPG now sells at around 60c per litre. You are buying it off the Saudis at only 33.42c, the world parity price: how come you are paying in most metropolitan areas 60c a litre and, if you want to go to some of the country areas of Australia, you are paying a damn sight more? Who is taking the rake-off? If you have got the ACCC out there as a consumer watchdog, why isn't it sooled onto LPG distributors to ensure that fair pricing applies? At the end of the day, what about the government tax, what about the GST? LPG was not taxed before. It is taxed now, and who does it hurt? People at the lower levels of the income scale. What does the government care? Judging by what the minister said today, not at all does it worry about this. It makes pretty speeches which sound nice in this parliament but are nothing more than political debate that does not address the real questions of ordinary Australia, reasonably raised in the regions, where people are in distress because of the inability to make ends meet in their household budgets. We know about the government rip-off on petrol prices—what about the rip-off on LPG?15:11:0020515Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOTWP6Western AustraliaLP10—I find it strange that Senator Cook, the man that left us with a $10.4 billion deficit when he said that in fact the budget was balanced, should be taking note of questions with respect to the taxation component of fuel prices, a question that was asked by Senator Collins. If Senator Kemp, who answered the question—and I thought he did an excellent job in answering the question—should intimidate Senator Cook, I think Senator Kemp is doing a good job. If Senator Cook wants to ask questions, of course he should be allowed to do so, but he should not be intimidated by Senator Kemp. On the other hand, if Senator Collins wanted to take note of the answer to a question that she asked, why isn't she in the chamber? It is a strange way that you people on the other side have of dealing with politics. Just like in Queensland, I do not follow what you do. It is a strange thing. Above all this humbug and drivel and Labor Party speak, there is actually some sense in what the government is doing. If the Labor Party are saying they are going to drop prices and they are going to remove some taxation component, what are they going to put the cost of that on? We know that they are going to evidently fix petroleum product prices, they are going to roll back the GST and they are going to give 6.5 per cent of the allocation to the states of GST revenue to local government. This is what the senator has said on the other side: they will give 6.5 per cent to local government—ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—Which senator?WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOT—Senator Mackay said it: 6.5 per cent of the GST money raised by the states goes to local government. They are some of the policies that the Labor Party have announced. But spending on health is going to be increased and spending on education, at both the secondary and tertiary levels, is going to be increased. Today we found out they are going to reintroduce some sort of dental program—more money. What is going to happen? I will tell you what is going to happen. The fact that we have made income tax cheaper for 80 per cent of Australians means that is possibly going to go up. The fact that we have raised the tax free threshold means that will be lowered. The fact that we have dropped capital gains tax by 50 per cent means that is going to go back up again. The fact that we dropped company tax this fiscal year from 36 to 34 per cent means that is going to go up again. Next year company tax goes from 34 per cent down to 30 per cent, and that is going to go up. They are going to fix petroleum prices. Let me tell you what is happening in Western Australia, Madam Deputy President. I know you are always interested in things Western Australian. The government over there has introduced a scheme that in fact gives a great incentive. Senator Cook has not heard of this, but the Western Australian government gives a great incentive to convert to LPG. You know what has happened? Hundreds of people are converting to LPG. Senator Cook said that this was a disincentive. ZW4Sherry, Sen NickSenator Sherry—No, they are not; they are getting out of LPG.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOT—Here is a bloke from southern Tasmania—Senator Sherry—telling me what is going on in Western Australia. Let me tell you what is going on: the state government in Western Australia has given a $500 incentive per vehicle to change to LPG. In some instances, it would cost up to $2,500 to convert to LPG, but it is an incentive. Madam Deputy President, I want to give you some figures that will tell you what has happened in recent times. In recent times, between 26 October and 30 November—less than a week ago—320 subsidies were paid out by the state government. Since the scheme was announced, there has been a steady increase in the applications—it does not sound like it is a disincentive, Senator Cook—culminating in 150 conversions in the past two weeks alone. To put that in perspective, there were 103 LPG conversions registered for the entire month of November last year. RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—Wow!WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOT—It is a significant number of conversions: 150 conversions in the past two weeks alone, Senator Cook—more than double in the same period last year. That is wow! What is your policy on it, Senator Cook?RF4Cook, Sen PeterSenator Cook—We will tell you.WP6Lightfoot, Sen RossSenator LIGHTFOOT—If you—God forbid—ever get back into power, are you going to leave us with a black hole again? Are you going to leave us with $10 billion that you said was a balanced budget? Are you going to roll back the GST? How is it going to be paid for? It is going to be paid for by a rise in personal income tax and company tax? We know that that is what is going to happen. (Time expired)15:16:0020516Sherry, Sen NickSenator SHERRYZW4TasmaniaALP00—The example that Senator Lightfoot has outlined to the chamber of the Court Liberal government in WA having to introduce a $500 subsidy to encourage conversions from diesel and petrol to gas highlights the very problem that this federal Liberal government has caused by introducing a GST on gas. Up until 1 July, gas had no tax on it at all—no excise and no other tax. The problem is that the Liberal-National Party, on top of rising world prices, put a GST on gas. That is the very problem that Senator Lightfoot has highlighted. It would not be necessary for the Western Australian Liberal government to introduce a subsidy for gas conversion if a GST had not been put on gas in the first place. I do not believe that it will have a successful long-term impact because, during the course of the Labor Party's fuel inquiry, we heard from a number of excellent witnesses about the problems being experienced in the gas industry.When we were down in Trafalgar, we heard from the Gippsland Taxi Association. It is well known that most taxis in this country are fuelled by gas because, traditionally, it has been a cheaper fuel for running a vehicle, despite the problems of the extra costs of conversion—which is an average of $2,000—and despite the cost of the additional mechanical wear. For vehicles that travel long distances, it is more economic to use gas. That was certainly the case up until 1 July. The Gippsland Taxi Association told us that most taxi fleets—not just in Victoria but right around Australia—are reviewing whether or not to keep their gas cylinders in their motor vehicles because it is now more expensive to run a vehicle on gas rather than on diesel or petrol. We heard from Alexandra in the Murrundindi shire. They are a council that has 12 gas powered vehicles. Likewise, they are now questioning whether or not it is worth while keeping gas powered vehicles because they are more expensive to operate. In fact, they have made a decision to rip the gas cylinders out of their motor vehicles. There is an example today of a minister and a government out of touch. The questions put to the Assistant Treasurer and the response reflect that not just the minister is out of touch; most of the Liberal-National Party sneered, jeered and laughed when the question was put to Senator Kemp about pensioners Roy and Doris Barker. These two pensioners—who, by the way, did not get the $1,000 pensioner bonus that the Prime Minister promised to every pensioner in this country—use bottled gas for heating. It is not just pensioners who use bottled gas; the importance of this issue, as I have mentioned, is also in respect of motor vehicles. Some trucks use gas as well, and it is also uneconomic in that area. It is particularly important in rural and regional Australia. Unfortunately, most people who live in rural and regional Australia are not connected to gas mains. Therefore they have to use bottled gas. The cost is higher because you are using a bottled product. We were given the example—which was laughed at and sneered at by members of the Liberal-National Party—of pensioners whose gas bill has gone from 44c a litre a year ago to 77c a litre in the last quarter plus GST, bringing it to 84c a litre. Their gas bill has gone up to $264.90 a quarter—it has almost doubled in one year—of which $18.20 is GST. These are pensioners in rural and regional areas, and you would at least expect the National Party to be making some sympathetic sounds and introducing some policy initiatives to help these people. But no, we got laughs and sneers about the suffering of pensioners in these circumstances.There is a new tax on gas—which has never been taxed before—and that is the GST. The GST is a percentage tax of 10 per cent, and when it comes off a higher base, with higher world prices, it means more revenue for the government and greater costs and suffering for truck drivers, for taxi owners and for pensioners in this country.15:21:0020517Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4Western AustraliaLP10—What an incredible debate! It is typical of the Labor Party on the other side that they consistently pick one little thing, take it out of context and try to run an argument around it. First of all, let me deal in my contribution with the comments that have been made with regard to the Court government. The Court government are doing what is right and proper in their area of responsibility because they are the recipients of the GST, as are all the other states. Are we going to see the other Labor states follow suit? Not likely. It will be a very similar outcome; the same result as happened with the dairy package. There was one state government—Western Australia—that came in and supported the federal package; none of the other states did. We see this inconsistency in policy positions put before this place time and time again by the Labor Party.What is really getting under the Labor Party's skin now is that they have ceased to be able to look at the big picture, and that is incredibly important. We see that the ALP are disappointed by the positive reception to the GST. What has occurred during recent times? Unemployment has reached a 10-year low of 6.3 per cent. Just recently the October trade figures showed a surplus of $324 million. Did the Labor government once in 13 years produce one month of surplus? Of course they did not; they never even got remotely close to it. Economic growth is expected to exceed four per cent in 2000-01. Employment growth is now projected at three per cent for the year. Productivity growth is 2.3 per cent compared to an average of 1.4 per cent in the 1980s—in the years of Labor. You can go on quoting these figures ad infinitum on the changes we have made through our total policy projection against what the Labor Party did. We should go back for a moment or two to the situation with LPG and the figures. The ALP are blaming everything on the GST. We saw Senator Kemp here today, in answer to that question, quite precisely and quite correctly highlight the fact from the ACCC report that 2.5c per litre was due to the introduction of the GST. What he did not dwell on today, in terms of the cost within that particular industry and the transport involved, was the removal of the fuel excise of 24c per litre for the trucks that carry it around. He did not highlight the fact that we got the wholesale sales tax completely out of the system. Those opposite just harp on one particular aspect, with the inability—which is consistent over there—to look at the whole restructuring of the taxation system, which is starting to drive an enormous amount of industry in regional and remote Australia today—4J4Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator Schacht—Into the ground.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANE—because their costs have come down in real terms. Senator Schacht is interjecting. It is particularly disappointing because he knows that personally. If you are having a chat, as we were in Poland and Hungary a couple of weeks ago, he would acknowledge that in private, but he will not in this particular place. He knows darn well that he would do that. If we look at the Saudi Arabian LPG contract price international benchmark, it rose from $US133 per tonne in February 1999 to $US325 per tonne in October 2000. That is why the price of LGP has gone up. It is no different whatsoever from the principle of the price of crude oil increasing. Unless there is further production coming on line or the demand weakens for these particular products, the prices are going to stay up there.The government, in their policy position, have addressed the full spectrum of matters before us. We have addressed, as Senator Lightfoot said, this huge deficit which we inherited when we came to government of significantly more than $10 billion. In fact, it was a deficit that we were told time and time again was not there. When the books were opened up, it was sitting there all right. It was this government, the Howard coalition government, that addressed that particular aspect and put this country on the road to recovery so that we could pay our own way, pay our own bills, get unemployment down and do all of the things that are necessary to have a fair and equitable society. If you look further at the details for that pensioner who was quoted here today, you will find, when you add up all the sums, that that pensioner and the rest of the pensioners are, in relative terms, better off than they were under the Labor Party. I do not have time in my contribution today to go into all of that, but I hope one day very shortly that I will have time, because the figures demonstrate the case exactly.15:26:0020518Schacht, Sen ChrisSenator SCHACHT4J4South AustraliaALP00—I rise to support the motion by Senator Cook to take note of the practically non-answers given by the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp, on the issue of LPG prices in Australia. Senator Kemp could not answer the fundamental point being made in our questions that, since the GST came in, the ratio of LPG prices to petroleum prices went from roughly two to one to two-thirds of the price, which is a complete disincentive for those in Australia who previously, for economic and environmental reasons, wanted to convert their petrol powered cars to LPG. When LPG was below 40c a litre, the petrol price in Australia was between 70c and 80c in metropolitan areas. It might have been in the very high 60s, but it was generally in the 70c to 80c range. That was at two to one. Now LPG is over 60c in the city. City petrol prices are in the 90c range. So instead of being half it is now about two-thirds of the price.The ACCC has said that part of that price increase is the 2.5c GST that has been imposed on LPG. It still does not take account of the fact that there has been a substantial increase in the price to the consumer in Australia, and the government has done nothing to get the ACCC, as the consumer watchdog in Australia, to investigate why these prices have shot up. As Senator Cook pointed out, the world parity price in the gulf area, where most of the LPG is produced, is 33½c per litre. Yet it comes into Australia at 60c a litre, with about 2½c to 3c for the GST. Someone in the distribution chain is making a good whack of profit at the expense of the consumer. What they have done, seeing that the petrol price has gone up, also as a result in part of the increase created by the GST—a tax on a tax; a tax on the excise—is to add to the outcome. Some people in the LPG industry have said, `Well, if petrol has moved up, we can crib ours up and take an extra profit.' As Senator Cook and Senator Sherry have pointed out, in the petroleum inquiry conducted by the Labor Party—and I went to a number of the hearings—people have pointed out that it is no longer economical to make the judgment that, because LPG is half the price of petrol and it costs up to $2,000 to convert a normal car from petrol consumption to LPG, over a period of probably up to a year you will get your money back and after that you will save money. That was a good environmental outcome as well as an economic outcome. Now, from the evidence we receive, those people are saying, `When you do your sums, it is no longer economical. It is no longer clear cut to change.'That is a tragedy. Australia is extremely self-sufficient in LPG. We export a lot of it. It is a fuel that is much more benign to the environment than petrol or other fossil fuels. We should be doing everything to encourage more conversion in Australia to a source of fuel that we have abundant supplies of, but under the policies of this government—under its ideologically driven obsession with the GST—it has decided to penalise consumers. The evidence we received in our inquiry was that, overwhelmingly, it was small businesses—the taxidriver, the small truck operator and a whole range of charity organisations—that had converted or were thinking of converting to LPG. They now are not making the same advantage for their organisations.This has been a distressing outcome for the Australian consumer. It has been an outcome driven by the stupidity of this government. It has adopted a Pontius Pilate attitude—there is nothing to worry about; let the consumer pay. The government has done nothing to protect the consumer from what is clearly a rip-off in this area.Question resolved in the affirmative.2051915:32:0020519Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—I move:That the Senate take note of the answer from Senator Alston, the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, to the question asked today by Senator Bourne in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporations.Madam Deputy President, I think you might agree with me that the issue of the ABC and its structure, format and programming is one which many Australians feel particularly passionate about, and I declare my hand as a card carrying member of the Friends of the ABC. For that reason, the make-up and ethos of the board are very important in determining the way in which the ABC is run and the kind of programming that we do or do not see. That is why many Australians were particularly alarmed that the management informed ABC staff in the science unit only last Thursday that the television science unit was to be disbanded and the staff made redundant.This means that, from this point on, there will be no ABC in-house produced science programming for television. Science is an area that is particularly vulnerable to product endorsement. As we debate some very crucial pieces of legislation in the chamber this week—for instance, genetic technology—we need to keep in mind the importance of information about science being made available to the citizens of this country, particularly if we are to be the clever country to which so many politicians would have us aspire.In 1995, a Senate select committee heard evidence from ABC whistleblowers that product placements and endorsements had become part of the lifestyle programs on the ABC. Science programs are equally as vulnerable. Drug companies, for example, supporting programs that talk about the virtues of some of the latest drug developments, offer this information as if it were independent or impartial—both of these being critical aspects of the role of the ABC in Australia. These are easy programs to make. They sell well and they sell products well. Vulnerable people seek hope in the promises of drug and pharmaceutical companies. Imagine programs made by industrial companies or biotech companies like Monsanto or Aventis talking up the benefits of GM foods. There is a great deal of concern across the world about mad cow disease, yet increasingly such issues are being made public because of the actions of concerned citizens and not because of independently produced programs about such issues by public broadcasters like the ABC. Government funding, together with some extremely alarming management decisions, have resulted in the downgrading and defunding of important programming. Much harder programs to make—although it should be noted, not necessarily more expensive programs—are those which have always been made by the ABC science unit. These programs question and test the assertions made by these companies. They seek to investigate and to test hypotheses in accordance with the principles of scientific investigation and investigative journalism. Thanks to the disbanding of the science unit, this marks the end of the ABC's independence in science programming. It marks the beginning of the end for all ABC programs and services which are made in the same way.Staff within the ABC are extremely concerned about what is taking place within the organisation, and we Democrats share that concern. Like many other Australians, we want a fully-funded truly independent national public broadcaster. We do not want our ABC to be the subject of questions and uncertainty about its editorial integrity or independence. Board appointments have been made that feel tainted by political allegiances. These should be referred to a joint parliamentary committee in accordance with the recommendations of the Senate select committee report, Our ABC, and the provisions of the Democrats' private member's bill. Stopping the ABC science unit from asking difficult questions may suit the government or their business friends, but will it suit them in opposition? Quantum, the award winning ABC science program, wins awards and is so cherished and valued precisely because it is independent. The ABC loses its editorial control of programs as soon as they are purchased from outside the organisation. This is a sad day for the life of the ABC and a very sad day for ABC audiences. Minister Alston should go back to the recommendations of that report and focus strongly on the legislative need for the Democrats' private member's bill on this issue, as introduced by Senator Bourne.Question resolved in the affirmative.205201The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:2052045VI4TW4The President; BourneTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned calls on the Federal Government to support:i. the independence of the ABC Board;ii. the Australian Democrats Private Members' Bill which provides for the establishment of a joint Parliamentary Committee to oversee ABC Board appointments so that the Board is constructed as a multi-partisan Board, truly independent from the government of the day;iii. an immediate increase in funding to the ABC in order that the ABC can make the transition to digital technology without undermining existing programs and services, and that it will be able to do this independently from commercial pressures, including advertising and sponsorship;iv. news and current affairs programming is made, scheduled and broadcast free from government interference, as required under law; andv. ABC programs and services which continue to meet the Charter, and which are made and broadcast free from pressures to comply with arbitrary ratings or other measures.25The PresidentVI4The President (from 25 citizens).20Senator BourneTW4Senator Bourne (from 20 citizens).20520101718HCHarrisTo the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of residents of the Nation of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate that: God's name is misused on television (TV). Particular concern relates to excerpts that advertise future TV programs that include the words, or words like `Oh My God!', `For God's sake', `Oh God', `Jesus Christ!', `for Christ's sake!', `Good Lord', `Jesus', `Christ', `Lord' and `God' irreverently. They taint the programs in which they advertise.God's name is precious to us. It is the name we love and revere.The Bible says in`The Ten Commandments' in Exodus Chapter 20 Verse 7 - `You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.'It also says in Matthew Chapter 12 Verse 36 where Jesus Christ says - `But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.'Your petitioners humbly ask you to place in all TV Codes of Practice a section to:1. Ban the irreverent use of the above words/phrases in excerpts that advertise future TV programs.2. Ensure programs containing the irreverent use of the above words/phrases display a classification symbol, different to the language (L) classification symbol to indicate this.10171Senator Harris8HCSenator Harris (from 10,171 citizens).Petitions received.Notices2052120521Senator George Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Finance and Public Administration References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 5 December 2000, from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Government's information technology outsourcing initiative.Senator Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the decision by the United Kingdom (UK) Government to require that all mobile phones in Britain carry health warnings about the dangers of excessive use, particularly for children, (ii) that this decision is based on the recom-mendations of an official inquiry chaired by Sir William Stewart, known as the `Stewart Report', (iii) that the report specifically recommends that children be discouraged from excessive mobile phone use due to the lack of scientific certainty on whether low-powered microwave radiation can cause adverse health effects, and (iv) that the report suggested a precautionary approach to the siting of antenna masts; and (b) calls on the Government to follow the lead of the UK Government in: (i) requiring mobile phones to be labelled as a possible health hazard, (ii) actively discouraging their use by children, and (iii) reviewing the `low-impact' legislation that currently allows industry to site masts close to residences, schools and hospitals.Senator Hill to move, on the next day of sitting: (1) The disposition of the documents delivered to the Clerk of the Senate on 29 September 2000 pursuant to the order of the Federal Court of 18 February 2000 in Crane v Gething shall be determined in accordance with this resolution. (2) The Senate appoints Mr Stephen Skehill, SC to examine the documents. (3) The Clerk of the Senate shall provide to the person appointed under paragraph (2) the documents delivered by the Federal Court, sealed as received from the Court. (4) The person appointed under paragraph (2) shall examine the documents and determine whether any of the documents are immune from seizure under search warrant by virtue of parliamentary privilege, having regard to the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, relevant court judgments relating to the interpretation and application of the Act, relevant sections of Privileges Committee reports dealing with protection of documents of senators and such other matters as that person considers relevant. (5) The person appointed under paragraph (2) shall divide the documents into two categories, those immune from seizure and those not immune from seizure, and seal them into two packages identified accordingly. Those documents that are immune from seizure are to be returned to Senator Crane and those not immune from seizure are to be forwarded to the Australian Federal Police. (6) Before sealing the package of documents not immune from seizure the person appointed under paragraph (2) shall cause such documents to be copied and the copies of the documents shall be forwarded to Senator Crane at the same time as the originals are forwarded to the Australian Federal Police. (7) For the purposes of paragraph (5), where documents are included with other documents in electronic form on a disk or tape, the documents shall be printed out, only printed copies of such documents shall be placed in the package of documents not immune from seizure, and the disks or tapes shall be placed in the package identified as documents immune from seizure. (8) The person appointed under paragraph (2), on completion of this task, shall provide the President of the Senate with a brief statement that the task has been completed and the President shall table that statement in the Senate.Senator Conroy to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2001:The framework for the market supervision of Australia's stock exchanges, with particular reference to: (a) the advantages and disadvantages (if any) of the current framework; (b) the implications (if any) of the demutualisation and listing of an exchange and any proposed alliance between Australian exchanges and other exchanges; (c) other frameworks or structures for market supervision, including frameworks or structures of, or examined by, overseas exchanges; and (d) whether trade practices law is deficient in ensuring a competitive stock exchange market.Senators Bourne and Allison to move, on the next day of sitting:That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the recent resolutions on nuclear weapons passed by overwhelming majorities in the 1 November 2000 session of the United Nations General Assembly, (ii) in particular, the resolution on a nuclear free southern hemisphere (Resolution L19) as well as the new agenda resolution (L4 Rev 1) and the resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons (Resolution L39 Rev 1) co-sponsored by the Australian Government, (iii) that France abstained on the new agenda resolution and the resolution on a path to the total elimination of nuclear weapons and voted against the resolution on a nuclear free southern hemisphere, (iv) with alarm, the consent of the Federal Government to allow a French nuclear submarine to visit Australia, and (v) that this decision undermines the diplomatic goals promoted by the United Nations General Assembly resolutions of 1 November 2000; (b) considers a visit by a French nuclear powered vessel to be totally inappropriate; and (c) calls on the Australian Government to cancel the proposed visit.Senator Murray to move, on the next day of sitting:That the following bills (or provisions of bills) be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 May 2001 in conjunction with the committee's inquiry into the Charter of Political Honesty Bill 2000 and the Electoral Amendment (Political Honesty) Bill 2000:Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements Bill 2000The provisions of the Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill 2000.Senator Alston to move, on the next day of sitting: (1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the succeeding provision of this resolution having effect. (2) That the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 be recommitted, and that consideration of the bill in committee of the whole be an order of the day for a later hour.15:36:0020523Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—Pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of my intention, at the tabling of reports from committees later today, to withdraw Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for today, for the disallowance of 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 1997.15:37:0020523Patterson, Sen KaySenator PATTERSONLI4VictoriaLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs10—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Roads to Recovery Bill 2000, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings:I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Purpose of the BillThe purpose of the Bill is to appropriate $1,200,000,000 for roads expenditure by local government over 5 years.Reasons for UrgencyThe Government has indicated its intention to provide additional funding to local Government for roads commencing early in 2001. This Bill appropriates the necessary funding and establishes the administrative arrangements for those payments.The Federal Government's strong budgetary position this financial year has allowed it to commence funding immediately rather than wait until the next Budget. The provision of funding starting in early 2001 will allow local governments to commence maintenance and upgrading works immediately. In southern parts of the Australia this will allow councils to make use of the current road construction season rather delaying by almost 12 months if funding was delayed until the next financial year.(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services)15:38:0020523Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw five notices of disallowance, the full terms of which have been circulated in the chamber and which I now hand to the Clerk.The list read as follows—1. A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2000 (No. 2), made under section 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999.2. Defence Portfolio Regulations Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Regulations 2000 (No. 1), as contained in Statutory Rules 2000 No. 263 and made under the Defence Act 1903 and the Air Force Act 1923.3. Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000, made under the Radiocommunications Act 1992.4. Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 (No. 2), made under the Radiocommunications Act 1992.5. Temporary Order No. 4 of 2000, made under subsection 43(8) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee's correspondence concerning these instruments.Leave granted.The correspondence read as follows—A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2000 (No. 2), made under section 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 19992 November 2000Senator the Hon Rod KempAssistant Treasurer Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Exempt Taxes, Fees and Charges) Determination 2000 (No.2), made under section 81-5 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, that specifies the taxes, fees and charges that are excluded from the scope of the GST.Section 81-5 refers to a written determination of the Treasurer. The Committee notes, however, that this Determination was made by the Minister for Finance and Administration for the Treasurer and that the Explanatory Statement was issued under the authority of the Assistant Treasurer. The Committee would appreciate clarification as to whether the power to make this determination was delegated to the Minister for Finance and Administration and, if so, under what authority that delegation has been made.The Committee would appreciate your advice as soon as possible but before 9 November 2000 to allow it to finalise its consideration of this Determination. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG 49, Parliament House, Canberra.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair—————21 November 2000Senator Helen CoonanChairSenateStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesRoom SG 49Parliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 2 November 2000 concerning A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Determination 2000 (No. 2) seeking clarification on the authority under which the determination was made.The Minister for Finance and Administration was Acting Treasurer during the period 22 June 2000 to 28 June 2000 inclusive. The determination was signed by the Minister for Finance and Administration in his capacity as Acting Treasurer on 28 June 2000.Yours sincerelyROD KEMP—————Defence Portfolio Regulations Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Regulations 2000 (No. 1), Statutory Rules 2000 No.2635 October 2000The Hon John Moore MPMinister for DefenceParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Defence Portfolio Regulations Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Regulations 2000 (No.1),Statutory Rules 2000 No. 263, that enables the call out of the Australian Defence Force in situations other than pursuant to Part IIIAAA (Utilisation of Defence Force to protect Commonwealth interests, and States and self-governing Territories, against domestic violence) of the Defence Act 1903.As a general comment, the Committee noted that the Explanatory Statement to this instrument is brief and does not provide an item-by-item explanation of the new proposals. This is disappointing given the importance of the issues addressed in the Regulations.New regulation 11A states that Part 3 of the Regulations ("Aid to Civilian Authorities") applies if the Defence Force is called out under "any lawful authority other than Part IIIAAA" of the Defence Act 1903. The Explanatory Statement adds only that Part 3 will apply where powers under Part IIIAAA are "not appropriate". On the basis of the instrument and the Explanatory Statement, therefore, it is difficult to determine under what situations the new regulations might apply. More specifically, under what other "lawful authority" can the Defence Force be called out? New subregulation 11B(1) applies when the Defence Force is called out to protect "Commonwealth interests". The regulation goes on to state that the Defence Force must be utilised in a way that is "reasonable and necessary to protect the Commonwealth interest". This regulation appears to be modelled on section 51D of the Defence Act 1903. Two comments may be made about the new subregulation (which apply equally to subregulation 11B(2)). First, like subregulation 11B(1), section 51D uses the expression "reasonable and necessary" to define the level at which the Defence Force is to be utilised. Notwithstanding this similarity, the Committee seeks your advice on whether this expression is sufficiently precise and certain. Secondly, unlike section 51D, subregulation 11D(1) does not specify that "the Commonwealth interest" which it is reasonable and necessary to protect must be the same as the "Commonwealth interests" which have caused the Defence Force to be called out in the first place. That is, as the provision is currently worded, there is no necessary relationship between "Commonwealth interests" and "the Commonwealth interest". The Committee also seeks clarification of this point. New subparagraph 11D(1)(b) provides that "a member of the police force" of a State or Territory may give a written request to the Chief of the Defence Force requesting that the Defence Force, which is being utilised in accordance with regulation 11B, be utilised for a particular task. This reflects a similar provision in paragraph 51F(1)(b) of the Act. The Committee seeks confirmation that it is intended that any member of the police force might make such a written request. The Committee would be grateful for your advice as soon as possible but before 9 November 2000 when disallowance action may be initiated.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair—————15 November 2000Senator Helen, CoonanChairSenate Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Thank you for your letter of 5 October 2000 concerning the Defence Portfolio Regulations Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Regulations 2000 (No. 1) (Statutory Rule No. 263). These Regulations enable the call out of the Australian Defence Force in circumstances other than pursuant to Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903.The first matter that you raise is the inadequacy of the Explanatory Statement in relation to the Regulations. As you are aware the Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Act 2000 and the associated Regulations were the culmination of a lengthy consultation process which required considerable effort both from my department and the Attorney General's Department. Given the time constraints in finalising the legislation, it was considered that an Explanatory Statement that was concise and informative was appropriate. It was not considered necessary in the circumstances to adopt an item by item approach. I trust that the following explanation in relation to certain aspects of the Regulations you have drawn to my attention will allay your concerns.Regulation 11A states that Part 3 of the Regulations applies if the Defence Force is called out under any lawful authority other than under Part IIIAAA of the Defence Act 1903.Part IIIAAA is not a code in relation to the calling out of the Defence Force to assist law enforcement agencies. Rather, Part IIIAAA enables assault powers or broad area security powers, or both, to be conferred on the Defence Force when called out under that Part. The new regulations are aimed at those rare situations which might arise where it might be appropriate to call out the Defence Force to assist in law enforcement, but where it would not be appropriate to confer on the Defence Force the significant powers set out under Part IIIAAA.In relation to your query regarding the use of the expression "reasonable and necessary", this term appears routinely in Commonwealth legislation and it confines the exercise of powers. In exercising powers under the Regulations (and under Part IIIAAA) it is understood that members of the Defence Force may only use such force as is reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. That is, a degree of force that is not excessive, but is fair, proper and reasonably necessary in the circumstances. In the event that excessive force is used, a member of the Defence Force may be prosecuted under the ordinary criminal law for assault, unlawful damage or any more serious offence that might be committed.References to "Commonwealth interest" and "Commonwealth interests" are the same. It was thought inappropriate, however, to include a definition of "Commonwealth interest" in either the Regulations or the Act as it potentially covers a broad range of matters. In developing the legislation, it was considered too limiting to define this expression. It would nevertheless include financial or proprietary interests rather than Commonwealth parliamentary power.In relation to your final query relating to the reference to "a member of the police force" in paragraph 11D(1)(b) of the Regulations and paragraph 51F(1)(b) of the Act, it was never intended to confine the operation of these provisions to a particular rank of police officer. Of course, the individual police officer would always be under the command of his or her Police Commissioner and be given the appropriate authority in the circumstances. I trust this information will clarify the queries that you have raised and that any proposed disallowance action of these Regulations will be avoided.Yours sincerelyJOHN MOORE—————Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000, made under the Radiocommunications Act 1992Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 (No. 2), made under the Radiocommunications Act 19925 October 2000Senator the Hon Richard AlstonMinister for Communications, Information Technology and the ArtsParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 and draw your attention to the following matters:· The Explanatory Statement refers to three errors in relation to this instrument. First, the preamble to the instrument refers to `section 115' rather than `subsection 115(1)'. Second, section 3 makes an incorrect reference to the determination that is amended by this instrument. Third, section 1 of Schedule 1 contains a typographical error where it refers to the name of the Determination. · With regard to the third error just mentioned, it is not clear what error is being referred to. Both the heading to the instrument and section 1 of Schedule 1 refer to the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000. However, section 1 of the Determination, which specifies the name of the Determination, refers to "Apparatus Licences" (ie plural).I also refer to the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 (No. 2). It seems the purpose of this instrument is to correct at least one of the errors referred to in relation to the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000, noted above. However, the instrument gives rise to some confusion about this.Section 3 of this instrument purports to amend the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 which, the section says, was made on 13 December 1995 and notified in the Gazette on 20 December 1995. However, as the Explanatory Statement notes, the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 was notified in the Gazette on 26 July 2000. It was made on 17 July 2000. The Committee seeks clarification about these matters, and is interested whether they should be dealt with in a further amending Determination. The Committee would be grateful for your advice as soon as possible but before 2 November 2000 to allow it to finalise its consideration of these Determinations.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair—————Senator Helen CoonanChairSenate Standing Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 5 October 2000 concerning the Radiocommunications (Third Part Users Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 (No. 2).By way of background, the Radiocommunications (Limitation of Authorisation of Third Party Users) Determination 1995 (the substantive determination) was made on 13 December 1995 and notified in the Gazette on 20 December 1995. The substantive determination has been amended by the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000 (the first amending determination) and by the Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Determination 2000 (No. 2) (the second amending determination).Regarding your point about the third error referred to in the explanatory memorandum for the second amending determination, this error concerned the fact that, instead of changing the name of the substantive determination to "Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Determination 2000" section 1 of Schedule 1 of the first amending determination (made on 17 July 2000 and notified in the Gazette on 26 July 2000) changed the name of the substantive determination to "Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence). Amendment Determination 2000" that is, to the same name as the first amending determination itself. This error meant that there were two determinations called "Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000" one being the substantive determination and the other being the first amending determination.The second amending determination simply changed the name of the substantive determination back to its original name, that is, "Radiocommunications (Limitation of Authorisation of Third Party Users) Determination 1995". According to advice from the Australian Communications Authority (ACA), the change back to the original name was at the request of the relevant ACA policy area.As the substantive determination and the first amending determination had the same name, section 3 of the second amending determination, to make it clear it was referring to the substantive determination, referred to "Radiocommunications (Third Party Users - Apparatus Licence) Amendment Determination 2000, made on 13 December 1995 and notified in the gazette on 20 December 1995".I hope the above information will be of assistance to you and members of the Committee. The ACA has advised that any inquiries in this matter should be directed to Kirsten Musgrove (02 6256 5178).Yours sincerelyRICHARD ALSTONMinister for Communications,Information Technology and the Arts—————Temporary Order No. 4 of 2000, made under subsection 43(8) of the Fisheries Management Act 199112 October 2000The Hon Warren Truss MPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear MinisterI refer to Temporary Order No. 4 of 2000 made under subsection 43(8) of the Fisheries Management Act (1991), that amends the Southern Bluefin Tuna Management Plan 1995 by defining Southern Bluefin Tuna only in terms of species Thunnus maccoyii.The Explanatory Statement refers to the similarities between the Southern and Northern Bluefin Tuna species, and notes the difficulty which fishers and compliance officers have had in differentiating between them. The Committee understands that because of this difficulty, the Management Plan had previously included both species within the definition of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The Committee notes that the Explanatory Statement advises that with the development of genetic testing it is now possible to positively distinguish the two types of tuna, and therefore it is no longer necessary to include both species in the Management Plan. However, it is not clear how distinctions based on genetic testing can assist fishers and compliance officers in differentiating the two species. The Committee would appreciate clarification of how this distinction will work in practice.The Committee would appreciate your advice as soon as possible but before 9 November 2000 to allow it to finalise its consideration of this instrument.Yours sincerelyHelen CoonanChair—————21 November 2000Senator the Hon Helen CoonanChairStanding Committee on Regulations and OrdinancesParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator CoonanThank you for your letter of 12 October 2000 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances seeking clarification on genetic testing in relation to Temporary Order No. 4 of 2000 made under subsection 43(8) of the Fisheries Management Act 1991.Genetic testing provides. fishers with a practical means of differentiating northern bluefin tuna (NBT) and southern bluefin tuna (SBT). The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has implemented arrangements whereby fishers, at a relatively low cost (in relation to the value of the fish), can provide a sample of the particular fish (the tail section) to a specified and approved genetic testing facility (CSIRO) for genetic identification. Fishers use processing facilities for the preparation of tuna for export. It is at this point that, a sample is taken from the fish for genetic testing purposes. The sample is frozen and sent to the CSIRO laboratory with relevant details of the fish and its owner. Confirmation of the species identification determines whether or not the fisher will use quota. The need for quota will only apply to fish identified as SBT. Genetic identification clarifies any compliance issues in relation to the need to hold SBT quota and also allows AFMA to report on catches of NBT to the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. To date there has been no reported complications with the testing arrangements put in place by AFMAI trust that this satisfactorily answers your question.Yours sincerelyWARREN TRUSS15:38:0020528Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that, 15 sitting days after today, I shall move that the Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. 12) 2000, made under subregulation 84A(2) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, be disallowed. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the committee's concerns with this instrument.Leave granted.The document read as follows—Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. 12) 2000The Amendment Order makes technical amendments to Part 20 to 95 of the Civil Aviation Orders. The Explanatory Statement notes that `obsolete and inappropriate references' in the Civil Aviation Orders, which this Amendment Order removes, `may, in certain cases, preclude the provisions in which they occur from having a valid operation.' No further explanation is provided as to whether problems have in fact arisen in the operation of any provisions and, if so, what steps (if any) have been taken to overcome the problems, and what the consequences of such problems have been.Committees205282052820528Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Mason)—by leave—agreed to:That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on 5 December 2000, from 3.30 p.m. until 5.00 p.m. to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the integrity of the electoral roll.2052820528Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request of Senator Payne)—by leave—agreed to:That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 be extended to 27 February 2001.Miscellaneous20528Motion (by Senator Brown)—as amended, by leave—agreed to:That the Senate—(a) recalls its motion of 30 November 2000 concerning conflict in Indonesia,(b) expresses strong concern about the situation in West Papua-Irian Jaya,(c) calls on the Australian government to make urgent and appropriate representations to the Indonesian Government to ensure the protection and human and civil rights of detained West Papuan leaders,(d) and reaffirms its call on all parties to refrain from violence and instead pursue peaceful political dialogue in West Papua-Irian Jaya.Miscellaneous20528Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) condemns the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill) for his negative performance during climate change negotiations at The Hague, including his: (i) seeking to have nuclear power included as a clean development mechanism, (ii) failing to oppose the American proposal to include forestry management as an additional sink, (iii) opposing a mandatory compliance regime, and (iv) failing to take a pro-active leadership role throughout the negotiations; and (b) calls on the Howard Government to: (i) acknowledge the need for significant emission reductions beyond the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, (ii) drop controversial positions that will not have a large impact on Australia's circumstances, and (iii) re-establish Australia's role as a leader in international environmental negotiations.Miscellaneous20529Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate— (a) welcomes the World Heritage Committee to Australia for its meeting in Cairns; (b) congratulates the committee on its decision to reject the Australian Government's proposal to weaken the World Heritage Convention by: (i) preventing `in danger' listings when the host country opposes such a listing, and (ii) down-grading the role of the committee's advisory bodies; and (c) calls on the committee to place Kakadu on the `in danger' list because of the threats posed to it from the Jabiluka uranium mine.Miscellaneous20529Motion (by Senator O'Brien, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to:That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no later than immediately after questions without notice on 7 December 2000, all GST-related public opinion polling commissioned by government departments from 1 January 1999 to 30 September 2000.Documents205292052910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today's Order of Business at item 11 which were presented to me when the Senate was not sitting. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.The list read as follows—Family Law Council—Report for 1999-2000.Freedom of Information Act 1982—Report for 1999-2000 on the operation of the Act.Bills20529R11682052910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I table the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000, the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and documents received on 30 November 2000.