COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 1999

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SECOND PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY

Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 2033 National Health Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1999, Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1999— First Reading ...... 2033 Second Reading ...... 2033 Governor-General’s Speech— Address-in-Reply ...... 2037 Business— Days and Hours of Meeting and Routine of Business ...... 2037 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998— Second Reading ...... 2037 In Committee ...... 2041 Matters of Public Interest— Drugs ...... 2068 Honey: Imports and Exports ...... 2070 Tasmania: Freight Subsidy Schemes ...... 2070 Questions Without Notice— Goods and Services Tax: Compensation ...... 2072 Goods and Services Tax: Food ...... 2074 Royal Australian Air Force: Airspace Trial ...... 2075 Goods and Services Tax: Compensation ...... 2075 Social Security Payments: Proceeds of Sale of New South Wales Power Industry ...... 2076 Unfair Dismissals: Small Business ...... 2077 Tax Package: Impact ...... 2078 Computers for Schools Program ...... 2078 Goods and Services Tax: Mobile Home and Caravan Park Site Fees . 2079 Tax Reform: Indigenous Australians ...... 2079 Disability Services: Consultation ...... 2080 Jabiluka Uranium Mine ...... 2081 Tax Package: Impact ...... 2082 Republic: Education Campaign ...... 2083 Child Disability Allowance: Eligibility ...... 2084 Renewable Energy ...... 2084 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Nuclear Fuel: Reprocessing ...... 2085 Members of Parliament: Travel Costs ...... 2086 Aviation: Airspace Travel ...... 2086 Goods and Services Tax: Questions without Notice ...... 2086 Notices— Presentation ...... 2093 Withdrawal ...... 2094 Presentation ...... 2094 Withdrawal ...... 2095 Presentation ...... 2095 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee—Report ...... 2095 Notices— Postponement ...... 2096 Committees— Economics References Committee—Extension of Time ...... 2096 Drugs: Use by Young People ...... 2096 Electorate Offices: Computer Equipment ...... 2097 Matters of Public Importance— Regional Forests Agreements ...... 2097 CONTENTS—continued

Committees— Public Works Committee—Reports ...... 2097 Scrutiny of Bills Committee —Report ...... 2099 Matters of Public Importance— Regional Forests Agreements ...... 2099 Documents— Work of Committees ...... 2112 Committees— Membership ...... 2112 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Bill 1998, Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998, General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 2112 Second Reading ...... 2112 Committees— Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee—Report ...... 2116 Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Report ...... 2116 Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998— In Committee ...... 2117 Documents— Safety Review Committee ...... 2134 Adjournment— Aust-Home Investments Scheme ...... 2136 Drugs: Strategies ...... 2140 Telstra: Sale—Committee Inquiry ...... 2141 Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Battery Hens ...... 2143 Gordonstone Coalmine ...... 2144 Documents— Tabling ...... 2146 Questions On Notice— Isolated and Remote Students: Retention Rates—(Question No. 16) . . 2147 Australian Tax Office: Individual Taxpayer Audits— (Question No. 157) ...... 2149 Telstra: Further Sale Report—(Question No. 163) ...... 2151 Child Disability Allowance: Applications—(Question No. 170) ..... 2152 Telstra: Staff—(Question No. 196) ...... 2152 Department of Finance and Administration: Conference Expenditure— (Question No. 213) ...... 2153 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Market Research—(Question No. 225) ...... 2155 Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Market Research—(Question No. 235) ...... 2159 Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet: Contracts to Worthington Di Marzio—(Question No. 236) ...... 2159 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Contracts to Worthington Di Marzio—(Question No. 241) . . . 2160 Department of Finance and Administration: Contracts to Worthington Di Marzio—(Question No. 246) ...... 2160 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Contracts to Australasian Research Strategies—(Question No. 252) ...... 2160 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Contracts to Australasian Research Strategies—(Question No. 257) 2160 Department of Finance and Administration: Contracts to Australasian Research Strategies—(Question No. 262) ...... 2161 Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Contracts to CONTENTS—continued

Australasian Research Strategies—(Question No. 263) ...... 2161 Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet: Contracts to Canberra Liaison—(Question No. 268) ...... 2161 Department of the Treasury: Unauthorised Disclosures Investigations—(Question No. 320) ...... 2161 Depratment of Transport and Regional Services: Unauthorised Disclosures Investigations—(Question No. 321) ...... 2162 Communications: Making Australia Stronger—(Question No. 352) . . 2162 Pensioner Education Supplement—(Question No. 355) ...... 2162 Fringe Benefits Tax: Change—(Question No. 375) ...... 2163 Australian Animal Health Council: Consultants—(Question No. 384) . 2164 Department of the Environment: Conference Expenditure— (Question No. 1253) ...... 2165 SENATE 2033

Wednesday, 17 February 1999 The speeches read as follows— NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. This bill gives effect to a budget decision last year Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., to address the problem of medication, subsidised and read prayers. under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), being taken or sent overseas either for sale or for BUSINESS use by persons not eligible to receive medication Consideration of Legislation subsidised by the Australian taxpayer. The bill prohibits the export of medications unless Motion (by Senator Abetz, at the request the medications are not prescription drugs; or they of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: are prescription drugs but no Commonwealth That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of benefit has been paid; or they are for the personal standing order 111 not apply to the Year 2000 use of the person or another person accompanying Information Disclosure Bill 1999, allowing it to be the person. Based on data provided by the Austral- considered during this period of sittings. ian Customs Service (ACS) and on information obtained by the Health Insurance Commission NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (HIC), it is estimated that medication subsidised to BILL (No. 1) 1999 the value of some $20 million per annum is being exported inappropriately. AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY The bill provides the ACS with the power to detain (PLANNING AND LAND medication in cases where the Customs officer MANAGEMENT) AMENDMENT forms the view that the medication is not for the personal use of the person who is either carrying BILL 1999 or shipping the medication overseas. Medication THERAPEUTIC GOODS detained by a Customs officer will be transferred to the HIC. The Customs officer has a discretion to LEGISLATION AMENDMENT detain only some of the medication, allowing the BILL 1999 raveller to retain the remainder. First Reading The HIC will be responsible for determining whether or not a Commonwealth benefit has been Motion (by Senator Abetz, at the request paid for the medication. The medication will be of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: forfeited to the Commonwealth unless the medica- That the following bills be introduced: a bill for tion is not a prescription drug; or that no Common- an act to amend the National Health Act 1953, and wealth benefit has been paid or is payable; or it is for related purposes; a bill for an act to amend the for the personal use of the person concerned. Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land The bill allows the Chief Executive Officer of the Management) Act 1988, and for related purposes; ACS to issue guidelines for the use of Customs and a bill for an act to amend the law relating to officers relating to the examination of baggage, therapeutic goods, and for related purposes. detention of medication, transfer of medication to Motion (by Senator Abetz) agreed to: the HIC, and copying and retaining documents provided in relation to the medication. That these bills may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. The bill further provides that the HIC may issue guidelines for the use of HIC officers when dealing Bills read a first time. with medication transferred from the ACS, dealing with claims for the return of medication, and Second Reading dealing with the disposal of medication that has Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary been forfeited to the Commonwealth. Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (9.32 Where the HIC establishes that the detained a.m.)—I table the explanatory memoranda medications are prescription drugs, it must notify relating to the bills and I move: the exporter that an application may be made within 60 days for the return of the medication. That these bills be now read a second time. The HIC must consider any submissions seeking I seek leave to have the second reading the return of the medication. In order for the speeches incorporated in Hansard. medication to be forfeited and destroyed, the HIC must apply to a court for an order authorising the Leave granted. proper destruction of the medication. 2034 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

These provisions are meant to address situations stated in the Coalition Policy on the National where a person is attempting to carry or send large Capital in both 1996 and 1998. quantities of medication overseas; quantities which Section 9 of the Seat of Government (Administra- cannot reasonably be considered to be for personal tion) Act 1910 provides that no Crown lands in the use; where the prescription labels do not relate to Territory may be sold or disposed of for freehold the person who has possession or control of the estates. medication; or where the prescription labels have been removed or defaced so as not to allow identi- The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and fication of the person to whom they were supplied. Land Management) Act 1988 provides for land in the act to be National Land or Territory Land. The bill specifies a formula, for most medication National Land is land so declared by the Common- allowing at least 12 months’ supply, under which wealth Minister as land used or intended to be used the possession or attempted export of a greater by or on behalf of the Commonwealth. Land that quantity constitutes a prima facie offence. The bill is not National Land is Territory Land. The ACT does not affect travellers who are entitled to Government manages Territory Land on behalf of medication subsidised under the PBS and which are the Commonwealth and may grant, dispose of, for the traveller’s personal use or are for the acquire, hold and administer estates in Territory personal use of a person accompanying the travel- Land. ler. The ACT Government sought an amendment to the The National Health Act 1953 currently prohibits Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land a person from disposing of a PBS medication in a Management) Act 1988 to enable it to issue leases manner not intended in the prescription. This for a maximum term of 999 years. The Chief includes selling or exporting the medication over- Minister, Mrs Carnell, has cited the 99-year limit seas. The bill will now allow the HIC to address as antiquated and unduly restrictive. ACT business the situation where the subsidised medication is in representatives have supported the proposed the possession of another person or is being amendment. A regulation impact statement is forwarded overseas by a person for whom the included in the explanatory memorandum. medication was not prescribed. This bill is consistent with the Australian Capital The bill has been the subject of extensive consulta- Territory being a self-governing territory. tion between the HIC, the ACS, the Department of Health and Aged Care, the Attorney-General’s The proposed amendment was first introduced into Department and the office of Director of Public the House of Representatives as the Australian Prosecutions. The work on this bill was initiated by Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) a recommendation of the House of Representatives Amendment Bill 1997 on 4 December 1997 and Standing Committee on Family and Community was passed by the House without amendment on 10 Affairs in its report Concessions—Who benefits? March 1998. It was introduced into the Senate on In conjunction with this legislation, the HIC will 12 March 1998. undertake action to inform potential travellers, The bill was referred to the Senate Rural and prescribers and pharmacists of the amendments to Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Com- the National Health Act 1953. The information will mittee on 12 March 1998. The committee tabled its be advertised in professional and travel publica- report in April 1998 with the majority recommend- tions, on ethnic radio and in ethnic newspapers. ing that the bill be passed without amendment. The I now commend the bill. committee concluded that the bill is an appropriate form of enabling legislation allowing the ACT Legislative Assembly to enact a change of lease- hold term from a maximum possible term of 99 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY years to 999 years. (PLANNING AND LAND MANAGEMENT) Following its inquiries of the ACT Government as AMENDMENT BILL 1999 to the machinery proposed for administration of any changes to the term of ACT leasehold approved by The purpose of this bill is to increase the attractive- the Commonwealth Parliament, the committee was ness of the Australian Capital Territory to potential satisfied that the passage of the bill should be investors by removing the perceived disincentive to supported. business and other investment brought about by the limit of land tenure to 99-year estates, as distinct Effect of the bill from freehold title enjoyed elsewhere in Australia. The proposed amendment will increase the maxi- The objectives of strengthening land tenure security mum permissible limit for the grant of new estates and allowing the ACT Legislative Assembly to in Territory Land to 999 years. The bill will not extend ACT leases from 99 years to 999 years were provide for automatic extension of existing estates. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2035

A leaseholder seeking a term longer than 99 years of complementary health care products in this will need to apply to the ACT Government for a country and throughout the world. new grant. Both government and industry have been struggling The ACT Government has indicated that a modest to balance the need to improve market access with administrative charge will apply to the grant of new the need to uphold consumer confidence. Review- leases to existing leaseholders, provided no terms ing advertising regulations, substantiation of of the lease, other than the lease period, are therapeutic claims and post market vigilance are changed. critical issues to government, industry and consum- ers alike. It is also essential to secure the ongoing The proposed amendment removes the reference to involvement of the complementary medicines ‘or such longer period as is prescribed’ so that no industry in providing advice to government and terms of estate greater than 999 years will be evaluating and regulating complementary medi- possible. cines. The Regulations currently applicable which relate I am delighted that the Working Party was able to to 999-year leases granted for tertiary education or address these issues and agree on a well considered church purposes prior to the introduction of Self- and comprehensive framework for complementary Government in the ACT will be unaffected by the medicines which addresses market access, the proposed amendment. ongoing control of complementary medicines and most importantly the maintenance of public health The act is proposed to take effect upon receiving and safety through co-operation and regulation. the Royal Assent. The package of reforms for complementary medi- Financial Impact cines includes some legislative changes, some The proposed amendment will have no direct changes to the Therapeutic Goods Act regulations, impact on Commonwealth revenue or outgoings. major administrative reforms plus information and However, it is intended that the amendment will consultative initiatives. bring positive effects to the ACT economy by The bill that I am presenting today includes the increasing the Territory’s attractiveness to investors. legislative component of complementary medicine reforms. It ensures that through appropriate regula- tion, the Australian public can be confident that the THERAPEUTIC GOODS LEGISLATION medicines they consume and medical devices that AMENDMENT BILL 1999 they use are safe, effective and of a high quality. In summary, the bill makes amendments to the This bill represents an important moment in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in three key respects: regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. This bill encompasses the first component of a package Firstly, it amends key definitions in the act to of reforms designed to provide a new and appropri- provide greater clarity and certainty in relation to ate framework for the regulation and management the application of the legislation. of complementary medicines. This bill also makes Secondly, it includes amendments which acknow- a number of more general amendments to improve ledge the shift of focus from pre-market clearance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the to post market vigilance for low-risk ‘listable’ Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. goods. This is achieved by, for example, providing It is estimated that over 60 percent of Australians a more streamlined and efficient process to enable use complementary health care products at least sponsors to market low risk products without undue once a year. These include vitamins, minerals, delay while ensuring that consumers continue to be herbal, naturopathic and/or homoeopathic prepara- protected from unsafe products. tions with therapeutic properties. Thirdly, this bill includes a new part in the act that There are now around 17,000 such products on the establishes as a statutory body, the existing Com- Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and an plementary Medicines Evaluation Committee. estimated 6,000 complementary medicine practi- The opportunity has also been taken, with agree- tioners (not including massage therapists) operating ment from industry, to address other matters in the in Australia. bill including the establishment of the existing In December last year I announced the formation National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee of a Working Party, bringing together industry as a statutory committee and the inclusion of a new representatives, consumers and Government, to Part which describes penalties and offences in develop reforms in the regulation of complementary relation to the publication of advertisements which medicines. Along with many of my colleagues on have not been pre-cleared. both sides of the Senate, I considered this extreme- Allow me to explain the key components of the bill ly important given the growing use and acceptance in a little more detail. 2036 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Amendments to Definitions dence for claims made for various substances and The bill amends key definitions in the Therapeutic products. Goods Act 1989 (the act) to provide a better The combination of these measures will help interface between foods, complementary medicines facilitate growth in the area of complementary and other medicines such as over the counter and medicines and promote public confidence that the prescription medicines. Changes have been made complementary health care products marketed in to reduce confusion at the food-therapeutic goods Australia are safe, effective and of a high quality. interface and make it clear when a good is a Complementary Medicines Evaluation Commit- therapeutic good (regulated by the Therapeutic tee Goods Administration) and when it is a food (to be dealt with by the Australian and New Zealand Food The Complementary Medicines Evaluation Commit- Authority). tee (CMEC) was established in December 1997. This bill will strengthen and enhance the standing Enhanced market access and increased post of the Committee and complementary health care market vigilance products generally by establishing CMEC as a A number of amendments to the bill operate in statutory committee. conjunction with each other to improve market The establishment of CMEC as a statutory commit- access for complementary medicines while at the tees under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 is an same time increasing post market monitoring to acknowledgment of the growing significance of this ensure that consumers continue to access only safe industry and the need to improve the government’s and reliable products. access to expertise in this area. This will provide At present, once the TGA is satisfied that a sub- an opportunity for expert, experienced and appro- stance is sufficiently low risk for its intended priate input into the evaluation of medicines and for purpose, such goods may be eligible for ‘listing’ in important issues to be discussed amongst peers both the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods within and outside the public sector. (ARTG). These goods are referred to as ‘listable’ This legislative change, will also be accompanied goods. However, changes to the documentation of by a range of administrative reforms aimed at goods that qualify as ‘listable’ goods requires an improving the management of complementary amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. medicines and ensuring the involvement of industry This is a cumbersome process that often fails to and consumers in policy making. For example, I accommodate the commercial realities involved in will be setting up an Office of Complementary enabling low-risk products to become publicly Medicines within the Therapeutic Goods Adminis- available. tration, responsible for the regulation of the com- To address this problem, the amendments contained plementary medicines industry and staffed by senior in this bill propose the use of a gazettal notice by and experienced personnel. I will also be inviting the Minister in lieu of an amendment to regula- consumer and industry groups to join a Comple- tions. This will enable a quicker, more responsive mentary Health Care Consultative Forum. process to be adopted to achieve the same results— Another critical issue which the government intends that is, low risk products gaining swift access to the to address through administrative reform is the market and consumers having access to new advertising of therapeutic goods. It is recognised by products more quickly. both the TGA and industry that the existing Thera- Quicker market access does not mean marketing of peutic Goods Advertising Code is somewhat less safe products or misleading marketing claims. outdated and no longer meets the needs of industry The bill confirms the existing condition that or government. The TGA has therefore undertaken requires the sponsor to hold evidence supporting to conduct a comprehensive review of the Code and any claims. the guidelines issued in relation to the Code. This supporting evidence will not be required as a The aim of the review will be to create a system of matter of routine but will be called upon in cases regulation in relation to advertising which is: where there is a clear public health or safety matter simple; easily understood by advertisers, sponsors at issue or where there has been deliberately or and the media; consistent with modern best prac- recklessly misleading information provided to the tice; and capable of addressing a range of products public about a product. The level of evidence that and claims so that consumers can be appropriately will be required, will be directly related to the risk informed. The review will, of course, be character- associated with the product and the nature of the ised by extensive consultation and expert input, claim made about the product. However, it is particularly from the Therapeutic Goods Advertis- important to note that testimonials alone are not ing Code Council. acceptable proof of efficacy. The Complementary As I mentioned earlier, in addition to the reforms Medicines Evaluation Committee will advise the proposed in respect of complementary medicines, TGA and sponsors on appropriate levels of evi- the opportunity has also been take to make some Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2037 more general amendments which improve the GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S SPEECH application of the therapeutic goods legislation in respect of all medicines and devices. Address-in-Reply One such amendment formalises existing arrange- Consideration resumed from 30 November ments in relation to the scheduling of drugs and 1998, on motion by Senator MacGibbon: poisons. The bill creates a new Part in the act That the following Address-in-Reply be agreed which establishes the existing National Drugs and to: Poisons Schedule Committee. The Committee’s functions include: making decisions in relation to To His Excellency the Governor-General the classification and scheduling of substances; MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY— maintaining the Poisons Standard; and providing advice to government on legislative restrictions and We, the Senate of the Commonwealth of Austral- policies in relation to substances. ia in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign and to It should be noted that this Part of the bill, includ- thank Your Excellency for the speech which you ing the definitions adopted specifically for this Part, have been pleased to address to Parliament. do not relate to the reforms in respect of comple- Question resolved in the affirmative. mentary medicines. The Part focuses specifically on the work of the existing Commonwealth/State body Motion (by Senator Abetz) agreed to: known as the National Drugs and Poisons Schedule That the address-in-reply be presented to His Committee. Excellency the Governor-General by the President Another more general amendment included in the and such senators as may desire to accompany her. bill relates to offences and penalties for publication The PRESIDENT—I inform honourable of advertisements in mainstream print media for senators that I have ascertained that His which prior approval for such publication has not Excellency the Governor-General will be been obtained. pleased to receive the address-in-reply to his These offences and penalties previously resided in opening speech at Government House on the Therapeutic Goods Regulations. They are Thursday, 18 February 1999 at 6 p.m. I however, much more appropriately placed in the extend an invitation to all honourable senators Therapeutic Goods Act itself. to accompany me on the occasion of its The penalties have been increased from $1,100 to presentation. $11,000 to bring them more in line with penalties for the broadcast of product advertisements and to BUSINESS reflect the Government’s commitment to ensuring that advertisements which have a wide audience Days and Hours of Meeting and Routine have been appropriately cleared. of Business In closing, I believe that this bill introduces import- Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave— ant amendments which will improve the capacity agreed to: of the legislation to appropriately regulate com- That on Thursday, 18 February 1999, the Senate plementary health care products and other medi- adjourn at 5.40 p.m. without the question being put, cines and other therapeutic goods. The reforms for the purposes of presenting the address-in-reply provide a unique opportunity to achieve a co- to the Governor-General. operative approach to health care and provide assurances to the Australian public that the medi- ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM cines they consume are safe, effective and of a high AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1998 quality. Second Reading I commend the bill to you. Debate resumed from 15 February, on Ordered that further consideration of the motion by Senator Ian Campbell: second reading of these bills be adjourned That this bill be now read a second time. until the first day of sitting in the winter sittings of 1999, in accordance with standing Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) order 111. (9.35 a.m.)—I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 2) Ordered that these bills be listed on the 1998 and in doing so point out that this is, in Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. the vernacular, a crook bill on electoral 2038 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 matters. It is shameful of the government to Nick Minchin was the State Director of the bring in this bill with the measures it con- Liberal Party in the 1980s while I was State tains. Secretary of the Labor Party in South Austral- From 1983, the former Labor government ia. During that period we fought out a number and the former minister in charge of the of election campaigns. I do not think the Commonwealth Electoral Act, my colleague partisanship that one brings to helping one’s from South Australia Mick Young, established party win an election is the right attitude to a process where the parliament would have have in this parliament—drawing up legisla- due process over reviewing each election, tion to try to advantage your party at the dealing with issues of electoral administration expense of democratic principles. That is what in a timely and considered manner and trying this bill is about. It is a crook bill and in a to reach bipartisanship on the way in which number of areas the opposition is going to we conduct our elections. move amendments to or oppose the provisions of the bill. Australia has every right to be generally proud of the fact that, at the national level, I want to mention the extraordinary episode the conduct of elections since Federation has of the so-called Greenfields Foundation. If been very good by world standards. However, ever there were an example of how the as the joint committee looking at the Electoral Liberal Party will find a loophole, even a very Act in 1983-84 recommended, there should be small one, and try to drive the Queen Eliza- a standing committee to review our Electoral beth ship through it to their electoral advan- Act and look at ways of improving it on the tage, it is the Greenfields incident. Fortunate- principle of making it easier and more timely ly, the Electoral Commission is now finding for people to be able to vote in an election. ways to further call on the people involved with the Greenfields operation to disclose What we in the Labor Party are about is where the money came from and how it was always ensuring that it is easy for the mem- raised and to ensure that there is proper bers of our community to exercise their transparency. In 1983 the then committee, democratic right—some would say that sacred chaired by Dick Klugman, a member of the privilege—to vote. That is a process that, other place at the time, under the terms of unfortunately, many countries of the world reference from Mick Young, inquired into two still do not have or do not have in an open major areas of reform: public funding and and transparent way. That was a major reform disclosure. of the Hawke Labor government and due credit should be given to Mick Young, the At the time the Liberal Party opposed minister, and Dick Klugman who chaired the public funding, but when it came in they committee which made all of those recom- never sent the cheque back. They always took mendations. the money, though they said that ethically Since that time the Joint Standing Commit- they disagreed with it. If they had some ethics tee on Electoral Matters, which I served on about it, if they believed it was unethical to once for a term of government, from 1987 to get public funding, why did they keep accept- 1990, has performed that function well. But ing the money? Even in the 1984 election Mr since this government got into office it has Peacock, the then Leader of the Opposition, used the process only on the basis of how it campaigned to remove this provision of can shave the edge off improving the public funding. Of course, he lost the election. coalition’s prospects at election time by the The Liberal Party still accepted the money way the act is administered, the way it is under their entitlement. It is the height of changed. The sticky fingers of my colleague hypocrisy for the Liberal Party to go around Senator Minchin, who in the last period of the questioning issues of public funding but still government had some interest and responsi- be willing to accept the cheque. bilities in this area, are all over this bill in Public funding is a very important part of finding ways to give an electoral advantage to our democratic process. It ensures that politi- the coalition. cal parties get access to reasonable funding to Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2039 run their election campaigns so that the public subsequently amended through the 1980s and have an opportunity to hear all views. It is not early 1990s. just advantaging those political parties that The Liberal Party think they are very smart have access to the most money. It was and is in finding a loophole. Fortunately, the Elec- a very important reform. But on the disclosure toral Commission appears to be now chasing side, it is equally important for people to see this down. We will be moving amendments to who is putting the money up for various make the Greenfields example no longer political parties. Of course, that was opposed available to any political party, so that the by the Liberal Party. They said that all sorts disclosure laws work very well. of terrible things would happen, that intimida- tion would occur, to those who had been I would also point out about disclosure and giving money to one party and not to the about funding the oddity that the Liberal other. Not one scrap of evidence has any- Party often complains that trade unions make where been presented that any organisation donations to the Labor Party but do not make which gave more money to one political party them to the Liberal Party and that this is than the other has suffered intimidation. unfair. Those donations to the Labor Party have been disclosed in the annual accounts of I stand to be corrected—there might be a every trade union under the industrial legisla- case—but I cannot recollect since 1983 or tion in Australia for many years, long before 1984, when the legislation came in, anyone public disclosure. So they are available to being charged with intimidation or threatening every union member to see where their somebody who made a political donation to membership fees are going. a political party. The disclosure rules have In South Australia at the moment the worked very well. It is published, so that you Liberal government is trying to outlaw trade can see who is putting the money into which unions making such donations. But they are party. People can make their own judgment not making any suggestion that you cannot as to whether that party’s policies have been make a donation from a trade union without duly affected by those donations. a specific plebiscite or vote of all the mem- The Liberal Party has always been embar- bers of the union. They do not want to put rassed that it has to rely solely on money that into the provision. However, they are not from the big end of town, from the big putting in a provision saying that publicly companies, to keep them going. Four or five listed companies have to take a vote of all years ago, at the time of Alexander Downer’s their shareholders to see whether they should leadership of the Liberal Party, the big end of make a donation to a political party. town, the big companies, decided that his BHP, Western Mining Corporation and leadership was so bad that they told the other companies have publicly disclosed that Liberal Party: ‘We won’t be putting any more they are making donations to both sides of money in.’ So in a sense they helped in the politics, usually much more to the Liberal downfall of Alexander Downer and Mr Party than to the Labor Party. I would like to Howard became leader again of the Liberal see the chairman of the board at the annual Party. general meeting of such companies move a At that time the debts left in the Liberal resolution to the shareholders saying, ‘I Party were substantial. I think the National hereby move that we make a donation of half Australia Bank made a generous facility loan a million dollars to the Liberal Party, available of $4 million or $5 million to the $100,000 to the Labor Party, $5,000 to the Liberal Party. Ultimately, they wanted their Democrats and the Greens get nothing,’ and money back, and how did the Liberal Party a ballot of every one of those hundreds of do it? They established the Greenfields thousands of shareholders of those com- Foundation whereby, by claiming it is a loan panies—and see what happens. from this company, it does not have to be If the Liberal Party in South Australia was disclosed. It is absolutely breaking the spirit fair dinkum about this proposal they would of the law that we introduced in 1983 and amend it to include the fact that every share- 2040 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 holder in every company has to be consulted reminding young people that they are eligible before any political donation can be made to to get on the roll. any political party. They will not do that, of Senator Conroy—What about all the other course. They want to hit the trade unions states? around the head. The trade unions have always been open about their affiliation and Senator ELLISON—Senator Conroy is payments to the Labor Party. The Liberal perhaps jumping ahead of things, because I Party want to remove from the shareholders was coming to that. The AEC is looking at their opportunity to be consulted and have a dealing with this in other states, so that young vote on whether they believe the dividend people will have a chance to get on the roll, money paid to them should be paid to politi- and, combined with the updating that I have cal parties. mentioned, this will ensure that people do not have to embark upon that last minute rush I think the issue of disclosure, the which has been a problem of past times. In Greenfields operation, is a shameful one for fact, the AEC has indicated to me that over the Liberal Party. As I said in my opening 400,000 transactions have taken place during remarks, this is a crook bill. It is a disgrace the period of the closure of the rolls. to the process of bipartisanship that we have had over most issues of improvement in the Another area of disagreement is the ques- Electoral Act. Many of the other provisions tion of prisoner voting. This recommendation in this bill have only been designed by the was made by the Joint Standing Committee Liberal Party because they think they will on Electoral Matters and the government have the advantage of getting people who believes it is following community opinion in they think may not vote for them off the roll relation to this matter by extending the bar on and stop them voting. voting to prisoners in general. At the moment, It is a disgraceful bill in most of its aspects. roughly a third of prisoners cannot vote. That, We will be moving amendments to a number of course, will be extended by these provi- of areas of the bill and rejecting others. sions and will bring us into line with such countries as the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Belgium and some of the states of the United Special Minister of State) (9.47 a.m.)—At the States of America. outset, I thank senators from the opposition and other parties for their contributions to this Another area of contention is the disclosure debate. levels of donations. We believe as a govern- ment that those are important because we do There are areas of agreement in relation to not believe that parties should be reliant this legislation. Perhaps it is easier to identify solely on public funding. Recently over $3 those areas where there is not agreement, and million was given to One Nation as a result deal with the closure of the rolls. In relation of public funding and a number of Independ- to that closure, the AEC is currently embark- ents received funding due to the percentage of ing on a process of continually updating the votes they received during the last election. rolls. In fact, this issue has been raised with me by a number of people. They say, ‘You We believe that public funding is a good are shortening the period from the issue of the thing. However, political parties should also writs to the closure of the rolls. People will be given the opportunity to raise their own have less chance to get on the roll.’ The funds. The levels have not been addressed for government says that the ideal situation is that seven years and the government believes that you update the rolls continually outside an it is now time that the thresholds for disclos- election period. ure should be raised. We do believe as a In one exercise—which is a very good principle that parties should not rely solely on one—the AEC has combined with the Victori- public funding as a source of revenue. We an Department of Transport to send out saw that happen recently in the last election. notices to those young people who have just There is also the question of the provisions obtained a driver’s licence. That is a way of dealing with the verification of enrolment. I Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2041 would put to the Senate that, when someone Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— enrols to vote, that is an important process in Special Minister of State) (9.55 a.m.)—At the the community, as important as opening a outset, I table a supplementary explanatory bank account—in fact, more important. Yet memorandum relating to the government the requirements for verification of enrolment amendments to be moved to this bill. This are less than those required for opening a memorandum was tabled in the chamber on bank account. The government believes that 15 February this year. there should be some tightening of provisions in relation to that, but not so as to disfran- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.55 chise people. We have provided in our regula- a.m.)—As indicated on the running sheet, the tions, which have been circulated in draft Democrats wish to oppose schedule 1, items form, for a wide class of people to be able to 1 and 2, which relate to the provision of witness the enrolment. salutation and date of birth information on the electoral roll. As I am sure all senators know, There are some ALP amendments that the but perhaps not all of the public, the electoral government agrees with, and we will be roll is available to all MPs and registered coming to those in due course during the parties already via CD-ROM, so utilising that committee stage. There are, of course, others information and manipulating the data is that we do not agree with. something that can quite easily be done. In relation to one aspect which was raised by Senator Hogg, I did take that up with the Currently, the information that is made AEC. Senator Hogg mentioned that his son available does not include salutation—which had made a lodgment and then the process I do not think has been recorded by the had taken some five days. I am advised by Electoral Commission yet—and date of birth. the AEC that, upon lodgment, processing Date of birth is in the Electoral Commission’s takes place but, because the mail goes out information but has not been provided to date once a week, it may be some days before to MPs or registered political parties. This someone receives notification. That notifica- part of the bill will enable that to happen, so tion is not the substantial registration of that in the information to be made available, person; registration occurs when the lodgment which I assume will also be provided as part and processing takes place on the day the of the information on the CD-ROM, political form is lodged. In the current situation, with parties or MPs will be able to sort data by the period for enrolment after the issue of date of birth and salutation. writs, notification can still be received after the time for enrolment has expired. The Democrats have concerns about this in terms of privacy implications. I realise there What I am saying is that the action of are other components of the bill that insert lodgment is really what you have to look at, and increase penalties for improper commer- not so much the notification. Some people cial usage of this information, but in our view think they are not enrolled until they receive it is not information that should be made notification, so that is perhaps a matter which available. Like all parties and people involved needs clarification. Other than that, I com- in politics, we are trying to encourage people mend the bill to the Senate. In the committee to participate in the electoral system, to stage, we can deal with those amendments participate in our system of democracy and to and the final detail. get on the roll. It is a big issue to make sure In Committee people even get on the roll. If people are aware that information such as their date of The bill. birth will become readily available to a wide The CHAIRMAN—We have a running range of people, that may serve as a disincen- sheet for this bill. The first item relates to tive for them to get on the roll. There are schedule 1, items 1 and 2, which are both, I clearly a lot of privacy concerns in the com- understand, to be opposed by the Democrats munity, and I do not think this section of the and the Australian Greens. legislation will assist. 2042 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Of particular concern is the fact that this mation in terms of targeting our message. But information will go to registered political we believe we should not have that level of parties. As I indicated in my speech on the personal information about Australia’s citi- second reading debate, there is a long list of zens. bodies that are registered as political parties, many of which are quite obscure and which Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.00 people know very little about. I for one a.m.)—I agree with that. The Greens feel very certainly would not be confident that that strongly opposed to this amendment which information would not be misused. will give all political parties and all politi- cians not only the list of names on the elec- For instance, organisations such as One toral roll which, in common with every other Nation, which is actually structured as a member of the Australian public, we have company, would be able to utilise such access to at the moment but also—unlike the information. You could see David Oldfield, a rest of the Australian public—access to two well-known casanova, being able to do a sort things: first of all, the date of birth of every- on his computer to extract all the females who body on the electoral roll, and then the saluta- have the salutation of ‘Miss’ and who are tion. That is whether a person prefers to be under the age of 35 so he could send them a called Miss, Ms, Mrs, Mr, Doctor, Profes- personal invitation. He would be able to do sor—whatever it might be. that quite easily with this sort of information, and I think that gives an indication of some I understand that this is new. The minister of the ways this information could be used may be able to tell the committee that the which are not commercial. I do not know salutation will be collected and will be some- whether that would come under ‘misuse’ in thing that people will be required to give the bill. when they fill in an application to go on the electoral roll. If that is so, what we are wit- In terms of the commercial value of this nessing through this amendment is the elec- sort of material, it would be immensely toral office being used to get information that valuable for organisations—whether you are will advantage the political parties. It is not talking about organisations that describe something that the electoral office itself has themselves as One Nation Ltd or other organi- up until now apparently wanted. sations outside the political sphere that may be able to get hold of this material—to be What you can see here is what so often able to get the details of basically every adult happens in parliament, and that is the big in the Australian community, in terms of their political parties wanting to change the Elec- date of birth and marital status, to some toral Act in a way which gives the incum- extent, or salutation. The sorts of penalties bents an advantage. Of course, when it comes that are proposed by the government, which to the next election or the election after that, I know we will get on to in future amend- this information is going to be available to ments, could quite easily be absorbed by a political parties and politicians, but it is not commercial operation into its overall cost going to be available, for example, to Inde- structure. An $11,000 fine would be a fairly pendents standing for that election. They are small amount to pay compared with the going to be clearly disadvantaged—much the amount that a commercial operation would be same way as they are currently disadvantaged able to extract from using such a list if it was by the rule which says they must always go done in a targeted manner. at the end of the ballot paper. For all of those reasons, the Democrats It is another tilting of the balance towards believe that this is not an appropriate meas- the incumbents when the balance should be ure. It is not appropriate that political parties struck and, if anything, turned in the other and parliamentarians should have access to direction, because what Australians are look- date of birth information. Obviously, it would ing for in this day and age is greater diversity, be beneficial to the Democrats, as to all other more individualism, more difference in the MPs, to be able to have access to that infor- range of people they can vote for. This is Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2043 simply another measure to help entrench the There are safeguards in relation to the use big political parties and give them advantage. of information from the roll and the habitation I would ask the minister: to what use can index. There are penalties involved to ensure the salutation and date of birth, along with the that the information is not abused. The current name of people on the electoral roll, be put situation allows for medical researchers to by political parties or politicians who get make use of the information on the roll, and them? Or, conversely, to make it a bit easier: that is for screening for breast cancer and the are there any uses which are prohibited under like. That is covered by regulation. the electoral law? For example, can a political What we are proposing here is to allow for party send out to everybody on the electoral electoral research by political parties. We do roll a request that that person consider joining not see that is such a problem. It is all part of the political party? Can they garner a dona- the democratic process that there be com- tion? Are they able to invite people to other- munication between political parties and those wise contribute to the strength and wellbeing who are entitled to vote. We do not see this of that political party under this amendment as breaking down any great walls of privacy, in a way that other people are not going to be if you like. What we are dealing with is able to? Where is the line of commercial use? information which people commonly provide: Where is the line of abuse in political parties the salutation, a title by which they wish to be and politicians getting access to these private addressed; the date of birth; and, as I say, the details of members in the electorate—access gender is already there on the record. I be- which the Australian people themselves lieve that this will assist greatly in how cannot get? political parties deal with the electorate at large. I believe there is a simple rule here. That is, the information on the electoral roll that is Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.07 available to political parties and politicians a.m.)—The question I asked the minister was: ought to be exactly the same as the informa- what are the limits to which the political tion that is available to every other citizen. parties can put this information? Can they Parties and party machines should not be raise money through it? Can they gain getting information that is not available to the membership through it? What is the limit on very people that information is kept on. As it? Also, why should the general public not Mr or Mrs Citizen, the average Australian is have access to the same information? What not going to be able to get this information sort of research is it, Minister—through you, about the date of birth of their neighbour or chair—that the political parties are going to how the person down the road prefers to be undertake? addressed for their Christmas card. Why I can tell you that it will not be selfless should the political parties? It is a self- research in the interests of the wider Austral- interested amendment. The Greens totally ian public. It will be research aimed at trying oppose it. to entrench or increase the number of people Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— elected by the big political parties. I have Special Minister of State) (10.05 a.m.)—The another question for the minister: was the government opposes this amendment, because Privacy Commissioner consulted about this it flies directly in the face of what the govern- amendment; if so, what was the opinion that ment is proposing. At the moment the AEC was given? collects gender, and that is nothing new. What Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— is proposed here is that the date of birth and Special Minister of State) (10.08 a.m.)—In salutation be included. It is the view of the relation to the question of the purpose of the government that it is only appropriate to ask use of this measure, I have stated that it is for people as to the title by which they would electoral research. The Australian Electoral like to be addressed. There is no great revela- Commission is the body that oversees this. tion or no great privacy consideration in that, Naturally, if someone used it for fund raising the government would submit. purposes—which would not come within the 2044 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 definition of ‘electoral research’—the AEC is not to be left vaguely to some arbiter would act accordingly. What this facilitates is because, as you know, that will lead to abuse. an ability for political parties to communicate I suppose we will get no further answer out with the electorate. It does not extend to the of the minister on that, although I invite public at large having that access, because it further comment about what the government then would be open to abuse. In relation to believes is a fair use of this information, and the question of advice between the AEC and that should be on the record at this juncture the government, that is a matter between the in this debate. AEC and the government. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.09 Special Minister of State) (10.11 a.m.)—Just a.m.)—There are two points raised there. Is briefly on that last point, section 4 of the act the minister really trying to convince this contains definitions. One is ‘electoral matter’ committee that the political parties are, in which touches, or gives some guidance, on some way or another, paradigms of virtue that electoral research, and I would refer Senator will not abuse this system in the way that the Brown to that. wider public would? That statement, in itself, But the question of the involvement of has the government saying that the public political parties is not something which is does not have the ethical standards that the quite mysterious or devious. Political parties political parties have. I think you would have play an essential role in the running of de- a lot of trouble sustaining that argument out mocracy in this country, despite the fact that in the public arena. a lot of people do not think so. They contri- This is a very clear move by the political bute to the good order of the running of the parties to gain self-advantage. This is not a parliament and also in the running of elec- move to, in some way or another, act in the tions. I would say that Senator Brown needs wider public interest. This is a self-invested to remember that there is recognition of this move by the government—and the Labor fact by public funding in relation to elections. Party is supporting it—to get information on Political parties play a very important role, electors: information which is not available to and electoral research is part of that role. those electors themselves; information about They need to know what the electorate is other people not just to consult or do re- thinking. They need to communicate their search, as the minister says, but to be able to ideas, their policies to the electors of Austral- at least send out information in an attempt to ia so that, knowing what is on offer, they can get electors to support those political parties have a viable choice. That is what it is all in a way that other people standing for elec- about. It is really about informing the electors tion cannot. And that is wrong. of Australia. There were two other questions. One was I reject the notion that political parties are whether the Privacy Commissioner was subversive or, in some way, that they are consulted; and, if so, what was the response? devious in this regard. I think all political And, just going back to the first question I parties have a genuine will to impart their asked of the minister: where are the boundar- message to the community at large, and that ies of the uses to which this so-called can only be good for democracy in any ‘research’ by the political parties can be put? election. It is not good enough for the minister to say, Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— ‘Oh, we’ll leave that to the Electoral Commis- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) sion.’ (10.13 a.m.)—The opposition will not support If you are to have good laws, it is up to this Senator Bartlett in his opposition to schedule parliament—and, in this case, it is up to those 1, items 1 and 2. The electoral rolls and the putting forward the amendment—to state habitation indexes, of course, are currently explicitly the purposes for which the use of provided either in print or on tape to members salutations and date of birth of Australians in and senators of political parties, and that general can be put by the political parties. It occurs under section 91 of the Electoral Act. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2045

As far as the opposition is concerned, we I refer you to section 91A, the use of think that it is useful for parliamentarians to information from the roll and habitation have access to further information such as index. In that section there are permitted elector’s date of birth and salutation details so purposes on how that use is to be put. What that we have greater capacity to more accu- I am saying is that of course the privacy rately address the concerns of the constituents considerations were in the mind of the and, I think, also target information more government at the time of this drafting, but it directly. does not believe that the privacy consider- I do, however, hear what Senator Brown is ations are such as to be a bar to this legisla- asking in relation to the involvement of the tion when it is weighed against the benefits. Privacy Commissioner, and the minister has When you look at the safeguards already in not yet responded directly on that. I do accept place, section 91A of the act and the defini- that the privacy issue that he raises is an tion of electoral matters and the fact that the important one. Certainly, it is recognised by Electoral Commission will have supervision the opposition. We need to acknowledge the of this, the government, weighing all those sensitivity of the information that has been factors, is of the belief that privacy consider- referred to here. Obviously, it has quite ations will be looked after. significant value in terms of commercial Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.18 marketing companies. The opposition does a.m.)—We have at least elicited that the acknowledge that. We believe, as a result, it Privacy Commissioner has concerns about is important that there are sufficient penalties this. The minister might tell the committee for misuse of such information. I think it is whether there has been any written comment important to address that concern. I think the by the Privacy Commissioner on this section opposition’s amendments in relation to in- or the other amendments. If so, the minister creasing penalties does address those con- might be good enough to table those so that cerns. I would commend them to Senator we can see what the Privacy Commissioner Brown’s and Senator Bartlett’s consideration. had to say. As far as the opposition is concerned, we will not oppose this first schedule for the reasons Secondly, the minister says, ‘Look at I have outlined, while acknowledging the section 91A as a guide to how the Electoral significance of some of the concerns that have Commission might adjudicate whether or not been raised and the approach the opposition the use of data birth and salutation exclusive- has been taking to address them. ly by political parties and politicians can be put.’ When you look at that, you find that the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (10.16 sky is the limit. The information can be used a.m.)—I would like to ask the minister about for any purpose in connection with an elec- the involvement of the Privacy Commissioner. tion or referendum or the performance by the Was there any consultation? senator or member of his or her functions as Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— a senator or member in relation to the people Special Minister of State) (10.16 a.m.)—The on the electoral roll. That has no real defini- Privacy Commissioner has been consulted on tion or limitation at all. I suppose by compari- this, and I understand the Privacy Commis- son we might say, if we accept that political sioner has raised the concern of the electoral parties have a special place of honour when research aspect of the extent of it. That is it comes to using information about the something which the government has actively electorate, information which the electorate got under consideration. The AEC will moni- itself cannot get, why not give it to the tor that. In election periods, for a start, if churches? Why not give this information to anything is misrepresentative or misleading, welfare organisations in the country? Why not the AEC has a role in adjudicating on that. give it to ethical organisations so that they This is nothing new in giving to the AEC a might do some research? Are they less worthy power to govern an area where people might of this information than political parties? I step beyond the mark. think not. Let us be straight about this: this is 2046 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 a direct effort at political self-investment, [section 91B—penalties for prohibited use of rolls] political self-advantage, getting the political In a sense—as I flagged in my previous drop by the big political parties on the elec- contribution—this penalty provision deals torate. That is why we oppose it. with the issue that we have just been debat- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- ing. It goes particularly to the issue of priva- tor Knowles)—The question is that schedule cy, about which a number of senators have 1, items 1 and 2 stand as printed. expressed concerns. The government’s propo- Senator BROWN—I did ask if the minister sal in the bill to increase the penalty to 100 would be good enough to table any corres- units—which is effectively an $11,000 penal- pondence from the Privacy Commissioner on ty—is a step in the right direction, but I this matter, seeing we have elicited that the believe that a more severe penalty should be Privacy Commissioner was unhappy with the imposed, given the increased access to infor- potential of this information being used by mation on electors and the sensitivity and political parties. value of that information. The opposition amendments propose to increase the number Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— of penalty units to 1,000 for disclosure or for Special Minister of State) (10.21 a.m.)—To using this information for commercial pur- correct the record, I did not say that the poses. That would mean it would attract a Privacy Commissioner was unhappy. Natural- fine of $110,000, and I think that is more ly, anything of this sort would attract the appropriate and would reflect the value of the attention of the Privacy Commissioner, quite information that is provided to parliamenta- properly so. Because the Privacy Commis- rians and those involved in the political sioner gives attention to the extent of a process. definition, that does not mean that the Privacy Commissioner is necessarily unhappy. What The disclosure of this information to mar- I am saying is that there was contact between keting companies could offer an enormous the Privacy Commissioner and the govern- commercial advantage to them, and it is ment, quite naturally so. That is nothing essential that a penalty exist to act as a untoward. In fact, it is absolutely proper. I serious deterrent to any such commercial understand what Senator Brown is saying advantage—in other words: use this informa- about the communication, and I will take it on tion for what it is intended to be used for. notice as to what communication there has The minister has indicated on behalf of the been. But the concern I mentioned was, as I government the sorts of constraints that apply. understand it, of a general nature. With I think this is an important amendment to definitions, you need to have some supervi- ensure that no individual strays beyond those sion, and the AEC is in that place. sorts of constraints. We do not think that the government’s proposal for 100 penalty units The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The or an $11,000 penalty does that; we believe question is that schedule 1, items 1 and 2 that the very significant increase to $110,000 stand as printed. would. As a result, I commend the opposit- Question resolved in the affirmative. ion’s amendments to the Senate. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (10.26 Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) a.m.)—The Democrats will be supporting the (10.23 a.m.)—by leave—I move opposition amendments moved by Senator Faulkner. We amendments Nos 1 and 2 on revised sheet also realise that any commercial entity will 1232: have the capacity to absorb an $11,000 fine (1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 3 (line 27), omit in their business dealings, and let us not "100 penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty forget that a few political parties actually units". structure themselves as private companies. If [section 91B—penalties for prohibited use of rolls] fines are to be effective, the Democrats beli- (2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 2), omit "100 eve that the $11,000 fine outlined in the legis- penalty units", substitute "1,000 penalty units". lation is not a sufficient disincentive. We beli- Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2047 eve that the $110,000 fine, as put forward by This amendment is an important one. It omits the opposition, is a much better deterrent in item 10 and proposes in its place amendments anybody’s language. Therefore, it is some- to tighten the current provisions. The provi- thing that we strongly support. sions in this bill would deny all prisoners a Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.27 vote. Therefore, a person, say, who was a.m.)—The Greens support these amendments. sentenced to eight weeks in gaol coinciding with an election period could not vote. An- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— other prisoner who was sentenced to two Special Minister of State) (10.27 a.m.)— years in gaol coinciding with a favourable These amendments are supported by the electoral cycle would be able to vote. government. The government was proposing an increase in penalty to ensure that there was The truth is that parliament has accepted not a misuse of the information on the rolls, that certain classes of prisoners should not be but it has no problem with the more severe able to vote. We do not oppose that view that penalties sought by the opposition. has been expressed by parliament previously. But we say that it is possible to distinguish Amendments agreed to. between major and minor crimes, as has been Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— decided previously by this parliament and a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) range of state parliaments. That is why we (10.28 a.m.)—I suggest that opposition will be opposing measures to abolish mobile amendments Nos 3 to 7 on sheet 1233 might polling booths for prisons and postal votes for actually be better dealt with after we deter- prisoners, which was the item that we have mine the threshold issue of prisoner voting, deferred to a little later in our considerations which goes to the provision of mobile booths, and deliberations. et cetera. I respectfully suggest that it might Our amendments will ensure that, if any assist the committee if we dealt with this after prisoner has been continually in prison from schedule 1, item 29 on the running sheet just the return of the writs of the previous elec- before opposition amendment No. 1 on sheet tions to the issuing of the writs for the next 1233. I do not want to spend a lot of time on election, their vote will not be admitted to the this, but it just seems that we are going to be count. And we think that this is an improve- a bit out of kilter here otherwise. ment to the current act, that it actually pro- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is it vides greater consistency to the five-year rule. the wish of the committee? There being no We have picked up suggestions, arising from objection, it is so ordered. the debate in the House of Representatives, to leave item 29 as it is. Item 29 provides for Senator FAULKNER—I move Opposition the controller-general of prisons in each state amendment No. 2 on sheet 1233: and territory to forward to the AEC lists of (2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), persons who have been convicted and are omit the item, substitute: serving a sentence of imprisonment. To make 10 After paragraph 93(8)(b) the opposition’s amendment effective the Insert: provision of that information is essential. (ba) is serving a sentence of imprison- Fundamentally, we are saying that, above ment which: and beyond the five-year rule, which we (i) commenced on or before the return believe ought to remain in place, any prisoner of the writs for an election for the who has not been able to be involved at all in House of Representatives or the the political process from the return of the Senate; and writs of one election to the issuing of the (ii) continues at the issuing of the writs writs at the next ought not to be entitled to for any succeeding election for the vote because, of course, there has been no House of Representatives or the capacity for a prisoner in that circumstance— Senate, as the case may be; or in any sense, or in any way—to participate in [section 93—prisoners]* the political process. 2048 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

