SENATE Official Hansard - Parliament of Australia Official Hansard WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 1997 ......

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

SENATE

Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 1997

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENTFIRST SESSION—THIRD PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATECANBERRA

CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH

Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 1997—First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2465Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2465

Days and Hours of Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2465Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Bill 1996,Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (Consequential Amendments)

Bill 1997—In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2466Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2479

Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1997—Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2479In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2480Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2489

Order of Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2489Export Market Development Grants Bill 1997,Export Market Development Grants (Repeal and Consequential Provisions)

Bill 1997—Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2489Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2509

Order of Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2509Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill 1996—

In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2509Questions Without Notice—

Austudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2518Small Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2520Unemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2521Higher Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2522Senator Colston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2523Student Assistance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2524Mining: North Stradbroke Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2525

Distinguished Visitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2527Questions Without Notice—

Shipbuilding Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2527Small Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2528Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2529Australian Pituitary Hormone Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2530Shipbuilding Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2531

Removal of Senator from Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust. . . . 2533Petitions—

Aerial Cabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2534Repatriation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2534Repatriation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2535

Notices of Motion—Malaysia: Logging and Woodchipping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2536Academy Awards 1997. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2536Regulations and Ordinances Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2536Gathering in Solidarity with Indigenous People and

the Earth Conference 2537Dental Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2537Public Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2538

Committees—Selection of Bills Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2538

Order of Business—Parliamentary Sitting Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2542Occupational Health in Workplace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2542Genetically Engineered Food. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2543

Prime Minister’s Visit to China. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2543

CONTENTS—continued

Committees—Uranium Mining and Milling Committee—Extension of Time. . . . . . 2543

Senate: Photographs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2545Senator Colston. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2545East Gippsland Forests. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2546Committees—

Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Committee—Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2546

Travelling Allowance: Senators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2547Travelling Allowance: Senators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2548Travelling Allowance: Senators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2548Travelling Allowance: Senators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2550Travelling Allowance: Senators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2553Personal Explanations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2560Committees—

Appropriations and Staffing Committee—Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2562Documents—

Auditor-General’s Reports—Report No. 29 of 1996-97. . . . . . . . . . . 2563Committees—

Economics Legislation Committee —Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2563Publications Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2563Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2563Legal and Constitutional References Committee—Report. . . . . . . . . 2563Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References

Committee—Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2565Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2569

Bills Returned from The House of Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2569Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997,Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Male TotalAverage Weekly Earnings Benchmark) Bill 1997—

First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2570Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2570

Aged Care Income Testing Bill 1997—First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2571Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2571

Bills Returned from The House of Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2572Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Bill 1996,Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Bill 1996,Telecommunications (Numbering Fees) Amendment Bill 1996—

Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2572Committees—

Public Accounts Committee—Joint Meeting with Queensland PublicAccounts Commmittee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2572

Workplace Relations Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2573Bills Returned from The House of Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2580Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill 1996—

In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2580Adoption of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2586Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2589

Order of Business—Government Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2590

Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1996,Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996,Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1996—

Consideration of House of Representatives Message. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2590Adoption of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2600Third Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2600

Days and Hours of Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2600Committees—

Membership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2602

CONTENTS—continued

Tax Law Improvement Bill 1996—First Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2603Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2603

Bills Returned from The House of Representatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2604Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Assessment and Collection)

Bill 1997,Superannuation Contributions Surcharge Imposition Bill 1997,Termination Payments Surcharge (Assessment and Collection) Bill 1997,Termination Payments Surcharge Imposition Bill 1997,Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Consequential Amendments)

Bill 1997,Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Application to The Commonwealth)Bill 1997,Superannuation Contributions Surcharge (Application to The Commonwealth—

Reduction of Benefits) Bill 1997—Second Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2604In Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2619

Adjournment—Euthanasia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2625Government Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2630Government Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2632Government Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2635Government Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2637

Documents—Return to Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2638Tabling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2638

Questions On Notice—Australian Conservation Foundation: Funding—(Question No. 387) . . 2639Coongie Lakes—(Question No. 425). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2640Community Development Employment Program: Amalgamations—

(Question No. 486). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2641

SENATE 2465

Wednesday, 26 March 1997

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon.Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m.,and read prayers.

THERAPEUTIC GOODSAMENDMENT BILL 1997

First ReadingMotion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for

an Act to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989to make provision relating to the listing of thera-peutic goods and the supply of therapeutic goodsnot conforming to standards and to give effect toAustralia’s obligations regarding therapeutic goodsunder an Agreement on Mutual Recognition withthe European Community.

Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities

and be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Second ReadingSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(9.33 a.m.)—I table a revised explanatorymemorandum and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second readingspeech incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.The speech read as follows—I take pleasure in introducing the Therapeutic

Goods Amendment bill 1997.The amendments provided for in this bill arenecessary to allow for the implementation of anAgreement on Mutual Recognition in Relation toConformity Assessment Certificates and Markingsbetween Australia and the European Community.The other important change put forward in this billis an amendment to allow for the recovery ofindividual batches of registered or listed therapeuticgoods included in the Australian Register ofTherapeutic Goods which do not conform tostandards.The Agreement on Mutual Recognition will allowthe Secretary to accept conformity assessmentcertificates, issued by conformity assessment bodiesin the European Union, certifying that registrablemedical devices manufactured in the EuropeanCommunity to which the certificates apply meet

with all Australian regulatory requirements relatingto good quality, safety and efficacy, and thatlistable devices specified in the certificates meetwith all requirements as to good quality and safety.Acceptance of these certificates will preclude theneed for further evaluation or assessment of thedevices before they may be included in the Austral-ian Register of Therapeutic Goods and approved forgeneral marketing.

In relation to medicines, the bill also provides foracceptance of the results of inspections of overseasmanufacturers required to meet Australia’s GoodManufacturing Practice requirements, which havebeen carried out by conformity assessment bodiesin the European Union.

The other important change to the TherapeuticGoods Act 1989 will allow the Secretary to requirea sponsor to withdraw from the market batches ofthe sponsor’s goods where only a batch or certainbatches fail to meet applicable statutory standards.

The provision of such a power expands the rangeof options available to the regulatory authority insuch circumstances. At present goods failing tomeet applicable standards can be cancelled fromthe Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and,only then, can they be recalled under the act, or thesponsor can be prosecuted for supplying nonconforming therapeutic goods. Following thisamendment a sponsor who has had no similartransgression in the preceding six months can berequired by the Secretary to inform the public andto recall only the batch or batches of therapeuticgoods which do not comply. The Secretary mustpublish notice of such actions in the Gazette. Apenalty of 60 penalty units will apply for wilfulrefusal to comply with such a requirement made bythe Secretary.

Finally a minor correction is made to one sectionof the act by substituting the word "acceptable"with the words "not unacceptable" to conform withterminology used elsewhere in the act.

Ordered that further consideration of thesecond reading of this bill be adjourned untilthe first day of sitting in the winter sittings1997, in accordance with standing order 111.

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETINGMotion (by Senator Campbell), as amend-

ed, agreed to:That on Wednesday, 26 March 1997:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be:

9.30 am to 7 pm, 8 pm to adjournment;

(b) the routine of business shall be:

(i) Government business only

(ii) At 2 pm, questions

2466 SENATE Wednesday, 26 March 1997

(iii) Petitions

(iv) Notices of motion

(v) Postponement and rearrangement ofbusiness

(vi) Formal motions—discovery of formalbusiness

(vii) Government business; and

(viii) The question for the adjournment of theSenate shall be proposed at midnight.

COMMONWEALTH SERVICESDELIVERY AGENCY BILL 1996

COMMONWEALTH SERVICESDELIVERY AGENCY

(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS)BILL 1997

In CommitteeConsideration resumed from 25 March.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.35a.m.)—Last night, when speaking to amend-ment No. 1 which stands in my name, I saidthat a point that had been made in theminority report on the Commonwealth Ser-vices Delivery Agency Bill that, while we seesome merit in separation of purchaser andprovider functions, we believe that the provid-er authority should be precluded from takingon regulatory accrediting or outcome monitor-ing roles. We argue strongly that these aremore properly the responsibility of Common-wealth policy departments or independentauthorities.

I understand that the government may havesome difficulty with the precise wording ofthe amendment. But, in our view, we have asituation where it is perfectly reasonable forthe agency to monitor and report on how it isperforming in relation to the service arrange-ments that it has entered into.

I would not want to preclude that fromoccurring, if that is still a concern of thegovernment. No doubt we will hear thecomments of the minister on that point. Iwould be happy to consider any other wordsthe minister may care to suggest, if she stillbelieves that those concerns need to beallayed. I commend amendment No. 1 to thecommittee.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.37 a.m.)—It might help expedite the matterif I were to put the government’s position andexplain why we are so concerned about thisamendment which, in our belief, would makethe agency unworkable. A preclusion such aswould prevent the agency from undertakingregulatory functions would prevent it alsofrom doing a large part of what it is intendedto do. It would operate to deny the agency thepower to enter into a service arrangementwith the Department of Social Security tocarry out some or all of that department’sfunctions under the Social Security Act,because a large part of what the departmentdoes now is regulatory by nature.

By definition, the department, exercisingpowers under the act, controls access tobenefits by the application of the rules. Bydefinition, the act restricts access to thosebenefits. Those functions would come withinthe ordinary definition of ‘regulatory’. It isvery hard to imagine how the agency wouldcarry out the department’s functions under theSocial Security Act without exercising aregulatory function. That is the first part ofthis amendment.

Let me turn now to the monitoring function,with which I think perhaps there is also amisunderstanding by those who would seek toamend it in this way. The power to regulateremains with the parliament through thelegislative process, policy responsibilitiesremain with ministers and their policy depart-ments and the agency will deliver servicespurchased by policy departments and withinthe framework of the relevant legislation.

In his speech on the second reading debate,Senator Faulkner mentioned the aged carearea as an example; he said that in that areahe had a concern about the potential role ofthe Service Delivery Agency. That issue wascovered in the committee hearings. TheDepartment of Health and Family Servicesmade it very clear. It clarified the agency’srole in relation to the accreditation of nursinghomes. It said that there is no plan for that atall, and:

Wednesday, 26 March 1997 SENATE 2467

Accreditation mechanisms, which the minister iscurrently reviewing as part of the structural reviewpackage, would be part of aged care legislation.Indeed, an exposure draft is now available, whichdetails what we expect will be covered in the agedcare act. We will be contracting or purchasing fromthe Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency theincome testing of residents of nursing homes formeans testing purposes. The agency will be under-taking a specified function for us that will be givenauthority in the aged care statute.

So there is no plan for accreditation. But, ifaccreditation were to be desired in the futurefrom the agency—and I say ‘if’—it wouldhave to be as part of a policy of the Depart-ment of Health and Family Services, it wouldhave to come by way of legislation to thisparliament and it would have to then come byway of contract between the Department ofHealth and Family Services and the agency.

The parliament will have a complete oppor-tunity to control that process down the track.It is not the plan. It is not being provided fornow. It is not intended. But I would say tothose, particularly in the opposition, who havebeen so concerned about the thought of publicsector jobs disappearing: if these roles are notgiven to the agency—and that means futureopportunities for accreditation perhaps; itcertainly means the monitoring arrange-ments—what is the parliament expecting ofthe government? Is it expecting that thereforethe agency will have to go to the privatesector for accreditation purposes, or to theprivate sector for monitoring purposes?Currently we are not proposing accreditationat all. That is one thing that is off the agendafor now, and it would have to come by wayof approval of the parliament.

However, the monitoring exercise is anessential element for making sure that theagency itself knows how it is delivering itsservices. It is customer focused. It has toknow at any given time how well or badly itis doing. To force the agency to go out to theprivate sector to implement a monitoringprocess would seem unnecessarily restrictive.It may be sometimes desirable, and certainlyexternal independent monitoring is usefulfrom time to time. But, surely to goodness,the public sector employees in the agencyshould be able to monitor also the perform-ance of the agency.

I draw the committee’s attention to the factthat currently, with these programs beingadministered by the Department of SocialSecurity, quality assurance is an essentialelement of making sure that we do providethe service to the best our ability. Qualityassurance obviously has to continue under theagency. It is an important element of monitor-ing, surely. I think it would be a terribleshame for this amendment, which wouldpreclude the agency from independentlymonitoring the services it delivers, to gothrough.

Really, it is a nonsense. I believe that itflies in the face of all accepted accountabilitypractices in public administration. I askSenator Faulkner whether the opposition isseriously suggesting that the agency shouldnot be able to seek an independent view onits delivery of a particular service—for exam-ple, by engaging a consultant to review itssystems design or its business process design.

The agency has to have a capacity to fullymonitor and track its performance throughboth internal and external sources of adviceand assistance, so as to ensure accountabilityto the minister and the parliament, and so wemay all be confident that it is fulfilling thecharter of service to the public that has beenestablished. None of this takes away from theindependent advice which will also be avail-able to ministers and the parliament throughaudits by the Australian National Audit Officeand by evaluations, undertaken by the pur-chaser departments, of their contract ofservices.

I urge the Senate not to go down this pathwhich in fact would neuter the Common-wealth Services Delivery Agency in theexercise of its role, which is one that iscurrently properly exercised by the Depart-ment of Social Security under legislativeauthority. That would be the case with theagency taking on the role. It is under legisla-tive authority. It needs to be scrutinisedinternally and it will also be scrutinisedexternally. Any limitation along the lines ofthese amendments would go to neuter theeffectiveness of agency altogether.

Finally, I go back to the question of limit-ing the regulatory role. Just about everything


the department currently does in the exerciseof its powers under the Social Security Acthas a regulatory connotation. To remove thatpower from the new agency would be theultimate neutering.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (9.45a.m.)—Sometimes in this place we say wewill listen to the debate and make up ourminds and we really do not mean that. Thatis exactly what I am doing at the moment,because I am caught between two opinions.What the ALP is trying to do through theseamendments is very commendable and that isto ensure there is some distance between themonitoring of the department and the depart-ment itself. That is always desirable.

I have a briefing from the Minister forSocial Security (Senator Newman) and I havelistened to her. It seems to me that there aretwo things happening, both of which aredesirable and they are not coming together. Iwill ask Senator Faulkner to give a bit moreexplanation, but for example I refer to hisillustration that you would not want the samepeople in the department and on the SocialSecurity Appeals Tribunal. That is a helpfulanalogy, but the Social Security AppealsTribunal is actually an appeals process andyou certainly would want to keep the appealsprocess separate.

The minister is saying that the problem withthe ALP amendment is that it actually inter-feres with the normal operation and runningof the department. I do not think the ALPwants to do that either. You can see myproblem in trying to decide where it is. Iwonder whether independently monitoringthat service is also a problem. Surely what wedo want is independent monitoring of theservice. If I could get a bit of clarification onthose issues that would help me.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.47a.m.)—I appreciate the points that SenatorWoodley makes. This largely swings on theMinister for Social Security’s (Senator New-man) interpretation of the word ‘regulate’. Iwould be interested if the minister could assistthe committee by giving us a definition of‘regulation’ or what the legal definition of‘regulation’ is that she is using. I suspect that

if the minister does that it will assist both ofus.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.48 a.m.)—Senator Faulkner may have beenconsulting his advisers at the time, but I didgo through the dictionary definition of‘regulatory’ and drew on that when I wasadvising the committee before about thedepartment’s functions under the act. I saidthat a large part of what the department doesis regulatory by nature. By definition thedepartment controls the access to benefits bythe application of rules. By definition theSocial Security Act restricts access to thosebenefits and these functions would comewithin the ordinary definition of ‘regulatory’.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.49a.m.)—I have to say that we all have anunderstanding of what ‘regulation’ might be,but I do not think that a dictionary definitionof ‘regulation’ answers the question thatSenator Woodley asks. Let me put it in veryclear form. I asked two questions: what is thelegal definition of ‘regulation’—and I thinkthat will assist Senator Woodley—and howdoes the agency independently monitor itself?As I understand what Senator Woodley putsto the committee, that is the nub of issuebefore us. We would probably all agree thatthis is where we are at in relation to whathopefully will be a very contained debate onthis amendment.

I pose those two questions to the Ministerfor Social Security (Senator Newman): giveme a legal definition of ‘regulate’ or‘regulation’; and explain to the committeehow the agency can independently monitoritself. If we have the government’s view puton these issues, we can perhaps determine theissue and move to the next amendment.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.50 a.m)—I am finding Senator Faulkner’sclarification not a great deal of help. I certain-ly want to make sure that both SenatorFaulkner and Senator Woodley understand theimportance of the contractual arrangements in


this whole exercise. It is the role of thepurchaser departments, the Auditor-General,the Department of Finance and the parliamentto independently monitor the agency. Wecannot walk away from the fact that thoseserviced agreements are what determines whatis to be achieved by the agency. We haveindependent monitoring now and, as I said atthe beginning of the debate on this amend-ment, provision is made for it. I cannot giveyou today a legal definition of ‘regulatory’,but Senator Faulkner has been minister forveterans’ affairs and at the very least hewould understand the regulatory role that theDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs played inimplementing—

Senator Faulkner—It is that experiencethat has led me to move these amendments.

Senator NEWMAN—You interject, but Ithink that you are somehow hung up onsomething which is hard to quantify. I do notreally understand your concerns and, there-fore, it is very hard to address them. I havetaken you through some of the examples ofwhat the department now does which areregulatory by nature. The department in thefuture will be a policy department whichcontracts for services to be provided by theagency. The agency, in order to do that workunder the contract, needs those regulatorypowers. It needs to be able to implement theregulations. It would be impossible to admin-ister if this amendment were to go through.

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (9.53a.m.)—Minister, I thought your immediatepast contribution struck upon the nub of theproblem. The amendment is saying that theagency should not be a self-regulatory body.That is what the amendment is prohibiting. Ifyou are saying that that is the appropriatecourse, then I do not fully understand thenature of your objection to the amendment.What the amendment is preventing is theagency independently monitoring itself. Thatis not to say that the agency would not auditits own delivery of services. I think self-auditis different from a monitoring or a regulatoryrole.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)

(9.54 a.m.)—I do not think you were in thechamber when I explained these mattersearlier, Senator O’Brien. Were you?

Senator O’Brien—Yes.

Senator NEWMAN—The agency needs toindependently monitor how it is going. It isservice oriented. It is not just a question ofauditing whether the money is being paid outcorrectly, although it is also important tomonitor that both internally and externally.But the quality of the service must be inde-pendently monitored and internally monitored.Once again, the failure to grasp the idea ofthe contract is the base of the problem withthis amendment.

The contract has to set up the performanceoutcomes that are required. Both parties tothat contract need to know that those out-comes are being achieved or where they arefalling short. The purchaser—which is thedepartment—has to know that, and so doesthe provider, which is in trouble if it does notachieve the outcomes that the contract de-mands. They need to have internal qualityassurance. They also need to be assured thattheir own internal evaluations are spot on.

Currently the department is exercising thedual role that will in the future be providedby the purchaser and the provider. Once thissplit takes place, the provider has to assureitself internally and by independent evaluationthat it is doing the things that it is contractedto do. Otherwise it is in strife under itscontract. Does that not help?

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.56 a.m.)—It might help if the minister could suggest analternative way in which the overview andmonitoring of this authority could be estab-lished and made clear for the committee.Because there is a real concern that it will bea law unto itself; that it will do as it wants to,invent the rules and then carry them out as itwants to. The second issue I would like theminister to comment on, because it is import-ant for the future, is to what degree this setsthe path for potential future privatisation ofthe services being provided under this newsuper body.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting the


Prime Minister for the Status of Women)(9.56 a.m.)—Senator, I think you were alsonot in the chamber when I spoke.

Senator Brown—Yes, I was.

Senator NEWMAN—Were you listening?

Senator Brown—I listened throughout.

Senator NEWMAN—I am not meaning tobe offensive, but I am concerned in that weseem to be covering the same ground twice.The parliament will be the determinant ofwhat the department does. The departmentswill have contracts with the agency. Unlessthe parliament agreed to things happening,they would not be able to happen because thedepartments and the minister who is respon-sible—in this case, me—for both the agencyand the department have to be accountable tothe parliament.

The independent monitoring that now goeson and that will continue to go on is that ofthe ANAO and the Department of Finance.The department, as the purchaser of theservices, will be evaluated to make sure thatits contract is being implemented. The parlia-ment has all those strands of independentevaluation. The agency cannot be a law untoitself because it is set up by legislation. Thedepartment is there under its legislation. Onehas a contract with the other. The outcomesare to be evaluated internally but there arealso existing external evaluation processes.There cannot be the concerns that you haveraised. Did I miss something else that youasked?

Senator Brown—Privatisation.

Senator NEWMAN—That is why I askedwhether you were here. I adverted to thatissue earlier when I talked about accreditationand the claim made by Senator Faulkner thatthe agency was required to accredit nursinghomes. It is not planned. I quoted from theevidence given to the legislative committee bya deputy secretary to the Department ofHealth and Family Services. If that were tohappen in the future, it would have to cometo the parliament to be achieved, because itwould be a change in the role of what iscurrently done by the Department of Healthand Family Services. It would then be acontract between that department with the

agency, but it would not happen unless theparliament approved it.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.59 p.m.)—The question I am asking is: what degree ofmotivation is there in this legislation forfuture privatisation? Is that being discussed,or is it being entertained, or is that absolutelyoff the board and something that the govern-ment would not contemplate?

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.00 a.m.)—I have publicly answered thisin the past, but that may not have been in theSenate. The decision was taken very deliber-ately to make this agency a statutory authori-ty, because we believe these are serviceswhich need to always be provided by thepublic sector. We believe that the evaluationand monitoring processes can also be provid-ed by the public sector. Equally, they couldbe, as they are now, contracted out to consul-tants.

If this amendment goes through, we will beprohibited from having independent monitor-ing. In fact, we will have real trouble inmonitoring it altogether. I would suggest thatwe need to give the opportunity to the publicsector—which is what the government isdoing—to do that evaluation process. SenatorWoodley, you do remember that is what Isaid earlier.

Senator Woodley—Yes.

Senator NEWMAN—Thank you. I said itbetter then. I am really just canvassing theprevious ground. I assure you that we have nointention to privatise it, and that is why wetook a deliberate decision to go to the statu-tory authority. There are jobs that can be doneby the private sector in some of these areas,but we are wanting to, by our agency legisla-tion, give those jobs to the public sector. Thatis why I found it strange that SenatorFaulkner would be denying us the opportunityto have those jobs done by the agency.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.02a.m.)—I think I need to indicate just wherethe Democrats stand. I still think we aretalking about two different things, and that isinfluencing me in the way I vote on this. The


minister is defining regulatory and independ-ent monitoring within powers that I believethe department certainly has. I do not thinkthe amendments are trying to take thosepowers away. It is not trying to interfere withthe normal running of the department, but thedepartment itself is defining the ALP amend-ment as though it does that. There is nointention to do that.

What the ALP amendment is trying to sayis that there should not in the future be anattempt to take on other powers which oughtremain outside of the department’s ability. Sothe ALP amendment is really talking aboutadditional or extraordinary powers beingtaken on board by the department. It is notseeking to interfere with the normal operationof the department, which is the department’sworry.

Senator Faulkner—That is right, Senator.I have tried to make that very clear.

Senator WOODLEY—All right. So I aminclined to support the ALP amendmentbecause I hear what the minister is saying. Ifthe ALP amendment were doing what theminister is saying it will do, I would beworried. But I do not think it is seeking to dothat, and I do not think it is doing that.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.03 a.m.)—I do not want to prolong thisdebate further. I think we have canvassedthose issues. I think it would be very regretfulif support were given for this oppositionamendment. The advice I have from mydepartment is that this amendment wouldmake the Commonwealth Services DeliveryAgency’s role unworkable.

Question put:That the amendment (Senator Faulkner’s) be

agreed to.

The committee divided. [10.08 a.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 0

——

AYESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, R. L.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.*Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Kernot, C.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O’Brien, K. W. K. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCollins, J. M. A. McGauran, J. J. J.Crowley, R. A. Short, J. R.

* denotes teller(Senator Robert Ray did not vote, to

compensate for the vacancy caused by thedeath of Senator Panizza.)

(Senator Conroy did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)

Question so resolved in the negative.Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.11

a.m.)—Mr Chairman, I wish to indicate thatthe reason that I was not present for the votewas that the doors were closed prematurely.On the monitor, as I came past the oppositionlobby, there were still 17 seconds to go andthe doors were locked 17 seconds or 16seconds prior to the time that they shouldhave been locked. That, I think, will be


confirmed by the officers who are sitting inthe government’s lobby. I would have cast myvote for the amendment, but I do not thinkthat would have made any difference anyhow.

Senator Bob Collins—Actually it wouldhave.

Senator Carr—It makes a big difference.Senator HARRADINE—I would have

voted for the amendment.The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, I

have two comments. I was going by thehourglass—it was the four minute glass—andthe clock obviously was different from thehour glass. The second comment I have is doyou wish to have the vote put again?

Senator HARRADINE—I would only doso if it was confirmed that what I am sayingis correct. I am not asking you to take at facevalue what I am saying. I would just askthose who may be in the Senate secretariat toconsider that and report back. Let us go on tothe other amendments.

The CHAIRMAN —I am not quite surethat we need confirmation because, if yousaid that, that is what has happened. Weaccept that that is what has happened.

Senator HARRADINE—Naturally, onewould like to have one’s vote recorded as onewould have voted.

The CHAIRMAN —Would you like to seekleave to have the vote put again?

Senator HARRADINE—I seek leave tohave the vote put again.

The CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted?Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.13 a.m.)—by leave—Can I make thissuggestion, Mr Chairman, which is somethingthat Senator Harradine and perhaps thegovernment might also embrace. We have,effectively, three further amendments to thisbill. It is quite possible that that means threefurther divisions in the chamber. We are verycomfortable, obviously, with the suggestion ofrecommittal and I suggest that that be dealtwith as perhaps a one-minute division follow-ing a further division in the committee stageof the bill to save time. I think that would behelpful.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.14a.m.)—Consistent with what happened theother day, I am happy for that to be done atthe end of the committee stage. But I fell flaton my face because I was the one who missedit—I had not thought that there would beanother amendment, so I do apologise to thecommittee.

The CHAIRMAN —I suggest that if wehave another division, we immediately recom-mit the first one and have a one-minutedivision. Is that satisfactory to the chamber?

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.15 a.m.)—I move:(2) Clause 14, page 8 (after line 5), after sub-

clause (1), insert:

(1A) Particulars of any notifications givenby the Minister under this section in afinancial year must be included in theannual report for the Agency for thatyear.

I will try to be brief. This amendment wouldrequire any ministerial notifications of the‘general policies of the Commonwealthgovernment that are to apply in relation to theagency, the board or the employees’ to bepublished in the agency’s annual report. Totry and save time, let me also perhaps try andpre-empt the argument of the governmenthere. I expect that the government will arguethat this item gives you a power to notify theboard of the general policies of the Common-wealth in relation to the agency, the board orits employees.

They are policies which are, by defini-tion,—such as it is—general policies, policiesthat are well known by the public. I expectthat the government will be citing precedents.I understand that the government now hassome case law—which you can provide uswith and enlighten us on—which wouldrestrict the use of this notification power. Iwould be very pleased to listen to what youhave to say in relation to that.

But, of course, you will not agree that anynotifications that you give the board shouldbe published in the annual report of theagency. I do not understand the problem inrelation to this. If your general policies arewell-known policies on the public record,


what on earth could be the problem withpublishing notifications of these in theagency’s annual report.

Let me try and take a topical example,seeing we are using analogy and examples asdebating mechanisms in this particular com-mittee stage. Everyone knows that you couldhave implemented an entirely voluntary so-called work for the dole program without anyamendment to the social security legislation.What your legislation does, as I read it, isgive you the power to compel people toparticipate in that scheme and it allows thegovernment to provide a payment to thosepeople to cover their work related expenses.But it is not essential in implementing a workfor the dole scheme.

Of course the work for the dole policy, youwould argue, is a well-known policy of yourgovernment. We do not say it is a goodpolicy. We do not believe it is. We would nothave done it. But, under the terms of thislegislation, there would be nothing to preventyou from implementing a non-compulsory,non-supplement version of this scheme bysimply notifying the agency of your policy.You would not be subject to any scrutiny.You would not even have to publish yournotification in the annual report, as the legis-lation now stands.

What if, in the next budget, for example,you announce that it is your general policythat all authorities within your jurisdictionproduce running cost savings of 50 per centnext year? Could you notify the agency?Would the board have any recourse but toensure the savings were generated? Whatconstraints actually exist on your use of thenotification power?

Minister, at the end of the day, why won’tyou agree to publish any notifications in theannual report? That is the nub of the issue.That is the point of this amendment. I will beinterested to hear your response.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.19 a.m.)—The Leader of the Oppositionin the Senate has adverted to precedentswhich I could quote. Let me quickly quotethem, because they are all examples where

similar provisions are in legislation of theprevious government. They are: the AustralianPostal Corporation Act 1989, section 48; theBroadcasting Services Act 1992, section 161;the Employment Services Act 1994, section72, which is an identical provision; and theTelecommunications Act 1991, section 49. Allof those acts were passed when the currentopposition was in government.

We are doing nothing untoward in thislegislation. The general policies of thisgovernment will be well known and will notrequire the kind of publication and, with it,the public and parliamentary scrutiny thatnotification in the annual report of the agencywould bring. It is only general policies we aretalking about being notified under this provi-sion. There is different provision in the billfor specific directions.

I would also draw it to your attention thatthere is a precedent. Only last year, on 18August, in Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v.Herron, the Full Federal Court ruled that thecapacity to give general directions undersubsection 12(1) of the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Act 1989 did not allow theMinister for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Affairs to give certain directions toATSIC. One of the relevant directions wasthat ATSIC was not to make a grant or loanof money to a body unless certain conditionswere met. One of the reasons for finding thedirections invalid—this is the nub of thematter—was that they required a particularoutcome and therefore could not be describedas a general direction.

In terms of the specifics that SenatorFaulkner just referred to, the question ofrunning costs changes, for example, that is amatter which first of all has to be made clearto the parliament by way of appropriations. Itwould be negotiated and taken account of inthe contract between the purchaser and theprovider. It would be subject to the estimatescommittee scrutiny, as currently such mattersare, when the department appears before theestimates committee. So there is no reason forhaving a concern about the running costsissue.

When it comes to the work for the dolescheme, as Senator Faulkner said, there would


be no requirement to change the legislation ifit was purely voluntary. That is the situationnow with the department. If the departmentwas to implement a voluntary work for thedole scheme, there would be no need for it tocome before the parliament. It is becausethere is a wish to have some pilots, wherethere is compulsory work for the dole, thatthere is a need to come back to the parlia-ment. The same would apply if the depart-ment was to produce a requirement that theagency provide a compulsory work for thedole scheme. Once again, it could not happenwithout a change to the legislation.

The policy department is the departmentthat is responsible for the legislation. It is thelegislation that drives the contractual arrange-ments between the department and the agen-cy. The scrutiny is very clear. In this amend-ment we are only talking about generalpolicies being notified under the provision forthe annual report of the agency. We believethat it is totally unnecessary, because the sortsof policies that are being described are oneswhich are well known and on the publicrecord.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.23a.m.)—Again, I am trying to the listen to thedebate. I am inclined to support this amend-ment. I must say that one thing that doesworry me is the departmental assertion that itwould be a bad thing if the policies in ques-tion are well known and do not requirepublication and, with it, public and parlia-mentary scrutiny. I would have thought thatit is very desirable. This amendment is im-portant because it gives us a device or a leverto look at these particular policies. I think thatthat kind of scrutiny is very helpful and veryimportant.

There is another issue in the illustrationabout voluntary work for the dole. There waslegislative change—we passed some legisla-tion just before Christmas. The illustrationdoes not hold up because we did just that: wepassed legislation before Christmas to makeit possible for people on the dole to work inapproved voluntary organisations; therebythey do not have to fulfil the activity test bygoing out and seeking work. So I am not surewhat the illustration does prove. The more

fundamental principle is that scrutiny iscertainly something the Democrats are verykeen on.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.25a.m.)—I have been listening to the explan-ations that have been given on this matter andon the previous matter. I am not convinced bythe explanations that have been given by theminister to vote against this amendment. Onthe face of it the amendment would seem tobe objectionable, but on balance I maintainmy original view of supporting this amend-ment.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.26 a.m.)—I move:

(3) Clause 30, page 15 (after line 12), after sub-clause (1), insert:

(1A) The Board must not make a determina-tion under section (1) before it hasobtained advice from the RemunerationTribunal in relation to the terms andconditions, including remuneration andallowances, on which the Chief Exec-utive Officer is to hold office.

(1B) Particulars of any advice obtained fromthe Remuneration Tribunal under thissection in a financial year must beincluded in the annual report for theAgency for that year.

This amendment requires the board to seekadvice from the Remuneration Tribunal aboutthe terms and conditions under which theCEO of the agency holds office and to pub-lish this particular advice in the agency’sannual report. I will try to be very brief inspeaking to this amendment. I really cannotsee any argument that can be mounted inopposition to this particular proposal. I thinkthe government said, ‘Well, we may well dothis anyway.’ If that is the case, why not sayso in legislation?

I want to make it clear that this amendmentand my remarks should not be taken as beingin any way critical of Ms Vardon. I actuallydo wish Ms Vardon well in her new job. Ihave got a lot of sympathy for anyone whohas to work with you, Minister, particularlyin such a senior job. I wish her well.


This amendment is about ensuring that theterms and conditions of publicly fundedpositions are transparent and that you, as theminister responsible, are accountable to thetaxpayer. There has been a lot of debate andpublic speculation recently. As late as todayI read in the newspaper about the terms andconditions of another government appointee,Mr Max Moore-Wilton. In my view, the caseis no different for the Secretary to the Depart-ment of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Iurge the Senate to support this amendmentwhich would properly involve the Remu-neration Tribunal in setting the terms andconditions for the chief executive officer ofthe agency. It would make its advice availableon the public record. I commend this amend-ment to the Senate.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.28a.m.)—I am a little disappointed that theamendment does not have a greater reach. Ithink it would be an excellent thing if we insome way or other were able to have chiefexecutive officers in the private sector rightacross the board in this country explain theincomes that they are getting. It is quiteuntoward that executive officers in the privatesector bring home packages of much morethan $1 million per annum in a country wherea lot of people live in unwarranted, unneces-sary and totally unacceptable poverty.

But that remark aside, I think this is a pieceof accountability which has to be supported.The Greens very strongly support the conceptthat there be scrutiny of the pay packages ofthe higher paid public servants which comeout of the public purse. It is a matter thatshould be applied to parliamentarians as well,of course. We will be supporting this amend-ment.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.30a.m.)—I want to indicate, without delayingthe Senate, that the Democrats will supportthis amendment.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.30 a.m.)—For the record, the secretary tothe department did advise the communityaffairs committee that it is intended that theposition of CEO of the agency will be desig-

nated as ‘principal executive officer’ for thepurpose of paragraph 34RA of the Remunera-tion Tribunal Act 1973 and a request for therelevant regulations to be made will be sentto the Department of Industrial Relationsshortly. Such regulations will have the effectof giving the tribunal the power to provideadvice in relation to the terms and conditionsincluding remuneration allowances on whichthe office of the CEO is to be held.

Details of relevant advice and of anyacceptance or rejection in whole or part wouldappear in the Remuneration Tribunal’s annualreport. If the agency board of managementdid not wholly accept the tribunal’s advice,the tribunal’s practice is to then formally drawthis to the attention of the relevant minister.It should also be noted that subclause 13(1)of the agency bill gives the minister anexpress power to give directions to the boardabout the terms and conditions of the CEO’semployment. This means that the power to setterms and conditions is by no means unfet-tered, as has been suggested.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.31a.m.)—I, too, will be supporting this amend-ment, although I do not know how volumin-ous the annual report of the agency will be,having regard to what has to go into it nowthrough the acceptance by the chamber of thesecond amendment and now the third amend-ment. I would be just as happy to see theparticulars of any advice tabled in the parlia-ment. I am getting a bit worried, frankly,about how big the annual report is going tobe. I support the amendment.


Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.32 a.m.)—I move:(4) Clause 35, page 17 (lines 12 to 14), omit

subclause (3).

This particular amendment is an importantone relating to omitting the provision allow-ing the CEO to employ staff outside theprovisions of the Public Service Act. On thisoccasion I would like to very briefly read anextract from the minority report on this issueto put this issue in context. The minorityreport said:


The Bill provides the Agency with the capacity toemploy staff outside the provisions of the currentPublic Service Act, on terms and conditionsdetermined by the Chief Executive Officer. As theCPSU noted in evidence, ‘we could have peoplewithin the Agency under different categories ofemployment performing the same levels of workfor different pay and condition outcomes’.

While we recognise the precedents for employingstaff outside the provisions of the Act underlegislation establishing other Commonwealthauthorities, we are concerned that such precedentshave yet to be tested in the context of new indus-trial relations arrangements.

We are not persuaded by the Department’s argu-ment that the present Public Service Act hamperstheir capacity to employ temporary staff to dealwith peak workloads. We note also that this andother significant issues will be dealt with in thecontext of the government’s foreshadowed changesto public service terms and conditions. In themeantime, and given the Department’s statedintention to negotiate a single enterprise agreementwith Agency staff which could deal with arrange-ments for peak workload staffing, we see theprovision as unnecessary.

There are at least two tools available to theagency to deal with emerging or temporarystaffing problems. Revising the enterpriseagreement negotiated with the staff of theagency and in the longer te rm thegovernment’s announced reforms to the PublicService Act. What I say is: use these. Thereis no need to employ staff outside the PublicService Act, no need at all. The agency cando the things it needs to do within the con-fines of the Public Service Act.

I think we ought not lose sight of the factthat even in a very limited debate like this thepoint needs to be made that the agency isdelivering a public service. Labor cannotallow you to erode the pay and conditions ofpublic servants by what I consider to be abackdoor mechanism. It is for those reasonsthat I urge the Senate to support this amend-ment.

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.36a.m.)—The Democrats will be supporting thisamendment. I do not want to waste the timeof the Senate, but I am quite concerned aboutthe idea that any government enterprise suchas this should need to look for a staff andthen employ them under conditions which aredifferent from the conditions applying to other

employees in the same office. It seems to methat is a recipe for disaster. I believe weought to support the amendment.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.36 a.m.)—The government does notaccept the amendment. The government hasconsistently maintained that it is intended thatthe staff of the agency will predominantly beemployed under the Public Service Act andthe power in subclause 35(3) will only beused to allow flexibility in the employment ofadditional staff.

It may appear that this flexibility is possibleunder current arrangements by the employ-ment of people under contract. The inclusionof subclause 35(3) was intended to make thiscapacity both express and transparent on theface of the legislation. The current arrange-ments are, in any case, unsatisfactory in thattemporary employees engaged under thePublic Service Act attain statutory rights topermanency after a period of temporaryemployment and that is not conducive toflexibility of deployment.

Finally, the clause is unexceptional whencompared with similar provisions in otherCommonwealth legislation setting up statutorybodies. I draw the committee’s attention tothe fact that the Department of Social Securi-ty, in its evidence to the legislative commit-tee, pointed out that similar provisions arefound in the Australian Securities CommissionAct 1989, section 120; the Industry Commis-sion Act 1989, section 43; the Hearing Ser-vices Act 1991, sections 49 and 50; theNational Occupational Health and SafetyCommission Act 1985, section 54; and theCommonwealth Electoral Act 1918, section35.

Several of the relevant acts were passedwhen the current opposition was in govern-ment. We are doing nothing untoward, noth-ing unusual and nothing threatening but weare consistent in continuing the approach thatwas taken through all those legislative chan-ges. I urge the Senate to reject this amend-ment.



The CHAIRMAN —We have not had adivision, but we will have to have a four-minute one.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.39 a.m.)—I had given an indication tosenators that I would put on the public recordduring the course of this debate the commit-ment to privacy, which I think is of concernto us all. Would it be appropriate if I did thatnow before we moved to the next amend-ment?

Senator Faulkner—I assumed that wemight raise this in relation to the consequen-tial amendments bill, but it is a matter foryou.

Senator NEWMAN—If you choose; I donot mind.

Senator Faulkner—I assume your com-ments are relevant to the next bill.

Senator NEWMAN—They are across theboard.

Senator Faulkner—I am relaxed.Senator NEWMAN—If I do it now, it

must be taken to be in relation to the mainbill and also to the consequential amendmentsbill. The secretary to the Department of SocialSecurity told the Senate Community AffairsCommittee that the department had beeninvolved in consultations with the PrivacyCommissioner in relation to any privacyissues arising from both the agency bill andthe consequential amendments bill. The endresult of those consultations is that the Priva-cy Commissioner has written to the secretaryto the department indicating that she has noobjection to the bills proceeding in theircurrent form.

As part of the consultation process, how-ever, I have agreed to make a public commit-ment on the privacy issue, and I am happy togive such a commitment. The government hasconsistently stressed that the existing privacyregime, including the Privacy Act, will applyto the Services Delivery Agency and therewill be no diminution in the protection thatthe Privacy Act and the confidentiality provi-sions of the Social Security Act, for example,affords to customers of the agency. While the

agency will be subject to the Privacy Act, Iwant to ensure that the bringing together ofthe functions of several departments fullycomplies with the principles underlying thePrivacy Act.

I intend that the agency and the departmentsinvolved will consult with the Privacy Com-missioner in the development of guidelines.I will subsequently direct the board of theagency to follow these guidelines. The consul-tations with the Privacy Commissioner willinclude consideration of: firstly, client regis-tration and record-keeping systems, includingthe use of any identification numbers and anycommon core client information; secondly,flows of personal information between theagency and other departments, responsibilityfor that information and access privileges;and, thirdly, processes for consideration of theprivacy implications of the addition of anynew functions which may be given to theagency in future.

As I have already indicated, I am happy tomake this commitment, which demonstratesthe government’s clear intention that theestablishment of the agency will involve nodiminution of the current privacy regime.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.42 a.m.)—I thank the minister for thoseassurances. The issue of privacy has beenraised by the Privacy Commissioner. I alsoacknowledge that this has been a particularconcern of Senator Woodley. I appreciate thepoints he has made in relation to this also.

I thank the minister for her confirmationabout the views of the Privacy Commissioner.Minister, given that you indicated that a letterhad gone from the Privacy Commissioner tothe secretary to the Department of SocialSecurity—I also appreciate that you may nothave that with you—could you undertake totable that, which would be useful and appro-priate in these circumstances. I appreciate thatyou may not have it with you at the moment.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(10.43 a.m.)—I am happy to table the letter,and I do so now.


Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.43a.m.)—I simply indicate that what the Leaderof the Opposition has said does represent ourposition, as I indicated in my speech on thesecond reading. We thank the minister for thatoffer to table the letter.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.43a.m.)—I had foreshadowed my desire to seekleave to have the first amendment recommit-ted. I am now not seeking leave to have thatrecommitted, despite the fact that, under thecircumstances, the doors were locked 17seconds before they should have been. Thatought to be in some way overcome for thenext time, but I do not propose to seek leavenow.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.44 a.m.)—by leave—I have made someinvestigation and I do understand that there isa clock on the desk. If you go off that, appar-ently it is synchronised with the clock on theTV. I know that if we are running late, mostof us watch the TVs as we are running in. Iam not sure whether there is a clock on thedesk, but apparently they are the things thatare synchronised. Since all senators work offthe little clocks on the television, I think itwould be helpful to all senators when we areracing from ends of the building to get hereif we knew that the clock on the TV was thetimer.

The CHAIRMAN —I understand that it isunsatisfactory for senators, so what I intendto do in the future is to take the clock or thefour-minute glass, whichever is the later.

Senator Faulkner—On a point of order,Mr Chairman: I do not want to delay thecommittee, but I thought the Senate hadalready determined by leave to have a divi-sion on this matter. That was my understand-ing. I think I made the suggestion that wasaccepted by the committee that this be doneat a later stage so that we did not have anunnecessary four-minute division, whichotherwise would have been held immediately.

I am not quite clear as to why SenatorHarradine has made the contribution he has.It may not be reasonable, but I urge SenatorHarradine to be a little more forthcoming andexplain why that is the situation, given it is

my understanding that the committee hasalready made a decision in relation to havinga division on this matter.

Senator Newman—He can withdraw hisrequest.

Senator Faulkner—He can; he can doanything he likes, but I am making a separatepoint, Minister. I think this is reasonable. Iam not addressing this in an outlandish way.My understanding is that the committee hadalready made a decision in relation to therecommittal of the vote. That is the point Iam putting to you, Mr Chairman. It might beeasier if Senator Harradine addressed theissue. But I think what I am saying is anaccurate reflection of the status of the amend-ment and the status of the committee’s deci-sion in relation to the recommittal.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.46 a.m.)—by leave—My understanding isnot dissimilar to Senator Faulkner’s except atthe margin. I think we had agreed that, ifthere were to be a recommittal, it would be asensible use of time to have it back to backwith some other division. As it turned out,there were no further divisions so that sen-sible suggestion did not come into play.

My understanding, however, differed fromSenator Faulkner’s in that I was pretty clearthat Senator Harradine was foreshadowingthat he would seek leave for there to be arecommittal. I imagine he would have had tohave done that at the time after the division.I suspect it is a subtle difference of recollec-tions. Ultimately, it is up to Senator Harradinewhether he wanted to seek leave, but Ithought he was foreshadowing that he mightseek leave. He has decided that he will notbe.

The CHAIRMAN —It was my understand-ing that leave was granted; that the Senatehad decided for a recommittal. I checked withthe clerk and the clerk is of the same opinion.But Senator Harradine can seek leave towithdraw his request if he so wishes.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.48a.m.)—You are quite right, Mr Chairman. Thecommittee has arranged for a recommittal andI think we should take that course of action.


I would certainly like to see the vote deter-mined that way. I am a very gracious person,but I have draw the attention of the committeeand Senator Harradine to some remarks heand Senator Alston made in this place a fewdays ago—in fact, last Thursday—whenthrough misadventure I had to seek a recom-mittal of a vote then.

I accept Senator Harradine was out of thechamber and, for reasons beyond his control,was not able to cast his vote earlier. I am sosorry he did not so readily accept the situationwhen the roles were reversed. It is remarkablehow these things can come back to catch us.Here we have Senator Harradine in the invidi-ous situation I found myself in last Thursday.I am very happy—although he was not veryhappy last Thursday—to accept that thismakes a difference to the vote.

What we have got here is the extraordinarysituation that, with the effluxion of just a fewminutes, it appears that Senator Harradine ischanging his vote. That is going to make amaterial difference to the outcome. I think weshould have that clarified through having thevote again on the amendment that the LaborParty has brought forward.

It would appear that, had the vote beentaken at the time, as was the previous prac-tice, Labor’s amendment would get up withthe vote of Senator Harradine. With the newpractice of having the recommittal put at theend of the committee stage, Senator Harradinehas changed his mind and Labor’s amendmentis not going to get up. I presume that he haschanged his mind through some new informa-tion that has come to his notice.

Senator Faulkner—Don’t make presump-tions on his part. How can you do that?

Senator BROWN—I have to make pres-umptions in the absence—

Senator Faulkner—No, you don’t.

Senator BROWN—I am free to, SenatorFaulkner.

Senator Faulkner—You are free to. Let usdeal in presumptions.

Senator BROWN—No, let me deal inpresumptions if I want to, Senator Faulkner.

That is my clear right in the absence of anyother information.

Senator Campbell—There is absolutefreedom of speech here under the standingorders.

Senator BROWN—Thank you. We haveabsolute freedom of speech here. Of course,we do. I would like to see the vote recommit-ted as the committee determined earlier on. Ido not think it is up to us not to have thatrecommittal because a senator might havechanged his mind in the intervening time.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.51a.m.)—I have indicated my intention not tocontinue with my request to seek a recommit-tal. I seek leave to withdraw my request.

Leave granted.Request withdrawn.Bill, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH SERVICESDELIVERY AGENCY

(CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS)BILL 1997

Bill agreed to.Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency

Bill 1996 reported with amendments andCommonwealth Services Delivery Agency(Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third ReadingBills (on motion bySenator Newman) read

a third time.

AVIATION LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1997

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 19 March, on motion

by Senator Tambling:That this bill be now read a second time.

(Quorum formed)Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-

tory) (10.55 a.m.)—The bill amends the AirNavigation Act 1920, the Airports Act 1996and corrects a typographical error in theAirports (Transitional) Act 1996. Fundamen-tally, the purpose of the legislation is toprovide a new set of arrangements underwhich charter flights may operate and enable


regulations to be made to establish a registerof unencumbered aircraft operated byAirservices Australia. The reason I highlightthese two examples is that the oppositionthinks these are sensible provisions. We willbe supporting the legislation.

On what is going to be a long day, in orderto save the time of the Senate by not unneces-sarily going over the magnificent record thatwe had on aviation policy and the appallingrecord that the government has on aviationpolicy, I will let all that go through to thekeeper, on today’s occasion, anyway, andindicate that we will be moving a number ofamendments to the legislation, as I understandit, and I know that amendments will also bemoved by the Greens and the Democrats.

For the advice of the Senate, we will not besupporting on this occasion the Greens’ orDemocrats’ amendments. There are a numberof amendments relating to airport noise thatI think the Greens will be moving, parts ofwhich were supported by us during the com-mittee stages in a previous debate but whichwill not be supported on this occasion. Thesimple reason is that, as a result of the salesprocess now being well advanced, we do notthink it is reasonable or proper at this stage tostart changing the rules. The question of noiseis a major one in terms of potential purchasesand we do not think it is reasonable or proper,at this point in time, having had that matterdetermined at an earlier time, to attempt tochange it again. The bottom line is that wewill be supporting this legislation. I under-stand that the government has agreed tosupport our amendments but we will not besupporting the amendments to be moved bythe Greens and the Democrats.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(10.58 a.m.)—Parliamentary Secretary,through you, Mr Acting Deputy President,you will be aware by the limited number ofamendments we are putting up that we wel-come your bill. We regard it as a good billwhich advances the cause appropriately. Isignal that we will be supporting the Greens’amendments and I will listen to what SenatorCollins has to say as regards his amendmentsbefore notifying our approach there.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.58 a.m.)—I thank honourable senators fortheir contribution to this debate and theircooperation. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In CommitteeThe bill.

Senator Murray—Is there a running sheet?

The CHAIRMAN —Not that I am awareof.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.59 a.m.)—I suggest that it will probablybe helpful if the ALP move their amendmentsand then we could deal with any other amend-ments, including your own, Senator Murray.If there were a running sheet, as Senator BobCollins said, you could probably write it onthe back of a box of cigarette papers.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (11.00 a.m.)—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 11), after

subparagraph (iii), insert:

(iiia) if foreign interests hold substantialownership and effective control of thecharterer or the charter operator—em-ployment and investment in, and gener-al development of, the Australian Avia-tion industry; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, (after line 25), aftersubsection (3), insert:

(3A) In deciding whether to make a determina-tion under subsection (3), the Secretary isto have regard to the following matters(except to the extent, if any, to which thematters concerned relate to the safety ofair navigation):

(a) the public interest, including but notlimited to:

(i) the need of people to travel on, or tosend cargo and mail by, aircraft; and

(ii) the promotion of trade and tourism toand from Australia; and

(iii) if the application relates to a programof flights to or from Australia—wheth-er there is to be a wide rangeof placesin Australia that will be served underthe program; and


(iv) if foreign interests hold substantialownership and effective control of acharterer or a charter operator—employment and investment in, andgeneral development of, the AustralianAviation industry; and

(v) aviation security; and (vi) Australia’sinternational relations;

(b) the availability of capacity (within themeaning of theInternational Air ServicesCommission Act 1992)on scheduledinternational air services, and any relevantdetermination made by the InternationalAir Services Commission in respect ofthe allocation of capacity on those ser-vices;

(c) any relevant advice on matters referred toin paragraph (a) that is provided to theMinister by that Commission under para-graph 6(2)(c) of that Act; and

(d) any other matter that the Secretary thinksrelevant.

These are, I must say, amendments that Ithink I could confidently look forward to theGreens and the Democrats supporting.

I refer the attention of the committee to thefirst amendment. It simply makes the pointthat, if charters of this type are in fact ap-proved, the minister has to have regard to theimpact on Australian aviation of such anapproval. It is not a minor matter; it is anamendment of some substance. I think it is anamendment that would be welcomed by theAustralian aviation industry. In real terms, thereason the amendment is here is that I thinkministers of both sides of the house would inthe normal course of these approvals take thatinto account, but it explicitly puts in thelegislation that it is not simply the commer-cial bottom line that has to be taken intoaccount; some regard has to be given to theinterests of the Australian aviation industry aswell, and that is then explicitly set out in theobligations that the minister has. The otheramendment is self-explanatory.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(11.02 a.m.)—The coalition will be supportingthe amendments moved by Senator BobCollins.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(11.03 a.m.)—I regret that the ALP did notpre-circulate this to us. Senator Collins, I

think your researcher would have been wiseto have circulated this to us. Am I correct inconcluding that we are debating amendmentsNos 1 and 2 and not 3?

Senator Bob Collins—Correct.Senator MURRAY—I think from what we

have heard, Senator Collins, short and sweetthough it was, we will support you.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.03 a.m.)—Thank you, Chairwoman—

Senator Bob Collins—I have heard SenatorColston accused of a lot of things recently,but not of a sex change.

Senator MARGETTS—Thank you, Chair-woman. The amendments that we have infront of us—

Senator Bob Collins—On a point of order,Mr Chair: I understand the political point thesenator is trying to make, but, with respect, Ithink she is making it very clumsily, becauseI think she is in fact destroying her own case.The political point is that she objects to theword ‘chairman’, but I always thought thatthe principal concern of people like me withthat problem—and I share Senator Margetts’sposition on this—is that the appellation thatis provided to people is accurate. It is obvi-ously clear to everyone that it is grosslyinaccurate. I think you are entitled, as othersenators are entitled, to the correct title thatyou enjoy here in this chamber, which ischairman. I would ask Senator Margetts toobserve that propriety.

The CHAIRMAN —You do have a point,Senator Collins—

Senator Bob Collins—I was going to sitdown, except she obviously intends to do itthroughout the whole committee stage.

Senator MARGETTS—Can I take it thatyou have not ruled on this?

The CHAIRMAN —I am not ruling on it,no. I am just saying that Senator Collins hasa point.

Senator Margetts—On the point of order:if there are people who take offence, I wouldbe happy to hear those people who do takeoffence, but perhaps those people ought to letme know why they are taking offence. Thatwould be very useful.


Senator Bob Collins—I just think you needyour eyes tested; that’s all.

The CHAIRMAN —The public might askme some questions. Anyway, keep going,Senator Margetts.

Senator MARGETTS—People do not tendto need their eyes tested when there is afemale in the chair and they are called‘chairman’.

In relation to the Aviation LegislationAmendment Bill (No. 1) 1997, I had actuallyintended to speak briefly on the secondreading. The reason I had intended to speakwas that there are some changes in the Avia-tion Legislation Amendment Bill which arewelcome and which I am pleased to see weare moving towards.

There are, however, some amendmentswhich the Greens WA will be putting andthey have not yet been circulated. This billwas going to be brought on yesterday and weasked that it be at least put off a little whileso that we had a chance to deal with it better.I will be putting our amendments as soon asthey are circulated, but everybody knows thework load that has been on us in the lastwhile. Of course, in a situation where thereare just one or two senators, you find that itbecomes almost impossible to deal with theseimportant bills reasonably in such a shorttime.

The opposition’s amendments Nos 1 and 2I believe hold some merit, but I am wonder-ing whether Senator Collins could give ussome more explanation of the reason why heis moving them.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (11.07 a.m.)—Quite simply and briefly,the amendments require the secretary to giveconsideration to employment, investment anddevelopment in the Australian aviation indus-try when granting to a foreign operator per-mission for charters. As I said, that is quitesimply the effect of the amendment.

As I said before, I think it is something thatin practice ministers of all political persua-sions would have done, but I think an import-ant strengthening of the legislation would bethat there is actually a legislative requirementto do so. In other words, it is not simply the

commercial bottom line, as I said before, butthere is a positive obligation to take theinterests of the Australian aviation industryinto account when these things are beingdone.

The subsequent amendments require thesecretary, when granting an exemption to aclass of charter flights from gaining permis-sion, to give the same consideration to thesame matters that must be considered whengranting an individual charter. They are, Ithink, positive amendments that would bewarmly welcomed by the Australian aviationindustry. I urge the Senate to support them.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.08 a.m.)—That would back up theGreens’ propensity to support the amend-ments. It also perhaps leads us to the inevi-table conclusion that the amendments bythemselves will not be any substitution forindustry policy, whether it is aviation industrypolicy or transport policy in general. In theend this government has to come clean withwhat its industry policy is, whether or not itactually has a policy in relation to promotingemployment, good industry and ecologicallysustainable industry development in Australia.

I indicate that the Greens (WA) will supportamendments 1 and 2, and hope that eventuallysomething will filter through and we willactually get a comprehensive industry policyfor both the aviation industry and the trans-port industry.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(11.10 a.m.)—Senator Margetts has made twovery good points today. The first is that thenature of the program, as we are being con-certinaed to the last day, does put exceptionalpressure on Independents and small parties.We would appreciate the courtesy of themajor parties circulating amendments to us assoon as they are produced and giving us asmuch latitude as possible within a verytruncated program to deal with these issuesand amendments in time.

The second point that Senator Margettscorrectly makes is that of how the chairshould be addressed. Frankly, I found thedirective of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)


in this regard offensive. I do not believe hehas the right to impose his individual wisheson this Senate chamber. I believe that you, MrChairman, as an officer of this chamber,should forward this matter to the presidingofficer and return with a direction as to howchairs and committee chairs should be ad-dressed. Frankly, when I sit in a committeehearing and I hear a Liberal senator chair whohappens to be a woman addressed as ‘MrChairman’ I think we are advancing to a stageof extraordinary lunacy.

Senator Bob Collins—It is ridiculous, butyou would also agree that both SenatorColston and I would look absolutely appallingin a frock.

Senator MURRAY—I would actuallyenjoy seeing you in a frock, Senator Collins.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Murray, I shallrefer the matter to Madam President.

Senator MURRAY—Thank you. I appreci-ate that, Mr Chairman. I want to return to ourtwo amendments, and I will address them asquickly as I can. The amendments to the billput forward by us support the bill’s proposalto insert important new offences into thelegislation that deal with the deliberate caus-ing of harm to the environment and an airportsite—that is, if the acts are carried out inten-tionally or recklessly. The new offences arean integral part of the Commonwealth regimeto protect the environment on leasedCommonwealth airports and employ a tieredapproach with escalating penalties for moreserious damage to the environment.

Provision is made for persons charged withmore serious offences to be found guilty of alesser charge where there is insufficientevidence to convict them of the more seriouscharge. That is the reason that the AustralianDemocrats, the Greens and the opposition likethis bill: because it introduces some attractivecomponents into regulation. But there areweaknesses. They include the apparent non-promulgation of important regulations underthe Airports Act 1996 upon which these newamendments depend.

The main issue from an environmental pointof view that keeps coming up is the need forairports to have a legally binding environ-

mental management plan and penalties forenvironmental harm which address bothpollution and site disturbance, such as in myown state the destruction of remnant bushlandand wetland as proposed at Perth airport.Many airports are considering expansions ofrunways or shopping commercial facilitiesthat will impact on remnant bushland—and,incidentally, will also impact on the interestsof local traders and small business.

Second, and related, the other importantamendment I think we need to propose is theformal designation under this legislation ofthe Minister for the Environment as the actionminister in determining matters which need tobe reviewed under the Environment Protection(Impact of Proposals) Act. As things stand, itis the minister for transport and this is notsatisfactory. I am disappointed that SenatorCollins is going to vote against this. Hopeful-ly if he listens to this he will change his mindon at least one of these amendments.

Under the Airports Act 1996 each airport isto have a final environment strategy. This isa draft environment strategy which has beenapproved by the minister under section 115.The environment strategy will run for fiveyears under section 117. An airport lessee has12 months to prepare the environment strat-egy.

The environmental standards for airports areset out in the regulations, and the act just saysthat regulations will come through. Section136 of the Airports Act 1996 says that bothstate and Commonwealth laws can apply,unless inconsistent then the Commonwealthlaw prevails, and that the regulations candeclare that a particular state law will notapply. This is much the same as the exemp-tion given to telecommunications carriers toexempt them from the operation of stateenvironmental laws in relation to cable roll-out and towers.

The three tiered environment protectionoffences at item 61 in the bill are reasonablygood, subject to knowing just what the regula-tions will require to be inserted in the airportenvironment strategy. I note the inclusion atitem 66 of standards proposed or approved bythe Standards Association of Australia. The


explanatory memorandum says precious littleabout what this means.

The fairly profound matter that we wishedto examine was whether legislation shouldplace decision-making in relation to environ-mental matters at airports with the ministerresponsible for the environment rather thanwith the minister for transport. Under currentCommonwealth law, environmental impactstatements are invoked only if the matter isconsidered significant and if the ministerresponsible for the particular portfolio refersthe issue to the Minister for the Environment.

Our amendment No. 2 seeks to placeresponsibility for improving environmentstrategies with the Minister for the Environ-ment and not with the minister for transport.We think that is entirely appropriate. But,with regard to amendment 1—and this is theamendment I expect you to support, SenatorCollins—the Airports Act 1996 also has a part5, ‘Land use, planning and building controls,’which requires ministerial approvals. I thinkit would be eroding the role of the ministerfor transport if this authority were also movedto the Minister for the Environment.

Our amendment inserts in section 80‘Consultations’ a requirement for the airportlessee to also consult with the Commonwealthminister responsible for administering theenvironment. Consultation is also required ofstate and territory governments and localgovernment; so why not the CommonwealthMinister for the Environment as well? That isall amendment 1 does; it requires consulta-tion. I would like Senator Collins to indicatewhether he will still be opposing both ouramendments.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (11.16 a.m.)—The reason we will not besupporting the amendments is not that theopposition does not share the concern that theAustralian Democrats and the Greens havewith the proper environmental control atairports; we do. The major reason we will notbe supporting these amendments is that, frommy own experience as the former minister foraviation, the airports we are dealing with areCommonwealth places. Because they areCommonwealth places, they are automaticallyunder the control, in respect of environmental

issues, of the federal Minister for the Environ-ment. So the amendments are quite simplyunnecessary.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.17 a.m.)—There would be no necessity tomake these kinds of changes to the AviationLegislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) if whatSenator Bob Collins said was working proper-ly. We received a great many assurancesduring the debate on the airports privatisationbill that the greatest care would be taken, butin fact the Federal Airports Corporation chal-lenged heritage listing and, despite what theMinister for the Environment (Senator Hill)said at the time, that listing was lost. We arestill hoping, in the case of Perth airport, thatthe very important wooded wetlands can berelisted. So, in relation to the difficulties thatare occurring with the fact that airports—notby accident—have ended up sometimeshaving some of the most important areas ofremnant bushlands left in otherwise fairlydeveloped areas, it is extremely important thatthey are handled well.

Whilst it might be Commonwealth land, itmight be no surprise to Senator Collins toknow that that does not automatically meanthere is going to be action if there are movesto affect the environment on Commonwealthland. That is the reality. That is what hashappened already in relation to Perth airport.It is good to see that there are changes in thelegislation, but I think there are many peoplewho feel that these amendments would gosome way towards creating a better situationwhere there is an automatic consultation. I donot think that is the case at the moment andI do not think the action minister at themoment is necessarily the environmentminister.

Senator Bob Collins—If he is derelict inhis duty now, he will be derelict in his dutywith this.

Senator MARGETTS—It would be niceto think that ministers are never derelict intheir duty. But in terms of environmentalissues I would have to say that over time,even in the last few months—and surely evenSenator Collins would acknowledge this—there has been a number of changes in im-portant areas throughout Australia where we


would have to say that the environmentminister may not have been derelict in hisduty but may have been overruled by otherconsiderations. We would like to see that notto be the case and that there would be somepart of the process in which he is required tobe consulted. I do not think that is always thecase. If there is a requirement to be consulted,there must at least be some written rationalefor whatever decisions are made. I wonderwhy the opposition is not going to supportthese amendments.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(11.20 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, I actually thinkthat you and Senator Bob Collins would lookgood in kilts!

Senator Bob Collins—I think we shouldadopt the ancient Roman practice of allowingsenators to wear togas.

Senator CAMPBELL —That will lookgood. We will have a toga day. I will put thaton the schedule of government business. Forthe next sittings we will have a toga day—notjust a government business day, but a togaday.

The government will not be supportingthese amendments. Senator Collins has al-ready explained the reason why the oppositionis not supporting them, and the government’sview is very similar to that. Ultimately theminister for aviation must have responsibilityfor the Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill(No. 1). These amendments divide the respon-sibility. I am informed that under the EPIPAct there is already requirements to consult.But the reality of the situation is that, if youwant the minister for aviation to be respon-sible to the parliament and to the people forhis decisions under his legislation, you do notdivide the responsibility in this way.

Senator Margetts raised a side issue entirelyunrelated to this bill. She raised issues relat-ing to Perth airport and to the AHC’s listingand then agreement to consent orders to delistin an action before, I think, the Federal Court.These amendments would make absolutely nodifference to that arrangement. The AHC andthe FAC were having a dispute. I was askedto deal with that dispute when I was the

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for theEnvironment.

The Minister for the Environment (SenatorHill) had a practical view that it is a bit sillyto have two Commonwealth agencies—theFederal Airports Corporation and the Austral-ian Heritage Commission—spending hundredsof thousands of dollars fighting each other incourt when most Australians would think thatthe FAC, if it has hundreds of thousands ofdollars, should spend it on looking afterairports and that the Australian HeritageCommission, if it has hundreds of thousandsof dollars, should spend it on looking afterheritage as opposed to looking after lawyers.The FAC and the Australian Heritage Com-mission, I think as a result of consultations,discussions and negotiations that I facilitated,will be making sure that there is a sensibleregime under this act, as amended by the billtoday, to ensure the protection of heritage atPerth airport and other airports around Aus-tralia.

Amendments (bySenator Murray )—byleave—proposed:(1) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 18), after item

36, insert:36A After subparagraph 80(1)(b)(i)Insert:(ia) the Minister responsible for the administra-

tion of theEnvironment Protection (Impactof Proposals) Act 1974, or related legisla-tion;

(2) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 23), after item57, insert:

57A After section 114Insert:114A InterpretationIn this Part,Minister means the Minister respon-sible for the administration of theEnvironmentProtection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, orrelated legislation.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (11.23 a.m.)—Just briefly, I confirm theaccuracy of Senator Campbell’s commentsabout Perth airport. That is as I understand itas well. The statutory provisions also thatSenator Campbell referred to are, as I know,there, and that consultation occurs anyway.The simple facts are that, if the Minister forthe Environment (Senator Hill) is in any way


being derelict in his responsibilities, thatdereliction of duty will in no way be changedby these amendments. I make the obviouspoint that, if you did want a set of ministerswho would not be derelict in their duties, youwould have to re-elect a Labor government.

Amendments negatived.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.23 a.m.)—The amendments I have men-tioned which deal with section 1 have nowbeen circulated, and I do apologise for thelate circulation. I move:(1) Schedule l, page 15 (after line 26), after item

11, insert:

11A Section 5Omit the definition ofsignificant ANEF levels,substitute: significant ANEF levels means anoise above 20 ANEF levels.

This amendment seeks to establish the signifi-cant ANEF level as 20 ANEF. We havespoken about this in the past and I will notrepeat the argument, except to remind sena-tors that the 20 ANEF level is that which isjudged to cause significant hearing damageand problem for up to a third of residentsover a period of time; and that 20 ANEF isthe level at which Standards Australia suggestthat residential housing should not be allowed.

On economic grounds the decision wastaken to retain significant ANEF levels at 30ANEF, which is 50 per cent higher. I thinkthis is unreasonable. Therefore, I would seekto give the Senate another opportunity to putthe health and wellbeing of people aboveshort-term budget costs.

Amendment negatived.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.25 a.m.)—by leave—I move:(3) Schedule l, page 30 (after line 2), after item

58, insert:

58A Subsection 130(2)Omit "not an offence. However", substitute "anoffence. In addition".

(4) Schedule 1, page 30 (after line 9), after item60, insert:

60A At the end of section 130Add:

(5) If a person contravenes the requirements ofsubsection (1) or (1A) the person is guilty

of an offence punishable on conviction bya fine not exceeding 250 penalty units.