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents20529205292052910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT——In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-General's Act 1997, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General: Report No. 17 of 2000-01—Performance audit—administration of the waterfront redundancy scheme: Department of Transport and Regional Services; and Report No. 19 of 2000-01—Financial Control and administration audit—management of public sector travel arrangements—Follow-up audit.Delegation Reports205292052910000DEPUTY PRESIDENT,TheThe DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Ireland and China, which took place from 6 to 21 July 2000. I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation which visited Ireland and China in July this year. I led the delegation in China, and the Speaker led the delegation in Ireland.The delegation's visit provided a valuable opportunity to gauge the developments currently shaping one of Australia's most important regional neighbours. It also enabled us to consider and report on the opportunities that exist to broaden and strengthen Australia's relations with China. The delegation was fortunate to meet with senior Chinese representatives, including the Chairman of the National People's Congress, Mr Li Peng. We were able to find out about the issues of current interest in China, particularly the attention that China is devoting to the development of its western regions and its focus on environmental issues.One of the highlights of the visit was the opportunity that we had to travel to regional areas and discuss with regional representatives the challenges that they are facing in today's China. As part of our regional visit, we were also able to see how Australian aid was bringing fresh water to a village and how it was helping to improve the life of children in an orphanage in southern China.On behalf of the delegation, I wish to thank the National People's Congress and all who contributed to the success of our visit. The delegation is sure that those who have primary responsibility for managing Australia's relations with China will find the observations in the report useful in strengthening those relations for the mutual benefit of both countries.I commend the report to the Senate.Committees20530205302053015:45:0020530Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—On behalf of Senator Crane, I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality Beef Export to the European Union) Order 2000, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and documents presented to the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.15:45:0020530Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT5F4TasmaniaLP10—I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.5F4Calvert, Sen PaulSenator CALVERT—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.15:46:0020530Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—I understood that Senator Crane was going to speak to this report as chair of the committee. This issue that was considered by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee is a rather complex one. It involved the consideration of a decision made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry on 23 December last year in which he announced that there would be a substantial change to the allocation system for European Union high quality beef exports from Australia. The shorthand reference for that is EUHQB. I note that the other day, in answer to a question from me during question time, Senator Alston was mistaken. I think he may have thought that EUHQB stood for European Union headquarters in Brussels. It does not; as I said, it refers to the fact that Australia has an entitlement to export 7,000 tonnes of high quality beef into the European market each year. While this is only a small proportion of our overall meat exports, it is nevertheless a prime market, and a significant premium is paid for that high quality beef.The background to this is set out in great detail in the Senate committee's report. I would like to compliment the staff of the committee for this excellent report. Normally, as I think all senators are aware, the reports of legislation committees on particular bills before the Senate are often fairly brief because they are generally quite confined in the issues that are examined. But, for this report, it was necessary to go into some detail about the history of the way in which the allocation system had worked in previous years in order to understand the implications and impact of the minister's decision last December when he changed the arrangements. The issue came to the attention of the committee because a number of companies involved in the export of high quality beef to the European Union market believed they had been unfairly disadvantaged because of the minister's decision. I will very quickly summarise what happened. In February 1999 the then minister, Mr Vaile, requested the Red Meat Advisory Council to conduct a review of the administrative arrangements for the allocation of the quota. At that time, the quota was allocated under what was called an 80/20 allocation system. It would take me some time to explain that in detail but, effectively, the quota was allocated based upon performance of exporting beef into the European Union market in the previous year, as well as taking into account a proportion, 20 per cent, of export into other markets. There was a system in operation whereby companies that could not for one reason or another fulfil the entire quota they had been allocated would in turn sell that proportion of the quota on what was called a `lend' basis to other companies. So if companies could not meet their full quota during one year they would lend it to another company, and they would get it back again at the end of the year. The Red Meat Advisory Council was asked to review this system because there had been lobbying and complaints about the way in which the system worked. What happened is that, in June 1999, the minister sought advice on how the allocation might be made for the first half of the 1999-2000 year. The Red Meat Advisory Council recommended to the minister that the existing arrangements be retained for the current year, 1999-2000, until it had completed its full review. The minister did not accept the advice of the Red Meat Advisory Council and went ahead and issued directions as to how the quota would be allocated for a portion of the year.A lot of things happened after June and many meetings were held with the industry. But the primary point is that it got to a stage in late 1999 where the Red Meat Advisory Council's views had not been accepted by the minister and they had to look at a range of proposals. It appears, and an allegation has been made, that some participants in the industry had inside knowledge about what was going to occur. On 23 December the minister made his announcement about the new system. He decided to go to a system which is known as the shipper of record rather than the old performance based system. But the problem was that, even though he announced that decision on 23 December 1999, the basis for calculation for the next year was on the full year going back to May 1999. In other words, it had a retrospective effect. There were companies that had sold quota between May and December 1999 that suddenly found that they had lost for all time any entitlement to that quota. This, of course, they believed placed them at somewhat of a disadvantage vis-a-vis others who had purchased that quota. It was also the case that there had been a long history that any changes to the allocation system should be made with 12 months notice so that the industry could adjust. That was not followed in this case. As a result a major problem was raised with the committee. I think I will leave my remarks at that. I know that Senator Crane and Senator O'Brien wish to speak on this issue. It appears now that the industry as a whole is in favour of the new system. It is on that basis that I withdraw my disallowance motion. People are prepared to accept the new system for the future, but are still concerned about the fact that they have been disadvantaged in this forthcoming year. I will leave it to Senator Crane and Senator O'Brien to take up where I have left off.15:55:0020531Crane, Sen WinstonSenator CRANEUW4Western AustraliaLP10—In rising to speak on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry report into the Australian meat and livestock industry, I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate a number of points. The first point I would make, is that this inquiry was rather complex and, in some areas, rather difficult to understand. It was not until the committee really got to the intricacies of some of the workings in the meat industry and how the EU entitlement had worked over the years, that I—and will not speak for the rest of the committee—came to grips with the changes and the reasons for the supposed changes. As Senator Forshaw said in his closing remarks, there was industry unanimity in terms of where they wanted to get. The dispute was about how they got there.There are two issues for the committee and me that I particularly want to highlight. One is the issue of retrospectivity and the impact on some of those people who have been in the trade. One witness to the inquiry, Mr Hines, said that he had been in the industry for 28 years. The other question was the issue of prior knowledge and whether or not anybody had been able to take commercial advantage of that. I will come back to that particular question, but I have to say that I do not think we will ever be able to prove it one way or the other. But when you analysed everything in front of you in terms of some of the buying habits that occurred I guess you had to be, at the very least, suspicious that there had been some prior knowledge and that what would be termed in the corporate world as insider trading could have occurred, even if it did not occur. That was the basis behind some of our recommendations, which I will come to. With respect to the issue of retrospectivity, technically the advice from the Auditor-General's office probably is correct in terms of what the quotas are and who owns them. But, in a commercial sense, with a practice that had gone on for 20-odd years, there is no doubt that some people did suffer commercial retrospectivity in the changeover. This happened for the simple reason that they sold some of their quotas as an outright sale and they sold some of their quotas as what is known as a lend sale, which returns at the end of the year, with every expectation that they would come back to them at the end of the year. I have no doubt at all that there was commercial retrospectivity and it was unfair to some of the people involved in the process.The other issue was the question of prior knowledge. I particularly want to draw the attention of the Senate to clauses 328 and 329, which spell this out very clearly. Two things occurred. Firstly, an AFFA report was released and was not marked confidential. One has to question whether or not that document went beyond the recipients of it, although when some of them received it and passed it on to their own members they did mark it confidential. Secondly, a series of conversations—we are not sure how many, but at least two or three, if not more—occurred between Mr Read, who was the principal officer from AFFA, and other people in the meat industry, which did give them knowledge. Just how people used that knowledge is open to speculation. It is worth noting, as you will see in clause 329—which was corrected or updated evidence that was put by the committee—that, having been told that there had been no trading by a particular company, we saw quite clearly after a particular conversation that there was trading by that particular company. As I said earlier in my comments, we will never be able to prove that. I do not even know whether or not it was just a commercial decision or whether it was `good guessing power'—which is a quote from Mr Roseby—or whether it just happened. But the fact is that the question is there, and we have decided on a safety first proposition which we are putting to the minister in this report to deal with this particular issue.Senator Forshaw has just announced his withdrawal of the disallowance motion, that the status quo will remain for this year. But we are recommending that there be a variation in the way it is done in the future.That has a number of benefits. The first benefit is that it will totally get rid of the retrospectivity—it will not exist. It will totally get rid of the prior knowledge question, because it will all be done after the events that have taken place. On top of that, those people known as `traders' in the industry who used to buy and sell quota will not be rewarded for quota they are not trading in beef sales to the EU. It is spelled out very clearly in recommendation 3:The Committee recommends that where exporters choose not to re-enter the EU HQB market in 2001/2002 through a decision of their own not to meet EU accreditation standards, their uncommitted quota allocation should be available to EU accredited packer exporters and non-packer exporters currently in the market. Allocation of uncommitted quota should be on the basis of applications to the Secretary of AFFA. One of the principal reasons—not the only one—why this issue was before my committee was purely and simply the concern that some people were making a profit who were not really involved in the meat industry and were trading in just quotas.My criticism of this process really goes to the man in charge of the process—Mr Read. In July there was a package of unanimous recommendations from RMAC. If that had been presented, in my view, in the proper way and its total concept to the minister, we could well have had a different result and we may not have been here today—in fact, we would not be standing here today—with this particular report.With regard to the handling of this at a higher level within the department, they need to look at better and more precise processes into the future so that we avoid the type of things that we have seen and we avoid an inconclusive recommendation going to the minister. It became clear out of this issue that `packer exporters' and `non-packer exporters' were terms which most people in the context did not understand. There are two forms of people who trade with the EU and the EU beef entitlement: those who actually do the slaughter, arrange the market and sell the product, and the others. Sangers were a classic example of this—working with Bindaree Beef. They did the actual marketing and the selling in the EU, whereas the abattoir was a separate operation and was done under contract, and that was the split between the two. At the end of the day, our inquiry is recommending—and this is going to be adopted now because of the withdrawal of the disallowance motion—that the current arrangements stay for this year. We return for the establishment next year to a performance based operation. That then goes to the shipper of record to operate into the future. If you are going to be in the EU special beef allocation, then you have to actually be in there, you have got to trade, you have to be part of the process—you cannot profit on both sides. If that was adopted, it would become a good arrangement and it would be a fair arrangement. I think it would overcome those concerns the committee had—the two things we found very difficult to live with. One was the question of commercial retrospectivity and the other—as the evidence put before us indicated—was the potential for the use of prior knowledge. I will make no judgment as to whether or not that was utilised, but one has to be suspicious when you see the buying habits which occurred following that information and all the data that we had put on the table.16:04:0020533O'Brien, Sen KerrySenator O'BRIEN8O6TasmaniaALP00—Can I say, in relation to this report, that I am not sure whether the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee does more work than any of the other committees of the Senate or whether it just seems that way—others will make that judgment, I am sure, and everyone will have their own view. But it really is the case that this committee does have a larger workload, and the reason is that there has been a failure by successive ministers in this government to properly administer this portfolio. This report that has just been tabled is yet another example of what is now a very long list of very poor ministerial decisions in the agriculture portfolio. Not only have these decisions being built on poor public policy, but they have also cost affected industries money—a lot of money in this case, I suspect. In some cases, we in this place—and I include government senators—have been able to sort out the messes and save successive ministers from themselves; but in others we have not, and the agriculture industries and farmers have been forced to put their hands in their pockets as a result.I can give you some examples: the import protocols for cooked chicken meat. The draft protocols were flawed, required cooking temperatures were too low and the cooking time too short. The then minister, Mr Anderson, was only saved from signing off on these flawed protocols by a call from a journalist from the Australian Financial Review, who pointed out to the minister's office the disaster, both political and quarantine, that would follow. In the end, the right protocols were put in place and, as a result of work done by this committee, of course that happened—no thanks to the minister, I must say. When the Australian pork industry was under assault from a flood of imported produce and sought relief in terms strictly in accordance with WTO obligations, the industry was told to forget it. In the end, the government, however, under pressure in this chamber particularly, and from the pork industry, did provide the industry with some assistance, but it was quite late coming and quite disjointed. We have seen, as we will hear later this week in the case of AWRAP, that successive ministers took decisions that led to the Cape Wools fiasco, and we have not heard the end of that matter.Turning to my state and the drought in the Tasmanian Central Highlands, despite the plight of farmers in this region of Tasmania, the government argued for, I think, two years about detail. Rather than facilitate the assessment process for assistance to these farmers, the government worked to frustrate that process. In the end, the minister conceded that their claim was legitimate. Regarding OJD, again it was this committee that forced the minister's hand. Mr Anderson held out until the bitter end against taking a national approach to what is clearly a national problem. It was an inquiry undertaken by this committee that forced Mr Anderson's hand on the matter. I note in passing that we had a hearing on the matter this morning. The government has again taken its eye off the ball in relation to the OJD problem. Hundreds of farmers are suffering both economic and social hardship as a result. The committee is again looking at this important matter and it appears that we will have to sort out this problem as well. Turning to the question of EU beef quotas—I stress, for the benefit of Senator Alston, that this is European Union high-quality beef—we now have another mess, a mess which, in this case, is very much of the government's own making. Again, this committee has had to look at the matter and has had to come up with what is an equitable solution. It should be stressed that the committee's findings are unanimous, except for the additional comment which the Labor Party makes in its addendum to the report. For the sake of the Hansard I will read it:The Labor Party notes with concern that the failure of the former Minister, Mr Vaile, and the current Minister, Mr Truss, to properly manage the change in quota arrangements has significantly disadvantaged a number of industry participants.The Labor Party notes Mr Vaile was presented with a set of unanimous recommendations from his key industry advisory body, RMAC, on 2 July 1999. But the then Minister failed to act on that advice and the matter remained unresolved until two days before Christmas, some eight months into the trading year.It is the view of the Labor Party that a timely response by Mr Vaile and Mr Truss to the July recommendations from the RMAC could have resulted in a more timely and equitable outcome for all EU HQB participants.Listening to what Senator Crane has just said, the issue of retrospectivity arose because of the delay. RMAC was a body that was appointed by the government to advise the minister. Then it was Mr Vaile and there was a change in ministers. It was a body of the government's own making. It drew together the various groups within the industry. They were charged with the responsibility of coming up with a recommendation, and they did. They came up with a unanimous recommendation. Had it been acted upon when it was received, we would not have had the inquiry that we had because there would not have been the hue and cry that occurred in the industry when the minister announced the decision months later, particularly when the decision retrospectively affected the entitlements—what I consider would almost have been a property entitlement—of quota holders.Whatever the motivation of the minister, if the minister had a view that there was something wrong in the history of trading with quotas in the industry, the minister should have been very forthcoming and charged RMAC with dealing with that in the context of the report they made to the minister on 2 July. But it only became clear later that the minister had decided that there was another way that the matter ought to proceed. Because it took until 23 December to announce that and effectively it was going to recognise the temporary arrangements that quota holders had put in place because they had traded their quota entitlements on what the industry terms `a lends basis'—in other words, they sell with a right to receive back quota entitlements—the minister put in place arrangements whereby those people who had purchased quota effectively for one year's use got that use on an ongoing basis. Those people who made the sale with the understanding that they would get it back, as they had every year previously, found that their rights were to disappear. Who could be surprised that the industry would react in the way that it did? There are suggestions that there will be litigation. There have been suggestions that there was prior knowledge and that some people purchased quota on the basis that they knew what the decision was and, therefore, they were effectively doing something akin to insider trading to their advantage and to the disadvantage of quota holders. In the two minutes available to me I will attempt to deal with what Senator Crane has said. The committee has effectively said, `We are not going to support a disallowance because, if the regulation was disallowed, the minister would then be in a position to put in place whatever he wanted anyway.' Secondly, the industry was saying, `We can live with this arrangement for a couple of years, but we have to have a means of returning to an equitable redistribution of the quotas.' What the committee has recommended is that, at the end of that two-year period, there be another look at the allocation of quotas with regard to a greater history period of actual traders in quota so that, whilst the minister may have some real concerns about people who simply trade in quota but never actually trade in beef, there can be an equitable addressing of the problem so people who may temporarily have traded in quota because of particular circumstances but who have a long history of trading can get back into the game and can have their position properly considered—so that quotas can be allocated, including in Senator Crane's state of Western Australia. Currently they are excluded. There are no quotas held in the hands of any of the abattoirs in Western Australia.There are accreditation issues involved here as well. It is a complex area and I will not be able to deal with it in the time available to me. But I would hope that the minister accepts that this unanimous recommendation from all of the parties in the committee, the government senators included, is worth while having a good hard look at. I hope the minister does not just take the opportunity of saying, `I will do what I like and damn the committee,' because it will then be a matter that this committee has to visit again. It will add to the workload of the committee and we will end up with other recommendations put to the government.Question resolved in the affirmative.Notices2053520535Motion (by Senator Murray)—by leave—agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 717 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, relating to the introduction of the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2000, be postponed till 27 February 2001.Documents205352053516:15:0020535Greig, Sen BrianSenator GREIG86XWestern AustraliaAD00—by leave—I move:That the Senate take note of the document. I acknowledge the tabling today of the annual report from the Family Law Council for 1999-2000. In doing so, I would ask senators, if they have the opportunity, to take a look at some of the rich statistics that it provides, particularly in relation to the incidence of both marriage and divorce and how that reflects on the way the trend in both those areas has been moving since 1976. For example, on page 20 of the report the council notes that the most recent statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the marriage and divorce rates increased slightly in 1999. The marriage rate per 1,000 in the population increased from 5.9 in 1998 to six in 1999, after a slight decrease in 1996 and 1997. The divorce rate increased from 2.7 per 1,000 in 1998 to 2.8 in 1999. It is interesting to note that that is a tiny and marginal increase in the divorce rate. The more interesting statistic, however, is when you compare that to the divorce trend over recent years. The council notes that there were some 52,600 divorces in 1999, representing a small increase, of just 2.4 per cent, on the number of divorces in 1998. But in the overall picture it represents a 27 per cent increase on 1989 compared with an increase of just seven per cent between 1989 and 1999. One of the issues that might concern us is the way we can look at that in addition to the matrix provided by the council in relation to the statistics it has on where it waivers court fees. From 1 December 1996 a filing fee of $500 has been payable under regulation 11 of the Family Law Regulations Act of 1984. Since the introduction of that fee, roughly 30 per cent of people, or a third, seeking application for divorce had the fee waived. Yet just a few years later, in the year 2000, that is nudging 52 per cent, or just over 50 per cent. I think the area of concern there for legislators is the possible link—and I stress possible—between economic difficulties, or financial circumstances, and the pressure or need to divorce. We note, for example, that the level of marriages in 1976 was 109,973 couples and yet in 1999 it was 114,300—only an apparent marginal increase, given that that was accompanied by a significant increase in population within the nation over that time. When it comes to children, the current statistics show that over the period 1989 to 1999 the percentage of divorces granted where children under 18 years of age were involved fell from 55 per cent to 54 per cent, only a marginal drop. Yet in terms of raw numbers what that meant for recent years—particularly in regard to the average number of children of divorcing couples in 1999—was that 53,444 children, an immense number of children, were involved in divorce cases. In some ways the statistics that have been shown here today through this annual report validate the decision the Senate took recently to support the legislation presented by the Attorney-General for the introduction of prenuptial agreements for married partners. We have them already for de facto partners but not for married partners. Of course, appropriate safeguards were placed within that legislation to ensure that one partner in a particular relationship could not be subject to some form of abuse in terms of the imbalance of power within that relationship which may occur. We learn, too—particularly in relation to children in terms of an overall picture of Australia—from a report by Michelle Gunn and Barclay Crawford, parts of which were published in the Australian newspaper on 17 November this year, that the early thirties are now officially the most popular age for women to have children. In 1999, women aged 30 to 34 had more babies than those aged 25 to 29. This is the first time that peak fertility has become a `thirty-something' phenomenon. If the trend continues, by 2002 the majority of babies will be born to women aged 30 and over and by 2008 it will be 58 per cent. There were 248,900 births in Australia last year. The total fertility rate is at a historical low of just 1.75 babies per woman. It was 1.76 in 1998. We have also seen, in terms of the overall picture of Australia, that one in three women is now waiting until her thirties to have her first child. One in seven babies is born to a single mother and 28 per cent to unmarried mothers. About 65 per cent of single mothers are over the age of 30 and fewer than three per cent are teenagers. Twenty-eight per cent of women will remain childless. Almost half of the women seeking IVF are aged over 35 and the average 24-year-old woman will fall pregnant within a year of trying, while a 39-year-old can take an average of three years. There are further statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as reported by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Given the general trend, it is imperative that governments acknowledge the changing nature and structure of relationships—particularly the levels of marriage and divorce and also of those choosing to have children or not—and ensure that there are appropriate legislative frameworks within which to do that.I note also from page 49 of the report from the council—where they are discussing recommendations in letters of advice from the council to the Attorney-General still under consideration—that there still appear to be some outstanding issues which we in the Senate should continue to monitor. For example, in relation to parenting plans, in a joint letter of advice produced with the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council, the council advocated to the Attorney that division 4 of part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 should be amended specifically to do two things: firstly, to encourage the use of parenting plans and the use of consent orders where a party requires that elements of the plan be enforceable and, secondly, to repeal the registration provisions.In response to that, the Attorney has noted, in a letter of return to the council, that that would be a matter for detailed consideration—or at least it was in the Attorney's brief to the council in June this year. I am not sure of the extent to which division 4 of part VI may or may not have been dealt with recently by the Senate in changes to the Family Law Act, but I suspect that part of that may have been dealt with in contact orders, on which the Senate had some debate, and in a decision over the structure in which the courts may apply some form of reprimand, ultimately leading to jail, to those recalcitrant parents denying the other partner access to children. I think I am perhaps confusing two different issues there. However, it is worth noting that, since that act as been amended, we now have the three-tiered structure where there are remedial programs for recalcitrant parents, and the courts have the final option of eventually jailing a recalcitrant parent for not providing the appropriate contact orders to what under those circumstances would be an estranged partner. In a general sense, family law is a very complex and very difficult area, particularly because it is so emotive in terms of finances and children. I compliment the Chair, Des Semple, and his colleagues for dealing with what is a very difficult area.Question resolved in the affirmative. Committees20537205372053716:25:0020537Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 37th report entitled Six treaties tabled on 10 October 2000, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings, minutes of proceedings and submissions received by the committee. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.2M6Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.I seek leave to have my tabling statement incorporated in Hansard.Leave granted.The statement read as follows—Madam President, the report I have just presented contains the results of the review by the Treaties Committee of 6 proposed treaty actions tabled in Parliament on 10 October 2000, those being: · a Protocol concerning International Registration of Marks;· an Agreement with Egypt regarding Cooperation in the Protection of Children;· a Double Taxation Agreement with the Russian Federation;· various Acts of the Universal Postal Union; and · Amendments to the Schedule of the International Whaling Convention.In our report we express support for each of these treaty actions.There were two additional proposed treaty actions presented to Parliament on 10 October which we have not yet reported on:· a proposed Agreement on Privileges and Immunities for the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea; and· the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court.I hope we will be able to resolve our position in relation to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities for the Tribunal on the Law of the Sea by the end of the week, but as Parliament is rising for the summer adjournment on Thursday we will not be able to present our findings until the New Year.There is, however, much more to be done in relation to our review of the Statute for the International Criminal Court.We have held one hearing on the Statute so far and are presently receiving written submissions from individuals and non-government organisations, all of which warrant careful consideration.We are also keen to review the legislation that the Government has developed to give domestic effect to the Statute. Our view is that if we are to report on whether ratifying the Statute is in the national interest, we need also to consider the impact of ratification on our domestic law.Accordingly, we have written to the Attorney-General asking that the Bill be referred for our consideration at the same as we are examining the National Interest Analysis for the Statute. We have not yet received a response from the Attorney. I think it unlikely that we will be able to report on this matter until late in the Autumn sittings.Turning back to Report 37, I would like to focus on two of six treaty actions we have reviewed: the Protocol on Registration of Marks and the Agreement with Egypt on the Protection of Children.The Protocol on the Registration of Marks will in our view have a very beneficial effect on the handling of trademark registration.Under the existing regime, in order to protect trade marks in overseas markets an Australian trade mark owner must register and maintain trademark protection in the trade mark office of each particular country where protection is required. This may involve filing multiple applications in languages other than English and the payment of government and legal fees on each occasion—a time consuming, expensive and not fully effective procedure. Under the proposed Protocol the process will be streamlined allowing Australian trademark owners the ability to file single applications in Australia, in English, and pay fees to one office to obtain trademark protection in all, or any of the other countries that are Parties to the Protocol.The effective implementation of the Protocol will require IP Australia (the relevant Commonwealth agency) to maintain a continuing program of business education about the advantages of international trademark protection and about how to obtain the protection afforded by the Protocol. This type of support is particularly important for small export focussed business that may be without in-house expertise this area.We also support the aims of the Agreement with Egypt concerning the Protection of Children. This bilateral agreement establishes a mechanism to assist nationals of either country whose children have been abducted to the other country, or where difficulties with contact between a parent and child have arisen. At present, parents seeking to re-establish contact with a child who has been `illicitly transferred and not returned' from one country to another have access only to consular assistance. The Agreement is in Australia's interests because Egypt is not a party to the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, so the mechanisms and protocols available under the Convention cannot be used in cases involving Egypt. Egypt is one of several countries with child custody laws based on religious law and is unlikely to become a party to the Child Abduction Convention.Under the Agreement, a joint consultative commission will be established, enabling parents to seek assistance from officials in both countries with direct knowledge of and expertise in, the administrative and judicial structures in each country. The Commission will assist in locating children who have been abducted, as well as encouraging dialogue and the amicable resolution of issues between parents. In addition, it will facilitate the issue of travel documents to parents and children seeking to be reunited.Madam President, as we are nearing the end of the parliamentary year, I would like to make a few comments about the work of the Treaties Committee in the last twelve months.I think we can reasonably lay claim to being the most productive committee in the Parliament. In the life of this Parliament, we have produced 20 reports - 10 since this time last year.Although we have tabled a report today, we still have 6 inquiries on foot. We are reviewing:· the Kyoto Protocol on Greenhouse Gas emissions;· Australia's relationship with the World Trade Organisation;· Australia's extradition law, policy and practice;· the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; and the two proposed treaties I referred to earlier· the Statute of the International Criminal Court; and· the privileges and immunities of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.This is a substantial workload by any standards.I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee for having contributed so effectively over the last twelve months to the process of encouraging wider community understanding of and debate about the impact of treaties on the lives of Australians.I commend this latest report, Report 37, to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative. Delegation Reports205382053816:26:0020538McKiernan, Sen JimSenator McKIERNAN1I4Western AustraliaALP00—by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 104th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held at Jakarta from 15 to 21 October 2000 and a bilateral visit to Vietnam from 22 to 27 October 2000. I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the report. I want to highlight a few matters regarding both the conference and the bilateral visit. The conference was held in Jakarta and 108 countries participated in it. The Australian parliament can be proud of the manner in which we as a delegation as a whole conducted ourselves. We were very ably led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. Neil Andrew. I will not go to each and every one of the matters in which the delegation participated other than to take advantage of the fact that I am speaking in this place by highlighting that I participated in the study committee that looked at the prevention of military and other coups against democratically elected governments. I actually spoke to the conference on that matter and participated, as I said, in the study committee that drafted a resolution which was unanimously carried by the conference at its final session on the Thursday. During my speech, I made a point about the fact that Fiji had been suspended from participation in the conference because of the recent coup that had occurred in that place. As I indicated, all members of the delegation played a role in the various subject matters that were discussed and debated at the conference. The resolutions of the conference are very adequately detailed in the body of the report. On the matter of the committee to promote respect for international humanitarian law, I just want to highlight that the handbook that has previously been adopted by the committee has been presented to the Australian Parliamentary Library. It was originally produced in English. It has now been translated into French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Japanese, Serbian and Indonesian, and a ceremony was held to hand over the Indonesian translation of the book. Plans are in place to translate it into Hindi, Portuguese, German and Hebrew, and those will be available shortly. There are plans—and I participated in meetings of officers of the second committee of the IPU on preparing these—to begin work, together with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, on the preparation of a handbook on international refugee protection, a handbook which we intend to present to the council in 2001, the year of the 50th anniversary of the corresponding convention.All in all, as I said in my opening remarks, Australia can be very proud of the work of the delegation so ably led by the Speaker. We participated in all facets of the conference but also played constructive roles in the various geopolitical groups that were represented in the Asia-Pacific group and the Twelve-Plus group, which is mainly representative of the European nations. We gained some respect in all of those committees, and respect has been gained not only in the conference I attended but in the many conferences preceding it. The next conference will be held in Havana, Cuba in April 2001. I want to make some remarks about the delegation's visit to Vietnam. When honourable senators get copies of the report, they can refer to page 37, which shows two pictures of the very magnificent My Thuan Bridge in Vinh Long Province, Vietnam. It is a very significant aid package that Australia has given to that nation. Australia regards Vietnam as a very important neighbour in the Asia-Pacific region, which we are part of. We were one of the first countries to restore a bilateral aid program to Vietnam following the withdrawal of the Vietnamese presence from Cambodia and the signing of the Paris peace accords. Currently we have a commitment of $260 million in aid over four years to assist that nation to develop. The total assistance of some $70 million per year makes Vietnam Australia's third largest partner in development cooperation. The My Thuan Bridge over one arm of the Mekong River is a magnificent facility and a magnificent piece of infrastructure. Australia contributed two-thirds of the $90 million cost of the bridge; the rest was contributed by Vietnam. With the completion of the bridge, Australia's assistance in this sector will increasingly support small-scale infrastructure, agriculture and capacity building for rural development in the region. Whilst we were on our way to visit the bridge, we witnessed at first hand some of the flooding that that nation has been afflicted with in recent times, flooding that Australia is now experiencing in New South Wales. The aid that we are giving to that country is being very well received.Vietnam continues to be a very important trading partner to Australia. It was our 32nd largest export market in 1999-2000. Two-way trade totalled $2.11 billion, up from $1.32 billion in 1998-99. Australia's exports to Vietnam reached $384 million, up from $349 million in 1998-99—an increase of 10 per cent. Major Australian exports to Vietnam include cereals, flour, dairy products, aluminium, copper, electrical machinery and equipment, medical and pharmaceutical products, refined petroleum and motor vehicle parts. Another area of importance to Australia is education. In Ho Chi Minh City, Australia's RMIT University has recently been licensed to operate Vietnam's first fully foreign owned university, which will commence in 2003. Many Australia-Vietnam education and training collaborations are under negotiation. Education and training was Australia's single largest export to Vietnam in 1999 and, excluding in-country activities, is estimated to be worth in excess of $70 million. While we were in Hanoi, we took the opportunity to visit the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. ACIAR promotes research into sustainable agricultural production and natural resource management in developing countries. ACIAR's activities are funded from Australian official development assistance. Current financial commitment by ACIAR in Vietnam is just over $3 million spread over 32 active projects. Three million dollars is not an insignificant amount of money but they certainly do make the money stretch a long way, as we found out when we visited Danang on the second day of the visit. We proceeded by car to Tam Ky and Tra My and looked at some of the infrastructure projects that Australia has assisted in funding. The Tra My project is worthy of mention because its aim is to reduce poverty in isolated ethnic minority communes by providing access to transport, education, health care, markets and agricultural extensions. The hospital that we visited had basic medical services and was servicing a population of some 53,000 people. Australia has provided $566,900 through the NGO Vietnam-Australia Program, which is under the supervision of the Adventist Development Relief Agency Vietnam.We also had a look at two bridges, one at Tra Doc and one at Tra Bui, which were constructed using AusAID funding. The suspension bridges cost around $120,000 each to construct, and they provide a lifeline between villages on either side of very fast flowing rivers that cut deep gorges through the mountainside. They provide the people with the ability to take produce to market, they enable children to attend the local primary school and health centre and they enable people to attend to other basic needs. While in Danang, we witnessed the signing of a memorandum of understanding on a renewable energy project between Danang and the International Centre for Application of Solar Energy, CASE, which is a Perth based operation. Again, one can be very proud of what Australia is contributing. The highlight of the visit to Vietnam was of course the visit to the My Thuan Bridge, which I spoke about earlier. It was constructed by Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd, with Maunsell McIntyre Pty Ltd as the supervising engineers. The bridge was completed ahead of schedule in March this year. It was within budget and it was constructed with an exemplary safety record. The bridge project provided continuous training for Vietnamese construction workers, resulting in significant transfers of skills.Finally, I want to give some thanks particularly to the Ambassador to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, His Excellency Michael Mann, to his wife, Monique, to the Consul-General in Ho Chi Minh City, Lisa Filipetto, and to the very professional staff both in Ho Chi Minh City and in Hanoi. They provided us with magnificent briefings and explanations on what was happening around us. I have mentioned the leadership of the delegation leader, the Speaker, Neil Andrew. I cannot but mention the work of the secretary of the committee, Mr Peter Keele. Nothing was too hard for Peter to keep the delegation fully informed of what was happening to us, and our every need was met by Peter. In the early part of our report we also acknowledge the assistance given by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Parliamentary Library and the various sections of the parliament who made this delegation a success. Of course, success will be judged in years to come rather than now, but I am pleased to have been part of a delegation that has contributed to the benefit of Australia in the region, both at the conference and in Vietnam.Bills20541Message received from the House of Representatives returning the following bill without amendment:Fuel Quality Standards Bill 2000.Bills20541R11512054116:39:0020541Coonan, Sen HelenSenator COONAN2M6New South WalesLP10—On behalf of Senator Watson, I present the report of the Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000, together with the Hansard record of the committee's proceedings and submissions received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills20541R1150BillsR114920541Consideration resumed from 30 November.AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL BILL 2000The bill.16:41:0020541Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 1:(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iv) that may, on its own initiative, conduct inquiries into matters related to research and research education and publish the results; andIn its 1999 white paper `Knowledge and innovation: a policy statement on research and research training', the federal government proposed a series of reforms designed to create a strong and vibrant research base. Setting aside some of the concerns held by the Democrats about other reforms proposed in the white paper, we of course support the notion of a strong, vibrant and independent research council able to, in the words of the white paper, `play a more strategic role in providing advice on the allocation of funding'. As I set out in my speech in the second reading debate last Thursday when it was hastily brought on in the midst of the Gene Technology Bill chaos, the Democrats do not believe that this legislation will create a stronger and more independent research council but believe that a number of the provisions in the legislation actually undermine the aim which the government purports to have.The first Democrat amendment seeks to address one of the fundamental problems in this reform model set out in the bill by restoring the power of the ARC to initiate its own inquiries on matters relating to research and research education. We fail to see how without this power the ARC would be able to meet the expectations accorded it in the white paper, including the strategic role in developing strategic planning for research funding and education. The bill currently provides that the ARC may carry out such inquiries under ministerial discretion—or direction, I am sorry. That is a bit of a Freudian slip but probably appropriate in relation to this bill. This raises additional concerns about the ability of the ARC to be a sufficiently independent entity to provide impartial advice on the matters it is investigating. In removing the power to initiate inquiries originally provided by the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, the federal government have departed from the model of the National Health and Medical Research Council. I am wondering whether the minister could indicate what flaws there are in the operation of the power by the NHMRC. What flaws have they identified that have actually led them to remove the power from the ARC? I am just wondering whether there is a particular rationale for the removal of that ability. The importance of research and development to Australia's future innovative and economic performance is becoming increasingly apparent, and of course we are hearing rhetoric in relation to that aim all the time not only from the government but also from the opposition. Whether or not that commitment is going to be matched with adequate funding and resources and a strong, independent research centre and research body in the form of the ARC is questionable. It is important that we get the reform of the Australian Research Council right to enable it to play the central role which the government has accorded it in directing Australia's research efforts. This amendment restores a key tool for the ARC in performing that function. The words that I seek to include in the objects part of the bill are:... that may, on its own initiative, conduct inquiries into matters related to research and research education and publish the results ...That is the crux of that amendment. It is not a new notion. We seek to have that reinstated into this bill because we think it is important to achieving the very objectives which the government has outlined in its own white paper. I hope that the opposition will support that amendment. I ask the minister: what is the rationale or the justification for removing that opportunity or power of the ARC?16:46:0020542Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition support this Democrat amendment. In general, our approach in dealing with this bill should be summarised at this point. Given that the issues are obviously significant, I would hate to think that, because we do not give a detailed response to every proposition put, there could be any implication drawn that we do not regard these issues as serious. At this time in the parliamentary schedule, there is some pressure on the legislative program. Our intention is not to go to these matters in great detail. I trust, Senator Stott Despoja, that we will be able to conclude these matters by 6.30 p.m. tonight.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—That depends on whether you are bringing on the ESOS legislation.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—No, we are in fact bringing on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—In which case we can move through this at lightning speed.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—It is important that we pay particular attention, given the time of year, so that these matters are dealt with thoroughly and appropriately, but not necessarily at great length.16:47:0020542Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—In answer to the Democrats' question in relation to the carryover of the ability to initiate an inquiry of its own motion, the NHMRC is another research council which deals with medical aspects and not education as such. That is really not such a precedent to be relied upon. The role of the ARC in the new research and research training framework has been clearly defined in the `Knowledge and innovation' paper. It is intended that its role in the national innovation system will be broadened, and this should be delivered through the development and implementation of a strategic planning process. The areas in which the minister may seek ARC advice have been broadened to research matters. This allows for a wider range of areas that may be considered by the ARC than was the case under the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. We have a broadening of the areas into which the ARC can make inquiry but we have decided not to carry over the power to conduct inquiries on its own motion. The ARC will also be providing advice on matters developed and formed through its planning process, as I mentioned. There is nothing in the bill that prevents the ARC from asking the minister to refer a matter to it for consideration and advice. This will ensure that there is consultation on research matters between the minister and the ARC.The amendments to this bill do not carry over the provision within the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988 to prevent the ARC from carrying out inquiries on its own motion if it would prejudice the performance of its other functions. The environment proposed by both the opposition and the Democrats could see an ARC that is too busy conducting inquiries on its own motion to provide timely advice to government on matters concerning national research priorities or emerging fields of research such as nanotechnology and photonics, to name a couple. I think that answers both the question put by the Democrats and the reason for the government's opposition to this amendment. 16:49:0020543Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—On this matter, we have indicated that we are supporting the Democrats' position. During the second reading debate, I indicated our concerns about this matter and we indicated similar concerns at the Senate inquiry. I find it odd that you are taking this particular view. I understand that within government it is only recently that you were prepared to accept an amendment along these lines. Therefore, we can see no reason why the ARC ought not to have the measure of independence proposed in this amendment.Amendment agreed to.16:50:0020543Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I will probably withdraw amendment (2) standing in my name. I understand the opposition shares a concern that we had at the time of drafting—that is, that the states when referred to are already deemed to include territories, but I might ask for advice from the clerks. This amendment was included on the clerks' advice. I am happy to withdraw it if the minister and others in the chamber believe that the definition of the `states' includes the Northern Territory and the ACT. I am not quite sure why it has been included in the drafting process, but knowing that the clerks usually know better than I and probably the majority of us in this chamber at any given time, if the advice from the Senate is to proceed with the amendment, then I will happily move the amendment. Otherwise I will proceed with the amendment, having not moved the amendment standing in my name on behalf of the Democrats. If the minister and his capable advisers would like to shed some light on whether or not `states' is deemed to include territories, then I will be satisfied with the explanation.16:51:0020543Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The Acts Interpretation Act 1901, section 17, Constitutional and Official Definitions, says:(o) `State' shall mean a State of the Commonwealth.Therefore, that would not include a territory.16:52:0020543Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 2:(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:States includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.I move the above amendment for the obvious reason of making sure that the territories are not left out in the definition section of the legislation.16:52:0020543Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—We will support that position.Amendment agreed to.16:52:0020543Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 3:(3) Clause 6, page 4 (line 18), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add ", including by determining the distribution of funds for a particular year between 2 or more categories of research programs".This amendment seeks to strengthen the independence of the ARC and enhance its strategic decision making capacity. While it is appropriate that there be consultation between the minister and the ARC regarding the levels of caps among different research programs, the Democrats believe it is more appropriate that the ARC be responsible for making the final determination. This will not remove ministerial influence as he or she will have the power to approve strategic plans. I urge the opposition and the government to support the amendment. Otherwise I am happy, as Senator Carr has indicated, to move this debate along.10000Knowles, Sue (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Knowles)—Senator Stott Despoja, may I seek guidance from you? On the running sheet your amendments (3) and (4) are to be moved by leave together. You only mentioned amendment (3).16:53:0020543Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I think I will separate the amendments if the chamber will allow me to. 16:54:0020544Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition does not support Democrat amendment (3). In our judgment this is a matter that ought correctly to be the responsibility of the government of the day, which should make the decisions about the broad parameters of expenditure after receiving advice from the ARC and, of course, other bodies within government. 16:54:0020544Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The paper that we have referred to, `Knowledge and innovation', announced that the minister would divide funding between research programs in order to maintain the balance between the current level of funding being used to support both basic and applied research. The government has made a commitment that this balance would remain the same for the time being. It is the role of the government to ultimately determine the allocation of funding across these various programs, and the comments made by Senator Carr are not at variance with that. The government will oppose the amendment.Amendment not agreed to.16:55:0020544Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 4:(4) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: (ca) the function of conducting, on its own initiative, inquiries into matters related to research and research education, and publishing the results; and (cb) the function of making recommendations to the Minister and to the States about matters related to research and research education; andBriefly, this amendment relates again to enabling the ARC to conduct its own inquiries into matters relating to research and research education. I note the submission of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee in particular on this matter, which remarks that the current power is used only rarely and that it is a useful power for the ARC to have—that is, to undertake inquiries into areas which may become concerns if not investigated at an early stage. I say to the opposition, through you, Chair, that I understand there are some concerns regarding this amendment. You were considering supporting it if I made some changes. I am happy to accommodate those changes if you will outline them for the benefit of the chamber. I understand you have a problem with reference to `and to the States'. I would rather have the ALP amend my amendment to remove those words `and to the States' in the second line of (cb) in order to give this amendment a chance of getting up. It is an important issue. Perhaps Senator Carr will advise the chamber.16:57:0020544Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—Senator Stott Despoja has correctly indicated the opposition's position on this matter. We would be prepared to support this amendment if the words `and the States' were removed. I move:Paragraph (cb), omit "and to the States".The simple concern that we have here is that these particular words do not add anything to the proposition that is before the chamber and it would strengthen the proposition if it were `of making recommendations to the Minister about research ...' That would be the appropriate formulation. If that proposition is accepted by the Democrats and is carried by the chamber, then we would withdraw our amendment (1) and support the Democrat amendment in its place.16:57:0020544Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The ARC is a Commonwealth advisory body and it is not appropriate for it to be making recommendations to the states. Although Senator Carr's proposed amendment would remedy that situation, the government is still opposed to this amendment because it really is part of the regime put forward to the Democrats in relation to the initiation of inquiries by the ARC. I have already covered that aspect in previous debate.10000 (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the opposition amendment moved by Senator Carr to the Democrats amendment be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question now is that the Democrats amendment, as amended, be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative.16:58:0020545Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Democrat amendment (5) is similar, I understand, to the opposition amendment in relation to accountability of ministerial requests. I am inclined to withdraw my amendment in favour of the Labor Party amendment on this particular matter. I think they are comparable, but I am happy to support the one standing in the name of Senator Carr on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, unless he has a particular problem with that.17:00:0020545Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I move:(2) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Minister must cause a copy of any request made under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the request was made.The bill requires a request by the minister for advice from the ARC to be included in the ARC's annual report. Reports are published only after the end of each financial year and with considerable delay. The parliament needs a more efficient way of being kept up to date with the activities of the ARC. This amendment provides for this by requiring requests from the minister for advice to be tabled in the parliament within 15 sitting days.17:00:0020545Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government is opposed to this. Any such request for advice by the minister is included in the annual report. At present there is no requirement for tabling of a request at the time that it is made. I believe it is sufficient for it to be contained within the report. I also note that the Democrats have referred to the National Health and Medical Research Council as a precedent. There is no requirement of the NHMRC to table requests that are made from time to time.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—I think I was referring to a different matter.9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON—You were going to rely on that as a precedent. That is why I arranged it—on the basis that you were. Anyway, you are not. It is the practice in any event for the minister to issue a press release, which we believe is sufficient.Amendment agreed to.17:01:0020545Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—by leave—I move:(6) Clause 7, page 5 (line 3), after "give", insert "general". (7) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 8), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Minister is not entitled to direct the ARC (or the Board) about the ARC's handling of particular scientific, technical or ethical issues or about the distribution of funds for a particular year between 2 or more categories of research programs. (8) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year. (9) Clause 10, page 6 (line 19), after "give", insert "general". (10) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year. (11) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any notifications given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the notification is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.These amendments relate to directions and accountability. You can see that my concern relating to ministerial influence is reflected in the first amendment—that is, inserting the word `general' before the word `directions' on page 5 of the bill. Essentially that is to enable the minister to give general direction to the board about the ARC's functions as opposed to `give directions', which sounds more prescriptive.The rest of the amendments ensure that the minister is not entitled to direct the ARC, or the board, about the ARC's handling of particular scientific, technical or ethical issues or about the distribution of funds for a particular year between two or more categories of research programs. Anyone who was a part of the Senate inquiry into this legislation will know that this was a concern primarily for organisations like FASTS, but it was also reflected in the submissions of the NTU, CAPA and other organisations that were concerned about the level of ministerial discretion and ministerial influence in relation to this legislation. The Democrats' concerns in relation to that issue are clearly on record in the Senate committee's report on that bill. Our amendments seek to ensure that the minister cannot have specific direction or influence in relation to those particular matters that I outlined. The accountability of ministerial directions is still relevant to this debate: Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.Again, that amendment relates to accountability measures. The Democrats are particularly committed to that. Based on the last amendment, I am sure that the opposition would be keen to support that. Indeed, that is reflected in amendment No. 10. Amendment No. 9 after `give' adds the word `general', which relates to the nature of the advice that the minister is able to give. Amendment No. 11, standing in my name, again reflects the accountability issue in relation to the accountability of ministerial notification. These amendments are designed to ensure transparency and accountability but also to curtail that ministerial discretion and influence that we are concerned about. Certainly those concerns were reflected in the Senate inquiry on this piece of legislation.17:05:0020546Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—We are dealing with Democrat amendments Nos 6 to 11. The opposition has a different position on many of these, so we will need to vote on them separately. I flag that at this point. The opposition will be opposing amendment No. 6 on the basis that, while on most occasions the minister's advice to the board should be in general terms, there may be occasions when it would be appropriate for it to be in more specific terms. Labor will support Democrat amendments for such directions to be tabled in parliament, as well as their appearing in the annual report, so there is ample scope for public scrutiny and accountability. What we are trying to get across is the need to balance out the requirement for specific directions, and to ensure that matters where there is a shortfall in the advice tendered, with the more general concern to ensure independence within the ARC and, on the same basis, to ensure that there is appropriate accountability and transparency in the arrangements entered into on these matters.The opposition will not be supporting Democrat amendment No. 7. This essentially concerns the ministerial directions power. We feel that the minister's capacity to direct the ARC to recommend particular proposals as deserving or not deserving assistance is sufficient to cover this matter. The second part goes to the power of the minister to set broad parameters for research funding. Again, I think similar issues apply.We will be supporting Democrats amendment No. 8, which is a requirement that directions given by the minister about the ARC's function being tabled in parliament in addition to being in the annual report. I think that speaks for itself. We will not be supporting Democrat amendment No. 9, which requires that the directions to the board about the performance of the board's functions be general directions. We feel this would limit the capacity of the board. We will be supporting amendment No. 10, which requires directions by the minister on the board's functions to be tabled in parliament. Again this is an issue of public accountability. We will be supporting Democrat amendment No. 11, which requires notification of the general Commonwealth policies regarding research to be tabled in parliament, in addition to being contained in the annual report. 10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—For the chair's benefit, could I recap. You have indicated opposition to Democrat amendments Nos 6, 7 and 9 and support for Nos 8, 10 and 11.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—That is correct.17:08:0020547Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government believes that these amendments should be opposed, for a number of reasons. As with all advisory bodies to the government, the ARC will, from time to time, be requested to provide advice to the minister on short-term matters and priorities. Similarly, the minister may direct the ARC to concentrate on particular priorities of the government; for example, strengthening Australia's information and communications technology and biotechnology bases. The amendments moved by the Australian Democrats would limit the power of the government to seek specific and strategic short-term advice on matters of pressing importance to Australia's capability as an innovative nation. It should be remembered that the minister is already limited in what power may be used to direct the ARC regarding the recommendations of funding for a particular proposal. For those reasons, in short the government will oppose Democrat amendments Nos 6 to 11.17:09:0020547Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I thank the opposition for their limited support. I assume I will be moving those amendments either in two sets of three or individually. I am not sure how you want to put them.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The chair will be putting them separately, in two groups.