COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 11 AUGUST 1999

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 11 AUGUST

Roads: Geelong Road ...... 7221 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999— First Reading ...... 7221 Second Reading ...... 7221 Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999— Second Reading ...... 7222 In Committee ...... 7223 First Speech ...... 7245 Matters of Public Interest— Administration of Northern Territory Land Councils ...... 7252 Employee Entitlements: Bankruptcy ...... 7255 Port Hinchinbrook Development Project ...... 7257 Parliamentary Education Office ...... 7259 Tibet ...... 7261 Drugs: Strategies ...... 7264 Distinguished Visitors ...... 7266 Questions Without Notice— Trade ...... 7266 Tax Reform ...... 7267 Trade: Tariffs ...... 7268 Rural Transaction Centres ...... 7268 Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program ...... 7270 Telstra: CS First Boston ...... 7270 Federal Cultural and Heritage Projects Program ...... 7272 Distinguished Visitors ...... 7273 Questions Without Notice— Skase, Mr Christopher ...... 7274 Departmental Secretaries ...... 7274 National Pollutant Inventory ...... 7276 East Timor: Peacemaking Operations ...... 7277 Telstra: Second Share Offer ...... 7278 Privilege ...... 7279 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Trade: Tariffs ...... 7279 Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Program ...... 7279 Departmental Secretaries ...... 7279 National Pollutant Inventory ...... 7279 East Timor: Peacemaking Operations ...... 7279 Petitions— Political Asylum Seekers ...... 7286 Banking: Branch Closures ...... 7286 Notices— Presentation ...... 7286 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee—Report ...... 7288 Notices— Postponement ...... 7290 Committees— Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Reference ...... 7290 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 7290 Committees— Socio-Economic Consequences of the National Competition Policy Committee—Appointment ...... 7291 Geneva Convention ...... 7291 CONTENTS—continued

Committees— Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee—Reference ...... 7291 Native Title ...... 7293 Committees— Community Affairs References Committee—Reference ...... 7294 Notices— Presentation ...... 7294 Committees— Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Report ...... 7295 Documents— Auditor-General’s Reports—Report No. 7 of 1999-2000 ...... 7295 Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 1999— Report of Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee ...... 7295 Report of Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee . . . 7295 Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999— First Reading ...... 7295 Second Reading ...... 7295 Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999— In Committee ...... 7296 Business— Government Business ...... 7314 Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic) 1999— In Committee ...... 7315 Adjournment— Huitson, Sergeant Glen ...... 7329 Health: Funding for Smoking Prevention Programs ...... 7329 Huitson, Sergeant Glen ...... 7329 Drugs: Schools ...... 7331 Rural and Regional Australia: Living Standards ...... 7333 Aborigines: Health and Welfare ...... 7335 Documents— Tabling ...... 7336 Questions On Notice— Aviation: Incident at Cairns Airport—(Question No. 685) ...... 7338 National Transmission Agency: Lilydale Transmission Tower— (Question No. 1010) ...... 7339 Former Minister for Transport and Regional Development: Office Operational Costs—(Question No. 1096) ...... 7340 Former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development: Office Operational Budget— (Question No. 1097) ...... 7340 Former Minister for Transport and Regional Development: Office Operational Budget—(Question No. 1098) ...... 7341 Department of Transport and Regional Services: Grants to the Electorate of Bass—(Question No. 1102) ...... 7341 Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts: Grants to the Electorate of Bass—(Question No. 1104) ...... 7342 Minister for Family and Community Services: Tasmanian Office Postage Costs—(Question No. 1131) ...... 7344 Department of Family and Community Services: Complaints— (Question No. 1139) ...... 7344 Minister for Family and Community Services: Departmental Liaison Officers—(Question No. 1140) ...... 7345 Minister for Family and Community Services: Media Officer— (Question No. 1141) ...... 7345 Department of Family and Community Services: Act of Grace Payments—(Question No. 1146) ...... 7345 Seafarers: Immigration Requirements—(Question No. 1177) ...... 7346 SENATE 7221

Wednesday, 11 August 1999 tions. Their elected representatives consult with local indigenous communities about programs and policies affecting them, and represent their interests to the ATSIC Board. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. ATSIC Regions are incorporated into zones. There Margaret Reid) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., are 16 zones, and the Regional Councillors in each and read prayers. zone elect one of their number to be on the ATSIC Board—their zone Commissioner. There is also a ROADS: GEELONG ROAD zone Commissioner from the Torres Strait, elected Senator CARR (Victoria) (9.30 a.m.)— by members of the Torres Strait Regional Authori- Madam President, pursuant to standing order ty. To date, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has also appointed the 154, I move: Chairperson, and one other Commissioner. This That the resolution of the Senate of 10 August provision in the ATSIC Act was amended in 1996, 1999, relating to the Geelong Road, be communi- to provide that the Commission consisted of only cated by message to the House of Representatives elected representatives, and that the ATSIC Chair- for concurrence. person be elected by the Commissioners from Question resolved in the affirmative. amongst their number. This amendment to the act will apply after the forthcoming ATSIC zone ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT elections which will follow the ATSIC Regional ISLANDER COMMISSION Council elections scheduled for 9 October 1999. It is expected that the elections of zone Commission- AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999 ers will take place in early December 1999. First Reading Madame President, I pay tribute here to the achievements of the founding Chairperson, Dr Motion (by Senator Ellison, at the request Lowitja O’Donoghue, and the current Chair, Mr of Senator Ian Campbell) agreed to: Gatjil Djerrkura. Both are widely respected and That the following bill be introduced: a bill for admired for their significant contributions to an act to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait indigenous affairs in Australia. Islander Commission Act 1989, and for related The bill before the Senate today does not include purposes. any major changes to the ATSIC Act, but it is Motion (by Senator Ellison) agreed to: important in that it clarifies the process pertaining to the new arrangements for the Chairperson. The That this bill may proceed without formalities bill provides that the person elected by his or her and be now read a first time. fellow Commissioners to be the ATSIC Chair Bill read a first time. ceases to hold his or her original offices of Region- al Councillor and zone Commissioner. The posi- Second Reading tions left vacant by the election of the Chairperson will be filled through the processes set down in the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— election rules made under the ATSIC Act. The Special Minister of State) (9.32 a.m.)—I table indigenous people in the affected region do not the explanatory memorandum and move: have to vote again—a recount is done to elect the That this bill be now read a second time. new Councillor. In the case of the vacant position of zone Commissioner the Regional Councillors I seek leave to have the second reading will elect a new Commissioner in a by election. speech incorporated in Hansard. This process results in a Commission of 18 mem- Leave granted. bers, rather than the 19 currently. To ensure that the number of Commissioners The speech read as follows— should equal the number of zones, plus one (the The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commis- Chairperson), the bill also provides that a Chairper- sion (ATSIC) was established by the Aboriginal son who resigns is also taken to have resigned as and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act 1989. a Commissioner. The bill removes the current ATSIC began operations on 5 March 1990. ATSIC reference to 17 members in section 27 of the act gives indigenous people a voice in the processes of and clarifies that the Minister must appoint as government. members of the Commission those persons elected Its representative arm consists of 35 Regional to represent the several zones. Councils on the mainland and Tasmania, and the The bill will commence when Commissioners take Torres Strait Regional Authority. Every three years, office after the zone elections in approximately indigenous people vote in Regional Council elec- December 1999. 7222 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

There are no financial implications arising from be able to tell the Senate and the community this bill except that the person who fills the vacant what we as a government will do in the event offices of Commissioner and Regional Councillor that we move to a republic on 6 November will be entitled to salary and allowances. this year. I commend the bill. During the course of the committee stage in Ordered that further consideration of the the debate of this bill it would be useful if we second reading of this bill be adjourned till canvassed the Presidential Nominations the first day of the 1999 summer sittings, in Committee Bill as well. This is not an usual accordance with standing order 111. procedure, but we are dealing with something CONSTITUTION ALTERATION that is quite extraordinary—namely, a referen- (ESTABLISHMENT OF REPUBLIC) dum dealing with whether this country should 1999 become a republic. There is nothing untoward about this; it is simply a matter of procedure Second Reading and a matter I wanted to draw to the attention Debate resumed from 10 August, on motion of senators. At the conclusion of my reply I by Senator Ian Campbell: will seek to table the government’s response. That this bill be now read a second time. As well as that, I draw to the attention of senators the fact that the research which I Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— mentioned in my speech last night was tabled. Special Minister of State) (9.32 a.m.)— That was made public previously, but never- Yesterday I addressed the Senate in reply to theless it was thought appropriate to table it the second reading debate on the bill before yesterday so that anyone who did not have a the chamber, the Constitution Alteration copy of it could obtain one for the purposes (Establishment of Republic) 1999, and I of the ensuing debate. would like to clarify for senators the fact that The government has amendments which I we do not have the Presidential Nominations believe have now been circulated in the Committee Bill 1999 before the chamber. We chamber. These amendments relate to the are debating the bill which will in effect deal Constitution Alteration (Establishment of with the referendum on 6 November, and Republic) 1999, which is the bill before us. without the passage of that bill the referen- I conclude by once again thanking senators dum cannot take place. Consequential to any for their contributions yesterday and stressing move to a republic is the passage of the to the Senate that the government is ap- Presidential Nominations Committee Bill proaching this in an open-handed and objec- 1999, which I have mentioned. I note that tive manner and that it intends to engage in Senator Brown has moved amendments to the a full campaign to educate the community in Presidential Nominations Committee Bill, but relation to aspects of our current system, the that bill is not before us at this time. proposed changes and the procedure of the I can say, however, that the government has referendum. We are taking on board the considered its response to the report of the comments made in relation to informing the Joint Select Committee on the Republic public. We realise from our research that Referendum, and in that report there were there is some work to be done—approximate- recommendations in relation to the Presiden- ly half those people surveyed said that they tial Nominations Committee Bill 1999. The needed more information. More particularly government proposes tabling its response, we will be looking at those sectors of the which sets out the government’s attitude to community with a non-English speaking back- those recommendations of the joint committee ground, particularly Aboriginals and Torres which deal with the Constitution Alteration Strait Islanders. I conclude with those re- (Establishment of Republic) 1999 and with marks, and I table the government’s response the Presidential Nominations Committee Bill to the report of the Joint Select Committee on 1999. We are covering two pieces of pro- the Republic Referendum. posed legislation—one which is before the Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate and one which is not—but we want to Bill read a second time. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7223

In Committee Faulkner has just outlined, Chair. I think it is The bill. sensible. As Senator Faulkner says, the long Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— title does inform the debate. It is central to Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.38 the debate that is going to ensue. I am trying a.m.)—Madam Chair, before we commence to just work this out. It is a matter of really the committee stage debate, can I ask for the determining at the outset what the question cooperation of the committee in relation to will be at referendum in so far as this com- the general issue of the handling of the mittee is concerned and then we get on to committee stage debate. It goes to the issue debating the rest. The long title of the bill is of when we might deal with the question of in effect the sentence that will be put on the the long title of the bill. You might seek referendum papers, so it is very important that advice on this, but I certainly understand that we clear that up first. Senator Faulkner is the issue of the long title may well in the quite sensibly saying that we should do that ordinary course of events be dealt with at the instead of as normal at the end as a very last conclusion of the committee stage of the question in the committee deliberations, which debate. Given that the Senate standing orders could be sometime tonight or tomorrow. It is are clear on that point, the point I would like much better that we know what we are deal- to make to the committee in a general sense ing with right now at the outset. I think it is before we commence the committee stage a sensible move and I will certainly be grant- debate is that we do have a circumstance here ing leave, if that is what is required. where the long title actually informs the Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (9.42 debate. I think from all sides of the chamber a.m.)—I take the view that the long title and all sides of the argument there would be should be dealt with in accordance with what general agreement about that. It does seem to is in the standing orders. It is there for a very me in this instance that we might look, either valid reason in the standing orders. I have with leave of the committee or with cooper- seen amendments to legislation go through the ation of those participating in the committee committee stage which really do have an stage debate, that on this occasion, in the effect on those of us who are considering the interests of facilitating the debate, we deal long title at the end of the legislation. To deal with the question of the long title first. I do with the long title at this point in time is, in not want to place that procedural conundrum my view, premature. There is quite a large before you so early in the day— number of amendments which we need to be The CHAIRMAN—I have an answer, considering and I do not think it is appropri- Senator. ate or practical, to be quite frank, to deal with the long title right now. I would suggest that Senator FAULKNER—Thank you. But I it would be better to deal with the long title, think most senators agree that it is an import- if it is inadequate, having regard to amend- ant threshold issue before we move into more ments that are made to the legislation. Let us general debate in the committee. do it at the appropriate time, informed as we The CHAIRMAN—Standing orders require will be of what the general desire of the that the title is normally the last item dealt chamber is. with in the committee stage. However, it is up Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (9.44 to the committee itself, if it is the wish of the a.m.)—This is slightly at a tangent but I think committee, to deal with the amendments and still relevant to the order we deal with the the issues in whatever order it so wishes. If amendments in. We have now got an initial the committee wishes to deal with the title incomplete running sheet. Can I clarify first then, if there is leave to do so, the bill whether there are further amendments to be having been taken as a whole, it can be done. circulated? I have been able to find some We do now have a running sheet, too, I am amendments by Senator Murray on behalf of told. the Democrats, plus the government’s. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.41 a.m.)— The CHAIRMAN—It is not within the I would endorse the process that Senator knowledge of the chair if there are further 7224 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 amendments to be circulated within the a sensible way of proceeding but I acknow- chamber. I am sorry, but this is an incomplete ledge that Senator Harradine has some con- running sheet. cerns and that Senator Ellison, who is han- Senator BARTLETT—I do not have any dling the bill for the government, is very opposition amendments for starters. I know lukewarm about the proposition. that there are other amendments from Senator On that basis I do not intend to press the Stott Despoja, and on the running sheet the issue and I am sure that senators will have a opposition ones are coming up first. I am just mind to the substantive issue as we deal with wondering about this. it in the committee stage of debate. I do not The CHAIRMAN—We have opposition want to delay the committee on this general amendments up here. question any longer. It is something certainly worth progressing but only worth progressing Senator Bolkus interjecting— when all senators in the chamber and those The CHAIRMAN—Senator Bolkus, by who are representing different points of view way of an interjection, has indicated that they are comfortable with a different approach on have been circulated. It is sheet 1487 and the important legislation in a key committee stage time and date at the bottom of that sheet of debate. amendments is 10 August 1999 at 5.30 p.m. The CHAIRMAN—Leave is not granted. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Special Minister of State) (9.45 a.m.)—At the (9.48 a.m.)—Madam Chair, as a courtesy to outset can I please table a supplementary the chair and as a courtesy to the chamber, I explanatory memorandum and also address should advise you that amendments circulated the proposal put by the opposition. I under- in my name are those that are presented by stand that it has been put forward with the me as an individual senator, not on behalf of best of reasons. However, I think it is best to the Democrats. The Democrats have been stick with the standing orders and deal with well aware of my personal position for well the long title last. There will be a debate on over two years. I think that, whilst there is the bill and there may or may not be amend- quite a deal of sympathy for my position ments during the course of that debate and I within the party room, nevertheless I should think it is appropriate at the conclusion of the not misrepresent my views as reflecting those debate to then look back at the bill that you of the party room and I will be presenting have and consider the long title. I think that those amendments individually. If the chair is why we deal with the long title at the would accept that understanding, I would be conclusion of the debate: so that senators grateful. know what we are dealing with. It is some- what like putting the cart before the horse. The CHAIRMAN—I hope that when the Therefore, I would put to the chamber that the completed running sheet comes out that is government is not minded to support that taken note of because I do have a whole proposition. bundle of amendments that are down as being moved by Senator Murray on behalf of the Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Democrats. They are on sheet 1472. I take it, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.46 Senator Murray, that those are the ones that a.m.)—There are unique circumstances here you will be moving as an individual and not and I do think, in relation to this particular on behalf of the Democrats? bill, that the long title does inform the debate, as I have indicated. But I also would know- Senator MURRAY—Yes, Madam Chair. ledge that, if we are to approach the question There are two sheets from me: one is 1472 in a different way than might ordinarily be the and the other is 1492. case, then that requires all senators in the The CHAIRMAN—The question is that chamber to be comfortable with it. I appreci- the bill stand as printed. According to the ate that the Australian Democrats and the running sheet, the first amendment is opposi- Australian Greens believe that this would be tion amendment No. 1 on sheet 1487. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7225

Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.49 Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— a.m.)—I move: Special Minister of State) (9.52 a.m.)—For (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at the record, the government opposes this the end of section 59, add: amendment. It does so on the basis that the Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but recommendation by the joint committee subject to the Constitution, the constitutional concerned more the advice on the exercise of conventions concerning the appropriate sources non-reserve powers while this is couched in of advice for the Governor-General in respect of terms of ‘in respect of the exercise of the the exercise of the reserve powers applying reserve powers’. There is a difference there immediately before the office of Governor- and the government believes that this, in General ceased to exist shall apply in respect of the President. effect, does not carry out the recommendation of the joint standing committee. By way of a general introduction, I indicate that the opposition is moving the amendments Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (9.52 that we moved in the House of Representa- a.m.)—I point the minister to recommendation tives. The flavour and impact of those amend- No. 8 of the joint standing committee where, ments were in essence to pick up the recom- quite clearly, the committee is of the view mendations of the advisory report of the Joint that consideration be given to amending the Select Committee on the Republic Referen- bill to state that ‘the conventions which dum. This is one of those areas where the currently determine the appropriate source of committee did make some recommendations advice should apply in respect of the and I will turn to those in just a few mo- President’. As I say, this is a housekeeping ments. However, also at the outset can I say matter, but I do not think the minister should that we do not intend to embark upon a long, be under any misconception that the commit- protracted debate. Others might do so in the tee did not have a view in respect of the chamber this morning but we do not intend to sources of advice. That is exactly the lan- embark on a long, protracted debate in respect guage we are seeking to apply through our of these issues. For us the core issue is the amendment to the legislation. question that is to be put to the public. Question put: In respect of this, recommendations 8 and That the amendment (Senator Bolkus’s)be 9 of the report are essentially the source of agreed to. motivation for the opposition to move this particular amendment. This amendment provides that, subject to the Constitution, the The committee divided. [9.58 a.m.] constitutional conventions concerning the (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) appropriate sources of advice for the Ayes ...... 35 Governor-General in respect of the exercise Noes ...... 31 of the reserve powers applying immediately —— before the office of Governor-General ceased Majority ...... 4 to exist shall apply in respect of the President. —— In essence, this amendment seeks to do a bit AYES of housekeeping to ensure that the sources of Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. advice continue to be the same for the Presi- Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. dent as they would otherwise have been for Bourne, V. Brown, B. the Governor-General. Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian Denman, K. J. Faulkner, J. P. Democrats) (9.52 a.m.)—Briefly, for the Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. reasons outlined by Senator Bolkus, the Greig, B. A. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P. Australian Democrats think this is a logical Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W. and appropriate amendment. We will be Mackay, S. McLucas, J. E. supporting the amendment before the chair. Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. 7226 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

AYES incurred much more damage had the High O’Brien, K. W. K. * Quirke, J. A. Court been placed in the position of review- Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D. ing Governor-General Kerr’s actions. In my Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. opinion, the role of the High Court must be, Woodley, J. so far as is possible, to be a separate inde- NOES pendent arbiter on the proper construction of Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. constitutional provisions. Involvement in Boswell, R. L. D. Calvert, P. H. * political crises could seriously impair its Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. capacity and authority to perform this func- Crane, W. Eggleston, A. tion. It is my view that it is not a body well Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. placed or equipped to perform that role. Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. Harris, L. Heffernan, W. Having said that, it is imperative that the Herron, J. Kemp, R. reserve powers of the Governor-General are Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. carried over to the President, along with the Macdonald, I. Mason, B. J. conventions that guide their exercise. That is McGauran, J. J. J. Parer, W. R. why I have just voted with the opposition on Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. their amendment. I submit that the proposed Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T. Tierney, J. section 59 paragraph 3 should contain the Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. explicit direction that the reserve powers and Watson, J. O. W. conventions mentioned in the paragraph are PAIRS not to be subject to review in any court. It is Campbell, G. Newman, J. M. my belief and understanding that that is the Evans, C. V. Hill, R. M. present situation and I think it is desirable Crowley, R. A. Minchin, N. H. that it continue. I accordingly move amend- Lundy, K. Brownhill, D. G. C. ment No. 2: McKiernan, J. P. Chapman, H. G. P. * denotes teller (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at Question so resolved in the affirmative. the end of section 59, add: Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) The exercise and extent of a reserve power shall not be subject to review by any court or (10.01 a.m.)—I refer the committee to amend- tribunal. ment (2) on sheet 1472. That amendment refers to page 3 of the bill, section 59, Exec- Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (10.04 utive power. The amendment says that ‘the a.m.)—It is the opposition’s view that the exercise and extent of a reserve power shall government has an amendment which covers not be subject to review by any court or this precise point of justiciability. It is that tribunal’. The reserve powers of a President amendment that the opposition prefers to the together with the conventions guiding their amendment moved by Senator Murray. It is exercise are placed in the Constitution in the an amendment we find to be more in line proposed section 59. By this fact, these with the advisory report of the Joint Select powers could become justiciable. This could Committee on the Republic Referendum. have the practical effect of dragging the High When Senator Ellison moves it, we will be Court into a political controversy to review supporting the government’s amendment. whether an act of a President was constitu- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- tional. This would be unprecedented in our tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian constitutional history, and could cause delays Democrats) (10.04 a.m.)—As a Democrat I do and hinder the proper use of the reserve support Senator Murray’s amendment in this powers. circumstance. There is good argument prof- While the crisis of 1975 was undeniably fered by people like Professor George tumultuous, it was resolved in the political Winterton that if it is the will of the parlia- arena. The High Court was already stained, in ment that the reserve powers not be justiciable my opinion, by the involvement of Barwick then perhaps there should be some reference CJ in the controversy, but it would have to that in the bill. That is my understanding Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7227 of what my colleague seeks to do. We will be that any reserve powers or conventions are supporting him on that. lost in the transition to a republic. It preserves Senator COONEY (Victoria) (10.05 the status quo whilst accommodating any a.m.)—Senator Murray was talking about change. For those reasons, the government 1975, and I was looking at this amendment will be opposing the amendment. which appears as if it is going to be accept- Amendment not agreed to. ed—at least the concept. That of course was Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.08 not the problem in 1975. The problem there a.m.)—by leave—I move Green amendments was—and Senator Murray mentioned it— Nos 1 and 2: about the Chief Justice, Sir Garfield Barwick. (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 29), omit It was what he did before the dismissal that "may", substitute "must". was of concern. It was the giving of advice to (2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 31), after the Governor-General as Chief Justice that led "citizen", insert "recommended by that com- to the concern and distress at that time. mittee". Listening to Senator Murray it seemed to me These amendments take away the discretion that this provision does not overcome the of the Prime Minister to nominate any citizen problem that led to the tumult at that time. I and ensure that the Prime Minister must understand that what he is saying is that the nominate one of those citizens whose name is decision of the Governor-General or the put forward by the committee specifically President to exercise a reserve power should established for that purpose. I cannot see not be subject to the High Court, but that is much point in having a committee that puts not the issue that was a problem in 1975; the forward a list of potential presidents to the issue in 1975 was the discussion between the Prime Minister for the Prime Minister then to Governor-General at that time and the Chief select somebody entirely different. Justice about matters which, I would say, propriety should not have allowed. There is, as we know, a lot of concern amongst the Australian electorate that there is Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— not going to be, under the formula presented Special Minister of State) (10.06 a.m.)—The by this bill, opportunity for direct election of government does not support Senator the President by the people of Australia. What Murray’s amendment. As pointed out by came out of the Constitutional Convention is Senator Bolkus, we have an amendment, our the alternative means of input for the selec- amendment No. 5, which deals with this. Our tion of a President: any Australian can put amendment inserts a new clause 8A and deals forward the name of a person or persons who with justiciability. It states: they believe would make a good President to The enactment of the Constitution Alteration a committee set up to vet those nominations, (Establishment of Republic) 1999 does not make to narrow the field and to put forward a short justiciable the exercise by the President of a reserve power referred to in section 59 of this Constitution list to the Prime Minister, who then makes a if the exercise by the Governor-General of that selection. If that is approved by the Leader of power was not justiciable. the Opposition, the vital steps have been That preserves the status quo. We believe it made towards the selection of a new Presi- is in accordance with the recommendations of dent. the joint committee. The status quo is the Under this legislation, however, the Prime reserve powers, and the conventions which Minister can get around that. The Prime govern their exercise are high political matters Minister can look at the short list which has which are not subject to review by a court. come through that public nomination process That view has been questioned from time to and select somebody entirely different. On time. In the approach to this, the government Channel 9 the night before last Prime Minister has thought it best to follow the recommenda- Howard pointed to this very shortcoming as tion of the joint committee in leaving things another reason for people voting no at the as they are, but it still keeps faith with the coming referendum. This Greens amendment convention model. It rules out any argument gets around the Prime Minister’s ability to 7228 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 argue that that nomination process is a farce. Prime Minister has regard to the committee’s It tightens it up. It ensures that the Prime recommendations, but we do not believe there Minister is limited to the list put forward by are enough safeguards to ensure that the the Presidential Nominations Committee. Prime Minister of the day does not simply The committee will be aware that I have an ignore or override the will of that committee. amendment which I will move later to also The nomination process was a key, I be- make that nominations committee balanced in lieve, to the success of this particular model its representation of the Australian people. It in the final stages of the Constitutional Con- will, amongst other things, mean that the vention last year. An important ingredient of Prime Minister, who nominates the commit- that was allowing for public input into that tee, will have to take into account states and nomination process and ensuring that the territories of origin of people going on the public input was appropriately diverse and committee, sex, age, cultural diversity and the reasonably representative. That is an issue that desirability of indigenous representation. we discussed in the joint select committee This is a minimal alternative to the direct process. I am glad to see that the second election process. It is very important that we recommendation of that committee was tighten this up, that we make that Presidential accepted. It states: Nominations Committee a real representation . . . Nominations Committee Bill be amended to of the Australian people, that we make its require the Prime Minister to, as far as practicable, work valid and that we do not leave open to have regard to the diversity of the Australian the cupidity of a future Prime Minister the people when appointing community members of the Nominations Committee. ability to treat it with disdain and go outside the nominated list put forward and select All these factors are very important. We somebody else. That has the potential of should have some sense of certainty in rela- course for a Prime Minister to ensure that, in tion to the Prime Minister’s actions. The the future, he or she chooses a President who previous speaker referred to some rather glib comes from their own political party or their comments by the Prime Minister in a Channel own persuasion or who is seen as a safe bet 9 interview a couple of nights ago that con- rather than somebody who has come through cerned me. There is a need to ensure diversity the public nomination process. is taken into account and that the will of the people on that committee is not overruled and They are very important amendments, ignored. Certainly, this is one way of doing simple as they may be. Amendment No. 1 that and the Democrats support it. substitutes the word ‘may’ for ‘must’. It says that the Prime Minister must take a nominee Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (10.16 from the list put forward by his or her own a.m.)—I indicate at this stage that the opposi- Presidential Nominations Committee. It is a tion does not support these two amendments. very simple and important amendment. I We have concerns about the statements made recommend the amendments to the committee. by the Prime Minister the other night. Given Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- anyone with bad faith—and he seems to be tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian showing it at the moment in respect of this Democrats) (10.14 a.m.)—The Australian process and this legislation—you will, of Democrats will be supporting the two Green course, have a number of issues raised that, amendments before us for many of the rea- at the end of the day, probably will not be the sons outlined by Senator Brown. We think it issues that they are because of the interven- is quite an appropriate amendment to place an tion of the Prime Minister in the debate the onus on the Prime Minister that he will act in other night. accordance with the wishes and the recom- In respect of these amendments, we say that mendations of the nomination committee. The there has to be some degree of flexibility. The Australian Democrats appreciate that there are word ‘must’ is probably inappropriate when some already existing safeguards and provi- it comes to the necessity for an agreement sions in the legislation which ensure that the between the Leader of the Opposition and the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7229