At the outset, I congratulate the governmenton this bill. I believe that in this case it hasmade legitimate attempts to address some realproblems, as befits a social regulator acting inthe interests of the land and people of Aus-tralia. In particular, I am pleased that it hasintroduced a number of measures that addressdeficiencies—deficiencies in the regime ofenvironmental protection which was estab-lished—that we argued in the original bill.These deficiencies existed even after thepassage of a number of amendments in theSenate strengthening the environmentalprotection regime. This was particularly sowith the inclusion of a broader range of issuesin the development of master plans andrequirements to propose actions to preventenvironmental or heritage damage withinthose plans which must be complied with andwhere non-compliance is an offence.

As Senator Campbell would know, I amusually the one to hand out brickbats, but itis a small bouquet we are throwing on thisoccasion. However, among the primarydeficiencies of the original legislation was thelack of penalties and strong requirements forcompliance in the environmental strategy.Particularly offensive was section 132, whichstates that a failure to take ‘all reasonablesteps to ensure the strategy was compliedwith’ cannot be considered an offence.

Mr Chairman, note that the requirement offailure to make even such a reasonable at-tempt was not allowed to be treated as anoffence. The bill addresses some of this withthe introduction of various environmentallyrelated offences, complete with penalties, as131B, 131C and 131D. What I am not certainabout is how this is consistent with theretention of an essentially unmodified section132. It seems strange to state that failure toeven make a reasonable attempt at compliancewith the strategy is not an offence, and thento state that various things which must becontraventions of the strategy are offences.

One of my amendments seeks to addressthis, stating that failure to at least makereasonable attempts to comply with theenvironment strategy which the lessee itself


designed is an offence with a penalty. It alsoeliminates any lack of clarity that may arisebetween 132, which states unequivocally thatnon-compliance is not an offence, and modi-fied 131, which states that many activities thatmust constitute failure to comply are offences.In order to clarify this, I commend amend-ments 3 and 4 to the Senate.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(11.28 a.m.)—Just quickly; the coalition, asindicated, will not be supporting these amend-ments. There are two reasons for this. Firstly,we believe basically that for someone to saythat if you have not abided by your plan itbecomes an offence is an inappropriate wayof ensuring that people stick by their plans.We believe that under section 15 there arealready powers of injunction for failure toperform against an environment strategy.

Secondly, we believe that this is a moreappropriate way to deal with non-perform-ance. Finally, in relation to amendmentnumber No. 4 moved by Senator Margetts, thegovernment’s policy on the advice of theAttorney-General’s Department, which I thinkis good advice, is that matters relating topenalty units should be consistent acrossCommonwealth legislation. This would createinconsistency, which we would regard asunnecessary and undesirable.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.30 a.m.)—As a point of clarification, inthis sense who would be enjoined? Would itbe the company, the lessee or the governmentin some sense that would be enjoined by sucha part of the legislation?

Senator Campbell—It would be the lessee.Senator MARGETTS—Obviously this

depends on what kind of resources there arein the community to take such action. Itrequires some sort of community action.Usually the communities that are concernedabout such issues as environment are notnecessarily rich. It does very much rely onwhat amount of resources there are withincommunities to fight such issues, and commu-nities are fighting many such issues. It seemsthat it might be better if it was very clear inthe legislation what the obligations and expec-tations were on the lessees, rather than ex-

pecting the community once again to pick upthe tab for getting the companies to do whatone would think the legislation should requirethem to do.

It is all very well saying that you have aplan and have to submit the plan, but the plandoes not mean anything unless communitiesfight with their very minimal funds withoutmuch in the way of legal aid or environmentaldefender’s aid. Perhaps what you are doing isputting the costs of compliance on to thecommunity.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(11.31 a.m.)—To the extent that it is theMinister for Transport and Regional Develop-ment who has to seek the injunction, thecommunity bears the cost through taxation.That is how the legislation is put together.

Amendments negatived.Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)

(11.32 a.m.) I move:(5) Schedule 1, item 61, page 31 (line 25), omit

"200", substitute "250".

I also wish to address the penalties themselvesin this amendment. I accept that we areunlikely to get support for a maximum penal-ty for serious environmental harm which isgreater than $500,000. I do not like it. By itsnature the damage involved in this kind ofbreach is exceedingly severe, and by defini-tion it must be high impact and irreversible orcausing substantial harm to public health, notonly the health of one or two people.

We are talking about major disaster here.The term ‘irreversible environmental damageof high impact’ is probably a reasonablycontentious term legally and likely to besomewhat difficult to prove. It is possible thata company operating in an airport in such away that it causes irreversible environmentaldamage of high impact may decide that halfa million dollars is a justified expense, par-ticularly where that expense may be reducedthrough arguing that impact is only signifi-cant, or that there is some potential to reversethe damage, within some time frame.

Nevertheless, we are happy to see thatexplicit recognition as an offence with penal-ties. However, given that a case of damage


may result in convincing the court that whatmay be high impact is unequivocally signifi-cant impact, I can see plea bargaining reduc-ing very serious environmental damage to acharge of material environmental harm. Themaximum penalty then becomes $200,000,which is actually less than the current maxi-mum penalty of $250,000 for violation ofenvironmental regulations under section 132.This seems somewhat counterproductive.

I would therefore seek to increase themaximum penalty for material environmentalharm to 250 penalty units. It should be notedthat this is a maximum and there is discretionfor a lower penalty to be applied. I wouldtherefore seek support for my amendment No.5.


Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.34 a.m.)—I move:(6) Schedule 1, item 61, page 32 (line 15), omit

"50", substitute "100".

In line with the fact that environmentaldamage needs to be taken seriously and witha need for penalties to act as a preventativeforce, we also seek to increase the penalty forenvironmental nuisance, which is the chargethat will be applied when significant impactcannot be conclusively proved. We seek toraise the maximum penalty from 50 units or$50,000 to 100 units or $100,000 and againnote that the penalty applied can be lower ifthe offence is deemed minor.

We also note that airport operations arelarge and basically they can be a licence toprint millions or tens of millions of dollars interms of development plans. Fifty thousanddollars may not seem a significant fine in thatkind of context. I commend amendment No.6 to the Senate.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(11.35 a.m.)—I do not want to delay thedebate, but in relation to the former amend-ment and this amendment, senators and otherpeople with an interest in this matter shouldunderstand that the penalties are not a one-offspeeding fine. They do apply on a daily basisfor as long as the breach applies. In relationto the previous amendment, you are looking

at $200,000 a day, which I think even forairport operators would be a fairly significantslug. If you are in breach for a few days, youare up to a million before you know it. Inrelation to amendment 6, it is actually$50,000 a day. I do not think even the KerryPackers of this world can look at losing$50,000 a day without feeling a bit of pain.

Amendment negatived.Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)

(11.36 a.m.)—by leave—We oppose Schedule1, item 62 and item 63 in the following terms:(7) Schedule 1, item 62, page 32 (line 32) to page

33 (line l), TO BE OPPOSED.(8) Schedule l, item 63, page 33 (lines 2 to 6), TO

BE OPPOSED.

We will be seeking to oppose the changes tosection 132. That section establishes that it isan offence to violate Commonwealth environ-mental regulations. It is not the same as non-compliance with environmental strategy norit is the same as creating environmentaldamage. Regulations are effectively lawswhich override state and territory environ-mental laws, and regulation and penalties forviolation of regulations are appropriate.

The government seeks to tie penalties forviolations of regulation to actual environment-al damage, setting the maximum penalty asequivalent to the maximum penalty for suchdamage. This is equivalent to saying thatrunning a red light should only attract a fineif an accident results. I always rememberreading an old law from the United Kingdomabout ferry operators overloading; one of thepenalties was transportation to Australia—heaven forbid!—and it said ‘if anybodydrowned’. Perhaps this is one of those ‘ifanybody drowns’ penalties.

This equivalent saying that running a redlight should only attract a fine if an accidentresults and that the seriousness of the accidentshould determine the fine is nonsense. Viola-tion of environmental regulations whichwould replace and override state and territoryenvironmental laws is a serious thing even ifno damage occurs. I note that the penaltyprescribed—250 units—is, once again, amaximum penalty. Penalties may be pre-scribed under regulations themselves, and thisshould be respected. It is improper to tie such


penalties to the impact of the violation.Therefore, we oppose clauses 62 and 63 ofthe bill.

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair is that items 62 and 63 stand asprinted.

Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.38 a.m.)—We oppose schedule 1, item 69in the following terms:(9) Schedule 1, item 69, page 34 (lines 13 and

14).

This goes back to states and territory rights.Section 136(2) states that Commonwealthregulations extinguish state and territory lawsand regulations in relation to airports. Thisclause seeks to do the same thing for the newCommonwealth offences relating to environ-mental impact as contained in 131B, 131Cand 131D.

This may be dangerous since state andterritory laws relating to impacts are oftenmuch more specific. Terms are often betterdefined and penalties may be much higherdepending on the level of damage. I realisethat Commonwealth legislation overrides lawsin which there is a conflict, but I opposed136(2) when it was proposed. I suggested analternative which would have the Common-wealth law establish a minimum respectingany more exacting amendments by state andterritories. This amendment is in line with myearlier opposition, although I think there iseven more cause in relation to general lawsand environmental and health impacts.

The CHAIRMAN —The question beforethe chair is that item 69 stand as printed.

Clause 69 agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Margetts, Ipresume that you do not intend to proceedwith amendment No. 2.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(11.40 a.m.)—As the first ANEF amendmentwas defeated, I realise what the answer willbe to the second one.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; reportedadopted.

Third ReadingBill (on motion bySenator Campbell) read

a third time.

ORDER OF BUSINESSMotion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That intervening business be postponed till after

consideration of the following government businessorders of the day:

No. 5 Export Market Development Grants Bill1997 and a related bill

No. 4 Consideration in committee of the wholeof messages Nos 216, 217 and 218 fromthe House of Representatives (PrivateHealth Insurance Incentives Bill 1997 and2 related bills.

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENTGRANTS BILL 1997

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENTGRANTS (REPEAL AND

CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS)BILL 1997


by Senator Hill:That this bill be now read a second time.

(Quorum formed)

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (11.45a.m.)—The Senate has before it the ExportMarket Development Grants Bill 1997 and theExport Market Development Grants (Repealand Consequential Provisions) Bill 1997. Thegovernment has delivered its second readingspeech on this legislation. On behalf of theopposition, it is for me to present our viewson this legislation.

Export market development grants are aninstitution in Australia that serve our nationalinterest. It serves our national interest in apowerful way. It does so by providing un-capped grants to would-be Australian export-ers, encouraging them to venture into themarketplace beyond our shores and winexport contracts for their companies, whichwill build the export base for this nation andturn around what is, by any measure, a quitesevere current account deficit.

The truth about Australia is that in dollarvalues we sell less to the world than we buy


from the world. We are a nation whoseprofile is, in the main, that of exporting bulkcommodities—be it agricultural goods ormineral commodities—and we are an import-ing nation whose profile is, in the main, thatof importing sophisticated manufacturedgoods. As a country we cannot go on sellingcheap, unimproved bulk commodities at thelowest value in the marketplace and buyingback sophisticated manufactured goods thatcommand the highest price in the market-place.

When Labor was in office, our major thrustwas to turn around the profile of our exportsby encouraging the manufacturing sector andthe services sector to export their goods andservices. To do so, a range of incentives wasprovided. That range of incentives includesexport market development grants. Thosegrants serve the needs mostly of small tomedium sized companies.

This government purports to be a govern-ment for small businesses. This bill cuts outessential support that small businesses need totrade in the international marketplace. It cutsthem out or cuts them down. As a conse-quence, this bill is regressive legislation. It islegislation against our national interest. It islegislation against our need to export more atthe improved level of the chain rather than atthe unimproved level of the chain.

Australia’s current account deficit is rough-ly in the order of $20 billion. That is a bigfigure, but it is meaningless unless youcontrast it with what percentage of GDP thatrepresents. Our current account deficit isabout four per cent of GDP. It is high byworld standards, and the only way we willturn it around is to export more.

The budget this government brought downlast year—the first conservative budget inAustralia for 13 years—is a budget whichforecasts, in fact, for 1996-97 and 1997-98 acontraction in the amount of contribution thatnet exports will make to GDP. It is a contrac-tion of 0.25 per cent. That is to be contrastedwith the increase that the net contributionexports made to Australia’s GDP underLabor. In our last year, 1995-96, we had aplus one per cent contribution—a positiveoutcome for this country. In one year, the

government has turned that into a negativecontribution to this country.

Encouraging exports means nurturing anexport culture for Australia. The instrument todo that is the Australian Trade Commission—Austrade. Austrade has had its budget cut.ITES—a scheme for bigger exporters, arollover scheme and a scheme that played asignificant role in lifting Australia’s interna-tional exports—has been abolished. Now wehave the EMDG Bill, which is to furtherremove supports for the export industry.

As with industry policy—where this newgovernment has decided that the harshest,most severe version of rational economics isto apply—this government has reduced theseincentives. In industry policy across theboard, the government has reduced incentiveson a range of areas which expose our com-panies to predatory international competitionwith no protection or very little protection. Ibelieve that is a vote of no confidence inAustralia’s capability to succeed in develop-ing, particularly in the manufacturing andservice industries. Certainly that is what theindustries say.

In the case of EMDG, we have had aSenate committee of inquiry into this bill. Anumber of well-known national bodies thatrepresent exporters gave evidence. These arebodies whose main role in life is to representthe interests of the companies covered bythem. These are bodies which, by their verynature, are conservative when it comes tocriticising governments. Their preferredposition is to work with governments.

All of them were critical of this bill. TheAustralian Institute of Export, representingmost exporters in Australia—certainly all ofthe small companies that are exporters—wasa severe critic of this bill. The AustralianInformation Industries Association, whichrepresents the field of information technologyand telecommunications—the biggest andfastest growing industry in the world: the onethat commands the most excitement anddrama, the one in which Australia has aleading role, particularly as a software cre-ator—is concerned that this bill will limit theopportunities of its members to realise in the


international market by removing essentialsupports from them.

As I have said on previous occasions,currently we are in deficit on informationindustry exports. We import $6 billion worthof information industry technology a year. Bythe year 2000, we will be importing, oncurrent estimates, $20 billion worth of com-puters and of convergence and telecommuni-cations materials—$20 million, which is aboutthe size of our current account deficit now.What is urgent for this nation is to encourageour exporters in this area so that they can sellto the world more than we buy from theworld.

They are like Geoffrey Rush. They areOscar winners in their field, but we areremoving from them the ability to star infilms and get world and global recognition bycutting out these props. That is a black markagainst the government. It is not me sayingthat; they are saying that. An independentrefereeing of the statistics of this schemereveals that—loud and clear and more elo-quently than anyone else.

Let me continue the rollcall. The AustralianPublishers Association, which represent bookpublishers in Australia, are a relatively smallindustry group—but a very active and certain-ly an extremely enterprising one. They haveused imagination and innovation and havewon for Australia a bigger share of the worldbook market by being enterprising, taking ourproduct abroad, being assiduous about attend-ing trade fairs and promoting the small pub-lishers in Australia—the small businesses thatthis government claims to represent. They saythat this bill is against their interest andagainst the interest of Australia maintaininga key position world on book publishing. Thefurniture association says similar things.

At previous hearings, we have heard thereason why Australia is a world leader in themanufacture and export of fast, aluminiumcatamaran ferries—a market worth half abillion dollars worth of exports a year. It isbecause, in the initial start-up phase of thatindustry, they took advantage of the exportmarket development grants. They took advan-tage of circumstances which this government

now wishes to change and change in a regres-sive way.

I reject the economic rationalist thinkingthat is behind this bill—that thinking whichargues that, if you cut out these industrysupports, the cold winds of the marketplacewill determine that the strong will win and theweak will fail. The trouble with that theory isthat we are talking about small business inAustralia; that is, small business that does nothave the market strength of bigger businessthat will compete with overseas businesses.

When the cold winds of economicrationalist theory blow through the Australiansmall business market in export, they abolishthat market. They overrun it; they overwhelmit. It means that, certainly, the fit will survive,but they will not be Australian companies.Our current account deficit will blow out toa greater level, which will have a consequen-tial effect not only on unemployment in thisnation but also on interest rates and inflation.

I think this is a very important bill. Theopposition is strongly opposed to cutting backthe export market development grants schemein the manner proposed. Certainly, we arestrongly opposed to capping the scheme. Theimportant and distinctive feature of thisscheme is that those who want to export,those who have the initiative and entrepreneu-rial drive to seek markets offshore fromAustralia for goods or services manufacturedhere can access the support this scheme offersand access it according to the amount ofeffort they put in. It is not picking winners. Itis backing winners. Those that want to havea go are supported.

This government is proposing to cap theamount of support and to limit and narrow theamount of areas in which those companiescan qualify. What is offensive to me aboutthat is all of the things that I have said. Butwhen you look at whether this scheme worksor not, the evidence is unequivocal: thisscheme works. There are a number of thingsthat you do to promote exports, that you donot being certain about what the practicalimpact is, and you spend public money inorder to help achieve a practical outcome.After you have done that for a while, youaudit whether or not it has succeeded. If it


has, you encourage it. If it has not, youmodify it and, if it is a failure, you abolish it.

In the case of the export market develop-ment grants scheme, it has been independentlyrefereed by Professor Bewley of the Universi-ty of New South Wales. He is a distinguishedeconometrician in Australia. He has calculatedthat, for every dollar spent on this scheme—every dollar of taxpayers’ money—the returnto the nation is between $9 and $20. If Aus-tralian taxpayers could be sure that if they put$1 down and get a return of between $9 to$20 on that dollar, I am sure that they wouldsay, ‘This is a good investment.’ Certainly, ifI were an investor and I could put down $1and get between $9 and $20 back, I wouldregard that as a good investment. This is—Iunderline this—independent refereeing of thisscheme. That is what the independent aca-demic who reviewed this scheme said.

What does Austrade say? Austrade is thegovernment’s agency here. It is the agencythrough which this scheme is operated. In itscomments in the last budget, it said that thescheme returns up to one to 33; that is, for $1up to $33 returned. In the face of all that,there is one stark question: why would youcut back a scheme that returns that value tothe nation? It returns that value to the nation,at a time when we have a current accountdeficit of $20 billion, representing four percent of gross domestic product, and when thePrime Minister himself has said that the mosturgent economic problem for this nation is toreel back that current account deficit. It makesno sense. It is for that key reason that we areopposed to this bill.

As I said in my earlier remarks, this billimposes a cap on a scheme which is currentlyuncapped. This bill proposes that no morethan $150 million be spent in support of thisscheme, that is to say, we make a $9 to $20return, or one to 33 per cent return. But, byGod, we’re not going to put too much moneydown in order to achieve that outcome.

The cap, however, reduces what has beenin recent budgets the estimate of how muchmoney would be spent on the scheme. Inrecent budgets, I recall, the estimated outlaysunder the scheme would be between about$220 million and $250 million. So we are

cutting about $90 million out of it or, as mycolleague in the other place, the Hon. StephenSmith, has said, over four years $142million—according to the budget figures—will be cut out of the scheme. That is $142million to which there is an advantage of oneto nine or one to 20 or, in Austrade’s figures,one to 33.

But that is not all. An administrative chargeis to be cut from that outlay of $150 million.That administrative charge is five per cent.There goes $7.5 million; the $150 millionbecomes $142.5 million. Of course, this agrants scheme and recipients of grants haveto declare them as income in their tax and paytax on them. The corporate tax rate is 36 percent. When you apply the 36 per cent tax rateto the scheme, there goes another $51.3million. So the actual outlay to the Common-wealth is $91.2 million. But I bet you that theCommonwealth will run around this nationand say, ‘We are putting $150 million intoencouraging exports.’ They will not say thatthat is about $90 million less than last year.They will not say that they are clawing backover $50 million and that the real figure isonly $91.2 million.

The other element of this legislation is tonarrow the eligibility for this scheme, and thataffects small business. Let me recite the areasof narrowing of eligibility. Trusts are to beexcluded although I understand now, fromamendments foreshadowed by the govern-ment, that the government will relent on thatand trusts will be included. Air fares areessential to export. You need to get into themarket and, unless you sail, the only way ofgetting there is to fly but air fares are to belimited and be ineligible after two years. Weare moving an amendment in that regard, andI trust and hope that the government cansupport that amendment.

One of the biggest problems for Australiancompanies is protecting their patent rights.We are an inventive country. We have gotgood scientists. Too often we see their ideastaken overseas and turned into products orservices by others and sold back to us. Thisscheme limits the ability of Australian com-panies that have taken our scientific base andturned it into products here to protect and


defend their patents and their intellectualproperty in the world. We are moving amend-ments on that. Overseas buyers’ visits toAustralia, foreign language training, interna-tional business education courses, exportpackaging and labelling design, tenders andquotations, free technical information andsubscriptions to industry associations are allto be limited under this bill.

To put the final touch to it, this bill con-tains what I describe as delegated legislation.This bill reposes in Austrade, an organisationthat I have a high regard for but it is a publicsector organisation nonetheless, the right tomake business and entrepreneurial decisionsabout whether businesses are capable orshould be given money for a grant. Clearly,government has to discriminate about what isthe difference between success and failure butI say this as a cautionary note: none of theguidelines under which Austrade will makethose decisions has yet been published. Thegovernment could have brought those guide-lines forward now—we could have seen themand, if we could know what the guidelineswere, that would be a good signal to industry.But they have not been published and we donot know what they contain.

We only have assurances about them, andI hope that those assurances—given in thecommittee hearing—can be supported by theparliamentary secretary at the table and atleast then we will know, under the Acts Inter-pretation Act, that that is the government’sview. But delegated legislation is a thornyissue for the Senate, rightly so and for goodreason. What the government wants to doshould be clear, should be transparent and theappeal rights should be well set out. That isnot the case here and I oppose those areas ofdelegated legislation.

I conclude by saying that I want to acknow-ledge that the parliamentary secretary, DavidBrownhill, has been prepared to talk to theopposition and negotiate with us about ourconcerns in a constructive manner. I acknow-ledge that. All too often in politics there isnothing but criticism. I want to damage hiscareer, I hope not, by praising his construc-tiveness here and also that of his minister,Tim Fischer. I also say that this is an import-

ant bill and we will oppose all those featuresI have referred to.(Time expired)

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.05 p.m.)—Thank you, Senator Cook, fora very good summation. I first want to dealwith the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade Legislation Committee which, in sucha short period of time, pulled out all the stopsto produce a very helpful set of hearings anda report. In the rush and pressure that we areexperiencing in this overconcertinaed period,in which we are looking at so many importantbills, the secretariats that serve our commit-tees deserve proper commendation. Thesec-retariat of the legislation committee were sorushed that they actually could not evenadvertise the hearings. Yet nearly 50 submis-sions came in in a very short period of time.This is a bill on which there has been anoutpouring of rage by persons affected and byorganisations that are concerned with andunderstand the export milieu.

This scheme is now 23 years old. It beganunder that giant of the political landscape,Gough Whitlam. It was continued under theLiberal governments that followed his govern-ment and by the Labor governments thatfollowed those governments. In each case,amendments were made to, and reviews weremade of, the legislation so it is now, in ouropinion and in the opinion of informed obser-vers, one of the most effective and mostworthy of all business and export assistanceschemes.

It is not, and has not been, a scheme whichis subject to expenditure blow-out or to anysubstantial abuse. It is a scheme which hashad a total of 69,234 grants made between1974 and 1991. Most grants average around$61,000. The total grants for 1995-96 arerecorded at $202 million. But those grants aretaxable in the hands of the recipient, so thereal value of the scheme has been limited toaround $120 million in net cost.

It is not an expensive scheme for thebenefits it delivers to Australia; the real killeris the actual exports generated under thescheme. In 1995-96, the exports generatedwere $5.07 billion. I will lead on to that later.How any Treasurer who has to pay attentionto our balance of trade deficit as well as our


budget deficit can attack such a productivescheme throws great light on his lack ofjudgment and his lack of discretion. The ratioof exports to grants has actually been improv-ing. In other words, it is an extremely effi-cient scheme. From 1992 to 1993 the ratiorose to 21 to one. As Senator Cook hasoutlined, it is now recorded as in the lowthirties to one. It is an extremely efficientscheme with a very high multiplier content.

I am of the opinion that you have to havea mix of policies in the pursuit of Australia’sexport goals. I am beginning to have theopinion that we need a better mix in thecabinet. Eight lawyers, four farmers, a doctor,a diplomat and a businessman sat there andagreed to this cut. It shows me that theyreally do need to look at their prioritisation.I commend both the Minister for Trade (MrTim Fischer) and the Parliamentary Secretaryto the Minister for Trade (Mr Brownhill),because I am aware that both of them foughtto keep this scheme alive. It is my informa-tion that it was the intention of the Treasurer(Mr Costello) to destroy it completely. Theyshould be publicly commended for at leastallowing it to survive in a truncated manner.The second thing I would like to commendSenator Brownhill for is his willingness toconsult and to negotiate on this matter. Thatmakes it far more easy to resolve legislationwhich so materially affects the country.

The Australian Democrats have the viewthat the scheme should not be capped. Ac-cordingly, I will be moving a motion at theend of my address that the scheme not becapped. We believe that its growth has notbeen open ended and fearsome to the budget;it has been regulated, controlled and quitewell managed. It is fashionable and probablyrealistic to criticise those authorities that haveto manage these schemes because they do notget everything right. But, by and large,Austrade has a reputation for having managedthe scheme well. It should be commended fordoing that.

This legislation has two motivations. Beforedamning it completely, I should indicate thatthe Australian Democrats believe there aremany improvements in the bill. Those amend-ments are based on the efficiency audits of

the scheme by the Australia National AuditOffice—another accountability mechanismwhich very frequently does a good job inassisting in the efficient management of thecountry. In this respect the bill reflects anumber of positive aspects in terms of admin-istrative, managerial and operating effective-ness. But the bill—this is where our criticismswill be focused in this debate—alters thecharacter of the EMDG scheme, the exportmarket development grants scheme, in twofundamental respects.

Firstly, it alters it from an open-ended to acapped scheme. That will result in far morediscretion, far more of a winner pickingmentality within Austrade. Secondly, itreduces the budget from $204 million—Ithink it was expected to reach $212 millionthis year on an open access basis—to $150million. That is a reduction of nearly $70million. But the real reduction, as I said, willbe far less because this is a scheme where thegrants are taxable in the hands of the individ-ual. In other words, the government is claim-ing a saving of nearly $70 million, but thereal saving will be about $40 million.

Our main concerns with this bill reflectthose of the majority committee. It should bepointed out that many coalition members arevery disturbed by some of the trends emer-ging in this bill. We have focused on trusts:we commend the government for its changesto trusts as a result of submissions from thecommunity affected by this bill, from thecommittee itself, from the opposition andfrom us. We want to accord our gratitude toyou for your responsiveness. I will be puttingup amendments during the committee stage;I will deal with trusts at greater length at thattime.

The second area which I understand isattended to as a result of the trusts amend-ment is the element of retrospectivity. Personswho, quite rightly, made decisions about howthey would spend money this year discoveredonly in December, nearly five months afterthe budget, that what they were proposing todo would now be rendered retrospectivelyinapplicable under the bill.

The third area that the government, theDemocrats and the opposition have come to


agreement on is that of air fares. We concurwith the view, and from long and practicalexperience it is the right view, that air faresare the single most important mechanism forpromoting exports because they promote face-to-face interaction. If you want to persuadepeople you talk to them face to face. That iswhy in this parliament we do not sit in frontof our television sets all the time. We actuallycome down here and talk to each other. In themost important debate that seems to havebeen around in terms of people’s consciences,the euthanasia debate, they were all herelistening and reacting. The face-to-facemechanism is very important.

The next concern we have, and we wish wedid not have this concern because it is a hugeand costly drain on exporters and it is quitea large component of the eligibility mecha-nism, is the costs of patents, trademarks andother intellectual property. It is a fact of lifethat if you have a brand of good or service ofany kind, if you want to compete internation-ally you have to make sure you are protected,otherwise you will arrive with your little bagof tricks and they will get stolen from you. Itis as simple as that. The patents, trademarksand other intellectual property protections aredesigned to prevent your competitors fromstealing your brand of goods or services.

The last area really refers to the nature ofAustrade’s discretion. Austrade is a statutoryauthority and its discretion would be less ofa concern under an open access scheme. Butas soon as you cap a scheme it results in asituation where they themselves have todistinguish, subjectively sometimes, betweenapplicants. That means that the criteria forselection needs to be particularly well devel-oped as a consequence and there does need tobe a proper reviewable system. I shouldindicate to government that there is a problemwith the capping of the scheme which resultsin a different way in which Austrade willhave to function in terms of distinguishingbetween applicants and their eligible claims.

I do not propose to go through much morein my opening remarks. I am aware we areunder time constraints. I would commend tothe Senate my minority report which I thinkexpresses the Australian Democrats views

succinctly and well. There is a comity ofviews between the opposition and ourselveson these matters. We will be supporting theopposition amendments. We will be support-ing the government amendments. I move:At the end of the motion, add:

"but the Senate is of the view that, if the schemeis to be capped, funding for the scheme should benot less than last year’s levels."

I do not want to move to a division. What Iwould like to do is get an indication from thegovernment, the opposition, Senator Colstonand Senator Margetts whether they willsupport that motion. Senator Brownhill, couldyou advise me whether Senator Harradinewould support it? If you advise me no I willthen just do it on the voices.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.18 p.m.)—I thank all those whohave spoken in the debate on the ExportMarket Development Grants Bill. I would alsolike to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence andTrade Legislation Committee for the promptmanner in which they dealt with the draft bill.We found the report to be a constructivecontribution and that is the way things shouldhappen. The draft bill was sent to the commit-tee so that a debate could take place outsidethis chamber and the legislation could bedealt with much more quickly when it camebefore the chamber.

We took particular note of some of thecomments from the business representativesand also from others during the debate. Ithink the Minister for Trade (Mr Tim Fischer)indicated in the other place that he wasprepared to consider the issue of trusts andaccess to the EMDG scheme in the light ofthat legislation committee’s report. The reportwas tabled on the 20th. I thank SenatorTroeth for the job she did as chairperson.

The government has carefully consideredboth the report and what was put to us. Onthe strength of the arguments we have decidedthat the trusts should be included in thescheme and the government amendmentwhich has been circulated to that effect iswith you all. The amendment also seeks to


ensure that trusts are subject to rules so that,in short, they have the same degree of ac-countability as all other export market devel-opment grant claimants. We have had anagreement with the Democrats and others asfar as that is concerned.

This bill delivers on the government’scommitment to maintain the export marketdevelopment grant scheme and to provide fullrate eligibility for the first time to the tourismindustry. It simplifies and better targets thescheme; it supports the SMEs; and it retainsa well-funded program, despite the budgetblack hole of the previous government. TheEMDG scheme has been assisting Australianexporters for over 22 years, as Senator Cooksaid. We believe it has assisted many people.

Two significant measures have been intro-duced to direct more funds to small andmedium enterprises. The minimum expendi-ture threshold has been lowered to $20,000per grant to benefit more small and mediumsize enterprises. In addition, applicants withincome in the grant year in excess of $50million will no longer be eligible to receivea grant for that year, thus freeing up availablefunds for those exporters most in need ofassistance.

The government has also recognised thesignificant contribution made to our exportsby the tourism industry and increasing thegrant rate for all tourism providers to the full50 per cent and allowing free samples ofservices provided and access to approved jointventures, I believe, will be a great help. Thegovernment has, because of the fiscal legacywe inherited, decided to place a cap on annualfunding and this is consistent with thegovernment’s wider goal of fiscal restraint.Most importantly, the mechanism for affectingthe cap will provide for full payment ofsmaller grants at the time of determination.As to the point that Senator Murray made, no,we will not be supporting his amendment.

To minimise the potential reduction toindividual grants, the government has intro-duced a number of policy changes which willsimplify the scheme, address fraud and bettertarget those SMEs in the early years ofexporting. The fundamental principles of thescheme have not been altered. The scheme

will continue to provide assistance to smalland medium Australian exporters and poten-tial exporters through the partial reimburse-ment of selected promotional cost. Under thisbill the scheme retains its open access nature.

The bill demonstrates the commitment ofthe government to assist Australian SMEs toenter and develop export markets. I noteSenator Cook’s concern about smaller com-panies. We have retained a well fundedEMDG scheme which encourages smallerfirms into exports. We have also made sub-stantial progress towards reducing the budgetdeficit and providing a better macro-economicenvironment for all Australian exporters. Allsmall firms are eligible for grants. Indeed, thebigger impact of the reduced budget for theEMDG is on the larger companies.

On the issue of Austrade’s discretionarypowers, Senator Murray raised concerns aboutprotecting commercial-in-confidence informa-tion. I have checked the provisions within thecurrent Austrade Act 1985. That act providessubstantial penalties for any breaches byAustrade staff. They are of the same orderthat Senator Murray seeks. Therefore, Ibelieve that further amendments on thatsubject would not be needed.

To all the people who participated in thedebate, I thank you very much again for yourkind words. The Senate is a place where Ibelieve we have to look at legislation and dothe best thing we can for the community. Itake your points on notice. I believe that thisscheme will be a better targeted schemewithin the constraints that we have under thefiscal responsibility that we have to thetaxpayers of Australia. I believe it will makesure that the export industries are assistedwell in the next few years.

I thank Senator Murray and the othersenators for being able to talk about this billoutside the chamber and taking in accountwhat was said at the inquiry. I commend thebill to honourable senators.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.25 p.m.)—by leave—I have a questionregarding the amendment I have put. Can youindicate for me, Parliamentary Secretary,whether Senator Harradine has advised you


that he will oppose my second readingamendment.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.25 p.m.)—by leave—The bill, aspresented by us, as far as the cap is con-cerned, would be supported by SenatorHarradine. Therefore, he would not be sup-porting your amendment.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.26 p.m.)—by leave—I therefore indicateto you that I will take my amendment on thevoices.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.26p.m.)—by leave—Senator Murray asked inthe concluding phases of his speech what theopposition’s position would be on his motion.The opposition will support the Democrats’motion, and we will take it on the voices.

Question resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirma-tive.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENTGRANTS BILL 1997

The bill.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.28 p.m.)—I table a supplemen-tary explanatory memorandum relating to thegovernment amendments to be moved to thisbill. This memorandum was circulated in thechamber on 21 March 1997. I seek leave tomove the government amendments to this bill.

Leave granted.

Senator BROWNHILL —I move:(1) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 2 and 3), omit "or

approved trading house", substitute ", ap-proved trading house or trustee".

(2) Clause 7, page 5 (line 5), omit "or approvedtrading house", substitute ", an approvedtrading house or a person acting in the capaci-ty of trustee of a trust estate".

(3) Clause 7, page 6 (after line 25), at the end ofthe clause, add:

Trustees

(4) A person acting as trustee of a trust estateis eligible for a grant in respect of a grantyear if the following conditions are satis-fied:

(a) the person was, in Austrade’s opinion,genuinely carrying on in Australia, duringthe grant year, a business (trust business)for the purposes of the trust estate;

(b) subject to section 8, the person is not agrantee in respect of 8 or more previousyears;

(c) the income of the person from the trustbusiness during the grant year is not morethan $50,000,000;

(d) the export earnings of the person duringthe grant year are not more than$25,000,000;

Note: Section 10 provides that only earningsfrom the trust business are to be takeninto account.

(e) neither the person, nor (in the case of acompany) any of its directors, is underinsolvency administration when the per-son applies for the grant;

(f) none of the beneficiaries of the trustestate, nor (in the case of a beneficiaryother than an individual) any associate ofthe beneficiary, is under insolvencyadministration when the person appliesfor the grant;

(g) there are no disqualifying convictionsoutstanding against either the person orany beneficiary of the trust estate undersection 17 when the person applies for thegrant;

(h) if Division 5 applies to the person—theperson (in the capacity of trustee for thetrust estate) has been registered undersection 19 and has passed the grants entrytest.

Note: For person, grant year, Austrade,grantee, income, export earnings,associate under insolvency administra-tion and grants entry testsee section107.

(4) Clause 8, page 6 (line 27), omit "or (2)(a)",substitute ", (2)(a) or (4)(b)".

(5) Clause 8, page 6 (line 29), omit "(within themeaning of the repealed Act)".

(6) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 11), after para-graph (c), insert:


; (d) in the case of a person that has appliedfor a grant in the capacity of trustee of a trustestate—any grant paid to the person otherwisethan in that capacity;(e) in the case of a person that has applied fora grant in the person’s own right—any grant paidto the person in the person’s capacity as trusteeof a trust estate.

(7) Clause 8, page 7 (after line 21), after thedefinition of claim period, insert:

grant includes a grant under the repealed Act.(8) Clause 10, page 8 (line 6), omit "and (5)",

substitute ", (5) and (6)".(9) Clause 10, page 10 (lines 27 to 29), omit

subclause (5), substitute:(5) In working out the export earnings of a

person that has applied for a grant in thecapacity of trustee of a trust estate, disre-gard any earnings of the person that are notderived from the business carried on for thepurposes of the trust estate.

(6) In working out the export earnings of aperson that:

(a) has applied for a grant in the person’sown right; but

(b) is also a trustee, or a beneficiary, of atrust estate;

disregard any earnings of the person from thebusiness carried on for the purposes of the trustestate.

(10) Clause 18, page 17 (line 4), omit "This",substitute "Subject to subsections (2) and(3), this".

(11) Clause 18, page 17 (after line 11), at theend of the clause, add:

(2) If the person intends to apply for a grant inthe capacity of trustee of a trust estate, then,for the purposes of subsection (1), disregard:

(a) any grant previously paid or payable tothe person; and

(b) any application for a grant made by theperson; otherwise than in that capacity.

(3) If the person intends to apply for a grant inthe person’s own right, then, for the pur-poses of subsection (1), disregard:

(a) any grant previously paid or payable tothe person; and

(b) any application for a grant made by theperson; in the capacity of trustee of atrust estate.

(12) Clause 40, page 33 (cell at table item 14,2nd column), omit the cell, substitute "Ex-penses of applicant carrying on business indifferent capacities".

(13) Clause 54, page 37 (lines 24 to 26), omitthe clause, substitute:

54 Expenses of applicant carrying on businessin different capacities(1) If an applicant has applied for a grant in the

capacity of trustee of a trust estate, anyexpenses of the applicant incurred otherwisethan in that capacity are excluded.

(2) If an applicant that has applied for a grantin the applicant’s own right is also a trusteeof a trust estate, any expenses of the appli-cant incurred in the capacity of trustee ofthe trust estate are excluded.

(14) Clause 86, page 55 (line 15), omit "againstthe person", substitute:

against:(a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—the person;

or(b) if the person is entitled to the grant or

advance in the capacity of trustee of a trustestate—the person or any beneficiary of thetrust estate.

Note about clause 86, page 55 (line 11): Theheading to clause 86 is altered by omitting "theperson" and substituting "grantee etc.".

(15) Clause 86, page 55 (line 19), add at the end", or the person or any beneficiary of thetrust estate, as the case may be".

(16) Clause 87, page 55 (lines 24 to 26), omit"advance, the person or, (where applicable)an associate of the person, is under insol-vency administration", substitute:

advance:(a) if paragraph (b) does not apply—the person

or (where applicable) an associate of theperson; or

(b) if the person is entitled to the grant oradvance in the capacity of trustee of a trustestate:

(i) the person or (where applicable) an asso-ciate of the person; or

(ii) any beneficiary of the trust estate or(where applicable) an associate of thebeneficiary;

is under insolvency administration.Note about clause 87, page 55 (line 21): Theheading to clause 87 is altered by omitting"Person or associate" and substituting "Granteeetc.".

(17) Clause 87, page 55 (line 28) to page 56(line 2), omit "when neither the person, norany associate of the person, was underinsolvency administration", substitute:

when:


(a) if paragraph (1)(a) applies to the per-son—neither the person, nor any associateof the person; or

(b) if paragraph (1)(b) applies to the per-son—neither the person nor any otherperson referred to in that paragraph;

was under insolvency administration.

(18) Clause 101, page 66 (line 6), after "(a)",insert "or (4)(a)".

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.28p.m.)—I understand that these are the amend-ments that the government foreshadowedearlier. They relate to trusts. I think theylargely meet the points that the opposition isconcerned about here.

I am aware that my colleague SenatorMurray has an amendment on this matter. Iunderstand that Senator Murray’s amendmentis also acceptable to the government. I wouldindicate now, to save jumping up and downall the time, my support for Senator Murray’samendment too.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.29 p.m.)—I rise to advise the governmentthat we will be supporting amendments 1 to18. We commend the government for reactingso well to the concerns of the community andof the committee that produced the report.

The CHAIRMAN —Senator Murray, doyou have an amendment to governmentamendment No. 3? If so, could you move it.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.30 p.m.)—I move:Omit paragraph (4)(a), substitute:

(a) the person provides to Austrade, onrequest, the following information:

(i) a declaration of beneficial and ultimatecontrol of the trust estate, including bytrustees; and

(ii) a declaration of the identities of thebeneficiaries of the trust estate, includ-ing in the case of individuals, theircountries of residence and, in the caseof beneficiaries which are not individu-als, their countries of incorporation orregistration, as the case may be; and

(iii) details of any relationships with otherentities;

(iv) the percentage distribution of incomewithin the trust; and

(v) any changes during the grant year inrelation to information provided undersubparagraphs (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv).

Note: Forprotection of information provid-ed to Austrade under this paragraphsee section 105A.

Trusts are an extensively used legal mecha-nism for conducting family and businessaffairs in Australia. There are, as we know,varying kinds of trusts and they all havecharacteristics which make them less transpar-ent and often more complex than corpora-tions. It is for this reason that informedcommentators are cautious and careful indealing with some kinds of trusts. However,the fact that trusts may have a reputation thatthey can be used by a minority in a mannerwhich is not conducive to good social conductdoes not mean that the majority of familiesand businesses using them are operatingoutside the law.

I should indicate those characteristics oftrusts which distinguish trusts from corporateentities and should be noted for the purposesof this amendment. Those characteristics oftrusts are as follows. Firstly, the beneficialand ultimate control of the trust is shieldedfrom public disclosure. In contrast to a corpo-rate entity where the shareholders are avail-able in the annual ASC declaration, there isno such mechanism for trusts.

Secondly, the distribution of income in atrust is generally discretionary and can varybetween the beneficiaries year by year. Thatagain is in contrast to a corporate entitywhose ASC declaration will indicate thepercentage shareholding and, therefore, thepercentage entitlement of the shareholders.Thirdly, the beneficiaries of trusts are shieldedfrom the public eye. Once again that is incontrast to a corporate entity where theshareholders are identified in terms of theirshareholdings and return, whereas the benefi-ciaries of trusts are concealed.

Lastly, trusts may be used to maximise taxeffectiveness and planning in ways which arenot available to incorporated bodies. Thegovernment has indicated that it is going toput trusts under greater scrutiny in this regard,if I understand their signals correctly. Speak-


ing for the Australian Democrats, we wouldwelcome that.

The Austrade officials at the hearing madesound and valid points, although they mighthave expressed themselves a little moreclearly I think, about some of the problemsthey do experience with trusts—that is, beingable to determine exactly what lies behindtrusts and who is dealing with them. I was atpains in the question and answer section withone witness to establish whether that witnesswould have a problem with outlining theexact nature of his trust.

His answer was no, he was quite happy toshow who was in control, who the beneficiar-ies were and what the percentage distributionof income was because the trust to him wasa legal device which maximised his relation-ship both with his export trade and with hisbusiness affairs. My view is that that sort ofattitude is likely to pertain to most trusteesand participants in trusts.

The purpose of this amendment is to allowAustrade to require where it wishes—it is notobligatory; it is a discretion—for a trust todisclose relevant information about controland beneficiaries if it wishes to proceed withthe grants. The second point Austrade made,which was a good one, was that at times ithas great difficulty understanding the relation-ships of trusts to corporate entities and inwhat manner funds are controlled and movedabout. Once again, my Australia Democratamendment does not allow for Austrade, at its

discretion—it is not obligatory—to requestthat information if it needs it in order to makea more informed and more objective decisionas to who should get grants and on what basisof eligibility. Accordingly, I commend myamendment to the Senate.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.34 p.m.)—I thank SenatorMurray for his contribution. The governmentsupports that addition to our amendment No.3.

Amendment (Senator Murray’s) agreed to.Amendments (Senator Brownhill’s), as

amended, agreed to.Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.35

p.m.)—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 28, page 24 (line 8), after "promotion-

al" insert "or other".

(2) Clause 29, page 24 (lines 15 and 16) omitparagraph (a), substitute:

(a) the expenses are claimable expenses:

(i) under section 33, in respect of aneligible promotional activity, or

(ii) under section 38B, in respect ofother claimable expenses.

(3) Clause 33, page 26 (line 20), omit "Subdivi-sion 4", substitute, "Division 2B".

(4) Clause 33, page 27, omit item 2 of the tableof Claimable expenses in respect of eligiblepromotional activities, substitute:

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

2 any visit (marketing visit) made bythe applicant or its agent to anyplace in or outside Australia, or byan overseas buyer to any place inAustralia, to the extent to which thevisit is made for an approved pro-motional purpose

all expenses:

(a) incurred by the applicant in payments topersons that, in Austrade’s opinion, arenot closely related to the applicant; and

(b) that are allowable expenses under section34.

(5) Clause 33, page 27, after item 3 of the table ofClaimable expenses in respect of eligiblepromotional activities, insert:


Column 1 Column 2 Column 3

3A the provision, primarily for an approvedpromotional purpose, of free technicalinformation to a person that is not aresident of Australia

all reasonable expenses incurred by theapplicant that are attributable to the actualcost of providing the information

These amendments relate to eligible expensesand return effectively the provisions of theexisting bill. We had, as has been said in thevarious speeches delivered on this subjecttoday, a quite worthwhile and useful SenateEconomics Legislation Committee hearing onthis bill. During that hearing an innovativeprocedure was adopted in which the chairman,Senator Troeth, invited witnesses to thehearing to put their views directly to theAustrade witnesses, who then forthrightlyreplied to the concerns the industry witnesseshad raised. What the industry witnesses wereconcerned about were matters of interpreta-tion.

I indicated during that hearing, and I nowwish to implement that indication, that Iwould ask the government during this phaseof debate on this bill whether it adopted theinterpretations that Austrade had given theindustry in the committee hearing as itsunderstanding of what this bill meant andwould do so for the provisions of the ActsInterpretation Act. I, therefore, wish to ask: isthe parliamentary secretary at the table,Senator Brownhill, in a position to nowconfirm on behalf of the government theadvice that Austrade gave the industry organi-sations at the hearing that relates to how thisbill will be interpreted?

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.37 p.m.)—On the advice that Ihave, it is not clear that the Acts Interpreta-tion Act allows the parliamentary secretary toendorse departmental evidence as material towhich regard can be had in interpreting theact. It is not a common practice and willrequire far more careful consideration andadvice than we have been able to obtain inthis short time to give you a more definitiveanswer.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.38p.m.)—In view of that answer and in view ofthe time constraints that we are under, Iindicate that I do not think that is an accept-able answer. The purpose of the procedureentered into at the committee was for theindustry associations to be able to clear updirectly with Austrade in the presence of thecommittee their concerns about how this actwould be administered by the trade commis-sion—Austrade. If the government is notprepared to back Austrade’s interpretation—and that is the only possible interpretation ofthe answer just given—I am not sure whatindustry should think about the advice givenby Austrade. I think their concerns—and theyhave raised a number of them in the evi-dence—are therefore justified and the pity isthat we are under time constraints today.

The consequential pity of that is that wecannot explore this question in great depthother than to say no-one should thereforenecessarily place their faith in what Austradehas indicated to the committee would be theinterpretation. In saying that, I intend, ofcourse, no reflection on Austrade. I am surethose officers conducted themselves as theybelieved was right and proper. What I dointend is to make a reflection on the govern-ment in not backing up that interpretation. Imark this spot in theHansardfor the reasonthat industry associations should be aware ofthat when they approach their understandingof how these provisions would be interpreted.

I conclude by saying that this could becleared up in a trice. It could be done in theblink of an eye if the government would bringforward the guidelines that obviously have tobe published and would accompany the finallegislation as a guide to Austrade in itsinterpretation. The fact that we do not havethose before us, and did not have them beforethe committee, means that the issue is still atlarge. The industry organisations are still, I


believe, within their rights and justifiablyraising these matters, and the administrationof the terms of this bill must be cloudy untilthe government moves to change it.

On Monday, the Prime Minister broughtdown a statement about cutting red tape insmall business. One of the big problems forsmall business in interpreting what their rightsare vis-a-vis government agencies is vague-ness and uncertainty. They do not havediscretionary time to hire advisers and toadvise them—they do not have the discretion-ary finance to do that—and they do not havethe discretionary time to spend on trying towork it all out for themselves. I think it is aterrible state of affairs that this vaguenessnow continues, and it works against the verypurpose that the government proclaims thisbill to serve, namely to simplify the adminis-trative system of the export market develop-ment grants. With those words, I, of course,persist in my amendments. I will take the voteon the voices.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.41 p.m.)—In answering some ofthe comments that Senator Cook has made, itis normal practice to develop guidelines andregulations after a bill is passed. The govern-ment will develop these instruments in con-sultation with industry and the governmentwould be happy to make drafts available tosenators as part of that process. The parlia-ment will have an opportunity to considerthose instruments when they are tabled. Theguidelines on significant net benefit will bedeveloped if it is considered that they arerequired. I hope that lays some of yourconcerns to rest.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.42p.m.)—As I said, we are under time con-straints. Therefore, I am not obliged to pro-long this, other than to indicate notice to thegovernment that I will be moving to disallowthose instruments when they are tabled, ifthey do not meet the concerns of the industryassociation and if they do not reflect reason-ably the advice Austrade gave the industryassociations at the hearing. I just take this

opportunity to put that on notice and mark thespot as far as we are concerned on this.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.42 p.m.)—With regard to oppositionamendments 1 to 5, we did not review this indetail and we are concerned that it may affectthe judgment as to where moneys are put inthe capped scheme. Our priorities are undoub-tedly airfares and intellectual property. How-ever, with regard to these promotional activi-ties, Senator Cook, I will take the risk, with-out having had a look at it a little moredeeply, of supporting you on this one.

Amendments negatived.Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.44

p.m.)—I have amendments circulated in myname under amendment No. 6 on the runningsheet, relating to clause 34. I have substituteda further amendment in place of that.

The CHAIRMAN —The amendment I havein relation to amendment 2 says:Subject to subsection (6), the following expensesin respect of any air travel reasonably undertakenby the applicant or its agent are allowable:

It removes ‘or an overseas buyer’.Senator COOK—This is in my subsequent

amendment?The CHAIRMAN —Yes.Senator COOK—I wonder if I might take

that subsequent amendment in place ofamendments Nos 6 and 7.

Senator MURRAY—Just to clarify—areyou taking out ‘or an overseas buyer’?

Senator COOK—Let me just do it in placeof No. 6 then. It is the most recent circulatedamendment that you have before you.

The CHAIRMAN —I think you have it,Senator Murray, do you?

Senator Murray—That you are omitting‘or an overseas buyer’.

The CHAIRMAN —Yes.Senator Murray—Yes.Senator COOK—Yes, that is correct. I see

the parliamentary secretary nodding. That ismy understanding of what he and I agreed toin relation to this.

Senator Brownhill—Would you like me totell you what I understand before you—


Senator COOK—Let me formally movethe amendment and then you can tell me whatyou understand from it. I move:(6) Clause 34, page 28 (lines 9 to 15), omit

subclause (2), substitute:

(2) Subject to subsection (6), the followingexpenses in respect of any air travelreasonably undertaken by the applicant orits agent are allowable:

(a) if the applicant has paid first class airfares in respect of the travel—65% ofthose fares; or

(b) in any other case—the total amount ofthe air fares.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.46 p.m.)—Yes, the governmentdoes agree to opposition amendment No. 6,with the words ‘or an overseas buyer’ to bedeleted from the original running sheet. So itwould read:

Subject to subsection (6), the followingexpenses in respect of any air travel reason-ably undertaken by the applicant or its agentare allowable:

(a) if the applicant has paid first class airfares in respect of the travel—65% ofthose fares; or

(b) in any other case—the total amount ofthe air fares.

I accept the subsequent amendment moved bySenator Cook.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.47 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats willsupport that amendment.


Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.47 p.m.)—In light of our support of theopposition’s amendment, we will not bemoving ours.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.48p.m.)—I wonder if I might seek leave tomove as a block all the remaining amend-ments standing in my name.

Senator Murray—Relevant to SenatorCook’s request, I would rather he dealt withopposition amendment No. 8 separately. Theothers can be moved together.

The CHAIRMAN —We will take amend-ment No. 8 first.

Senator COOK—I move:(8) Page 32 (after line 14), after Subdivision 3,

insert:Division 2A—Other claimable expensesSubdivision 1—General38A Object of Division

This Division provides for expenses to beclaimable in respect of certain activities otherthan those provided for in Division 2.

Subdivision 2—Other claimable expenses38B Claimable expenses in respect of otheractivities

The expenses specified in sections 38C to38H, subject to sections 38J and 38K, areclaimable expenses in relation to an applicantin accordance with the relevant provisions ofthose sections and to the extent that they arenot excluded expenses under Division 2B.

38C Expenses for foreign registration ofeligible intellectual property rights

Expenses (whether as payment of fees orotherwise) are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are directly attribu-table to obtaining, or seeking to obtain, underthe law of a country outside Australia:

(i) the grant or registration; or

(ii) the extension of the term of registra-tion; or

(iii) the extension of the period of regis-tration;

of eligible intellectual property rights in respectof eligible goods.

38D Expenses for foreign language training

(1) Expenses are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are directlyattributable to foreign language training:

(a) for the applicant or a director, partneror employee of the applicant; and

(b) that, in Austrade’s opinion, will assistthe applicant to carry on business inconnection with the production orprovision of eligible goods or services;

but only to the extent that those expenses are, inAustrade’s opinion, expenses attributable to theactual cost of labour and material involved in thetraining.

(2) Expenses incurred in the remuneration(whether by way of salary or otherwise)to the person undertaking the training arenot claimable expenses under this section.


38E Expenses for certain educational courses

(1) Expenses are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are directlyattributable to an educational course oninternational business development:

(a) for the applicant or a director, partneror employee of the applicant; and

(b) that, in Austrade’s opinion, will assistthe claimant to carry on business inconnection with the production orprovision of eligible goods or services;

but only to the extent that those expenses are, inAustrade’s opinion, expenses attributable to theactual cost of labour and material involved in thecourse.

(2) Expenses incurred in the remuneration(whether by way of salary or otherwise)to the person undertaking the course arenot claimable expenses under this section.

38F Expenses for packaging and labellingeligible goods

Expenses are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are directly attribu-table to:

(a) selecting or designing packaging andlabelling; or

(b) selecting or designing materials forpackaging and labelling;

for use exclusively in connection with the exportof eligible goods, but only to the extent thatthose expenses are, in Austrade’s opinion,expenses attributable to the actual cost of labourand materials involved in:

(c) selecting or designing packaging andlabelling; or

(d) selecting or designing materials forpackaging and labelling.

38G Expenses for preparation of tenders andquotations

(1) Expenses are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are directlyattributable to preparing or submitting atender or quotation to a person residentoutside Australia for the supply by theapplicant of eligible goods or services,but only to the extent that those expensesare, in Austrade’s opinion, expensesattributable to the actual cost of labourand materials involved in preparing orsubmitting the tender or quotation.

(2) For the purposes of this section, preparingor submitting a tender or quotation in-cludes making investigations and prepar-ing information, designs, estimates of

other material for the purposes of submit-ting the tender or quotation.

38H Expenses incurred in subscriptions toindustry associations etc.

Expenses are claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they are incurred by anapplicant in the payment of an amount to anassociation as the whole or part of a subscrip-tion, contribution or levy and

(a) the association is not an approved bodyor a company resident outside Austral-ia; and

(b) Austrade is satisfied that the amounthas been or will be applied in such away that will assist the applicant in theproduction or provision of eligiblegoods or services.

38J What are reasonable expenses?(1) Austrade is to determine for the purposes

of section 38B whether any expensesincurred by the applicant are reasonable.

(2) If it appears to Austrade that any expens-es claimed by an applicant under thisDivision may not be reasonable, Austrademust:

(a) notify the applicant, in writing, that itis of that opinion and of its reasons forbeing of that opinion; and

(b) ask the applicant to establish, withinthe period specified by Austrade, thatthe amount of the expenses was reason-ably payable for the activity for whichthe expenses were incurred.

(3) If Austrade determines that any expensesof the applicant are not reasonable:

(a) Austrade must determine the amountthat it considers to be reasonable forthose expenses; and

(b) expenses in that amount are taken to bethe reasonable expenses of the appli-cant for the purposes of this Division.

(4) In making a determination under subsec-tion (1), Austrade must take into con-sideration any information given by theapplicant in answer to Austrade’s requestunder paragraph (2)(b).

38K Certain expenses not claimableExpenses are not claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they involve payments topersons that are closely related to the appli-cant.

This is the reinsertion of eligible expenses.The headings referred to are ‘Claimableexpenses in respect of other activities’, ‘Ex-penses for foreign registration of eligible


intellectual property rights’, ‘Expenses forforeign language training’, ‘Expenses forcertain educational courses’, ‘Expenses forpackaging and labelling eligible goods’,‘Expenses for preparation of tenders andquotations’, ‘Expenses incurred in subscrip-tions to industry associations etc’, ‘What arereasonable expenses?’ and ‘Certain expensesnot claimable’.

In my contribution to the second readingdebate I spoke about how these provisions inthe government bill narrow eligibility. Theheadings that I have just read out are theareas being made narrower, where eligibilityis reduced. The purpose of these amendmentsis to turn back those provisions in the bill,letting the legislation essentially stand in itscurrent state.

Having said that, it is perhaps important forme to register strongly that the provisionrelating to expenses for registration of eligibleintellectual property rights is important be-cause Australia is a small country and, as anexporting nation, is open to piracy of itsintellectual property and open to breach of itspatents. Where that occurs in foreign count-ries, our exporters have to go to the legaljurisdictions of those foreign countries toenforce our rights.

There is no tougher jurisdiction to go tothan the United States. If we are exportingsophisticated goods to the US and our patentsare breached in the United States, our com-panies have to then undertake a proceeding ina US court before a US jury with a US judgedisposed to the US national interest. Withoutcriticising the American legal system, I mustsay that in arguing that in a US court it isvery difficult indeed to win a positive deci-sion. So we start from behind the eight ballanyway. The changes that the governmentwould make to the Austrade bill would makeit even more difficult. If we cannot protectour intellectual property, if we cannot haveour patents respected, the effort that com-panies have made in developing that propertyor those patents is rendered as zero.

I think one of the biggest issues in interna-tional trade is about the protection of intellec-tual property. It is an issue that the UnitedStates has made a feature of, particularly in

its relations with China, where open abuseand piracy does occur, and in relation to othercountries. I think it behoves us, Australia,who are essentially a small player in theworld marketplace, to be rigorous in protect-ing our standards here. That is the reasonbehind that amendment.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.52 p.m.)—I asked for this to be dealt withseparately because it places us right in themiddle of the problem that results fromcapping, and that is that capping inevitablyrequires choice between eligibility and theallocation of funds. As Senator Cook wouldhave been aware from my speech on thesecond reading motion, I have a particularlykeen interest in clause 38C within his amend-ment. However, it is tied up with the entireamendment, and a later amendment to be putby me addresses that particular question. Ourproblem is that, once the bill is passed and acap imposed, we recognise that the best useof money available then needs to be made.Our focus, as I spelt out earlier, is undoubted-ly on air fares and intellectual property. If thiswas an uncapped scheme, Senator Cook, Iwould support you wholeheartedly, but Iregret that, because it is a capped scheme, Ihave decided to oppose it.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.54 p.m.)—The governmentcannot support the amendment as moved.

Amendment negatived.Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)

(12.54 p.m.)—I move:(2) Page 32 (after line 14), after subdivision 3,

insert:Subdivision 3A—Other claimable expenses38A Object of SubdivisionThis Subdivision provides for expenses to beclaimable in respect of certain activities otherthan those provided for in Subdivisions 2 and 3.38B Claimable expenses in respect of other

activitiesThe expenses specified in sections 38C and 38D,subject to sections 38E and 38F, are claimableexpenses in relation to an applicant in accord-ance with the relevant provisions of those


sections and to the extent that they are notexcluded expenses under Subdivision 4.38C Expenses for foreign registration ofeligible intellectual property rightsExpenses (whether as payment of fees or other-wise) are claimable expenses if, in Austrade’sopinion, they are directly attributable to obtain-ing, or seeking to obtain, under the law of acountry outside Australia:

(i) the grant or registration; or(ii) the extension of the term of registration;

or(iii) the extension of the period of registration;

of eligible intellectual property rights in respectof eligible goods.38D Expenses for insurance to protect eligibleintellectual property rightsExpenses incurred by way of premiums paid forinsurance against costs likely to be incurred inrespect of the protection of eligible intellectualproperty rights obtained under the laws ofcountries outside Australia.38E What are reasonable expenses?(1) Austrade is to determine for the purposes of

section 38B whether any expenses incurredby the applicant are reasonable.

(2) If it appears to Austrade that any expensesclaimed by an applicant under this Divisionmay not be reasonable, Austrade must:

(a) notify the applicant, in writing, that it isof that opinion and of its reasons forbeing of that opinion; and

(b) ask the applicant to establish, within theperiod specified by Austrade, that theamount of the expenses was reasonablypayable for the activity for which theexpenses were incurred.

(3) If Austrade determines that any expenses ofthe applicant are not reasonable:

(a) Austrade must determine the amount thatit considers to be reasonable for thoseexpenses; and

(b) expenses in that amount are taken to bethe reasonable expenses of the applicantfor the purposes of this Division.

(4) In making a determination under subsection(1), Austrade must take into considerationany information given by the applicant inanswer to Austrade’s request under para-graph (2)(b).

38F Certain expenses not claimableExpenses are not claimable expenses if, inAustrade’s opinion, they involve payments topersons that are closely related to the applicant.

I think the reasons for those changes are self-evident. I have previously spoken of thecritical nature of intellectual property to thepromotion and the protection of export dol-lars. I would hope that the government wouldsee its way to responding positively to this. Itdoes pick up a number of the elements ad-dressed by Senator Cook in his previousamendment, although it does not go quite asfar. I therefore commend that amendment tothe Senate.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.55 p.m.)—The government willnot be supporting the amendment.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.55p.m.)—The opposition will be supporting theamendment.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.56 p.m.)—I am now placed in a difficultsituation because I am not sure where thevoices would go. Once again, I would ask theparliamentary secretary whether he has hadany indication from Senator Harradine, whois the only missing voice, on that matter.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.56 p.m.)—On previous conversa-tions with Senator Harradine, he would bevoting against the amendment.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.56 p.m.)—I therefore accept the dictate ofthe voices.


Senator Cook—Mr Chairman, am I in aposition now to move as a block my remain-ing amendments?

The CHAIRMAN —I have had a look atthem, and it would be preferable if we wentaccording to the running sheet and just tookNos 9 to 11 now.

Motion (by Senator Cook)—by leave—proposed:(9) Heading to Subdivision 4, page 32 (line 15),

omit the heading, substitute:


Division 2B—Excluded expenses(10) Clause 39, page 32 (lines 16 to 18) omit the

clause, substitute:39 Object of Division

This Division sets out the expenses that areexcluded expenses for the purposes of subsec-tion 33(2) and section 38B.

(11) Clause 40, page 32 (line 19), omit "Subdi-vision", substitute "Division".

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (12.57 p.m.)—The government willnot be supporting the amendments as movedby the opposition.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(12.57 p.m.)—I am sorry to delay proceed-ings, but I regret I am not completely on topof what result these have. Perhaps SenatorCook could outline it briefly.

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.57p.m.)—My understanding of these amend-ments, and the reason why I did not speak tothem, is that largely they are consequentialupon my earlier amendment which failed inthis chamber. It is therefore a moot point asto whether they should be moved at all, butI thought I had better stick to my obligationand move them.

Senator Murray—Does it refer to theopposition amendment No. 8?

Senator COOK—Numbers 9 to 11.The CHAIRMAN —Senator Murray, I

think your question might have been, do thecurrent amendments before us, Nos 9 to 11,refer to No. 8?

Senator Murray—Quite right.The CHAIRMAN —I think you are right,

Senator Murray.Senator COOK—I think I am right in

saying that, yes, they do refer to that amend-ment, but they are largely consequential uponthat amendment having been carried.

Senator Murray—Therefore the AustralianDemocrats will not support them.


Senator COOK (Western Australia) (12.59p.m.)—by leave—I move:

(12) Clause 61, page 40 (lines 8 to 11), omitsubclause (1), substitute:

(1) Division 2 deals with the calculationprocess. It explains how to work out themaximum amount that each applicantentitled to a grant in respect of a grantyear should receive.

(13) Clause 61, page 40 (lines 12 to 27), omitsubclauses (2), (3) and (4), substitute:

(2) Division 3 contains provisions setting outthe amount of grant to which an applicantis entitled.

(14) Heading to Division 2, omit "provisional".(15) Clause 62, page 41 (line 5), omit "provi-

sional".(16) Clause 63, page 41 (line 12), omit "provi-






sional".(23) Clause 65, page 43 (lines 18 and 19), omit

"(under section 63 or 64) the provisionalgrant", substitute, "(under section 63) thegrant".

(24) Clause 65, page 43 (lines 24 and 25), omit"(under section 63 or 64) the provisionalgrant", substitute "(under section 63) thegrant".

(25) Clause 67, page 44 (lines 6 to 26), omit theclause, substitute:

67 Amount of grantIf an applicant is entitled to a grant in respectof a grant year, the amount of the grant isequal to the applicant’s grant amount calculat-ed in accordance with Division 2.

(29) Clause 95, page 62 (line 6), omit "provi-sional".

(30) Clause 96, page 62 (lines 26 to 28), omitparagraph (d), substitute:(d) work out the amount that, apart from

this section, would be the applicant’sgrant amount for the grant year.

(31) Clause 107, page 75 (after line 16), after thedefinition of "grant", insert:

grant amounthas the meaning given by Division2 of Part 6.


(32) Clause 107, page 76 (lines 14 to 16), omitthe definition of initial payment ceilingamount.

(33) Clause 107, page 76 (lines 27 to 29), omitthe definition ofpayout factor.

(34) Clause 107, page 77 (lines 5 and 6), omitthe definition ofprovisional grant amount.

By way of explanation, these amendments are,I understand, consequential upon earlieramendments.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (1.00 p.m.)—The government willnot be accepting those amendments.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.00 p.m.)—My reading of this is that itaffects more than just previous oppositionamendment 8, which we opposed. Therefore,because they affect more than that, we willsupport them.


Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.01 p.m.)—My reading of where we are isthat proposed Democrat amendments 3 to 21and 24 to 27 are identical to those defeatedopposition amendments and therefore will notbe proceeded with.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.01 p.m.)—Before I proceed with puttingamendment 22, I should advise that its pur-pose is to ensure that the amount of grant isa reviewable decision. Many companies fearthat Austrade may exercise undue and subjec-tive discretion in determining allocations. AsI pointed out in my speech at the secondreading stage, that is made worse by theeffects of capping. However, the governmenthas informed us that this amendment is notnecessary as the bill does provide for suchdecisions to be reviewable. If that is the caseand the parliamentary secretary can confirmit on the public record, I will not proceedwith my amendment.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (1.02 p.m.)—In relation to Democrat

amendment 22, referred to by Senator Murray,I would like to confirm that the amount of thegrant is already covered by the provisions ofclause 97 regarding reviewability of decisions.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.02 p.m.)—Consequently, I will not seek tomove my amendment.