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Thank you, Chair. I do want to record my disappointment with the government's position. I ask the minister if he could clarify, in relation to ministerial accountability, whether or not the amendments I have moved in relation to ministerial accountability—primarily the issue of the particulars of directions and requests for advice to be tabled in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days—echo the provisions contained in the NHMRC provisions, given that that was a point raised by the minister earlier.I am disappointed that the opposition will not support the change in relation to general directions. I think we have all expressed our concern about limiting the direction, the influence or the power of the minister in relation to direction he or she can give to the board about the performance of the ARC's functions. I would have thought that that would have been one way of ensuring that general direction would be the role of the minister, as opposed to more specific or stringent advice that may actually impinge on the so-called autonomy of that organisation. But I am asking the minister specifically about the accountability matters that I have put forward in the form of an amendment that advice and requests for that advice be tabled in both houses of parliament within 15 sitting days. Does that not echo the NHMRC provisions to which he earlier referred?17:11:0020547Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I do not use the NHMRC as a precedent. What I said in the committee stage earlier was that, if you were to rely on it as a precedent, then that did not have the tabling of requests for advice or the provision for that. What we have here is Democrat amendments Nos 8, 10 and 11, which deal with provisions which go to a reporting, if you like, and the Democrats say that they enhance accountability. The government says that directions are still open to proper scrutiny through the annual report process. That is what the minister directs. It is still subject to that process, and this bill will protect the ARC's independence in recommending excellent research proposals for funding, as the minister is prevented from making directions concerning recommendations to fund or not to fund particular research proposals. It is for those reasons that the government sees these as not being necessary. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrats amendments Nos 6, 7 and 9 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrats amendments Nos 8, 10 and 11 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative. 17:13:0020548Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—by leave—I move Democrats amendments Nos 12 and 13:(12) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert:(ba) a person who represents research students; and (13) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add:(2) The person mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must:(a) be enrolled in a post-graduate degree course at an Australian university; or(b) have obtained a post-graduate degree from an Australian university in the 12 months preceding his or her appointment.These amendments relate to the membership of the board and reflect our concerns that a student representative be included on the ARC board, either as an additional board member or as a non-voting associate member. This is something that we outlined in our response to the committee inquiry into the bill. It is something that came forward in at least one submission. The CAPA submission noted that research students perform approximately 60 per cent of the research in universities, and they produce approximately 35 per cent of the publications. Therefore it makes sense that they should have some role in this organisation. The Democrats have a long history of supporting increased student representation in the management of issues and affairs which affect them. These amendments reflect that.I seek, through these amendments, to add to the membership of the board clause, in relation to what the board should consist of, by adding a person who represents research students. In amendment No. 13 I have specified what I mean by that. The amendment says:The person mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must:(a) be enrolled in a post-graduate degree course at an Australian university; or(b) have obtained a post-graduate degree from an Australian university in the 12 months preceding his or her appointment.The amendments firstly ensure student representation and secondly provide some specificity as to what constitutes a postgraduate student in the circumstances. I commend these amendments to the Senate. I think they are fairly sensible amendments and I hope they receive support.17:14:0020548Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition supports both these propositions. In government the Labor Party ensured that there was student representation on such bodies. I think it is appropriate that they be included at this stage, and we support both propositions.17:15:0020548Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I would remind the Senate of Mr Bradley Smith's evidence before the Senate inquiry. He is the president of CAPA, and his evidence was that a ministerial appointment would not be acceptable and that CAPA would prefer that there be no representation at all rather than a ministerial appointment. I take it that the Democrats are saying that CAPA would choose the person to go on the board. The government believes this is inappropriate. The government believes there is a sufficiently broad-ranging representation of people from the community, the research sector and academia to make this board very effective. In fact, in the white paper Knowledge and innovation, the government outlined its intention to broaden the membership of the ARC board so that it was more representative of the views of those contributing to the national innovation system. I think it is fairly clear already who is going to be on the board. Clause 14 states that in appointing the eight board members: (2) The Minister must, in making appointments under this section, try to ensure that the composition of the Board reflects the breadth of academic, industry and community interests in the outcomes of research.The government believes this is broad enough.Amendments agreed to.17:17:0020549Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The amendments that I am about to move on behalf of the Democrats, which relate to the appointment of members, are a fairly standard set of amendments that the Democrats put forward whenever we debate a bill of this nature that involves appointments to a board. They have been moved a number of times—I am not quite sure whether it is 16, 17 or 18 times—by Senator Andrew Murray, our accountability spokesperson. I put these amendments on behalf of the party. They are standard amendments to guard against jobs for the boys, basically, and to make sure that people are appointed on merit, as a consequence of independent scrutiny of appointments, to ensure that probity and transparency are maintained. I have a set of notes that serve as an explanatory memorandum to these amendments but, rather than read out 2½ pages for the benefit of the Senate, I wonder if I may seek leave to incorporate these notes. I recognise that the opposition and the government have not seen these speaking notes. I am just getting them photocopied now. I am happy to read them out and take up the time of the Senate, or defer the matter or have them distributed as we speak and seek leave to incorporate them. I seek your advice, Mr Temporary Chairman.10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The minister has indicated that we should hold consideration of these amendments until the notes have been circulated. So we will move on to your next amendment, No. 14.17:18:0020549Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 14:(14) Clause 42, page 23 (line 5), omit "a year", substitute "every 3 years".This amendment relates to the strategic plan—that is, the notion that the board must prepare a strategic plan at least once a year and give it to the minister for approval under section 43. The amendment proposes that the clause will read `every 3 years'. Again, the basis for that recommendation is set out in our comments in the Senate committee report on these bills. We believe that the requirement that the ARC prepare annual strategic plans for ministerial approval may further subject the decision making and strategic planning role to short-term pressures as well as taking up resources better directed towards other strategic activities. This is a worthwhile amendment and a fairly straightforward one. I hope it receives the support of the chamber.17:19:0020549Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition will not be supporting Democrats amendment No. 14, which seeks to change the requirement for the board to prepare a strategic plan annually to once every three years. I think it is appropriate that strategic plans be reviewed annually, given the importance of this particular board and given the job we have allocated it under this legislation.17:20:0020549Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The production of a rolling three-year strategic plan was the express wish of the ARC. This ensures that there can be a more rapid response to the changing needs and priorities of the research and innovation system. The government agrees with the opposition that this is not an amendment that should be supported, in view of the comments made by Senator Carr and the ones I have just made.Amendment not agreed to.17:21:0020549Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—On the matter of Democrats amendments listed as (1) and (2)—10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—I am just coming back to those, Senator Carr. Senator Stott Despoja has not moved them. She has circulated some notes, I understand, to senators in the chamber, and her request is that they be incorporated. 3I6Carr, Sen KimSenator STOTT DESPOJA—by leave—I move: (1) Clause 14, page 9 (line 3), after "Minister", insert , in accordance with a code of practice determined under section 14A,". (2) Page 9 (after line 12), after clause 14, insert:14A Procedures for appointment of the 8 members referred to in paragraph 12(c) (1) The Minister must by writing determine a code of practice for appointments to the Board that: (a) sets out general principles on which appointments are to be made, including, but not limited to: (i) merit; and (ii) independent scrutiny of appointments; and (iii) probity; and (iv) openness and transparency; and (b) sets out how these principles are to be applied to the selection of members. (2) The code of practice must include a requirement for any person appointed to make a declaration if he or she is a member of a political party. (3) After determining a code of practice under subsection (1), the Minister must publish the code in the Gazette. (4) Not later than every third anniversary after a code of practice has been determined, the Minister must review the code. (5) In reviewing a code of practice, the Minister must invite the public to comment on the code. (6) A code of practice determined under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.I add that the only reason I wanted to incorporate these notes was to facilitate the debate in the chamber. I just do not want to hold up the debate on this issue.17:21:0020550Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I am sorry, Senator Stott Despoja, but this is the first time I have seen amendments Nos 1 and 2 to clause 14. I am not certain how long they have been circulated. Has the government seen them before?9X5Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator Ellison—Yes, we have.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I will need to seek further advice on these matters. There has been no discussion with us about these particular proposals, so we may need to defer those until later in the proceedings.17:22:0020550Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move:That Democrats amendment Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 2035 be postponed.Do we have an idea when these amendments will be dealt with? I want to put on the record that these amendments have been distributed. I apologise that Senator Carr has not had them specifically drawn to his attention. They are standard amendments drafted in the name of Senator Murray, our accountability spokesperson. They have been moved to a number of pieces of legislation. I apologise for not bringing these amendments to Senator Carr's attention specifically, but I did ensure that they were circulated at least as early as 30 November. I am happy to postpone these amendments to give Senator Carr time to review them. My understanding is that they are standard amendments. We have moved them 16 or 17 times, at last count, and I believe they have not received support from the opposition. They are just a standard set of amendments that automatically come up if we are debating a bill that involves the appointment of people to a board. These amendments seek to ensure that that is done in an accountable and transparent manner. I will postpone that matter. I am not sure whether this is an indefinite postponement—10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, the amendments would be postponed until we get to the final motion that the bill, as amended, be agreed to, which I do not think will be far away.17:23:0020550Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—That is right. I can indicate that, if we have opposed them on 14 other occasions, I will not be the first to break with precedent.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Can I take it from those remarks, Senator Carr, that we can now go ahead? AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I am seeking advice. I appreciate the Democrats telling us our policy on these matters, but I would like to seek advice from more conventional channels.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment Nos 1 and 2 be postponed.Question resolved in the affirmative. 17:24:0020551Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I am scared that I may have given the ALP the wrong advice. Maybe I should have just said, `On the 17 times, you have always said yes. They are great amendments; let's pass them.' I look forward to hearing back from Senator Carr. You are right: if anyone could change history or break a rule it is probably Senator Carr. I seek leave to move Democrat amendment Nos 15, 16, 18 to 22, 24 and 25 on sheet 2038 together.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, I understand that Democrat amendment No. 16 should not be included because it is in opposition to clause 50. So that will be put separately.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—by leave—I move Democrat amendment Nos 15, 18 to 22, 24 and 25:(15) Clause 47, page 26 (lines 24 to 27), omit the definition of funding split determination.(18) Clause 53, page 30 (lines 7 to 10), omit paragraph (1)(b).(19) Clause 53, page 30 (lines 20 to 30), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) If, after a recommendation is made in relation to a proposal and before the Minister decides whether to approve the proposal, there is a variation of the governing funding rules in relation to the recommendation, the Minister must, in making that decision, disregard that variation and have regard to the funding rules as in force when the recommendation was made.(20) Clause 53, page 30 (line 34) to page 31 (line 1), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) any subsequent variation of the governing funding rules; or(21) Clause 53, page 31 (lines 5 to 12), omit Example 1.(22) Clause 54, page 31 (lines 25 to 29), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) must be consistent with the funding cap for the year, or each of the years, to which the approval relates; and(24) Clause 59, page 35 (lines 25 to 29), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) The rules must take account of and be consistent with, the funding cap for the year, or each of the years, to which the rules apply.(25) Clause 61, page 36 (lines 23 to 25), omit paragraph (b).These amendments relate to the distribution of funding caps—a discussion that has taken place in the committee. The Democrats have always believed that the goal of establishing a more independent ARC and enhancing the strategic decision making capacity of the ARC require that its powers be increased and that the power to set caps between research programs is a power more appropriately the preserve of the ARC than wholly that of the minister. As you can see, our attempt to delete clause 50 relates to that issue of the dividing of funding caps between different categories of research programs by the minister. We seek to remove the notion that he or she must do that.17:26:0020551Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I indicate to the committee that the opposition will be opposing amendments 15 through to 25. Essentially these amendments are about the discretion of the minister. The traditional position that the Labor Party has taken in these matters is to suggest that there are occasions when it is appropriate that ministers do have discretion. The critical issue here is the effectiveness of parliamentary accountability. I would suggest that the combined weight of procedures in this chamber and through the Senate estimates provides us an opportunity to inquire as to why ministers have used their discretion on these particular matters, and we think that is appropriate.17:27:0020551Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government similarly opposes these amendments. It really is the role of government to ultimately determine the allocation of funding across its various programs. I believe those sentiments are shared by the opposition. We believe that the ultimate decision maker in relation to the apportion of funding is the minister concerned. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that clause 50 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative. 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that Democrat amendment Nos 15, 18 to 22, 24 and 25 be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.17:28:0020552Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrat amendment No. 17:(17) Clause 51, page 28 (after line 8), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The Minister must not approve a proposal under subsection (1) unless the ARC has recommended that the proposal should be approved.This amendment is in relation to the approval of proposals. The Democrats seek to insert the words:The Minister must not approve a proposal under subsection (1) unless the ARC has recommended that the proposal should be approved.This amendment is self-explanatory. Again, it relates back to that balance between ministerial power, discretion, influence and responsibility and that of the ARC. We believe that the ARC should be responsible for recommending that a proposal be approved before the minister approves a proposal. It should not be a case of the minister having the power to approve proposals that the ARC may not have approved or recommended. I think this again goes to the heart of fulfilling the government's rhetoric of ensuring that we have a strong, vibrant and independent ARC. This is one way of ensuring that that happens in relation to the provisions that deal with the approval of expenditure on research programs.17:30:0020552Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition opposes this measure by the Democrats. We feel that the minister should retain final authority to approve proposals. However, this issue needs to be seen in the context of amendment No. 3 to be moved by the Labor Party in which we require full details to be tabled in parliament when there is a divergence by the minister from the ARC advice. We think that is an appropriate safeguard in this regard.17:30:0020552Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government is opposed to this amendment. It would restrict the power of the minister as the ultimate decision maker. The sentiment or thinking behind it is allied to the government's opposition to those provisions that dealt with the allocation of funds which we mentioned earlier.Amendment not agreed to.17:31:0020552Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I move opposition amendment (3) on sheet 2043:(3) Clause 52, page 29 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (5) If the Minister does not approve a recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was not approved for funding; (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding. (6) If the Minister approves for funding any proposal other than a proposal recommended for approval under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals approved, but not recommended under subsection (1) for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was approved for funding; and (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals approved for funding.This amendment deals with the approval of funding proposals, other than those recommended by the ARC, to be detailed in parliament. The minister, in his second reading speech, said that this bill demonstrates the government's commitment to an ARC that will be supportive of our most outstanding researchers and responsive to changes in the global environment. Presumably, then, the minister would have no hesitation in accepting the advice from the ARC about which research proposals should be funded. That is why the opposition believes that parliament is entitled to the full details of instances where the minister fails to accept recommendations of the ARC. Likewise, on occasions where a minister chooses to fund proposals other those recommended by the ARC, details ought to be made public and the reasons for the minister's actions ought to be fully explained.17:32:0020553Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government certainly opposes this amendment. Whilst the approval of funding is ultimately the minister's decision, the process for approving proposals has significant input from the ARC—more than the process as currently set out under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. This will ensure that only the grants which receive funding approval will be those which have been assessed by the ARC. It should be pointed out that some grants are eventually funded, even though they were initially not recommended by the ARC. These grants have been successful in an internal appeals process. While they are the exception rather than the rule, the applicants for these grants will be included in any such tabling proposed by this amendment. This could allow those grant recipients to be unfairly accused of cronyism or other arguments or criticisms, and that would be notwithstanding that their entitlement to such funding was entirely legitimate. It is likely, however, that there will be few proposals for funding that will need to be tabled. For these reasons, the government will oppose the opposition amendment No. 3.17:33:0020553Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—For the record, the Democrats will be supporting the opposition amendment.Amendment agreed to.17:34:0020553Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Australian Democrats amendment No. 23:(23) Clause 54, page 31 (line 34), at the end of subclause (2), add: ; and (c) must be in accordance with a recommendation made by the ARC.This amendment again relates to the issues that I referred to earlier but this time in relation to approval of variations. It seeks to specify that it is in accordance with the recommendation of the ARC. I suspect that, if the earlier amendment did not have opposition or government support, this one will not either.17:34:0020553Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition does not support this matter. Senator Stott Despoja is obviously quite correct about that. 17:34:0020553Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—Nor does the government.Amendment not agreed to.17:35:0020553Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I move Democrats amendment No. 26: (26) Page 36 (after line 27), at the end of subdivision D, add:61A Rules to be tabled Particulars of rules approved by the Minister under section 60 or varied by the Minister under section 61 must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the rules are approved or varied, as the case may be; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year in which the approval or variation occurs.I am starting to get a complex.9X5Ellison, Sen Chris3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—At least there is a voice and a party fighting for increased independence of the ARC, student representation, accountability, transparency, and all those things that I think were brought up before the Senate inquiry into this legislation. I am not holding out too much hope for our amendments to the next piece of legislation in relation to the ARC—just quietly. Again, this amendment, which relates to the accountability of funding rules, seeks to add at the end of subdivision D particulars of rules to be tabled. Particulars of rules approved by the minister under section 60 or varied by the minister under section 61 must be tabled in each house of parliament by the minister within 15 days of that house after the rules are approved or varied, as the case may be, and be included in the annual report of the ARC for the financial year in which the approval or variation occurs. Again, this relates to the Democrats' concern that there be increased accountability measures, especially in relation to the minister. The proposed legislation sets out a procedure for reporting of ministerial directions to, and requests for advice from, the ARC. We have tried to amend that to ensure ministerial discretion. Now I seek to do it in relation to the accountability of funding rules. I am saddened that this is not receiving government support. Again, the Democrats are trying to ensure that there is some transparency in the legislation before us, especially because this particular body is supposed to underpin or be a key part—if you listen to the government's rhetoric—in relation to promoting an innovative, knowledge based economy and society. I am just regretful that such controversial issues as those, which we have looked at through the committee report—and we will soon be looking at the issue of contestability of funding, et cetera—and which actually underpin the agenda the government has set out in its white paper have not been adopted. It is not like we came up with these amendments out of thin air. They are based on comparable legislation. They are based on evidence to the Senate committee, and not just from student groups like the NTU, CAPA or indeed organisations like FASTS but organisations like the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee. The government had broad sectoral advice on how these bills could be improved and they have not been. I will not hold up the chamber much longer on this amendment or on my other amendments. I hope that we get through them fairly swiftly. I just put that on the record. We tried to improve the legislation, which could be quite good, and a body that has a key role to play in our society. I hope that these will receive the support of the chamber. If they do not, I am not quite sure what is going to happen with the next set of amendments that we have before us.17:38:0020554Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I am a bit disappointed by Senator Stott Despoja's last set of comments, even though she has said such nice things about me today. Perhaps I should remind her that we have supported her amendments Nos 1, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and, of course, this one. So it is not an insignificant number of amendments that we have supported. It is true, however, that we do think there may be other issues that will require greater attention in the consideration of this bill. Perhaps it would be more productive if we spent more time on the substantive matters that are before the parliament rather than, might I suggest, lesser priority issues—not that they are unimportant, but it is a question of which particular issues you regard as important and why you regard them as important. In regard to the particular proposition before the chamber, rather than the general political comments that Senator Stott Despoja has made, we think this proposition is worthy of support. It is appropriate that eligibility criteria be established when applicants seek funds. The assessment processes and the accountability requirements ought to be laid out in a way that is apparent to all and this should be included in an annual report. Therefore, we think it is appropriate to support this measure. 17:40:0020555Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government opposes this amendment. The rules are available on the Internet and they are widely available throughout the sector. There is really no need to table them. The government opposes the amendment on that basis.Amendment agreed to.10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—We now return to Democrat amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2035.17:40:0020555Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5)VictoriaALP00—I indicate that this is another case in which Senator Stott Despoja was quite right. We have opposed these measures 14 times before.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—Is it 14?AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator CARR—I will take your word on the number. This is not going to be a precedent where we support you.17:41:0020555Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—On previous occasions the government has opposed this and, as we are a government of consistency, we will continue to do so.17:41:0020555Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I seek leave to incorporate my comments on amendments (1) and (2).Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Democrats are concerned to ensure that wherever appointments are made to the governing organ of public authorities, whether they be institutions set up by legislation, "independent" statutory authorities or quasi-govern-ment agencies, that the process by which these appointments are made is, and is seen to be, transparent, accountable, open and honest.The adage of "jobs for the boys" should be an anachronism in 2000. Notwithstanding this, there is a widespread public perception that very little of substance has changed. Many appear to believe that Government appointments result in patronage to handsomely remunerated positions. This perception can damage the reputation of these bodies, as in the public eye they are then seen as being controlled by persons who lack the appropriate independence and who may not be as meritorious as they might be.The Democrats are of the opinion that whilst this is often not so, and many outstanding appointments have been made by both the previous and present Governments, nevertheless this is a matter which has to be addressed.In truth, there is little empirical evidence that can be brought to bear to rebut this perception. It is still the case that appointments to statutory authorities are left largely to the discretion of the Minister with the relevant portfolio responsibility. In the absence of "umbrella" legislation to correct this situation in a systematic fashion, the Democrats will have to argue for each piece of legislation dealing with these bodies to include standard provisions setting out an accountable regime governing such appointments made by Ministers.The Nolan Committee, which reviewed the processes for making public appointments in the United Kingdom, set out the following principles to guide and inform the making of such appointments:(i) A Minister should not be involved in an appointment where he or she has a financial or personal interest 1;(ii) Ministers must act within the law, which includes its safeguards against discrimination on grounds of gender or race 2 ;(iii) All public appointments should be governed by the overriding principle of appointment on merit 3,(iv) Except in limited circumstances political. affiliation should not be a criterion for appointment 4;(v) Selection on merit should take account of the need to appoint boards which include a balance of skills and backgrounds 5,(vi) The basis on which members are appointed and how they are expected to fulfil their roles should be explicit 6 ;(vii) The range of skills and backgrounds which are sought should be clearly specified 7.These guidelines provide only a basic framework for ensuring that proper practices are followed in the making of appointments. They do not necessarily represent "best practice", rather they set out what should really be taken for granted in a modem system of accountable government. Indeed, the UK Government accepted fully the Nolan Committee's recommendations on public appointments. The office of Commissioner for Public Appointments was subsequently created (with a similar level of independence from the Government as the Auditor General) to provide an effective avenue of external scrutiny. The Commissioner subsequently developed a Code of Practice for Public Appointments which came into force on 1 July 1996. The Code regulates, interalia, appointments to non-departmental public bodies. It sets out seven principles upon which such appointments must be based: Ministerial Responsibility; Merit; Independent Scrutiny; Equal Opportunity; Probity; Openness and Transparency; and Proportionality. The Code provides mandatory guidelines for the application of these principles. A comparison of these reforms with the current practice of government in the Federal sphere in Australia shows clearly that we lag well behind the UK in this respect. We lack not only the external scrutiny mechanism in the form of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, but more fundamentally we do not have even basic procedural safeguards. This should be redressed as a matter of public importance, with a far higher priority attached to it than has hitherto been the case.The public must have trust and confidence that a Minister will not allow improper or irrelevant considerations or personal interests to influence public appointments. Indeed this relationship is in some respects analogous to those of a fiduciary nature, such as trustee and beneficiary, in that it is founded on a high degree of trust and confidence. Yet where a breach of duty occurs in a fiduciary relationship. the person to whom the duty is owed has access to a range of equitable remedies. This is not the case where a Minister acts for improper purposes in making an appointment.There is no law to prohibit a Minister from doing this or, where the appointment has been made, to make the appointment voidable. This omission is addressed in the recommended amendments to the Bill which require that all appointments be made in accordance with a published code of practice.The code of practice is intended not to act as a mere "guideline" to the Minister in making appointments, but to regulate by law the way in which the Minister exercises the power of appointment. The content of the code of practice is designed to accommodate those principles designated as fundamental by the Nolan Committee and the UK Commissioner for Public Appointments, as set out above.A further provision requires that even where the code of practice has been adhered to in determining an appointment, the Minister will be further obliged to consider the impact of the appointee on the overall complexion of the Authority. This provision is aimed at ensuring "capture" of the Authority by any particular interest group cannot occur. It is essential that Boards are genuinely representative of the inevitably divergent views of those groups affected by their actions. Without this requirement the potential remains for appointments to be made to Boards of persons that are well qualified, but who all hold similar views on key areas of policy. This must be avoided not simply because it is good public policy practice to do so, but to maintain the credibility of the Authority in its area of operation.1 First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Nolan Committee), (1995) Cm 2850-I, para. 30.2 Ibid, para. 32.3 Ibid, para. 36.4 Ibid, para. 41.5 Ibid, para. 466 Ibid, para. 46.7 Ibid, para. 46.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I thank the chamber. As provocative as it is when the minister says that it is a government of consistency, I am not going to touch it. I had these flashbacks of the 1996 education election policy that was put forward by this government. I wish he had been consistent on that education policy. It was quite good. Of course, most of the promises regarding those provisions and policy objectives were broken. I record my concern and disappointment on behalf of the Democrats, and I have no doubt by Senator Andrew Murray in particular, that these amendments will not be passed. I cannot say I am terribly surprised. I will check the figure for Senator Carr as to whether it was 14 or 19. I know that Senator Murray has these figures in his head and he will no doubt add this to the number of times that the Senate has rejected the opportunity for boards to be assessed and chosen on merit and in a transparent and accountable fashion—so that it is simply not ministerial discretion to appoint people whom they want but a good basis on which people are selected to sit on committees and boards that governments are responsible for in this nation. They are worthwhile and worthy amendments and I am sorry that they will not be supported. Amendments negatived.Bill, as amended, agreed to.AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2000The bill.17:43:0020557Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), TO BE OPPOSED. (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 10 and 11), TO BE OPPOSED.The issues have been well canvassed by the committee as to some of the difficulties and outrageous aspects of this legislation. The contestability of funding was one of the key issues. I understand that my first two amendments are unlikely to receive support, but they reflect the concern that groups in the community have with this legislation. They are desperate amendments because we think it is probably worth not proceeding with this bill and the funding provisions it contains while the bill is fraught with problems. I will not hold up the chamber on these amendments unless people want to discuss them in more detail. I imagine they will not get support, but they reflect the fact that we do not necessarily have to proceed with such haste on this legislation. I would prefer to get it right before we make the funding allocation.10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The amend-ments go to opposing the printing of items 2 and 3, so I will be putting the question in the form that items 2 and 3 stand as printed.17:44:0020557Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition opposes Democrat amendments Nos 1 and 2. The main reason for that is that we believe that your amendments, Senator Stott Despoja, do not actually do what you were hoping they might do. We feel that the minister would still have the powers to withhold funds under this section and to give them to institutions under conditions set out by him administratively. At least if the funds were moved to the research section, as this bill proposes, they must be used for research purposes. Therefore, we think it would be a weakening of this bill in terms of the objectives you have outlined, Senator, to support your amendments. 17:45:0020557Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—Taking into account the funding which would be appropriated under the proposed Australian Research Council Act—which we have just dealt with—the impact of this amendment would be to increase the total amount appropriated for Commonwealth higher education research and research training by approximately $500 million over 2001 and 2002. This, the government believes, should be the subject of a request to the other place. The effect of this would be to appropriate a further $500 million. But in any event, the government is opposed to this amendment put forward by the Democrats. What the government says is that these provisions will ensure that all Commonwealth block funding for university research and research training will be consolidated in section 23, special research assistance, of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. This will enable the consolidation of existing schemes into the institutional grants scheme and the research training scheme. The amendment also recognises that funding for the research programs to be administered by the Australian Research Council will be appropriated under the proposed Australian Research Council Act and will, therefore, not need to be appropriated through this act. The regime for allocating block funding for research and research training will be strengthened by the accountability requirements of listing on the Australian qualifications framework registers and the provision of approved research and research training management plans. But what I do say to the committee is that the effect of this amendment will be an additional appropriation and therefore it really should form the subject of a request. In any event, the government is opposed to the amendment. 10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Sherry)—The question is that items (2) and (3) of schedule 1 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Stott Despoja, I indicate to Senator Carr that your amendment (5) that we are considering here is identical to opposition amendment (2) that Senator Carr is moving in the next set of amendments. 17:46:0020558Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Chair, I seek your advice. I am happy to seek leave to move amendments Nos 3 to 6 standing in my name together or not to include Democrat amendment No. 5 in that set of amendments. What would you advise? 10000Sherry, Nick (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It depends on whether Senator Carr is supporting Nos 3 to 6. 17:48:0020558Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—Labor's amendment No. 3 addresses the second part of the proposition contained in Democrat amendment No. 6. So we would oppose Democrat amendment No. 6 as it currently stands and support, obviously, our own amendment No. 3, which we think does the job more effectively. We believe that No. 5 is covered by our amendment No. 2. So it is Nos 5 and 6 I think you will need to consider at this point, Senator. 17:48:0020558Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—by leave—I move Democrat amendments Nos 3 and 4:(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 17 to 19), omit paragraph (1B)(a), substitute: (a) there is a research and training management plan for the institution or body and the year; and [section 23—special research assistance](4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 22 to 29), omit subsection (1C) [section 23—special research assistance]I gather from Senator Carr's contribution that he will not be supporting amendments Nos 5 and 6. I am not sure if he is supporting amendments Nos 3 and 4. Otherwise, I am happy to move mine en bloc, have them voted down and then deal with Senator Carr's amendments, which I assumed would be backup amendments or a next best position, anyway. In addressing these issues again I refer to some of the comments that have already been put on record in the form of the Senate committee investigation into the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000. The Democrats have a number of concerns relating to the legislation. We have outlined them specifically in relation to the quantum of funding. This bill provides for the transfer of $700 million of funds from operating grants under section 17 of the Higher Education Funding Act to a separate pool of funding under section 23 of that act, opening up eligibility to that funding to institutions and organisations not listed in the schedule to the act. I understand that we had one way of achieving that particular outcome. Senator Carr will have a backup to ensure, first of all, that when it relates to the contestability of funds we will be prescribing very clearly—and this is where I think our amendments are not only comparable but the same—for the record that for the purposes of paragraph 1B(b) an institutional body is an accredited higher education institutional body if, and only if, the institutional body is included as a higher education institution on both of the following registers, as in force when the relevant expenditure proposal has been considered by the minister. It goes on to talk about (a) the Australian qualifications framework register of authorities empowered by the government to accredit post-compulsory education and training courses, and (b) the Australian qualifications framework register of bodies with authority to issue qualifications. That is in relation to special research assistance. I cannot emphasise enough the concerns that have been expressed, not only to me but to other senators and to the Senate committee, regarding the contestability of funding issue. We note the concerns presented by a range of institutions, including the University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association, regarding the degree to which opening public funding to competition may also undermine existing cooperative research schemes. I think this has implications in a number of ways—not only in taking money from the public pool and potentially making it available to private institutions but also for cooperative research schemes that are already in place. We feel quite saddened that this legislation is again not fulfilling the government's aims for educational research and development and training and innovation in Australia. For that reason we have moved these amendments. I am sorry they will not get support but I do understand Senator Carr's solution. I think the one inserting a schedule into the act was mooted by the National Tertiary Education Union. That is a proposal that we support. We think that is a measure that may have a similar effect to that which we were originally going to move.17:52:0020559Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The question arises as to the Labor Party's position on amendments (3) and (4), that is, removing the ministerial power to approve research and research training management plans. We will be opposing these propositions because the legislation provides for the requirements for such events to be disallowable instruments, and there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny through that process.17:53:0020559Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government takes on board those comments: that is a fact, as Senator Carr has made out. The government will be opposing the Democrat amendments.Amendments not agreed to.Amendment (by Senator Stott Despoja) not agreed to:(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 18 to 25), omit subsection (1E).17:53:0020559Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1), (2) and (4):(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), at the end of subsection (1B), add: ; and (c) the institution or body is listed in Schedule 1. (2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 30) to page 4 (line 17), omit subsection (1D), substitute: (1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1B)(b), an institution or body is an accredited higher education institution or body if (and only if) the institution or body is included as a higher education institution on both of the following registers (as in force when the relevant expenditure proposal is being considered by the Minister): (a) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Authorities empowered by Government to Accredit Post-Compulsory Education and Training Courses; (b) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications. (4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the Schedule, add:8 At the end of the ActAdd:Schedule 1—Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceNote: See section 23 Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceItemName of institution or body1Australian Catholic University2Charles Sturt University3Southern Cross University4Macquarie University5The University of New England6The University of New South Wales7The University of Newcastle8The University of Sydney9University of Technology, Sydney10University of Western Sydney11University of Wollongong12Deakin University13La Trobe University14Monash University15Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology16Swinburne University of Technology17The University of Melbourne18University of Ballarat19Victoria University of Technology20Central Queensland University21Griffith University22James Cook University23Queensland University of Technology24The University of Queensland25University of Southern Queensland26University of the Sunshine Coast27Curtin University of Technology28Edith Cowan University29Murdoch University30The University of Western Australia31The Flinders University of South Australia32The University of Adelaide33University of South Australia34University of Tasmania35Batchelor College36Northern Territory University37Australian Maritime College38The Australian National University39University of Canberra40The University of Notre Dame AustraliaThese amendments go to the issue of keeping the institutional grants scheme and the research training scheme funding restrictions to institutions listed in the Higher Education Funding Act. This is an important matter because it goes to the very heart of the integrity of the research effort in this country. This bill takes some $700 million annually out of the universities' operating grants and puts it into another part of the Higher Education Funding Act in order to fund the new institutional grants scheme and the research training scheme. During the debate on these matters in the House, the minister talked about Commonwealth funds for research already being available to institutions other than universities. However, that is grant money from the research projects, money now to be administered by the Australian Research Council. We are concerned about the money for research training through the research training scheme and the institutional grants scheme funding, which is intended, according to the white paper, to `support the general fabric of institutions' research and research training activities'.These funds are currently available for use only by those institutions listed in table A of HEFA. Institutions' names appear in that table only after they have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and approval. This approval by the federal parliament ought to apply over and above the listing of institutions on the AQF registers. In any case, the AQF process is still under development, and I have made numerous comments about that in the Senate estimates: my concerns about the delay that has taken place and, I might suggest to you also, the rigour of the AQF processes themselves. Further work will obviously need to be done in that area.Despite the agreed protocols, there is still a great deal more work to be undertaken in those particular matters. The Universities Quality Agency is still operating with an interim board and I think it will be at least the second half of next year, if I am correct—and perhaps you would advise me, Minister—before it will be in a position to begin any audits of institutions. Only recently have appointments been made by the Commonwealth and I wonder whether or not the states have appointed their representatives to the AQF board. It is my understanding that has yet to occur. It seems that, given the importance of this body, it would be appropriate that the whole process actually be speeded up in that regard. I do not think there has been any agreement yet as to how these audits will actually be conducted. A further area of concern is what will actually constitute a quality audit. I look forward to discussion on that matter. I am sure we will have many hours of entertainment when it comes to examining what that actually means in practice for some of the institutions around the country. I think there are quite widely divergent views—that is the best way I can put it—as to what is meant by `quality' in some of our higher education institutions. I think at the very best one would have to say the idea of getting a nationally consistent approach on this matter will not be an easy task. In any case, it is the Labor Party's view that the federal parliament needs to have a final say on the distribution of significant amounts of Commonwealth higher education funding. That is what these amendments address.17:58:0020561Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—The government strenuously opposes these amendments put forward by the opposition. It believes that they will limit access to funding for research and research training by institutions which are not listed on the proposed schedule, that is, they will limit funding to private universities. The government believes it has a responsibility to ensure that postgraduate research training occurs in environments that provide access to high quality research and infrastructure support, no matter in which university this takes place. The amendments to the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 will require that all universities demonstrate that they are accredited and quality assured before they can receive funding from the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs to support their research and research training effort. It should be noted that Bond University already has limited access to funding for research and research training available under this provision, and no-one would doubt that that is an excellent educational institution serving the community.In relation to the AQF board, the representatives from the states and when the auditing might take place, I do not have that answer for Senator Carr. I can say that there is a consultation process that has to be gone through, but at this stage it is unwise to put a time on when this might take place.17:59:0020561Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—It is one thing to express concern about limited access to research funding or research dollars for private universities, but the minister has not really addressed the issue that most people are concerned about—that is, not simply the transfer of funds but the fact that the eligibility for these funds is open to institutions and organisations that are not listed in the schedule of the act. That is why the amendments being put forward by Senator Carr are supported by the Democrats—to try to give some specificity, to make clear the institutions or the bodies that are eligible for that special research assistance.I do not think the government has really provided sufficient justification in any form or in either house as to why we should be looking at this funding contestability. Perhaps Minister Kemp's outdated white paper figures might suggest that we are adequately funding research in Australia, but I do not think anyone would deny that the quantum of funding available for research and development has declined and that we have seen radical cuts to higher education institutions—in every sense, not simply to operating grants—and an increased expectation that they will rely on `user pays' to resource their institutions. Without a substantial increase in the quantum of funding to compensate for some of those past cuts—cuts which combine with the decline in funding relative to GDP; in our report, we talk about a seven per cent decline since 1995-96—the possible diversion of funds away from public institutions to private organisations will exacerbate these pressures. We are not simply talking about the Bonds of the world; we are talking about organisations like Microsoft and Telstra. That was what was provided in evidence to the Senate committee—that these rules would allow for private companies that may already have broad infrastructure, that would already have a research and development unit or resources, to access these research dollars at the expense of public institutions that are heavily reliant on these resources. We are yet to hear a justification from the government as to why that is appropriate, although maybe this government would justify it in the context of having no problems in shifting to the private sector—whether it is private institutions or private schools—money from the public sector. Maybe that is an ideological issue that we will never meet on, but I cannot see how the government can continue to justify not only the time line on contestability but the actual issue itself. When you take into account the funding decline we have seen in relation to research, when you take into account the cuts that have been made to higher education institutions and when you take into account that these private organisations or private organisation institutions have a lot of money to spend on research, we should not be abrogating government responsibility by redirecting these funds elsewhere. I guess that gets to the heart of the earlier Democrat amendments and amendments yet to come which oppose the transfer of those funds. This process should not be rushed, and it should not be happening along these lines; there is certainly a lot of evidence to substantiate that argument, but there is limited evidence to substantiate the government's consequential provisions. Indeed, there is little rationale for what they are doing in the context of supporting public institutions. I cannot think of a time when our higher education public institutions have needed more support—yet what we are giving them is the opportunity to compete with Telstra, for goodness sake. Amendments agreed to.18:04:0020562Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—I move opposition amendment No. 3:(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection (1E) (but not the note), substitute: (1E) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, determine requirements to be satisfied for a plan to be approved under paragraph (1C)(b).Amendment (3) goes to the issue of removing the minister's power to bypass the AQF process in approving funding. The Labor Party's approach on this issue of quality assurance has two strings to its bow. On the one hand, we are saying that there needs to be a schedule in the HEFA act which designates the particular institutions that are eligible, and that is a process by which the parliament can have some form of review. We are also suggesting that the AQF process is not without merit. Our concern is that, in its present format, it may need a good deal more work. But, in the longer term, we believe that it will be able to produce a strong quality assurance framework which will allow us to have a look at how the universities are comparing with one another.During the Senate inquiry into the Australian Research Council Bill 2000 and the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000, I pressed this issue quite strongly. I think it would be fair to say that every witness that appeared before the inquiry held a similar view—that is, that the government's proposals in this regard were quite contrary to the established wisdom within the industry, across all shades of opinion. It got to the point where it was put that the interpretation of subsections (1D), (1B), (1E) and (1E)(b), as given by the minister's powers to bypass the AQF process in handing out Commonwealth funding, were incorrect—a view even the department was obliged to support. I know it is difficult to get the department to agree more generally with the industry at large, but every now and then these strange mysteries unfold before us. We heard Mr Gallagher say to us:We have heard the evidence given to the committee that this has been interpreted as giving the minister much wider power. As a member of MCEETYA, the minister recently signed up to a set of national protocols that go to achieving some consistency across the country for the accreditation of higher education institutions and courses. He has no interest in circumventing those procedures. Without subsections (1D)(b) and (1E)(b), the bill would not be substantially altered. It is merely a contingency measure.In other advice, we have basically had the proposition put to us that this is a bit of a drafting error, that it is a bit of a mistake, and that it was not intended that the bill would be interpreted in the way it has universally been interpreted. In fact, I asked a question of Mr Gallagher as to whether or not the department would be recommending to the minister that he accept amendments in the chamber if the Senate chose to remove these subsections, given that they did not really matter. Mr Gallagher was very helpful and he advised that the department would be recommending that to the minister. One can only presume that Mr Gallagher is true to his word in these matters and that the department has recommended to the minister that he accept these amendments. One could not see any possible reason why the government could seriously oppose these propositions. I am looking forward to the minister's detailed argument which will justify what, to all intents and purposes, would be a bizarre situation: if the minister were to suddenly discover that there was something wrong with these propositions, given the evidence that we have from every quarter of the industry and from the department itself. We are assuming that the minister will now stand before us and tell us that it is a good idea and that the government had better support the Labor Party in these matters. Minister, I give you this opportunity to do so. 18:08:0020563Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I could not resist that, Senator Carr. The government will not oppose this provision.AW5Carr, Sen KimSenator Carr—The walls of Jericho have fallen!18:08:0020563Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The walls of Jericho have not really fallen, Senator Carr. For the record, it was the 17th time that the opposition and the government opposed the accountability amendments. I reiterate to the minister the questions that I asked earlier in relation to the contestability of funding arrangements and the justification from the government as to why they think it is appropriate that public funding could be sucked up by private institutions for the purposes of research, including, as was given in evidence to the Senate committee, institutions such as Microsoft or Telstra.10000Watson, John (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Carr be agreed to.18:09:0020563Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Mr Temporary Chairman, perhaps the minister could indicate to you that he is not going to answer the question, as opposed to a silence that indicates that the walls are definitely back up again. Am I seriously not going to get any response to that? I am glad the minister is conferring with advisers now. This is the whole premise on which this legislation is based: the transfer of funds and opening up contestability. It is not asking for much.18:10:0020563Ellison, Sen ChrisSenator ELLISON9X5Western AustraliaLPSpecial Minister of State10—I make it clear for the record that a company like Microsoft would just not be on the register and there will be no provision for that company to receive funding in the manner that Senator Stott Despoja has outlined.Amendment agreed to.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to a series of Democrat amendments. First, Democrat amendments Nos 7 to 9 on sheet 2046 are to oppose schedule 1, items 4A, 5 and 6. The question is that schedule 1, items 4A, 5 and 6 stand as printed.18:11:0020563Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—This relates to total funds available and the issue of contestability, as I have outlined earlier, so I am happy to see what the chamber decides.18:11:0020563Carr, Sen KimSenator CARRAW5VictoriaALP00—The opposition will not be supporting these amendments, nor the next ones, Nos 10 and 11.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 4A, 5 and 6 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The next Democrat amendment, amendment No. 10, is to oppose schedule 1, item 7.18:11:0020563Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I thank Senator Carr for indicating the position of the Labor Party in relation to all these amendments. I have touched previously on the issue of distribution of funding caps and the issue of accountability, so I will not delay the chamber. I urge the government perhaps to have a rethink. Let us go out with a bang. Wouldn't it be great if—okay, I am not getting the support of the opposition—I got the support of the government. Who knows? 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 7 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We now move to Democrat amendment No. 11, which is to oppose schedule 2, item 7. The question is that schedule 2, item 7 stand as printed.Question resolved in the affirmative.18:12:0020564Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I am sorry to interrupt in these final stages. I just wanted to place on record the Democrats' concerns that the consequential and transitional provisions bill has been passed. We did not vote for that legislation.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.20564Bills (on motion by Senator Ellison) read a third time.Business2056420564Motion (by Senator Ellison)—by leave—agreed to: That, on Monday, 4 December 2000:(1) The hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to the adjournment in accordance with paragraph (3).