Prime Minister. You cannot force that sort of If you accept these matters, how do you deal agreement. A degree of flexibility is import- with other matters, which I cannot conceive ant. In respect of the first part of the amend- of now, that develop into issues and become ment—‘must move for a President to be relevant in the next 50 or 100 years? Why are appointed’—we have a view that the reality we limiting it to issues which may seem is that that will happen once the system is set anachronistic 100 years from now? up, so there is no need to have the obligation Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.21 that is implied in the word ‘must’. We do not a.m.)—In response to both issues, I come agree with these two amendments and will be back to the issue of the people of Australia. opposing them. I am not going to support a situation which is Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.17 farcical whereby a committee is established to a.m.)—When considering this very important which the Australian people put in nomina- question, it is important for the parliament to tions and then the Prime Minister can gazump ensure that, as far as possible, the will of the it, ignore it. In response to Senator Harradine, people is upheld. I make the observation that the Prime Minister is going to nominate this the committee established under this schedule committee, hopefully with reference to the is an appointed committee; it is not an elected diversity of Australians. The Prime Minister committee. The Prime Minister of Australia is responsible for the committee. There is no is elected. The question is who is to be made getting away from that. If the committee does responsible for the appointment of the Presi- not give the right choices to the Prime dent. Minister then it is on his or her head. Under this provision, the Prime Minister We already have in this legislation the can put forward a name to the parliament, but situation where that committee is appointed the motion requires seconding by the Leader and the Prime Minister is responsible for it. of the Opposition and affirming by a two- If the Prime Minister makes a hash of estab- thirds majority. For the Prime Minister and, lishing that committee then of course the ipso facto, the Leader of the Opposition to be people can judge that at the ballot-box. But required to accept the person nominated by an this committee has been established as a unelected committee—he will normally do means—it is a very vital component—of this, obviously—then it really places the offsetting the disappointment many Austral- ultimate decision in the hands of an unelected ians are expressing that this legislation does committee. I do not think that is in the inter- not enable the direct election of a President, ests of democracy. because so many Australians want to be able If they make a mistake they will not have to vote for a President each time that vacancy to bear any burden because they are, after all, occurs. What I am saying here is that the only appointed. But, my goodness, if the Constitutional Convention said, ‘Well, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposi- best way we can assuage that wish by Aus- tion make the mistake then they are politically tralians under the system that has been de- accountable. They are elected and they are the vised is that there be a committee set up, that ones who should bear the brunt if anything that committee be appointed by the Prime goes wrong. I offer those views on these Minister but it then consider the nominations amendments. coming from Australians as to who should be Senator COONEY (Victoria) (10.20 President.’ That is all. That is where the a.m.)—I would like Senator Brown to con- Australian people get their input. sider that if you put this in—and we were The committee and the Labor Party here, talking about the High Court before—this along with Senator Harradine and the govern- certainly does become judiciable because a ment, are saying, ‘Well, yes, we have the challenge could be made on the basis that the committee set up. The nominations all go in, Prime Minister did not take into account the but then the Prime Minister can ignore that.’ matters set out here sufficiently or at all. I am We are just simply giving more power to the not sure whether Senator Brown wants that. executive office, to the Prime Minister. I do 7230 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 not think that is what we are about in this political parties within the parliament. If at place. I think those parties who are saying no some day in the future the coalition dissolves to this amendment should think again. Maybe back into two constituent parties, I think it the Labor Party sees itself back in office at would be utterly improper for the Leader of some future time and it wants its Prime the National Party not to be consulted and I Minister to have this power. Of course that is certainly think it is improper for the Leader going to happen, but it is not giving the of the Australian Democrats not to be con- Australian people the dinkum opportunity, sulted. So the stricture that it is confined to minimal as this process might be, to feed in the decisions recommended by that committee their nomination for President and expect that is in contradiction to the bill’s intent, to the nomination to be treated with the respect it model’s intent, and is a restraint. Senator deserves. Brown, I indicate to you that I like recom- If the Prime Minister can get round that mendation 1 but I cannot support recommen- nomination process then you are devaluing it. dation 2. Its value is limited as it is, and I think to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.28 devalue it further by opposing these two a.m.)—Senator Murray is indicating a differ- amendments is the wrong way to go. I cer- ence of opinion on the two. Therefore, I seek tainly want a division on this, but it may be leave to separate the questions so they can be that I am not even going to get support for looked at serially rather than together. that. Let that be on the record. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) tor Crowley)—You do not need leave to do (10.25 a.m.)—I would like to deal with these that. We can do that from the chair, Senator amendments in two parts. The first substitutes Brown. ‘must’ for ‘may’. One of the weaknesses of Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- the bill and the proposals is that it is possible tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian that there may exist an indeterminate period Democrats) (10.29 a.m.)—I just want to draw when an Acting President is in place. It is the attention of the Senate to the third recom- improper, in my view, for that situation not to mendation from the advisory report of the be resolved. What the first change would do, joint select committee. I think this picks up without taking responsibility away from the on the fact that while there may have been an Prime Minister to make the decision, which awareness of a need for flexibility, for lack of is the present intention of this bill, would be a better word, in terms of how the Prime to require him to make that decision or Minister responded to the nominations require her to make that decision—and may committee’s recommendations, it also balan- it soon be a her as well—as a result of the ces that with some form of accountability. committee meeting and making some recom- The recommendation reads: mendations to him. So I think the change . . . that the draft legislation be appropriately from ‘may’ to ‘must’ is a useful improvement amended to provide that where the Prime Minister on the bill. nominates as President a person other than a candidate mentioned in the short list from the However, I find the second amendment Nominations Committee, the Prime Minister be difficult to support because that just says required to table a statement in Parliament giving ‘recommended by that committee’ and, as we his or her reasons for deciding that such exception- all know, this is at least a two-part process— al circumstances existed for failing to comply with the Nomination Committee’s recommendations. it is probably a three-part process: firstly, the public are invited to provide nominations; I ask the government for its official response secondly, the committee meets and comes to to that third recommendation contained in the a conclusion; and, thirdly, the Prime Minister advisory report. of the day is required to consult, as the bill Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (10.30 says, with the Leader of the Opposition. As a.m.)—I ask the minister in his response to we will discuss later, I am of the opinion that give an indication to the committee of his consultation should be with the heads of view as to Senator Cooney’s statement that it Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7231 is judiciable. Isn’t it a fact that the Prime Brown’s interpretation of ‘must’ and my Minister cannot simply ignore the recommen- interpretation of it differ. I think that is dation that has been made by the nomination important to the debate, because this ‘must’ committee? Indeed, the provision of the means that the Prime Minister must make a legislation that we are considering says: decision. This ‘must’ does not say that that After considering the report of a committee estab- decision must be more than informed by the lished and operating as the Parliament provides to committee. They are two processes: to receive invite and consider nominations for appointment as the committee’s recommendation and to President, the Prime Minister may, in a joint sitting consult with the Leader of the Opposition. If of members... ever this matter were dealt with, I would If the Prime Minister simply ignored the expect that the committee’s recommendation recommendations of the committee, is it a fact would weigh very heavily on the Prime that that matter could be tested in the courts? Minister. My reading of that clause on a strict Could the minister indicate whether that interpretation—and there are some lawyers in would be the situation? the gathering in the chamber—is that it simply means that he must make a decision, Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.31 not that he must make that decision in favour a.m.)—While the minister is considering that, of the list given to him by the committee. I will say that of course that is the situation. Either way, it is going to be available to some Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.34 citizen to take any matter in this legislation to a.m.)—Senator Murray, I recommend that you the courts, but I submit that that is not the accept both of the amendments. It then means point. The point I am trying to make is that that the Prime Minister must make a decision we should make the input of the Australian and that the decision must be from the list put people valid so that the Prime Minister has forward by the committee, which is adjudicat- not only to take notice of what they have said ing on nominations coming from the Austral- but to select a presidential nominee, whose ian people. name has originally been put forward by the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Australian people, from the process which is Special Minister of State) (10.34 a.m.)—There established here. We should not make this are a number of matters. The government selection committee process and the input of opposes these amendments Nos 1 and 2 by the Australian people a farce, if the Prime the Greens. I will deal with each in turn. Minister seeks to go outside it. Of course, any Firstly, the changing of the word ‘may’ to Prime Minister who comes up with their own ‘must’ does imply a sanction. In fact, we presidential nominee outside the list put would agree with Senator Cooney’s assertion forward by the committee is going to say, ‘I that this heightens the aspect of justiciability. considered the committee’s list, but I’ve got It is something which Senator Harradine was somebody who is better.’ concerned with. It imposes a more cast-iron If we adopt my amendment, which says that obligation on the Prime Minister and, of the Prime Minister must select somebody course, that is the intention that the Greens from the short list put forward by the commit- have here. But the more you do that, the more tee, any Prime Minister who has a nominee you open it up to judicial review, and that is whom he or she wants to see as President has something which the government thinks is the simple mechanism of recommending their problematic. nominee to this committee. If they are a good In any event, there is a clear expectation nominee, they will be on the short list. It is that the President will be appointed at the end not cutting the Prime Minister’s wishes out. of an incumbent’s term. This has operated for It is a process. I am ensuring here that the many years in this country with the way that Australian electorate does not get cut out in governors-general are appointed by the Prime this process. Minister. The practice has been observed, and Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) the government believes it will continue to be (10.33 a.m.)—I should point out that Senator observed because there will be political 7232 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 pressures to do so. The convention provided basis that the Prime Minister would not be for an Acting President in circumstances bound to move a name which was from the where there might be a gap between appoint- short list, much for the reasons I have pointed ments. I put to the Senate that the convention out. was not of a mind to say that there should be There is another aspect mentioned by an automatic requirement—the insertion of a Senator Stott Despoja in relation to recom- ‘must’, if you like—in relation to the Prime mendation 3 of the joint committee which Minister’s actions. It saw that the current provided that: system was sufficient and that there would be . . . where the Prime Minister nominates as Presi- sufficient pressure to appoint a successor to dent a person other than a candidate mentioned in the incumbent. Therefore, the government is the short list . . . the Prime Minister be required to of a view that it would be inappropriate to table a statement in Parliament giving his or her require the Prime Minister in the circum- reasons for deciding that such exceptional circum- stances mentioned. stances existed for failing to comply with the Nomination Committee’s recommendations. The government’s proposal allows for the The government’s response is in the document opportunity for the Prime Minister to engage I tabled earlier. In substance, that recommen- with the Leader of the Opposition to nominate dation is supported. Under section 60 of the a presidential candidate. You do not know Constitution, the Prime Minister is technically what might transpire in the affairs of human under no obligation to limit his or her nomi- beings. You might have someone who is on nation to a person from the short list provided the way to being nominated who passes away by a nominations committee in its report. The or for some other reason is ineligible, and it Constitutional Convention’s resolution is is then back to the drawing board. Mean- expressed in terms that the Prime Minister is while, you would have this sanction of ‘must’ to ‘take into account’ the committee’s report. hanging over the Prime Minister. It is the It is clear that debate at the convention view of the government that, in the circum- proceeded on the basis that the Prime Minister stances, there are adequate safeguards that should not be under obligation to appoint a carry on the current practice and that are not person identified by the nominations commit- contrary to the convention model. tee, although it was rightly recognised that the As for the second amendment, the govern- political realities would impose pressures to ment is saying that the proposal is in accord- do so. I outlined that earlier. ance with the convention recommendations. It is possible to identify circumstances in The Prime Minister is technically under no which it may not be appropriate to nominate obligation to nominate someone from the a person recommended by a nominations short list. However, again, there would be committee. An example is where agreement immense political pressure to do so. The could not be reached with the Leader of the requirement of a sanction again opens this up Opposition on any of the committee’s short to judicial review and again does not accom- list. In any nominations procedure, the Prime modate something which might transpire, such Minister has to obtain the backing of the as someone becoming ineligible to be moved Leader of the Opposition. Another example is forward. For that reason, the government is of where an outstanding candidate excluded from the view that this should not be changed. The the committee’s consideration because of an convention said that, having taken into ac- apparent unavailability subsequently agreed to count the report of the committee, the Prime be considered when approached by the Prime Minister would put forward a single nomina- Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. tion. The convention did not say that it must It may well be that the nominations commit- be from the short list, although it was intend- tee looked at a pool of candidates but exclud- ed that there be political pressure that it be ed an outstanding candidate who was thought from the short list—and, in most cases, it at the time to be unavailable, that that then would invariably be from the short list. changed and that the Prime Minister and the Nonetheless the convention proceeded on the Leader of the Opposition both then thought Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7233 this person should be approached. That would We are in an age where the executive is rule out an allowance for that to be accommo- accreting more and more power to itself. I do dated. not want to be part of that process. It may The government would not accept any suit the big parties to be, but I think the proposal to amend proposed section 60 of the model we have here is not the favoured model Constitution to fetter the Prime Minister’s of the Australian people. Australians want to constitutional discretion. However, the be part of the process of nominating a Presi- government supports amendments of the dent. They do not want a Prime Minister, nominations committee bill to provide explic- even if recently elected by them, to be able to itly for a Prime Minister who moves a name gazump that process or to get around it. We that is not on the nominations committee should be making that clear here. I can see I short list to inform the parliament of reasons do not have the numbers, but I reiterate that for the alternative nomination. The govern- these amendments are about power to the ment would undertake to move an amendment people. in those terms accordingly when or if the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- need arose to consider the nominations com- tor Crowley)—The question is that Greens mittee bill. The government is saying that it amendment No. 1 be agreed to. would agree to the Prime Minister having to table reasons as to the choice of this alterna- The committee divided. [10.49 a.m.] tive candidate. It would not be a situation where the Prime Minister would have to give (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) reasons for deciding that such exceptional Ayes ...... 10 circumstances existed for failing to comply Noes ...... 54 with the nominations committee recommenda- —— tions—a subtle difference but nonetheless one Majority ...... 44 which we believe is more preferable. It would —— AYES perhaps avoid the odium of comparison. Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. In the situation recommended by the joint Bourne, V. * Brown, B. committee, you would invite a situation where Greig, B. A. Lees, M. H. Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D. the Prime Minister might say, ‘These weren’t Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J. as good as the one I am looking at,’ or, ‘There was some problem with these candi- NOES Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. dates.’ We are saying that, if the Prime Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. Minister does choose an outsider—to term it Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. that way—the Prime Minister would give Campbell, G. Carr, K. reasons saying why that person was such an Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. outstanding candidate. For those reasons, we Cook, P. F. S. Coonan, H. believe there should be a subtle difference in Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. the way we support recommendation 3 of the Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. joint committee. Evans, C. V. Ferris, J. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.43 Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. a.m.)—I thank the minister, but I am totally Herron, J. Hill, R. M. unconvinced. We can always come up with a Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P. list of ‘what ifs’. What if the Prime Minister Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. died in office? What if the Deputy Prime Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K. Minister went down in a plane crash at the Macdonald, I. Mackay, S. same time? We can always come up with Mason, B. J. McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E. Minchin, N. H. ‘what ifs’. We are dealing with the practicali- Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M. ties of the situation and the passage of politi- O’Brien, K. W. K. Patterson, K. C. L. cal power. I am moving here power to the Payne, M. A. Quirke, J. A. * people, not more power to the Prime Minister. Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E. 7234 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