This is, I suppose, Mr Temporary Chair- being put forward here by the government—to man, an amendment that could be described, further trammel the right of prisoners to in one sense, as a minor tightening of the vote—goes against those covenants. current provisions. Nevertheless, I think it is Around the world, countries which ensure a balanced approach that the opposition is that prisoners do have the right to vote in- taking on this issue and I think it strengthens clude Cyprus, England, Hungary, Israel, the provision in the current act. I commend it Kenya, Netherlands, the Czech Republic, to the committee. Denmark, Germany, Japan, Norway, Poland Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.33 and Zimbabwe, as well as five states in the a.m.)—I will be supporting that amendment US. I think we are following the pattern of but, as the committee and Senator Faulkner the United States—which is trying to contain will be aware, the Greens not only oppose the the extraordinary levels of crime it has com- amendments which are going to discriminate pared to Australia; and the misguided philoso- further against prisoners in Australia—in phy behind its crowded gaols, which have breach, we believe, of a number of interna- over a million prisoners these days—where tional civil rights covenants—but will move the belief is that, in some way or another, to ensure that all Australian prisoners have the depriving people of civil liberties will teach right to vote. Currently the law is that if you them something that will help them when are sentenced to five years or more, you they come back into society. The reverse is cannot vote. Senator Faulkner’s amendment the case. is an improvement on that. But the best thing Following a number of peaceful environ- that can be done is to get rid of that provision mental protests, I have found myself for a altogether. There are a number of reasons for period of time with prisoners in Tasmanian this. Firstly, it is up to the courts to put a gaols. They are alert to what is going on in penalty on a person who infringes against politics. They read the papers. They watch society; it should not be for parliaments to be television. They discuss these matters. I think adding to that penalty. If we were having a we ought to encourage that, not discourage it. move here today to say judges may be able, The deprivation of a person’s right to vote is in their considerations, to deprive some a very clear discouragement. As I said, if that prisoners of votes, then so be it. But this is to be a penalty for prisoners, let the courts universal imposing of extra penalties above impose it. those of the courts is not a good way for us Senator Ray said in this place the other day to be going. What other rights will the parlia- when we were talking about these matters that ment, generally, take away from prisoners? anybody who gets up and tries to improve the There is a very good reason for giving lot of prisoners—I am paraphrasing here, but prisoners the vote—that is, we all want to see I agree with this sentiment—is going to cop prisoners out of jails, where they cost a lot of a bucketing out in the community. That does money, and back in society in a rehabilitated not make it wrong. That is why I will not form so that they feel part of society and feel only be supporting this opposition amend- they can contribute to society and not go back ment, which is a fair one, but also be moving, to prison. Where you deny prisoners the right as you know, amendments a little further to vote, you send a clear message to them that down the line to ensure that prisoners do have they are rejected by society and that they the right to vote in Australia, as they do in have a right to feel further alienated. The many other countries around the world. impact of this is to lessen the likelihood of Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (10.39 people coming out of prison with a better a.m.)—The Democrats will be supporting this attitude towards society than when they went opposition amendment, for reasons similar to in. It is not that we would be alone in this. As those just outlined. We also strongly believe I mentioned, there are a number of interna- that it is important, except in exceptional tional covenants which say that every citizen circumstances such as treason, et cetera, that should have a right to vote. The measures prisoners should have the right to vote. We do Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2049 not believe it serves any useful purpose to reliant on timely advice from prison authori- deny prisoners that right, particularly in ties following the issue of the writ. The AEC relation to some of the reasons why people has to deal with not only six states but also end up in gaol these days. two territories in dealing with prison authori- Senator Cooney, in his contribution at the ties. I also note that there is no proposed second reading stage, pointed out the prob- amendment to section 109 of the Common- lems of mandatory sentencing laws in the wealth Electoral Act. Section 109, ‘Lists of Northern Territory. Mandatory sentencing also convictions to be forwarded’, provides that exists in Western Australia. The Democrats the Controller-General of Prisons shall for- are strongly opposed to the mandatory senten- ward a list each month to the Australian cing regimes in those areas and, indeed, Electoral Commissioner of the names of those anywhere in Australia. The attempt to deprive people who have been sentenced to a period citizens of their entitlement to vote, we of five years or longer. That is the current believe, is unfounded and unhelpful in terms provision. I note that that has not been of trying to ensure as comprehensive a demo- amended by the opposition. That is a flaw cratic system as possible. that would need to be amended as well. It probably would be unreasonable of me to The other thing is that the amendment suggest that this may be the government’s would be extremely impractical to implement, motivation. I am sure it is not. Nonetheless, even with the current seven-day close of rolls it is still appropriate to point out that it would period. It would be difficult for the AEC to be reasonable to assume that the potential determine the eligibility of prisoners as this political beneficiaries of such a measure could only be resolved when the date of the would be conservative parties. I think it issue of the writ is known. would be reasonable to suggest that, demo- The other problem you have with the graphically speaking, people in prison would opposition amendment is that it deals with the be less likely than those in the broader com- return of the writs for an election for the munity to vote for conservative parties. Whilst House of Representatives or the Senate and it I am not suggesting that is the government’s continues to the issuing of the writs for any motivation, it nonetheless has that potential successful election for the House of Represen- effect. tatives or the Senate. There are different times As with any change to the electoral law, I for those. Whilst the writs of the House of think it is important to highlight those sorts of Representatives are returned together, the issues. As I said in my contribution in the various writs from the states for the Senate second reading debate, all of us in this place may not all be returned on the same day. That are not just legislators but a prime interest is another administrative aspect which the group in relation to the impact of this legisla- government has a problem with. tion that deals with electoral law. We need to In total, the government’s proposal is a highlight that up-front and be clear about that. much simpler one in dealing with this issue. There are a number of other amendments This deals with the recommendation made by that the Democrats and Senator Brown are the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral proposing, as have been indicated on the Matters—that is, that those who disregard the running sheet, to ensure that prisoners have laws to a degree sufficient to warrant impris- the right to vote. In relation to Senator onment should not expect the right to retain Faulkner’s amendment, we believe it is an a franchise. As I say, in any event, there is improvement on the bill as it stands at the provision at the moment for those sentenced moment, and we will support it. to a period of five years or over to lose that Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— entitlement. On that basis, the government Special Minister of State) (10.42 a.m.)—The opposes the opposition’s amendment and government is opposing these amendments for maintains its proposal as previously stated. a number of reasons. Firstly, the unworkabili- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- ty of this would make the AEC entirely tor McKiernan)—The question is that the 2050 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 amendment moved by Senator Faulkner be Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (10.53 agreed to. a.m.)—The sections here all relate to schedule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 which remove Question put: the provisions containing the right to vote for The committee divided. [10.49 a.m.] prisoners. These amendments are identical to (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) the Greens amendments. Ayes ...... 35 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Noes ...... 33 tor McKiernan)—They are all opposing —— items. The question will be that the items Majority ...... 2 —— stand as printed. AYES Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.54 Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. a.m.)—The aim here is to oppose the Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. government’s amendments which would Bourne, V. Brown, B. deprive prisoners who are sentenced to less Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. than five years in gaol of their right to vote. Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Some time ago the parliament, as Senator Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P. Faulkner has said, decided to take away from Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. prisoners who are sentenced to more than five Harradine, B. Hogg, J. years in gaol the right to vote. This move Hutchins, S. Lees, M. H. means that all prisoners will lose their right Lundy, K. Mackay, S. to vote. That goes against, as I have said, a Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. series of international covenants. It overrides Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. * what I believe is the court’s sole prerogative Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. to be giving penalties to people who break the Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. law, and it puts us out of line with a lot of Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. countries around the world in ensuring that Woodley, J. prisoners do have the right to vote. NOES It is also totally unfair, and there is no way Alston, R. K. R. Boswell, R. L. D. that the government is going to fix this up. It Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. means that, if you are in gaol for a relatively Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. Eggleston, A. minor crime which has involved no physical Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. harm to anybody else, when Mr Howard calls Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. an election you lose your vote. Of course, if Heffernan, W. Herron, J. you have just finished your sentence—your Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. two months or your one month—and you are Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. out of gaol you keep your vote. If you go to Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. gaol just after the election you keep your Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. * vote. If you just happen to be the one who is Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. in gaol when the election is called you lose Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. your vote. It, on the face of it, means that Synon, K. M. Tierney, J. those prisoners who happen to be serving Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. their sentence at, and only at, the time an Watson, J. O. W. election is called will be deprived of privileg- PAIRS es which prisoners who have just got out of Campbell, G. Tambling, G. E. J. gaol are going to maintain. Conroy, S. Crane, W. Evans, C. V. Abetz, E. I and other senators have had a very strong * denotes teller letter from the South African communities organising for public safety and for a sensible Question so resolved in the affirmative. and effective prison policy, Ms Johnson, The CHAIRMAN—We will now move to saying, ‘Don’t do this.’ It is saying that these schedule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69. organisations are horrified to hear that the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2051

Prime Minister and the government have put should be an inalienable right. Taking away forward this bill with the intention of remov- their right to vote is not going to help with ing prisoners’ right to vote. It says: reform, reduction of crime, or improvement I remember the years we South Africans could rely of behaviour when prisoners get out of gaol, on Australians to stand up for human rights by which ought to be the aim of their time in supporting the anti-apartheid movement, demon- gaol. I would submit that this is the case, in strating at Springbok rugby and cricket games when particular, for people sentenced to gaol for racist-minded bureaucrats allowed them to travel to less than five years, who so often have not your country. I consider Australia as the progress- ive country, with its fair share of problems but caused physical harm but have in other ways working to address them in a fair and equitable broken the law—very often over monetary manner. matters. This measure is discriminatory in a It mentions, by the way: number of ways and that is why we oppose these government amendments. I remember— Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— says Ms Johnson— Special Minister of State) (11.00 a.m.)—The reading about the ground-breaking prison reform government will be opposing these amend- attempts of Mr Tony Vincent in New South Wales, ments put forward by the Greens; I think our which focused on addressing the real problems of reasons for so doing were stated adequately prisons ravaged by riots and institutionalised brutality with rehabilitation, education and em- previously. powerment. Mr Vincent was correct when he Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— sought to introduce the humane principle that a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) prisoner must retain certain inalienable rights if the (11.01 a.m.)—Effectively, I think Senator hopeless cycle of recidivism, that is, going back to crime, is ever to be broken. The right to vote Brown is right when he makes the point that should be an inalienable right for all citizens of all the current bill as it stands—if these amend- countries. ments were not accepted by the committee— This South African correspondent goes on to would deny all prisoners the right to vote. point out that, of course, by denying prisoners This goes to the issue of mobile polling the vote, including prisoners who are sen- booths, capacity for postal voting and enrol- tenced to less than five years, if you look at ment and the like. I think the issues have the statistics, will have an undue effect of probably been well canvassed in our previous depriving indigenous people of the right to debate on the threshold issue of prisoner vote. Remember that, wholesale, indigenous voting. The opposition obviously will be Australians were not recognised or given that supporting the amendments that stand in our right until just a couple of decades ago. Here name and, in this case, identical amendments we have a move which is going to unfairly that stand in the names of Senator Brown and discriminate against indigenous Australians Senator Bartlett. for the simple reason that they go to gaol, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- they get locked up, 10 to 20 times as much as tor McKiernan)—The question is that sched- the rest of the population. The reasons for that ule 1, items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 stand as we all know—the poverty, the dispossession printed. of land, the enforced breakdown and deprival Question resolved in the negative. of culture, and so many other things. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Added on top of this is a disproportionate According to the running sheet, we are now and I believe racist amendment in its effect in dealing with schedule 1, item 10—prisoners. depriving an undue number of indigenous Australians of the right to vote. I totally Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.02 object to it. The Greens are totally opposed to a.m.)—I move: this. We think this committee chair would do Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 3 and 4), omit well to listen to the letter from South Africa the item, substitute: saying, ‘Don’t do it.’ Prisoners, like every- 10 Paragraph 93(8)(b) body else, should have the right to vote. It Repeal the paragraph. 2052 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

This is an amendment to carry into effect the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.05 assurance of the right to vote of all Austral- a.m.)—I thank the Democrats for supporting ians. At the moment, due to past legislation, this amendment, because I think it is a very that right has been taken away from people important one. It carries through the logical who happen to be in gaol for more than five thrust of the vote that we have seen a while years. I have canvassed the issues before. It ago and this debate that the rights of prisoners is logical to carry it through. That inalienable should not be infringed outside those that are right should be there for all citizens, regard- taken away by the courts. This amendment less of their circumstances. So I am moving would bring us into line with a great number further here to have the right to vote restored of similar countries and jurisdictions overseas to all people who are in gaol. and would take away the imputation that we Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.03 are in breach of a number of international a.m.)—I indicate the Democrat’s support for covenants to do with human rights by depriv- this amendment. ing some prisoners in Australian gaols the right to vote. But I can see that the numbers Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— will be against this. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11.03 a.m.)—I have made pretty clear the Senator Faulkner says that the Labor Party position of the opposition in relation to this is in the middle on this. Just listening to the amendment. The opposition has tried to take debate you can see that the Labor Party is a a sensible and balanced approach here. Funda- long way ahead of the coalition’s philosophy mentally, with the amendments that have been when it comes to civil rights in this matter. It moved to improve the current five-year rule, is just a pity that the Labor Party is not we think that the five-year rule is a reasonable making the stand it would have made five one. I have used the terminology ‘balanced’ years ago on this matter. and that is what I stress to the committee I Senator Faulkner—We have been consis- think is the opposition’s approach here. It is tent on this one, Senator Brown; I think you balanced. It reflects what happens in a majori- have to acknowledge that. We have always ty of the state and territory jurisdictions. I supported that five-year rule—always. think we have made sensible improvements to the Electoral Act in the committee today, and Senator BROWN—I apologise to Senator the opposition would commend its approach Faulkner; I did have it in my mind that in the in relation to this issue. past the Labor Party had been opposed to the removal of the right of prisoners to vote. We will not accept the direction that the government is moving in. I suppose on this Senator Faulkner—If you look at the state particular occasion we find ourselves as the jurisdictions you will see in many of them a ham in the sandwich between the approach pretty similar provision. But anyway, this is that Senator Brown articulates on behalf of not a debate. the Greens and Senator Bartlett articulates on Senator BROWN—There we are. The behalf of the Australian Democrats and the Greens stand very strongly by this amend- approach of the government. In a general ment. I am frustrated that it is not going to sense, we have got a pretty balanced provi- pass. sion here. I think we had a balanced provi- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- sion; it has now been improved in the com- tor McKiernan)—The question is that the mittee. I would commend that to the commit- amendment to schedule 1, item 10 moved by tee. Senator Brown be agreed to. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Special Minister of State) (11.05 a.m.)—The Question resolved in the negative. government opposes the amendment proposed The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—As I by the Greens and supported by the Demo- read the running sheet, the Democrats would crats, again for reasons that I have outlined now seek to oppose item 10. Is that your previously. understanding, Senator Bartlett? Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2053

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.08 is simply to oppose schedule 1, item 29, a.m.)—This basically preserves the status quo relating to prisoner lists. by removing item 10 from the legislation. It Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— is the same issue in relation to a prisoner’s Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) right to vote, so I won’t go over those argu- (11.11 a.m.)—I haven’t got the amendment ments again. sheets in front of me but, in effect, this is The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The removing the words ‘five years or longer’, is question is that schedule 1, item 10 stand as it not, from section 109? printed. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Senator FAULKNER—Again, given the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) fact that my earlier amendment was carried (11.08 a.m.)—I seek some guidance from you and that there is some sense in the ‘five years here. Item 10 has been omitted, has it not, by or longer’ being removed from the act and successive opposition amendment No. 2 on given where we are going, I am afraid I sheet 1233? would need to be convinced that this is not a The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I think sensible change in these circumstances by that is a question to you, Senator Bartlett. either Senator Brown or Senator Bartlett. I think the direction in which the committee is Senator FAULKNER—Through you, Mr moving almost requires this provision in the Temporary Chairman, I am a little surprised bill to stay. that Senator Bartlett is proceeding with this one, given the fate of opposition amendment Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.12 No. 2 in my name on sheet 1233, that’s all. a.m.)—Maybe Senator Faulkner can help I am a little perplexed, I suppose. clarify the matter. I am under the assumption that the amendment which the committee Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.09 adopted earlier means that prisoners who are a.m.)—Given that we have been through the sentenced to five years lose their vote only if debate and addressed the issue when we had they have been in gaol for two election calls. the vote on Senator Faulkner’s amendment earlier on and that this one is slightly in Senator Faulkner—Yes, or five years or conflict with it, it would probably be easier longer. not to proceed with it. So I will withdraw it. Senator BROWN—And they will need not The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The only to have been sentenced to five years but question is that schedule 1, item 10 stand as also to have been in gaol when the previous printed. election was called. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The (11.13 a.m.)—Well, no. That is not quite the running sheet calls next for Senator Brown intention, as I explained to the committee. It from the Australian Greens on schedule 1, is, as I have described, a moderate strengthen- item 29. Are you still proceeding with that ing of the provision that goes to those prison- item, Senator Brown? The advice we have ers who have been in gaol from the time of here is that you would not proceed with it. the return of the writs in one election to the Senator Brown—That’s correct, Chair, so issue of the writs for the next. So as I ex- I will not proceed. plained in my brief but, I hope, comprehen- sive speech in support of my amendment, it The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That effectively involves those prisoners who are then brings us to the Democrats, schedule 1, not able, because they are in gaol for the item 29, prisoner lists. Senator Bartlett, you whole of that period between the return of the are opposing item 29? writs in one election and the issue of the writs Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.10 for the next election, to take any part in the a.m.)—Yes. This is, again, on sheet 1227. It political process. That is why, consequently, 2054 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 the words ‘five years or longer’ seem to me who are serving a sentence of five years or to be able to be removed from the act. Hence longer for any offence. That is what is in the on this occasion, unless I can be convinced act at the moment. otherwise by solid argument from either you or Senator Bartlett, the opposition would find The legislation that we are discussing today itself in support of the government on this seeks to remove the requirement that the list provision. consist of those people serving a sentence of five years or longer, and change it to anybody The minister might care to make a comment who is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on this, but as I would understand it, unless which is obviously in line with the govern- this provision in the bill stands, it will lead to ment’s initial intention to deny all prisoners an administrative nightmare for the AEC. the right to vote. That is what I am assuming. I was not actual- ly convinced by the minister’s arguments in Since we now have Senator Faulkner’s relation to the difficulties of administration amendment through, which modifies that to last time, but I am jumping to a conclusion people who are in prison for two elections, here. Senator Brown, Senator Bartlett and I the five years is actually fairly incongruous are all grappling with the issue of what the and will not necessarily assist the Electoral administrative consequences are. Commissioner to accurately determine who is eligible to vote and who is not. On the basis of the AEC’s administration— given the vote of the committee in relation to In that sense, it may actually be better to my previous amendment—I am coming to the proceed with what is in the bill which would conclusion, unless someone can convince me require a list of everybody who is imprisoned. otherwise, that this provision in the bill This will give the Electoral Commission as should stand. I think it makes sense. much information as possible to help them Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.16 decide who should vote and who should not. a.m.)—I have been under the misapprehension It may even need extra information about that the previous amendment was to apply to length of sentence or something like that, but those people who had been convicted of a I would leave that to the drafters in the crime and sentenced to more than five years government’s office. in gaol. That has been my misapprehension. Therefore, it probably makes sense for me Senator Faulkner has got through to me that to withdraw this amendment to schedule 1, when he uses the word ‘strengthening’, it item 29, having finally figured out where we means in effect that people who are in gaol are at. Unless somebody wants to object to for two or three years will have their vote that, I might proceed down that path. removed. I was under a misapprehension there. I will be opposing this amendment if Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— that is the case, and will move to have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) previous vote resubmitted at a later stage. (11.19 a.m.)—I understand where Senator Bartlett is coming from. I will respond to Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.16 Senator Brown. The opposition’s position in a.m.)—Can I clarify this amendment to be relation to this issue of prisoner voting has clear what we are talking about? It deals with been absolutely consistent from the time the section 109 of the existing act. The bill that minority report on the bill was brought down we are considering seeks to take out the and of my second reading speech. There have reference to ‘five years or longer’. The sec- also been a range of public utterances on this tion deals with the Comptroller-General of and I am sorry if it was misunderstood. Prisons forwarding at the beginning of each month a list of the names, addresses, et The terminology I have used, which is cetera, of persons who have been convicted either ‘strengthening’ or ‘tightening’, is in that state during the previous month, and reasonable in this circumstance. It is only a forwarding those lists to the electoral office. moderate tightening. It keeps the five-year At the moment those lists are only of people threshold, but does go to also removing a Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2055 right to vote for a prisoner who is in gaol for minute. If we are going to bounce back and the period that we have spoken about. reconsider Senator Faulkner’s amendment, Senator Brown is saying to me that he then what we are doing now may or may not misunderstood the opposition’s amendment. be the way to go. We probably need to I accept that, as one does in these circum- resubmit Senator Faulkner’s initial amendment stances. I hope he is not suggesting in any and then come back to the amendment which sense that the opposition has been misleading. I was talking about withdrawing. This has been a very consistent position that The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- we have adopted. I have always taken the tor McKiernan)—I was actually going to view, as you know, that, if at the end of the proceed to put the question that schedule 1, day you get a different vote because of some item 29, stand as printed. Assuming that was problem in the committee stage, you want the carried, I would then move back to ask that committee vote to reflect the will of the opposition amendment No. 2, by leave, be committee. Senator Bartlett’s contribution recommitted. If that procedure is followed, it which just preceded mine is a sensible way to should resolve things. proceed, if the decisions of the committee Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— stand. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.21 (11.23 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, I strongly be- a.m.)—I would vote differently on opposition lieve you are better off not putting that amendment No. 2, which put in effect the question. If we are going to go through the removal of the vote from prisoners who had process of recommitting—and hopefully it been in prison at the previous election, even would be by leave, which I want to make a though they may not be serving a five-year point about in a moment—let us not compli- sentence. The best way to proceed would be cate it further so we will have to come back for that vote to be resubmitted, because the and deal with it later. I think it would be a amendments we are looking at now are mistake to put that question before the chair consequent upon that vote. I therefore request because the risk is that we will have to go that opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet and undo that also. 1233 be resubmitted for determination. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Senator Faulkner, perhaps while you have the Special Minister of State) (11.21 a.m.)—I call, you can move that schedule 1, item 29 agree with the course of action proposed by be postponed. Senator Bartlett. It would be incongruous to have the five-year period in section 109 of the Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to: act in view of the opposition amendment that That schedule 1, item 29 be postponed. has just been passed. It works out quite Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— ironically that the government’s amendment Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) dovetails with the opposition amendment (11.25 a.m.)—It is not necessarily that com- which has been successfully passed, because mon that we have recommittals in the com- the proposal by the government is to remove mittee stage. I think Senator Brown has made that five-year provision in section 109. it clear that there was a genuine misunder- Senator Bartlett is quite right. If the standing here about the effect of what I government’s proposal is passed, the list of all describe as the opposition’s threshold amend- those in prison will be forwarded to the AEC. ment on prisoner voting. The AEC will then apply the formula as I also make this point to the committee: the passed by the opposition here today, and that vote on the opposition amendment that stands will be it. But if you include the five-year in my name was won by the opposition by provision which is currently there in section two votes. I am not sure who the government 109, you will complicate matters further. culprit was who did not attend the division. Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.22 No doubt the search party is out now, and he a.m.)—It is getting more confusing by the or she will be rounded up and disciplined in 2056 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 accordance with the standard operating pro- AYES cedure you have when senators miss divi- Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. sions. However, even if Senator Brown had Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. voted differently, the amendment would not Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. have found favour with the committee on Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. equal voting. Lees, M. H. Mackay, S. I think in this situation, given that we have McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. O’Brien, K. W. K.* a genuine misunderstanding from a senator Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. which would have made a difference to the Schacht, C. C. Stott Despoja, N. outcome of the division and given that, with West, S. M. Woodley, J. all the difficulties, we are still progressing NOES reasonably through this—and I am disappoint- Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. ed that this is probably going to mean the Brown, B. Brownhill, D. G. C. opposition’s proposal, which I described as Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G. sensible and balanced, will go down— Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H.* recommittal is reasonable. This also means Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. that we will probably be falling back to the Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. amendments that go to the retention of the Heffernan, W. Herron, J. current five-year provision as it stands cur- Kemp, R. Lightfoot, P. R. rently in the act. Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Margetts, D. So the committee stage debate will evolve McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. quite differently if we have this recommittal. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Hence, Mr Chairman, I think you made the Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. right decision not to put the question that was Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. before the chair. We have postponed that. Synon, K. M. Tierney, J. With that explanation, all I can suggest is that Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. we get on with it. Even though I was a victor, Watson, J. O. W. I suppose I will just have to wear the glory of PAIRS having that significant reform through the Cooney, B. Boswell, R. L. D. parliament for only a short period of time. Lundy, K. Knowles, S. C. Quirke, J. A. Tambling, G. E. J. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is Sherry, N. Hill, R. M. leave granted for the recommittal of opposi- * denotes teller tion amendment No. 2? Question so resolved in the negative. Leave granted. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I now tor Calvert)—Senator Faulkner, do you wish put opposition amendment No. 2 to schedule to recommit items 18, 36, 49, 59 and 69 at 1, item 10. The question is that the amend- this stage? ment be agreed to. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— The committee divided. [11.32 a.m.] Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) (11.35 a.m.)—On that point, I do not think Ayes ...... 32 there is any need to, but you might care to Noes ...... 35 seek the minister’s guidance. I do not think —— there is any suggestion that senators from the Majority ...... 3 opposition and minor parties who voted on —— those particular provisions would vote any AYES differently. It would not be my intention to do Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. so, unless you wanted to test the will of the Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. Bourne, V. Campbell, G. committee. Given that we are unpicking a Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. range of decisions that we have made, I Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. appreciate that that might be the view of the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2057 minister at the table. I do not see a necessity this part of the bill, basically the Democrats to do it, unless someone informs me that it is wish to retain the existing situation of the likely to involve the committee coming to a five-year imprisonment; that is, that only different view. prisoners who are sentenced for five years or They are effectively a range of provisions more be unable to vote. So it is a status quo that allow prisoners to vote, whether it be situation. mobile polling booths, a facility for postal Whether we wish to have the status quo or votes or even retention of enrolment. It seems go in the direction the government is suggest- to me, given what we have heard in the ing, which is to prevent any prisoner from debate, we are likely to see the committee not being able to vote, I think is the threshold test change its view on that particular matter. It on which we now need the Senate’s indica- was the opposition amendment on which, tion, before figuring out where we are to go after further explanation, the final vote did not with any consequential amendments. Given reflect the will of some senators who had a that the Senate has already decided that we misunderstanding about the impact of that should not expand the right to vote to all particular amendment. That would be my prisoners, the Democrats are obviously of the view, Mr Temporary Chairman. The minister view that the next-best fall back option is to may have a different one, as may other retain the status quo. Therefore, we will be senators, but I think we can stick with it. opposing item 10 of schedule 1. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— tor Calvert)—Is it the wish of the committee Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) that we go back to postponed item 29? (11.40 a.m.)—I support the proposal by Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Senator Bartlett. After the committee’s revi- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) sionism on the opposition’s preferred amend- (11.38 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, it is not a ques- ment and approach, I think it is important that tion of recommittal because Senator Bartlett now this particular amendment be supported did not move Democrat amendment (2) on so that the provisions in the current act in sheet 1227 revised 2. Now that I think we relation to prisoners, at a minimum, stay. At have unpicked what occurred previously, it is a later stage Senator Brown may again engage important that you call Senator Bartlett to in the debate about progressing his other move that amendment. Once that amendment amendments. But this, though not the pre- is moved, we will be able to progress through ferred approach of the opposition, does main- the running sheet. tain the five-year rule in the act. And I think that is important. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Senator Bartlett, will you be opposing item I think that is a much better compromise 10? than the government’s proposal to remove all entitlements for prisoners to vote and enrol. Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.39 I would point out to Senator Brown that a.m.)—Yes, we will be opposing item 10 of ensuring that all prisoners, regardless of schedule 1. length of sentence, can participate in the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is electoral process is a more balanced approach leave granted to return to item 10? There than what the government is proposing, which being no objection, I call Senator Bartlett. is to remove all rights for prisoners in relation Senator BARTLETT—The Democrats to voting and enrolment. oppose item 10 of schedule 1. Just to be clear, It is not perfect, and obviously the I think we are still talking about the right of opposition’s amendments would have im- prisoners to vote. Now that Senator proved the act as it currently stands. But this Faulkner’s amendment has gone down, we are is the preferable course of action to maintain discussing whether what is currently in the this provision that not only is current government’s bill—which is that all prisoners Commonwealth law but, of course, has also be unable to vote—should stay. By opposing found favour in a majority of state and terri- 2058 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 tory jurisdictions. So there is also this issue section of the bill also be not proceeded with. of consistency across the states, territories and The Democrats will be opposing item 29. the Commonwealth. So I think, in the circum- Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— stances and, as I say, after the committee’s Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) recent revisionism, Senator Bartlett’s amend- (11.45 a.m.)—I have nothing to add to my ment is worthy of support and is a principled previous eloquence on this issue. position to draw the sort of distinction that is appropriate in relation to prisoners’ voting The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The rights. question is that item 29 stand as printed. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.43 Question resolved in the negative. a.m.)—Chairman, what is before the chair? I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We thought the motion put before the committee move to opposition amendment No. 1, sheet is that the schedule stand as printed. Is it not? 233. The question is that the amendment be The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- agreed to. tor Calvert)—The question is that item 10 Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— stand as printed. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Senator HARRADINE—That is right. So (11.46 a.m.)—Mr Temporary Chairman, are there is no real amendment by Senator Bart- we on clause 2? lett, as I understand it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, I are on clause 2, prisoners. think there has to be a vote on that first. Senator FAULKNER—This is consequen- Senator Faulkner—It is his amendment tial to the opposition’s amendment that at first not to remove item 10, Senator. found favour but then seemed to hit the rocks. I do not think there is any need for me to Senator HARRADINE—I am sorry, I am progress this one. getting a bit lost. Thank you. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.43 will move on. a.m.)—It certainly is complicated. What Senator Bartlett’s amendment is doing is Senator Bartlett—Mr Chairman, I would effectively stymieing the government’s effort like some clarification. I thought this was to have all prisoners lose their votes and consequential on opposition amendments Nos maintaining the preferable position of the 3 to 7, which had already been passed, rather status quo, which has the vote only removed than the one that went down. for prisoners who are sentenced to more than The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My five years in gaol. understanding is that perhaps it does have to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The proceed. I think Senator Faulkner will have to question is that item 10 stand as printed. move his amendment and see how the cards fall. Question resolved in the negative. Senator FAULKNER—I move the amend- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- ment standing in my name: tor Calvert)—The question now is that item (1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit ", 18, 29, 36, 29 stand as printed. 49, 59 and 69", substitute "and 29". Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.44 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The a.m.)—This takes us back to where we were question is that the amendment moved by before we decided to recommit, which relates Senator Faulkner be agreed to. to the list that states that prison directors or controller-generals have to forward to the Question resolved in the affirmative. Electoral Commission. Given that we have Senator Ellison—Mr Chairman, we were now retained the status quo of the five-year dealing with the consequential opposition limit, it is obviously consequential that this amendments which flowed from the original Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2059 opposition amendment which was initially been moved because Democrat amendments won and then lost. Nos 2 and 4 were agreed to, not opposition Senator Faulkner—No, I think not. I No. 2, if that makes sense. Do you understand thought that myself, but it was the ones that that? were carried. Senator Bartlett—No. Senator Ellison—Okay. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—My Senator Faulkner—On a separate point of information is that Democrats amendment No. order, Mr Chairman, can you advise me on 13 should be moved, not opposition amend- the fate of the amendment that was moved by ment No. 1, because Democrat amendments Senator Bartlett, Democrats amendment No. Nos 2 and 4 were successful and not opposi- 4 on sheet 1227? Debate was postponed when tion amendment No. 2. we decided to go down the track of recommit- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.52 tal. I want to be clear on the status of that. a.m.)—I think the opposition No. 1 lists The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Item omitting Nos 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 and 29 was negatived. leaving 29. Mine includes those numbers plus Senator Faulkner—We have dealt with it? 10 and 18 and removes 29. I think it removes a few extra numbers. If we need to withdraw The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. opposition No. 1 for some technical reason, It is not an amendment because it does not that is fine. exist. We now move to Democrat amendment No. 13 on sheet 1227. The question is that the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— amendment be agreed to. Senator Bartlett, I think the easiest way out of this is for you to move your amendment in Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.49 the amended form, which would include those a.m.)—I understand that these are consequen- bits that were left out. tial amendments, given that we have voted to preserve the status quo. I move amendment Senator BARTLETT—I am sure you are No. 13 on sheet 1227: being well advised, so I will do as you re- Prisoners quest. I move: (13) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit ", 9, 10, 18, Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), as amended, omit ", 9, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69", substitute "and 9". 10 and 29", substitute "and 9". The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that the amendment moved by question is that the revised amendment moved Senator Bartlett be agreed to. by Senator Bartlett be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye— Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (11.50 a.m.)—Mr Chairman, could this be explained Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, I as to how that fits in? would like to be absolutely clear as to what Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.50 is before the chair. a.m.)—My understanding is that this amend- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— ment seeks to remove a range of numbers Special Minister of State) (11.52 a.m.)— from the list at the start of the legislation that Through you, Mr Temporary Chairman: deals with commencements of various items. Senator Bartlett, how is Democrats’ amend- Those are items that we have now voted to ment No. 13 consequential? What is the effect omit from the legislation. To ensure consis- of this amendment? I think what we are tency, those numbers need to be taken out for missing at the moment is how it works into the date of commencement. the tapestry. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (11.52 tor Calvert)—I am getting rather confused. a.m.)—As I understand it, this amendment The advice coming from the clerks is a little deals with the start-up dates for the start of different. Perhaps we may have to go back. legislation and lists the date of commence- Opposition amendment No. 1 should not have ment of the various items. Amendment No. 2060 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

13—which I believe I have moved—omits the rary Chairman, to you explaining to us what numbers 9, 10, 18, 29, 36, 49, 59 and 69 and the question is before the chair. substitutes ‘and 9’. So 9 is still in there, but The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The the amendment omits seven other numbers. I question before the chair is that Democrats’ believe that is because we have voted to omit amendment No. 13, moved in the amended the relevant items in the body of the legisla- form, which takes on board 9 and 10, be tion. We have removed items Nos 10 and 18 agreed to. Is that clear? Senator Ellison, are already. Those are the items that deal with you happy with that? prisoners’ right to vote. That is my under- standing of why this amendment is conse- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— quential. As long as the numbers that are in Special Minister of State) (11.56 a.m.)—There my amendment correspond with the numbers is a question I want to ask Senator Bartlett. of the items that we have already decided to Senator Bartlett, are you saying that your omit from the bill, it would be consequential. amendment takes away the commencement If they do not, obviously we are going to dates which related to prisoners? Those have a messy outcome. commencement dates are no longer relevant because the government’s proposal in relation The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—One to prisoner voting has been defeated. There- could be confused and think that it is Satur- fore, are you are saying that there is no need day night Keno with all these numbers float- now for a commencement provision? ing around. I hope that has answered the queries. Senator Bartlett—Yes. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Senator ELLISON—That is what your No. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) 13 is doing? If that is what the effect of it is, (11.54 a.m.)—I think this sometimes happens it is appropriate to move that and it would when you go a long way down the track and work in with what has been passed to date. decide to throw the Senate committee into The government would oppose that but only reverse gear and go about 15 furlongs back- in order to maintain its adherence to the wards. Needless to say, I just want to be clear principle of prisoner voting. I can see the as to the question before the chair. I am clear efficacy of what you are proposing, Senator about Democrats amendment No. 13, sheet Bartlett. It does afford what has taken place 1227. What I am not clear about is in relation the opportunity to work. to the revision that we are speaking of. I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank assume that relates to the government amend- you, Minister, for that clarification. You have ments. certainly made my job a little easier. The Mr Temporary Chairman, is it correct that question is that Democrats amendment No. you have asked Senator Bartlett to move his 13, as moved in the amended form by Senator amendment as revised? Does ‘as revised’ Bartlett, be agreed to. relate to the recent government amendments? Question resolved in the affirmative. Is that what is occurring? What is the revi- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— sion? Having disposed of those matters, we now The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It move to opposition amendments Nos 1 to 4 seems that a lot of these numbers are identical on sheet 1235, as revised. to the amendments you were proposing, the Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— only differences being 9 and 10. We under- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) stand from the people who drafted this that (11.58 a.m.)—These particular amendments Senator Bartlett’s amendment is correct. It effectively go to the very important issue of takes on board your amendments plus two the closure of the rolls. These items would others. see the rolls closed three working days after Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— the issue of the writs and would set up a Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) postponement period during which new names (11.56 a.m.)—Now I come back, Mr Tempo- could not be added or deleted from the roll as Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2061 a result of enrolment applications. The post- these sections of the bill, as outlined in my ponement period for new electors commences speech during the second reading debate. I at 6 p.m. on the date of the issue of the writs will not go through that whole section of the until the close of polling. This means that no speech again, but I think it is worth recording new electors can get on the roll once the once again the Democrats’ strong opposition election has been called. That is the effect of to what the government is attempting to do in what the government is proposing. this legislation. The rationale that is provided for this—and I realise their purported rationale is to deal it is a pretty flimsy one, I have got to say—is with minimising the opportunity for electoral that the new proof of identity and other cross- fraud. I suppose if you cut everybody off the checks for new electors will take too long to roll then you have got a chance of minimising carry out and will not make the three-day electoral fraud, but you are obviously much limit. About 80,000 new enrolments occur more likely to minimise electoral participa- once the election is called. Closing the rolls tion. That is something that the Democrats are so quickly would disenfranchise a huge very concerned about. We do not believe number of first-time voters. Do not forget that there has been very strong evidence of elec- most of these are young people. Even worse, toral fraud, but there is certainly very strong of course, the postponement period for new evidence about the need for maximum elector- electors would see all of those 80,000 new al participation if our democratic system is voters, who apply to get on the electoral roll going to have any sort of integrity at all. when the election is called, disenfranchised. As has been pointed out, this will effective- When an election is called, there is obvious- ly disenfranchise about 80,000 people and the ly a rush of people who try and get on the Democrats believe that it should be strongly electoral roll. They either apply to get on the opposed because of the hole it will blow in electoral roll as first-time voters, or they need the integrity of our voting system. Clearly, it an update on their electoral enrolment, such will impact not solely but, predominantly, on as a change of address. The fact that an first time voters—on younger people. Again, election is called obviously motivates people these are the very people we are trying to to move quickly in this regard. But we all encourage to be involved in the political know about electoral behaviour in Australia. process. It is these very people who, perhaps It is often not until an election is actually even more than the rest of the Australian called that many people take this course of community, wonder whether politics and action, that they consider the status of their government and parliament are really worth electoral enrolment. We had evidence given the bother; and whether or not they should by the AEC to the Senate committee showing just ignore it all as something that they cannot that a majority of the 320,000 notify a change really do anything about—as some sort of of address at the last available opportunity. fairly distasteful show that happens down in That is just the way it works. Canberra that they cannot impact upon. It is clear that the restriction of three days All of us, I am sure, want to try to reverse for change of address prior to an election is that by whatever means we can. We want to going to be massively distorting and a real try to encourage younger people to get on the impediment to the democratic process. It roll to vote, to realise their voice is important, could lead to anything up to 200,000 people that they can make a difference, that they voting at their previous address. That is not have a legitimate and crucial part to play in what the intention or the spirit of the Elector- the direction of our democracy and that they al Act is about. These are very unreasonable have the ability to determine who represents provisions in the bill and we will oppose them in the parliament and who forms them in order to retain the integrity of the government. Electoral Act. This measure is clearly going to reduce the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.03 incentive and the opportunity for younger p.m.)—The Democrats will also be opposing people and first-time voters to be involved in 2062 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 the electoral process. If an election is called, whole process may be such that by the time under this measure that the government is the next election comes around in two or proposing, at 6 p.m. on the day of writs being three years time they will feel even less issued, that is it—the guillotine comes down. connected, more disfranchised and less inter- As Senator Faulkner said, the reality for all of ested than ever. Clearly that is a negative us—not just younger people—is that we tend outcome. not to get around to something like fixing up In speaking to the previous amendment I our new address on the roll or on a driver’s said that a possible effect may have been to licence until some specific event comes along benefit the coalition but that I would not which motivates us or pushes us into doing suggest that was the motivation. With this that. For most people, that event is the calling particular amendment I feel a little more of an election. inclined to suggest that that is probably a You can imagine the great degree of enthu- strong motivation for the coalition because it siasm that young people and potential first- will clearly disfranchise predominantly young- time voters have when they hear an election er people. As all of us know, support for the is called. They think, ‘I had better get on the coalition amongst younger people tends to be roll; this is my first chance to vote and I am less than amongst older people, for whatever going to make a difference.’ reason that may be. For that reason alone, I Senator Faulkner—No new elector would think it is something that should be pointed get on the roll. out and opposed. Senator BARTLETT—No new elector But more strongly than that, if we are going would get on the roll. They would hear the to amend the electoral system to benefit one election called. They would think, ‘Great. party over another, if there is a proper under- This will be my first chance to make a differ- lying principle, then that will be the outcome. ence. This will be my first chance to finally Clearly the underlying effect of this amend- have my say about all these policies that the ment, more than anything else, will be to government and various other parties are disfranchise younger people, to destroy even putting forward.’ They would turn up at the further their faith and interest in the political electoral office the next day and get told, process. We already have a major problem ‘Sorry, you are out. The rules were changed. with that issue in this country, as I am sure Bugger off.’ The Electoral Commission would we would all admit. We need to look at probably say something more polite than that. implementing measures that will improve that Nonetheless, that would be the effect. situation, not make it worse. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.09 tor Calvert)—That language is a bit rough. p.m.)—The Greens agree with that. As far as Perhaps you might care to amend it. I know, the first Greens legislation ever passed in this country was in 1989 and 1990 Senator BARTLETT—Yes, I apologise. I in the Tasmanian House of Assembly and it was putting myself in a young person’s mind came from Reverend Lance Armstrong, the just for a moment. But basically that is the then member for Bass. The legislation was to message they would feel they would be protect young voters’ rights in the same way getting from the government and from politi- we are trying to protect them by opposing this cians in general. They would not discriminate government move here. That was consequent and say, ‘This is the coalition’s fault.’ They upon an election being called by the then would say, ‘It is those politicians again. They Premier, Mr Gray, on a Wednesday or Thurs- do not even want us to have a say.’ That will day afternoon and the rolls closing on the be the effect, and that is clearly detrimental Friday afternoon. A lot of young Tasmanians to the future functioning of our democracy. did not have time to get on the rolls for that Chances are they may not even put in an election, and they felt very frustrated, I can application at that stage to go on the roll for tell you. We had a lot of outpouring of a later election. Their enthusiasm for the frustration and anger about that. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2063