I wish to make a point about the secrecyprovisions for trust information. An earlieramendment that was passed unanimously onthe floor meant that Austrade could ask truststo give them information. But, of course, thatinformation will remain the private matter ofa disclosure to Austrade and not to the publicas a whole, and it is appropriate for thatdisclosure to occur. It is not appropriate fortrusts, as has been formerly the case, toreceive public money and taxpayers’ grantswhen control of those trusts and the benefi-ciaries have been concealed. We have nowmade that a far more transparent and openprocess. I am very pleased that the govern-ment has accepted that principle.

With regard to the proposed Democratamendment 23, I have been informed by theparliamentary secretary that the act doescurrently ensure that any information request-ed of trusts will be treated with due regard tocommercial confidentiality and that theprocess for doing so is already well estab-lished. If the parliamentary secretary is will-ing to put that on the record and explain howthe existing secrecy provisions and protectionof private information operates, I will behappy to not proceed with the amendment.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (1.05 p.m.)—The advice I have,Senator Murray, is in relation to the amend-ment you refer to regarding secrecy. This isalready covered in section 94 of the Austral-ian Trade Commission Act 1985. That sectionprovides that Austrade may not revealcommercial-in-confidence information andprovides significant penalties for breaches ofit. Therefore, basically, I do not think theamendment is necessary as it is in the actalready.


Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.05 p.m.)—Consequently, I will not proceedwith my amendment.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.EXPORT MARKET DEVELOPMENT

GRANTS (REPEAL ANDCONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL

1997The bill.Senator COOK (Western Australia) (1.06

p.m.)—I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 20),

at the end of subitem (1), add:; and (f) a person by whom expenditureunder section 11B, 11E, 11F, 11G, 11H or11J was incurred between 1 July 1996 and20 August 1996.

This amendment deals with retrospectivityand would correct the bill in that context. Iwill take the vote on the voices.

Senator BROWNHILL (New SouthWales—Parliamentary Secretary to theMinister for Trade and Parliamentary Secre-tary to the Minister for Primary Industries andEnergy) (1.07 p.m.)—The government willnot be supporting the amendment moved bySenator Cook.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(1.07 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats willbe supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.Bill agreed to.Export Market Development Grants Bill

1997 reported with amendments; ExportMarket Development Grants (Repeal andConsequential Provisions) Bill 1997 reportedwithout amendments; report adopted.

Third ReadingBills (on motion by Senator Brownhill)

read a third time.

ORDER OF BUSINESSMotion (by Senator Herron) proposed:That intervening business be postponed until after

consideration of the following government businessorders of the day.

No. 8—Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill 1996

No. 7—Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Bill1996.

Senator CARR (Victoria) (1.09 p.m.)—Onthat matter, could I just indicate that, whilewe do not oppose the proposition, we dothink it is appropriate that these matters bediscussed with us before they are moved, notthat we be notified that they are going to bedone. Given the extraordinary levels ofcooperation we have extended to this govern-ment, I think that is a common courtesy.

Senator Herron—I apologise. I was underthe impression that it had been discussed.

Senator Bob Collins—I was told thismorning we weren’t doing this today.

Senator CARR—This is a reorganisationof the program by executive fiat. It would beappropriate, I think, for us to be advised andfor these matters, in turn, to be discussed.


HINDMARSH ISLAND BRIDGE BILL1996

In CommitteeConsideration resumed from 25 March.Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-

tory) (1.11 p.m.)—We have this legislationback before us. We will be moving, onceagain, hopefully with a different result fromthat of last time, the completely unexcep-tionable amendment to ensure that this actdoes not conflict with the Racial Discrimina-tion Act.

The reason I said ‘completely unexception-able amendment’ is that this governmentfound it completely unexceptionable andunobjectionable when they accepted it inrelation to the rights of social security recipi-ents, with not the slightest difficulty. SenatorTambling, representing the government herein the Senate, said so. Senator Tambling infact said that because the government assertedthat that legislation did not conflict with theRacial Discrimination Act, as the governmentasserts this legislation does not, then thegovernment had not the slightest difficulty inaccepting the amendment, which was movedin precisely the same terms as the one that iscurrently before the committee.

As the Hansard record clearly shows,despite repeated questioning from me, theleader of the Democrats, Senator Kernot, and,


I believe, Senator Margetts of the Greens, theminister on not one single occasion providedthe slightest explanation for the distinctionbetween the concerns the government has inaccepting this amendment in this respect andthe lack of concern the government had withthe social security legislation.

The only explanation the minister offeredwas that the government did not want toaccept this amendment because it wouldprovide the possibility of enhancing theprospect of some legal challenge. In fact, theminister produced with a flourish, like amagician producing a rabbit from a hat,advice from the Department of the Attorney-General saying that, and then thought I hadsaid something extraordinary when I agreedwith the advice from the Department of theAttorney-General.

As I pointed out to the minister, I have notthe slightest doubt—in fact, I challenge himto put the question again—that, if the samequestion had been put to the Department ofthe Attorney-General, in respect of acceptingthis amendment for the social security legisla-tion, then the answer from the Department ofthe Attorney-General would have been inprecisely the same terms. It was an unexcep-tional answer from the Department of theAttorney-General.

If you put additional provisions into piecesof legislation that make it clear that thelegislation does not conflict with another act,of course you will, by simple definition,increase the opportunity for people to put alegal challenge against it. It gives themanother ground for doing so. So none of thatwas particularly exceptional or noteworthy.

What the minister utterly failed to do,having given that explanation, was to explainwhy that problem in respect of the socialsecurity legislation apparently was of noconcern to the government when it wouldhave had precisely the same effect. I mightadd that it was not a non-controversial issue—double negatives are dreadful things; I willrephrase that to say ‘another controversialissue’—as those provisions in the socialsecurity legislation were.

So what the government and the ministerfailed to do—I will give the minister the

opportunity to correct that now—was toprovide any kind of rational distinction as towhy people affected by the Social SecurityAct, social security recipients, are entitled tothe protection of this amendment—and thegovernment, without question, without anargument, happily accepted it, as theHansardrecord shows—but Aborigines apparently arenot. The government has a concern that theydo not want to open up any additional legalgrounds for Aborigines, but they are perfectlyhappy to provide that opportunity to benefi-ciaries from social security provisions. I invitethe minister to attempt to make the distinctionbetween the two pieces of legislation, whichhe failed to do last time.

There is another important question. Thereason I make this point is that, despite theminister’s best efforts, and the government’sgenerally, at misrepresentation in reportingafter that debate, the opposition was not, infact, opposing the government’s legislation orthe building of the bridge at all, as we hadmade clear again and again some time ago. Itwas pointed out that that was not the positionof others. We were not opposing the passageof this legislation last time nor the building ofthe bridge. We simply wanted to make it clearthat the government’s assertion that there wasno conflict between this legislation and theRDA was a fact by the government, as theysay in the classics, putting its money whereits mouth is.

Had the government accepted the RDAamendment the last time this legislation cameinto the Senate in the same happy way theyaccepted exactly the same amendment to theSocial Security Act, then the bill would havebeen passed in the Senate at that time. Wewill be pressing that amendment again today.

One of the things that needs to be pointedout in this debate is that the people who aredirectly affected by this legislation, which forthem is the effective repeal of this federal actin so far as their interests in Hindmarsh Islandare concerned, is that they are the victims.The government can blame who it likes forthe problems that this application has caused.It can blame the former government, andindeed it has. It can blame deficiencies in theact, which to this point in time I do not think


it has. Perhaps the minister has not botheredto read the Evatt report on this legislation;after eight months, the government has cer-tainly failed to respond to it, which I think isa very relevant matter to raise during thisdebate, and it will not be the last thing I sayabout it during the committee stage.

The government can blame all sorts of otherthings. But the one thing that the governmentcannot blame for all of the delays is theNgarrindjeri women. All they were doing wasexercising the rights they, like any Austral-ians, had under the law. They were notresponsible in any way, shape or form for anydifficulties that may then have occurred underthe legislation. But it is their rights that arebeing affected.

The opposition, with the greatest respect tothe minister, does not think that asking thegovernment to accept a modest amendment totaking the government and the minister attheir word—that there is going to be notransgression to the RDA—is a very large orunreasonable ask at all on behalf of the smallgroup of Aboriginal women in South Austral-ia who are having this federal act repealed—in effect, their application to their interests.That is in fact what is happening. It has beenthe sorry history of this country—unfortunat-ely, it is a history that is being repeated todayand has been repeated since March last year—that the victims are always the ones who getthe blame.

Minister, I do not think that you can fairlysay that the women whose rights are beingremoved by the passage of this legislation arein any way, shape or form to blame for anyproblems that may well have occurred. Thatmatter is laid out very fairly and very cogent-ly in this report, which has been sitting onyour desk now for eight months, not respond-ed to. I will be asking you again today, as Idid in Senate estimates, when we are alllikely to see a formal government response tothe Evatt review of the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.The problems that are attached to this act,none of which are brought back to theNgarrindjeri women, are clearly laid out inthis report.

I will briefly refer you, Minister, to thegenesis of this legislation. I was very familiarwith the genesis of this legislation. It was aformer minister for Aboriginal affairs, CliveHolding, who introduced it. The federalgovernment made it absolutely clear at thetime that it was not even intending thislegislation to be legislation at first resort; itwas intending it to be of last resort.

Something else that I will quote from thisreport shortly relates to the fact that, whenyou consider the tiny number of occasions—tiny number of occasions—when declarationshave been made under this act in all the yearsthat it has been in existence, I do not thinkthat you can make out a fair case that thislegislation has been abused or overused byanybody. In fact, the cold hard facts are thatthere is only one declaration in existencetoday in the whole of Australia, that is inAlice Springs—one. Why was the act broughtin in the first place? Minister Holding, whenhe introduced it, said:Where a State or Territory has no law capable ofproviding effective protection, or no action is beingtaken to give effect to that law, the Commonwealthwill act in appropriate cases. It is open to the Statesto ensure that effective heritage protection isoffered by their legislation.

Then the report of the Hon. Justice ElizabethEvatt says:Twelve years later this hope has not been realised.The result is that the Commonwealth Act is oftencalled on as a substitute for State protection—

It also is worth advising the Senate of whatan organisation closely connected with theoperation of this act said about that. It said:The effectiveness of the Act in providing protectionfor areas of significance to Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander people is limited by incompatibleand inadequate legislation operating in a number ofStates. This has created a situation where theCommonwealth Act is invoked to provide primarysite protection rather than, as the scheme of the Actsuggests, a last resort of back-up to legislation inthe States and Territories.

That statement was made to this review bythe Aboriginal Sites Protection Authority ofthe Northern Territory.

So, sadly, the stated intention—I think alaudatory one—of the Commonwealth byintroducing this act 12 years ago to fill an


appallingly obvious deficiency in the protec-tion of these important sites—sites not justimportant to the cultural heritage of Aborigi-nal people but, at the end of the day, to allAustralians—and to try to encourage thestates to introduce appropriate legislation oftheir own, has regrettably, at the time ofwriting this report and now as we speak,failed.

I simply want to point out again, as wehave in the past, the appalling deficiency ofstate legislatures in failing to provide appro-priate protection. In some cases, that hasprobably simply been by a process of neglect.In other cases, I think that, because of thecontroversy that sometimes surrounds theseissues, states are perfectly happy to leave theCommonwealth to grasp the nettle when theydo not want the controversy landing on theirown doorsteps. But, of course, on a numberof occasions the failure has been because ofthe absolute open and stated hostility to therights of Aboriginal people in any case tohave any protection for their heritage at all.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(1.26 p.m.)—Today we are dealing with theHindmarsh Island Bridge Bill deal. I personal-ly believe that we should not be here debatingthis. The Senate has decided on this bill. Theonly reason we are here is that there has beena change of opinion, perhaps a change ofpolicy, from the opposition, which has said,‘Oops, the South Australian election is com-ing up; this is a populist issue, so let us jumpon this bandwagon.’ So here we are.

Yesterday I intended to speak to the motionto allow this bill to be brought on. Consider-ing the weight of legislation that the govern-ment is asking us to deal with in these lastdays—

Senator Bob Collins—Perhaps you mighthelp by voting for the RDA amendmentsinstead of opposing them like last time.

Senator MARGETTS—Senator Collinsinterjected that I might help by voting for theRDA amendments. It was quite clear last timethat the Racial Discrimination Act amend-ments were the means by which the opposi-tion were giving themselves an excuse tosupport the bill. Senator Collins and a numberof people from the opposition benches quite

lucidly condemned the bill. But they gavethemselves an excuse to support it if an RDAamendment was tacked on. Now they havechanged their position and said, ‘Look, welike the bill so much, we will support it anyway.’

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley)has indicated that, being as it is so close tothe South Australian election, they will jumpon this populist bandwagon. And here we areagain.

Senator Bob Collins—He said nothing ofthe sort.

Senator MARGETTS—No, he did not. Iam paraphrasing, that is true. I am putting myown spin on the fact that the South Australianelection is just around the corner. Last time,the opposition made some wonderful com-ments about how rotten the bill was. Guesswhat? The bill is just as rotten as it was then.What they are saying now is that, whateverhappens in the RDA amendments, they aregoing to support the rotten bill—‘What elsecan you say? I have to now leave it to you todecide what the rationale was for the changein the decision.’ The bill is still as rotten asit was.

I appreciate the comments that SenatorCollins made about the Evatt report. Mostpeople will be getting letters from people whoare concerned that perhaps the issue that hasbeen left out is the fact that the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Heritage ProtectionAct 1984 fails to provide protection forpeople with information of a sensitive naturethat cannot be given in the normal form.

It was fairly disgraceful to hear the Ministerfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs (Senator Herron) mention that, if thisinformation was real, it would be writtendown by an anthropologist. That forgets thefact that the concerns and the issues of Abo-riginal law, if they are as they have beenstated, could not have been written down.Therefore, going back and saying, ‘It is notwritten down, therefore it does not exist’ iscontradictory. You would either say, ‘Theseissues of Aboriginal law are not and never arerelevant’ or say, ‘Yes, cultural issues areimportant, and we as a parliament need to


move some way towards recognition ofcultural values and cultural law.’

If we do not have any recognition of that,one wonders what the purpose is of having anAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HeritageProtection Act 1984, if not to protect thosevisual elements of culture which we know areall to our benefit. In the Middle East and inEurope, people spend a lot of time, effort,money, resources and person hours protectingarchaeological sites of 100 years, 200 years,1,000 years. In Australia, often we are dealingwith issues of physical cultural heritage thatmight be 25,000 years old, but sometimes webuild roads through them or take rock carv-ings out of their place and put them in a pileand say that we have protected them. We donot value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island-er heritage as we should in Australia. Otherpeople in the world do value their culturalheritage. We do not put the value on it thatwe should.

However, this act of 1984 is some recogni-tion that we ought to be moving in the direc-tion of doing something about protectingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage.But it has been shown by Justice ElizabethEvatt to be deficient. It is my understandingthat both sides of government have indicatedthat they agree something ought to be doneabout it. Obviously, therefore, I indicate thatat the third reading stage I will be moving anamendment to that effect to look at this issue.Of course, even though the Minister forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairshas given it to the states to look at, that willgive the states the opportunity, as well asother interested parties, to give their evidenceand their opinions. Hopefully, by that stagethe Commonwealth will have an opinionwritten down and will be able to provide uswith it.

In relation to the Racial Discrimination Act,I stated quite clearly and categorically the lasttime this bill was dealt with in the Senate thatI fully support the Racial Discrimination Act.What I did not support was its being used asan excuse to support a revolting bill. As Isaid, the bill is just as revolting—it has notchanged. What is the case now is that theopposition has indicated that, whatever hap-

pens in relation to racial discrimination, it isno longer as concerned—that is paraphrasingas well—that the bill might go throughwithout a Racial Discrimination Act amend-ment on it. They will support the bill anyway.Therefore, I am forced to say that, because ofmy support for the Racial Discrimination Actand not because of my support for the bill, Iwill support the amendment. But, of course,my opposition to this still revolting billstands.

Senator KERNOT (Queensland—Leaderof the Australian Democrats) (1.33 p.m.)—Iconcur with the comments Senator Margettsmade about Australia’s failure to value Abo-riginal cultural heritage. We will be support-ing her third reading amendment to refer thisreally important report to a committee forresponse. That is one way of getting a re-sponse and at least it gets the issue back onthe public agenda for debate.

On the matter of the Hindmarsh IslandBridge Bill itself, the Democrats’ position isclearly on the record. It has not changed. Wedo not think that this is just a bill aboutbuilding a bridge. It is a bill which legislatesfor discrimination. Nothing about its recom-mittal here has changed that fundamental fact.Yes, I agree, procedurally this issue has beenan absolute nightmare. That means we shouldlook at the procedures. We do not seek a littlepiece of specific legislation to deal with aparticular problem. That is the way a lot ofstate governments want to go: got a problem;special piece of legislation; get rid of it.

What the long history of this bill tells us isthat the processes do not work. Some of thesolution is in this report yet we have not evenconsidered it before we get to this bill. As weknow the political expediency of the numbershere, this bill is going to go through now. Itis because I think that will not be the end ofthe matter that I want to take just a couple ofminutes to look at some of the legal points inrelation to the issue of discrimination. I thinkthat there will be an appeal and I want to takethis last opportunity to put a couple of thingson the record.

Article 14 of the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination, and the first optional protocol


to the International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, both of which Australia hasratified, provide a right of individual petitionto an international committee for breach ofeither convention. Miss Jennifer Clarke, alecturer in law at the ANU, in her submissionto the Senate inquiry into this bill, canvassedthe articles in these conventions which pro-vide a right of complaint for the Ngarrindjeriwomen.

In the convention on the elimination ofracial discrimination those articles are article1, which clearly prohibits racial discriminationand defines discrimination as any distinction,exclusion, restriction or preference based onrace, colour, descent, or national or ethnicorigin in relation to any human rights orfundamental freedom, including freedom ofreligion; and article 5, which guarantees racialequality before the law. In the light of thoseparticular articles, I think one can argue thatthis bill is clearly seen as discriminatingagainst the Ngarrindjeri women and othergroups of people seeking to use similar laws,because it removes their right at law to havetheir claim dealt with under the Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander Heritage ProtectionAct 1984.

The International Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights has much broader forms ofhuman rights obligations, but the relevantarticles are similar to those that I have justarticulated. Article 18 protects freedom ofreligion and article 27 protects minoritycultural rights, both of which apply to thepresent case. It is my understanding that, foran action under these conventions to besuccessful, the Ngarrindjeri women will needto prove an additional two elements: firstly,that the applicants are a victim—SenatorCollins has already used that descriptionseveral times in the debate—and, secondly,that they have exhausted all domestic rem-edies.

What we have to do is to fall back on theHuman Rights Committee’s 1992 decision, inToonan v. Australia, which dealt with thedefinition of victims, giving it a wide mean-ing. As neither of the applicants in that casehad actually been subject to the criminal lawwhich they claimed violated their human

rights under the ICCPR, the Tasmaniangovernment had urged the Commonwealth tostate that they were therefore not victims ofthe law. But Toonan argued that the laws hadcreated the conditions for discrimination inemployment, constant stigmatisation, vilifica-tion, threats of physical violence and a viola-tion of basis democratic rights. The committeeaccepted this expanded notion of victim andstated that the threat of enforcement and thepervasive impact of the continued existenceof these provisions on administrative practicesand public opinion had affected and continuedto affect Toonan detrimentally. So there is anexpanded notion of victim.

Given that the Ngarrindjeri women’s argu-ments relate to abuse of their cultural historyand an ongoing sense of humiliation anddegradation because of the proposed bridge,there is a case that they could be deemedvictims for the purpose of the two conven-tions. The second test, the second point, ofwhether or not all domestic remedies havebeen exhausted, also applies. Where can theNgarrindjeri women go now? The shortanswer is that here they have nowhere to go.In their own country and as a result of theexempt ion created by th is b i l l , theNgarrindjeri women are about to be dispos-sessed again.

If this is appealed, if this is taken to aninternational adjudicator, and if the action issuccessful, Australia will for the second timethis decade distinguish itself in the interna-tional arena as a nation which actively discri-minates against its citizens. I do not believethat this Senate or the parliament as a wholeshould be a party to legislation which activelysets up such discrimination. Whatever yourviews might be on development, on thatwhole development debate—in this case, it isa specific bridge—I do not believe, as amember of this Senate, that any senatorsshould support legislation which seeks soblatantly to remove current legal rights froma particular group of people. That is why theDemocrats do not support this bill. It is notabout whether you want a bridge or not.

I indicate our support for the ALP amend-ment. Our position has not altered. The argu-ments Senator Bob Collins advanced are just


as relevant as they were last time around. Ithink they have been strengthened by theaddition of the Evatt report comments. As Isaid, we will be also supporting SenatorMargetts’s third reading amendment. Wethink it is really important to consider theimplications of the Evatt report. The govern-ment has not. Therefore, an inquiry by aparliamentary committee is both appropriateand timely.

Senator COONEY (Victoria) (1.41 p.m.)—I would like to join in this debate because Ithink it is a vital one for the sort of societywe live in. I accept and agree with what hasbeen said by all the speakers before me. I justwant to say something about the RacialDiscrimination Act because it is one of threeacts that set, within the Australian scene,something like a bill of rights—a bill of rightsthat this parliament has set up. The three are:the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discri-mination Act and the Disability Discrimina-tion Act. That whole regime that we set up tomake sure that there is no discrimination isimportant not only for the Aboriginals but forall of us.

I remember former Senator Button, theLeader of the Government in the Senate as hethen was—in one of his quirky moods, whichoften occurred—talking about discriminationand saying that there ought not be ageism.Everybody said, ‘Of course there should notbe ageism.’ It seemed a funny thing at thetime. But there can be ageism. We haveunderstood that and, as a result, there is nowin the Workplace Relations Act a provisionthat says people should not be discriminatedagainst in their work because of their age.

There is something about all of us andabout everybody in Australia that others canpick out and use to discriminate against us. Itis not just racism; it is not just sexual matters;it is not just a disability. It can be anything.It can be age. Senator Bob Collins, facetious-ly perhaps, said that there might be prejudiceagainst largeism. Well, there could be. It isjust another illustration of how people canpick out something and use it against us.

If we do not stick by the provisions of theRacial Discrimination Act in this matter, it isnot just the Aboriginals, the indigenous

people, who will be put at risk; everybody hasthe possibility of being discriminated againstbecause of some particular feature of theirbody or their beliefs or some other aspect.That is what is so important.

I take up the point that Senator Kernotmade that, if there is some expectation aboutsome legal proceedings, then there is a con-cern about that. But, as I understand it, thereare no legal proceedings in operation at themoment. As things now stand, there is noreason why this bridge should not go ahead.But the fundamental principle that must bemaintained is that there should be absolutelyno suggestion of discrimination because of aparticular aspect—as I said, of a person’srace, body, sex, or indeed any other feature.

Senator HERRON (Queensland—Ministerfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs) (1.44 p.m.)—I would like to respondto some of the points raised. Senator BobCollins raised the social security bill and triedto draw an analogy between that and thegovernment’s response. I do not think that isvalid because there can be no comparison.The Hindmarsh Island legislation and thebuilding of a bridge has been a highly litigat-ed issue, as you know, over three years atleast with the expenditure of over $4 million.To draw an analogy or suggest an apparentinconsistency with the social security legisla-tion I think is invalid. I would also point outthat the opposition opposed precisely thisamendment to the Native Title Bill in 1993for the same reasons as the government nowopposes it. Our legal advice is that there is noinconsistency with the Racial DiscriminationAct.

Senator Margetts spoke about the HeritageProtection Act, and I share her concerns andthose of Senator Collins that the HeritageProtection Act has been found not to function.The previous government set up the Evattinquiry into it. We have received that report.I have read it, Senator Collins. I issued apress release late last year announcing propo-sals for reforming the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Heritage Protection Act. Underthose proposals, as it was previously theCommonwealth act will be retained as an actof last resort to apply where state and territory


legislation does not meet national minimumstandards or where national interest consider-ations exist.

The processes for granting protection toAboriginal sacred sites under the Common-wealth act will also be substantially improved.A discussion paper on the national minimumstandards is being sent for comment to thestates and territories, indigenous, mining,pastoral and other relevant interests today.The Evatt report on the Heritage ProtectionAct is also being sent out for comment.

I think Senator Margetts does appreciatethat reforming the Heritage Protection Act isa complex undertaking. Proper consultationswill be required with a wide range of interest-ed parties, including the states and territoriesand indigenous people, pastoralists andminers. This will take time. However, it isintended that the legislation will be passed bythe end of the year. We do not believe thatthere is any advantage by slowing this processup. We will have it through by the end of theyear and we seek your indulgence that thatprocess will achieve the desired objective thatall of us wish to achieve. I will speak furtheron that, if necessary, when you move youramendment.

Senator Kernot said—and I agree withher—that procedurally it has been an absolutenightmare. Observers on all sides would agreewith that. I could not agree with her more inthat regard. That is the very reason that wehave come to this stage of introducing thislegislation—to end the nightmare. That willonly be achieved by the passage of thislegislation. It may well be that there is anappeal to an international body or that theremay be further legal recourse. So be it; thatis the way of the world.

Senator Cooney, with his usual erudite andintellectual analysis, approached the issuefrom another point of view. But I would pointout to Senator Cooney that he made onefactual error. The Chapmans did seek an orderfor yet another reporter, then withdrew itbecause of this legislation. So it is possiblethat there would be further action if this billdid not go through, Senator Cooney. It is ahypothetical, I suppose, at this stage, but it—

Senator Cooney—I think what I said wasthat there is no litigation at the moment.

Senator HERRON—Yes, that is correct.What you said was correct, but who knowswhat could occur. The intimation is that thatlegal action would occur if this bill does notgo through.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (1.49 p.m.)—It is obvious at this pointthat we will not conclude the debate on thisbill prior to question time. But can I say tothe minister for his information and for thecommittee’s information that so far as theopposition is concerned we do not expect thedebate to be much prolonged after we resume.

Senator Kernot and Senator Margetts bothreferred to the cultural and religious beliefs ofthe Ngarrindjeri women, indeed Aboriginalpeople generally, and religious beliefs are atthe root of a lot of the complaints that I havereceived about the support that has been givento these Aboriginal women in South Australia.

It is a matter of public record also, I regretto say, that the Aboriginal beliefs generally ofthese people and others, have been subjectedto an enormous amount of derision andcontempt. That has been in the public press.It has been in interviews that I have heard. Ihave been subjected to it personally. Aborigi-nal religious belief basically is an animusbelief: that animals and various mythicalbeings created the universe.

The reason that I wanted to comment onthis is that I received an abusive telephonecall this morning, on the eve of the debate. Itis not the first one I have had—and I havehad some interesting letters, too, let me tellyou—taking me to task as a professed Chris-tian, which I am, and as a practising Catholic,which I am.

Senator Cooney—And a good one.Senator BOB COLLINS—No, I am not.

I am not a good Catholic, Senator Cooney. Infact, I have no doubt at all that I am going togo to hell when I die. That is the reason Ihave been doing some intensive heat trainingin Darwin for the last 30 years—to get meready for the experience.

I was taken to task this morning by agentleman who was indeed a practising


Christian from South Australia and who saidto me that he just could not understand howas a practising Catholic I could possibly begiving the slightest support to people whobelieved that the earth was created by snakesand various other things. A number of peoplehave been pouring nothing but contempt onsuch beliefs; one at least I know is a memberof the Lyons Forum and goes off to churchevery Sunday.

I respect those views utterly, but I am nota fundamentalist Christian and I want to makethat clear. I am not. This particular personthat spoke to me this morning is and believesevery little word of theBible. I do not. Ibelieve in good and evil. I think that isdemonstrated on the earth on a daily basis.But I do not think that fundamentalist Chris-tians are in a good position to criticise peoplewho believe, rightly or wrongly, that it wasthe rainbow serpent—not God, whose son wasJesus Christ—that created the earth.

I have never really believed that Jonahswam around inside a big fish for severaldays and emerged unscathed. I have neverparticularly believed that Noah managed to fittwo of every single living organism on earth,non-aquatic, into an ark and float around theplace. If you want to move to the New Testa-ment, I am happy to, because I know thisparticular person is listening to this debate, ashe told me this morning he would be. I justquote from the gospel of John, from myfavourite translation of theBible,which is theMew Jerusalem Bible:

On the third day there was a wedding at Cana inGalilee. The mother of Jesus was there, and Jesusand his disciples had also been invited.

Christians in here will understand the signifi-cance of this. This was the first miracle thatthe Son of God—

Senator Schacht—What—a picnic?

Senator BOB COLLINS—This was thefirst miracle, according to—

Senator Schacht—A barbecue?

Senator BOB COLLINS—No, it was awedding, Senator Schacht. You go to Sundayschool before you come in here and criticiseme. You be quiet. On the third day there was

a wedding at Cana in Galilee. The mother ofJesus was there.

Senator Schacht—A big reception?

Senator BOB COLLINS—A big reception.I have got to tell you: at this wedding, theremust have been a huge reception. Jesus andhis disciples had been invited. It continues:And they ran out of wine, since the wine providedfor the feast had all been used, and the mother ofJesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’ Jesus said,‘Woman, what do you want from me? My hour hasnot come yet.’

So he was a bit terse with his old Mum. TheBible then goes on:His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever hetells you.’ There were six stone water jars juststanding there, meant for the ablutions that arecustomary among the Jews: each could hold twentyor thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, ‘Fill thejars with water,’ and they filled them to the brim.Then he said to them, ‘Draw some out now andtake it to the president of the feast.’ They did this;the president tasted the water, and it had turnedinto wine. Having no idea where it came from—though the servants who had drawn the waterknew—the president of the feast called the bride-groom and said, ‘Everyone serves good wine firstand the worse wine when the guests are wellwined; but you have kept the best wine till now.’

I have to tell you, Mr Chairman, that as apractising Christian I have never seriouslybelieved that the son of the creator of thisentire universe and everything in it chose asthe first sign of his divine power on earth asign that turned 360 gallons of bathwater intoGrange Hermitage. I have never, ever, be-lieved it.

I know that senators that are involved inthis debate will understand the reason that Iam making these points. I have received alarge number of telephone calls from peoplewho have openly derided the beliefs of thesewomen—said it is a load of garbage and aput-up job. All I can say is that, when youconsider that I know to my certain knowledgethat these same people are members of or-ganisations like the Lyons Forum and are infact fundamentalist Christians, I personallybelieve, with the greatest respect to them, thatthey are on very thin ice indeed.

Mr Chairman, could I seek your guidanceat this point as to whether this would be an


appropriate time to adjourn the debate, or doyou want to continue to 2 o’clock.?

The CHAIRMAN —An appropriate timewould be 2 o’clock.

Senator BOB COLLINS—I will continue.Senator Ferguson—You have a few more

chapters left!Senator BOB COLLINS—I can start at

Genesis chapter 1, if you insist. I also drawto the attention of the minister a number ofother problems that Justice Elizabeth Evatthighlighted. I said earlier that people shouldread the Evatt report. I do want to demon-strate this to the people who I know arelistening and who have said that these acts ofparliament are blocking development. That isalways the cry—that this act is stoppingdevelopment all over Australia. I suggest thatthose people that are genuinely interested inthe debate—and I accept that their interest isgenuine, even though I might disagree withtheir position on it—should read the Evattreport. It is a comprehensive, authoritativedocument all in one volume that actually laysout precisely what the effect of this act hasbeen. I want to quote from page 2 of thereport. Under the heading ‘How effective hasthe act been?’, the subheading is ‘Few areashave been protected by declarations’. Theterms of reference, of course, require JusticeEvatt to report on this. The terms of referenceask for the report to cover:. . . the effectiveness of the provisions of the Actin providing protection for areas and objects ofsignificance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderpeople.

Justice Evatt goes on to say:One indicator of effectiveness is the number ofplaces that have been protected by the Act, directlyor indirectly.

Remember: this act has been in operation for12 years. Only four declarations have beenmade under section 10 in relation to areas. Nosection 10 declarations have been made inrespect of areas in New South Wales orQueensland, despite the large number ofapplications from those states. Few short-termdeclarations have been made under section 9,which applies to serious and immediatethreats. Furthermore, two of the four declara-tions under section 10 were overturned by the

Federal Court, and one was later revoked.Only one place in Australia is protected by asection 10 declaration—Junction waterhole,Alice Springs. Two other decisions decliningapplications have been challenged—onesuccessfully. Some submissions argue thatthese outcomes show that the act has not beeneffective.

I will conclude at this point to liaise withmy staff and tell them to prepare the officefor the expected deluge of complaints fromfundamentalist Christians all around Australiawhich no doubt will pour in this afternoon.

Progress reported.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Austudy

Senator DENMAN—My question isdirected to the Minister for Employment,Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Isn’tit true that about 10,750 of the 25,000 appli-cants for Austudy whose applications hadbeen assessed for this academic year have hadtheir applications reassessed as a consequenceof your backflip on the Austudy actual meanstest on 20 February? Can you, Minister,confirm that the department has now discov-ered that it has misunderstood the actualmeans test procedure yet again? Can youconfirm that the department has failed to takeinto account the requirement that, wheretaxable income exceeds actual means, thetaxable income is to be used as the basis forthe assessment? How many of the 10,750reassessed applications will need to be re-reassessed because of this error?

Senator VANSTONE—I thank SenatorDenman for the question. In the vicinity of10,000 people were reassessed—you say as aconsequence of a backflip. I cannot resist theopportunity and the obligation of clarifyingfor you what actually happened with relationto the Austudy difficulties in February.

In July last year I received a brief advisingthat we should discard the imputation arrange-ments endorsed by the previous government—that is, where someone’s actual means wereassessed not on the basis of what they saidthey had spent but, on the previousgovernment’s formula, on the basis of what it


was decided they must have had available tothem as actual means to spend. It was put tome that such a system was seen by theAustudy clients as arbitrary and unfair.

So I agreed that that system should bedisposed of and that we should shift to asystem of self-declaration of expenditurecombined with some reasonable compliancemeasures. One measure flagged in the briefwas to run the self-declared expenditures byAustudy applicants against ABS minimums—that is taking, as I understand it, the minimumexpenditure on any particular item and, if thecost is cheaper in the city, using the city costand, if the cost is cheaper in the country,using the country cost, using metropolitan,regional and rural costs.

Somewhere between that brief and theactual implementation, that compliance meas-ure—that is, ‘Run their expenditures past aminimum. If they’re spending a lot less thanthe minimum, we better check up on them’—was incorporated as the assessment measure.Senator Denman, if you had the opportunityto be at the estimates committee, you wouldappreciate that there is not yet an explanationas to how or why that happened in the depart-ment.

Senator Carr—That’s incredible! All thistime and you still don’t have an answer. Howmuch time do you need to get it right?

Senator VANSTONE—Madam President,I am answering a question from SenatorDenman. Senator Carr has had his oppor-tunity. It was very important at the time tofocus on fixing the problem and fixing it asquickly as possible rather than looking to findthose who might bear the burden of blame.This is typical, with respect, Senator Denman,of many in your party who have a kick andkill mentality—always looking for someoneto blame rather than actually going to thesource of the problem. As a consequence ofthat, I decided to spend just about all of myworking time on fixing that problem, and wefixed it in record time.

Senator Carr—All your working time!You are going to have to put a lot more intoit.

Senator VANSTONE—The people whohad been affected by that imputation receivedtheir cheques—

Senator Carr—How appalling! All yourtime spent on this and you still can’t get itright.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, it isSenator Denman’s question that SenatorVanstone is answering.

Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, MadamPresident. We wanted the people to have thecheques in their bank accounts as quickly aspossible, which is what happened. As aconsequence of that, we also reviewed verycarefully everything the department had done.There were a few other things that did notcomply and, to the best of our ability, wefixed them. As to the question of blame thatSenator Carr seems so passionately interestedin, the secretary has appointed someone toinvestigate what went wrong here to ensurethat it does not happen again. As to thespecific matter that you raised, I am aware ofthe concern with respect to that. That concernhas not yet been finalised and I will comeback to you with an answer on it when it is.

Senator DENMAN—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. What is thestatus of those applicants whose increasedAustudy entitlement as a result of the firstreassessment is now under question as a resultof the second reassessment? Will they berequired to return the money which youboasted about sending them in your mediarelease on 26 February this year? Will theyreceive yet another letter of apology?

Senator VANSTONE—Unlike the previousgovernment, when this government makes amistake it is prepared to accept responsibilityand apologise. As Gary Gray told you, that ispart of the trouble with your party: you arenever prepared and you still are not preparedto say, ‘Look, we got it wrong.’

I am looking at these matters very carefully.There are two things to take into account infixing any errors. One might be to give clientsthe benefit of an error, which presumably youwould not be complaining about. I hope thatis your position. But let us bear this in mind:no-one should get Austudy who is not entitled


to it. So if someone is now receiving Austudyfunds and it is later discovered, for example,from a compliance check that they did in factunderstate their expenditure—that is, that theyhave put up their hand to get money they arenot entitled to—yes, we will cut them off.

Small Business

Senator TIERNEY—I direct my questionto the Leader of the Government in theSenate. Today the Australian Bureau ofStatistics published its business expectationsurvey where businesses comment on theirexpected performance for the short andmedium term from the June quarter throughto the March quarter next year. What do thesefigures indicate; and what do these figures tellus about how small business in Australia isfaring?

Senator HILL —These figures are veryimportant to the government, because this isa government that is interested in the well-being of small business—business in general,but small business in particular, because weknow how hard small business had to do itunder the previous Labor government. Thefigures are quite pleasing. Bear in mind,Madam President, that this survey coverssome 3,000 firms of various sizes. So it is areasonable indicator of what business inAustralia is feeling at the moment.

What is pleasing is that the survey isdemonstrating that businesses are now moreconfident about their performance and theirfuture. That is not surprising, because of theeconomic reforms that have been put intoplace; in particular, our willingness to cutexpenditure to keep pressure off interest ratesand the industrial relations changes we havemade—all changes that help Australianbusinesses. Also, of course, they will nowhave more reason to be confident because ofthe small business reform package that wasannounced by the government this week.

The survey shows us that businesses believethat their profit expectations are improving.Firms expect profits to be 7.8 per cent higherin the June quarter than in the March quarterbut, more importantly, to then rise 12.2 percent higher in the next March quarter. So thatis an expectation of reasonable profits now,

but growing profits. Similarly, in relation tonew capital investment, firms expect capitalexpenditure to rise by 3.4 per cent in the Junequarter, and to continue to rise.

Unemployment or employment prospectsare not as good as we would like them to be.But I am pleased to note that they are expect-ing growth to the March quarter of next year.And at least that is positive, because one ofthe reasons we want business to do well is tocreate employment opportunities for moreAustralians, particularly those who missed outunder Labor.

These results, Madam President, are consis-tent with other economic intelligence that wehave had of recent times. I remind you of thenational account figures, which showedcontinuing growth; retail sales figures, whichshowed as being 2.7 per cent higher in Janu-ary than in December; and the businessinvestment outlook figures, which showed thatreal business investment grew by 20 per centlast year. The latest survey shows that expec-tations remain robust and, in fact, the budgetforecast for business investment has beenrevised upwards from 14 to 17 per cent.

Looking specifically at small business, thereis no doubt that it continues to do it—according to these figures—tougher than largebusiness, but again the expectations are quitereasonable. Small business expects profits torise by 4.2 per cent in the June quarter,compared with this current March quarter. Butit then expects profits to rise by 9.4 per centin the March quarter next year—again verypositive. It expects its capital spending togrow 1.3 per cent in the June quarter, but 2.9per cent in the March quarter—again con-tinuing to invest, continuing to grow. It alsoexpects to be employing more during the next12 months, so that is pleasing. Finally, it isexpecting its exports to grow in the next 12months—and that is very important for thetrade accounts.

So business is telling us that it is reasonablyconfident about the future and, when we looka little further into the future, it is even moreconfident. What that does is demonstrate thatthe policy reforms instituted by the newHoward government have been correct andhave given business an opportunity to grow


and employ as it was not able to underLabor—and that is good news for all Austral-ians.

Unemployment

Senator FOREMAN—I direct my questionto the Minister for Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, are youaware that the closure of John Martin’s inAdelaide may cost around 500 jobs? Are youalso aware that Telstra has already shed 7,000of the 22,000 jobs it plans to shed by 1999?Have you seen reports that universities areexpecting to lose 2,000 academic jobs; that4,000 jobs will go because of the privatisationof DAS; and that New South Wales manufac-turers are expecting to shed 2,300 jobs overthe next 12 months? Do you continue to standby your statement that you will not deserve tobe re-elected if you fail to turn this tide of joblosses around?

Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, SenatorForeman, for the question. The answer to thefirst part is: yes. The answer to the secondpart is: not in detail. The answer to the thirdpart is: I would be surprised if 2,000 academ-ics lost their jobs.

Just give me the opportunity, SenatorForeman, to point out that a number of peoplewho were prophesying doom and gloom forthe higher education sector are now nowhereto be found. Why is that, Senator Foreman?It is because in some of the highest levelHECS charges, having shifted to a differ-entiated HECS last year, we find that univer-sities—at least some, anyway—are overenrol-led in some of the most expensive courses. Souniversities will not be losing any jobs as aconsequence of what we have chosen to do.But whether they choose to restructure forother reasons is another matter. So I think thatone is a debatable point.

In relation to 4,000 people vis-a-vis DAS:no, I am not aware of that; and I have notseen what the New South Wales manufactur-ing sector says it is going to do. I will guar-antee you this, Senator Foreman: at the nextelection the people of Australia will judge uson what we have done to generate real jobs.They will have very clearly in their mindsthat, after 13 years of Labor, with the highest

unemployment since the depression, thehighest unemployment since World War IIand months and months and months of youthunemployment at tragically high levels—much higher than they are now—when yourgovernment failed to do anything to addressthe structural inefficiencies in the economy toget rid of this ingrained stain of unemploy-ment that your people put on the economy,the Australian people will be looking to thisside of the chamber to say, ‘What have youdone about it?’

Already there is a very impressive list ofwhat we have done about it. For starters,when your people were in government youhad years of growth and were still runningdeficits. Why? Because you were absolutelygutless politicians, completely incapable offacing up to the difficult decisions of puttinga budget back into black. We came in andfound Beazley’s billions and billions ofdollars worth of black hole and on this sideof the chamber we have had the confidenceand courage to fix that problem. Because towalk away from that problem and leave abudget in deficit when you have economicgrowth, is to walk away from the people whomost need assistance—the people who arelooking for a job or the low skilled who aremost likely to lose their jobs. That is some-thing Senator Foreman might like to reflect onbefore someone gives him such a questionthat he is prepared to ask again.

You can add onto fiscal restraint—whichyour people were never able to show—thechanges to the industrial relations system. Ifyou look at countries that have better employ-ment records than us, you will see that inevi-tably the IR system comes into play. Look atwhat we have done with unfair dismissals andwhat we did only this week in relation tosmall business. We have only been in govern-ment one year. It took you 13 years to leavethe mess how it was and in one year we havemade significant changes to improve thatsituation.

Yes. I think the electorate will judge us onwhat we have done and they will judge us asbeing a government of courage. They will seethat you are still not prepared to say sorry forthe shocking mess you made of it.


Senator FOREMAN—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. How does theminister expect us to believe she is seriousabout unemployment when she remains hell-bent on policies that encourage the sheddingof jobs and continues to shy away fromcommitting herself to any jobs target?

Senator VANSTONE—Perfectly simply.Senator Foreman, you seem to have theview—and this is the view that your govern-ment had—that, if you keep putting people onthe government payroll, somehow you willsolve unemployment. What you need tounderstand is that more real jobs are gener-ated by getting a more efficient, vibrant andactive economy and we are doing that. If wedid not shed some jobs now, there would bea hell of a lot more to shed later.

You people hid your heads in the sand anddid not want to look at it. It was too hard adecision to make. You were never prepared tobite the bullet. Senator Foreman has to faceup to the fact that we are serious aboutunemployment. We are serious about fixingthe problem and that means we are preparedto make the tough, long-term, hard decisionsthat you were never ever prepared to make.

Higher Education

Senator KNOWLES—My question is tothe Minister for Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs. Last year whenthe government’s higher education budgetmeasures were passed in the Senate somecommentators predicted dire consequences forthe sector. Will the minister please providethe Senate with an update of the implementa-tion of those particular budget measures?

Senator VANSTONE—I thank SenatorKnowles for her question. It is very kind ofher to ask me such a question. Last year, asyou know, Madam President, the governmenttook the opportunity to minimise what directcuts to the higher education sector needed tobe made to fill Beazley’s black hole andactually took the savings by and large byseeking a higher contribution from students,fairly balancing the public and private benefitof a higher education, and we have certainlydelivered on that promise.

We took the opportunity to ensure thatundergraduate places—your first chance in thehigher education sector—would continue togrow. This year we are prepared to fundabout 6,000 more undergraduate places thanlast year. There will be 10,000 more in 1998and about 13,000 more in 1999. That repre-sents an increase of 3.7 in undergraduateplaces between 1996 and 1999. It is importantto underscore that because there were manyon the other side who said that the changeswe wanted to make would lock people out ofuniversity and it would be the end of highereducation. Quite the opposite is the case.There are more undergraduate places thanthere were in 1996 and more people areseeking to get in.

Of course, the budget included other chan-ges. It introduced some equity into the HECSsystem by not charging doctors and teachersthe same per annum contribution for thedegree that they earn and allowing universi-ties to charge full up-front fees to additionalstudents in 1998. Nonetheless, it is importantto note that some of the fundamentals of thehigher education contribution scheme have infact been retained. That is, no student isforced to pay an up-front fee to attend univer-sity in Australia. If someone has a lowerincome, they can pay back their HECS whenthey start earning. No-one has to pay up front.

However, as I have said, we have askedstudents to make a higher contribution forwhat they get. It does not appear at this stagethat the increased contribution we are askingstudents to make has deterred them fromenrolling in university. In fact, applicationshave held up well, despite a trend over recentyears for some decline in response to theimproving job prospects after the worstrecession in Australia since the Great Depres-sion.

We will not have firm data probably untilSeptember this year, but we do believe that—as I was indicating to Senator Foreman—law,which is in the highest HECS band, has beenvery heavily subscribed. One vice-chancellor,who was amongst the most critical publiclyand privately—one of the vice-chancellorswhose public and private message is alwaysthe same—and who was one of the greatest


critics of our HECS increases, sheepishlyadmitted last week that his university is overenrolled. Those who were prophesying doomand gloom are now prepared to admit thatsome of their universities are over enrolledand in the highest HECS bands. Furthermore,he has had his first delegation from studentssaying to him, ‘Listen, sport. I am paying$5,500 a year for this’, and the students arenow demanding quality delivery of theircourses, because it is costing them $5,500 andthe student population around Australia willcertainly be pushing for greater quality.

If I had more time I would tell SenatorKnowles something about science and engi-neering enrolments, because there were a lotof people prophesying doom and gloom inthat area as well. Yet again we may well seethat those who prophesy doom and gloom arehere just to nit pick and complain and behaveas though they are in student politics, nottaking it seriously and telling Australians thefull truth of the story.(Time expired)

Senator KNOWLES—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. In fact Sena-tor Vanstone has just touched on what I wasgoing to ask her about science and engineer-ing and I am very glad that she had somemore information on that. Also she might liketo dispel some of the concerns that werespecifically raised by Labor and the Demo-crats about up-front and full paying fees.

Senator VANSTONE—Thank you verymuch, Senator Knowles. I did want to refer toscience enrolments. It is true that there havebeen falling applications in science andengineering but, nonetheless, we expect thatenrolments will be maintained across theboard. A good news story that you hardlyever hear is that Australia has the highestnumber of science graduates in the age 22category in the whole of the OECD.

Senator Hill—Is that right?

Senator VANSTONE—Yes, the highestnumber ofscience graduates. So science is notfalling apart.

What is important is that graduates are nowseeing that their university might charge theadditional students, the full up-front feestudents, up to $110,000 a degree. What does

that tell you? It tells you that, if you are aHECS student and you can get it for $20,000,you are doing very well. They are the facts ofthe matter. If you paid $110,000 for oneparticular degree that we have done thecalculations on and you chose to pay yourHECS up-front, you would pay only $20,000.If you wanted to defer your HECS, youwould pay $28,000. So the value to Austral-ian students is now very clear.(Time expired)

Senator ColstonSenator FAULKNER—Madam President,

my question is directed to you. MadamPresident, is it a fact that the Department ofthe Senate’s interim fraud control plan re-quires the Usher of the Black Rod or theClerk of the Senate to examine instances ofsuspected fraud? Is it a fact that they are alsorequired to determine whether the allegedfraud, one, is without foundation; two, shouldbe the subject of advice from the AFP or theDPP on whether an offence has been commit-ted; three, is a matter for departmental action;or, four, is a serious matter for prompt referralto the AFP for investigation? Madam Presi-dent, I ask: has either the Usher of the BlackRod or the Clerk of the Senate made any suchdeterminations in relation to the allegationsagainst Senator Colston? If so, what is thenature of those determinations, and will youtable them?

The PRESIDENT—In answer to thequestion, the Senate officers and I are awareof the guidelines which were promulgated inMarch 1994 in relation to suspected fraud,and we have been acting within them. Withinthe guidelines there is also a clause whichsays that in a matter which is deemed politi-cally sensitive the issue should be referred tothe Attorney-General or the Minister forJustice, which in the present instance is thesame person. It seemed to me that the issueswe have been dealing with could be classifiedas politically sensitive, and I have referred thematter to the Attorney-General. I table theletter I have received from the Clerk of theSenate and the letter I wrote to the Attorney-General.

Senator FAULKNER—Madam President,I thank you for that, and I ask a supplemen-tary question. Will you undertake to provide


to party leaders and to Independent senators—and I say that in order to avoid the burden ofcopying, which tabling would, in fact, en-tail—copies of all Senator Colston’s travelclaims relating to the periods of travel identi-fied in the reports that you tabled in theSenate on Monday? I believe this is the onlyway to remove doubts about the accuracy ofSenator Colston’s own estimate of the numberof inaccurate claims.

The PRESIDENT—Senator, this is amatter which comes up later this afternoonunder a notice of motion listed to be dealtwith today. It is in the name of Senator Carr,motion No. 530. I believe it is a matter thatought to await the resolution of that motion,and it is a matter that can be discussed afterthat.

Student AssistanceSenator STOTT DESPOJA—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Employment,Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Minister, in light of today’s national day ofaction in protest against your government’shigher education policies and proposed com-mon youth allowance, I ask: when will thegovernment release the details of its youthallowance? Will you guarantee that theproposed allowance will be above the povertyline, so that young people are no longertold—as they are being told each day bystudent assistance centres—to go to theSalvation Army for food parcels? Minister,why is it that young people are deemedfinancially independent of their parents at age18 for the purposes of the family tax initiativeyet, when it comes to student assistance andthe youth allowance, young people are con-sidered dependent on their parents till ages 25or 20 respectively?

Senator VANSTONE—I thank SenatorStott Despoja for her question. Senator, thegovernment will release details of thoseproposals it wishes to proceed with when it issatisfied those proposals are in the properorder they ought to be in—and not before. Itseems a bit of a shame for people to beprotesting about something that has not yetbeen resolved. I do not know whether itshows a lack of aptitude on the part of thosepeople protesting or a misuse of them by

those who would seek to use protesters fortheir own political ends. Nonetheless, it doesseem to be a very sad waste of their time.

Senator, perhaps you can give me an under-taking in return. Perhaps you will give me anundertaking that, if the government proceedswith the youth allowance and students aresubstantially better off, you will welcome theyouth allowance. Perhaps you can give methat. You did not work very hard to achieveanything for what you regard as your con-stituency—namely, the students—during thebudget. There was not one attempt from youto improve their position. You, as spokes-person for them, are happy to just complainand say, ‘No, no, no.’ You are too busypushing your own ideological barrow thantrying to do something for the students ofAustralia. So I just caution you to be verycareful, Senator. Before you get—

Senator Kernot interjecting—Senator VANSTONE—Senator Kernot is

wailing and getting upset. Just hold on aminute there. I will come to you.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Vanstone, youshould be directing your remarks through thechair.

Senator VANSTONE—Through you,Madam President. Senator Stott Despoja doesneed to have some very careful and caringcautioning to not get stuck into a policy thatshe has not seen, lest she backs herself into acorner and has to say no to something thatshe might really want to say yes to.

Senator Stott Despoja—Madam President,I rise on a point of order. It is a point ofrelevance—standing order 194. Minister, Iasked for you to outline when the policywould be available and to outline the policy,not attack us or our policies. Tell us about theyouth allowance. We are not attacking it. Wewould like you to outline the discrepancies inyour own policy, please.

The PRESIDENT—Do have in mind thequestion that you are answering, Senator.

Senator VANSTONE—It is a sad fact thatevery now and then in this place someonegives you a gratuitous serve because you aska question. The Democrats are very good atthis. They fairly understand it is a part of day


to day politics and sooner or later, SenatorStott Despoja will get used to it and regard itas just the froth and bubble of politics and bequite happy.

Senator Stott Despoja reminds me of whatI already knew, and that is she asked a verysilly question. She asked me to detail a policythat has not yet been settled. If cabinet hasnot resolved something, I am hardly going topublicly discuss it in here, or even privately,with Senator Stott Despoja, as interested asshe is in the youth allowance—and I ampleased that she is.

We had a lot of consultations on this matteraround Australia. We are very well aware ofthe range of views. As interested as she is,she has to accept that the Democrats are nevergoing to be in government, she is never goingto be in cabinet and she is always going tohave to wait until the decision has been made.And then she will be told—like everybodyelse.

Senator STOTT DESPOJA—MadamPresident, I ask a supplementary question.Can the minister outline, in response to myoriginal question, why the government hasdeemed young people dependent on theirparents to the age of 25 for the purposes ofstudent assistance and their common youthallowance—that is something that has beendecided, Minister—whereas in the case of thefamily tax initiative they are deemed inde-pendent at the age of 18? Can the ministerplease, once and for all, give a commitmentthat the common youth allowance will be aliving allowance for young people and that itwill be above poverty line levels?

Senator VANSTONE—Senator, yourquestion vis-a-vis 25 was, I think, answeredvery, very clearly when we had the debate onthis matter. You may think that MelanieHoward is entitled to Austudy. You may thinkthat that is appropriate. But guess what? Onthis side of the chamber, we do not happen tothink it is appropriate.

Senator Stott Despoja knows full well that,up until 1992, the age of independence forAustudy, that is, the point at which you get itsimply because you happen to be that age andfor no other reason—you could be living athome with wealthy parents—was 22. It was

then changed, and all we have done is changeit back. The best example I can give you ofwhy is that Melanie Howard should not beable to get Austudy. It is as simple as that.

Furthermore, if I had more time, I wouldgive you some explanation of the reasons whyindependence in one category is not necessari-ly the same as independence in another. It isquite a complex policy argument that I hopedto get you across.(Time expired)

Mining: North Stradbroke IslandSenator CHILDS—My question is directed

to the Minister for Resources and Energy.Minister, is it true you failed to meet yourministerial responsibilities to consult theAustralian Heritage Commission over yourdecision to review Consolidated Rutile Ltd’smining activities on North Stradbroke Island?Isn’t it a fact that areas affected by the CRLmine are listed on the interim National Estateand that the Heritage Commission have setexport conditions for CRL’s operations?Shouldn’t you then have followed the properprocess and sought AHC advice under section30 of the Australian Heritage CommissionAct?

Senator PARER—I know the incident towhich Senator Childs refers. My departmentwas informed about the incident by theQueensland department of mines at a veryearly stage. Let me say that, under the previ-ous government, management of the environ-ment aspects was given to the Queenslandgovernment to oversee. Officers from mydepartment and the Commonwealth environ-ment department travelled to Brisbane fordiscussions with the state authorities and thecompany.

The Queensland minister’s response was toissue a notice to the company to show causeas to why CRL’s mining lease should not becancelled or a fine imposed. The Queenslandminister also announced that CRL’s securitydeposit had been increased and his departmenthad instructed CRL to commission independ-ent hydrological studies of the Gordon andIbis Alpha mines.

Following CRL’s response to the notice toshow cause, the Queensland minister decidednot to cancel CRL’s mining lease or impose


a financial penalty. This was based on Con-solidated Rutile’s actions to mitigate theimpacts arising from the incident, thecompany’s undertaking to address watermanagement and its commitment to revise itsenvironmental management overview strategy.I recently undertook a review of CRL’s exportcontrols and concluded that the relevantenvironmental concerns are being adequatelyaddressed by state environmental processes.I therefore decided to take no further actionagainst CRL.

Senator CHILDS—Madam President, I aska supplementary question. Minister, why didyou conduct such a narrow review and makeconclusions based on the very limited advicethat the relevant environmental concerns werebeing adequately addressed by state environ-mental processes and monitoring procedures?Will you release the review so that the com-munity is fully informed and can have confi-dence in CRL’s environmental performance?

Senator PARER—I think it is worthinforming Senator Childs that I actually wentacross and had a look at the project on NorthStradbroke Island, just to see for myself whatwas happening over there. It was before thechange of ownership, which happened, Ithink, a couple of months ago with CRL.There was no doubt that some things hadoccurred in the past, and some of theseproblems that occurred in the past go back 15or 20 years. It should be remembered that thisis a mine that has been going for pretty closeto 40 years. It is the last remaining sand minein Queensland.

One of the things that really impressed meabout it, notwithstanding the fact that therehad to be some corrections made to some ofthe things that happened in the past, was therehabilitation on South Stradbroke Island. Forthose people in this place who are interestedin the environment, can I say that it would bewell worth your while just to see the highlevel of rehabilitation on South StradbrokeIsland by CRL.

Small Business

Senator MARGETTS—My question isaddressed to the Minister representing thePrime Minister. I refer the minister to the

recent statement issued by the Prime Ministerentitled More Time for Business, and inparticular to the comments in relation tounfair dismissal changes. I also remind theminister of the comments made by the thenChief Justice of the Industrial Relations Court,Justice Wilcox, in which he refuted claimsthat unfair dismissal laws were making smallbusiness reluctant to hire people. I ask: giventhat the government has acknowledged thatsmall business is the major employer in thiscountry, what impact does the minister con-sider that the proposed changes will have onemployees’ security if new employees areable to be dismissed with relative impunity?Does he not agree that this insecurity willactively act as a disincentive to consumerspending and thus have a negative impact onthe viability of small businesses?

Senator HILL —Obviously we do not agreewith that. I presume that Senator Margetts isreferring to the decision of the government toexempt small businesses with 15 or feweremployees from the unfair dismissal laws inrespect of new employees who have beencontinuously employed for less than a year.We have found—certainly from representa-tions over a long period for small business—that one of the disincentives to take on morelabour is the rigid labour relation laws wehave in this country, particularly in relation tounfair dismissal. Although they have beenimproved, they are still a disincentive to smallbusiness. We have taken the attitude that thereneeds to be a range of changes to give en-couragement to small business to increasetheir—

The PRESIDENT—Order! The level ofnoise in the chamber is too high.

Senator HILL —I thought it was an import-ant issue, Madam President. With the levelsof unemployment that we inherited fromLabor, it is important we take that range ofoptions.

As you know, Madam President, we havemanaged to support small business by bring-ing interest rates down with the previousindustrial relations changes that have beenmade and by a whole range of other initia-tives that are contained within the documentMore Time for Business. But certainly we


believe if we free-up unfair dismissal laws inrelation to small business it will give themgreater encouragement. We think that is wortha chance.

Senator MARGETTS—Madam President,I ask a supplementary question. I thank theminister for his response, but I wonder wheth-er the minister acknowledges the connectionwithin the workplace between unfair dismissallaws and unfair treatment that may lead tothreats of unfair dismissal. I wonder whetherthe Prime Minister was saying in his state-ment that it is okay to act unfairly—and, upuntil now, illegally—as long as you are asmall business. Perhaps that might lead in thefuture to these laws being changed in largerand larger businesses until we get to the pointwhere there is no certainty for employees atall.

Senator HILL —I hear what SenatorMargetts says, but the alternative is that youdo nothing, basically. We are prepared to takea few chances to give more Australians theopportunity to work. We believe that this willwork; we believe it on the basis of the repre-sentations that we have received from manysmall business people Australia wide. We donot necessarily always think in the negative,Senator Margetts. If you continually assessevery initiative negatively, you end up doingnothing. We believe this is worth a go.

As you would have noted from the reportdocument itself, we are going to have thesituation monitored by the Department ofIndustrial Relations to see how it is working.We will respond accordingly. Our assessmentis that it is something that will encouragesmall business to employ more Australians,and therefore it got the tick.

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The PRESIDENT—Before proceeding withquestions, I invite senators to recognise thepresence in the chamber of a parliamentarydelegation from the Ukraine led by Mr IgorOstash. Your presence is most welcome. Ihope you have an enjoyable visit to thiscountry and that senators welcome you here.

Honourable senators—Hear, hear!

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Shipbuilding Industry

Senator MURPHY—My question isdirected to Senator Parer, the minister repre-senting the Minister for Industry, Science andTourism. My question relates to Australianbusiness—that you claim to care so muchabout. Minister, I refer to your government’sdecision to end the shipbuilding bounty on 31December this year. Isn’t it true that you haveargued that this action aligns the Australianshipbuilding industry with key overseascompetitors and that the Prime Ministerreiterated this argument in question timeyesterday? Isn’t it also true that the PrimeMinister went on to say:

. . . if some further extension were needed to keeppace with the OECD practice then we would do so?

Minister, is it not a fact that the OECDagreement provides for the continuation ofsubsidies for up to three years for our majorcompetitors, whereas there is no such agree-ment for Australian shipbuilders? Why, then,does the Prime Minister not act immediatelyto restore the level playing field for our ship-building industry and save the thousands ofjobs that he has put under threat by hisdecision?

Senator PARER—Madam President, whatan extraordinary question! I might tell you,Senator, that if you had been here a week ortwo ago you would have heard someone elseask this question on the shipbuilding bounty.

Let me make these points to you. First ofall, let me answer one of your questions withyes, in relation to the OECD agreement, threeyears is quite correct. Let me point this out toyou, Senator: do you know when the ship-building bounty ended under your policy? Doyou know when it finished? In June this year.That was under the Labor government.Minister Moore extended that bounty untilDecember this year. This a matter that actual-ly is on theNotice Paperfor debate, but I donot mind answering it. Can you keep—

Senator Cook interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Parer,would you address your remarks to the chair?


Senator PARER—There is Senator Cookasking Senator Faulkner if he is allowed totake note of my answer. I would like to askSenator Faulkner: is it all right if SenatorCook does take note?

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—Order! The level ofnoise is still too high, Senator Parer, if youwould wait.

Senator PARER—Minister Moore didannounce in the December last year that itwould be extended to 31 December 1997. Healso announced that the government wouldclosely monitor progress towards implementa-tion of the OECD agreement and, in light ofthat progress, review the need of any exten-sion of the bounty beyond 1997 during thesecond half. Minister Moore advised that healso indicated his willingness to considerbringing the forward review announced on 16December to the middle of this year.

Minister Moore informed the AustralianShipbuilders Association of this position; inother words, to bring forward the review. Heannounced his position during his meetingwith Mr Rothwell on 6 March. While MrRothwell raised a number of options for thefuture, Minister Moore made no commitmentthat the government would change its currentpolicy, as reflected in the existing bill beforethe parliament. I would just like to reiteratethat under the previous government thisbounty would have expired in June this year.

Senator MURPHY—Madam President, Iask a supplementary question. I am sure youare aware that the Australian shipbuildingindustry is in the process of trying to competewith overseas shipbuilders for contracts rightnow. It is a fact that you have taken a deci-sion to cease the bounty as of 31 December.How can you expect the Australian shipbuild-ing industry to actually compete for contractsto build ships when they know full well thatthe bounty does end as of 31 December andthey have no capacity? Thousands of jobs arethreatened. Why won’t you now take a deci-sion not only to bring the review forward butto put them back on a level playing field?

Senator PARER—Senator Murphy, I amnot sure whether you were listening when I

answered your question. Under the previousLabor government this bounty would haveexpired on 30 June this year. What MinisterMoore did was extend the bounty to Decem-ber this year. Minister Moore has made thepoint, under the instructions I have, that whilehe talked about reviewing it towards the endof this year he is prepared to bring forwardthat date of review.

Small Business

Senator FERRIS—My question is directedto the Minister representing the Minister forSmall Business and Consumer Affairs. Muchhas been said in recent years about the needto improve the access of innovative small andmedium sized companies to equity capital,especially after Labor’s failure to addressthese needs. Could the minister please outlineto the Senate how business will benefit fromthe small business innovation fund announcedby the Prime Minister this week?

Senator PARER—I thank Senator Ferrisfor that question. It is true that Labor has onlyever paid lip service to small business. Whenthe Labor government took over in 1983small business was the engine room ofgrowth. When Labor came into government—and bear in mind that Labor is the politicalarm of the trade union movement—the onlyadvantage it saw in small business was forunion growth. So what did we see? We sawsmall business being badgered and houndedby union organisers to try to get them toincrease their numbers.

Then we had Labor’s unfair dismissal laws.Business found that they could not evendismiss someone caught stealing, whetherfrom the till or from stock. In many casesthieves were rewarded and small businessreacted in the only way it could, by curtailinggrowth and not employing people. Labor’sperformance on small business can only bedescribed as absolutely deplorable. Laborcannot help itself when it comes to smallbusiness.

A search of the Internet today providesconfirmation of Labor’s assessment of smallbusiness. Labor produced a list of 12 keyachievements of the Hawke and Keatinggovernment. They included: the prices and


incomes accord, Mabo, the national agendafor women and the republic. You know what?There is not one mention of small business.Senator Schacht, you should be ashamed.That is why the Howard government’sMoreTime for Businesspackage received suchoverwhelming support from all areas. Whilethis package restores balance to small busi-ness and eases the repressive union bias onsmall business employers, it addresses theneed for government to help return confidenceand growth to small business and thus realjobs.

One of the key elements of the Howardgovernment’s determination to be a teamplayer with small business is the proposal toestablish the small business innovation fund.In this era of technological growth it address-es something Labor never had the vision toaddress—the need to assist small technologybased businesses.

It is interesting that a press release has beenput out by the Australian Venture CapitalAssociation. It is worth senators listening tothis. They welcome the announcement by thefederal government to establish the smallbusiness innovation fund. They state:‘Attracting investment into early stage and start-upcompanies has been a problem in this country forfar too long’—

13 years too long—as Bill Ferris, Chairman of the Australian VentureCapital Association said. Australia has an indiffer-ent record when it comes to commercialising itsresearch and development. This new scheme shouldprovide the incentive for investors and privatecapital fund managers to support this end of themarket. The scheme has great merit and it is nottax driven and every dollar invested is rewarded bybusiness development successes only.

Senator FERRIS—Madam President, I aska supplementary question. Can I ask theminister to further explain the amount offunding available for the start-up fund and theaccess that private sector managers will haveto that fund.

Senator PARER—This fund provides seedcapital to the small business sector that hasstruggled to survive against resistance toinvestment capital from normal sources.Under the small business innovation fund thisgovernment will establish six early stage

capital funds to invest more than $100 millionin the small high technological firms over fiveyears. The Commonwealth will provide $130million from the R&D Start program andprivate sector fund managers will be respon-sible for finding matching private contribu-tions on the basis of $1 of private capital forevery $2 contributed by the government. Thisis something not plucked out of the air. Itfollows extensive consultation with industryand the financial sectors in developing thescheme. It is clear that the industry wantsaction in this area and initial reactions to theproposal have been very highly favourable.

Women

Senator REYNOLDS—I address myquestion to the Minister representing thePrime Minister for the Status of Women.Minister, can you confirm that your govern-ment is opposed to each of the following:gender policy reform, a comprehensivewomen’s budget process and a 50-50 genderbalance for the proposed people’s convention?If this is not the case, can you identify whichof these equal opportunity policies yourgovernment does support?

Senator NEWMAN—I am glad that Sena-tor Reynolds persists in this misconception ofwhat the new government is all about. Therehas been no backsliding on equality of oppor-tunity for Australian women under thisgovernment. In fact, on every test you couldmake, this government is hell-bent on seeingthat women get a fair go in this country, likeall other citizens. That is why we took soseriously the importance of finding a newhead for the Office of Status of Women. Wehad wide-ranging advertisements and anexecutive search organisation short-listedsuitable candidates. I am sure that right acrossparty lines it would be agreed that the ap-pointment of Ms Pru Goward to head up theOffice of Status of Women is a very positivestep and one that has been widely acclaimed,except, I am sad to say, by Dr Carmen Law-rence, for reasons best known to herself.