NOES have multiparty oppositions as opposed to Schacht, C. C. Tambling, G. E. J. formal single-party oppositions. Given the Tchen, T. Tierney, J. increasing fluidity of contemporary politics, Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. it would be naive to simply assume that the existing Australian party system will not * denotes teller undergo significant changes over the coming Question so resolved in the negative. century. Therefore, proposed constitutional The CHAIRMAN—The question is that change should not be so short-sighted as to be Greens amendment No. 2 be agreed to. founded on a view that the two-party system Question resolved in the negative. is here to stay. The CHAIRMAN—We now move to opposition amendment No. 2. I submit that a provision should be added that the candidate nominated by the Prime Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (10.54 Minister have the formal support of the a.m.)—The opposition is not pursuing this leaders of all recognised federal parliamentary amendment; we withdraw it. political parties prior to the candidate’s name Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) being put to the joint house vote. I know that (10.54 a.m.)—I move amendment No. 3 on the constitutional committee has recommend- sheet 1472, as revised: ed that the words ‘if any’ be added following (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 1 and 2), ‘the Leader of the Opposition’. But that to me omit "seconded by the Leader of the Opposi- is a poor additional change. It helps, but the tion in the House of Representatives", substi- real emphasis of the Constitutional Conven- tute "supported by the leader of each political tion model was that some kind of consensual party with at least 5 members in the Parlia- agreement should be reached within the ment". parliament—and I agree with that. I agree that This amendment has been revised—for those it is desirable and helpful for the Leader of who are looking for major changes—to make the Opposition to agree with the Prime sure it notes that I am speaking on behalf of Minister that the appropriate presidential myself and not on behalf of all the Demo- nomination is the right one for the country; I crats. In moving this motion, I will give a think that is right. But, if you are going to brief resume of my reasons. The proposed take ‘consensus’ in its appropriate meaning, section 60 provides that the Leader of the you should consult with the leaders of all Opposition must second the nomination of the recognised political parties—with the Leader President. That makes the bold assumption of the National Party, with the Leader of the that a single formal Leader of the Opposition Australian Democrats and with the leader of will continue to exist in Australian federal any other political party that is recognised in politics in the long term. Given that our the parliament. Constitution needs to remain workable during the course of the 21st century and given the The answer may be, ‘But the nomination knowledge we all have that constitutions are has to be approved by a joint sitting anyway,’ extremely difficult to change, it is desirable but that approval process occurs after the that such assumptions be soundly based. consultation. My point simply is to try to It is clear from our parliamentary history ensure that the consultation takes place first. that the House of Representatives two-party If it is the intention of the Constitutional Con- system of today—and even so it is not two- vention and if it is the intention of the party because, as we know, the coalition is government and the opposition in supporting already composed of two—has not always the bill that they support a consensual model, prevailed. The Liberal Party, for example, was why limit it to a notional Leader of the formed in 1944 out of the remnants of the Opposition who might not exist at some United Australia Party and 13 other anti- future time and not involve a consensual Labor organisations. A survey of the OECD approach to leaders of all political parties that nations reveals that, out of 29 countries, 23 are recognised at the time? Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7235

As an aside, I was interested to see in the would ensure that the public was made aware formation of the new Israeli government, for of the fact that what you are proposing here instance, the government being composed of is a gridlock amendment. something like 11 or 13 parties and the In terms of the gridlock amendment, our opposition, as such, being composed of view is that it would be an enormous process another 11 or 13 parties. to try to get agreement however many parties Senator Bolkus interjecting— were in this place at the appropriate time. At Senator MURRAY—You come from a the moment we cannot even see agreement long history of factional brawling, Senator within the Democrats on a particular course Bolkus. We both understand the tensions that or direction. If the constitutional process had can emerge from time to time in any political to wait for the Australian Democrats to come party. I make the point that none of us can to a consensus about who would or would not foresee the future; we do not know whether be appropriate, it could become quite unbear- this will turn back into a two-party system, able. remain as it is at present or become much Senator Murray, the Israeli model is one more multiparty than it is at present. Personal- that you have proposed to us. As I said to you ly, as you know, I incline towards the latter, as an aside, maybe that is the model you want but I cannot foresee the future. I am simply to see for the Australian Democrats, but I do suggesting that, if this constitutional change not think we should imperil the constitutional is to be embedded and passed by the people, process through the whims of parties which it should cater for future eventualities better may in fact be minor parties of the day. For than it does at present and better than the us there are sufficient pressures, triggers and recommendation put by the committee that constitutional requirements in the model to was reviewing this matter. ensure a consensual approach is taken. The Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (11.00 model brings together the Prime Minister and a.m.)—The opposition opposes Senator the Leader of the Opposition and it brings Murray’s amendment. We see it as not together the parliament. It requires a two- meriting our support for a number of reasons. thirds majority of the parliament. The whole First of all, it is not within the recommenda- spirit and constitutional structure is one which tions of the Constitutional Convention, nor demands and necessitates a degree of consul- within the ambit of the recommendations of tation and agreement. We think that spirit will the Joint Select Committee on the Republic ensure that not only would the Leader of the Referendum. Let us understand that those two Opposition be consulted but also the names processes were about reflecting a long process evolved by the Presidential Nominations of consultation—the involvement of the Committee would involve an input from every public—in the development of a proposal other party and individual in the community which could be presented to the people and and the parliament. We see your amendment which would have a chance of success in any as a gridlock amendment and we do not referendum of the Australian people. support it. Senator Murray, it seems to me that you Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- have been spending too much time with the tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian Prime Minister, because on this and many Democrats) (11.04 a.m.)—Senator Bolkus is other amendments today you seem to want to in fine form today, but I should acknowledge develop as many snags in the proposal going that this is an amendment around which there to the public as necessary to ensure that it is no division or tension. In fact, the Austral- does not survive the referendum process. ian Democrats as a whole strongly support the Your laughter probably indicates that I may amendment proposed by Senator Murray for have touched on your motivation here. We the reasons he has so eloquently outlined. see this as a gridlock amendment, basically. Referring to the Constitutional Convention, We understand why you would put it up. We Senator Bolkus and others would be aware of recognise that any good debate in public my attempts, as the Australian Democrat 7236 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 federal delegate at that convention, to in- the success of the nomination and the ap- corporate wherever possible maximum consul- pointment process; that is, if there were not tation with Australian people and politicians an ascertainable Leader of the Opposition and to ensure that all political parties had would the seconding and appointment pro- some formal role in the processes. I was cesses be in some way compromised or successful with one set of amendments to undermined. ensure that the leaders of political parties with Not only with those thoughts in mind—that more than five representatives in parliament is, would there be an identifiable Leader of were involved in the Presidential Nominations the Opposition—but also I think to ensure Committee process. I am glad to see that that that there was that adequate and increased amendment was successful. Other attempts, level of consultation, the recommendation that however, to ensure a formal role for leaders arises out of the committee’s report, recom- of parties other than the two main parties mendation No. 4, reads that the republic bill were not successful, but that does not mean be amended by inserting the words ‘if any’ in that the Democrats have shied away from proposed section 60 following the words those attempts to improve this legislation. ‘Leader of the Opposition’. So I think there We do not think it is particularly difficult was a multiparty recognition of the need to to imagine future circumstances where the include those words. non-government benches seat a number of I speak on behalf of the Democrats strongly opposition parties. We are moving already to in favour of Senator Murray’s amendment. an increasing multiparty system in our own We will be supporting it. We do not see it as parliament, and Senator Murray has referred an attempt to introduce some kind of gridlock to what happens in parliaments and govern- to this process but in fact to expand the ments around the world. This particular process in an inclusive and a consultative amendment not only allows for any future way. flexibility we might need in our Constitution, Senator COONEY (Victoria) (11.08 but also ensures that the proposal of a candi- a.m.)—I think there are two issues here. date by a two-thirds joint sitting of the parlia- There is the nomination and then there is the ment is a consultative process and, therefore, debate. It is quite clear that, if the nomination we think, perhaps a more successful one. The has to be affirmed by two-thirds of the mem- Constitutional Convention sought to ensure bers of the Senate and the House of Repre- that the candidate proposed to the parliament sentatives, everybody is going to have a say. involved a consultative process through many It is almost going to be like a confirmation of the ways we have outlined—the nomina- hearing, I suppose, which does change things tions process, public input, et cetera. We from the way it is done now and goes closer believe that consultative mechanism is import- to the American system, where they have ant. confirmation hearings for judges and other I am not sure whether the opposition with- officials. drew its amendment which reflected the It seems to me that, if you are going to recommendation of the advisory committee have the leader of a party of five or more, report because they thought that it may be then why shouldn’t you have people like incorporated by the government or that Senator Brown and Senator Harradine coming someone else might move it, but I am a bit in at the initial stage. I would have thought surprised by that decision. There has been a that the idea of having a Prime Minister’s number of references by government and nomination seconded by the Leader of the opposition members today to the recommen- Opposition is a practical one because the dations contained in that report, and I think government and the opposition are going to that was a report that grappled with some of have the pull on the floor of the chamber in these issues—whether there would be an which these matters are discussed and it is identifiable Leader of the Opposition in the sensible to at least have a fighting position to future, and what impact that might have on put to the House of Representatives and the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7237