If we were to support the government move who is transferring to lodge that detail. In any here, we would be aiding and abetting the event, that transferor is not disfranchised same situation. It is unconscionable that we because that person is still entitled to vote in should change a current situation to one in their old electorate. which, as other speakers have said, some With respect to new enrolments, they make 80,000 young voters are likely to find them- up some 80,000 of the in excess of 400,000 selves unable to vote in their first national transactions I mentioned. We believe our election. That would only increase their strategies, which we are pursuing, will ensure cynicism as well as their sense of frustration that young people are not disfranchised but about an electoral system that average citizens that it will be administratively more efficient already feel too cut off from and too divorced to have enrolment on the day of the issue of from what goes on in their parliaments. We the writ. For those reasons, the government will not support the government in this move. maintains its initiative in this regard. This was The Greens will join with the ALP and the a recommendation of the Joint Standing Democrats in trying to fend it off. Committee on Electoral Matters. For those Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— reasons, the government will oppose the Special Minister of State) (12.11 p.m.)—The proposal put by the opposition. government opposes the proposal put by the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.14 opposition. The government’s view has been p.m.)—I understand what the minister is clearly stated in the second reading speech, saying and the material that has been put and I will not go into it in great detail other before us in respect of the over 400,000 than to say that the ideal is for there to be a transactions after the particular time of the continual updating of the roll. Past experience issue of the writs. I am not convinced though shows that over 400,000 transactions occur in that that should be the catalyst for amending the period between the issue of the writ and the legislation, which has been in place for the close of the rolls. This places a great deal some considerable time and which does give of strain on the Australian Electoral Commis- recognition to the principle that persons who sion. In that rush of transfers and new enrol- are eligible to vote be able to vote. ments, the commission has to verify that indeed those transfers and enrolments are I do not accept the pejorative terms or the legitimate. The government is concerned that inferences by Senator Bartlett and Senator we concentrate more on those activities Brown that this is some sort of conspiracy by outside of the election cycle. the government to deny young people their vote. I was on the Joint Standing Committee As I mentioned earlier, the Electoral Com- on Electoral Matters years ago. I know this mission has taken up an initiative with the has been a concern of the Electoral Commis- government of Victoria to contact those sion for some considerable time. I am very young people who have just obtained a pleased to see that Senator Ellison and the driver’s licence with a view to getting them government are taking action between elec- onto the rolls. This will be pursued with other tions to get on the rolls as many people as states. You will see during the course of this possible who are eligible to vote, particularly year with our referendum that there will be a focusing attention on young people. So that communications strategy whereby people will does really give the lie to anybody who is be urged to make sure that they update their criticising the government that this is some details on the roll if they have moved or that sort of attempt to be an electoral gerrymander. they get on the roll if they are not on it. That I would suggest to the committee that, if the is the ideal situation. government’s attempts and initiatives are This legislation allows three working days successful, as we all hope they are, at getting for anyone to notify change of address after on the roll the maximum number of persons, the issue of the writ. That excludes public largely young persons, as we know, who are holidays and weekends. The government eligible to vote, that will alleviate the situa- believes that is sufficient time for a person tion and the difficulties that are experienced 2064 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 by the Electoral Commission now in respect have a responsibility in this chamber to of the huge number of transactions that take ensure that the act, which has worked well in place after the issue of the writs. I believe this regard, is not changed in a way that will that we should look to see how these initia- disfranchise so many Australians trying to do tives are going to work out and whether they the right thing. On this occasion—it is not are going to be successful or not. I do hope always the case—I do think that Senator that they are, but I am disinclined to vote for Harradine’s comments about the spirit of the the government’s amendments to the existing act are quite right. I do not think it is some- legislation. I believe that the status quo should thing we would want to see changed. remain and hope that the initiatives being The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- undertaken by the government will be suc- tor Calvert)—The question is that schedule cessful. 1, items 11, 12, 14, 28, 30 and 31 stand as Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— printed. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Question resolved in the negative. (12.18 p.m.)—I wish to respond very briefly to what Senator Harradine said about the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. I now move to schedule 1, items 53 and 54. think he is right. He accurately reflects what Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— the spirit of the current provisions in the act Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) are about. If this particular schedule of the (12.22 p.m.)—I am opposing items 13 and 15 bill is agreed to, some 80,000 new enrollees to 17, and at a later stage hopefully I will get are going to be disfranchised. That means that an opportunity to move my consequential no new elector can get on the roll once the amendment to the start-up date. We are election has been called and, of the 320,000 dealing here with the issue of the enrolment people who take the opportunity after an period and, again, we have proposals which election is called to change their address, a would disfranchise a number of voters, par- very significant number, probably a couple of ticularly itinerant electors, by requiring those hundred thousand, will be voting in elector- electors to re-enrol within one month of ates in which they do not want to vote. They moving. Previously, people were required to would actually want to enrol for the electorate reside in their new electorate for a period of in which they currently live. one month before being eligible for enrolment This really demonstrates the impact of the in that electorate. They then had 21 days to provisions in the bill and indicates very notify the AEC of their change of enrolment. strongly the breach of the spirit of the way These items cut that time back to only four the Electoral Act has operated. Surely we are weeks. Of course, there is a much greater not about making it hard for Australians to concern here with itinerant electors. Item 17 cast their vote in the electorate in which they seems to actually eliminate the entire category reside. We ought to be about reasonable of itinerant electors. Item 17 provides: provisions with reasonable time frames allow- Subject to subsection (9), a person ceases to be ing the democratic process to proceed, under- eligible to be treated as an itinerant elector under standing the sorts of constraints that the this section as soon as the person becomes entitled Electoral Commission have to operate under. to be enrolled for a Subdivision. They are the sorts of issues that Senator The thing is that the other items in this group Harradine has also dealt with. of proposed changes to the act provide that a I think this is a real breach of the spirit of person becomes entitled to be enrolled for a the act and the way the electoral process has subdivision immediately, without a waiting worked in this country. The provisions in this period. Of course, then an elector would cease bill are not provisions that are going to to be treated as an itinerant elector as soon as encourage the democratic process. An awful they moved somewhere. lot of people will either lose the right to vote, We did raise this anomaly during the debate or will not vote where they should. We do on this bill in the House of Representatives, Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2065 and I want to record in the Hansard the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The response the Parliamentary Secretary to the question is that schedule 1, items 53 and 54 Minister for Finance and Administration gave stand as printed. on this issue on behalf of the Australian Question resolved in the negative. Electoral Commission. He said: . . . while the proposed amendments would appear The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We to severely limit an elector’s ability to claim now move to schedule 1, items 13, 15 to 17, itinerant status in the application of the current 21 to 23 and 25 to 27. Senator Faulkner has provisions, the AEC has based the determination of already spoken on this. eligibility not solely on the length of residency at a particular address but on whether that address is Senator Faulkner—Yes, I think I have considered to be a permanent address of the spoken on it enough. elector—that is, one to which the elector has a fixed intention of returning to live on a permanent Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.27 basis rather than just a temporary abode for a fixed p.m.)—I just indicate on this issue, for the period of time. The AEC advises that it will reasons that Senator Faulkner has so eloquent- continue to adopt this approach in considering ly outlined, that, likewise, the Democrats have applications if the proposed amendments are passed concerns with the impact of these provisions into law. and will be not supporting those parts of the That is not good enough, and it is not a legislation. sufficient response to what I think is a signifi- cant issue, a real problem that the government Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.28 and the AEC probably would have missed if p.m.)—I agree, and I think the committee the opposition actually had not drawn their needs to think about the effect that these attention to it. So we will not be supporting provisions could have on the outcome of an these provisions, these items, in the bill. I election with people voting across borders in commend the opposition’s approach to the electorates they no longer belong to. We are committee. talking here about a few thousand votes, potentially, in each electorate. You only have The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- to look at the outcome of elections and see tor Calvert)—I think perhaps you may have how they are decided by less than 100 votes jumped a set of proposals there. We are on some occasions to see how this can materi- actually talking about items 53 and 54, which ally change the outcome of elections, and that are about closing the rolls and the enrolment is not something that anybody wants. That is period. why the Greens also oppose these measures Senator FAULKNER—I did, indeed. I and believe that everything should be done to thought you called me to deal with those make the rolls correct, to empower voters to items. vote for the electorate in which they actually live and, of course, as we said before, to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—No, make sure that young voters are entitled to we are talking about items 53 and 54 standing vote when it comes to polling day. as printed, and you have already made your point on that, I think. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, items 13, 15 to Senator FAULKNER—They are conse- 17, 21 to 23 and 25 to 27 stand as printed. quential provisions to the Referendum (Ma- chinery Provisions) Act. I had made, I Question resolved in the negative. thought, a very effective point on those— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We absolutely correct. In relation to the Referen- now have a revised amendment to be moved dum (Machinery Provisions) Act, of course, by the opposition. the same issue relates to that as relates to the Electoral Act itself. I think the same argu- Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— ments stand, and I assume the will of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) committee would equally apply to the Refer- (12.30 p.m.)—I move opposition amendment endum (Machinery Provisions) Act. No. 1 on sheet 1234, revised: 2066 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit "13, 15, 16, 17, point to make. We have had platitudes from 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27", substi- the government that we would be consulted tute "19, 20 and 24". in the drafting of the regulations and that the This the amendment that I was hanging out to draft regulations would be made available. move. It is effectively consequential on the But it is nine months after the legislation was matter we have just dealt with. first introduced. Finally, the regulations have The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The hit my office this morning. I do not know if question is that the amendment be agreed to. they have hit other senators’ offices. I sup- Question resolved in the affirmative. pose it is better that they hit your office before the bill is finally dealt with by the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Senate than afterwards, so I will give a question we now move to is that schedule 1, modicum of credit for that—but only a modi- item 19 stand as printed. cum, I can tell you. It is simply not good Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— enough. I might say that there have not been Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) any approaches by the government to consult (12.30 p.m.)—In dealing with this particular us on the regulations. issue we have got a very critical problem in We are concerned that the witnessing of that these items relate to regulations that the proof of identity and citizenship and hand parliament has not yet had an opportunity to lodgment of enrolment applications provisions sight. I have just got a message that they may and requirements are going to prove so have actually— laborious and unreasonable that people will be Senator Ellison—They went out a couple disfranchised or deterred from pursuing their of days ago. eligibility. Senator FAULKNER—You may have I have always questioned the government’s sighted them a couple of days ago, minister, motivation in relation to this. I think they are but I just heard from my office that they motivated by rampant paranoia that there is received a copy of them this morning. Would widespread electoral fraud. That is an unjusti- you accept, Minister, through the Temporary fied paranoia, and I think it is now starting to Chairman, that that is the case—that they diminish a little in the government. If you have been provided while this debate is were going to be that paranoid and you have ensuing? got hold of the reins of government and you Senator Ellison—I thought that they had have a good look at some of these issues, you been provided earlier. I understand that they would be starting to think that a little bit of were provided this morning. evidence might come your way if there were Senator FAULKNER—That is the point I any justification for the paranoia itself. Of was making, Minister. They have been course, there is not. I think it is paranoia provided this morning. Because I have been rather than a real desire to improve the in- otherwise occupied in the Senate chamber, I tegrity of the electoral rolls that is motivating for one have not had an opportunity to have the government in this regard. a look at them. There is a timing issue here. These provisions will lead to an enormous It is all very well to get these only, I gather, rise in bureaucratic procedures. They will cost in draft form—even though I have not sighted the best part of $4 million a year. We think them yet, but the Minister will confirm this at that those sorts of funds would be far better a later stage—but we have said since May last spent on habitation reviews. It is those senti- year, when this legislation was first intro- ments that are guiding the opposition’s ap- duced, that we did not want to support this proach in relation to this particular item. item until we were satisfied that the draft I suppose we will have an opportunity, regulations were acceptable. given that in 10 minutes the committee will You have had an awful long time, Minister, have a break from the laborious examination to get your act together on this particular of this legislation, to look at the draft regula- issue. I think that is a perfectly reasonable tions. I will be able to check when they were Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2067 actually faxed to my office, at what particular the Marriage Act. That really is an expansive time this morning they actually arrived, given list of people who can witness an enrolment. that the government has had nine months to do it. We might be able to have a bit of a The current situation simply provides for look at some of these regulations over the any person who is eligible to enrol as a voter. lunch break. That is a very wide class of person indeed. The government thinks that when you are Frankly, the government has not got its act enrolling it is an important transaction be- together on this particular item. I think other tween the individual and the state and that senators would share my sentiments in rela- there should be a level of scrutiny at that tion to that. That is what will guide the level of enrolment which recognises that fact. opposition’s approach. It is disappointing that I mentioned earlier that when opening a bank the government, which has argued so strenu- account certain things are required. A much ously that these are such serious matters, has lesser requirement is made of someone who not felt that it is able to involve or consult in is getting onto the electoral roll. After all, that any way or provide draft regulations to the is a very important thing. It entitles you to opposition or any other senators to advance exercise a very important right as a citizen of its case. I think its case is extremely flimsy. this country. So to have a list of people, albeit Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— an expansive one, is important to ensure that Special Minister of State) (12.37 p.m.)—On the integrity of the process is maintained. This that point, we have a list of people which is was recommendation No. 2 of the Joint much the same as the list of people who Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. The witness passports. That certainly is something government is strongly of the view that there which many Australians have. It is not such should be this scrutiny. a bar to people to go through and find some- I understand that senators have been provid- one from a list of that sort. It is not often ed with a copy of these draft regulations. I when we are debating legislation in the have other copies here in case anyone wants parliament that we have the consequential to have a look. I see that Senator Bartlett regulations available for consideration, but in would require a copy. I ask senators to have this instance the government had to draft a look at this list. It also deals with the these regulations. We have had the interven- agencies where you can lodge your applica- ing election, which taxed the resources of the tion for enrolment. That is important, too. It AEC, and other matters. We had quite an deals with things like the verification of extensive list here that had to be settled. Australian citizenship and the original docu- These regulations are in draft form and they mentation that is required from a person who have been circulated. I urge fellow senators wishes to enrol. So these draft regulations are from all sides to look at the list because it not just dealing with a list of witnesses. There really is comprehensive. It spans some three are other matters which have to be dealt with, pages of people who could witness an enrol- as well. That, as you can see, was of some ment. You have community leaders from the detail. I don’t know whether Senator Brown Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander com- has a copy of these regulations. munity, you have professional people, you Senator Brown—Only in my office. have consular people overseas for those Australians who are travelling, you have a Senator ELLISON—And Senator number of employees of community groups Harradine as well? and women’s refuges, part-time and full-time Senator Harradine—Yes. teachers, pilots, a range of people in the area of the judiciary, staff of the Electoral Com- Senator ELLISON—I urge this govern- mission, members of the defence services and ment proposal on the Senate as being a people who are involved in Australia Post. sensible one, and one which will not act as a You have quite a range of people, even down bar to any person wishing to get on the roll. to ministers of religion within the meaning of It will not act as an impediment. It will only 2068 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 heighten the integrity of the process of enrol- MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ling. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.42 being 12.45 p.m., we will now proceed to p.m.)—I haven’t seen these before, Minister, debate matters of public interest. so I would not mind a bit of time to go Drugs through them—although I would be disin- clined to support what is in the bill from my Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) standing position on behalf of the Democrats (12.45 p.m.)—I rise to inform the Senate that because I would have concerns that any tonight in my home town of Newcastle there restriction on witnesses for people who wish is a very important public meeting. It is the to enrol may disenfranchise people. I am not Drug Crisis Public Meeting. I have lent my convinced that such a restriction is necessary. support to this meeting because it is absolute- ly vital that we start to find more effective The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- solutions to the drug crisis facing our nation. tor McKiernan)—The question is that sched- The meeting tonight will have four themes: ule 1, item 19 stand as printed. the drug problem and its effects; remedies being used today; rehabilitation today; and Question resolved in the affirmative. efforts by governments to combat the drug problem both here and overseas, with special The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We emphasis on the Swedish experience. now move to schedule 1, item 20. A panel of experts will address the issues. Senator Faulkner—I think I heard Senator We will have Father Chris Riley from the Harradine sotto voce vote ‘aye’ then, didn’t Youth Off the Streets program who will be I? talking about the problem as it affects youth, and Angela Woods, the mother of Anna The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That Woods, will discuss educating youth to avoid was my understanding, yes. drugs. We will hear about rehabilitation prac- Senator Harradine—Just to clarify the tices here and overseas and the New South matter not in a sotto voce way, yes, I voted Wales shadow minister for health, Jillian aye. Skinner, will release some of the coalition’s policy for combating drugs. As yet no state Senator Faulkner—I just didn’t hear you, ALP member has agreed to discuss their drug Senator; I should have been watching for position, but I will get to the Carr govern- those lips to move. I stand on a point of ment’s record on this matter a little later. order, Mr Temporary Chairman. The only One of the most important issues to be reason I raise this is that I don’t want to have discussed tonight is the concept of custodial an unnecessary division, that’s all, particularly rehabilitation. Susan and Allan Forrester, who at 12.44. I am very popular, as you know, in have spent seven years and $50,000 fighting the Senate but my popularity might just go the heroin addiction of their daughter, will down the scales a little if I called a division speak tonight as advocates of custodial reha- that the opposition would lose at 12.44, when bilitation. Members and senators might recall people might be thinking about their luncheon that in the weekend press both last weekend break. and the one before they told their story to the whole world, so desperate are they in their The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—I am fight against drugs. They have seen what not going to rule on your popularity, Senator, drugs have done to their own family and they but there is no point of order on the matter do not want this to happen to other families. that you have raised. It is almost 12.45, which is probably an appropriate time to report The drug crisis as it has spread through the progress. families of the nation has reached epidemic proportions and it is time to consider some Progress reported. new measures. I know from talking to Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2069 mothers, fathers and families of drug addicts government has now been in power for four how hard it is for drug users to help them- years and their solution is to hold a crisis selves. The craving for that one hit is often meeting after the election. The crisis is actual- too strong for any individual to overcome ly happening now and addicts and their once they have been hooked on drugs. families have waited long enough. I have been told, ‘If only there was a place In the report Drugs, money and govern- where addicts could safely get medical help ments, the Carr government was identified as to overcome their addiction without being the worst performing state government in able to sign themselves out or get access to dealing with its drug problem. The report drugs.’ The current problem is that addicts found that in New South Wales expenditure can leave their rehabilitation program and it on health related programs to deal with drug only takes one hit to negate all the good work treatment and rehabilitation actually dropped that has been done. in 1996-97. The report says: Custodial rehabilitation for addicts who It is disappointing to note the very poor perform- have been convicted of criminal offences ance of the New South Wales government. New overcomes this problem. When convicted, for South Wales is the largest state and arguably has example, by a drug court—which has just some of the most significant drug problems, but has failed to prioritise drug problems or make a serious been established in New South Wales—an commitment to reducing drug related harm. arrangement can be made where, for a re- duced sentence, and with an agreement to In 1996 half of Australia’s heroin overdoses spend the last year of that sentence in custodi- occurred in New South Wales, even though it al rehabilitation, these young people can be only accounts for around one-third of the put into a drug free environment and get real nation’s population. help. Without drugs and with other support No-one from the Carr government, not even programs, we can actually help them put their one of the local Labour MPs—and I have lives back together again. Unlike a lot of written to all of them—has agreed to come to rehabilitation programs that are currently tonight’s meeting or to participate. I suppose operating, under this system they cannot sign we cannot be too surprised about that; they themselves in and out, and they are not must be very embarrassed about their own tempted back into their old way of life. government’s record on this matter. Mean- The current drug programs are not working while the opposition health spokesperson, effectively enough. I am not saying that this Jillian Skinner, is eager to share what the new approach is the be-all and end-all by any coalition will do to fight drugs. She will be means. We need a whole range of strategies there tonight and will actually announce part to help ameliorate the drug crisis. We need to of the drug policy at tonight’s meeting. put more resources in at both state and federal At a federal level the coalition government levels, and we need a greater range of pro- can be very proud of what it has done. It has grams to assist in this process. I have heard released the biggest anti-drug strategy in from people with personal experience that the Australia’s history with its $290 million way to really help an addict who wants to get Tough on Drugs strategy. This is already clean is to make sure that they cannot get making significant progress in fighting the access to the drugs, and then they are given drug crisis. It is a four-pronged approach over professional support. four years: firstly, protecting our borders by This crisis must be tackled, particularly in giving more than $50 million to protect the state of the New South Wales which has Australia from the international drug trade; the worst record. It seems that the Carr secondly, busting the dealers by providing government is very slow in moving on this. more than $100 million to fight this type of What they have said as part of their election crime; thirdly, funding for schools to educate promise is that they will hold a drug summit our children about the dangers of drug abuse; after the election. We have the worst record and fourthly, the coalition’s policy of zero in New South Wales. This state Carr ALP tolerance of illicit drugs in our schools. 2070 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

These approaches are combining to help However, in a subsequent hearing of that fight this problem, but probably the most committee, AQIS corrected its earlier evi- important area we really need to focus on is dence. The new answer was that New Zealand treatment. At the federal level, we are putting had agreed in principle to let our honey in but $100 million into this program to assist drug wanted assurances about areas’ freedom from users kick the habit and to provide support for certain diseases on the basis that that would their families. This includes more than $50 not be an unreasonable request. The hurdle million over four years for non-government put in place by the New Zealand government treatment services. frankly did not appear that high at the time. Dr Kahn advised the committee that: The coalition’s Tough on Drugs policy is the biggest single anti-drug initiative taken in The information required for exports out of West- the country. In addition, the Prime Minister ern Australia is simply surveillance information— recently announced funding of $60 million for That sounds innocent enough. She said that a new youth homelessness early intervention her advice from Western Australia was that program. The funding will provide almost 100 the state already had data it thought sufficient new services across the country for assistance to satisfy the New Zealanders. She also for young people and their families. These suggested that it might be possible to estab- services will be aimed at reducing youth lish heat treatment procedures to enable homelessness, as well as supporting young exports of honey from other states. people who may be at risk of youth suicide, In a written answer to the committee from drug and alcohol abuse and prolonged unem- AQIS, the committee was made aware of the ployment. full facts of the case. AQIS said that negotia- The federal government has been proactive tions commenced in 1990 and New Zealand on this issue, but I believe that all govern- honey producers were given access to our ments need to commit more resources to market in 1991. AQIS also advised that it was rehabilitation. For this reason, I look forward given draft conditions by New Zealand for to tonight’s public meeting in Newcastle, access to its market in November 1995. New where real solutions to the drug crisis will be Zealand also requested further information discussed. I look forward to sharing with the about heat treatment to eliminate European Senate the outcomes of tonight’s public foul brood as it is called. I asked that same meeting. question again on 26 February this year. The answer was basically the same. We continue Honey: Imports and Exports to allow New Zealand honey to access our markets, but according to Dr Kahn’s memory, Tasmania: Freight Subsidy Schemes we still cannot access theirs. That is still Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (12.53 dependent on preparation of a case and p.m.)—In September 1996, nearly 2½ years presentation of data to the New Zealand ago, former Senator Bob Collins asked ques- ministry. tions of the Australian Quarantine and Inspec- The honey industry is not the biggest tion Service in the Rural and Regional Affairs industry in Australia, but it is an important and Transport Legislation Committee about industry. According to the Australian bee- honey exports to New Zealand. He asked keeping industry, particularly in a report when negotiations with New Zealand had prepared for that group at the beginning of commenced for both the exportation of honey last year, the gross value of production for the from Australia to that country and the impor- industry is between $60 million and $65 tation of New Zealand honey to Australia. Dr million a year. It is, however, an important Kahn, a senior AQIS officer, told the Senate income generator for rural and regional committee that we had been importing New communities, and it is estimated that between Zealand honey for four years. She advised, 9,000 and 12,000 tonnes of honey are export- incorrectly, that some honey from Western ed per annum. It is not a big number but it is Australia was being exported to New Zealand. important enough. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2071

I raise the issue today not only on behalf of Together they provide relief against cost the Australian honey industry—who you disadvantages faced by many Tasmanian would understand have become completely industries and, therefore, they underpin many frustrated with their failure to be granted jobs that rely upon trade and transport across access to the New Zealand market; in fact, the Bass Strait. information that has been given to me indi- In the lead-up to the federal election, the cates that they have all but given up hope— Howard government committed itself to but also in the wider context of the Howard upgrading the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation government’s approach to both trade Scheme to the tune of an additional $15 liberalisation and the legitimate domestic million a year. The Minister for Family and industries. Take trade negotiations with New Community Services, Senator Newman, also Zealand over honey. New Zealand accessed committed the government to a continuation our market quick smart, but we are still of the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy waiting, nearly eight years after our applica- Scheme, but gave no commitment as to an tion, to access theirs. Unfortunately, the adequate level of funding. I pursued the future evidence suggests that it is the view of this of both schemes at recent estimates hearings government that the Australian honey industry because I was interested in just where the is not big enough to worry about. The tone of government was on these matters. A senior the latest answer would appear to confirm that officer from the department told me that view. In fact, it was quite a jocular answer, as cabinet was yet to consider the recommenda- I recall it. tions of the Nixon inquiry into the Tasmanian When Labor was in office, the Australian Freight Equalisation Scheme. He said the government did facilitate New Zealand actual impact of the review on the scheme honey’s access to our market but, apparently would not be known until cabinet actually now, according to the government, it is really makes a final decision in the budget context up to the Australian industry itself to obtain about the acceptance of the Tasmanian access to the New Zealand market. In the Freight Equalisation Scheme review recom- Howard administration, there is an unfortunate mendations. parallel between this industry and other The minister responsible for administration intensive rural activities. Their interests are of the scheme, Senator Ian Macdonald, gave not high on the government’s agenda when it me an assurance that the additional funding of comes to assisting them to expand or when it $15 million was an election commitment. I comes to protecting them. In this case, I am knew that already, as did many people in talking about the quite legal protection under Tasmania, from the election campaign. He World Trade Organisation rules if they suffer said the commitment would go into the damage from surging imports. budget process. We knew that as well. But he Apparently, this government sees industries could not say what would come out at the such as the chicken industry, pork industry other end of that process. Even though he is and the feedlot industry as expendable and directly responsible for the TFES, he was appears to be treating them accordingly. unable to say which of the Nixon recommen- Unfortunately, I must say from the point of dations might succeed and which might not view of my state, this theme appears likely in succeed in the cabinet process. the Howard government’s approach in the Officers of the Department of Agriculture, upcoming budget to a number of industries in Fisheries and Forestry also confirmed that Tasmania. At the last federal election there there is no money for the Tasmanian Wheat were two federal programs that were the Freight Subsidy Scheme next year—that is, subject of much debate in Tasmania: the the scheme will literally run out of money on Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and 30 June. That scheme was introduced in 1989 the Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy by a Labor government to provide assistance Scheme. The continuation of both of those to cover blue water freight, wharfage and schemes is vital to industry in Tasmania. unloading costs associated with shipping 2072 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 wheat and other grain, I think, across Bass choice—but to continue its funding beyond 30 Strait. It was reviewed in 1993 and 1994 and June. It is also important that a formal com- was extended for a further five years at a rate mitment to the future of the scheme be given of $2.7 million a year. Funding was also as a matter of urgency. As I say, people provided to help meet the costs of upgrading should not have to wait until after the budget handling and storage capacity in Tasmania. to know what their future is. Such a decision, This was based on dollar-for-dollar funding therefore, cannot wait until the second week arrangements with the state government. But in May. Those businesses, industries and soon after taking office in March 1996, the employees need to know. The government Howard government all but gutted the should also as a matter of urgency initiate scheme. It removed all infrastructure assist- discussions with the users of the scheme to ance and cut the actual subsidy to just $1.2 see where it might be improved. Frankly, if million for a period of three years. this government is not prepared to undertake During the estimates I asked officials from these discussions, then perhaps the Senate the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Forestry whether the government had re- References Committee might have to do its viewed the effectiveness of the scheme. I was job for it. told there had been no review. This govern- Sitting suspended from 1.06 p.m. to ment has not checked to see whether the 2.00 p.m. Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme needs more money or less money. It had not QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE checked to see whether the scheme should be Goods and Services Tax: Compensation improved in any way. So all of the Tasmanian industries underpinned by that scheme—such Senator CROWLEY—My question with- as the chicken industry, the pork industry, the out notice is directed to the Minister for stockfeed industry and the baking industry— Family and Community Services. Will the and the 1,600 workers in those industries minister now retract her statement from whose jobs rely on the scheme will not know question time yesterday when she said, ‘I until the second week in May whether the think it is very sad that those who purport to scheme—and possibly their jobs—will still be speak for the poor and the disadvantaged there after June. frequently do so with total ignorance?’ Has the minister’s attention been drawn to Treas- I also asked the government whether it had urer Costello’s comments on the same Angli- looked at the possible impact on these indus- can Church report, when he said, ‘I think this tries and the workers who work in them if the is probably the strongest statement you have Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme is shut down. ever seen from a church in favour of a GST,’ Surprising to some perhaps the answer was and wholeheartedly welcomed the report? Has no, there had been no such inquiry. So federal the minister passed on to the Treasurer her cabinet, apparently, will consider the future of strong view that the report he praised and the scheme without any assessment of its welcomed is based on total ignorance? Will effectiveness and without any assessment of the minister now admit that she clearly had the employment consequences of its termina- not familiarised herself with the contents of tion. This will, therefore, be a decision based the report before she wandered into the Senate on politics and not on proper analysis and to bucket the Anglican Church? sensible public policy. Frankly, this is no way Senator NEWMAN—When I was asked to do business. that question yesterday, I was particularly Given the importance of these intensive concerned that we constantly hear from industries to Tasmania and the jobs which people, who work either in the religious area they sustain and given the lack of any assess- or in the community welfare area, who have ment of the effectiveness or otherwise of the not done their homework before making Tasmanian Wheat Freight Subsidy Scheme, statements on areas for which they do not this government has no choice—I say no have specialist expertise. This was not par- Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2073 ticularly directed to my own church; it is measures. No, none of those families will be frequently the case. I have seen it happen worse off. when the Labor Party was in government, and it has not stopped. I have a pretty good The Labor Party can make a lot of noise impression, for instance, of Anglicare in the and has continued to do so, but it is not only provision of services. My portfolio pays quite the government making these allegations a lot of money to Anglicare, as well as about equity and simplicity but also the most Centacare and other community organisations, respected tax experts in our country. I think for the provision of services to needy people it would be wiser of church bodies and in our community. It does not mean to say community organisations who do not have the that they are experts on the tax system. In the expertise to take careful note of what the announcement that was made yesterday by the experts have given by way of evidence. Anglican media, Anglicare was arguing against a tax on food. Anglicare obviously has Senator CROWLEY—Madam President, not done its homework, because it is crystal I ask a supplementary question. I note your clear from the evidence that has been given claims about these organisations not having to the Senate committees by a long list of sought any expert information, which con- experts in this area that taxing food is equi- firms that you are not across what the wit- table, is simple and is the best way to go for nesses have been saying to us in our hearings. Australia. I note that you also said in your answer that small businesses could be tied up in knots with compliance costs, et cetera. Why is it We do not want to have small business tied that you would argue against compliance up in knots with great overheads, such as in costs for small business but not compliance Britain which has so many exemptions that costs for charities like Anglicare—one of the small business finds it a real burden, we do organisations that has said that this will be a not want to go that route, because we believe great contributor to the costs of their organisa- small business has the best chance of helping tion and therefore make it harder for them to needy people in Australia get a job, get off deliver the very services that you say you welfare dependence and not need the support want? Minister, are you also going to raise of the state. That is obviously the best out- your points of difference with the Treasurer? come for everybody. I would have thought that the Anglican Church, like other churches Senator NEWMAN—Perhaps another and community organisations, would also piece of information would help Senator believe that welfare dependency is not the Crowley. The tax office has estimated that best option. If you can help people get off Australia will have less than half the number welfare and into a job, you are doing them of tax administrators as Britain have per the best service you can. capita. Australia will have one tax official per 390 businesses, while Britain has one for If small business is tied up in knots with every 149 businesses due to the large number the exemptions to a complicated indirect tax of exemptions in the UK especially on food. system, we have done small business no good That is a pretty important piece of informa- and we have potentially done no good for tion, Senator Crowley, which I am sure you those who need jobs. We on this side of the did not have before. It would also be interest- parliament are concerned about the equity of ing for organisations like Anglicare, because the system too. The evidence that has been if Anglicare had that information then they given to the Senate committees is quite might have a slightly different approach to the clear—the expenditure by rich families and equity or otherwise of the package. I have poor families is pretty much constant on such their press release right here. It is pretty clear basics as food and clothing, it is reasonable that they talk about reducing the heavy to continue to use the CPI as a determinant, burden that a GST imposes on the less well- and across the board families are treated off. The experts across the community say equally and will not be disadvantaged by the otherwise. (Time expired) 2074 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Goods and Services Tax: Food zen?’ The rule is that, if sold at the ambient Senator O’CHEE—My question is ad- temperature, it is exempt. What happens is dressed to the Minister representing the that you sell someone a cold pie across the Minister for Employment, Workplace Rela- counter so that it is exempt, and then you tions and Small Business, Senator Alston. offer to heat it up for him free of charge. If Minister, the coalition’s tax reforms will you go into a milk bar on a very hot day deliver tax cuts worth $13 billion a year, wanting to buy a cold drink, you have to pay remove the worst state taxes, reduce export more if it is frozen because it then attracts a costs by $4.5 billion a year and reduce costs VAT. So you get all these extraordinary to business by $10 billion a year. What would propositions. Confectionary is exempt. How be the impact for small business and jobs, do you define ‘confectionary’? It is defined as however, if food were exempted from tax ‘any item of sweetened prepared food which reform? is normally eaten with the fingers’. So, in other words, presumably a lollipop bar is Senator ALSTON—I think we all know exempt, but a muesli bar is not. how vital small business is to job creation in this country. Indeed, something like 50 per Senator Schacht interjecting— cent of the work force is now employed in the Senator ALSTON—I do not know what small business sector; and, of the 1.2 million Senator Schacht eats—probably everything new jobs net over the last decade, more than with his fingers. So he would be in there 90 per cent have been in small business. So demanding an exemption. You just cannot it is clearly critical to ensure that small have this going on. Here is another classic: business is not handicapped, that it does not standard biscuits include gingerbread men have lead in its saddlebags when it is trying decorated with chocolate, unless it amounts to to get on with the business of earning a living no more than a couple of dots for eyes. Fruit and employing more Australians. So what and vegetable pops are zero rated. So fruit would be the consequences if we were to go and vegetable, on the face of it, is exempt. down this minefield that the Democrats and But if it is sold as an accompaniment to a hot the Labor Party are advocating? Just look at meal, then it is not. So on it goes. Juice and Canada, for example. This is the sort of juice concentrates are at a standard rating, nonsense that you get when you try to draw whereas fruit and vegetables are zero rated. these distinctions, when you try to work out Corn chips are zero rated; potato chips are where the boundary lines are. Revenue Cana- not. ‘What about yoghurt?’ I hear you ask. da says: All sizes of yoghurt will be zero rated when The federal government is introducing amendments supplied in grocery or convenience stores. to clarify and simplify the tax treatment of salad This includes single servings sold individual- sandwiches and other prepared foods. The new ly, except when supplied in restaurants and rules clarify that salads that are canned or vacuum sealed are zero rated. Sandwiches and similar other eating or food service establishments for products will be subject to the GST unless they are immediate consumption. ‘Immediate’ is frozen. another critical word; if it is ‘delayed’ it is Then it had to put out a change, saying: different. Supplies of yoghurt made through vending machines and single servings of On page 7 paragraph 40 of this publication, please delete the reference to gingerbread houses. Ginger- frozen yoghurt remain subject to the GST. On bread houses and similar products are generally and on it goes, all in aid of lawyers’ picnics, zero rated and not taxable at 7 or 15 per cent. no doubt. All the smart draftsmen will be So trying to exempt food would be an abso- having a field day. lute nightmare, a legal maze, a quagmire into This is an administrative jungle. What will which small business would sink without any happen is that small business will spend more compensation for it. In the UK they have and more time on less and less, so that even- sought to exempt food. What does that mean? tually they will have to spend most of their You get these inevitable boundary distinctions time going to see the lawyers and the ac- between ‘Is it raw, is it processed, is it fro- countants in order to arrange how to success- Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2075 fully wind up their business. How does that minister still have no opinion about the nature come about? Because of all the unnecessary of the allegations made of the Air Force by paperwork and boundary distinctions that you Dick Smith after those allegations have been lot still seem to support. (Time expired) systematically and comprehensively refuted Senator O’CHEE—Madam President, I ask by senior officials of the department she a supplementary question. Out of concern for represents? the manufacturers of gingerbread men and all Senator NEWMAN—The answer is no. the other small business men and women who would have to deal with the nightmare, Goods and Services Tax: Compensation perhaps the minister might be kind enough to Senator KNOWLES—My question is also outline the consequences in terms of adminis- to Senator Newman, but it is a sensible one— tration costs to small business if the govern- that is the difference. As the whole world ment were to cave in to the nonsense we hear knows, the coalition government has proposed from the other side of the chamber. a sweeping reform of the Australian tax Senator George Campbell—His brains are system, with compensation for low income zero rated! earners. The minister would be aware of recent endorsements of the compensation Senator ALSTON—You will be entirely proposed by the coalition government as part exempt on that count, can I assure you, of its tax reform. Minister, would you please Senator Campbell. Small business operators inform the Senate of the responses to those would spend all their time sitting by the fax compensation measures by those very same machine, scanning the legal notices, waiting people? for the latest amendment and change, attend- ing training courses and reading the mail for Senator NEWMAN—Yes, it is true that the latest updates from the tax office. The one of the peak welfare lobby groups in Australian Society of Certified Practising Australia, namely ACOSS, has concluded that Accountants estimates that attempts to exempt low income earners on average would be food from the GST would cost the economy better off under the tax reforms. The Austral- over $100 million a year in compliance costs. ian Council of Social Service have appeared You have heard Senator Newman say that, in before the Senate select committee on a new the UK, they have more than twice as many tax system. At the committee hearing and in tax inspectors as we have. their submission to the committee, ACOSS So, what would happen is that you would have recognised that the government’s com- have a huge hairsplitting brigade. You would pensation package for people on low incomes have people hiding around corners, waiting to exceeds the average increase in the cost of see whether you actually sold something hot living. That is in line with what the govern- or cold. You would have all the smart opera- ment has said all along since the release of a tors trying to artificially arrange their food so new tax system. The compensation package that they redefined ‘ambient temperature’ or of a four per cent increase in all maximum they were able to process it in a particular rates of social security, veteran and student way. The challenges are endless but all to the pensions and allowances provides a 1.5 per detriment of small business—and this is not cent real increase in the value of these pay- what the game ought to be about at all. (Time ments. This 1.5 per cent increase is on top of expired) compensation for the effect of the tax package on the consumer price index. Royal Australian Air Force: Airspace The ACOSS submission demonstrated that Trial adequate compensation is in the package for Senator HOGG—My question is addressed age pensioners, couples with children, sole to the Minister representing the Minister for parents, and single and couple recipients of Defence, Senator Newman. Does the minister Newstart, and for sickness payments and now regret her refusal to defend the Austral- disability support pension. The ACOSS ian Air Force at estimates last week? Does the submission also noted substantial strength in 2076 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 the government’s proposals, such as reducing health concession cards? If the cash or shares by over 20 per cent effective marginal tax are classified as a gift, which would reduce rates for most low income families, maintain- the effect on social security benefits, does this ing an integrated system of family assistance not highlight the vote buying intention of Ms for working and non-working families, simpli- Chikarovski’s policy—straight out gifts for fying the system of family income support by votes? combining 12 separate forms of assistance to Senator NEWMAN—I do not have all the families into three, substantially increasing the detail of the proposal. Nevertheless, I am very rate of assistance provided to sole parent happy to help the chamber in general terms as families and retaining a separate system of to how these dividends would be treated by payments to assist parents with the cost of Social Security. The shares or cash in lieu of child care. shares are not treated as income for social It is interesting that those who would soon security pensioners, and that is consistent with make judgment on this tax reform package are the treatment of shares that were received as not prepared to listen to what ACOSS has to part of the demutualisation processes for say about it. It is very pleasing that ACOSS example in AMP. The shares would be treated has recognised these elements of the tax as financial assets under the assets test and reform package. The lessening of poverty deemed to be earning income. Money in lieu traps, which were left to run unchecked of shares which is held by the customer, for during the Labor years, the ones facing low example in a bank account, will be a financial income groups and the greater assistance that asset and deemed. I do recall that the back to is provided to families, are cornerstones of the school payment that was paid by the New tax reforms and should, one would have South Wales government from 1998 was thought, had the unanimous endorsement of treated in the same way. The bottom line is all parties in the parliament. But the ALP that for most customers, as I am advised by response to ACOSS was simply one of dis- my department, there would be no impact on pleasure and discomfort, because they have their rate of pension. backed the wrong horse. Australia needs a new tax system. Australia’s families need it. Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, ACOSS blew the whistle through their Mel- I ask a supplementary question. Minister, if bourne Institute study as to how people would the shares are not classified as an asset, as be advantaged by tax reform. you have indicated they will be treated, is it not quite likely that this bribe actually could Social Security Payments: Proceeds of affect pensioners and beneficiaries through the Sale of New South Wales Power Industry operation of the assets test threshold, deeming Senator FAULKNER—My question is rules and the rules for health concession directed to the Minister for Family and Com- cards? You mentioned the back to school munity Services, Senator Newman. Can the allowance of the New South Wales govern- minister inform the Senate and Australian ment. Minister, is it not likely that this policy pensioners whether a one-off payment from of Ms Chikarovski is far more likely to affect the sell-off of the New South Wales power pensioners than the back to school allowance? industry would be classified as income, assets Senator NEWMAN—Clearly Senator or a gift for the purposes of the Social Securi- Faulkner is not aware of the fact that most ty Act? Can the minister confirm that, if it is people applying for assistance under social classified as income, this payment will reduce security legislation never get knocked out by or eliminate a fortnight’s benefit, drastically assets tests because they are fairly generous reducing the cash in hand for low income and people do not reach them. The addition pensioners and recipients of benefits? If of $1,100 worth of shares is most unlikely to shares are classified as an asset, is it not take people over the assets test limit. The possible that this bribe could affect benefi- advice of my department, which has a very ciaries through the operation of the assets test good handle on what the assets are of people threshold, deeming rules and the rules for on our payments, is that for most customers Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2077 there would be no impact on their assets organisations, who presumably survey their whatsoever and their pension. members on a regular basis, will tell you in spades that this is far and away a very big Unfair Dismissals: Small Business matter of concern for small business. You do Senator MURRAY—My question is not have to be a world champion to be aware directed to the Minister representing the of all the representations that are made to us Minister for Employment, Workplace Rela- by all sorts of people who are actual and tions and Small Business. Minister, is it true prospective small business operators. They all that there are 2.4 million people employed in know as a matter of commonsense that, if you small business? Is it true that federal unfair are going to be tied up in red tape, if you are dismissal applications for small business in going to have the might of the trade union 1998 have halved to 2,861, a minute percent- movement rushing you off to the arbitration age of those employees? Has the minister read commission—no doubt keeping themselves the evidence from Australia Business Ltd that gainfully employed whilst clogging up the small business is woefully ignorant of the small businesses—it is not in anyone’s best 1996 changes to the unfair dismissal provi- interests. sions within the Workplace Relations Act? I do not accept for a moment that there is Since the government spent nearly $20 a woeful level of ignorance. However, there million telling Australians about tax before may well still be a need to inform people legislation was even introduced, how much about the way in which a majority of parties has the government spent and how much does in this Senate chamber have consistently it intend spending on educating one million refused to support very sensible amend- small businesses on the changes to federal ments—ones which we took to the last elec- unfair dismissal laws which did pass the tion and which we had made abundantly clear parliament and are working well and have was a critical part of our package of flexing halved the rate? up the labour market. I think a lot more Senator ALSTON—I cannot, off the top of people need to understand who did it, not just my head, confirm the numbers of those small this amorphous term ‘the Senate blocked businesses or those employed in small busi- them’. The fact is that the Labor Party nesses. It sounds about right. I do not know blocked them, with the Democrats’ help. That the number of applications or whether they is how they came to be blocked. If either of have halved or any other figure, but obviously those parties had chosen to acknowledge that these figures move around a fair bit. Yester- we ran on this issue and to look at the evi- day I think I quoted a figure of something in dence of a number of small businesses, they the order of 15,000 and an aggregate of would not have been able to get away— something like 55,000 over a period of sever- Senator Murray—Madam President, I rise al years. Quite clearly, any level of applica- on a point of order. I am finding the tions that are not particularly meritorious but minister’s answer helpful, but the question result in commercial compromise decisions was: how much are you spending, and will being made in order to basically get on with you spend, on educating them? the job are fundamentally unhelpful. They are not in aid of protecting those who have been The PRESIDENT—There is no point of wrongly deprived of their employment. In order. many instances, they are simply a prospective Senator ALSTON—I will find out the way of trying to get additional funds out of precise figures, but if Senator Murray was an employer. putting to me that the number of cases actual- I do not think it is correct to say that small ly determined has fallen quite significantly business is woefully ignorant about the unfair then, of course, that would be a meaningless dismissal proposals. These are a matter of statistic. It would simply mean that a lot more community notoriety. You do not have to be were settled because people were not prepared in small business to know that this is a major to go right through the torture— problem. All of the small business peak Senator Murray—Applications. 2078 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Senator ALSTON—For all sorts of reasons Tax Package: Impact these numbers can move around. I will find Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is out what the precise figure is and get back to directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for you. Family and Community Services. I refer to Senator MURRAY—Madam President, I the repeated claims that the minister makes ask a supplementary question. I appreciate the that those on low incomes will not suffer minister’s response. Does the minister know under a GST and to her dismissal of the that the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce government’s critics. How can the minister and Industry says that half of all small busi- maintain that the many people her department nesses in Tasmania are in fear of the federal assists will not suffer, when her department unfair dismissal laws but that the total number was not involved in the development of the of small business applications was only 56 in tax package, her department was not involved Tasmania? Does the minister know that 53 in the modelling of the tax package and her per cent of unfair dismissal applications are department has admitted it has done no work resolved in favour of employers? Is it not true to determine the impact of the tax package on that only 2,861 unfair dismissal applications its own clients? for small business is an irrelevant fact to the Senator NEWMAN—I am afraid the government, and that the reality is that you premise on which the senator’s question was just want to hire and fire at will? based is utterly wrong. Therefore, there is nothing to answer. Senator ALSTON—I think Senator Murray’s bottom line reveals his prejudice in Senator CHRIS EVANS—Madam Presi- the matter. This is recognised around the dent, I ask a supplementary question. Given world as a very significant inhibitor to job that the minister says it is the wrong premise, creation. To have a sword of Damocles can the minister explain what action she has hanging over the heads of small business— taken to discipline the officers of her depart- ment who gave that evidence to the com- Opposition senators interjecting— munity affairs committee only last week? The department’s evidence was that there was no Senator ALSTON—If 53 per cent are modelling, there was no involvement by the resolved in favour of employers, I do not department and they had done no analysis of know what that tells you. It probably means the impact on its clients. If the department that, in most instances, the applicants give it lied—because you are suggesting that they away at the last minute when they know they have lied to us—what have you done to do not have a case. It can tell you anything. correct it? Those sorts of statistics are just not helpful. Senator NEWMAN—I am suggesting no Certainly the number of applications is quite such thing. I am saying that an officer from relevant, because the more there are, the more my department at the most senior level was the problem, but there should not need to be seconded to Treasury for the whole process. very many at all. I do not accept for a mo- ment that there are thousands of employers Computers for Schools Program going around deliberately wanting to sack Senator BROWN—My question is to the people for no good reason. I do not accept minister representing the Minister for Educa- that proposition. I do, however, accept that tion, Training and Youth Affairs. I refer to a there are occasions when there are some— letter from Computer Sciences Corporation Senator Carr—What about Patrick’s? saying that the corporation has ‘made a commitment to the Minister of Education’ to Senator ALSTON—Don’t get us going on donate computer equipment being replaced in Patrick’s. There are some occasions when electoral offices ‘to the Computer for Schools rogue employers will act wrongly, just as Program’. I ask the minister whether the there will be employers who will harass minister for education has insisted on that employees wrongly. (Time expired) commitment? Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2079

Senator ELLISON—I can advise Senator Goods and Services Tax: Mobile Home Brown that the company concerned, CSC, has and Caravan Park Site Fees committed itself to supplying about 80 per Senator MURPHY—My question is to the cent of the 5,200 desktop PCs replaced since Minister for Family and Community Services, last November to schools as part of the Senator Newman. Does the minister recall Computers for Schools program. This 80 per that, during the recent election campaign, the cent target is one which, I understand, will be government assured residents of mobile home achieved and can be achieved, notwithstand- and caravan parks—most of whom are clients ing what has been said in relation to elector- of her department—that under the GST they ate staff having access to the computers which would be treated the same as other renters, I think are in the region of three years old. such as residents in flats? Is it true the There is no problem whatsoever with this government maintained that the site fee would program meeting its goals. In fact, last year, be input taxed—that is, that the operator when I was minister for schools, CSC was would have to pay—and this price increase well on the way to getting these computers would not be passed on to residents? Is it out to the various schools across Australia. further true that, despite these earlier assuran- There has been no necessity, that I am aware ces, the government is now proposing to of, for the minister to make any insistence at apply the GST directly to the site fee paid by all. As I understand it, CSC is on target for its residents—that is, 100 per cent of the fee paid 80 per cent commitment and that can be by short-term residents and 50 per cent of the achieved as well as providing other computers fee paid by long-term residents? How does to electorate staff. the minister explain this turnaround? Senator BROWN—Madam President, I ask Senator NEWMAN—Mobile home owners a supplementary question, as that was an un- will not be disadvantaged under the GST. The satisfactory answer. I put it to the minister effect for long-term residents in mobile homes that the 20 per cent is the figure that applies will be similar to the effect for private rent- to those computers that are in MPs’ electorate ers—that is, around 2.3 per cent. That in- offices, so that the computers are going to crease is more than covered by the increases come from elsewhere in the bureaucracy and to pensions and benefits mentioned. go to schools, but, when it comes to MPs’ offices— Tax Reform: Indigenous Australians The PRESIDENT—Your question, Sena- Senator FERRIS—My question is to tor? Senator Herron, the Minister for Aboriginal Senator BROWN—Is it a fact that the and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. The coali- minister is not going to insist on the commit- tion government was re-elected with a clear ment that the computers from MPs’ offices go mandate to reform Labor’s outdated, 30-year- to the Australian schools program? I note— old, totally failed tax regime. Will the for the minister’s edification—that the letter minister explain how tax reform will benefit from Computer Sciences Corporation did not our indigenous Australians, particularly those say 80 per cent. It said ‘all the replaced living in remote areas? Personal Computers and printers in the elec- Senator HERRON—I thank Senator Ferris torate office’ of MPs ‘would be donated to for the question and thank her also for her the program’. interest in tax reform and her representation Senator ELLISON—As I said earlier, CSC of South Australians—South Australian Abo- Australia has committed itself to 80 per cent riginal communities as well. I am pleased to of those computers going to the Computers be able to say that the tax package will be of for Schools program. I do not think I can considerable benefit to indigenous Australians, make it any clearer than that. The commit- particularly those living in remote and isolat- ment to the electorate staff, as I understand it, ed areas. In fact, all low income people living does not impinge upon that commitment; and in remote areas, whether indigenous or not, that is the end of it. will benefit from the government’s tax reform 2080 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 package. In developing the package, we have not particularly need that information because been very careful to ensure that people who she was aware of it, to a large degree, but I are geographically isolated get as much think many people are unaware—of the benefit from tax reform as people living in positive benefits for remote indigenous com- cities and towns. In specific terms, increases munities because of the overall nature of the in social security payments and income tax tax package, which will compensate them cuts are part of a raft of important compensa- disproportionately to those in cities. This is tion measures. These measures will ensure because of the demographic factors that are that indigenous people on low incomes, included in the tax package. income support and CDEP not only are compensated for the impact of the goods and Disability Services: Consultation services tax but also share in the gains of the new system. Senator CROSSIN—My question is direct- ed to the Minister for Family and Community Social security payments will be increased Services, Senator Newman. Can the minister by 4 per cent to cover an estimated cost of explain the reason behind her refusal to living increase of around 1.9 per cent. Income schedule a meeting with the state and territory support benefits will be kept 1.5 per cent ministers for disability issues until, I believe, higher than they would have been had the the second week in April, despite expressing normal indexation arrangements applied. In concern at the high level of unmet need with remote areas, where costs can be higher, we disability services? Is the minister aware the have allowed sufficient margin to ensure Australian Institute of Health and Welfare people are not disadvantaged. Even research commissioned a report as part of the review by Allen Consulting, commissioned by of the first Commonwealth-state disability ATSIC, suggests a cost of living impact of agreement, which revealed that there were at less than four per cent. It also has to be least 13,400 people with a disability who have remembered that the indigenous median age some element of unmet accommodation and is about half that of the wider community. respite care demand? Can the minister explain Indigenous families are larger and younger, so how delaying this consultation process by five they will also receive substantial benefits from months will see issues progressed for any of increased family allowances. those 13,400 people still waiting for assist- While some food items might increase, ance? many will, in fact, be cheaper because of the Senator NEWMAN—It is an important abolition of wholesale sales tax. The reduction question that Senator Crossin has asked, and of diesel fuel excise will significantly cut I appreciate her asking it. You will recall that transport costs for heavy vehicles, by up to 19 prior to the election Warwick Smith was the cents a litre. These savings will be passed on minister responsible for disability services. He to consumers and will be of particular benefit and the state ministers had agreed to meet to people living in remote and isolated areas. again late in the year—probably December, I note that the Road Transport Forum and the but no date was finalised—to discuss this very Northern Territory Road Transport Associa- issue of unmet need. When I was given this tion agree with that proposition. They say that expanded portfolio by the Prime Minister in the reduction in diesel excise costs will result mid-October, it was important for us to put in reduced transport costs. They see benefits together a portfolio which had a very wide flowing on to consumers at the supermarket ranging number of responsibilities across shelf and the petrol bowser. Community child care, disabilities, income support, hous- groups and businesses in remote communities ing, et cetera. It was not possible for me to will also benefit from a range of new meas- meet with the state ministers in December as ures. This includes an average 3.2 per cent had been talked about but not scheduled. I reduction in operating costs. then worked with the ministers to set a date, So, Madam President, I have much pleasure which is the first date that everybody could in informing Senator Ferris—although she did be present together. From memory, I think Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2081 that is about 9 April. I think it is an important Senator CROSSIN—Madam President, I meeting that we are planning to have. ask a supplementary question. Minister, we are more than aware of the relationship However, you should understand that in between the states and territories and the your question you were talking about accom- Commonwealth when it comes to funding modation and respite services. Those in fact these services. Therefore, are you aware that are the responsibilities largely, almost entire- delaying this meeting until April will leave an ly, of the states. The Commonwealth does inadequate time frame for charitable and com- provide them with a considerable sum of munity groups to examine and digest any money towards that, but there is divided recommendations or outcomes, therefore responsibility, by agreement with the states: denying these groups informed participation the Commonwealth takes responsibility for in the budget 1999 submission process? income support for people with disabilities and employment services for people with Senator NEWMAN—On the contrary, my disabilities and the states take responsibility department has been meeting with organisa- for accommodation, respite and support tions who have an interest in this matter for services. some time. Only today I met with ACROD. They will be having more meetings with the In that context, as ministers we will be government between now and 9 April. I do looking across state and Commonwealth not think there has been a lack of consulta- governments at how this very difficult prob- tion. Their views are being taken into serious lem of unmet need will be met in each of our consideration as the providers of many of the own areas of responsibility. It would be services we are talking about. remiss of me to not point out that this is not something that has just happened. This is Jabiluka Uranium Mine something that has been happening over the Senator ALLISON—My question is last 10, 15 or even 20 years. It is not some- directed to the Minister for the Environment thing that will be easily solved; it is some- and Heritage. I refer to the minute from his thing on which governments will have to departmental secretary dated 23 December last work together very carefully. year concerning Jabiluka. It stated: One of the things I was saying this week in A key focus will be on lobbying capitals to assert answer to a question about tax reform was a whole of government approach on their Commit- very appropriate to this issue: the states will tee members. shortly have flowing to them $25 billion of Minister, does that mean you do not want revenue from the GST, which will enable UNESCO committee members to decide them to improve their services in the disabili- based on world heritage obligations? Instead, ties area. This reform is something which isn’t the government using political pressure many premiers are either publicly or privately to get member countries to vote with Austral- saying that they cannot wait to see happen. ia? Isn’t this grossly inappropriate behaviour They need that money. We cannot have states which threatens to subvert the World Heritage to continue to go cap in hand to Canberra to Committee? Isn’t this systematic interference get money for basic services. That was the with member countries? Why is the minister system we inherited. Our government has using thuggish pressure to get his way? taken the decision to reform the whole of the Senator HILL—It is a pity that Senator tax system, including payments to the states. Allison did not speak to her colleague Senator The GST will provide them with an assured Bartlett, who represented her at the estimates revenue stream, which will grow over the committee last night and heard about two years as the population grows and as more hours of answers to that particular question people are brought into the tax system com- because it was repeated so often. pared with those who are now avoiding it. That is how over time more good can be done Senator Bolkus—They were not convin- for people with disabilities. cing at all. 2082 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Senator HILL—The position is that Aus- of mining at Ranger, how can it possibly be tralia needs to correct the falsities of the in any danger from a mine 20 years on, an Australian Democrats, the Australian Labor underground mine as opposed to an open-cut Party and others who have so badly mine, with newer technology and a much misrepresented the true position in relation to smaller footprint? It does not make any sense Jabiluka. whatsoever. Senator Bolkus—All the prominent leading Senator ALLISON—Madam President, I scientists don’t say that. ask a supplementary question. I thank the The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus minister for his attempt at an answer. My cease interjecting. colleague reminds me that he did not answer the question last night either. Minister, in the Senator HILL—The Jabiluka mine pros- letter that you wrote me you insisted that you pect in the Northern Territory has undergone were only interested in correcting errors of some three years of assessment and been fact, science and law. That sounds reasonable found to be totally environmentally safe. enough until I read this internal government Senator Bolkus—Not even an EIS. strategy where I see that you are considering The PRESIDENT—Senator Bolkus! incentives, pressuring and various external tactics like cross-trading votes on committees. Senator HILL—It has therefore gained all Isn’t it the case that you are not interested in Commonwealth approvals necessary for an the merits of the argument at all and that this export licence to be granted in due course, is about winning at all costs regardless of the presuming that the company complies with impact on the Mirrar people and regardless of the conditions that were associated with the the impact on Kakadu? Does it bother the approval. Notwithstanding that very rigorous minister that he is politicising the World assessment process— Heritage Committee to such an extent that he Senator Bolkus—You know it wasn’t could fatally erode all of the goodwill and the rigorous. You were pushed into it by Parer. good faith so many countries have taken so Senator HILL—and the fact that the long to achieve? Ranger Mine has operated in the near vicinity Senator HILL—It is the Australian Demo- safely for a period of 18 years the Australian crats and the ALP who have politicised this Labor Party, the Australian Democrats and process by going behind the back of the certain fringe NGOs have decided to under- elected government of Australia to mine the Australian government’s position by misrepresent the position at the meeting at misrepresenting the position to the World Kyoto of last year. It was the Australian Heritage Committee. Labor Party who stood by for 13 years along- Senator Bolkus—You’re just Minchin’s side the Ranger Mine and said that it was not puppet. He’s running it. in any way a danger to the world heritage area and it is the Labor Party who are under- The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Bolkus, mining the integrity of the world heritage you have been interjecting since the answer process. It is our wish to restore that integrity, started. I would ask you to abide by the and that is why we are taking the position standing orders and cease interjecting. that we are. Senator HILL—Our responsibility will be to ensure that the member states that make up Tax Package: Impact the committee are properly informed as to the Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is true facts in relation to this matter and then to the Minister for Family and Community all we will request of them is a fair and Services. In an earlier answer to a question objective assessment of those facts, because from me about the impact of the tax package on a fair and objective assessment there can on your department’s clients and the failure be no question about this world heritage area of the department to do any work on that being described as being in any danger at all. matter, you tried to depict the secondment of If it has not been in any danger from 18 years one officer from your department to the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2083