(2) The routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business order of the day No. 1 (Gene Technology Bill 2000 and 2 related bills).(3) Immediately after the completion of proceedings on the Gene Technology Bill 2000 and 2 related bills, the Senate shall adjourn without the question being put.Bills20564R110420564Debate resumed from 11 October, on motion by Senator Ellison:That this bill be now read a second time.18:15:0020564Collins, Sen JacintaSenator JACINTA COLLINSGB6VictoriaALP00—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has proven time and again that he is not concerned about wasting parliamentary time on lost causes. Every bill that he has put on the Notice Paper in this session is proof of that. With the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000, he goes one step further, putting forward a lost cause which is so petty, minor and pointless that we really must question whether he has lost the plot in the legislative sense. Before turning to the bill itself, I want to look briefly at its history to illustrate the point that this bill was in fact dead in the water well before today. The proposals contained in this bill were first brought before the parliament last year in the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment More Jobs Better Pay) Bill, or mojo bill. The Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Committee considered the bill at great length. The conclusion of the Labor senators and the Democrat senator, Senator Murray, was that the bill was the most worthless piece of ideologically driven, antiunion and antiworker legislation. The Labor Party indicated its total opposition to the legislation and, with small exceptions, the Democrats did the same. The minister is not the type, though, to let complete and utter defeat put him off. Thus, we are here today.Since the blocking of that legislation, he has returned to the fray with four pieces of legislation—this being the first—which have been raised from the wreckage of his mojo bill. In a style he has made his own, the minister—whom I characterise as the `minister for misrepresentation'—not only has returned with four of the most worthless elements of his discredited mojo package but would have us believe that he is doing so after thoughtful consideration of the results of last year's fiasco. In his second reading speech on this bill—it is important to note that this comment is repeated in the second reading speeches of the three other surviving mojo bills—he asserts that the return of these four bills is a considered response to the Democrats' comments about these proposals. To quote the minister: Since opposing the `more jobs, better pay bill 1999' last November, the Democrats have publicly indicated that they prefer to deal with the contents of that bill on an issue by issue basis, not as an omnibus piece of legislation.In a speech to the ACT Industrial Relations Society on 6 April 2000, Democrats spokesman Senator Murray said:`In my view only technical bills should be general and broad ranging. Policy bills should be specific. It is far better for a reformist government to deal with one issue at a time on a specific and limited basis.'And again, in the course of the inquiry by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee into the bill, the senator said:`It seems to me the act can be conveniently broken up into major sectors ... I find these kinds of omnibus bills result in a lot of negativity and it is very difficult to progress them.'Taking these sentiments into account, the government has sought to accommodate the preferences of the Australian Democrats by proceeding, other than on technical issues, with an issue by issue consideration of policy matters arising from the more jobs better pay bill 1999.One has to admire Minister Reith for perhaps the magnitude and audacity of his misrepresentations. These make him that little bit special. Senator Murray did, of course, say those things and there is no question that, in his supplementary report on the mojo bill, Senator Murray did express the view that some parts of the bill had merit. It was a 300-odd page bill with 16 schedules and you would be pretty unlucky not to include something worth while, even just by accident. But Senator Murray was also perfectly clear on his views and, by implication, the Australia Democrats' views on schedule 6, which this bill mirrors in part. Senator Murray said this:This is one of the least attractive schedules in the bill. It has the effect of watering down the award safety net and launching a further round of award changes when the current exercise of award simplification is only half complete.This general statement is hardly a ringing endorsement. If anyone but the current incumbent had the job, I would suggest it would be unlikely that they would be trying to salvage that proposal. I am absolutely certain that they would not be claiming that they were taking Democrat sentiments into account in putting these proposals up again. This bill is never going anywhere. It was the subject of an appropriate level of consideration last year and was found wanting. Only a masochist would have returned to the scene of their greatest beating, as the minister has. Unfortunately for the parliament, Minister Reith's desire to be re-issued that beating is a monstrous waste of the time of this parliament.Let us look at this specific bill, the first of the four, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000. This bill serves as a potent illustration of two symptoms that have plagued this minister's tenure in the workplace relations portfolio. Firstly, it illustrates his obsession with matters ideological at the expense of sensible and practical solutions and, secondly, it shows once more the arrogance of the minister in usurping the role of the independent umpire in favour of his own biased, irrational and political solutions. On that point, let me be totally clear. The Australian Labor Party believe in the role of an independent umpire. We have protected the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, where we could, from attacks on it by this minister and we will continue to do so and to support it. The commission has been part of the structures governing industrial relations in this country for 100 years and has, for most of that time, been able to exercise discretion unfettered by a partisan government. In 1996, that minister changed all that. In limiting the matters allowed in an award, the minister placed himself in the role of the industrial arbitrator. Never before had a government asserted such a place for itself in the industrial framework. This bill is a continuation of that awful aberration.This bill has two parts, as the title suggests: one dealing with the removal of tallies from allowable award matters and the other dealing with the removal of picnic days from allowable award matters. Perhaps the irony to highlight here is that, with the Prime Minister and the minister's recent statements about the importance of their industrial relations reform agenda, it appears likely that tallies and picnic days will be the matter that the government allows some degree of time for in the very important allocation of parliamentary business to conclude this session. This is despite the statements made by the Prime Minister at the ACCI annual dinner last week that it was up there, out front and the most important thing this government was dealing with. So here we are, one week later, and it looks like, of all the industrial matters that have been sitting on the Notice Paper for quite some time, we will deal with tallies and picnic days. It is clear on the evidence received by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Committee from industrial participants—that is, unlike the minister, people who know what they are talking about in these areas—that the changes proposed in this bill are either unnecessary or unworkable. Let us deal with the first in the case of tallies. What is proposed in this bill is now completely superfluous. The issue here relates to just one award, if you believe the government's case. The award governs the meat industry. What we have here is the minister dancing to the tune played by the National Farmers Federation. When this provision was first proposed in the More Jobs Better Pay bill, the meat industry award had a tally system determining pay rates in that industry. The National Farmers Federation was seeking to have the tally system removed by applying to the commission and arguing that it was out of date. This was the normal and appropriate way to go about it. In fact, it is the way every other employer would and does go about it. But the National Farmers Federation wanted an insurance policy. If you have an antiworker, ideologically positioned minister, then you will get the hearing and you will get this sort of action. For, like the faithful servant of the employers that he is, the minister came to the party with this legislation.As a result of the National Farmers Federation's application to the commission, in a decision by the full bench handed down on 1 September 2000 the commission removed the tally system from the meat industry award. Again, this action is superfluous. But let us go back to how the commission's decision highlights our case that these matters should be handled by the commission. In reaching its finding and in its decision, the commission indicated that it had to be mindful of the transition arrangements—the move from one system to another. And there are some concerns with perhaps the ongoing effect of this legislation. Whilst the commission has determined the issue in relation to the meat industry, there are perhaps two outstanding issues on which this legislation may have an unintended impact: on incentive payment systems in other awards that might be characterised as tallies, and in respect of whether appropriate transition arrangements are incorporated.I see that Senator Murray has circulated the Democrats amendments in the chamber. They are seeking to look at a couple of those issues. As I understand it, a transition period of six months is regarded as insufficient by the Democrats. They are proposing a 12-month period and also a change to what would be the definitional arrangements in effect to protect or preserve incentive based payments from the reach of the provisions in this bill. We would argue that that is why these matters should not be removed as allowable matters and that the commission is the best judge for dealing with these issues as they pertain to any particular industry that may fall within the scope of the issues associated with tallies, their currency and whether they should be removed from awards.I want to go back to the National Farmers Federation's main argument in relation to why we should legislate in relation to tallies. As a side issue from the fact that such legislation is now superfluous on the basis of the commission's action, the NFF's main argument was that justice delayed is justice denied. The National Farmers Federation have had their justice from the commission now. They got the decision that they essentially wanted. But we need to remind the community in general of the circumstances within which this decision was dealt with by the commission. We have had Justice Giudice recently coming out in the annual report of the industrial registry indicating that time delays are being imposed on the commission because of limitations in funding and the minister's approach to resourcing the Australian Industrial Relations Commission while at the same time enforcing on that commission significant changes in its workload. I note today that it has been announced that the minister has appointed four new senior deputy presidents to the commission. This was one of the most glaring needs in terms of resourcing for the commission, but there were many other areas highlighted by Justice Giudice when he said that these issues are causing the commission delay. Yet, on the other hand, we have the National Farmers Federation arguing that justice delayed is justice denied. Rather than this superfluous and unnecessary legislation which is wasting all of our time, it would perhaps be better if the minister looked at more adequately resourcing the independent umpire—that being the commission—so that he could deal with some of these things in a much more timely fashion. As I said, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission decision in relation to tallies in the meat industry illustrates the merits of the Labor Party's position in our central dispute with this government over industrial relations. We say the commission is best placed to determine what is and what is not contained in awards. The minister thinks he is best placed to determine the industrial arrangements between parties. But the government does not hear all the evidence. The government does not know the intricacies of the industries involved and the government is certainly not impartial. What the minister is left with is a piece of worthless, pointless legislation insofar as it purports to deal with tallies, but he perseveres. I would like to address next the issue in the legislation of union picnic days.Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Bills20567R1069BillsR1070BillsR107120567GENE TECHNOLOGY BILL 2000Consideration resumed.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Order! The committee is considering the Gene Technology Bill 2000 as amended, and amendment Nos 1 to 8 on sheet 2062 moved by Senator Brown. Item 6 is to oppose clause 141, so the question will be that clause 141 stand as printed.19:30:0020567Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—In the earlier consideration of this matter, I asked the parliamentary secretary if he would explain the wording on the proposed schedule under the heading `Dealings exempt from licensing'. It says `any dealing involving a host vector system mentioned in part 2 of this schedule if the dealing does not involve an intentional release into the environment'. I want to know what is meant by that. Is the laboratory dealing with gene technology signing up to say they do not intend to release it into the environment? If so, what the heck are they putting all their money into this experiment for? On the other hand, if they do not intend to release it into the environment, what are the safeguards in this process to ensure that it will not be released into the environment, particularly as this dealing is going to be exempt from the Gene Technology Regulator's overview?19:32:0020567Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the area where Senator Brown raises his concerns is an area where there will be strict surveillance and licensing required by the regulator with regard to the release in any of these areas.NaN:32:007Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Where is that strict overview and watchfulness by the Gene Technology Regulator laid down? I would have thought it would be in that regulation. If it is not there, is it in the bill? If it is not there, where is it going to be? 19:33:0020568Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the exemption is only in respect of those contained areas of work; otherwise, the full regulatory system applies.19:33:0020568Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—It is the contained areas that are not subject to the regulatory system that we are looking at. We now have this term `contained area'. If there is an experiment going on in the contained area—which means a laboratory that is exempt from being licensed—what is the process for oversighting those premises to make sure that whatever is going on in there is contained in that area, and that there is not an escape into the environment? Moreover, in that regulation, what does the parliamentary secretary mean by, `You get exempted provided you do not intend to release something to the environment'? It is not very well thought out. Most experiments that are taking place under such conditions are for gene technology, which has at the end a patenting process and a profit motive. People who remember the calicivirus experiment, for example, will want to know that where such experimentation has taken place it is not just contained by the people involved in that experimentation—that there is some federal regulatory system and inspection system which make sure that what is going on in there is not a threat to the environment. By the way, I do not think the environment is separate from what is going on in the laboratory—there is a continuum; people coming and going all the time, and so on. We need to know that experiments that involve gene technology are safely contained. The government is aware that there is a need for this through the very way in which this regulation is written. On the face of it, it seems to be saying that, if you have an experiment going on in a laboratory which involves the manipulation of genes and it is a contained area, you will not need a licence; you are exempted. Having got the exemption, I want to know how that laboratory experimentation is policed. It is a pretty simple proposition that we should have that information.19:36:0020568Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the regulator will be doing full inspections of these particular areas and the facilities will be fully certified under the bill to ensure that the facility is appropriate to the dealing. Exempt dealings do not involve intentional release into the environment. If they want to release, the full regulatory system applies and they need to have a licence.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Hill. Correction: Senator Brown.19:36:0020568Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I will think about that one, Chair.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Don't! It's a bit early in the night for that.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—The night will never be long enough for that one.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am chuffed. First—and we can get this information while we are talking—I want to know how many people are employed by the Gene Technology Regulator at the moment in policing activities. They have some pretty onerous duties, we now find. Secondly, where does the intention not to release something into the environment alter to an intention to release it into the environment? I would say that it comes when an experiment has turned up something that the experimenters think they can turn into money and it is going to be useful in the marketplace. I do not think we should leave it to that being the arbiter of when an intention not to release something into the environment becomes an intention to release something into the environment. The point I am putting is: I cannot see why any of these places should be exempt from licensing. That is the whole point of the Greens amendments. We are saying: where there is gene manipulation taking place, that place should be licensed. The Gene Technology Regulator should be keeping an overview; it should be on the public record; there should be a one-stop shop so that any member of the public can know what is happening as far as gene manipulation in this country is concerned—particularly research and experimentation. We believe that you should know where it is occurring and that the whole process should be transparent. This suite of amendments says: `Let's not have exemptions; particularly, let's not have exemptions which apply to places which are engaged in experimentation which inherently, by the wording of the regulations, would worry the government if that was released into the environment.' The parliamentary secretary might explain why these places should be exempt. It is as simple as that. 19:39:0020569Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—There were a number of questions raised by Senator Brown. Earlier in his comments he asked a question about staffing and numbers. I am advised that the current staffing of the Interim Office of Gene Technology Regulator is approximately 40. However, that is not a limited number. There will always be enough employed later if necessary to do the job, and of course there will be special contracting arrangements—whether that is with AQIS, the state agencies, environment agencies et cetera—to undertake inspections and monitoring on the regulator's behalf. With regard to the latter part of the question, most exempt dealings relate to the use of GMOs as tools in basic medical and biological research and would never be intended for release into the environment. I would also refer Senator Brown to the explanatory guide with regard to the regulations. At page 39 it says, `The exemptions apply to a very limited number of dealings with GMOs that have been assessed over time as presenting no significant biosafety risks to public health and safety, including occupational health and safety or the environment, and are undertaken within contained facilities; that is, they do not involve intentional release of a GMO into the environment.'19:40:0020569Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—The parliamentary secretary says that it is okay, because these experiments do not involve any significant risk to the safety and health of Australia. I would of course move on to ask, `What is the meaning of this word "significant"?' There is a value judgment written in there. It is always a bad word. We should be legislating to take away that value judgment and make it clear. The parliamentary secretary has not answered the question: `What is the problem with having these places licensed and an eye kept on them?' I do not believe there is an argument for that. I believe that all such places involved in gene experimentation should be registered and what they are doing available to public view. That is why, amongst other things, we have been suggesting that this whole process of licensing gene technology in Australia be a one-stop shop and that the public have access to it through the Internet so they can see what is going on, where it is going on, and what it is for. The parliamentary secretary says, `These experiments are of such a nature that it is intended that they will never be released into the environment.' What on earth are they doing it for? Does it mean that they cannot be applied to human beings, that they are not going to be applied to crops, or that they are not going to be applied to anything outside laboratories? What on earth is going on? I do not believe that. In fact, it is not so. The aim of this experimentation is either highly altruistic—that is, to intervene for medical benefit—or, more likely, a profit motivation to create some new knowledge which can be patented and from which the people who are investing in the laboratory, wherever it might be, can get a good return. I cannot see why, given all of that, we should have these exemptions. I might ask: is the point of the exemptions to reduce the workload on the Gene Technology Regulator? I would have thought that would be the first thing the parliamentary secretary would come back with, but he hasn't.Finally, what happened to the Gene Technology Regulator at Mount Gambier? There is something that was not exempt, where the containment process broke down, where genetically modified material was dumped right outside the place from which it had come—outside the so-called safety zone—and the Gene Technology Regulator did not know about it and was found to have been very short of the mark in policing that crop and that dumping of waste from the crop. If the Gene Technology Regulator is not policing that sort of thing, what faith are we to have that there is going to be adequate policing of laboratories which are exempt from the need for a licence? 19:44:0020570Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—There is a very big distinction between those arrangements that have applied as an interim arrangement and the issues that applied to Mount Gambier and to what is now being proposed as the permanent arrangement. You cannot not have exempt dealings if the risks are low, the dealing is within a contained facility, the facility is monitored and inspected regularly and there is a history of use that demonstrates low risks where exemptions are appropriate. I should stress that the list in the regulations is a draft list. This seems to be the point that Senator Brown is missing. If Senator Brown has scientific data that would support removing GMOs from the exempt list, it is appropriate that this be brought forward. I think many of the issues that he has highlighted were addressed by Senator Crowley's committee, particularly those relating to Mount Gambier. Exempt dealings represent negligible risks, and exemptions relate only to very low risk activities occurring in laboratories only. This work has been exempt for the past 20 years and there have been no risks or problems identified. Even once the list is finalised, the exempt GMOs will continue to be reviewed by the regulator. So I would hope that Senator Brown would feel that what is being intended in the legislation certainly is comprehensive enough.19:46:0020570Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—So there we have it: it is going to come down to my responsibility to keep a watch on all these places—ZF4Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator Crowley—Then we are safe, Senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, I am going to be busy and put in a complaint if I do not think it is being adequately looked after. This is why we need a register. We need nothing to be exempt; we need it all to be on the register and we need it to be available to people with much better knowledge in this matter than I. If there are no worries about that, the government should be agreeable to it. I think this is an extremely important point. This is about transparency and raising public confidence; it is a matter of being open about what is going on. The government simply has not been able to explain to me why we should exempt these places from licensing and the direct requirements of the Gene Technology Regulator as far as licensing is concerned.19:47:0020570Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—First of all, I wish to put on record the increasing concern that the Democrats have about the increasing amount of delegated legislation with which this chamber deals. Anyone who has been in parliament or has been working around legislation for the past 10 years would be aware of the changes we have seen in the amount of matter that ends up in regulations as opposed to in the actual legislation. So I want to ask the government why this is appearing before us—it is not being dealt with specifically today. Why are the definition and the criteria regarding exempt dealings in the form of regulation, delegated legislation, instead of in the bill, in the act, for which I think there are very strong arguments? I commend the role of the department in making available the regulations—as they did with the draft legislation—for public comment and consultation. It may have been a while since some of us looked at the regulations in detail but, looking at them in detail, I have a question for the minister in relation to part 1, exempt dealings. This is regulation 9, item (4), which states:Any dealing involving a host/vector system, mentioned in Part 2 of this Schedule, if...And it goes on to list a series. I am interested in item (4)(a)(vi), which reads:does not comprise or represent more than two-thirds of the genome of a virus or viroid and the dealing is not an experiment in which the genetic material missing from the viral genome, and essential for producing infection, is available in the cell into which the incomplete genome is introduced, or would be made available by subsequent breeding processes;I would like the minister to outline for the benefit of the Senate his understanding of that particular section. Senator Brown is correct when he says that we do not want to have to be relying on people simply with our levels of knowledge in this debate. There is good reason for more information to be made available to the public and for experts to be responsible. When I say `experts' I include the public in my definition, because I think you have to balance scientific expertise with that of lay people and community and public general concern. I want to know how what I have just read out sits in relation to certain aspects of first-generational agricultural gene technology—that is, where you see the insertion of a virus genes into crop plants, obviously to protect them against disease. But we know what sort of mutations can take place as a consequence of that, intentional or otherwise. Does section 6 guard against that—for example, migrating viruses acquiring the inserted genes and producing novel viruses with new properties, something which was pointed out in a couple of submissions that the Democrats have provided to various government committees? So I want to know what `does not comprise or represent more than two-thirds of the genome of a virus or viroid and the dealing is not an experiment ...' means in terms of the insertion of virus genes into, say, crop plants. 19:51:0020571Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I can appreciate that people who have a far more scientific involvement in this area than I can often be very confusing. I appreciate that the need to give good information at this particular stage of the debate is very important. I am advised that exempt dealings are in the regulations because they will be regularly reviewed and monitored by the regulator and updated regularly. I think this is the very point that Senator Brown was making earlier: that there is obviously a philosophic point there as to the differences in when regulation ought to apply and what should be in the legislation that may require subsequent changes and appropriate review from time to time—where it is much more appropriate to have those matters dealt with by regulation.Senator Stott Despoja said that the issue was confusing and required further clearer articulation. The issue was reconsidered by the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee and other experts, and this provision is being revised in the next draft of the regulations to be released this month. It gives people the opportunity to provide further comment. The reason the government has released the regulations early—as you say, Senator—is to ensure that they are fully tested by the community. We will continue to refine them over the coming months before bringing them before the parliament. 19:53:0020571Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer. I am assuming that you meant that part (vi), to which I referred, was going to be clarified. 6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—Yes.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—What I am curious about, though, is the intent of that. I am not meaning to be difficult or pedantic; I am genuinely interested to find out not only the intent of that particular part of the regulations—acknowledging that it may be updated or made better or whatever—but, if it is going to be improved or articulated in a better fashion, the purpose and the impact that that might have, for example, in relation to allowing the insertion of virus genes. I suppose we are trying to establish—though I cannot speak for Senator Brown—what kinds of safe mechanisms we are putting in place with not only these regulations but also even the allowance of exempt dealings. I think there is probably a spectrum here. You could argue, `Do we really need anything to be exempt?' I am sure there are arguments in favour of minimal exemptions. But I am not satisfied that these regulations necessarily provide for those exemptions, if any should be allowed. So I am curious to find out not only the intent of that part but also the implications of the amendment.I guess this returns to the issue that was discussed before question time. It seems a long time ago now, but it will probably seem even longer by the time we have got through this bill tonight, if indeed we do. In the question that Senator Brown raised he genuinely made a plea for specificity and an example. I know some examples were provided but I do not think they were in the form that satisfied the chamber—for example, what does this mean; what can we tell people in the street that this means; what kinds of things will be exempt? I understood from the parliamentary secretary's response before question time the kinds of things that would be exempt, but now I am really curious to get into the nitty-gritty and to find out what it means for viruses or what have you. Why do we qualify it by saying `does not comprise or represent two-thirds of the genome of a virus or variant'? I am genuinely interested. I am happy for the parliamentary secretary to take this on notice for a while as we proceed with this debate. I know he has expert advisers—they know their genetics back and forth—so I am quite happy to wait. The parliamentary secretary does not have to deal with this immediately, because I think this debate is probably going to go all night. 19:56:0020572Crowley, Sen RosemarySenator CROWLEYZF4South AustraliaALP00—I want to make some very brief comments on the points that my colleagues have talked about. We are dealing here with some exemptions that are written in language that is so technical that I would imagine that even some scientists may not understand what this is about. It is very specific. I think people might be terribly interested to know what a gene-knockout mouse is. Fortunately, there is a brief explanation—that is, `a mouse whose genetic modification involves deletion or inactivation of a specific gene'. So that is someone that has been kayoed. So a piece of gene is kayoed; hence the term `gene knockout mice'. Item 4, which we are talking to, as Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Brown has said, says that any dealing involving a host/vector system as mentioned in part 2 of the schedule is exempt `if the donor DNA ...' and then there are six points which are all followed by the word `and'. I need to know if this donor DNA has to be all of those things or some of those things. The word `and' there instead of `and/or' makes it specific. As I understand it, to be an exempt dealing the donor DNA would have to be (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi): that is, if it:is not derived from microorganisms capable of causing disease in human beings, other animals, plants or fungi, or is fully characterised—and someone might explain as a footnote what being `fully characterised means'—and will not increase the virulence of the host or vector; and is not an oncogene; and—which I think means will cause cancer—does not code for a toxin for vertebrates with an LD50 of less than 100 micrograms/kg; and—we are now going deep into specificity—is not uncharacterised DNA from a toxin-producing organism; and the dealing does not involve an intentional release into the environment; and—That is the point that Senator Stott Despoja read out. Are these all necessary definitions of the donor DNA that must all be fulfilled to allow that to be exempt?A lot of people might be terribly pleased to meet a non-conjugative plasmid. It sounds like something in a sci-fi film. I do not wish to mock the language of science. I have been around it long enough to know that these things have very specific meanings, and it may be important to have those specific meanings written—possibly better than having them all hidden. But I would suggest that, first of all, we need it explained and then we have to deal with the fact that it is highly technical and we will possibly need some kind of commonsense or colloquial explanation—that is, that DNA is not going to make the organism into which it is put sicker, or get cancer or be poisoned and then subsequently be released into the atmosphere. I think we will probably need to spell out some of the high-tech science so as to make it clear to people what is being protected. But we have to also appreciate that this is going to be the cause of a lot of furrowed eyebrows in the public arena. So we might need to look at a way in which it can possibly be explained to people in some kind of colloquial fashion. It may indeed have to be the challenge of the community education sector—I hope by an independent source—which might want talk to people about what GE, GM, or whatever it is, is doing. I ask a specific question: in (4), as each of those clauses is followed by `and', does it have to be all of those? It does. The advisers are nodding, so perhaps you could put that on the record, Senator Tambling. 20:00:0020573Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am responding to questions in this section by both Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Crowley. Can I make clear to Senator Stott Despoja that the intent is not to allow infectious viruses to be produced. The intention of (vi)(a) is that, if there is any likelihood that the production of the GMO were likely to result in the production of an infectious virus from the GMO, the dealing would not be exempt. Again, as Senator Stott Despoja mentioned, if she would like anything further on this matter or additional information, I would be happy to take that on notice and provide her with written explanations of that particular area. On the issues that have been raised by Senator Crowley, it is always a difficult balancing act to draft regulations that are sufficiently certain and scientifically clear yet also able to be read by lay people. The regulations have been drafted based on existing GMAC guidelines that have been used for years and understood within the scientific community. However, we take the point raised by Senator Crowley about the drafting—and this was raised during the consultations—and we are certainly attempting to simplify that in the next draft. With regard to the specific question asked by Senator Crowley, which focused on `and'—all the points from 4(a)(i) to 4(a)(vi) must be fulfilled for the GMO to be exempt.20:02:0020573Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—In speaking to Greens' amendment (6), I would like to look specifically at section 141, which this amendment opposes. Looking at the structure of section 141, the regulator may review exemptions. It states:The regulator may, at any time, in accordance with this Division, consider the following matters: (a) whether a dealing that is an exempt dealing within the meaning of subsection 32(3) should not be an exempt dealing;(b) whether a dealing should be an exempt dealing within the meaning of that subsection.I would like to take the committee to division 2 of the bill on page 23, subsection 32(3), which says:exempt dealing means a dealing specified by the regulations to be an exempt dealing. In subsection (4) it goes on to say:Regulations under subsection (3)—which is the subsection I have just read—may be expressed to exempt:all dealings dealings with a GMO or with a specified class of GMOs;ora specified class of dealings with a GMO or with a specified class of GMOs;or(c) one or more specified dealings with a GMO or with a specified class of GMOs. In that the Greens' amendment is speaking to subsection 32(3), when you read what the exempt dealing covers, I do not believe it is restricted by what Senator Tambling has been telling us. There is nothing in subsection 32(3) on the description of an exempt dealing, nor in subsection (4), which refers to that definition, that restricts any GMO to be an exempt dealing. In other words, I am saying that my reading of the bill is that it is wide open—not restricted, as Senator Tambling has expressed to us. I look to Senator Tambling for an explanation on how subsection (4) restricts an exempt dealing.20:05:0020573Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the combined effect of the bill and the regulations allows the capacity Senator Harris is raising. We believe that there should be exempt dealings, as long as these are regularly reviewed and monitored. That is what clause 141 does and why we would, therefore, oppose the Greens' amendment.20:06:0020573Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—People are starting to look even more confused. I would like to return Senator Tambling to my original question. I am still curious about (vi). I do not feel that the intent of that section has been adequately outlined to the chamber. Again, in the context of whether or not this allows the insertion of virus genes—and, if I am completely wrong on this, can your advisers please advise?—my reading of this means that the donor DNA cannot have more than two-thirds of the genome of a virus or a viroid and, in fact, that precise genetic material required for the purposes of producing an infection cannot be in it. Is that right? It reads: `The genetic material missing from the virus and essential for producing infection.' The components of that which are necessary for producing infection are not allowed to be a part of that—right? I got a nod from an adviser. I do not want to misrepresent— 10000Crowley, Rosemary (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—I think you are right, Senator. It is important to ask Senator Tambling to make it clear on the record.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—In response to me last time, Senator Tambling spoke about the importance of intention. I guess what I am getting at is the notion that you may not intend to cause an infection or a certain consequence, but that does not mean it cannot happen. I am just wondering what, under these regulations, prevents that happening. According to this, those very features that produce infection cannot be a part of that donor DNA. That is what I want clarified, and not just in relation to the intent of that section. Senator Tambling was talking about `your intention of causing infection'. I hope that makes sense. What I am trying to get at is: how much of a virus can you insert?20:09:0020574Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I give the assurance that I gave previously and reiterate the point that the intent is not to allow infectious viruses to be produced. Regarding the issues that Senator Stott Despoja raised, again I would like to make the offer that I made earlier in the evening: in the course of the debate, we would be happy to give a written statement that I think will clarify this in the way in which she is expecting and anticipating. If she would take that in good faith, I think it can be provided in the very near future.20:09:0020574Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I did not realise that Senator Tambling's earlier offer was within the context of this debate. That gives us about three days, I reckon.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—You've got tonight!3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—You should be so sure, Parliamentary Secretary. I am not so sure myself. I will take on board that assurance and we will return to this issue later.20:10:0020574Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I return to the situation that I put to Senator Tambling. There is nothing in his answer that gives me any confidence. Senator Tambling clearly said that the government will be relying on the review of regulations to specify what exempt dealings are. My point to Senator Tambling, through you, Madam Temporary Chairman, is that if subclause 32(4) stands, it is possible that all dealings with a GMO or with a specified class of GMOs could be an exempt dealing. I do not believe that this should be so. For the regulator, under section 141, to have the expressed ability to review exemptions both ways—whether they should or should not be—is inappropriate. At this point, this section does leave the ability at some future time for the regulator to say that all dealings with a GMO come under an exempt dealing. This is the concern that Senator Brown has also raised in relation to this section.20:12:0020574Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The bill and the regulations must be taken together to give the assurance that Senator Harris is seeking in this regard. It is when you put the two into context and in parallel that you achieve that. I refer Senator Harris to page 57 of the explanatory memorandum to the Gene Technology Bill where it states:GMOs may be defined by a range of matters. For example, an exempt class of dealings with a GMO may be limited by the type of GMO, who deals with the GMO, how the GMO is dealt with and whether the GMO is regulated under existing legislation.It is the regulations that provide that exemptions must not involve intentional release of a GMO into the environment. In addition—and I have mentioned this earlier this evening in debate—the next version of regulations will provide that the exempt dealings must occur within a secured working environment. 20:13:0020575Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I thank Senator Tambling for his answer. I draw the attention of the committee to the paragraph preceding the one that Senator Tambling has just read out. I will not persist with this—I will just read the first line:Sub-clause 32(4) provides that regulations may exempt all dealings with a GMO ...That is a direct quote from the government's own explanatory memorandum. I do not think it can be put any clearer.20:14:0020575Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Senator Harris and I have probably exhausted the particular issue. I go back to the issue that was raised previously by Senator Stott Despoja when I said that I would seek further information. I am advised that the intent is that, if the dealing involves a viral sequence, the sequence must be missing at least one gene essential for viral manipulation and the DNA must not be able to complement or recombine to produce with infectious virus a viral vector used in the host vector system or with viral genes present in the host. This intent will be reflected more clearly in the next draft of the regulations. I hope that gives you the assurance you were seeking.20:15:0020575Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I thank the parliamentary secretary for the explanation of the intent of (vi). Perhaps he could table the notes from which he was reading. I understand how the reworded intent seeks to echo that in the original (vi), although it does read, obviously, quite differently in terms of the notion that there has to be missing one gene component that would be essential for the purposes of viral manipulation, et cetera. So thank you for that, but can it be put on the record, please?6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—Certainly. 10000Crowley, Rosemary (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—The question is that clause 141 stand as printed.20:20:00The committee divided.(The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 35Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Campbell, G.Collins, J.M.A.Conroy, S.M.Cook, P.F.S.Coonan, H.L. *Crane, A.W.Crowley, R.A.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Kemp, C.R.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W.Mackay, S.M.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Payne, M.A.Reid, M.E.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.11Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W. *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Would senators please resume their seats. The question now is that amendments (1) to (5) and (7) and (8) be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye, the contrary no. I think the noes have it. Senator Brown, are you seeking the call?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—I find it impossible to know what is going on with the current state of the committee.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I have just put the motion that amendments (1) to (5) and (7) and (8) be agreed to, and the noes have it.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—The ayes have it, in that case.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Division required?QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—Yes, in that case.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Are there two voices requesting a division? As there are, ring the bells for one minute. A division having been called and the bells being rung—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine—Chair, I did not hear you putting anything to the chamber because there was confusion reigning supreme.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, Senator Harradine, I have put the question that (1) to (5) and (7) and (8) be agreed to. I called it for the noes. Do you have a point of order?6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine—Yes; you have no right to put that when honourable senators have not heard what you are putting.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry but—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine—We were not back in our seats. So under those circumstances you could have ruled us out of order for voting when we were not in our seats.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I am not ruling you out of order, Senator Harradine. I have called—6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator Harradine—I am raising a point of order.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I am sorry, Senator Harradine, if you did not hear me make the call.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg—On a point of order, Madam Chair: as I understand it, the bells are ringing outside now. I want your direction as to what is actually happening.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—This is because the division was called.7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg—Is the division actually proceeding? If so, from what time?10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The time for the division is up because it was a one-minute division. But it would appear that many bodies have—7L6Hogg, Sen JohnSenator Hogg—Madam Chair, if I could point out to you the fact that the bells were ringing outside whilst the vote was proceeding here on the point of order from Senator Harradine; I just want your direction. I think the bells should ring for at least one minute more to give honourable senators the opportunity to convene.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—Madam Chair, could I speak to the point of order?10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Okay, but before anybody else speaks: will people standing around resume your appropriate seats in the chamber.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—Thank you, Madam Chair. I am flattered that they have all come down to hear this speech. Given that, as I understand it, you put the motion on the amendments at a time when people were returning to their seats and there was a fair amount of noise and a lot of people did not hear it, could I suggest that we put the motion again. Then we can proceed and get on with it. We have a long night ahead of us, and I think that would be a good idea.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—I will put the question again if that would be the wish of the committee.UW4Crane, Sen WinstonSenator Crane—On the point of order, Madam Chair, I want to support what Senator Forshaw said. We should start again and have a four-minute bell and re-present the thing.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—No, I am actually going to go back. Is it the wish of the committee that I put it all again? It being so, the question is that amendments (1) to (5) and (7) and (8) be agreed to. 20:29:00The committee divided.(The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 11Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W. *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.38Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Campbell, G.Carr, K.J.Collins, J.M.A.Cook, P.F.S.Coonan, H.L.Crane, A.W.Crowley, R.A.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Kemp, C.R.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W. *Mackay, S.M.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.Newman, J.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Reid, M.E.Schacht, C.C.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.Question so resolved in the negative.20:32:0020577Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 5 to 8 on sheet 2026:(5) Clause 32, page 23 (line 22), before "2,000", insert "imprisonment for 5 years or".(6) Clause 32, page 23 (line 23), before "500", insert "imprisonment for 2 years or".(7) Clause 34, page 25 (line 12), before "2,000", insert "imprisonment for 5 years or".(8) Clause 34, page 25 (line 13), before "500", insert "imprisonment for 2 years or".These amendments mostly deal with clause 32 of the bill. That clause covers penalties prescribed where persons deal with a GMO without a licence. The current proposal is shown in clause 32(2) of the bill:(2) An offence under subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than whichever of the following amounts applies:(a) in the case of an aggravated offence—2,000 penalty units;(b) in any other case—500 penalty units.The proposal of the opposition is to amend clause 32 and clause 34 in their respective sections to insert a provision which would provide also for imprisonment. The proposal is that, where there is a prescribed penalty at the moment in the bill of 2,000 penalty units, there be also inserted a provision for an offence under that subsection to carry an imprisonment term of five years. Correspondingly, where the proposed penalty is for 500 penalty units, we propose an amendment to insert a provision which would encompass the option of two years imprisonment. Clearly, the more serious penalty reflects the more serious offence, referred to as an `aggravated offence'. We believe that these penalties will give the regulator real teeth when it comes to enforcing the requirements of the act and particularly in punishing any offences under the legislation, as referred to in clause 32. We submit—and we would hope that the Senate would agree—that some of the serious offences should, where appropriate, provide for a term of imprisonment rather than a fine. Giving the penalties regime this strength would, in our view, minimise the chances of the sorts of incidents that have been referred to earlier in the debate and are well known—such as that which occurred at Mount Gambier and that of the cottonseed release—from happening again.For completeness, I will refer to a further amendment, amendment No. 9, which I will be moving next. That amendment will provide that, where a person or an organisation commits a breach, they can be fined for each day that the offence continues, for up to 100 per cent of the initial penalty. So not only do we strengthen the provisions in providing for terms of imprisonment but also, in the next amendment, we provide for the penalty to have a compounding effect where the offence continues each day. I seek the support of the Senate for our amendments in that area.20:37:0020577Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats will support the amendments put forward by the opposition. The inadequacy of the penalties outlined in the act has been the subject of great debate, and certainly the penalty provisions have been subject to quite a deal of criticism. These are well documented in the Senate committee report of the inquiry into this bill. For the record, I note that the ACF stated that penalties for committing an offence under the bill are `grossly inadequate'. The Friends of the Earth Fitzroy argued that the maximum penalties for infringing the provisions of the bill should be increased tenfold. Similarly, the National Genetic Awareness Alliance also provided evidence along those lines. It was a conclusion and a committee recommendation that the penalties be increased not only in a monetary sense but also with the possibility of allowing for a term of imprisonment. The Democrats are glad to see that that is a recommendation that has been adopted by the opposition, and I hope it will receive the majority support of the chamber.20:38:0020578Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I indicate that the government will accept these amendments, which will include imprisonment terms for breaches of the legislation.20:39:0020578Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I also support the opposition's amendments. I seek some clarification from Senator Tambling in relation to section 32. The bill refers to a person not dealing with a GMO without a licence. I seek clarification as to a corporation that did deal with a GMO substance without a licence. Who does the government intend that that section of the bill would refer to? Would it be the chief executive officer, would it be the board or would it be an actual person who is an employee? Or—I stress this point—could this section of the bill refer to a person who is an agent of that person? I seek clarification as to who the actual individual would be should this section of the legislation be implemented.20:40:0020578Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I refer Senator Harris to division 4, clause 188 of the bill. This deals with conduct by directors, employees and agents. It is set out on pages 123 and 124 of the bill in considerable detail. I think it would address—as would the explanatory memorandum—the issues that are very specifically raised by Senator Harris. I think all his issues and concerns will again be covered in clause 188.20:41:0020578Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I ask Senator Tambling whether the actual transportation of a product that is a result of a genetically modified organism would fall within a licence and, if this is so, where the bill covers that. Also, in part 2, division 2, section 10, on page 6 of the bill, under the definitions of `dealing with', would that section of the bill also cover the storage of a GMO? It may not be entirely appropriate for this to be discussed in the penalty section of the bill, but I would like to ensure that, when a person obtains a licence, that licence would also cover the transport of any product that is a result of that genetic modification. Can we also ensure that the actual storage of the product is covered? If, for example, I am using canola seed that has been produced in a trial process and that seed has been harvested, does the bill cover the storage of that product prior to its being either shipped overseas or used anywhere in Australia?20:43:0020578Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that I can give Senator Harris the assurance he seeks: the storage is certainly covered. The definitions, as he pointed out, relating to section 10 on page 6 of the bill which deal with `dealing with' cover the very issue he first raised with regard to transport and, certainly, storage, and it is intended to cover all those incidental issues that arise.Amendments agreed to.20:44:0020578Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—I move opposition amendment (9):(9) Clause 34, page 25 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including the day of a conviction for the offence or any later day) on which the person is guilty of the offence.I did comment on the reasons for this amendment when dealing with opposition amendments (5) to (8). It is related to the issue of penalties.20:45:0020578Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I indicate to the chamber that Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment (23) is similar to the opposition's amendment, the only difference being that in One Nation's amendment under subsection (2) we had clarified that the maximum penalty for each day that that offence continues is 10 per cent of the maximum penalty that could be imposed in respect of the principal offence. The amendment which Senator Forshaw has just moved is identical to One Nation's amendment except for that section. I will not proceed with that amendment but speak in support of the Labor amendment because it raises the issue that the unintentional release or the intentional release of a GMO into the environment is a substantial offence. I believe the bill should have sufficient teeth in its punitive action, so that those who do intend to deal in GMOs know exactly what the dangers are. We have all spoken about the Mount Gambier incident. I believe that, once this legislation is passed, such an incident would not be acceptable—it is not acceptable even without the legislation, but it would not occur because the responsibility will be there very clearly, for those people who have a licence, to carry out that licence in accordance with the conditions. I support the opposition amendment.20:47:0020579Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government is pleased to accept this amendment which is a natural extension to the stringent offence provisions already contained in the bill.Amendment agreed to.20:48:0020579Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—by leave—I move One Nation amendments (22), (25), (92), (111) and (112):(22) Page 26 (after line 25), after clause 37, insert:37A Person must not damage licence holder's property (1) A person who intentionally destroys or damages any property relating to the premises of a GMO licence holder without lawful excuse is guilty of an offence. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person destroys or damages property intentionally if, but only if: (a) his or her purpose, or one of his or her purposes, is to destroy or damage property; or (b) he or she knows, or believes, that his or her conduct is more likely than not to result in the destruction of, or damage to, property. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is not a lawful excuse that a person believed that to destroy or damage the premises or property of a GMO licence holder, a person covered by a GMO licence, or premises or property otherwise associated with a GMO licence was: (a) in the public interest; or (b) necessary or desirable in order to protect neighbouring or nearby property or the environment from contamination by a GMO. (4) An offence under subsection (1) is punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than whichever of the following amounts applies: (a) in the case of a first offence—50 penalty units; (b) in the case of a second offence—100 penalty units; (c) in the case of any subsequent offence—450 penalty units.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(25) Clause 40, page 29 (after line 13), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) An application which specifies that dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence will involve the intentional release of a GMO into the environment must include details of the location and the size of the dealings.(92) Clause 138, page 86 (after line 14), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) if the dealings authorised by the licence involve the intentional release of a GMO into the environment—the location and size of the dealings;(111) Clause 184, page 120 (line 6), after "relates", insert ", other than the information specified in subsection (1A),".