Senate when these matters are being dis- appointed President being less of the potential cussed. I am not sure why you should then creature, if you want to express it that way, have everybody who is leader of a party of of one political party. It is not automatic that five or more in that process. It would in effect it would happen that way. I think the Labor transfer that process from the debate in the Party in its term of office made some ex- chamber, where everybody can have a go, to tremely useful appointments in the Governor- a college of electors, as it were, where it General role, and we all in this chamber have would be the leadership of the parties rather immense admiration, I think—I certainly have than the membership of the parties who are not heard anyone ever express otherwise—for going to have the say. the present Governor-General. So I am not What is really being proposed, I think, is imputing a bad motive automatically based on that the President be elected by the leaders of past practice, but I am indicating that for the the various parties rather than by two-thirds future the proposal I put forward adds more of the House of Representatives and the to the appointment model than it has at Senate. As it presently reads, people like present. Of course, I should qualify all my Senator Brown and Senator Harradine have a remarks throughout by making it clear that I big say and can make their voices heard when oppose the appointment model and I am a the debate is taking place as to who should be supporter of direct election, as you know. President. But under the system proposed by Senator COONEY (Victoria) (11.14 Senator Murray, for whom I have got the a.m.)—I understand what you are saying, highest respect, you would have a college of Senator Murray, and understand that you are the leaders of the parties electing the Presi- in favour of the model that directly elects the dent, and I do not think that is what is intend- President. This document, like the original ed. Constitution, is very much a compromise Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) document, as any constitution bill would be. (11.11 a.m.)—I will briefly respond to that. What has got to be taken into account is the Senator Cooney, as I read the legislation, at practicalities of the situation, together with the present it is a college of two. In other words, manifestations of the aspirations and ideas the Prime Minister and the Leader of the that we have. Opposition will fix up the President, go back It seems to me that the compromise reached to their respective caucuses and they have in this particular document, where for practi- secured the two-thirds. That is with the cal reasons the Prime Minister and the Leader existing numbers in both houses of parliament of the Opposition take into account whose at present. All we are suggesting is that it name should be put forward before the parlia- should be widened. Remember that this is a ment, is one that strikes people as understand- consultation process. The actual voting, of able and reasonable. I am not saying that course, is by individuals in both the House of yours is not but why limit it to five? Why not Representatives and the Senate and would say everybody should be part of that prelimi- include Independents and political parties nary process? As you say, there has to be without recognised status. The reason we have some sort of sense in all of this. All that has not included consultation with everybody not been said is that the best sense, in light of the representing a political party is simply that if sort of compromise that can be reached, is that becomes widespread, in other words if that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the you had 30 or 40 Independents, it could be Opposition make the nomination and then it difficult to manage, and the parliament at is up to everybody, including the smaller present does run on the recognised political parties and those who do not belong to a party model. party, to debate whether they are going to I must make it clear that, as you know, I accept that nomination. oppose the appointment model, but this is a Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- mechanism which I believe widens the con- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian sultation and widens the prospect of the Democrats) (11.16 a.m.)—In response to 7238 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Senator Cooney—and I acknowledge that he tution that we are embarking upon to reflect raises the important issue of compromise and our changing times including our changing what is workable—if one were to ask the political times—changing times, I hope, that question of what really is wrong with the bill are politically for the better. The Democrats as it currently stands, the Democrats would would not be a alone in that. I think we believe that it entrenches the two-party sys- would have strong community support for the tem. It entrenches the notion that only two notion that this is not about two leaders leaders count in our political system. That signing off on a particular nomination; it is may be a theory to which the two old parties about involving other political parties and the in this chamber subscribe but increasingly representatives that the community has put in many Australians have shown in their voting the institutions of power here. I commend this intentions—and in research it is also evi- amendment. I hope that perhaps the old dent—that Australians are looking forward to parties will reconsider their perspective. the idea that there may be more smaller Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— parties or even Independents; a multiplicity of Special Minister of State) (11.19 a.m.)—The views in a multiparty system. But this en- government is unable to support this amend- trenches that, so from a philosophical and a ment or the others. It would point to the political point of view that is something to recommendations of the Constitutional Con- which I and my colleagues object. vention and also of the joint committee on But also, as Senator Murray has pointed this matter. The convention envisaged a out, who knows what the future holds? It is proposed procedure where the committee obviously presumptuous of me to suggest that would invite and consider nominations from it does necessarily involve multiparty systems the public and give a report on the nomina- but a lot of the evidence that we are getting— tions to the Prime Minister. Following con- from this country, from the voters, from our sideration of that report by the nominations constituents and from looking at parliaments committee, the Prime Minister would then across the world—is that indeed that is what move, in a joint sitting of the Commonwealth the future holds. I think we should be seek- parliament, that a named Australian citizen be ing, in updating and modernising our Consti- chosen as President. The Leader of the Oppo- tution in this way, not to entrench old systems sition would second the Prime Minister’s that entrench two power bases but to look motion. A two-thirds majority of the members towards more inclusive and consultative of the Commonwealth parliament would then mechanisms. have to approve the Prime Minister’s motion. I do not see this amendment as not feasible or as completely unworkable. I think it is an We have there a situation where you have important caveat that it involves the leaders community consultation accommodated by the of parties; that is, people with party status, nominations committee, which will be made and you can even include the National Party up of people drawn from the community and under this notion. So we are not talking about members of parliament. Its nomination then so many groups as to make it unworkable but goes to the Prime Minister, who seeks the about enough groups, and the leaders of those backing of the Leader of the Opposition. groups, to ensure that the nomination is Once that is obtained, it goes forth to the joint supported—not seconded, because I note that sitting of both houses of parliament and there Senator Murray has used the terminology ‘as it requires a two-thirds majority. So there are supported’—and to do so in a way that a number of hurdles that have to be negoti- ensures that this nomination is acknowledged ated during this process and every one of and welcomed by all. Perhaps that will set a those affords the people of Australia transpar- fine precedent and standard for the way in ency and accountability in the choice of a which the community and other groups President for this nation. respond to this Australian head of state. The government believes that if we, at that So I would like to see this amendment as one point in the sequence, introduced a part of the process of modernising our Consti- further hurdle whereby that motion had to be Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7239 supported by another leader of a political is as simple as that. If they are locked into party as described by Senator Murray’s what the predominant Liberal Party wants, amendment, you would have the opening up then they will not be supporting it. It is a of a possible gridlock situation, as Senator matter of whether or not they have freedom Bolkus has mentioned. I know that is not of choice within that coalition. I think they what Senator Murray intends. He intends that will be letting down their members if they do this amendment accommodate more consulta- not support Senator Murray’s amendment. tion and that it provide a broader base for the proposal of the motion. But the government I hope that the One Nation senator comes believes that the proposal of the motion— in here and supports it too if that party thinks being the Prime Minister, seconded by the it is going to have a number of people in this Leader of the Opposition—is sufficient. place further down the line. I note that the Perhaps most importantly, this is what the senator was not here to support my earlier Constitutional Convention envisaged. It is amendment that the nominations committee really in accordance with the recommenda- be empowered in a way that the Prime tions made by the joint committee. The joint Minister could not get around. It is difficult, committee did not say that there should be it is early in the piece, but we are discussing this aspect, with a further person being sought very important democratic processes here. As to support the motion. Senator Cooney’s point Senator Murray quite rightly pointed out, this is a good one because the members of these is a once-only opportunity. We are talking minor parties and the Independents would be about the process for a referendum to set participating in that crucial point of consider- constitutional matters which are going to be ing the motion. Their views would then be very difficult to alter further down the line. taken on board. For those reasons, the govern- ment cannot support this amendment. Senator Murray’s argument that we have Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.23 moved into a multiparty period in Australia is a.m.)—I do support this amendment. We are backed by the fact that you only have to look into a multiparty century. The two-party at the last election to see that 25 per cent plus system is going. Australians, like people of people are voting away from the old elsewhere around the world in all democ- parties. Should those people not have a racies, are looking for greater opportunities double say in this process? That is, the lead- for choice. This amendment simply says that ers should get together, put forward a nomina- a party that has the public backing to have tion and then two-thirds of the parliament five members of parliament should have a should be required to vote for it further down say. Of course they should. the line. It is easy to bring up a term like I note the comment that this would leave ‘gridlock’, but what about a gridlock between me and Senator Harradine out at the moment, Labor and Liberal? We are not resiling from but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I that potential. In fact, the very reason for the look forward to the time when there are Leader of the Opposition being empowered plenty of Greens in here to take part in the here is to ensure that there is a smooth con- process. But right around the world, wherever sensus process in the nomination of a Presi- you look, there are multiparty governments dent. If another party in this place had five and oppositions these days. In fact, the ma- members, that party should be involved in jority of democracies return multiparty gov- that. That makes good democratic sense and ernments. I support the amendment. Senator McGauran—Like the National Question put: Party and the Liberals. That the amendment (Senator Murray’s)be Senator BROWN—Yes, so if the Nationals agreed to. are interested in fostering the empowerment of their voters, they should support the amendment put forward by the Democrats. It The committee divided. [11.30 a.m.] 7240 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