Treasury as being your evidence of the public education campaign which should be department’s involvement. impartial and which should be designed to The PRESIDENT—Senator, your question inform the people of Australia as to the should be directed through the chair. constitution governing the country and its system of government. That was in order to Senator CHRIS EVANS—Sorry, Madam assist people in making an informed choice as President. Despite that, Minister, are you to whether this country should become a aware that at the estimates committee the republic or not. officer made it very clear that he was second- ed on the basis of his skills, not as a represen- There will be three phases to the informa- tative of the department, not to represent the tion campaign. The first will involve that department’s view? He was seconded to use impartial education campaign which I have his particular skills. Will you now confirm the just referred to. I have been working with the evidence given by your department that you Attorney-General on the referendum task have done no modelling on the impact of the force to develop a campaign which will be tax package on your department’s clients? intended to provide straightforward, easily understandable information in relation to the Senator NEWMAN—The answer I gave system of government, the specific proposal previously was perfectly truthful and straight for change, the referendum process itself and up and down. There was a very senior officer the changes in the relationship between the from my department seconded to Treasury. Commonwealth and the states. It is very He spent a number of years gaining experi- important that the people of Australia have an ence in social security issues. He was an understanding of the system of government, invaluable member of the working party on the referendum, the process and especially the tax reform, and the tax package shows the question. results of his expertise working with the Tax and Treasury people. The second phase involves the campaign itself, which will involve funding for the yes Republic: Education Campaign case and the no case. There will be two Senator BROWNHILL—My question is committees drawn from delegates to the to the Special Minister of State. The govern- Constitutional Convention and each commit- ment accepted the recommendation of the tee will comprise nine in number. The majori- Constitutional Convention that the question of ty of those will be non-parliamentarians. Australia becoming a republic be put to the Those committees will then apply the $7½ Australian people in a referendum. The million respectively to a campaign of adver- government has confirmed that it intends to tising and information as they see fit to the follow closely the republic model endorsed by yes case and no case respectively. I might add the convention. Will the Special Minister of that there will be a government process in State advise the Senate on the method of relation to the approval of that advertising. It public education and information that the will not go to the substance of the advertising government intends to implement? but merely to the fact that the advertising is Senator ELLISON—I thank Senator not misrepresentative and that it conforms Brownhill for this question because it is with the usual guidelines in relation to stand- timely as the government has recently an- ards of advertising. It will not be dealing with nounced its public funding of $15 million for the substantive matters as to the advertising the yes case and the no case. Firstly, let us concerned. look back to the Constitutional Convention, The third phase will involve the traditional which recommended that there be a bipartisan yes and no cases. As with a normal referen- appointment of a president. The government dum, the Australian Electoral Commission undertook to put that model at a referendum, will send to Australian households across the and we will be doing that in a referendum country the yes and no cases. Of course they some time in November this year. The con- will set out in succinct form the cases for and vention also stated that there should be a against Australia becoming a republic. That 2084 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 will be provided in a booklet form closer to health care card or if the need for care is the referendum. much greater than simply the provision of It is essential that the people of Australia pharmaceuticals they no doubt will be eligible have a good grasp of the question that is for the payment as well as the card. I will being put them, of the issues at hand, and an have a look at the detail of your question and understanding of the system of government in see if I can get more answer for you, Senator. this country. It is essential that the Australian Senator GIBBS—Madam President, I ask people have this knowledge in order to make a supplementary question. Is the minister an informed choice, and that is the aim of familiar with the tragic situation whereby a these three phases of information. Debate can leukaemia sufferer from the Northern Terri- be conducted with vigour—with passion, as tory undergoing chemotherapy and coping the Prime Minister has said—but it is most with the amputation of his leg below the knee important that debate on this issue be in- was initially deemed not eligible to receive a formed and conducted with maturity. disability allowance? Is the minister aware that this boy’s family had to fight with Child Disability Allowance: Eligibility Centrelink to prove that his overall develop- Senator GIBBS—My question is to the ment is affected by his illness and that he Minister for Family and Community Services, requires more care than other children of his Senator Newman. Can the minister confirm age? Was it the government’s intention that that under current child disability assessment this assessment tool operate to exclude chil- tool provisions in the child disability allow- dren who are clearly disadvantaged from ance a minimum of 3,800 children are no receiving this payment, and how does the longer eligible for the payment? Is the minister intend to ensure that in the future minister aware that many families of children children with a disability are not excluded with a disability suffer severe financial hard- from this allowance due to inadequate assess- ship due to the added expenses incurred by a ment procedures? disability and that sweeping exclusions from Senator NEWMAN—I am sure the senator this payment only serve to further pressure would not expect that the minister would be their economic situation? Is the minister determining people’s eligibility on an individ- satisfied with the method by which the appli- ual basis. The social security system has cation of the assessment tool is made by never allowed for that. If a decision of Centrelink? Centrelink is not accepted by the family Senator NEWMAN—Senator Gibbs asks concerned, they have very important review whether 3,800 children are no longer eligible. rights within the Centrelink system and appeal I cannot confirm that today, but I will get her rights to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the detail. What I can say is that, of those the AAT, the Federal Court and the High who ceased to be eligible in the reviews prior Court. So there is no way that family did not to 30 June last year, a number may be eligible have the right of appeal, and it appears they for health care cards, as I am sure she would must have succeeded. I recall that was a case be aware. For many families of children with last year, but I do not recall the outcome of disabilities the assistance with pharmaceutic- it. Obviously, though, from the way you als is one of the most important elements of describe it, they did use their appeal rights, the non-means tested assistance. and it is an indication that the system works fairly. You will recall that the Senate passed a method of evaluating objectively the disabili- Renewable Energy ties that have been suffered and the need by Senator PARER—My question without children for care. That will be evaluated in notice is directed to the Minister for Industry, the normal way, with most social security Science and Resources, Senator Minchin. programs being evaluated after the first year Australia has always been a world leader in of implementation. Under the new arrange- innovation. I understand that our scientists are ments children can be eligible either for a now developing groundbreaking research in Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2085 the field of renewable energy through solar all encourage the commercialisation of renew- power. Could the minister advise the Senate able energy innovation. I take this opportuni- what the government is doing to recognise the ty, on behalf of all senators, to congratulate achievements of our scientists? Professor Green and Professor Wenham on Senator MINCHIN—This morning I their achievements. I look forward to meeting announced that Professor Martin Green and them this evening at the presentation dinner Professor Stuart Wenham from the University in the Great Hall where the Prime Minister of New South Wales were the winners of the will award the Australia Prize. 1999 Australia Prize. This is an annual award Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that to acknowledge excellence by scientists and further questions be placed on the Notice technologists in applying their skills for the Paper. benefit of humanity. It is awarded in a differ- ent category each year. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT Senator Schacht—Started by the Hawke NOTICE Labor government. Nuclear Fuel: Reprocessing Senator MINCHIN—And I acknowledge Senator MINCHIN (South Australia— the fact that it was initiated by a former Labor Minister for Industry, Science and Resources) government. This year’s field is energy, (3.00 p.m.)—I have answers to questions that science and technology. Professor Green and Senator Margetts asked me yesterday. I seek Professor Wenham have made an outstanding leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. contribution to the science of photovoltaics, the conversion of sunlight into electricity. Leave granted. They have also worked closely with industry The answers read as follows— to turn their research into a viable commercial Question: Can the Minister indicate if a contract enterprise. Last year solar cells developed by has finally been finalised with COGEMA, if so Professors Green and Wenham became the who signed it, and have all Ministerial approvals largest manufactured solar cell technology in been given? Europe. Their solar cells have achieved a 24½ Answer: A contract was signed on 22 January per cent efficiency in the conversion of 1999. It was signed by the Executive Director of sunlight into electricity, which is the current ANSTO and a senior executive of Cogema. I world record by a very large margin. Their approved ANSTO entering into the contract, in accordance with the requirements of section 31 of cells produce up to 30 per cent more energy the ANSTO Act 1987. and are 20 per cent cheaper to make than competing technologies. The solar cells will Question: Will it be tabled in the Senate or at the Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry also power each of the homes in the athletes into the new ANSTO reactor and if not, why not? village for the 2000 Olympics. Answer: The contract will not be tabled in the Professors Green and Wenham provide a Senate as it is a commercial contract that is confi- leading example of how commercialisation of dential to its signatories. innovation offers export and development Question: Does the contract with COGEMA include opportunities for Australia. The coalition reprocessing fuel from the new ANSTO reactor and government recognises the importance of if so, doesn’t this pre-empt the outcome of the Australian research and will continue to foster Senate Commission’s inquiry and any environment- an environment in which collaboration be- al impact studies to the reactor? tween industry and science can flourish. We Answer: The contract provides for the reprocessing want to encourage commercialisation of of spent fuel arising from the operation of the research, particularly in this renewable energy replacement research reactor, on terms to be agreed once the reactor is selected and the fuel type is field. known. Our policies reflect this commitment, in The terms of reference of the Senate’s reactor particular the renewable energy showcase, the inquiry do not include a specific requirement for renewable energy commercialisation program consideration of the management of spent fuel from and the renewable energy equity fund, which the replacement reactor. 2086 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

The Committee’s reporting date is listed for 18 The answer read as follows— February 1999 and there is a notice of motion on the Senate Notice Paper indicating that the Com- Yesterday Senator John Faulkner asked me a mittee would like to move the report date back question regarding the government’s submission to until the 27 May 1999, therefore the contract with the Remuneration Tribunal regarding charter Cogema does not pre-empt the Committee’s entitlements. findings. The submission was taken forward by the Hon John Fahey MP, Minister for Finance and Administra- The Environmental Impact Statement for the tion. The submission followed consideration by replacement reactor, which ANSTO completed government of the existing procedures and ambigui- recently, indicated that ANSTO had an agreement ty surrounding them. that included spent fuel from the replacement reactor. The government believed that more flexible ar- rangements should be introduced. The Remunera- Supplementary Question tion Tribunal accepted the government’s submis- Question: Can Minister clarify whether any actual sion. environmental impact study was part of that due At the time these matters were dealt with, Senator process. Ellison was Minister for Schools, Vocational Answer: The overseas shipment of all the HIFAR Education and Training. Senator Minchin was spent fuel was subject to environmental assessment Special Minister of State. Of course Mr Fahey in 1997 under the Environment Protection (Impact continues as Minister for Finance and Administra- of Proposals) Act 1974 (the EPIP Act). That tion. assessment is now being reviewed by Environment Australia in the light of the changed destination of Aviation: Airspace Travel the non-US origin fuel In accordance with the Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- provisions of the EPIP Act, Environment Australia will be forwarding a report to the Minister for land—Minister for Regional Services, Terri- Environment and Heritage in the near future. tories and Local Government) (3.01 p.m.)—I apologise to Senator Mackay because I forgot Question: How much will the reprocessing contract with COGEMA cost ANSTO? to tell her that I had an answer for her on the matter she raised with me yesterday, which Answer: The cost of the reprocessing contract with Cogema is commercial-in-confidence. was on whether the review into BASI, the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, would be Question: Is this in excess of the amount that made public. I indicated to her that I would should see the contract referred to the Public Works Committee? refer that to Mr Anderson for a response. I am advised that he will be making the results of Answer: Works covered by the PWC involve buildings and structures. The overseas shipment and the review public. reprocessing of spent fuel are outside the scope of Goods and Services Tax: Questions the Public Works Committee’s reference. without Notice Question: what penalty clauses are there if either side decide to withdraw from the contract? Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- ia) (3.02 p.m.)—I move: Answer: As is normal in commercial contracts, penalty provisions do apply. The details are com- That the Senate take note of the answer given by mercially confidential. Legal advice from Attorney the Minister for Family and Community Services General’s Department and from a French lawyer (Senator Newman) to questions without notice engaged to represent ANSTO in the negotiations asked today, relating to the proposed new tax confirmed that the terms of the contract are in system and family and community services. accordance with accepted practice. What was clear from the answers given to the Members of Parliament: Travel Costs Senate chamber today is that the minister has no idea what the impact of the government’s Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister GST package is on her department’s own for the Environment and Heritage) (3.01 clients. The pensioners, the disabled, the p.m.)—I have an answer to a question that people who need our support rely on her to Senator Faulkner asked me yesterday. I seek ensure that the GST package is fair and that leave to have that answer incorporated in adequate compensation applies to them. What Hansard. is perfectly clear is that she does not have a Leave granted. clue how the package impacts on her clients. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2087

She does not seem to care and has taken no Mr Tune replied: steps to find out what the impact is on those No, other than through implementation work that clients. The most vulnerable in the community we are putting in place. rely on her as minister to make sure that they I asked: are protected. So the department has not provided any views to What is clear from the answer she gave Treasury about what should be the basis for the today and what was clear at the Senate Com- assessment of compensation? munity Affairs References Committee hear- Mr Tune said, ‘No.’ The department has done ings is that she does not have a clue and has no work, the department has done no model- taken no steps to protect those people. She ling on the impact on its clients. The depart- shows no interest in ensuring that those ment was not involved or consulted in the people are protected and instead relies on preparation of the tax package. They have got trotting out the same glib government line no idea of what it means for housing, for that, ‘Everyone will be better off. We will pensioners, for the costs of living of the have a new tax, but you will all be better off.’ clients of the department. They do not know The logic of that escapes most Australians, whether the compensation package is ad- and it certainly escapes me. The minister equate. They have not done any work on it. cannot back it up with any analysis. What she The minister does not know whether it is said yesterday in attacking the Anglican adequate, because she has done no work on Church, because they dared to raise some it. She has not asked the department to do any criticism, was: work on it. She is not interested in asking. I think it is very sad that those who purport to Treasury have said to her that it will all be speak for the poor and the disadvantaged frequently okay, so it is all okay; we need not worry. do so with total ignorance. The fact that everybody else in the communi- That is dead right, minister. And there is no- ty raises concerns about the disproportionate one more ignorant than you on this issue. You impact on low income earners in this country proved today again that you speak with total does not worry her, does not require any ignorance about the impact of the GST on the analysis of the problem, any work, to be clients of your department—the pensioners, assured that those people will not be worse the disabled the other social security recipi- off. ents. You have no idea. I questioned the Senator Ian Campbell—What did you do department closely at the community affairs in 1993? Did you talk to them? committee hearing about their involvement, and the minister today tried to pretend that The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! they had been closely involved. This is what Senator Campbell. they said in answer to questions I put to them Senator CHRIS EVANS—All the evidence the other day at the community affairs com- to the community affairs committee inquiring mittee inquiry into the GST. I asked: into the GST illustrates the fact that these So was there any formal DSS involvement in the people will be worse off. They spend all their preparation of the document, the tax package? income on food and the basic necessities of Mr Tune, the Executive Director of the life. They will have the GST imposed on department, replied, ‘No.’ I asked: those things. They fall below the govern- ment’s average because they have to spend Has the department formally provided advice to the government about the package itself? every cent they get on essentials and basics. Under the government’s proposal those will He replied, ‘No.’ I then asked: be taxed. The minister today tried to say, ‘I So with the modelling that was done in terms of had an officer over there at Treasury and he the tax package, there was no Social Security or was looking after our interests.’ I asked him Family and Community Services involvement? that very question. I said to Mr Tune: His answer was, ‘No.’ My next question was: So when you were seconded to Treasury, was your Has the department done any work on the impact role to represent the department or was it Treasury of the tax changes on its clients? using your skills? 2088 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Mr Tune said: middle incomes got some extra overtime or It was Treasury using my skills. were promoted in their job, they went out the door backwards. Those opposite have the hide Senator Campbell interjecting— to come in here and claim that in the tax The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! reform package no notice has been taken of Senator Campbell, please withdraw that the impact on social security recipients or unparliamentary language. welfare beneficiaries. That is absolute hum- Senator Ian Campbell—This bloke put up bug. That is not the case. Of course the taxes on pensioners by 10 per cent in 1993 officer in the department will have brought to with no compensation. I withdraw the word bear his skills and knowledge. He may not ‘hypocrite’. have been representing the department, but his Senator CHRIS EVANS—Go take your skills and knowledge were there. That is why tablets, Senator Campbell, and calm down. Mr this system is much fairer and much better. It Tune said: means that people on middle incomes, when they have an increase in pay, do not go out It was Treasury using my skills. Whilst I was a the door backwards. DSS officer I was seconded to Treasury for that period. Senator Ian Campbell was absolutely So clearly, on the evidence of the department, correct: in 1993 the Labor Party put up the minister had no involvement and the wholesale sales tax by 10 per cent. I might department had no involvement. They do not just remind people that wholesale sales tax know what this means for their client base, went up on strawberry Quik but not on for low income people in this country. (Time chocolate Quik. Why? Because chocolate expired) Quik doesn’t have a tax on it, and strawberry Senator PATTERSON (Victoria— Quik does. That is how ramshackle your Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for wholesale sales tax system was—a tax on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (3.07 strawberry Quik and not on chocolate Quik, p.m.)—The crocodile tears from the other side on toothbrushes and not on toothpaste. It was of the chamber are an absolute joke, absolute a ramshackle, out-of-date tax system which hypocrisy. Labor has refused to admit how was narrowing and narrowing and had no the present structure of our tax and social hope in the future of sustaining or maintain- security systems conspires to keep families ing the social security system. What we have and people on welfare dependent on benefits, in the tax reform package is some interaction and discourages them from taking up work. It between income tax and welfare benefits and is a commonly held view that the highest family benefits to ensure that we have a marginal tax rates are paid by people at the sustainable system into the future. top end of the income distribution scale. To stand here and cry crocodile tears is However, the interaction between Labor’s absolutely outrageous. To say that Senator income tax and social security systems means Newman doesn’t know and doesn’t care is that many low and moderate income families also outrageous. She is the best social security keep only a few cents of the additional minister. She is saving $47 million a fortnight income they earn. That is what we inherited in fraud and overpayments in social security, from Labor. When people on moderate in- enabling us to give benefits to profoundly comes got a few extra dollars in their pay disabled children who are in the care of they went out the door backwards, that is, parents and who are under 16. Labor never they experienced a reduction in disposable cared about that. It had families with pro- income as their earned income went up. foundly disabled children receiving no assist- For example, a single income family with ance at all. What was it doing? It was squan- two children faced an effective tax rate of 105 dering that money, borrowing from overseas, per cent on private income between $27,600 borrowing $10 billion a year to pay for social and $29,600 a year. This is the system we security fraud, to pay for its incoherent sys- inherited from Labor. As soon as people on tem. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2089

You stand here and talk about the tax the many thousands of people they see at the package, the GST. You never talk about it as low end of the income scale? That is why a tax reform package. You never accept that they have bothered to write a submission. it is a whole package. You never accept that They have said in their submission that this there is also compensation. The senator who GST is going to be very damaging. I have spoke previously said that food is going to go here from the Age, first edition, Wednesday, up, that prices are going to go up. Of course 17 February 1999, an article that starts: we have admitted that there will be an in- The Federal Government’s tax reform plans suf- crease in prices, estimated at 1.9 per cent. fered a significant blow with one of the church’s People will get a four per cent increase on most influential church leaders describing the GST their benefits prior to the GST. If the impact on food as inequitable . . . Anglican Archbishop is higher, their benefits will stay 1.5 per cent Peter Hollingworth—who played a key role in forcing the former Liberal Leader Dr John Hewson above the inflation rate. We are compensating to rewrite his 1992 Fightback package to exclude them for it. food—yesterday said a GST compensation package So to get up here and cry about the fact that could not be trusted. the social security department wasn’t repre- It is much more than that. If you want to start sented is absolute nonsense. No social securi- arguing the case in the community about the ty department was represented when the virtues of the GST why do it by fighting wholesale sales tax went up. There was no Anglicare? Why do it by fighting the Salva- compensation for people who buy all the tion Army and the Smith Family and St items that have wholesale sales tax on them, Vincent de Paul? They are to come up tomor- wholesale sales tax that is cascading down. It row, are they? Anybody who disagrees with is outrageous and hypocritical that the Labor the government is wrong and wicked, accord- Party should get up and make the sorts of ing to Senator Newman, or at least they are claims it is making today. ignorant. Senator CROWLEY (South Australia) We have had other evidence that should (3.12 p.m.)—I find it very interesting that give the government considerable pause. Senator Newman has gone and left Senator Professor McDonald, department head of the Patterson to defend the government in this demography program, Research School of debate. It is probably because Senator Patter- Social Sciences at the ANU argued before the son is better able to do it, but she has got a committee that, according to the household dreadful job. Suddenly the government is very cameos in tax reform, the presence of a child loud and very aggressive in its campaign for increases the GST inflation of living costs by this GST. It knows that out there in the a mere 30c a week. For example, the GST community people are beginning to under- would increase the living costs of a couple stand the impact of this GST on their lives, with one child by 30c more than the inflation their income, their capacity to cope. It is experienced by a couple with no children. He anything but a fair tax. Time and time again goes on to say: the witnesses before our GST committee have The income tax cuts favour high income, childless pointed out that if you are old, if you are households. The double income couple with no poor, if you are disabled, if you are working children earning $125,000 a year receives a tax cut for a charity or if you depend on charities, of $108 a week. A double income couple with one child earning $45,000 benefits by only $13 a week. you will be badly affected, negatively affect- ed, by the introduction of a GST. The people in the community know that this is unfair as it is structured. The service The government’s program for the last few organisations say that it is unfair. days to try to address these serious issues has been to start accusing people like Anglicare, Senator Ferguson—What about your tax the Anglican Church’s service organisation, cuts? of being ignorant and unaware of what hap- Senator CROWLEY—You can shout all pens. Who more than Anglicare would know you like, but you are shouting because you about the impact of the GST on the lives of are concerned that the community is begin- 2090 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 ning to understand. They are beginning to Senator FERGUSON—You did not deliver understand how unfair this tax is. the tax cuts. Where were Senator Evans and Senator Crowley speaking out against the The government has calculated its own increase in sales tax by the Labor government Treasury figures and made an admission that in 1993, which applied equally to low income the figure of 1.9 per cent for inflation in the earners and welfare recipients in the same first year is wrong. The Treasury now says it way that it applied to those people on higher is at least 3.1 per cent. People listening incomes? They were silent because they had should know that the government has calcu- no compensation and no justification. In fact, lated its increase on the CPI, which does not they could not come up with a tax reform include health costs. Anybody who ever package. They could only come up with an incurs health costs—and thousands of old, increase in the rate of indirect sales tax. sick and young people do—should know that that calculation is not included in the We have heard a lot today about the people Treasury’s figures. on social security and low income earners. When you consider the tax package as a Finally, Senator Newman has said all the whole, who better to consider it as a whole GST money will go to the states to provide than ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social services. Anybody in the states in Australia Service? They are the people who are suppos- knows that the states are very loath to spend edly very concerned and looking after the money on services. We have seen so many of interests of those people on lower than aver- those services cut back. Schools in Victoria age incomes or who are welfare recipients. are an example that springs to mind. Money What did ACOSS do in the debate about for home and community services to assist tax reform? They actually assessed that, in people to stay in their homes and communi- their own view, the Treasury’s estimate of a ties has been cut back and cut back. We have 1.9 per cent CPI increase could not possibly no guarantee that the government’s GST will be correct. So they urged the government to give those services to the people in the states. release the household expenditure survey data, (Time expired) which the government did. That still did not Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) suit their argument, because they still found (3.17 p.m.)—Senator Crowley starts off by that the increase that would apply across the talking about witnesses who appeared before board was less than the four per cent compen- her GST committee. That only highlights sation that this government is offering by way Senator Crowley’s ignorance, because her of compensation to low and middle income committee is looking into tax reform. It is not earners and welfare recipients. looking into a GST; it is looking into tax They decided they would commission a reform. She just simply does not understand survey of their own. They got Melbourne that, when you talk about tax reform, you University to do a survey of their own, using must talk about a total package. Senator the sorts of figures that they wanted to put in. Evans came in here earlier and said that Do you know what happened? Melbourne Senator Newman has no idea. The only thing University came up with a figure of 3.6 per that is clear to me is that Senator Evans has cent; still lower than the four per cent com- no idea. pensation being offered by this government to the people they represent. Where was Senator Evans in 1993 when the Labor Party decided it would increase the The problem we have with people like taxes on low and middle income earners and Senator Evans and Senator Crowley is that welfare recipients by two per cent on every they can only talk about a goods and services item that attracts wholesale sales tax? Where tax. They cannot talk about tax reform or a was the compensation that was offered to low total tax package which will apply to all and middle income earners— people living throughout Australia and will provide a net economic benefit to every Senator Crowley—Tax cuts. Australian, regardless of whether they are low Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2091 income earners, welfare recipients, people in community that have responsibility for dis- business, exporters, primary producers or ability services. For example, ACROD, a peak manufacturers. disabilities group, may be meeting with her That is the problem that arises when people department once a month, but the department like Senator Evans get up and say that we is not good enough in this instance. They have no idea. They have no idea because should be meeting with the minister. The fact Senator Crowley and Senator Evans have a that the minister has failed to schedule meet- total focus on that one portion of the tax ings regularly with this group shows a lack of reform package which talks about a goods and commitment on her behalf to understanding services tax; a broad tax, a tax which for the the problems and the complexities of disabili- first time taxes services which is a growing ty services. sector, and takes the pressure off the indirect The meeting that was scheduled for last wholesale sales tax which is in a declining December has now been put off until 9 April, sector with a lessening tax base. The only which will be far too late. If these groups are way to maintain an indirect revenue base is to going to have an input on the budget this put up the rate, which is what the Labor Party year, then 9 April will be well and truly too did in 1993 with the wholesale sales tax. late. The budget is handed down in May, and Do not let Senator Evans and Senator decisions and commitments will be locked in Crowley come into this place and say that we by 9 April. There is really no commitment by do not understand the impact it will have on this minister to get a grip on the problems low income earners and welfare recipients. facing disability services in this country. We do, and that is why we have made sure We asked a question today about a little that they will be overcompensated. It even boy in the Northern Territory and the fight his allows for a cushion of overcompensation, family had to gain access to disability ser- and this government has said that whatever vices and to qualify for an assessment by the CPI effect is—if the modelling is a very Centrelink. It may well be true that that small margin out—we will guarantee compen- family accessed their appeal rights, but the sation for that 1.5 per cent above the CPI heart of the matter, which the minister failed impact to low income earners and welfare to grasp, is that the actual assessment criteria recipients. (Time expired) are inadequate. Yes, it is true that ministers Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) should never interfere with decisions by (3.22 p.m.)—I wish to take note of the an- Centrelink, but what this minister fails to swers from Senator Newman today, particular- understand is that she needs to be across the ly in relation to disability services. The assessment criteria. She needs to be aware of minister started today by actually implying how inadequate they are. She needs to be that Anglicare should do their homework aware of where there are problems with the when it comes to presenting information system that need to be addressed. before the committees that are looking into This little boy who had his leg amputated the impact of the tax reform package put below the knee due to an illness was assessed forward by the government. Her answers by Centrelink as not having a disability, today reflect that it is the minister who ought because the assessment did not require that to do her homework. Her answers reflect that Centrelink must say that he did. The assess- she has no heart or feeling when it comes to ment was not adequate, and it is in the disability services in this country. minister’s own interest to be aware of these Let us take some of the examples today she problems within her portfolio. If she attended referred to, or in fact did not refer to. War- meetings with ACROD, if she was across the wick Smith, the previous minister, undertook issues in Centrelink and if she was across the to meet with disability services groups some assessment criteria, these kinds of heart- time last December. That meeting still has not wrenching struggles and disappointments occurred. It would be true to say that this faced by families, like the family of this little minister has not met with those groups in the boy in the Northern Territory, would not have 2092 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 taken so long to be resolved and, in fact, person’s degree of disability. There are certain would never have had to occur in the first categories of people for whom completion of place. the last part of the form—which is the func- Yesterday, we saw an example of another tional disability test—is not necessary either mean-spirited policy by this government. The because of their age or because they have Howard government is in the process of certain categories of disability which auto- taking away the child disability allowance matically qualify them. But anybody who from nearly 3,846 children with a disability. knows anything about disabilities knows that No doubt this is to achieve budget savings of a person can be disabled yet fall into a whole nearly $7½ million during this financial year. range of possible degrees of impairment. That Parents around Australia have only been is why you have to have a functional disabili- given 21 days to reapply for their child ty test. Not everybody who is an amputee is disability allowance. That means that they going to be disabled in the same way. Not need to fill in a quite complex form. They everybody who has an intellectual impairment need to make appointments with specialists. may be equally intellectually impaired. You They need to get that referral and all of that might have an intellectual impairment which information into Centrelink within 21 days. is very minor and which allows you to func- For some parents in capital cities—let alone tion normally in the community, or you may those in rural and remote Australia—this is have an intellectual impairment which is just not possible. This is a payment that is profound and requires assistance. worth $75 a fortnight and that helps parents It would be absurd if we were to say that with extra costs associated with caring for a every person would be treated equally. That child with a disability. would be a failure of our duty to those people Once again, this is simply a backdoor way who are truly in need. It would be unfair on of taking money from families. It is another the taxpayer to support people whose degree indication that this minister has not got a of impairment is mild or minor. That is a handle on the child disability problems and sensible attitude to take. That is why you the disability service problems this country is have to have a functional disability test. experiencing. It is another indication that this Of all the thousands of people who apply minister really does not care about what and receive disability payments, we get a happens to disability services in this country. story of one person whose functional disabili- Senator O’CHEE (Queensland) (3.27 ty test was rejected by Centrelink at first p.m.)—What we have seen today has been a instance. Senator Crossin out of her own shameful and stuttering attack by the opposi- mouth said that it would be wrong and it tion on the Minister for Family and Com- should never happen that a minister interferes munity Services, Senator Newman. It peaked with the assessment by Centrelink. Yet Sena- in the question that was asked by Senator tor Crossin then proceeded to spend the rest Gibbs and referred to by Senator Crossin here of her speech blaming Senator Newman for just a moment ago about the assessment of the fact that Centrelink at first instance the disability payment for a boy from the rejected the claim, having already said at the Northern Territory who had leukemia. I would start of her speech that it would be wrong for hasten to bet that most of the senators in this the minister to interfere. If it is wrong for the chamber have probably never seen the form minister to interfere, how can you expect the that a parent or carer would fill in to seek a minister to take responsibility for an adminis- disability payment for a disabled child. Most trative decision, which Senator Crossin by her of them would probably have never seen the own admission said should be made by form, yet the Labor Party can come in here Centrelink? That is the absurdity of the case and work themselves into a lather of indigna- that we have had from the other side of the tion without a proper knowledge of the facts. chamber. The facts are these. The form which has What the other side of the chamber gild been referred to is in fact an assessment of a over and do not want to talk about is the fact Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2093 that, when this case went to review, the That there be laid on the table by the Minister parents of the boy in question received access for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to the payment they sought. In other words, no later than 4 pm on Monday, 8 March 1999, the following: the system worked. It does not always work perfectly at first instance—no system will— All documents relating to the Jabiluka uranium because, if it did, you would not need review mine proposal since 1 October 1998. criteria, you would not need review proced- Senator Carr to move, on the next day of ures. But the system worked. sitting: What should be condemned is not this That the Senate— minister: what should be condemned is the (a) notes: arrant ignorance of how these matters are (i) the unique and valuable contribution that dealt with, which exists on the other side of the award winning internet service ABC the chamber. What should be condemned is Online has made to the multimedia ser- this pathetic attack that we saw today. It took vices of the Australian Broadcasting up half of question time; it has taken up half Corporation (ABC), an hour after question time; and still they (ii) that the Online gateway structure is now have not proved one single allegation against closely integrated with most ABC broad- casting services and is fully integrated this minister. All this has proved is that this with ABC news services, opposition is incompetent, this opposition (iii) that any attempts to privatise Online does not know what they are talking about would have ramifications at every level of and they should be condemned. ABC services, and The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The (iv) that ABC Online is integral to the way time for the debate has expired. the ABC will operate and perform in the future; Question resolved in the affirmative. (b) expresses concern at: NOTICES (i) proposals to privatise 49 per cent of ABC Online, Presentation (ii) attempts to link future ABC funding to Senator Mackay to move, on the next day the privatisation of key services, and of sitting: (iii) government support for the privatisation That the following matter be referred to the of Online; Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- (c) condemns: ences Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 1999: (i) the anti-ABC ideology of senior members of the Liberal Party of Australia, The circumstances surrounding the decision by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to (ii) the destabilising, anti-ABC stance of suspend the Class G airspace trial, with particular board member Mr Michael Kroger in reference to: pursuing a privatisation agenda to the detriment of the ABC, and (a) the appropriateness of the conduct of CASA, Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (iii) the active support given to Mr Kroger’s (BASI) and Royal Australian Air Force privatisation agenda by the Treasurer (Mr (RAAF) personnel in relation to the Class G Costello), the Minister for the Arts and airspace trial; the Centenary of Federation (Mr McGauran), and the Minister for Com- (b) whether any attempt was made by airline munications, Information Technology and personnel to exert improper influence over the Arts (Senator Alston); and the decisions of CASA, BASI or the RAAF in their decisions and actions regarding the (d) calls on the Government to support the Class G airspace trial; and position of ABC Chair, Mr Donald McDonald, and ABC Managing Director, (c) any other matters the committee considers Mr Brian Johns, in their rejection of any relevant. sale of Online services. Senator Allison to move, on the next day Senator Hogg to move, on the next day of of sitting: sitting: 2094 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

That the time for the presentation of the report and, in the absence of the BAC, other of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade appropriate bodies to do so; References Committee on nuclear weapon and (i) south east Queensland’s long-term re- ballistic missile proliferation in south Asia be quirements for a second major airport; extended to 29 April 1999. and Senator Mackay to move, on the next day (j) the impact of the privatisation of the Bris- of sitting: bane airport by the former Government That: on the public’s ability to participate in the process of consultation on the Brisbane (1) The following matter be referred to the airport master plan. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report Senator Woodley to move, on the next day by 24 September 1999: of sitting: The development of the Brisbane Airport That the following matters be referred to the Corporation’s (BAC) master plan for the future Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- construction of a western parallel runway, with ences Committee for inquiry and report by 24 particular reference to: June 1999: (a) whether BAC failed to adequately investi- (a) the circumstances surrounding the decision gate alternative runway options; by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (b) whether BAC failed to release flight path (CASA) to terminate the Class G airspace information to the community, and why; trial; and (b) the conduct of Bureau of Air Safety Investi- (c) why the Minister for Transport and Re- gation (BASI) personnel in relation to the gional Services (Mr Anderson) proceeded Class G airspace trial; to endorse the BAC master plan. (c) the substance or otherwise of the allegations (2) In carrying out its inquiry, the committee made by the Chairman of CASA that BASI should seek information about and/or inquire personnel suffer from ‘cronyism’ and into: ‘capture’ by the major airlines; (a) the adequacy of the methodology used by (d) the impact of Airspace 2000 on airspace the BAC in arriving at its recommenda- users, operators and providers, including its tion for a western parallel runway and safety implications, the role of the Austral- rejection of other runway alternatives; ian Advanced Air Traffic System, Airspace 2000’s compliance with the International (b) what draft or indicative flight path data Civil Aviation Organisation’s requirements was available to BAC; and responsibility for the implementation (c) the methodology and adequacy of the and regulation of Airspace 2000; Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in (e) the application of competition policy to assessing the actual noise impact of services provided by Airservices Australia, overflying aircraft on residential areas; including the proposed privatisation of air (d) the role of Airservices Australia and any traffic control services and airport fire- conflict of interest which may exist be- fighting and rescue services; tween its BAC consultancy role and its (f) the impact of location specific pricing; and obligation to provide advice to Govern- ment; (g) the adequacy of the consultation undertaken in relation to location specific pricing and (e) the adequacy of public consultation Airspace 2000. undertaken by BAC; (f) the basis of the Minister’s approval of the Withdrawal master plan; Senator BOURNE (New South Wales)— (g) an appropriate methodology for evaluating On behalf of Senator Murray, I withdraw all runway options including the econom- general business notice of motion No. 102. ic, social (for example, comparative numbers of households affected), envi- Presentation ronmental, public health and public safety impacts of each; Senator Faulkner to move, on the next day (h) the BAC’s capacity objectively to apply of sitting: this methodology in the major develop- That the following matters be referred to the ment plan and draft environment strategy Procedure Committee for examination and report: Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2095

(a) whether the procedure for taking note of . Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill answers to questions is serving the purpose 1998 for which it was introduced; . Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill 1999. (b) whether changes to the allocation of the call The Committee recommends accordingly. to the various parties or to the total time available for taking note are warranted; and 3. The Committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting: (c) any other issues relating to the procedure for (deferred from meeting of 1 December 1998) taking note of answers to questions. . Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) Withdrawal 1998 (No. 2) Senator MACKAY (Tasmania)—I with- (deferred from meeting of 8 December 1998) draw general business notice of motion No. . Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation 72. Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 . Customs (Anti-dumping Amendments) Bill Presentation 1998 Senator Woodley to move, on the next day . Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment of sitting: Bill (No. 2) 1998 That there be laid on the table by the Minister . National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy representing the Minister for Transport and Amendment Bill 1998 Regional Services (Senator Ian Macdonald), no . National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy later than 5 pm on Monday, 8 March 1999, the Amendment Bill 1998 following document: . Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Bill The Hawke report on the structural review of 1998 Airservices Australia which was given to the . Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Bill 1998 Minister for Transport (Mr Anderson). . Primary Industries Levies and Charges (Conse- Senator Brown to move, on the next day quential Amendments) Bill 1998 of sitting: . Quarantine Amendment Bill 1998 That the Senate supports the decision by the . Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) Western Australian National Party to push for a 1998 rapid phase-out of clear-felling in old-growth . Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill forest, particularly as a source of chiplogs. 1998 COMMITTEES . Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998 . Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Selection of Bills Committee Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 1998 Report (deferred from meeting of 16 February 1999) Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—I present . A New Tax System (Trade Practices Amend- the first report of 1999 of the Selection of ment) Bill 1998 Bills Committee. . Airports Amendment Bill 1999 Ordered that the report be adopted. . Bounty (Ships) Amendment Bill 1999 Senator CALVERT—I seek leave to have . Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 1998 the report incorporated in Hansard. . Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 Environmental Reform (Consequential Provi- Leave granted. sions) Bill 1998 [1999] The report read as follows— . Financial Management Legislation Amendment Bill 1999 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE . Further 1998 Budget Measures Legislation REPORT NO. 1 OF 1999 Amendment (Social Security) Bill 1999 1. The Committee met on 16 February 1999. . General Interest Charge (Imposition) Bill 1998 2 The Committee resolved to recommend—That . Navigation Amendment (Employment of the following bills not be referred to committees: Seafarers) Bill 1998 . Corporate Law Economic Reform Program . Ozone Protection Amendment Bill 1998 Bill 1998 [1999] 2096 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

. Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy That business of the Senate notice of motion no. Commissioner) Bill 1998 3 standing in the name of Senator Bolkus for . Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 5) 1998 today, relating to the reference of a matter to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, . Taxation Laws Amendment (Software De- be postponed till the next day of sitting. preciation) Bill 1999 . Textile, Clothing and Footwear Strategic Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the request Investment Program Bill 1999 of Senator Cook) agreed to: . Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and That general business notice of motion no. 114 Imports) Amendment Bill 1998 [1999] standing in the name of Senator Cook for today, relating to the 1998 Sydney to Hobart Yacht . Youth Allowance Consolidation Bill 1999. Race, be postponed till the next day of sitting. (Paul Calvert) Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request Chair of Senator Murray) agreed to: 17 February 1999 That general business notice of motion no. 112 NOTICES standing in the name of Senator Murray for today, relating to parliamentary standards or Postponement codes of conduct, be postponed till 9 March 1999. Motion (by Senator Faulkner) agreed to: Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in his name for today, relating to the That business of the Senate notice of motion no. reference of matters to the Finance and Public 4 standing in her name for today, relating to the Administration References Committee, be post- disallowance of item 1301 of Schedule 1 of the poned till 29 April 1999. Migration Amendment Regulations as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 No. 304, be postponed Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja,atthe till 8 March 1999. request of Senator Allison) agreed to: Motion (by Senator Stott Despoja) agreed That business of the Senate notice of motion no. to: 2 standing in the name of Senator Allison for That general business notice of motion no. 117 today, relating to the reference of matters to the standing in her name for today, relating to the Environment, Communications, Information unemployed, be postponed till the next day of Technology and the Arts References Committee, sitting. be postponed till the next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: That general business notice of motion no. 56 That general business notice of motion no. 86 standing in her name for today, relating to East standing in her name for today, relating to the Timorese asylum seekers, be postponed till 8 reappointment of the Select Committee on the March 1999. Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy, be postponed till the next COMMITTEES day of sitting. Economics References Committee Motion (by Senator Mackay) agreed to: Extension of Time That general business notice of motion no. 107 Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the request standing in her name for today, proposing an order for the production of a document by the of Senator Murphy) agreed to: Minister representing the Minister for Transport That the time for the presentation of the report and Regional Services, be postponed till the next of the Economics References Committee into day of sitting. whether a new reactor should be built to replace the High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights on Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to: that site or some other site in Australia be extended That general business notice of motion no. 113 to 27 May 1999. standing in his name for today, relating to the Aboriginal tent embassy, be postponed till the DRUGS: USE BY YOUNG PEOPLE next day of sitting. Motion (by Senator Bourne, at the request Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the request of Senator Murray) agreed to: of Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Senate— Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2097

(a) calls on the Federal Government to release The Senate divided. [3.50 p.m.] all research on drug use by young people, including the high levels of use; (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) (b) notes: Ayes ...... 3 Noes ...... 36 (i) the reality of drug use among young —— people, Majority ...... 33 —— (ii) law enforcement and zero tolerance strategies alone are insufficient, and AYES Brown, B. Margetts, D.* (iii) that it is important not to ignore the Woodley, J. reasons why young people take drugs; NOES and Bishop, T. M. Calvert, P. H. Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G. (c) expresses concern that drug taking is a Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. phenomenon among young people which Coonan, H. Cooney, B. requires innovative and constructive strat- Crane, W. Crossin, P. M. egies to be addressed. Crowley, R. A. Ferguson, A. B. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. ELECTORATE OFFICES: COMPUTER Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. EQUIPMENT Kemp, R. Lundy, K. MacGibbon, D. J. Mackay, S. Motion (by Senator Brown) put: McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. O’Brien, K. W. K. * That the Senate notes that: Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. Quirke, J. A. Reid, M. E. (a) the Computer Services Corporation (CSC) Reynolds, M. Sherry, N. wrote to all senators on 4 February 1999 Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J. announcing the donation of computer equip- Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. ment from electorate offices to the Com- puter for Schools Program run by Education * denotes teller Networks of Australia and that this commit- Question so resolved in the negative. ment was accepted by the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Kemp); Regional Forests Agreements (b) on 9 February 1999, (CSC) wrote to sena- The PRESIDENT—I have received a letter tors withdrawing the offer so as to ‘allow electorate offices to purchase the second from Senator Bartlett proposing that a definite hand equipment’; and matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely: (c) calls on (CSC) and the Minister to revert to The failure of the Regional Forests Agreement the original decision to donate the com- process to protect the remaining native forests of puters to Australia’s schools. Australia. In division— I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. Senator Brown—While the vote is pro- Debate on this matter cannot proceed as it ceeding, I put to the chamber the intriguing does not have the support of a sufficient question as to whether or not members should number of senators. consider declaring an interest. COMMITTEES The PRESIDENT—That is a matter for Public Works Committee individual senators. Reports Senator Quirke—I am totally computer Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.54 illiterate, but I will vote on it any way. p.m.)—On behalf of the Joint Committee on 2098 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Public Works, I present the following reports: new roads, carparking and environmental rehabilita- first report of 1999—CSIRO Queensland tion. Centre for Advanced Technologies Stage 2 The Centre was originally designed to cater for Development, Pinjarra Hills, Queensland; research and development projects involving 130 second report of 1999—CSIRO National staff. Since the Centre was established, research activities have grown at a rapid rate and existing Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Resources facilities will be inadequate to support planned Research, Bentley, Western Australia; and increases in research personnel and projects. third report of 1999—Lavarack Barracks Re- As a consequence, the Committee has concluded development Stage 2, Townsville. I move: that there is a need to provide additional facilities That the Senate take note of the reports. at the Centre to house and support planned increas- es in personnel and research projects. I seek leave to incorporate my tabling state- The Committee found that master planning studies ment in Hansard. of the site, undertaken by the CSIRO, have identi- Leave granted. fied areas suitable for further expansion well into the next century. The statement read as follows— Based on the evidence, the Committee also con- Madam President, the reports which I have just cluded that the extent of the proposed works will tabled deal with proposals referred to the Commit- provide for the planned expansion of research and tee in the previous Parliament. The previous development projects and provide capabilities Committee was unable to report on them due to the expected to stimulate their further expansion. intervening election. The present Committee considered the evidence assembled by the previous Committee and resolved, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act, that CSIRO National Centre for Petroleum and further public hearings on the proposed works were Mineral Resources Research, Bentley, WA not necessary. The second report which I have tabled involves the The total cost of the public works covered in the construction of another national centre for the reports is close to 200 million dollars. CSIRO. This one will be located in the Perth suburb of Bentley and will be known as the CSIRO CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced National Centre for Petroleum and Mineral Re- Technologies Stage 2 development, Pinjarra sources Research. Hills, Qld. The Bentley Centre will provide a focal point for The first report involves the proposed construction research excellence and collaboration between of the CSIRO Queensland Centre for Advanced CSIRO, Cooperative Research Centres, university Technologies Stage 2 development at Pinjarra Hills, researchers, Government agencies, resource com- in Queensland. panies and associated technology suppliers and The estimated out turn cost of the proposal when providers. referred to the Committee was 22.3 million dollars. The proposal examined by the Committee involves the construction of laboratories and research The Committee has recommended that the works facilities, process bays, support and stores areas, should proceed. staff amenities, public facilities, associated site By way of background, the Queensland Centre for works, roadworks, carparking, engineering and Advanced Technologies was established by an communication services and landscaping. agreement between the Queensland Government When referred to the Committee, the estimated out and the CSIRO to expand and diversify research turn cost of the proposed work was 31.8 million and development in the mining, energy and related dollars. manufacturing industries in Queensland and nation- ally. The Centre brings together resources from the The Committee has recommended that the work State Government, universities, CSIRO divisions, proceed as proposed. Queensland and Australia-wide minerals, energy By way of background I should mention that the and manufacturing industries in collaborative CSIRO, or its predecessor organisations, has had a activities. presence in Western Australia spanning more than The proposal examined by the Committee includes 80 years. It now employs more than 400 staff at six the construction of a research building, a technol- locations in the State. ogy transfer building, a number of new industrial The proposed work is a recognition of the fact that type buildings, extensions to existing buildings such the mining, oil and gas industries are the mainstay as the library and canteen, and site works, including of the Western Australian economy. For this Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2099 reason, CSIRO and the Western Australian Govern- The Committee has concluded that the provision of ment have identified the need to increase substan- new airconditioned living-in accommodation should tially the State’s research capability to support the improve living standards for on-base personnel and sustained development of resource industries in an should lift the morale of personnel. era of heightened international competitiveness. Similarly, the Committee established that there is The CSIRO divisions involved in the mining, oil a need for new messes, on a scale commensurate and gas industries have established research teams with requirements identified in Department of and formed alliances with other research and Defence planning studies, to be provided at development partners to undertake projects in Lavarack Barracks adjacent to the sites proposed Western Australia and nationally. for new living-in accommodation. Based on the evidence, the Committee has conclud- The Committee believes there are uncertainties ed that returns to the community and resource about the appropriateness of the cook-chill method companies from investment in research and technol- of food preparation based on its untested nature in ogy transfer can be significant and are highly the Australian Defence Force. influential in the creation of new investment and For this reason, the Committee recommended that employment. the Department of Defence should report back to The Committee also concluded that the extent of the Committee on the operation of the cook-chill the proposed work can be justified as providing process after it has been fully tested at Lavarack modern facilities designed to enable CSIRO Barracks, before its wider implementation within Divisions and alliance partners to undertake re- the Australian Defence Force. search into minerals and petroleum research at The report concludes that the remainder of the increased levels and will overcome current unsatis- works, namely a new Communications Centre, new factory conditions. transport facilities, the Eastern Deployment and Two other significant factors also emerged from the Assembly Area, new heavy vehicle roads, and Committee’s inquiry. The first is that co-location waste collection facilities will all provide substan- of two key CSIRO divisions, Exploration and tial improvements to the functionality and environ- Mining, and of Petroleum Resources will deliver mental management of this, one of the Army’s cost savings and will maximise research effort in largest bases. support of both oil and mining industry sectors. I commend the reports to the Senate. Secondly, the proposed site for the Centre, adjacent Question resolved in the affirmative. to Curtin University of Technology and within Technology Park, Bentley will provide the capabili- Scrutiny of Bills Committee ty to foster collaborative research between the Report university and private sector research and develop- ment organisations. CSIRO has developed a master Senator COONEY (Victoria)—I present plan for the site which makes provision for further the second report of 1999 of the Senate expansion of facilities and staff. Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 of 1999, dated 17 February Lavarack Barracks Redevelopment Stage 2, 1999. Townsville Ordered that the report be printed. The third report which I have tabled involves the MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE second stage of the redevelopment of Lavarack Barracks in Townsville.There are nine major Regional Forests Agreements components in the proposed works. These comprise accommodation and messing, operational, logistic The PRESIDENT—Senator Bartlett, are support and infrastructure development facilities. you seeking leave to go back to the matter of The main component consists of new living-in public importance? accommodation for 1,112 officers, senior non- commissioned officers and other ranks, associated Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (3.56 mess complexes and a central food preparation p.m.)—If the Senate is willing to be gracious, facility given the confusion over the placing of this When referred to the Committee, the estimated out due to it not being listed on the red, I seek turn cost of the proposed work was $139.3 million. leave to return to the matter of public import- The Committee has recommended that the works ance. proceed as proposed. Leave granted. 2100 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