Senator Jacinta Collins—What about theSex Discrimination Commissioner?

Senator NEWMAN—I hear an interjection,which is also worth addressing now that I


have this opportunity. The Sex DiscriminationCommissioner resigned in a blaze of glory, Isuppose, having a serve at the government.That has been picked up by the media. Whathave not been picked up are the allegationsthat somehow the government is doing some-thing unconstitutional by the position notbeing filled as yet. The provisions are quiteclear and the advice from the Attorney-General’s Department is such that the role ofthe Sex Discrimination Commissioner con-tinues while a replacement is being found.That search is being carried out by my col-league Mr Williams right now. There is nomovement away from that.

The proposals that we took to the Austral-ian people at the last election included anextraordinarily important measure, which wasthe retirement savings accounts, which recog-nise the important need for women to havebetter economic security in old age. Yesterdayin this place, Senator Reynolds, your partydid its utmost to stop Australian womenhaving access to a measure which will recog-nise for the first time their broken workpatterns and their role as carers of the dis-abled, the aged and children.

Senator Mackay interjecting—

Senator NEWMAN—You do not like tohear this true story, do you, Senator Mackay?But this government is hell-bent on puttingpractical policies into place which will meangood things for Australian women across theboard. Economic security is extraordinarilyimportant, domestic violence is important andinvolving women in decision making isimportant. Already in our first 12 months wehave improved the percentage of women onCommonwealth government boards andcommittees by one per cent, which is only ashort step, but it is a better position than weinherited. I hate to remind you, Senator, thatwe also brought those women into parliamentthat you were unable to do with your quotas.

In 12 months this government has beengetting on with the job of doing a fair thingby Australian women. The response of thisgovernment to the commitments made inBeijing is just about finalised. It is so thick,it will hold the door open for you, Senator,when you are ready to receive it. It is just

about at the printers and will be going to NewYork shortly. It was somewhat delayed by theneed to add all the new programs and devel-opments from this government. The first yearof a new government in a new direction,giving fair treatment to women right acrossAustralia, not just the top end of town that MrKeating and Anne Summers focused on andthat you—(Time expired)

Senator REYNOLDS—I ask a supplemen-tary question, Madam President. Minister, canyou explain why the government only yester-day voted against a motion which would havetied the government to support each of theseinitiatives? I repeat them: gender policyreform, a comprehensive women’s budgetprocess and a 50-50 gender balance for theproposed people’s convention. Could youanswer the questions specifically, as you havegiven us a generalised response. Could yougive us a categoric assurance that you willsupport each of those initiatives and that youmade a mistake in voting against them yester-day.

Senator NEWMAN—This side of politicsbelieves that merit works, as a result of whichmy colleagues are appointing capable, experi-enced and qualified women to boards andcommittees in greater numbers than yourministers did. Would you suggest that asMinister for Social Security I should cut thegender balance in my department down fromapproximately 60-40 in favour of women to50-50? Don’t be ridiculous!

Australian Pituitary Hormone ProgramSenator LEES—My question is to the

Minister representing the Minister for Healthand Family Services. I refer you to the legalproceedings currently underway in whichformer participants of the Australian pituitaryhormone program are taking legal actionagainst both the Commonwealth Departmentof Health and the Commonwealth SerumLaboratories. I ask: are you aware of claimsfrom their lawyers that they have not hadaccess to documents and records of theinquiry carried out by Professor MargaretAllars into the Australian pituitary hormoneprogram, documents which were originallylodged by her at her request with the Austral-ian Archives and were subsequently removed


from the Archives by the CommonwealthDepartment of Health? Secondly, when werethese documents retrieved from the Archivesand on whose authority? Thirdly, have all thedocuments now been found or are some stillmissing or perhaps destroyed? Finally, thesepeople have now faced extensive delays, theirlegal costs have built up and they have beendenied legal aid. Therefore, as it was thehealth department which caused the delay,will you now guarantee them legal aid so thatthey can continue with the proceedings?

Senator NEWMAN—I appreciate SenatorLees’ interest in this matter. It is a veryimportant issue. Therefore, in order to get adetailed answer on a very important question,I value the fact that she gave me some ad-vance warning of this. I am advised that theplaintiffs’ solicitors have sought access todocuments which are protected by the secrecyprovision in the National Health Act, releaseof which may prejudice the privacy of indi-viduals and in particular hormone recipientswho gave evidence to the Allars inquiry.

Documents have been released in accord-ance with an agreement between the Austral-ian Government Solicitor and the plaintiffs’solicitors with respect to release of suchdocuments. With respect to a recent requestfor additional documents, a decision has beenmade to release these documents to theplaintiffs’ solicitors under this agreement.

Turning to your second question of whenwere these documents retrieved and on whoseauthority, in early 1996 a large number of thedocuments were retrieved from archives bythe Australian Government Solicitor onauthority of the health department. Allarsinquiry staff upon completion of the inquirynominated the then Department of HumanServices and Health as the controlling agentfor the purposes of the Archives Act. Thedocuments were then forwarded to the Aus-tralian Government Solicitor for the purposeof providing documents to the plaintiffs’lawyers.

Your third question was: has the departmentdestroyed or lost any of these documentssince they were retrieved? I am advised ‘notso far as the minister is aware’. Your fourth

question was: who is or was responsible fordetermining which of these documents arecovered by section 135A of the NationalHealth Act? Decisions to release the docu-ments to the plaintiffs’ solicitors were takenby the Commonwealth government chiefmedical officer on the advice of the Austral-ian Government Solicitor. The Minister forHealth and Family Services will continue tomonitor these arrangements.

I am advised that arrangements are in placefor all documents sought by the plaintiffs’solicitors to be provided by the AustralianGovernment Solicitor to the plaintiffs’ solici-tors. At the completion of the CJD litigation,all documents will be returned to archives.

Senator, you did ask me an additionalquestion relating to legal aid. I have no briefon that, but I will endeavour to get it for youas soon as I can.

Senator LEES—Madam President, I ask asupplementary question. I thank the ministerfor the detailed answer. Minister, I am sureyou are aware of the considerable anguish thatnot only these particular individuals havesuffered but also their families. As you havesaid, it has been the health department thathas caused much of these delays and that it isreally the controlling agent. Therefore, I ask:will you now go back to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and make arecommendation that the legal aid should bepaid and seek his support to make sure thatthe plaintiffs can continue with their action?

Senator NEWMAN—I will refer therequest to the minister and see if I can obtainan answer for Senator Lees.

Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask thatfurther questions be placed on theNoticePaper.

Shipbuilding IndustrySenator COOK (Western Australia) (3.04

p.m.)—I seek leave to take note of an answergiven by Senator Parer to a question asked bySenator Murphy relating to the shipbuildingindustry.

Senator HILL (South Australia—Ministerfor the Environment)—by leave—The ordersof the day, as I understand it, did not allowfor taking note of answers given during


question time because there was an under-standing that we might try to do a bit moregovernment business for a change. Neverthe-less, cooperation is a two-way street, I under-stand that. Senator Cook feels that he hasbeen personally provoked.

Senator Bob Collins—He was.Senator HILL —There was a bit of teasing

going on. In all the circumstances, I think itwould be reasonable if Senator Cook had fiveminutes to take note as if it were a take noteand we ended it at that stage. What I couldnot understand was, when I asked SenatorCook if he were prepared to limit it to fiveminutes, he refused to answer.

That is all I am asking, if we are going totry to be reasonable on both sides—you wereprovoked—five minutes time to respond andthen we can get on with other things?

Senator Cook—My speech will take fiveminutes. That is what I am entitled to underthe standing orders.

Senator HILL —No, you are not.The PRESIDENT—There is no taking note

of answers listed on theNotice Paperfortoday. Senator Cook has sought leave to makea five-minute statement taking note of ananswer and that has been granted. For fiveminutes, is that understood, Senator Cook?

Senator COOK (Western Australia) (3.05p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given bythe Minister for Resources and Energy (SenatorParer), to a question without notice asked bySenator Murphy today, relating to the shipbuildingindustry.

The fast ferry industry in Australia is the onlyarea of sophisticated, complex manufacturedgoods that this country leads the world in. Itis an industry that did not exist eight yearsago. It is an industry that grew up under aLabor government. It is an industry that nowleads the world. It grew up under a Laborgovernment with assistance from a Laborgovernment by a bounty introduced by aLabor government.

The bounty act that the Labor governmentintroduced was due to expire on 30 June thisyear. It is not true, as the minister, has saidthat under Labor the bounty would have

expired. What is true is that the act, with thebounty in it, would have expired. Our com-mitment to the industry was to continue thebounty. That was our commitment and nego-tiations between the industry and my col-league, the honourable Chris Schacht, theminister for construction at the time who wasin charge of this sector when I was ministerfor industry, were in an advanced stage ofcompletion. Had we not been defeated in theelection, we would have continued thebounty. That was the situation that the indus-try knew. That was our commitment, and wewere in an advanced state of delivering onthat commitment.

Now let us look at the government. Thegovernment introduced a bill into this cham-ber to make sure that the bounty did concludeon 30 June, and it would not have beenextended. That bill is on theNotice Papernow. That bill has been amended, of course,because of subsequent events. Let us cast ourminds back to what those events were. LastDecember, when this chamber was debatingthe rapacious slashing and cuts by the govern-ment to the research and development bill,this government had negotiations with theIndependent senators in this place. As aconsequence of those talks on that bill—thisis my suspicion and I compliment him if mysuspicion is right because one of those Inde-pendents, Senator Harradine, is a Tasmanianand this industry is based in Tasmania andWestern Australia—the government issued apress statement saying that the bounty wouldbe extended for six months to 31 Decemberthis year.

The government was pushed into it. It didnot want to do it. It resisted. It wanted amajor money bill passed. It ended in negotia-tions with pressure from an Independent fromTasmania, and that is my assertion. It cavedin and extended the bounty for six months. Solet us not have any of this allegation that thegovernment has done something voluntarilyto help this industry. It has not. It has beenmade to do it by this chamber.

On 16 December, the Treasurer (MrCostello) and the Minister for Industry,Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) put out apress release crowing about this, and they


named Senator Harradine and Senator Colstonas having helped them to make up their mindsabout it. In that press release, they said thatthis aligns the bounty with the OECD agree-ment and for ship builders who are the majorcompetitors for our industry. That is, thosewho are the major competitors for the Aus-tralian manufacturers. The department says inthe Hansardtranscript of the estimates com-mittee last time that they are the Europeans.It is in the Hansard. But what has happenedhere? Yesterday, the Prime Minister answereda question in the House in which he respond-ed that he thought that the promise made byMinisters Costello and Moore in fact did alignthe bounty with the Europeans. It does not.

What is now clear—and it was clear to usand clear to the industry that has lobbied thegovernment on this matter since it made itsannouncement—is that the bounty does notalign it. The Prime Minister thought it did.The Minister for Industry, Science and Tour-ism and the Treasurer made sure it did not,and it did not for this reason. The Europeansgive their manufacturers a nine to 25 per centbounty—ours is a five per cent one—and theyare pinching orders out of shipyards in Aus-tralia and putting Australians out of work, andthe manufacturers get theirs to the end of theyear.

If an order is placed this year, they getthree years to build their ships. In Australia,you have to complete your ship to get thebounty by the end of the year. It is notaligned. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said hethought it was. He thought that, if it was not,he would make sure that it was aligned. It isnot what his ministers did, and you cannotaccept this stuff from Senator Parer today thatit is what his ministers did. It is now for thePrime Minister to prevent retrenchments inKwinana, to prevent people from going out ofwork in Tasmania, to deliver on his promise,and align those bounties with the OECDagreement.(Time expired)


REMOVAL OF SENATOR FROMPARLIAMENTARY RETIRING

ALLOWANCES TRUST

The PRESIDENT—Two of the notices ofmotion given yesterday relate to discharging

Senator Colston from the ParliamentaryRetiring Allowances Trust. Today I receiveda letter from the Minister for Finance (MrFahey) advising me that Senator Colstonresigned from the trust by letter addressed tothe minister, dated 7 March 1997. Theminister’s letter was apparently sent to me on14 March but was not received by me, whichwas unfortunate, and therefore it was notacted upon. It is, however, for the Senate todetermine who its representative on the trustshould be. I suggest it is open to the Senateto make an appointment to the trust in placeof Senator Colston, and I table the letter fromthe Minister for Finance.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.12p.m.)—by leave—Madam President, I wroteto you on 25 February this year seekingadvice in relation to a number of positionsthat were held by the Deputy President,Senator Colston. I raised the issue of theappropriateness of Senator Colston continuingas a member of the Parliamentary RetiringAllowances Trust. I also, you may recall,informed the Senate that I had done that afteran article appeared in theSydney MorningHerald on 26 February.

I also indicate that I did seek advice fromofficers of the Department of the Senate, inrelation to this particular matter, about pos-sible methods of removing Senator Colstonfrom the Parliamentary Retiring AllowancesTrust, and I did receive written advice inrelation to my request. The advice said that inthe absence of a resignation from SenatorColston, it would be open to any senator togive notice of a motion that Senator Colstonbe removed from the trust in accordance withsubsection 6(1) of the Parliamentary Contribu-tory Superannuation Act. You may recall thaton 4 March 1997 I gave notice that I wouldmove:

That, in accordance with subsection 6(1) of theParliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act1948, Senator Colston be removed from the Parlia-mentary Retiring Allowances Trust;You may also recall, Madam President, thatthe motion was defeated by the Senate be-cause, of course, the government determinedto support Senator Colston’s continuation onthe trust.


The situation we have now is quite anextraordinary one indeed. To be absolutelyfrank, the Labor Party is glad that SenatorColston has gone because we do not believethat it is appropriate that Senator Colston holdsuch a position of trust. Given his extraordi-nary bookkeeping efforts in relation to hisown travel allowance claims, we certainlywould not want to see Senator Colston in anyway responsible for the affairs of other mem-bers of parliament.

I do find it interesting, to say the least, thatSenator Colston gave his resignation to MrFahey, the Minister for Finance. I suspect thatthat is yet another example of SenatorColston’s lack of attention to detail. It isobviously a matter for the Senate, and aresignation that needs to be appropriatelydealt with by the Senate. It is up to Mr Faheyto explain how it took so long for him tocommunicate to you, Madam President, thathe had received a letter from Senator Colston.

I do point out that this is even more re-markable, given there had been a lot ofdiscussion about this particular issue in thepress. Even a minister for finance as out oftouch as Mr Fahey, I think, ought to havebeen aware that the Senate was debating thisissue and voting upon this issue. I do appreci-ate the fact that, Madam President, when atlast Mr Fahey brought this matter to yourattention, you did act quickly and, in myview, appropriately, in making the statementthat you have just made. Anumber of quest-ions remain as to the amount of time it tookto communicate this resignation, which wasnotified to Mr Fahey one day after the gov-ernment determined that it was appropriate tosee Senator Colston remain on the Parlia-mentary Retiring Allowances Trust.

In simple terms, we are glad that SenatorColston has gone. We do not believe that itwas appropriate that he continue in that posi-tion and I hope that Senator Colston has thesame foresight in relation to a number ofother positions he holds in this parliament.

The PRESIDENT—To add one point tothis issue, the matter was drawn to my atten-tion this morning by Senator Watson when herang and asked why I had not acted upon MrFahey’s letter. A member of my staff then

rang Mr Fahey’s office to ask for a copy ofit to be faxed to my office.

PETITIONSThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for

presentation as follows:

Aerial CablingTo the Honourable President and Members of the

Senate in Parliament assembled:The Petition of the undersigned shows:

the strong opposition of residents of the Cityof Tea Tree Gully in South Australia to theproposed roll-out of overhead cables within ourCity, based on the impact upon residentialamenity, our local streetscapes, the environmentand potential damage to mature trees.

Whilst we have no objection to the benefitstelecommunication services bring, we ask thatthey are delivered in an environmentally respon-sible fashion.

In addition to our concern about visual pollu-tion we are strongly opposed to the unnecessaryduplication of infrastructure and the extent ofimmunity granted to telecommunications carriersfrom state and local government regulations(Telecommunications Act of 1991).

Your Petitioners request that the Senate should:intervene in this matter with a view to prevent-

ing the degradation of residential amenity causedby aerial cabling and obtain a positive outcomefor the residents of the City of Tea Tree Gullyand the wider community.

by Senator Schacht(from 1,093 citizens).

Repatriation BenefitsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled

The petition of certain citizens of Australia,draws to the attention of the Senate the fact thatmembers of the Royal Australian Navy who servedin Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the onlyAustralians to be deliberately excluded fromeligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans’Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourable‘active service’. Australian Archives records showthat the only reason for the exclusion was to savemoney. Members of the Australian Army and AirForce serving in Malaya were not excluded, and thecosts associated with the land forces was one of themain reasons for the exclusion of the Navy. Aninjustice was done which later events have com-pounded.

There are two forms of benefits for ex-service-men, Disability Pensions for war caused disabilities(denied the sailors referred to but introduced in


1972 for ‘Defence Service’ within Australia) andService Pensions. Allied veterans of 55 nationsinvolved in conflicts with Australian forces untilthe end of the Vietnam War can have qualifyingeligibility for Service Pensions under the Act.Service by 5 countries in Vietnam was recognisedafter RAN service in Malaya was excluded. TheDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs confirms that 686ex-members of the South Vietnamese ArmedForces are in receipt of Australian Service Pen-sions; 571 on married rate and 115 on single rate.In effect, 1,257 Service Pensions, denied to ex-members of the RAN, are being paid for servingalongside Australians in Vietnam.

It is claimed that:

(a) Naval personnel were engaged on operationalduties that applied to all other Australian servicepersonnel serving overseas on ‘active service’.They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya andsecretly intercepted enemy communications;

(b) Naval personnel were subject to similardangers as all other Australian service personnelserving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties,none of which appear on the Roll of Honour at theAustralian War Memorial;

(c) the Royal Australian Navy was ‘allotted’ foroperational service from 1st July 1955 and this isdocumented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to theDepartment of the Navy. The RAN was thenapparently ‘unallotted’ secretly to enable theexcluding legislation to be introduced;

(d) the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has saidit can find no written reason(s) for the RANexclusion in the Act. In two independent FederalCourt cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and DoesselQld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex-members of the RAN had been ‘allotted’. Davishad served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a resultof these cases ex-members of the RAN who servedin Malaya and who had, at that time, claims beforethe Department of Veterans’ Affairs for benefits,had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after theDoessel decision the Act was amended to requireallotment to have been by written instrument. Inparliament, it was claimed the amendment wasnecessary to restore the intended purpose of theexclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, befound.

(e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, boundby the ‘Special Overseas Service’ requirements,introduced in the Repatriation (Special OverseasService) Act 1962. This Act became law some twoyears after the war in Malaya ended;

(f) as Australian citizens serving with the RoyalAustralian Navy they complied with three of thefour requirements for ‘active service’. The fourth,

for ‘military occupation of a foreign country’ didnot apply to Malaya.

Your petitioners therefore request the Senate toremove the discriminatory exclusion in the Actthereby restoring justice and recognition of honour-able ‘active service’ with the Royal AustralianNavy in direct support of British and Malayanforces during the Malayan Emergency between1955 and 1960.

by Senator Faulkner (from 27 citizens), andSenator Schacht(from 15 citizens).

Repatriation BenefitsTo the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled:

The Petition of the undersigned shows that onlyone group have been excluded from eligibility forrepatriation benefits in the Veterans EntitlementsAct 1986 (the Act) where such group has per-formed honourable overseas ‘active service’. Thatgroup being members of the Royal Australian Navywho served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960which were excluded under ‘Operational Service’at Section 6. (1)(e)(ii) of the Act.

The various claims made in Statements to theHouse and the Senate and the contents of corres-pondence from various Ministers to maintain theexclusion are answered as follows, the answers arefrom documents obtained under FIO and frompublic record:

(i) ‘They were never allotted for operationalservice’, (contained in a letter from the Hon. ConSciacca Minister for Defence Science and Person-nel 1995). A letter from the Secretary Departmentof the Navy to Treasury dated 11 November 1955stated ‘the date that the Navy were allotted foroperational service was 1 July 1955’.

(ii) ‘Members of the RAN were only doing theduty for which they had enlisted’, (October 1956The Hon. Dr Cameron representing the Minister forRepatriation in the Senate). This applies to allService personnel everywhere.

(iii) ‘They were in no danger’, (November 1956The Hon. Dr Cameron representing the Minister forRepatriation in the Senate). They shared the samedanger as all other Australian Service personnelserving in Malaya at the time.

(iv) ‘They were not on Special OverseasService’, (in a letter from the office of The Hon.Bronwyn Bishop Minister for Defence IndustryScience and Personnel to Mrs Williams of Adelaidedated October 1996). Requirement for SpecialOverseas Service was introduced in 1962 withoutretrospective conditions, therefore has no relevanceto events of 1960.

(v) ‘They were not on Active Service’, (in aletter from the office of The Hon. Bronwyn Bishop


Minister for Defence Industry Science and Person-nel dated October 1996). It is now, as it was then,that Service Personnel had to comply with one ofthree requirements for Active Service, this groupcomplied with two, or twice as many as is needed.The one that they did not comply with was, ‘is inmilitary occupation of a foreign country’.

Your petitioners therefore request that the Senateshould remove the discriminatory exclusion in theAct, thereby giving the Australian sailors involvedcomparative recognition with the Army and RAAFpersonnel that served at the same time, and allother Australians who have served their Country onactive service overseas.

by Senator Woodley(from 52 citizens).

Petitions received.

NOTICES OF MOTION

Malaysia: Logging and Woodchipping

Senator BROWN (Tasmania)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the Senate—

(a) expresses concern about:

(i) the well-being of four Penan citizens whoare under arrest in Marudi, Sarawak, oncharges relating to protests against log-ging of forests,

(ii) the continued loss of the indigenouspeople’s forests in Malaysia and theconsequent loss of income, sustenance,well-being and cultural amenity, and

(iii) reports of the use of the military againstthe Penan people; and

(b) calls on the Malaysian Government and theState Government of Sarawak to negotiatewith the Penan people to ensure the survivalof their remnant forests, and to ensure thecivil rights of those currently under arrest inSarawak.

Academy Awards 1997

Senator PATTERSON (Victoria)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the Senate—

(a) congratulates:

(i) Australian actor Geoffrey Rush for win-ning the 1997 Academy Award for BestActor for his role in the movieShine,

(ii) all those involved in the production of themovie Shine, and

(iii) Australian cinematographer John Sealefor winning the 1997 Academy Award forBest Achievement in Cinematography forhis work on the movieThe English Pa-tient;

(b) acknowledges the Government’s support forfilm and the arts in Australia;

(c) notes that these awards highlight the enor-mous talent and diversity within the Austral-ian Film Industry (AFI); and

(d) commends the AFI, as a whole, for itscontinued and growing success in Australiaand overseas.

Regulations and Ordinances CommitteeSenator CALVERT (Tasmania)—At the

request of Senator O’Chee, I give notice that,on the next day of sitting, he will move:

1.— That the Airports (Environment Protec-tion) Regulations, as contained in Statu-tory Rules 1997 No. 13 and made underthe Airports Act 1996, be disallowed.

2.— That the Airports Regulations, as con-tained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 8 andmade under theAirports Act 1996, bedisallowed.

3.— That the High Court Rules (Amendment),as contained in Statutory Rules 1997 No.11 and made under theJudiciary Act1903, be disallowed.

4.— That the Mutual Assistance in CriminalMatters Regulations (Amendment), ascontained in Statutory Rules 1997 No. 3and made under theMutual Assistance inCriminal Matters Act 1987, be disal-lowed.

I seek leave to incorporate inHansarda shortsummary of the matters raised by the commit-tee.

Leave granted.

The summary read as follows—

Airports (Environment Protection)Regulations Statutory Rules 1997 No 13

The Regulations provide for environmental manage-ment of airports.

A number of discretions are reviewable only by theSecretary and not by the AAT. In addition thereappear to be either direct or implied discretionswhich are not subject to any review, includingcommercially valuable discretions.

An airport-lessee company may enter an occupier’spremises. This power appears to be very wide andis not limited by the usual safeguards.


A system of infringement notices effectivelyconfers power on a non-government body toimpose fines. Also, the infringement notices do notinclude the usual advice that, if the fine is paid,then this not only discharges the liability andprevents any prosecution for the matter, but alsothat the person concerned is not to be regarded ashaving been convicted of an offence.

Notices under the Regulations may be given to thegeneral public by pre-paid post. However, there isno equivalent concession for members of the publicreplying to notices.

There are also possible reference errors.

The committee has written to the minister.

Airports Regulations Statutory Rules1997 No 8

The Regulations implement a regulatory regime forCommonwealth-owned and privately-leased air-ports.

The Regulations include a number of subjective andvague expressions.

Creditors of airport lessee companies may in certaincircumstances be precluded from recovering debtsdue to them.

The Secretary may review commercially valuablediscretions with no indication whether such deci-sions are subject to AAT review.

There may be drafting oversights.

The committee has written to the minister.

High Court Rules (Amendment) StatutoryRules 1997 No 11

The Rules include a number of Notes, whichappear to advise of matters for which there may beno legal authority.

The Rules provide for witnesses called because oftheir professional, scientific or other special skill orknowledge to be paid $610.20 per day, while otherwitnesses are to be paid only $64.40 per day. Thisis a considerable difference and the provisionscould operate harshly or unfairly.

For more than a decade Commonwealth legislativedrafting practice has included the expressions ‘heor she’, ‘him or her’ and ‘his or her’. The presentRules, however, include only the expressions ‘he’,‘him’ and ‘his’.

The committee has written to the Chief Justice foradvice.

Mutual Assistance in Criminal MattersRegulations (Amendment) Statutory Rules

1997 No 3The Regulations provide for the service of criminalprocess in Australia on behalf of foreign govern-ments.

A Magistrate may require a person who is only toproduce documents to attend in person. Thisappears to be a restrictive provision, given thedistance that people may be required to travel andthe rapid forms of communication available today.

New electronic forms for search warrants may notinclude the usual safeguards relating to usual andreasonable force and reasonable grounds.

The committee has written to the minister foradvice.

Gathering in Solidarity with IndigenousPeople and the Earth Conference

Senator BROWN (Tasmania)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the conference, Gathering inSolidarity with Indigenous People and theEarth, held in Victoria recently:

(i) was attended by more than 200 indigen-ous people and environmental and socialjustice campaigners,

(ii) included representatives from Aboriginalcommunities from every State aroundAustralia, as well as representatives fromseveral Native American nations, PapuaNew Guinea, Sarawak, Japan, Aotearoa,Bougainville, the Philippines and EastTimor, and

(iii) passed unanimously a number of motionsin support of indigenous peoples’ strug-gles, including:

(A) the Ngarrindjeri people opposing con-struction of a bridge to HindmarshIsland in South Australia,

(B) Aboriginal people facing forced remov-al from the Sydney suburb of Redfern,and

(C) the B’laan people of the Philippinesattempting to gain justice and callingfor the withdrawal of Western MiningCorporation from Lumad territory; and

(b) congratulates Friends of the Earth for itsinitiative in organising the conference andencourages it to continue its work in supportof indigenous rights.

Dental CareSenator ALLISON (Victoria)—I give

notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:


(i) a report that more that 100 000 Victoriansare on waiting lists for dental care andthat these lists are growing by approxi-mately 4 000 adults per month,

(ii) that the previous average 6-month waitfor non-urgent treatment has blown out to2 years, and

(iii) that this blow-out is the result of theHoward Government’s axing of the suc-cessful Commonwealth Dental Healthprogram for low income adults; and

(b) condemns the Howard Government forabandoning its core responsibility to providebasic health care to Australian citizens,particularly those on low incomes.

Public Housing

Senator ALLISON (Victoria)—I givenotice that, on the next day of sitting, I shallmove:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 22 March 1997, five public housingproperties in the inner city suburb ofRichmond, Victoria, were put up forauction by the Victorian State Govern-ment,

(ii) there was such opposition to the sale ofthese properties by councillors, tenantsunions, and members of the local com-munity that the sale had to be conductedin private over the telephone,

(iii) the Victorian State Government claimsthat a significant number of public housesin the inner urban region are under-utilised when, in fact, statistics show thatmany tenants live in over-crowded condi-tions, and

(iv) there are currently 7 842 people on thewaiting list for housing in the inner urbanregion of Melbourne;

(b) recognises that this is strong evidence thatState governments will not maintain, letalone increase, public housing to meet theseneeds;

(c) calls on the Victorian State Government toreinvest funds made from the sale of publichousing assets in the inner city region intothe development of more public housing inthis area; and

(d) calls on the Commonwealth Government toreconsider its proposal to cease funding ofhousing construction and maintenance, infavour of rent assistance, in the light of thisevidence.

COMMITTEES

Selection of Bills CommitteeReport

Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—I presentthe sixth report of 1997 of the Selection ofBills Committee and seek leave to have thereport incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—REPORT NO. 6 OF 1997

1. The Committee met on 25 March 1997.2. The Committee resolved:

(a) That the provisions of the following bills bereferred to committees:

Bill title Stage at which referredLegislation Com-mittee

Report-ing date

Constitutional Convention (Elec-tion) Bill 1997 (see Appendix 1 fora statement of reasons for referral)

immediately upon intro-duction in the House ofRepresentatives

Legal and Constitu-tional

14 May1997

Social Security Legislation Amend-ment (Work for the Dole) Bill 1997(see Appendix 2 for a statement ofreasons for referral)

immediately Community Affairs 23 June1997

(b) That the following billsnot be referred to committees:Broadcasting Services Legislation Amendment Bill 1997


Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997Radio Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1997Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Male Total Average Weekly EarningsBenchmark) Bill 1997Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1997.

The Committee recommends accordingly.3. The Committeedeferredconsideration of the following bills to the next meeting:(deferred from meeting of 25 March 1997)

Wine Export Charge Bill 1997Wine Export Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997.

(Paul Calvert)Chair26 March 1997

Senator CALVERT—I move:That the report be adopted.

Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Ministerfor Social Security and Minister Assisting thePrime Minister for the Status of Women)(3.24 p.m.)—I move the following amend-ment to the motion:

"but, in respect of the Social Security LegislationAmendment (Work for the Dole) Bill 1997, the billbe referred to the Employment, Education andTraining Legislation Committee for report on 14May 1997".

A reporting date of 23 June would leave verylittle time for debate in the budget sittingsbecause it is the Monday of the final week ofthe budget sittings, which, as senators wouldrealise, will be a very difficult time for us all.A date prior to the budget would be far moresuitable and it would still give the committeeover six weeks to deliberate these very limitedlegislative changes.

This is an important government initiative.There is a great deal of community supportfor it, including from young people particular-ly from regional Australia who understand theneed for it. All around Australia it has beenvery clear, as the opposition has recognisedby its willingness to support the measures,that Australians want this put in place.

In the past we have dealt with much morecomplex legislation much more quickly thanthis. I draw senators’ attention to the fact thatthe Social Security Legislation Amendment(Budget and Other Measures) Bill was re-ferred to a committee on 10 October last year

and it reported on 4 November, which is 25days, and the Social Security LegislationAmendment (Further Budget and OtherMeasures) Bill was referred to a committee on31 October and it reported on 18 November,which was 18 days.

Those senators who have been here for along time would remember that in the past theprocess was that bills were referred to com-mittees on a Wednesday, committee hearingswere held on a Friday and they reported onthe next sitting day. In this case, the firstFriday is Good Friday, and that is obviouslynot appropriate or possible. Nevertheless, thenext sitting day, 14 May, is the date I haveproposed in my amendment. I do believe thatallows adequate time for this legislation to beexamined very thoroughly.

As I said, plenty of legislation in the pastwas dealt with in a very much faster mannerthan in recent times. A reference to a legisla-tive committee does not need to take so long.I remind the Senate again that the people ofAustralia want this legislation. They want themeasure put in place as expeditiously aspossible. They want to see the policy imple-mented. They will be frustrated at a Senatewhich looks as though it is playing gameswhen in fact it is prepared to pass the legisla-tion but wants to stall it. Senators who do thatwill have to hold themselves accountable tothe young people of Australia, who in over-whelming numbers say they want the oppor-tunity to contribute to their country to help


maintain their confidence and their self-esteem in the difficult task of looking forwork in the current environment.

No good can be served at all by a latereporting date, but there is much to gain forregional Australia and for the unemployedpeople who live in regional Australia by anearlier reporting date so the measure can gothrough the chamber as soon as possible. Iurge senators not to play games with the livesof young Australians. Having a shorter report-ing date will not truncate the debate. Betweennow and 14 May the committee has plenty ofopportunity to report, but the proposal of 23June is ridiculous. It does not need to take solong. I urge senators to consider that indeciding on my amendment.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.29p.m.)—Well, here we have the government upto its usual tricks late in the session—

Senator Calvert interjecting—

Senator FAULKNER—The governmentwhip interjects. The government whip chairsthe Selection of Bills Committee. Is thegovernment whip willing to stand up in thechamber and indicate that this was not aunanimous decision of the Selection of BillsCommittee? Of course he is not, because hewas rolled over too, because he is weak andincompetent also. A whip worth holding theirhand out for their money would not get rolledover like this, Senator Calvert.

What we have here is a situation where theMinister for Social Security (Senator New-man) proposes an amendment to a unanimousreport of the Selection of Bills Committee—chaired by one of her own, rolling over oneof her own—to refer a social security bill, abill that she is responsible for, to the Employ-ment, Education and Training LegislationCommittee. That is the situation. It is anadmission from the minister’s own mouth thatshe is not capable of handling the legislationcommittee stage of this particular bill. Theminister is again exposed in terms of herabsolute incompetence in her ministerialresponsibilities.

This is on the same day that an amendmentto the Commonwealth Services Delivery

Agency Bill would have been carried if wehad had an immediate recommittal of a vote,by leave, after Senator Harradine came intothis chamber. There is no doubt about that;every senator in this chamber knows it. But,of course, the opposition was very reasonableand, I have to say, Senator Brown and Sena-tor Woodley, who were also involved in thatdebate, were very reasonable, allowing Sena-tor Harradine, by leave, to withdraw hisrequest for a recommittal, even though anamendment would have been carried in thischamber this morning.

This is the same minister who sat there, sawthat, and now comes into the chamber andsuggests that a unanimous report of theSelection of Bills Committee should be rolledover so that her own bill goes to a differentlegislation committee with a different report-ing date. This bill, her own bill, is about oneof the most significant issues in Australianpublic life today. There is no argument aboutthat, not even from the government.

In this circumstance the Selection of BillsCommittee has proposed a reporting date of23 June to allow an adequate time for theissue of the so-called work for the dole bill tobe debated. But, no, that will be broughtforward to 14 May and dealt with by adifferent committee—without any consulta-tion, I might say, with that different commit-tee. I understand, Minister, that in fact thesecretary of that committee will be overseasat the time when the committee would beholding its hearings.

This is not a serious proposition. This is notadequate time to deal with this issue. It is notproper process. There was never an intentionto deal with Selection of Bills Committeereports this way—without referring thesematters to other parties in the chamber forproper debate. This amendment should beopposed.(Time expired)

Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.34p.m.)—I want to say a couple of words aboutthis. I am not going to make excuses but I amjust going to explain how the Selection ofBills Committee works. It has always workedin a very cooperative fashion with all parties.Sometimes matters come before us where wehave not had all the i’s dotted and the t’s


crossed, and we have always worked in avery cooperative manner. But if SenatorFaulkner wants to change the rules and wantsto get down to tintacks, I can tell you thatyour deputy whip—not Senator Conroy—arrived here last night with this particularreference and put it on the table, and we wereled to believe that it had been around to theappropriate ministers. It had not been. That iswhy this amendment was put today.

If you want to play that game, fine. Do youknow how the Selection of Bills Committeeworks? If you want to refer a bill, you sendit off to the appropriate minister to see if it isokay, and it gets ticked off. We work in avery agreeable fashion. If you want to changethat, fine; go ahead.

Senator Faulkner—You are the one that’schanging it.

Senator CALVERT—Because we were ledto believe that it had been to the appropriateminister. It had not been to anybody. It waslobbed on the table last night at the lastminute. There was no consultation with thePLO, and that is the way it normally works.

Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.36p.m.)—We have had an amazing admissionfrom the Chairman of the Selection of BillsCommittee that he was not doing his job, thathe had not checked out things, that he hadwalked in here and moved a motion that helater supports an amendment to. Why didn’tyou reconvene the committee, Senator? Whydidn’t you put the minister’s amendment tothe committee and seek agreement? If youcannot chair these committees properly, if youare not doing your job and following throughto make sure all the details are covered, giveit away.

The second thing is that I was amazed tohear Senator Newman demand this timing andthat this particular committee do it becausethe Australian people were demanding it.They were dead silent on this issue, otherthan one or two comments before the elec-tion—and the one or two comments beforethe election went to deny that they wouldever embrace such a scheme. So do not comein here and say that the Australian people aredemanding it.

I would have had more respect for SenatorNewman if she had just come in and arguedon the timing of this and related it properlyback to the legislative program. People couldhave agreed on a date of somewhere between14 May and 23 June. But of course the wholereason for this has nothing to do with dates.This is shifting it from one reference commit-tee to another, because the responsibleminister has to take something through areference committee. And guess what happensif Senator Newman’s amendment gets uptoday? This matter shuffles out of the socialsecurity area and into Senator Vanstone’sarea—someone who is more capable ofshepherding it through; someone who actuallyunderstands, occasionally, concepts, argu-ments, et cetera; someone who does not sitthere like a piece of blancmange waiting forthe department secretary to rationalise and putforward every possible argument.

I simply suggest to Senator Calvert andeveryone else that this place does work bycommonsense. Pull this off the floor now, goback and reconvene your meeting and seewhether you can come up with a decentcompromise as to which committee and whichdate. Why slog it out here in a meaninglessway? If it is such a good committee thatworks on such a good basis, surely SenatorCalvert can convene a meeting in the nexthour. People can sit around the table and theymight come up with a compromise that isworkable.

But at the moment all we have got is anambush: a minister coming in and ambushingthe chairman of the committee from her ownside and saying, ‘What he signed up for is nogood.’ All he can give is the Nurembergdefence or some other defence: ‘I didn’t reallyunderstand what was happening. I did notactually check the details. I’ve been conned.’I do not know which of those explanations isacceptable, but I can say this: wasting theSenate’s time on this, when it is a 10-yardwalk to a committee room to sort this issueout, seems stupid.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(3.39 p.m.)—If we have got to the stagewhere it is required of the Senate, whicheverparty you are in, to ask permission of the


minister to take action in committee, we havereached a very—

Opposition senators interjecting—The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

(Senator MacGibbon)—Order! SenatorMargetts has the call and no-one else.

Senator Newman—You misunderstand.The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —

Senator Newman!Senator MARGETTS—If we have got to

the point where there is a requirement, writtenor otherwise, for all members of this Senateto ask permission of the minister before theytake action or choose timings in a committee,we have reached a very sad point. If we havedone that, we have forgotten a very tiny butvery important point: the separation of pow-ers. Ministers and the executive do not havethe power to direct committees on how theymake their decisions. That is important, andit is very important to fight for that. Thatincludes the timing of reports. That is veryimportant in relation to such things as acommittee’s operation and the timing ofreports.

Question put:That the amendment (Senator Newman’s) be

agreed to.

The Senate divided. [3.45 p.m.](The President—Senator the Hon. MargaretReid) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35——

Majority . . . . . . . . . 1——

AYESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.

AYESPatterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

NOESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. * Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Harradine, B.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

PAIRSMcGauran, J. J. J. Hogg, J.

* denotes teller

(Senator Cooney did not vote, to com-pensate for the vacancy caused by the deathof Senator Panizza.)

(Senator Childs did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)

Question so resolved in the negative.


ORDER OF BUSINESS

Parliamentary Sitting Program

Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 525

standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today,relating to the parliamentary sitting program, bepostponed till the next day of sitting.

Occupational Health in Workplace

Motion (by Senator Lundy) agreed to:That general business notice of motion No. 1

standing in the name of Senator Lundy for today,relating to the reference of matters to the Econom-ics References Committee, be postponed tillThursday, 5 June 1997.


Genetically Engineered Food

Motion (by Senator Neal) agreed to:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Government has continued to allowthe importation of genetically-engi-neered soya beans before it has finaliseda standard for genetically-engineeredfood,

(ii) there is still no Government body withthe legal authority to enforce regulationsfor genetically-manipulated organismsor assess the impact of genetically-manipulated organisms on the environ-ment and their safety as food, and

(iii) most consumers want genetically-engin-eered foods to be labelled; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) ban all imports of genetically-engineer-ed foods into Australia, including Mon-santo’s soya beans now being importedinto Australia, until the Government hasfinalised its standard for genetically-engineered food,

(ii) give the Genetic Manipulation AdvisoryCommittee, or a new body, the legalauthority to regulate and control the useof genetically-manipulated organisms inAustralia,

(iii) require Monsanto to separate itsgenetically-engineered soya beans fromits unaltered soya beans to make surethat foods containing genetically-engi-neered material can be labelled,

(iv) test genetically-engineered foods fortheir safety as food,

(v) ensure that Monsanto’s soya beans,which contain a gene resistant to Mon-santo’s herbicide, Roundup, and whichcan be sprayed with 200 times the usualamount of the herbicide, do not containRoundup residues which would beharmful to the health of people,

(vi) give guarantees that genetically-engin-eered soya beans and other crops con-taining genes resistant to pests or herbi-cides will not pass their resistance on toweeds or insects, and

(vii) inform Australians why it would beworthwhile importing Ciba-Geigy’scorn, which contains a gene resistant toa commonly used antibiotic.

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO CHINAMotion (by Senator Brown) agreed to:That the Senate—(a) notes that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)

will meet China’s Premier Li Peng andPresident Jiang Zemin on his forthcomingoverseas trip;

(b) requests the Prime Minister to raise with thePremier and President the matter of repres-sion of human rights and environmental andcultural degradation in Tibet;

(c) notes that the Minister representing thePrime Minister (Senator Hill) has alreadyundertaken to ascertain whether the PrimeMinister will raise these matters during hisvisit; and

(d) requests Senator Hill to inform the Senatebefore it rises for Easter whether the PrimeMinister will accede to this request.

COMMITTEES

Uranium Mining and Milling CommitteeExtension of Time

Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia)(3.52 p.m.)—I ask that general business noticeof motion No. 523, standing in my name, betaken as formal.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(3.52 p.m.)—by leave— I have concernsabout this. I am unable to give formality,unless I am given some indication that I willbe able to seek, and be granted, leave toamend the motion and to speak briefly at thetime the motion is put.

Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia)(3.52 p.m.)—by leave—I want to indicate thatI am willing to give Senator Margetts leaveto move her amendment, but I will be oppos-ing the amendment.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon)—Is there any objec-tion to Senator Chapman moving this as aformal motion? There is no objection.

Motion (by Senator Chapman) proposed:That the time for the presentation of the report

of the Select Committee on Uranium Mining andMilling be extended to 15 May 1997.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(3.53 p.m.)—by leave—I move:

Omit "15 May 1997", substitute "29 May 1997".

The reason for asking for an extension of timeis that the report is due today and it is not


here. It is not unreasonable to suggest that thecommittee should have time to meet, once thereport is available, and to discuss the reportbefore it is printed. Also, if there is any needfor minority or majority dissent or any kindof comment on the full report, there needs tobe time for that to be completed.I do notthink that is unreasonable.

What I am talking about is the ability of thecommittee to have reasonable time to meetand consider the report. I am not sure if thereis any suggestion of a videoconferencedmeeting ahead of time. I do not think we haveany suggestions of that. I am just suggestingthat it would be reasonable for the committeeto have a chance to meet before the report isactually tabled.

Senator LEES (South Australia—DeputyLeader of the Australian Democrats) (3.54p.m.)—by leave—The reason I will be sup-porting the amendment is that the committeediscussed delaying the report and I was leftwith that understanding when I left the com-mittee meeting. Obviously, today is the dateon which it is due and we have not as yetseen even the final draft of the remainingchapters.

When I left the meeting, it was beingdiscussed as to which weeks were the post-budget estimates weeks and therefore whichweeks we could ask the printing departmentto be ready to print the document. I under-stood that it was agreed that in the first weekwe came back we would meet, look at whatwould hopefully be the final report, arrangefor it to be printed over the period of theestimates, and present it to the Senate afterthat. I was amazed to receive the minutes ofthat meeting and find they were quite differ-ent from my understanding of what actuallytook place at the meeting. I am most disap-pointed that this has happened and thereforeI will be very strongly supporting SenatorMargetts with her amendment.

Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia)(3.55 p.m.)—by leave—As indicated, I opposethis amendment and support the originalmotion as moved. The reasons for that arethat the committee did discuss the timing ofa possible extension for the reporting date of

the committee. There was in fact no specif-ic—

Senator Ferguson—A second extension.

Senator CHAPMAN—As Senator Fergu-son has indicated, this is the second extensionthat this committee has sought. There was noultimate conclusion reached as far as thosediscussions were concerned, and the minutesthat Senator Lees refers to are in fact anaccurate reflection of the discussion that tookplace.

What occurred was that I indicated I wouldgo back to the government and discuss thetiming of their decisions on this very import-ant issue. As Senator Margetts and SenatorLees would know, these are issues aboutwhich the government is to make decisions.The fact is that, if this committee wants itsdeliberations, its inquiries and its conclusionsto have any influence on government deci-sions, obviously the report must be tabledprior to those decisions being made. There-fore, in those discussions with the relevantpeople in the government, it became clear that15 May was an appropriate reporting date,and that is what I have moved.

Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (3.57p.m.)—by leave—I have some concerns aboutthe processes that have been involved in thismatter but I do, to a certain extent, empathisewith both sides in the debate. You will saythis is a typical sitting-on-the-fence attitude.That is not my position. I am trying to find away for this committee to get on with the jobof reporting and presenting a balanced, fairaccount about this very important issue thatmany Australians have strong views on.

I do think, Senator Chapman, that it isunrealistic to imagine that we can report bythe 15th, given that to date I have only threechapters and I imagine it will be at least asix-chapter report.

I further would like to put on the publicrecord that it is not the job of chairs ofcommittees to respond to what suits thegovernment. This is a Senate report and,while I have lived in the real world, SenatorChapman, and understand that you willautomatically consult with your government,it is important to place on the record that it is


not the job of the chair of any Senate commit-tee to necessarily consult the government.This is for the Senate to determine and, whileI am still considering my position on theactual amendment of the time, I do think the15th is unrealistic.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral-ia) (3.58 p.m.)—I seek leave to make a briefstatement to indicate how the opposition willbe voting on this issue.

Leave granted.The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

(Senator MacGibbon)—I would remind theSenate that this is not a debate. The speakershave sought leave before each of them hasspoken but it is not a debate. I would ask ofthe Senate that people only speak if they havea point of information.

Senator CHRIS EVANS—I wish to indi-cate that, on the basis of earlier advice anddiscussions with committee members, theLabor opposition will be supporting thegovernment’s original motion, taking on boardthe comments made by Senator Reynolds.This is on the basis that it is open to thecommittee—if it finds itself unable to reportby the 15th—to seek an extension of time onthe 14th or 15th. So, obviously, this mattercan go back to the committee. There seems tobe some disagreement on the committeewhich I do not have any detailed knowledgeof. The opposition will be supporting theoriginal motion and opposing the amendmenton that basis.

Amendment (Senator Margetts’s) nega-tived.


SENATE: PHOTOGRAPHSMotion (by Senator Brown) proposed:That the Senate—

(a) notes the different regulations governingwhat images television and still photogra-phers can access in the Senate; and

(b) removes restrictions on press photographerson when and what may be photographed inthe Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator MacGibbon)—The question is that

the motion be agreed to. Those of that opin-ion say aye, against say no. I think the ayeshave it. Is a division required? Ring the bells.

Honourable senators interjecting—The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I

will put the question again. The question isthat the motion moved by Senator Brown beagreed to.

Senator Brown—I rise on a point of order.You called quite rightly as I heard it for the—

Opposition senators interjecting—Senator Brown—Of course I will defend

my position here. The point of order is this:you have called that the ayes have it. Therehave been objections from those who say thatthe noes have it. So, unless there is somereason that is not obvious to me, your originalcall should stand.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Brown, resume your seat. It wasapparent to me that there was some confusionin the Senate at my call, and it is at mydiscretion that the question is put again. I putthe question that the motion moved by Sena-tor Brown be agreed to. Those of that opinionsay aye, against say no.


SENATOR COLSTONSenator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (4.00

p.m.)—I ask that general business notice ofmotion No. 529, proposing the reconvening ofthe Finance and Public Administration Legis-lation Committee to consider further evidencein relation to Senator Colston’s use of parlia-mentary entitlements, be taken as formal andthat I be given leave to make a very shortstatement.

Leave granted.Senator ROBERT RAY—I move:That the Finance and Public Administration

Legislation Committee be reconvened for theconsideration of additional estimates, on 3 April1997, to hear further evidence from the Departmentof the Senate and the Department of AdministrativeServices for the purpose of examining irregularitiesin the use of Senator Colston’s parliamentaryentitlements.

I think people in this chamber would knowthe reasons I have asked for this motion to go


through. However, subsequent to givingnotice of it, I have now come to an under-standing that President Reid will not beavailable on 3 April. I think she is on over-seas duty, possibly for some weeks and,therefore, will not be available.

Senator Alston—Will you be here?

Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, I will be,Senator. Naturally, I thought the DeputyPresident would rush into the chair and coverfor his President. I thought he would enthusi-astically come in while I ask questions abouttravel allowance and all the other obsessionsin my life, but apparently he is not availableon 3 April or 4 April. In fact, he is notavailable on any day to replace the Presidentin these circumstances.

So, whilst I have moved the motion, I amindicating to you, Mr Acting Deputy Presi-dent, we will not call a division on it. It willjust be on the voices and I suggest that you,on this occasion, declare it for the noes.Because, even if my motion is carried, it isgoing to be a lonely vigil waiting at the tableat estimates committees with no head ofdepartment or representative there to answermy thousands of questions. If you think thatis good news on the other side, somewhere inearly May, unfortunately, we will return tothis issue.


EAST GIPPSLAND FORESTS

Motion (by Senator Lees)—as amended byleave—agreed to:

That there be laid on the table, by the Ministerfor the Environment (Senator Hill), not later thanimmediately after motions to take note of answersto questions without notice on the next day ofsitting:

(a) all notes of, or reports arising from, ameeting on or around 28 November 1996between officials from the environmentportfolio that discussed the presence ofworld heritage values in East Gippsland;

(b) ongoing notes, records, e-mail messages anddiary entries from officials in the Depart-ment of Environment, Sport and Territories(DEST) on matters relating to world heri-tage and the Regional Forest Agreement(RFA) in East Gippsland;

(c) all ministerial briefs, drafts of briefs andDEST officials’ comments arising fromdrafts on the East Gippsland RFA andWorld Heritage;

(d) all briefs to the Minister for the Environ-ment from the Department of Prime Minis-ter and Cabinet on the Commonwealth’snegotiating position for the East GippslandRFA; and

(e) all advice or information from DEST con-sultants on World Heritage in East Gipps-land, and any records, notes, diary entries ore-mail messages from DEST officials relat-ing to that advice or information.

COMMITTEES

Environment, Recreation,Communications and the Arts Committee

Reference

Motion (by Senator Lees) proposed:That the following matters be referred to the

Environment, Recreation, Communications and theArts References Committee for inquiry and reportby the last sitting day in February 1998:

(a) the powers of the Commonwealth in envi-ronmental protection and ecologically-sustainable development in Australia, in-cluding an examination of case studies;

(b) the practicality, adequacy and application ofexisting Commonwealth mechanisms, in-cluding legislation, to promote the nationalinterest in the protection of natural andcultural heritage and to achieve compliancewith the principles of ecologically-sustain-able development, with particular referenceto:

(i) implementing Australia’s obligationsunder international treaties and conven-tions, in particular, the Ramsar Conven-tion and the World Heritage Convention,

(ii) the National Reserve System and theconsistency of management regimes forreserves created under the National Re-serve System program,

(iii) environmental impact assessment in ornear areas of high conservation value inwhich the Commonwealth has an interest,and the consistency of guidelines forassessment processes between all levelsof government,

(iv) export controls,(v) the use of the corporations power,(vi) the Endangered Species Protection Act,(vii) the Inter-Governmental Agreement on

the Environment, and


(viii) the National Strategy for EcologicallySustainable Development; and

(c) the most appropriate balance of powers andresponsibilities between Commonwealth,State and local levels of government andmechanisms for implementation of treaties,conventions and national strategies to ensureconsistency between all levels of govern-ment in environmental protection.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (4.07p.m.)—I seek leave to make a very, very briefcomment on these matters.

Senator Robert Ray—I can rememberwhen you objected to anyone having leave onthese things.

Leave granted.

Senator HARRADINE—I do not recallever denying leave. I must say that one of theproblems about this whole procedure in thelast few weeks—perhaps the last month or sixweeks—is this business of having thesematters put on theNotice Paperand thencalled formal. Everybody votes one way orthe other. You have all made up your mindone way or the other. I have not heard thereasons for or against these particular matters.I voted in favour of Senator Lees’s motionjust a moment ago because I am usually infavour of returns to order in general terms—unless of course they are tainted with somepolitical overtones. But I am not prepared tovote in favour of this particular matter. I willbe voting against it.


TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE:SENATORS

Motion (by Senator Faulkner) proposed:That there be laid on the table by the President

of the Senate, no later than 7 pm on 26 March1997, the two memoranda, dated 27 February 1997and 4 March 1997, respectively, from the Clerk ofthe Senate to Mr Graham Semmens, GeneralManager, Corporate Policy and GovernmentRelations, Department of Administrative Services.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Faulkner’s) be agreed

to.

The Senate divided. [4.13 p.m.]

(The President—Senator the Hon. MargaretReid)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——

AYESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J. *Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Short, J. R.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSHogg, J. McGauran, J. J. J.Evans, C. V. Tambling, G. E. J.

* denotes teller

(Senator Schacht did not vote, to com-pensate for the vacancy caused by the deathof Senator Panizza.)

(Senator Sherry did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)




Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) proposed:That the Senate—(a) notes that:

(i) the repayment by Senator Colston forfraudulently-claimed travelling allowancewas $6 880,

(ii) these overpayments relate to claimsdating from 30 June 1993 to 7 October1996, and

(iii) the overpayment for the year 1993 consti-tutes $3 645, the overpayment for theyear 1994 constitutes $1 965, the over-payment for the year 1995 constitutes$840 and the overpayment for the year1996 constitutes $435;

(b) asserts that, if the current repayment stands,the above represent interest-free loans toSenator Colston of between 6 months andthree and a half years; and

(c) calls for the outstanding interest on thesemonies, calculated at the relevant long-termbond rate, be repaid immediately by SenatorColston to the Receiver of Public Monies.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Robert Ray’s) be

agreed to.

The Senate divided. [4.22 p.m.](The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret

Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——AYES

Allison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J.* Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.McKiernan, J. P. Murray, A.O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSSchacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J.Evans, C. V. McGauran, J. J. J.Neal, B. J. Macdonald, I.

* denotes teller(Senator Murphy did not vote, to com-

pensate for the vacancy caused by the deathof Senator Panizza.)

(Senator Denman did not vote, to com-pensate for the vacancy caused by the resigna-tion of Senator Woods.)



Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.25 p.m.)—Iask that motion No. 530 be taken as formaland that I be given leave to make a five-minute statement.

Leave granted.Senator CARR—I move:That there be laid on the table, no later than 7

pm on 26 March 1997, the Department of theSenate’s travelling allowance claim forms ofSenator Colston for claims made with respect to:

11 December 1993, 11 and 12 February 1994, 25and 26 March 1994, 13, 14 and 15 May 1994, 5August 1994, 19 August 1994, 3 September1994, 23 September 1994, 11 and 12 November1994, 13 December 1994, 4 February 1995, 24and 25 March 1995, 12 May 1995, 2 and 3December 1995, 30 September 1996, 7 October1996, 30 June 1993, 31 July 1993, 1, 2 and 3August 1993, 6, 7, 8 and 9 August 1993, 12August 1993, 27 August 1993, 6 November1993, 17 July 1993, 25 July 1993, 15 April 1994,27 May 1994, 30 September 1995, 1 October1995, 24 April 1996 and 8 June 1996.


This motion calls upon the Senate to providecopies of the TA forms that were the basis forSenator Colston’s claims for payment oftravel allowance. These forms indicate, Ibelieve, that he personally has signed forthose particular claims.

In Senator Colston’s response to the twoSenate reports that were tabled in this parlia-ment two days ago, he made a number ofpoints in defence of his claim that thesematters were all questions of administrativeerror. They were bookkeeping errors, I believehe suggested. He said to the Senate by way ofthe tabled statements that he took informationfrom his staff and on a regular basis filled inhis TA forms. The response states:I would regularly ask my office manager at thetime for the dates of my travelling to place on myclaims and I would transcribe those dates onto theclaim form. In doing so I assumed that the dateswhich were given to me by my office managerwere correct.

He says:In the course of my investigation, I discovered thatin numerous cases these dates were not correct.

He makes the proposition that he personallyfilled in these claims and, secondly, that on aregular basis he received information whichhe later found was incorrect. What we wouldlike to see is in fact whether or not it was hewho personally filled in those forms and,secondly, the dates on which those claimswere actually made. I believe it would be areasonable basis for this Senate to examinethose claims based on the proximity of theactual travel that was claimed to the point atwhich he submitted those claims. If he filledin those claims at the end of a particular weekin which that travel was undertaken it wouldbe a reasonable proposition to put that hewould have some recollection of what actualtravel did occur.

I say that in the context of the other state-ments that have been made by SenatorColston in his defence. He says that he wasa senator here who actually kept boardingpasses to aircraft. He was a man who hadrecords of such detail that he could ascertainwhich aircraft he travelled on by the boardingpasses that he himself had collected. He alsosaid in these documents that he would have

to check the various other records that weremade available to him—on the basis of DASmonthly reports and of course his own de-tailed knowledge of those particular events.

We know, and I think all senators herewould appreciate, Senator Colston’s particularexpertise when it came to the issue of claimsbeing made for travel allowance. It wasunderstood, as he himself says in his defenceand on the public record has stated, that hechecked claims made with Senate staff.

Not only do we have his own expertise tomeasure what now appears to be his adminis-trative errors but we also have the expertiseavailable through the Senate staff, which hehimself says he checked. This is a man whowas meticulous in his record-keeping, he says,to the extent that he kept boarding passes ofair travel. I also suggest to the Senate that thisis a senator whose travel records have disap-peared from the transport office. It is anextraordinary proposition. On 27 February itwas reported by the AAP that his travelrecords disappeared from the transport office.

Senator Alston—Is that his fault?

Senator CARR—Senator Alston, you ask:is that his fault? It is on the public record thathe was the only one who actually had accessto them on that occasion. You asked thequestion, Senator Alston; you are entitled tothe answer. Is it his fault? I put it to you,Senator, that he is the only one with access tothose travel records. It is an extraordinaryproposition that suddenly these records disap-pear when he is under such scrutiny.

We are making a fairly simple proposition.We are seeking that actual documents beprovided by way of photocopies. I understandthat in terms of proper legal proceedings,originals may well need to be kept. I alsosuggest that in relation to documents tabledhere today, the Clerk’s letter indicates that interms of the Senate’s requirement—(Timeexpired)

Question put:That the motion (Senator Carr’s) be agreed to.




Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——

AYESAllison, L. Bolkus, N.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Childs, B. K.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S.Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J.* Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSBishop, M. Macdonald, I.Sherry, N. McGauran, J. J. J.

* denotes teller

(Senator Jacinta Collins did not vote, tocompensate for the vacancy caused by thedeath of Senator Panizza.)

(Senator Neal did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)



Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.38p.m.)—I move:

That the Senate calls on the Minister representingthe Minister for Administrative Services (SenatorKemp) to make available to the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate (Senator Hill), theLeader of the Opposition in the Senate (SenatorFaulkner) and the Leader of the Australian Demo-crats (Senator Kernot), no later than 8 pm on 26March 1997, the two Department of AdministrativeServices briefs concerning Senator Colston’s use ofparliamentary entitlements, and that a condition ofthe release of these briefs to the aforementionedsenators be the understanding that they not publiclydisclose the contents of those briefs.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

Senator FAULKNER—This motion goesto an answer which was provided by theMinister representing the Minister for Admin-istrative Services (Senator Kemp) to a ques-tion without notice that was asked by SenatorRobert Ray on 20 March. In that answer,Senator Kemp indicated on behalf of theMinister for Administrative Services, Mr Jull,that Mr Jull had not received two completedreports from the Department of AdministrativeServices on Senator Colston’s use of hisparliamentary entitlements. But he did saythat what he had received were two depart-mental briefs—and I use the words of SenatorKemp—‘which provide information concern-ing Senator Colston’s use of entitlementswithout drawing any conclusions in relationto this information’.

Mr Jull communicated through SenatorKemp to the Senate that one of those briefswas given to Senator Colston on 10 Marchand a response was received on 24 March.The other was forwarded to Senator Colstonon 10 March with a deadline—I think, quitean extraordinary deadline—for a response bySenator Colston of 18 April. I think, and theopposition believes, that that is extending anextraordinary courtesy to Senator Colston.

Senator Alston interjecting—

Senator Carr—Get that in theHansard.

Senator FAULKNER—What was it?


Senator Carr—‘He is a gentleman,’ hesaid.

Senator FAULKNER—Senator Alston isentitled to his view. Senator Alston says thatSenator Colston is a gentleman. SenatorAlston also at some point will have to frontup. So will Senator Hill and so will MrHoward have to front up.

Senator Robert Ray—They are not hidingout the back just here.

Senator FAULKNER—Senator Colston ishiding out in the government lobby whilethese debates go on and while these divisionsare held. He is hiding outside the doors,listening to the debate—

Senator Alston—You have got a couple ofminutes.

Senator FAULKNER—No, I have not gota couple of minutes. He is listening to thedebate, but is never willing to come inside thechamber and defend himself or answer theallegations.

Senator Bob Collins—Not once.

Senator FAULKNER —Not once hasSenator Colston been willing to front up.What I was saying—and I stand by it—wasthat this is an extraordinary courtesy extendedby Mr Jull to Senator Colston, a courtesy thatgoes way beyond the interests of naturaljustice to allow him six weeks to respond toa report. We object to this final report beingdelayed in this way.

We also say that the Senate has a vitalinterest in this matter. The matters that aresubject to these two departmental briefs notonly are of interest to all senators but also Ithink there is enormous public interest inthem. Accordingly, we are seeking access tothem. That is not unusual for the Senate. It isnot unusual at all. But what is unusual is theextent to which this government has gone tocover up this and a number of other issues.We have seen cover-up after cover-up aftercover-up. These divisions again today repre-sent nothing less than a government that isnot willing to allow the facts to becomepublic. It is ashamed.

Senator Carr—What have they got tohide?

Senator FAULKNER—They have got anenormous amount to hide on this issue. It isnot unreasonable for the opposition or theSenate to be making these demands of thegovernment. We will continue to make themuntil we have access to the truth.

Madam President, I do acknowledge in yourcase that, for example, today your willingnessto table the letter you sent to Mr Williams isa different approach to ministers in thegovernment. I acknowledge it. I think it isproper. I thank you for it. It was interestingto see that in your letter to Mr Williams youhave sought access from Mr Williams to theChief General Counsel of the Commonwealthfor advice on whether the matter should bereferred to the Australian Federal Police. Iappreciate the fact that you have tabled thatletter.

I also appreciate the fact that you havetabled the clerk’s advice to you. I draw theattention of honourable senators and others inthe building who are interested to the advicethat has been presented to you by the Clerkof the Senate on Senator Colston’s travellingallowance. I acknowledge that that has beentabled as a result of a question I asked, but itis an appropriate course of action for you toundertake and it would be appropriate forother ministers in the government to exercisetheir responsibilities in a similar way. Therehas to be transparency in these sorts of issues.

In saying that there needs to be transparen-cy, what this motion also does is acknowledgeand accept that there is a need for confiden-tiality, given that these matters may be subjectto an investigation and report of the Austral-ian Federal Police. I have said publicly and inthis chamber—and I will say it again todayand stand by it—that we believe nothing lessthan a full investigation and report from theAustralian Federal Police on this matter isacceptable. That is what is required. Thismotion is acknowledging the possible confi-dentiality requirements. What it says is thatthese briefs should be made available only toSenator Hill, Senator Kernot and me, and thatthe release of the briefs should be on theunderstanding that their contents—if they aresuch sensitive matters—should not be publiclydisclosed.


Madam President, that is a very reasonabledemand. Of course, Senator Alston shakes hishead. But Senator Alston is the person—

Senator Carr—Has he seen them?Senator FAULKNER—I do not know

whether Senator Alston has seen them but Ido know that it is Senator Alston who has acase to answer. It is Senator Alston thatinvolved himself in a sleazy political dealwith Senator Colston to deliver the deputypresidency in this chamber. At the end of theday, Senator Alston and Senator Hill—at leastI believe Senator Hill is ashamed of what hedid, Senator Alston, but both of you acted asagents for Mr Howard in this—it is theLiberal government and senior ministers in itwho have a case to answer.

I also make the point that this is the samecrew that rode into government on a whitecharger, talking about parliamentary stand-ards, ministerial accountability, open govern-ment and raising the standards of this parlia-ment—the same mob. And you, SenatorAlston and Senator Hill, are two ministersresponsible for one of the sleaziest, lowest,most contemptible buy-offs in Australianpolitical history.

I say again that the demand that is made inthis motion is reasonable. It takes account ofprivacy and confidentiality if needs be and,given the extent and the nature of the allega-tions that surround Senator Colston, it is onethat I believe the Senate should endorse. Weare sick and tired, in relation to this issue, ofthe sorts of cover-ups we have seen from thegovernment. They were even attempted earliertoday in relation to Senator Colston’smembership. When others in the governmentknew apparently that he had resigned, theyeven kept attempting day after day to try toprotect Senator Colston’s position there.

You really need to get your act together onthese sorts of issues. This is a cover-up thatis not acceptable. We will continue to delveto get to the bottom of it, to ensure that theseissues are on the table. I urge decent senatorsto think about these issues and the sorts ofclaims and speeches that were made time andagain by members of the Liberal and Nationalparties, when they were in opposition, aboutthe need for this sort of information to be

placed on the public record in the Senate. Iurge senators to think about the level ofpolitical hypocrisy involved here and tosupport this motion.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.49 p.m.)—by leave—I note that the motion does notaccommodate Senator Margetts and me in theproposed briefing. I will be supporting themotion notwithstanding. But I do want tomake it clear that any consequent action thatshould come out of those briefings will nothave my support without the necessary infor-mation being made available.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Faulkner’s) be agreed

to.


Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——AYES

Allison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Cooney, B.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Foreman, D. J. * Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.


Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCrowley, R. A. Patterson, K. C. L.Denman, K. J. McGauran, J. J. J.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the negative.(Senator Cook did not vote, to compensate

for the vacancy caused by the death of Sena-tor Panizza.)

(Senator Conroy did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)


Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.57 p.m.)—Iseek formality for general business notice ofmotion No. 533.

The PRESIDENT—Is there any objectionto motion No. 533 being taken as a formalmotion? There being no objection, leave isgranted.

Senator CARR—I move:That the Senate requests:(a) the President of the Senate to authorise a

further Senate inquiry into Senator Colston’stravelling allowances, for the period 1January 1990 to 1 July 1993;

(b) that the reconciliation of travelling allow-ance payments with Department of Admin-istrative Services (DAS) air fare and carhire records, already tabled for the periodJune to December 1993, be completed andtabled for the period 1 January 1990 to 3March 1997; and

(c) that the President, in conjunction with DAS,examine all Canberra travelling allowanceclaims by Senator Colston with a view todetermining that Senator Colston was, infact, in Canberra at the times specified inthose claims.

The PRESIDENT—The question is thatmotion 533 moved by Senator Carr be agreedto. Those of that opinion say aye, to thecontrary no. I think the noes have it.