(The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) care to just clarify that? Would it be better to Ayes ...... 11 have ‘not seconded by the leader of each Noes ...... 44 political party’? That is a repetition of the —— words above: ‘seconded by the Leader of the Majority ...... 33 Opposition in the House of Representatives’. —— AYES Senator MURRAY—Sorry, Madam Chair; Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. I may not have made myself clear. I intend to Bourne, V. * Brown, B. take out the words from ‘each’ through to Greig, B. A. Harradine, B. ‘Parliament’. So out would come ‘each Lees, M. H. Murray, A. Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N. political party with at least 5 members in the Woodley, J. Parliament’ to substitute the words ‘the opposition’. So I will read it to ensure that the NOES Abetz, E. Bishop, T. M. Senate is clear on my intention. The amend- Bolkus, N. Boswell, R. L. D. ment will now read: Campbell, G. Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. Coonan, H. If the Prime Minister’s motion is not supported by Cooney, B. Crane, W. the Leader of the Opposition or is not affirmed by Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. a two-thirds majority of the total number of the Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A. members of the Senate and the House of Represen- Ellison, C. Evans, C. V. tatives, the Prime Minister must, within 6 weeks of Forshaw, M. G. Gibson, B. F., the joint sitting of the members of the Senate and Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P. the House of Representatives, move in another joint Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W. sitting that another named Australian citizen be Lundy, K. Macdonald, I. chosen as the President. Mackay, S. Mason, B. J. I would like to make some brief remarks. I McGauran, J. J. J. McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E. Murphy, S. M. hope Senator Brown took note that I used the O’Brien, K. W. K. * Parer, W. R. word ‘must’ in line with my previous support Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. for his intentions in that area. Section 60 does Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. not provide for a scenario where the Prime Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. Minister’s nominee is not approved by parlia- Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T. ment. We all know that in politics you can Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. never be certain of what is to come. If there is one thing you learn in politics it is that that * denotes teller is a fact. Section 60 should provide that, Question so resolved in the negative. where the Prime Minister’s motion to appoint Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) an individual is unsuccessful, a different (11.34 a.m.)—I would like to advise the candidate must be put forward at another Senate of an alteration I need to make to sitting within a specified period. In this amendment (4) on sheet 1472 revised in view amendment I have suggested six weeks. The of the last decision of the Senate. The amend- Senate may choose to vary that period. But ment now says: the point is that you cannot have a situation If the Prime Minister’s motion is not supported by which is left without resolution, in my view. the leader of each political party with at least 5 members in the Parliament, or is not affirmed . . . You also have to pay attention to the fact that it may be in the interests of the Prime After the words ‘If the Prime Minister’s Minister of the day to have such a situation. motion is not supported by the leader’, the There may be a time when a Prime Minister words ‘of the Opposition’ are to be inserted might see leaving the office vacant as helpful and the words ‘each political party with at to his or her political aims, or they might least 5 members in the Parliament’ are to be choose to leave the office vacant for a period omitted. in order to pressure the parliament to approve The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- a nomination which the parliament or the tor Knowles)—Senator Murray, would you Leader of the Opposition plainly do not want Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7241 to support. All this amendment is trying to do who would be eligible to be appointed Presi- is ensure that there cannot be such an event. dent after the initial nominee fails. He says in I do not believe from my understanding and the last part of his amendment ‘that another reading of the Constitutional Convention’s named Australian citizen be chosen as the proposals or my understanding and reading of President’. The range of people who are the committee report or indeed of anything I eligible to be chosen for the President the first have heard from the supporters of the appoint- time around is in fact a smaller range than ment model that what I am proposing goes Australian citizens. The prerequisite qualifica- against either the spirit or the intention of tion provisions are in the bill. They are linked what they were trying to pursue. In a sense, very clearly to eligibility and qualification for this is a technical amendment, but I also think the houses of the Australian parliament. it covers an area where there might be genu- The wording in Senator Murray’s amend- ine political dangers. I think it is wise to ment widens that. To be qualified to be a guard against them. Accordingly, with those member of the House of Representatives or brief remarks, I move: the Senate you cannot, for instance, be a (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (after line 5), person holding joint citizenship. You have to insert: have renounced any other citizenship to which you may be entitled. Your provision does not If the Prime Minister’s motion is not supported by the leader of the opposition, or is not have that qualification proviso. Your provi- affirmed by a two-thirds majority of the total sion says ‘any named Australian citizen’, and number of the members of the Senate and the that is indeed much wider than the qualifica- House of Representatives, the Prime Minister tion provisions for the first nominee. The must, within 6 weeks of the joint sitting of the amendment, unnecessary and technical though members of the Senate and the House of it might be, also has a number of unintended Representatives, move in another joint sitting consequences. The opposition cannot support that another named Australian citizen be chosen as the President. it. The second paragraph of this section applies Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.40 to any joint sitting of the members of the a.m.)—I support the amendment. I would Senate and the House of Representatives suggest to Senator Murray that the words ‘of convened to choose a President. the joint sitting of the members of the Senate Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (11.38 and the House of Representatives’ can be a.m.)—The opposition opposes this amend- deleted because that would mean that the ment. It is a technical one. We do not think Prime Minister would have to act within six it is necessary. We anticipate, and I think weeks of either not getting the support of the quite fairly so, that the pressures of the time Leader of the Opposition or not getting the will ensure that if the first nominee is not two-thirds majority required from the Austral- accepted by the houses of parliament there ian parliament. will very quickly be action to ensure that Senator Bolkus says that this is technical someone is appointed to the position of and not necessary in the event of the Prime President. Politically, it would leave a vacuum Minister not naming another candidate for at the top of the constitutional structure and President because parliaments would be parliaments would be compelled to act. compelled to act. But what Senator Murray is This might be a technical question, but it is doing here is laying down a prescription for also one which has a number of unintended action and laying down a directive in the consequences. I think the committee ought to Constitution that the Prime Minister cannot, be aware of those as well, because I think due to lack of instruction from the Constitu- Senator Murray is indulging, maybe unwit- tion, get away with leaving the presidency tingly, in a degree of trickery this time. He vacant. recommits the issue of ‘may’ or ‘must’. He We are charged with the responsibility of has acknowledged that. But what he is also writing laws that, as far as possible, are doing here is broadening the range of people simple, understandable, clear and which cover 7242 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 major exigencies. That is what Senator and has had great effect since Federation in Murray’s amendment does. It is rather fatuous 1901. of the Labor Party or the government to It is the government’s view that to have the simply say, ‘Oh well, we’ll leave it to the prescription of a six-week time limit would be political pressure of the day to solve the unreasonable and would lead to the sort of problem,’ when here we have the opportunity scrutiny mentioned by Senator Cooney. The of laying down a prescription which is not process would not be accommodated ad- going to allow the problem to occur in the equately by having that six-week time limit. first place. It is a very simple amendment that If the parliament could not achieve a two- Senator Murray is putting forward. It is a thirds majority to approve the candidate for sensible one, and I support it. President then the process would have to be Senator COONEY (Victoria) (11.42 started again. There is no reason the repeat a.m.)—During the great 1890 debates about process should not go through the same the development of the Constitution, Sir Isaac processes as in the first instance. What you Isaacs, who was then Attorney-General of are saying here is that if you get it wrong in Victoria, had the occasion to say that what we the first instance you do not do the same wanted was a people’s Constitution, not a again; you do a much shorter version of the lawyers’ Constitution. He was saying that in first try. the context of people introducing laws in an The government is of the view that this attempt to make the Constitution popular in would be unduly prescriptive and that it the sense of ‘of the people’ and democratic by would be appropriate to go back and start making sure the system was fair and there again. There is a provision for an Acting was a proper balance. But, in trying to do President and there would be no harm done that, they brought forward such an array of if an Acting President was appointed in the laws that the matter became subject to inter- interim. That person would be the most senior pretation and subject to the lawyers and the state Governor at the time. That would be an courts. adequate circumstance. One other thing I will point out—and this is a very strong point—is What has been overlooked here is the that this was not something that came from political pressure. This is a political chamber. the Constitutional Convention or the joint It relies very much on the force of the people select committee. through the political power they have not only Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.46 at the ballot box but also in terms of the a.m.)—Sir Isaac Isaacs said to give power to reaction they take to particular propositions. the people and we have been repeating that in It seems to me that, if we want it to remain our own way this morning. Senator Cooney a people’s Constitution, the Prime Minister and the government are saying, ‘Yes, but not has to be subject to that popular pressure. To to the lawyers.’ He did not mean for it to be take away that direct pressure of the people given to the politicians. He certainly did not and to put this into the hands of the courts mean for it all to be accreted to the Prime seems to me to be against the thrust of what Minister and the unelected advisers in the we should be about and falls into that catego- Prime Minister’s office. ry against which Sir Isaac Isaacs counselled back in the 1890s. We are saying that the Prime Minister should have to act to appoint a President. We Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— have failed to establish that the people’s Special Minister of State) (11.44 a.m.)—At nominations will necessarily be the ones the the outset, I associate myself with the remarks Prime Minister puts forward. Senator Ellison, of my learned friend Senator Cooney. Certain- in representing the government, is now say- ly, increased prescription increases the recipe ing, ‘You would have to go back and start the for litigation, for the intervention of the process again.’ I submit that a Prime Minister courts, which is undesirable. The court of worth his or her salt would go straight back public opinion would have great effect here to the nominations and put forward an alterna- Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7243 tive. To leave the space vacant might seem Parliament or Territory legislature, or appealing to the big parties whose Prime a member of a political party. Minister is going to be in office at the time This amendment arises from issues dealt with because it would give all power to the Prime in paragraph 3.74 and onwards of the joint Minister but it is not in the best interests of select committee report. It deals with the the people. point at which someone should be qualified For Senator Ellison to suggest that the to be considered as a candidate for President. Prime Minister would not have the wit or We have provided in section 60: wisdom in these circumstances to come up (i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of with another nominee within six weeks is being chosen as, a member of the House of laughable. Of course they would. Senator Representatives; and Bolkus said, ‘In this circumstance, parliaments (ii) the person is not a member of the Common- would be compelled to act and there would be wealth Parliament or a State Parliament or political pressure put on them.’ That is the Territory legislature, or a member of a politi- same as saying six weeks is plenty of time. cal party. The Prime Minister would have to act. All the There were some queries raised during the better if, in the Constitution, there is a time hearings of the joint committee that you limit. To suggest that six weeks is not enough might have some very good people who are time to put forward a nomination to fill a ineligible to qualify as President but nonethe- vacancy does not withstand any sort of less could still be so because they could scrutiny. remedy those disabilities, if you like, in the Once again, we are putting a very limited interim. It was thought that the effect of this but reasonable set of guidelines to a Prime section, in its current form, might preclude Minister in office to contain that Prime good people from being considered whilst Minister so that they simply cannot make this they were not eligible to qualify as President into a political football match, that they have notwithstanding that they could subsequently some limitations on what they do and that, if qualify. The committee report states: we do get into a mess over the appointment While acknowledging that proposed s.60 in its of a President further down the line, the present form is probably satisfactory, the Commit- Australian people are simply not left to wait tee takes the view that it would be valuable if the Republic Bill contained an express statement of out the duration of whichever government is exactly when the qualification requirements must in power at the time before they can do be satisfied. The Committee suggests that the something about it at the ballot box. This appropriate time would be at the time the Prime amendment put forward by Senator Murray is Minister puts the motion to Parliament. very reasonable. I am amazed that Labor, let That is when the Prime Minister, with the alone the government, are not supporting it. seconding of the Leader of the Opposition, Amendment not agreed to. would go to the joint houses of the parliament Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— and put up the name of the candidate. At that Special Minister of State) (11.50 a.m.)—I point the candidate should be qualified. So we move government amendment No. 1: propose to amend section 60 to allow that. Previously, whilst the nominations committee (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (lines 6 to 12), is considering eligible candidates or prospec- omit the paragraph, substitute: tive candidates, that person may or may not The person named in the Prime Minister’s meet the qualifications for President but in the motion is qualified to be chosen as President interim that can be remedied. If you did have if, when the motion is moved and affirmed: it so rigid, you could rule out the consider- (i) the person is qualified to be, and ation of what might be some excellent candi- capable of being chosen as, a mem- dates for President. ber of the House of Representatives; and The government thought that section 60 (ii) the person is not a member of the could accommodate that but, having regard to Commonwealth Parliament or a State the concerns of the committee, the govern- 7244 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 ment thought it would make it absolutely absolutely delicious amendment. I am not clear. So we have made a slight alteration to going to oppose it, but I regard it as delicious the wording of this amendment to read: because it is designed to put another little The person named in the Prime Minister’s motion firework, if you like, in the whole republic is qualified to be chosen as President if, when the debate. Out there the supporters of the ap- motion is moved and affirmed: pointment model have been busy running the (i) the person is qualified to be, and capable of myth, the untruth, the misrepresentation that being chosen as, a member of the House of the appointment model will somehow prevent Representatives; and politicians becoming the President of the (ii) the person is not a member of the Common- republic of Australia. As we know, that is wealth Parliament or a State Parliament or arrant nonsense in terms of the history of Territory legislature, or a member of a Australia. Two-thirds of all governors-general political party. have been politicians and I, for one, am a The seminal point in time, if you like, is great supporter of any politician with the when that person’s name is put forward in the appropriate credentials becoming the Presi- parliament. Previously, that person does not dent. Why not? They are people who have have to qualify so long as they qualify at the great experience of affairs of state. I can think time the motion is put. I think the amendment of many past parliamentarians who would is a sensible one and I commend it to the fulfil the office of President very acceptably Senate. in my view, so I have no philosophical Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (11.53 opposition to this. a.m.)—The opposition supports this amend- But let us make it clear—and this is why I ment. Senator Ellison is right. This is one of regard it as so delicious in this debate—that those recommendations that came from the instead of the previous part of the bill which joint select committee. It received the unani- would have prevented any member of parlia- mous support of those present at the final ment being put forward as a nominee to the meeting of the committee. I do not know that committee, because they would have had to there is all that much to add to what Senator resign before they could even be put forward Ellison has said. The committee was con- to be chosen, now they can be discussed cerned as to fixing the appropriate timing for whilst they are a sitting member and, if put the requisites of the qualification provisions. forward, then they can resign once the deal is It has done so in the terms of recommenda- done. I think this is absolutely exquisite. Here tion 5, which is reflected in the government’s is the way in which a serving politician can amendment. Accordingly, we support it. become President. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Let me say to everybody again: I do not tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian object to a politician being President but let Democrats) (11.54 a.m.)—Similarly, the nobody who supports the appointed model run Australian Democrats support the amendment around and say that their model will guaran- before the Chair and also acknowledge that tee that politicians do not run the show, do this received majority support from the advis- not elect the President, do not fix whom the ory committee. President will be and do not manoeuvre the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.54 situation so they can get a President in if that a.m.)—I would like to ask the minister: is this is what they wish. Of course they might amendment being designed so that a member choose not to do so. They might choose to of parliament who is favoured by the Prime pursue a very esteemed judge, as we have at Minister to become the President is able to present, and that is terrific. But I really do resign from the parliament and from the enjoy this amendment and I support it whole- political party to take up that nomination? heartedly. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (11.57 (11.55 a.m.)—Senator Brown has expressed a.m.)—I think one of the consequences of this my sentiments exactly. I think this is an legislation will be that members of parliament Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7245 and former members of parliament will not have just said about you, Madam President, become President. We will be reporting equally applies to her. progress in a few minutes to hear a first It is a great honour for any individual to speech, so I leave Senator Murray with this become a member of the Australian Senate. challenge: I ask you to give us the name of I am very conscious of that. When I first one member of parliament on one side of came to Australia 42 years ago as a young parliament who you think would be accept- man still at school, the thought of one day able to the other side of parliament in order becoming a member of the Australian Senate to achieve a two-thirds majority of the parlia- was far from my mind. Indeed, even the ment for appointment as President. Just think possibility of becoming an Australian citizen about that for the next few hours or so. was not really on the agenda, as I did not Senator Alston—Tim Fischer. expect to stay longer than the completion of Senator BOLKUS—It would have to be a my studies. In those days, Australia was still very rare bird. It might be Tim Fischer; it thought of as white Australia. People of Asian might be Brian Harradine. background and, indeed, even Europeans of non-British background were not generally Senator Murray—It might be Gareth welcome as settlers, although the construction Evans. of the Snowy Mountains hydro scheme and Senator BOLKUS—I tell you what: you the inflow of migrants to meet this demand would not get a nomination for Gareth Evans and other labour demands were beginning to through the prime ministerial office. The cause a change in attitude. challenge is to come up with one name from one side of parliament which would be ac- Since then, as a result of continuing urban ceptable to the other side. Give us a list when development coupled with maintenance of a we resume this debate if you can. It will not steady inflow of migrants, Australia has be me. grown and changed from an isolated outpost of England, a minor player in the affairs of The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- the British Empire, to be a significant power tor Knowles)—It being almost 12 noon, I in the Asia-Pacific region. We were then a propose that the committee report progress. supplier of low value primary products to the Progress reported. British Isles. We are now a mixed trading nation strong enough to stand the impact of FIRST SPEECH the East Asian economic meltdown without so The PRESIDENT—Order! Before I call much as losing a beat. We were then a cultur- Senator Tchen, I remind honourable senators al backwater best known for being the set of that this is his first speech and, therefore, I the filming of On the beach, a film about the ask that the usual courtesies be extended to end of the world. Today we boast some of the him. most livable cities in the world. We were then Senator TCHEN (Victoria) (11.59 a.m.)— an emphatically single culture society. We are Madam President, I thank you for the privi- now one of the most successful multicultural lege to speak to this assembly for the first societies in the world, where people who time. I offer you my sincere congratulations would have been at each other’s throats, had for your unopposed re-election last Monday. they stayed in the places they came from, The unanimous and enthusiastic praises now live and work peacefully side by side. offered to you on Monday by all parties on As a nation, we have improved our station that occasion clearly indicate how well you significantly. The evolution of our multicul- have occupied this office these past three tural society is both the cause and the result years. I am sure that your coming term will of this improvement. Today, more than one in prove to be equally successful. I should also three of the adult population of Australia was offer my congratulations to Senator West for born in other countries, some of which no her unopposed re-election as Deputy Presi- longer exist except in memory. More than one dent. I trust that she will accept that what I in four of the population speaks a language 7246 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 other than English. It is in this context that I ability and to allow others to develop their think that my election to the Senate has aspirations in a like manner. We share a special significance, serving as a reinforcing belief in compassion and responsibility for symbol and a call to those who are Austral- our fellow men and women. We share a belief ians by choice that they belong. It is also an in the moral courage and decency, imagina- act of affirmation by the people of Australia tion and creativities of the Australian people. that every Australian, regardless of his or her Finally, we share an appreciation of the cultural or historic background, stands equal uniquely Australian values of a fair go, of in the eyes of his or her fellow citizens. giving it one’s best shot and of mateship. As we enter the 21st century, the world we I acknowledge that our political opponents, are in is, in many respects, a place of even the Labor Party, also espouse some values greater uncertainty. In this world, Australia, similar to our beliefs. This is fortunate, since with the advantage of our geography and our it gives us the opportunity of dialogue, though history, has the chance to become a source of limited because of Labor’s obligatory hope and an example for all to follow. We intractabilities. Nonetheless, there is a funda- have a responsibility to make multicultural- mental difference between us. Our beliefs are ism—that means an equal right and oppor- founded on the concepts of individual initia- tunity for every citizen to contribute to the tives and individual responsibility. The Labor growth and development of our common Party’s dogma, on the other hand, denies that community—work for Australia and contri- the concept of the individual exists or has any bute to world peace and prosperity. beneficial quality. Consequently, the Labor I am both proud and humbled that I now Party does not believe anything should be have the opportunity to be a harbinger of done by the individual; rather, it believes hope from Australia to the rest of the world. everything must be done for the individual. This would not be possible without the We see this difference most obviously in support and endorsement of the Liberal Party. how members of the Labor Party persistently The Liberal Party and its members have, for use the term ‘the government’ as something many years, given me much appreciated intrinsically and distinctly different from ‘the fellowship and encouragement, for which I people’. They say, ‘The government must do thank them. I especially thank the Victorian this or that,’ ‘Why doesn’t the government do division of the Liberal Party for having the that?’ and so on. But what is government if confidence and the courage to choose me by it is not the people? Are we not a democracy? way of a well-proven, merit based preselec- Do we not have a government of the people, tion process to represent the Liberal Party for the people and by the people? Why should before the people of Victoria, who were the government and the community of people pleased to endorse me. be separate entities? I am proud and gratified that all this has If you suppose the government is to be an come to pass and that I am here. My mission entity separate from the people who created now is to serve in the Senate for the advance- it, you diminish the people. If you empower ment of Australia and Australians to the best the government more than necessary, you of my ability, and I shall do so according to diminish the individual’s ability to flourish. the Liberal principles of freedom, responsibili- Every function you allow the government to ty, endeavour and compassion. I am proud to take over makes the individual less self- be a long-serving and committed member of reliant. We say the government should have the Liberal Party. As Liberals, we share a only those functions that individuals, or a belief in the fundamental freedoms of man— cooperative collection of individuals, are not freedom to think, freedom to choose, freedom able to carry out efficiently. A government to speak and freedom to worship. As a group should be only large enough to carry out its of individuals, we share a belief that it is not designed purposes efficiently. Overall effi- only our right but also our responsibility to ciency in the delivery of goods and services develop our aspirations to the best of our in accordance with a community’s needs is Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7247 the final measure of whether government colleagues; and Senator Cooney on the other should be involved in an enterprise. side, a gentleman and a scholar—a member In a democratic society, government is not of the Labor Party notwithstanding. an end in itself but only the means to achieve I would also like to say welcome to those an end—the community’s gain. Public sector who are present from my fellow class of profit is not community wealth unless it 1999, or the ‘Y2K minus 1’ intake. I know generates wealth within a community. Public Senator Mason, Senator Ludwig, Senator sector employment creation does not reduce McLucas and Senator Greig are all part of a long-term unemployment unless it facilitates generational change that occurs from time to and supports the ability of individuals within time and which is the underlying strength of the community to create new jobs. Therefore, our parliamentary system. I wish them a I believe all Australians would endorse the successful and rewarding career. Senator policies that the Howard government has Ridgeway, in addition to being part of this implemented to successfully restore and generational change, shares with me the role strengthen Australia’s economic framework. of demonstrating the affirmative endorsement I believe the government’s planned legislation by the mainstream community of our evolving to further strengthen frameworks for the multicultural society. I wish him well also, economy and for employment, education, and I ask him to convey my respects to the health and regional services is essential for Ngunnawal people. At first sight, Senator the betterment of Australia. I shall look Harris and I may appear to be heading in forward to making a contribution in critical diametrically opposed directions. However, if areas. I understand Senator Harris correctly, he and I come to the Senate with the single objec- I have common ground as to some of the tive of serving the interests of Australia as a problems facing our nation. I hope that we senator of Liberal persuasion representing the have appropriate opportunities to resolve people of Victoria. I come without a personal some of those problems cooperatively. agenda or burning issues to champion. Having Up in the gallery, I see Colin Carson, a said this, I do have a number of issues which typical salt-of-the-earth Liberal Party member. I would like to lay before senators for their With him is Dr Tom Leung, a fourth genera- consideration. These are underlying issues. tion Chinese Australian whose life and Madam President, as I am not very good at achievements—during a period when to be controlling time yet, perhaps you would different was to be suspect—helped to change permit me to raise them later if I have time. attitudes towards people from different back- I would now like to give thanks to the grounds. Thank you for coming. From Syd- many people who have encouraged me and ney, I see Hudson Chen and Eve Chen. As a supported me over the years. I recall a Chi- venture capital merchant banker, Hudson nese proverb that says, ‘When at home, one represents the benefits the second wave of could depend on one’s parents for comfort Asian migration can bring to Australia. Thank but, when away, one must look to one’s you for coming also. friends for support.’ I left home at an early I would be remiss if I failed to mention my age to come to Australia. To get to where I lineal predecessor in the Senate. Jim Short am today, I have been fortunate to have had was one of the Senate’s outstanding quiet many such friends to whom I could look and achievers. He made his mark during a long have looked for support. There are too many career in the Commonwealth parliament, first to thank individually, except those who are in the lower house and then, more enduringly, present. I hope that absent friends will recog- in the Senate. As we all know, his political nise themselves in those who are here as their career was cut short by one of those minute representatives. I would like to acknowledge technicalities that from time to time compli- the support and encouragement of these cate the life of a politician in the manner of people. I thank the senators on this side, a great fuss being made over a small amount particularly the leadership team; my Victorian of tea being spilt from the cup to the saucer. 7248 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