The PRESIDENT—I have already referred quality issues or other users of forest areas to the letter that proposes that a definite other than woodchippers. The woodchipping matter of public importance be submitted to industry does have a high regard for getting the Senate for discussion. I call upon those the maximum amount of corporate welfare senators who approve of the proposed discus- from state and federal governments and views sion to rise in their places. the chopping and shredding of the maximum More than the number of senators required number of forest areas very warmly. by the standing orders having risen in their When the evidence about this industry places— started to become well known in the public The PRESIDENT—I understand that an arena around five years ago, the media took agreement has been reached between parties a considerable amount of interest and, to their as to speaking times in this debate. I shall ask credit, published a lot of information on the clerks to set the clock accordingly. various forest issues, including economic and Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (3.57 biological arguments as well as the basic p.m.)—I thank the Senate for their consider- environmental aspects of the issue. This ation. Obviously, the Senate as a whole is of certainly scared the industry and governments a view that this is an important matter which who, when their actions were exposed, were does need highlighting. left able to do little more than defend the indefensible. I rise to speak on this matter of public importance because I believe that the Senate It was a time of full-blown crisis for the needs to devote some time to this this after- industry and, somewhere out of the public noon. It is a vital issue to the future of native relations and damage control spin, the Re- forests of this country and indeed to the gional Forest Agreement process was born. future of our nation overall—our economy as This meant that—instead of the industry each well as our environment. year having to face another public relations Australia is a unique land. Our native disaster as a new round of export licences forests, in particular, are an ecological won- were approved, instead of continual revela- der. Our forests range from tropical to temper- tions about the appalling process used to ate, from open dry woodland to closed and determine those licences, instead of all that— wet canopy. They are host to a variety of we would have a Regional Forest Agreement ecosystems, encompassing many of the which would be signed for each general world’s most unique animals and plants. They logging area and which would allegedly meet are found over flat, riverine or escarpment competing demands and allegedly be ecologi- areas from the southern most part of the cally sustainable. country to the northern tip. What is particular- However, the process that we have seen so ly extraordinary is the diverse range of forest far has been characterised by a lack of trans- ecosystems between and within regions. This parency, by bureaucratic obfuscation and by makes it all the more crucial that we should allowing much more woodchipping than protect and care for our forests. If properly previously occurred—so much so that even managed, they could provide a sound eco- industry groups are alarmed by the destruction nomic base for a truly sustainable timber of many areas of significance and its potential industry and a strong and permanent environ- impact on long-term ecological sustainability mental base for our nation. as well as environmental sustainability. Time However, successive governments have sold prevents me from listing all of the problems these forests to the woodchip industry. This with the Regional Forest Agreements so far. industry to date has shown little regard for I am sure there will be other senators who biodiversity, little regard for the diverse range will add to that body of knowledge, but I of ecosystems—animals, plants and genetic would like to highlight a few examples which base—and little regard for the interdepend- go to demonstrate why this is a matter of such ence of all these. It has little regard for water public importance. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2101

In Tasmania the Regional Forest Agree- The forthcoming Regional Forest Agree- ment, as it currently stands, will remove ment legislation that is being considered in 39,000 hectares of provisional coupes from this parliament is a small bill of only a few the register and then add 40,000 hectares pages, but it represents one of the biggest more. In other words, another 1,000 hectares environmental issues to come before the will be available for logging. The state under- Senate. It is an issue that most Australians took to publish, by 31 October last year, a feel very strongly about. description of the methods of calculating Senator Crane—Mr Acting Deputy Presi- sustainable yield. This has not occurred. They dent, on a point of order: in view of the fact have also not published, nor made publicly that this legislation is before the parliament available, compliance audits of the Forest currently and there was a reference to the Practices Act or the code of reserve manage- committee that I chair, I believe it is outside ment. Nor have they developed and imple- of standing orders to be making reference to mented a threatened species protection strat- that legislation or, in fact, be dealing with any egy. issues pertaining to anything that might come In the East Gippsland area of Victoria, out of the committee’s report. I would like a certain data on wood, which it is claimed is clear ruling on that at the start of this debate. publicly available, is not provided at all by The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT forest agencies and there are regular attempts (Senator Sherry)—I do not uphold your to make the process as difficult as possible for point of order for two reasons. Firstly, there people seeking information. These sorts of is a general debate before the chair on the petty impediments distract from the real issue of RFAs and forests. Senator Bartlett is tragedy and the real area of great concern— clearly addressing that. Secondly, I understand that forests along the banks of heritage-listed the President would not have approved the rivers will be decimated, leading to shocking MPI if it had been contrary to standing water quality consequences. orders. Her advice is that it is appropriately In Western Australia the process is so bad before the chair and, consequently, Senator that the environment minister has promised, Bartlett is in order. after the RFA is finished, that there will be Senator Crane—I therefore want to ask a further changes. Clearly, the RFA there will question with regard to this issue. I allowed not be the last word, as was promised. More Senator Bartlett to proceed until such time as than 30,000 people sent in submissions to that he made reference to the legislation that is process, yet the environment minister will not currently before us. That is my question to the allow the release of the audit into those chair. While we can have a general debate, is submissions until after the RFA has been it in order to be actually raising issues per- signed. What exactly is being hidden? Perhaps taining directly to that legislation? He made the fact that 80 per cent of people in the state particular reference to the fact that the bill of Western Australia want no native forest contained eight clauses. logging and no woodchipping. Even the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— National Party in that state, and some Liberal He can talk about the subject of the bill. He Party branches, are expressing extreme dis- cannot anticipate the bill. I will be listening quiet with relation to government policy on closely to Senator Bartlett’s comments but so RFAs, because the Western Australia forest far, overwhelmingly, I think his comments process is in such a mess. The department have been in line with standing orders. which, at state level, is in charge of the negotiations in the RFA process—the Depart- Senator BARTLETT—I can understand ment of Conservation and Land Manage- why the government may be apprehensive ment—clearly has a vested financial interest about the reality of that legislation being in the outcome. The department has a clear brought to the attention of the Australian interest in ensuring the maximum area is people, because of the impact that it will available to loggers. have. 2102 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

I think I just said that it was a small bill, flawed, and it will destroy rather than protect rather than it had eight clauses—because I our native forest areas. was not aware of that off the top of my head, The Democrats are determined to ensure and it is not in my notes—but I am willing to that the public are made aware of the major be credited with that knowledge, as well. threats posed to the survival of our forests by The reason why that legislation is import- the Regional Forest Agreement process as it ant—without talking specifically about the stands at present, because it is such a crucial content—is its oversight of the entire Region- issue to the very survival of our forests and al Forest Agreement process which is happen- the survival of communities and economies ing throughout Australia at the state level, and that depend upon those forests and on the the impact it will have on the future of our long-term survival of a massive amount of native forests. That is why it is such a major biodiversity and genetic diversity in species environmental issue which this parliament which are also dependent on those forests. obviously needs to consider, and consider Those are all at risk now in this country. The very deeply. It is an issue that most Austral- Democrats believe it is crucial that that risk ians feel very strongly about and it deserves is highlighted to the Australian people and as clearer and stronger highlighting and more much effort brought to bear to prevent the thorough consideration—because the bill calamity that is before us from occurring. itself, as part of the overall Regional Forest Senator CRANE (Western Australia) (4.09 Agreement process, is an attempt by the p.m.)—I rise to speak on this matter of public Commonwealth to abrogate its responsibility importance before us to hopefully put a few for forests back to the states. myths to bed. One of the interesting things Forest agreements are being put together at about this debate is the endeavour by those state level in those states that have vested opposite to try to shift the goal posts in short-term economic dependence on woodchip regard to what was determined in the national royalties. We have a system where so much forest policy statement and subsequent region- public money is given to the native forest al forest agreements. industry in government subsidies that it makes I think it is most inappropriate that we are the plantation industry almost untenable. That debating this here today when the legislation is what is at risk of being enshrined. The bill is before us and a Senate inquiry will be will force massive job losses to occur in the making recommendations in a report to be timber industry, particularly in the small tabled in this parliament. In particular, I sawmilling sector, and will be responsible for would say to Senator Bartlett that I think he an unprecedented level of native forest de- has compromised his colleague Senator struction. Woodley to an unacceptable and unfair Important safeguards that have been put in degree. I think he should think very hard place by this parliament over many years, about bringing these types of debates on when such as the Australian Heritage Commission the Senate inquiry is yet to report to the Act, the Environmental Protection Act, the parliament. World Heritage Act and export controls, will Having said that, I want to deal with some not apply to vast regions of our most import- of the problems. I got in touch with the clerks ant forest areas under what is being proposed to find out what I could and could not use. A by the government. That is made doubly quote from Mr Pearce, who gave evidence to horrifying because of the sorts of agreements the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport that have been agreed to already at state level Legislation Committee, sums up the position and those agreements that are yet to be of those people who want to keep shifting the reached in other states. Those important goal posts and who do not accept Australia’s safeguards that this parliament has seen fit to responsibility. In answer to a question from put in place to protect our environmental Senator Brown, he said: heritage will be voided for 20 years. This He does not like the answer he is getting. The point legislation upholds a process which is fatally is there has been a long movement over this issue Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2103 of sustainability. I have noticed that when people once an RFA is signed the states have to like yourselves who argued for sustainable develop- report to the Commonwealth minister? They ment 20 years ago discovered that in fact you can have to report every year. These are the facts have a sustainable development arrangement in the forests whereby the needs of the environment are that need to be put on the table. looked for and the forests are harvested on a Further to this assessment, the EPA will be sustainable basis, you have jumped ship on sustain- able development and started trying to develop involved in two processes to ensure sustain- other definitions which mean, in effect, sustainable able wood production. First, it will participate ecology, that you cannot do these things. You have in an expert panel to verify the level of wood done that, Senator, because you have discovered yield before the RFA is signed. Second, it over time that the sustainable development thing will be represented on a task force to assess which you argued for 10 or 15 years ago did not forest management and timber harvest levels produce what you want, which is no industry at all in a good many areas of Australia. Although you before the next forest management plan is are here arguing that about the forests today, you commenced. Once again, that absolutely will be in other committees arguing about other destroys the oft repeated lie that the process industries in other areas of Australia on other occa- is left uncontrolled. sions. Moving to the regional forest agreements, My definition of these things is that you strike a balance between all of the needs of our people, there are many stages involved in this. The and they do require large areas of untouched first and one of more important stages is the natural forest, on your definition and mine, put Commonwealth-state agreement on deferred aside and safeguarded for all generations in the forest areas. The second state is a formal future. I agree with that and our industry agrees Commonwealth-state scoping agreement. The with that, and it is the striking of the balance which third stage is a CRA, a comprehensive region- is important there. But our people also need jobs and our people use timber and paper and timber al assessment. The fourth stage is public products. They use more than they produce. consultation. The final stage is negotiation of a formal Regional Forest Agreement to be I repeat: they use more than they produce. He signed by the Commonwealth and appropriate goes on: state governments. Senator, and people in Australia who argue for the proposition that we should not touch our own Some of the most important evidence that forests but continue to use wood and paper pro- was given to the committee—and we do not ducts in the way that we are are simply arguing for have time to consider it today but I refer ripping off other people’s forests, and that is not a senators to it—was from the Deputy Premier position which I believe is morally sustainable. of Tasmania, Paul Lennon, when he put a few I think that is the crux of or one of the key things in perspective. issues in this debate. I wish to make the point Western Australia gets a lot of mentions in that currently Australia is using 14 million this matter because of the current situation. cubic metres of our own timber a year and We have what I consider to be a very unfair importing seven million cubic metres. Ap- campaign, and it is being run on emotion and proximately a third of the timber we use for not on facts from the consultation process that things such as the paper I am reading from, has gone on and the various reports that have the pads I am writing on, et cetera, is import- been done. I place on the public record that ed from another country. I find that an unten- 39 reports have been released to the public able position. since it started in Western Australia. Current- I want to make a few points. Once the RFA ly, another eight reports are being prepared is signed, the forest management plan will be and are to be released, I understand, in due prepared. The plan will be released for public course. That is a total of 47. This process has comment and full assessment by the Environ- been inquired into to an extent that no other mental Protection Authority. You hear in industry has been—whether it be on environ- debate from the other side that once the RFA mental, tourist or forest aspects or on the is signed that is the end of the matter; it is matter of shutting up land for wilderness not. Why don’t we get told occasionally that protection. 2104 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

You may not like the outcomes, but to One of the major achievements of the final Man- claim that there has not been a process of agement Plans was the identification of areas to be public consultation on forest management in included in conservation reserves. While creation of all of the reserves is still continuing, all areas Western Australia is just plain dishonest. I identified for reservation are being managed for will run through some examples of the pro- that purpose in the interim. When the reserve cess: 1982, EPA review of karri forest; 1987, system has been completed there will have been a regional forest management plans; 1990, 340 per cent increase in the conservation estate of resources assessment inquiry; 1991, review of the South west that is an increase of some 550,000 ecologically sustainable development; 1991, hectares. Many of the reserves, such as the Shan- non river basin, have been made into national National Forest Policy Statement; 1992, draft parks. forest management plan; 1993, appeals com- mittee review of forest management plans; That process has been going on in Western 1995, deferred forest assessment process with Australia for a long time. Finally, I quote 500 public submissions. Carmen Lawrence again: . . . it is far better to use timber from well managed The list continues: 1997, eight public Australian forests, where every tree cut is regrown, meetings in Perth and throughout the south- than to lock up our own forests while plundering west; 1997-98, 122 meetings with organisa- the forests of developing countries. tions; 1996-98, nine meetings of Stakeholder I put to the Senate that Democrats Senator Reference Group; 1996-97, five meetings with Bartlett’s matter of public importance, if ever Noongar Action Group; 1997, nine public implemented, will result in the plundering of open days in Perth and throughout the south- other nations’ forests. (Time expired) west; 1997, 10 public open days in Perth and Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) throughout the south-west; 1997, 10 com- (4.19 p.m.)—At the outset I also want to munity heritage workshops in Perth and express a concern about the fact that Senator throughout the south-west; 1997-98, seven Bartlett has raised this matter today. He may indigenous workshops throughout the south- believe this is a matter of public importance, west; 1997-98, 195 meetings with organisa- and no doubt this issue is, but Senator Bartlett tions; 1998, the inquiry which produced is well aware, having attended at least for a 30,000 public submissions. I think that accu- short time the hearings of the Senate rural and rately puts on the table the processes that regional affairs committee, that we have just have gone on in Western Australia. completed three sessions of public inquiry. We have taken evidence on these very issues, This has not been something that has been and the committee is at this very time in the restricted to this side of politics. When Labor process of finalising its report to be tabled governments were in power in Western next week before the legislation is brought Australia and in other states, they were part back into this Senate in the following week. of the process—including the governments of I would have thought that in those circum- Brian Burke, Carmen Lawrence, Peter stances Senator Bartlett may have held his fire Dowding. Richard Court’s government has a bit and enabled that process to be completed been involved and, prior to all of these, so and then, if he wanted to address these issues, was the government of the final days of Sir he could have done so through the debate on Charles Court and that of Mr O’Connor when the legislation. he was Premier of Western Australia. So this process has been ongoing. I think it is about I also note that Senator Bartlett, having time people focused on the truth when they made his short address, has left the chamber. selectively criticise the process of the RFAs. I have always taken the view when I have I will leave it to my colleagues to deal with been involved in proposing a matter of public the others. importance in this Senate that as a matter of courtesy the proposer should be prepared to In the time remaining I quote Carmen sit and listen to the arguments put by other Lawrence in 1990 when she was Premier. She senators. I know senators have other commit- said: ments, but I believe that that course is appro- Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2105 priate, particularly if you put forward the In order to overcome the impasse that proposition as being one of such major public existed as a result of the legitimate interests importance. of conservationists and industry and also to The next point I wish to make is that we do overcome the myriad of constitutional prob- not accept the statement within the matter of lems—where, on the one hand, it is the states public importance, namely, ‘the failure of the that own and manage the resource but it is the Regional Forests Agreement process to protect federal parliament, the federal government, the remaining native forests of Australia.’ Our that has increasingly used its powers to view, which has been put on the record in the regulate forest management—we established, other place by the shadow minister, Mr under the then Labor government, the RFA Ferguson—and I do not want to transgress the process. Of course the genesis of that process standing orders by canvassing some of the was the National Forest Policy Statement of issues that will arise when we debate the 1992, a statement that ultimately was adopted bill—is that the Regional Forest Agreement by the current federal government, the How- process is an appropriate process and is a ard Liberal-National Party government. process that by and large is working. That is Therefore, it has bipartisan support at the not to say that there are not some problems. federal level. It is also a statement and, But the problems, in our view, are not neces- subsequently, a process which has been sarily problems with the rules that are set adopted by every state government in this down within the process that is to be fol- country. I will come back that process in the lowed. Rather, it would appear from at least moment. some of the evidence that has been presented I want to take issue, particularly, with a to our committee that the problems are in the statement Senator Bartlett made in his address attitudes that are being adopted by various that there should be no logging in native parties. It is a bit like a football game. If the forests. What disturbs me is this approach that teams are not playing the game properly, you is adopted by Senator Bartlett and certainly do not turn around and blame the rules of the by some interested groups involved in this game. debate that the only solution is their solution, and their solution is ‘no logging in native In our view the Regional Forest Agreement forests’. That is an attitude that is contrary to process is the appropriate way forward. In the National Forest Policy Statement and order to appreciate the process we have to at quite contrary to the RFA process, because, least look at some of the background of how whilst the statement and the process recognise this process developed. Every member of this the fundamental importance of conservation Senate—indeed, including those who were not values, of protecting of our native forests, here at the time—remembers the divisiveness, particularly our old-growth forests, it also the bitterness, surrounding the forest industry recognises that there is a place for forestry debates, particularly in 1995 when this parlia- use on a commercial basis. Right through the ment was blockaded for the opening week or statement you will see references to that two of the parliament. That was the culmina- because the statement is about a balance. It tion of this divisiveness, this aggravation, this states: hostility that existed in respect of the manage- The objectives and policy initiatives are under- ment of Australia’s forests for a number of pinned by the following agreed approaches to forest years prior. management. We had, on one hand, those who believed That includes: that native forests should never be logged. We . . . commercial uses of forests, including wood had on the other side—I suppose, at the other production, that are based on ecologically sustain- end of the spectrum—some representatives of able practises are appropriate and desirable activi- the timber industry who believed that it ties. should be open slather and that you should be It also states: able to export as many woodchips as you The governments also acknowledge that a variety liked. of uses of public native forests is desirable, provid- 2106 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 ed those uses comply with the principles of eco- other’s throats in respect of this industry. Mr logically sustainable development. The objective Tuckey, for blatant political reasons, has here is the management of public native forest so attacked the New South Wales government. as to retain the full suite of forest values over time. The governments acknowledge, however, that some The New South Wales government has nego- uses, including non-commercial uses, may inevi- tiated one of the best, most environmentally tably compromise other values, such as tourism and friendly agreements on regional forest man- recreation values, at least in the short term. agement ever in this country. The New South Further on in the statement in section 4(2), Wales government under Bob Carr has the dealing with wood production and industry most enviable record in terms of protecting development, it states: our national estate, our national heritage, our environment and, particularly, our native Sustainable economic use of native forests and plantations is one of the principal objectives of this forests. statement. Wood production is a major commercial Since the Carr government came to office use of Australia’s forests. It can be integrated with it has declared a total of 151 new national a range of other commercial and non-commercial uses, among them nature conservation, recreation, parks and nature reserves, exceeding its tourism and water catchment production. Ecologi- original election commitment by more than cally sustainable management of native forests for 600 per cent. It has recently announced the wood production involves maintaining a permanent most comprehensive forest decision in the native forest estate while balancing these uses. state’s history, with some 380,000 hectares of And I could go on. It is a very detailed North Coast forests reserved. At the same statement, as honourable senators know. The time, it has also delivered unprecedented point is that some people just do not accept security to the timber industry and its work- that the principles that underpin the National ers; a package that has been endorsed by the Forest Policy Statement and the RFA process industry, by conservation groups and, indeed, involve both recognition of conservation supported by the coalition parties in the New values and the application of resource security South Wales parliament. for the timber industry. Until they understand But what has occurred at the federal level? that, they are not going to come to this debate Mr Tuckey, for blatant political purposes, with clean hands, with an objective approach. refuses to provide the funding that is required In his address, Senator Bartlett briefly under the agreement for exit assistance be- canvassed some of the evidence that was put cause he wants to play politics. He wants to to the committee. There was, of course, play politics even with his own ideological evidence put to the committee which submit- colleagues in Western Australia on this issue. ted that the RFA process has not been carried That is not the way to deal with this very out appropriately in some states. That has also important issue. The way to deal with it is for been put on the public record. There is cur- the parties in all of the states to get back to rently a major debate going on within the the principles that underpin the RFA process, Western Australian government about whether that is, achieving both ecologically sustainable or not the RFA negotiated in that state is development and resource security, hand in appropriate, whether or not the assessments hand with conservation of our great national have been properly made. There is also some heritage. It should be done under the process debate with respect to the RFAs that have that was established and supported by all state been negotiated and signed in Victoria. and federal governments of both political I believe the central problem at the moment persuasions. That is the way forward. We is the politicisation of this process by the believe the process is working. There are current federal Minister for Forestry and some issues that need to be addressed. I have Conservation, Mr Tuckey. It seems that ever got no doubt that we will be able to deal with since Mr Tuckey was appointed to this port- those when the legislation comes before the folio following the last election we have had parliament soon. (Time expired) nothing but trouble and a reversion back to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.32 p.m.)— the bad old days when people were at each I feel somewhat frustrated because there is Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2107 only three minutes allocated to me to speak That is a lie. Anybody in the street can tell on this matter. I am also angry because we you that that is a fabrication. Yet that lie is are seeing a process in this parliament where- going to be incorporated into action for far by, without the knowledge of most Austral- more extensive destruction of these forests ians, we are facing legislation within two and the wildlife that goes with them, includ- weeks which will hand across millions of ing world heritage value forests in this great hectares of what is left of the wild forests in country of ours under this legislation which this great nation of ours to the woodchippers. has had far from adequate exposure to the That is called the regional forest agreement. public. Behind that name is the lie that it has the In Western Australia in particular at the support of the Australian people. Every moment the debate is raging. The opinion opinion poll shows that that is not the case. polls show that a growing proportion of It has the support of the big logging corpora- people are horrified by the potential for tions, in particular the export woodchip legislation to lock up these forests. (Time corporations, and through them I submit it has expired) the support of the major political parties. Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (4.35 The problem here is that we do not have an p.m.)—I would like to reiterate what has been adequate debate, with an opposition on one said by a couple of earlier speakers about the side and a government on the other. Both the matter coming forward today when the bill is political parties are lining up to push through being debated. I am sure that both Senator this legislation in the interests of those log- Bartlett and, no doubt, Senator Brown will ging corporations against the 80 per cent of have plenty of opportunity to put their views Australians who do not want this continuing on the table. I must say, although Senator and unnecessary destruction of not only the Brown complains about the amount of time he great wild forests that are left in this country has had here today, I think our chairman, but also the wildlife in them. Senator Crane, has been more than patient I have in my hands a picture which you with Senator Brown at the three days of cannot see, Mr Acting Deputy President, but committee hearings; he has given him a lot which I can. When we look at that picture, more time than permanent members. which is in the rainforests of the Tarkine In any event, I do not think Senator Brown Wilderness in Tasmania where clear-felling will ever agree with any process we come up takes place, what we see is a whole mountain- with in this place. The track record goes back side in flames where once the rainforest some 10 years. With any opportunity that has stood. It has been scalped. Every blade, every been put forward by whatever government leaf, every living animal, every living entity happens to be in power federally or in the in that forest has been totally and utterly state, Senator Brown and his friends in the destroyed. Members come in here and say green movement pay lip-service initially and, that this is ecologically sustainable. as you would know, Mr Acting Deputy On the committee evidence that earlier President, then walk away from the process. members have averred, when I have asked I really query why the Democrats want to representatives of the logging industry—not derail a process which is guaranteeing the least the Deputy Premier of Tasmania—what protection of potentially vast amounts of a natural forest ecosystem is, with one excep- Tasmanian wilderness and old growth forests tion, they have totally failed to provide an and replace it with increased exploitation of answer. When you ask, ‘What does sustain- wilderness and old growth forests in other able mean?’ again they cannot answer—or countries. they won’t. To be honest about it, you cannot I would be the first to admit that the issues be cutting, firebombing and then poisoning surrounding the best conservation use of these forests to kill any grazing animals that Tasmania’s forests—and in this case I would come into them after they have been de- like to refer to Tasmania because it has stroyed and call that ecologically sustainable. completed an RFA and, therefore, I think it is 2108 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 appropriate to tell the chamber what has ia’s land area will be classified as reserves, happened there—are both complex and including 39 per cent of Tasmania’s forests, difficult. One of the main difficulties that 68 per cent of the old growth forests and 95 arises is ensuring that the economical harvest- per cent of all wilderness. These percentages ing of timber can continue to be carried out far exceed the JANIS guidelines set as goals in a manner which does not threaten fragile at the commencement of the process. ecosystems, particularly where they are The new Tasmanian Labor government is unique; that future generations are able to a very strong supporter of the RFA outcomes continue to appreciate existing natural wilder- for Tasmania. The Deputy Premier himself ness and that harvesting does not occur at a came to Melbourne to give evidence and rate which is unsustainable in the long term. strongly support the Commonwealth RFA I believe the RFA process was commenced to legislation. Since the process was started by ensure that these and other difficulties are the Keating Labor government I am surprised overcome. that some of my Tasmanian Labor colleagues It is worth looking at the objectives of the have not been more vocal in their support for RFA process. They come as a result of the the process—not Senator O’Brien, I must national forest policy statement that the admit, nor you, Senator Sherry. But for some Federal Labor Party put down. They come, in reason one or two others have been rather Tasmania’s case, after 28 or so inquiries over quiet. a period of 10 or more years, when a lot of After all, the RFA is expected to have many emotional debate has gone on and a lot of benefits for Tasmania, for its people and for small industries in Tasmania have gone to the the protection of its forests. Those benefits wall. A lot of jobs have been lost, and further include the development and launch of a jobs will be lost if we cannot collectively widely supported forest industry growth plan, come up with a process that meets the objec- a significant increase in plantation establish- tives. ment, hundreds of new jobs to be created, The objectives of the RFA process included resource security resulting in millions of social, economic, environmental and heritage dollars being invested in Tasmania, guaran- objectives. I will outline what they were. teed quality of sawlogs available to Tasman- They were to manage the forests for a poten- ian sawmill operators, world’s best reservation tially expanding and value adding industry. It standards met and exceeded, with some 95 is very important that we have that value per cent of Tasmania’s high quality wilder- adding industry because it provides jobs for ness reserved, and social and economic out- the people of Tasmania, and we certainly comes given equal consideration with envi- need them at the moment. They were to ronmental and heritage objectives. provide for sustainable high value species One of the major things that this regional timbers, to maximise areas available for forest agreement process does is to create intensive management, to protect a compre- certainty. Well, hopefully it will create cer- hensive, adequate and representative sample tainty. The sorts of arguments we have heard of forest biodiversity, commonly known as and this matter being brought forward today the CAR reserves, to protect vulnerable, rare do not provide any more certainty. It seems and endangered forest ecosystem biodiversity to me that all it will provide is more of the and to protect wilderness and old growth same argument that has gone on for the last forests. 10 or 15 years. I guess that is what some of The final outcome as recommended in the these people are all about, particularly in the agreement signed between the federal and Democrats’ case. I think one of Senator Tasmanian governments has delivered out- Bartlett’s former colleagues, Senator Bell, comes which meet all these objectives—far would still be here in this parliament if it had beyond recognised national and international not been for the ridiculous attitude the Demo- best practice reservation standards. For exam- crats took towards some issues. Senator ple, under the RFA, 40 per cent of Tasman- Bartlett may care to look at some of the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2109 speeches Senator Bell made when he was in form. It also contemplates the creation of this place. I think Senator Bell, for a Demo- plantations so that, in the future, timber for crat, was rather supportive of sustainable pulping purposes, for example, will substan- forestry development. tially come from the hardwood plantations I take issue with what Senator Forshaw had that are grown as a result of the RFA process. to say about my colleague Mr Tuckey. Mr My recollection of the environment Tuckey, since he has come to this job—I movement’s views on the use of forests is that know for a fact, from talking to some of the it was preferable to use plantations for timber union representatives in Tasmania—has purposes. We have to get to that point some- gained the respect of the CFMEU members. how. The RFA process, as the Labor Party The statement on sustainable forest manage- would contemplate it, will indeed lead us to ment in Tasmania put down by Mr Tuckey that process. and Paul Lennon was welcomed by the Senator Bartlett’s comment that he antici- industry in my state. I also believe that the pates that the RFA will hurt small sawmillers action plan he intends to put in place and the flies in the face of the attitude of some of the commitments he has given to encourage green supporters who attended the hearings downstream processing are all positive things that we conducted in Melbourne. I was that will help the industry and the people of interested in the evidence of the Victorian Tasmania and create jobs. I reiterate that this Association of Forest Industries, particularly motion today is inopportune. It has been put with regard to downstream processing. I asked forward at the wrong time. I look forward to for them to send me more information, and debating the matter further. Mr Graeme Gooding sent me this letter and Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (4.43 reinforced my recollection of something that p.m.)—A great deal has been said about the took place at the hearing. A passage from his fact that this debate occurs at a time when the letter states: legislation committee is considering this I found the whole Senate Inquiry quite astounding legislation, so I do not propose to add any- with most issues raised by those submitting to your thing further on that point; it has all been group quite irrelevant. said. But certain things occurred during the He is referring to the greens. He goes on: committee’s deliberations, many of which are Some seemed to think it was another RAC Timber on the public record, which I believe it is Inquiry rather than a review about legislation. In appropriate I refer to today. particular I found it amazing in our session that the The motion we are discussing is the failure greens applauded the likes of Judy Clark when she essentially advocated closing down the 50 or so of the regional forest agreement process to viable small (hardwood) businesses in Victoria and protect the remaining native forests of Aus- replacing them with one or two huge (softwood) tralia. That is one of the more misleading corporations. They then laughed when I noted that statements that I have ever seen put before Demby’s sawmill in Toolangi had more than tripled this chamber in terms of our being asked to their employment from less than 10 to 30 people. discuss it. The very process that is being I could not stop thinking about what I thought was a bizarre event—environmental ideologues advocat- pursued as the Labor Party contemplates the ed big business is better than small family com- RFA process is to lead to renewable, sustain- panies. Afterwards I recalled two points of rel- able forests for harvesting together with evance: reserves of forests, not the removal of the 1. A media report last year noted that Auspine’s native forests, as is suggested in this proposi- relatively large pine mill in Portland had tion. doubled its output last year and increased The first and most important point to be employment by 5 people. Gary Demby’s little mill had doubled its output and increased made is the Australian people should not be employment by over 20 people. Gary is one of misled that the RFA process is about remov- eight hardwood sawmills in the Central High- ing native forests. It is about retaining native lands we surveyed who have increased direct forests either protected from logging or employment in total by 160 people by value guaranteed to be sustained in a renewable adding. 2110 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

It is my recollection that, when that sort of The problem we have is the environment evidence was given, there was an attempt movement has not become an issues move- from the audience to belittle the witnesses. ment but a party political movement. To There was giggling and laughing—indeed, sustain itself, it needs the big issues to attract someone was blowing a whistle when evi- voters. It needs the icon environment issue so dence they did not like was being presented. that it can run around and attract supporters I suppose every group can have its people to vote for it at the next election. Unfortunate- who misbehave. Unfortunately, there seemed ly, if the issue is not there, it has to do some- to be an organised pattern of behaviour thing, and that something is manufacture the indicating disrespect for the evidence that was issue. Unfortunately, there is a strong element being given. of manufacturing issues in the complaints being made about the RFA process. Senator Calvert has given evidence of the sort of material that we received in evidence, I am not saying the process is perfect and which I also think is generally publicly I am not saying that there is no scope for known, about the outcome of the RFA in improvement. What I am saying is that we Tasmania. Having gone through numerous have moved from the environment movement inquiries into its timber industry, world saying that we need more and more plantation heritage areas and logging practices—and I timber, that pine plantations were bad and that am sure it will go through a number of other we should have a sustainable forestry indus- inquiries as it follows the RFA process and, try, and we will get to the point where parts as far as is possible, perfect the operation of of the environment movement will do any- the timber industry—Tasmania starts with a thing possible to sabotage the industry, irre- world-class forestry industry in many respects spective of the impact that will have on jobs but will end up with an even better one. At in regional economies in Tasmania, parts of the end of the RFA process, assuming that the Victoria, parts of New South Wales and parts Senate gives approval to the process—and of Western Australia. I am not saying that that is a matter which I do not propose to every RFA will necessarily be good. comment on now—it will have an even better Senator Brown—How many jobs has it industry. I would hazard to suggest that, at created in Tasmania? the end of that period, even more timber will Senator O’BRIEN—I listened to you be taken not from native forests but from peacefully, Senator Brown, so give me the plantations, and I suspect that plantations will same courtesy. In terms of each of those increase as a result of the RFA process. RFAs, the outcome of this legislation is as yet One of the problems we have in dealing not determined. As I said before, I cannot with this sort of legislation and environment make any comment without anticipating the issues generally is the nature of environmental debate on that legislation, which would be out politics. I have been a long-time supporter of of order. That debate is yet to be had. To environmental issues, and I have supported have said in this debate that the RFAs fail to the environment movement in relation to protect the remaining native forests of Aus- many issues they have taken up about the tralia is blatantly arrant nonsense and, as has forestry industry. Indeed, the forestry industry been suggested, it has placed Senator now will say that some of their past practices Woodley, who is part of our committee, in a were horrendous, were unsustainable and difficult position in relation to his position on ought to have been changed, and they have the committee’s report to the Senate. How- recognised that those practices changed, in ever, I noted that there was a difference of part, through the contribution of the environ- opinion between the Democrats earlier today ment movement. I put on record today that on one of the votes. (Time expired) the environment movement has played an Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (4.54 important part in correcting some of the p.m.)—I will take up directly what Senator problems in the forestry industry and some O’Brien just alluded to. Senator Bartlett chose other environmental issues. to speak for the Democrats today. He stated Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2111 that their policy was that the Democrats stand Senator Forshaw—They are usually against the RFAs in total, which has totally excellent. This time they were good. compromised Senator Woodley. We on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senator McGAURAN—Senator Forshaw, Legislation Committee know only too well you spoilt your contribution when you politi- that Senator Woodley would be quite split cised it by attacking the minister. You felt with Senator Bartlett on this issue. As far as you had to do that, but that was nothing I can gauge to this point, Senator Woodley compared to the submissions we received has agreed with the processes and principles from the environmental movement when they of the RFAs. But now we have to assume that came before the committee, particularly when the Democrats are against the processes and we were in Melbourne. Never have I seen a outcomes of all RFAs. movement marginalise themselves so much before a Senate committee. They were intran- sigent. They were exhibitionists. They exag- Senator Bartlett failed to put any alternative gerated their case. They were unresearched before the Senate. The Democrats have no and fanatical. policy, other than to be against the RFAs. We can only assume that Senator Bartlett and the Senator Brown interjecting— Democrats want to take us back to the old Senator McGAURAN—They were all system, which was no system at all. It was those things, Senator Brown. I will give just just a system of confrontation, and it was the one example. One group before us was very reason the RFA process and outcomes Environment Victoria Inc., as they call them- were produced. Prior to that, we had terrible selves. They were involved in the early part confrontations. Senators would remember only of the RFA process and negotiations in East too well the logging trucks that surrounded Gippsland. They went to the point of compar- Parliament House. That was one of the most ing the process of the RFA to Nazism, but dramatic demonstrations. The greens who they just could not get their point through. invaded the East Gippsland area created Their point was ridiculous. That was the type another dramatic confrontation. All of those of language they used and it totally marginal- confrontations bring instability and uncertain- ised them in the debate. ty to the industry. All of them produce great social unrest and conflict for the 6 o’clock The truth is that they objected to the out- news, but that, it seems, is what the Demo- comes of the RFA, not the processes of it. If crats want to take us back to. The truth is the processes fell completely their way, they they now join the extreme greens. Many of would not be against RFAs. They objected to them, if not most of them, came before the the outcome—an outcome that is based on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport some pretty sound principles, which it looks Legislation Committee to give evidence. They like they will never agree to. There are 11 also wanted the total abolition of the RFA. national principles stated in the RFA as well That is the bottom line. as broad criteria for biodiversity. No criteria are broader than these: the protection of 90 The truth is that they really do not want any per cent or more of high quality wilderness, logging at all. That is the stance of Senator and East Gippsland meets that criteria; a Brown, which does not surprise any of us, but retention in reserves of at least 60 per cent of it does surprise us when the Democrats want existing old growth, and East Gippsland meets to take up that position. They seem to be that criteria; and a benchmark of 15 per cent taking the side of the environmental move- of the pre-1750s distribution of each of the ment, which wants the total abolition of the forest communities to be protected, and we industry regardless of the $2 billion trade meet that criteria and better it. deficit we have at the moment. Senator The truth is that, without the RFA process, O’Brien and Senator Forshaw, who surpris- without the RFA outcomes, we are going to ingly made some good contributions to this go back to the bad old days of confrontation. MPI— That is what the Democrats want. Of course, 2112 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 that is what Senator Brown wants. He loves Substitute members: to see himself on the 6 o’clock news. But it Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Murray for 2 will bring down the industry and it will cause March, 4 March and 5 March 1999 great social disharmony. Senator Woodley to replace Senator Murray for DOCUMENTS 3 March 1999. Work of Committees SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sherry)—I present the publication SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION Work of committees for the period 1 July AMENDMENT (CHOICE OF 1998 to 31 December 1998 and 1998 statist- SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL ics. 1998 Ordered that the report be printed. SALES TAX LEGISLATION COMMITTEES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1998 Membership TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— BILL (No. 5) 1998 Order! The President has received letters from party leaders nominating senators to be GENERAL INTEREST CHARGE members of committees. (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998 Motion (by Senator Abetz)—by leave— First Reading agreed to: Bills received from the House of Represen- That senators be discharged from and appointed tatives. to committees as follows: Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee— Secretary to the Minister for Defence)—I indicate to the Senate that those bills which Substitute member: Senator Watson to replace Senator Ferris for 19 February 1999, for the have just been announced are being intro- committee’s inquiry into the employment incen- duced together. After debate on the motion tive and education impacts of the Government’s for the second reading has been adjourned, I taxation reform legislation proposals and on the will be moving a motion to have three of the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed bills listed separately on the Notice Paper.I new tax system; move: Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Commit- That these bills may proceed without formalities, tee— may be taken together and be now read a first time. Substitute member: Senator Abetz to replace Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator Tierney for 17 February 1999 for the consideration of the 1998-99 additional esti- Bills read a first time. mates; Second Reading Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Commit- Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary tee— Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (5.02 Substitute member: Senator Eggleston to replace p.m.)—I move: Senator Tierney for 26 February 1999 for the That these bills be now read a second time. committee’s inquiry into the broad effects of the Government’s taxation reform legislation propo- I seek leave to have the second reading sals on the environment, the arts and information speeches incorporated in Hansard. technology and on the provisions of the bills implementing the proposed new tax system; Leave granted. New Tax System—Select Committee— The speeches read as follows— Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2113

SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1998 AMENDMENT (CHOICE OF This bill amends the superannuation legislation to SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1998 strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of the The bill implements the Coalition Government’s superannuation supervisory framework. choice of superannuation fund measure. This Superannuation plays a significant role in the measure was a key initiative in the 1997-98 Budget Government’s commitment to increase national and involves reforms to give employees greater saving and in the Government’s retirement income choice over which superannuation fund or Retire- policy. It is therefore vital that an effective regula- ment Savings Account will receive superannuation tory regime is in place and maintained to enhance contributions made on their behalf by their employ- the security of members’ benefits and to ensure that er. superannuation entities operate for genuine retire- ment purposes. The choice of fund arrangements are about giving employees greater choice and control over their The Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act superannuation savings, which in turn will give 1993 (the SIS Act) provides for the prudential them greater sense of ownership of these savings. regulation of the superannuation industry between The arrangements will increase competition and the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority efficiency in the superannuation industry, leading (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Invest- to improved returns on superannuation savings. ment Commission (ASIC). An important aspect of prudential regulation is the monitoring and investi- The Government has consulted widely in putting gation powers of both Regulators. together the details of this important reform. Extensive consultation led to enhancements of the This bill will improve monitoring and investigation original model being announced in November 1997. powers by increasing the flexibility of the These were designed to significantly reduce the Regulators’ existing powers, expanding the parties administrative burden on employers by allowing to whom they apply and increasing penalties for greater flexibility in how choice is offered, while non-compliance. It is vital to the prudential regula- ensuring that employees still had an effective tion of superannuation moneys in Australia that the choice of fund. The announced enhancements were Regulators have effective monitoring and investiga- widely welcomed by industry. tion powers. The Government is continuing to work with Another important aspect of the regulatory frame- industry on the design details of the proposed key work is the existence of a complaints handling features statements. Draft key features statements body to deal with member’s superannuation com- were prepared in consultation with industry and plaints. The Superannuation (Resolution of Com- have been market tested with a variety of groups. plaints) Act (the SRC Act) established the Superan- The results of the market testing is being fed into nuation Complaints Tribunal to resolve fund a redesign of the key features statements. member complaints about trustee decisions in a manner that is fair, informal and quick. This bill While the Government is prepared to consult and will enable the efficiency and productivity of the listen and respond to ensure the smoothest possible Tribunal to be improved, including allowing single implementation of choice, it is not prepared to member review panels. This will enhance the compromise on the fundamentals. The fundamentals Tribunal’s role in promoting public confidence in of this reform are that employees get a genuine the superannuation regime. choice as to which fund their superannuation is paid. Models for implementing choice which effec- The bill also contains a number of measures which tively allow employers to veto an employee’s will finetune and clarify the operation of the choice simply do not meet this essential criteria. supervisory framework which will assist trustees in discharging their obligations to fund members. The reforms to which this bill gives effect are scheduled to first operate from 1 July 1999 in In conclusion, this bill implements miscellaneous respect of new employees, having already been amendments to maintain and strengthen the super- deferred from 1 July 1998. It is time to conclude annuation supervisory framework. The amendments the debate on these important matters to allow their will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the orderly implementation, for the benefit of all regulatory regime and improve confidence in the Australians as they save for their future. superannuation system more generally. I commend the bill to the Senate. I commend this bill to the Senate. 2114 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

SALES TAX LEGISLATION AMENDMENT The Government proposes three changes to over- BILL (No. 1) 1998 come some technical problems with the new scheme for dealing with sales tax evasion in the The bill contains two new exemptions from sales computer industry. tax. The exemptions are for commercial space equipment and for certain goods imported by The first change will remove anomalies arising overseas participants and delegations attending the from current descriptions and tariff classifications Sydney 2000 Olympics, Paralympics and associated in the law. This will apply from the date of intro- events. duction of the bill. The bill will also remedy some weaknesses in the The second change will increase the maximum recently enacted scheme to prevent sales tax penalty for a person falsely representing himself or evasion in the computer industry and correct a herself to be accredited or falsely representing a deficiency in the temporary importation exemption. transaction to be authorised, and will increase the maximum penalty for making improper or false The bill will implement the Government’s policy quotes under the law. The new maximum penalties to exempt from sales tax space launch vehicles, of $5500 will apply from the date of Royal Assent. payloads and other goods intended for launch into outer space or to be brought back from outer space. The third change will close a loop-hole that allows This measure was announced on the 23 June this traders to falsely present themselves as exporters in year. order to purchase or lease goods tax-free. This will apply from a date to be proclaimed. The exemption will: The amendments will enhance the integrity of the . encourage the development of a commercial new sales tax rules for computers which have space launch industry in Australia; and addressed the entrenched culture of sales tax . provide Australia with access to the growing evasion previously evident in parts of the personal world demand for commercial space launch computer industry. facilities. The bill also amends the sales tax law so that The space equipment exemption will apply from goods imported into Australia under a temporary the date of Royal Assent. However, there will be importation exemption, used in Australia, exported a transitional credit for dealings on or after 23 June and then re-imported, are subject to sales tax at the 1998 and before the date of Royal Assent. This will time of the second importation. ensure that, as announced by the Government, The amendment will correct a deficiency in the dealings on or after 23 June do not bear sales tax. sales tax law from 13 May 1997 which is the date The bill will also provide that certain goods, the Government announced the measure. imported by or on behalf of non-Australian Olym- The explanatory memorandum explains in detail the pic and Paralympic Family Members and deleg- changes to the law that the bill contains. ations and participants in the Olympics, Paralympics and associated events, will be exempt- I commend the bill to the Senate. ed from sales tax. This exemption is in line with current sales tax arrangements with respect to SOCOG. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (NO. The first events covered by the new exemption and 5) 1998 which occur during 1998 will be the Cultural Olympic event "A Sea Change" and the Internation- This bill amends the income tax law to give effect al Sailing Regatta. to the following measures: The exemption will not apply to goods for sale, Firstly, alcohol and tobacco products, motor vehicles and Tax penalty arrangements. motor vehicle parts, television cameras and equip- ment for radio and television broadcasting. This bill gives effect to the 1998-99 Budget announcement to replace the existing late payment The amendments complement recent changes to the penalties in various taxation laws with a uniform customs law to exempt the same goods from tax deductible general interest charge. The new customs duty. arrangements will be simpler and better reflect The exemption will apply from the date of Royal movements in market interest rates. The changes Assent and, as for the space equipment measure, follow a review by the Australian Taxation Office there will be a transitional credit arrangement. The of late payment and notification penalties in credits will apply to dealings on or after 1 March consultation with professional and representative 1998 (ie the commencement date for the proposed bodies. That review flowed from the Government’s changes to the customs law) and before Royal response to the recommendations of the Small Assent. Business Deregulation Taskforce. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2115

The charge on an outstanding amount will be A foreign tax credit scheme operates on the basis calculated daily on a compounding basis. The that foreign income is earned which gives rise to nominal interest rate from which the daily charge an entitlement to foreign tax credits. A scheme is is calculated will be set at the 13 Week Treasury entered into whereby a foreign income stream is Note rate plus 8 percentage points. The penalty for acquired by another taxpayer. Where the acquisition late lodgement of income tax returns of individuals cost of the income stream is deductible to that and the penalty for underpayment of income tax another taxpayer those deductions largely cancel will also adopt the general interest charge. out the foreign income the other taxpayer has now Secondly, the acquired. The major portion of the foreign tax credits which relate to the acquired foreign income Alignment of remittance dates stream are then available to offset tax payable on This bill implements the announcement in the the taxpayer’s other foreign income of the same Government’s tax reform paper, Tax Reform: not class. a new tax, a new tax system, that from 1 July 1999 The Australian Taxation Office became aware that the remittance dates for medium and small Pay As these types of schemes were being promoted in You Earn (PAYE), Prescribed Payments System Australia. The Commissioner of Taxation does not (PPS) and Reportable Payments System (RPS) accept the efficacy of these arrangements, and payers will move from the 7th to the 21st of the proposes to challenge them under the existing law month. in the courts. To put a stop to the development of The alignment to the 21st of the month is in future schemes the Government announced on 13 anticipation of a large number of businesses being August 1998 that it would amend the general anti- required to make one payment on the 21st of each avoidance provisions of Part IVA of the act to quarter to cover most tax debts.Thirdly, render such schemes ineffective. Running Balance Accounts. These types of arrangements have also been This bill also introduces amendments to support a identified in the United States and the United system of running balance accounts. The objective Kingdom and remedial action has also swiftly been of this measure is to establish a taxpayer account- taken in both those countries. ing system under which the Australian Taxation The amendment is designed to protect the revenue Office can record and monitor all of a business’s base. In the absence of such swift action the different tax liabilities on a single account. Debts revenue base could be exposed to a significant under the sales tax, pay as you earn, prescribed threat. payments and reportable payments arrangements for The Government also announced on 13 August the year ending 30 June 2000 will be administered 1998, as part of its tax reform package Tax Re- in this way. form—not a new tax—a new tax system, that it will The introduction of running balance accounts will modernise the general anti-avoidance rules. This provide for simpler tax accounting and collection process will be conducted in line with the princi- arrangements. ples of the integrated tax code. In view of the threat that the foreign tax credit schemes posed to These new accounting and penalty arrangements the revenue base it was necessary to announce the will position the ATO to better assist taxpayers in measures and bring legislation to the Parliament as minimising any escalation of taxation debt and will soon as possible rather than await the modernisa- allow for a simpler and more efficient process of tion of the general anti-avoidance rules. penalty calculation. Full details of the measures in the bill are con- They will also enable the ATO to provide a tained in the explanatory memorandum circulated comprehensive statement of a taxpayer’s outstand- to honourable senators. ing tax debts at a particular point in time. I commend the bill to the Senate. These amendments will provide an accounting platform in the lead up to one running balance style account to support most taxation debts after 1 July 2000. GENERAL INTEREST CHARGE And lastly, (IMPOSITION) BILL 1998 Tax avoidance: foreign tax credit schemes The bill accompanies Taxation Laws Amendment This measure amends the general anti-avoidance Bill (No. 5) 1998 which replaces existing late provisions of Part IVA of the Income Tax Assess- payment penalties in various taxation laws with a ment Act 1936 (the act) to render ineffective uniform tax deductible general interest charge. schemes designed to acquire or generate foreign tax The Imposition Bill will impose the new general credits that can be used to shelter low-taxed foreign interest charge as a tax to the extent to which the source income from Australian tax. charge cannot validly be imposed as a penalty. 2116 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Details of the measures in both bills are contained Leave granted. in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators. Senator EGGLESTON—I move: I commend the bill to the Senate. That the Senate take note of the report. Debate (on motion by Senator O’Brien) The statement read as follows— adjourned. Australian Content Standards for Television Ordered that the Superannuation Legislation and Paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill 1998, the Superannuation Services Act 1992 Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superan- I present the report of the Environment, Communi- nuation Funds) Bill 1998 and the Sales Tax cations, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 be Legislation Committee on the issue of Australian listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders Content Standards for Television in the context of of the day. paragraph 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. COMMITTEES The need for a Senate Committee inquiry into the implications of section 160 (d) of the Broadcasting Legal and Constitutional Legislation Services Act 1992 arose following a ruling of the Committee High Court of Australia that the current Australian Report Content Standard developed by the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) and applying to Senator O’CHEE (Queensland)—On free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, was behalf of Senator Payne, I present the report in breach of section 160(d) of the Broadcasting of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Services Act 1992 (BSA) which requires the ABA Committee on the provisions of the Human to perform its functions in a manner consistent with Australia’s international treaty obligations. In this Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) case, the ABA’s Standard was not consistent with 1998, together with submissions and Hansard Australia’s obligations under the CER Services report of proceedings. Protocol with New Zealand. Ordered that the report be printed. The Committee received 35 submissions and held Senator O’CHEE—I seek leave to move one public hearing in Canberra. The report of the inquiry, originally planned for the first sitting day a motion in relation to the report. after 31 October 1998, was delayed because of the Leave granted. general election on 3 October 1998. Senator O’CHEE—I move: The current Australian Content Standard requires broadcasters to show Australian programs at least That the Senate take note of the report. 55 per cent of the time between 6am and midnight. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. ‘Australian’ is defined according to criteria that are Leave granted; debate adjourned. specified in the Standard. The majority of submissions strongly supported Environment, Communications, quotas which they saw as essential for preventing Information Technology and the Arts Australian television from being dominated by Legislation Committee imports from other countries and for protecting Australian cultural values. The submissions ex- Report pressed concern that the Court’s ruling meant that Senator EGGLESTON (Western Austral- the ABA would make a new Standard which ia)—I present the report of the Environment, accepted New Zealand programs for quota pur- Communications, Information Technology and poses. The film and television production industry argued that this would pose a threat to the develop- the Arts Legislation Committee on Australian ment of Australian cultural values through televi- content—paragraph 160(d) of the Broadcast- sion programming. They therefore called for section ing Services Act 1992, together with submis- 160(d) of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to be sions and Hansard record of proceedings. repealed. Ordered that the report be printed. The Committee accepted the advice of the Attorney General’s department and of the Department of Senator EGGLESTON—I seek leave to Foreign Affairs that, while repeal of section 160 (d) move a motion in relation to the report and to would enable the ABA to make a Standard that incorporate my tabling statement in Hansard. excludes New Zealand-made programs from the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2117 quotas, it would not remove the diplomatic problem debate on item 19 of schedule 1, we spoke that the present Standard is inconsistent with about some of the issues that arise in relation Australia’s obligations under the CER Protocol with to the enrolment form, prescribed persons and New Zealand. That problem can only be addressed through negotiations with New Zealand and the the regulations that now, today, in draft form Committee is recommending that the government have at least been provided to the opposition approach the New Zealand government to seek an and other interested senators. And, in relation amendment to the Closer Economic Relations to debate on this matter, I do stress that these (CER) Protocol which would insert a "cultural particular regulations are very much in just a industries clause" to exempt services relating to draft form. cultural industries from the Protocol. The film production industry also expressed its fear For example, now that I have had an oppor- that if paragraph 160(d) of the BSA were retained tunity to look at them, I note the following in in its present form, other nations who have treaties part 4 of the regulations dealing with electors with Australia which include ‘no less favoured who can attest a claim for enrolment: treatment’ clauses, would seek the same favoured 11 For paragraph 98(2)(c) of the act: treatment accorded to New Zealand under the "australian content" quotas for commercial televi- (a) an elector is a prescribed class of electors if the sion. elector is a person mentioned in schedule 3; and The Committee took those fears seriously and it has (b) if no person mentioned in schedule 3 is avail- recommended a number of measures to ensure that able for the person making the claim, an elector is the australian content quota does not include film in a prescribed class of electors if the elector: imports from every country with which Australia (1) is not related to the person making the has a trade treaty. claim by birth or marriage; and The Committee is recommending that in all future (2) is approved by an Australian Electoral trade treaty negotiations with other countries, an Officer or the DRO. exclusion clause for cultural industries should be After that draft regulation appears a com- inserted. This now seems to be accepted interna- tional practice. ment—one assumes, an AEC comment—and let me quote it: The Committee is also recommending that every step should be taken to clarify the status of New The notion of a prescribed class involves the Zealand/third party co-productions by negotiating presumption that the membership is fixed by the with the New Zealand government with a view to regulations. There is an element of subdelegation exchanging side letters to the CER Services Proto- in the provision that an officer can approve col to clarify both countries’ understanding of the membership of the class. It would be better for this meaning and application of the CER Services power to be given by the act. Protocol in relation to New Zealand/third party co- Then we go on to ‘verification of identity’, productions. also in part 4. Let me quote from the draft I commend the report to the Senate. regulations: I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 12(1) For subsection 98(2)(a) of the act, the identity of a person making a claim must be verified by at Leave granted; debate adjourned. least one of the following original documents: ELECTORAL AND REFERENDUM (a) documentary evidence of the applicant’s AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1998 identity. Let me interpolate what is in the document as In Committee a comment in respect of the draft regulation Consideration resumed. ‘(a) documentary evidence of the applicant’s The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- identity’. The comment reads: tor Ferguson)—I understand that the commit- Your instructions refer to section 202B of the Tax tee is about to consider schedule 1, item 20. Act. That section simply says that an application must be accompanied by documentary evidence of The question is that schedule 1, item 20 stand the applicant’s identity. There is no definition of as printed. what may or may not be acceptable evidence, Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— nothing is added here by referring to the Tax Act. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.06 And so it goes on. Then we get down to p.m.)—A little earlier in the day, when in ‘verification of Australian citizenship’ in part 2118 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