(112) Clause 184, page 120 (after line 7), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) The information specified for the purposes of subsection (1) is as follows: (a) the location of field trials involving GMOs; (b) the size of field trials involving GMOs.The essence of these amendments is to clarify that a person must not damage a licence holder's property. During the period of the Senate inquiry in relation to this bill, there was considerable concern raised by those licensed people who are already carrying out trials in Australia. One of the reasons that they strongly oppose disclosure of the whereabouts of their trials was that those trials, in effect, could be maliciously damaged or interfered with to such a degree that it would render worthless any scientific value from those trials. The reason for moving amendment (22) is to put a section in the bill stating that a person should not destroy or damage any property relating to the premises of a GMO licence holder without lawful excuse. During the inquiry, there were concerns raised as to the secrecy of these trial locations. In the committee report on page 58, in paragraph 3.131, it states:The District Council of Grant in South Australia expressed concern at the lack of information on trial sites made available to local councils. The Council submitted that `No notification is supplied to the Council or the public, regarding the location of the trial sites, duration, size and conditions pertaining to the trialing of genetically modified crops (for example Canola).In paragraph 3.132 the report goes on to say:It is worth noting that in Europe, where there is widespread opposition to gene technology, the location of GMO crops is not concealed as it is here—`here' referring to Australia. Further on in the report, in paragraph 3.137, it says:Avcare, an umbrella organisation of biotechnology companies, proposed an alternative approach to providing information on trial site locations:[that] Avcare members ... make the locations of trials available to an independent third party who could be contacted by a concerned grower. The grower would then be told whether a trial was nearby and, if so, directed to the proponent of the trial for information.So that is one alternative that was put before the committee that lies halfway between disclosure of the sites and retaining, to some degree, the secrecy of where the sites would be. The report also, in paragraph 3.139 on page 59, goes on to say:The Committee considers that Avcare's proposal may undermine confidence in the GTR and confuse the public in relation to where information on trials and other issues concerning the regulation of gene technology should be sought. The Committee supports the views of the Organic Federation of Australia and considers that it is more appropriate for GM growers to make details of trial site locations available to those who may be affected.I also indicate that I will be moving an amendment at a later date that would specifically address those properties which either adjoin or are close in location to a site on which a genetically modified organism is actually being trialled or carried out as a crop. That is because, when we are looking at this legislation, we also have to look past the trial process in relation to genetically modified organisms. This legislation is going to have to cover, should it be granted a licence, broadacre production of genetically modified crops. The disclosure of the size of the sites is an issue that was raised substantially in the committee stage.In supporting their disclosure, we also have a responsibility to ensure the integrity of those sites that are licensed sites. It is with that in mind that Pauline Hanson's One Nation have moved this group of amendments relating to the location of licensed dealings, to get a balance between letting the public know where these trials or broadacre crops are actually being planted and at the same time having some security for those people who have a licence and are carrying out a licensed activity. I commend the amendments.20:56:0020580Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments. These amendments require that all applications include information about the location and size of the dealings, including field trials. I can assure Senator Harris that this will in fact be the case. The gene technology regulations already require that every application must include details about the scale and location of proposed dealings. These amendments are therefore unnecessary, but I will welcome Senator Harris's comments on the draft regulations. The amendments also require that the information about location be included on the record of GMOs and GM products. Again, I can assure Senator Harris that the record must include details of licensing conditions. In relation to interference with dealings, I can flag at this point that the government is inclined to accept the ALP's proposed amendment, which is much later in the evening when we get to clause 192, which addresses the destruction of property. The licence conditions, for example for a field trial, would include where a field trial could be grown. This would therefore be included on the record.20:58:0020581Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting these amendments moved by Senator Harris. As the parliamentary secretary for the government has just said, we indeed have an amendment, amendment No. 19 on our list of amendments, that deals with the issue of interference with dealings with GMOs, which we believe is more appropriate. In respect of the other issues regarding disclosure, they have been adequately covered by the parliamentary secretary.20:58:0020581Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could tell us more explicitly what is wrong with these amendments. Are they too stringent? If the information is going on the record, what is the problem with these amendments? I ask the parliamentary secretary: is all the information about location and size of crops, and the experimentation or the modification involved in the crops, going to be available on the public record?20:59:0020581Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that this is an area in which there is a combination of issues. In the main the issues are covered by the regulations. As I indicated to Senator Harris, the gene technology regulations already require that every application must include details about the scale and location of the proposed dealings. I also indicated that there were other areas where we were inclined to look at the ALP's proposed amendment relating to clause 192, which addresses the destruction of property. With regard to interference, the key difference is that Senator Harris's amendment is cast very broadly and may catch general break-ins that are not specifically ecotourism. 21:00:0020581Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I think the secretary might have meant `ecoterrorism'.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—I did.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Maybe we have a new industry afoot here. I come back again to ask the parliamentary secretary, Senator Tambling, if all this information will be on the public record as soon as the applications are put in.21:00:0020581Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—While Senator Tambling is getting some advice on that, with respect to my comments in response to Senator Harris's amendments I should have mentioned earlier that the opposition also has further amendments, on sheet No. 2067, which relate to the issue of disclosure and confidentiality of commercial information.21:01:0020581Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I am glad Senator Forshaw added that, because the one component that was missing in the government's response to Senator Harris's amendments was in relation to the confidential commercial provisions in clause 184—one of the three amendments that relate to that issue. It was probably appropriate that Senators Tambling and Brown made reference to ecoterrorism, because I believe that kind of activity is partly motivated by and comes about as a consequence of people's fear or anger towards, in this case, a new technology. The case in Brisbane—which I think is our first reported case of ecoterrorism in relation to GMOs—probably sent quite a strong message to government, as indeed incidents like that over the world should. Again it relates back to the idea that, if we are going to have public faith in the legislation before us and are not going to incite or provoke those kinds of incidences around Australia again, we have to make sure that people feel that their rights, safety and environment will be adequately protected. As we have pointed out a number of times in this debate so far, we have not sufficiently tightened or strengthened this bill in a way that certainly the crossbenchers would like to see in order to ensure that we can instil that public confidence and faith. I think references to ecoterrorism in the context of this debate are probably, unfortunately, quite relevant. I understand the intent of Senator Harris's amendments. I am wondering whether the key concern the government has with one of the amendments is that it is superfluous—that it is unnecessary, to use the govern-ment's language. What is the risk? Is it the mere risk of duplication? To echo Senator Brown's comments, I am just wondering whether there are any further reasons that the government is rejecting these amendments apart from the fact they are opposition amendments. I do state that I believe that the opposition amendments, which seek to achieve similar objectives, have some value.21:03:0020582Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—It is important that we concentrate on the issues that Senator Stott Despoja has so rightly pointed out are contained in clauses 184 and 185 of the bill, relating to confidential commercial information. However, I should point out that it is the general tenor of this legislation to make as much information as possible available in the public arena. In fact, I draw particular attention to clause 185(2): The Regulator may refuse to declare that the information is confidential commercial information if the Regulator is satisfied that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the prejudice the disclosure would cause to any person.So it is very heavily incumbent on the regulator to ensure these areas of concern. The other area is probably more about philosophy, which does come back to those issues that can be addressed more appropriately in regulations, where issues can be addressed in a much more fluid manner than specifically apply in the body of the legislation.21:04:0020582Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—On that point, the bill defines confidential commercial information as information declared by the regulator to be confidential commercial information. That is one of those definitions that ducks giving any information at all. It might be an indicator of what we are going to get under this legislation with the regulator, which I fear—and I think legitimately—will mean a lot of information being covered up under the guise of commercial confidentiality. Seeing the secretary has brought up this matter, I would like a definition of what will be commercial-in-confidence, because I do not think we should leave that to the regulator. I am very well aware that in this day and age the corporate sector will bring the curtain down on what it is doing over anything at all that it can under the guise of commercial-in-confidence. I am also very aware that the rules on this are much more against the public interest in Australia than they are in the United States, where freedom of information insists that a whole range of commercial information which is prohibited under provisions like this in Australia has to be on the public record.The secretary said, `Oh well, the regulator will have to judge this matter on what is in the public interest.' Well, if he appoints me as regulator, everything that is to do with gene technology is in the public interest. What we are not getting here is any definition, any guide, any indicator to the regulator as to where the balance between the public interest and so-called commercial interest lies. If we do not define that in here, it will be the commercial interest that will have sway, because after this legislation leaves here the Gene Technology Regulator will be under quite a lot of pressure from the commercial interests, who will be arguing—in camera—why their interests are commercial-in-confidence. They are going to hide a lot of information from the public under that label. So I think we should make it very clear—and the government should be making very clear—what is commercial-in-confidence. Otherwise we have a very legitimate right, as Senator Harris has, to suspect that a lot of information is not going to be made available. For the parliamentary secretary to say, `It will have to be released' or `The regulator will, out of the goodness of her or his heart, release this information as they think it is in the public interest' just does not wash.21:08:0020582Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I would invite Senator Brown to perhaps contain his comments at this point in time, and we will deal with them again further on in the agenda. The Labor Party does have some amendments to section 185 which deal with this area of commercial-in-confidence. I can certainly give Senator Brown the assurance that the public interest can and certainly will override the factors that are currently listed. As I said, they may change a bit. Section 185 (1)(a), (b) and (c) bring out those areas that do define the areas which are commercial, confidential information. They are set out in that particular regard, and I think it would be more appropriate to have this debate when we get to the Labor Party's amendment on that section. 21:09:0020583Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—In response to my earlier comments, Senator Tambling said that the information that I am requesting be made public is available on the public record. Could Senator Tambling let us know where that record will be kept, who will have access to it, and whether that information will be available prior to the regulator granting a licence or whether it will be placed on the public record only after the regulator has issued a licence?21:10:0020583Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the information that will be readily available will certainly be on the web site, it will be available to people as part of the process that will be considered by the regulator, and there will be an availability for disclosure. 21:10:0020583Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Senator Tambling has not addressed the issue of when that information will be available. Will the information be publicly available at the point when an application is made for a licence, or will it be available on the public register only after the licence has been granted?21:10:0020583Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the information will be available when the application has been made and prior to any decision being made.Amendments not agreed to.21:11:0020583Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments Nos 43, 44, 45 and 47:(43) Page 27 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:38A Offence of causing significant damage to health or safety of people or to the environment(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:(a) the person intentionally causes significant damage to the health and safety of people or to the environment through the development, use or release of a GMO or GM product; and(b) the person knows that the development, use or release of a GMO or GM product is likely to cause significant damage to the health and safety of people or to the environment and is reckless as to the likely effect.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(2) An offence under this section is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years.Note: Subsection 4B(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court that convicts an individual of an offence impose a fine instead of, or as well as, imprisonment. The maximum fine (in penalty units) the court can impose is 5 times the maximum term of imprisonment (in months). (44) Page 27 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:38B Significant damage to health or safety of people or to the environment—strict liability offence(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person causes significant damage to the health or safety of people or to the environment, through the development, use or release of a GMO or GM product.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(2) Strict liability applies to subsection (1).(3) An offence against this section is punishable on conviction by a fine that, in the discretion of the court, is commensurate with the damage caused by the person. (45) Page 27 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:38C Offence relating to negligence(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person negligently causes significant damage to the health and safety of people or to the environment through the development, use or release of a GMO or GM product. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(2) An offence under this section is punishable on conviction by a fine that, in the discretion of the court, is commensurate with the damage caused by the person.(47) Page 27 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:38E Meaning of significant damageFor the purposes of this Part, significant damage in relation to the health and safety of people or to the environment includes, but is not limited to, any actual adverse effect on the health and safety of people or on the environment in relation to the GMO or GM product.These amendments deal with offences causing concern to the public in the public interest. The first amendment says—and I will shorthand this—that a person is guilty of an offence if they intentionally cause significant damage to the health and safety of people. That offence is punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years. The second amendment deals with offences where a person has caused damage to the health and safety of people but it was not intentional. Therefore, the severe penalty of imprisonment is not levied. The next amendment deals with offences where there is damage to the health of people through the use or release of a GMO or GM product due to negligence. On this occasion, the offence would be punishable by a fine that, in the discretion of the court, is commensurate with the damage caused to the person.Committee members will note that Greens amendment No. 47 makes `significant damage' effectively any damage having any actual adverse effect on the health and safety of people or the environment. In other words, we are getting out of this `leave it to somebody else to decide' and making it very clear that damage, when it occurs to other people due to the use of a GMO or a GM product, is the responsibility of the person who released or used that GMO or GM product. It is a very simple and fair set of amendments which leave no doubt that, where these products are being used—and I have no doubt the government is indicating that that is going to be where it is in the public interest—the people who are using them should be liable for any suffering as a result of that overall public interest in which the GMO or GM product is being used abroad.21:14:0020584Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I would like to indicate that the government is opposed to these amendments. These amendments increase the penalties in relation to certain offences and establish new offences, including strict liability offences. The government believes that the offence provisions already in the bill are more than adequate. The penalties imposed are high in comparison with like legislation and there are a range of offences, including strict liability offences and aggravated offences. Therefore, the government opposes the amendments.21:15:0020584Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I do not think that is the case, and that is why we have the very clear language of the amendments. I would add that one could depart from this and look at the threat to citizens who want to defend the environment. You will know, Mr Temporary Chairman Watson, that in Tasmania in recent months people who have quite peacefully stood in defence of the forest environment have been jailed for months. Others have been fined up to $7,000 for doing nothing but peacefully protesting their intent to defend the environment. Here, we are dealing with people who, in their use of GM products, could, for example, intentionally inflict damage on the health and safety of other people. We know what that means. In those situations there could be enormous penalties to the public abroad through the intentional misuse of genetically modified organisms. I think we have to recognise that we are at the start of an industry that is being pursued because it is going to bring enormous benefits to society—as did the use of asbestos for insulation and brake lining purposes, as have many other things that have been brought forward as being in the public interest. But, very often, there are some members of the public who suffer as a result of that. These measures by the Greens say that we have to make sure that we limit that suffering by the public who are hurt by the release of new scientific entities. We want to make particularly sure that those who are in the business are neither negligent nor intentionally malicious in their use of the quite powerful technologies that can be unleashed. So we do not believe that the government's legislation is strong enough in this matter, hence the Greens amendments. 21:17:0020585Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I rise to support the Greens amendments. When you look at the context of the amendments, you can see that they do not specify a fixed punishment. If you look at proposed section 38A(2) it says:An offence under this section is punishable on conviction by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years.It does not say it has to be 20 years; that is at the discretion of the court. If we look at 38B(3) it says:An offence against this section is punishable on conviction by a fine that, in the discretion of the court, is commensurate with the damage caused by the person.So it is clearly not setting out a minimum punishment. It actually allows the court to determine what that fit and just punishment should be. The last amendment, No. 45, which deals with an offence relating to negligence, says under subsection (2):An offence under this section is punishable on conviction by a fine that, in the discretion of the court, is commensurate with the damage caused by the person.So rather than what Senator Tambling has indicated to the chamber—that the penalties are too harsh—the way the amendments are structured rightfully allows the court the ability to apportion whatever it determines is commensurate with the damage the person has carried out; that is, an involuntary or malicious release into the environment. The thing we have to take into consideration with this bill is that, unlike so many of the acts that can be perpetrated that are recoverable—for example, there may be an unintentional spillage of oil offshore—and for which there is an accepted process for maintaining, containing and carrying out a process to remove that intentional or unintentional release, once a genetically modified organism is released into the environment there is no known process for reversing the issue.This goes to the essence of where the judiciary should be. They are the correct people in this case to be able to apportion a fine or a jail term commensurate with the damage that that release may cause either to human health or to the environment, particularly when you take into consideration that there is no known process that will retrieve that genetically modified organism once it is in the environment. This is a stepping off the edge of a cliff with a parachute process, and we are hoping that the parachute has the ability to allow a safe landing. I believe the Greens' amendments, structured as they are, are appropriate, rather than, as Senator Tambling has said, excessive. Given that it is the court that will decide and apportion whatever measures are appropriate in relation to that damage, I believe the amendments proposed by the Australian Greens are completely within what would be publicly acceptable.21:23:0020585Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats have a great deal of sympathy with these amendments and the issues of strict liability provisions and negligence and also that niggly issue of intent and ensuring that people are held liable for those actions or any adverse consequences. Given the information provided by the department to the Senate committee's inquiry, I am curious to ask the parliamentary secretary how we compare with other nations that have enacted legislation in this particular area. I have looked very briefly at Canada and the various penalties that they prescribe—obviously, this is in a note form provided to the committee—and the two types of action that they provide for liability for contamination, for example. I am just wondering if we compare favourably with other nations. Of course, that is no reason for us not to come up with our own world's best practice in relation to ensuring that people are compensated if they are adversely affected or, alternatively, that people are punished if they are responsible for bad deeds. For that reason, and unless the government can give a better explanation as to what is wrong with these amendments other than their initial response to Senator Brown's amendments, the Democrats will be supporting the amendments before us from the Australian Greens. But I would be curious as to the government's response to the international comparisons for a start. 21:24:0020586Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—In responding to various questions that have been posed to me by Senator Brown, Senator Harris and Senator Stott Despoja, I firstly point out that probably the most important area is that the fines imposed are up to $1.2 million per offence per corporation and we have added jail terms. In addition, the regulator can take all remediation action necessary and can charge the offender for costs. Further, there is a common law action open to any third party. I am sure Senator Brown would be pleased to note that there are no offence provisions in this bill for peaceful protesters. They are important aspects to note in the consideration.Senator Stott Despoja raises the issue of how we compare. It is generally accepted that Australia compares very favourably with other nations. This was highlighted in the department's submission from the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to the Senate references committee inquiry. I would refer Senator Stott Despoja to that submission, particularly under the terms of reference. At page 146 and a number of pages that follow it is set out in very comprehensive detail. Under `How do other countries regulate contamination and what recourse is available in other countries should contamination occur?' the first paragraph reads:When developing the Gene Technology Bill 2000 and particularly the approach to contamination and liability, the Interim Office of Gene Technology Regulator examined in detail the regulatory schemes adopted by the United States of America, New Zealand, Canada, the European Community, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan. To summarise, there are three main ways in which these countries' regulators differ in their coverage of intentional releases of GMOs into the environment, and in particular how liability in relation to such releases is established.The submission then goes on to set out in considerable detail those three main ways. There is also a very detailed summary of the approaches adopted in each of the countries. As I said, by comparison we compare very favourably.21:27:0020586Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Is the government going to support the compensation measure put forward by the crossbenchers, or is it going to support the insurance provisions that the crossbenchers are flagging in our amendments?21:28:0020586Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that this will be reached in another form of the debate later on when we get to the issues that have been raised by the ALP with regard to insurance. But I am advised that we are not supporting any issues relating to compensation.21:28:0020586Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—That answer underscores the need for these amendments. You are going to have the potential for damage to be caused to innocent people, innocent farmers and people who want to keep their organic or GE-free farms uncontaminated. The Greens and other crossbenchers have amendments coming further down the line which say that in that case there should be insurance that can make some monetary recompense for that contamination or damage. We have also said that the gene technology industry as a whole should have a compensation fund from which the damages can be paid if insurance does not cover them. The government says, `There won't be either of those things and, moreover, we are not going to support these amendments to be tough on people who do cause such damage.'What we are seeing unfold here is the gene technology industry being absolved from all the downside which concerns the public. If this industry is so sure that gene technology is universally such a good thing, then it should be quite willing to undertake an insurance provision. But the government, which is speaking on behalf of the big end of the gene technology industry here, is not going to have that on. This action by the government speaks volumes. This industry says it is here for the public interest and we are all going to benefit from it, but it is not prepared to back that up with the courage of saying, `And we will stand by it; we will underwrite that.' We, as legislators, have a responsibility to say, `You should.' We understand—and Senator Stott Despoja has been very clear about this from the outset of this debate; and I agree with her—that there are glittering opportunities for humanity, if not the environment, through the use of gene technology. But there are also glaring dangers, and that is what concerns the public. We are regulating here to allow the industry to bring forward the advantages, but we are very remiss if we do not also say that we have to be very clear indeed that we are going to protect the public, including the farming public. I guess that is why Senator Calvert has said that he wants to hear what I have to say to make sure we protect the interests like those of the Tasmanian farmers—which I know Senator Calvert wants to see protected—and that would lead me to conclude, although he said nothing in this debate this evening, that he is going to support these amendments. However, he can get up and speak for himself on that. These are very important matters. 5F4Calvert, Sen PaulQD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That can go on the record.10000Crowley, Rosemary (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—I would continue, Senator.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I will be assisted by your advice on that matter, and Senator Calvert's comment can speak for itself on the record. That being said, I am not going to have now the government say that we do not need such a strong line taken about people who use gene technology in a way which damages other people. A bit later they will say, `We should not compensate people damaged by the negative side of gene technology.' And a bit later they will say `We should not require people involved in the gene technology industry to insure'—and we end up with nothing.6E4Tambling, Sen GrantQD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I am sorry, we end up with common law—the parliamentary secretary just said so. We are here inventing law to deal with a very powerful invention, which is the modification of genes in the natural order. We have to make sure that the law covers all eventualities—the bad side as well as the good—and that is why it is very important that these amendments are supported.21:33:0020587Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Senator Brown has misunderstood me. We will be supporting the amendments from the ALP on insurance. I made that clear. I also point out that Senator Brown should know that the evidence presented to the Crowley committee on this important matter by the department in its submission which was considered at the first meeting of the committee in Canberra on 14 August and, I am sure, was referred to a number of times by every senator who participated in that—although I notice Senator Brown only participated in one of the five hearings, the one in Hobart on 23 August—is very explicit in this regard. At page 136 of the department's evidence that was submitted to the Senate inquiry it says:The legislation does not establish remedies for third parties that may be affected by contamination. Some stakeholders suggested that the licence holder should be strictly liable for any economic loss or damage suffered by third parties and that compensation funds or the like should be accessible by third parties. States, Territories and the Commonwealth considered this issue in detail and concluded that:- there are common law actions available to third parties to deal with such situations;- there may be actions available under other statutes including State and Territory environmental protection legislation;- strict liability (and the establishment of remedies for third parties) is not consistent with precedents in relation to the regulation of similar products under Australian law; and- strict liability (and the establishment of remedies for third parties under gene technology legislation specifically) is not consistent with international precedent. In summary, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan do not impose strict liability. That was an important reference on this particular matter. I would just like to take this moment to comment on the time and the progress that we are making. I would draw senators' attention to the program. I think it is very important that, of a list of some eight or nine pages, we are still not quite at the halfway mark yet.21:36:0020588Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I cannot let that remark go without some attention. My understanding is that the government and the opposition—I am assuming this is the case; I do not know for sure in relation to the opposition—have agreed to negate the adjournment tonight so that we finish this bill. There is no reason numerically to either consult or have the support of the crossbenches in order to do that. But I know, and I certainly speak for my party, that we are more than happy to proceed with this bill, to examine the issues and to subject it to the appropriate scrutiny and analysis that it deserves, whether it is tonight or whether it is tomorrow. We are not going to deliberately rush through what we think is one of the most important pieces of legislation that this federal parliament has debated or will ever debate.Obviously when you urge us along, Senator Tambling—through you, Madam Temporary Chairman—it just provokes responses like this: we are going to go through this bill and we are going to go through it in fine detail. Maybe the government and the ALP should agree to a guillotine. I do not think the ALP are favourable towards guillotines—nor are we, under the circumstances. We will just keep ploughing through. I am sorry if that is difficult for the government, and certainly for Senator Tambling, who has had only one bill to deal with today. If we can cope with it, we will keep going. I do not think there is any reason to rush this more so than we have done already. It is pretty much on record, and it certainly stands in the running order, that senators have done their best to deal with as many amendments at one time. I cite Senator Harris's 77 amendments that he more or less dealt with in 15 minutes on Friday.I think we can have enough of those utterances from the government trying to speed us along, given that we are expecting to be here all night. I do not expect there will be complaints when we are calling divisions or having further discussion on any of the amendments, because this is a decision by government to put this bill on tonight in an attempt to get rid of the peripheral amendments that have been moved by the Democrats, the Greens, One Nation and Senator Harradine. I do not mean `peripheral' as in I am suggesting so, but clearly the government knows it is going to get its bill through and says, `Why not just make them sit all night?' I think that is an appalling policy and I think most of the public thinks so too. We should be proposing the adjournment at 9.50 as planned and coming back to debate this when the Senate sits tomorrow afternoon. Having said all that, I say to the government: if you are going to go all night, wake up your troops.21:39:0020588Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I support that. I agree that this is very important legislation. I do not think the course of the debate of this legislation is going to be altered one iota by the opposition and the government saying, `We are going to suspend the normal sitting hours to make the crossbenches suffer.' That is not a dignified way to be treating this important debate. I would expect that there is going to be a quorum in attendance for the rest of the evening to make sure that this debate does get the attendance that is required. I expect that the government and opposition members, through their presence in the chamber, will be paying sufficient attention to the detail so that they can report to their electorates on this matter when the debate has run its proper course.21:40:0020588Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I support the comments made by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Brown. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. I think that it is acknowledged as such all around the chamber. It would be unfair of the government to keep us here and to go through the committee stage. The committee stage is necessary so as to ensure certainty. I spent a lot of time on Friday of last week trying to get from the parliamentary secretary a definition of `whole human being'. What is a whole human being? When it is talking about cloning, does it include an embryo? Does it include a foetus? It would be a very grave error on the part of the government not to answer that question. I know what is coming along the road and I also know that attempts have been made to whittle down the recommendations of the Australian Health Ethics Committee, which is the very committee that had been approved to send recommendations to the government. There has been a deliberate attempt to water down its recommendations. The definition is a key matter. Furthermore, on the last occasion I raised questions of identicality in respect of cloning. I will be expecting the parliamentary secretary to answer those questions, which he failed to do, despite being given innumerable opportunities last Monday. It is easy enough to say, `This is a very complex matter,' but a lot of people are affected by this legislation. In fact, the community as a whole is affected. It is important for this chamber to be given the respect that is due to it—not that respect is due to us on the basis of being senators, but on the basis that we are representatives of the people. I for one—and I know a number of colleagues around this neck of the woods are—am appalled that the government should try and keep us here after 10 minutes to 10. People like me have to consider other questions, including the proposal that the gambling matter be brought back. I was told about this on the grapevine—I did not hear it from anybody officially—and I have not had a chance to get my head around it. I was on the committee. I will be pretty hazy trying to get my head around it tomorrow if we sit past 10 to 10 tonight.21:44:0020589Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Chair, I agree with the sentiments that Senator Harradine is expressing there and, it being close enough to 9.50 p.m., I move: That progress be reported. Question put.21:49:00The committee divided.(The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 11Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.45Abetz, E.Bishop, T.M.Boswell, R.L.D.Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Calvert, P.H *Campbell, G.Campbell, I.G.Carr, K.J.Collins, J.M.A.Crane, A.W.Crossin, P.M.Crowley, R.A.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Kemp, C.R.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W.Macdonald, J.A.L.Mackay, S.M.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Ray, R.F.Reid, M.E.Schacht, C.C.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M..Watson, J.O.W.West, S.MQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that Australian Greens amendments (43), (44), (45) and (47) on sheet 1970 be agreed to.21:54:00The committee divided.(The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 10Bartlett, A.J.J *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.46Abetz, E.Bishop, T.M.Boswell, R.L.D.Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Calvert, P.H.Campbell, G.Campbell, I.G.Carr, K.J.Collins, J.M.A.Conroy, S.M.Crane, A.W.Crossin, P.M.Crowley, R.A.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Kemp, C.R.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W.Macdonald, J.A.L.Mackay, S.M.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Ray, R.F.Reid, M.E.Schacht, C.C.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.Question so resolved in the negative.21:57:0020590Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I move amendment (46) on sheet 1970:(46) Page 27 (after line 12), at the end of Division 2, add:38D Action for damages A person who suffers loss or damage that results from a contravention of this Act may recover the amount of the loss or damage from a person convicted of the contravention or from any person involved in the contravention, including, if a body corporate contravened a provision of this Act, from a director of the body.This is a very important amendment. I want to read it out because it is very easily understood: A person who suffers loss or damage that results from a contravention of this Act may recover the amount of the loss or damage from a person convicted of the contravention or from any person involved in the contravention, including, if a body corporate contravened a provision of this Act, from a director of the body.That is very plain and simple. It says that, if somebody breaks the law, this act, and causes damage to somebody else, the person who is damaged can seek damages in a court of law. I cannot stress how important this is to giving the public confidence that there is a remedy. In a way this is simply codifying the common law provision that the government says is there for people to pursue if they want to. It is very compelling, very simple and very clear-cut. If the gene tech industry itself is responsible and wants to give the public confidence, then it will support this amendment.21:59:0020590Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government is opposed to this amendment. The amendment allows third parties to recover damages if they suffer as a result of the release of a GMO. The issue of remediation and compensation was considered in detail by the Commonwealth and the states and territories, and it was the subject of considerable discussion during public consultations. On balance, the government considers that it is inappropriate to deal with compensation in the Gene Technology Bill 2000 as there are already remedies available under common law and under state environmental protection legislation. States, territories and the Commonwealth recognise that the existing measures are adequate to deal with any loss or damage flowing from the use of GMOs, just as they are adequate when dealing with other products. This approach is also consistent with international precedent and recent reports of the EEC that have not supported the establishment of compensation funds and damages provisions in specific gene technology legislation. The government therefore opposes this amendment.22:00:0020590Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Senator Tambling has just told us that there are adequate processes for a third party to seek restitution under this legislation. Would Senator Tambling very clearly indicate to us how a third party would access compensation?22:01:0020590Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—There are adequate processes through common law and trespass and nuisance laws.22:01:0020590Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—What are those?22:01:0020590Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Can I again refer the senators, and particularly Senator Brown, to the submission made by the Department of Health and Aged Care to the Community Affairs References Committee. This information was made very publicly available to the committee, of which he was a member, and I refer the senator to page 144 of that submission:There are common law actions available to third parties to deal with such situations.The remedies that may be available to a party at common law will depend on the particular facts of the case and how the risk is characterised.In summary, a third party may have an action in negligence, trespass or nuisance, and may also seek to restrain the ongoing commission of a tort by injunction. In order for a plaintiff to be successful in an action for negligence, the plaintiff must establish four elements: · a legally recognised duty of care to another person, or class of persons;· a breach of that duty by failing to meet the legally recognised level of conduct required in the circumstances;· a causal link between the breach of duty and the harm alleged to have been suffered; and· compensable damage or loss on the part of the plaintiff flowing from the breach.22:03:0020591Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—So a third party may have recourse to action under common law. That is the first thing. That indicates quite clearly that they may not have access to action through the common law as well. Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care went on to talk about negligence. I am not talking about negligence; that is only one component of the trio of concerns here—that is, wilful misuse, negligence or the simple application of genetic technology which is licensed but is then found to create damage to another person. Apparently, the government is blind to those situations. Well, I am not. I believe that we should be supporting this very important amendment. It says, by the way, that a person can seek compensation where somebody has breached the act. The government must support that; the opposition must support that. Are you saying that, if somebody breaches the act and damage occurs to an innocent member of the public as a result, we should not be specifying that they have recourse to recompense for the loss or the damage suffered? Of course they should!22:05:0020591Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The issue of common law is a very important one that should always be addressed, but we certainly cannot pre-empt the court ruling, so we come back to the issue you dwell on about the use of `may' in that area. I would again refer the senator to the details of the submission of the Department of Health and Aged Care that was made to the committee. I did not continue the quote, which obviously I now need to do by reading the further section of that submission:There may be actions available under other statutes, including State and Territory environmental protection legislation.Each State and Territory in Australia has legislation for protecting the environment.I am sure Senator Brown is well aware of that. But let me return to the quote:In most jurisdictions, the environment protection legislation, among other things, establishes a general duty not to undertake an activity that pollutes or might pollute the environment or causes, or is likely to cause, environmental harm. In some States, this is framed as a general duty, and in others it is framed as a prohibition subject to criminal penalties.Further, the environment protection legislation explicitly provides that a person who has had their interest affected by pollution (or an environmentally damaging activity) may apply to the relevant court or tribunal seeking compensation or an order to prevent the damaging activity from continuing.I will end the quote at that point, and I point out to Senator Brown that there are considerable resources and information available to him from his committee membership.22:07:0020591Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—As clever as that might be, we have to go again to the aim of this legislation as stated by the government, which is to bring in a nationally uniform law. Now, when it comes to the section which might harm the interests of the corporations wanting to use the technology, we revert to state law. I do not find that acceptable. The parliamentary secretary says that people may have recourse to action and, if they do not have that in common law, they may have it under some statute if they are lucky enough to be in a state which has a law which covers them. I can tell the secretary, because he does not appear to know this, that the laws in these matters vary greatly from state to state. We are supposed to be bringing in a uniform law here in the interests of the people who create gene technology but, when it comes to those who might suffer damage as a result of that, suddenly that philosophy gets abandoned. It should not be. If there is loss or damage occurring to somebody or some entity because there is a contravention of this act, we should specify that people have a right to seek recompense. From whom? From the people who created the damage. It is very simple stuff, this. If the government turns this down, it is simply loading the odds in favour of the corporations who are inventing the gene technology and against the citizen. We are going to find, further down the line, that citizens do not have standing in many cases in which they would want to have an interest. We have already found that they are not going to have a compensation fund. We are going to have to wait to see what the government and Labor have come to agree on as far as insurance is concerned. But the matter is important. This particular clause is extremely important. It is commonsense. Simply referring me to a committee report which uses the word `may' over and over again is not satisfactory. I point out again that this is a case of being consistent, of making sure that there is a uniform law accessible to everybody equally. That should apply to those who have to suffer—and there will be such people—as a result of people going outside the tenets of this legislation. I do not accept the government's argument.22:10:0020592Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I appreciate that Senator Brown does not accept my argument, but it is premised very much on the basis that this legislation has arisen as a result of the complementarity of all of the states and territories and the Commonwealth in seeking to pull these issues together into a national policy yet at the same time sit it within the situations that do apply to those states and territories. I am sure Senator Brown is aware from earlier debate that the issues of complementary legislation will be addressed by the states and territories in this regard. It is also important to point out that Senator Brown raised, as a separate issue, remediation. Remediation is comprehensively covered by the bill. The regulator can recover all costs associated with remedial action from the offender. This acts in concert with the strict liability provisions and common law actions to provide comprehensive cover, and this is in addition to the state environmental laws. It is for those reasons that I would argue against the amendment by the Australian Greens.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—If the regulator can seek remediation, why can't the citizen?22:11:0020592Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—In response to some of Senator Brown's questions, Senator Tambling made the statement that states have legislation pertaining to damage to the environment. Is Senator Tambling indicating to the chamber that a third party under common law would be able to initiate an action relating to a legislative act within a state?22:12:0020592Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The issue raised by Senator Harris addresses a very fundamental point. The states do have legislation that addresses the issue of remedies.22:12:0020592Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I realise that, but my point is that we are talking about the rights of a third party to be able to access compensation for damage that they have suffered as a result of an unintentional or malicious release of GMOs into the environment. My specific question to Senator Tambling was this: does an individual have standing at law to commence an action under a legislative act in a state?22:13:0020592Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The answer to the senator's question is yes. Amendment not agreed to.22:13:0020593Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Greens amendments Nos 48 to 52:(48) Clause 40, page 29 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) The application must be in writing and, subject to subsection (2A), must contain: (a) details of the geographic area or areas where the proposed dealings are to be carried out; and (b) any information held by or known to the applicant about the possible risks to the health and safety of people or to the environment that may be associated with the proposed dealings; and (c) such other information as is prescribed by the regulations (if any); and (d) such other information as is specified in writing by the Regulator; (49) Clause 40, page 29 (after line 10), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Regulator may permit an applicant to include in an application a summary of the information mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) where the Regulator believes it is appropriate to do so. (50) Clause 40, page 29 (lines 14 to 21), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) A person may apply for a licence only in respect of a dealing, or a specified class of dealings, with a GMO at a specified geographic area or areas. (51) Clause 40, page 29 (line 24), omit "; or", substitute ".". (52) Clause 40, page 29 (line 25), omit paragraph (5)(c).These amendments are to do with the issue of licences. Amendment No. 48 from the Greens says that the application must be in writing and must contain details of the geographical area or areas where the proposed plants are to be put. It says here `dealings are to be carried out', but that is what it means: where the crops are going to go. It must also contain any information held by or known to the applicant about the possible risks to the health and safety of people or to the environment that may be associated with the proposed dealings, such as crop plantings, and any other matter that is required by the regulator. It also says that, where this is a long and complicated business, the regulator may accept a summary of the geographic areas where the crops are going to be planted or where the gene technology is going to be employed, and the risks that are attendant upon that. That is pretty basic and obvious stuff.22:15:0020593Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government opposes the amendments proposed by the Greens. The amendments propose various details about what should be included in an application to deal with a GMO, including details of the location of a proposed dealing and any information about the possible risks to health and safety or the environment as associated with the dealing. As detailed in the gene technology regulations made under the bill, the applicant will be required to provide information to the Gene Technology Regulator about the proposed location and scale of dealings with the GMO. The regulations require the applicant to provide details of the number of GMOs to be released, details of the number of releases proposed, and details of the number of sites for release, including identification of the municipality or shire in which all releases will take place and the geographical location, grid references and GPS coordinates of the site. The regulations also explicitly provide that, in preparing an application, an applicant must take account of possible risks of the proposed dealings with the GMO in relation to the health and safety of people and the environment. The information given in the application must be as comprehensive as current knowledge permits and be supported by data and relevant references. It is unnecessary to include in the bill the level of detail proposed by Senator Brown. We would, however, be pleased to consult with Senator Brown about the precise wording in the regulations.22:16:0020593Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—It is a question of whether this should be in regulations or in the legislation. The Greens obviously think it is more important that the licence carry information about where crops are going to be and the risks they may carry than the government does. The government simply wants it demoted to a matter of regulations about which we can talk outside the chamber. It is important that this matter be discussed here, and I think it should be written into the bill. 22:17:0020594Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I support the Greens amendments. I seek clarification from Senator Tambling as to whether, under the regulations, the regulator is required to seek advice relating to the issuing of a licence. Is the regulator required to consult with the relevant local government authority or the consultative group?22:18:0020594Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The answer to the senator's question is yes.Amendments not agreed to.22:18:0020594Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Greens amendments (54) to (59): (54) Clause 47, page 32 (lines 24 to 31), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) The Regulator must seek advice on matters relevant to the preparation of the risk assessment and the risk management plan from: (a) the relevant State Authority; and (b) the relevant local government Authority; and (c) the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee; and (e) the Consultative Group; and (d) the Ethics Committee. (55) Clause 47, page 32 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Regulator may consult: (a) relevant Commonwealth or State authorities or agencies; and (b) any other person the Regulator considers appropriate;on any aspect of the application. (56) Clause 49, page 33 (line 10) to page 34 (line 19), omit the clause, substitute:49 Consultation on applications for dealings involving the intentional release of a GMO into the environment (1) Where the Regulator receives an application to which this Division applies, the Regulator must publish a notice in respect of the application: (a) in the Gazette; and (b) in a newspaper circulating generally in each State; and (c) in a newspaper circulating in the region or State in which the dealing is proposed to be carried out; and (d) on the Regulator's Internet website. (2) A notice published under subsection (1) must: (a) state that the application has been made; and (b) state that a person may request further information about the application under section 54; and (c) invite written submissions on any environmental, human health or ethical issue associated with the proposed dealing; and (d) specify the closing date for submissions, which must not be earlier than 30 days after the date on which the notice was published. (57) Clause 50, page 34 (lines 25 to 27), omit subclause (2). (58) Clause 50, page 34 (line 28) to page 35 (line 4), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) The Regulator must seek advice on matters relevant to the preparation of the risk assessment and the risk management plan from: (a) the relevant State Authority; and (b) the relevant local government Authority; and (c) the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee; and (d) the Consultative Group; and (e) the Ethics Committee; and (f) each Commonwealth authority or agency prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and (g) the Environment Minister. (59) Clause 51, page 35 (lines 12 and 13), omit "the matters mentioned in paragraphs 49(2)(a) to (f)", substitute:the following matters: (a) the properties of the organism to which the dealings relate before it became, or will become, a GMO; (b) the effect, or expected effect, of the genetic modification that has occurred, or will occur, on the properties of the organism; (c) provisions for limiting the dissemination or persistence of the GMO or its genetic material in the environment; (d) the potential for spread or persistence of the GMO or its genetic material in the environment. (e) the possible impacts of the spread or persistence of the GMO or its genetic material on the environment; (f) any possible impacts of the proposed dealing on the health and safety of people; (g) any other matter prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.These amendments are also to get information of the sort that Senator Harris was just alluding to. For example, these amendments would mean that the regulator is obliged to consult with a wide range of relevant state, community and Commonwealth authorities and, moreover, that when the regulator receives an application, she or he must publish a notice in respect of that application not only in the Gazette but in newspapers which are going to be read by the people in the area to which the application applies. There should be a call for written submissions from the public, and the regulator ought to make sure that the following matters are involved: the properties of the organism to which the dealings relate before it became or will become a GMO, the effect or expected effect of the genetic modification that has occurred or will occur on the properties of that organism, the provisions for limiting the dissemination or persistence of the GMO or its genetic material in the environment—it would be interesting to see those—and the potential for spread or persistence of the GMO as genetic material in the environment.Frankly, we have seen crops planted in this country already where the persons who are involved in the technology and the planting of those crops do not have the foggiest as to the potential for the spread or persistence of that genetic material. We have the notorious Mount Gambier example where they simply dumped the end product of a crop containing genetic material in a rubbish dump. Also, the possible impacts of the spread or persistence of the GMO as genetic material on the environment and the possible impacts of the proposed dealing on the health and safety of people should be considered. This is pure commonsense. It is baseline stuff. There is nothing pioneering about this. It ought to sensibly be required of the regulator. It is good law because it is saying to the regulator, `Here are some guidelines.' This should be in the act and it should be available to those who are concerned and want to have input when genetic material is introduced into their environment.22:21:0020595Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government opposes these amendments which address matters of process surrounding consultation on applications. The bill already provides the capacity for the regulator to seek advice from or consult with any party the regulator considers necessary, including state and Commonwealth agencies. The bill provides explicit requirements that the regulator must consult relevant Commonwealth agencies and state agencies for all applications involving intentional release of a GMO into the environment. The regulator may also consult on all other applications, including contained work.The amendment proposed by Senator Brown would also require the regulator to seek advice on individual applications from a gene technology consultative committee. Again, this issue was considered in detail by the Commonwealth and all states and territories, which were strongly of the view that under no circumstances should this approach be adopted. The committee is a policy committee and, given the extensive consultation processes described in the bill, it is inappropriate to provide applications to the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee. However, the GTR will be able to refer matters of community concern raised in applications to the committee for consideration. I note that the ALP will move an amendment to clause 107 to make this explicit, and the government is disposed to support that amendment. Finally, amendment No. 59 simply provides more detail in the bill about matters that the regulator must take into account in preparing a risk assessment and risk management plan. Again, all of these matters are dealt with in the regulations. This is appropriate, given the level of detail that must be included. We are happy to consult further with Senator Brown on the wording of the regulations if the senator so desires. 