However, I am pleased to say that, in this I think this is one of the factors which, case, justice was quickly done. Jim Short has since 1996 through to 1999, has caused the continued to serve Australia’s interest from tremendous political upheaval, particularly in his appointment on the board of the European country regions, otherwise known as the One Reconstruction Bank. Nation phenomenon. I think this is something which again many other people have noted. Jim Short’s contribution to our nation is not I noticed that Senator Payne, in the adjourn- limited to his role in parliament, illustrious as ment debate on Monday night, spoke on the it was. He is best remembered, still, for his IT disadvantages and information poverty of long and committed effort to building under- women, especially in regional areas—this is standing and coherent bonds between the sort of thing that I am referring to. The Australia’s migrant communities and the facilities are available on a regional basis, but mainstream community. He succeeded well; on the individual basis they are extremely I can attest to that without fear of contradic- hard to access. I think that is something tion. He succeeded in migrant communities which we as a nation ought to start thinking not because he looked like a member of one about—that is, how to measure availability of of those communities—he certainly did not— service on the basis of access rather than or because he spoke their languages—he did availability. not, nor did he pretend to—or because he made promises about what he could or would I see that my time is running short, so do for them—he did not. But he listened. This perhaps I should close. In closing, Madam was not because he always had a rollicking President, if I may be allowed to say a few good time—in fact, he often looked distinctly words to my family—my family is up there lost at ethnic functions. Jim Short was always in the gallery. I want to say to Pauline, my accepted and welcome because he was always wife, friend and partner of 30 years: thank honest, fair and compassionate, in the arche- you—down here is where you should be. To typical manner of a true-blue Australian, in my children, Jacinta and Adrian—Adrian is his dealings with people of different back- actually not here; he does not want to miss grounds. That manner is what gives reassur- too many lectures: you have brought us much ance and confidence to newcomers to this joy and a little pain from time to time, but it land. We all owe much to Jim Short and is worth it. I say to my father: when I left others like him for the vitality and stability of home you told me, ‘You are going to a new our Australian society. country to live among strangers. Always remember who you are and where you came I said earlier that I had a couple of issues from; always behave in such a way that those that, if I had time, I would like to raise for who knew you will not be disgraced because senators’ consideration. As a professional the new people that you live with will judge town planner before I came to the Senate, one them by you. You should always realise of the matters which I had long been con- where you are going and who you can be. scious of in our developing nation was that, Always strive for purpose, so that the expec- because of the different pace of different tation of those among whom you will live kinds of developments over the years, we shall not be disappointed, because they will quite often find significant discrepancies be judged by your success or not.’ Father, I between availability of service by the provider hope that I have met your wishes. and accessibility to service and facilities by the user. Because of the way that services and The PRESIDENT—Order! Before I call facilities are usually measured—they tend to Senator Harris, I remind honourable senators be measured from the provider’s point of that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that view—we quite often get a situation, particu- the usual courtesies be extended to him. larly in country regions, where on paper there Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (12.22 is quite an adequate supply of services and p.m.)—Madam President, as a new member yet it is extremely difficult for the person on of this house, I thank the people of Queens- the ground to actually reach them. land for their courage in voting for Pauline Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7249