13 of the regulations, which I will quote. Part through in draft regulation form, that we do 13(2) states: not have a position where this committee The person’s Australian citizenship must be verified ought to be expected to sign on to these by any of the following: regulations. This is totally unacceptable. I (a) provision of: think it would be a grave mistake for the (1) an Australian citizenship certificate; or committee to just blindly accept the government’s proposal in relation to these (2) an Australian passport; or quite significant changes to the Electoral Act. (3) an Electoral Commission enrolment application form given to the person by I have said before that what is motivating the Department of Immigration and this is simply paranoia on the part of the Multicultural Affairs... government—and I stress that. The Again, there is a comment in the document government’s view, belief, claims, if you like, which reads: that there is widespread electoral fraud have I am not sure if this is what you want here. The never been able to be justified. This is moti- form was not attached to the instructions. Is this a vated by paranoia on the part of the govern- document with evidence of the person’s citizenship ment; it is not motivated by a desire to ensure given to the person when citizenship is granted? that we have maximum integrity in the We are being asked to agree with draft regu- Commonwealth Electoral Act. That is the lations that are in this form. What about problem. schedule 3 of the draft regulations on electors As I have said before, this is going to cost who can attest claim for enrolment? There the an enormous amount of money for what is, at comment reads: this stage still, a dog’s breakfast of a proposal There is a similar list in the statutory declarations that is before the committee. Why should the regulations. Could that be adopted? A statutory committee be so courageous as to bite this declaration may well be needed with some urgency one off? Why should we, given the stage of while an electoral enrolment is a more routine development of the regulations, accept what activity that is prescribed persons for statutory declaration should be more than enough for elector- the government is proposing? al enrolments. I question very seriously the government’s This is the form that currently the draft motivation. I question very seriously the regulations are in. I am not necessarily criti- process that has got us up to this stage. I cal. I appreciate that obviously they have to question very seriously the state of develop- go through this phase in terms of their devel- ment of these regulations, even in their opment. But the point I made earlier today is current draft form. I strongly advise the that we had this legislation first introduced committee not to embrace them at this point. into the parliament in May of last year. We It is for that reason that the opposition will be have had a long time, almost a year, for these opposing item 20. regulations to be worked up and developed Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— and, I think, provided in a more complete Special Minister of State) (5.15 p.m.)—The form than the form that was just received this regulations can only be put forward in draft morning from the minister. I do believe, Mr form. As I have said previously, it is not Temporary Chairman, that is a very substan- normal when you have legislation being tive point for us to make as well as having to debated in the form of a bill to have the deal here with the substance of the issue. proposed regulations also before the Senate or There are major problems in relation to the House. In fact, this is a bit like putting the item 20—the proposals to insert parts 2A, 2B, cart before the horse, but we have done this 2C and 2D after subsection 98(2) of the act. in the interests of making available to the There are difficulties in some cases with very opposition and the other parties a full disclos- genuine people with the verification of Aus- ure of what we are proposing. The reason we tralian citizenship. I really think in the cir- cannot have it in final form is that we still cumstances, even with the AEC and the have to negotiate with the states, because we government having finally worked this matter have a joint role situation. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2119

Senator Faulkner—You could have had it do to get on the roll to vote. Gaining the right in a more developed form than this. And you to vote is a very important right indeed, and could have provided it a bit earlier, and you we believe as a government there should be know it. some scrutiny in that process. It is as simple Senator ELLISON—We have just had a as that. What I am saying is that there are comment that you could not have it in a more adequate provisions in these regulations for developed form, and we have just had criti- the committee to form a very informed view. cism from the opposition that this is in such In any event, these regulations could be a draft form that they do not want to sign off subject to disallowance. At the end of the on it. You cannot have it both ways. day, the government has a sound proposal as to the scrutiny for the enrolment of new Senator Faulkner—I said it could be in a voters. more developed form than this, and we could have had it a lot earlier than you have provid- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (5.19 ed it. p.m.)—The Democrats, having listened to the views put forward by the opposition and the Senator ELLISON—It is in as advanced minister, and while the minister put forward a form as we could possibly have it for this some reasoned views, are not convinced that debate. If we did have to put it off to get the this level of complication is required to be consultation to the states and those agencies added to the act. We will also be voting for which we are talking about where you can against this section. lodge an enrolment, then you would be waiting for another year. The CHAIRMAN—The question is that schedule 1, item 20, stand as printed. Senator Faulkner—We have been waiting for a year already. Question put. The committee divided. [5.24 p.m.] Senator ELLISON—We know why there was a delay, because the bill was not debated (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) because an election came along. Then we had Ayes ...... 34 a new parliament, and then we had the Christ- Noes ...... 34 mas break. There is no great shakes in saying —— that there has been this inordinate delay. We Majority ...... 0 —— have had an election, a new parliament and AYES the Christmas break. That is a substantial Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. reason for any delay. Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. I would suggest these regulations are in Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G. sufficient form for the committee to make an Chapman, H. G. P. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. informed decision. Once this bill is dealt with Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. and this provision is passed, we will then go Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. to the states and deal with the states in rela- Heffernan, W. Herron, J. tion to the joint role provisions and those Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. agencies to ensure that there is no problem; Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. that you can, for instance, go to Centrelink or MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. Australia Post to lodge your enrolment to O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. vote. It is as simple as that. That is the situa- Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. tion, and nothing could be clearer. Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M. What we have here is a proposal by the Tambling, G. E. J. Troeth, J. government that there should be some verifi- Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. cation of identity for those people enrolling NOES Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. for the first time. What we are saying is that Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V. it is quite curious—in fact, more than curious; Brown, B. Campbell, G. it is inappropriate—that you have a stricter Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. requirement to open a bank account than you Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. 2120 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

NOES attest claim for enrolment. It is very limited, Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. and I think it is going to cause a great deal of Crowley, R. A. Faulkner, J. P. logistical difficulties in the real world. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. This is the point that I particularly made to Lees, M. H. Lundy, K. Senator Harradine, through the chair. This is Mackay, S. Margetts, D. going to cause problems for people, whether McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. they be house-bound or whether they live in Murray, A. O’Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. rural areas—where there are a whole range of Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. reasons why they cannot easily access some- Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. one who fits one of the categories here. This West, S. M. Woodley, J. is unnecessarily causing grief and difficulty to PAIRS people who genuinely want to participate in Coonan, H. Bolkus, N. the democratic process. I would say again to Knowles, S. C. Denman, K. J. Senator Harradine, through you, Mr Tempo- Tierney, J. Evans, C. V. rary Chairman, that I hope he has cast his eye * denotes teller over this list that has now been made avail- Question so resolved in the negative. able in draft form. I hope he makes a close The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- examination of it and, as I say, the logistical tor Ferguson)—I call on the opposition to difficulties it is going to cause so many in the move opposition amendment No. 2. community. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— That is the reason that the opposition has Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.28 opposed item 19 and item 20, and now item p.m.)—I move opposition consequential 24. It is a serious issue, but one I think we amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226: have probably debated now at significant length. I do not want to delay the committee, (2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit "20,". but I also want to impress upon the committee This amendment, of course, relates to the and reinforce the strong arguments that I think commencement dates. we have mounted in relation to our concerns The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The about prescribed persons. commencement date, as I understand it, as a Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— result of the previous vote, is consequential. Special Minister of State) (5.33 p.m.)—Mr The question is that the amendment moved by Temporary Chairman, the government has the opposition be agreed to. proposed that, while you would have an Question resolved in the affirmative. increased requirement for identification, you would afford persons seeking to enrol to vote The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We a greater opportunity to lodge their enrolment now move to item 24. The question is that form. So you would have more outlets or schedule 1, item 24 stand as printed. more venues at which you could go to lodge Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— your enrolment. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.30 In the draft regulations which we circulated, p.m.)—I was making the point a little earlier we indicated that places that could take these in relation to item 24 that the real concern is enrolment form applications are approved the reference to prescribed person. It is not, agencies of the government of the states or perhaps, as much a threshold issue as some of territories. That could be quite wide. It could the others, but we have indicated very clearly be the electoral commission offices in relation our concerns there. I am disappointed that the to those states or territories; ATSIC—which committee does not share the opposition’s would cover the indigenous sector of the concern in relation to the prescribed persons. community; Australia Post; an Australian I would suggest that it is worth all committee embassy or consulate overseas—which would members apprising themselves of schedule 3 cover people travelling overseas; Centrelink— of the draft regulations: the electors who can which is widely distributed through the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2121 country; any court of petty sessions, district down, but it was too late by the time I came courts, the Supreme Court; the electoral back in. I do apologise most profusely for authority of a state or territory; a local what has been an embarrassing moment for government authority or a local shire office; me. or a migrant resource centre—for those people Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.37 p.m.)— newly arrived in Australia. I ask you, Mr Temporary Chairman, to draw We have opened up the places where you this matter to the attention of the President. can lodge your application to enrol to vote. There is a concern about the courtyard. The We think this is a very good move, notwith- bells do not sound out there. It is frequented standing that our previous proposal to by members of parliament. We should see to strengthen the identification of the person it that, besides the flashing of the lights, the enrolling to vote was lost. We believe that bells sound out there. Increasingly members this is a good move because it increases the of parliament are liable to fall into this situa- opportunity and the availability of places tion. It is one that can be fixed. To ensure a where a person can enrol to vote. The current positive outcome from this, I ask that the situation is that you do that through the AEC. President look at that situation to see if it The fate of the former provision—which I cannot be fixed. mentioned might have to be revisited— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- remains to be seen. But, for the present, the tor Ferguson)—Senator Brown, I will convey government maintains its proposal in relation your request to the President. to this matter and commends it to the commit- Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— tee. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.38 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The p.m.)—Mr Temporary Chairman, I think you question is that schedule 1, item 24, stand as would be aware that the opposition has printed. consistently taken a view in relation to sena- Question resolved in the affirmative. tors missing divisions, who are almost always coalition senators, I might add—and I think Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— that is a fair statement, given the record—that Special Minister of State) (5.36 p.m.)—I we have time and again recommitted votes mentioned the prior vote during which there taken in committee and in the Senate. The was a member of the government absent. The problem is simple: I feel we have now senator concerned has advised that he was in reached the point where the goodwill of the the courtyard and did not hear the bills opposition is being taken advantage of by the ringing or see the light flashing. He was government. unaware of the division even though he was not a great distance from the chamber. I I do not direct this directly at Senator would ask that the vote on that be recommit- Lightfoot. It just so happens that the Senator ted, because— Lightfoot incident is the third one since the Senate has resumed this week. We had a Senator Harradine—Where is this senator? senator missing a division earlier in the week Senator ELLISON—He is here now. in relation to a vote to extend a committee Perhaps he could give an explanation to the reference, and we have had two instances of committee. senators missing divisions in the committee Senator LIGHTFOOT (Western Australia) stage of this bill—Senator Lightfoot on this (5.37 p.m.)—I do apologise for the incon- occasion, Senator Ian Macdonald on the venience that I have undoubtedly caused the previous occasion, and the Manager of chamber. I did not hear the bells. I was in the Government Business in the Senate, Senator courtyard with one former member and one Campbell, in the first instance I referred to. present member of the House of Representa- There is no doubt that if Senator Lightfoot tives. I had only been there for a few minutes. had attended the division the outcome of the I went out of the building and must have been vote would have been different. I accept that. out of earshot of the bells. My secretary came The point I make is this: time and again the 2122 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 opposition demonstrates its goodwill by years. As deputy leader, he is in a position in recommitting votes and ensuring that the will which he ought to be setting an example. If of the electorate is reflected on the floor of that is the example that is set, we have too the Senate as votes are taken. I make this as many other senators following it, including a very serious point to the government: at recently another senior government office some point there has to be an effort made by holder in the Manager of Government Busi- the government to lift its game. ness in the Senate. I make that point very The government cannot slack off on its seriously. I think it is a reasonable point that whip arrangements or on ensuring discipline the opposition is entitled to see the govern- amongst coalition senators, knowing full well ment take a little more effort in ensuring that it really does not matter because the good discipline in relation to votes in this chamber. old opposition on this side of the chamber, The arguments that are presented in relation because it takes a principled and proper to the courtyard might be right. Maybe the approach to these sorts of issues, will always bells do not ring in the courtyards, but there play ball and agree to recommit votes. That are lights in the courtyards. Senators are does appear to be a trend that is developing. supposed to be wearing pagers. There are a I hope the minister at the table would agree range of mechanisms to ensure that we do not that that is simply not on. You just cannot have this circumstance occur. I stress: I do depend all the time on the opposition to dig not blame Senator Lightfoot, because he is the the government out of a hole of its own last in a great long line of government sena- creation. tors who have failed the test of coming to I do not direct this particularly to Senator divisions, and it is senior government senators Lightfoot. I make that point. This is the most who have set such a bad example. recent incident in a long line of failures on Of course, we have also nailed our colours the part of the government to get its act into to the mast on this, because we have said that gear. That is not to say that on the very rare we will do the honourable and proper thing. occasion opposition senators have not missed We will continue to do the honourable and divisions and been in similar circumstances. proper thing, but I will tell you what: we are But I tell you what: the numbers on missing entitled to revisit this if our goodwill is just divisions are overwhelmingly in favour of the going to be continually exploited by the government. There have literally been only a government in the way it has. Just because couple of instances since Labor lost govern- the opposition—and, for that matter, minor ment in 1996 when a vote has needed to be party senators and Senator Harradine—agree recommitted—only two that I can recall— to recommitting votes it does not means that because of an error by an opposition senator. the processes and procedures of this place can Government senators are doing this time be taken for granted. I hope that is a message and time again. If the government simply that Senator Ellison as the responsible takes advantage of this by saying, ‘If we miss minister in the chamber at the moment and a key vote, what the hell does it matter, the Government Whip, who is on duty in the because the opposition will recommit the chamber at the moment, take on board seri- matter and we will get on with it,’ that is not ously. I am now saying that the opposition good enough. I think it is about time the will agree to recommit a vote that yet again government recognised that it is not good has meant that a very important provision that enough. is going to very significantly impact on the The government should also recognise the electoral processes in this country is going to appalling example Senator Alston has set in be changed as a result of opposition goodwill. this regard as the Deputy Leader of the But we have set the benchmark in this. Do Government in the Senate. I suspect that is not take advantage of it. Do not exploit it, one of the reasons this has occurred. Senator and do not take us for granted. Alston has made an absolute art form of Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (5.46 missing divisions over the last couple of p.m.)—I can assure Senator Faulkner that I do Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2123 take this matter very seriously. I point out that every senator is issued with a pager. I know this is the first time we have asked for a that my office and Senator Calvert’s office recommittal on a bill this session. page senators for divisions. If the senator Senator Faulkner—This session, which is chooses not to carry the pager and as a result three days old. of that this chamber is then asked to recommit a vote, then we should understand that the Senator CALVERT—I am not going to basis for the recommittal is that the senator make excuses for the other two people who has refused to carry a pager. I do accept missed divisions. It does so happen that I that sometimes pagers do not go off. In fact have taken this up with the Prime Minister’s I was at a meeting where mine did not work, office, and the bells do not ring in his office and I had it checked. But that is the responsi- either, which is where Senator Macdonald bility of the individual senator, because it is was when he missed a division. The beepers their lifeline with this chamber when they are do not work there either. That is something conducting their affairs and performing their we did not know before. So if you are having duties around this very large building. a visit to the Prime Minister’s office some time, Senator Faulkner, and your beeper does I want to emphasise that I do not accept not go off and you do not hear the bells, you that being in the courtyard and not hearing will understand why. the bells is a reasonable excuse. I would not accept that from one of my colleagues as a Senator Faulkner—That will be a red- reasonable excuse, because I know that they letter day— are issued with a pager and I know that, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- barring a technical difficulty, they should be tor Ferguson)—It is not likely to happen aware that there is a division, be able to read soon. a message on their pager and attend the Senator CALVERT—I can assure you that chamber in good time to vote. In response to the government takes this matter very serious- some of the comments made and Senator ly. In Senator Campbell’s case it is the first Calvert’s comments, I am sure that he has division he has ever missed since he has been emphasised to his senators that they must coming to this place. I also remind you, wear their pagers, even in the Prime Senator Faulkner, that we have recommitted Minister’s office. votes in the same manner as you have, not- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- withstanding the fact— tor Ferguson)—I have an indication from the Senator Faulkner—How many? Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that he is willing to recommit the vote. That being Senator CALVERT—I will check. I know the case, I put the question that schedule 1, there were at least two occasions last year item 20 stand as printed. when there were serious matters— Senator Faulkner—Two, as opposed to 22. The committee divided. [5.54 p.m.] Senator CALVERT—That is not the point. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) The point I am making is that I hear what you Ayes ...... 32 say. I take the matter very seriously, as do all Noes ...... 31 senators on this side. Senator Lightfoot has —— Majority ...... 1 apologised, and I thank you for letting us —— recommit the vote. AYES Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (5.47 Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. p.m.)—I rise to indicate that, in response to Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. * Senator Brown’s comments, Senator Faulkner Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. made some comments about pagers. I have Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. been in the courtyard and I have heard pagers Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. go off. I have also heard bells from inside the Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. building. But the fact of the matter is that Herron, J. Kemp, R. 2124 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

AYES Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.59 Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. p.m.)—While we are on this subject, I might Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. say to the committee that I almost decided to MacGibbon, D. J. Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. not vote for the recommitted motion. I feel Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. that it may be necessary to extend the nomi- Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. nated officers, positions or persons in the Synon, K. M. Tambling, G. E. J. draft regulations, and I would be grateful if Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W. the minister would indicate to the committee NOES that, prior to these regulations being made, Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. suggestions that come from members of the Bishop, T. M. Bourne, V. parliament and others will be taken into Brown, B. Campbell, G. Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. account so as to extend the list of those who Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. would be able to certify. Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P. Forshaw, M. G. Special Minister of State) (6.00 p.m.)—I Gibbs, B. Hogg, J. thank Senator Harradine for that contribution. Lees, M. H. Lundy, K. I give an undertaking to this Senate that we Margetts, D. Murphy, S. M. will abide by the suggestion that he has made Murray, A. O’Brien, K. W. K. * that if there are suggestions as to other per- Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. sons who could fit the bill in relation to the Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. draft regulations that we have circulated, we Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. will certainly take that on board. I know that Woodley, J. Senator Harradine has mentioned that in some PAIRS remote areas you may have difficulty finding Alston, R. K. R. McKiernan, J. P. someone who might be able to fulfil that role Coonan, H. Evans, C. V. of witnessing an enrolment. I am conscious of Hill, R. M. Mackay, S. McGauran, J. J. J. Bolkus, N. that, especially coming from a state like Tierney, J. Hutchins, S. Western Australia which has vast remote Vanstone, A. E. Sherry, N. areas. * denotes teller The government put this forward as a draft Question so resolved in the affirmative. regulation. There is an understanding that The CHAIRMAN—As a consequence of where you have a situation which might not that vote, I assume that you wish to recommit be accommodated by the list here, that has to the next amendment, which is opposition be rectified. After all, we are not about to amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226, which was disadvantage people in remote areas or areas where there is no access to the people listed. agreed to? I might say that this is an extensive list, but Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— we certainly will take on board suggestions in Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (5.57 relation to this matter. I give that undertaking p.m.)—You are correct in drawing to our to Senator Harradine. attention the fact that my consequential Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.02 amendment was successful. If we recommit it, p.m.)—by leave—I move Democrats amend- I obviously will not proceed with it. ments Nos 5 and 7 on sheet 1227: The CHAIRMAN—Is leave granted to (5) Schedule 1, after item 29, page 8 (after line 5), recommit? insert: Leave granted. 29A After paragraph 133(1)(a) The CHAIRMAN—The question is that Insert: opposition amendment No. 2 on sheet 1226 (aa) certify a copy of the party’s constitu- be agreed to. tion and make it available for public Question resolved in the negative. inspection under section 139; Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2125

[section 133—party constitution to be publicly they have to provide a copy of the constitu- available] tion of the party. But that is not made public- (7) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item ly available and there is no requirement to 44, insert: provide any updated version at any stage after 44A At the end of section 314AB the party has initially been registered. These Add: amendments seek ensure that when or if the (3) The first return under paragraph (1)(a) or Electoral Commission determines that a (1)(b) after each election must include a political party’s application for registration copy of the registered political party’s should be accepted and the party should be constitution that is current at the date of registered, the commissioner would certify a the return. copy of the party’s constitution and make it [section 314AB—party constitution to be provided available for public inspection under section after each election] 139 of the act, which deals with inspection of These are related amendments which my the register of political parties. colleague and fellow traveller on the Joint To ensure that that is updated, the related Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, amendment requires the party to put in an up- Senator Murray, moved when the Electoral to-date version of their constitution with their and Referendum Amendment Bill went first return to the commission after each through this chamber, albeit in a slightly federal election to ensure that the public is modified version. The purpose of these able to have access to an up-to-date version amendments is to place an onus upon political of that party’s constitution in case they try to parties when lodging their annual returns radically change their structure in the interim. immediately following elections to also lodge It is basically about ensuring a bit more an up-to-date copy of their constitution, which transparency in the organisational structure of would then be available for public inspection. Australia’s political parties. The Democrats Political parties remain fairly nebulous believe that that is something, particularly in institutions in our community and derive their light of recent public debate on this issue, that chief source of legality from this Electoral would be a positive move. Act that we are discussing today. As the rise Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— and fall of the One Nation party has illustrat- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.05 ed, the customs of political parties do not p.m.)—There may be an element of merit in necessarily insulate against improper use this proposal that the Democrats have moved being made of those parties or, as we have by way of amendments. I think we do under- recently seen, the privileges that attach to stand what the Democrats are trying to such a status. Even getting a clear indication achieve here. I am not convinced about the of the structure and manner of operation of proposal. I am not convinced that the admin- some political parties is fairly difficult. Nowa- istration of this would not be very cumber- days incorporated associations and trade some. I do not how it would work in practice. unions must all lodge constitutions which I would say to Senator Bartlett that it seems generally are available for public scrutiny. to me that it would be worth looking at the This amendment seeks to make political merits of this proposal through the processes parties and their organisational structure more of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral transparent. Given, as has also been widely Matters. If there is a case to be made in publicised, some of those parties at least are relation to it, then as part of the deliberations able to potentially be the recipient of a sig- on the current reference to the committee of nificant amount of public funds, the Demo- the 1998 federal election, we could look at it crats believe that it is all the more appropriate through that forum. I would be interested to that this fairly small measure should be hear the case as it might be mounted. incorporated as part of the act. I am trying to say something positive about Already when political parties apply for amendments that, at this stage, the opposition registration under section 126(2)(f) of the act, cannot see its way clear to support. I do say, 2126 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 even though we will be opposing it, that it Senator Faulkner—The old goalposts have might have some merit. I genuinely believe it gone walkabout. is better looked at in the cold, hard light of Senator HARRADINE—Yes, the goalposts day through the mechanism I have suggested. have shifted a bit. I see that it is relevant to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.07 p.m.)— the point that was made. I might just mention, The Greens support the Democrat amend- apropos of Senator Faulkner’s comments, that ments here. If you turn it around the other this matter has been around for a while, as I way, why should the constitutions of political recall. So far as I am concerned, I have had parties, particularly political parties which are sufficient time to chew it over. I see no in receipt of public funding or potentially in reason why this should be opposed. What is receipt of public funding as a result of elec- wrong with requiring a political party to lodge tions, not be open to scrutiny? One political a copy of its constitution at the time it is party, One Nation, recently has had a lot of going to make the returns seeking taxpayers’ heartache over its own party constitution, with funding? I intend without further ado to members publicly feeling aggrieved about it. support this amendment. I do hope the major It would be a healthy thing for the political parties, the Labor Party and the coalition—the parties involved to know that at each election Liberal Party and the National Party—see fit the returns after the election will involve them to support this or, if not, to give us a pretty lodging a copy of the party constitution, as it good reason as to why this shouldn’t be may have been amended in the intervening supported. years, so that it is there for all to see—a good The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- piece of public accountability and transparen- tor Reynolds)—Before I call the minister: cy. The Greens support this amendment. Senator Bartlett, when you first introduced the amendments you wanted them to be taken to- Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.09 gether, but I think in view of some of the p.m.)—I seek some clarification from the comment it may be better if we take them mover. On revised sheet 1227, are we dealing separately when I put the question. with amendments Nos 5 and 7 or are we only dealing with amendment No. 7? Senator Bartlett—That is fine. We will just deal with this as moving amendment No. Senator Brown—Numbers 5 and 7. 5. Senator HARRADINE—If we are dealing Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— with amendment No. 5, that, in effect, is to Special Minister of State) (6.13 p.m.)—The retain section 96A of the act. government has a view which is not dissimilar to that of the opposition. Might I say at the Senator Bartlett—The main difference will outset that I know from my own state that the be making it available for public inspection. Incorporation of Associations Act requires Senator HARRADINE—I am sorry. The that any body which is incorporated under Democrats amendment No. 5 says, ‘Schedule that act should have a constitution and that it 1, item 18, page 5 (lines 24 and 25), to be has to be lodged with what was formerly the opposed.’ My version—that is the corporate affairs office. It is lodged there for government’s proposal—says ‘Schedule 1, public scrutiny and is available for inspection. lines 24 and 25, item 18, section 96A, repeal I am hazarding a guess here, but I would the section.’ Am I missing the point? assume that in all other states the situation would be much the same. Political parties are Senator Bartlett—No. I suspect you have incorporated under such legislation. So there sheet 1227, revised 2, or is it revised 1? It is is, I would submit, in state legislation already probably an earlier version of the amendment a situation where a constitution of a political sheet, I suspect. party is lodged with an agency and that it is Senator HARRADINE—This doesn’t have subject to public scrutiny. ‘revised 1’ on it. So we have ‘revised 2’, do However, having said that, I don’t take we? Thank you. anything away from the spirit of the proposal Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2127 put forward by the Democrats. There would not sure they would be necessarily available be some administrative burden to the AEC in in that regard. In any case, we will pursue this this, although, I would concede, it would not through the joint select committee. In the be overly burdensome. But the suggestion of meantime, anyone who actually wants to see Senator Faulkner’s is not a bad one. Perhaps the Democrats’ constitution at any stage the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral should look on our web site. We do not need Matters could have a look at this. It is some- to wait for this amendment to go through to thing which we cannot see our way clear to show people what our constitution is. support today but perhaps the committee Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— could have a look at it and include it in its Special Minister of State) (6.16 p.m.)—One report. It has current terms of reference point I failed to mention earlier is the lack of looking into the 1998 election, and this is compulsion in this, and that is something something it could take up. But I do not think Senator Bartlett might want to consider in any at this stage the government can see its way future proposal. If there is to be compliance, clear to supporting either of these proposals. there is no compulsion in your proposal. I just Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.14 point that out by way of assistance. p.m.)—I will not delay the Senate greatly. I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- realise the situation with the numbers, and I tor Reynolds)—The question is that Demo- do welcome at least the indication of interest, crat amendment No. 5 be agreed to. if you like, from both the coalition and the Question resolved in the negative. ALP and the possibility of exploring this in the upcoming inquiry of the Joint Standing The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Committee on Electoral Matters. Nonetheless, question is that Democrat amendment No. 7 I do think it is worth highlighting that, as be agreed to. Senator Harradine said, it is not that difficult Question resolved in the negative. a measure. The constitution is already provid- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We ed to the Electoral Commission when a now move to schedule 1, items 44 and 45. registration is first put in, so really the only extra work would be adding that to all the Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— other details that are already required on the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.18 register, such as the name of the party and the p.m.)—This is a very important part of this name and address of the registered officer, et particular bill, and one which does deserve cetera. some close attention from the committee. Items 44 and 45 really represent another I do not think that is overly onerous. I do attempt by the coalition parties to weaken not think that having one extra piece of paper disclosure. Weakening disclosure and the added to the returns, that have to be put in disclosure provisions of the act are something every year in any case, would generate par- that the coalition has consistently pursued ticularly enormous amounts of administrative now for at least 15 years. work for the Electoral Commission, given the amount it is already required to do in assess- We believe that these increases in electoral ing returns of political parties. So I do not funding disclosure thresholds would allow for believe it would be a major measure. significant sums of money to go through without being disclosed, and we cannot On Senator Ellison’s point about the avail- support that. Even the AEC does not support ability already of the constitutions in some these measures. I think they have been driven states under incorporated associations law, I along here by the federal secretariat of the am not an expert on the political structure of Liberal Party. In the AEC’s submission to the every political party registered in the country Senate inquiry into this legislation, it said in partly because you cannot see where their respect of thresholds for reporting donations: constitutions are so you do not know, but I The AEC advised against such changes in a would hazard a guess that a number of parties submission to the JSCEM inquiry into the conduct are not incorporated in various states and I am of the 1996 election. 2128 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

That is very important to note. During the funding and disclosure provisions. We are not Senate inquiry into this legislation, the head going to allow items 44 and 45 to see the of funding and disclosure of the AEC conced- Liberal Party national secretariat fundamen- ed the following: tally and very significantly undermine the The way that a donor can make such a large integrity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, donation without being disclosed is by donating up because that is what these items do. These to the threshold to each state and territory branch items are key provisions in this bill, and the of a political party. So, for a party that is organised Senate really has to stand up and be counted nationally in every state and territory plus with a on this issue. We need to retain the integrity national secretariat, you are looking at nine separate identified parties, in effect, for disclosure purposes. of the Electoral Act and ensure that those who donate to and support political parties have A donor can make separate donations to each of those parties. Because they are not aggregated those donations disclosed. That is in this across the party across Australia, only within each parliament’s interest, and I would suggest to state and territory, they will not be disclosed. So the committee that it is very much in the . . . they could donate $4,999 a year to each state public interest. and territory branch of a political party and go undisclosed. That would add up to just short of Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.24 $45,000. p.m.)—I too am opposed to the proposed He is right. That is what it is all about, and increase from $1,500 to $10,000 in subsection that is what could happen. 305B(1) and from $1,500 to $5,000 in subsec- tion 314AC(1). The matter has been can- Senator Harradine—Except when you’ve vassed by Senator Faulkner, but we all know got only one branch. that even the $1,500 can be circumvented. For Senator FAULKNER—Senator Harradine, example, an organisation could pay its mem- there is one of you, but I would ask that, in bers certain funds which are then to be paid relation to these particular items—that is, to the particular political party, whether it be items 44 and 45—you look at the possibility the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or any of manipulation by perhaps a major political other party. For example, porn merchants party. I would not want to name one, but the could be organising their video outlets and obvious one would be the Liberal Party of individuals to pay certain moneys to a par- Australia. I appreciate Senator Harradine’s ticular political party, each of those donations unique circumstances in relation to that, but being $1,499. Eleven organisations or indi- this is a very important principle. viduals could pay that and be reimbursed, and It is important to note also that the AEC there is no way that could be tracked by the conceded that there were a number of other AEC. ways in which donors could split their dona- This is the sort of situation that can arise tions so they would not be disclosed. For even under the current provisions. You are example, each member of a family could never going to have complete transparency, donate separately or a family and a company and that is the point I am making. In particu- could donate up to the disclosure limit. lar, you will never have complete transparen- The problem here is that the coalition cy in a situation where the party—whether it parties simply do not like political disclosure. be the Labor Party, the Liberal Party or any It is as simple as that. They have never individual party—does not want to be seen to supported it. Their use of the Greenfields be receiving donations from particular sour- Foundation rort does nothing to inspire any ces. What can be done about that, I do not confidence at all in the arguments they have know. Possibly nothing can be done about it, brought to bear in relation to these particular but let us at least keep the lower threshold clauses. We are going to be pursuing further that is currently in the legislation. amendments in the Senate to try to close once Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.27 p.m.)— and for all that Greenfields Foundation rort. I agree with both the previous speakers. It is As far as the Labor Party is concerned, we difficult to prevent people from usurping the have always advocated tight and transparent spirit of the current laws which state that, if Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2129 you donate $1,500 or more, it must be dis- do more would want to not only rely on closed. To raise that to $10,000 is to raise by public funding but also rely on their own six or eight times the ability of large amounts resources in obtaining donations and dona- of money to be transferred by way of dona- tions in kind. tions to the political parties without it being traced. It is when people go to some length to I think that all political parties have re- hide the fact that the donation is coming that ceived private donations—quite properly so. I suspect political leverage is most wanted as There is perhaps a perception that this ques- an outcome by those donors. Therefore, there tion of donation to a political party has some is the greatest need for those people to be cloud over it. The legislation recognises that under scrutiny. donations to political parties are a way of life. The question is the level at which you draw I do not know why the government wants the line for disclosure purposes. this change. I would be interested to hear in succinct terms from the minister why the The government believes that, in view of government thinks keeping a longer list of the effluxion of time and the fact that there is donors who contributed $1,500 or more is a question of the amount by which you might more difficult than keeping a shorter list of deter people from making a donation if it those who contributed $10,000 or more. One were to be disclosed—for instance, $500 to cannot help but suspect that the government $1,500 for an individual, and $1,500 to sees a very clear advantage in having more of $10,000 and $1,500 to $5,000 for the organi- its donors shielded from the glare of public sations—that could well deter people from scrutiny. If that is the case, that is not a good making a donation because they do not want thing. If that is not the case, then why bring to have the disclosure. Obviously, some these amendments forward? It does not add people do not want to make their political up. They are not a good thing; they are going allegiances public. I think that is a part of our in the wrong direction. The Greens, like the system which is important. We have a secret previous speakers, totally oppose the govern- ballot—no-one questions that. The country led ment amendments. the way in that. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— But the situation is that the support of Special Minister of State) (6.29 p.m.)—In political parties is not something that every- relation to that last comment, these amounts one would wear on their sleeves, for obvious have not been altered since, I believe, the reasons. I would expect there would be 1992-93 financial year, so I would submit the supporters of the opposition who would not effluxion of time has some relevance here. want to be readily identified as supporters of When these amounts were set, it was thought the opposition, for personal reasons or other that there were obvious levels below which reasons—and I respect that. But it is a ques- there should not be any disclosure and that, tion of the line you draw in relation to dis- over time, those levels naturally would in- closure. crease with the CPI, inflation and other I can foreshadow that the opposition has things. some amendments which the government will In relation to private donations to political be supporting, the ones dealing with associat- parties, it is quite important because the ed entities. We support those because we do government does not see that political parties not want to see the system circumvented. We should be entirely dependent on public fund- have indicated to the opposition that we will ing. There are some who would say, ‘Let’s be supporting these amendments. There are rub out private funding entirely and just have some that we have a difficulty with due to it on public funding.’ But if that were the technicalities, but that is purely the definition case, you would then have parties, as I men- of a loan and a credit card. We will deal with tioned before, that would simply run in an them later. But, right now, the government election, have a percentage of the vote and would commend these amendments to the collect their cheque. Other parties wanting to committee. 2130 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.34 the legislation currently, if a person in any p.m.)—This section of the legislation is of one financial year makes gifts totalling $1,500 great concern to the Democrats. I don’t think or more to any registered political party or the it would be blowing our own trumpet too same state branch of a political party, they much to say that the issue of disclosure of have to put in a return to the Electoral Com- donations and openness in relation to trans- mission. parency of funding and donations to political What this measure seeks to do is change parties is something that the Democrats have that to $10,000; that is, for a person now to pursued with some vigour for many years. be able to make a gift totalling $10,000 to the Our concern goes back to my predecessor same registered political party or the same from Queensland, Senator Michael Macklin, state branch. Of course, all of us here know who pursued these sorts of issues with great that you can donate underneath the threshold diligence over many years. to more than one branch of a political party It is important to emphasise what we are and not be required to put in a return. So it is discussing here in this part of the bill: we are a significant leap. Whilst I take Senator not talking about rubbing out private dona- Ellison’s point about the effects of the CPI tions or the ability for political parties to since these figures were first put in, we also receive funds from private sources—not at have to look at the state of the world as it is all—in fact, I would quite like the Democrats now and the appropriate level of public to receive a lot more funds and donations expectation about what level of donations than we do from private sources. I am quite should be declared. I suggest that $10,000 is happy to be open about that. well and truly over and above that. Why the Democrats have concerns with this Similarly, the bill before us seeks to amend part of the bill is that it is not about rubbing the act so that, instead of a party having to out private donations—far from it—it is about include particulars of where a sum amounting rubbing out an appropriate level of transpar- to more than $1,500 has come from, that ency and openness about private donations. amount will now move up to $5,000. Again, That is something that I am quite sure all of if this were to go through, once you factor in us would agree is of great concern to the that a person or an organisation can donate to Australian public: that people have some a number of different state branches of the ability to be aware of who is donating and one party plus the national level, you would who is providing funding—as long as the have the ability to donate just under $5,000 transparency is there. It is similar to senators to each state and territory branch plus, pos- and members having to individually declare sibly, the national level. This would put you our assets and have that publicly available or up around $40,000-odd. Over the course of an tabled. It is not a way of saying that we electoral cycle, a three-year period, you get cannot have assets; it is a way of being open up into well over $100,000 that can be donat- and upfront about what they are so that there ed to a political party as a whole, without is transparency in the system and some there being any opportunity or requirement opportunity for public faith in the system. for that to be declared. In the view of the As I have said a number of times in this Democrats, that is well and truly over and debate, public faith in the system is seriously above the level of transparency we should stretched in Australia at the moment. As a have in our Electoral Act. parliament, we do not want to be supporting The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- measures that will further increase public tor Reynolds)—The question is that schedule cynicism or will lead to a decrease in public 1, items 44 and 45, stand as printed. faith in the political and parliamentary pro- Question resolved in the negative. cess. The Democrats are opposed to the two sections of the bill that we are debating at the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We moment—again, just to make it clear to those now move to Democrat amendment No. 8, multitudes listening to the debate. In parts of that schedule 1, item 46, be opposed. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2131

Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.39 14 is consequential to the one above, which, p.m.)—The Democrats oppose schedule 1, sadly, did not succeed. So there is probably item 46. We are here talking about a similar no point in proceeding with this. issue of principle. Item 46 of the legislation The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We again relates to reporting thresholds, and it is will just leave it. another section of the bill that the Democrats oppose. Just to clarify again what this one Senator Brown—Madam Chair, I would particularly deals with, the section above just ask your advice on that amendment. Is it section 314AC(2) of the act currently states consequential? that, if the sum of all the amounts received by The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is or on behalf of the party from a person or consequential on all of 12, sheet 1225, being organisation during a financial year is $1,500 successful. or more, the return must include the particu- lars of that sum. But currently in the act, in Senator Brown—Thank you. calculating that sum, any amount less than The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We $500 does not need to be counted. now move to amendments 1 to 3 and 5 to 6, What this part of the bill seeks to do is and R4 on sheet 1244. raise that amount of $500 to $1,500. So, Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— basically, any amount less than $1,500 does Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.43 not need to be counted in determining wheth- p.m.)—I am happy to move those together by er or not a contribution for a financial year is leave, if it is the wish of the committee. I am $1,500 or more. Again, from the Democrats just not sure about doing so, given Senator point of view, this looks like an inappropriate Ellison’s comments before. weakening of transparency requirements of the legislation. Again, this is a measure that, Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— for reasons similar to those that I have just Special Minister of State) (6.43 p.m.)—I outlined, the Senate should oppose. would indicate that, of the opposition amend- ments 1 to 6 on sheet 1321, Nos 1, 2 and 3 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The are supported by the government, and 4, 5 question is that schedule 1, item 46, stand as and 6 are not. So, if we could deal with them printed. in separate groups, that might be easier, Question resolved in the affirmative. unless that causes the opposition some prob- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We lem in its argument. now move to opposition amendment 1 on Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— sheet 1236. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.44 Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— p.m.)—Upon it being the wish of the commit- Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.41 tee to facilitate debate, I seek leave to move p.m.)—I move opposition amendment 1 on opposition amendments 1 to 3 on sheet 1231 sheet 1236: together. I think that might be the best way to (1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 12), omit "amendments proceed. made by items 44, 45 and 46 apply", substitute "amendment made by item 46 applies". Leave granted. This amendment is consequential to our Senator FAULKNER—I move: previous decision in relation to items 44 and (1) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item 45. 43, insert: Amendment agreed to. 43A Subsection 287(1) (paragraph (b) of the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- definition of associated entity) tor Reynolds)—We now move to Democrat Repeal the paragraph, substitute: amendment No. 14. (b) operates wholly or to a significant Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.41 extent for the benefit of one or more p.m.)—I understand that our amendment No. registered political parties. 2132 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

[section 287—loans and associated entities] The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The (2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 25), after item question is that those amendments be agreed 43A, insert: to. 43B Subsection 305(1) Amendments agreed to. Omit "during that disclosure period", substitute The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- "at any time". tor Reynolds)—Senator Faulkner, could you 43C Paragraph 305(1)(a) seek leave to move your amendments? After "person" (first occurring), insert "during Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— that disclosure period". Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.45 [section 305—loans and associated entities] p.m.)—Thank you for that guidance, Madam (3) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item Temporary Chair. 44, insert: Senator Harradine—I would like some 44A After subsection 305B(3) clarification. On sheet 1244 it says replace- Insert: ment amendment 4 on sheet 1231. So we are (3A) The return must also set out the rel- looking at 4 on sheet 1224 and amendments evant details of all gifts received by the 5 and 6 on sheet 1231. person at any time, being gifts used to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That make gifts the whole or part of which is correct, Senator Harradine. were used to make gifts totalling $1,500 or more in a financial year to Senator FAULKNER—I seek leave to the same registered political party or move the amendments together. the same State branch of a registered Leave granted. political party and the amount or value of each of which is equal to or exceeds Senator FAULKNER—I move: $1,000. (R4) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item (3B) Relevant details for the purpose of 44A, insert: subsection (3A), in relation to a gift, 44B After section 306 are: Insert: (a) the amount or value of the gift; and 306A Certain loans not to be received (b) the date on which the gift was made; (1) It is unlawful for a political party or a and State branch of a political party or a (c) in the case of a gift made on behalf of person acting on behalf of a political the members of an unincorporated party or a State branch of a political party association, other than a registered to receive a loan of $1,500 or more from industrial organisation: a person or entity other than a financial (i) the name of the association; and institution unless the loan is made in accordance with subsection (3). (ii) the names and addresses of the (2) It is unlawful for a candidate or a mem- members of the executive committee ber of a group or a person acting on (however described) of the associa- behalf of a candidate or group to receive tion; and a loan of $1,500 or more from a person (d) in the case of a gift purportedly made or entity other than a financial institution out of a trust fund or out of the funds unless the loan is made in accordance of a foundation: with subsection (3). (i) the names and addresses of the trus- (3) The receiver of the loan must keep a tees of the fund or of the funds of record of the following: the foundation; and (a) the terms and conditions of the loan; (ii) the title or other description of the (b) if the loan was received from a regis- trust fund or the name of the founda- tered industrial organisation other than tion, as the case requires; and a financial institution: (e) in any other case—the name and ad- (i) the name of the organisation; and dress of the person who made the gift. (ii) the names and addresses of the [section 305B—loans and associated entities] members of the executive committee Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2133