22:23:0020596Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I take issue with the notion that it is appropriate to be putting these matters into regulations. I think people now just fall for the argument that regulations are more flexible and therefore it is better to do it this way. It is not better to do it this way. This is an increasing phenomenon that we see, certainly in the federal parliament. It is one that I have observed not only in the five years that I have been in the parliament but previously as an adviser. This is an increasing tendency by governments in order to serve their own notions of what is desirable and therefore flexible. Increasingly they are putting matters such as this, which may actually be pivotal, crucial and integral to the legislation before us, into delegated legislation. So I take issue with the parliamentary secretary's notion that this is more appropriate because it provides flexibility. What rot! That is something that we seem to fall for these days, but I think that is quite a spurious claim.In relation to the amendments before us, the Democrats recognise their aims in relation to public consultation and broad ranging consultation, and we commend that intent. Senator Tambling referred to a Labor amendment that is coming up. Don't forget the amendments being moved by the Democrats that are coming up—I can see you could not possibly—in relation to the role of the environment minister. I think this is one of the most commendable aspects of the amendments before us moved by Senator Brown on behalf of the Greens: the prescription of `must'—not just `may' but `must'—in relation to seeking advice on risk assessment and the risk management plan. Yes, I am aware of clause 51F, but that is not enough. To that end, the Democrats will be giving the government another opportunity to meet their end of the bargain and not renege on the deal that they struck with the Democrats when they negotiated the environment bill last year. That was to guarantee a role for the environment minister. I think most Australians would find it absolutely appropriate and sensible that the environment minister's advice be sought and indeed taken into account.There is nothing unnecessarily prescriptive about these amendments. I note that Senator Tambling referred to these as procedural and said that they should go in the regulations. I do not think that any of us should fall for that argument. Anyone who has been watching legislation over the years recognises that this increasing tendency to put information and matters into delegated legislation only serves the purposes of government. It is not necessary. If it is important, it should go in the bill; it should go in the act. It worries me that we have what Terry O'Gorman refers to as `function creep'. That is what we are seeing here. Senator Harradine has terminology for that as well.We find these amendments commendable in their intent and put on notice to the government that we will be revisiting, possibly at length, the environment minister issue. Let us make this clear: the government agreed with the Democrats. The government agreed on a deal with the Democrats to ensure a role for the environment minister. What we have now is not only reneging on a deal but a watered down version. I cannot imagine that Senator Robert Hill is feeling too happy about that. So here we have the Democrats rushing to the aid of the environment minister. We are willing to support him. We know that he had it right last year when he went on record saying that this was crucial and important. I do not want to see the environment minister undermined in this way. So we are going to give the government a chance to show how much it cares about not only the environment but also Senator Hill. This is an opportunity, and I foreshadow those amendments. 22:27:0020597Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Senator Stott Despoja is rapidly talking me into supporting Senator Hill as well.10000Crowley, Rosemary (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Crowley)—We are grateful, Senator Brown, for a soupcon of levity at this hour. Do continue.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Chair, I am wanting to search out the parliamentary secretary a little on this to see how we are faring. As he will know, genetically modified canola crops have been planted all over the country: in the Darling Downs, in the western plains of New South Wales, through Victoria, in the Midlands of Tasmania and in Western Australia. We also know that local governments have been excluded by the Labor Party and the government from having a role in keeping such crops out of the region if the farmers of the area do want to be GE free.656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—Rubbish!QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is not rubbish; that is how Labor voted on this matter. We are now dealing with the potential impact of much more complicated matters than canola crops, which you see, yellow flowering, all around the planet. I want to ask the parliamentary secretary: what is the potential for the spread or persistence of genetically modified material in canola crops in the environment in Australia? What have been the findings of the industry and the Gene Technology Regulator as far as canola crops and the persistence of genetically modified organisms are concerned? Is a buffer zone of 15 kilometres required around genetically modified crops, given evidence we had before the committee that bees can fly for eight kilometres in a straight line and could transfer genetically modified material at least that far?22:30:0020597Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Senator Brown is obviously getting into the area of licensed conditions of the regulator. He is wrong when he says that local government will not be fully consulted. That was made very clear in the debate last Friday, where we acknowledged that there were provisions specifically for GM-free zones. With regard to the issues that he is raising with regard to genetically modified material, I suggest that these are issues he should have raised—and may have—at your committee, Temporary Chairman Crowley, when this matter was under consideration in quite considerable detail. Certainly they are the sorts of issues that should be pursued now with the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator once it is established under this legislation.22:30:0020597Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I am taking one provision out of dozens in the Greens amendments, one which says that the regulator should be aware of the following matters. Greens amendment No. 59 says: (d) the potential for spread or persistence of the GMO or its genetic material in the environment.I want to know from the government the potential as far as canola is concerned. Here we have the most famous and widespread case in Australia—lots of experience—so what is the potential for spread or persistence of the genetic material in the environment in Australia of that crop? I just want to say that we did discuss the matter of local government, and the government and opposition did say that local government will be consulted. The point that the Greens, the Democrats and One Nation have taken is that that is not good enough. Local government should have a say; it should be empowered. It is very different from being consulted and then ignored. We know what this legislation means. We know that the big corporations do not want local government to have a say, because the closer you get to the relationship between people and their land, the more strongly they will be wanting to have input into what is happening. So the best way you can go against their interests is to not have them at local level—at grassroots level, at local government level—and to have a veto. That is what it comes down to. We have already dealt with the amendments which the government and Labor Party have knocked out as far as local government having a say is concerned, so don't give me the stuff about `consulted'. It washes right over. For `consulted', read `disempowered'. I would be interested to know what the government has to say on the matter of persistence of canola in the environment. 22:32:0020598Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The initial question posed by Senator Brown raised scientific matters which should be raised with the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee. I can, however, assure Senator Brown that GM canola, like any other GM crop, will be dealt with under the appropriate conditions. The regulations require the issues he raises to be addressed as distinct from what he is seeking to put in his amendment, which the government opposes.22:33:0020598Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—Suggesting that something is a scientific matter or a matter for scientific debate and therefore should be taken up with GMAC is not responsible. It is not good enough in the context of this debate. We are discussing scientific matters and legislation that go to the heart of the issues that Senator Brown raised in relation to consultation and environmental and health protection.Senator Tambling has advisers. They have scientific expertise. They are involved in, if not part of, GMAC and they can advise us if Senator Brown asks questions through the chair to the parliamentary secretary. We are expected to know this stuff and to understand this stuff because we are crafting legislation to protect the interests of Australians in relation to the approval and the assessment of genetically modified organisms. So we cannot cop out. Of all of us who cannot afford to cop out, the parliamentary secretary is the one. This is his job.If Senator Tambling wants us to raise these issues with GMAC, I will start by asking him whether buffer zones and refuge zones are currently specified under GMAC guidelines. No, they are not. I know the answer—they are dealt with on a case by case basis, which is irresponsible and insufficient. My question to Senator Tambling is: what is the government going to do to ensure that the worst aspect of GMAC's current guidelines are not emulated or perpetuated as a consequence of the legislation before us? If the parliamentary secretary wants us to refer to GMAC for the answers, that is not good enough. He is responsible for this debate, and we expect answers. Also, there are enough loopholes currently in the guidelines that are not necessarily rectified by this legislation that once again give the parliament good reason to reject a lot of the aspects of the bill before it. It is an insufficient, inadequate regulatory framework. It is not good enough. It does not guard against the things or protect the things that the objects of the act say it will—mind you, we have not completed discussion on the objects of the act; we have not started the debate on the objects of the act. Do not refer us to GMAC, because I find that insulting. In the context of this debate, if I want answers to questions—scientific matters or not—I expect them. I ask the minister to tell us what he is going to do regarding the current inadequacies in relation to GMAC guidelines that see buffer zones and refuge zones being dealt with on a case by case basis.22:36:0020598Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—It is a fact that the bill cannot set specific conditions for a specific GM canola crop, as it cannot set conditions for any crop. It can only set the parameters for the conditions. When Senator Brown refers to the 15-metre buffer zone with regard to GM canola, that is setting an indication of what he sees as a view. The bill sets appropriate conditions in line with the risks of each appropriate application, and that must be the way in which it would work.NaN:00:0020598Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I did not say that the bill has got to lay down, crop by crop, what the conditions are. What these amendments say is that the regulator is required to take matters into account. One matter is the potential for spread or persistence of genetic material in the environment. What I get from the government is that it is not going to be a matter that the regulator is required to know about when licensing crops and genetically modified organisms going into the environment, under the act. It may be under the regulations, but it is not under the act; nor are the other matters listed here. The Labor Party apparently agrees with that. It is just diminishing the responsibilities of the regulator, which we should be very explicitly laying down here. If the committee were being listened to by the government and the opposition, they would be very pleased with amendments like this which make the law clearer. The job of us, in a committee and in the Senate, is to write the law clearly, explicitly, in simple language, so that all involved—from the regulator through to the citizen in the street—can understand it. These amendments do that. What the government is saying is, `No, leave it to regulations. That will do.' By doing that it makes it much more difficult for the public as a whole to have access to what their rights are and what the requirements on the regulator are. 22:38:0020599Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The legislation requires the regulator to take into account a risk assessment. In the regulations—and I again refer Senator Brown to the draft regulation document that is available and has been around; it was certainly made available to him and to members of the committee—clause 14 of the gene technology regulations specifically refers to risk assessment and the matters to be taken into account. It sets out a number of conditions. If I can be specific to the ones that Senator Brown referred to, the condition under subclause (b)(v) is `the potential of the GMO concerned to spread or persist in the environment'. So the matters are addressed currently in the broad in the legislation and in the regulations. The amendment proposed by Senator Brown is unnecessary.22:40:0020599Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—In answer to Senator Brown, Senator Tambling made the statement that the regulator must consult if he considers it necessary. If we look at clause 47 of the bill, under the heading `What the regulator must do in relation to application', subclause (4) of that clause clearly says:(4) The Regulator may consult:(a) the States; and (b) the Gene Technology Technical Advisory Committee; and(c) relevant Commonwealth authorities or agencies; and(d) any local council that the Regulator considers appropriate...So there is nothing in the bill that requires that the regulator must consult. The bill says that the regulator may consult. I believe this goes to the heart of the amendments that Senator Brown is proposing, and that is that the regulator must seek advice on matters relevant from the state authority, the relevant local government authority and the committees. Rather than saying, as Senator Tambling would have us believe, that the regulator must consult if he considers it necessary, the bill requires only that the regulator may consult. 22:42:0020599Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Senator Harris needs to go specifically to the bill. Section 47 applies only to contained work when the GTR may consult. In relation to intentional release into the environment, the GTR must consult. I refer him to sections 50 and 52 of the bill, specifically clause 50, which is headed `Regulator must prepare risk assessment and risk management plan'. Subclause (3) states, `The Regulator must seek advice on' and subclause (3)(e) states, `any local council that the Regulator considers appropriate'.Amendments not agreed to.10000Chapman, Grant (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—The next question is that clause 45 stand as printed.22:43:0020599Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—The Greens oppose clause 45. Let me read the clause out, Mr Temporary Chairman Chapman, and I am sure you will agree with me. The heading is `Regulator must not use certain information in considering licence applications.' It says that if a person—let's call that Monsanto—applies for a GMO licence and Monsanto provides information to the regulator for consideration, and the information is (according to Monsanto) confidential commercial information, then the regulator must not take that information into account for the purposes of considering an application by another person for a GMO licence, unless Monsanto has given written consent for the information to be so taken into account. Please explain. 22:44:0020600Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—We are looking at a bundle of amendments proposed by the Greens in this particular area. The government one, as you indicated, specifically relates to clause 45. We will be voting that it should stand as printed. With regard to Greens amendments Nos 60 and 124-127, the government will be opposing them. The amendments proposed by Senator Brown enable the regulators to refuse to declare that information is confidential commercial information if it relates to health or environmental risks or geographic locations or if the public interest outweighs the prejudice that the disclosure would cause. The government will not accept these amendments. The ALP has, however, moved amendments in relation to clauses 184 and 185, which are amendments Nos 1 and 2 on sheet 2067, which also relate to disclosure of information. They ensure that the regulator will always publish either (a) the location of a field trial or (b) a statement of reasons for nondisclosure. The government will support the ALP amendments.22:45:0020600Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—What is the definition of confidential commercial information in the government's clause?22:45:0020600Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I refer Senator Brown to clause 185 of the bill for that matter. Also, I think this is an issue that we will be addressing in more detail later when we address the ALP amendments.22:46:0020600Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Let us look at clause 185. It says:Regulator may declare that information is confidential commercial information.(1) Subject to subsection (2)—that is down below—if the person satisfies the Regulator that the information specified—Let me again substitute Monsanto for `person, organisation or undertaking', because it makes it much more appealing listening. We could now say:`(1) Subject to subsection (2), if Monsanto satisfies the Regulator that the information specified in the application is: (a) a trade secret; or (b) any other information that has a commercial or other value that would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or diminished if the information were disclosed; or (c) other information that: (i) concerns the lawful commercial or financial affairs of Monsanto; and (ii) if it were disclosed, could unreasonably affect Monsanto; the Regulator must declare that the information is confidential ...'That says `must declare'—there is no `may' anymore—that the information is confidential. I guess `trade secret' has some legal definition to it but I ask the government: what is meant by:(b) any other information that has a commercial or other value that would be, or could reasonably be expected to be, destroyed or diminished if the information were disclosed; or...We will start with that. Give an example.22:47:0020600Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—This matter was addressed earlier this evening, and I also invited debate later when we were looking at the Labor Party amendments. Senator Brown is very obviously seeking to pursue conspiracy theories about Monsanto, or whoever else. But what is more important is that subclause 185(2) gives and empowers the regulator to be satisfied that, whatever his considerations are in the public interest, the disclosure outweighs the prejudice that that disclosure would cause any person. So the public interest can override, and in certain instances probably would. So, in the consideration of this issue, Senator Brown is tending to focus on the particular rather than on the specific areas outlined in the legislation. Senator Brown wanted an example of what would be commercial-in-confidence but not a trade secret: I am advised that a gene sequence for a non-commercial product would be. 22:48:0020601Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Let us have an example of where the public interest would outweigh a matter that Monsanto wanted to keep commercially confident.22:49:0020601Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—While the parliamentary secretary is seeking advice, could we also `clarify gene sequence for a non-commercial product'? Perhaps we could even be a little more specific, but that is presuming a patent is taken out on that gene sequence.22:49:0020601Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that, if a patent is taken out, it would be a trade secret. That is the issue that needs to be clarified in that regard.22:49:0020601Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—So it is a trade secret and, therefore, the regulator must declare that the information is confidential. Then we get to subclause (2), which the parliamentary secretary referred us to, which says that the regulator `may refuse to declare that the information is confidential if the public interest outweighs it.' This is just not satisfactory. What we are dealing with here is the fact that the profitable motives of corporations are to be defended and the public is not to have access to that information unless they can effectively show that the public interest is outweighed. To that I would say that the corporate sector is always going to be able to say, `Our interest is infringed if this information is released.' It is not until it is released and the public is shown to be damaged that you can argue that there is a public damage and you can say what that damage is going to be. In other words, the public interest is not going to be defined. The corporate interest is going to be defined and the corporate interest will win out under those circumstances. What we ought to be having is a protection of the information that goes before the regulator. When it comes to matters that have a commercial value, does that include where a crop is going to be, what the productivity of a crop is going to be or what the benefits to the community from that crop are going to be? Where is the limit on the matters that a corporation can say are of commercial importance to them? I think it covers every aspect of the application of gene technology. Every aspect will have a monetary value as far as the corporate entity is concerned.22:52:0020601Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am sure Senator Brown intends to raise this not only now but also when we get to amendment No. 185. As I said earlier, with regard to patents and trade there are important considerations. But, if there is no patent, it must be appreciated that its value could be diminished. Nevertheless, the important point to make—and I think I tried to stress this from the legislation—is that the public interest could outweigh the loss incurred by the applicant. The legislation assumes that all information should be disclosed.Question put:That clause 45 stand as printed.22:57:00The Committee divided. (The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 43Abetz, E.Bishop, T.M.Boswell, R.L.D.Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Calvert, P.H.Campbell, G.Carr, K.J.Chapman, H.G.P.Cook, P.F.S.Coonan, H.L. *Crane, A.W.Crossin, P.M.Crowley, R.A.Denman, K.J.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibson, B.F.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W.Macdonald, J.A.L.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.Newman, J.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Ray, R.F.Reid, M.E.Schacht, C.C.Sherry, N.J.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.11Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W. *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D. A.D.Woodley, J.Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, as your following amendments in that batch were consequential on that particular motion, I presume you will not be proceeding with the remainder.23:01:0020602Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—That is correct.23:01:0020602Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—by leave—I move One Nation amendments (27) and (30) on sheet 2030:(27) Clause 47, page 32 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (5) A risk assessment and a risk management plan prepared under this section must have particular regard to the impact of the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence on Australia's unique flora and fauna and on the maintenance of Australia's biodiversity.(30) Clause 50, page 35 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A risk assessment and a risk management plan prepared under this section must have particular regard to the impact of the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence on Australia's unique flora and fauna and on the maintenance of Australia's biodiversity.The purpose of amendments (27) and (30) is to amend part 4 of the bill. Amendment (27) to clause 47 of the bill is to require the regulator to take into account a risk assessment and a risk management plan. This amendment requires the regulator to have particular regard to the impact of the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence on Australia's unique flora and fauna and on the maintenance of Australia's biodiversity. Amendment (30) to clause 50 on page 35 of the bill would also require the regulator, when accepting an application, to prepare the same risk assessment and risk management plan to take into account Australia's unique flora and fauna and the maintenance of Australia's biodiversity. The amendments are crucial in that, rather than not have what should be protected defined, they would make very clear what the regulator is required to protect. Australia has a unique flora and fauna and wealth of biodiversity in this continent that must be taken into account when the regulator assesses or accepts an application and, having accepted that application, prepares a risk assessment and a risk management plan. I foreshadow that the next two amendments I will move subsequent to having moved these two amendments will actually require the regulator to have also prepared an EIA or an EIS, depending on the level of impact or the potential impact of the application. So the intention of Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendments (27) and (30) is to require the regulator, when accepting an application and preparing the risk assessment and the risk management plan, to take into account our unique flora, fauna and biodiversity. I commend the amendments to the chamber.10000Chapman, Grant (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Chapman)—Senator Harris, would you care to move amendments (28) and (31) together with those you have just moved?8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—No, Chair.23:05:0020602Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I indicate that the government is opposed to these amendments. The requirement in clause 47 for the GTR to look at all risks to the environment and the many ways and any ways to manage such risks ensures that the GTR must look at Australia's unique flora and fauna and the maintenance of biodiversity. It is, therefore, not necessary that this additional provision be included.23:06:0020602Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I think it is highly commendable that this amendment has been moved and, with all due respect—through you, Chair, to Senator Harris—it is interesting that it takes One Nation to move it. I have to say the defence of biodiversity and the environment that has come from your area of the chamber tonight is quite impressive and refreshing, and the Democrats will be supporting this amendment. I am sorry that the government does not see fit to. If the government's only argument is that it is unnecessary because it is covered in other sections of the bill, then, unless there is a real problem with some form of potential duplication, I cannot see why the government cannot include this provision. Certainly, the impact of GMs in relation to biodiversity and our environment is something that has been explored at length by the Democrats, not only generally in our report on the committee inquiry but in a submission that I put forward on behalf of the Australian Democrats to the House of Representatives standing committee in relation to primary producers. Certainly, our commitment to the environment is well known. I commend the amendments and, on behalf of my party, we will be supporting them.Amendments not agreed to.23:07:0020603Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—by leave—I move amendments (28) and (31) on sheet 2030:(28) Clause 47, page 32 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (6) A risk assessment and risk management plan prepared for the purposes of this section must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines made by the Minister. (7) Guidelines made under subsection (6) must set out procedures to be followed in the preparation of a risk assessment and risk management plan that are no less rigorous than procedures for the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (8) Guidelines made under subsection (6) are disallowable instruments for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(31) Clause 50, page 35 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (5) A risk assessment and risk management plan prepared for the purposes of this section must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines made by the Minister. (6) Guidelines made under subsection (5) must set out procedures to be followed in the preparation of a risk assessment and risk management plan that are no less rigorous than procedures for the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. (7) Guidelines made under subsection (5) are disallowable instruments for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.Amendment (28) seeks to amend clause 47 of the bill. I find myself in an unusual circumstance. Senator Stott Despoja has referred to One Nation raising issues regarding the protection of Australia's flora and fauna. In relation to the amendments that I have just moved, I normally find myself on the other end—3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—You have seen the light.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS—Senator Stott Despoja asks whether I have seen the light. I believe that is correct. Referring to my mining background, initially we viewed EIAs and EISs with great concern, particularly in what we call the non-corporate sector of mining. What we have found over subsequent years, having become used to working with an environmental impact assessment or with a slightly lower level of that—the preparation of an environmental impact statement—is that it has become of benefit to the non-corporate sector of mining because it has raised the awareness of the mining industry, particularly in the non-corporate area, as to our duty to protect the environment. In many cases it has actually resulted in improvements in our practices and the processes under which we mine.I believe that in relation to this bill it is even more essential for an applicant to prepare, as part of their application, depending on the potential of impact into the environment, either an environmental impact assessment—if it is a licence to carry out the planting of broadacre crops in the environment, it is incumbent on the person who is applying for the licence to carry out a complete assessment of the potential impact of the growing of that crop on the environment—or an environmental impact statement. For a field trial where part of the conditions requires that process to be carried out within a confined environment, as we saw in Mount Gambier when covers were to be placed over the trials to exclude any possibility of crosspollination from the genetically modified canola across to any non-modified canola in the area, I believe it would be quite appropriate for an environmental impact statement to be completed in relation to that lesser degree of exposure to the environment. Amendments (28) and (31) require anybody who applies for a licence to deal in a genetically modified organism to come under the same legislative framework as any other industry that intends to operate in the environment. Paragraph (7) of proposed amendment (28) states:Guidelines made under subsection (6) must set out procedures to be followed in the preparation of a risk assessment and risk management plan that are no less rigorous than procedures for the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.Why should other industries have to comply with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act when those who are proposing to deal in genetically modified organisms do not have to comply with it? These two amendments will make it very clear that anybody who proposes to carry out a dealing that involves the planting of a genetically modified organism in the environment should take the steps necessary to ensure that our unique flora and fauna and biodiversity will not suffer as a result. I commend the amendments to the chamber.23:14:0020604Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Talking about unique fauna, at least, if an environmental impact assessment were done on the smell of the coffee and raisin toast coming into the chamber from an adjacent place, it might close down that function because of the negative impact it is having on those who are in here trying to work. But we wish them well out there. In a serious vein, I support these amendments. I do not believe that enough work has been done on the matter. What happens if genetic modification escapes from crops into native flora? It stays there. The minister and all his advisers put together cannot get it back out. It is in the system forever. You have lost the flora, the plant life, in Australia, insofar as that genetic modification goes to work. In the case of Tasmania, a lot of the plantations of eucalypts that are currently spreading like a plague across the northern parts of the state, and now in the Huon Valley, are Eucalyptus nitans, which comes from Victoria. The genetic material from them is getting into adjacent woodlands. We do not know much about it at the moment but what we can guarantee is that it will not come back out again. I would ask the government on a case in point about genetically modified river red gums. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating launched the genetically modified red gum proposals, the whole deal which the CSIRO has afoot. Can the government say what the impact of the genetic modification in the environment has been, who is looking at that, who is monitoring it, where it is occurring and who the Gene Technology Regulator is depending on for the feedback from that particular experiment? 23:17:0020604Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government does not agree with the amendments proposed by the Pauline Hanson One Nation party and will be opposing them. The amendments are not supported for two key reasons. Firstly, the amendments involve the Commonwealth health minister issuing guidelines on the preparation of risk assessment and risk management plans. As this is a national scheme, it is not appropriate that this responsibility rests with the Commonwealth minister. Secondly, the amendments require that the risk assessment guidelines are no less rigorous than for the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This is not appropriate because the types of applications to which clause 47 relates are applications for dealing with GMOs that do not involve intentional release of a GMO into the environment. Therefore, the processes described in relation to environmental impact statements under the EPBC Act that only relate to activities being conducted in the open environment are not appropriate. I will have to take on notice the question posed by Senator Brown with regard to specific areas. It is an area with which we are not familiar. 23:18:0020605Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—But the government is familiar with the reality that, when genetic modifications move out of the crops or trees which contain those modifications into the natural environment, there is no way you can get them back. 6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—That is why you need a strong regulator. QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Yes, but that is why you also need these amendments, which specifically point to knowing what the impact is going to be on Australia's unique flora and fauna before it occurs. The regulator, the minister, Prime Minister Howard and all their advisers cannot get back a genetic modification once it has got into the natural environment. The regulator is too late on the scene once that has occurred. What this is about is understanding how that process could occur before the event and making sure it does not happen. The parliamentary secretary is giving no indication that this legislation is going to prevent the spill of genetic modification into the natural environment in Australia. 23:20:0020605Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Senator Tambling has raised the issue that division 3, which is `Initial consideration of licences for dealings not involving intentional releases of a GMO into the environment', is not applicable to the amendments that I have moved. I believe that the applications for licences for dealings that do not involve intentional releases of a GMO are equally as important as division 4, which is consideration of dealings involving intentional releases. I support that by raising these issues. On a number of occasions viral elements have escaped from laboratories. If we want to look at an area that has some unique flora and fauna, we do not have to go any further than St Lucia, in Brisbane. Even though it is an inner Brisbane suburb, it has some very special natural flora and fauna. It also has something else—called human beings. If Senator Tambling can give us an absolute, ironclad, 100 per cent guarantee that no GMOs will ever escape from the proposed biodiversity laboratories at St Lucia in Brisbane, then I will agree with him: we will not need amendments under division 3. However, I do not have the confidence that Senator Tambling has in the track record of not only the biodiversity functions, the research, but also all other manners of laboratory research. History shows that they do have unintentional releases from those facilities. So it is equally important, if not more important, depending on what experiments will be carried out—and we know that there will be genetically modified experiments carried out in that facility in that residential area—and it is totally appropriate that these sections apply to division 4, which is the initial consideration of licences for dealings not involving intentional releases. It is most certainly appropriate that they apply to division 4, which relates to the initial consideration of licences for dealing involving intentional releases into the environment. Through you, Chair, to Senator Tambling: I refute his statement that these amendments are not appropriate to division 3.23:24:0020605Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats believe these are commendable amendments. I do not mean to be facetious but—through you, Chair, to Senator Harris—out of the mouths of One Nation! I respect you for putting on record the influence that your background of mining experience has had on your appreciation of environmental assessments and impact statements. I think that goes to the very heart of the fact that laws do change lives, laws influence our culture and laws have a meaningful impact on people's attitudes. So I think that we should be leading the way with these amendments. I think it is totally justifiable to put them in this section in relation to risk assessment, and reference to the EPBC Act is totally appropriate in these circumstances, just as I believe reference to it in other areas of this bill would be quite appropriate. So the Democrats support the amendments before the chair. Amendments not agreed to.23:25:0020606Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—by leave—I move amendments (7) and (8) standing in my name on behalf of the Australian Democrats:(7) Page 33 (after line 9), after clause 48, insert:48A Regulator must seek advice of Environment Minister After receiving an application to which this Division applies, the Regulator must seek advice from the Environment Minister on matters relevant to the decision whether to issue or refuse to issue the licence.(8) Clause 56, page 39 (after line 19), before paragraph (2)(a), insert: (aa) any advice provided by the Environment Minister in response to a request under section 48A;These amendments to clause 48 and clause 56 relate to the role of the environment minister in relation to this legislation. Quite clearly, my amendment (7) states:48A Regulator must seek advice of Environment Minister...There is no may, no ifs, no buts. It is actually quite prescribed—`must seek advice'. The amendment reads:After receiving an application to which this Division applies, the Regulator must seek advice from the Environment Minister on matters relevant to the decision whether to issue or refuse to issue the licence.Amendment (8) emulates that in relation to inserting a provision:(aa) any advice provided by the Environment Minister in response to a request under section 48A;Again, this is prescribing a role for the environment minister—not merely consultation but you, as the regulator, must be seeking the advice of the minister as to whether or not you issue or refuse to issue the licence. This was not such a controversial matter a year ago and it was certainly something to which the government agreed in the context of the EPBC Act. In negotiations Senator Hill actually thought this was quite appropriate.The Democrats have put on record a number of times in this place and certainly to the committee of inquiry into this legislation not only our concerns about the role of the environment minister but our anger towards the government reneging on its deal, its negotiated position, in relation to the EPBC Act. The government broke that deal as a consequence of a federal cabinet decision, I believe, on 13 June this year to minimise the role of the environment minister in relation to gene technology in Australia. In fact, Senator Hill, in the Senate during the original passage of what became the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the EPBC Act, said on 22 June last year that `matters that affect the environment will be referred to the environment minister for assessment and advice by that independent regulator'. He said:That will ultimately be provided for through an amendment to this legislation,—the EPBC Act—when it passes, in conjunction with the law that is going to be put in place to set up the new GTR.This commitment has been provided before the Senate. There is no ambiguity in relation to the commitment that Senator Hill gave as environment minister to the Senate and to the parliament and thus to the Australian community. I have put on record previously our concerns, specifically in a matter of public interest debate of the Senate on 21 June this year, when we discovered that the decision by the government was to be reneged on. A key senator involved in the negotiation on that bill, Senator Andrew Bartlett, our environment spokesperson, will elaborate on the Democrats' position.As I stated earlier in the debate when I foreshadowed this amendment, we have had no justification from the government as to why there should be a lessening or a weakening of the role of the environment minister, especially when the object of the act and the general discussion tonight have been in the context of ensuring that we have a strong regulatory framework in order to protect not only the health interests of Australians but their environmental concerns, as well as to protect biodiversity. The Democrats would like to see inserted into the objects of the act provisions promoting ecological sustain-ability. How you can do that when you have a lesser role for the environment minister, when you do not actually prescribe that the regulator must seek advice from the environment minister, I do not know. But, again, it goes to the heart of the comments from Senator Harris most recently in this debate—that is, the need to protect our environment but the fact that we do not have a regulatory framework or a regulator that is going to have that first and foremost in their mind. One way of ensuring that it is first and foremost in their mind is to have a strong role for the environment minister. I will break there to give the government an opportunity to explain its most recent position, on the off-chance that Senator Tambling has decided to stand by his environment minister and to keep the government to the promise it gave to the Senate on 22 June last year. This is a great way to show support for Minister Hill, not only because he has given a commitment that the government has broken as a consequence of a cabinet decision but also to ensure that there is a realistic and strong role for the environment minister in relation to this legislation.23:31:0020607Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government will not be agreeing to the amendments proposed by the Democrats. There is a very strong role for the environment minister in this legislation. These amendments are not necessary because the Gene Technology Bill 2000 already requires the regulator to seek advice from the environment minister on every application involving the intentional release of a GMO into the environment. The regulator is required by the legislation to take the advice into account in preparing the risk assessment and the risk management plan, which is the draft decision. Further, the regulator must then seek the environment minister's advice again on the draft decision and must take into account the environment minister's advice. In effect, the bill already requires the regulator to do what the Democrat amendments propose.23:32:0020607Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator BARTLETTDT6QueenslandAD00—I rise also to speak to the amendments moved by my colleague Senator Stott Despoja because they are of great concern not just to the Democrats but to the Australian community. I realise Senator Tambling is in the situation where he has to outline the government's position on this, but I have to say that the explanation he has just given is fairly flimsy, especially if the government is going to break a commitment. It was not just a verbal commitment to the Democrats in a backroom somewhere; it was a specific commitment given by the minister, Senator Hill, on behalf of the government as a whole to the Senate and therefore to the people, to the Australian community as a whole. It was a commitment that the government would amend the EPBC Act at the same time that it brought in this bill to ensure that the environment minister would be involved whenever there was a dealing involving the intentional release of a GMO into the environment. It would require that and it would also require the regulator to have regard to any advice provided by the environment minister under this section. Currently, the regulator can seek the minister's advice if they so choose and they can ignore it, even once they have sought it. The provisions in this bill are not dissimilar to ones in existing acts, such as the Quarantine Act—provisions which in practice have been shown to be completely inadequate. The bill places completely in the hands of the regulator the power to decide whether to send something to the environment minister and, more particularly, the power of whether or not to pay any attention to what the minister or his or her department says. If the government are going to break a commitment that they gave to the Senate as a whole, then the least they can do is not backflip in cabinet without consulting, if not with the Senate as a whole, those members of the Senate that supported the passage of the bill partly on the commitment that the government gave. If the government think that they can backflip on things like that with such glibness, with such lack of consultation in the months since the backflip was made, with such inadequate reasons, and that the Democrats or any other people in the Australian community will just sigh and say, `That's a bit of a shame,' without expressing deep concern, then I think they should rethink their approach. They should also realise that breaking commitments like that clearly makes the Democrats and, I am sure, anyone in this place think twice before supporting anything else on the basis of a commitment. It is unavoidable in parliament, in politics—as in any other area of life—that sometimes you have to take people on trust; you cannot have everything locked down all at once. Legislation in life is an ongoing process, and sometimes you just have to get a commitment that another area will be addressed at the appropriate time down the track. When those commitments are broken without adequate reason, without consultation, for no reason other than what seems to be a departmental turf war, then it is not surprising that you get particularly cynical about whether or not you can place trust in the government's word in the future. That is not meant to apply specifically to the environment minister. I would not want to state this categorically, but it would not surprise me if the environment minister were somewhat disappointed with the reversal of the commitment that he gave to the Senate on behalf of the government. If he is not, he should be—it obviously reflects on him in particular. But I took it as a commitment, and I do take it as a commitment, from the government as a whole, not just from the environment minister. That breach of faith is not just something that causes the Democrats to think twice in the future about dealings with the environment minister; it causes us to think twice about dealings with the government as a whole on any issue, because it is a serious breach of faith. As all senators would know, the environment is a key issue of concern to the Democrats, and to have a backflip on an area as crucial as that is something that we take very seriously. I would urge the government, through the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, to realise that it is not something that we take lightly, thinking, `We lost on that one but them's the breaks.' Rather, it is something that we take very seriously, and I can assure the government that it is something that we will take on board and factor in very strongly in terms of any future decisions we have to make.I particularly want to make a plea to the opposition in relation to this issue. The opposition, sometimes fairly, sometimes unfairly, quite regularly make attacks on the Democrats for our decision to support heavily amended environment protection legislation, the most recent time being just last week when we were debating regulations in this place. They made great play of saying how naive the Democrats were for trusting the government, how we would get sold out and how we would have no ability to do anything about it after the fact. This is a situation where we do have an opportunity to do something about it. We have an opportunity to force the government to meet its commitment. It will not undermine the integrity of the whole legislation; it will strengthen the integrity of the whole legislation. It will strengthen the Australian community's faith in the operations of the regulator and it will also force the government to keep its word. So this is an occasion when the ALP have a clear chance to force the government to keep its word. If they are not going to do that, I never want to hear again any criticism of how naive the Democrats might be in taking the government at its word, because it would apply equally to the ALP. If they have got a chance here to force the government to keep its word and they cannot be bothered because of some other arrangements they have made, that is fine, but don't let me hear ever again that somehow or other we have been dudded. If the ALP does not support this amendment then we are being dudded by them equally. That does not surprise me, but it is nonetheless a fact that needs to be pointed out. Let me make it clear that the section of the bill we are dealing with deals specifically with applications for licences for dealings involving intentional releases of a GMO into the environment, where the regulator has to be satisfied that at least one of the dealings will involve such a release into the environment. What we are doing by our amendment is adding a simple section which requires that under such circumstances the regulator must seek advice from the environment minister on matters relevant to the decision whether to issue or refuse to issue the licence. So it is a simple requirement that advice from the environment minister must be sought. Then, when the decision is being made by the regulator as to whether or not to issue the licence, before issuing the licence, under the bill as it now stands, the regulator must be satisfied that the release can be managed in a way that will protect the environment. In making that determination, the amendment the Democrats are making now will require the regulator to take into account, to have regard to, any advice provided back by the environment minister. If those things are not put in there, there is not a requirement for the regulator to have to refer something to the environment minister and there is not a requirement for the regulator to pay any attention to that advice even if it does come back; it is discretionary but not essential. Let me say also that that is not an onerous component. The overall assessment requirements of the regulator are not parallel to those under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. To some extent that is fair enough, because they consider issues much broader than those covered under the environment act. But in relation to issues concerning the environment it is surely essential that they must at a minimum meet the same requirements as under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Otherwise, the government is undermining the integrity of its own act. The regulator may assess things in a way that is up to that standard or better than that standard, and I hope the regulator does, but again there is no requirement; it is at all on faith. As I said before, given the government's backflip on this issue, it is a bit hard to have faith in anything. The health department, the department that has oversight of this, and the regulator have a lot of things to take into account. They have to bear in mind industry aspects, health aspects, consumer aspects, government aspects, economic opportunities and industry development issues. Environment is only one of those. If you are talking about release of a GMO into the environment, as has been pointed out many times in this debate in lots of other contexts, I would think it is more crucial than for most other environmental issues that it be properly assessed under the standards of the environment legislation and that the environment minister's advice must be taken into account. That is a bare minimum that surely should be there. In an ideal world, the Democrats would like a stronger setup than that, but surely as a bare minimum, if you are releasing organisms into the environment, the environmental aspects should be considered by the department that oversees environmental issues. They still do not have the decision. They still do not have a veto, which is something that the Democrats would prefer, that the environment minister had veto power in such circumstances. It is not even as strong as that but still leaves the power with the regulator and the department. I would think that should be enough. But at a minimum they should be required to be consulted; their advice should be sought and taken into account. I just cannot for the life of me see why that presents a problem for the government, the department and the regulator. It is so simple, so basic and so fundamental. As has been said, in releasing GMOs into the environment, if we get it wrong you cannot fix it up. I do not want to make a blanket statement here, but in a lot of other areas, if you get it wrong, there might be some damage but you can repair it. In this one, if you get it wrong, you could well have the case where you cannot repair it, you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, you cannot fix it up, and the consequences could be extremely significant. We have already seen circumstances where adequate controls have not been put in place and the consequences can be unknown. Biodiversity itself, one of the cornerstones of the government's EPBC Act, can be significantly at risk through inadequate controls over the release of organisms into the environment. It also goes to the heart of one of the major concerns of the Australian community. It has been raised time and time again in this debate, and the government themselves have said this is a crucial part of why this bill is being put in place: to increase Australia's confidence and the confidence of the Australian community in the safety of this type of technology. It does have potential positive benefits. It is something that certainly the Democrats, and I think probably all of us in this chamber, recognise does have great potential if it is properly controlled and properly overseen and if the Australian community has confidence in it. But one of the areas where the Australian community clearly has its highest levels of anxiety is in terms of the potential impact on the environment if organisms are released into the environment. That is an area that is of great concern to Australians, because they can see that you do not need to be an expert, you do not need to be a scientist, to realise that unintended consequences of inadequately controlled release of a GMO into the environment can be very significant. Australians need to be assured that the environmental aspects of releasing a GMO into the environment have been fully considered as much as possible by those with the specific expertise and oversight who assess these things in a coherent, specific, environmentally focused way. From the Democrats' point of view, it increases our apprehension and our concern significantly that there is this resistance from the government to something as basic as requiring advice to be sought from the environment minister and for it to be taken into account. It baffles me why that is such a problem, and the fact that it is such a problem can do nothing other than raise the suspicions of many people in the Australian community. It is an issue of great concern to the Democrats in terms of the need for this amendment, which is not a big one and is not as strong as we would like. It is a minimum standard. It is also of great concern to the Democrats that the government has broken its unequivocal commitment to the Senate and to the Australian people without consultation and without even the most flimsy of rationales, other than just trying to cut the environment minister out of it and some dubious concept of simplification. They are not adequate reasons to go back on such a significant commitment that was made as part of the passage of a significant piece of legislation. I say again: it makes it very much harder for the Democrats and, I would think, everyone in this place to take the government on its word—from any minister in any area. It was a cabinet decision that overturned it. It is not specifically the fault of the environment minister, but it is still a breach and one that we take very seriously.23:46:0020610Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator FAULKNER5K4New South WalesALPLeader of the Opposition in the Senate00—It is a great pleasure to enter this important debate. I was interested in the comments that were made by Senator Bartlett to the committee alleging unfair attacks by the opposition on the Australian Democrats. I have heard no such attacks. The only attacks I have heard, I can assure you, Senator Bartlett, have been very fair attacks. It is a little rich to involve the opposition in this concern that you have in relation to broken deals and broken commitments. I always counsel the Democrats—particularly Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Bartlett, who are in the chamber at the moment—to remember the commitments over the goods and services tax, for example. That is a very good analogy for me to draw in this important committee stage debate when you talk about broken deals and commitments. These are not deals and commitments that involve the opposition. That is the point that I would make to our erstwhile Australian Democrats senators who are in the chamber: it is just like the situation we had in relation to the goods and services tax. They were deals and commitments that did not involve the opposition either. It is properly, of course, a matter, I would acknowledge, for you to raise with the government, but not a matter that it is fair to involve the opposition in. If you have allegations that whatever private arrangements you might have come to with the government have been breached, it is not a matter on which the opposition would want to comment in this committee stage debate.The position that the opposition are taking on the amendments before the chair which stand in the name of the Australian Democrats is, as you would expect, a very strong and principled position. We are not going to support the amendments before the chair. Labor believe that the addition of the precautionary principle, through our amendments—as well as the licensing conditions set out in division 4 of the bill; division 4, clause 14 of the draft regulations; and the requirement under clause 50 that the regulator must consult and take into account the advice of the environment minister in relation to the preparation of risk assessment and risk management plan—provide protection to the environment. All these factors provide very significant protection to the environment that is as stringent as is that provided under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. We argue—objectively and cogently—that, as a result, the amendments standing in the name of the Australian Democrats in relation to an increased role for the environment minister are not required. This is a very clear position which I put to the committee on behalf of the opposition. I understand the frustration that the arrangements, deals, commitments, understandings or fixes which the Australian Democrats believe they might have with the government on these matters might be causing. I counsel Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Bartlett: you have to get used to it. This seems to be a pattern that has been developing. I have drawn to your attention one very clear example of it. I commend the approach the opposition are taking but, for the good and cogent reasons I have outlined, the opposition will not be supporting these two Democrat amendments.23:52:0020611Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I rise to speak in support of the Democrats amendments and note that, just approaching midnight on the second day that we have been debating this very important bill, we have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate contributing for the first time on the bill. The Democrats amendments, as Senator Stott Despoja has so clearly put, require, in the intentional release of a GMO into the environment, the regulator to take into consideration the opinion of the environment minister. The actual placing of Democrats amendment (8) is worthy of note in that the amendment is proposed for section 56, which says that the regulator mustnot issue the licence unless satisfied as to risk management. It is in that section of the bill that the Democrats are proposing that the regulator must take into account any advice provided by the environment minister. The importance of the Democrats amendments can be encapsulated in two issues. The first one is the requirement of the regulator to take into account the environment minister's contribution. But, as I said, in section 56 the important part is that the regulator must not issue the licence unless he is satisfied as to the risk management and, in doing so, must take into account any advice provided by the environment minister. I support the amendments that have been put forward by the Democrats.23:55:0020611Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—The environment protection bill ought to have had the release of genes as a matter that was relevant to the minister for the environment. Senator Hill apparently made a commitment to the Democrats that that would be the—DT6Bartlett, Sen AndrewSenator Bartlett—It was to the Senate as a whole.