Senator CARR—I wish to move, pursuantto contingent notice of motion in the name of

the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate,Senator Faulkner, that so much of the stand-ing orders be suspended that would preventme from moving a motion relating to theconduct of the business of the Senate; namely,relating to the notion of precedence in relationto the general business notice of motionwhich the Senate just voted on.

The PRESIDENT—The motion has beenput to the chamber and called in the negative.You can call for a division if you want todetermine the outcome.

Senator CARR—In the preceding discus-sions on this matter we were advised that thegovernment was not going to grant formalityfor this matter. However, the governmentconsequently agreed to formality. It was alsounderstood that we would be moving amotion to suspend standing orders arisingfrom the government’s action. The govern-ment has changed its position during theproceedings and, as a consequence, I amseeking to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT—Senator, I think themoment has passed in the sense that themotion was allowed as a formal motion andhas been dealt with.

Senator CARR—I seek leave, MadamPresident, to move a motion in similar termsto motion No. 533 for debate of half an hour.

The PRESIDENT—Is leave granted? Therebeing no objection, Senator Carr, you mayproceed. But can I be clear as to what we arediscussing? Are we abandoning the consent toformality and the decision on the motion andstarting as if motion No. 533 were before thechamber ab initio with formality refused? Allright. Senator Carr.

Senator CARR—The motion states:That the Senate requests:

(a) the President of the Senate to authorise afurther Senate inquiry into Senator Colston’stravelling allowances, for the period 1January 1990 to 1 July 1993;

(b) that the reconciliation of travelling allow-ance payments with Department of Admin-istrative Services (DAS) air fare and carhire records, already tabled for the periodJune to December 1993, be completed andtabled for the period 1 January 1990 to 3March 1997; and


(c) that the President, in conjunction with DAS,examine all Canberra travelling allowanceclaims by Senator Colston with a view todetermining that Senator Colston was, infact, in Canberra at the times specified inthose claims.

The motion calls for a further inquiry intoSenator Colston’s actions in regard to certainclaims made, and certain behaviour in the useof parliamentary entitlements. The issue isone of some urgency as far as this parliamentis concerned, because I think it would now beconceded in all quarters that the concernsraised about the misuse of these travel entitle-ments present us with a stench that hangsright over this parliament. It was produced asa result of the demonstrable, repeated andhabitual abuse of parliamentary entitlementsand it is a stench which now hangs right overthe frontbench of this government.

It is quite an extraordinary proposition tosuggest that these issues can be simply passedaway by the notion that there has been anadministrative error. There are 43 occasionsthat have now been clearly demonstrated forwhich a travel allowance has been paid whichshould not have been paid. It has been ac-knowledged as such by the senator concerned.These are issues which are being presented inthe press of this country—not by the opposi-tion, but in editorial comment across thiscountry—in a way which goes very much tothe heart of the level of trust and honesty thatcan be expected by the Australian people ofthis government itself.

It is a view very aptly presented in theeditorial in today’s Australian FinancialReviewwhich says:

. . . the Coalition’s Colston ploy now hangs as abad smell over the Prime Minister and his team.

This is a smell that unfortunately reflectsupon the entire parliament, because all thisgoes to the issue of probity and public ac-countability. It goes to questions of very basicissues of fraud which ought to be removedand ought to be resolved quickly and in amanner which ensures that this parliament’sintegrity is protected. It goes to the very basicissues of the way in which this governmentdoes business. It goes to the basic question ofthe manner in which majorities have actually

been put together to ensure a legislativeprogram.

The Clerk of the Senate has advised us byletter of the very basic issue of the fraudcontrol plan of this chamber. This plan, whichwe have been made only too well aware of byway of the letter from the Clerk dated 25March:. . . imposes upon the Clerk of the Senate theresponsibility to "promptly examine instances ofsuspected fraud to determine whether a basis existsfor further action", and "on the basis of the infor-mation supplied, determine whether the allegedfraud:

. is without foundation;

. should be the subject of advice from theAFP/DPP on whether an offence has been commit-ted;

. is a matter for departmental action, ie, disciplin-ary, civil or administrative proceedings to recoverany monies lost to the Commonwealth;

. is a serious matter for prompt referral to theAustralian Federal Police for investigation."

The plan covers all matters concerned withthe responsibility of this department. Thismotion is squarely aimed at that responsibili-ty. It is incumbent upon this government tocome clean on these issues because what isbecoming increasingly obvious is that thisgovernment is facing a very sobering experi-ence—as Senator Colston said—of havingbeen caught. But it is not Senator Colston thatis suffering from this sobering experience. Itis the government that is suffering the hang-over that results from this shoddy action. Wehave seen in recent times this parliamentvoting to suppress reports, to hide and delayinvestigations and to put things off to theAttorney-General (Mr Williams)—I have beenquite concerned about this—in an attempt tobury this issue.

We have seen the manner in which therehas now arisen the extent to which not onlySenator Colston but also Senator Hill, SenatorAlston and Mr Howard are in the gun. Thereis also the extent to which Senator Hill,Senator Alston and Mr Howard are owned bySenator Colston, just as he is owned by them.From the complicated web that is now emer-ging, it is apparent that this government isincreasingly becoming enmeshed in thisscandal. It is incumbent upon you, members


of the government, to come clean and to fulfilyour obligation to the Australian people andthis parliament and make sure that this scan-dal is exposed and that these matters areclearly put right. You have got an obligation,Senator Hill, to come clean on these matters.You cannot run away from them any longer.As the Courier-Mail points out today, thisweek—(Time expired)

Senator HILL (South Australia—Ministerfor the Environment) (5.06 p.m.)—MadamDeputy President, this is a fairly familiar trackthat we are passing along today. We seem tohave heard this debate once or twice beforein the last week or so. I must say that Ipresumed that if it was to be brought on athird time there would be something new putbefore the chamber.

But there does not seem to be anything newat all. It is a rehash of what is now veryfamiliar, plus an attempt by the Labor Partyto cast the net even wider. One could beforgiven for believing that Senator Colston,during these years of alleged misbehaviour,was under the authority of somebody or someparty other than the Australian Labor Party.This is the most extraordinary aspect of thismatter: that the Labor Party, in its efforts topersecute a former colleague because he leftits midst, intends to explore his behaviour inthe years in which he was one of its own andat a time over which it had jurisdiction for theresponsibilities that he is now alleged to havebreached.

Yet during all these years—and todaySenator Carr seeks to extend it back to1990—Labor were in government. Labor hadthe ministry of Administrative Services and aLabor president sat in the chair. For all theseyears of Labor control there was not a sound,there was not a whisper, of al legedmisconduct. But as soon as Senator Colstonleaves their midst and as soon as Laboracknowledge that they are on a path ofpunishment, it becomes the principal issue onthe Labor Party table.

It is not surprising that the Australianpeople seem to be, through the opinion polls,demonstrating a disappointment with the Aus-tralian Labor Party, which have not learnt thelessons of the last election—that, as a future

alternative government, it is time they concen-trated on the big picture and on the tasks ofrebuilding their credibility, of building poli-cies for forthcoming elections and of present-ing themselves as an alternative government.But we hear nothing of that. The principalinterest of the Australian Labor Party, asdemonstrated in the Senate over the last fewweeks, has simply been payback—paybackagainst Senator Colston and payback byalleging misconduct. If they had any interestat all in these matters, they would have takenaction years ago.

So what is the difference now? There aretwo differences. Firstly, he left the LaborParty and he has to be punished for that.Secondly, they are now in opposition and itdoes not matter. It is good sport, apparently;you can amuse yourself with the politics ofpayback without believing it has any conse-quence.

Senator Bob Collins—It matters.Senator HILL —I actually think it matters,

too, Senator Collins. I think it probablymattered from 1990. If you believed that therehad been wrongdoing from 1990, why didyou do nothing in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,1994—

Senator Bob Collins—Are you addressingthat to me personally?

Senator HILL —No; you and your col-leagues. You were a minister during that time.In all the Labor speeches we have had in thisplace on this issue, no-one has sought toexplain why the Labor Party powerbrokers didnothing. What is the distinction? The onlydistinction now is that you are out of officeand he has left your party.

I make no apology for having stood by thepresumptions of innocence. I think that isexcellent. I make no apologies for standingfor the principles of natural justice. I make noapology for saying that each and all in thisplace are deserving of a fair go. It seems tome that this matter has been handled properly.I gather Senator Faulkner congratulatedPresident Reid yesterday for referring thematter to the A-G. Documents have beentabled and matters have been referred to theA-G. Proper process is taking place and itshould continue.(Time expired)


Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (5.11p.m.)—Let us put the lie to the Hill line rightnow. What is under discussion is travelallowance. The first time the full travelallowance figures were tabled was on 11September 1996. DAS did not have a purviewinto them at all; neither, I believe, did thepresiding officers of the past.

Senator Hill—Why weren’t you askingquestions in the estimates years ago?

Senator ROBERT RAY—Because I hadno idea Senator Colston was making fraudu-lent claims, and I am telling the truth. If yougo to the estimates committee transcript,Senator Hill, you will see that I asked onequestion about one day of travel allowance;so I did not know. From that one question,apparently, we had the knock-on effect of allthose discoveries that I had no idea about.The Senate department went off and investi-gated one claim that I made by way of avague allegation. What they came back withwere two reports and a confession fromSenator Colston to a third lot of activity.

Let us see how they got that particularinformation. They crosschecked the Canberraclaims going back 3½ years and they came upwith 23 different nights that were not account-ed for. They checked a very narrow range ofinterstate claims—only six months—and theyfound 12 nights, I think. When DAS caughtSenator Colston misusing his Commonwealthcar in Brisbane and told him the dates, hehimself crosschecked those with his travelallowance claims down here and fessed up toanother eight. What we have not had checkedare the three years prior to July 1993 or all ofthe interstate claims—other than six months—from 1990 to 1997. Why should Senator Hillwant to cover up that investigation?

Senator Hill—I’m not.

Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, you arecovering it up by opposing this. All you haveto do is vote for this and another fair investi-gation will proceed into all these untappedareas. You are categorically covering up whenyou defeat this motion. What are you tryingto hide with regard to these areas that havenever been looked at? You cannot say, eitherfrom your explanation or from mine, that

there has not been a pattern of behaviour thatwould not lead you to suggest that there mayhave been other errors. You say that it issloppy bookkeeping. You say that it is a staffmember—Mrs Christine Smith. Have youever met her, Senator?

Senator Hill—Never; but I accepted theexplanation.

Senator ROBERT RAY—You do notknow what the explanation is. It could be, asfar as Senator Collins alleges, systematicfraud. But you do not want to know. Youwant to see nothing, hear nothing, look atnothing. You do not want the Senate depart-ment to check those areas they have notpreviously checked, because you are afraid ofwhat they will find. You are afraid that the 43nights may escalate into 60, 70, 80 or 90nights incorrectly claimed. That is what youare afraid of.

This motion simply asks the Senate depart-ment to check these other areas back to 1990.Clearly, if they find a pattern of fraud there,then they are going to have to go back be-yond that. But do not come in here and saythat we all knew; we did not. Full figureswere not published until 11 September 1996.So they could not be checked. I am sure thatthey were not made available on a daily,weekly, monthly or yearly basis to the thenPresident of the Senate.

The absolute stinginess of this! When youadd up the amounts of money for the nightsthat Senator Colston has misclaimed, you willfind that he is even $5 short on those figures;he cannot even repay the full amount. He hasto jib the Collector of Public Moneys byanother $5. Of course, as we pointed outearlier today, the Senate will not demand thathe pay interest on what were effectivelyinterest-free loans for 3½ years and less. Ifyou do not pay the amount, the old taxdepartment will soon put an interest rate onyou. So will Social Security. But not thisparticular chamber.

This motion should go through. It shouldnot have to be passed as a bipartisan resolu-tion, because it simply asks the Senate depart-ment to go and check more extensively thanit has in the past.


Given the fact that that department hasfound 43 errors in Senator Colston’s favourand has yet to discover one error against him,one would presume that it should look atthese other fields. If it does not turn anythingup, there is no harm done to the Senate orSenator Colston. If it does, it would be inter-esting to know whether the staff member whohas taken the fall was responsible for claimsprior to 1993 going wrong, because it is myunderstanding that she was not working asoffice manager for three of those years—andthat would be very revealing indeed.

Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister forCommunications and the Arts) (5.16 p.m.)—Ithink what is truly extraordinary is that theopposition has had several weeks to take theview that this inquiry should have extendedback further than it has.

Senator Robert Ray—We got the reportyesterday. You delayed the report.

Senator ALSTON—You did not knowwhat was in it; is that what you are saying?

Senator Robert Ray—Of course.Senator ALSTON—So why did you not

ask for them to go back then?Senator Robert Ray—Because we didn’t

know how far back they were going.Senator ALSTON—Why go back further

now? Because you have a deliberate strategyof wanting to string it out.

Senator Robert Ray—In for a quick cleankill.

Senator ALSTON—I heard you say thatSenator Collins said there could be fraud.You, of course, do not have any such qualms.You just say ‘systematic fraud’. So you donot know Mrs Smith. Presumably, whatfollows from that is that you are prepared tosay that I know her, and therefore she isguilty—an absolutely extraordinary proposi-tion.

It is no surprise that a former Minister forAdministrative Services has just left thechamber. Senator Ray is a person who hasbeen very much aware of the history of thismatter. If he takes the view that SenatorColston has behaved badly in the past, he hashad every opportunity to do something about

it. But, of course, no. What we have is themost monumental set of double standards thatone could ever imagine. You are not interest-ed in knowing about or examining travelallowance, charter claims or anything else—not a word of it. I give Senator Ray marks forcoming clean, as he did, in saying that this ispurely about revenge.

Senator Bob Collins—Rubbish.

Senator ALSTON—He said it on the7.30Report.

Senator Bob Collins—I am talking aboutme, Senator Alston.

Senator ALSTON—I am sorry; I amspeaking of Senator Ray.

Senator Bob Collins—Thank you.

Senator ALSTON—You might have highermotivations, but Senator Ray makes nopretence.

Senator Bob Collins—No.

Senator ALSTON—Yours are the same ashis, are they? Or are yours higher or are theyequal? Whatever it is, the fact is that SenatorRay has made it perfectly clear what moti-vates him. He is not driven by any concernsabout integrity or wanting to get to the bot-tom of some irregularities. All he is interestedin is revenge—and the public understand that.They know precisely what you are on about.

To say because there is series of claimsover a period of years that that demonstratesa pattern is a complete failure in logic. If yousay that it results from a bookkeeping systemput in place by Mrs Smith some years ago,you can just as easily argue that it is due toone mistake; that it is due to a mistake inadministrative procedures, which then flowson to a series of irregularities.

There is no basis, on the face of it, to arguethat it is systematic fraud. It is simply thatyou want it to be systematic fraud. You wantto skip over all the niceties. You do not wantto worry about natural justice. You simplywant to make these allegations. ‘I didn’t knowhe was making fraudulent claims,’ saysSenator Ray. There is no pretence of sayingthat somehow these are matters that need tobe further investigated. You know that youhave evidence contradicting any evidence of


fraud, and you do not have anything tocontradict that. Yet you make these blitheassertions.

Senator Bob Collins—Let the chips fallwhere they may.

Senator ALSTON—That is fine. If youhave higher motivations than Senator Ray,that is commendable. But Senator Ray makesno such pretence. He has told the Australianpublic what he is on about. He is not onabout integrity. He is not on about cleaningup the system. He is not interested in makingsure whether Senator Colston has behavedbadly on this occasion—because, presumably,he has the same view about Senator Colstonthat he has had for very many years.

What Senator Ray is on about is makingsure that anyone else who might be temptedto leave the Labor Party understands thepenalties attached. You cannot even dissociateyourself from the Labor Party in this place. Ifyou vote against it, the federal executive givesyou a three-month suspension. He wants tomake it absolutely crystal clear that no-oneelse should ever contemplate leaving theLabor Party, because they will be hounded;they will be not only hounded but also vili-fied, traduced. They will have everything saidagainst them that can possibly be said underparliamentary privilege. That is the motiva-tion. The public understands that. So let usget on with it. We know where we aregoing—and we are not going anywhere.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.21p.m.)—We have just had the grand defencefrom those who have said that SenatorColston is guilty of nothing more or less thansloppy bookkeeping—the grand defence fromthose who have said that this is very embar-rassing. I find it extraordinary that such alimp, feeble and weak proposition could beput forward by Senator Alston and SenatorHill.

But what this motion is about is filling thegaps. We can quite rightly ask, on behalf ofthe Australian taxpayer, what Senator Colstonwas doing in relation to his taxpayer fundedtrips and travelling allowance prior to 1993.Perhaps the government presumes that, be-cause Senator Colston has not forwarded

further moneys in repayment to the Depart-ment of Administrative Services, no other‘mistakes’ or ‘infringements’—as they aredescribed—whether they be accidental orotherwise, occurred. Perhaps Senator Alstonand Senator Hill, the deal makers, believethat.

But I want to say that the opposition is notsatisfied. This is a man we are talking aboutwho has had enough time on his hands toidentify the cheapest sandwich available inParliament House, and we are expected tobelieve that this same individual has not hadenough time over the last four years to checkhis own bookkeeping. Come on. Who do youthink you are kidding? I will tell you whoyou are not kidding: you are not kidding usand you are not kidding the Australian people.

What we are saying here is that we call onthe Senate President to authorise an investiga-tion into Senator Colston’s travelling allowan-ces from 1 January 1990 to July 1993 tomake sure the question of Senator Colston’srecords is properly covered. We have request-ed that all travel allowance payments—DASairfare and car hire records—be completedback to 1 January 1990. Only records betweenJune 1993 and December 1993 have beenreconciled and are currently available.

This goes to the heart of the narrow scopeof the second Senate report. It looked at sixmonths worth of claims other than Canberraand it recouped from Senator Colston $3,065.Why is the government not willing to ask ordirect the Department of the Senate to look atall the other trips between 1990 and 1997 andreconcile them? The principle that the govern-ment works on, Senator Hill and SenatorAlston, is this: out of sight, out of mind.

It is logical, in our view, that an examin-ation must be made by the Department of theSenate and the Department of AdministrativeServices of all travel allowance records todetermine whether Senator Colston was inCanberra at the time of those claims. Weargue, and I think we can argue very forceful-ly on this, that nothing less will be acceptableto the Australian public. If their money hadbeen used wrongly, whether by misfortune,administrative error in Senator Colston’soffice or otherwise, it should be paid back,


and we say paid back with interest. Webelieve that this has been, as I have saidbefore in this place, deliberate and systematicabuse of Senator Colston’s travelling allow-ance entitlements. We believe that if furtherinfringements are found along with the oneswe already know about then they certainlyshould be placed in the hands of the Austral-ian Federal Police. That is the only acceptablecourse of action.(Time expired)

Senator FERGUSON (South Australia)(5.26 p.m.)—I was not sure whether the timehad expired. That is why I did not rise asquickly as I should have. Besides, if I hadn’t,I would have had to listen to another tiradefrom Senator Collins. I would like to makesome contribution—

Senator Bob Collins—I wanted to answerSenator Alston’s challenge to take the AFPback to 1983.

Senator FERGUSON—I am quite sure youwanted to do that, Senator Collins—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Perhaps, Senator Ferguson, you mightlike to direct your remarks through the chair.Senator Collins might like to have someorder.

Senator FERGUSON—Thank you, MadamActing Deputy President, but Senator Collinsprovokes me and there is a temptation todirectly respond to him. We have nowreached the situation where day after day wehave heard the same old story in the Senatefrom Senator Ray, Senator Carr and SenatorFaulkner, and on each of those days theyinsist to us that they are trying to introducesome new material to the Senate for it todiscuss, and as yet we have not seen that newmaterial. We have got to the situation todaywhere they have asked yet again that thegovernment agree to provide some othermaterial, when in fact the material they askedfor in the first place they have received. Theythen insist, every time they receive somematerial, that they want some more. It isnothing more and nothing less than systematicrevenge on Senator Colston—

Senator Bob Collins—Oh no, it’s not.

Senator FERGUSON—Senator Ray, inmedia outlets—on television and on radio andthrough the newspapers—has gone on recordas saying it is a matter of revenge. SenatorRay has said that.

Senator Carr—Thirty-eight claims.

Senator FERGUSON—Let me tell you Iam only repeating what Senator Ray himselfhas said, that it is a matter of revenge andthat he will not rest until he has got SenatorColston. So every method he can possibly seehe will use to try to make sure that he getshis revenge on Senator Colston. This is theway the Labor Party works in relation tosomebody who was one of their people for along period of time and then chooses to leavethe party and sit as an Independent. This istheir way of revenge. So they have used—

Senator Conroy—Leave the party! Hewalked in. You offered him a job.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator West)—Order! Senator Conroy.

Senator FERGUSON—Thank you, MadamActing Deputy President. I am used to Sena-tor Conroy interjecting like this, so it is notcausing a lot of problems. All I said is thatthis is just a matter of revenge; this is not forany other reason than revenge. So we get tothe situation where day after day we come inhere and we get detailed notices of motionwhich go on and on forever asking for infor-mation to be supplied. That information hasbeen supplied—

Senator Carr—Are you trying to cover itup?

Senator FERGUSON—Senator Carr, I amnot trying to cover anything up. All I amsaying to you is that the motives behind yourrequests were highlighted by Senator Raywhen he said the motive is revenge. He saidthat they will hound Senator Colston and theywill hound him until they get rid of him. Hesaid just before he left the chamber today—

Senator Bob Collins—It’s not my motive.

Senator FERGUSON—Through you,Madam Acting Deputy President, I never atany stage suggested that that was SenatorCollins’s motive. I know that Senator Collinsis a man of very high motives. Not once did


I say that Senator Collins’s motive was oneof revenge. I am saying that Senator Ray hassaid on the record that his is one of revengeand that he will make sure that anybody whorats on the Labor Party gets their just re-ward—or what he thinks is their just reward.

Senator Ray can come in here day after dayand say exactly the same thing. Until heachieves his final result of hounding SenatorColston out of this chamber, he will not besatisfied. I do not question your motives,Senator Collins, because you have shown inthe past that revenge is not one of yourmotives. I never once suggested that yourposition was one of revenge. I would not saythat, but Senator Ray has said that, as hasSenator Carr in the speeches that he has madehere today. He has made it quite obvious thathe is determined to take this revenge on oneof his former colleagues. He has made it quiteclear from what he has said in the chamberthat that is his motive. Anything that has beensaid here today only proves that.(Timeexpired)

Question put:That the motion (Senator Carr’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [5.35 p.m.](The Acting Deputy President—Senator

S.M. West)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——

AYESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bourne, V. Brown, B.Carr, K. Childs, B. K.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Kernot, C.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. *Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCollins, J. M. A. Kemp, R.Foreman, D. J. Macdonald, I.Gibbs, B. Patterson, K. C. L.Sherry, N. McGauran, J. J. J.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the negative.(Senator Crowley did not vote, to compen-

sate for the vacancy caused by the death ofSenator Panizza.)

(Senator Bolkus did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the resignation ofSenator Woods.)

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONSSenator CARR (Victoria) (5.37 p.m.)—I

wish to make a brief personal explanation asI claim to have been misrepresented.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator West)—The honourable senator mayproceed.

Senator CARR—Under standing order 191,I claim to have been misrepresented. Myspeeches on the last matter have beenmisrepresented. Senator Alan Ferguson sug-gested in his speech that my attitudes onSenator Colston were entirely motivated byrevenge. I would like to make it clear to theSenate—

Senator Bob Collins—Is it No. 191?Senator CARR—No. 191 is the relevant

standing order, Senator Collins. I would liketo place on the record that that statement isentirely incorrect. As far as I am concerned—and I am sure many members of the opposi-tion would concur with this—we know that it


is up to only us, the Labor Party, to pursuethis issue to its final conclusion. We knowthat the stench will not go away until there isa full and proper investigation into thesematters. The integrity, the probity and respon-sibility in government will not be restored—

Senator Hill—Madam Acting DeputyPresident, I rise on a point of order. This hasnow become a re-run of his speech. He hasmade the point that he has other motives. Heshould leave it at that and sit down.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Itis appropriate, Senator Carr, for you to statewhere you have been misrepresented andcorrect it. You cannot debate the issue again.You are getting very close to debating theissue again.

Senator Alston—Madam Acting DeputyPresident, I rise on a point of order. If SenatorCarr claims that he has been misrepresentedin so far as his motivation has beenmisrepresented, he ought to tell us what hismotivation is if he wants to properly correctthe record.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, Senator Alston.

Senator CARR—My speech went to theissue of probity and responsibility in govern-ment.

Senator Margetts—Madam Acting DeputyPresident, I rise on a point of order. I want tocheck on the timing. Do you not wait untilthe end of an item of business before a personcan stand up—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —This debate is about the motion No. 533. Itrelates to that particular motion.

Senator Margetts—I was checking on theorder, because there are motions that are stillto be made formal.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —We will deal with Senator Carr’s issue first.

Senator CARR—I will be very brief. Theissue that I have raised is the question ofwhether or not this government has, in fact,abandoned any pretext to what is right orwrong. Fundamentally, this is an issue aboutaccountability and the use of public funds inthis parliament.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (5.41 p.m.)—Madam Acting DeputyPresident, I wish to make a personal explan-ation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator West)—Senator Collins, do youclaim to have been misrepresented?

Senator BOB COLLINS—Yes, I claim tohave been misrepresented—indeed, by thesame minister, which he acknowledged acrossthe chamber. I was also accused of beingmotivated by nothing—

Senator Ferguson—Not by me.Senator BOB COLLINS—No, by Senator

Alston, I just said—Senator Carr—‘Minister’.Senator BOB COLLINS—‘Minister,’ I

said. That accusation is absolutely incorrect,and I want to correct the record. I am notmotivated in any sense by revenge in respectof anything I have said about Senator Colston.I wish to make it clear, because I was accusedof the contrary. I personally did not knowabout these claims. I found out about themonly when they were published. Indeed, Ithink there is an unassailable case for thepublication of these records for both housesof parliament—not just the Senate, both theSenate and the House of Representatives—andthe sooner the better.

The reason that I was motivated was not byrevenge, as Senator Alston suggested, I wasmotivated by simply this: I had the privilegeof chairing the Standing Committee on Regu-lations and Ordinances, between 1987 and1990, for over two years. I am intimatelyfamiliar with the workload of the chair of thatcommittee. I would hope that the staff of thecommittee, and that was principally PeterO’Keeffe, would be prepared to attest to thefact—if they were questioned by the FederalPolice, and I think they should be, in terms ofthe workload required of the chair—that I wasas competent a chair of that committee as anyother.

The committee has not changed its practicesin 10 years. The committee still meets at 8.30on Thursday mornings for half an hour ineach sitting fortnight. The workload has notincreased, and that is what—


The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator—

Senator BOB COLLINS—I am concludingnow, Madam Acting Deputy President. Thatis what motivates me, because I know that the10 or 11 nights Senator Colston claimed inthe first year, the 22 in the second year—when he got a taste for it—and the 32 in thethird year are fraudulent claims.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, you are required—

Senator BOB COLLINS—If nothing elsehappens, perhaps the average of the claims ofthe four previous chairs could be addedtogether and averaged out. Senator Colstoncould at least repay the excess.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Collins, you are required to statewhere you have been misrepresented. Youhave strayed very wide past that mark.

Senator BOB COLLINS—I have finished.

COMMITTEES

Appropriations and Staffing CommitteeReference

Motion (by Senator Margetts) proposed:That—

(1) The Standing Committee on Appropriationsand Staffing, in its examination of the reportManaging the Parliament: The way ahead,conduct a public inquiry into the report,including:

(a) appropriate advertising of the inquiry;

(b) calling for submissions;

(c) the holding of public hearings; and

(d) the presentation of a comprehensivereport by 26 June 1997.

(2) The committee be provided with all neces-sary staff, facilities and resources and beempowered to appoint persons with special-ist knowledge for the purposes of the in-quiry, with the approval of the President ofthe Senate.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Margetts’s) be agreed

to.



Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——

AYESAllison, L. Bishop, M.Bolkus, N. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Foreman, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B.Hogg, J. Kernot, C.Lees, M. H. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Murray, A. Neal, B. J.O’Brien, K. W. K. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Heffernan, W. * Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSCrowley, R. A. Macdonald, I.Ray, R. F. Kemp, R.Reynolds, M. McGauran, J. J. J.

* denotes teller

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

(Senator Faulkner did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the death ofSenator Panizza.)

(Senator Gibbs did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the resignation ofSenator Woods.)


DOCUMENTS

Auditor-General’s ReportsReport No. 29 of 1996-97

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator West)—In accordance with theprovisions of the Audit Act 1901, on behalfof the President I present the following reportof the Auditor-General:

Report No. 29 of 1996-97—PreliminaryStudy—Management of Corporate Sponsor-ship.

COMMITTEES

Economics Legislation CommitteeReport

Senator FERGUSON(South Australia)—Ipresent the report of the Economics Legisla-tion Committee inquiry entitledInquiry intopublic equity in Telstra Corporation Ltd,together with the submissions and transcriptof evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.Senator FERGUSON—I seek leave to

move a motion in relation to the report.Leave granted.Senator FERGUSON—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Publications CommitteeReport

Senator HEFFERNAN (New SouthWales)—At the request of Senator SandyMacdonald, I present the eighth report of theStanding Committee on Publications.

Ordered that the report be adopted.

Scrutiny of Bills CommitteeReport

Senator CONROY (Victoria)—At therequest of Senator Cooney, I present the fifthreport of 1997 of the Senate Standing Com-mittee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay onthe tableScrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 5of 1997dated 26 March 1997.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Legal and Constitutional ReferencesCommittee

Report

Senator McKIERNAN (Western Austral-ia)—I present the first report of the Legal andConstitutional References Committee entitled,Inquiry into the Australian legal aid system,together with submissions received by thecommittee and transcript of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator McKIERNAN —I seek leave tomove a motion in relation to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator McKIERNAN —I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate my tabling state-ment in Hansard and continue my remarkslater.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Inquiry into the Australian Legal Aid System

I have pleasure in presenting this first report of theSenate Legal and Constitutional References Com-mittee Inquiry into the Australian Legal AidSystem.

The inquiry into the Legal Aid System in Australiawas referred to the Legal and ConstitutionalReferences Committee on 17 September 1996.

The terms of reference for the inquiry are extensiveand cover many issues of great importance to theprovision of legal aid in Australia.

The committee has received 157 written submis-sions, many of which are very comprehensive, andhas held eight public hearings around Australia.

At these hearings the committee has receivedevidence from 134 witnesses from a diverse andimpressive range of backgrounds.

As the committee reviewed the evidence andsubmissions, it became evident that there is a greatdeal of concern and confusion about the uncertainfuture of legal aid arrangements in Australia.

As a result, our inquiry into legal aid has foundthat all stakeholders are currently preoccupied withthe consequences of change in the legal aid system.

The committee set out to examine the terms ofreference systematically but found itself caught upin a storm of anxiety, the eye of which is theCommonwealth Government’s decision:


• to reduce the global budget for legal aid,

• to terminate legal aid agreements with the statesand territories, and

• to renegotiate funding according to different andmore limited parameters.

Prior to coming to Government, the Coalition hadpromised to support legal aid at pre-election levels.The committee has heard many witnesses describetheir disappointment with the Government’s back-down since its election in March 1996.

The committee has received excellently researchedand compelling evidence from many distinguishedwitnesses including State and Territory Attorneys-General, the Law Council of Australia and the Stateand Territory Law Societies and Bar Associations,members of the Judiciary and academics.

The committee has heard that Australia has built anational legal aid system which is recognisedinternationally as an excellent model.

This model, referred to as a "mixed model", bringstogether the energy and goodwill of the privateprofession, the legal aid commissions, and thecommunity sector working together cooperatively.

Although there are separate legal aid commissionsin each of the eight (8) states and territories, plusabout one hundred and fifty (150) community legalcentres, these agencies, and the profession, worktogether to contribute to a truly cooperative nationalsystem.

The model provides a mix of services ranging fromrepresentation in court where this is necessary, butit also includes providing minor legal assistance,advice and legal education so that many people areable to help themselves solve their legal problemsbefore these get out of hand.

Australia’s legal aid system, with this level ofcooperation, and the extent of services provided, isthe envy of many countries. The parties whocontribute to the current Australian legal aid systemare justifiably proud of it. They are anxious topreserve it and to build on it.

The committee heard, however, that the currentlegal aid system has one major and fundamentaldownfall. That is, that it is "mean", because it doesnot have sufficient resources to extend it to manypeople who need it or would benefit from it.Indeed, many witnesses told the committee that thesystem is far from being a "Rolls Royce" system.

The committee also heard evidence from experi-enced practitioners and from community organisa-tions representing the perspectives of a range ofconstituents with special needs. Some witnessestold of the degree of vulnerability of their clientsin an already over-stretched, and some say,underfunded legal aid system.

Witnesses want to further improve the system, notwatch it fall apart. Witnesses are worried aboutwho else will miss out on access to services andassistance in the future, when, already scarce,resources are radically cut back.

The strength of feeling about this is such that thecommittee decided to prepare this first reportconcentrating on the current situation. The commit-tee considered that it was important to do this inadvance of the 1997-98 Budget due for delivery inMay.

The committee considered that, by presenting theevidence provided to it date in a report to theParliament, the Government may be better equippedto understand the degree and nature of concernabout Commonwealth legal aid expenditure reduc-tions and policy refocusing.

Many witnesses believe that the Government hasacted in too much haste in relation to legal aid inits effort to implement a deficit reduction strategy.Small initial savings could lead to far greatereconomic and social costs.

Mr Peter Short, President of the Law Council ofAustralia said the following to the committee, andI think this sums up the views of many:

"The Law Council and, I think, society as awhole generally accept that a government shouldbalance its budget and has to reach priorities. Ina nutshell we are saying that, by cutting legalaid, the government has reached a wrong priori-ty. We say that in any civilised society equalitybefore the law is one of the hallmarks of suc-cessful government. Equality before the lawmeans that people who are attacked or underthreat by a legal system must feel comfortablethat society is providing them with an equalopportunity to answer and relieve themselves ofthat burden. It is a positive obligation of acivilised society to provide that minimum levelof legal assistance."

The committee has been very impressed with theextent of commitment nationally, to the preserva-tion, and further development, of a viable legal aidsystem in Australia.

There is significant support for such a system, forexample, from governments, the legal profession,academia, the churches and the social servicessector.

There is a great deal of expertise in legal aid andthe broader justice system being willingly offeredto Government.

The committee has recommended that the Govern-ment consider establishing a high level representa-tive task force to advise Governments on the legalaid system and its place in Australia’s justicesystem.


The evidence to the committee suggests that sucha representative expert group would receive supportfrom the Law Council of Australia and nationallegal aid organisations.The committee is concerned about the uncertainfuture of Australia’s current cooperative legal aidsystem. The committee intends to continue togather evidence addressing each of the terms ofreference and to take the opportunity to test andfurther develop this evidence at future publichearings.The committee’s continued inquiry will contributeto public debate and awareness.The committee agrees with those witnesses whohave told it that legal aid issues ought to beconsidered alongside broader issues in the justicesystem.For this reason it will undertake the current legalaid inquiry as part of its wider responsibility toinquire into the continuing ability of all Australiansto have access to litigation and legal services.The committee’s intention in tabling this initialreport is to ensure that the input of the manypersons and organisations who provided the com-mittee with evidence is available to the Parliamentand can be taken into consideration by the Govern-ment prior to its delivery of the 1997/98 budget on13 May 1997.I commend this report to you.

Debate adjourned.

Rural and Regional Affairs andTransport References Committee

Report

Senator WOODLEY (Queensland)—Ipresent the report of the Rural and RegionalAffairs and Transport References Committeeentitled, Purchase of the Precision AerialDelivery System (PADS) by AirservicesAustralia, together with submissions receivedby the committee, correspondence and tran-script of evidence.

Ordered that the report be printed.Senator WOODLEY—I seek leave to

move a motion relating to the report.Leave granted.Senator WOODLEY—I move:That the Senate take note of the report.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (5.55 p.m.)—This is a damning report,and it is important to point out to the Senatethat it is a unanimous report. There is no

dissent from this report. It is an agreed reportby all members—government and opposi-tion—of this very sorry story that is outlinedin the report. I commend the report to anyonewith an interest in aviation safety in Australia.It condemns the Minister for Transport (MrSharp) but it damns the minister’s hand-picked chairman, Mr Forsyth.

The report tells a very sorry story indeed,and it is an unfortunate chapter in what hasbeen a long history involving the use of thisrescue equipment. During the time availableto me, I do not think that I can do much morethan to point anyone with an interest inaviation safety to the relevant sections of thereport.

I make it clear—as the report itself does—that the involvement of the minister and hisadviser in this went to the extent of involvingthemselves in discussions with Mr Gruzmanon the equipment. Subsequently, on requestfrom the new chairman, Mr Forsyth, theywere involved in directing, in writing, a fly-off, as it was called—or a testing program—to test this equipment against the rescueequipment that Airservices Australia wasalready using.

Airservices Australia and the Royal Austral-ian Air Force recently performed in an exem-plary fashion in completing one of the great-est sea rescues of all time. That rescue wasperformed without using the PADS equip-ment, and there is a good reason for that.Having spent well over $1 million—and bythe time this sorry story is finished it willprobably be closer to $2 million—on thePADS equipment in what the report says wasa very precipitate fashion, the equipment iscurrently unusable. It is lying idle in a ware-house in Melbourne and has had its certifica-tion formally withdrawn by CASA.

I refer all honourable senators and, indeed,everyone else, to page xii where the reportsays this:

The precipitous action of the new Chairman of theAirservices Australia Board in instigating anevaluation of search and rescue systems, and hishaste in accepting the results of that evaluation,ignored a long history of considered deliberation onthe PADS system in that very organisation, and aclear and very recent decision to reject any move


to replace or augment the existing system withPADS equipment.

The minister—as the report points out—alsoignored a detailed brief that had been givento him in April, which laid out the full sorryhistory of this saga and the firm decision thatAirservices Australia had made not to pur-chase PADS equipment because it posed adanger to the lives of the crews that wereusing it—that is, the rescue crews. The reasonI point that out is that the minister, in inter-view after interview—right up until the lastinterview he gave onPM—kept saying,‘PADS is more accurate.’ As the report pointsout, the committee has no dispute with that.The accuracy of the equipment is not indispute.

The problem is that there are serious prob-lems at the other end of this equipment thatdirectly potentially endanger the lives of therescue crews themselves. For the board andthe chairman to take the action they did is—Iquote the relevant paragraph on the samepage:The Committee concludes that because the Chair-man requested from the Board, and received,authorisation to proceed unchecked, he must acceptfull responsibility for a decision that resulted in theexpenditure of over $1 million on equipment thatis currently unusable. The Chairman, in making hisdecision, placed too much emphasis on accuracy ofthe delivery system and insufficient emphasis onthe safety of the crew involved in the delivery.

For these reasons, the Committee concludes that theactions of both the Board and the Chairman wereimprudent to the point of negligence.

That is a hard finding, and a unanimousfinding, of the committee. But it was aninescapable finding, unfortunately—I say thatword ‘unfortunately’ advisedly; I mean it—because the evidence given to the committeewas overwhelming.

The new chairman was appointed by theminister. I have to say all oppositions are inthe position for quite a while—particularlywhen the current opposition was in govern-ment for 13 years—of being able to blame theprevious government for all its sins andomissions. But, as the report makes clear, thissituation is absolutely laid at the feet of thisnew minister. This is his chairman we aretalking about; the person he appointed with a

great deal of fanfare. Why do I mention that?Obviously because the minister has beenrunning a campaign—a foolish and recklessone, in my view—against the chairman ofCASA, the air safety authority, claiming thatthe chairman is incompetent, the board isincompetent, and, because of the minister’sconcern about air safety, he wants to replacethe chair.

No evidence has actually been produced tojustify those attacks on Mr Justice Fisher. Infact, to take one example of just how recklessthe minister’s accusations have been, tojustify dismissal of the board of CASA heaccused them of dereliction of duty becausethey had not prosecuted the people respon-sible for the DC3 incident. In fact, as wasdemonstrated within 24 hours, it has neverbeen the responsibility of CASA or its prede-cessor, the CAA, to prosecute anyone; it isthe responsibility of the Director of PublicProsecutions. CASA acted with perfect propri-ety in forwarding everything they needed toforward to the Director of Public Prosecu-tions, who has taken a decision not to pros-ecute in the public interest. But this a relevantmatter because this minister has set thestandard for himself on this. This minister hassaid that, if there is proven incompetence onthe part of a chairman of any board involvingsafety, they should go.

This unanimous report, this all party report,finds that the chairman of Airservices Austral-ia was imprudent to the point of negligencein this matter—this is the chair appointed bythe minister. It also criticises—I think justifi-ably, to some extent—the board. But ofcourse there are mitigating circumstances, ofwhich all committee members are aware, thatneed to be stated. It was the chairman’s firstmeeting as chairman when this propositionwas put. The board, I suppose, felt, ‘Well,this is the new broom.’ In fact, the new chairtold us that he had laid down his philosophyto the new board as to how he was going toconduct matters. He summed it up for us inwhat I thought were extraordinary words: thathis experience as a chairman—of Dymocksbooks, as it happens—and his experience inbusiness had led him to the view that ‘if a


thing was worth doing, it was worth doing asquickly as possible’.

That, I have no doubt, is the appropriatephilosophy for Dymocks books. Unfortunate-ly, it is not the appropriate philosophy for thechairman of a government statutory authoritywhose primary statutory responsibility is thesafety of the Air Navigation Act. This isparticularly so when the chairman had at hisdisposal numerous reports, one of them fromthe Royal Australian Air Force, that laid outin detail that this equipment posed a risk tothe lives of the crews that were using it. Hegave extraordinary evidence to the committeethat, although he had seen the60 Minutesreport on PADS, which provoked him intogoing to his first board meeting and askingfor carte blanche to buy it, he had deliberatelynot read any of the previous reports so that hewas unbiased. He had absolutely no standardagainst which to check the accuracy of the60Minutesreport.

It is extraordinary stuff. In the 10 minutesI have got left I do not have time to go overit, but I say again: anyone with an interest inair safety has got an obligation to read thisreport because it has damned this chairman.I take no pleasure in saying that.

Senator Parer—Ha, ha!Senator BOB COLLINS—In response to

your laugh, Senator Parer, have a look at thepublic record. In 20 years in parliament, thenumber of individuals I have criticised whoare not members of parliament could literallybe counted on the fingers of one hand. It isnot something that I delight in doing. Readthe report, Senator Parer, if you do not thinkthis is justified.

This new chairman went to the boardmeeting and, as we say in this report, said,‘Give me power of attorney to do this myselfwithout any further recourse to the board.’And they did! Therefore, the new chairman,having wanted to take full responsibility, nowhas to take full responsibility for the mess thishas turned into and the fact that over $1million has been spent on equipment whichcurrently cannot be used, equipment whichduring its testing further placed the lives ofaircrews in danger, as we all know. It is nowup to the minister to determine whether he is

going to apply these standards to his appoint-ment on the basis of this all party report.(Time expired)

Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (6.05p.m.)—I would like to make some briefcomments on the report by the Senate Ruraland Regional Affairs and Transport Refer-ences Committee into the purchase of theprecision aerial delivery system, PADS, byAirservices Australia. I do not disagree withmost of what Senator Bob Collins has saidabout what is in this report. In particular, Iwant to emphasise the exoneration of theMinister for Transport and Regional Develop-ment (Mr Sharp) for in his involvement inthis particular process. That is dealt with intwo chapters of the report and also in thefindings.

There is no question that the findings ofthis committee, as Senator Bob Collins said,are very harsh on the board and the chairman.That is a matter that the minister will have todeal with. In the couple of minutes I have—Iknow business must move on—I would liketo briefly highlight that there was nothingforthcoming from Senator Bob Collins.Hopefully something might be forthcomingfrom the shadow minister for transport, themember for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), in theother place in terms of the campaign that theycarried out with regard to Minister Sharpwhile this hearing was going on. I quote aparticular question that was asked of SenatorAlston by Senator Bob Collins:. . . his understanding was that the minister hadapproved both the re-evaluation of the equipmentand its subsequent purchase? Are you also awarethat the committee was given a letter by the senioradviser to the minister, Mr Wallis, which clearlyindicates the extent that both he and his ministerwere involved in the matter? In the face of thisevidence, it is clear, minister, that Minister Sharphas caused you to mislead the Senate.

That is a very serious claim from SenatorCollins. It was done on half information. Ibelieve that Senator Collins and the shadowminister, Mr Tanner, from the other place oweMinister Sharp an apology for the way theypicked up a half truth and ran with a particu-lar aspect of this case. As we got all theevidence and all the information on the tablefor this report, it became quite clear that this


claim, this charge, this press campaign, wasbeing run on a false premise.

Furthermore, at that time—and this will beshown inHansard—Senator Collins himselfquestioned the accuracy of the evidence beingput forward before the committee by MrForsyth. He questioned it himself, yet that didnot stop him running this particular campaign.I call on both those gentlemen to do thehonourable thing and recognise the fact thatthey were using half information, running acampaign on a false premise.

I will leave my comments at that. I re-emphasise, firstly, that the minister and hisadviser were exonerated. They only gotinvolved when they were asked to get in-volved to confirm a couple of aspects of it,which I would determine normal ministerialbehaviour. Secondly, it was most disappoint-ing to me as a member of that committee tofind out the processes that were gone through.Hopefully, lessons can be learned for othergovernment instrumentalities so we do not seean occurrence such as this again.

Senator CONROY (Victoria) (6.09 p.m.)—I would like to respond firstly to SenatorCrane’s comments and then go to the sub-stance of the report. I do not think SenatorCrane can stand there straight faced and saythat the only involvement the Minister forTransport and Regional Development (MrSharp) had was being dragged in by MrGruzman. If you have a look at the facts,Senator Crane, it is clear that when MrForsyth wrote to the minister about wantingthe fly-off, the minister authorised the fly-off,ignoring his own departmental advice, ignor-ing previous advice from Airservices aboutthe dangers.

An extensive briefing was given to thecommittee, so it is impossible to say, ‘Oh, wedo not think PADS is a particularly goodsystem.’ An extensive briefing based onextensive testing by the RAAF, the depart-ment and everybody else who had beeninvolved in it was: ‘This system is a dudbecause it is not safe. Yes, it hits the targetbut in hitting the target it is potentially caus-ing a life threatening situation to the crew inthe aircraft delivering it.’

Senator Crane—That’s all in the report.

Senator CONROY—It was all in the reportbefore the minister but he ignored it. It wasthere before we did our report. It did not needthis report to reiterate that PADS is not safeto the crews delivering it. It was there inblack and white from the RAAF and a host ofother sources before our report.

We will then go through the farce of whathappened in the training and the evaluation.We had a situation of some rescues in Janu-ary, which all senators would be aware of.The minister came out in response to MrGruzman and said, ‘There’s nothing wrongwith PADS. It is just a training problem. Thecrews have not been trained properly.’ Stillthe minister is refusing to accept all theevidence put before him and before theevaluation panel and the cancelling of thetraining that took place in November becauseit was again shown to be unsafe. The ministerhas consistently ignored all the evidence thathas been before him. So he has not simplysupported the purchase and the fly-off andbeen dragged into it; he has chosen to ignoreall the expert advice.

In coming back to the substance of thereport, Senator Collins made a number ofreferences. The chairman of Airservices, MrForsyth, walked into his first meeting, afterwatching 60 Minutes, and decided with nobriefings, no requests for information, no whatdo other people think: ‘I want to organisethis. I want to clear this up.’ Information wasavailable from Airservices if he had chosen toask.

He had been briefed but he told the com-mittee the briefing was not satisfactory. Butwhen asked by the committee: ‘What was itthat you found unsatisfactory in the briefingfrom Airservices?’ he could not remember. Hethen went on to praise the staff of Airservicessix months later, saying that they were a veryprofessional organisation. At the time he saidthat their briefing was unsatisfactory butcould not remember why. So he wrote to theminister for permission. As I said, theminister ignored all the evidence and advicefrom his own departmental briefings and said,‘Go ahead. Order the fly-off.’

So then we move to the fly-off, and theevidence before the committee on the conduct


of the evaluation panel is damning. Read thereport. You have an RAAF report, scientifictesting conducted 12 months before, thatstates, ‘This is unsafe for the followingreasons . . . These must be addressed beforethere is further evaluation, further testing, ofPADS.’ This information was presented to theevaluation panel, according to evidence givento the committee, before the evaluation tests.

When appearing before the committee, theevaluation panel was asked: what evidencedid the manufacturer provide to you of thechanges that he had made to models D to Ethat satisfy and fix the issues raised in theRAAF report? The evidence went fromextraordinary to bizarre. We were told that no,there had been no independent testing bysomeone else on the manufacturing design.Mr Gruzman had thrown the PADS units onthe back of a truck and driven it down abumpy road to simulate stormy conditions ina plane at 100 feet, among air turbulence.

Senator Hogg—Ha, ha!

Senator CONROY—You can laugh,Senator Hogg, but that is actually the evi-dence that the evaluation panel took. Themanufacturer said, ‘I put it on the back of atruck and drove it over a bumpy road tosimulate air turbulence,’ and they acceptedthat.

Should you just accept the word of amanufacturer of a product that a safety prob-lem had been fixed? When asked, ‘Would youaccept as satisfactory evidence before acommittee from a manufacturer?’, the chairsimply said, ‘I fixed it.’ The committee askedthe chair, Mr Forsyth, ‘Would you agree thatit is acceptable to take the word of the manu-facturer in this circumstance?’ Mr Forsyth’sanswer was, ‘I’m not qualified to say.’ Sena-tors are laughing at that. But Mr Forsyth’sresponse was, ‘I’m not qualified to say.’ Heused the back of a truck to simulate stormyconditions in a life-threatening situation.

We then received evidence from the pilotwho was actually trying to conduct the evalu-ation.

Senator Hogg—Was he in the truck?

Senator CONROY—No, the pilot was notin the truck, Senator Hogg. He was even more

damning before the evaluation committeeabout what a joke it was. We have here aproduct designed to save lives. They con-ducted an evaluation in sunny, still conditions.Most operations to save lives at sea are con-ducted in stormy weather.

You would have thought that the panelconducting a test on air safety equipmentwould seek to find rough, stormy conditionsto simulate as closely as possible the condi-tions that you would find in a rescue. Did thepanel do that? No. It looked for a day but itcould not find any stormy weather. So it said,‘Well, that’s it; it’s passed the test.’ This iswhat happened when Mr Forsyth was asked—it is here in the report—why the panel wasforced to do the tests so quickly. He wasasked why they had to be finished in such ashort time frame. Mr Forsyth said, ‘Well, ifthey had asked, they could have had moretime.’ When we asked the chief executive ofAirservices why, he said, ‘It was necessary todo it so quickly.’ But the panel itself told thecommittee that it felt constrained and it couldhave done a better job if it had had moretime.

This is a disgrace. The panel is culpableand the chair is culpable. The minister ig-nored all the advice. But Mr Forsyth, as hesaid, is not qualified to make a decision. Heis not qualified for this job, and he shouldconsider his position.


MembershipThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT

(Senator Knowles)—The President hasreceived a letter from the Leader of theGovernment in the Senate seeking to vary themembership of a committee.

Motion (by Senator Parer)—by leave—agreed to:

That Senator Tierney replace Senator Egglestonon the Community Affairs Legislation Committeefor the committee’s inquiry into the Social SecurityLegislation Amendment (Work for the Dole) Bill1997.

BILLS RETURNED FROM THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bill was returned from theHouse of Representatives without amendment:


Trade Practices Amendment (Industry AccessCodes) Bill 1997

EDUCATION LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL 1997

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’AFFAIRS LEGISLATION

AMENDMENT (MALE TOTALAVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS

BENCHMARK) BILL 1997

First ReadingBills received from the House of Represen-

tatives.Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That these bills may proceed without formalities,

may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Bills read a first time.


Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(6.22 p.m.)—I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second readingspeeches incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.The speeches read as follows—

EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENTBILL 1997

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to thetransfer of responsibility for the University ofCanberra from the Commonwealth to the AustralianCapital Territory (ACT) and to amend the MaritimeCollege Act 1978.The transfer of the University of Canberra fromCommonwealth to ACT jurisdiction was firstproposed by the University of Canberra.The university considers that its future is bound upwith the growth and development of the act itself,since the university is a key provider of profession-al education and advice in education and research.The transfer will bring the university closer to ACTactivities such as infrastructure and land develop-ment, health education and the ACT school system.The Commonwealth and the ACT governmentsagree that there will be considerable benefits to theuniversity and the Canberra community in theuniversity being more closely identified with thecity.

The university’s comprehensive undergraduateteaching programs and expanding presence ingraduate education, research and internationaleducation services are of great importance to thecontinued economic and cultural life of the city.There are strong mutual benefits to be obtainedfrom facilitating collaboration between the universi-ty and territory government agencies, businessesand community organisations.

In order to facilitate the transfer this bill:

amends the University of Canberra Act 1989 (theact) where appropriate and necessary prior to theconversion so that the act will reflect the change ofjurisdiction;

amends the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 to make the act an ACTEnactment;

provides consequential amendments to the Remu-neration Tribunal Act 1973; and

provides certain transitional arrangements inrelation to preservation of the rights and accruedentitlements of university officers and staff.

The commonwealth government is transferring theact with its existing framework intact. Any changesto it are appropriately made by the ACT Legislativeassembly after the transfer is made. However, anyemployee rights of coverage under commonwealthoccupational, health and safety, industrial oradministrative law for incidents occurring prior tothe

transfer day will continue. Coverage for incidentsoccurring after the transfer day will be determinedaccording to the law of the territory.

This bill also amends the Maritime College Act1978 to provide the Council of the AustralianMaritime College with the power to make statutesfor or in relation to the regulation or control oftraffic or parking.

Currently, parking spaces at the Australian Mari-time College are being used by others to thedetriment of the college staff and students. The actis amended to allow the college to enforce carparking regulations.

I commend the bill to the senate.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT

(MALE TOTAL AVERAGE WEEKLYEARNINGS BENCHMARK) BILL 1997

During the 1996 Election, the government gave acommitment to maintain the single adult rate ofpension at a quarter of the all males total averageweekly earnings figure. This bill gives legislativeeffect to that commitment.

This bill provides that the maximum basic rate ofthe single adult social security pension (after


indexation) will not fall below a rate equal to 25per cent of the annualised original, all males, totalaverage weekly earnings figure. There will, ofcourse, be a flow-on increase to maintain the adultpartnered rate of pension at 83% of the single adultrate of pension. The bill also provides for the sameamendment to be made to service pensions andincome support supplements paid under theVeterans’ Entitlements Act 1986.Pensions are indexed twice a year, in March andSeptember according to movements in the CPI,ensuring that the real purchasing power of thepension is maintained. However, CPI indexation, byitself, may not enable pensions to keep pace withchanges in the living standards of the rest of thecommunity. By legislating to maintain the singlerate of pension at 25 per cent of male total averageweekly earnings, the government is demonstratingits commitment to ensure that pensioners share inincreases in community living standards.Madam President, I commend this bill to theSenate.

Ordered that further consideration of thesecond reading of these bills be adjourneduntil the first day of sitting in the wintersittings 1997, in accordance with standingorder 111.

Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That the bills be listed on theNotice Paperas

separate orders of the day.

AGED CARE INCOME TESTING BILL1997

First ReadingBill received from the House of Representa-

tives.Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities




Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(6.23 p.m.)—I move:


I seek leave to have the second readingspeech incorporated inHansard.

Leave granted.The speech read as follows—

The Aged Care Income Testing Bill 1997 is beingtabled today in advance of the Aged Care Bill 1997

to establish an administrative procedure to supportthe implementation of the income testing arrange-ments that were part of the aged care reformsannounced in the 1996 Budget.

The Aged Care Income Testing Bill will allow theDepartments of Social Security and Veterans’Affairs to commence income testing residents innursing homes and hostels so that they can beadvised by my Department in advance of 1 July1997 about the level of charges they will face whenthe Aged Care Bill is passed.

This bill only enables an income assessment to beundertaken and advice to be provided to residentsof the outcome of that assessment. It does notenable charges to be increased, nor does it allowany reduction in the level of Commonwealthsubsidies paid under the National Health Act 1953and the Aged or Disabled Persons Care Act 1954.

The substantive income testing provisions whichwould enable increased charges and correspondingreductions in subsidies will be provided for in theAged Care Bill 1997. It is anticipated that the AgedCare Bill will also be tabled during this sitting witha commencement date of 1 July 1997.

The provisions in this income testing bill wouldtherefore cease to operate once the new aged carelegislation is in force.

The bill provides for an exchange of informationbetween the Department of Health and FamilyServices and the Departments of Social Securityand Veterans’ Affairs. The Department of Healthand Family Services will provide resident informa-tion to the other two Departments who will matchit to their records to retrieve information for thoseresidents, to enable the determination of ordinaryincome for those residents. Information will beprovided to the Department of Health and FamilyServices under the relevant parts of the acts admin-istered by those Departments.

There are provisions in the bill to ensure that anypersonal information exchanged for the purpose ofincome testing is not used for any other purpose.These provisions have been developed in consulta-tion with the Privacy Commission.

The income test to be applied by the Departmentsof Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs is theexisting test carried out in determining entitlementsto pensions and benefits. The determination ofincome for people already in receipt of SocialSecurity or Veterans’ Affairs pensions or benefitswill therefore be based on their existing availableincome information and they will not have toprovide additional details. People will, however, beable to request a review of the determination iftheir circumstances have changed.

Special protections for war widows and widowershave been built into the bill so that they will not


pay any more than other people with an equivalentincome.9 per cent of current nursing home and hostelresidents are non-pensioners. The Department ofSocial Security will undertake assessments for thisgroup in order to ensure that they can be advisedof their potential income tested charge as much inadvance of 1 July as possible. The Department ofSocial Security will require 3 months prior to 1July to undertake the necessary assessments.The income testing provisions in the Aged CareIncome Testing Bill have therefore been introducedfor passage in advance of the provisions in theAged Care Bill to provide this necessary lead time.When income testing is in operation after 1 Julyonly those who can afford to pay a little more andmake a fair contribution will be asked to do so.Older people will not be asked to pay what theycannot afford for the residential aged care servicesthey need.People who are not satisfied with decisions madeabout their income will have a right of appeal, firstto the relevant Department and then to the Admin-istrative Appeals Tribunal or the Social SecurityAppeals Tribunal.The reforms announced in the 1996 Budget will seefar-reaching changes to residential aged careservices in Australia. The establishment of theadministrative procedures provided for in this billis essential to the Government’s overall strategy ofproviding residents with detailed information on thereforms and with certainty about the impact ontheir individual situation.

Debate (on motion bySenator Carr)adjourned.


Messages received from the House ofRepresentatives intimating that it had agreedto the amendments made by the Senate to thefollowing bills:

Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill1996

Telecommunications Bill 1996Trade Practices Amendment (Telecommunica-

tions) Bill 1996Australian Communications Authority Bill 1996Telecommunications (Transitional Provisions and

Consequential Amendments) Bill 1996Radiocommunications Amendment Bill 1996

Acquainting the Senate that the House hasmade the requested amendments to the fol-lowing bills:

Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges)Bill 1996

Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Bill1996

Telecommunications (Numbering Fees) Amend-ment Bill 1996

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIERLICENCE CHARGES) BILL 1996

TELECOMMUNICATIONS(NUMBERING CHARGES) BILL 1996

TELECOMMUNICATIONS(NUMBERING FEES) AMENDMENT

BILL 1996

Third ReadingBills (on motion by Senator Campbell)

read a third time.

COMMITTEES

Public Accounts CommitteeJoint Meeting with Queensland Public

Accounts Commmittee

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Knowles)—The President hasreceived a message from the House of Repre-sentatives seeking the concurrence of theSenate in a resolution of the House to author-ise the Joint Committee of Public Accounts tomeet jointly with the Public Accounts Com-mittee of the Legislative Assembly of Queens-land.

I also table a letter from the Speaker of theQueensland Parliament transmitting the textof a resolution relating to the same matter.This letter satisfies the requirements specifiedin paragraph 8 of the message. Copies of themessage and letter have been circulated in thechamber.

Ordered that the message be consideredforthwith.

Motion (by Senator Campbell)—byleave—agreed to:

(1) That the Senate concurs with the resolutiontransmitted to the Senate by message no. 240 ofthe House of Representatives to authorise theJoint Committee of Public Accounts to meetjointly with the Public Accounts Committee ofthe Legislative Assembly of Queensland.(2) That the terms of the resolution agreed to bythe Senate and the House of Representatives be


transmitted to the Legislative Assembly ofQueensland.(3) That the concurrence of the Senate to theresolution be transmitted to the House of Repre-sentatives.

WORKPLACE RELATIONSREGULATIONS

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria)(6.26 p.m.)—At the request of Senator Sherry,I seek leave to move business of the Senatenotices of motion Nos 2, 3 and 4 together.

Leave granted.Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I move:That new regulation 30BD contained in regula-

tion 7 of the Workplace Relations Regulations(Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1996No. 307 and made under theWorkplace RelationsAct 1996, be disallowed.

That regulation 5 of the Workplace RelationsRegulations (Amendment), as contained in Statu-tory Rules 1996 No. 307 and made under theWorkplace Relations Act 1996, be disallowed.

That new regulation 30C contained in regulation8 of the Workplace Relations Regulations (Amend-ment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1996 No.307 and made under theWorkplace Relations Act1996, be disallowed.

We move to disallow three regulations con-tained in statutory rules 1996 No. 307 whichhave been made under the Workplace Rela-tions Act 1996. Each of the regulationsconcerns termination of employment. I mustexpress my disappointment that at this stageof business we are dealing with these dis-allowance motions.

It came to my attention only briefly beforedealing with this matter that an arrangementhad been reached between the governmentand the Democrats which deals with at leastsome of the issues pertinent to this, but ofwhich the opposition had no knowledge. Itmay well have been the case—and we are yetto analyse more completely the terms of thisarrangement—that it dealt with some of theissues that I will be covering now. I will dealwith some of those in more detail as I reachthem.

The regulations we seek to disallow are:regulation 5, new regulation 30BD containedin regulation 7, and new regulation 30C con-tained in regulation 8. Perhaps it is time also

to highlight the other element of concern theopposition has in this matter and that is that,in relation to the government’s industrial rela-tions package, the only area where it signalledsuch changes to regulations was in respect ofthe filing fee—not some of the other areaswhich I am about to cover.

New regulation 5 would exclude threeclasses of employees from making an applica-tion for relief under the unfair and unlawfultermination provisions of the WorkplaceRelations Act. Those three classes of employ-ees are: employees engaged under a contractof employment for a specified period of time;probationary employees where the maximumperiod of probation is three months or less, oris more than three months and is reasonablein the circumstances; and casual employeesengaged on a regular basis for more than sixmonths. Casual employees will now havetheir entitlements changed and this will nowbe extended to 12 months under the propo-sals.

In relation to employees engaged for aspecified period of time, I note that under theexisting regulations, where the contract ofemployment was made after 16 November1994, these employees are excluded only ifthe specified period is less than six months.For contracts made before 16 November1994, the duration of the specified period is,as in the proposed regulations, irrelevant. Thereason for the difference was that the relevantregulations were amended on 16 November1994 to introduce the necessity for a specifiedperiod of less than six months. So in effectthis new regulation seeks to reverse the 1994amendment.

I need to cover the two important reasonswhy this amendment was put in in 1994.First, employers were being encouraged toemploy employees on fixed term contracts oflengthy duration in order to avoid liabilityunder unfair and unlawful termination provi-sions. This is dealt with in part in the govern-ment-Democrat deal but unfortunately thedealing with it will not cover the significantconcerns that we would raise. In fact, theprovision in this deal, on my very limited firstreading of it, seems, on our interpretation, tomake a microscopic change, if anything


hardening the provision, moving it from fixedterm contracts where the main purpose is toavoid obligations to being a substantialpurpose.

The second reason for the original amend-ment was that the original regulation wasinconsistent with Australia’s obligations underarticle 3 of the ILO recommendation concern-ing termination of employment, which states:Adequate safeguards should be provided againstrecourse to contracts of employment for a specifiedperiod of time the aim of which is to avoid theprotection resulting from the Termination ofEmployment Convention.

We have not heard—and I do not knowwhether the Democrats have heard—anargument from the government that thistrifling change will actually rectify the prob-lem that we find whereby, if these regulationsgo through, we will be inconsistent with theILO. It was thought that the only way toproperly prevent recourse to contracts thatsought to avoid the obligations was to providethat only contracts with a specified period ofsix months or less would be exempted. As Isaid, no arguments have been put to theopposition which change that. The Democratsobviously accepted these arguments back in1994, so I will be interested to hear from thespeakers following why it appears that theyhave accepted something different as satisfac-tory now.

There is, of course, an additional argumentwhich does not seem to have been dealt withat all in this deal—and that is that the newregulation will effectively have retrospectiveoperation. Employees who, after 16 November1994, entered into a contract for a specifiedperiod of more than six months will now findthemselves without access to unfair andunlawful termination provisions of the Work-place Relations Act. I do not know whetherthat was considered between the governmentand the Democrats.

Let us move on to some other areas. Inrelation to probationary employees—and noneof that is in this deal—I note that the presentregulations only exclude employees where theprobationary period is reasonable. The effectof the new regulation is to deem that threemonths or less can be reasonable in every

case. This deeming provision is completelyinconsistent with the approach that has beentaken by the Industrial Relations Court oflooking at what is fair and reasonable in theparticular circumstances of a job. For exam-ple, in a 1994 case, Chief Justice Wilcoxobserved:

Perhaps the most important consideration, indetermining what is a fair and reasonable period,will be the nature of the job. In the case of aperson employed to carry out repetitive dutiesunder close supervision, a reasonable period maynot extend beyond a week or two. In the case of aperson employed in a marketing or managerialposition, working with little or no direct supervi-sion and whose quality of performance cannot beimmediately apparent, it may be reasonable for anemployer to specify a probationary period measuredin months.

In recent times, Mr Howard has said that tohim 12 months is a reasonable period. Itseems Mr Howard thinks he knows more onindustrial relations law than the equivalent ofa Federal Court justice.

There is a very strong and very goodargument as to why a discretion shouldremain with the commission to determinewhether the probationary period is reasonablein all of the circumstances. It surprises methat the Democrats, the great upholders of theIndustrial Relations Commission and itspowers, have not dealt with this issue.

Regulation 5 would also permit casualemployees to make an application underunfair dismissal provisions only where theyhave been employed on a regular and system-atic basis for a period of at least 12 months.This contrasts with the present regulations,which permit casuals to make an applicationwhere they have been employed on this basisfor a period of six months. This changestrikes against the general understanding ofwhat is regarded as a short period of employ-ment. It will also encourage—much againstthe rhetoric of the government about part-timeemployment—further casualisation of thework force as employers are encouraged toemploy casuals for up to 12 months at a timein order to avoid their obligations with respectto fair and reasonable employment. This iscertainly not about establishing a fair system.It seems to be establishing a loose system so


that some employers can seek and find outrorts.

With respect to new regulation 30BDcontained in regulation 7, we are dealing witha $50 filing fee. The committee which dealtwith the Workplace Relations Act heardsubmissions on this issue. Under the existingregulation, no filing fee is payable. Thegovernment justifies the introduction of afiling fee on the basis that it will discourageunmeritorious and vexatious claims. Butbecause a monetary sum is involved, the onlyclaims likely to be discouraged are those ofpeople with very little means, irrespective ofthe merits of their claim. It is unlikely thatpeople with the means to pay $50 will bediscouraged from vexatious claims. I note thatthe Democrat-government deal deals with thisissue by providing that a filing fee be refund-able if it is withdrawn, but that does verylittle in terms of the concerns that we wouldhave and that indeed were raised before thecommittee in relation to this issue.

In relation to the new regulation 30Ccontained in regulation 8, this regulationwould remove the prohibition on terminationof an employee who is temporarily absentbecause of illness or injury in either of twocircumstances: the employee’s absence ex-tends for more than three months, unless theemployee is on paid sick leave for the dur-ation of the absence; or the total absences ofthe employee within a 12-month periodextend for more than three months, unless theemployee is on paid sick leave for the dur-ation of the absence.