(however described) of the organisa- includes, the provision of financial services tion; or financial products and which is: (c) if the loan was received from an unin- (a) a bank; or corporated association: (b) a credit union; or (i) the name of the organisation or (c) a building society; or association; and (d) any other entity registered under the (ii) the names and addresses of the Australian Financial Institutions Com- members of the executive committee mission Codes as a special service (however described) of the associa- provider. tion or organisation; Note: See section 111AZB of the Corpora- (d) if the loan was paid out of a trust fund tions Law for the Australian Finan- or out of the funds of a foundation: cial Institutions Commission Codes. (i) the names and addresses of the trus- loan means: tees of the fund or of the foundation; (a) an advance of money; or and (b) a provision of credit or any other form (ii) the title or other description of the of financial accommodation; or trust fund, or the name of the foun- dation as the case requires; or (c) a payment of an amount for, on ac- count of, on behalf of or at the request (e) in any other case—the name and ad- of, an entity, if there is an express or dress of the person or organisation. implied obligation to repay the amount; (4) For the purpose of subsection (2), a or person who is a candidate in an election (d) a transaction (whatever its terms or is taken to remain a candidate for 30 days form) which in substance effects a loan after the polling day in the election. of money. (5) For the purpose of subsection (2), persons [after section 306—loans and associated entities] who constituted a group in an election are taken to continue to constitute the same (5) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 27), after item group for 30 days after the polling day in 44B, insert: the election. 44C Subsection 314AA(1) (definition of (6) Where a person receives a loan that, by amount) virtue of this section, it is unlawful for After "gift", insert ", loan or". the person to receive, an amount equal to [section 314AA—loans and associated entities] the amount or value of the loan is pay- able by that person to the Commonwealth (6) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 2), after item and may be recovered by the Common- 46, insert: wealth as a debt due to the Common- 46A After paragraph 314AC(3)(b) wealth by action, in a court of competent Insert: jurisdiction, against: (ba) if the sum was received as a result (a) in the case of a loan to or for the ben- of a loan—the information required efit of a political party or a State to be kept under subsection 306A(3), branch of a political party: or the name of the financial institu- (i) if the party or branch, as the case tion, as the case requires; or may be is a body corporate—the [section 314AC—loans and associated entities] party or branch, as the case may be; or This is obviously a very important issue. It is an issue that has arisen from a lot of public (ii) in any other case—the agent of the party or branch, as the case may be; concern and many concerns raised in the or parliament, particularly by me on behalf of the opposition in relation to what I believe (b) in any other case—the candidate or a member of the group or the agent of has been a mechanism used by the govern- the candidate or of the group, as the ment to subvert the disclosure provisions of case may be. the Electoral Act. (7) In this section: What our amendments are about—the first financial institution means an entity which three that have been accepted by the commit- carries on a business that consists of, or tee and these three—is simply this: we want 2134 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 to end once and for all what we believe is the This is the final report of the Safety Review vehicle by which the Liberal Party has ex- Committee which has the responsibility to ploited any real or apparent loopholes in the ensure the safety of the operations at Lucas Electoral Act. The vehicle that is being used, Heights. It is the final report because its the Greenfields Foundation, has meant that responsibilities are being taken over by the one of the major political parties in this Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear country, the majority party in this coalition Safety Agency and its councils and commit- government, has been able to dodge full and tees. The responsibility of this committee transparent disclosure. I want to say this, cannot be underestimated. Nuclear safety is an being as generous as I can in the circum- issue of paramount concern, and I have no stances: the government did take some steps reason to doubt the integrity or the qualifica- to address recommendation 10 of the March tions or the commitment to safety or even the 1998 report of the AEC into funding and effectiveness of the committee in ensuring disclosure by broadening the investigative safety. But this report gives me no reason to powers of the AEC in dealing with and have a lot of confidence either. One of the determining whether or not an organisation is problems is the superficiality of much of the an associated entity. report. Whenever there is something of potential concern, it gets a glancing mention We found out, as senators would know, which raises more questions than answers. I during questioning of the Australian Electoral will come to some of those concerns and the Commission at Senate estimates hearings last questions that come to mind in a moment. week, that the AEC recently utilised these powers for the first time to serve notice on The other problem is that the committee the Greenfields Foundation on 15 January considered there were no matters arising in 1999. While those particular government regard to the committee’s functions B, C and amendments were sufficient for the purpose D during the period of the report. These are of broadening the investigative powers of the the functions involving investigating and AEC in pursuing suspected associated entities, advising on matters which may have adverse they have not gone far enough in relation to consequences or safety implications. Even the crucial issue of closing the loophole in the from the relative superficiality of the report, legislation. That is what the opposition wants it is clear that there were matters that could to do. well have been investigated. For example, there is the matter of the granting of tempo- Let me explain to the committee what our rary exemption from certain operating limits amendments here are about. Firstly, they and conditions. tighten the definition of ‘associated entity’. Secondly, they close the loophole in the event The report gives us no indication of which of the loan being given ultimately becoming operating limits or conditions. Perhaps the a gift. Thirdly, they prevent loans from being minister could throw some light on this. Were received from anyone other than a registered these exemptions related to allowed levels of financial institution unless certain information, radiation exposure? What were the causes of such as terms and conditions of the loan, are the events which led to exemptions? Were the disclosed. I might continue arguing this very causes age related and do they have implica- strong case tomorrow. tions for the reactor surviving to the year 2005? Following these exemptions, the report Progress reported. tells us, the Nuclear Safety Bureau required ANSTO to provide data on the state of the DOCUMENTS reactor 24 hours after start-up. It would be Safety Review Committee nice to know that what that data said was okay. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) (6.50 p.m.)—I move: Another issue worthy of investigation is the advice from the Nuclear Safety Bureau that, That the Senate take note of the document. with foreseeable resource demands for the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2135 replacement reactor project, the potential good work is in putting pressure on the exists for resources to be diverted from industry in relation to worker safety. It is HIFAR to the detriment of current high disappointing to note that there are still three standards of reactor operations. When the radiation related injuries and five occasions Nuclear Safety Bureau starts flagging con- on which radioactive materials were an cerns like this, it is time to take notice. They accident factor. Thankfully, the doses in- draw attention to the loss of two senior staff, volved were relatively small, but the fact is which they say represents a significant loss of that any radiation accident is a serious worry. managerial and technical expertise. In the same way as we must work towards What this highlights is the issue of the zero accidents, we must also work towards skills base in Australia and the potential for zero waste emissions. What guarantees can difficulties in staffing the new reactor and the the minister give that the budget for capital various monitoring bodies, especially when works upgrade of waste management will be the new reactor might be running alongside sufficient to achieve that end? the existing one for a period of time. It is Finally, it is worth noting that what I see as good to see the Nuclear Safety Bureau being deficiencies in the comprehensiveness of this proactive in drawing attention to this problem, report may be addressed to some extent by and I wonder if they have expanded on those the strengthened community representation concerns in the environmental impact state- and reporting requirements which we achieved ment on the new reactor. through amendments to the ARPANSA Another issue arises in relation to the legislation. (Time expired) intermediate level liquid wastes. We are told Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) liquid waste will be treated in a hot cell by a (6.56 p.m.)—I too rise to make some com- process of evaporation, de-ammoniation and ments with respect to the annual report of the solidification. We have been told this before. Safety Review Committee for 1997-98. As The question is: when will the process start? Senator Margetts has noted, this is the final We are told the solid product may be suitable report of the Safety Review Committee. That for processing into a ceramic form similar to body has now been superseded by the estab- synroc. May? This is typical of attitudes lishment of the Australian Radiation Protec- throughout the nuclear industry: create any tion and Nuclear Safety Agency, colloquially amount of waste and work out what to do referred to as ARPANSA. The establishment about it eventually. This is really not good of ARPANSA is noted in the report, but for enough. the period that this report covered the legisla- Then there is the problem of the water in tion had gone through the House of Represen- the spent fuel storage tubes. Again, it gets a tatives but was awaiting approval by the mention in the report, but again the interesting Senate. That is noted at pages 5 to 7 of the thing is what is not said. How did the water report. get there? If it is rain water, then it must have I wish to make some comments about the been there for more than 10 years. What does establishment of ARPANSA. Like many, I that say about monitoring? How often are was looking forward to the establishment of they checked and how? What about some ARPANSA as setting the scene for an in- genuinely independent monitoring? The creased level of scrutiny and regulation of International Atomic Energy Agency’s moni- Australia’s nuclear industry. As honourable toring is only to see if the seal is still in senators are aware, I have a particular interest place. That is not safety monitoring. Is there and involvement in this issue because I any chance that corroded fuel elements will happen to reside in the Sutherland Shire, not corrode further now that they are back in the far from the Lucas Heights reactor and, like ground? If water can get in through a faulty all honourable members of parliament, what seal, one must wonder what can get out. is close to home is often an issue that is dear One area in which the Safety Review to our hearts. Of course, the issues involved Committee seems to have been doing some here are ones which affect all Australians. 2136 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Consequently, it is absolutely essential that this independent regulatory authority. I am any body established to oversee the operations amazed by that and I would urge the govern- of our nuclear industry, particularly the ment to rethink its approach to filling this operations of ANSTO, is totally independent. position. I seek leave to continue my remarks My initial enthusiasm for the establishment later. of ARPANSA, which filled in many of the Leave granted; debate adjourned. gaps that existed in the regulatory system within Australia, has waned somewhat. It has ADJOURNMENT waned, firstly, because the legislation, when The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT it was brought to this Senate, was grossly (Senator Knowles)—Order! It being 7.01 inadequate. It was only because of the amend- p.m., I propose the question: ments that were put forward by the opposition That the Senate do now adjourn. parties and the Greens in this chamber that we ended up with an act which goes a long way Aust-Home Investments Scheme to ensuring that improved system of regula- Senator O’CHEE (Queensland) (7.02 tion and improved system of scrutiny. Since p.m.)—In a well ordered world, the role of then, however, I have become rather con- the state is to protect the individual. The role cerned about what the future holds. of the state is to ensure that mechanisms exist At the recent Senate estimates committee on so that the weak and the vulnerable do not 8 February—the Community Affairs Legisla- fall prey to others in society who would wish tion Committee estimates—representatives of to take advantage of them. To this end, we ARPANSA and the Department of Health and have established in this country—and else- Family Services appeared before the commit- where in the Western world—elaborate tee. In evidence to that committee it was mechanisms to protect the weak and vulnera- indicated that the chief executive officer’s ble. The problem arises, however, that some- position at ARPANSA has still not been filled times those systems become corrupted. Some- on a permanent basis. A Dr John Loy is in an times, organs of the state, instead of being a acting capacity. protection for the weak and the vulnerable, What was more disturbing was that— become instead mechanisms of oppression. following questions from myself to the depart- Tonight, in the first of two planned contri- mental officer—it was revealed in evidence butions in this chamber, I want to outline the that a selection committee had been estab- circumstances by which one of those organs lished within the department to draw up a of the state, instead of protecting the weak short list of applicants to go to the minister, and vulnerable people—as the intention was from which he would make a choice as to when it was established—became a mecha- who the new chief executive would be. The nism to continue the oppression of the weak most disturbing feature of all is that one of and the vulnerable. The organ to which I refer the three members of that committee drawing was the then Australian Securities Commis- up that short list of applicants is the current sion. The matter in question arose out of a head of ANSTO, Professor Helen Garnett. failed fraudulent investment scheme in I make no personal reflection upon Profes- Queensland called Aust-Home Investments. It sor Helen Garnett’s professionalism or qualifi- was a scheme which, at its height, conned cations but, as is said in the law, justice must hundreds of people into investing their funds, not only be done, it must be seen to be done. never to see them again. To this day, the If ARPANSA is to be an independent regula- promoters of this scheme have not been tory authority charged with the responsibility prosecuted. They have been allowed to go of overseeing the operations of ANSTO—in unscathed by the law, notwithstanding the fact particular, the Lucas Heights reactor—then that what they did constituted a criminal the head of ANSTO, the body to be regulated fraud. and scrutinised, should not be on the selection I will outline how that situation arose. It committee determining who should head up was because of the manner in which investi- Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2137 gators in the Australian Securities Commis- evidence obtained by the investigators in their sion handled, or mishandled, the investigation examinations of the promoters was tainted of the case. The circumstances were these. On evidence. It was flawed from the start. So, 24 April 1991, the Australian Securities notwithstanding the fact that all of the infor- Commission commenced an investigation, mation was available to the investigators of under section 13 of the Australian Securities the Australian Securities Commission, once Commission Act, into the affairs of Aust- they had obtained all that information that Home Investments Ltd. On 27 and 30 May of showed what had happened to the money no that same year, they attended the premises of prosecutions arose. Aust-Home Investments and served statutory Over the years I have detailed some of the notices on 13 scheme companies—that is, activities of the promoters of this scheme. I companies associated with the principal entity, do not intend in this place at this time to including all core entities. Certain documents rehash that, but honourable senators who are were obtained as a result of those notices interested can find it easily in the Hansard. being served, but the ASC came to believe They will find, for example, that these pro- that other documents were not produced moters tried on subsequent dates in different which should have been produced under those places to perpetuate the same schemes in notices. Consequently, from 30 June until other states to con other innocent investors. October 1991, the ASC conducted examin- One of the claims that the promoters used ations of 21 persons related to that scheme. when they went to these other states and set Some of the people who were examined were, up similar schemes was that it could not have in fact, scheme promoters, but many others been illegal to do what they had done because who were examined were innocent victims of otherwise they would have been prosecuted the fraud. by the Australian Securities Commission. A On 30 and 31 July 1991, and also on 6 glib line, a line that tellingly assisted them in August 1991, search warrants, pursuant to conning other innocent people. section 10 of the Crimes Act, were executed But it was not just the promoters who were on offices which belonged to Aust-Home examined under section 19. Some innocent Investments at Astor Terrace in Brisbane and investors, for example, Mrs Margot Bunt in on 9 August warrants were executed on the Queensland, were also examined. The emotio- residence of a scheme promoter. An enormous nal toll that this took on Mrs Bunt and others amount of information was obtained. How, is incalculable. Many investors had their then, can it be that, in spite of a substantial private assets frozen for years whilst the investigation, in spite of the fact that millions Australian Securities Commission continued of dollars had disappeared, and in spite of the with the fiction that they were ultimately fact that millions of dollars of incorrect tax going to prosecute the scheme promoters. deductions had been claimed—innocently by However, no prosecutions arose. Eventually, the victims of the fraud but as a deliberate a condensed report was prepared by the consequence on the part of the promoters— Australian Securities Commission, dated 19 nobody has been prosecuted? The answer to October 1995. This report sought to explain this question lies in something called the why no prosecutions took place. Section 17 derivative use immunity. of that report at clause 8.1.5 says: In the immediate case, it was believed that the The problem was that the examinations immunity unavoidably affected the admissibility were conducted under provisions of the against the principal scheme promoter of all Australian Securities Commission law con- evidence obtained by the ASC on execution on 9 tained in section 19 of its act, which enabled August 1991 of search warrants at 35 Astor Terrace the investigators to compel people to answer office of the scheme and the promoter’s residential address. This was because the sworn information questions. The problem was that evidence relied upon by the ASC to support the granting of obtained under compulsion could not be used the subject warrants made a general reference to in a prosecution against the people who were answers given during ASC examination pursuant to the subject of the examination. So all of the Section 19 of the ASC law on 6 August 1991 2138 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 during the course of which privilege against self trator of the scheme which solicited millions of incrimination was claimed. dollars of investor’s funds which were lost. The report goes on to say: That the Australian Securities Commission was aware of the relevant procedures is clear from the In late January 1995, following consideration of references to it in the attachment. advice received from DPP, it became apparent that all evidence obtained by the ASC subsequent to In clause 9.0.6 of the Condensed Report by the execution of the warrants, but which in any way Australian Securities Commission under section 17 was sought by the ASC in whole or partial reliance of the ASC Law dated 19 October 1995 said on the search warrant evidence may be inadmis- "notwithstanding the achievement of civil remedies, sible. In practical terms, it is believed that the it is a fact that further ASC investigation did not immunity would also impact upon the admissibility culminate in criminal prosecution action. It is an on all other evidence obtained subsequent to the unfortunate feature of this investigation that the examination. impact of derivative use immunity was not fully identified until enquiries had reached a well But the fact is that in 1991 the ASC knew of advanced stage". the impact of the derivative use immunity and in fact mention was made of it on 13 August The Report went on to say, in 9.0.7: 1991 in a submission to the Joint Committee "Whilst the immunity, since the amendment of on Corporations and Securities, in which the subsection 68(3) of the ASC Law, currently does not affect evidence collected by the ASC, the ASC said that care had to be taken in framing experience nevertheless provides a salutary lesson an investigation to ensure that derivative use to the ASC of the need to ensure the early identifi- immunity did not allow criminals to get off cation of thresholds issues in relation to the immis- the hook. Yet this is what happened, and the cibility of evidence, prior continuing in investiga- ASC continued with this fiction for four years tion with an attendant expenditure of time resources to cover up what could at best be described and inconvenience to both witnesses and persons as its own negligence. I seek leave to incorpo- themselves the subject of investigation". rate in Hansard an opinion from Hunt & Hunt In 9.0.9, the report stated "whilst nevertheless Lawyers and an attachment thereto. conceding that the officers’ subsequent actions had inadvertently attracted the derivative use immunity, Leave granted. it is not altogether certain that the officers could The document read as follows— have acted differently and still ensure the efficient and expeditious procurement of evidence necessary Hunt & Hunt to support the ASC’s civil application". Lawyers Mrs Bunt is offended by the reference to the Incorporating actions "inadvertently" attracting derivative use immunity. ASC was well aware of the matters at Thompson King Connolly exactly the same time as the officers were carrying OPINION RE: MRS MARGOT BUNT out the raids (see attachment for chronology). Mrs Bunt has consulted us over many months in Mrs Bunt’s life has been devastated by the events relation to matters relating to Aust-Home Invest- surrounding the investigation, the freezing of assets, ments Limited and the investigation by the Austral- subsequent delays, the impact of the ASC’s exam- ian Securities Commission (as it then was) of the ination into the life of herself and her husband. As affairs into that company in the early 1990s. a result, her marriage has broken down and she is We have previously prepared a memorandum greatly concerned that she has lost not only the setting out a chronology of the events that occurred assets of herself and her husband but her marriage. in that matter and append a copy of it. She believes she is strongly aggrieved and, upon What was clear at the time the memorandum was consideration of the sequence of events, the at- prepared and what remains clear today is that tempted justification by the Commission of its practices and procedures of the Australian Securi- actions as mere "inadvertence" does nothing to ties Commission (as it was then) were either not satisfy Mrs Bunt’s anger or pain in the matters that followed in the course of the investigation in have affected her life. relation to Aust-Home Investments Limited and In the circumstances, an inquiry into the circum- associated companies and its directors or were stances surrounding the investigation and the disregarded. The consequence of the failure to subsequent report would appear to be justified. follow the directions or of the disregarding of them is that the Australian Securities Commission was Hunt and Hunt unable to bring any proceedings against the perpe- Lawyers Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2139

DJG98803409NOPI all evidence obtained by the ASC subsequent to Mrs Bunt’s concern is based upon the treatment she execution of the warrants, but which in any way received from the investigators under ASC and the was sought by the ASC in whole or partial reliance difficulties which ASC suffered in pursuing a on the search warrant evidence may be inadmis- criminal prosecution because of the way they sible. In practical terms, it is believed that the carried out their investigations. immunity would also impact upon the admissibility on all other evidence obtained subsequent to the Mrs Bunt’s concern is that the purported explan- examination....." ation of ASC does not accord with what one ought expect the ASC to say if it was acting consistently This attributes to the ASC a lack of knowledge, with a submission made jointly with DPP to the appreciation or understanding of the effect of what Joint Committee on Corporations & Securities and had been done in executing the warrants in August dated 13 August 1991. 1991 until DPP advice was received in January 1995. The chronology is as follows:- And at Clause 9.0.7 it says: April 24 1991: "Whilst the immunity, since the amendment of ASC intervened and commenced an investigation Section 68(3) of the ASC law, currently does not under Section 13 of the ASC law into the affairs of affect evidence collected by the ASC, the experi- Aust-Home Investments Limited ("AHI"). ence nevertheless provides a salutary lesson to the May 27 & 30 1991 ASC of the need to ensure the early identification ASC officers attend AHI premises and served of threshold issues in relation to the admissibility statutory notices on 13 Scheme Companies includ- of evidence, prior to continuing an investigation ing all core entities. Certain documents were with an attendant expenditure of time and resources obtained as a result of those notices being served and inconvenience to both witnesses and persons that ASC believed that there had been a failure to themselves the subject of investigation." produce documents which should have been In clause 9.0.9 it further says: produced under those notices. "Whilst nevertheless conceding that the officers’ June 30—October 1991 subsequent actions had inadvertently attracted the ASC conducted examinations of 21 persons relative derivative use immunity it is not altogether certain to the scheme. that the officers could have acted differently to ensure the efficient and expeditious procurement of July 30 and 31 1991 and August 6 1991 evidence necessary to support the ASC’s applica- Search warrants pursuant to Section 10 of the tion.". Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) were executed The question Mrs Bunt asks, in our opinion reason- on office premises of AHI at 35 Astor Terrace, ably, is why the term "inadvertently" is used. The Brisbane and on August 9, 1991 upon the residence term implies accidental or unintended conse- of a scheme promoter. quences. However, in the 13 August 1991 Submis- Subsequently no prosecutions were launched sion to the Joint Committee on Corporations & against the scheme promoter in respect of what Securities, it discusses in paragraph 2 the "practical appears to be breaches of the Corporations Law. and substantive difficulties arising out of the The Section 17 Report of ASC dated 19 October derivative use immunity." In clause 2.1 the Submis- 1995 said, at clause 8.1.5:- sion states:- "In the immediate case, it was believed that the ". . . .if an investigation is to proceed, a plan is immunity unavoidably affected the admissibility prepared having regard to the means available to against the principal scheme promoter of all the ASC to gather information as evidence." evidence obtained by the ASC on execution on 9 In Clause 2.2.2, the submission states:-". . . when August 1991 of search warrants at 35 Astor Terrace the investigation plan is being prepared, the ASC office of the scheme and the promoter’s residential cannot know whether it will pursue civil remedies address. This was because the sworn Information or criminal prosecutions or both, nor will it be in relied upon by the ASC to support the granting of a position to remedy the specific remedies or the subject warrants made a general reference to charges which will arise for consideration of a answers given during ASC examination pursuant to possible or likely defendant. The strategy which Section 19 of the ASC law on 6 August 1991 must be adopted, therefore, is that the Commission during the course of which privilege against self must have regard to the derivative use of immunity incrimination was claimed." so as to minimise any prejudice to the possibility In clause 8.1.6 of the Report, it claimed:- of either civil or criminal proceedings." "In late January 1995, following consideration of Why, then would the ASC be surprised by the advice received from DPP, it became apparent that advice in January 1995 of DPP as to the impact of 2140 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 the derivative use immunity rule on the evidence Senator Vanstone suggests? Surely New South obtained as a result of the execution of the warrants Wales is not faring as badly as Senator in the same month as the ASC was submitting it Vanstone suggests or the tough on drugs concern as to the impact of those warrants in its submission to the Joint Committee? It is perfectly strategy is not winning the war on drugs. clear that the ASC understood the problems in- Which is it? volved. In this case, did the ASC proceed knowing I suggest there is no easy answer to the the possible consequences and notwithstanding problems Australia is facing with the increas- those consequences? Simply put, the statements made in paragraph 2 of the submission make it ing use of illicit drugs. There is no magic clear ASC knew in August 1991 the difficulties that wand that can be waved that will make the existed by reason of the derivative use immunity drug problem go away. But the New South rule and that, in recognition of the difficulty, it had Wales government under Bob Carr is certainly put a procedure in place within ASC to take that doing its best and exploring all options to into consideration. If it was aware of the conse- deal with the drug problem, with very little quences, why did it state in its Report to the Minister in clause 8.1.6 line 2 that "it became help from the Commonwealth government. apparent. . . .", which conveys to the reader that Here are a few facts for the good senator this was a position which ASC did not appreciate about what is really happening in the New or understand before that time? This would mean South Wales. that the practice referred to in the Submission was not on this occasion followed. If that was true, Mrs More drugs are being seized in New South Bunt is entitled to know why that was not done. Wales. In the year to June 1998, drug See Girvan Report 1.1 where demonstrates the detections in New South Wales rose by 12 per existence of procedures which, when followed, cent. In 1997, a total of 211 kilograms of avoided a scenario by which the persons suspected heroin was seized, which was almost 80 of offences were not orally examined. kilograms more than under the previous Our client finds no adequate explanation has been coalition government reign. Last year just given to her. We believe our client is entitled to a under half a billion dollars worth of heroin proper explanation and a reason as to why prosecu- was seized in New South Wales alone. The tions have not been launched against the scheme Carr government has increased the number of promoter and the reasons for the ASC’s actions in police specifically targeting drugs. There are taking the steps it did. almost 90 more police men and women solely Could you please obtain an adequate response for responsible for fighting the war against drugs our client on this issue. than there were previously under the coalition Drugs: Strategies government. Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) The New South Wales police agencies that (7.11 p.m.)—I am speaking tonight in re- focus on drugs and drug related crime have sponse to Senator Vanstone’s answer in been reconstructed so that they are more question time yesterday in regard to drug effective. This is a direct result of the damn- strategies and the assertion that the Carr ing evidence to the New South Wales police government should put up or shut up when it royal commission about corrupt practices in came to the question of drugs. Given the facts the old Drug Enforcement Agency—a system of the situation and the efforts of the Carr which the New South Wales opposition has government, it is the Howard government and repeatedly advocated a return to. In 1997-98, Senator Vanstone that should put up or shut the New South Wales Crime Commission up. seized assets from major drug dealers more Last December Senator Vanstone claimed than ever before. More than $11 million was in a press release that the Commonwealth was seized. More major drug offenders have been winning the war on drugs. Yesterday she was arrested. attacking Bob Carr and the New South Wales The Carr government has recently spent government for failing to stem the drug large amounts of money on new facilities for problem in New South Wales. How can the detoxification and drug and alcohol treatment Commonwealth be winning the war on drugs in Sydney’s west, on the north coast, and on if the New South Wales situation is as bad as the Central Coast. And is this represented in Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2141 the report mentioned by Senator Vanstone? But what is the federal government doing? No. The report which the senator is using as The federal government, not the New South the basis for her attacks on Bob Carr is Wales government, has jurisdiction over flawed. The methodology is defective. It does imports to Australia. The New South Wales not consider changes in accounting procedures government cannot do much about customs at when it claims that the per capita expenditure all. That is a federal responsibility. on health related drug programs in New South According to statistics, all heroin is import- Wales has fallen. It does not consider recent ed into Australia, but it is estimated that only initiatives such as the spending on new 10 per cent of the 2,000 kilograms of heroin detoxification facilities or the money for the used in Australia each year is detected. Only trialling of naltrexone—for which there was two per cent of international flights are no help from the federal government. The searched for prohibited drugs. That means that report and the federal government are also 98 per cent of international flights are not ignoring the Carr government’s newest initia- searched at all. So unless Customs or the tive of the drug court. Federal Police are made aware that person X The New South Wales government is is likely to be smuggling drugs the drugs will leading the way with the drug court. There is just fly straight into our country. $12 million of new spending on the court, Heroin enters Australia predominantly including $5.6 million for new drug treatment through commercial shipping and flights— services. The aims of the drug court are to with the much larger quantity through impor- reduce crime caused by heroin addiction, to tation by sea cargo. But Australian Customs help the offender get off drugs, and to reduce searches only three in 10,000 containers. That recidivism. The American experience has is 0.03 per cent of all containers that enter shown that the drug court can be quite suc- this country. So for the three containers that cessful in achieving these objectives. are searched, 9,997 are not. The drug court provides an opportunity for Eighty per cent of heroin enters Australia drug addicts who have committed crimes to though Sydney, and Sydney is Australia’s support their addiction to get treatment. To be principal distribution centre, unfortunately. All eligible for the drug court, offenders must be evidence supports an increased effort in dependent on drugs, facing a prison term, Sydney, but the National Illicit Drug Strategy, prepared to admit guilt and willing to partici- of which Senator Vanstone is so proud, will pate in the treatment program. However, those divert resources away from Sydney. This is charged with sexual or violent offences precisely the opposite of what is needed. cannot go before the court. If the offender There are no easy answers to the issue of admits guilt and chooses treatment, their illegal drugs and the problems that result from sentence is suspended, and they are given 12 their use. But Senator Vanstone’s approach of months of drug treatment and rehabilitation. claiming credit when there is none to be The offender must comply with strict rules, claimed and then attacking the one state including regular court appearances and government in Australia which is daring to random drug testing. If these rules are explore new avenues for coping with drug breached, strict penalties, including imprison- related crime is an unhelpful and unconstruc- ment, will apply. tive contribution to a very important debate Of course the drug court is no panacea, nor facing our society today. is it going soft on drugs. Instead, it is just Telstra: Sale—Committee Inquiry another part of the multifaceted approach of rehabilitation, education and tough law en- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.19 p.m.)— forcement undertaken by the New South I rise tonight to complete some remarks I Wales government and Bob Carr. The govern- made yesterday after question time in re- ment in New South Wales is doing what it sponse to Senator Alston’s remarks when he can to resolve the drug problem. said: 2142 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

It has been perfectly clear that there has been a important part of my role in participating in pattern of obstruction and a deliberate attempt estimates, particularly in the areas of environ- being made on a regular basis to stall proceedings. ment and education, and I stand by that deci- He was referring to me. If anyone is putting sion. at risk the time line for completion of the Telstra sale inquiry, it is the government. And As Senator Bishop mentioned on Monday, if there was any question of my wanting to a short private committee meeting agreed that delay the proceedings, I could have easily we would complete the inquiry on the morn- done so on Monday during that hearing, when ing of Monday the 15th. I indicated that our there was not a quorum and the hearing regular party room meeting was on at 9.30 process could have been stopped at that point. a.m. and that, particularly since this was the But I did not do that, because I have at all first meeting of the new sitting, I was not times—as have other members of the commit- prepared to proceed beyond that point. I was tee—made every attempt to cooperate, how- willing to start at 8 o’clock or earlier to allow ever absurd the government’s time lines turn time for further questions of the department out to be. There is no need for me to go and for Telstra’s presentation. In any event, over those time lines tonight, but it must be the committee decided to schedule the meet- said that submissions to that inquiry closed on ing for 8.30 a.m. on Monday, and this deci- 15 January. The government says there have sion was made in a private meeting last week been two months, but of course December- before I had a chance to arrive, in spite of the January is not an ideal time to call for sub- fact that I came as soon as I was advised. I missions to an inquiry, particularly when this understand it was decided to conduct the inquiry is competing with two other inquiries hearing until 10.45 a.m. in the knowledge that of the committee. I could not be there beyond 9.30 a.m. But the point is that on this inquiry, as on Senator Carr and I were ready to begin at all others, I have made every effort to fit in the appointed time on Monday, but it was, in with the wishes of the chair and the other fact, almost half an hour later that the members of the committee. Let us take the teleconferencing link was actually made events leading up to yesterday’s hearing. On through to Telstra in Sydney and Melbourne, Thursday, 3 February the hearing in Canberra leaving just 30 minutes for the hearing. was scheduled to finish at 4.45 p.m. I had a Again, it was not my fault that proceedings meeting arranged with two of my colleagues were delayed. As I have said, the hearing in Sydney at 7.30 that evening prior to a half- finally did go ahead without a quorum. The day meeting the following day, and I arranged government must take full responsibility for to fly out at 5.20 p.m. from Canberra on that both the impossible time lines it has adopted Thursday night. and the abuses of process that have been During estimates, the committee met and necessary to achieve that. government members—no doubt on the I am happy to show Senator Alston my instructions of Senator Alston—proposed that diary, which shows that between 3 February we hold a Senate inquiry one evening during and 15 March there are only two weekdays on estimates. It is my understanding that all which there are no Senate committee hearings senators are entitled to attend estimates, and or parliamentary sittings, and I have offered I certainly had many issues I wished to and both of these as possible hearing dates. If subsequently did raise with the environment Senator Alston and Senator Eggleston insist minister. That estimates session did not on bulldozing government legislation through conclude until around 11.30 p.m. that night. the Senate committee process and attacking Had we scheduled the Telstra hearing for five the Democrats with false accusations, the o’clock on that day, it would have to have cooperative approach which I have been been cancelled and arrangements with people describing may have to give way to an insis- who would have appeared would also have tence on formal compliance with standing had to be cancelled. In any case, I was not orders. The Democrats remain at all times prepared to give up what I regard as a very professional and responsible in our handling Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2143 of government legislation, and it is my view I support and commend the work of the that Senator Alston should apologise for his society in their efforts to reduce animal intemperate and misleading remarks. cruelty. They have as their creed the five freedoms for animals: freedom from hunger Last night the committee did indeed finish and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom the Telstra sale inquiry, and it did so at from pain, injury and disease; the right and around 11 p.m. when there was sufficient time freedom to express normal behaviour; and for us to ask questions of both Telstra and the freedom from fear and distress. Campaigns in department, although I must say that a lot of the past have all focused on those five points questions still remain to be answered, and I and on the society’s objectives. look forward to the minister’s response to those when the bill comes into the parliament. The society’s concerns about the well-being of birds led it to be part of a 1994 report into Royal Society for the Prevention of the industry. In 1994 a working group which Cruelty to Animals: Battery Hens included the society made a recommendation which concluded that ‘no attempt be made to Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (7.25 ban cage system egg production’. The p.m.)—Last week the RSPCA launched a Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at national campaign to help keep hens out of the time, then Senator Bob Collins, said after cages. The campaign calls for an end to the the agreement was made that he was delighted production of eggs by intensive husbandry. at the outcome and pleased that both the The RSPCA calls it ‘battery hen produced industry and mainstream animal welfare eggs’. The campaign is being supported by interests supported the approach to ensure the radio commercials, postcards, posters and welfare of layer hens. direct mail. Letters have already been sent to some of us, imploring that we should help the Subsequently, the RSPCA was given an society to end the suffering of battery caged accreditation scheme for barn-laid eggs. So hens. The RSPCA calls for ‘the Australian after the 1994 investigation and report all public to support alternative systems of egg parties seemed satisfied with the outcome. production for the sake of layer hens’. In fact, The industry was happy with the code of they say it is up to the Australian public to conduct and so was the RSPCA. I am there- care enough about the suffering of what they fore somewhat puzzled as to why the RSPCA call battery hens to insist on humane egg is now pursuing this very negative campaign production. I quote from a letter the society’s against a legitimate Australian industry. Could president, Dr Wirth, wrote to me, which it be that the RSPCA now lacks confidence in claims: the existing legislation, then endorsed by all states and territories, governing hen produc- .. preventing hens from performing natural behav- iours causes immense frustration. tion? Maybe so. Further, he said: Dr Wirth said over the weekend that he was sure that 75 per cent of egg producers were . . . restricted movement and lack of exercise in doing the right thing, and I suspect the num- battery cages causes skeletal and muscle weakness ber is a lot higher. So it seems unlikely to me and the cages’ mesh floors and lack of perches can that this is the basis for the campaign. To be cause serious muscle damage. frank, if that was so, I would have expected He goes on to claim that legislation should be the society’s campaign to be targeted more passed in every state and territory to ban towards the law-makers—the state and terri- battery hens. You might say this is the role of tory governments. But, instead, the society is the RSPCA, that concern for the plight of hitting consumers and legitimate egg produc- animals is a primary part of the society’s ers with a ‘buy barn-laid eggs’ campaign—in objective to prevent cruelty to animals by other words, ‘Don’t buy the eggs which just enforcing the existing laws—‘all creatures a couple of years ago were endorsed by the great and small’, according to their general organisation.’ So what other reason could publicity. there be? I wonder whether, in an industry 2144 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 worth over $525 million in retail sales in us how much they have received in royalties 1997, there is some other gain to be made by from barn-laid eggs and to tell the Australian the RSPCA in the promotion of barn-laid community why this interest was not dis- eggs? closed in any of their publicity material and We have a situation now where the RSPCA was not disclosed in all of the talkback radio receives royalty payments from the commer- interviews they have done over the last week. cial sale of barn-laid eggs. In fact, the royalty There is no doubt that the RSPCA is a cred- is said to be about 5c for every dozen eggs ible community organisation with a very sold. Yet nowhere in this campaign, nowhere important role to play in the welfare of in the materials that have been sent to me, animals. But on this occasion it has just a few does the RSPCA make it clear that by sup- too many golden eggs in one basket and it porting the increased demand for barn-laid has, at the least, been very tardy in its public eggs, consumers will in fact be contributing disclosure. dollars in revenue to the RSPCA. Nowhere in Gordonstone Coalmine the campaign package, in its media releases or even on its Internet site does the RSPCA Senator GIBBS (Queensland) (7.33 p.m.)— acknowledge the monetary gain it is making I rise tonight to speak on the situation at the from this campaign. Gordonstone mine in Queensland where the Yesterday, a week after the campaign illegal sacking of 312 miners in October 1997 began, Dr Wirth, the President, admitted has resulted in a 16-month picket line which somewhat reluctantly on ABC Radio that the has now been maintained longer than any society has a ‘vested interest because we of other in Australian coalmining history. The course get a royalty’. So there you have it. Dr company which carried out the sackings, Wirth has been calling for a ‘consumer-led Arco, sold out to Rio Tinto late last year; now revolution on behalf of these poor unfortunate this company has continued along the same chooks’. Now we have to ask: is this a genu- path. Picketers have clashed with Rio Tinto ine concern about animal welfare by the during the last week as it has attempted to bus society or is it a covert attempt for competi- in non-union labour to replace the illegally tive advantage in this industry? sacked workers. Let us remember that around 200 million The situation at Gordonstone must be seen dozen eggs are produced in Australia each as irrefutable evidence of this government’s year, with 93 per cent coming from caged approach to industrial relations being not just birds, two per cent from barn-house birds and unfair and unjust but downright underhanded. five per cent from free-range birds. So if the The original owners of Gordonstone, Arco, RSPCA earns two per cent from the sale of carried out an open campaign to de-unionise barn-laid eggs, the organisation is getting coal workers, which culminated in the sacking around $200,000 a year in royalty payments. of the 312 workers. How many of these well-meaning consumers In February 1988 the Australian Industrial and the recipients of the campaign material Relations Commission found that the dismiss- know this? If, as the RSPCA wants, egg als had been unfair and ordered the company production by intensive means is banned, to pay compensation and also instructed Arco industry sources suggest that the price of a to give preference to former workers in the dozen eggs would increase by at least a recruiting of their new work force. They dollar. If barn-laid and free-range eggs were found that the company had deliberately set to capture at least half that market, the out on an anti-union tack and also that the RSPCA would then be in line for millions of company was motivated by a desire to avoid dollars in royalties. its obligations under an enterprise agreement It seems to me that this publicity campaign which it had entered into in 1996. Arco is now very close to becoming a conflict of continually refused to employ the workers interest. Tonight I call on the RSPCA to they had sacked, despite the rulings of the publicly disclose this financial interest, to tell AIRC. Having failed to de-unionise Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2145

Gordonstone, they decided to sell to Rio When I visited the area last year I saw Tinto. significant evidence that Arco had been using Now Rio Tinto has stepped in where Arco intimidation and standover tactics to demoral- left off. In December Rio Tinto commenced ise and upset miners and their families. Arco recruiting for the Gordonstone mine. The had employed a veritable private army of recruitment was carried out in secret and 23 security guards to patrol the mine day and hand-picked employees were engaged. The night. Furthermore, I heard other disturbing company, Mine Management, which recruited accounts of intimidation. The wives of several the work force, is a $2 shelf company which miners told me that they and their children is a 100 per cent subsidiary of Rio Tinto. had been intimidated on the streets of Emer- Some of those employed came from the ald by members of Arco’s private army. I am Gordonstone management previously em- sure most people in our community would ployed by Arco. These people accepted a non- agree that the intimidation of women and union agreement that would cover all work at children by multinational bullies should not the mine by all employees for two years. The be a part of the Australian approach to indus- agreement overrides all existing obligations of trial relations. In fact, these actions are com- any employer at the Gordonstone mine and pletely un-Australian. Is this the new flexible was ratified on 2 February. The AIRC has no approach to industrial relations that the discretion when ratifying agreements under government wants us to embrace? this government’s legislation and union I have now been informed of several instan- submissions were not allowed at the hearing. ces of violence by police against the passive Rio Tinto intends employing up to 200 demonstrators at Gordonstone in the past few days. Obviously, these people continue their workers under this certified agreement. No struggle in relative isolation, with little sym- preference will be given to the former pathy from the government or law enforce- Gordonstone workers who were unlawfully ment authorities. The waterfront scenes from dismissed by Arco. This government has last year are now being replicated at therefore allowed these large multinationals to Gordonstone. Obviously, the federal govern- completely disregard and disrespect the ment learned nothing from its conflict with authority of the AIRC. There seems to be the MUA last year and remains determined to absolutely no compulsion for these companies crush the union movement in Australia, to abide by the commission’s decisions, which regardless of the implications for everyday is an utter disgrace. Australians and their families. Is this the sort The situation is made particularly ironic by of industrial relations system we want to take with us into the new millennium? Is the the fact that the 312 workers that were sacked bullying of women and children by multina- in 1997 were deemed to be among the most tional corporations acceptable behaviour in productive by international standards. Just the 1990s? months before the miners were illegally sacked, Arco had erected a statue to the It seems to me that, unless we act quickly, Gordonstone work force describing them as this government will turn the clock back to ‘the best miners in the world’ after they had the 1900s and remove all the working stand- broken a succession of international produc- ards and conditions that we have come to rely tion records. on in a civilised society. Perhaps computers While the treatment of the Gordonstone are not the only ones confused by the miners has clearly been unfair from a voca- millennium bug. Mr Howard does not seem tional perspective, there are other aspects of to know which century he is in, either. The the situation at Gordonstone that I find dis- situation unfolding at Gordonstone can, tinctly disturbing. This struggle has been therefore, be seen as a battle to defend the maintained not just by workers but also by values and standards that prevail within the their families. Australian community. The basic principles of 2146 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 justice, equity and democracy are now at DOCUMENTS stake and we must all rally to defend them. Tabling Democracy demands that all Australians The following government documents were enjoy freedom of association. This govern- tabled: ment is trying to take those basic rights away Equity and diversity program—Health Insurance from unionists by allowing their families to be Commission—Report for 1997-98. bullied and intimidated by multinational Safety Review Committee—Report for 1997-98. corporations. They have, therefore, failed in their duty of care to the Australian people. Tabling The ALP supports the miners and their fami- The following documents were tabled by lies at Gordonstone. After all, their struggle the Clerk: is merely to protect their jobs and provide a Acts Interpretation Act—Statement pursuant to subsection 34C(6) relating to the extension of decent living for their children, which is every specified period for presentation of a report— Australian’s right. It has always been every Migration Agents Registration Authority Report Australian’s right to belong to a union and to for the period 21 March to 30 June 1998. work for decent wages and conditions. We Australian National Training Authority Act— are, after all, living in a democracy. Determination No. 1 of 1999—Determination of Allowance for the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate adjourned at 7.41 p.m. Australian National Training Authority. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2147

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Isolated and Remote Students: Retention (9) Will the government consider introducing a geographically-isolated tertiary students scheme, as Rates proposed by ICPA; if not why not. (Question No. 16) (10) (a) Will the Government consider providing Senator Allison asked the Minister for an allowance to isolated parents who educate some Schools, Vocational Education and Training, 3 300 children at home; and upon notice, 23 June 1998: (b) how much do these parents save State and federal governments by virtue of their supervisory (1) Does the Government agree that retention role. rates for isolated and remote students at 51 per cent and for boys at 44 per cent in Year 12 are unac- (11) Will the Government consider the proposal ceptably low. by ICPA to provide recurrent funding of $1 000 for each isolated student enrolled in government and (2) What are the social and economic implica- non-government boarding schools. tions of such low rates for these young people and the families and communities from which they (12) (a) What is the low fee regional boarding come. schools and school term hostels which have been closed in the past twelve months; and (3) Will the Government consider increasing the basic boarding allowance (BBA) of the Assistance (b) how many places have been lost to these for Isolated Children (AIC) scheme to its original closures. intent of 55 per cent of the average boarding fee; (13) What are the implications for isolated and if not, why not. remote students of these closures. (4) Is the Government aware that the average Senator Kemp—The answers to the hon- boarding fee in 1997 was $6 783. ourable senator’s questions are as follows: (5) Will the Government consider increasing the (1) The figures quoted are not rates of retention second home allowance of the AIC scheme to of secondary students to Year 12, but estimated achieve parity with the BBA; if not, why not. Year 12 completion rates for remote students in (6) Will the Government consider tapering the respect of 1996. They appear in the National means tested additional boarding allowance of the Report on Schooling in Australia 1996. Completion AIC scheme up to the average boarding fee when rates express the number of Year 12 completions the parents have nil or negative income with small (that is, Year 12 certificates issued by State educa- increases applying as family incomes rise, as tion authorities) as a proportion of the estimated proposed by the Isolated Children’s Parents’ population that could attend Year 12 in a particular Association (ICPA); if not, why not. calendar year. (7) When will the Government adopt the recom- It is true that completion rates for remote stu- mendations of the ICPA to: dents are lower than students from both urban areas (a) recognise that families subject to an asset test and non-remote rural areas, and that rates for boys for AUSTUDY should not also be subject to an are lower than for girls. The Government agrees assets test on their income earning assets; that it is desirable for more students to complete Year 12. (b) subject to appropriate substantiation, treat wages paid to students from their family’s com- (2) The Government acknowledges that there are pany, partnership or trust in the same way as established links between educational achievement earnings from an outside employer or sole trader and employment outcomes. The Commonwealth’s partner; and concern for the education of students living in rural and remote areas of Australia is based on a need to (c) provide adequately trained staff to assist ensure their equitable access to quality education people with queries surrounding the complexity of which will assist them to achieve outcomes and the AUSTUDY application form. participation rates at least equal to students in (8) Will the Government honour its 1996 election urban areas. To assist these students, the Govern- promise to raise the discount on farms and small ment provides a number of programs that offer business income earning assets from 50 per cent to additional support and help. For example, the 75 per cent; if not why not. Commonwealth provides $17.7 million to State and 2148 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Territory government and non government educa- assistance should not be subject to an assets test on tion authorities annually to help schools and their income earning assets. As with AUSTUDY, students in rural and remote areas of Australia. The only fifty per cent of the net value of income Country Areas Program assist parents, administra- earning assets that are also business assets is taken tors, teachers and other members of the community into account under the Youth Allowance family to work cooperatively to improve the delivery of assets test. The assets test is complemented by the primary and secondary school educational services Family Actual Means Test (FAMT), which is a test in rural and geographically isolated areas. of expenditure and savings. Expenditure that was (3) The Government increased the basic boarding tax deductible in the previous financial year allowance from $2,500 to $2,900 in the 1996-97 because it was necessarily incurred in carrying on Budget. This brought the basic boarding allowance a business is excluded from the FAMT. up to 55% of the average boarding fee. The (7) (b) Under the Youth Allowance Family Government has undertaken to further increase the Actual Means Test up to $6,000 of income earned basic boarding allowance from $2,900 to $3,500 from independent employment by students in a and index this amount in future years. It also family aged 16 and over may be excluded. "Inde- undertook to increase the maximum amount that pendent employment" is employment engaged in by can be received under a combination of the basic a person that is not provided by a member of the boarding allowance and additional boarding allow- person’s family or by a proprietary company, an ance to $4,347. unlisted public company, a partnership or trust in (4) The Isolated Children’s Parents’ Association’s which the person, or a member of the person’s (ICPA) method of deriving an average boarding fee family, has an interest. is a simple average of fees charged by all boarding The exclusion relates to income from independ- institutions and gives undue weight to the level of ent employment because the Government is con- fees at expensive boarding schools which have cerned to ensure that only bona fide income earning relatively few AIC beneficiaries. The Department’s activities are recognised. The Government con- calculations are derived from the fees charged by sidered that, to maintain the integrity of the FAMT, boarding institutions at which AIC recipients are income earned should be restricted to employment actually enrolled and weighted accordingly. outside family business structures. (5) There is not necessarily a connection between (7) (c) The matter of providing Centrelink staff the second home allowance and basic boarding to assist people to complete student assistance allowance. The basic boarding allowance was claim forms on a question by question basis is one increased in the 1996 Budget from $2 500 per year that should be taken up with Centrelink. Centrelink to $2 900 per year per student in line with the staff are trained in all aspects of Youth Allowance Government’s specific 1996 election commitment administration including, of course, the Family to increase the basic boarding allowance to 55% of Actual Means Test. the average boarding allowance. No evidence has been presented of increased costs faced by recipi- (8) Prior to the 1996 election the Coalition made ents of the second home allowance. While the an undertaking to consider raising the AUSTUDY value of the basic boarding allowance and the assets test discount for farm and other business second home allowance may previously have been assets to 75%. Given the high cost of implementing aligned, the government’s initial concern was to this measure (estimated at some $18.5 million in a provide additional help to those families who full year) and the fiscal restraints faced after the needed to board their children in a non-family election, the Government was unable proceed with environment. this undertaking. The Government was concerned also about making AUSTUDY and more recently (6) Firstly, no family should receive more than Youth Allowance available to families with unen- their actual boarding fee outlay. Secondly, the cumbered business assets of up to $1.63 million, at ICPA proposal does not acknowledge that low a time when public expenditure is under close income families have access to a higher level of scrutiny. Family Payment which may be used by families to meet boarding costs. The value of the family residence and up to two (7) (a) AUSTUDY was replaced on 1 July by the hectares of surrounding land is exempt from the Youth Allowance for students under 25 years of Youth Allowance assets test. A 50% discount is age and AUSTUDY payment for those aged 25 and available on the value of farm and other business over. Both programs are the responsibility of the assets, which means that in 1998, children become Minister for Family and Community Services. ineligible for Youth Allowance under the assets test Means test rules remain in general the same, with only when the family has unencumbered assets of the exception that students classed as independent the value of $814,500 or more. are no longer subject to an actual means test. The Since 1 July 1998, when the main form of ICPA proposes that families applying for student financial assistance to full time students became the Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2149

Youth Allowance for students between the ages of Through its Schools Programs the Common- 16 and 24 and the new Austudy payment for wealth provides recurrent funding for schools. students 25 and over, policy responsibility for these Where boarding facilities are part of the school (ie. schemes has rested with the Minister for Social it is a boarding school) the assessment of the Security. The Youth Allowance and the Austudy school’s funding category through the Education payment have retained the range of concessions Resources Index (ERI) takes boarding school costs available to rural students under AUSTUDY, into account. However, no ongoing recurrent including the concessions for farming families funding is available for private hostels or other suffering drought or other exceptional circum- boarding arrangements. stances, and those for families with two or more The Commonwealth, through its General Recur- tertiary students living away from home to study. rent Grants Program for schools, provides per (9) These issues were considered in the develop- capita assistance for government and non-govern- ment of the Youth Allowance. The Government ment schools in respect of students attending those considered that access to post-secondary education, schools. This per capita funding assists schools even for students living in non-isolated areas, often with the recurrent costs of schooling like teaching involves living away from home. Under the Youth and ancillary staff salaries, professional develop- Allowance eligible students who have to live away ment of teachers, curriculum development, and from home may be entitled to rent assistance. school maintenance and general operation provi- sions. The current legislation governing the General (10) Introduction of an allowance to isolated Recurrent Grants Program does not envisage per parents would have considerable cost implications capita payments to assist particular students with and need to be considered by the Government in the costs of their schooling. the Budget context. (12) The Department is aware of one non- While State and Territory governments have the government school approved for Commonwealth primary role in the provision of education to school general recurrent grant funding that provided aged children, the Commonwealth assists geo- boarding facilities and which was located in a graphically isolated families with students studying regional area outside the capital cities and other by distance education through the payment of the metropolitan centres, which closed in 1997. That AIC distance education allowance. This allowance school, which attracted funding at the category 9 is intended to contribute toward incidental costs level, reported 23 boarding students as at the 1997 associated with distance education study. In the schools census day. The Department does not 1996 Budget, the Government announced a substan- maintain a specific, regular data collection in tial increase to the Correspondence Allowance from relation to low fee regional school term hostel 1997 and specific funding to State and Territory closures and the number of places lost to these Governments for the purposes of extending services closures in the past twelve months. to rural and remote schools, as well as for techno- (13) There are a number of schools offering logical innovations in distance education delivery. boarding facilities in the area in which the closed These initiatives are viewed as the fairest and most school operated. These schools attract a comparable efficient means of addressing the educational needs level of Commonwealth recurrent funding to that of geographically isolated students. of the closed school. It would therefore be possible The Commonwealth provides general recurrent for students requiring boarding facilities to transfer funding for government school systems and non- to a similar environment. In line with its election government schools and systems. Non-government commitment, the Government is providing short- schools are funded on a needs basis and placed in term emergency funding to particular school term one of 12 funding categories. Given these differen- hostels in serious financial difficulty, while the tial rates of funding, and as it is not possible to Commonwealth sits down with the States to agree identify which schools the students schooled at upon a significant long-term sustainable package home could attend, it is not possible to determine for this sector. the saving to the Commonwealth where students are supervised and schooled at home by their Australian Tax Office: Individual parents. Taxpayer Audits (11) Consideration of this proposal would need (Question No. 157) to be in the Budget context. It should be noted that Senator Cook asked the Assistant Treasur- hostels which provide accommodation for govern- ment and non-government students are eligible, er, upon notice, on 10 November 1998: under the Commonwealth Capital Grants Program, (1) How many audits have been undertaken by for grants from the Government Component and the Australian Tax Office (ATO) of individual Non-Government Component respectively of the taxpayers for the 1996-97 financial year with Program. particular reference to: (a) the income matching 2150 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 system and the number of audits that identified the First Assistant Commissioner have been pro- errors relating to interest, dividends and rebates; (b) cessed as June 1998; if not, why not; and (b) when the number of ATO audits conducted on tax agents will they be processed. practices in relation to individual taxpayers work (12) When does the Commissioner intend this related expenses; (c) the number of desk audits case to be presented before the Federal Court. related to taxpayer claims for car, home office, self education and superannuation claims; and (d) the Senator Kemp—The answer to the honour- number of audits that can be classified as ‘real time able senator’s question is as follows: audits’ as a result of ATO identification of exces- (1) (a) The question refers to the 1996-97 sive expenditure claims and what were those groups financial year. Due to the timing of the receipt of of expenditure that were targeted for real time information from external organisations and the auditing. complexity of the required matching processes, (2) With reference to part 1 of the question, can discrepancies relating to the 1995-96 financial year information be provided in regard to the individual were reviewed during the year ended 30 June 1998. audits, namely; (a) how many returns subsequently Information relating to Interest & Dividends and amended as a result of the ATO audit; (b) what Rebates—refers to the 1995-96 financial year. was the additional tax collected as a result of the The number of audits undertaken in the 1995-96 ATO audits; (c) what was the initial amount of tax financial is as follows: and what was the subsequent amount of tax; (d) what was the total amount of penalties imposed; (e) Interest & Dividends—103,428; Rebates—3,742. what was the error rate in percentage terms; and (f) (1) (b) There were 33,474 audits conducted, of what was the average amount of tax and penalty these 21,261 cases required taxpayers to complete per audit case. a questionnaire in the first instance. A number of these cases were then escalated to full substanti- (3) Was $2 million per year for 3 years allocated ation audits depending on the details provided. to the test case litigation program (TCLP) up to and including 30 June 1998. (1) (c) see table (4) Was only $10 616 spent in the 1995-96 (1) (d) It is uncertain what is meant by "real time financial year. audits". 7857 computer system checks were gener- ated at the time returns were being processed. (5) How many requests were made in the 1995- These cases identified potentially incorrect claims 96 financial year for funding to be made available for family tax assistance, spouse and sole parent under TCLP by: (a) accountants; and (b) taxpayers. rebates. (6) For the 1996-97 financial year can it be (2) (a) (b) see table confirmed that only $235 668 was spent under the (2) (c) The initial and subsequent amounts of tax TCLP. are not available. (7) How many requests did the First Assistant (2) (d) (e) (f) see table Secretary in charge of TCLP receive from account- ants and taxpayers in the 1996-97 financial year for (2) (e) See table**. The relationship between funding under the TCLP. cases reviewed/audited and cases adjusted is often misinterpreted by extrapolating the rate to the wider (8) Does the Minister consider the TCLP to be community. This relationship needs to be viewed a success when less than 2 per cent of $4 million in the context of the type of audit or review over 2 years has been allocated to resolve taxpayer program undertaken. For example, in relation to issues. interest, dividends and rebates because cases are (9) How much was allocated under the TCLP for selected for review on the basis of information the 1997-98 financial year including the latest supplied by external institutions and then matched available figures. against information contained in tax returns, it is almost certain that errors have been made by (10) (a) Will the Government be extending the taxpayers identified by this process, thus a high TCLP for another 3 years; if so, what will be the adjustment rate. On the other hand, in relation to funding per year; if not, why not. work related expenses because most taxpayers were (11) With reference to the test case to be run on advised prior to lodging their tax returns of our sunhats, sunscreen and sunglasses as initially intention to review their claims, more care was confirmed by the Commissioner in 1996: (a) can it taken in preparing their returns and less errors were be explained whether the objections presented to made. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2151