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It was to the Democrats, though, first up, Senator, and then to the Senate as a whole. Unfortunately, the Senate by that time was not in a position to use any leverage on the matter and the Democrats had given away their leverage. I suppose that there is something to be learnt from that, but I think in particular it is an indication not just of Senator Hill's failure as minister for the environment, in yet another hugely important component of the environment and one that is increasingly of public notice and will be an election matter, but also of the way in which this government has set its face against the environment. I think I heard Senator Bartlett say that Senator Hill got rolled in cabinet on this matter.5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—It's a badge of honour.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—Well, did he?5K4Faulkner, Sen JohnSenator Faulkner—I don't know.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—It seems to me that Senator Hill did not advocate his case very well in cabinet.LD4Alston, Sen RichardSenator Alston—As if you'd know.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I can only go on the result. Senator Alston will agree with me that the result that we are seeing here tonight is a pretty poor one as far as the government is concerned. Here we have the Democrats amendment to say that the release of a GMO should be referred to the minister for the environment for advice, and the government is going to oppose that. That probably shows the assessment of the government of the relevance of Senator Hill as minister for the environment. There is no point giving him advice because it is not going to affect anything and the amendment here is going to fail. The problem was that it was not written into the EPBC Bill 16 months ago. There is no catch-up available now. The opportunity has flown. The government is now not going to show faith in this minister for the environment because it is not going to support this. So we are left with the minister for the environment being irrelevant to one of the most important and substantial measures affecting the environment that there is in the 21st century. There are huge concerns about this matter all over the world. Let me read from a recent sworn statement to the United States District Court for the district of Columbia by the renowned Dr Richard Lacey from the United Kingdom, who was one of those who very early on warned about the potential for mad cow disease. His warning came as early as 1990 on the matter. He says:It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety.He says further in his declaration that he will show why these new foods entail higher risks and explain why none of them is generally recognised as safe, and then he goes on to do that. He concludes by saying:As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on these two assumptions. Therefore, although it claims to be "science-based", this claim has no solid basis in fact. The only way to base the claims—that is, about genetically modified organisms—about the safety of genetically engineered food in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.He concludes by saying:As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the US Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on those two assumptions and therefore, although it claims to be science based, the claim has no solid base in fact. The only way to base the claims—that is, about genetically modified organisms and the safety of genetically engineered food—in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.This is a scientist speaking about the failure, at the highest level, of science to be taken into true consideration when evaluating genetically modified organisms. The reason it is not is that that would take some time. But if these matters were referred to a minister for the environment who stood for the environment, he or she would recognise that scientifically it is reckless to release genetically modified organisms into the environment without your being able to establish through experimental procedures that that is safe. This whole legislation tonight is a failure to establish the safety of the release of genetically modified organisms. Worse than that, it is a failure to properly insure and recompense the community, if such a thing were possible, for the damage that can accrue from the release of genetically modified organisms. We have already debated how damage, for example, to the native flora and fauna of the country cannot be repaired once a genetically modified organism has infested part of the natural ecology.These are very mild amendments. It simply says, `Get the opinion of the minister for the environment.' I know that that opinion is not worth much. But we have to look forward to a time when that opinion will count, when we do have a minister for the environment who advocates for the environment in cabinet and outside, and is prepared to tackle tough issues such as woodchipping, the coal industry's pollution of the atmosphere, and the release of genetically modified organisms. We cannot, of course, make a minister do anything except go through the motions, but we have to set legislation as if the minister were dinkum about the environment. That is why these amendments by the Democrats should be supported. Tuesday, 5 December 200000:02:0020613Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I thank Senators Brown and Harris for their support of the amendments and put on record my genuine surprise that the Labor Party is not supporting these amendments. I thought maybe it would. I thank Senator Faulkner for his brief contribution to this debate. He has gone now so—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—He's not far away.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—He never is far away. When Senator Ray came in, I thought, `Wow, we are in for a really full-on debate now.' But, first of all, I will respond to Senator Faulkner. As my colleague Senator Bartlett outlined, this was not a commitment given in a verbal manner to the Democrats or even in a written form in, say, a letter that might be exchanged between the government and a party that might be in the midst of negotiations with them—and we know that happens. This is a commitment that was given to the Australian parliament and thus to the Australian people. So by breaching or reneging on that agreement or promise, the minister has misled the Australian people. He has broken a promise in the most flagrant and blatant way possible and, for that, all Australians as well as this chamber are owed an explanation.It is one thing for Senator Faulkner perhaps to lecture me and my colleague Senator Bartlett—somewhat ironically, I might add—on the issue of the GST: `Don't accuse me of being naive enough to fall for those promises, because I did not believe them at the time.' But, all that aside, there are many promises that this government makes and breaks; so I can only record my disappointment. As a Democrat, we are aware all the time of broken promises made by the government. I am aware of ministers being overridden, whether it is in relation to science issues, nuclear issues or environmental issues. You only have to look at the influence of people such as Senator Minchin or Minister Tuckey in the cabinet to know that most of the good notions—if any are held by this government in relation to the environment or conservation—are usually overridden in cabinet.I have seen blatant government commitments like, in 1996, a commitment by the Attorney-General to introduce privacy laws that would extend the Privacy Amendment Act 1988 to the private sector. Admittedly, that has happened finally, but not before that decision was overridden within a year by the Prime Minister of the day. So I am used to seeing promises or commitments made on record and broken by this government, or promises by one minister being overridden by the wishes of another or an influential cabinet. But yes, maybe I am a little surprised at the blatant manner in which this promise to the people through the parliament has been broken. Yes, I learn to live with disappointment under this government, and so there is no point in Senator Faulkner lecturing me or any of my colleagues on the issue of naivety.To use Senator Faulkner's terminology, what is frustrating is the fact that we have the numbers in the chamber tonight, if we so choose, to reinstate this provision to hold the government to this particular promise and commitment, and to do so, to use Senator Faulkner's terminology, in a totally principled fashion. I do not understand why the opposition are not taking advantage of that opportunity—unless this is, and I stand to be corrected, part of the deal that they have negotiated with the government. Senator Faulkner says, `Well, it is not necessary, because the role of the minister for the environment is strong enough in the act,' and then cites their precautionary principle, the amendment that we have yet to debate, of course, because that is only relevant to the entire piece of legislation. I do not know what is going on there; I would have thought that debate would have been resolved between the two old parties by now. But when Senator Faulkner dares to state as evidence of a commitment to the environment the watered-down precautionary principle mooted by the Labor Party that does not even mention the word `health', what kind of precautionary principle is that? It is the most watered-down version, one that will probably be further watered down when they factor in cost effectiveness issues. To cite as evidence of the ALP's concern for environmental issues under this legislation—and, therefore, the unnecessary nature of the amendments before the chamber—the precautionary principle as outlined in the Labor Party amendment is quite extraordinary. I read that amendment for the benefit of the chamber. It seeks to insert in the regulatory framework:(a) provides that where there are threats of serious—and note there is no `health' mentioned—or irreversible environmental damage, a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;So sure, there is reference to the environment—but what a watered-down precautionary principle! I think people on this side of the chamber have registered our concerns, but I again put on record: how can we debate this bill when we have not determined the objectives of the legislation, of the act, especially as it pertains to environmental protection and health safety and possibly—if you look at the amendments moved by the Democrats—ecological sustainability, or other matters? Certainly, most of the crossbench members have moved a precautionary principle of sorts. All of us have very similar amendments in relation to the precautionary principle—except the Labor Party, and I am assuming that they have had to settle for a lesser one.So I am frustrated that we cannot fix a problem that has arisen as a result of government weakness and flagrant breaching of government promises. But in some respects I suspect that Senator Forshaw, Senator Faulkner and certainly others in the party probably know that they are handing this to the progressives in the chamber on a plate. Do you think that the Australian community is going to wear the fact that we had the opportunity to ensure that there was a fundamental and explicit role for the environment minister in relation to the GMOs approval and assessment processes and that the Labor Party stopped that environment minister having a role? Do you think that the Australian people are going to wear that? Do you think that your voters are going to like that, your supporters are going to like that, or that your members are going to like that? No. So in some respects, you are handing many of your supporters to us on a plate.As much as I would like to see a huge boost in the Democrat ranks through totally legitimate means and a rise in our vote, I care more that the legislation is actually good, sound and progressive and that the objects of the act are ones that hold high the notion of environmental protection and safety and that there is a role—an equivalent role, at a minimum—for the environment minister. I care about all those consultations that the government undertook in good faith—and I acknowledge that—and all the good work of the department in relation to getting public feedback on the concerns in relation to this issue generally and the bill specifically. When people came and said, `Look we want equivalent dealing and balance given to the environmental and health considerations,' I want to see that reflected in the legislation. Senator Hill wanted to see that reflected in the legislation. That is why he gave a promise not simply to a political party, not simply to a bunch of people in the chamber who happened to be around at the time, not in writing to one or two individuals or a party organisation; he made a commitment to the Australian people and he put it on record in a blatant fashion. He was right to do so and we are right now to hold him to it. I am very surprised that the ALP have taken this path for a whole range of reasons. I can conclude only that the parameters in which they are negotiating with the government do not allow for support of these amendments. But I really wish that they would reconsider, because we can fix this one and the Australian people expect the environment minister to have a strong role. Let's give it to him. Unfortunately, I read the numbers in the chamber and I think it is really disappointing. Do not worry; I hold this against the government, but I say to the ALP: be it on your head. Question put:That the amendments (Senator Stott Despoja's) be agreed to.00:16:00The committee divided.[ (The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 11Allison, L.F.Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.45Abetz, E.Alston, R.K.R.Bishop, T.M.Boswell, R.L.D.Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Calvert, P.H.Campbell, G.Carr, K.J.Chapman, H.G.P.Collins, J.M.A.Conroy, S.M.Coonan, H.L.Crowley, R.A.Eggleston, A.Ellison, C.M.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Gibson, B.F.Herron, J.J.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Kemp, C.R.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W.Macdonald, J.A.L.Mackay, S.M.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Murphy, S.M.Newman, J.M.O'Brien, K.W.K *Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.Question so resolved in the negative.00:18:0020615Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I move Greens amendment No. 61:(61) Clause 54, page 38 (lines 9 to 15), omit subclause (2) (but not the notes), substitute: (2) If a person makes a request under subsection (1), the Regulator must provide to the person a copy of the documents, other than any confidential commercial information contained in the documents.This amendment says that, where a person requests copies of an application by a person or company to release genetically modified organisms into the environment, the information that is available on those applications, with the exception of confidential commercial information, should be released to that person. The clause as it stands would prevent a person from getting information, besides confidential commercial information, also relating to a corporation that had broken the law and committed a crime previously in such a matter. I think it is fair enough that that matter should not be hidden from the public and should not be hidden from somebody who wants to find out what such a corporation or corporate entity is doing or has done. Looking at clause 58, you will read that, when the matter of considering whether a person should get a licence is being decided under subsection (2), it states:(2) Without limiting the matters to which the Regulator may have regard in deciding whether a body corporate is a suitable person to hold a licence, the Regulator must have regard to the following:any relevant conviction of the body corporate; and if there is a relevant conviction of the body corporate:whether the offence concerned was committed at a time when any person who is presently a director of the body corporate was a director; and whether that offence was committed at a time when any officer or shareholder of the body corporate who is presently in a position to influence the management of the body corporate was such an officer or shareholder; andany revocation or suspension of a licence or permit (however described) held by the body corporate under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a foreign country, being a law relating to the health and safety of people or the environment; and the capacity of the body corporate to meet the conditions of the licence. In that section a `relevant conviction' means one which occurred within the last 10 years and which was punishable by a fine of $5,000 or more. So we are dealing with very important previous offences. I am particularly concerned that a corporation which has committed past offences and which applies for a licence to release genetically modified organisms into the Australian environment will have that information covered up if a member of the public, a neighbour or somebody else goes to see what the licence application is about. That should not be the case. 00:21:0020616Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—This is an amendment that the government will oppose. The Attorney-General's Department's advice is that the Senate, through the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, has always been cautious in legislating to require the disclosure of prior convictions. This caution is well founded, being based on the right to privacy and rehabilitation considerations. Under clause 58, relevant convictions must be disclosed to the regulator who must take that information into account in deciding whether an applicant is a suitable person to hold a licence. This amendment would require disclosure of convictions to anybody who asks. There is no justification for this. Clause 54 already provides for members of the public to have wide rights of access to relevant documents. There is no need for details of past convictions of applicants to be placed in the public domain. 00:23:0020616Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—Convictions are what we are talking about here. We are talking particularly about corporations. I am quite happy to limit it to that if the government has problems with individuals, but we are talking about major convictions for crimes committed by corporations against the public being required to be listed on an application for a licence by somebody who is going to use a genetically modified organism, and the need for that information to be available to somebody who wants to see what the record of this corporate entity is. We are not just dealing with the ordinary matter here of giving a defendant before a court the protection of not having their record before the court in the consideration of the crime that has been committed. We are talking here about the privilege—and indeed the huge responsibility—of releasing a genetically modified organism into the Australian environment. If we are dealing with a corporation which has committed a crime where the offence is punishable on conviction by a fine of $5,000 or more, or imprisonment of a year or more, then I think that should be a matter for public disclosure. Not everybody should be releasing genetically modified organisms. If somebody has a criminal conviction for a relevant matter, then that should not only be taken into account by the regulator but be on the public record as well. Amendment not agreed to.00:25:0020616Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—by leave—I move One Nation's amendments Nos 33 and 101:(33) Page 39 (after line 9), after clause 55, insert:55A Rights of adjoining property owners etc. (1) The Regulator must not issue a licence for the intentional release of a GMO into the environment at a particular location unless the Regulator has notified the owner and occupier of each property adjoining the location (the adjoining property) in writing about the application. (2) A notice for the purposes of subsection (1) must include the following: (a) a copy of the application; (b) details of the location and size of the proposed dealing; (c) a copy of the risk assessment; (d) a copy of the risk management plan. (3) For the purposes of this section:adjoining property, in relation to the location of a proposed GMO dealing, means a property that: (a) has a common boundary with the property on which the dealing is proposed to be undertaken; or (b) is separated from that property by a road, access way, easement or public area.(101) Clause 179, page 117 (after table item 1), insert: 1ATo issue a licence for the intentional release of a GMO into the environmentsection 55the owner or occupier of a property adjoining the location of the releaseThe amendments that I am proposing relate to the rights of an adjoining property owner. I will speak to amendment No. 33 first. This is important, considering that the amendments that have been proposed by a combination of the Greens, the Democrats and One Nation, have to a great degree been voted down by the government and the opposition, particularly those that relate to the identification and notification of a dealing with a GMO relating to the release of a genetically modified organism into the environment. Too many times we have seen legislation and regulations produced that will give some notification to property owners immediately adjacent to a property, but there are very few that will actually take into consideration properties—and I am speaking now mainly about rural areas—that happen to be separated from that particular property by either a normal road or even, in some cases, a narrow lane. So you can have a situation—and we will use an illustration of a powerline as an example—where a 132,000 kVa powerline with a draw of in excess of 100 millivolt amps is being constructed on one property, and there is a 25-metre laneway and then another property adjoining on the opposite side. There is considerable scientific evidence that the effects of electromagnetic fields will carry far beyond that 25-metre laneway. So therefore you can have a property adjacent to a property on which, in this case, a powerline was going to be built and not only is there no necessity to notify those property owners of the construction of that powerline; they would also have no right of redress whatsoever. The essence of this amendment is to ensure that, if a licence is granted for the release of a genetically modified product into the environment—and this could quite possibly be by way of broadacre planting of a crop—all property owners or occupiers who have boundaries adjoining that property would have to receive notification of the granting of that licence. This amendment would then go one step further to ensure that any property adjacent that is separated by a lane, an easement or a public area would also receive notification in writing. That is the essence of amendment No. 33.Amendment No. 101 would cause an amendment to clause 179 of the bill on page 117. This part of the bill relates to review of a decision. In essence, it would insert a new section 1A into the clause relating to a reviewable decision and the eligible persons. The new section 1A would list the owner or occupier of a property adjoining the location of the release. So amendment No. 101 also has the effect of giving that person standing in relation to being able to review a decision of the Gene Technology Regulator. As I have explained in the example that I have used of the powerline, where we have the intentional release of a genetically modified organism into the environment, it is very clear that because of pollen drift, as has been scientifically proven in America with the genetically modified corn contaminating other adjacent fields, a 15-metre exclusion zone around broadacre cropping would be totally inadequate. It is commonly accepted that bees can travel anywhere between five and eight kilometres in a direct line when accessing water. There is an ability for that genetically modified organism to cross the boundaries of properties, as I have described in this amendment. These amendments bring in a definition of `adjoining property' and the boundaries for owners or occupiers are well within what I believe should be set in the bill. To recap, the purpose of amendment No. 33 is to bring in a new definition of the rights of an adjoining property owner and the purpose of amendment No. 101 is to give the owner or occupier of that property adjoining the location of the release in relation to a review of a decision of the regulator. I commend the amendments to the chamber.00:35:0020617Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government is opposed to these amendments. The amendments proposed by Senator Harris require the regulator to notify each and every occupier of land adjoining the location of proposed GMO crops about applications received by the regulator. These amendments are not supported by the government. For every application that involves an intentional release of a GMO into the environment, the regulator will directly contact anyone who has asked to be supplied with this information. In addition, the regulator will notify receipt on the regulator's web site and in newspapers. I am advised that currently, when an application for general release is notified, it is done through about 40 newspapers, including local country newspapers and publications like The Land. It is simply not practical to do more than personally notify anyone who has indicated interest in receiving information, and to advertise in newspapers throughout Australia. It is not practical to contact individuals who have not supplied their name and address to the regulator and asked to receive the information. The government does not, therefore, support these amendments.00:36:0020618Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—For the very reasons that the government have outlined that they do not support the amendments, the Democrats do support the amendments. We think that people, especially those in adjoining areas, have the right to have as much information as possible. I know the government's counterargument to that is, `Well, they can write in and apply for it.' I do not think that Australians should have to rely on the extrasensory perception—the ESP—provisions of the bill and contact the government for more information. I think they should be informed in one fell swoop at the outset of the process.I am not sure of the Labor opposition position on these amendments, but I am sure that Australians will once again see this as another lost opportunity to actually ensure that there is adequate public awareness, information and education and, thus, increased public faith in not only the technology but also the regulatory process. I might add that I was not kidding before when I was talking about the swelling ranks of Democrat support, because I notice that it has just come through on the news that our support is higher than it has been in a year. That has just popped up. So clearly we are having an instantaneous effect on our polling, as a consequence of this debate. I say that facetiously, but I do anticipate that Australians will be somewhat dejected by the opposition to these amendments. The Democrats will be supporting the amendments being moved by Senator Harris. I put on record my disappointment at the way that the media, certainly on the wire, is reporting this debate as being that somehow the government and the opposition are being hijacked or ambushed into debating the legislation and how we are `dragging on' the debate, when basically this is an enormous bill that has a lot of amendments and is quite complex. I do not think that it should be dissed in that way.00:38:0020618Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I do not accept Senator Tambling's reasoning about notifying what could be approximately four, maybe six or even seven property owners who are adjoining a property about which the regulator—the government's own department—is making a decision to release a genetically modified organism into the environment. The government is telling us that it is an impost on that person for them to find out who the property owners are adjoining that property and to notify them. That is absolutely and totally unacceptable. I will refer to one piece of correspondence—one of many hundreds—that I have received in relation to the bill. The particular correspondent speaks about the appeal rights of people:The rights of appeal for decisions made under the GT bill are currently limited to the applicants for a licence for GMO dealings. Important public duties should be enforced on any member of the public, allowing courts and the AAT to scrutinise the substantial merits of each case.This correspondence asks that the public have the right of appeal. However, Pauline Hanson's One Nation amendment limits that to the adjoining property owners. The correspondence goes on to state:Furthermore, limitations on the rights to injunct relief in the draft bill are not in accordance with the Commonwealth's best practice legislation.These people are saying that the public in general should have the right of appeal. The government is saying that its position is such that not even the adjoining property owners should have the right to be notified. As I indicated in amendment No. 101, that would give adjacent property owners or occupiers—because primarily these intentional releases will happen in rural areas and rural properties may not necessarily have the owner in occupation; a lessee could be leasing the property or renting accommodation on rural properties—the right not only to be notified of the intentional release of a GMO but also to have standing to seek a review of the decision of the regulator under section 179. I believe that that is not an impost on the government; it is a necessary requirement for the government to fulfil its duty of care to those people.Amendments not agreed to.00:43:0020619Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—by leave—I move Greens' amendments Nos 63, 64 and 74:(63) Clause 56, page 39 (lines 12 to 17), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Regulator must not issue a licence unless the Regulator is satisfied that any risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence to: (a) the health and safety of people; and (b) the environment;are negligible.(64) Clause 56, page 39 (lines 20 to 23), omit paragraphs (2)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the precautionary principle; (b) the risk assessment and risk management plan prepared under section 47 or 50, as the case may be;(74) Clause 71, page 48 (lines 4 to 9), omit subclause (4), substitute: (4) The Regulator must not vary the licence unless the Regulator is satisfied that any risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence as varied to: (a) the health and safety of people; and (b) the environment;are negligible.These amendments will be supported by the government, the reason being that the first amendment says that the regulator must not issue a licence for the release of a genetically modified organism unless the regulator is satisfied that any risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by that licence to the health and safety of people and to the environment are negligible. If the government does not support that, I would like to know the level of risk to the health and safety of Australians and their environment the government is prepared to allow through the release of GMOs. The second amendment says that you must take into account the precautionary principle and the risk assessment and risk management plan prepared under sections 47 or 50, as the case may be.The final amendment, amendment No. 74, states that the regulator must not vary the licence unless satisfied that any risks posed by the dealings proposed to be authorised by the licence, as varied, to the health and safety of people and the environment are negligible. We have here a whole industry which says that the risks are negligible, so we should put that into the law and simply say, `Let's take them at their word and let's ensure that the regulator is satisfied that that is the risk level to the public, to the public health and to the environment. If you can't show that it's negligible, don't proceed.'00:45:0020619Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government, to the surprise of Senator Brown, will be opposing these amendments! The amendments propose changes to the matters that the regulator must take into account as part of his or her decision making. The government does not support the amendments. The bill contains detailed information about the matters that the regulator must take into account, and this information is supported by further information in the draft regulations.Further, as a result of other amendments that will be considered shortly, clause 4 will again be referenced by this committee. We agreed to that on Thursday or Friday. There are amendments there with reference to the precautionary principle. So this is caught up in that debate, and I believe that the matters raised by Senator Brown will be addressed very satisfactorily in those amendments. We will be returning to them at a later hour. As such, it is not necessary that it also be included in this clause. 00:46:0020620Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I will be brief. I am not sure that there is a later hour; it is getting pretty late. I am wondering if it is appropriate now to begin the debate about the objects of the act. The argument that this will be dealt with or is better dealt with in a regulations format is an argument that the Democrats do not subscribe to and is one we are a little sick of hearing, because I do not think that is a justification for half the failures of the government to actually endorse some of the amendments that have been before the government. These amendments are good amendments. They even endorse the objects of the bill in its current form—that is, without any amendment in the form to which Senator Tambling referred or even in the much stronger form of words in relation to the precautionary principle and the objects of the act that Senators Harris and Brown and I are moving so that the risks to the health and safety of people and to the environment are negligible. I cannot see how these are scary amendments for the government. I have the Macquarie Dictionary in front of me. It defines `negligible' as `that may be neglected or disregarded; very little'. So even within that meaning there is actually scope for risk. I do not think these are overtly prescriptive amend-ments. Even if they were, what is wrong with that? I think anything that guards people's health and safety in this context is more than appropriate. The Democrats will be supporting these amendments. We are sorry that the government is not. I wonder what the opposition is doing on these, because I cannot see how they necessarily contravene the objects of the act as proposed by the opposition. They do mention health, which is, of course, different from the precautionary principle amendment moved by the opposition, but I do not see that these are particularly terrifying amendments, and I think in many respects they encapsulate the most important aspects of this debate. I do again ask Senator Tambling when we will begin discussion on the objects. I think we have really gone about the discussion of this bill the wrong way, and I would like us to have that debate sooner rather than later. 00:48:0020620Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—For the benefit of Senator Stott Despoja, we will not be supporting the amendments. Amendments not agreed to.00:49:0020620Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I move amendment No. 35 circulated in the name of Pauline Hanson's One Nation:(35) Clause 60, page 41 (lines 28 to 31), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) A licence continues in force: (a) for a period of 3 years from the date of issue; or (b) until it is cancelled or surrendered;whichever is the sooner.The purpose of the amendment is to change the bill in such a way that a licence does not continue ad nauseam once it is issued. It will ensure that the regulator will, from time to time, reassess the direction in which a licence that has been granted is actually progressing. Rather than licences carrying on in perpetuity once issued, this amendment will require the regulator to reissue and, in reissuing, to reassess the progress of that licence. Another effect of the amendment is that, if there are licences out there that are applied for and are not taken up and exercised, they will automatically drop off after a three-year period and cease to have effect. So we will not have the situation where a licence is applied for in the immediate future and then that licence is picked up and optioned many years down the track as a right.As I have said, the purpose of the amendment is to require the regulator to regularly reassess the situation relating to an issued licence three years from the date of issue. That will be caused by the applicant having to reapply. If an application is received for a licence and those GMO dealings are not carried out in that period of time, the licence will not be sitting there able to be picked up and used at any time in the future purely because the company has gone through the process of applying for a licence five or 10 years prior to them commencing operations.00:52:0020621Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—The Democrats will support the amendment, whether it is One Nation's or the Greens'. I am not sure if Senator Harris made a Freudian slip when he said `ad nauseam'. That is what we are really hoping to avoid in this particular piece of legislation. The Democrats certainly can see that the arguments are valid, and we will support the amendment. 00:53:0020621Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The government will oppose the amendment proposed by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. We do not think that this amendment achieves the results that Senator Harris desires. The amendment provides that a licence continue in force for three years unless it is cancelled or surrendered at an earlier time. This amendment is not supported as it sets a mandatory period for licensing of three years. It is intended that the Gene Technology Regulator may issue licences for periods considerably less than three years; it would be extremely undesirable if the legislation provided that all licences continued for three years. For example, in relation to many field trials, the GTR may issue a licence for only one planting season. The GTR needs the flexibility to apply whatever licence terms are appropriate given the individual circumstances. Senator Harris can be assured that, no matter what the term of the licence is, the GTR will review all licences on a regular basis. For example, as a minimum requirement, all licence holders will be required to report annually on the licensed dealings with the GMO. This, in addition to the ability of the GTR to undertake auditing and monitoring on a regular basis, ensures that there is ongoing review of licensed dealings to ensure appropriate compliance with any licence conditions and appropriate protection of human safety and the environment. If the GTR has any concerns at all, the GTR may vary, suspend or cancel a licence at any time.00:55:0020621Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Is it possible, under the government's proposal, for a licence to be issued and for a licence to continue in perpetuity?00:55:0020621Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the answer to the senator's question is no, they are reviewed continuously.00:55:0020621Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Again, Senator Tambling is saying they are `reviewed'. Reviewing a licence does not terminate the legal effectiveness of that licence. My question to Senator Tambling is: once granted, and if reviewed and not revoked, can a licence continue in perpetuity?00:56:0020621Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the licence can be reviewed or revoked at any time, and that will provide the sufficient sanctions that Senator Harris is looking for.Amendment not agreed to.00:57:0020621Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I draw attention to the fact that we are now over three hours past the time at which this Senate should have adjourned. That is not fair on members of the Senate, but more particularly it is not fair on the staff who have to keep this place going. It is not fair on the advisers of the government, who are public servants; and I believe that it is unnecessary. The legislation is being dealt with, I would have thought, quite reasonably. In order to register the fact that it is not fair, I draw your attention to the state of the house. (Quorum formed) I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 and 3 together.Leave granted.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I move: (2) Clause 61, page 42 (line 5), after "sections", insert "62A,". (3) Page 43 (after line 9), after clause 62, insert:62A Condition about human embryo cloning It is a condition of a licence that the licence holder does not engage in human embryo cloning.May I make it perfectly clear to everybody in the chamber that this bill and its regulations as they now stand do not prohibit the reproduction of embryonic human beings by cloning. Let that sink into the minds of everyone in this chamber. Do you think that this is a proper state of affairs? If you do not think that it is a proper state of affairs, you will vote for my amendments or similar amendments. My amendments actually seek to tighten up the regulations in the area of human cloning. The amendments would make it a statutory condition of licences issued under section 40 that licence holders not produce or attempt to produce an organism with the capacity for human development of a human zygote or embryo other than by the union of a genetically unmodified ovum by a genetically unmodified human sperm. The amendments also place similar restrictions on the certification of facilities under section 83 and for the accreditation of organisations under section 91. Without these amendments, the definition of a genetically modified organism, despite the exclusions in the bill and the regulations, would include an organism which is the product of a somatic cell nuclear transfer to a human ovum or to a human embryo and an organism formed by manipulating stem cells harvested from a human embryo. Section 10 of the bill defines a genetically modified organism as `an organism that has been modified by gene technology'. This would include an embryo formed by the transfer of a somatic cell nucleus to an ovum or to an embryo. In that process the ovum is modified by genetic technology to form an entity capable of development as an embryo. In the case of Dolly the sheep, that embryo developed to adulthood. There is an exclusion at (d) of section 10 of the bill which excludes those human beings who have undergone somatic cell gene therapy. What happens in cloning does not fit this description because, at the time that the transfer takes place, what is in existence is an unfertilised ovum, and of course an unfertilised ovum is not a human being. Further, the embryo formed has yet to develop somatic cells. What occurs is actually germ cell gene therapy, not somatic cell gene therapy. What is produced, however, by the transfer of a somatic cell nucleus to the unfertilised ovum is an embryonic human being. There are some further exclusions to this section in the draft regulations that are No. 6 on page 3, but none of these would apply to a human embryo resulting from a somatic cell nuclear transfer.I have been concerned all along that the amendments not interfere with what the Australian Health Ethics Committee, AHEC, of the National Health and Medical Research Council—which hereinafter I will call NHMRC—describes as `current cloning techniques that do not involve human embryos'. The amendments would permit cloning research involving human somatic cells—that is, ordinary cells—as distinct from human germ cells, sperm and other, and, of course, as distinct from embryos. These amendments would enable this bill to meet the standards of the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights which assert that reproductive cloning of human beings shall not be permitted. They are also in line with the recommendations of the NHMRC that the Commonwealth government affirm that ban and that the states and territories that have not legislated to do so should do so. Your support of these amendments would ensure that the monitoring and regulation of cloning human cells and tissues would remain under the authority of the Gene Technology Regulator, as is already provided by the bill, but the cloning of a human being would be effectively banned and the ban implemented by the Gene Technology Regulator through the licensing, certification and accreditation system. I think that is a much better path, to be quite frank, than the criminal sanctions route and all that is involved in that.We have been advised by the senior medical research body in the land that there should be legislation to prohibit cloning involving human embryos, and these amendments will achieve that objective but will not hinder research involving gene therapy, the development of the use of stem cells obtained from somatic cells and existing practices in relation to cloning human DNA and ordinary human cells. This approach to human cloning is consistent with that adopted by the Council of Europe and the parliaments of Canada, Germany, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and Denmark and the intention of at least some states in this nation, although there is some doubt about the meaning of the definitions and I will come to that later. Incidentally, Japan passed and enacted in the House of Councillors on 30 November a measure that would make human cloning a crime carrying a punishment of up to 10 years in prison. A Reuters business briefing of 4 December reads: Specifically the new law's prohibition concerns embryos created by implanting a somatic cell into an unfertilised egg deprived of a nucleus.That is precisely what I have been saying here. It also pertains to hybrid embryos generated by matching a human egg with animal sperm and chimera embryos created by mixing human and animal cells.So, here we are: unless we do something like that, even Japan will be in front of us. I have not, to be quite frank, had a thorough look at the legislation that they have. This is a much more effective way of implementing a ban on cloning than the use of the criminal law which is the model employed by the states that now have legislation. I also see it as preferable that a matter of principle and of international law be decided directly by the parliament and the legislation itself rather than be handled in the regulations. I believe that this proposal deserves the support of the chamber. I am happy to respond and to answer any questions that may arise in the minds of honourable senators insofar as I can at this hour of the morning.01:11:0020623Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I indicate that the government is opposed to Senator Harradine's amendments. The government does not support the amendments specifically to clause 61 and after clause 62 on the conditions of licences. I know that this is an important issue. That was very obvious in the debate last week. At that stage I did foreshadow an amendment which I am not going to proceed with, but I should indicate that today I have distributed other foreshadowed amendments to insert new clauses 192B, 192C and 192D. I invite senators to be mindful of those proposed amendments which I will move after we have dealt with this particular debate. Senator Harradine defines `human embryo cloning' as `any dealing that involves the production, or attempted production, of a human organism with the capacity to undergo development similar to a human zygote or a human embryo, other than by the union of a genetically unmodified human ovum with genetically unmodified human sperm'. The government's legal and scientific advice is that this goes well beyond what is commonly understood to be human cloning—that is, cloning for the replication of human individuals or creating a human being with the identical genetic make-up of another human being. Senator Harradine's definition could capture medical research such as stem cell research since this produces human tissue which technically could develop into a human zygote or embryo. This type of research, often referred to as therapeutic cloning, refers to the cloning of cells and tissues to replace tissues damaged or destroyed by injury or disease. The intent of therapeutic cloning is not to produce viable embryos or whole humans but tissues and organs. Therapeutic cloning offers huge benefits for human health and society. However, these techniques do not enable anyone to produce another human being. Research of this nature may result in the development of cells and tissues which might alleviate the suffering of thousands of Australians who are waiting for donor organs and tissue to become available. On average, every week two people die waiting for an organ or tissue transplant. Fifty-five per cent of those awaiting organ or tissue transplantation will die before a suitable donor can be found. Therapeutic cloning offers, although many years away, the potential to replace dysfunctional organs with tissues prepared using the patient's own cells.Currently, medical scientists are able to culture human skin cells to replace skin destroyed by major burns. This is greatly increasing the life expectancy and decreasing the recovery time for third-degree burn victims in this country. Scientists are investigating the use of stem cells for the treatment of diseases such as Parkinson's disease, which afflicts so many older and some younger Australians. Cloning technology can be used therapeutically to create differentiated tissue which can then be used to seed organ regeneration. For example, precursor kidney cells might be wrapped in an artificial membrane and nurtured to become a precursor kidney. The purpose of stem cell research is not to create spare parts in a cupboard for future use. Under no circumstances should we allow the cloning of a whole human being to occur. However, the use of cloning technology to create differentiated tissue is an example of how recent developments in scientific knowledge can be harnessed to ease the suffering and enhance the lives of thousands of Australians. So I would urge the Senate not to accept the amendments currently proposed by Senator Harradine and to give consideration at a later time to the amendments that I have proposed and foreshadowed as a method of ensuring that in this legislation the issues that are raised are appropriately addressed.01:15:0020624Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I think I should respond to the parliamentary secretary because he has painted a scenario which is neither intended by my amendments nor would be their effect. Let me explain it to the committee. If that is the line that the government is taking, it is an extraordinarily shallow line. The bill affects those individuals, institutions and corporations that are conducting genetic modification by requiring them to be licensed—this is what the bill does. My amendments prevent licensees from creating a human organism that has the capacity of a human embryo or zygote for development. If the parliamentary secretary has got some problem with the definition, there are other definitions which might well be useful—that is to say, the development of a human organism which is oriented to adulthood. But we can come to that later.The amendments do not prevent the use of somatic stem cells as they are only pluripotent. They can be used to develop other cell types, but they are not capable of developing as a human embryo to form a foetus and go on to adulthood. Let us get that very clear. I ask the parliamentary secretary to get up after I have finished to say that it is capable and to deny what I am saying. Am I saying something that is correct or not? Let me repeat: the amendments do not prevent the use of somatic stem cells as they are pluripotent only: they can be used to develop other cell types but are not capable of developing as a human embryo to form a foetus and go on to adulthood. For a somatic cell to gain the capacity for embryo genesis it must be fused with an enucleated ovum or embryo. In other words, the amendments have no effect on culturing somatic cells unless the latter involves somatic cell nuclear transfer. In respect of the matters that the parliamentary secretary was talking about—the potential for using the patient's own cells—I presume he means the patient's somatic cells. If that is the case, what he says falls to the ground. My amendments do not do anything of the kind. However, the amendments would prevent licensees from forming human embryos by modifying the nucleus of an ovum or an embryo: that is, they would prevent them forming embryos for the purpose of research or experimentation by cloning somatic cell nuclear transfer.But this is a good effect which will in fact direct scientists away from the problematic areas of cloning embryonic human beings and focus their attention on an area which is the likely end point in this work in any case, because obtaining the embryonic stem cells for transplant would necessitate the special creation of embryos that are histocompatible to the patient recipient in each case. This is not a matter of using leftover or discarded embryos in IVF programs. The research that would be prevented is that research that would involve forming embryos by cloning and then destroying them to harvest the embryonic stem cells. Thus the amendments would not prevent the development of stem cell transplant treatment for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, diabetes, leukemia and so on. Those treatments are likely to be based on a patient's own somatic cells—as the parliamentary secretary said or inferred—rather than on stem cells from cloned embryos in any case. It should also be added that the timing of the development of successful treatments using stem cell transplantation is likely to be a long way off, as the parliamentary secretary noted. There are safety problems to be investigated first to ensure that transplanted stem cells form the right kinds of cells and the cells form the appropriate tissue structure. As has been indicated, at the moment the state of the technology is a bit like seeking to repair rusted girders on the Eiffel Tower or Sydney Harbour Bridge by standing at a distance and hurling new girders at the bridge in the hope they will fall into the right place and form the right structure.There is much to be done, too, in relation to gene therapies. At the moment we have mapped the human genome, but the generally accepted expectation is that it will be at least two years before we have mapped each gene and at least 10 years before we have mapped each gene function. Successful gene therapies will not be developed until some time after that. Possibly it will be several decades away before they are safely available—certainly long after those in this chamber, even the youngest ones, have departed the scene. I will leave it at that. I can elaborate on that matter after I hear other contributions.01:24:0020625Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I might make a brief contribution at this stage. Senator Harradine is right to draw our attention to some of the extraordinary developments in modern science and biotechnology in particular, and again to direct our attention to some of the implications as a consequence of these advances. I am very happy to be finally having a debate in the chamber on issues such as cloning, specifically human reproductive cloning. I have to acknowledge my disappointment that it is 1.25 in the morning. This is a piece of legislation that, while it deals with some of the issues, causes me to maintain on behalf of the Democrats a concern that I thought was shared certainly by the government that I am not sure if this is identifiably the right place in which to be having this debate. Nonetheless, I do acknowledge that there is a relation between gene technology developments in a general sense and some of these important and pressing ethical and social issues.In the brief debates we have had on this issue I have said that the Democrats' position—or certainly my personal position—mirrors that of the Australian Academy of Science, which made public its position on scientific, ethical and regulatory aspects of human cloning to the House of Representatives committee. It was the brief of the committee to investigate those very aspects. The first of the academy's four pronouncements state: The Academy considers that reproductive cloning to produce human foetuses is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited. However, human cells, whether derived from cloning techniques, from embryonic stem cell lines, or from primordial germ cells should not be precluded from use in approved research activities in cellular and developmental biology. The second point states:The Academy strongly supports the recommendation of the Australian Health Ethics Committee that the Minister for Health and Aged Care should encourage and promote informed community discussion on the potential therapeutic benefits and possible risks of the development of cloning techniques.That is certainly an objective to which I strongly adhere. That is why I have always argued that there is a role for the parliament in conducting these debates, not only reflecting the views of the community but obviously providing some sense of vision. The argument that science and technology versus the law are—sorry, through you, Chair, I acknowledge that Senator Forshaw wants me to wrap up: is that correct?656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—No. Not at all.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—I am quite happy to wrap up on this in this debate because I can see that probably these amendments will get the scant attention that most of the other—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—I don't know how you assume that.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Perhaps the Chair was focusing on the general debate, but I am sorry, I think we are all getting— 656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—I was focusing on who would get the call next.10000Calvert, Paul (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Calvert)—That is exactly what was happening.3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA—Okay; I apologise to the chamber. He was focusing on who gets called next. The third point in the academy's position paper states:If Australia is to capitalise on its undoubted strength in medical research, it is important that research on human therapeutic cloning is not inhibited by withholding federal research funds or prevented by unduly restrictive legislation in some States. I acknowledge Senator Harradine's point that he believes that the intent of his amendments and the actual implications or effect of his amendments would not do that. I am looking for further assurances to that end, obviously from the government as well. I guess that is why my concern arises in the context of a debate on gene technology specifically in relation to GMOs, that in some respects we have not had the necessary time—and for the record I point out that Senator Harradine had his amendments available before anyone else in this debate. So we have certainly had time to analyse and scrutinise those amendments, but I would much prefer we were dealing with a piece of legislation that generally dealt with the issue of human reproductive cloning. The fourth point of the submission provided by the academy states: It is essential to maintain peer review and public scrutiny of all research involving human embryos and human embryonic stem cell lines undertaken in Australia. The Academy supports the view that a national regulatory two-tier approval process be adopted. Approval to undertake any research involving human embryos and human embryonic stem cell lines would need to be obtained from a duly-constituted institutional ethics committee (IEC) prior to assessment by a national panel of experts, established by the National Health and Medical Research Council, of the scientific merits, safety issues and ethical acceptability of the work. I suspect we could all debate until the cows come home, or at least until they are genetically modified, whether a two-tier approval process is the best way to go and what criteria should be satisfied. But, in line with that academy submission, I feel that that should be the position of the parliament, and certainly that is my personal view. I offered some concerns, suggestions or a critique of the amendments before us last week, and I acknowledge for the record that I quoted Professor Bob Williamson from the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in relation to this debate who insists, and quite rightly so, that he be recorded as someone who is opposed to reproductive cloning. In his comments he said:The appropriate act, in my view, should ban the implantation of any group of cells with the potential to undergo development as an embryo into the uterus of a woman or any equivalent use with the intention to allow development into a living foetus and live-born individual.He went on to say:I would have no problem with such an act. However, this proposal is hasty and the definition could cause difficulty two or three years hence without identifying the key step in human cloning which is associated with implantation and development rather than potential.I am sure Senator Harradine has a response to those criticisms, but I throw them in as highlighting one of the issues in this debate, that is, that the amendments relate very clearly to the capacity to undergo development.There are problems that have arisen, primarily in Victoria—and indeed in other jurisdictions, and we talked about some of those jurisdictions last week: Western Australia and South Australia—because a hasty definition of an embryo was employed at the time. The definitions used in those acts were developed at a time of quite substantial scientific change. I think some scientists would argue—perhaps even some ethicists, and I am not suggesting that the two are mutually exclusive—that those definitions have proved problematic. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that Minister Wooldridge has referred this to the Australian Health Ethics Committee for review. I know at least one of Senator Harradine's criticisms is in relation to not so much the review process per se but is a criticism which I share that it is taking a long time. There have been a number of announcements and pronouncements that have emanated from government, yet we have not actually seen a legislative response. We have a legislative response coming before the parliament today from the government. Indeed, we had a response designed for this debate on Friday, which I understand has now been withdrawn, but again this is not how legislation in relation to the human reproductive cloning issue should be coming about. I think we should be debating an act that deals with some of these specific scientific and ethical issues. It should be coming about as a consequence of not only the government's review through the House of Representatives committee inquiry process but also public consultation, debate and discussion. That is one thing I can say about the bill before us today: that is, while I might disagree vehemently with some of the stances taken by the government and the opposition, this is a debate that has been out there. It has been out there in the form of draft regulations discussion, draft legislative discussion, updates, rewrites and, of course, a Senate committee process. I do not think we can afford to underestimate the importance of that. Even if we have got to a position today in the chamber where I feel that it has been left to the crossbenches to move many of the amendments that actually reflect the views of the community, I do not think the community has had the same opportunity for adequate consultation and discussion in relation to some of the issues with which we are grappling today. I know that in the context of the debate on Friday various people, including me, talked about whether or not this is too hard or too complex. I am not trying to dodge this debate. As I said on Friday, I have been waiting for this debate for a long time. Indeed, this gives me some hope that maybe we will progress to some of the other ethical, social and environmental implications associated with this rapidly advancing science, including a bill that hopefully outlaws the patenting of genes and gene sequences and a bill that protects people's genetic privacy and ensures that that information cannot be used against them. But I do not raise those matters in a legislative or an amended form in the context of this debate. Through you, Chair, to Senator Harradine, I know that may seem like a cop-out to you, Senator. You are one person with whom I have been able to discuss many of these issues, because you have maintained a similar interest for sometimes similar and sometimes different reasons. I commend the fact that you keep on with this issue of genetics, but I do not feel that I am in a position today on behalf of my party to support the amendments before us.I say that also in the context of the amendments put forward by the government. Last week my understanding was that the government had a concern about this debate and whether it was relevant to this bill, yet now the government is putting forward amendments. That may be specifically in response to the concerns outlined by Senator Harradine, but I do not think that it is necessarily an appropriate legislative response. What I want to see is a bill from this government that takes into account all those issues that people have referred to, all those issues that have been canvassed in the House of Representatives committee review and all those issues that should be canvassed more broadly with the community so that we avoid hasty definitions, such as those we have seen in previous legislation that may seek to outlaw human reproductive cloning, and so that we avoid finding ourselves dealing with conflicting pieces of legislation at the federal level when we finally get around to this issue. That is the position of the Democrats. That is not to say that there is not value in the amendments before us for the purposes of discussion, but I would like to see this debate returned to the Gene Technology Bill 2000, and I would like to see legislation put forward by the government in the immediate future to safeguard against human reproductive cloning, which I think everybody in this chamber is opposed to. I think you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually supports the notion of human reproductive cloning.01:36:0020627Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—What is the government's schedule for addressing this matter through discrete legislation?6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—We are just going to proceed.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—What I meant was: when is the government bringing forward legislation that will deal with the matters that Senator Stott Despoja has just been talking about? 01:37:0020628Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—In answer to Senator Brown's specific question, I do have other comments but I think other senators want to participate in the debate. With regard to that very specific question, I indicated in the debate last Friday that this matter is before the NHMRC, the various ethics committees and the AHMC, the Australian Health Ministers Council. Therefore, it is caught up in a process. I am not in a position to prejudge when the AHMC would be able to give consideration to it, but I am informed that it is proposed that there would be some form of reporting by about March 2001.01:38:0020628Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator FORSHAW656New South WalesALP00—At the outset and for the benefit of Senator Stott Despoja, I should explain what was happening during her speech. The then chair, Senator Calvert, was asking through gestures whether I would be seeking the call next. I indicated to him with a hand motion that I would be happy if others wanted to speak next. Let me make a couple of comments. I put the position of the opposition on this matter last Friday. The comments I made then, though not as wide in terms of canvassing the issues that have been put by Senator Stott Despoja, essentially went to the same issues. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care reiterated those arguments for the government in his comments earlier. The object of the Gene Technology Bill 2000 is clearly focused on protecting the health of humans and the environment. The bill has not been drafted, nor was it intended, to deal with the complex ethical issues that have been raised in Senator Harradine's amendments. As we pointed out—and it has just been stated only a moment ago—those ethical issues, particularly in regard to the issue of human cloning, are currently within the canvass of the NHMRC. Further, as we understand it, the NHMRC is meeting with state health ministers on 15 December—and maybe the government can confirm that for us—to progress further the July announcement made by Commonwealth and state health ministers. That announcement, of course, was that they would work towards developing nationally consistent legislation to ban the cloning of whole human beings.We have also been advised that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is currently considering these issues in its inquiry and that will include, of course, consideration of cloning, including human embryo cloning. Further, we understand that it will report in or about May next year. Each of those processes is, I would suggest, not dissimilar to the process that has gone on with respect to the development of this legislation. The Gene Technology Bill 2000 has been some time in the making. It follows a very detailed inquiry and a detailed report by the Senate community affairs committee. Also, it follows a report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, which related specifically to primary producer access to gene technology.I understand that there has been other work done by parliamentary committees in the past, in one way or another, looking at issues of gene technology. There has also been a very extensive process going on over quite some time involving the Commonwealth and each of the states to reach agreement on this nationally consistent scheme for regulating gene technology. That has been a very extensive process and, of course, as Senator Stott Despoja quite rightly pointed out, it has also been a matter that has been widely canvassed, debated and commented upon, and reported in the media and in other forums, both within Australia and internationally.So the background and the lead-up to this legislation being debated here tonight have been a quite extensive investigation in a number of different forms leading finally to this bill. We also recognise that—as I think the debate has demonstrated—as there are quite a range of issues that are clearly within the compass of this bill and clearly contemplated as being regulated by this bill, or related to the bill, some senators feel that it should have been dealt with differently. Hence, we have this large number of amendments. But each of those issues that has been brought forward by the Greens, Senator Harris, the Democrats and, indeed, the opposition are issues that are clearly within the scope of the bill and the objects and intention of what the legislation is to cover. Our position remains as it was when I addressed it on Friday. I might indicate that we have had the advantage of being provided with the government's amendment that has been circulated. We will express our view on that when the debate comes on in due course, but I can say at this stage that we are disposed to support that amendment. In conclusion, as Senator Stott Despoja said again—I listened intently to her remarks, and I think she made a very constructive contribution—no-one in this chamber would be in favour of supporting human cloning and the sorts of issues that Senator Harradine has raised. They are more appropriately dealt with in specific legislation, which we hope and we certainly believe will be forthcoming.01:45:0020629Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—I would like to raise the issue of how realistic this debate is and how the committee envisages the progress of this bill. In speaking briefly, I support Senator Harradine's amendments, but I think it is time that we had a look at the running sheet that we are working from. Given that we have skipped over half of the front page, we are now exactly halfway on a nine-page running sheet. This debate started on Thursday evening, the bill was debated Friday and yesterday and we are now approximately four hours beyond the time when this chamber would normally rise. With such an important piece of legislation, I bring this to the committee's notice and ask: is it realistic to have this debate continue for the rest of the night and probably well into tomorrow morning in an attempt to address the rest of this bill?I do not believe personally that in another couple of hours I will be able to do justice to this legislation. I am asking for some comments from the remainder of the senators who are in the chamber, realising also that both government members and opposition members are making themselves available, although I comment that I believe it would be of more interest to the general public if those members were actually here in the chamber participating in this debate. In closing, I would like to place on record that I support Senator Harradine's amendments that will clarify the situation of human cloning, but I also bring to the chamber's attention the futility of what we are attempting to do—progressing this substantial legislation at 10 minutes to two in the morning—considering what we have in front of us.01:48:0020629Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I agree with that. I think Senator Harradine, whatever else, can take the credit for not only having legitimised this part of the debate but also getting the government to bring in some form of amendment addressing, however unsatisfactorily, the matters that he is concerned about. I have not been able to get any clear indication of when the government is going to bring in legislation that comprehensively deals with the matters of human cloning and experimentation. The secretary says that it is caught up in a process. I have heard the months of May and March next year as a reporting time, but that has not got anything in particular to do with us seeing legislation before the parliament and, with an election year next year, I predict that we are not going to see it then either.Under those circumstances, Senator Harradine, being opportunistic in bringing this matter up at this time with this piece of legislation, has acted entirely in a warranted fashion, as I see it. I find the subject very complex and very difficult. It is not just a matter of the scientific complexity; it is a matter of the ethical complexity that is involved. The question of the experimentation taking place in the creation of an embryo and how that differs from the experimentation which leads to the creation of a `whole human being', to use the government and opposition term, is one that has not been explored and one which is not going to be explored in this debate. I think that is one of the things that Senator Harradine would like to see explored because you then are left to fall back on the intention of the experimenter or the person who uses the outcome of the knowledge or the embryo arising from the experimentation. Senator Harradine said that his amendments are not going to prevent the therapeutic uses which I think generally have been agreed can come out of genetic experimentation which does not involve the creation of an embryo. I am inclined to support Senator Harradine's amendments, however—whatever pitfalls there might be in them—as a means of then having a piece of legislation which we have to come back and revisit so as to correct those pitfalls where they stand. I think that the promise in Senator Harradine's amendments is that we are going to get some action, and I think the difficulty with not supporting them is that we are not going to get action. Senator Harradine was good enough to read out all the countries that have attempted to enact some form of regulation in this extraordinarily important matter, but Australia has not as yet. This is as close as we have come so far. I do note that Senator Stott Despoja has had legislation pending on the matter, but our problem is that as private members we do not get the opportunity to see that legislation debated or taken seriously. By grafting his amendments onto this bill, Senator Harradine has ensured that at least for a short while in the wee hours of this morning it is being taken seriously. I think the fact that the government has reacted has legitimised his action. A debate that says it really should be at some other time and in some other place falls apart on that sequence of events.01:53:0020630Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I am not sure whether Senator Brown's reference to grafting was an allusion to the genetic debate. Come on, folks: we need to get what laughs we can at this time of the night. That is the other thing I want to address. Could the government please respond to Senator Harris's comments regarding the late hours? It is five to two. This is not doing this bill justice. I only have to look at emails I am getting from members of the public who think it is outrageous as well. Could we have some idea from the government as to what the plan is? When Senator Harris said he does not feel he can do it justice, not necessarily at this hour but in the next couple of hours, I think that is exactly what is intended: that we do not do this bill justice. If that is the case, Senator Tambling, could you give some outline of what is happening, because we are only halfway through the bill. We are roughly halfway in terms of the running sheet and we still have not done a series of amendments at the beginning of the running sheet. Is it not more appropriate to defer this debate and, by doing so, hopefully give those members of the public some confidence in the legislative processes of this parliament? Little wonder we are held in such low esteem.01:54:0020630Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Mr Temporary Chairman, I draw your attention to the state of the committee, as the parliamentary secretary did not respond. (Quorum formed) The minister advanced reasons for opposing this legislation which have all fallen to the ground. All of them have fallen to the ground, unless he considers—and I would like to ask him this—that the embryonic stem cells, namely those stem cells that are taken from an embryo to the destruction of that embryo, are totipotent and have the capacity to undergo development similar to a human zygote or a human embryo.01:55:0020630Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Can I just comment that I was under the impression that Senator Harradine was seeking the call prior to the quorum that was just called, because there were several other occasions when other members had gone to stand and I had noticed Senator Harradine was about to jump. So I was deferring to him, and then, surprisingly, he called a quorum. That was the reason I had not jumped to my feet at that particular point in time. We are discussing Senator Harradine's amendments. It is appropriate that he should comment and respond to the comments made by other senators who want to debate the issues in that area. I was giving him that opportunity; Senator Harradine did not take it up, and he surprised me by calling for a quorum and therefore taking up time. Senators raised several issues in the preceding period that I should respond to. Senator Forshaw asked me some specific questions with regard to the issue of cloning. I indicated that last week in the debate I had quite comprehensively outlined the various actions being taken by appropriate bodies and various other agencies. I appreciate the seriousness of this particular debate. As Senator Stott Despoja has said, it is a debate whose time has certainly come in the community, but the debate is an arm's length away from the legislation that we are considering. Let me reiterate for Senator Forshaw a couple of the comments that I made in the debate last week, amongst many others. My understanding is that all Australian governments have agreed that the cloning of human beings is unacceptable and that it should be banned. Each state and territory has undertaken to achieve this within its own jurisdiction as this is a state and territory responsibility. It is intended that this issue will be covered by assisted reproductive technology legislation. The NHMRC has organised a roundtable meeting with representatives from each state to take place on 15 December. The objective of this meeting is to achieve agreement on legislative action that needs to be implemented in each jurisdiction and on a time frame for this action. While the undertakings by the Australian governments relate to the banning of cloning on human beings, broader issues relating to this topic have also been referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, chaired by Mr Kevin Andrews. I made all of those points in the debate last Friday, and I think they contribute to it. There is, of course, a reporting process. Equally, the matter is under attention from the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council. We are certainly aware that this is an issue that has to be addressed.Senator Stott Despoja asked my advice with regard to the timing of debate. The Senate has a very comprehensive and detailed program before it this week. It was originally intended that this legislation would, hopefully, have been concluded earlier this afternoon but, of course, that was not achievable. Certainly, as senators have indicated, there is considerably more work to do and, given the objective of all parties to rise in the Senate on Thursday evening, there is no alternative but for us to proceed this evening—or this morning, I should say—in order to progress this matter as far as we can, despite the obvious limitations on so many of us. The Senate could debate the technicalities of what is and what is not captured by Senator Harradine's amendments. On the basis of our scientific and legal advice, the government believes there is sufficient risk in Senator Harradine's proposed amendments for them to be opposed and that was the issue that I raised. The government has advice—contrary, obviously, to that of Senator Harradine—that Senator Harradine's amendments may prevent stem cell research. That advice is from Professor John Mattick of the University of Queensland.The cloning of humans, which is very clearly not acceptable—and that has been very apparent both here and in other places—relates to activities leading to the creation of a viable human embryo with the same genetic identity as another human being. Therapeutic cloning relates to the use of stem cells to treat diseases and injuries. Stem cells exist in the adult but are usually tissue specific. For example, skin stem cells are used to grow new skin for burn patients. Scientists are searching for the pluripotent stem cells which are able to evolve into all tissue types. Fertilised human eggs are one source of what are known as pluripotent stem cells and these are the most useful cells and allow a wide range of research to be undertaken. Scientists have proposed using excess fertilised eggs for research into stem cells. There is much work to do in this area in relation to discovering how cell differentiation is switched on and off and methods for generation of whole organs in vitro. Senator Harradine's amendment would prevent this work continuing. These are important issues and, as other senators have said, this is a debate that we are seeking to attend to in so many other areas of government and in other jurisdictions. I believe that the amendment that I have foreshadowed will, with regard to this legislation, cover adequately the issues that have been raised and that are of concern at the current time. (Quorum formed)02:05:0020632Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—The parliamentary secretary has just committed this government to research which could only be undertaken when the embryo reaches the foetal stage. I think the whole chamber would be interested in what the minister said about the need for research to be undertaken to obtain whole organs. That is what he said: whole organs. The only way whole organs are able to be developed is by developing a human embryo to the foetal stage. Are you, Minister, committing the government to that? If you are, be honest. You have now changed your tune. When you were talking about stem cells before you actually stated—and I quote your words—`stem cells using the patient's own cells'. My amendments will not affect that at all. Now you are coming to a situation where you are suggesting that human embryos be cloned for the purpose of developing and culturing them to the stage where you have tissues and whole organs. My goodness! Is that consistent with the Australian Health Ethics Committee recommendations? I ask the parliamentary secretary: do not the Australian Health Ethics Committee recommendations oppose such research? I just ask you that question since it was you that raised the question about the Australian Health Ethics Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council. I will leave it at that. I ask the minister to respond to my question: do the National Health and Medical Research Council's recommendations oppose that sort of research?02:09:0020632Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Senator Harradine has, I think, totally misquoted me. I would like him to restate the issues about which he is concerned. I have looked through my notes, and I cannot find the statements that he has attributed to me. Therefore I believe he has misquoted me totally, out of context, and is confusing the debate. In that sense, I would ask him to restate those issues of concern so I can check them against the notes that I used.02:09:0020632Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Hansard will show the result of that. I understood that on advice you had stated that my amendment would prevent stem cell research. You used the words originally `stem cells using the patient's own cells'. Of course, I was able to say that my amendments will not prevent that at all, that my amendments are totally consistent with that of the NHMRC and the Australian Health Ethics Committee. I see one of your advisers shaking her head—H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—She is talking to me.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I see. Fine. What I heard the minister say came very clearly to me that it was the development of the scientific research which will produce and which will develop whole organs—as far as I know, those were the words that you used—for various diseases. As I mentioned, isn't it so that whole organs can only be able to be developed when the human embryo is developed to the foetal stage? I know, Parliamentary Secretary, you are in a difficult position—but, on advice from your advisers, you referred to research. Isn't that research opposed by the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines and AHEC?02:12:0020632Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the guidelines of the NHMRC that Senator Harradine refers to control the in vitro fertilisation area and not the areas which we are currently addressing. In perusing my notes, the only issue that Senator Harradine might like me to repeat was my statement that the government has advice to the contrary, that Senator Harradine's amendment may prevent stem cell research, and that was from Professor John Mattick of the University of Queensland. I can see nothing else in my notes. The only issues I made with regard to organ and tissue transplant were in the argument where I was talking about the number of people who were waiting for organ or tissue transplant. That was certainly part of a more general argument. I cannot see the points that he has attributed to me whatsoever. We are debating Senator Harradine's amendment, and I think it is for him to prove if he wants to proceed any further on this issue. 02:13:0020633Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I have asked the parliamentary secretary a question about National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines, and I refer to the guidelines that have been recommended by the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Once the Australian Health Ethics Committee makes its decisions, are those decisions not binding on the National Health and Medical Research Council and on medical research involving Commonwealth funds? If I can go to those recommendations and pick them up, these are the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to cloning of human beings. What does that say? Just as an example, recommendation No. 2 says:Noting that Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia have legislation regulating embryo research and prohibiting the cloning of human beings, the Minister for Health and Aged Care should urge the other States and Territories to introduce legislation to limit research on human embryos according to the principles set out in sections 6 and 11 of the NHMRC ethical guidelines on assisted reproductive technologies.This is a recommendation by the Australian Health Ethics Committee.I will read out section 11 of the document referred to by the Australian Health Ethics Committee. I ask honourable senators to bear this in mind because it completely contradicts what the parliamentary secretary says. It reads:The following practices are ethically unacceptable and should be prohibited: ... ... ...developing embryos for purposes other than for their use in an approved ART treatment program. The minister has just denied that. What he said is quite contrary to what the facts are. I know there is an attempt to overturn those things, but the parliamentary secretary and Senator Forshaw have talked about the matter being in the hands of the NHMRC, that the minister referred it. Yes, the minister has referred this matter to the Australian Health Ethics Committee, and the Australian Health Ethics Committee in December of 1998 came back with its recommendations, which included what I have just quoted. Might I say that the chairman of AHEC, Professor Don Chalmers, in his covering letter advised the minister as follows:In responding to your request, AHEC advises that a distinction must be drawn between the cloning of human beings, which is ethically unacceptable and legally prohibited in three states, and the cloning of such parts as DNA and cells. Cloning of DNA and cells is currently undertaken as part of routine laboratory research. I have mentioned that my amendments will not affect those whatsoever. Then he goes on to say this:This report recommends that you urge remaining States and Territories ... which have not legislated in this area to introduce legislation prohibiting the application of techniques to clone a new human individual. This legislation should not, however, interfere with those cloning techniques which do not involve human embryos. This legislation should be drafted in such a way as to be consistent with the National Health and Medical Research Council ethical guidelines on ART.This is quite contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has been telling us. And here we are at 20 past 2 and I see Senator Forshaw coming in and he seems to think the same thing. I hope Senator Forshaw heard what I just said, because it is quite a serious matter where you have got the parliamentary secretary saying something and you seem to be accepting it.On the National Health and Medical Research Council you say, `Oh, it's in their hands.' Yes, and AHEC, its ethics committee, is very much opposed to destructive embryo experimentation. I think it is necessary, because it is very important, for me to draw the attention of the chamber to what I believe is an attempt to undermine the National Health and Medical Research Council and its Australian Health Ethics Committee and to do so by drawing those people together in order to achieve a national ban on the cloning of `whole human beings'. Those are crucial words. I ask the secretary again to advise the chamber as to what those words mean. Do they include cloning of human embryos? Do they? One of the real problems in respect of cloning of human embryos is that as distinct from those embryos in the IVF area—and I have some problems with that—who do have parents who, in some legislation, have certain responsibilities for them, cloned human embryos do not. The owner of them is the scientists and technologists. They can do what they like with them now. That is precisely why something has got to be done now. I again ask the minister: does the government intend to legislate nationally? From what he has just been saying it does not appear so. It appears again to be a bit of a run round of the Australian health ministers conference to have a national ban on cloning of whole human beings. We do not know what `whole human beings' are. If it excludes human embryos then it is quite contrary to the Australian Health Ethics Committee's decision. It is a matter of very grave concern and I do feel that I should alert the chamber to the dangers. It is an extremely serious matter, concerning the briefing of heads of all state and territory departments of health in relation to a national ban on cloning of whole human beings. In a briefing note dated 1 November 2000, an officer of the National Health and Medical Research Council included background information to the decision by health ministers to ban the cloning of whole human beings. The background information includes a report of the Australian Health Ethics Committee, 1998, about its advice to the minister for health on human cloning. The officer of the NHMRC states:AHEC identified a distinction between cloning of whole human beings and therapeutic cloning. Therapeutic cloning is widely understood, since the publication of the Australian Academy of Science's position paper on human cloning, to include the cloning of human embryos for experimentation or therapy but not their development beyond eight weeks when they become foetuses. The reality is quite different. The reality is that the AHEC recommendations of 1998 did not identify in its report to the minister a distinction between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. I challenge the parliamentary secretary to deny that. Rather than endorse cloning human embryos for experimentation to develop therapies, AHEC recommended in recommendation 2 that there be legislation to regulate human embryo research according to sections 6 and 11 of the NHMRC guidelines for assisted reproductive technology and a ban on cloning of human beings. Section 11.1 of the guidelines declares that the following practice be prohibited:Developing embryos for purposes other than for their use in an approved ART treatment program.That is the program that attempts to circumvent infertility by achieving pregnancy. In effect, the NHMRC guidelines would limit embryo experimentation to spare embryos on IVF or embryo transfer programs. It should be noted that those guidelines were issued by AHEC. Under the NHMRC Act 1992, NHMRC is obliged to adopt guidelines for research issued by AHEC. By reporting AHEC support for producing human embryos for purposes other than ART in this way, the National Health and Medical Research Council not only is misrepresenting AHEC recommendations to the minister but also is in grave danger of being in breach of its own statute. It is a serious matter that the health ministers would appear to have been misled concerning the position of AHEC in relation to cloning. It also prompts questions about the origin of the phrase `whole human being' in government amendments to the Gene Technology Bill 2000 and the fact that the position that appears to have been adopted by the health ministers was based on misrepresentation of the position adopted by AHEC. (Time expired)02:28:0020634Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—It is very obvious that we have reached a section of the Gene Technology Bill 2000 that is of vital importance. It appears to be based around the differences between the government's position on what represents the cloning of a whole human being and Senator Harradine's definition that, if adopted as a definition for this bill, it should be very clearly set out that anything other than the union of genetically unmodified human ovum with genetically unmodified human sperm would be determined to be human embryo cloning. I do not believe that the answers we have received from Senator Tambling go any way to clarifying the difference between the government's position and that of Senator Harradine. It would appear, from listening to both sides of the debate, that Senator Harradine's definition would not eliminate the production of T-cells from a donor—in other words, for experimentation pertaining to that individual's own particular needs in relation to T-cells. It is very obvious that this debate is continually leading us to a situation where it is getting later and later and we still have not progressed from the position we were in more than half an hour ago when I raised the issue of being able to realistically complete this bill while the senators who are still in this chamber are able to stay on their feet. I still see that as a real problem. In the situation that we find ourselves in at this time in relation to this bill, it would appear that the difference is very clearly the difference in interpretation between the government and Senator Harradine on what is ultimately going to be defined in this bill as the human embryo cloning. (Quorum formed)02:33:0020635Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—It is clear that the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government is not attempting at all to defend what apparently an officer of the NHMRC has been doing—in other words, misrepresenting the very body which, by its very statute, is required to observe the recommendations. That is a very serious matter. It is apposite to this debate because time and time again the minister has refused to tell this committee, either on Friday of last week or today, what is meant by the cloning of a `whole human being'. I again invite the parliamentary secretary to acknowledge that the NHMRC guidelines and the AHEC recommendations prohibit the type of experimentation that the parliamentary secretary was advised to bring up in this chamber in opposition to my amendments. I find that to be quite extraordinary.I will also refer to the comments made by Senator Stott Despoja, as I was invited to do so by the parliamentary secretary. She is not in the chamber at the moment, so I will wait to do that in her presence in a moment. Senator Stott Despoja has been here probably all night, except that she has just had to leave. I will refer to the comments of Senator Forshaw. Senator Forshaw, on behalf of the opposition, said something I really could not follow: that the matter is with the NHMRC and was reported to them by the minister. As I have said, that was a report. The minister referred the matter to the Australian Health Ethics Committee in 1998 and in December 1998 they reported to the minister. So let us get that clear. What I am doing is fully consistent with those recommendations by AHEC; that is what I am doing. It was also mentioned by Senator Forshaw that the House of Representatives committee will be possibly reporting on the matter of cloning by May next year. There is no guarantee. Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, as Senator Forshaw I think indicated, there is no guarantee that there will be any legislation. Maybe it was not you who said it. 656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—It wasn't me.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—Sorry, I say it then. There is no guarantee, unless we get—656Forshaw, Sen MichaelSenator Forshaw—You're starting to catch Senator Brown's disease.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—It may have been Senator Brown who said it; I do not know. Whoever said it or indeed thought it was—QD4Brown, Sen Bob6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I see, did he? In any event, there is no guarantee that anything will happen there. For years now, the NHMRC and AHEC have been urging governments to adopt legislation to prevent the type of activity which my amendments would be preventing. But, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, if it is a problem for Senator Forshaw and his colleagues that perhaps we are pre-empting what they may do, why should we be leaving this matter year after year after year to be determined by the science technologists? Why should we?This is a hugely important matter. It poses grave problems for the whole of humankind, including the questions of genetic characteristics, future humans, the introduction of new organisms into the environment, genetic discrimination, the status of the disabled, et cetera. These are hugely important matters. Why should we leave them to the dictates of the science technologists? That is what we are doing. I do not accept that the Australian Academy of Science should have the last word on this. After all, they are scientists. A body has been established for the purpose of looking at these matters, and that is the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. As I have mentioned, that body has made its decision, and my amendments are thoroughly consistent with its recommendations. The parliamentary secretary raised the question of stem cells and he talked about the use of somatic cells. My amendments do not touch that—not at all. So what is the objection to my amendments? Is it true that certain persons in the NHMRC want to, or one person in the NHMRC wants to—I am sure the government does not want to—redefine what AHEC has said? Can you tell us, Parliamentary Secretary, what is meant by the words that you used, `the cloning of a whole human being'? What is meant by a `whole human being'? The parliamentary secretary referred to cloning, meaning the creation of another individual with the same genetic make-up—in other words, identicality. I ask the parliamentary secretary again what he means by that. Can he name any authority which would suggest that cloning produces a genetically identical individual to the being that was cloned? Parliamentary Secretary, is that what you are saying? That is what I understood you to say in one of your comments in respect of this particular matter.On the issue of the House of Representatives committee, I am prepared to accept an amendment to my proposal, that is, a sunset clause to the effect that my amendments on cloning would have no effect after the proclamation of Commonwealth legislation following the tabling of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That would, in effect, be a moratorium so that the matter could be revisited then. What research would be interfered with if that moratorium were invoked? These are important questions and we need to know the answers to them. What is wrong with having a moratorium—or doesn't anybody want to face the facts at the final stage? That would guarantee legislation; it is the only way it is going to guarantee legislation. There is no suggestion by the government, through the parliamentary secretary, that there will be legislation. I ask the parliamentary secretary: is there going to be Commonwealth legislation in respect of cloning of human beings? (Quorum formed)Amendments not agreed to.02:48:0020636Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—by leave—I move government amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet ED233:(1) Page 127, before line 24, before clause 192, insert:192B Cloning of human beings is prohibited (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct will result in the cloning of a whole human being.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) In this section:cloning of awhole human being means the use of technology for the purpose of producing, from one original, a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, genetically identical to the original.(2) Page 127, after clause 192B, insert:192C Certain experiments involving animal eggs prohibited A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involves putting human cells, or a combination of human cells and animal cells, into animal eggs.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (3) Page 127, after clause 192C, insert: 192D Certain experiments involving putting human and animal cells into a human uterus prohibited A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involves putting a combination of human cells and animal cells into a human uterus.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.These amendments to sections 192B, 192C and 192D arise from a similar discussion we have been having on cloning. The government has proposed amendments to the bill in response to concerns raised in the parliament in order to prohibit the cloning of human beings and certain experiments involving human-animal hybrids. This bill is about public health and safety and the environment. As such, the Gene Technology Regulator's focus pertains to these issues. It is not the role of the regulator to consider other issues such as the ethics of research, which is a matter for the NHMRC through the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Currently, all research involving humans must be approved by a human research ethics committee constituted and acting in accordance with the NHMRC national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. The government amendments introduce three new clauses: first, a new section 192B, prohibiting the cloning of a whole human being; second, a new section 192C, prohibiting experiments involving fusion of human cells with animal eggs; and, third, a new section 192D, prohibiting putting human-animal hybrids into a human uterus.02:50:0020637Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—The parliamentary secretary just said that it is not the role of the regulator to consider the ethics of research. I ask: what is the ethics committee there for? I ask: is the ethics of, for example, experimental GMO crops not a matter that the regulator has to consider?02:51:0020637Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The question was relating to the role of the ethics committee, if I understood it correctly. The role of the ethics committee is to make those decisions on whether or not the research should go ahead.02:51:0020637Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I quote the parliamentary secretary again. He said that it is not the role of the regulator to consider the ethics of research. I thought that was embedded in this bill, that part of the regulator's role was to consider the advice coming from the ethics committee. In the example I asked about, is the regulator not taking into account the ethics of putting genetically modified controls into the environment?02:52:0020637Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—The issue raised by Senator Brown has been addressed in other debates previously with regard to the role of the ethics committee and the role of the regulator within the scope of this legislation. The other ethics committee I was referring to is the Australian Health Ethics Committee, which is quite separate and divorced in that particular regard.02:53:0020637Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—But do you stand by your statement, Parliamentary Secretary, that it is not the role of the regulator to consider the ethics of research?02:53:0020637Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—Let me repeat the statement I made. It is not the role of the regulator to consider other issues such as the ethics of research, which is a matter for the NHMRC through the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Currently, all research involving humans must first be approved by a human research ethics committee constituted and acting in accordance with the NHMRC national statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans. That was the context in which it was put, and I hope that is clear. This legislation of course relates to other matters. 02:53:0020638Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—The proposed government amendment No. 2 will insert a new section 192C referring to certain experiments involving animal egg prohibition. Paragraph (b) states:(b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involves putting human cells, or a combination of human cells and animal cells, into animal eggs.Senator Tambling, would it still be permissible under that section to have human DNA inserted into either an animal cell or an animal egg and in that way continue with transgenic genetic modification?02:55:0020638Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that the amendment as drafted and before you will not prohibit the issue you raise.02:56:0020638Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator STOTT DESPOJA3I6South AustraliaADDeputy Leader of the Australian Democrats00—I would like the government to elaborate on what they mean by the terminology of `reckless'—the definition of `reckless' and whether there is a precedent in other legislation.02:56:0020638Tambling, Sen GrantSenator TAMBLING6E4Northern TerritoryCLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.10—I am advised that it is standard criminal law.02:56:0020638Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—In the final section of this suite of amendments, clause 192D says that certain experiments involving putting human and animal cells into a human uterus are prohibited. What is the government's argument for excluding certain experiments involving putting human and animal cells into an animal uterus?6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—That matter is not addressed in the amendment.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—That is why I am asking. Why isn't it?10000Watson, John (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that government amendments Nos 1 to 3 be agreed to.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWN—I put a question to the minister, and it is no good somebody else from the party telling him not to answer it. Why is the final component of these amendments restricted to experiments involving putting human and animal cells into a human uterus and why does it not cover the putting of human and animal cells into an animal uterus? 02:58:0020638Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Through you, Mr Chairman, I put a question to Senator Tambling that relates also to the government's proposed amendment No. 3 in clause 192D. It again goes to subclause (b), referring to when a person knows or is reckless as to whether the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involve putting a combination of human cells and animal cells into a human uterus. Would that clause prohibit genetic manipulation by putting either a human cell or human DNA into the uterus of a chimpanzee? The DNA of chimpanzees has approximately 99 per cent similarity to the DNA of human beings. Would the government's proposed third amendment prohibit the placement of either human cells or a derivative from a human sperm or ovum into a chimpanzee?02:59:0020638Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Are we going to get a response from the parliamentary secretary?3I6Stott Despoja, Sen NatashaSenator Stott Despoja—He has been instructed not to respond.QD4Brown, Sen BobSenator Brown—Senator Ian Campbell has closed him down.(Quorum formed)10000Watson, John (The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN)The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Watson)—The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) be agreed to.03:00:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I ask the minister: what is meant by the words `a whole human being'? 10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) be agreed to. Senator Harradine.03:01:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—What is meant by `a whole human being'?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I call Senator Harradine.03:01:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—What is meant by `a whole human being'?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine.03:01:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—This is a very serious matter. It appears that the government is treating it very lightly. Government amendment (1) says: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct will result in the cloning of a whole human being.Does that include the cloning of a human embryo?10000TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN,TheThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine.03:02:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Do these words include the cloning of a human embryo? Won't anybody get up and try to find out? This is a very serious matter. This is part of the operation that is going on to water down the very clear recommendations of the Australian Health Ethics Committee and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Those recommendations make it perfectly clear that this sort of operation should be prohibited. The only problem is that their recommendations apply only to that research which is Commonwealth funded; they do not apply to privately funded research or research funded by state governments. I believe that I am entitled—and the whole of the chamber is entitled—to know the response of the parliamentary secretary to that question. What do the words `a whole human being' mean? Does that include the cloning of a human embryo? If it does, what you are doing is allowing a situation to exist where those cloned human embryos will have no connection with anybody except the science technologist who can do with them what they will. As I pointed out previously, at least in the IVF area, the human embryos developed from sperm and ova do have people who are responsible for those individual human embryos, but the ones that are cloned do not have anybody at all to be responsible for them. The question I am asking is reasonable and I would like to hear an answer from the parliamentary secretary. Again: what is meant by `cloning'? The parliamentary secretary is sitting in his seat.10000The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANThe TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Senator Harradine.03:06:0020639Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Mr Chairman, I do hope that some members of the government and some members of the opposition who are outside the chamber are listening to this. The phrase `whole human being' is ambiguous. Is it inclusive of foetuses? Is it inclusive of embryos? The amendment may indeed allow the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator to approve cloning of human embryos provided that they are not transferred to a woman to develop to birth. Is that what you mean? The prohibition might thus allow embryos to be cloned but might then prohibit anyone from allowing them to have a mother and carry them to term. The amendment may even allow the cloning of a human embryo, transfer to a woman and then abortion of a mature foetus in order to obtain whole organs for transplant to a family member.I would suggest that there is clearly a need for an amendment to this particular proposition. The definition of cloning of a whole human being is not inclusive of human cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer to an ovum, as the embryo formed would have some small genetic changes due to the inclusion of some DNA and RNA in the mitochondria of the ovum which are external to the nucleus. Thus, cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer does not involve producing a genetically identical embryo. The sentence defining `cloning', which borrows from the 12-year-old definition in the Western Australian legislation, focuses on genetic identicality which allows cloning of a human being, provided that some minor genetic changes occur. Surely that is not what the government intended by this? In fact, it is now known that such minor changes happen even with so-called identical twins. In the latter case, an analysis of their genomes shows minor differences. In cloning there is the additional matter of the non-nuclear genetic material, the mitochondrial DNA and RNA. One of the ethical problems with cloning, as I have tried to indicate to the committee, arises from asexual reproduction. That is, reproduction without parents, without anyone to be concerned about the interests of the embryo. Somatic cell nuclear transfer could happen using non-identified cells left over in a pathology lab or even obtained by trawling the sewers. Concerns such as this prompted the WHO to reject human cloning on the grounds of the lack of security of human genetic material if cloning were permitted. The amendments are not consistent with AHEC recommendations and the NHMRC guidelines on assisted reproductive technology. I again ask the parliamentary secretary to respond as to what constitutes a `whole human being'.03:11:0020640Brown, Sen BobSenator BROWNQD4TasmaniaAG00—I think it is entirely reasonable that Senator Harradine gets an answer to his question and I think it would be productive for that to happen. If Senator Harradine will forgive me, I will just draw attention to what is happening here, because I think it is important that it be recorded. We have had Senator Ian Campbell come into the chamber and speak with the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary has been silent since then. There seems to be some extraordinary government strategy here, whereby it is believed that, if the government is silent in the committee, progress will be made. I think that is a mistake. The function of a committee is to get information from the government when the government is sponsoring a bill, and the function of a committee has to be to get information when the government is putting forward the amendment that the committee is dealing with. Otherwise you have the government shutting down. The government cannot shut down a committee and at the same time expect the committee to make progress to pass its legislation. As the government has vacated its function in the place and, for reasons best known to itself, is incapable of carrying on at 13 minutes past three in the morning, I move:That progress be reported.Question put.03:17:00The committee divided.[ (The Chairman—Senator S.M. West) 11Allison, L.F.Bartlett, A.J.J.Bourne, V.W. *Brown, B.J.Greig, B.Harradine, B.Harris, L.Lees, M.H.Murray, A.J.M.Ridgeway, A.D.Stott Despoja, N.36Alston, R.K.R.Bishop, T.M.Brandis, G.H.Buckland, G.Calvert, P.H.Campbell, I.G.Collins, J.M.A.Conroy, S.M.Coonan, H.L.Eggleston, A.Evans, C.V.Ferris, J.M.Forshaw, M.G.Gibbs, B.Hogg, J.J.Hutchins, S.P.Knowles, S.C.Ludwig, J.W. *Macdonald, J.A.L.Mackay, S.M.Mason, B.J.McGauran, J.J.J.McKiernan, J.P.McLucas, J.E.Minchin, N.H.Murphy, S.M.O'Brien, K.W.K.Patterson, K.C.Payne, M.A.Sherry, N.J.Tambling, G.E.Tchen, T.Tierney, J.W.Troeth, J.M.Watson, J.O.W.West, S.M.Question so resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet ED233 be agreed to.03:20:0020640Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—Again, to give the minister a chance to respond to the questions, I have a few quite reasonable questions. What is meant by a `whole human being'? What is meant by the cloning of a `whole human being'? Again, I ask very deliberately: do you include a human embryo as a whole human being? Do you include a foetus as a whole human being? What do you mean by `cloning' in these circumstances? In order for us to get clearly into our minds what is meant, we also need to know: what is meant by `cloning' in your definition? 03:22:0020641Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Through you, Chair, I would like to put a question to Senator Tambling, in relation to the proposed amendment No. 1 on ED233 and, in particular, to (2), which refers to the cloning of a whole human being. The essence, I believe, of the government's amendment is that the product from that is genetically identical to the original. My question to Senator Tambling is this: if, in the process of transferring DNA across, an antibiotic marker is used to be able to substantiate whether that DNA has transferred, would that not automatically make the transfer of that DNA different to the original and, therefore, allowable?10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments Nos 1 to 3 on sheet ED233 be agreed to. I understood that there were some amendments to these, Senator Harradine. Do you wish to proceed with those?03:24:0020641Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I would like to hear the response from Senator Tambling to the question that was just raised. It is a very important to know what is meant—I think this is what Senator Harris was getting at—by the definition of `cloning' in the amendment.03:25:0020641Harris, Sen LenSenator HARRIS8HCQueenslandON00—Again I will ask the question that I asked of Senator Tambling, and this time I will read the entire government's proposed definition: cloning of awhole human being means the use of technology for the purpose of producing, from one original, a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, genetically identical to the original.If in that process an antibiotic marker is used in transferring that DNA across, then the products are not original. Therefore, under the government's definition of `cloning of a whole human being', they can actually genetically modify a human being and, because it is not genetically identical to the original, my understanding is that the government's own amendment would allow that to be carried out. I think it is incumbent on the government to explain to us how it cannot be carried out, because I believe that definition clearly says that the descendants are `genetically identical to the original'. If they have an antibiotic marker—in other words, the DNA from that antibiotic marker is used—and if that DNA has come across, then they are not genetically identical to the original. The point I make is that the government's definition will then allow genetic modification of what would ultimately become a whole human being.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ED233 be agreed to.03:27:0020641Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE6H4TasmaniaIND00—I have to call attention to the state of the chamber. We do need some answers. It is not going to get us anywhere if the minister does not respond.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—There is a quorum present, Senator Harradine.6H4Harradine, Sen BrianSenator HARRADINE—I am very disappointed in the situation here. I certainly do not reflect on anyone's intentions or otherwise, but when we are dealing with legislation we do need to have absolute clarity. I do point to the definition:cloning of awhole human being means the use of technology for the purpose of producing, from one original, a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, genetically identical to the original.My question to the parliamentary secretary is: give us an example of that? We ought to have an example of that. I would invite the parliamentary secretary to give us an example of such a cloned being. Or is it a fact that cloning does not really produce from one original a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, genetically identical to the original? If I am right in that, then this amendment is of no value; scientists can drive a horse and cart through it. I hope some learned discussions about this—and no doubt there will be some—will show that the amendment which relates to cloning is one that has very little effect. In effect, this means that, if cloning does not produce a genetically identical individual as compared with the original, then, as I understand it, it has no effect. If that is the case, let us hear it from the parliamentary secretary. I have two amendments. I can certainly go ahead with the second amendment which, in order to protect the situation as is desired by the government, suggests that in the definition of cloning of a whole human being `substantially if not completely' be inserted after the word `are'. That will mean the definition will read: cloning of awhole human being means the use of technology for the purpose of producing, from one original, a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, substantially if not completely, genetically identical to the original.Surely that is something that could be accepted to ensure some sort of clarity in respect of this matter. I really do need to have an understanding from the parliamentary secretary, or indeed from anybody representing the government, as to what `whole human being' means. I think it might be premature under those circumstances to proceed with amendment (1) on sheet 2073 until we get from the government what that means. That may have to be clarified elsewhere than in this chamber, if the parliamentary secretary will not clarify it. But I do not think I should put members of either the opposition or the government or the cross benches in a situation which could mean some difficult conscientious considerations to be given to the matter at hand. So, in those circumstances, I will be awaiting a response from the government—if it is not given here by the parliamentary secretary, then elsewhere. But I do proceed with amendment No. 2 on sheet 2073. I do ask the government to at least accept that. We are all trying to make a genuine attempt to ensure certainty before the law. I move amendment (2) on sheet 2073:(2) Amendment (1), subsection 192B(2), definition of cloning of a whole human being, after "are,", insert "substantially if not completely,".Motion (by Senator Tambling) proposed:That the question be now put.H15Campbell, Sen IanSenator Ian Campbell—It's your amendment, Senator Harradine.8HCHarris, Sen LenSenator Harris—The interjection from the government member opposite was that it is Senator Harradine's amendment. My understanding was that the motion was for the question to be put. We were voting against the motion being put. I seek clarification from the chair.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question is that the motion be put.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—No-one is prepared to say they want a division, so the question now is that—6E4Tambling, Sen GrantSenator Tambling—Madam Chairman, I understand the issue now before the chair is the amendments moved by me and I move that the question be now put.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—No. Senator Harradine's amendment (2) has been moved, and we must now put the question. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Harradine be agreed to.Question resolved in the negative.10000CHAIRMAN, TheThe CHAIRMAN—The question now is that Senator Tambling's amendments (1) to (3) on sheet ED233 be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative. Progress reported.Senate adjourned at 3.38 a.m.Documents2064220642The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal No. 17 of 2000.Broadcasting Services Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 313.Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. 19) 2000.Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No. 20) 2000.Directives—Part 105, dated 22, 23 and 24 November 2000.Exemptions Nos CASA 47/2000 and CASA EX48/2000. Defence Act —Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 314.Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 318.Family Law Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 312.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Nos 310 and 311.Health Insurance Act—Health Insurance Determination HS/2/2000.Hearing Services Administration Act—Hearing Services Rules of Conduct Amendment Rules 2000 (No. 1).Higher Education Funding Act—Determinations under section 15—Determinations T12 and T13 of 2000.Migration Act—Ministerial notice under subsection 501(9).National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 315.Patents Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 317.Product Ruling PR 2000/114.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determination 2000/13: Judicial and related offices.Science and Industry Research Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 2000 No. 316.Taxation Determination TD 2000/52.Telecommunications (Customer Protection and Service Standards) Act—Supplementary explanatory statement to the Telecommunications (Customer Service Guarantee) Standard 2000 (No. 2).