I ask the government—and I hope that aresponse will be forthcoming before we needto vote on this disallowance—a couple ofquestions. It is unclear in the wording in theregulation what is meant by duration. If aworker is on paid sick leave for a period of2½ months of a total more than three-monthperiod, are they covered or, because the lasttwo weeks of that period are unpaid, couldthese provisions come into force?

Secondly, I ask the government in relationto these provisions: what happens to employ-ees who have cashed out paid sick leave? Isone of the consequences of them cashing itout that they will lose their eligibility to

protection under unfair dismissal laws becausethey have cashed it out? Will workers beapprised of these circumstances when they arebalancing up the no disadvantage in a totalsense in agreements that they might reach?

The present regulations do not qualify thecurrent prohibition in the way proposed. Inother words, if an employee is temporarilyabsent because of an illness or injury, irre-spective of its duration, the employee cannotbe terminated. The unfairness of this newqualification on such an important prohibitionis manifest. The qualification is arbitrary. Assoon as the employee has been absent formore than three months, either consecutivelyor cumulatively, the employee is liable to belawfully terminated even though the illness orinjury is perfectly legitimate.

Let me give the Senate some examples ofwhat is perfectly legitimate. One analogy Ipersonally feel is a quite good one is: if wecan do this to people who are ill, why not doit to women who are pregnant? It is not theemployer’s responsibility if someone fallspregnant, just as it is not the employer’sresponsibility if someone becomes ill. So whybother giving women special considerationwhen their absence is beyond three months?

Perhaps an analogy that will affect morepeople in this place would be the one SenatorMurray outlined—I apologise to him forborrowing this—relating to people who havequestionable tickers, or hearts. If someone hasa heart attack, because they are likely to beabsent for around three months do theypotentially face being lawfully terminated?

Senator Campbell—What about bouts ofmasochism?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I wouldlike to hear the government’s justification onthis one. In this brave new world fallingpregnant may well be masochism because youmight find that further down the track a newregulation will be introduced and your em-ployment may be terminated not just becauseof illness.

I would like to conclude my comments atthis stage by referring to my very brief analy-sis of the government-Democrat deal. Firstly,I want to again reinforce my disappointment.


The opposition has cooperated in relation tothis disallowance on several occasions tofacilitate government business. To somepeople’s surprise, they thought we wereactually considering the terms of this deal,which we have never seen. So the oppositionhas agreed to delay this disallowance on thebasis that we want to facilitate the cause ofgovernment business, and we find ourselvesat the last moment being presented with thisdeal, the terms of which we have had no timeto give proper consideration to. But let megive my limited consideration of it.

On my reading of it, it includes two re-views, one note, one restatement of thecurrent law or what is presently the case and,as I said, one microscopic change from the‘main purpose’ to the ‘substantial purpose’.There is nothing in this deal, and it has noteven dealt with half of the issues that I haveraised in just the brief 10 or so minutes I havehad to speak because we have agreed tocontain ourselves to limited time. I lookforward to the response from the governmentand the Democrats.

Senator MURRAY (Western Australia)(6.41 p.m.)—Firstly, my sincere apologies toLabor. This letter was struck between theMinister for Industrial Relations (Mr Reith)and me late on Sunday evening with theunderstanding that the workplace regulationsdisallowance would be running on Monday.I had understood his office had distributed it,and I presumed it was in Senator Sherry’shands. That is my understanding, but youhave my apologies that I did not pursue it.

Labor is seeking to disallow three regula-tions issued under the Workplace RelationsAct dealing with termination of employmentregulations. The first deals with those classesof employees who are excluded from protec-tion of the unfair dismissal regime; the seconddeals with the application fee for lodging anunfair dismissal application; and the thirddeals with the circumstances under whichabsence from duty due to sickness ceases tobecome an unlawful dismissal.

The Australian Democrats advised Laborthat they shared their concern about thepotential scope of these provisions. Theseprovisions, we felt, if applied in a regressive

and nasty way, could reduce the promise ofthe unfair dismissal regime to provide a fairgo all round. I think one of the aspects wehave to be constantly aware of is that, withthe Workplace Relations Act and all theworkplace regulations, there are unfortunatelyemployers and employees out there who areless than ideal in their practices.

I placed our concerns before the Ministerfor Industrial Relations, Peter Reith, and, inseveral meetings since those regulations werefirst brought to our attention by the ACTU,Minister Reith and I discussed the variousproblems. We finally met on Sunday night,and he agreed then to amend these regulationsin several substantial respects. I understandthe minister will read that correspondence intoHansard shortly through the parliamentarysecretary.

The Democrats’ key concern with thoseregulations was that employers might, withregard to the specified term or the fixed termcontracts as they are known, try to avoid theunfair dismissal provisions. With the introduc-tion of Australian workplace agreements, wethink that specific term or fixed term contractswill continue to grow in popularity. Where aspecified term contract is a genuine specificterm or fixed term contract and a person isterminated at the end of that contract inaccordance with the contract, we think it isreasonable they should not then be able tochallenge that as an unfair dismissal. Theywould have signed up for a term, they wouldhave done that term and the contract wouldhave ended.

There is the issue of double jeopardy whichexisted with the present act; that is, if some-body was dismissed within the period of afixed term contract, they would be able to goto the courts and be paid out for the entireunexpired portion of that contract if thatcontract was terminated unjustly. Under thelaws, it could be interpreted that they couldalso get rectification from the IndustrialRelations Commission. That was plainly aproblem which needed to be resolved.

Where employers try to take what we thinkof as permanent or normal engagements andplace over them a facade of a specified termcontract, they should not be able to avoid the


provisions. In other words, if the intention ofconstructing the contract is to avoid the unfairdismissal regime, they should not be permit-ted to get away with that. If they terminatethe employment before the contract expires orafter it expires, it will no longer be a speci-fied term contract.

If they have had a succession of specifiedterm contracts, one after another, then thenature of the employment really ceases to bea specified or fixed term contract and be-comes a rolling contract. The amended regula-tion will make it clear that both these cases ofcontracts will not be excluded from the unfairdismissal regime. They will not be excludedin that circumstance.

The exclusion in 30B(2) will also be ex-panded to ensure that employers cannot usecontracts to avoid these provisions where asubstantial purpose of the engagement is toavoid the provisions. Senator Jacinta Collins,we were advised that ‘substantial’ actuallyprovides a greater protection than ‘main’, andthat was the advice we followed. That protec-tion will be broader, we believe, than theprotection under Labor’s old regulation.Disallowance of regulation 30B, as an aside,would also have the perverse result of allow-ing very high income earners earning over$64,000 a year access to the provisions. I donot think that is appropriate.

Labor has raised the issue of casuals andprobationary employees. These regulations areabout balance and judgment. At this stage, wethink the balance is probably about right inthe amended regulation and we are going toleave it at that. But the minister has agreed,at our request, to review these regulationsafter 12 months and we will need to look atthe empirical evidence then. It is our consis-tent opinion that we have to see how the newlaws settle down before we arrive at a conclu-sion as to how they will operate. Casualemployees will also have the protection of thewider 30B(2), where the contract of employ-ment using casual engagement is subject toaction if it has a substantial purpose of beingthere to avoid the unfair dismissal provisions.

With regards to the application fee, rightfrom the start we accepted the principle of anapplication fee. Therefore all along the ques-

tion has been about the quantum. Frankly, wewere concerned with a $50 quantum. But theregistrar reports that at least 50 per cent ofapplications for waiver of the application feehave been granted. In other words, half of thepeople going to the Industrial RelationsCommission are not having to pay the appli-cation fee. We thought the application feecould have emerged as a major impedimentto people applying for unfair dismissal. Weare advised that, to date, this fear does notseem to have eventuated.

But it does remain early days. These lawsare still coming into practice. The ministerhas agreed to amend the regulation to give an18-month sunset clause and to conduct a fullreview of the impact of the fee after 12months. The regulation will also be amendedto allow a refund of the fee where matters arediscontinued. We think that is reasonable.

In relation to regulation 30C, Labor areconcerned that this provision might excludeemployees from accessing unfair dismissalwhere they have been absent from work onprolonged unpaid sick leave. The regulationwill be amended with a note to make it clearthat this provision applies to only the unlaw-ful dismissal provisions and that the commis-sion will still be able to decide whether adismissal is unfair in the case of extendedsick leave entirely without prejudice to theseprovisions. We thought that was the bestoutcome we could arrive at.

In short, we think that the regulations asamended will not be more than slight amend-ments to the old regulations put in place byMinister Brereton, as he then was. In somerespects they will provide more protection foremployees; in other respects we agree withyou: there will be less. In all cases they willprovide the certainty which business says wasmissing from the old regulations.

I wish to now draw a line in the sand onthis unfair dismissal matter. This is as far asthe Democrats intend to go for an extendedperiod. We think these provisions should benow allowed to bed down so that employers,employees, unions and employer organisationscan get used to them and use them and tothen see on the basis of empirical evidencewhether we need further reform, or more


tightening up or better protection on the basisof evidence and experience. I must express toyou, Parliamentary Secretary, our concern andsome alarm that the government is seeking tomake more changes in this area with its latestsmall business announcement.

The Democrats intend to oppose furtherexcluding employees merely because theiremployer happens to be a small business. Youcannot take people and exclude them fromone class of rights unless you can clearlyshow that it is for the common good ofsociety as a whole, and you cannot do so onthe basis of belief when you have no empiri-cal evidence to support it.

We think the proposals following from thesmall business announcement will fail the testof providing a fair go all round. It will beunfair to the most vulnerable and the mostindustrially unrepresented section of our workforce—the employees of small business. TheDemocrats will support and indeed alreadysupport measures to encourage the IndustrialRelations Commission to deal expeditiouslywith small business unfair dismissal claims.But a wholesale exclusion, as proposed theother day, goes far too far.

We have been disappointed that so farLabor have been ambivalent in their reaction.But I am quite sure that, knowing them, theywill soon come out with a very precise state-ment in this regard. I hope that when I orthey move a disallowance on that proposedregulation in a few months, if it is done byregulation, we will both be able to defendworkers’ rights to have their unfair dismissalsreviewed as they have been to date.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(6.51 p.m.)—Surprise, surprise: it was writteninto the legislation that the Minister forIndustrial Relations (Mr Reith) is able tomake regulations based on the size of busi-ness. So guess what he is doing? He is mak-ing regulations to take away people’s rightsto be treated fairly. Basically, it looks like heis going to do it in the future. I am pleased tohear Senator Murray indicating that theAustralian Democrats want to see this beddedin and not go any further for the moment. Butthat does not indicate that they are ruling itout in the longer term, supporting allowing

small businesses to treat their employeesunfairly.

I often wonder what would happen if itwere a matter of criminal law. Would itmatter whether you were a small business ora large business as to whether you would beobliged to abide by criminal law? No. Ifpeople are entering into contracts, should notthe contracts on both sides be required to beupheld? One would think, yes.

However, what we get—and we alreadyknow this as a result of the general workplacerelations legislation—is that the upholding ofonly one side, the employer’s side, is seen asbeing important and not necessarily any rightson the employee’s side of the contract. Thosecontracts that people have insisted on otherswriting, it seems, are only useful for one side;that is, to take away from employees or insiston obligations for them to be under. But theredoes not seem to be a balance achieved withthe rights of the employee.

Therefore, I indicate that we recognisedright from the beginning that what we saw inthe bill was the thin end of the wedge—indications that people would lose the rightsfor which they had fought over so manyyears, so many decades. These rights includereasonable sick leave, and so on. Employeesdo not necessarily get paid for that leave, butthey have fought for the right to be able to berecognised in relation to bona fide sick leave.We have seen indications that those rights arebeing rolled away very quickly.

I indicate that the Greens WA will besupporting these disallowance motions. Also,we will be watching carefully in relation toany future motions that come up to implementthe government’s small business statement—astatement that Labor and the Democrats,according to their indications, welcomed. Iguess we will need a few more qualificationsto make sure that workers are protected andwill not have further rights rolled back andthe erosion of their basic rights which havebeen so hard fought for, by so many people,over so many years and, indeed, so manydecades.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(6.54 p.m.)—I think Senator Murray has


covered a number of the substantive pointsraised by the speakers. But I would just maketwo points, because I think it would be ineverybody’s interest to have this matter dealtwith before the dinner break.

Senator Murray did state that I was goingto read into theHansardthe letter which setsout details. I would be happy to incorporateit, because its reading might take sometime,if Senator Murray nods his agreement.

Senator Murray—Yes.Senator CAMPBELL —I therefore seek

leave it to incorporate this letter. I have givencopies to Senator Collins. I do not think Ihave given Senator Margetts the courtesy ofa copy; she might have to trust me on thisone.

Senator Margetts—Okay.Leave granted.The letter read as follows—

MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

MINISTER ASSISTING THE PRIMEMINISTER FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES

23 March 1997Senator Andrew MurrayParliament HouseCANBERRA ACT 2600Dear Senator MurrayFurther to three notices of disallowance of regula-tions on termination of employment to be resolvedtomorrow in the Senate, I confirm that we havereached an agreement on the handling of thesematters.

1. The Government will amend the regulations soas to provide that the filing fee is refundableif the applicant withdraws the proceedings atleast 48 hours before the day on which theproceedings have first been listed for hearingbefore the Australian Industrial RelationsCommission.

2. I appreciate your concerns to ensure that thesystem which allows for the waiver of a filingfee operates as intended. Following the first 12months operation of the regulations theGovernment will conduct a review and inviteyour contribution. Subject to the outcome ofthat review, we would be prepared to favour-ably consider any necessary changes. This willbe reinforced by a sunset clause of 18 monthson the operation of the $50 filing fee.

3. The Government will insert a note in theregulations to express that where, because ofthe regulation, an absence is not a ‘temporaryabsence because of illness or injury’ within themeaning of section 170CK of the WorkplaceRelations Act 1996 and thus dismissal becauseof that absence is not prohibited by thatsection, this is without prejudice to the rightsof an employee dismissed because of thatabsence to bring an action for unfair dismissal,under the Workplace Relations Act or underany State unfair dismissal law.

4. In regards to the safeguard provision in respectof fixed term contracts, the regulation will beamended so that the exclusion does not applyif evasion of the termination provisions was ‘asubstantial’ purpose for entering into a fixedterm contract.

5. The regulations will be amended to include anote which draws attention to decisions of theIndustrial Relations Court of Australia on con-tracts which are or are not for a ‘specifiedperiod’. This note would have the effect ofgiving greater clarity to the effect of theprovision.

6. Following 12 months operation of the fixedterm provisions, the Government has agreed toconduct a review to ensure that these provi-sions are operating satisfactorily and, in parti-cular, give an appropriate level of protectionto employees.

I confirm that this agreement will be disclosed inthe Senate debate, as confirmation of the Govern-ment’s commitments.Yours sincerelyPETER REITHAccepted/agreed.SENATOR MURRAY

Senator CAMPBELL —I thank honourablesenators. I do apologise to Senator Margettsfor not providing her with a copy. It was nota secret deal or anything of that sort, but I aminformed that the Minister for IndustrialRelations (Mr Reith) did inform the House ofthis in a speech on small business mattersearlier this week—Monday, I am informed.

How it occurred is that, with these regula-tions, Senator Murray and the Democratsshowed a cooperative and constructive spirit.They have brought forward a number of con-cerns, which the government has agreed to.We believe that they are constructive. Theyinclude a sunset clause in relation to theoperation of the $50 fee. They include anundertaking that, if someone is to withdraw


their application 48 hours prior—I think itis—to the proceedings, their fee will berefunded. We already have included provi-sions to ensure that, in cases of hardship, the$50 fee can be waived. I think SenatorMurray covered the other matters.

I do not think I need to respond to anyfurther matters. With the matter of temporaryabsence and illness that was covered bySenator Murray and also raised by SenatorJacinta Collins, we think that the operation ofthe unfair dismissal provisions that wouldapply on top of these provisions does providea fair balance, particularly with the inclusionof the amendments that we have foreshad-owed in the letter that has just been incorpo-rated. I think, with those things and what hasbeen covered in the incorporation, I will sayno more.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria)(6.57 p.m.)—Just very quickly in response,because I would like to see this dealt withbefore the dinner break also, I close bypointing out to the Labor Party that, evendespite the comments made here today, theseare not, in Senator Murray’s words, ‘slightamendments’. I have just very quickly beengoing through what I do not believe has beendealt with in this session: the implication forcasual employees of the extension of theperiod from six to 12 months; the setting inconcrete of a three-month probationary period,despite industrial law on the issue; and theretrospective operation with respect to fixedterm contracts has not been dealt with, as Irecall.

I have not had an answer on what advicehas been received about the implications andterms of our obligations to the ILO; the issueof paid sick leave being cashed out and howthat will affect people’s entitlements in termsof this three-month period after whichpeople’s unfair dismissal entitlements can bewithdrawn; and the issue of the duration ofpaid leave as part of that three-month period.Those issues also have not been dealt with.

Once again, we have had experience of this,as I think was implied by Senator Margetts,with Democrat-government deals, which donot deal with all of the issues. We have a dealhere which has only dealt with some of the

issues and will leave many workers out,hanging in the rain.

Question resolved in the negative.Sitting suspended from 6.59 p.m.

to 8.00 p.m.


Messages received from the House ofRepresentatives intimating that it had agreedto the amendments made by the Senate to thefollowing bills:

Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency Bill1996

Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1)1997

The following bill was returned from theHouse of Representatives without amendment:

Commonwealth Services Delivery Agency(Consequential Amendments) Bill 1997

HINDMARSH ISLAND BRIDGE BILL1996

In CommitteeConsideration resumed.

Senator COONEY (Victoria) (8.01 p.m.)—There is just one matter that was raised by theminister which I would like to comment on.He spoke about the cost of the legal proceed-ings that had occurred over the HindmarshIsland Bridge. I know that he did not intendit in this context, but I would hate the impres-sion to be created that there was a cost onfairness and a cost on justice. Some peopletalk about affordable safety. Some people talkabout affordable justice, and I think that is awrong concept. It is one of the core functionsof government—talking about government interms of the three arms of government, and inthat sense it is one of the core functions ofgovernment—to see justice done and to see itdone to everybody no matter what their race,creed, colour, size or age. I think it sends outthe wrong message when it is put that ‘wehave got to pass this act because to gothrough the judicial processes would be toomuch’.

Beliefs, as Senator Collins says, are mattersof great importance. He spoke about hisbelief, and it just occurred to me that he


spoke about Jesus turning water into wine atCana. He said that, although he did notbelieve that occurred, nevertheless it was asymbol of his general beliefs in this area. Imust confess that I have a greater belief in themiracle of Cana than he has. I rememberhearing a master of ceremonies in moderndays testing some wine prior to a weddingfeast. When he sipped an offered brand ofwine, he screwed up his face and said, ‘If theLord came down from Heaven, he wouldchange this back into water.’

Senator Bob Collins—All 360 gallons ofit!

Senator COONEY—I think it is the 360gallons, rather than the transformation, thathas you in doubt, Senator Collins, but perhapsthey drank well in those days. But that is thepoint I would like to make.

Senator Bob Collins—Sounds like awedding in the Northern Territory to me.

Senator COONEY—May I say, SenatorCollins, that I do not think that anyone hasrepresented the territory as well as you havethis week—or over the years for that matter.

Senator Patterson—What about GrantTambling?

Senator COONEY—And Grant Tambling,of course. In any event, the point I want tomake, and then I will sit down, is the fact thatthe legal process has been truncated. I knowthat it has caused a great deal of distress tothe Chapmans, but the process of law isimportant. I am sure that it is not beingbrought in on this basis, but if this bill wasbrought in on the basis that this is the onlyway in which we can cut costs and that thisis really a cost cutting exercise, I think thatwould certainly send out a wrong messageabout how we should conduct the affairs ofthis society. The way the affairs of thissociety should be conducted is through theproper legal processes. Sure they go wrong,just as the parliament goes wrong and just asgovernment goes wrong from time to time,but that underlying principle is important. Ithink it is a matter that was well describedand touched on by Senator Margetts.

Senator SCHACHT (South Australia)(8.05 p.m.)—As a senator from South Austral-

ia, I am obviously not unaware of the longrunning controversy of the so-called Hind-marsh Island bridge affair. I have never beena great participant in the debate because sinceit started I have always held other positionsin the parliament and so on. But I havecertainly supported the previous government’sposition and have debated it accordingly.

I have to say that I have noticed over aperiod of time the ability of people to changetheir position. I find it ironical that way backin 1992-93, when the Chapmans as promotersand developers first proposed the bridge, thebridge was to be built by them at their cost ifthe government would approve the develop-ment of the marina, et cetera, on HindmarshIsland. When that was changed, they did nothave access to the money. In the end, innegotiations with the then Labor state govern-ment, the case was that the state governmentcould pick up the cost of the bridge in somesignificant way.

At that stage, the then Leader of the Oppo-sition in South Australia, Dean Brown, andthe federa l member for Barker , MrMcLachlan, publicly and strongly opposed thebridge being built and campaigned according-ly. I find it ironical that they did at that stageoppose it. Furthermore, certainly MrMcLachlan came in a later stage of the wholeaffair to be an absolute advocate of buildingthe bridge.

It seems to me that, as soon as a group ofAboriginal people indicated their oppositionto the bridge, Mr McLachlan changed hismind and became a supporter of the bridgebeing built. For about a year, in 1991-92, hewas strongly opposed to the bridge beingbuilt. I do not think any of us should get toopure about the range of positions that havebeen held on this issue, because there hasbeen a fair bit of shifting around in regard tothe bridge.

Many of us do not support a particularreligious view about society. I openly declarethat I am an agnostic. I have considerablescepticism about organised religion of allforms. I have always been extremely scepticalof any government attempting to make law inany area involving religion which is based ona mystical or an unproven belief in some-


thing—the supernatural, the afterlife and soon—which is demonstrably a matter of faithand commitment, and not demonstrablyproven by scientific fact.

Every time a government moves into thatarea, it is running a risk of getting terriblyentangled and then breaking down the separa-tion between the state and the church. Overthe last couple of thousand years or more,every time the church and the states gotwrapped up with each other there had usuallybeen some dreadful atrocity committedagainst those who were declared the non-believers. The Christian church has been justas bad in all its forms as have other faiths—the Islamic faith, Buddhists and all the vari-ations and forms thereof.

I have always taken a very sceptical viewthat, when someone proposes to me that thereis a particular religious significance for aparticular person and that it should be in alaw, that ought to be treated very cautiously.Therefore, when the Ngarrindjeri womenindicated that this issue had a particularsignificance for them, I treated that no differ-ently than someone fronting up to the RomanCatholic Church, the Church of England or anIslamic organisation and saying, ‘We ought tomake laws in an area based on our view orour religious beliefs.’

You end up making some very difficultdecisions, and in the end you probably disad-vantage many more people. That is not to saythat I do not fully support the Ngarrindjeriwomen. They are entitled to have that view,even if it is in dispute with others. All reli-gions are in dispute with each other. No-onehas yet proven that there is a religious viewthat everyone agrees on. There is always adispute.

What I find very difficult to take is theholding of a royal commission into the reli-gious beliefs or the spiritual beliefs of a groupof women—or any group in the community—to then find that their views were fabricatedor that religious belief was fabricated whenthey chose not to give evidence. I am notsurprised that a royal commission found thatthat was a belief in which the royal commis-sioner could not believe. The Ngarrindjeriwomen who had that belief chose not to give

evidence. Can you imagine holding a royalcommission into whether immaculate concep-tion took place?

Senator Herron interjecting—Senator SCHACHT—Imagine holding a

royal commission into any religious belief.Senator Collins read out a section of theBibleearlier. That is just one version of a bible.You could hold a royal commission into theBible and find dispute about whether that hadany standing at all.

I have to say that I think theBible is awonderful piece of poetry. That is the best Ican say about it. The idea that something mayhave been written 2,000 years ago or 1,800years ago is extraordinary, yet no-one hassuggested that we should hold a royal com-mission into the religious beliefs of Christiansor Buddhists. But, when it is a group ofAboriginal women who we think hold astupid view, we proceed to hold a royalcommission to prove that they have fabricatedthat view. I do not care whether they havefabricated it or not. To me, that is not thegermane issue. After being rounded upon onmany occasions about the Hindmarsh Bridgeissue, as a senator from South Australia, Iwant to put it on record that, whilst I supportSenator Collins’s amendment—

Senator Bob Collins—Of course.Senator SCHACHT—I think that goes

without saying. I think it is an appropriateamendment.

Senator Faulkner—It hasn’t gone withoutsaying!

Senator SCHACHT—Well, it has beensaid by many others. My view on all of theseareas is that, if you can show that there arescientific reasons or environmental reasons,then of course they have to be taken intoaccount. I believe that to hold a royal com-mission to try to prove that a group of Abo-riginal women did not genuinely hold thatreligious view is extraordinary.

In my view, there has been an enormousamount of political hypocrisy by peoplerunning around saying, ‘Just because they areAboriginal women their religious views weighless than our other religious views or religionsthat some of us think are more substantial.’ I


do not hold any of those religious views moreequally than any other. In regard to thedecision taken on this bridge, the minister hasgiven assurances that the legislation is notcontrary to the Racial Discrimination Act.Those assurances are very necessary andrelevant. If that is the case, they can go aheadand build the bridge.

I have to say that I think the majority ofSouth Australians would say, ‘Thank good-ness a decision has been taken and the bridgehas proceeded.’ I find that overall in this issuethere has been an amount of hypocrisy frompeople, including members on the other side.When they thought they could attack a formerstate Labor government for being involved inbuilding the bridge, they opposed it. Whenthe Aboriginal people opposed the bridge,they then seemed to change their minds andthey attacked them religiously.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (8.15 p.m.)—by leave—I move:(1) Page 1 (after line 8), after clause 2, insert:

2A Racial Discrimination Act to prevail(1) For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly

declared to be the intention of the Parlia-ment that the terms of the Racial Discri-mination Act shall prevail over the provi-sions of this Act.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall be taken toauthorise any conduct, whether legisla-tive, executive or judicial, that is incon-sistent with the operation of the RacialDiscrimination Act.

(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 7), after thedefinition of pit area, insert:Racial Discrimination Act means theRacialDiscrimination Act 1975.

I will not speak for much longer on this,Minister. There are just a few points I wantto make. Before the dinner suspension, theminister mentioned the distinction that hedrew between the Social Security Act, whichhad the amendment that is before the Senatenow moved in the same terms. It makesinteresting reading. When you have a look atthe Hansardpinks, it just indicates the diffi-culty that the government has actually makingthis distinction. This is what the minister said:I would like to respond to some of the pointsraised. Senator Bob Collins raised the socialsecurity bill and tried to draw an analogy between

that and the government’s response. I do not thinkthat is valid because there can be no comparison.The Hindmarsh Island legislation and the buildingof a bridge has been a highly litigated issue, as youknow, over three years at least with the expenditureof over $4 million. To draw an analogy or suggestan apparent inconsistency with the social securitylegislation I think is invalid.

That is it. I point out to the committee that—and I am not going to protract this issue: wehave been over the ground enough times—allof that litigation and money had absolutelynothing to do with any argument aboutinconsistencies in the Racial DiscriminationAct.

So what the relevancy of that distinction isin respect of this particular question, I do notknow. It had to do with all of the reports andall of the disputes and the fact that ministersdid not read the secret information and so onand so forth. I will not stray on that.

There is one other matter that I do want tocorrect. The minister went on to say that the‘opposition opposed precisely this amend-ment’—which of course is wrong—‘to theNative Title Bill in 1993’. I was here duringthat debate. I recall what the minister wasreferring to. What a pity he only told half thestory, because the other half is actually in theact as section 7. That is not correct either.

My memory of what happened—and theGreens and the Democrats and Senator Kernotmay have a more precise recollection—wasthat effectively there was an assurance thatthis did not affect the operations of the RDA.One bit was moved by the Democrats andanother bit was moved by the Greens. Duringthe negotiations over getting those two bitstogether, a compromised form of words was,in fact, suggested by former Senator GarethEvans, who had the carriage of the legislation.That was agreed to, and it appears as section7 of the act.

Senator Kernot interjecting—

Senator BOB COLLINS—I am glad tohave that confirmed by Senator Kernot.Section 7 states:Racial Discrimination Act

Operation of RDA not affected

7(1) Nothing in this Act affects the operation ofthe Racial Discrimination Act 1975.


That was a distillation drafted by formerSenator Evans—and I was in here when ithappened—of a number of amendments ofsimilar kind moved by both the Democratsand the Greens. This was a distillation of allof that.

So the information that we rejected theamendment is absolutely untrue. There it is inthe act. It is part of the law. Minister, if youconcede that that argument is flawed in termsof you advancing it as an argument againstaccepting this, I think in true justice youwould have to now tap the mat and agree tosupport the amendment, or maybe you couldredraft it so that it reads in exactly the sameway as the one we accepted to the RDA.

I simply conclude by saying that, in respectof a number of other statements that weremade about the cost of reports and the lengthof time for reporting, the minister would bewell aware—but other members of this com-mittee would not be aware—that the matterwas canvassed at some length during theSenate estimates processes and questions thatI asked ATSIC officers. We started off withanswers that said that the cost could bebetween nought and a million. I commend theATSIC officers. They knew exactly where Iwas heading. I commend their professionalismin trying to do the right thing as best theycould for the minister.

I pursued the issue. The ATSIC officers—and, of course, it is ATSIC that is going tohave to pay the bill for this, should there haveto be a report at any time—said on the record,and it is in theHansard, their commonsenseestimate—and, Minister, I concede that theseare rubbery figures—of where they thought itmight or most likely would end up. Theperiod of time for the report was two monthsand the estimated cost was $100,000, whichI think is probably close to the mark.

Senator Herron—$200,000.Senator BOB COLLINS —Was i t

$200,000? I thought it was $100,000, but Iwill not press you on that. It was $200,000.It is a long way from the million, of course,which got a real workout here in the chamber.Again, I do not raise that, Minister, as anysubstantive issue. The substantive issues arethat, once again, some red herrings have been

thrown in our path tonight. The fact that a lotof money was spent on this act had nothingto do with the RDA—nothing whatever.Again, it just shows you how difficult it is forthe government to try to really make a casefor why they accepted this amendment with-out question in respect of social security butwill not with this.

I have to say again that the assertion thatwe rejected this amendment in 1993 is soflatly wrong that it actually became section 7of the act itself. I urge honourable senators tosupport it. Let me say, Minister, that if thereis an inconsistency with the RDA, there willbe a challenge to this act, whether thisamendment is carried or not, if someoneasserts that it does conflict with the RDA. Ifit goes through unamended or if it goesthrough amended, there will still be a chal-lenge to the act.

I have to say that the only defence that theminister can offer, and he has not yet run it,as to why the amendment therefore causeshim any complications is if he is concernedthat his advice might be wrong and that acourt would determine that, because it is alater act of the federal parliament, without thisparticular amendment it does not in facttechnically in a legal sense transgress theRacial Discrimination Act for the simplereason that it overrides it, which is something,of course, that the government has saidconsistently is not its intention. So I guesswhat we are saying is, ‘Prove it.’

Minister, without going in gory detailthrough the Evatt review, I would also pointout that there is also information right upfront in the Evatt review—not, I might add,argued by anyone in this chamber. It is onpage 15 of the Evatt review. It is listed, ofcourse, under Aboriginal concerns about theoperation of the act, from their perspective,not going far enough. The heading is ‘Noobligation to make a declaration’. It reads:2.33. Aboriginal people are critical of the Actbecause the power to protect areas and objects isdiscretionary.

That is a fact.

The Minister is not obliged to act, even if an areais of significance to Aboriginal people—


A point made again and again, as senatorsknow, in debate in here.

He/she can revoke a declaration without anyexpress requirement to consult the parties. The Actdoes not specify criteria which, when established,confer a right to a declaration. The political natureof the discretion is discussed in Chapter 10.

That is simply a matter of fact. There is noobligation to make a declaration and theminister is not obliged to act even if the areais of significance to Aboriginal people. Thatabsolute discretion under the act, as wasconfirmed in the recent Boobera Lagoondecision by a court, has always been there.This whole thing has been a furphy from dayone and a political beat-up of the highestorder.

After this bill passes the Senate—with thisamendment, should it pass—there is nothingwhatever, so far as this federal parliament isconcerned, to prevent the construction of thatbridge commencing immediately. So what Isuggest to the minister and to all honourablesenators, to conclude this debate in the quick-est time possible, is for the Senate to supportthe amendment and to pass the amended billand to build the bridge.

Senator HERRON (Queensland—Ministerfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs) (8.25 p.m.)—The government will beopposing the amendments. Senator Collins hasjust gone through some sort of circuitouslogic which I certainly do not follow. Whathe said is in theHansard, and I suppose thatis why he put it there, so that he can lookback on it. I hope he does. I bring this to theattention of honourable senators, SenatorHarradine in particular: he said that, even ifthis amendment goes through, it can bechallenged in the courts in relation to theRacial Discrimination Act. My advice is thatit makes it more likely that that will occur ifthis amendment is accepted, and thegovernment will be opposing the amendment.

Question put:That the amendments (Senator Collins’s) be

agreed to.


(The Chairman—Senator M.A.Colston)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 2

——AYES

Allison, L. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. *Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G.Harradine, B. Hogg, J.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N.Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M.Woodley, J.

NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H.O’Chee, W. G. * Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSChilds, B. K. Newman, J. M.Cook, P. F. S. Tambling, G. E. J.Foreman, D. J. Heffernan, W.Gibbs, B. McGauran, J. J. J.

* denotes teller(Senator Bishop did not vote, to compensate


(Senator Bolkus did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the resignation ofSenator Woods.)


Bill, as amended, agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.


Adoption of ReportMotion (by Senator Herron) proposed:That the report of the committee be adopted.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(8.34 p.m.)—I was waiting for the magicwords, because I have circulated an amend-ment to the motion that the report of thecommittee be adopted. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:"and that the Senate resolves that the follow-ing matter be referred to the ParliamentaryJoint Committee on Native Title and theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LandFund for inquiry and report on or before thelast day of sitting in 1997:The urgent need for amendments to theAbo-riginal and Torres Strait Islander HeritageProtection Act 1984, consistent with the reportof the Review of that Act by Justice ElizabethEvatt, in order to avoid or minimise therepetition of any further incidents, such as theHindmarsh Island Bridge situation, in whichthe spiritual and cultural beliefs of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander people are not ableto properly considered under existing legisla-tive arrangements."

Senator Harradine interjecting—

Senator MARGETTS—Senator Harradineindicated that perhaps I will not get SenatorSchacht on this issue. As far as I know, underthe Evidence Act there already is exemptionin relation to people such as priests, who haveheard incriminating evidence. People will notbe imprisoned for not giving evidence if theyare priests and they have heard a confession.It is not as if this has never happened before.It does not presuppose the way the law willdeal with these issues. It simply is looking forways of dealing with issues of cultural sensi-tivity so that they can be heard under the law.I do not think that that is unreasonable.

Senator Collins gave a terrific speech insupport of the findings of the Evatt report. Ithank Senator Kernot for indicating supportfor my amendment which, really, as has beenindicated, was well overdue three monthsago—or whenever the time was that we lastdealt with this bill. The government indicatedthat they had passed on the Evatt report to thevarious interested bodies, including stategovernments, for their comments. The stategovernments have had this for three months.

I believe it has been something like eightmonths since the report was issued.

This amendment says to ‘report on orbefore the last day of sitting in 1997’. I donot think it is unreasonable to ask for aresponse. I do not think it is unreasonable toget together the views of the community toenable the Joint Committee on Native Titleand the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderFund to conduct an inquiry and report. I thinkthis is the appropriate committee. I think it isdefinitely the appropriate time. I commendthis amendment to the Senate.

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.37 p.m.)—I wholeheartedly support the amendment thatSenator Margetts has moved. Just before Icame here I was talking with Wadjularbinnafrom the Aboriginal people on the other sideof the nation to those at Hindmarsh Island.Senator Margetts is trying to find a means ofredressing some of the concern that Wadjular-binna expressed to me as an Aboriginal per-son—that is, the need for we non-Aboriginalpeople in this country to understand that wehave an obligation to accept a difference incultures: to accept that the original culture ofthis country, while subjected to centuries ofdepredation, exists, is vibrant and is no lessimportant and enriching to this country thanthe culture we brought so recently to theseshores. It must be not only heard but alsofostered if we as a nation are to go into thenext century shedding some of the angst anddivision and repression of this and the lastcentury.

Surely we can at least begin with this smallmeasure to find a means of recognising theneed for our laws to be able to encompass thedifferent cultural values of the Aboriginalpeople of this nation. It is very easy to shrugthat off and say it does not matter, but I cantell you if the boot were on the other foot wewould feel mightily aggrieved. It is ultimatelya spiritual matter. If we ignore it we continueto repress people’s spirit, and at the sametime say, ‘We do not understand, therefore wedo not care, therefore we will ignore you,therefore we are responsible for the conse-quences.’ I think the consequences are farmore grave than many people of non-Aborigi-nal culture have assessed.


It is our responsibility as law-makers in thisplace to face that responsibility, to addressour obligation and to incorporate, at least onan equal basis, their cultural, spiritual andlegal beliefs when there are dealings with theAboriginal people of this nation. So it is veryimportant indeed that this motion by SenatorMargetts, which seeks to find a way to do justthat, be supported. It is a very importantmotion. It is a very critical means of trying tofind an answer to a problem we created—onefor which we have not yet found a solution.We ignore it not only at our peril but also ata great cost to our own esteem further downthe line as more and more of us recognise thatwe are wrong to do so.

I wholeheartedly support this motion. I hopeit will get the Senate’s support. I hope thatthe Senate will, through this mechanism, tryto find a better way of dealing with thephenomenally important and enriching Abo-riginal culture of this nation.

Senator HERRON (Queensland—Ministerfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs) (8.42 p.m.)—The government will beopposing the amendment because we believethat sending the matter to a committee, asproposed by Senator Margetts, would onlyserve to delay reforming the act. All sidesagree it is necessary and urgent—there is noquestion about that. We have gone through aprocess, as you know. I mentioned previouslythat I issued a press release late last yearannouncing proposals for reforming theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HeritageProtection Act. Under the proposals theCommonwealth act will be retained as an actof last resort to apply where state and territorylegislation does not meet national minimumstandards or where national interest consider-ations exist.

The processes for granting protection toAboriginal sacred sites under the Common-wealth act will also be substantially improved.A discussion paper on national minimumstandards was sent for comment to the statesand territories and indigenous, mining, pasto-ral and other relevant interests today. So thatis already being achieved, Senator Margetts.The Evatt report on the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Heritage Protection Act has

also been sent out for general comment. I donot know what more we can do.

Senator Kernot interjecting—

Senator HERRON—Reforming the Abo-riginal and Torres Strait Islander HeritageProtection Act, Senator Kernot, is a complexundertaking. Proper consultations will berequired with a wide range of interestedparties, including the states and territories andindigenous people themselves.

As everybody should know if they do notknow already, consulting the indigenouspeople in particular requires a considerableamount of time in their interest because oftheir dispersal. Similarly, consultation isoccurring with pastoralists and miners, andthat will take time. However, it is intended,of course, that legislation will be passed bythe end of this year. It will be, and so I donot believe that anything would be achievedby the passage of this amendment. I will beopposing it.

Senator BOB COLLINS (Northern Terri-tory) (8.44 p.m.)—You have got to be verycareful: the minister almost had me there forhalf a second until I re-read the amendment.The minister has said that he does not wantto support this amendment because it maywell have the effect—this is what he said—ofdelaying the government actually doingsomething about this report it has now had foreight months. Of course, the amendment hasno such—

Senator Woodley—He tried to do thatwithout needing any amendments.

Senator BOB COLLINS—Thank you,Senator Woodley. I am responding to thatinterjection so that it will get in theHansard.The amendment, of course, says ‘on or beforethe last day of sitting in 1997’.

I would imagine that if Senator Margetts,Senator Brown, Senator Kernot, I and allothers who have a close interest in theseissues hear from the minister that he in factintends to act on this much earlier I have notthe slightest doubt that we would all cooper-ate fully with him in ensuring that this refer-ence to the committee was completed in goodtime to assist him in his intention to respond.


I have to say, Minister, I have some degreeof puzzlement as to your opposition to thisreference considering the fact that in myview, appropriately and responsively, thismajor report is an excellent report. I saidearlier in the debate today that if anybody hasconcerns about the operation of this act—andI have had this criticism made to me directly,and it falls to stony ground if you read this,that this act has been abused by Aboriginalpeople—the cold hard facts are that only 99applications in total over 12 years have evenbeen made under the act. As I said before,this review points out that, as we speak, onlyone single protection order currently exists inthe whole of Australia at Alice Springs.

It is a major piece of work, and I wouldhave thought that before the Senate actuallypasses any amendments being referred to aSenate committee in some way or other is ascertain as the sun rising tomorrow morning iscertain. I am not quite sure what you achieveby opposing this, with respect. There will bea reference to a Senate committee of thisinevitably at some stage before the Senatepasses whatever legislation you might bringforward. Frankly, it might as well go to thecommittee now as later. Sooner or later it isgoing to go to a committee; it might as wellbe tonight.

I say on the record—and I am sure I wouldbe joined by Senator Kernot and SenatorMargetts who has moved the motion—that wewill all cooperate to the fullest extent withyou, Minister, in expediting that process.

Senator Kernot—I’m on that committee.Senator BOB COLLINS—Fine. I have

connections on that committee in that case. Iam sure Senator Kernot would give such anassurance that the committee would cooperatefully with you, Minister, to expedite the workof the committee if you supported this amend-ment. It is just a question of waiting a monthand getting it referred some other way.

I want to conclude by saying on the re-cord—and I want to be very careful to saythis—that there are a great many recommen-dations in this report. I have concerns aboutsome of them and for that reason I just wantto refer to these words in the amendment,which will certainly not prevent me from

voting for it, where it says ‘the urgent needfor amendments . . . consistent with the reportof the Review’. I would certainly not wantthat read as concurrence with every recom-mendation of the report.

I think that the Hon. Elizabeth Evatt hasdone an excellent job of examining the impactof this act and has made a number of, I think,very positive suggestions for both Aboriginaland non-Aboriginal people as to how thematters can be resolved. But at this stage wewould not want to be locked into any positionof necessarily supporting each and everyamendment. With that caveat placed on it,Senator Margetts—and I am sure you under-stand it—we will be supporting this reference.

Senator HERRON (Queensland—Ministerfor Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs) (8.50 p.m.)—Winding up—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Patterson)—You cannot wind up.

Question put:That the amendments (Senator Margetts’) be

agreed to.


Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 1

——AYES

Allison, L. Bourne, V.Brown, B. Carr, K.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P.Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B.Kernot, C. Lees, M. H.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Murray, A.Neal, B. J. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N.West, S. M. Woodley, J.


NOESAbetz, E. Alston, R. K. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferris, JGibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. * Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W.

PAIRSForeman, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J.Gibbs, B. Ferguson, A. B.Hogg, J. Heffernan, W.O’Brien, K. W. K. Tambling, G. E. J.

* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.(Senator Bolkus did not vote, to compensate


(Senator Bishop did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the resignation ofSenator Woods.)

Original motion, as amended, agreed to.Report adopted.

Third ReadingSenator HERRON (Queensland—Minister

for Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAffairs) (8.56 p.m.)—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.I was denied the opportunity to speak previ-ously on the third reading by what I supposewould best be called a misadventure, and Iwant to put that on the record. I was opposingthe previous amendment because it seemedmore logical for the reports coming throughon the heritage protection act to go off to thecommittee for further debate and discussioninstead of as it stands now, with this amend-ment being carried, that it would go offbefore the reports came through on the Evattreport. But, in its wisdom, the Senate haspassed that motion—and I accept that theamendment be accepted—but it will achievefar less, and I was denied the opportunity tosay that before the division occurred.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Patterson)—Senator Herron, Iapologise. It was a misunderstanding. Ithought you had spoken and I was advisedthat you had spoken. We made an error andI apologise that you did not have the oppor-tunity to speak on that amendment.

Question put:That the bill be now read a third time.


Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 44

——AYES

Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D.Brownhill, D. G. C. Campbell, I. G.Carr, K. Chapman, H. G. P.Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A.Collins, R. L. Colston, M. A.Conroy, S. Coonan, H.Cooney, B. Crane, W.Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferris, J Foreman, D. J.Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hogg, J.Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C.Lundy, K. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P.Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M.O’Brien, K. W. K. O’Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. Short, J. R.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.West, S. M.

NOESAllison, L. Bourne, V. *Brown, B. Kernot, C.Lees, M. H. Margetts, D.Murray, A. Stott Despoja, N.Woodley, J.

* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.


ORDER OF BUSINESS

Government BusinessMotion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That the order of consideration of Government

Business for the remainder of today be as follows:Government Business orders of the day—No. 4— Consideration in committee of the

whole of messages Nos 216, 217 and218 from the House of Representatives(Private Health Insurance IncentivesBill 1996 and two related bills)

No. 6— Superannuation Contributions Sur-charge (Assessment and Collection)Bill 1997 and six related bills.

PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCEINCENTIVES BILL 1996

MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENTBILL (No. 2) 1996

TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT(PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

INCENTIVES) BILL 1996

Consideration of House ofRepresentatives Message

Debate resumed from 6 March.House of Representatives messages—Schedule of amendments made to which the

House of Representatives has disagreed:PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

INCENTIVES BILL 1996

MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENT BILL (No.2) 1996

(1) Clause 3-3, page 6 (lines 19 to 28), omitsubclause (4), substitute:

(4) Themaximum amountis:

(a) if at all times during the financial yearthe person covered by the policy is not adependent child and is not the partner ofanother person—$35,000 adjusted, asappropriate, by the index number; or

(b) if at any time during the financial yearthe person covered by the policy is not adependent child and is the partner ofanother person—$70,000 adjusted, asappropriate, by the index number; or

(c) if at any time during the financial yearthe person covered by the policy is adependent child—$70,000 adjusted, asappropriate, by the index number.

Note: Fordependent child, parent andpart-ner, see the Dictionary.

For index number, see section 3-6.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), adjust-

ment of the maximum amount is determinedby multiplying the sum specified by theindex number (rounding down to the nearestwhole dollar).

Note: Forindex number, see section 3-6.(2) Clause 3-4, page 7 (lines 21 to 31), omit

subclause (4), substitute:(4) Themaximum amountis:

(a) if the persons covered by the policy donot include 2 or more dependent childrenat any time during the financial yearconcerned—$70,000 adjusted, as appro-priate, by the index number; or

(b) if, at any time during the financial year,2 or more dependent children are coveredby the policy—the amount worked out asfollows:

Note: Fordependent child, parentandpartner,see the Dictionary.

For index number, see section 3-6.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), adjust-

ment of the maximum amount is determinedby multiplying the sum specified by theindex number (rounding down to the nearestwhole dollar).

Note: Forindex number, see section 3-6.(3) Page 8 (after line 12), at the end of Division

3, add:3-6 Meaning of index numberIn section 3-3 or 3-4:(1) Index number, in relation to a maximum

amount, means the number, calculated to 3decimal places, worked out under the fol-lowing formula:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1),averageweekly earningsfor a year of income is thenumber of dollars in the sum of:

(a) the average weekly earnings for all em-ployees for the reference period in theDecember quarter immediately before theyear of income, as published by theAustralian Statistician; and

(b) the average weekly earnings for all em-ployees for the reference period in eachof the 3 quarters immediately before thatDecember quarter, as published by theAustralian Statistician.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), if at any time,whether before or after the commencementof this Part, the Australian Statistician has


published or publishes an average totalweekly earnings number in respect of a yearin substitution for an average total weeklyearnings number previously published by theAustralian Statistician in respect of thatyear, the publication of the later numbershall be disregarded for the purposes ofsections 3-3 and 3-4.

(4) If at any time, whether before or after thecommencement of this Part, the AustralianStatistician has changed or changes thereference base for the average total weeklyearnings, then, for the purposes of theapplication of sections 3-3 and 3-4 after thechange took place or takes place, regardshall be had only to numbers published interms of the new reference base.

TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (PRIVATEHEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES) BILL

1996

(1) Schedule 3, page 14 (lines 2 to 12), omit theSchedule.

Reasons of the House of Representatives fordisagreeing to the amendments of the Senate

The House does not accept the Senate’s amend-ment for the following reasons:

The increase in the threshold is an integral partof the Government’s package to boost Australia’sdeclining level of participation in private healthinsurance, a package that includes incentives forlower income earners who have private healthinsurance and an incentive on higher incomeearners to take out private health insurance; andThe $1000 threshold has not been increased sinceit was introduced in 1985-86.

The CHAIRMAN —The committee isconsidering messages Nos 216 to 218 fromthe House of Representatives, in relation tothe Private Health Insurance Bills. With theagreement of the committee I propose to callon the message relating to the Private HealthInsurance Incentives Bill 1997, followed bythe message relating to the Medicare LevyAmendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 and then themessage relating to the Taxation LawsAmendment (Private Health Insurance Incen-tives) Bill 1997.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.07p.m.)—I think it would shorten proceedingsif we have one debate on these threemessages. I therefore propose, with the leave

of the Senate, to move a motion in respect ofeach message at this stage, to make mycomments and after the debate has concludedto have the question put separately in respectof each motion. I can foreshadow that I willmove in respect of each message that thecommittee does not press its requests to whichthe House of Representatives has disagreed.

Leave granted.Senator ELLISON—At the outset, I might

assist the committee by stating the govern-ment’s position. These bills were the subjectof amendment by the opposition whichresulted in the indexation of the threshold forthe private health insurance incentives and forthe Medicare levy surcharge. This package ofbills was also altered by the opposition’ssuccessful rejection of the government’sproposed increase of the medical expensesrebate from $1,000 to $1,500.

As a result of further consideration, thegovernment has decided to amend the Tax-ation Laws Amendment (Private HealthInsurance Incentives) Bill 1997 and theMedicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996.If I might firstly deal with the taxation lawsamendment bill. These amendments deal withschedule 3 and propose that the medicalexpenses rebate be increased from $1,000 to$1,250. This will entail an increase of 25 percent rather than the 50 per cent which thegovernment previously proposed. I think itwas Senator Harradine who raised that earlierand the government has considered this.

It is important to note that this rebate hasnot been altered since its introduction in 1985.It is the government’s view that a 25 per centincrease over a period of 12 years is hardlywhat one would call harsh. This amendmenthas the benefit of easing the impact on thosepeople who claim the rebate but still increas-ing the incentive for people to move intoprivate health insurance. It also makes acontribution to the budget deficit similar tothe original review estimates contained in the1996-97 budget. This measure will involve anincrease to revenue in the region of $20million in a full year.

In relation to the second amendment, thegovernment has decided to amend theMedicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996.


This amendment increases the income thres-hold for the Medicare surcharge for familiesby $1,500 for each dependent child after thefirst child. Hence a family with three depend-ent children will have an income threshold of$103,000 per annum before the Medicaresurcharge is payable. This recognises thatfamilies with children have additional expens-es associated with those children.

The government’s private health insuranceincentives package otherwise remains thesame. We reject the amendments made by theopposition in relation to the indexation of therespective thresholds in these bills. Theopposition amendments will not help stem theflow of people moving away from privatehealth insurance and will result in a loss tothe government between now and the year2000 of over $200 million. Any benefitindexation might bring is far outweighed bythis factor.

As a result of this indexation brought uponus by the opposition, there will be a void ofsome $60 million in a full year. Where do weget money to fill that void? Do we take itfrom worthwhile programs which none of uswould like to see affected by such a move?The opposition knows that there is a cost toeverything and it has to ask itself whetherindexation is worth that sort of decision inorder to make a political point.

In any event, there are good precedents fora fixed threshold. I would refer to the incometax free threshold which exists now. Both thisgovernment and the former government haveseen fit to preserve this fixed threshold aswell as others. There is similarly no need toextend or index the thresholds contained inthese bills. I believe the general arguments inmatters generally touching on this packagewere well canvassed when these bills werelast before the Senate. I do not intend to delaythe Senate further.

I might add, however, that, during thedebate on this matter on 4 March 1997, Imade a statement that I need to correct. Thatfollowed a question from Senator Neal. Whendiscussing in committee the mechanism forchanging the qualifying income threshold forthe private health insurance incentives, Iindicated that this threshold could only be

changed through a disallowable instrument. I,of course, meant to refer to the actual amountof the incentive rather than the qualifyingthreshold. It is the amount of the incentivethat is the subject of a disallowable instru-ment.

I have already advised Senator Neal that Ireferred to the wrong provision. I believenothing flows from this. I commend thesebills and the government amendments to theSenate.

Senator Neal—I am not quite sure exactlyhow the parliamentary secretary intends toapproach the messages. Are you formallymoving your amendments?

Senator ELLISON—There are two aspectsto this. Firstly, with respect to each messageI will move that the committee does not pressits requests for amendments to which theHouse of Representatives has disagreed. Thatdeals with the three amendments that theopposition passed. So we do not press ourrequests for those. In turn, I will move theamendments I have indicated, which I believehave been circulated in the chamber.

The CHAIRMAN —It seems to me that, ifyou wish to debate these matters, we do nothave to worry about the first motion yet. Youcan have a global debate on all three.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.14p.m.)—I just want to make some initialinquiries of the parliamentary secretary. In hisaddress in the Senate just a few moments ago,he indicated that the indexation would cost$60 million each year. I was wondering if hecould break that down and indicate exactlyhow that is calculated and whether thatincludes both the first and second amend-ments which the opposition moved in theSenate and, if so, how that is broken up.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.15p.m.)—I have here a breakdown of the costsin relation to the indexation in respect ofthresholds. With respect to the private healthincentive threshold, I am advised that the costwould be: 1998-99, $11 million; 1999-2000,$24 million; and 2000-01, $38 million. That


adds up to a total of $73 million. With respectto the Medicare surcharge threshold index-ation, I am advised that the cost is: 1998-99,nil; 1999-2000, $10 million; 2000-01, $25million. That would be a total of $35 million.I am advised that, in the year 1999-2000, the$10 million would relate to when the assess-ments would first become effective.

Senator Neal—Could I ask the parlia-mentary secretary to table that document; it isa bit hard to understand exactly what figuresyou are indicating.

Senator ELLISON—Certainly, that can bedone. I will arrange to have that photocopiedin an appropriate form and it can be tabled.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.16p.m.)—Thank you. I do wish to indicate thatthe two amendments that have been circulatedin relation to this matter by the governmentwill not be opposed by the opposition. I mustconfess that they have been circulated quitelate, so I have not had the opportunity toappraise in detail the technicalities of theamendments, but I assume that they do whatthe parliamentary secretary has indicated—inrelation to the Taxation Laws AmendmentBill, that it decreases the amount of expendi-ture that must be incurred before a tax rebateis provided; and in relation to the MedicareLevy Amendment Bill, that it provides anadditional allowance before the levy comesinto play for those who have children. Couldthe parliamentary secretary confirm that theadditional amount allowed to be earned beforethe levy comes into play is $1,500 per child?

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.18p.m.)—It is $1,500 per child after the firstchild. The example I gave was that, if youhad three children, your threshold would be$103,000 and that is calculated on the basisthat it does not relate to the first child. Thesecond child would be $101,500. The thirdchild would be another $1,500 and so on.

Senator Neal—Is there an upper limit onthe number of children that you receive the$1,500 for?

Senator ELLISON—There is no upperlimit to the number of children nor to thethreshold.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.18p.m.)—I would like to indicate at this stagethat the opposition will not be pressing theirfirst amendment which was moved in theSenate—that is, amendment to the PrivateHealth Insurance Incentives Bill. There is aconcern in the opposition that, even though itwould be fairer and more equitable for thereto be indexation of the income level forpayment of the levy, any further attempt toamend this bill may mean that the legislationis delayed and those who need the relief andare looking forward to it may well not receiveit as soon as they might otherwise. So we willnot be pressing that particular item.

In relation to the second amendment thatwas moved—to the Medicare Levy Amend-ment Bill, and the indexation of the thresholdfor those high income earners—the oppositiondoes intend to continue to press that amend-ment. In fact, some events that have occurredsince this matter first came before the Senatewould lead us to the view that it is really verymuch the position that we feared.

I was looking back in theHansardat someof the statements made by the parliamentarysecretary. I was somewhat concerned that hemay have misled the Senate—I would hopeinadvertently, but potentially intentionally. Hewas asked by me—and pressed quite heavilyon this point—whether the government hadany plans to reduce the income level wherethe Medicare levy for high income earnerswould come into play. The parliamentarysecretary responded on at least two occa-sions—and I am paraphrasing—that therewere no plans to drop the threshold level.You may recall that, subsequently, a docu-ment came into the hands of the oppositionthat showed that our fears were extremelywell-founded. That document was in a sub-mission from the department of health to theERC which suggested that savings could beachieved by reducing the level of the thres-hold and bringing the levy into play at alower income level.

I do not make those suggestions lightly.The document that we were provided with


indicated that copies were given both to MrsMoylan and to Senator Ellison as the parlia-mentary secretary to Dr Wooldridge. I wouldlike the parliamentary secretary to respond tothat issue and to indicate, firstly, if thegovernment is again prepared to make anundertaking that the threshold will not bedropped for the levy and, secondly, to explainwhy the statement was made previously thatthere were no plans when obviously SenatorEllison had in his possession this documentthat I refer to.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.22p.m.)—The document to which Senator Nealrefers dealt with a number of matters. I canconcern myself with only the matters whichdeal with the areas for which I have responsi-bility. They do not include the matter raisedby Senator Neal.

Nonetheless, that document was merely anoption which was put by the department. Ibelieve that the Minister for Health andFamily Services (Dr Wooldridge) has ex-plained in the other place the character of thatdocument extensively. It is not a plan. It isnot a decision that the government has taken.It has no standing as a government documentas such. Therefore, when the government saysit has no plans, it has no plans. That docu-ment does not form part of a plan. Thecommon use of the word ‘plan’ in the Englishlanguage is for a decision that someone isabout to embark on. It is a design that some-one has decided to implement. That documentdoes not constitute such a thing, and MinisterWooldridge made that very clear in the otherplace.

To the extent that I concern myself withonly that part of the document which dealswith my area of responsibility and did notinclude the matter that Senator Neil raised, Idid not turn my mind to that aspect of thethreshold that she mentioned. But, in anyevent, this document was not a plan norformed any part of the government’s plan. Itwas an option that departments put to govern-ments from time to time, just as they didwhen the opposition was in government.

Options were put to the government by thedepartment then but they did not form part ofplans.

Finally, I have repeatedly said to thoseopposite that I cannot give undertakings as towhat will be in the budget in this year or anyother year. You referred to the statements ofSenator Gareth Evans, as he then was, in thisvery chamber. He gave similar statements tothe then opposition when they requestedsimilar undertakings from him.

Senator LEES (South Australia—DeputyLeader of the Australian Democrats) (9.25p.m.)—I will speak to all three bills in justone hit, as it were, unless issues come up, asthey tend to in this place, that I cannot resistresponding to. I will begin with the PrivateHealth Insurance Incentives Bill 1996. Wewill not continue to press for this amend-ment—indeed, we will also not continue topress for a similar amendment to theMedicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2)—partly because of the amount of moneyinvolved. I think we have made the point veryclear to the government that it is now on theirhead to ensure that the indexation is cateredfor if they really do believe that this is theway to get people into private health insur-ance and thereby solve some of the problemsbeing faced by our health system.

I again make the point that when we lookat taking money out of government coffers—in this case, for health—it is always tagged tothe relevant portfolio area. We are being toldthat this is a health measure, it will cost $200-odd million and therefore it has to come outof the health budget. But when we have theopportunity to raise some moneys, such asfrom an increase in the Medicare levy, whichwe will also be debating in a moment, we aretold, ‘No, sorry. We can’t actually put themoney we raise into health.’ We are veryquick to take money out but, as was the casewhen we discussed these bills before—indeed,it was made very clear by the Minister forHealth and Family Services (Dr Wool-dridge)—there is no guarantee that any of theextra money we raise will end up in thehealth budget.

The Australian Democrats believe that theyneed to make this point yet again, so I flag


now very clearly that, when we debate theindexation and when we have the third read-ing on the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill(No.2 ), I will call for a division to make thepoint that all the additional money we areraising should go—must go—into our publichealth system. I am not speaking about justhospitals, I am talking about our public healthsystem—be it dental health services, com-munity health services, mental health services.

As I said before, all the additional moneyraised from the increase in the levy should gointo public health. The government shouldhave given us a much clearer explanation asto why the Democrat amendments that wouldhave raised between $360 million and $380million a year will not be supported when wecould have had a substantial improvement inour public health system.

I note that we have some additional amend-ments before us—in particular, to theMedicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2)—inrelation to what is now the family surchargethreshold. We are quite happy to work withyou on that one. I note also that you are nowputting before us a change to the TaxationLaws Amendment Bill to reduce the medicalexpenses rebate threshold from, if I amreading this properly, $1,430 to $1,250. Atleast we see there is some recognition that a$500 increase—although it does not look tome like a $500 increase; I am not quite surewhere that figure came from, as I thought wewere talking about $1,500—was too high. Atleast we now have a more reasonable figure.

As this will now be supported here, all Ican say is that surely it is about time thisgovernment gave some encouragement tothose people who are prepared to self-insure.If we do want to see people move into theprivate sector, we should not keep trying topush them into the private health insurancefunds when they have already voted with theirfeet and shown they really do not wish to getinto the prescribed or approved funds. Manypeople are self-insuring. So, whilst we are stilldisappointed that there is an increase in therebate threshold, at least it is a lot better thanthe $500 originally proposed.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for

Health and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.29p.m.)—The $430 that Senator Lees refers torelates to the first year, and of course by thetime that is effected it is based on a propor-tionate part of the year. Thereafter it wouldhave been $500, but I think that that is quiteirrelevant now because we are dealing with$250 for each year. I say to Senator Lees thatthe government’s firm view is that the fundsraised from the Medicare levy have neverbeen hypothecated towards health funding andthat the government is not about to changethat long precedent.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.29p.m.)—Your explanation of your amendmentto the Taxation Laws Amendment (PrivateHealth Insurance Incentives) Bill has raisedmore questions than it answered. Could youexplain exactly what is your view of theeffect of that amendment? It certainly is notclear to me.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.30p.m.)—The current medical expenses rebateis $1,000. We previously proposed that it beincreased from $1,000 to $1,500, an increaseof 50 per cent. We are now proposing that itbe increased by 25 per cent to $1,250. It is assimple as that: a $250 increase.

Senator Neal—Does the amendment in anyway affect any further years after that or willit continue to be $1,250?

Senator ELLISON—That $250 increaseper year will stand until such time as it isaltered in the future, if ever.

Senator Neal—Does that mean a $250increase each year so that it will be $1,250,$1,500, $1,750—

Senator ELLISON—No. It will apply notto each respective year in an accumulativesense. The amendment is proposed as of nowand will remain as such until changed andwill require an amendment to the act. So itwill be $1,250 until such time as it is changedby an act of parliament.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.32p.m.)—I wish to indicate that, before we vote


further on this matter, the opposition will bepressing what was originally its third amend-ment in this package—that is the TaxationLaws Amendment (Private Health InsuranceIncentives) Bill—which relates to taking theexpenditure back down to $1,000. I ask forour original second amendment and the thirdamendment to be put to the chamber separate-ly from the total message.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.32p.m.)—I want to make two very brief obser-vations. I know time is on the wing and thereis not really time to have a full-scale debateon this matter. I feel that the action of theopposition in respect of this has set the scenefor some improvements to be made. I ac-knowledge the work that was done by SenatorNeal on that particular matter. The figuresthat have been given by the government as tothe lost revenue does of course bear heavilyon my mind. I have come to the view that Iwill not vote to continue to press for theamendments.

I note what the government is proposinghere. At least they are starting to recognisethat a family of whatever income with chil-dren has more necessary expenditure thanthose without. I commend the government forat least acknowledging that. The amount of$1,500 is, I suppose, a start. I acknowledgethat the government has at least attempted toacknowledge that principle.

I am rather concerned as well that the$2,100 per child that is operative in respect ofthe cut-in figure for the Medicare levy to bepaid—I am not talking about the one per centincrease—has not been changed for abouteight years. It is quite clear that the latestfigure used by this government in respect ofchildren is $3,000. That $3,000 is operativein respect of the family tax initiative. I wouldhave thought that the government ought to behaving a look at that in the context of thebudget. That is possible, but presumably thegovernment does not feel it is appropriate forthat matter to be determined at this particularstage.

The figure of $1,250 is probably based oninflation and, under those circumstances, I amprepared to accept that. So, in short, I willagree with the propositions being put forward

by the parliamentary secretary not to insistupon the amendments that the Senate made.I will be voting for the amendments putforward by the parliamentary secretary. Theamendments to the Medicare Levy Amend-ment Bill (No. 2) 1996 and the TaxationLaws Amendment (Private Health InsuranceIncentives) Bill 1997 are an improvement.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.37p.m.)—Briefly, can I say through you, MrChairman, to Senator Harradine, that theTreasurer has advised me that, in the contextof the forthcoming budget, he undertakes toconsider your comments in relation to the$2,100 increase in the threshold for childrenthat you have mentioned.

The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of thecommittee to now proceed with the individualbills? Perhaps we could start with the PrivateHealth Insurance Incentives Bill 1996.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.37p.m.)—Yes. Mr Chairman, we have had anindication that some matters are in contentionand others are not. As I understand it, the tworequests dealing with the Private HealthInsurance Incentives Bill 1996 and theMedicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996will not be pressed. Is that right?

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) ( 9.38p.m.)—No. The Private Health InsuranceIncentives Bill amendment will not bepressed, but the Medicare Levy AmendmentBill (No. 2) will be pressed.


Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.39p.m.)—With respect to message No. 216,relating to the Private Health InsuranceIncentives Bill 1996, I move:

That the committee does not press its requestsfor amendments not made by the House of Repre-


sentatives to the Private Health Insurance Incen-tives Bill 1997.

Question resolved in the affirmative.MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENT BILL

(No. 2) 1996

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.39p.m.)—With respect to message No. 217,relating to the Medicare Levy AmendmentBill (No. 2) 1996, I move:

That the committee: does not press its requestsfor amendments not made by the House of Repre-sentatives to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill(No. 2) 1996.

Question put:That the motion (Senator Ellison’s) be agreed

to.

The committee divided. [9.44 p.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 15

——AYES

Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.Crane, W. Eggleston, A.Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B.Ferris, J Gibson, B. F.Harradine, B. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Kernot, C. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Murray, A. Newman, J. M.O’Chee, W. G. * Parer, W. R.Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E.Short, J. R. Stott Despoja, N.Tierney, J. Troeth, J.Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W.Woodley, J.

NOESBrown, B. Childs, B. K.Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. *Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B.Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.Faulkner, J. P. Foreman, D. J.

NOESForshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M.Schacht, C. C. West, S. M.

PAIRSHeffernan, W. Carr, K.McGauran, J. J. J. Collins, R. L.Minchin, N. H. Sherry, N.Tambling, G. E. J. Crowley, R. A.

* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.(Senator Bolkus did not vote, to compensate



Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to:That the House of Representatives be requested

to make the following amendments:Schedule 2, page 5 (after line 31), after item 3,insert:

3A After section 3Insert:

3A Meaning of family surcharge thresholdIn sections 8C, 8D, 8F and 8G:family surcharge thresholdfor a year of incomeis:(a) $100,000; or(b) if a person has 2 or more dependants who

are children—the amount worked out asfollows:

$100,000 + ($1,500 x (Number of dependantswho are children—1))

Example: If aperson has 3 dependants who arechildren, the family surcharge thres-hold under paragraph (b) is:

$100,000 + ($1,500 x (3-1)) = $103,000Schedule 2, item 4, page 7 (line 16), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (line 23), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (line 4), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 9 (line 8), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".


Schedule 2, item 4, page 10 (line 16), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 11 (line 20), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (line 3), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".Schedule 2, item 4, page 12 (line 7), omit"$100,000", substitute "the family surchargethreshold".

TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT(PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE

INCENTIVES) BILL 1997Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.50p.m.)—I now propose to move, one, that thecommittee does not insist upon its amendmentdisagreed to by the House of House of Repre-sentatives and, two, the further amendmentsto the bill, as circulated.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.50p.m.)—Could I request that those items betaken separately? Otherwise we would berequired to vote opposite ways at the sametime, and that would be rather difficult.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.51p.m.)—I understand Senator Neal’s dilemma.Therefore, in relation to message No. 218, Imove:

That the committee does not insist upon itsamendment disagreed to by the House of Represen-tatives

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.51p.m.)—Before we proceed to vote on thisissue, I would like to clarify exactly what theconsequences of the two amendments, ascirculated, might be. I will put a propositionto which I hope the parliamentary secretarywill indicate his agreement or otherwise. Itappears to me that at the present time thelevel of expenditure required before you canachieve a rebate in the bill is $1,500. I do notmean presently at law, but presently with thisbill. If no amendment were moved, it wouldremain at $1,500. I wonder whether the

parliamentary secretary could advise me onthat.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.52p.m.)—The situation is that, as it has beenreturned from the House of Representatives,the level is $1,500. That would then bereduced to $1,250 by the subsequent motionwhich I would move to amend this bill.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.52p.m.)—But you have not yet moved thatamendment at this stage. That is the case.You are doing that second?

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.53p.m.)—I think we have to do it that waybecause sequentially that is how things haveoccurred, and you have asked that we take itseparately. That is why we face the dilemmayou mentioned, because we have taken itseparately. I was trying to do it all in oneaction. By taking it separately, we accept the$1,500 and then, by the second action, wereduce it to $1,250. I was hoping to do it allin one action so that you would not have toput the position where we would be facing the$1,500 rebate. I do not know how else we cando it, Senator Neal.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.53p.m.)—Parliamentary Secretary, I did notwish to mislead you. I was not suggesting thatit should be done in any other way. In fact, itsuits me to do it as you are doing it now. Ijust wanted to be exactly sure of how itaffected the bill before we voted. Could theparliamentary secretary also advise the Senateof the difference in cost to the governmentbetween the $1,500 level and the $1,250level, which the government is proposing.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.54p.m.)—I am advised it is in the region of $22million. That is the difference between $1,250and $1,500.


Senator Neal—Is that amount each year orover a certain time?

Senator ELLISON—That is in a full year.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.54p.m.)—Will that cost continue to be of thesame amount each year or will it only be aonce off and there will be no further cost?Will it continue to be $22 million each yearor a different sum each year thereafter? Willthere be a variation?

Senator Ellison—No, there will not be. Iam advised there will be approximately $22million for each year.

The CHAIRMAN —Is it satisfactory tomove the two together, Senator Neal?

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (9.55p.m.)—No, I am sorry, Mr Chairman. It isquite important for the purposes of what theopposition is doing that they be voted onseparately.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.55p.m.)—In respect of the question that SenatorNeal raised, what she was asking was, Ibelieve: what would the effect be if themotion that is moved by the parliamentarysecretary is, first, adopted or, second, nega-tived? The Taxation Laws Amendment (Pri-vate Health Insurance Incentives) Bill con-tained discrete sections which were excised.Normally, for example, if the motion that youmove is negatived, then what would happenis that amendments that are made are, in fact,no longer in the bill. But when the questionis put that the clause stand as printed, theeffect of a negative vote on this particularoccasion would mean, yes, the $1,500 couldbe retained in the bill. That is as I see it.

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forHealth and Family Services and ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General) (9.57p.m.)—I think what we will do to allay anyfears is to do it in the reverse order to whichI indicated; that is, that we deal with theamendments, as circulated. We will deal withthat first. After that, we will deal with themotion in relation to message No. 218 whichI moved earlier which does not insist upon theamendment disagreed to by the House ofRepresentatives. That will enable us to pass

the $1,250 to begin with and then just dis-pense with the $1,500 thereafter, because I dothink this order is wrong. Therefore, I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 4 and 5), omit sub-

clause (5).

(2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 14 (line 5), omit"$1,430", substitute "$1,250".

(3) Schedule 3, item 2, page 14 (lines 6 and 7),omit the item.

(4) Schedule 3, item 3, page 14 (lines 8 to 12),omit the item, substitute:

3 Application

The amendment made by this Schedule appliesto assessments in respect of the 1996-97 year

of income and for all later years of income.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN —I will restate the earlierquestion. The question is that the committeedoes not insist upon its amendment disagreedto by the House of Representatives.

Question put:That the committee does not insist upon its

amendment disagreed to by the House of Represen-tatives.

The committee divided. [10.02 p.m.](The Chairman—Senator M.A. Colston)

Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 17

——AYES

Abetz, E. Allison, L.Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D.

AYESBourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C.Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G.Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, JGibson, B. F. Harradine, B.Herron, J. Hill, R. M.Kemp, R. Kernot, C.Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H.Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S.MacGibbon, D. J. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. *Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Short, J. R.Stott Despoja, N. Tierney, J.


AYESTroeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.

NOESBrown, B. Childs, B. K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Conroy, S. * Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A.Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G.Gibbs, B. Hogg, J.Lundy, K. Mackay, S.Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P.Murphy, S. M. Neal, B. J.O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.West, S. M.

PAIRSHeffernan, W. Denman, K. J.McGauran, J. J. J. Sherry, N.Minchin, N. H. Evans, C. V.Tambling, G. E. J. Carr, K.

* denotes teller


(Senator Bolkus did not vote, to compensatefor the vacancy caused by the death of Sena-tor Panizza.)


The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Murphy)—The committee hasconsidered messages 216, 217 and 218 fromthe House of Representatives in relation to thePrivate Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1996and two associated bills and has resolved:

(1) not to press requests for amendments tothe Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill1997 to which the House of House of Repre-sentatives has disagreed, and

(2) not to press its requests for amendmentsto the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No.2) 1996 to which the House of Representa-tives has disagreed, and to request the Houseof Representatives to make further amend-ments to the bill, and

(3) not to insist upon its amendments to theTaxation Laws Amendment (Private HealthInsurance Incentives) Bill 1997 disagreed toby the House of Representatives, and to makefurther amendments to the bill.

Adoption of ReportMotion (by Senator Ellison) proposed:

That the report of the committee be adopted.

Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (10.07p.m.)—I want to indicate at this stage that theopposition will not be opposing this package.It is firmly our view that this will not havethe effect of preventing the drain of member-ship from the private health insuranceschemes, that it will not remedy the problemsthat are presently in place in the publichospital system and that this ineffectivepackage will cost the sum of some $1.7billion. But, bearing in mind that the govern-ment have the responsibility to resolve thesedifficulties—it is in their hands—we will givethem the opportunity by allowing them to putthis package through. But, as it were, if itfails, be it on their heads.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Report adopted.


Third ReadingBill (on motion bySenator Ellison) read a

third time.

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETINGSenator HILL (South Australia—Minister

for the Environment) (10.09 p.m.)—byleave—I move:

That:(1) The Senate shall sit on Tuesday, 6 May,

Wednesday, 7 May and Monday, 12 May1997.

(2) The hours of meeting shall be:Tuesday, 6 May:

12.30 pm to 7 pm, 8 pm to 11.40 pm.Wednesday, 7 May:

9.30 am to 1 pm, 2 pm to 7 pm, 8 pm to11.40 pm.

Monday, 12 May:12.30 pm to 7 pm, 8 pm to 11.40 pm.

(3) The routine of business for Tuesday andWednesday, 6 and 7 May, shall be:

(a) government business only till 2 pm andafter 8 pm, and

(b) as set down in standing order 57 from 2pm to 7 pm.


(4) The routine of business for Monday, 12May shall be government business only.

(5) The question for the adjournment shall beproposed at 11 pm.

(6) That the order of the Senate of 12 Decem-ber 1996, relating to estimates hearings, bevaried to provide that:

(a) supplementary hearings in respect of the1996-97 additional estimates for the Com-munity Affairs, Employment, Educationand Training, Economics, and Financeand Public Administration LegislationCommittees be held on Thursday, 8 May;

(b) supplementary hearings in respect of the1996-97 additional estimates for theEnvironment, Recreation, Communica-tions and the Arts, Foreign Affairs, De-fence and Trade, Legal and Constitu-tional, and Rural and Regional Affairsand Transport Legislation Committees beheld on Friday, 9 May;

(c) if required, additional hearings in respectof the additional estimates may be heldby any legislation committee during thesittings of the Senate on Monday, 12May.

I hope everyone has now got the motion. Thepurpose is to provide for three extra sittingdays for the Senate just before the start of thewinter sittings. It would be Tuesday, 6 May,Wednesday, 7 May and Monday, 12 May.Basically, the first two days of those wouldbe what we might describe as normal Senateschedules, with some variation at the end ofthe day. Monday would be for governmentbusiness, and Tuesday the 6th and Wednesdaythe 7th would then be followed by the twoplanned estimates days.

These extra sitting days and the times anddetails have been the subject of some discus-sion around the chamber. They are at therequest of the government to facilitate dealingwith what we might describe as leftovers fromthe government’s program, which is quiteextensive. They are not designed to allow newbills to be debated, but to deal with some ofthose very important bills that are not goingto be dealt with, because of the pressure oftime, in this first session.

There is no doubt that we have had beforethe Senate in this session some very majorpackages. They have taken considerable timeand it has meant that the government was not

able to make the progress it would desirebefore the next budget, which, of course, withthe new schedule, is brought on earlier thisyear. With that in mind, we have sought thecooperation and support of other parties andIndependents in this place. I put this motionto the Senate urging that it be adopted.

It would be our intention to give notice tohonourable senators, well before these days,of the bills that we would hope to havedebated on those days, so that proper prepara-tion can be made for them and orderly prac-tice can be adopted. I also indicate that Irecognise that this means that there will be anadditional cost for both services to senatorsand services of the Senate. As it is thegovernment requesting this additional time tomeet our programming requirements, weaccept that we would have to bear thoseadditional costs.

I do appreciate the spirit within which ourrequest has been discussed tonight. I knowthat there is not enthusiasm for extra sittingdays and I can understand that. But I wouldask honourable senators to appreciate that wehave put it at the end of this break to facili-tate senators’ programs—

Senator Faulkner—And staff travel?

Senator HILL —Yes, okay. The twodays—Tuesday the 6th and Wednesday the7th—do fit quite neatly with the estimatessittings that had been earlier agreed upon. Ofcourse the following Monday, the 12th, is thestart of what will be a sitting week. I there-fore hope that it will not unduly inconveni-ence senators. Just taking Senator Faulkner’sinterjection, when I said ‘costs for services ofsenators’, I recognise within that the cost ofstaff, including staff travel.

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.13 p.m.)—I did indicate to a meeting ofleaders and whips held a short time ago thatone of the ironclad laws of business andprocess in this place is that if you tend to puton extra days or weeks of sittings at thebeginning of a session, it is much less likelyto be effective than if you in fact add sittingtimes at the end of a session.


I think the last couple of days probablydemonstrate that, on all of us, there arecertain pressures towards the end of a sessionand governments are more likely to be able toprogress a legislation program then than at thebeginning of a session. It is for those reasonsthat I do not personally believe that Tuesday,6 May and Wednesday, 7 May are the bestoptions in terms of those days that are avail-able to the government to ensure that thegovernment’s urgent legislation program isdealt with.

I really do think there is a requirement onthe government. It is an inexperiencedgovernment. It is a government that is obvi-ously struggling to manage the intricacies oflegislative programming in this chamber. Ithink all senators would agree that it has beena particularly poor performance from thegovernment in regard to its management roleover the last couple of days.

We have seen so many changes in the orderof business before the Senate that we reallyhave to concentrate very hard to try to workout what is in the government’s mind—thatis, if anything is in the government’s mind atall—as it approaches the task of managing ahefty legislation program. I am sorry to reportthat Senator Hill and his colleagues do notappear to be up to the task. But the opposi-tion, for its part, with its far greater expertiseand experience in these matters, has been ableto provide as much assistance as one can inthese circumstances. I am pleased to say thatwe—Senator Carr, Senator Evans and otherswith responsibilities; opposition office holdersin this regard—have held out the hand offriendship to try to assist Senator Hill andSenator Campbell in these dark hours.

If the Senate is to sit on Tuesday, 6 andWednesday, 7 May, I think it is appropriatethat the ordinary routine of business be dealtwith on those days, so that there will bequestion time and the capacity for the usualmatters that senators at times take advantageof, as well as there being a considerableamount of time for dedicated governmentbusiness.

Senator Schacht interjecting—Senator FAULKNER—Yes, that is true.

Of course, Monday, 12 May itself will be a

dedicated government business day. This is aproposal that is obviously only reluctantlyembraced by the opposition.

I really think the task at hand here is for thegovernment to get its act into gear in relationto the management of this chamber. It hasbeen a poor performance. Yes, you have anexcuse in terms of your inexperience and lackof understanding of the procedures andprocesses in this place. But I am sure if youlisten more closely to the advice that has beenoffered, Senator Hill, perhaps next time evenyou can do a little better than you have beenable to manage on this occasion.

What I have indicated on behalf of theopposition is that we will not be taking a dog-in-the-manger approach to this. We are notgoing to divide on this and waste the Senate’stime because clearly there is a majorityaround this particular proposal. That, I mightsay, is indicative of the level of cooperationthis government has received from the opposi-tion in relation to its legislation program—something that is acknowledged at times bythe Leader of the Government in the Senate(Senator Hill). I place that on record: you doacknowledge it at times. But the point needsto be made that this is a level of cooperationthat was never extended to the previous Laboradministration during the period that SenatorHill was Leader of the Opposition in theSenate. Any criticism of the opposition, ofcourse, is groundless.

I am glad, Senator Hill, that at last yourealise the approach you took in opposition,now that you have the experience in govern-ment to understand the difficulties of manag-ing a legislative program. I hope, SenatorHill, that after the next election when youfind yourself back in this chair you willremember it.


COMMITTEES

Membership

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Knowles)—The President hasreceived a letter from the Leader of theOpposition in the Senate nominating senatorsto be members of certain committees.


Motion (by Senator Campbell)—byleave—agreed to:

That Senators be appointed to committees asfollows:

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ReferencesCommittee—Participating member: Senator Cook for thecommittee’s inquiry into Radio Australia andAustralia Television.Substitute member: Senator Lundy to replaceSenator Cook for the committee’s inquiry intoRadio Australia and Australia Television.Legal and Constitutional Legislation Commit-tee—Participating members: Senators Childs, Gibbs,Lundy and Mackay.

TAX LAW IMPROVEMENT BILL 1996

First ReadingBill received from the House of Representa-

tives.Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to:That this bill may proceed without formalities




Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.21 p.m.)—I table a revised explanatorymemorandum and move:


I seek leave to have the second readingspeech incorporated inHansard

Leave granted.The speech read as follows—The Tax Law Improvement Bill 1996 is the

second instalment of legislation which will progres-sively replace Australia’s main tax law, the IncomeTax Assessment Act 1936.The 1936 act is on the verge of collapsing underthe weight of 60 years of constant and largelypiecemeal amendment. The rewrite of the incometax laws to make them shorter, clearer and lessburdensome is critical to the Australian taxationsystem. It will reduce compliance and administra-tive costs and make it easier for business andindividual taxpayers to fulfil their obligations.The Tax Law Improvement Project has beenperforming the task of restructuring and rewritingthe income tax law. This overhaul is vital andestablishes a robust legislative framework which

can readily absorb any future changes. By makingthe law much clearer to follow it will also enablean informed debate about future changes to our taxlaws.

The Tax Law Improvement Project team is to becongratulated for the excellent progress it hasachieved towards completing this very majorundertaking. It has been greatly assisted by thepractical insights and commercial expertise of theconsultative committee which advises on theproject’s work. The committee’s comments andsuggestions have been a valuable asset and thegovernment is most grateful for their dedication.

The Tax Law Improvement Project has pioneerednew techniques to make the legislation more user-friendly and understandable. These techniques arenow being used in other Commonwealth legislation.There has also been strong interest from overseasin the project, with New Zealand and Britain bothundertaking similar rewrite exercises.

The first instalment of the new law, the IncomeTax Assessment Act 1997, has now passed bothHouses and is awaiting Royal Assent.

Areas rewritten

This bill will build on this very sound foundationand includes rewrites of the following importantrules with general application: assessable andexempt income, deductions, trading stock, depreci-ation and gifts.

Some other rules with more specialised applicationhave also been rewritten and included in the bill.These cover entertainment expenses, primaryproduction deductions, the recoupment ofdeductible expenses and the sale of leased cars.

The bill continues to use the general featuresestablished by the Income Tax Assessment Act1997. These include a new more logical structure,a new flexible numbering system, and the extensiveuse of material to help the reader, such as exam-ples, diagrams, notes and signposts to other partsof the law.

Minor policy changes

The rewritten rules include 29 minor policy chan-ges which will make the law simpler, clearer andless burdensome for taxpayers. They will do thisby:

replacing impractical rules with ones whichfacilitate taxpayer compliance;

simplifying rules which are unnecessarily com-plex;

deleting unnecessary rules;

removing anomalies; and

clarifying ambiguities.


About half of these proposed changes enact existingadministrative arrangements which are largely tothe benefit of taxpayers.

Joint Committee of Public Accounts

The Joint Committee of Public Accounts reviewedthe Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and conclud-ed that it was a significant improvement over thecurrent law, being widely regarded as far easier toread and understand.

The joint committee has also reviewed this bill andagain considers that the rewritten law improves onits predecessor. The bill adopts all the recommen-dations of the committee, except for the time being,the recommendations about assets converted to orfrom trading stock.

A specific recommendation is the removal ofreferences to hire purchasers of plant as beingentitled to deduct depreciation. Hirers under hirepurchase agreements will continue to attractdepreciation deductions under long establishedadministrative arrangements. The other amendmentsare of a minor technical nature; they do not requireany change in policy and are mainly to makedrafting improvements and correct omissions toensure that the new law accurately reflects theexisting law.

In the course of consultation there was an attemptto formulate rules for the conversion of tradingstock to or from capital or private assets. There has,however, been ongoing debate about the drafting ofthose rules and the government has decided not toproceed, at this time, with the measures but tofurther pursue broad agreement with professionalbodies.

Revenue impact

This bill will have a broadly neutral impact onrevenue. All but two of its measures will have nomeasurable effect on revenue.

The proposal to allow a deduction for rates andland tax on premises used to produce mutual recei-pts will have a small annual cost to the revenue.

A change to bring the valuation methods for livestock closer in line with those for other kinds oftrading stock will have a revenue cost of up to $10million in most years and over $25 million in theoccasional year where there is a large fall in stockprices.

Date of effect

The government intends that the bill will applyfrom the beginning of the 1997-98 income year.

I present the explanatory memorandum whichincludes summaries of all the rewritten areas of thelaw and detailed explanations of the minor changesto the law.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Ordered that further consideration of thesecond reading of this bill be adjourned untilthe first day of sitting in the winter sittings1997, in accordance with standing order 111.


Message received from House of Represen-tatives intimating that it had agreed to theamendments made by the Senate to thefollowing bill:

Export Market Development Grants Bill 1997

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSSURCHARGE (ASSESSMENT AND

COLLECTION) BILL 1997

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSSURCHARGE IMPOSITION BILL 1997

TERMINATION PAYMENTSSURCHARGE (ASSESSMENT AND

COLLECTION) BILL 1997

TERMINATION PAYMENTSSURCHARGE IMPOSITION BILL 1997

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSSURCHARGE (CONSEQUENTIAL

AMENDMENTS) BILL 1997

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSSURCHARGE (APPLICATION TO THE

COMMONWEALTH) BILL 1997

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSSURCHARGE (APPLICATION TO THECOMMONWEALTH—REDUCTION OF

BENEFITS) BILL 1997


by Senator Campbell:That these bills be now read a second time.

Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(10.22 p.m.)—Before Senator Sherry gets tohis feet, could I table replacement revisedexplanatory memoranda relating to the Super-annuation Contributions Surcharge (Applica-tion to the Commonwealth) Bill 1997 and theSuperannuation Contributions Surcharge(Application to the Commonwealth—Reduction of Benefits) Bill 1997. These


explanatory memoranda were circulated in thechamber on 26 March 1997.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—DeputyLeader of the Opposition in the Senate)(10.22 p.m.)—There are seven bills before theSenate in relation to the superannuationsurcharge. It represents the major tax measureof the 1996-97 budget. The so-called sur-charge is estimated to raise around $1.5billion over the next three years. It is thegovernment’s major revenue raising measurefrom last August’s budget and here we are at10.30 at night, the Wednesday evening of thelast sitting day before Easter, and we wonderwhat the priorities of the government are. Itsmajor revenue raising measure, seven com-plex bills, is expected to be considered in oneand a half hours.

I indicate that we have cooperated to theextent that we have withdrawn our secondreading speakers on this legislation thisevening. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:"but for the reasons set out in paragraph (2),consideration of the bills in committee of thewhole be postponed and be made an order of theday for the day after the day on which theGovernment tables further amendments to thebills to ensure that the bills will meet the objec-tive of imposing an additional 15% tax on thesuperannuation contributions of higher incomeearners without the adverse consequences identi-fied below.(2) The reasons referred to in paragraph (1) are

as follows:While supporting in principle the Govern-ment’s proposal to phase in a 15% tax on allsuperannuation contributions made by or onbehalf of high income earners who earn inexcess of $70,000 per year, the Senate isconcerned that:(a) the bills, as currently drafted, will apply

the tax to at least one million low tomiddle income earners, particularly in thefirst year of operation; and

(b) these low to middle income earners willalso be subject to advance instalmentprovisions, resulting in the imposition ofa 22.5% tax on at least one million lowto middle income earners in the first year;and

(c) the requirement for superannuation fundsto collect tax file numbers from all mem-bers in order to determine a person’s

contributions to the fund and their preciseincome, raises significant concerns aboutthe adequacy of privacy protection forthis information; and

(d) families will be unfairly hit by the 15%tax because it includes unpaid leave,eligible termination payments and redun-dancy packages in the definition of asses-sable income, and the imposition of theadvance instalment system will substan-tially disadvantage low to middle incomeearners and their families; and

(e) the cumbersome and administrativelycomplex method of requiring superannua-tion funds to collect the tax will lead tosignificantly higher administrative coststhat all fund members will have to pay.

(f) the deletion of clause 34 of the Superan-nuation Surcharge Contributions (Assess-ment and Collection) Bill 1997 in hastestill leaves unresolved the constitutionalissues arising where a separate entity isrequired to pay a tax on behalf of anindividual; and

(g) amendments are required to section 58 ofthe Superannuation Industry SupervisionAct 1993to ensure that the tax applies tomembers of defined benefit schemes andto remove concerns about the ability oftrustees to reduce member benefits inorder to pay the tax, with a consequentialconcern that the small and large businessemployers will pay the tax; and

(h) while Federal Judges have been exemptedfrom the tax for constitutional reasons,the Government has not managed tonegotiate a satisfactory outcome with theStates in relation to the payment of thetax; and

(i) an anomaly has been created, wherebythe tax applies to private citizens andCommonwealth employees, but not toFederal Judges or state employees; and

(j) the definition of "adjusted taxable in-come" to include eligible terminationpayments, unused leave, sick leave andother once-off payments will have theeffect of unfairly catching low to middleincome earners who receive a once-offpayment during the year, which artificial-ly inflates their income above the thres-hold; and

(k) the number and nature of amendmentsmoved and new bills introduced by theGovernment since the introduction of thepackage on February 13 indicates seriousconfusion on the part of the Government;and


(l) key issues may be overlooked in the hastewith which this legislation is being rushedthrough the Parliament; and

(m) given the majority report of the SenateSelect Committee on Superannuation andthe unanimity among witnesses on seriousconcerns raised in the majority report, thebills should not proceed further before theGovernment has responded formally tothe report;

and the Senate therefore calls on the Governmentto draft further amendments to the bills toaddress these concerns.

The purpose of this amendment to the secondreading motion is in fact to defer furtherdebate on the surcharge bills in the Senatefollowing the end of the second readingdebate this evening. I would like to make itvery clear that the effect of voting for thisamendment obviously will be to defer con-sideration of the package of legislation. If thatis not carried, the Labor Party will not bevoting against the second reading but rather,as I said earlier, will be voting to defer con-sideration of the bills. If that is not carried,we will be moving into committee to considera range of amendments that we propose to putto the package of legislation before us thisevening.

The Labor Party moves this amendment dueto the following reasons. These are reasonswhich the Labor Party believes are not justcritical but fundamental to the whole natureand process of any review of this legislation.The government’s stated intention, in impos-ing the phased-in 15 per cent surcharge on allsuperannuation contributions on high incomeearners who earn between $70,000 and$85,000, was to introduce greater equity intosuperannuation. The Labor Party supportsgreater equity in superannuation.

As a consequence of this position, theLabor Party does support in principle thegovernment’s imposition of the phased-in 15per cent surcharge on superannuation contri-butions made by or on behalf of high incomeearners. However, the Labor Party does notsupport the imposition of the full 15 per centsurcharge on middle to low income earnerswho earn less than $70,000. The inclusion ofeligible termination payments, unused pay-ment of leave, redundancy payments and

other payments will have the effect of requir-ing low to middle income earners to pay this15 per cent surcharge.

This is neither fair nor equitable. Neither isit fair nor equitable when the individual willalso be required to pay an advance instalmenton the following year’s surcharge liability.This means that low to middle income earnerswill be hit by the initial surcharge liabilityand then half of that liability again. In theLabor Party’s view, it is atrocious that agovernment would consider imposing a fullpenalty tax of 15 per cent on the superannua-tion contributions of those individuals whofail to provide their tax file numbers to thesuperannuation fund.

In evidence presented to the Senate SelectCommittee on Superannuation, AMP amongstothers highlighted the difficulty in obtainingtax file numbers from members. AMP hadrecently conducted a campaign to collect taxfile numbers from members and received amere 11 per cent response rate. The problemthat the government does not seem to haveunderstood is that in many cases the superan-nuation fund has either lost contact with orthe ability to contact members. In this situa-tion there is no way of contacting members torequest tax file numbers.

A further problem is the fact that manyindividuals do not read the information theyreceive from the superannuation fund. As aconsequence of being either an itinerant,casual or part-time worker or failing to reador comprehend what is sent to them, theseindividuals will be slugged with a penalty tax.It is also concerning to the Labor oppositionthat this 15 per cent tax will have a dramaticeffect on the family. This is utterly hypocriti-cal from a government that stood solemnlybefore the Australian electorate last year on2 March and said they were about families.

How will this new 15 per cent surchargeaffect the family? The entire concept ofsuperannuation is to introduce intergenerat-ional equity. This means that if I save for myretirement through superannuation perhaps Iwill lesson the burden I will pass to mychildren and grandchildren. There is no doubtin anyone’s mind that the current age pensionof $8,300 is hardly enough for an individual


to live on. They do require other financialassistance. Often this assistance is providedby other family members or provision of stateservices.

Let me tell the Senate what a massive peaceof mind it is for Australians to think that theyare doing something positive for their old ageby saving. The surcharge will reduce theability of individuals to save adequateamounts for their retirement income. As aconsequence they will be required to ask forhelp and assistance from their family mem-bers. In an era when families are alreadydoing it tough, trying to save for children’seducation, housing and other necessary essen-tials, having to provide additional retirementincome for older family members is an addedburden.

The surcharge also impacts on the decisionsof married women. Women, as we all know,are more likely to take time off during theirworking lives to have and raise children.During this time out of the work force theyare unable to accumulate a significant, if any,level of superannuation savings. When womendo return to the work force they normallyattempt to put additional contributions intosuperannuation in order to build their retire-ment nest egg.

This surcharge bill does not provide for anyaveraging of annual taxable income andtherefore unfairly discriminates againstwomen. I will return to this point a little later,but I would just like to note that if women donot have the ability to benefit from accumu-lated compound interest as a result of reducedbenefits arising from the payment of thesurcharge it will impact very heavily on theability of a family to function.

The opposition is also extremely concernedabout the potential breaching of privacy laws.Superannuation funds are not governmentagencies. The government clearly stated onMonday when it announced its response tothe Small Business Deregulation Task Forcepackage that privacy laws will not extend tothe private sector.

The collection mechanism proposed by thegovernment currently requires all superannua-tion funds to collect tax file numbers fromtheir members. The superannuation fund is

then to match tax file numbers with superan-nuation contributions and provide all thisinformation to the tax office. In compiling allthis information, the superannuation fundswill be able to ascertain the level of taxableincome of individuals. If individuals chooseto make this information unavailable or fail toprovide tax file numbers they will be sluggedthe full 15 per cent tax. This means thatindividuals have no rights to protect theirprivacy in relation to income levels and, ofequal importance, the funds have no duty toprotect the privacy of individuals.

Labor is also concerned about the numberof constitutional questions that have beenraised in relation to this legislation. First thegovernment had to announce that FederalCourt judges would be exempt from thesurcharge due to the section 72 constitutionalprotection in relation to their remuneration.Then the states came out arguing that theCommonwealth could not tax the states ontwo different grounds.

Firstly, the state schemes are unfunded andtherefore paid out of consolidated revenue.The money does not become the property ofthe member until payment of benefit. Thismeans that prior to payment of benefit it isthe property of the states. Under section 114of the constitution, the Commonwealth is notable to tax the property of the states.

The second point that the states maderelated to the taxation power in section 51(2)which prohibits the Commonwealth fromdiscriminating in taxation between states. Dueto the different superannuation scheme de-signs used by states it will undoubtedly be thecase that some states will have to pay highersurcharge liabilities than other states. This, thestates have argued, would be unconstitutional.

Then there is the problem of state judgesand magistrates. Appearing before the SelectCommittee on Superannuation, state judgesand magistrates argued quite convincingly thatthey are required to perform some federalduties in relation to the AAT, the SocialSecurity Tribunal, et cetera. They should alsobe afforded the protection of section 72 of theconstitution. Judges and magistrates alsoargued that should this legislation pass theywould consider a High Court challenge.


What did the Treasurer and Senator Kempsay in relation to these problems? ‘Don’tworry; it’s fine. We are in negotiation withthe states over this issue. They will come tothe party.’ It is unfortunate for the govern-ment that today in theSydney MorningHerald on page 1 it quite clearly states thatthe states are not about to come to the party.We will have the ludicrous position where allCommonwealth employees and private sectoremployees will have to pay the surcharge.However, if you are employed by a stategovernment—and there are at least 25,000employees of state governments—you will nothave to pay the surcharge.

The situation got worse. On 11 March theBusiness Council of Australia represented byDennis Rose QC indicated they believed thatthe whole bill was unconstitutional because ofclause 34. He indicated that it would bebeyond the constitutional power of theCommonwealth to levy a tax on an individualand require a third entity to pay it on theirbehalf. As the entire bill revolved around thisissue, Mr Rose suggested the entire bill bewithdrawn for redrafting.

When the Labor opposition raised this issuewith the government we saw utter confusionon the government side. First the Treasurersaid that there was no constitutional issue.Then he said that the government would lookinto it. Then he said that the governmentwould seek further legal advice. Then the PMsaid that it was a plot by the superannuationfunds. I have never been aware that theBusiness Council of Australia was a superan-nuation fund.

Then finally last Thursday the governmentintroduced some amazing amendments todelete clause 34. You said that there was noproblem and it was all okay. In a pressstatement released today, the governmentindicated that further amendments will berequired to allow trustees to reduce amember’s benefit to pay the surcharge liabili-ty. It is funny, Senator Kemp; I think I raisedthis issue in question time yesterday.

This is the fourth set of amendments intro-duced into this package of legislation. This ispolicy being made up on the run. This issimply not acceptable for a bill of this level

of significance. The government has intro-duced two new bills and three sets of amend-ments to the bills and, presumably, the fourthset is on the way to try to fix the gaping holesin the legislation. Of course, the problem thathas continually plagued the government onthis issue is that once they attempt to fix oneproblem, another emerges.

The final point I would like to make is inregards to the amendment that I am movingin relation to eligible termination payments,unpaid leave, sick leave and other once-offpayments that will be caught under the defini-tion of adjustable taxable income. The effectof this definition will be to unfairly taxhundreds of thousands of Australians whowould not normally earn sufficient levels ofincome to be caught by the tax. I have somefurther comments that I will not make on thismatter at this time.

I would like to point out that this legislationis possibly unique in Australian politicalhistory. It combines a blatant repudiation ofa cast-iron pre-election commitment not tointroduce new taxes and it steadfastly refusesto honestly acknowledge the breach. It doesnot call the tax a tax; it calls it a surcharge.Frankly, the government has created greaterpolitical problems for itself by not franklyacknowledging it is a tax.

There is a massive increase in compliancecosts and procedures from the government,supposedly committed to lessening the burdenof red tape on business; a reduction in thebenefits of all members of superannuationfunds from the surcharge; a complete alien-ation of the superannuation industry andrelated professional advisers, such as account-ants, financial advisers and actuaries; nocooperation from the states and territories; theprospect that the revenue estimated to becollected will not be collected from those atwhom the tax is aimed; and the complete lackof commitment that the government is show-ing to its national savings objective.

What type of messages do these bills sendto those individuals who are doing the rightthing in saving for their retirement? Moreparticularly, what type of message does thispackage of legislation send to those individu-als for doing the right thing and taking their


retirement as a pension? Instead of encourag-ing these people to save and take their super-annuation as a pension, the government isgoing to tax them at a much greater level.

One of the biggest farces of the governmentso far has been the untruthfulness of thetaxation debate. The government has made anumber of outrageous, deliberately untruecommitments before the last election concern-ing taxation. They then solemnly promised onmany occasions not to introduce new taxesnor to increase the existing rate of taxes. Thepeople of Australia believed that they couldrely on that commitment. They are sorelydisappointed.

We have had the Treasurer, Mr Costello,Senator Short—your predecessor, SenatorKemp—the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) andvarious officials from revenue agencies bendover backwards to say that the surcharge isnot a tax. They have obfuscated through theother place, the Senate, the estimates commit-tees and numerous media interviews. All thesemantic gymnastics diminish the Treasurer’sand the government’s standing with the publicand the media. Unequivocally, the answer isyes, a surcharge is a tax. It is classified in thebudget papers as a tax by the Bureau ofStatistics. I could not put it better than DennisRose QC, who remarked before the SenateSelect Committee on Superannuation, ‘It isplainly a tax.’ Of course, nobody, not eventhe Treasurer, can maintain the pretence ofsuch a preposterous claim forever.

Over time Mr Costello, the Treasurer, haseven slipped up. We first saw this on the JohnLaws program on 26 February 1997 when hesaid:The tax that is collected on employer contributionswill be 30 per cent rather than 15 per cent.

Note ‘the tax’. This was a clear, if inadver-tent, admission that he had been fibbing sincethe budget. On 12 March 1997 on RadioNational the Treasurer said:So this is nothing new that we are introducing inthe sense of the contributions tax. It’s been operat-ing for quite some time. What we’re doing is we’rechanging the rate in relation to high incomeearners.

This is another blatant admission that this isa tax. Again, on theAM program, we heard

the attempted adroit language of the Treasur-er. He finally dropped the pretence when hesaid:No, it’s a surcharge which reduces the tax conces-sion currently available to high income earners.

The interviewer persisted and asked theTreasurer:How can you look people in the eye and say thatthis is not a tax?

Of course, he did not answer the questiondirectly; he knew he would be caught out. Buthe did not admit the truth, and he still has notdone so consciously. As a result, the publicnow knows that the surcharge is, in fact, atax.

TheAustraliannewspaper got it pretty righton 13 March with the headline, ‘Costelloconcedes super slug is a tax.’ Perhaps theAssistant Treasurer or his parliamentarysecretary could advise the Senate that if it isnot a tax, why is it collected by the AustralianTaxation Office and why is it necessary toprovide a tax file number to avoid beingcaught in the net?

In conclusion, as I have mentioned, we arevery concerned that we are dealing with thismatter at this time. It is a very importantbudget measure. It should have been dealtwith much earlier in the government’s pro-gram.

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (10.43p.m.)—This package of seven bills seeks toset up the government’s announcement in the1996 budget to impose a new 15 per centadditional contributions tax on employercontributions on behalf of high income earn-ers. It would be an understatement to say thatthis legislative package is complex and that itcreates great difficulties for superannuationfunds.

The complexity stems from a fundamentalflaw—that is, the refusal of the governmentto collect this new tax on high income earnersas a tax on high income earners. Instead, thegovernment has gone to incredible and ridicu-lous lengths to ensure that the tax is collectedby someone else. In this case it is by thesuperannuation funds.

The result will be a $100 million impost onsuperannuation funds, reducing the earnings


capacity of those superannuation funds andreducing the investment returns paid to the 95per cent of people who will not pay thesurcharge. This is so that the Treasurer (MrCostello) does not have to admit to his ownhigh income earning mates that they will bepaying more tax.

But it gets worse. The 95 per cent of peoplewho earn less than $85,000 could still end uppaying the tax surcharge if they refuse, if theyforget or if they are simply unable to providea tax file number to their superannuationprovider. The Senate Select Committee onSuperannuation was told by the super fundadministrators that they expect, at best, about40 per cent of members will get around toproviding their tax file numbers and, on theirpast experience, the funds cannot even find anaddress to contact about 20 per cent of theirmembers. So up to 60 per cent of workerscould end up paying an extra 15 per cent taxon their superannuation for simply not gettingaround to providing a tax file number.

But the legislation gets worse still. Account-ants have advised us that high income earnersare likely to desert superannuation in largenumbers, rearranging their salary packagesinto fringe benefits, shares, negatively gearedproperty and other more tax effective devices.The extent of these transfers may not be asdire as predicted, but I would expect to seemany high income earners in the privatesector with access to salary packaging takinga very long, hard look at their superannuation.With the phasing in between $70,000 and$85,000, they face marginal tax rates ofbetween 85 per cent and 103 per cent on theirsuperannuation contributions. So I wouldcertainly expect to see some movement.

The only people without access to salarypackaging paid above the $70,000 cut-offcould end up being senior public servants andpoliticians. So we could end up with a situa-tion where most high income earners exit thesystem, but most low income earners getswept up by the surcharge and the fundearnings of all are reduced by the massivecost of collecting tax file numbers and admin-istering the surcharge. While that is the worstcase scenario, I think it would be most remiss

of the parliament to pass legislation capableof producing such a result.

In short, the legislative structure set up bythis package of seven bills has very seriousproblems. I think that is a pity because theintent of the bills is something that the Demo-crats very strongly support. We stronglybelieve that superannuation contributions byhigh income earners are excessive and thatthey need to be reduced. The current superan-nuation concessions total about $6.4 billion ayear and, according to our research, the sixper cent of people earning over $50,000receive 33 per cent of those concessions whilethe 22 per cent of people earning less than$21,000 receive just three per cent of theconcessions.

They run hard against women, who receivejust 26 per cent of superannuation concessionseven though they make up 55 per cent ofthose aged 60 or more. This is clearly aludicrous result. It flows because the contribu-tions tax on superannuation is a flat 15 percent. For someone earning over $50,000 thismeans a 33c in the dollar tax concession. Butfor someone earning under $21,000, it is aconcession of just 6c in the dollar.

An EPAC report in 1994 by Howard Penderfound that employer superannuation contribu-tions provided the most tax effective invest-ment possible for high income earners. Otherssuch as Fred Argy from CEDA, ProfessorJohn Head from the Monash University,ACOSS, and former Treasury Deputy Secre-tary and National Commission of Auditmember John Fraser have also called forreform of these concessions. That Laborrefused to do so for so long showed howclose the Keating government had become tothe rich and powerful.

We do support reform of superannuation taxconcessions. Indeed, the only gripe we havewith this legislation’s intent is that it does notgo far enough. Why should people earningbetween $50,000 and $70,000 receive a taxconcession worth five times as much as lowerincome earners? We believe it would be farfairer to provide a flat rebate to all employeesat all classes of income—indeed, this was thecoalition’s election policy, Fightback, in 1993.


So we support the intent. What we do notlike is the way the government wants tocollect it. If the government acknowledgesthat this surcharge is a tax, it would behalfway there. Then it would not be trench-antly opposed to collecting the tax surchargeoff the people it is trying to target—the highincome earners—rather than through anelaborate subterfuge through superannuationfunds.

The Senate superannuation committeereceived a wide range of submissions from anextraordinary variety of sources urging the useof the income tax system as the collectingmechanism. They included the BusinessCouncil of Australia, the ACTU—very rarelyseen on the same side of the fence, I mightsay—the Association of SuperannuationFunds of Australia, the Australian Society ofCertified Practising Accountants, the MTIAand more muted support from the AustralianCouncil of Social Service.

But for their efforts, the government hassimply pilloried them. I wish to record mydisapproval of the attack on the superannua-tion industry, particularly ASFA and SusanRyan, from the government, arguing that theindustry is wanting to defeat the tax. ASFAin our view has been entirely responsible inthis debate, accepting that the contributionwill be paid but arguing only about the bestmeans of collecting it. I wish to publiclyacknowledge the very excellent work ofASFA in exposing the flaws in this legislationwhilst always accepting its intent.

Other submissions to the Senate inquiryfound major flaws with the legislation as well.The government still has not properly re-sponded to the arguments of Dennis Rose QCthat this bill is probably unconstitutional, norhas it responded to the arguments about theprivacy considerations of requiring, under theweight of a massive tax penalty, all taxpayersto provide tax file information and, with that,information about their taxable income toprivate sector organisations. I have to say thatthis is a massive invasion of privacy from acoalition government which, as I recall, sovigorously opposed the Australia Card as thegreat defender of individual rights and priva-cy.

These issues are automatically fixed with analternative collection mechanism. ASFA haddeveloped and circulated to senators a set ofamendments to show how an alternativecollection mechanism could be set up. TheDemocrats support the general design of thecollection mechanism as proposed by ASFA,but we have decided not to move amendmentsin the committee stage to establish the collec-tion mechanism, simply because of the com-plexity involved in doing that.

I think the best outcome for this packagewould be for the government to withdraw itand to design a new tax collection mechanismwhich utilises the PAYE system and whichdoes not involve a massive cost for superan-nuation funds. That is what they ought to dobut, as we know, this is not what they aregoing to do. The Treasurer has indicated to usagain and again—most recently today, andpublicly, of course, many times—that he willnot change the collection mechanism. Sodespite all the evidence presented to theSenate committee inquiry and despite theunanimous view put by so many industrybodies calling for change, the governmentthinks that it knows better.

Senator Kemp, I have to tell you that thisis a piece of legislation that you can have.You can wear it. We will vote for yourlegislation without amendment, not becauseit is good legislation, not because it is fairlegislation, but on the clear understanding thatyou wear the consequences of what we regardas an appalling piece of legislation.

It is my hope that every superannuationfund in Australia will tell their members nextyear how much their earnings on three ac-counts were reduced by the massive adminis-tration costs of Treasurer Costello’s clumsyand inefficient tax. I hope that the 50 per centof people likely to be slapped with the tax forforgetting to quote a tax file number to a non-government body are made aware that Treas-urer Costello did it to them. And I hope thatsome super funds get so angry that they takeit to the High Court and that the court tellsthe Treasurer that this surcharge has noconstitutional basis. And it will be entirely,completely and utterly the government’s fault.


It is a great pity in all of this that theadministrative and fiscal minefield that thistax will create will almost certainly kill stonedead any popular support for further necessaryreform of superannuation tax concessions, butthe government must wear that, too. Andwhen the evidence is in, if Treasurer Costelloor his successor as Treasurer decides that thetax needs to be reviewed, we would be happyfor you to come and talk with us. We willresist the opportunity to say, ‘We told youso,’ and will help you to revise the tax andput in place a mechanism that you shouldhave taken the opportunity to introduce in thefirst place.

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia)(10.55 p.m.)—I will say at the outset of ourcontribution to this package of superannuationsurcharge bills that, fundamentally, the Greens(WA) support the concept of progressivetaxation. In respect of this package of bills, itmeans we accept the principle of some kindof superannuation surcharge, given that formany years high income earners have usedthe special tax treatment of superannuation toreduce tax obligations by voluntarily deposit-ing surplus capital in superannuation funds.These are often not the same kind of superan-nuation funds the average worker has accessto, but may instead allow high income earnersvarious options to control investment in theirown interest, and to withdraw from the fundwith minimum cost when they decide it isconvenient.

This is an entirely different form of use,and it creates very different opportunitiesfrom those available to ordinary workers, whooften find they have no choice as to fund, andthat their money is placed in funds whichpenalise someone taking money out beforethey reach retirement age. In addition, it isnot a means of reducing tax; it is a reductionin disposable income for those whose incomeis primarily spent on necessities. It is areduction in the income of those who canleast afford such a reduction, including thosewho are only working part time or casually inlow income jobs.

In general, there is nothing equitable aboutsuperannuation. It may be of some benefit toworkers. It might be, and has been, argued

that ordinary working Australians are soimprovident that they must be forced to savefor their retirement because they will not doso on their own. However, ordinary Austral-ians have managed their incomes for yearsand many are fairly canny about living onmodest incomes and can see other potentialways of using money which may bring greaterreturns long term, and real returns, not onlyfor themselves but for their dependants in theshort term. Purchasing a house, or somewhereto live in your later years, is often such anoption.

With high income earners, we talk aboutthose earning over $70,000 in taxable incomeafter all deductions and other ways ofminimising tax. We are talking about lessthan seven per cent of Australian taxpayers—not seven per cent of citizens. Such highincome earners have no problem purchasinga house, using negative gearing to purchaseinvestment properties, opening family trusts,and utilising the optimum mix of salary,superannuation and fringe benefits. These arethe people who have the money to utiliseoptions like income splitting as a potentialrort. For the majority of Australians, the useof trusts for dependants often representssacrifice with the intention of providing forloved ones. But for the rich, they can useoptions to create structures where income isshifted to another without that other havingany real control, and where those assets arenot permanently assigned, but can be shiftedback.

This measure of the government wouldplace an additional level of tax on such highincome earners. To this extent, we support it,as we have supported the establishment ofsome additional rates of progressive taxationfor higher income earners.

However, while we support the generalprinciples of progressive taxation, and whilewe support the general principle of ending theuse of incentives for superannuation savingsto provide tax shelters for the wealthy, wehave serious questions about the mechanismsof this bill. In the first place, this is funda-mentally a tax. Call it by whatever name youwish; it is a tax. In fact, it seems that bycalling a tax by any other name, the govern-


ment may simply be opening itself up to othervarious problems. I understand that the federalgovernment has the legal ability to imposetaxes. Does it have the legal ability to imposeincome-based surcharges on the generalpublic? And what about the word ‘surcharge?’A surcharge is an additional charge. Addition-al to what? What is the government chargingthe rich for?

A levy is something comprehensible. It istax, often for a given period, collected for adedicated purpose—for example, the Medicarelevy, should I say theoretically, or the pro-posed employment levy. But this money isbeing collected for undefined purposes,presumably going into general revenue. Inwhat sense, other than name, is it differentfrom a tax? And, if it is an income based tax,why is it not dealt with in the Income TaxAssessment Act?

It is odious to see a government promisenot to raise taxes and then go ahead and raisetaxes and try to pretend it is not doing so onthe pretext of calling them by some othername, and then insist they are not taxes. Ihave no problem with government imposingtaxes if necessary. I never have. I have littleproblem with governments coming forwardand saying that they cannot keep their elec-tion promises, especially the more extravagantones, as long as they come clean and say so,and say why, openly, and then accept theconsequences.

I do not think the blind attempt in politicsto pillory governments for their inability tokeep improvident promises, or promises to dosomething stupid or socially or environment-ally destructive is a good thing. I would rathergovernment did something sensible and goodfor the community than keep promises thatare stupid or destructive, though this does notmean I accept making reckless promises forpolitical gain as a good thing. But, if thegovernment, as it has, promises not to raisetaxes, and finds that this is not a workablepromise, not a promise that can be keptwithout causing the people of Australiainordinate pain—and, if I am cynical enoughto suggest, electorate pain—then it shouldcome forward honestly and say so. Thegovernment should apologise and outline the

reasons for breaking its promises. Above all,what it should not do is pretend it is keepingits promises, while finding weasel words andfox phrases to try to make black white.

The problem with lying and attempting topersist in a lie is that you must slowly attemptto falsify all reality in order to make the liefit as truth. I ask: if this is not a tax, underwhat constitutional powers does the govern-ment impose this so-called surcharge? Iunderstand there have already been constitu-tional challenges and the only basis govern-ment has for imposing this is under thepowers of taxation. If that is so, this is a tax.

I have a problem with this sort of stuffbecause not only is it ethically unclean but itresults in hideous legislation, as somethingthat should be treated in a perfectly clear andstraightforward way is covered up to allowthe weasel words some reality. We have seenthis last year with the infamous family taxpackage, where the Income Tax Rates Actwas besmirched so that was a simple $200contribution could be called a $1,500 changeof tax thresholds. Here we see a whole newsection of legislation, a new power of theCommonwealth and a 50-page alternative tothe Income Tax Assessment Act created. Howdare the government, and just to cover up alie.

It is clear to anyone that this thing is a tax.It should have been treated as a tax. It shouldhave been introduced as an amendment to thetax act, a modification of the tax treatment ofsuperannuation. If the government had gonethat way, it could have been done perhaps ina couple of pages with none of this legalambiguity about Commonwealth power. Notonly could it have done so, it could probablyhave availed itself of measures such as theavailability of those with periodic incomes—farmers, artists, athletes—to average theincomes. This would have eliminated some ofthe injustices that are likely to perpetuate,which have been highlighted.

While it is clear that a disproportionatebenefit is obtained by wealthy people fromconcessional tax treatment of superannuationcontributions, it should also be clear, on amoment’s reflection, that there will be sometaxpayers who may on occasion get a high


income, but not regularly. A farmer may havea good year, maybe two, where they are taxedat the highest rate. It may be followed byseveral years of drought. Under the incometax law, they have the ability to average theirincome and may not have to pay at thehighest rate. Here, in your pocket duplicate ofincome tax law, there is no such capacity.What a shame, and all because you have notgot the stomach to call a tax a tax.

I will not go on at much greater length.Obviously, the thing to do is to take thismisbegotten bill away, and re-write it as a taxbill. The outcome would be clearer and lesscontentious. And, of course, contention is theother price you have paid for your inability tocall a tax a tax. You have a Senate thatunanimously supports your underlying intentof taxing high income earners at a slightlyhigher rate, at least in regard to their superan-nuation contributions. But, by refusing to usethe proper name for things and refusing totake the simple, clean and honest option, youhave managed to build almost unanimousopposition to this bill. You are your ownworst enemies.

The Greens will be supporting the ALPsecond reading amendment to take this billaway and re-submit it after substantial re-drafting. We suggest strongly that you do not,in hubris, oppose this measure. It is actuallya government policy the Senate is willing tosee passed, as long as it is in a workableform. We are willing to help you. We wouldlike to see this work, and know that it is notlikely to work if pass it as it is.

I strongly suggest that you take this course.I think you will have the goodwill of theSenate in re-drafting it so that we can pass itspeedily. I put to you that it is not an efficientor good use of power to pass bills or putthings in place that will have to come backsession after session to be dealt with againand that require us to drop all other things toput it through speedily because of your ownbad treatment in the first place. It is not sohard to get it right. It is not so hard to givefamilies a child rebate, for instance, or toimpose a tax. But it becomes very difficultwhen you have to insist that this is not actual-ly what you are doing.

I hope the government has the sense not tooppose the ALP second reading amendment.It would allow us to go to some legislationwe might usefully address instead of gettingbogged in an interminable committee stagedebate. It might even allow us to end thissession at an hour not entirely unreasonable.

I give notice that, if the second readingamendment is not carried, we will supportmost of the amendments by the variousopposition parties that we have seen. I do notlike trying to fix this particular mess withoutgetting rid of what is here now, but we willdo so if we have no other options.

I also give notice that it is entirely possiblethat we will not be able to support the bill ifsome modifications are not made. So I ask thegovernment to actually listen to the debateand consider the issues raised on their meritsinstead of blindly opposing everything thatthe Senate is quite helpfully trying to suggestat this stage.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.08p.m.)—I hesitate to take this unusual step ofseeking leave to have, because of the latenessof the hour, my speech on the second readingdebate incorporated inHansard. I hesitatebecause there might be some perverse personhere who would deny me leave.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—SUPERANNUATION SURCHARGE BILLS

Second Reading Speech

When income tax was first introduced by Pitt theYounger in 1798 a deduction was allowed inrespect for premiums paid for life insurance.

Pitt recognised that in taxing the income of alabourer it would be wrong to tax that income asa gross income without allowing for the costs ofmaintaining or protecting it. If an income tax wasto allow a tax deduction to a ship owner forinsuring his ships, the source of his income, whyshould it not equally allow those who live by theirlabour to insure their incomes?

There is absolutely nothing wrong or unfair abouta tax system which allows workers to spread theirincomes forward from their earnings years to theirnon earnings years and to make provision for theirdependants. Quite the contrary, anything else isbarbaric and utterly biased against the familytaxpayer.


If income averaging is equitable for farmers, forartists and sports people there is no reason whysome form of life time income averaging throughsuperannuation should not be available to everyperson gaining an income from personal exertion.

It is interesting to observe that the concept behindthe superannuation tax surcharge has been previous-ly considered and rejected.

Professor William Vickrey now Professor Emeritusof Colombia University and a former President ofthe American Economic Association examined in1947 the idea of taxing employer superannuationcontributions in the hands of the employee—thesame concept as the surcharge. In his book Agendafor Progressive Taxation he wrote at page 82 "Inprinciple, the correct method of taxation for allsuch pension and insurance plans would be toinclude in the income of the employee the value ofthe entire contribution to the pension fund both byhimself and by the employer on his behalf, and inaddition the interest earned by this fund as itaccumulates. The pension itself would then betreated as an annuity. But this solution is evenmore impractical than in the case of life insuranceand annuity contracts of life insurance companies.Often the employer does not know how his grosscontribution to the fund is equitably divided amonghis employees. In any event it would still be opento him to postpone his employees’ income andhence their tax, by making no explicit contributionto the fund until it was actually needed to make thebenefit payments. What is really required is not thecontributions he actually makes but those that heshould theoretically make to cover the actuarialvalue of his liability. But many pension plans aresuch that this actuarial value cannot readily bedetermined: benefits may hinge on non-actuarialcontingencies such as continued service, or may beawarded ex postfacto ‘in consideration of long andfaithful service,’ etc.

"As with insurance, the only hope for a completelyproper treatment is through the application ofcumulative averaging"

Thus as early as 1947 the superannuation surchargeconcept was examined and rejected by an acknow-ledged expert.

Superannuation taxation is not a matter of concernfor those few persons lucky enough to have anincome from inherited property. It is, however, ofgreat importance for those who have to provide forthemselves and their families from their ownlabour.

This issue was also addressed over a hundred yearsago by John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Politi-cal Economy (Book V chapter ii sec 4) when hedealt with the question whether the same percent-age rate should be levied on perpetual and onterminable incomes. He observed that "in spite of

the nominal equality of income, A, an annuitant of£1,000 a year, cannot so well afford to pay £100out of it, as B who derives the same annual sumfrom heritable property; A having usually a demandon his income which B has not, namely, to provideby saving for children or others; to which, in thecase of salaries or professional gains, must general-ly be added a provision for his own later years;while B may expend his whole income withoutinjury to his old age, and still have it all to bestowon others after his death. If A, in order to meetthese exigencies, must lay by £300 of his incometo take £100 from him as income tax is to take£100 from £700, since it must be retrenched on thatpart only of his means which he can afford tospend on his own consumption. . ."The principle, therefore, of equality of taxation,interpreted in its only just sense, equality ofsacrifice, requires that a person who has no meansof providing for old age, or for those in whom heis interested, except by saving from income, shouldhave the tax remitted on all that part of his incomewhich is really and bona fide applied to thatpurpose. . ."perhaps a deduction of one-fourth in favour oflife-incomes would be as little objectionable as anywhich could be made, it being thus assumed thatone-fourth of a life-income is, on the average of allages and states of health, a suitable proportion tobe laid by as a provision for successors and for oldage."The principle of life time income averaging hasfound favour with economists since John StuartMill wrote in 1871. Professor William Vickreymakes the point in his 1947 treatise Agenda forProgressive Taxation, (p 166) that "there would stillbe a very serious doubt of the equity of taxing eachyear’s income as a separate entity. With progressiverates, an individual whose income fluctuates fromyear to year will, under this method, pay a heaviertax than an individual having the same averageincome more evenly distributed from year to year."Vickrey goes on at p 186 to point out that it islogical in fact to average a taxpayer’s income overhis lifetime.It is quite remarkable, is it not, that an EnglishConservative government in the middle of theNapoleonic Wars—at a time when the CombinationActs were used to suppress trade unions—waswilling to be more liberal in its tax treatment oflabour income than is the Australian FederalGovernment of today. It is also interesting that thebureaucrats who designed this legislation arewilling to run barefoot into minefields where eventhe most speculative academic is afraid to tread.Senators may wish to ponder these paradoxes atleisure but before departing from this subject Imight point out that, not only does the superannua-tion surcharge produce wholly inequitable outcome


in the case of pensions or annuities, it is also quiteunworkable in the case of unfunded State govern-ment pensions schemes.State governments do not have to pay this tax.Even if the Melbourne Corporation Case did notexist and there were no Constitutional immunity forthe Crown in right of a State in its dealings with itsservants, the State governments can take anothertack.There is nothing to stop State governments revert-ing to the practice followed in l9th Century Britainof simply placing aged servants on half pay andnever formally fully retiring them from theiroffices. A State, for example, could create aninternal Treasury trust fund and use it to meet thehalf pay of its inactive aged civil servants, much asthe British Government used to put former Generalsand Admirals on half pay.This being a State’s House I think we should letthe States know that they need not subject them-selves to this legislation whether or not it is passed.And if States and their civil servants can not besubjected to this surcharge in respect of de factopensions or annuities, where is the equity inimposing it on the rest of the workforce?There are many other points that will be raised onthese Bills. There is not time to go into all of themnow but it is my firm view that it should beaccepted that the application of the provisions ofthe legislation to taxable pensions or annuities isquite inappropriate, unjustified and unfair.An exemption is required where otherwisesurchargable contributions are used to financepensions or annuities. No one can possibly arguethat someone receiving a taxable pension or annuityin retirement is somehow getting an unfair treat-ment from the tax system. On the contrary toimpose this surcharge on pensions or annuities isto implement a form of double taxation which inmany cases is retrospective in its effect.This much has been acknowledged by provisionsin the Bills which propose that Public Servicepensions be unilaterally cut. It does not do muchfor confidence in the public credit of the Common-wealth of Australia for a Government to be legislat-ing unilaterally to cut its obligations under termsand conditions of employment.The Government is rightly concerned aboutAustralia’s international credit rating. How does itthink readers in the Wall Street Journal or theFinancial Times will react when it is drawn to theirattention that the Commonwealth Government ofAustralia is quite willing to propose legislationunilaterally reneging on quasi-contractual obliga-tions or wiping out accrued rights.Superannuation and national savings are sufferinga crisis of confidence because of the perceivedthreat of legislative risk. Short-term revenue

expediency should not be allowed to prejudicepublic confidence in saving for retirement. TheSenate, without wishing to be obstructive, cannotpossibly be expected to endorse unprincipledrevenue measures.At the very least it should adopt the amendmentwhich I intend to move in the Committee of theWhole. That amendment would ensure that ifbenefits financed by otherwise surchargable contri-butions are payable as non-commutable pensions orannuities, the surcharge is not payable.

Senator HARRADINE —I thank theSenate. I recommend to honourable senatorsthat in due course they should turn to myspeech.

Senator KEMP (Victoria—AssistantTreasurer) (11.09 p.m.)—Senator, I lookforward to reading the speech you haveincorporated. I will not comment on it nowbecause I have not had a chance to read it, sodo not regard that as a discourtesy.

In response to comments made by honour-able senators in relation to these importantbills which are before the parliament, asindicated by a number of speakers these forman important part of, first of all, restoringequity in the area of superannuation. I wel-come the fact that most senators indicated thatit was important to ensure greater fairness inthe superannuation system. Senators accepted,as indeed did the Senate committee, theconcept of the 15 per cent surcharge.

In much of the debate which has occurredin recent months that important principle mayhave been obscured as particular groupssought to advance their cases. In listening tothe debate this evening I was mindful of arecent article about the surcharge written inthe Sydney Morning Heraldby Ross Gittinswhere he cautioned that nine out of 10 peoplewho say, ‘It is not what you did; it is the wayyou did it,’ are lying. There is an attempt inthe wider debate—I am not suggesting in thischamber—to undermine the surcharge byadvancing problems and issues which areentirely spurious. Let me just illustrate thiswith one point.

There is no doubt, as Senator Allison said,the concessions to superannuation greatlybenefit high income earners, and yet thespurious argument has been run—including,I regret to say, in this chamber tonight—in


attacking this measure, which is above allabout fairness, that low and middle incomeearners will be affected. This issue has beencanvassed many times in this chamber inrecent months and, as I and others have said,not one low or middle income earner needpay the surcharge. All they have to do isprovide their tax file number to the superan-nuation fund.

The government has given careful consider-ation to considering alternative options tocollect the surcharge. We believe that theoption we have chosen is the best option. Itis an efficient option, and it avoids imposingadditional costs on small business. We rejectthe ASFA proposal, which would directlyinvolve some 900,000 employers rather thanrequiring, as these bills before the chamberdo, a reporting obligation on behalf of some137,000 superannuation funds. The alternativemechanism which has been proposed wouldinvolve substantial costs on small business.

Some commentators advanced an argumentabout whether superannuation would still bea good investment. I agree with SenatorAllison that much of the comment in this areahad been greatly overstated. According to BTfunds management analysis, the clear messageis:Do not forsake superannuation as a core part ofyour investment folio. Even with a surchargebringing contributions taxed to 30 per cent, youwill need substantial returns from other investmentsto get better after tax benefits.

I think a lot of the comments have beenoverstated and designed to protect a veryimportant tax concession available to highincome earners. I regret that the Labor Partyhas, in its attack on this measure, quitespuriously run the argument which is incorpo-rated in Senator Sherry’s second readingamendment, which we will certainly beopposing.

The use of TFNs was raised. People mightnot have realised that the fact of the matter isthat the ability of funds to use TFNs was aLabor policy. In fact, the Labor Party intro-duced a bill to assist superannuation funds tocollect tax file numbers. Senators will beaware that, under the Taxation Laws Amend-ment Bill (No. 2), which was recently passed

by the Senate, funds will be able to collecttax file numbers for all superannuation ac-counts. That started on, I think, 16 February.There were arguments that the funds werefinding it difficult. It is worth recording thatthis procedure has been in place for some fourweeks.

Senator Sherry—That doesn’t mean they’llget them.

Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, the fundswill have up to 12 months to collect tax filenumbers. This is another spurious attacklaunched on the approach that we have taken.You would not have thought, from whatSenator Sherry said in some of the issues heraised in relation to tax file numbers, that heand his colleagues were driving forces just alittle over 12 months ago in allowing funds tocollect tax file numbers. I put that on therecord in case people who listened to SenatorSherry may have felt that they perhaps missedan important point.

We will be opposing the second readingamendment, which is a very poorly wordedamendment. It says that the government is tobring forward further amendments. I wouldhave thought that the opposition were un-happy with the bill. They of course have theright to bring amendments. At last, at a verylate stage in the debate, we have the commit-tee stage amendments that the Labor Party areproposing to move. I put on the record thefact that Senator Sherry spoke to me someweeks ago and tried to ensure that we wereable to provide the amendments to the LaborParty, which we do always in an expeditiousfashion.

The second reading amendment which isdrafted is plainly wrong in so many cases andseriously misleading in other cases. It isillogical in that it urges the government to fixup problems which the government does notaccept are problems. The Senate is of courseentitled to address its mind to particularissues, but I certainly would not accept thatthe government should go away and fix upproblems which we do not accept are prob-lems at all.

For example, if you take 2(a) and 2(b) inthe amendment, the reality is that they aregrossly misleading—absolutely and totally


misleading and totally wrong. SenatorSherry’s amendment says that at least onemillion low and middle income earners maybe liable to the surcharge. The short answeris, and I said it earlier in my remarks, that notone person needs to pay the surcharge; allthey have to do is supply their tax file num-ber.

It is part of the deliberate scare campaignthat Senator Sherry relentlessly runs in adesperate attempt to grab a headline, which hefinds difficult to get, and to undermine a veryfair measure. Senator Sherry, if you succeededin your ultimate aim to overturn these bills,which is implicit in the amendment you havemoved, the low and middle income earnerswould not be cheering, but the big end oftown would be cheering.

We will not accept the amendment youhave moved—the quite spurious claims aboutlow and middle income earners and the quitespurious comments about the constitutionalityof the bill, and that has been addressed manytimes in this chamber. We have effectivelyaddressed those issues. You have asked mequestions about those issues, if not on a dailybasis, on a very regular basis. We do notaccept those claims which you have putforward. In relation to privacy, which isanother part of your amendment, we haveconfidence in trustees upholding the privacyof members—

Senator Sherry—Oh, confidence!Senator KEMP—I thought you were

supportive of the trustee structure. I aminterested to hear that you now appear to havesome particular qualifications. In relation tothe states, we have made it very clear that weare negotiating with the states to make appro-priate arrangements to cover public servants.You would not believe, in reading thisamendment, that bona fide redundancy pay-ments are excluded. I would have thought thatwas a very important point, but it is complete-ly brushed over and ignored in the amend-ment you have moved.

This bill and the concepts have been debat-ed very widely in this chamber. They havebeen the subject of a Senate committee report.They have been very extensively debated inthe lower house. Senator Sherry has decided

not to alter at least the principle of the collec-tion approach that we have adopted. Wewelcome that. We are currently analysing theamendments he has put forward and we aretrying to work out what he is seeking toachieve there. I look forward to some furtheradvice.

But I do record that these amendmentscame on the scene exceedingly late, and thatis a pity. For an office which often approach-es my office, and we extend all courtesies weare able to extend, I think it is a pity thatthese amendments have appeared on the sceneso late, which of course makes it difficult toensure that all issues are properly canvassed.So I urge the Senate to reject the secondreading amendment that Senator Sherry hasproposed. It is an illogical amendment, it iswrong, it is misleading and it seeks to under-mine a fair measure and an important budgetmeasure.

Question put:That the amendment (Senator Sherry’s) be

agreed to.


Reid)Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Noes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

——Majority . . . . . . . . . 14

——AYES

Bishop, M. Bolkus, N.Brown, B. Carr, K.Collins, J. M. A. Collins, R. L.Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S.Cooney, B. Denman, K. J.Evans, C. V. * Forshaw, M. G.Hogg, J. Lundy, K.Mackay, S. Margetts, D.McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M.Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K.Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C.Sherry, N. West, S. M.

NOESAbetz, E. Allison, L.Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V.Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. *Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P.Coonan, H. Crane, W.Eggleston, A. Ellison, C.


NOESFerguson, A. B. Ferris, JGibson, B. F. Herron, J.Hill, R. M. Kemp, R.Kernot, C. Knowles, S. C.Lees, M. H. Macdonald, I.Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J.Minchin, N. H. Murray, A.Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G.Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L.Reid, M. E. Short, J. R.Stott Despoja, N. Tierney, J.Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E.Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J.

PAIRSCrowley, R. A. Heffernan, W.Faulkner, J. P. Alston, R. K. R.Gibbs, B. McGauran, J. J. J.Ray, R. F. Tambling, G. E. J.

* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.(Senator Childs did not vote, to compensate


(Senator Foreman did not vote, to compen-sate for the vacancy caused by the resignationof Senator Woods.)

Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirma-

tive.Bills read a second time.

In CommitteeSUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONS

SURCHARGE (ASSESSMENT ANDCOLLECTION) BILL 1997

The bill.Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Deputy

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.30 p.m.)—by leave—I move:(1) Clause 6, page 3 (lines 12 to 17), omit the

third dot point.(2) Clause 6, page 4 (lines 3 to 5), omit ",

and to pay any advance instalment ofsurcharge on the member’s contributionsfor the next financial year,".

(3) Clause 6, page 4 (line 15), omit "or ad-vance contribution".