(2)(a)Returns (2)(f) Average tax (1)(c)desk subsequently (2)(b) Addi- (2)(d)Penalties (2)(e)Error and penalty per Date Audits * amended tional Taxes imposed rate ** productive case

Tax Penalty

1995/96 Interest & 87,048 $20,463,782 $4,159,653 84% $235 $47 Dividends Rebates 3,458 3,006,981 753,719 92% 869 217 1996/97 WRE (tax 5,874 2,767,681 747,073 18% (agents 471 127 agent) advised of ‘audit’ before returns lodged Car 5,074 1,509 1,967,345 537,531 30% 1,303 356 Self-education 928 316 452,845 104,023 34% 1,433 329 Superannuation 8,904 7,061 3,895,585 951,997 79% 551 134 Home office No of 274 (not not available not available not available details audits not mutually ex- (total value of are not available clusive to adjustments was avail- WRE (tax $113,158) able agent ‘Real time 5,489 5,352,237 133,420 70% 975 24 audits’ * Note—Superannuation ‘audits’ were in fact computer generated checks at the time tax returns were being processed. Other such checks are included at (1)(d)

(3) Provision was included in the 1995-96 funds are expended. An evaluation report of the Budget for expenditure of up to $2M per year for first 3 years of the program is required to be 1995-96 and each of the next two years for the completed during the 1998/99 financial year. purposes of a TCLP for taxation cases. (9) A total of $333,889 was spent during the year (4) The program got under way in the second and a further $374,110.90 was committed to cases half of 1995-96. Due to the lead time necessarily as at 30 June 1998. involved in litigation cases only one case reached (10) Yes, subject to the outcome of the program the stage where a payment was required. The evaluation the program is to be extended a further amount paid in that case was $10,616. A further 3 years. Up to $2M will be available each year for $636,184 was committed to ongoing cases as at 30 suitable cases. June 1996. (11) (a) No objections have been lodged. A (5) (a) Two requests were received on behalf of number of draft private rulings requests have been taxpayers and there were five cases where litigation forwarded to the ATO for consideration as suitable funding was offered under the program at the binding private ruling requests to be lodged by initiative of the Commissioner of Taxation. taxpayers identified by the NSW Cancer Council. (5) (b) Various suggestions were received from These rulings requests will establish the basis of a members of the public as to issues that might make series of test cases on the issues. suitable test case issues in the future. (11) (b) The ATO is working with the NSW (6) It is confirmed that an amount of $235,668 Cancer Council to finalise the identification and was spent on funding test cases in 1996-97. A details of the representative cases. This aspect of further $640,000 was committed to ongoing cases the work will be completed in September 1998. It as at 30 June 1997. is expected that objections and appeals will be lodged subsequently. This process will take a (7) Applications for funding under the ATO Test further 2 to 3 months. Case Program are generally made by a solicitor (12) The issue will come before the Federal representing the taxpayer in a litigation case. Court on completion of the processes referred to in Applications are sometimes made by taxpayers or the answer to the previous question. other taxpayer representatives. Some funding offers are initiated by the ATO where there is an import- Telstra: Further Sale Report ant issue in a case and, for various reasons, no (Question No. 163) funding application has been made by the taxpayer in the case. Thirty one funding proposals in total Senator Murray asked the Minister repre- from these sources were processed in 1996-97. senting the Minister for Finance and Adminis- (8) The ATO Test Case Program will be evaluat- tration, upon notice, on 12 November 1998: ed on the extent to which it meets intended out- Has an investigating accountant’s report been comes rather than the extent to which available prepared for the further sale of Telstra; if so, can 2152 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 a copy of the report be provided; if such a report comprising language skills, self-care skills, social has not been prepared, when will the report by and community skills, fine motor skills and gross produced. motor skills. In addition, the child’s behaviour is taken into account where it is significantly affected Senator Ellison—The Minister for Finance by the disability, along with any special care needs. and Administration has provided the follow- ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- (3) (a) and (b) There is no evidence at present to indicate how the new assessment arrangements are tion: affecting grants of CDA to children with diabetes. An investigating accountant’s report has not yet I have asked my Department to consider this issue been prepared for the further sale of Telstra. To as part of its current review of these arrangements. have done so would have been premature and The results of this review should be available in the therefore not cost effective. second half of 1999. Child Disability Allowance: Applications Telstra: Staff (Question No. 170) (Question No. 196) Senator Brown asked the Minister for Senator Woodley asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, Communications, the Information Technology on 23 November 1998: and the Arts the following, upon notice, on 23 (1) (a) How many applications for child disability November 1998: allowance (CDA) were received for children with (1) Is the Minister aware of the level of dissatis- diabetes for the periods, July-October 1997, March- faction amongst Telstra business sales consultants June 1998 and July-October 1998; and (b) for each in Sydney, and that this dissatisfaction relates to period, how many of these applications were:(i) their claim that the positions advertised by Telstra successful, (ii) unsuccessful. in January 1998 turned out to be different once the (2) Are the new assessment criteria intended to successful applicants began working for Telstra. prevent children with diabetes (or other ‘hidden’ conditions like asthma and attention deficit disor- (2) Did Telstra, in the Sydney Morning Herald, der) from being eligible for CDA. advertised a base salary plus incentive and superan- nuation of $36000 on 21 January 1998. (3) (a) Are the new assessment criteria prevent- ing children with diabetes from qualifying for (3) Does a discrepancy exist between the condi- CDA; and (b) what is the evidence on which this tions advertised and those experienced by these conclusion is based. Telstra business sales consultants. Senator Newman—The answer to the (4) Is the Minister aware that the written offer made by Telstra to these employees was made up honourable senator’s question is as follows: of a base remuneration of $24,244 and a company (1) The recording of information on CDA superannuation contribution of $4,278, a total of applications by disability type only commenced $28,522. with the introduction of new CDA rules on 1 July (5) Can an explanation be given of the difference 1998. It is not yet possible to provide reliable between the advertised amount of $36,000 and information by specific disability group. I have Telstra’s written ‘remuneration summary (Attach- asked my Department to examine how reliable data ment B)’ which shows a base salary of $28,522. by disability type can be obtained as soon as possible. (6) Is the Minister aware that Telstra employees were advised via ‘remuneration summary (Attach- (2) There was no intention in the design and ment B)’ that the difference was made up of an ‘on development of the Child Disability Assessment target commission’ of $8,557 making a total of Tool (CDAT) to exclude children with any particu- $37,079. lar medical condition or disability. The aim of new arrangements for the CDA (7) Does the Minister agree that these Telstra program is to ensure that the program is targeted employees have a legitimate complaint that to families in the greatest need. The Child Disabili- Telstra’s package as detailed in (4) and (6) above ty Assessment Tool (CDAT), introduced for all does not correspond with the advertised salary new claims lodged on or after 1 July 1998, assesses package. the level of severity of a child’s disability by (8) Is it a fact that the Australian Workplace looking at whether the child functions according to Agreement (AWA) drawn up by Telstra and standards appropriate to his or her age. The child’s presented to new employees for signature was not actual ability is measured against the standard for submitted to the Australian Industrial Relations his or her age in a series of functional categories Commission; if so, why does Telstra not comply Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2153 with the Federal Government’s industrial relations (7) Telstra considers that applicants were fully legislation. advised of the conditions of employment prior to (9) Has the Minister been supplied with any commencement and that such conditions were in information about these problems; if not, will a line with the information contained in the advertise- briefing on this issue be sought and will the Senate ment in the Sydney Morning Herald. be advised. (8) Under the provisions of the Workplace Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- Relations Act 1996, Telstra must submit AWAs to able senator’s question, based on advice from the Office of the Employment Advocate, not the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Telstra, is as follows: (1) Telstra has advised that it is unaware of any Regrettably, an error in the processing of con- general level of dissatisfaction amongst Business tracts by Telstra led to the AWAs not being Sales Consultants in Sydney. Telstra also advises submitted to the Employment Advocate as required that, there has been one isolated case of a former under the Workplace Relations Act. Telstra advises staff member who expressed dissatisfaction with his that all AWAs were consequently withdrawn and contract with Telstra. Telstra maintains that the re-submitted. There was no disadvantage to any conditions of employment as advertised were employee as a result of this process. identical to the actual conditions applying to the (9) It is the role of the Telstra board and man- applicants during subsequent employment. agement, not government, to manage the day-to-day (2) Yes. Telstra advises that the advertisement in operations of the company, including staff salaries. the Sydney Morning Herald stated: I have sought no briefing on this specific issue additional to the advice provided in response to this "The Rewards question, and given the response provided by Telstra offers a remuneration package consisting Telstra, I do not propose to do so. of base salary, incentive and superannuation commencing at $36,000 per annum depending on Department of Finance and skills and experience". Administration: Conference Expenditure Telstra further advises that successful applicants (Question No. 213) were also sent a letter before commencing that explained that 30 per cent of their package was Senator Faulkner asked the Minister commission based. representing the Minister for Finance and (3) Telstra advises that it believes that no Administration, upon notice, on 25 November discrepancy exists between the advertised condi- 1998: tions and those experienced by the successful applicants on taking up employment. Telstra has (1) What is the total expenditure on conferences emphasised that the total package available to both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the depart- employees was higher than $36,000. ment or agency; and (b) external, held by the department or agencies within the portfolio, on a (4) Telstra advises that full details of the package month-by-month basis since March 1996. as communicated to employees was: Total package—$37,079. (2) For conferences fully funded by the depart- ment and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess Commission—$8,557; Total Employment Cost— of $30 000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was $28,522; Super 5% of TEC—$4,278; Base— the reason for each conference; (c) how many $24,244. participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees (5) See answer to Question (4). Telstra advises paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to that differing terminology—"incentive" or "commis- whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what sion"- has been used to describe the payment to was the cost of each consultancy. employees based on sales performance, with the (3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded amount being a percentage of Total Employment by the department and portfolio agencies and Cost. costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30 000: (6) Telstra advises that individuals were advised (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; prior to commencement of employment that the (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth roles were sales based and there was a commission funding as against the total cost of the conference; structure. Telstra further advises that the letter of (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or offer clearly states a 70/30 package would be part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how offered. The jobs were advertised as sales roles and many participants registered; (f) did the Common- as such are sales dependent. Telstra also advises wealth contribute to any consultant organising the that this was communicated at the initial interviews conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) by the Business Sales Consultants Manager. how much was the Commonwealth’s contribution. 2154 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Senator Ellison—The Minister for Finance (1) (a) In-house Department of Finance and and Administration has provided the follow- Administration ($) ing answers to the honourable senator’s question:

Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1996 ------34,110 - - - 1997 - - 1,000------1998 - 51,737 ------

Portfolio Agencies ($)

Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1996 - - - 21,226 4,200 10,000------1997 ----1,245------1998 - 1,018 - - - 1,442 ------

(b) External Department of Finance and Administration ($)

Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1996 ------3,500 - 7,200 1997 - 2,780 708 5,702 740 1,216 4,665 1,100 4,470 892 - 2,986 1998 - - 9,606 7,688 175 - 3,995 - - - - -

Portfolio Agencies ($)

Year/Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

1996 ------13,600 - - 2,100 400 1997 1,100 200 700 2,700 2,900 13,300 3,200 2,600 12,000 27,700 16,800 2,100 1998 32,800 900 5,100 3,500 3,700 900 3,912 - - - - -

(2)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) $

Sydney Convention Centre, National Industry Pro- 119 Yes Jane Singleton Pty Ltd 49,000 Darling Harbour curement Conference Rydges Hotel, Canberra Challenges & Opportuni- 272 No not applicable (n/a) n/a ties—The next phase of Public Sector Reform— SES Conference Parliament House, Canberra Competing for Perform- 150 No n/a n/a ance—Senior Officers Conference Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2155

(3)

(a) $ (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) $

96,300 89% Hosting of the 31st International Council Renaissance 103 Facet Manage- 12,900 for IT in Government Administration Sydney Hotel ment (ICA) conference. This provided Aus- tralia with the opportunity to showcase its innovative government IT initiatives, to actively participate in the growing international government IT forum and to exchange experiences with other seni- or government officials, particularly from the US, the UK and Europe.

Department of Communications, (3) In each instance, what was the involvement Information Technology and the Arts: or otherwise of the Office of Government Informa- Market Research tion and Advertising. (4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were (Question No. 225) invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many tender proposals were received. Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for (5) In each instance, which firm was selected to Communications, Information Technology and conduct the research. the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998: (6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was (1) What was the total value of market research the actual amount expended by the department. sought by the department on a month-by-month Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- basis between March 1996 and November 1998. able senator’s question is as follows: (2) What was the purpose of each contract let. (1)—(6) Refer to the attachment.

ATTACHMENT

(1) The total (2) The purpose of (3) The in- (4) (a) How (5) The (6) The esti- value of market each contract let. volvement or other- many firms firm se- mated or con- research sought wise of the Office were invited lected to tract price of by the department of Government In- to submit conduct the the research on a month-by- formation and proposals; research. work and the month basis be- Advertising and (b) how actual amount tween March (OGIA). many tender expended by 1996* and proposals the Depart- November 1998. were re- ment. ceived.

April 1996 Research on the SAMI OGIA was not in- (a) 3 (b) 3 Q Research Contract and Magnum Cinema volved. and Market- price: $3,750 exhibitions for the ing Expenditure: National Film and $3,750 Sound Archive. April 1996 Total Market research re- OGIA was con- (a) 3 (b) 3 Environmetr Contract contract price for garding creative con- sulted regarding ics price: April 1996: cepts for advertising for suppliers. $15,000 Ex- $18,750 the National Science penditure: and Technology Centre. $15,000 May 1996 Total Research on the SAMI OGIA was not in- (a) 3 (b) 3 Q Research Contract contract price for and Magnum Cinema volved. and Market- price: $3,500 May 1996: $3,500 exhibitions for the ing Expenditure: National Film and $3,500 Sound Archive. 2156 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

(1) The total (2) The purpose of (3) The in- (4) (a) How (5) The (6) The esti- value of market each contract let. volvement or other- many firms firm se- mated or con- research sought wise of the Office were invited lected to tract price of by the department of Government In- to submit conduct the the research on a month-by- formation and proposals; research. work and the month basis be- Advertising and (b) how actual amount tween March (OGIA). many tender expended by 1996* and proposals the Depart- November 1998. were re- ment. ceived.

June 1996 Research concerning OGIA was con- (a) 3 (b) 3 Frank Small Contract visitors evaluation of sulted regarding and Associ- price: exhibits at the National suppliers. ates $10,000 Ex- Science and Technol- penditure: ogy Centre. $10,000 June 1996 Total Conduct market re- OGIA was not in- (a) 6 (b) 3 AGB Contract contract price for search on the extent of volved. McNair Pty price: June 1996: awareness within the Ltd $27,500 Ex- $37,500 community of possible penditure: health issues associated $27,500 with radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. September 1996 Special report on "This OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 A C Contract Total contract is Your Life" and other volved. Nielsen price: $250 price for Septem- programs for the Na- Expenditure: ber 1996: $250 tional Film and Sound $250 Archive. November 1996 Provision of market Advice of OGIA (a) 4 (b) 3 Frank Small Contract Total contract research into potential was sought in rela- and Associ- price: price for sites for the National tion to suitable ates (Aust) $39,700 Ex- November 1996: Museum of Australia. consultants. Pty Ltd penditure: $39,700 $39,700 February 1997 Provide exhibition OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Environmetr Contract Total contract evaluation work, de- volved. ics price: $7,950 price for February velop a questionnaire, Expenditure: 1997: $7,950 arrange for the National $7,950 Archives of Australia staff and market re- search people to admin- ister the questionnaire, and produce a report. June 1997 Questionnaire process- OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Independent Contract ing of a newsletter volved. Research price: $800 survey for the National Expenditure: Film and Sound Ar- $800 chive. June 1997 Total Research on ratings and OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 A C Contract contract price for reach for six programs volved. Nielsen price: $350 June 1997: $1,150 with a demographic Expenditure: breakdown for the $350 National Film and Sound Archive. July 1997 Educational video OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Independent Contract market analysis for the volved. Research price: $3,680 National Film and Expenditure: Sound Archive. $3,680 July 1997 Total Provide a demographics OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 A C Contract contract price for analysis of Nude Mo- volved. Nielsen price: $100 July 1997: $3,780 ments for the National Expenditure: Film and Sound Ar- $100 chive. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2157

(1) The total (2) The purpose of (3) The in- (4) (a) How (5) The (6) The esti- value of market each contract let. volvement or other- many firms firm se- mated or con- research sought wise of the Office were invited lected to tract price of by the department of Government In- to submit conduct the the research on a month-by- formation and proposals; research. work and the month basis be- Advertising and (b) how actual amount tween March (OGIA). many tender expended by 1996* and proposals the Depart- November 1998. were re- ment. ceived.

October 1997 To conduct formative OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Environmetr Contract Total contract evaluation for the per- volved. ics price: $8,000 price for October manent exhibition pro- Expenditure: 1997: $8,000 posed for the Treasures $8,000 Gallery of the new Na- tional Archives of Aus- tralia building in Can- berra. November 1997 Provide an exhibit OGIA was con- (a) 4 (b) 4 Environmetr Contract Total contract evaluation for the Na- sulted regarding ics price: price for tional Science and suppliers. $39,500 Ex- November 1997: Technology Centre. penditure: $39,500 $39,500 December 1997 Undertake a study to OGIA was not in- (a) 2 (b) 2 Environmetr Contract Total contract assist the Department volved. ics price: price for to develop best practice $27,500 Ex- December 1997: retail, food and bever- penditure: $27,500 age outlets for the $27,500 National Museum of Australia. February 1998 Market research to OGIA was in- (a) 9 (b) 7 Jigsaw Stra- Contract ascertain the level of volved in the de- tegic Re- price: public awareness of velopment of the search $73,475 Ex- parallel importation of brief and provided penditure: CDs and understanding a list of suggested $52,837 of the reforms. consultants. OGIA provide secretariat services to the Ministerial Com- mittee on Govern- ment Communica- tions which ap- proved the research being commis- sioned and the list of consultants. February 1998 Qualitative testing of OGIA was not in- (a) 3 (b) 3 Elliott and Contract Total contract logo concepts for the volved. Shanahan price: price for February National Council for $30,000 Ex- 1998: $103,475 the Centenary of Feder- penditure: ation. $30,000 May 1998 Total Provide a visitor profile OGIA overviewed (a) 5 (b) 5 A C Contract contract price for survey for the National the draft of the Nielson price: May 1998: Science and Technol- research brief, $40,000 Ex- $40,000 ogy Centre. recommended penditure: companies to ap- $40,000 proach and re- ceived a report of the final evaluation of the companies. 2158 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

(1) The total (2) The purpose of (3) The in- (4) (a) How (5) The (6) The esti- value of market each contract let. volvement or other- many firms firm se- mated or con- research sought wise of the Office were invited lected to tract price of by the department of Government In- to submit conduct the the research on a month-by- formation and proposals; research. work and the month basis be- Advertising and (b) how actual amount tween March (OGIA). many tender expended by 1996* and proposals the Depart- November 1998. were re- ment. ceived.

June 1998 Total Visitor research and OGIA provided (a) 5 (b) 4 Environmetr Contract contract price for evaluation program for feedback on the ics price: June 1998: Old Parliament House brief and a list of $72,000 Ex- $72,000 and the National Por- consultants. penditure: trait Gallery. $34,950 September 1998 Pre-testing of creative OGIA provided (a) 3 (b) 3 Elliott and Contract concepts for stage 1 of comments on the Shanahan price: the Centenary of Feder- brief, provided a $35,000 Ex- ation communications. list of suggested penditure: consultants and as- $35,000 sistance throughout the briefing and selection process. September 1998 Gauge how the recent OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Environmetr Contract changes at the National volved. ics price: Archives of Australia $10,000 Ex- (including the move to penditure: the new building, the $10,000 name change, a publici- ty campaign and a shift in emphasis of some activities) have affected general awareness of the Archives amongst the Australian popula- tion. September 1998 Gauge community OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Orima Re- Contract Total contract awareness of the Na- volved. search Pty price: $3,860 price for Septem- tional Archives of Ltd (est) Expendi- ber 1998: $48,860 Australia in Canberra, ture: $4,023 its role and new lo- cation, and assess the effectiveness of promo- tional mechanisms fol- lowing the publicity campaign associated with the Archives opening of new public premises in Parkes. November 1998 Participation in the OGIA was not in- (a) 1 (b) 1 Canberra Contract Total contract initial National Film volved. Tourism price: $1,200 price for and Sound Archive re- and Events Expenditure: November 1998: search program "NIPP". Corporation $1,200 $1,200

* The period for the Office for Government Online (previously Office of Government Information Technology) commenced on 23 October 1998 (the date it was transferred to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts). Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2159

Department of Immigration and (4) In each instance; (a) how many firms were Multicultural Affairs: Market Research invited to submit proposals; and (b) how many (Question No. 235) tender proposals were received. Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister (5) In each instance, which firm was selected to representing the Minister for Immigration and conduct the research. Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 25 November 1998: (6) In each instance, what was the estimated or contract price of the research work and what was (1) What was the total value of market research sought by the department on a month-by-month the actual amount expended by the department. basis between March 1996 and November 1998. Senator Vanstone—The Minister for (2) What was the purpose of each contract let. (3) In each instance, what was the involvement Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has or otherwise of the Office of Government Informa- provided the following answer to the honour- tion and Advertising. able senator’s question:

(1)

Pre November 1997: nil November 1997: $31,500 December 1997: $45,089 February 1998: $21,997 April 1998: $45,900 May 1998: $40,364 August 1998: $26,292 September 1998: $40,890 October 1998: $124,720 November 1998: $22,000 TOTAL: $398,752

(2) The contracts were for research into attitudes Department of the Prime Minster and on racism. Cabinet: Contracts to Worthington Di (3) The Office of Government Information and Marzio Advertising (OGIA) was consulted on the research brief and contributed to the list of consultants. Two (Question No. 236) OGIA officers sat on the assessment panel, together Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister with two departmental officers. OGIA advised the representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, Department on research methodologies and on the on 25 November 1998: main techniques of qualitative research, in particu- lar the appropriateness of novel methodologies (1) What contracts has the department, or any proposed by some tenderers. agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996. (4) (a) Thirteen firms were invited to submit proposals. (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio. (b) Eight of these subsequently submitted tender proposals. (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the (5) Eureka Strategic Research. department of the contract. (6) The estimated price for the contract was (4) In each instance what selection process was $375,000. The price for the original contract used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, between the Commonwealth and the contractor was short list or some other process). $380,000 (28 July 1998). The contract was subse- Senator Hill—The Prime Minister has quently amended to allow for payment of additional provided the following answer to the honour- fees related to travel expenses and allowances from the fund allocated to the campaign. The actual able senator’s question: amount expended by the Department to date is (1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been $398,752. provided by the department, or any agency of the 2160 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 department, to Worthington Di Marzio since March Senator Ellison—The Minister for Finance 1996. and Administration has provided the follow- Department of Communications, ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- Information Technology and the Arts: tion: Contracts to Worthington Di Marzio (1) None (Question No. 241) (2)—(4) N/A Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for Department of the Prime Minister and Communications, Information Technology and Cabinet: Contracts to Australasian the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998: Research Strategies (1) What contracts has the department, or any (Question No. 252) agency of the department, provided to the firm Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996. Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio. on 25 November 1998: (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the (1) What contracts has the department, or any department of the contract. agency of the department, provided to the firm (4) In each instance what selection process was Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, March 1996. short list or some other process). (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies able senator’s question is as follows: Pty Ltd. (1) One. (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract. (2) Concept testing and benchmarking for ArtsInfo. (4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty (3) $39,900. Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process). (4) Selective tender. Senator Hill—The Prime Minister has The period covered for the Office for Govern- provided the following answer to the honour- ment Online (previously Office of Government able senator’s question: Information Technology) commenced on 23 October 1998, the date it was transferred to the (1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been Department of Communications, Information provided by the department, or any agency of the Technology and the Arts. department, to Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since March 1996. Department of Finance and Administration: Contracts to Department of Communications, Worthington Di Marzio Information Technology and the Arts: Contracts to Australasian Research (Question No. 246) Strategies Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and (Question No. 257) Administration, upon notice, on 25 November Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for 1998: Communications, Information Technology and (1) What contracts has the department, or any the Arts, upon notice, on 25 November 1998: agency of the department, provided to the firm (1) What contracts has the department or any Worthington Di Marzio since March 1996. agency of the department, provided to the firm (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since work conducted by Worthington Di Marzio. March 1996. (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the department of the contract. work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies (4) In each instance what selection process was Pty Ltd. used to select Worthington Di Marzio (open tender, (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the short list or some other process). department of the contract. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2161

(4) In each instance what selection process was Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty March 1996. Ltd (open tender, short list or some other process). (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies able senator’s question is as follows: Pty Ltd. (1)—(4) No contracts were provided to the firm (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since department of the contract. March 1996. (4) In each instance what selection process was The period covered for the Office for Govern- used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty ment Online (previously Office of Government Ltd (open tender, short list or some other process). Information Technology) commenced on 23 Senator Ellison—The Minister for Educa- October 1998, the date it was transferred to the Department of Communications, Information tion, Training and Youth Affairs has provided Technology and the Arts. the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Department of Finance and The department and its agencies have let no Administration: Contracts to contracts to the firm Australasian Research Strat- Australasian Research Strategies egies Pty Ltd since March 1996. (Question No. 262) Department of the Prime Minister and Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister Cabinet: Contracts to Canberra Liaison representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 25 November (Question No. 268) 1998: Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister (1) What contracts has the department, or any representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, agency of the department, provided to the firm on 25 November 1998: Australasian Research Strategies Pty Ltd since (1) What contracts has the department or any March 1996. agency of the department, provided to the firm (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the Canberra Liaison since March 1996. work conducted by Australasian Research Strategies (2) In each instance what was the purpose of the Pty Ltd. work conducted by Canberra Liaison. (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the (3) In each instance what has been the cost to the department of the contract. department of the contract. (4) In each instance what selection process was (4) In each instance what selection process was used to select Australasian Research Strategies Pty used to select Canberra Liaison (open tender, short- Ltd (open tender, short-list or some other process). list or some other process). Senator Ellison—The Minister for Finance Senator Hill—The Prime Minister has and Administration has provided the follow- provided the following answer to the honour- ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- able senator’s question: tion: (1)—(4) I am advised that no contracts have been (1) None provided by the department, or any agency of the (2)—(4) N/A department, to Canberra Liaison since March 1996. Department of Education, Training and Department of the Treasury: Youth Affairs: Contracts to Australasian Unauthorised Disclosures Investigations Research Strategies (Question No. 320) (Question No. 263) Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 representing the Minister for Education, December 1998: Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on (1) On how many occasions did the department 26 November 1998: refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian (1) What contracts has the department, or any Federal Police between March 1996 and October agency of the department, provided to the firm 1998. 2162 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

(2) In each instance where an investigation has (2) Did the document state the Coalition would been undertaken has that investigation been con- seek to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra to take cluded. the proportion of Telstra in private ownership to 49 (3) Have any officers been charged with offences per cent: if so, why does the proportion of Telstra relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 during this period; if so how many. state that the Commonwealth may sell 49.9 per cent of its original equity interest in Telstra. Senator Kemp—The Treasurer has provid- ed the following answer to the honourable Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- senator’s question: able senator’s question is as follows: (1) The Treasury did not refer any cases of (1) The Coalition election document Communica- unauthorised disclosure to the Australian Federal tions: making Australia stronger stated—"The Police between March 1996 and October 1998. Coalition will legislate to authorise the sale of Telstra in two or more stages". (2) Not applicable. (2) Communications: making Australia stronger (3) Not applicable. also stated—"In the first stage, the Coalition will Depratment of Transport and Regional seek to sell a further 16 per cent of Telstra to take the proportion of Telstra in private ownership to 49 Services: Unauthorised Disclosures per cent. The legislation will provide that the first Investigations stage may not occur until the Telecommunications (Question No. 321) (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act is in place". Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for The Telstra (Transition to Full Private Owner- Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, ship) Bill 1998 allows the Commonwealth, after on 2 December 1998: Royal Assent, to sell 49.9% of its original equity (1) On how many occasions did the department interest in Telstra, provided it retains a 50.1% refer unauthorised disclosures to the Australian equity interest in Telstra. Federal Police between March 1996 and October This legislation reflects the essential element of 1998. the Government’s commitment to retain majority (2) In each instance where an investigation has ownership on the first stage of the sale until an been undertaken has that investigation been con- independent inquiry has certified that Telstra’s cluded. service levels to customers in metropolitan, rural (3) Have any officers been charged with offences and remote areas are adequate, measured against relating to unauthorised disclosures that occurred specified performance criteria. during this period; if so, how many. The Government is expressing precisely in the Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 the percentage of the Commonwealth’s equity Transport and Regional Services has provided in Telstra which can be sold whilst requiring it to the following answer to the honourable retain majority ownership. senator’s question: (1) (2) and (3) The Department has not referred Pensioner Education Supplement any unauthorised disclosures to the Australian (Question No. 355) Federal Police between March 1996 and October 1998. Senator Allison asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, Communications: Making Australia on 7 December 1998: Stronger (1) Can a full account be given as to the current (Question No. 352) status of the pensioner education supplement. Senator Colston asked the Minister for (2) Will recipients of this program lose the Communications, Information Technology and retraining allowance under the proposed goods and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 December 1998: services tax. (1) Did the Coalition Government, in a docu- (3) (a) Is an evaluation currently being conducted ment, Communications: Making Australia stronger, as to the efficacy of this program: if so, who is indicate on page 12 that the Coalition intends to conducting this evaluation, and what are the terms legislate to authorise the sale of Telstra in two or of reference; and (b)when is such an evaluation more stages. taking place and can details be provided. Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2163

(4) If this program is to be scrapped are there Fringe Benefits Tax: Change any plans to replace it with another scheme; if so, can details be provided of such plans. (Question No. 375) Senator Newman—The answer to the Senator Cook asked the Minister represent- honourable senator’s question is as follows: ing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 Decem- ber 1998: (1) Certain social security and Veterans’ Affairs pensioners who are studying may be eligible for a (1) Will the proposed changes to fringe benefits Pensioner Education Supplement (PES). PES is tax (FBT) apply to benefits provided by deceased payable to both full-time students and part-time estates, child maintenance trusts and/or section students studying at least 25% of a full-time study 102AG trusts. load. (2) Will an interest free loan taken from a trust Policy responsibility for the AUSTUDY compo- by a beneficiary or by a shareholder from a com- nent of PES was transferred from the former pany, entered into before 1 April 2000, be subject Department of Employment, Education, Training to FBT after 1 April 2000 or will the proposed and Youth Affairs (now the Department of Educa- FBT changes only apply to such loans entered into tion, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA)) to the after 1 April 2000. former Department of Social Security (now the (3) (a) Where an employer is required to include Department of Family and Community Services on an employee’s group certificate a fringe benefit (DFaCS)) on 1 July 1998. However, responsibility amount for the financial year ending 30 June 2000 for the ABSTUDY component of PES, which is and an error is made, will the employee be penal- paid to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ised for any tax shortfall that may arise as a result students, is retained by DETYA. of the employer incorrectly calculating the grossed up taxable value; and (b) who will be responsible (2) There is no "retraining allowance" specifical- for this tax shortfall, the employee or the employer. ly associated with the PES payment. The rate of PES is to be increased by 4% under the compensa- (4) (a) How will employers value the fringe tion provisions associated with the introduction of benefit attributable to individual employees who the Goods and Services Tax. have access to pooled motor vehicles provided by the employer for the use of its employees; and (b) (3) DFaCS is currently conducting an evaluation what will be the individual value to be recorded on of the AUSTUDY PES scheme. the group certificate. The terms of reference for the PES evaluation (5) What treatment will apply to exempt benefits are to examine the objectives of the program and provided to employees that have to be included on whether the payment is achieving its objectives in an employee’s group certificate such as lap-top the most effective and efficient way. computers, Christmas gifts or mobile phones. Key components of the PES evaluation comprise Senator Kemp—The Treasurer has provid- focus groups with PES customers, as well as a ed the following answer to the honourable national telephone survey of 3,000 customers conducted by a consultant (Rush Social Research senator’s question: Agency). The focus groups with PES customers (1) One of the FBT reform measures announced were completed in September 1998, while the in A New Tax System involves extending FBT to customer telephone survey was undertaken in benefits provided by companies to shareholders (in November and December. respect of their shareholding) and by trusts to DFaCS anticipates that the evaluation should be beneficiaries (in respect of the trust relationship) finalised by the end of February 1999. from the 2000-01 FBT year. As a guiding principle, FBT will not apply where the benefit is taxed under As DETYA retains policy responsibility for the the Income Tax Assessment Act or is a return of ABSTUDY component of PES, the role of contributed capital. In light of the proposal in A ABSTUDY PES has been examined separately. The New Tax System to tax trusts like companies apart Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, from certain excluded trusts, the income tax the Hon Dr David Kemp MP, issued a Media treatment of the types of trusts referred to in the Release on 15 December 1998, which stated that question is a matter for consideration by the from 1 January 2000, ABSTUDY PES will be fully Review of Business Taxation which is being aligned with AUSTUDY PES available under the chaired by Mr John Ralph, A.O. Social Security Act 1991. (2) As noted, as a guiding principle FBT will not (4) Any decisions regarding the future of the apply where a benefit is taxed under the Income AUSTUDY PES scheme will be made by the Tax Assessment Act (ITAA). Non-commercial Government subsequent to the completion of the loans made to private company shareholders are PES evaluation. currently taxable under the ITAA and would 2164 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999 therefore not be subject to FBT under the proposed and Forestry, upon notice, on 15 December reforms. A New Tax System announced that 1998: provisions covering private company loans to shareholders would be extended to discretionary (1) Have consultants been engaged to develop a trusts and closely held fixed trusts. Consultation on national program of competency-based emergency this measure is being conducted through the animal disease preparedness education and training Review of Business Taxation. for both publicly employed and private veterinari- (3) (a) To attract the penalty provisions of the ans. income tax law, a tax shortfall must arise because (2) Was the consultancy the subject of a tender the taxpayer deliberately entered into a scheme to process; if not, how were the consultants selected. avoid tax, had failed to exercise reasonable care, was reckless, or had intentional disregard of the (3) Has the Government received a report from income tax law. the consultants; if so, can a copy be provided of the report; if not, at what stage is the consultancy and Therefore, unless an employee and their employ- when are the consultants scheduled to complete the er entered into an agreement to deliberately under- report. state the reportable fringe benefits amount, or the employee ought reasonably have known that the Senator Alston—The Minister for Agricul- fringe benefits amount was understated, no penalty ture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the would generally arise to the employee. following answer to the honourable senator’s Where an assessment is amended, increasing the question: amount of tax payable, the employee would be liable for an interest penalty. There may be special The honourable senator’s question was referred circumstances where the Commissioner remits this to the Australian Animal Health Council Ltd for amount. response. The Council is a non-profit public For superannuation surcharge and termination company whose members are the state and federal payments surcharge purposes, an incorrect report- governments and industry organisations. It is the able fringe benefits amount shown on an peak animal health body for developing strategic employee’s group certificate would not result in a policy and funding of national animal disease penalty to the employee. Rather the surcharge programs, including emergency disease prepared- liability in relation to the employee’s contributions ness training. may be increased by virtue of an amended assess- (1) The Council has advised me that it engaged ment, and interest would be payable on any in- a consulting firm to develop training modules for creased liability. There is a provision that allows emergency disease outbreaks. The modules include the Commissioner to remit the whole or part of an competency standards and training materials to interest charge. assist government and industry personnel prepare (3) (b) Subject to the above comments, the to combat animal disease emergencies. employee will be liable for any tax shortfall. (2) I am advised that the engagement of the (4) (a) and (b) Where a fringe benefit or class of consultant was the result of an open tendering benefit is provided to two or more employees, the process. Focus Learning Systems Pty Ltd was employee’s share of the benefit will be the portion selected from fifteen (15) tenders received. of the taxable value that reasonably reflects the amount of benefit received by each employee. The (3) As the honourable senator will now be aware, employer must take all relevant matters into the responsibility for the management of any consideration when apportioning the taxable value reports associated with the consultancy rests with of a benefit and the apportionment must be justifi- Council. As a general rule, it is appropriate that able. enquiries be made to the Council on the availability and status of its project reports. In this particular (5) Exempt benefits such as lap-top computers, instance, I am advised that the Council has received mobile phones for predominantly business use and regular reports from Focus Learning Systems Pty minor benefits of less than $100 will not have to Ltd. I am further advised that the Council may be reported on group certificates. make reports available to interested parties subject to a request being received in writing, outlining the Australian Animal Health Council: purposes to which the report will be put. Consultants [An error occured in the publication of (Question No. 384) Question No. 1253 (Hansard 12 November Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- 1998, page 342). The correct answer is as senting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries follows] Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2165

Department of the Environment: funding as against the total cost of the conference; Conference Expenditure (c) what was the rationale for the sponsorship or part-funding; (d) what was the venue; (e) how (Question No. 1253) many participants registered; (f) did the Common- Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for wealth contribute to any consultant organising the the Environment, upon notice, on 21 July conference; if so, who was the consultant; and (g) 1998: how much was the Commonwealth’s contribution. (1) What is the total expenditure on conferences Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- both: (a) in-house, that is, held within the depart- able senator’s question is as follows: ment or agency; and (b) external, held by the On advice from the honourable senator’s office, department or agencies within the portfolio, on a the word ‘conference’ has been interpreted as month-by-month basis since March 1996. meaning ‘a special purpose gathering of experts or (2) For conferences fully funded by the depart- departmental officials to which guest speakers ment and portfolio agencies, and costing in excess would be invited’. of $30,000: (a) where was the venue; (b) what was (1) (a)-(b) Details of total expenditure on a the reason for each conference; (c) how many month-by-month basis on in-house and external participants registered; (d) were consultancy fees conferences held by the portfolio since March 1996 paid for the organisation of each conference; (e) to are provided in the following table. (It should be whom were the consultancy fees paid; and (f) what noted that the total expenditure for each conference was the cost of each consultancy. is shown against the month in which the conference (3) For conferences part-sponsored or part-funded was held, not the month in which the expenditure by the department and portfolio agencies and was incurred. The expenditure figures do not reflect costing the Commonwealth in excess of $30,000: any costs recovered and also do not include salary (a) what was the cost to the department or agency; expenditure for officers participating in or organis- (b) what was the proportion of Commonwealth ing the conferences, or training courses.)

Total Expenditure on In- Total Expenditure on Ex- Date Name of Conference house Conferences ternal Conferences

$$

Feb 96 Clean Air Society of Australia & New Zealand 5,000 Mar 96 OECD International Conference on Incentive Measures for 52,779 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use May 96 Interpretation of the Term "Anthropogenic" in Determining 29,942 Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions May 96 Contribution to Differentiation Workshop by Royal Institute 5,000 of International Affairs Jun 96 Australian Environmental Management Seminar—Shanghai 38,000 Oct 96 Vegetation Thickening Workshop (ANU-RSBS) 28,770 Oct 96 1996 Australia & New Zealand Solar Energy Society Confer- 5,000 ence Oct 96 Seminar by the Secretary-General of CITES 1,140 Nov 96 8th Annual Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre Model- 11,300 ling Workshop—Symposium on climate prediction and predi- cability Nov 96 Great Barrier Reef Science, Use and Management Conference 5,000 Feb 97 Madrid Protocol Seminar 200 Apr 97 2nd Asia-Pacific Roundtable on Cleaner Production 20,000 Apr 97 Workshop on the fate of material from the Fly River in the 5,728 Torres Strait and Gulf of Papua Apr 97 Global Program of Action—East Asia Seas Regional Con- 29,748 ference May 97 Closing the Communication Gap Workshop (Climate Impacts 9,340 Centre, Macquarie University) May 97 Department of Primary Industries & Energy/Activities Imple- 20,000 mented Jointly Conference—Indonesia May 97 The Larsemann Hills: an Antarctic microcosm 10,000 Aug 97 Living Cities Conference 10,000 Aug 97 Healthy People, Healthy Wildlife and International Sympo- 12,500 sium on Traditional Chinese Medicine & Wildlife Conserva- tion Aug 97 Abbotts Booby Forum 15,403 Sep 97 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting 41,611 on Biomass Burning and Land Use Change and Forestry Sep 97 Protection of Wetlands adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef 13,766 2166 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Total Expenditure on In- Total Expenditure on Ex- Date Name of Conference house Conferences ternal Conferences

$$

Sep 97 Wetlands in a Dry Land 12,000 Oct 97 Australian Environment Management Conferences Hanoi, Ho 88,184 Chi Minh City and Bangkok Oct 97 9th Annual Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre Model- 11,550 ling Workshop—Improving short-range forecasting Nov 97 Environmental Reporting Roundtable 20,000 Nov 97 Fenner Conference: Ethics of Manipulative Research and 1,834 Management in World Heritage and Environmentally Sensative Areas Dec 97 Oceans Policy Forum 53,780 May 98 Australian Bureau of Agriculture & Resource Economics 10,000 Conference on Emissions Trading Jun 98 National Carbon Accounting System Experts Workshop 34,861

(2)—(3) The details sought are contained in the accompanying tables. It should be noted that conferences have been included in part (3) where total Commonwealth expenditure exceeded $30,000. (Similar to the response to part (1), the expenditure figures do not reflect any costs recovered and do not include salary expenditure for officers participating in or organising the conferences, training courses, or officers from the portfolio attending conferences which were not organised by the portfolio.) QUESTION 2 (a)-(f) DETAILS, FROM MARCH 1996 UNTIL 21 JULY 1998, FOR CONFERENCES WHICH WERE FULLY FUNDED BY THE PORTFOLIO AND COST IN EXCESS OF $30,000

(d) Were Con- sultants (c) No. of Fees Participants Paid (e) If Yes, to (f) Cost of Name of Conference (a) Venue (b) Reason Registered Yes/No Whom Consultancy

Australian Environmental Shanghai Promote Australian 80 Yes Austrade $2,000 Management Seminar environment manage- ment capability.

Australian Environment Hanoi, Ho Chi Promote Australian 190 for two Yes Austrade $2,000 Management Confer- Minh City and environment manage- seminars ences Bangkok ment capability.

OECD International Cairns Hilton . Take stock of the 66 No Conference on Incentive work of the OECD Ad Measures for Hoc Expert Group on Biodiversity Conserva- Economic Aspects of tion and Sustainable Use Biodiversity; . Give practical guid- ance to OECD count- ries in their implemen- tation of the Conven- tion on Biological Di- versity and contribute to the discussion on incentive measures in the 1996 Conference of the Parties; and . Identify topics for fur- ther work by the OECD and/or for other inter- national fora.

Oceans Policy Forum Parliament House To discuss issues on 130 Yes Professor $6,934 Oceans Policy before Frank Talbot, finalising the draft pol- Graduate icy document for public School of the comment. Environment, Macquarie University, NSW Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2167

(d) Were Con- sultants (c) No. of Fees Participants Paid (e) If Yes, to (f) Cost of Name of Conference (a) Venue (b) Reason Registered Yes/No Whom Consultancy

Intergovernmental Panel Rockhampton, To host an expert work- Delegates: 48 Yes Australian $7,500 on Climate Change Qld shop as part of the Observers: 1 Convention (IPCC) Expert Meeting IPCC’s review of in- and Travel on Biomass Burning and ventory guidelines in Services Pty Land Use Change and the area of Land Use Ltd Forestry Change and Forestry. ANUCRES $9,000

National Carbon Ac- Canberra, ACT To bring together scien- Registrations: Yes ConSec Con- 15,635 counting System Experts tists, policy makers and 134 ference Sup- Workshop industry groups to assist port Secre- in establishment of the tariat Ser- National Carbon Ac- vices counting System and Implementation.

Rydges, Lon- 14,340 don Circuit, Canberra

QUESTION 3 (a)-(g) DETAILS, FROM MARCH 1996 UNTIL 21 JULY 1998, FOR CONFERENCES WHICH WERE PART-SPONSORED OR PART- FUNDED BY THE PORTFOLIO AND COST THE COMMONWEALTH IN EXCESS OF $30,000

Name of Con- (a) Cost (b) Proportion (c) Rationale (d) (e) No. of (f) Did the Commonwealth Contribute ference to Port- of Common- for Sponsorship Venue Partici- to any Consultant Organising the Con- folio wealth Funding or Part- pants ference. Against the Funding Registered Total Cost of the Conference

(f) (f) If Yes (g) Cost Yes/No who was of the consult- Common- ant wealth Contri- bution

Working Together $55,508 94.20% Environment The 58 Yes Baird Pub- $30,000 on Preventing Australia was Shera- lications Ship-Based Pollu- hosting the ton Pty Ltd tion in the Asia- conference as Break- Pacific Region part of its water international Hotel, response to Towns- meeting its ville obligations under the International Maritime Or- ganisation

Mining & Envi- $35,000 100% DFAT Promote Aus- Jakarta 180 Yes IPM Con- $27,060 ronment Work- also contributed tralian environ- Hilton, sultants shop $35,000 ment man- Indo- agement capa- nesia bility

Cleaner Produc- $17,000 100% DFAT Promote Aus- Beijing 120 tion Workshop also contributed tralian environ- Univer- $17,000 ment man- sity, agement capa- China bility 2168 SENATE Wednesday, 17 February 1999

Name of Con- (a) Cost (b) Proportion (c) Rationale (d) (e) No. of (f) Did the Commonwealth Contribute ference to Port- of Common- for Sponsorship Venue Partici- to any Consultant Organising the Con- folio wealth Funding or Part- pants ference. Against the Funding Registered Total Cost of the Conference

(f) (f) If Yes (g) Cost Yes/No who was of the consult- Common- ant wealth Contri- bution

Waterwatch Aus- $40,000 40% To promote Uni- 160 Yes Plevin and $9,400 tralia National and advance versity Associates Conference community of Adel- water quality aide, monitoring in Rose- Australia by worthy providing a Campus forum for people to work together and share knowledge and experiences and by provid- ing profession- al development opportunities for Waterwatch regional co- ordinators

Conference on $10,000 Approx 42% The meeting Austral- 114 No Biological ($40k funding outcomes will ian Infomatics provided by contribute Acad- DIST). The significantly to emy of final budget has Australia’s Science, not been final- ability to uti- Can- ised. At this lise our vast berra stage it is quantity of estimated by biological di- the Aust Acad- versity date emy of Science effectively and that the confer- at the same ence will cost time promote $120k— our expertise Commonwealth internationally contribution $50k Wednesday, 17 February 1999 SENATE 2169

Name of Con- (a) Cost (b) Proportion (c) Rationale (d) (e) No. of (f) Did the Commonwealth Contribute ference to Port- of Common- for Sponsorship Venue Partici- to any Consultant Organising the Con- folio wealth Funding or Part- pants ference. Against the Funding Registered Total Cost of the Conference

(f) (f) If Yes (g) Cost Yes/No who was of the consult- Common- ant wealth Contri- bution

Coast to Coast $63,996 42% of the pro- The Common- Shera- 209 No Conference jected budget wealth actively ton promotes a co- Perth operative inte- Hotel grated ap- proach to coastal man- agement. The Coast to Coast conference is the premier national con- ference of coastal manag- ers and is a cost effective, efficient mechanism for meeting the objective of bringing to- gether and pro- moting dia- logue between the disparate array of government, industry, academic and community people partici- pating in coast- al management across Australia Antarctic and $30,000 20% Symposium Wrest 282 No Global Change: was a major Point Interactions and Australian Conven- Impacts contribution to tion understanding Centre, Antarctica’s Hobart role in global climate change