(4) Clause 6, page 4 (lines 21 and 22), omit"or advance payment".

(5) Heading to Part 2, page 5 (lines 2 and 3),omit "and advance instalments" .

(8) Heading to Part 3, page 13 (lines 2 and 3),omit "and advance instalments".

(9) Clause 15, page 17 (lines 1 and 2), omit"and determination of advance instal-ment".

(10) Clause 15, page 17 (lines 14 to 21), omitsubclause (2) and heading.




(14) Clause 15, page 19 (line 1), omit"ordetermination".

(15) Clause 15, page 19 (lines 3 to 4), omit "ordetermination".


(19) Heading to Part 4, page 30 (lines 2 to 3),omit "advance instalment,".

(20) Clause 25, page 30 (line 5), omit"oradvance instalment".

(21) Clause 25, page 30 (line 7), omit "oradvance instalment".


(23) Clause 26, page 31 (line 13), omit para-graph 26(b).

(24) Clause 27, page 31 (line 16), omit "ad-vance instalment,".

(25) Clause 27, page 31 (line 18), omit "ad-vance instalment,".



(28) Clause 35, page 38 (lines 25 to 27), omitparagraph (c).

(29) Clause 37, page 39 (line 7), omit "ordetermination".


(31) Clause 37, page 39 (lines 14 to 15), omit"or determination".


(33) Clause 37, page 39 (line 25), omit"ordeterminations".




(36) Clause 37, page 40 (line 7), omit "advanceinstalment,".

(39) Clause 43, page 44 (line 14), omit thedefinition of advance instalment.

(40) Clause 43, page 45 (line 30), omit thedefinition of determination.

Firstly, I should explain the reason why wedo not have a running sheet. Even though ouramendments were in some hours ago forcompilation into a running sheet, the Austral-ian Democrats have withdrawn all theiramendments. This meant that the entirerunning sheet had to be rewritten. I do notcriticise the Democrats for that; that is theirprerogative. But I was not aware of thathaving happened until about 35 minutes ago,which meant that the running sheet could notbe prepared in time.

I turn to the issues that we are considering.I know there are a substantial number ofamendments, but many of those which we areconsidering tonight deal with the same issues.On this occasion we are dealing with a sub-stantial number of amendments: 1 to 5, 8 to16, 19 to 36 and 39 and 40. All of thoseamendments are in respect of advance instal-ments, of which I have spoken during thesecond reading debate.

The vote effectively to defer this legislation,requesting that the government rewrite thelegislation taking into account the criticismsthat were listed, was defeated. We made itclear what would occur if it were defeatedand if the government were not prepared toreconsider the various types of issues, includ-ing the advance instalment issue. That wasnot our first option; we would have preferredthe government to have listened and to haverewritten the legislation. But that has nothappened. That having failed, Labor will nowattempt—hopefully with the assistance ofother parties and the Independents in theSenate—to rewrite some of the more iniqui-tous provisions in this package of legislation.

I want to make one point at this particularstage of the debate about the collectionmechanism. We started to rewrite the collec-tion mechanism about two to three weeks ago.We got a further set of amendments from the

government—and I have to say that thecontinual government amendments subse-quently made that rewriting more difficult. Anattempt to redraft the collection mechanismwould have meant redrafting the seven billsin very substantial ways—in fact, a totalrewrite—and could have meant some 400,500 or 600 amendments. It would have beena massive number of amendments.

Our preferred option was that the govern-ment would withdraw the bills, rewrite themand reconsider the collection mechanism. Thathas not happened. That is lost, and we acceptthat. That is on the government’s head. Wewould have preferred the government to haverewritten the collection mechanism. We wereunable to rewrite the collection mechanism,given the massive number of amendments thatwere required, because we do not possess thesame resources as government in terms ofdrafters. I requested from Senator Kempaccess to drafting staff. That was not forth-coming. I do not imply a criticism of SenatorKemp in that because his refusal to meet thatrequest was based on the sheer volume ofwork. We understand that, but that is part ofthe problem in dealing with these bills. Wethink the rushing and the volume of work areunreasonable.

For those reasons, we have not attempted torewrite the collection mechanism. As I havesaid, it would have been a massive job. It isthe government’s role to do that. We urge thegovernment to do that. It is not our job torewrite the collection mechanism.

Senator Ferguson—Who said it was?You’ve just got no alternative.

Senator SHERRY—We had a number ofalternatives. You are unwise enough not tolisten to them. That issue has now passed. Weand the industry have highlighted the conse-quences that flow from the collection mecha-nism included in these bills. It is regrettablethat those consequences are going to flow.

There are a number of other fundamentalissues that we want to deal with in respect ofour amendments. I am referring to advanceinstalments. I know that it is a circuitousroute, but I need to put these matters on therecord. We are going to do the best we can tominimise the problems that we highlight in


the committee stage. We are not going to beobstructive in the sense that we are going tospeak unduly, but we do intend to commentin respect to our major series of amendments.We believe we have a right to do that. It isunfortunate that we are here tonight at 25 to12 and will shortly conclude. I would haveliked to have had four or five hours on this.

Senator Kemp—We can have four or fivehours on it.

Senator SHERRY—The government choseto prioritise other business. We find thatsomewhat strange, given that this was thegovernment’s No. 1 revenue raiser. Half abillion dollars is at risk. If we had been ableto start at 8 o’clock, maybe we would havegot through the amendments substantially andbeen in a position to conclude them tonight.I do think that is unfortunate for the simplereason—and I say this quite frankly—thatindustry want to know what the final positionwill be. They want to know that. We are notgoing to abrogate our right and responsibilityto deal with significant amendments—andthese are significant amendments—in areasoned way.

As far as Labor is concerned, the advanceinstalment provisions of this legislationrepresent one of the most atrocious elementsof the government’s legislation. If an individ-ual has to halve the 15 per cent tax, theadvance instalment provisions require theindividual to pay the following year’s taxliability in advance. It assumes that an indi-vidual will have an ongoing taxation liability.

I would like to make a few other commentsabout this issue. What the government istrying to do is bring forward its revenuethrough this advance instalment. Of course,the effect of pushing back the dates that thesurcharge debt from 1996-97 is payable by,in conjunction with the advance instalment,led to one outcome: a huge amount of rev-enue being collected in the year 1999-2000.I would hate to suggest that the governmentis fiddling the numbers, but that is exactlywhat the government is attempting to do. Thegovernment is seeking to raise the maximumamount of revenue in 1999-2000 that itpossibly can.

Of course, nothing particularly exciting ishappening in the year 1999-2000. I do notknow whether any of the senators can thinkof anything that is due in 1999-2000 and whythe government would want all the additionalrevenue because of the effects of the advanceinstalment. It may just be that—I think—thereis an election scheduled, but maybe I am notsufficiently cynical to believe that the govern-ment wants to boost its revenue in that yearbecause there is an election scheduled.

Senator Ferguson—You used to be in one;you ought to know.

Senator SHERRY—I will not respond tothe provocation; we could sit until four orfive in the morning as a consequence of that.I will stick to the issues.

The CHAIRMAN —Could I remind hon-ourable senators that interjections are disor-derly, but that is compounded when thesenator is not in his or her own seat.

Senator SHERRY—Thank you, Mr Chair-man. I am trying to avoid the provocation. Itdoes not hurt the government that a large partof the revenue that would have been raised in1996-97 will not now be collected until 1997-98, thereby inflating the bottom budget linein that year as well.

The opposition also notes that the govern-ment does not propose to insert a line item inthe budget statements indicating the amountof money that the commissioner has to refunddue to the incorrect collection of moneys. Theopposition would note strongly that, shouldour amendments on advance instalments fail,the government should be required to put thisliability to refund Australians’ superannuationmoneys with interest as a separate line itemin the budget, particularly if the governmentis true to its promise of budget honesty.

I will move on to the equity issues that theadvance instalment provision raises. How canthis be a fair tax on superannuation whenindividuals who should not be required to paythe tax in the first place are required to payan advance instalment? Senator Kemp hasbeen very cautious with his words. He saysnot one person need pay the 15 per cent taxif they all provide their tax file numbers, but


we know that not everyone will provide theirtax file numbers.

If you ask a superannuation fund how manyare likely not to provide their tax file num-bers, they will tell you it will be at least amillion in the first year, which means thatthey will not only be hit by the 15 per centtax, they will also be hit by the additionaladvance instalment of 7½ per cent. Given thatthese are likely to be low income, part-time,casual or itinerant workers who fail to providetheir tax file numbers to the superannuationfund—either because they are unaware of therequirement to do so or because of the inabili-ty of the fund to contact them—they will paythe total tax in the first year of 22.5 per cent.These are people who should not be payingthis so-called surcharge.

Senator Kemp will not assure the Senatethat not one person who earns less than$70,000 will have to pay the tax. He willassure the Senate that not one of them needto, but he will not assure the Senate that notone person will have to. He knows the evi-dence; he knows what the reality is out in theindustry.

Senator Kemp—Oh!

Senator Carr—He’s got you there.

Senator SHERRY—Senator Kemp—through you, Mr Chairman—continues thesame sort of theme, ‘This is not a tax; it is asurcharge.’ I put to the Senate that this is afundamentally dishonest approach. SenatorKemp continues to say that people earningless than $70,000 need not have to pay thetax, but all the evidence before the commit-tee—never refuted by anyone—says thathundreds of thousands, a million or maybemore, people who earn less than $70,000 willhave to pay the tax because, for variousreasons, they do not provide their tax filenumber. That is a 15 per cent tax and another7.5 per cent advance instalment. That is atotal of 22.5 per cent tax on top of the exist-ing 30 per cent tax. You can imagine what isgoing to happen when the people who havenot provided tax file numbers open up theirfund statement.

Senator Kemp—Come on, Nick!

Senator SHERRY—It is a very necessarypoint, Senator Kemp. It is very necessary toget this on the record. They will open up theirfund statement, and they will look down thereand see 30 per cent tax, 15 per cent sur-charge—so-called—tax, 7½ per cent advanceinstalment tax and probably the admincharges for the collection of the new tax.There will be four amounts deducted from amillion people who earn less than $70,000. Itis not me who says this; it is the experts inthe industry who say it. The governmentknows it is true.

Senator Kemp—Come on, Nick!

Senator SHERRY—Senator Kemp, youcan say, ‘Come on,’ but I am not saying it; itis the industry that is saying it. These are thepeople who have to collect the tax file num-bers, but all this money is collected. Let ussay it is 10,000 people, Senator Kemp; let ussay it is 100,000; let us say it is a million.Whatever the final figure will be, it will besignificant. The tax office collects all themoney and then it has to refund it all. So wecould have a million people, with all the taxcollected, who then have to get a refund—ifthey, of course, remember to go to the taxoffice. Then we have the issue of the advanceinstalment. This issue serves to highlight theinequity of the advance instalment.

Senator Carr—I don’t think he’s got it.

Senator SHERRY—I think you are right,Senator Carr. I do not think Senator Kemphas got the message. Everyone has beentelling him this and everyone has been tellingMr Costello. It is important to get this issueon the record in this debate because when thecomplaints come to the electoral offices of thegovernment we will know who to blame.

Senator Kemp—Ha!

Senator SHERRY—You can laugh, but Itell you that a few of you will be duckingonce people get their statements. It is a greattragedy that this should occur. These are thesorts of issues we raise.

Senator Carr—It’s callous.

Senator SHERRY—It is callous, SenatorCarr. Finally, how can the voluntary principleof collection of—(Time expired)


The CHAIRMAN —Before I call anotherspeaker, could I just indicate that certain ofthose amendments which we called amend-ments will have to be moved separately. Theyare amendments Nos 6, 7 and 18. The ques-tion will have to be that a certain clause standas printed. So we would be looking firstly atamendments Nos 1 to 5, 8 to 16, 19 to 36 and39 to 40. Then we will go back to amend-ments Nos 6, 7 and 18, after we have con-sidered the amendments.

Senator KEMP (Victoria—AssistantTreasurer) (11.46 p.m.)—I think SenatorSherry, in his rhetoric which has so marredsensible discussion on this issue, has actuallymisunderstood the nature of the advancepayment. I think this is important as senatorsvote on this issue. The advance payment isbasically a collection of the surcharge oncontributions that have already been received.Contributions are received from 1 July to 15June and the instalment is due on 15 June.The bulk of those contributions would havebeen received by the fund. It is worth whilejust repeating that, because it is a very im-portant point which no-one who is listeningto Senator Sherry would have any inkling ofat all.

I repeat: the advance instalment is basicallya collection of the surcharge on contributionsthat have already been received. So it certain-ly meets the equity test. Senator, your amend-ments would cost revenue $160 million in1997-98. That is what the Labor Party amend-ment would do. It is poorly thought out, notproperly understood, does not understand thenature of the advance contribution and doesnot understand that it relates to the bulk ofcontributions already received. We will beopposing the amendment.

Motion (by Senator Hill) proposed:That the committee report progress and seek

leave to sit again.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—DeputyLeader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.48 p.m.)—Could Senator Hill give areason why he wants to negate the committeeso early, prior to midnight?

Senator Hill—Because I would like to testthe Senate on sitting past midnight, to get onwith the job.

Senator SHERRY—You could have beenmore honest and indicated that, rather thantrying to sneak it through.

Senator Campbell—It’s normal practice,Nick.

Senator SHERRY—Yes, it is normalpractice. But is normal practice to do it justa shade closer to midnight. Why didn’t thegovernment consult the opposition about this?Why didn’t you inform us that you intendedto move this?

The CHAIRMAN —I just indicate tohonourable senators that there is no debate onthat motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Progress reported.Motion (by Senator Hill) proposed:That the committee have leave to sit again at a

later hour of the day.

Senator Sherry—Can I ask what the laterhour of the day will be?

Senator Hill—You could sit after midnight.Senator Sherry—How long?Senator Hill—I have a subsequent motion

which will be that we sit until this bill iscompleted.

Senator Sherry—This bill?Senator Brown—On a point of order: we

cannot hear what the leader is saying.The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-

tor Murphy) —I understand that, SenatorBrown. It is a process of people trying towork out where we are all at at this point intime. Senator Hill, do you want to clarifyanything?

Senator HILL (South Australia—Ministerfor the Environment) (11.51 p.m.)—The nextmotion that I will seek to move—after wehave permission to sit again—will be tonegate the adjournment until the superannua-tion package is completed and the messagesare returned on the Hindmarsh Island bill andthe Private Health Insurance Incentives Billand dealt with by the Senate.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—DeputyLeader of the Opposition in the Senate)(11.51 p.m.)—I am rising to oppose themotion. Can I just ask: what is the position if


we get to midnight and I have not finishedspeaking?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena-tor Murphy) —For the clarification of thosesenators who did not hear the clerk, theadjournment will have to be put.

Senator SHERRY—Okay. I rise to opposethe resolution. We are dealing with a majorpackage of legislation in respect of a newtax—call it a surcharge, if you wish. Thereare seven bills. It is extraordinarily complexlegislation. We have a series of amendments.We do not want to keep the Senate unneces-sarily on the amendments, but is it reasonableto push on with this package of amendmentsthat in my estimation—I have advised thegovernment of this—will take probably fourto five hours? I think that is a reasonableamount of time to spend.

Senator Campbell—That’s not what youtold me at 10 to 8. You said it was only ashort amount of time.

Senator SHERRY—We did not start at 8o’clock. You put your legislation up. Whywasn’t the government’s—

Senator Hill—You’ve been misleading usall day.

Senator SHERRY—Senator Hill, youmight take this back to the Treasurer and thePrime Minister: why wasn’t the government’smajor revenue raising measure listed on theprogram as a matter of priority earlier thanthe Friday night before Easter? Sorry, theWednesday night before Easter—I keepthinking it is Friday.

Senator Hill—It feels like Friday.Senator SHERRY—It feels like Friday

after the last few days, I would have to say.Why wasn’t it listed? It is a matter of priority.

Senator Campbell—You said you woulddiscuss it at 12 o’clock.

Senator SHERRY—Calm down, SenatorCampbell. Dear oh dear! You are touchytonight.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Senator Sherry, can you direct your remarksto the chair?

Senator SHERRY—Initially we thoughtwe had an understanding—I understand

circumstances do change; I do understandthat—that these bills would be dealt with onMonday or Tuesday of this week. That wasnot possible because of the euthanasia legisla-tion. We could have sat other nights, but—Ithink rightly, from a personal point of view—the euthanasia issue was dealt with by theSenate. I think that was quite right and prop-er. But we have so much very significantlegislation to consider. Labor does not seek tokeep the Senate unnecessarily.

We know that ultimately we have to havethis legislation passed in whatever final form.But this legislation is very substantial, veryimportant; it is important we do try to amendsome of the provisions that we consideriniquitous and that we do it in a consideredway.

Senator Campbell interjecting—

Senator SHERRY—Senator, you make thepoint, ‘Let’s get on with it,’ but these sevenbills that were tabled, I think, on 13 Februa-ry—

Senator Campbell interjecting—

Senator SHERRY—I am saying to you byway of debate, Senator Campbell, that if wethought there was half an hour or an hour togo on these amendments—if we had starteda couple of hours earlier there would only behalf an hour to an hour—we would be veryhappy to extend for another half an hour or anhour. But I have to say to the Senate that, inmy humble judgment, there are probablyanother three to four hours on these amend-ments to consider them properly.

Senator Campbell—You guys said youwould discuss it at 12 o’clock.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order!Senator Campbell, if you want to speak thenmaybe you can speak on the adjournment.

Senator SHERRY—Thank you. I amtempted to speak on the adjournment if Icannot proceed with my amendments, but Ithink I will have to talk about super again.Seriously, I am trying to impress on you—


Senator SHERRY—We got this legislationon 13 February—five of the seven bills weare now considering. You have put in two


new bills since then and there are majoramendments. You said this legislation wasconstitutional. New provisions—

Senator Hill—Mr Deputy President, I havea point of order. The point of order is, Iconfess, a little spurious, but I want to askSenator Sherry whether we can test the moodof the Senate on whether we go on beyondmidnight. If the opposition wants to simplytalk this out and therefore thwart thegovernment’s program in this way, then so bethe consequences. But surely a fair go wouldbe to allow the Senate to express its point ofview.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Thereis no point of order.

Senator SHERRY—Thank you, Mr Chair-man. I was attempting to point out how thegovernment got itself into this shambles. On13 February five bills were tabled. Where wasthe legislation? This was announced inAugust last year. On 13 February we finallygot what would arguably be the most import-ant package of legislation on superannuationthis country has seen for a long time. Wherewere the bills? What happened when we gotthe bills on 13 February? Two or three weekslater—

Senator Campbell—You’re speaking itout—that’s what you’re doing. You won’t letthe Senate vote.

Senator SHERRY—The rowdiness fromthe government is just encouraging me to goon, because I want to finish and I am beinginterrupted. What were we told three or fourweeks later? The government told us thatthere were particular problems with thepackage of five bills we are now considering,so two new bills had to be introduced. Thenwe were told by the government they hadforgotten to include the tax mechanisms tocollect the money from Commonwealthemployees; more amendments to these bills.Then we heard that there was a constitutionalproblem with the bills. Mr Costello said, ‘Noworries, it’s constitutional. There’s no prob-lem. We took into account Mr Rose’s con-cerns in respect to the constitutional query.’Then what happened? On the quiet lastThursday, the government introduced amend-ments trying to rectify—

Senator Hill—Mr Temporary Chairman, ona point of order: I want to test the oppositiononce again by asking if we might have leavefor this procedural debate to continue beyond12 o’clock in order that these matters can beresolved in a way that the Senate as a wholecan express its view on whether thegovernment’s legislative program should bedealt with.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Isleave granted for that course of action?

Leave not granted.Senator SHERRY—I was about to track

through and conclude the history of this sorrysaga of these superannuation bills.

Senator Campbell—I raise a point oforder, Mr Acting Deputy President. I wish toknow who refused leave. Was it the Leader ofthe Opposition, was it the shadow Leader ofthe Opposition or was it the Manager ofOpposition Business?

Senator Margetts—It was us actually.The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —

Leave was refused by Senator Margetts.Senator Sherry.

Senator SHERRY—Thank you. We wereassured—

Thursday, 27 March 1997

ADJOURNMENTThe ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —

Order! It being just past 12 o’clock, I proposethe question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

EuthanasiaSenator BROWN (Tasmania) (Midnight)—

The letters columns in today’s newspaperstarted to reflect the feeling of the Australianpeople about the failure of this parliament touphold the voluntary euthanasia laws. I do notwish to hold the chamber for long at thispoint but I have circulated—

Senator Ellison—Why not; you’ve done itall week. You’re a disgrace.

Senator BROWN—The honourable senatoropposite interjects at this stage to delay theSenate chamber, but let me tell him this: Ihave in mind that, as a reflection of what


people are saying about the decision oneuthanasia, I want to incorporate intoHansardthe page of letters in today’sSydney MorningHerald published under the heading ‘Senate’snight of shame’. I seek leave, having circulat-ed this page, to have it so incorporated.

Leave granted.The page read as follows—

LETTERS

Senate’s night of shame

So our politicians have a conscience—a pity theyhave no compassion.Zac Marov,Belleview HillMarch 25

Congratulations to the 38 intelligent senators whovoted to preserve our greatest gift, the essence ofour being—life!Jo-Ann Brown,EastwoodMarch 25

Mr Kevin Andrews and his supporters have fullyconfirmed the old adage that "Those who seekpower are the least suited to wielding it".Andrew BrownGladesvilleMarch 25

How agonising is the irony of "I’m-for-the-battlers"John Howard’s concern over the incidence andcauses of suicide in this country at the same timeas his and other non-representing politicians’ rejec-tion of some battlers’ self-determined release fromtheir mental and physical trauma. Yet again, actionsgive the lie to the political rhetoric of compassion.

Now that an honest, open approach to theproblem of ending life has been scuttled, will thislegislation do anything to reduce the illegal prac-tices that were to be replaced by the NT law?

Will the PM now back up his convictions anddetermine the true number of such suicides—including the assisted ones—and legislate to reducethese? Or are we back to the days when we pretendit doesn’t happen? Just another example of theTasmanian anti-gay-style legislation?

Gerard Henderson’s point about Mr Andrews’spre-election silence on this matter is quite telling(Herald, March 25). What will be even more sowill be his party’s actions to deal with hiddensuicides. How hypocritical can one be?

Trevor Kruger

Blue Bay

March 25

First the House of Representatives, now the Senate.

What a laugh!

When approximately 75 per cent of peoplequestioned are in favour of voluntary euthanasia,just whom do some of these politicians imaginethey represent?

John Gamble

Baulkham Hills

March 25

We do not want politicians’ conscience vote.Heavens above! What do some of them have ontheir conscience at the best of times? Put this veryimportant bill to a national referendum.

Sue Resnik

Cremorne

March 25

I never liked Keating but "unrepresentative swill"sounds about right for the 38 senators whose"conscience vote" was knowingly against the willof the majority of people of this country.

Kevin Andrews is now a household name whichis no doubt what he wants, but we the peoplehaven’t got what we want.

Jill SlatterCoal PointMarch 25

I have heard that early this morning, in the Senate,the lights went out.

Vincent Scoppa

Gladesville

March 25

Weep, Australia. The night of March 24 was thedark night of Australia’s soul: its democracy.


Poll and poll again have shown that an over-whelming majority of Australians supports physi-cian-assisted suicide for the terminally-ill whodesire it. Our elected "representatives" have deniedus what we overwhelmingly demanded.

I believe that Australia will survive this darknight and that the people will not allow our democ-racy to be dealt such a blow. I remind our "repre-sentatives" that the will of the people does prevailin a democracy—and it will. The "representatives"who voted against us may not.

Gail Scott

St Ives

March 25

Congratulations to Mr Andrews and all those whovoted for your bill! You have reaffirmed mysuspicions that Australia is no longer a free coun-try.

We don’t have the right to freedom of speech, asproved by the attacks on Ms Hanson following hermaiden speech in Parliament—now you have theaudacity to tell us we can’t take our own life whenwe have no hope of recovery and extreme pain. Sothe alternative is to end it all with a knife, a gun ora rope?

Obviously Mr Andrews has had no experiencewith the forms of cancer for which there is no painrelief, and I certainly wouldn’t wish it on him.However, I suggest he visits some of the oncologyunits to see what happens in the real world.

Polls show that 70 per cent of Australiansapprove of euthanasia and yet less than 50 per centof parliamentarians appear to approve. This wouldindicate that the Lower House can now join theSenate in being, in the words of Mr Keating, "anunrepresentative swill".

Wendy McSweyn

Wollar

March 25

Obviously honourable senators would love to seethe abolition of dignity. They seem happy to denyterminally ill people any dignity in death and seemabsolutely content to see that Mal Colston is ableto have none in life.

Joshua Brown

Bonnells BayMarch 25

It is to be hoped that the psalm singingvigilantiaoutside Parliament last night (Herald, March 25)return when Mr Howard slashes the palliative carebudget even further. How ironical that purveyors ofa religion supposedly of tolerance feel vindicatedin inflicting their beliefs on those of other persua-sions who are terminally ill. Didn’t the ThirtyYears’ War which killed so many in Europeestablish that tolerance was the best path to follow?J. ByrneEastwoodMarch 25

Shame, Senate, shame. Advance Australia forward,ever forward, to the dark ages.George D’AranNelson BayMarch 25

What a sad day for democracy when the fate of abasic human right such as this can be decided by70 or so politicians acting on the whims of onepuppet and his church.

Why do we have the referendum framework inplace if it will not be used on the important issues?

What is next, Andrews? Ban condoms becauseyour leader says contraception is evil?

Democracy is dead.Richard KinderCherrybrookMarch 25

The Senate squabbles on a curiously termed"conscience" vote to deny citizens the right to endtheir suffering and die painlessly and with dignityat a time of their own choosing. Yet they have noconscience about sending troops to die in foreigncountries or peddling nicotine and lung cancer tochildren. The Senate will happily condemn you todeath, but only if you don’t want to die. Undyinghypocrites everyone of them.William S LloydDenistoneMarch 25

Now that our politicians have no doubt righteouslyindulged themselves with a "conscience vote" willthey now revert to voting the party line which doesnot require them to use their consciences?


Or, heaven forbid, might their consciences nowtell them that their votes should represent the viewsof their electorates, rather than impose narrowsectarian rules on the majority?Pamela Thistleton,Toowoon Bay.March 25

Increasingly over the years, this country has forsome reason put up with the hysterical dribblingsof the self-perpetuating, politically correct do-gooding fringe groups, but never has there beenanything to equal this latest act of Big Brothertactics, namely, the Andrews anti-euthanasia bill.

Australia has just thrown away an opportunity toshow the world that we have a compassionate andcaring society which allows our terminally illpeople the right to choose how and when they willdie. To deny this right to anyone in pain andwithout hope is the ultimate act of obscenity.

The point that these meddling minders haveapparently missed is that palliative care does notwork for many patients and even when pain can bealleviated there is another equally important aspectto their suffering to consider—dignity.

I ask this: have any of you who so vehementlyoppose voluntary euthanasia ever watched someoneyou love die in mental and physical agony, inch byinch? Well, I have, and it is a predicament thateven the most blase of us never forget. Certainly,if it happened to the family dog, it would not betolerated.

In this country nowadays we are becomingenveloped by crime and violence—if all those whoare expending so much energy interfering in thelives of the terminally ill were to divert even asmall part of that energy towards ridding oursociety of these evils, Australia would be a muchbetter place.A.J. Beckett,Bay Village.March 25

May I wish Mr Kevin Andrews a long and excruci-atingly painful life.Ted Matulevicius,Goonellabah,March 25

The unrepresentative swill of the Senate haveaffirmed that though God may decide when we die

and rest in peace, they may dictate how long welive in agony.

But some good will come of this—it continuesthe exposure of their unworthy membership. Ourglimpses of their cosy corruption and smug arro-gance coupled with this latest failure to representthe wish of the majority will make us look verycarefully at that long strip of paper next time weare in the ballot booth.

No more ticking off the numbers according to theparty ticket. We have learned the importance ofappointing true representatives and we have learnedthat we cannot trust the two major parties’ recom-mended candidates.

The Ides of March have never been a good timefor senators, and trust me—the knives are out.Gary Stowe,Faulconbridge,March 25

Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.I don’t have to worry about what’s best for me.A very few altruistic-minded wise persons in

Canberra tell me what’s best.I feel good.I don’t need God.I have them.

Tony StrachanKatoombaMarch 25

I don’t understand why these evangelists of theirown belief systems have the right to take awayanother individual’s right to end his or her ownsuffering.

This is the worst kind of politicking, far worsethan acting out at Question Time, making errorswith expenses or jetting around on fact-findingmissions. I don’t care what "God" a politicianchooses to follow, but when his belief affectsothers I consider he has overstepped his alreadypoor standing in the community.

My heart goes out to those who are suffering andthose wanting to help them within the law.Chris BakerMosmanMarch 25

The current session of Parliament will be remem-bered for its preoccupation with the moral high


ground. But why stop with passing the privatemember’s bill to nullify the NT euthanasia law andforgiving the Deputy President of the Senate forover claiming travel allowances? Both Houses mustnow increase hospital funding because euthanasiais no longer an option and amend tax legislation toremove penalty and interest provisions for inadver-tent errors. Only fair, surely?L.A. RaeBurrawangMarch 25

How appropriate! The lead story on the front page(Herald, March 25) is about senators throwing outthe Northern Territory’s right-to-die bill. Alongsidethis is a story about the Federal Government’saccepting a senator’s excuse that "sloppy book-keeping" was responsible for his claiming $6,880in travelling allowance for 43 days on which he didnot travel.

An "unrepresentative swill"? Maybe. Or perhapsit’s a case of a senator being judged by his peers.A.J. HillStanmoreMarch 25

Oh, how sincere and "holier than thou" do thespeakers in the Australian Senate sound in theirdefence of liberty, human rights, and "Australianvalues" in their rejection of the Northern Territoryeuthanasia legislation.

Please tell me, where were these earnest defend-ers of humanity when funds were cut to health,education and social services? While the "right todie" legislation is worthy in its own right, itsdissenters’ hollow cries still scream hypocrisy.Jurgen WilleCoogeeMarch 19

This morning’s vote supporting the Andrews bill inthe Senate was a travesty of the democratic pro-cess.

These self-righteous senators exercising their"conscience" vote in favour of the bill clearly haveno conscience relating to the vast majority of thepopulation and of their constituents who support theavailability of euthanasia.David A. HainesAvalonMarch 25

You will receive many letters on this topic.Let me add mine to the pile which will express

revulsion at the sanctimonious hypocrites inCanberra imposing their wills on the responsiblerelations between the medical profession and dyingpatients.

Have they done everything else so well, protect-ing us from the perils of the drug trade, protectingchildren from the predations of pedophiles, protect-ing us on our roads, that they can now move onand interfere in an area where no-one except asmall group of God-botherers sees a problem?

And to think that this was brought on us by theparty which professes to hold States’ rights so dear.Richard Ure

Epping

March 25

To all the senators who voted in favour of theAndrews euthanasia bill: you disgust me.

You have shown that in Australia, as in theUnited States, the "moral majority" is on the rise.

You seek to impose your religious and moralbeliefs upon the wider community. You missed thepoint. You can’t stop me gassing myself, or drivingmy car off a cliff. It’s my life and I will control it,thanks very much.

All you have done is to remove a humane andmerciful option. In doing so, you have run rough-shod over public opinion and the rights of theindividual.

Thanks to your vote, euthanasia will continue tobe practised in secrecy every day in every majorhospital in Australia.

When society matures further, a euthanasia lawwill be passed. As with most issues, I doubt thatAustralia will be in the vanguard of change.

Alex Kemeny

Wahroonga

March 25

Now that debate on the Andrews bill to overturnthe NT’s euthanasia legislation has ended with avote in the Senate, it is necessary to reflect on whythe Territory’s laws were flawed.

Former Territory Chief Minister MarshallPerron’s heart was in the right place, but use of theword euthanasia was always going to alienate mostAustralians and their elected politicians. We arebasically a very conservative population opposedto giving people a right to choose to end their lives.


In NSW in the late 1980s, an amendment to theNSW Crimes Act was drafted to give terminally illpeople "death with dignity". Its aim was to preventany over-zealous law officer from prosecutingdoctors and other hospital staff involved in thewithdrawal of life-supporting treatment from theterminally ill. Regrettably, this amendment neversaw the light of day.

People faced with death want to end their liveswith dignity and at ease in the knowledge that theyhave a choice which affords them, their familiesand doctors some legal protection.

The Andrews bill may have passed, but thisdebate is not over.Wayne K. GeddesHornsby HeightsMarch 25

Senator BROWN—The letters speak forthemselves. They are a consistent barrage ofvitriol, disappointment and disgust with thefact that the rights of individuals in thiscountry have been overridden by a majorityof people in this parliament not reflectingwhat the people themselves think. I finallyadd that on the eve of Easter, it is quiteremarkable that so many people got up andsaid, ‘I am a Christian. I vote for this bill. Ivote to override the rights of the people of theNorthern Territory and, in particular, those ofindividuals. The effect of what I am doing, inparenthesis, is: They shall suffer as they diebecause of my intervention against their self-determination and their wish for access tovoluntary euthanasia.’

Senator Patterson—I find that offensive;you are appalling.

Senator BROWN—You may find thatoffensive, but I find what you did offensivein the extreme. The difference between you,Senator Patterson, and me—through you,Madam President—is that I have not voted tooverride the right of individuals. If you wantto get up to defend your position, you do so,but I stand here on the point I take and Istand defiant of your point of view.

Government senators interjecting—Senator Campbell—I wish to raise a point

of order, Madam President. In relation tostanding order 193, I suggest that SenatorBrown has transgressed that rule that saysquite clearly that a senator shall not reflect onany vote of the Senate, except for the purpose

of moving that the vote be rescinded. I do notunderstand that Senator Brown is seeking todo that at this stage.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, youmust abide by that standing order in theremarks that you make. You should addressyour remarks to the chair.

Senator BROWN—Madam President, Iwill continue to abide by that, as I have. Thefact is that, despite what honourable senatorsopposite are saying now, I am reflecting whatthe people of Australia are saying in theletters columns and in their calls to the mediaabout the vote that was made in the Senate.I have said enough. I want the people tospeak for themselves and I am pleased thatthrough this opportunity tonight a quotient ofthat opinion about the passage of the Andrewsbill through this chamber will go on theHansardrecord—people speaking for them-selves.

Government Business

Senator HILL (South Australia—Ministerfor the Environment) (12.05 a.m.)—I want tosay a few words about the action of theopposition tonight in obstructing the programof the government. It is not so much theprogram of the government but really thewishes of the people as was expressed sooverwhelmingly at the recent election. Thepeople elected this government on a reformprogram, which they wished to have imple-mented. It is complex but it is important andwhat has happened tonight, unfortunately, isthat key parts of that program have beenunnecessarily blocked. They have beenblocked simply because the opposition wishedto be obstructionist—obstruct the govern-ment’s program in order to make it moredifficult to pass and therefore to disregard thewishes of the Australian people.

For that, this negative carping oppositionshould be condemned. There is no reason atall why the Senate could not have continuedsitting tonight to deal with bills that havebeen the subject of community debate, Senatecommittee debate and widespread debate nowfor a long period of time. They are reformsthat are vital in this country and they deserveto be put to the vote. But this opposition


would not only not allow the reforms to beput to the vote, it would not even allow theSenate to sit to have the opportunity to debatethem. It would not even allow the Senate toexpress its view as to whether it shouldcontinue sitting tonight to debate bills that areso important in the government’s program—aprogram of reforms that were clearly put tothe Australian people at the election and wereoverwhelmingly endorsed by the Australianpeople and have now been brought to theparliament for debate and hopefully passagebut the opposition is not—

Senator O’Brien interjecting—

The PRESIDENT—Order! SenatorO’Brien, you are in consistent breach of thestanding orders.

Senator HILL —A will of the Australianpeople that this opposition is not prepared torespect. It is not surprising that the polls areshowing the Australian Labor Party now in aworse position than when they were thrashedat the election 12 months ago. Why? Becausethey have become so negative, so obstruc-tionist, so irrelevant to the future policy andlegislative process of this country. That isdisappointing. It is disappointing to theelected government that wishes to have theopportunity to implement its program. It takestime.


The PRESIDENT—Order! There are toomany interjections.

Senator HILL —It requires the Senate to bewilling to sit to debate these issues. There isno reason at all why the Senate—

Senator Chris Evans—You had all lastweek and all this week.

Senator Campbell—You broke everyagreement. Your word’s not worth a pinchof—

The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Camp-bell and Senator Evans, stop shouting acrossthe chamber!

Senator HILL —We have been misledmore times than I can remember this week ondealing with the legislative program. We weretold time and time again that bills would bedebated in a short space of time and they

have not been. The telecommunicationspackage took 23 hours even though they wereoriginally Labor’s bills. The package goesthrough months of Senate committee debate.It comes in here and it still takes 23 hours.On that basis, a government is not going toget the opportunity to put its program to thevote. That is all we ask, that we have theopportunity to put the program to the vote.

If you have an opposition as negative asthis one and when the numbers are as tight asthey are here—and we may have an over-whelming majority in the House of Represen-tatives, but we are a minority in here—I knowhow easy it is for an opposition to block thegovernment’s wishes. You have made adetermination to make it as impossible as youcan for this government to have the oppor-tunity to get its bills put to the vote. All weask is to put the bills to the vote. We saw itwith telecommunications. We have gonethrough package after package. Take the RSAbills. We understood after consultation aroundthe chamber that it would take 1½ hours.

Senator Chris Evans—You got your voteand you lost it.

Senator Hill—No, I am not quarrellingabout the vote. What I am quarrelling aboutis that you kept it going for seven hours toavoid having to face up to other legislationbefore the chamber. You are seeking deliber-ately to make it impossible for the people’swishes to be implemented and for that youshould be condemned.

That is why the voters are telling you, ifyou only listened, if you read the polls, thatyou are going in the wrong direction. Youhave no respect at all for the wishes of theAustralian people or you would start respond-ing more positively to the newly electedgovernment’s program. But you don’t careabout that. You have gained what you believeis a right to govern and you have refused toaccept the verdict of the people. Every daywe see it.

Gary Gray, your secretary, comes out andtalks about you as a party that is drifting thathas lost its way. So many other Labor com-mentators have come out in recent times andhave said it is clear that this Labor Party haslost its direction, has no idea where it is


heading, and that is reflected of course in theopinion polls.

This action tonight is a disgrace, that theSenate is not being permitted to completedebate of a vitally important package oflegislation, that is, the superannuation bills.This Senate is being refused the opportunityto hear messages from the House of Repre-sentatives returning the health bills, so thehealth bills cannot be completed tonight. It isrefusing to take the message on the Hind-marsh Bridge bill.

Senator Campbell—They don’t want totake that.

Senator HILL —Of course they don’t. TheHindmarsh Bridge bill is typical. The Leaderof the Opposition, Mr Beazley, goes publicand said, ‘We have changed our position. Weare going to support the bill.’ But when thebill comes in here this double dealing opposi-tion seeks to carry amendments, successfullyas it turns out, that it knows is unacceptableto the government; in other words, defeats thebill through a different means. Would MrBeazley come clean with the Australianpeople? No. He has misled them on that aswell.

For about two days he got a little bit ofcredit from the public that he had finally seenreason, recognised that millions of dollarshave been wasted on that debacle and that theAustralian people had the right to have thatlegislation passed. But by either deliberatelymisleading the people or not having thecapacity to influence the behaviour of hiscolleagues in this place, when the bills get inhere Labor determines it will not be broughtinto law.

Every sign we see is of a negative LaborParty that has shown no sign at all of learningthe lessons of the thrashing that they receivedlast year—a Labor Party that is just intentupon obstructionism, intent upon blocking theprogram that the people voted in. They haveno interest at all in even offering the respectof a right to vote.

Senator West—Wind him up.

Senator HILL —Senator, you laugh at allthis because this is within the style of the newLabor Party, isn’t it? The once great Labor

Party that had the privilege of governing—that was different. But the privilege of beingin opposition, no—that is just the role ofblocking the people’s wishes.

We have seen it tonight in a way that werarely see it in this place. Tonight will beremembered by the Australian people as justanother nail in the coffin of what was once agreat political party—a great political partythat has lost all credibility with the Australianpeople, that is not prepared to respect thewishes of the Australian people, that is notprepared to give the new government a go,that is going to use its numbers in this placewhen it can join with others to not even allowthe opportunity for votes to be put. That is amatter of great regret. But you will suffer asa result of it.

You will suffer because, as we saw againwith the work for the dole bill today, Laboris not even prepared to have that bill come onin the next parliamentary session. If ever therewas another demonstration that this LaborParty is solely intent on blocking the programof the newly elected government, there isanother demonstration of it.

We see it constantly—10 or 20 hours ofunnecessary debate, getting the Senate upwhen it is unnecessary, putting off committeereports not just until the beginning of the nextsittings of the parliament but until the end ofthe next sittings. All of these signs are consis-tent with a Labor Party that has no interest inplaying the responsible role of opposition. Itis a Labor Party that is only interested inblocking the legitimate wishes of the Austral-ian people. That is a matter of great regret.

Government Business

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)(12.15 a.m.)—We have just had one of thegreatest exercises in hypocrisy that we haveever seen in this chamber. What sanctimoni-ous hypocrisy from Senator Hill, the man whotime and again, year after year, deliberately,callously and cold-bloodedly disrupted theLabor government’s program in this place.Time and again he broke his word, as he didon three occasions during the life of the lastparliament in terms of commitments that were


given by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Partywas never a great political party. Commit-ments were broken time and again.

What Senator Hill does is come into thischamber and rail because the Senate workedto a plan proposed by the Manager ofGovernment Business.

Senator Jacinta Collins—By who?Senator FAULKNER—The Manager of

Government Business. He put forward aproposition that the Senate adjourn at 8o’clock tonight. He then put forward a newproposal that the Senate adjourn at 12 o’clocktonight. When the question was put for theadjournment at 12 o’clock tonight, what didthey do? They whinged, complained and beattheir breasts.

Senator Campbell—You are a liar!The PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell,

withdraw those remarks.Senator Campbell—This man is a liar,

Madam President. I didn’t put forward theproposal; they put forward the proposal for 12midnight, and the man is a liar.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell,resume your seat. Withdraw those remarksimmediately!

Senator Campbell—I withdraw.Senator FAULKNER—I don’t give a

damn what these people say about me. I wantto say that this is the same political party—Mr Howard’s confreres in this chamber, MrHoward’s liege men in this chamber—and thesame Mr Howard who said that the Australianparliament should work harder. It is the sameMr Howard who said that the Australianparliament should sit longer. It is the same MrHoward who comes forward with a parlia-mentary sitting program of 20 weeks. That isone week less than the Labor Party hadduring the last year of the Labor government.What we say to these clowns, these deceitfulclowns on the other side of the chamber—

The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner,withdraw that.

Senator FAULKNER—I withdraw that.These hypocrites should plan ahead.

The PRESIDENT—Order! SenatorFaulkner, withdraw that remark please.

Senator FAULKNER—I withdraw, Mad-am President.

The PRESIDENT—Order! In the chamberthere should be no interjections. SenatorFaulkner has the call and is entitled to speak.There are many senators in breach of thestanding orders at present.

Senator FAULKNER —The Liberalgovernment in this chamber is incapable ofplanning ahead. The truth of the matter isthat, so far in the life of the 38th parliament,the Australian Labor Party has offered up 121hours and 36 minutes extra time for yourgovernment. That is unparalleled and unprece-dented. What that means, just so you know,is that, on average, you deal with governmentbusiness about three hours a day. That effec-tively means the equivalent of 40 extra daysof sitting of this parliament. That is the sortof generosity that was never seen from thesepeople when they were in opposition. Theyaccuse us of being carping critics but, in reali-ty, in the most deceitful way, they broke theirword on so many occasions about the waythis place should operate.

Senator Abetz—I rise on a point of order,Madam President. The Leader of the Opposi-tion, who won the Oscar for the most hysteri-cal outburst at the Labor Party conference oneyear, is once again referring to honourablesenators on this side as being deceitful, andthat ought be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT—I do not believe thatthe word was used in that fashion on thatoccasion. There is no point of order.

Senator FAULKNER—This is the equiva-lent of, effectively, for government businesstime, six extra sitting weeks. That is what thisopposition has given this new government inthis chamber. But, of course, even with thatamount of extra time—a courtesy neverextended by you when you were in opposi-tion—you have still managed to comprehen-sively mismanage the Senate’s legislationprogram and to whinge and complain.

Senator Carr—Ten sitting weeks.

Senator FAULKNER—They have had 10sitting weeks to whinge and complain that theopposition has not cooperated. I think thatstands exposed as, without doubt, one of the


falsest claims we have ever seen made in thischamber.

Senator Herron—Most false.Senator FAULKNER—It is one of the

most false claims ever made in this chamber.That from the same crew who not only havemismanaged the chamber but have talked tous tonight about standards of parliamentaryintegrity and about how this parliament andthis chamber should work!

They are the same people who gave youSenator Mal Colston Deputy President of theSenate; the same people who did this sleazy,contemptible, despicable deal; and the samepeople who completely subverted the will ofthe Australian people, who completely sub-verted the will of those Labor voters inQueensland who voted for a Labor senatorand who bought Colston lock, stock andbarrel. That is what you have done. How dareyou come in and talk about parliamentarystandards. How dare you!

The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, youshould refer to a senator by his correct title.

Senator FAULKNER —Who boughtSenator Colston lock, stock and barrel andhave the hide—now they are quiet—to comeinto this chamber and talk about parlia-mentary standards and accountability. That iswhat the Howard government stands for. Thatis what Alston and Hill stand for.

Senator Campbell—On a point of order,Madam President: I suggest that SenatorFaulkner is again in breach of standing order193(3) in relation to offensive words, imputa-tions, improper motives and personal reflec-tions. I would ask him to withdraw all ofthose matters where he has transgressed thatstanding order in defiance of your numerousrulings on this matter.

The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, youmust have regard to that standing order in theway you address senators and speak aboutother senators. I would ask you to do so.

Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, MadamPresident, I will. What has occurred is theshifting of the government’s budget fromAugust to May, irrespective of whether thatis a good move, irrespective of its merits ornot—

Senator Ferguson—You started it!

Senator FAULKNER—That is right. Weall know that has shortened the capacity ofthe Senate during the life of this parliamentto deal with your legislation program. Wehave moved from a sitting pattern of twoweeks on and two weeks off to two weeks onand one week off. That is your proposal—anew pattern. It does not allow the same levelof scrutiny of a government’s legislationprogram.

I am not arguing about the importance ofthe Andrews bill in terms of the Australianpeople—it was important—but decisions weremade in this parliament and by the govern-ment to give that bill priority and we at theend of the day supported that as a party. Webelieved that that was appropriate, but it hasconsequences. It was a very long debate. Ittook a lot of the Senate’s time and everyonehere knows it.

You have a situation where you haveunparalleled incompetence in terms of themanagement of a legislation program. Youmight get up and say, ‘Senator Campbell isvery inexperienced. He is new to the job.’Okay, he is and we accept that anyone in thatsituation is likely to make mistakes. We aresurprised at the number of mistakes thatSenator Campbell has made, but it is under-standable that he is not across his brief.

It is unprecedented to have a situationwhere the government’s orders of the daychange literally on an hourly basis; that thered that comes out in the morning is meaning-less. It may as well be printed on toilet paperfor all its use. This is the performance of theManager of Government Business.

We have a situation where this oppositionand this Senate have given a newly electedgovernment more time and more opportunityto deal with the legislation program than has,in the life of the 13 years of Labor in govern-ment, ever been extended by the Liberals inopposition. One rule for them, one rule for us.No, we play ball—we have just allowed anextra three sitting days before the next budgetto deal with your program.


The record stands that the Labor Partydelivers. The Labor Party honours its wordand you stand condemned as liars and frauds.

The PRESIDENT—Senator, would youwithdraw that remark.

Senator FAULKNER—Which?

The PRESIDENT—The last phrase.

Senator FAULKNER—I withdraw ‘liars’.

Government BusinessSenator CAMPBELL (Western Australia—

Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)(12.28 a.m.)—I do need to respond to anumber of matters that have been raised. Wehave seen over the past week in particular agame that became quite clear to me towardsthe end of last year when the Labor Partyplayed it. When I summed up the end of thesittings before Christmas—as you will recall,Madam President, because you sat in thechair—I was quite magnanimous and thankedthe opposition and other senators for thecooperation we received.

Senator Faulkner said that he was sitting toour program. I must say that you can onlyhave a program in this place that is agreed toby all senators. Yes, the adjournment timeoriginally was set at eight o’clock. SenatorFaulkner said that we proposed 12 o’clockand I called him a liar and I have withdrawnthat remark. It was unparliamentary and Ishould not have said it.

However, I get angry when someone walksin here saying such things, knowing full wellwhat the truth is—that is, we went to theopposition this morning and said, ‘We are notgoing to be able to finish these programs’—having taken 15 of those important bills offthe program—‘We will bring it down to fiveor six keys bills, including superannuation anda number of matters that have been dealt withtoday.’

We said that we will need to put the ques-tion for the adjournment when a ministermoves it so that we have flexibility. Theopposition came back and said, ‘No, we can’thave an open-ended adjournment because thatdoes not give anyone certainty. We will makeit 12 o’clock.’ I am giving away private con-versations here, but I believe I can do that be-

cause the Leader of the Opposition (SenatorFaulkner) has misled the Senate in relation tothose discussions and those negotiations.

All senators need to understand and anyonewho is silly enough to be sitting up listeningto this needs to understand what the Managerof Opposition Business has done. I do lookforward to Senator Carr speaking if he getsthe call, because what I am about to tell youis what happened. He can deny it. He cameto me and said, ‘We need to have a definitetime for the adjournment tonight and thatshould be 12 midnight. But what we will dois talk to you about it as we get closer to thattime. Of course, we are not wedded to 12o’clock, we are not restricting it to 12, we arejust saying you need to have a cut-off for thedebate and we will talk to you about it as itgets closer.’

As it got closer to 12, we had discussionsabout these matters. As Senator Kemp wouldknow, being a previous manager of govern-ment business, you talk about these things.We went to them at 8 o’clock and said, ‘Weare trying to get on with things and we havejust got to flick Hindmarsh through.’ We weretold by the opposition senators that shouldonly take 10 minutes after dinner. We werevery keen to bring superannuation on straightafter dinner. Senator Herron had been told—what was it—

Senator Herron—Five or 10 minutes.

Senator CAMPBELL —No worries. Sowhat happens? Three opposition speakerscome in. Hindmarsh takes another hour. Thenall those other matters are brought in and ittakes up time. So as we get closer to midnightwe go to Senator Carr and say, ‘Look, we arenot going to have time to finish super un-less—

Senator West—Oh dear, not fair! SenatorCampbell has spat the dummy.

Senator CAMPBELL —I am sorry, SenatorWest, but maybe you can take the New SouthWales Labor right at their word. When theysay ‘mate’ to you, maybe you can take themat their word. But I have to tell you that thesocialist left from Victoria and possibly theNew South Wales left are a different matter.When Senator Carr says, ‘Come and talk to


us about midnight and we will be cooperativeabout getting rid of the adjournment,’ hereally means, ‘Hang on; sorry, no, I do notthink we said that.’

Senator Carr, I look forward to your explan-ation, because when it came to 12 o’clock notonly could we not even bring the superannua-tion bills to a vote but we could not allowhonourable senators who have been elected bythe people of Australia to decide whether wenegate the adjournment. Senator Carr andSenator Sherry would not even allow senatorsto make a decision. They said, ‘We will talkabout negating the adjournment at midnightso that we can get the legislation finished,’but when it came to it they would not allowus to debate it or have a vote. That is whatwe are dealing with here. As a great WesternAustralian and former Premier said, ‘Nevershake hands with a cobra,’ because obviouslyyou get your hand bitten off.

Could I just say that the current Leader ofthe Opposition (Senator Faulkner) said that hehad given the coalition an extra 121 hours. Iwill table this document: it shows that one ofthe reasons that we have problems in thisplace is that every time the opposition give usan hour of extra of extra time they take itback. When it comes to managing governmentbusiness and trying to be cooperative, they arethe great Indian givers.

Do you want to know how many hours youtook on four bills? In the relatively short timesince last October, do you know how long ithas taken these guys to deal with four piecesof legislation? Endless speeches on secondreading debates, endless committee stages. Forexample, take the RSA bill that you handledthis week, Senator Kemp: we were told, ‘Anhour and a half should knock that off, noworries.’ There was no objection from Sena-tor Carr, no objection from Senator Faulkner,about the length of time it would take to dealwith retirement savings accounts. SenatorSherry said, ‘Yes, an hour or two; no wor-ries.’ Two hours go by, four hours go by, sixhours go by, eight hours go by—and we getit. How many hours for four bills, four piecesof legislation? One hundred and eleven hours.You give us 121 and take back 111. Theseguys are generous. Indian givers.

In relation to extra sitting hours, earliertoday Senator Faulkner said, ‘Look, theseguys do not know what they are doing. If youwant to get business done, you have to getextra time at the end of the sittings.’ So wewent to them last week and said, ‘Do youthink we could get a couple of extra days atthe end of the sittings if we don’t get ourbusiness done? Could we come back for acouple of days after Easter?’ ‘Oh no, youcannot come back for a couple of days afterEaster—we are all going overseas. We havegot a two for one offer with Qantas. We arenot going to be here. So you are not going toget any days like that.’ So we go to them andsay, ‘We cannot get extra sitting hours to-night, we cannot sit through until 2 or 3 inthe morning like we used to do every yearwhen we were in opposition. We cannot dothat, that is out of the ballpark.’ So we say,‘Could we please have an extra week beforethe budget sittings?’ They say, ‘You cannothave a whole week. You can come back fora day or two if you are lucky.’ We have gotthree days. You see, we were silly because weshould have asked for time at the end of thesesittings to get our bills done. We were toldwe were stupid; we were told we were mo-ronic. We were told that we just did not knowwhat to do.

I say to the Senate that we actually havethat figured out. I may be new, I may beinexperienced; I will give you that. But I amlearning pretty fast. I tell you what, a numberof people from Senator Faulkner’s own sidehave come to me and said, ‘Ian, you aredoing a very good job managing governmentbusiness—better than Senator Faulkner everdid—

Senator Carr—Name them!

Senator CAMPBELL —You want me toname them? I will tell you quietly outside,Senator Carr, over a beer. And you will notbe surprised to hear who they are.

The other thing we heard today was, ‘Whydidn’t you bring super on earlier?’ SenatorSherry did not have his amendments readyuntil after the second reading stage yet hesaid, ‘Bring on super.’ You saw theNoticePaper this morning, Madam President. Wehad the disallowance motions on industrial


relations. We were told that would take 10minutes. It could have been dealt with in Maybut we had to deal with it today. That tookhalf an hour. Then we had eight motions inrelation to the Deputy President of the Senate,the person they voted in as Deputy Presidentin 1990. We spent two hours this afternoondealing with their little vendetta againstSenator Colston. They said, ‘Let us bring onsuper after lunch.’ What did we do afterlunch? We spent hours on their old mateSenator Colston, the Deputy President. Wewere happy to deal with superannuationstraight after lunch, but what did they want todo? Not talk about legislation that will helpmake Australia’s economy fairer for thebattlers. We spoke right through until dinnertime about matters that the opposition putonto the program. After dinner we were told,‘We will knock off Hindmarsh and we willknock off health. It will only be a quick one,flick it through, off to the Reps and you willbe onto super within half an hour.’ At 10o’clock we get onto super.

So do not come in here and tell us that wedo not know how to manage the program.You guys cannot be taken seriously. Wecannot shake hands with you guys because weall know what happens when you look us inthe eye and say, ‘Don’t worry, trust me, Ian;trust me, Senator Campbell. We will comeand talk to you about midnight, about beingreasonable and sitting for a couple of extrahours to get super done, to get health doneand to get the message on Hindmarsh dealtwith.’

They did not want to do Hindmarsh. Theyare split down the middle on Hindmarsh. Theshadow minister in the other place is saying,‘We can’t have this,’ Senator Collins overhere is saying, ‘We need it, we are going toflick it through.’ They are divided down themiddle. They do not want to deal with Hind-marsh. The filibustering on the other side Ican understand—they do not want to dealwith it.

Mr Beazley is totally embarrassed becausehe promised the Australian people that wewould deal with Hindmarsh, and with noamendments. You cannot deal with theseguys; you cannot look them in the eye. They

cannot tell you truth. They say, ‘We are socooperative; we will give you 121 hours’;then they spend 111 hours—the secondlongest debate in Australian history—onindustrial relations. They have the thirdlongest debate in Australian history onTelstra. There is a blow-out of 100 per centin relation to telecommunications and wespent nearly eight hours on RSA. These guysare not serious. Gary Gray has got it right;Bob Carr has got it right. They are a joke;they are disgrace; and they are un-Australian.(Time expired).

Government BusinessSenator CARR (Victoria) (12.38 a.m.)—In

the short time that is remaining, I think Ishould state a few basic facts. It is in fact 125hours and six minutes that this opposition,along with other members of the Senate,agreed to, in terms of extra time for thisgovernment to consider their legislativeprogram. If you average it out at three hoursper day, it equals 40 extra days of sitting or,if you work on the assumption that the aver-age parliament sits some 80 days, that is, ineffect, an extra six months in a parliamentarycycle, an extra 10 weeks of parliamentarytime provided to this government for con-sideration of their program—a program, Iemphasise, that is fundamentally differentfrom the program they actually put to thepeople in the last election.

They went into the election on the basisthat they were seeking to secure a mandatefor minimal changes. What we saw after thatelection was a program that actually promisedmaximum changes—such as in industrialrelations, where they said that people werenot going to be worse off, or in superannua-tion, where they said there were going to beno extra taxes. What do we see? We see aprogram that introduces massive increases intaxation. We see a whole series of areas, suchas the ABC, education, industrial relationsand telecommunications, where there arefundamental changes in the structure ofAustralian society.

There have been 125 hours extra time foryou to pursue your agenda. The problem hasnot been Senate obstruction; it has beenmismanagement. What I indicated to you,


Senator Campbell, was very simply that, ifthere was a reasonable hope that we wouldget the super bill at 12 o’clock, we wouldextend the time. There are four hours extra togo and you know there was no hope ofgetting it. (Time expired).

Senate adjourned at 12.40 a.m.(Thursday), until Tuesday, 6 May 1997 at

12.30 p.m.

DOCUMENTS

Return to Order

A return to order relating to the FranchisingCode Council Ltd was tabled pursuant to theorder of the Senate agreed to on 18 March1997.

Tabling

The following documents were tabled bythe Clerk:

Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant tosubsection 34C(7) relating to the delay in presen-tation of a report—Casino Surveillance Authorityand Casino Controller Reports for 1995-96.

Christmas Island Act—List of applied WesternAustralian Acts for the period 7 September 1996to 14 March 1997.

Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula-tions—

Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part—

105, dated 18, 26[2], 27[2] and 28 February1997; and 3, 4, 6, 7[3], 10, 12[4], 14[4], 18[5]and 19 March 1997.

106, dated 7 March 1997.

107, dated 19 and 27 February 1997; and 4and 7[8] March 1997.

Statutory Rules 1997 No. 67.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—List of appliedWestern Australian Acts for the period 7 Septem-ber 1996 to 14 March 1997.

Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules1997 No. 70.

Financial Transaction Reports Act—Regulat-ions—Statutory Rules 1997 No. 63.

Health Insurance Act—Regulations—StatutoryRules 1997 Nos 61 and 62.

Income Tax Assessment Act—Regulations—Stat-utory Rules 1997 No. 68.

Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules1997 No. 64.Primary Industries Levies and Charges CollectionAct and Horticultural Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1997 No. 66.Social Security Act—

Pension Loans Scheme (Social Security)—Rate of Compound Interest Determination No.1 of 1997.Social Security (Access to Special Benefits byNewly Arrived Residents) Guidelines 1997.Social Security (Newly Arrived Resident’sWaiting Periods) Determination 1997.

Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1997 No. 69.Taxation Rulings TR 97/5 and TR 97/6.Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Pension LoansScheme (Veterans’ Entitlements)—Rate ofCompound Interest Determination No. 1 of 1997.


QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Australian Conservation Foundation:Funding

(Question No. 387)

Senator Abetz asked the Minister for theEnvironment, upon notice, on 31 January1997:

(1) What funding, and if any what amount offunding, was provided to the Australian Conserva

tion Foundation (ACF) in the 1994-95 and 1995-96financial years by any department or agency fallingwithin the Minister’s portfolio.

(2) What is the estimated funding any departmentor agency falling within the Minister’s portfoliowill provide to the Australian Conservation Founda-tion in the 1996-97 financial year.

Senator Hill—The answer to the honour-able senator’s question is as follows:

(1):

1994-95 Purpose Amount $

Australian Heritage Commission Women and the Environment Conference 5 000

Australian Nature ConservationAgency

Purchase ACF Publications 63

Travel Allowance and Sitting Fees—representa-tive to attend Endangered Species AdvisoryCommittee

384

Women and the Environment Conference 2 000

Environment Protection Agency Consultancy undertaken by MichaelKrokenberger on behalf of the ACF—to pre-pare a submission on the National PollutantInventory that represented the views of nationaland state conservation organisations

5 000

Grant—coordinator to produce materials for theNational Women in the Environment Confer-ence

12 500

Grant to facilitate participation in the EastCoast Armaments Complex Inquiry

58 529

Purchase of ACF Publications 57

ACF/ACTU Green Jobs Unit—"Cut Waste andEnergy: Create Green Jobs demonstration Pro-ject"

50 000

Environment Strategies Direc-torate

Travel ACF to attend three Peak ConservationMeetings

1 200

Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations 187 463

TOTAL 322 196



Australian Heritage Commission Nil Nil

Australian Nature ConservationAgency

Travel Allowance and Sitting Fees—representa-tive to attend Endangered Species AdvisoryCommittee

984

Speaker Fees 1 000

Purchase of ACF Publications 456

Environment Strategies Direc-torate

Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisations 187 463

Travel ACF to attend three Peak ConservationMeetings

1 200

Environment Protection Agency Reimbursement of ACF taxi fares (Ms HelenRosenbaum and Mr Mark Kortsman) to attendbest practices Environment Management Meet-ing

174

Grant to facilitate participation in the EastCoast Armaments Complex Inquiry

39 296

TOTAL 230 573

(2):


Australian and World HeritageGroup

Nil Nil

Biodiversity Group Purchase Books 138

Environment Priorities and Co-ordination Group

Grants to Voluntary Conservation Organisa-tions

110 000

Travel ACF to attend two National Environ-ment Consultative Forum Meetings

850 (est)

Environment Protection Group Airfare M Clarke of the ACF to attend brief-ings and consultations on lead issues

444

TOTAL 111 432

Coongie Lakes(Question No. 425)

Senator Leesasked the Minister for theEnvironment, upon notice, on 12 February1997:

(1) What steps will the Government take to seethat the Commonwealth’s obligations to protect theRamsar and World Heritage values of CoongieLakes are fulfilled.

(2) What Commonwealth assessment process willthe Government undertake to investigate and, ifnecessary, prevent the impact of the proposedSantos Ltd exploration and extraction operations onthe recognised international values of the area.

(3) What is the schedule of the planning processfor the Ramsar Management Plan.

(4) What steps will the Government take to seethat proposed operations in the area by Santos Ltddo not pre-empt the recommendations of theRamsar Management Plan.


(5) What steps is the Government taking toimplement the majority recommendation of theLake Eyre Basin World Heritage Reference Groupto initiate a World Heritage management plan forthe areas identified by the Commonwealth Scientif-ic and Industrial Research Organisation as of WorldHeritage natural value, including Coongie Lakes.

(6) When will the Government respond to thefinal report of the reference group on the assess-ment of natural values in the Lake Eyre Basin.

(7) When will the reference group be recon-vened.

Senator Hill—The answer to the honour-able senator’s question is as follows:

(1) A principal obligation of the AustralianGovernment under the Ramsar Convention is toensure that the ecological character for whichRamsar listed wetlands were recognised, areprotected. The Commonwealth Government will bemaintaining a role in any consideration of thefuture management of Coongie Lakes to ensurethese obligations are met. In particular the NationalWetlands Program is providing funds to the SouthAustralian Department of Environment and NaturalResources to prepare a management plan for theCoongie Lakes Ramsar site and it is a requirementof the Commonwealth that this be prepared inaccordance with the Ramsar Convention’s wise useguidelines.

The Coongie Lakes are not World Heritage listedalthough there has been some identification ofworld heritage values. The commonwealth believesthat respecting the Ramsar values is sufficient inthese circumstances.

(2) The Commonwealth has provided somecomments in relation to the Draft Declaration ofEnvironmental Factors and Draft Code of Environ-mental Practice—Seismic Operations, provided bySantos under cover of the Departmental Secretary’sletter of 14 February 1997 and asked a series offurther questions. The Commonwealth will continuesuch involvement in the process as is necessary andensure it meets its obligations under the RamsarConvention.

The letter further noted that the environmentalimpacts of any subsequent stage, involving explora-tory drilling and possible development of petroleumdeposits, will require close attention by theCommonwealth at that time.

(3) The final report is due to be submitted inSeptember 1997.

(4) Funds which have been allocated to SouthAustralia from the National Wetlands Program forthe Coongie Lakes Management Plan have beenprovided, in accordance with normal practice, onthe condition that the management plan when com-pleted must be consistent with the Ramsar Conven-

tion’s obligations, particularly with the Guidelineson Management Planning for Ramsar sites, theGuidelines for Implementation of the Wise UseConcept of the Convention and the recommendationon zonation within wetland reserves, as developedby the Ramsar Convention. The Program alsospecifies that the draft management plan must beprepared in consultation with all interest groups andreleased for public review.

(5) Further Commonwealth action on the majori-ty recommendations of the Lake Eyre BasinReference Group is awaiting the conclusions of astudy on the indigenous cultural World Heritagevalues of the Lake Eyre Basin in South Australia.

(6) See answer to question 5.(7) It is expected that the reference group will be

reconvened following receipt of the report on theindigenous cultural World Heritage values of theLake Eyre Basin in South Australia.

Community Development EmploymentProgram: Amalgamations

(Question No. 486)

Senator Cook asked the Minister forAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs,upon notice, on 14 March 1997:

(1) Has ATSIC taken a policy decision to requirethe amalgamation of any Community DevelopmentEmployment Program (CDEP) involving less than50 persons currently operating within Aboriginalcommunities; if so, why was this decision taken.

(2) Is the Minister aware that there is widespreadopposition to this proposed compulsory amalgama-tion from Aboriginal communities, especially in theKimberley region.

(3) Does the Minister accept the view of Kimber-ley Aboriginal resource agencies which see thisforced amalgamation of CDEP projects as leadingto a dramatic shift of administrative paper workfrom ATSIC itself onto already overextendedAboriginal resource agencies; if not, why not.

(4) Is the Minister prepared to allocate to ATSICthe necessary resources for it to continue adminis-tering the CDEP, the ‘work for the dole’ scheme toAboriginal communities, rather than force thetransfer of this administrative burden from ATSICto the Aboriginal resource agencies.

Senator Herron—The Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Commission has provid-ed the following information in response tothe honourable senator’s question:

(1) There has been no policy decision thatrequires amalgamation of CDEPs of less than 50participants.

(2) There is no compulsory amalgamation ofsmall CDEPs proposed. However, Regional Coun-


cils are required to ensure the optimum use offunds available and may consider providing re-sources to an organisation to administer projects inthe area. In the Derby region, the Regional Councilinvestigated the proposal, but no resolution waspassed.

(3) No, any rationalisation of small CDEPswould be based on cost efficiency which would

imply a decrease in administrative functions withina region. Whilst the administrative functions wouldincrease for the Aboriginal resource agency,resources would be provided to ensure an efficientand effective service would be provided.

(4) There are no forced transfer of administrativefunctions, therefore it is not necessary to considerre-allocating resources.

SENATE Official Hansard - Parliament of Australia Official Hansard WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 1997 ......

Documents

Transcript of SENATE Official Hansard - Parliament of Australia Official Hansard WEDNESDAY, 26 MARCH 1997 ......