Hanson’s One Nation. This seat was won by Denial of parental and grandparents’ contact Heather Hill, who led One Nation’s Senate with children I believe is synonymous with ticket. A High Court challenge and a contro- child abuse. versial decision that Great Britain is a foreign Maintenance is a necessary tool to ensure power under the terms of the Australian that parents do not abdicate their parental Constitution ruled Heather ineligible to take responsibilities. But providers should not be her place in this chamber. I respect Heather forced into poverty and a position that re- and have no doubt that she would have made stricts their opportunity to develop a new a fine representative in the Senate for the family. We advocate that the Family Law people of Queensland. Court should be abolished and replaced with I have been given an opportunity that I will family tribunals. The current system is too not take lightly or for granted. I am pleased expensive and too adversarial, and children that Heather with Bronwyn, Brett and Joan are used like pawns in a game of chess. are working with me to achieve the goals and Family tribunals allow for consultation with objectives that have made Pauline Hanson’s no legal representation where quick talking One Nation a new political force. This change and well-paid lawyers can confuse the issue. is long overdue in a country that has been Senior Magistrate Stan Deers has accused governed for too long by Tweedledee and some partners of using domestic violence Tweedledum. orders to enhance their opportunity to seek I wish to make a very special thank you to custody of their children, as stated in the my wife, Betty; to my children, Kent, Courier-Mail on 5 July 1995. People who Brendon and Dene, and their partners; and to make vexatious or malicious domestic vio- my parents, Enid and Jack. To the team in lence orders should face the full force of the North Queensland: thank you for your sup- law and pay costs. port. The current formula for determining child We believe that truth will always prevail. maintenance is unfair and unworkable and We are very conscious of the words of Arthur needs to be scrapped. Non-custodial parents Schopenhauer: want to provide for their children, but under All truth passes through three stages. First it is the current system most are left in a life of ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, poverty with no future of having another it is accepted as self-evident. family life and in a lot of cases unemployed I am going to use this opportunity to peel because that is the only way to survive. away the myths surrounding One Nation and Suicide and murder have plagued many present some facts; to explain the platform of families. Members of the parliament must positive changes that drove me to stand up for work together to find fair solutions. my children and grandchildren and future The disabled in our society are some of the generations of Australians; and to present the most overlooked members of our community. positive faces of those involved in this new We recognise that many Australians have development in Australia’s political history. disabilities and benefit from, and contribute I believe that a safe, secure and prosperous to, living in the community, but there are society depends on the integrity and sanctity others who require centre based care. Both of the traditional family unit. I am appalled options require services with realistic staffing that approximately one million children do levels and adequate funding as a priority. not live with their fathers in Australia. During Aged care is not a social welfare burden; it my trips around Queensland, I have been is a just entitlement. The current consumer inundated with pleas for help from non- price index based method of calculating custodial parents who have been deprived of benefits does not reflect the cost of living of access to their children. Divorce is unfortu- our pensioners. Self-funded retirees have nate but possibly the only solution for some worked responsibly to provide for themselves families. But we must remember that children in their later years only to be faced with ideally should have a mother and a father. deeming on their investments. Deeming on 7250 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 their investments, savings and transfer of frequently chasing profits, not Australia’s assets should be abolished. Community interests. Immigration mistakes are big transport services, home help and support mistakes; they do not go away, they just services are provided to ensure that the continue to get more expensive for the Aus- elderly can enjoy a safe and comfortable tralian taxpayer. lifestyle in their surroundings for as long as Quality in the immigration debate is still they desire. It is time that we stopped expect- lacking, particularly from some of our politi- ing the aged and frail to erect bars on their cal and media opponents. There are still many windows and live in a virtual prison whilst legitimate questions to be asked regarding criminals are treated with kid gloves. I com- Australia’s population and immigration policy, mend the Deputy Prime Minister for adopting and I defend the rights of Australian people One Nation policy and recommending a to continue to discuss and determine these referendum on capital punishment. issues. Madam President, I would like to take this Multiculturalism should be killed stone opportunity to state my position on a contro- dead. Immigration could have a negative versial subject and correct some of the impact on Australia. The Labor Party was a misunderstandings and untruths that have haven for a growing band of family dynasties. been propagated by our political opponents. Bill Hayden, a former Governor-General and As a result of Pauline raising the issue of Leader of the Labor Party, made the statement immigration, it is pleasing to see that the that endorses One Nation’s principles. Aus- major political parties have reassessed their tralia is a multiracial country but multicultur- policies. Australia has benefited from immi- alism will destroy us as a nation and a cohe- gration. However, there is no doubt that sive society. Whatever our cultural back- previous government immigration, population ground may be we must consider ourselves to policies and practices were implemented for be Australians first and foremost. As one their votes and not for the wellbeing and migrant has stated to me, home is not where future of our nation, as stated by Barry Jones, you are born but where you are prepared to the previous member for Lalor. die. The fact is that, until very recently, the The Australian on 27 July 1999 carried a discussion of immigration was sternly discour- report from the Social Policy Research Centre aged because the government and the opposi- that states that almost one-third of Australians tion did not want to discuss it, along with feel they have lost control of their economic many other issues. The policy of immigration future and worry about losing their jobs. The requires a process of balance. On one hand orthodox economic policies implemented by we have concern for the migrant and on the our governments have clearly failed to im- other we have concern for the host country prove the standard of living for the majority and its people who will be supporting, accept- of Australian people. ing and providing a new home for the Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is strongly migrant. Employment, hospitals, nursing opposed to free trade as it currently operates. homes and infrastructure must be addressed Our citrus, lamb, pork, rice and sugar indus- before any future burden is carried by the tries, to name a few, have found out the hard taxpayers and all Australians. way that free trade is a misnomer. We want Our policy of net zero immigration would fair trade, not free trade. We also oppose the result in approximately 30,000 new immigra- policies that have sent our manufacturing tions each year. Our policy of not exceeding industries overseas, along with thousands of net zero immigration is because we believe Australian jobs. No country can remain Australia is near her carrying capacity. A wealthy without a strong manufacturing and population policy must be the result of un- value adding industrial base. We are increas- biased scientific thinking and must not be ingly dependent on foreign goods to satisfy highjacked by self-interested pro-immigration basic demands, creating more social and elites, including big business who are all too economic problems. The only way out of this Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7251 mess is to re-industrialise this country. We owned competitor was thrown to the wolves have to stop being the world’s quarry pit and and Queenslanders lost their jobs. We must start transforming our natural resources into protect Australian industries and protect finished products. It makes no sense to sell Australian jobs like the United States protects iron ore for a pittance and buy back steel. It theirs. makes no sense to export woodchips and National competition policy is a textbook import paper. It makes no sense to export theory which has failed in practice. The Labor silica sand and import fibre optics. Our rural government must be held accountable for the industries need support to transform their raw pain and suffering inflicted on the Australian commodities to value added products. Steps people through its national competition policy must be taken to protect our standard of legislation. Proudly introduced and imple- living by increasing selective tariffs to protect mented by Mr Keating and the Labor Party Australian jobs. and supported by the Liberal and National We need to further encourage Australian parties, this legislation has destroyed and industries by introducing truth in labelling continues to destroy the livelihoods of many that will enable consumers to clearly identify in rural and regional areas, especially is genuinely Australian owned and made pro- Queensland, which is the most decentralised ducts. Most Australians will buy Australian state in Australia. made and owned products if they can find Australians are demoralised at having a them on the grocery shelves. Australia must government and its agencies fail to defend our not be seen as a tax haven for multinationals country’s interests. The devastation of the who pay little or no tax at all, while small lamb, pork and rice industries and the business and PAYE citizens carry the burden. government’s recent decision to allow the If they do not like it, they can leave and small importation of salmon, with its potential to business and Australian companies will fill irreversibly damage the environment and the void. industry, are unforgivable. The government Foreign ownership of our enterprises should are acting against the interests of those people not exceed 49 per cent. Foreign ownership of who voted them in as their representatives to our assets is unacceptably high. We have protect their rights and interests. Are milk, signed 41 international tax agreements which bread, electricity or local government rates give foreign owned companies a competitive any cheaper as a result of the national compe- advantage over Australian companies. By tition policy? A mixture of market forces and virtue of paying little or no tax they have a government controls in certain circumstances market advantage that enables them to out can operate for the overall public benefit. price and out service those Australian com- Although the economic purists hate to admit panies and businesses which pay their taxes. it, this mixture of market forces and govern- The government does not publish accurate ment intervention is necessary to preserve an and concise information about the level of adequate level of competition and consumer foreign ownership of our land, businesses, choice. This mixture preserves the economic companies and natural resources. When opportunities for the whole community, not Pauline Hanson was a member of parliament just the big end of town. even she could not access this information. The main problem with the national compe- What hope does the general public have? tition policy has been its overzealous imple- Multinationals buy out their competition mentation with little or no regard to the anti- and monopolise the markets. Examples of competitive nature of unregulated markets and multinationals destroying Australian owned with little or no regard to the very real social companies are Conagra and Boral. Not only costs of national competition policy. Pauline have they bought out their competitors and Hanson’s One Nation supports a mixed monopolised the market but government has economy that has two sorts of government financially assisted one of these multinationals controls: controls on big business that prevent in their expansion, whilst their Queensland oligopolies and outright monopolies forming, 7252 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 and measures that support small and medium Australians have a long and for the most size business to compete with big business. part successful relationship with firearms, and This counterbalances advantages enjoyed by I do not believe that imposing national gun the multinationals and big business, which laws was the correct action to deal with an include superior purchasing power, taxation increasingly violent, divided and amoral advantages and economies of scale. This helps society. We believe that decent, law-abiding to ensure that the elusive level playing field citizens should have reasonable access to can be achieved. The economic cost to con- firearms for legitimate reasons. sumers of protecting manufacturing industry The PRESIDENT—Senator Harris, you is justified by the social benefits, more Aus- have gone over your time. Could you bring tralian jobs and less Australian debt. Australia your speech to a conclusion, please? is resource rich. We should be leading world technology, not selling our intellectual re- Senator HARRIS—I have always greatly sources overseas where multinational com- admired Gandhi, and I believe his thoughts to panies can exploit them with minimal benefits conclude my maiden speech are fitting. I ask for Australians. members of the chamber to reflect on these words: The protection of our workers’ entitlements The things that will destroy us are politicians is very important, and I am pleased to see that without principle, pleasure without conscience, the government and the opposition are now wealth without work, knowledge without character, taking this matter seriously. However, it was science without humanity and business without not until Pauline Hanson released her policy morality. to protect workers’ entitlements in 1998 that Madam President, with humility, diligence Labor or the coalition displayed an enthusi- and the grace of God, I, Leonard William asm to fix this most serious problem. Harris, pledge to serve each individual Aus- Inland tourism is an industry with fantastic tralian, so help me God. I swear by the potential to be developed. For too long Aus- Southern Cross to stand truly by each Austral- tralian promotions have concentrated on the ian and fight to defend our rights and liber- eastern seaboard. The Australian outback is ties. beautiful, and I will be doing my best to MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ensure that we promote the western side of the Great Divide to tourists and overseas The PRESIDENT—Order! It being 12.45 visitors as well as the eastern seaboard. p.m., pursuant to order we turn to matters of public interest. Small businesses are doing it tough for a variety of reasons, but our unfair dismissal Administration of Northern Territory laws are adding to the problem. Unfair dis- Land Councils missal legislation as it presently stands is a Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- disincentive to increasing small business tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister employment, and I would like to work with for Health and Aged Care) (12.45 p.m.)—I the government to help our small business have today written to the Chairman of the operators achieve their full potential. House of Representatives Standing Committee There is a place for unions in Australia to on Aboriginal Affairs, which is currently protect the workers’ rights. Enterprise bar- reviewing the recommendations by John gaining has the potential to take away hard Reeves QC on the Aboriginal Land Rights fought rights of workers. We do not support Act (Northern Territory) 1976, and also to the compulsory unionism, as it is an infringement Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait of freedom of choice and freedom of associa- Islander Affairs, Senator John Herron. I have tion and encourages complacency on the part referred to the committee and the minister of the unions. We do not approve of the important evidence and documents from a practice of channelling money from member- recent Supreme Court of the Northern Terri- ship fees to political parties without the tory case before Justice Angel. The case, authorisation of the member. Peter Julian Hansen v. Northern Land Coun- Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7253 cil, raises additional questions for the Rights (NT) Act, the Defendant paid $1,667,726 of committee’s examination of the Reeves report its available funds to NAAC (an inappropriate and the administration of Northern Territory recipient set up by the NLC and NAIC and in fact a sham entity) being payments not approved by the land councils, particularly the Northern Land Minister under s.34, and being $501,238 in excess Council. of any payment that could be authorized by s.35(1), The evidence presented in this unfair on any interpretation." dismissal case, which includes documents The boards of these front organisations were subpoenaed from the Northern Land Council, largely composed of the same people and, shows that the executive officers of the NLC astoundingly, this is even acknowledged in developed a sophisticated scheme to the 1991-92 Northern Land Council annual misappropriate moneys from the then Aborigi- report with the following line: nal Benefits Trust Account (ABTA), now The members of N.A.A.C. are the Trustees of the known as the Aboriginal Benefits Reserve North Australian Charitable Trust and the Trustees (ABR). The illegal and immoral actions of the of the Trust are the Directors of the Northern Northern Land Council and its executive Aboriginal Investment Corporation (N.A.I.C.). relating to this scam initially took place in The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the 1991. Unfortunately, the Labor government time, the Hon. Robert Tickner, gave specific turned a blind eye to proper scrutiny and instructions regarding the use of surplus funds supervision of the land councils for obvious from the ABTA and, unfortunately, the NLC political reasons. executive actively conspired to deceive the These activities were nothing more than a minister. Rent was charged by the NAAC to series of corporate raids by some Aboriginal the NLC at the rate of $340,000 per annum, leaders and their legal advisers. It amounted a further misuse of moneys which should to a scheme to gain control of assets in case have been going to Aboriginal people the land councils were ever to be taken out of throughout the Northern Territory for their legislative existence. The scheme revolved benefit. around the purchase of a building in Darwin, Mitbul House, by the NLC and four regional But, in a further damning indictment of offices in Borroloola, Daly River, Timber these sham organisations, the directors of the Creek and Ngukurr. It involved a complex NAAC—of which Mick Dodson was one— creative accounting scheme and utilised a veil approved the rental moneys that the NAAC of companies and trusts. received from the NLC being treated as a grant to the Northern Aboriginal Investment A dummy organisation with charitable Corporation (NAIC). Let me quote again from status was set up, called the North Australian the trial evidence: Aboriginal Corporation (NAAC). This organi- sation channelled the misappropriated funds "No more cogent evidence of NAAC’s sham from the ABTA through the North Australian character could be adduced. The defendant’s "rent", in the order of $340,000 per annum, did not begin Investment Corporation (NAIC), acting as a until 1/7/91 and this record clearly shows that from trustee through the Northern Australian that date the Defendant paid its "rent" to NAIC not Aboriginal Charitable Trust (NAACT). A sum to NAAC and even more importantly NAIC treated of $1,667,726 was initially misappropriated the money as belonging to it." from the ABTA and used to purchase Mitbul It is interesting to note the conflicts of inter- House, the current NLC offices. A further ests of many NLC officials. Mick Dodson— sum of approximately $500,000 was who subsequently became Labor’s appointed misappropriated and relates to the regional Social Justice Commissioner—as director of offices. Let me quote from the chronological review of trial evidence by the plaintiff’s the NLC played a big hand in this scheme. lawyers, which was submitted to Justice He was aware of it, he condoned it and he Angel: worked actively with others to achieve it. At 23/7/91 Another of those whom Mr Dodson worked "Between this date and 31 December 1991, in with was his mentor and predecessor as breach of s.35(1) and s.36 of Aboriginal Land director of the NLC, Mr John Ah Kit. Mr Ah 7254 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Kit, now the member for Arnhem in the with a resultant lack of service to the NLC’s Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, was constituency—the Aboriginal people of the the director of the NLC when the scheme was Northern Territory. concocted. He is one of those responsible for It is an example of Aboriginal leaders and this misuse of power and ABTA funds. Mr their policy advisers misleading their own Ah Kit should resign from parliament, as the people and doing what they think is best for very people he claims to represent are those them—paternalism at its worst. Worst of all, that have suffered due to the fact they have it is an example of people in positions of not received funds that are rightfully theirs. power abusing a trust that is placed in them I have recently called for the activities of to serve honourably. It is a pity that this type the then, and now, Labor Northern Territory of thing makes it much more difficult for federal member, Warren Snowdon, and the honest Aboriginal leaders to overcome the Northern Land Council to be investigated by stereotypes and prejudices created by such the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral crooks. Matters. There is evidence from the Hansen The matters raised in evidence to the v. Northern Land Council trial judgment that Supreme Court now require urgent attention shows a close and improper relationship by the House of Representatives Standing between Mr Snowdon and the NLC, particu- Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait larly in relation to the drafting of correspond- Islander Affairs, the Attorney-General and the ence for the NLC by Mr Snowdon and assist- Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait ance during elections. Islander Affairs. Further detailed inquiry must One wonders just how far this close rela- be undertaken as a matter of urgency to tionship goes, what involvement Mr Snowdon correct past breaches of trust and to ensure had with the NLC in-group and whether he that the future administration of land councils knew of any cover-up with the Labor minister is on a proper footing. for aboriginal affairs. If he was involved, like In his judgment on the NLC v. Hansen Mr Ah Kit, he should resign from parliament. case, Justice Angel made very discerning and The particularly worrying aspect of this concerning comments about the honesty, scheme, apart from the obvious improprieties, reliability, motives and characters of Mr Mick is the fact that it took a Supreme Court case Dodson and the former NLC staffer, now spin for the evidence to be forthcoming. At no doctor to Warren Snowdon, Mr Tony Haritos. stage was an effort made by any subsequent In his judgment, Justice Angel said the fol- executive of the NLC to resolve the issue and lowing regarding Mr Dodson’s evidence: return the misappropriated funds to the Abo- riginal benefits reserve. Mr Dodson, whilst having the opportunity to refresh his memory from contemporaneous records In fact, over the course of several years of the defendant, did not do so. He lacked a there has been an active effort by many at the memory for detail, was not as conscientious as he NLC to cover up this conspiracy. This is a might have been, and I regret to say, on occasions, despicable state of affairs and those involved did not give honest answers. should hang their heads in shame. The hypoc- This is extremely strong and damning lan- risy of these so-called Aboriginal leaders is guage from a Supreme Court judge, particu- absolutely breathtaking. They should apolo- larly when it concerns a person of Mick gise to their Aboriginal constituency in the Dodson’s public standing—a former Austral- Northern Territory for the wrong that they ian of the Year and Social Justice Commis- have bestowed on them. This is not simply a sioner. With regard to Tony Haritos, then case of money being misused and abused by media officer for the Northern Land Council those who felt they did not need to be ac- and now Mr Warren Snowdon’s spin doctor, countable to anyone, including their own Justice Angel said: people, but much more. It is an example of Mr Haritos, a former employee of the defendant, the misuse of ‘surplus’ funds leading to the was a biased and untrustworthy witness who was need for subsequent budget and staff cuts, quite unreliable. I do not accept the truth of Mr Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7255

Haritos’s evidence, save where it is consistent with trial award or agreement that they worked the evidence of the plaintiff. under. Yet again, that is a damning condemnation of The entitlements will also vary according to a witness by a Supreme Court judge. Mr the length of service of the employee. For Haritos was obviously willing to put so much example, with long service leave, some spin on anything that he was told, regardless employees may be entitled to a payment and of the facts, that it would have made Shane others may not, depending on their length of Warne proud. service. The entitlements will include unpaid I contend that the fiddled trust moneys wages, including accrued annual leave, redun- should revert to the Aboriginal people through dancy pay, sick leave—some awards or the Aboriginal benefits reserve and that agreements provide for the payout of sick Mitbul House should be vested in the ABR, leave on termination, particularly in redundan- where it rightly belongs. I table Justice cy circumstances—and, finally, the employees Angel’s judgment of 12 July 1999 and the superannuation guarantee. These payments plaintiff’s written submissions and chronologi- can be made by the employer into the fund up cal review of trial evidence. to a year after they fall due. Often, the employee’s own contributions, where an Employee Entitlements: Bankruptcy employee makes contributions, are required to Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (12.56 be forwarded to the superannuation fund p.m.)—There has recently been significant within 30 days. Unfortunately, these moneys comment in the media about the issue of get caught up in the bankruptcy proceedings. employee entitlements on the bankruptcy of As a proportion of the national wages and a business—bankruptcies that are contrived or salaries bill paid, including superannuation, otherwise. The latest case involving loss of moneys lost by employees in these circum- entitlements concerns the Oakdale miners. It stances are fortunately a very small percent- is fairly well known that the Oakdale miners age of total wages, salaries and superannua- lost their entitlements on the bankruptcy of tion. However, for those employees who lose the mining company for which they worked. their entitlements, it adds significantly to the They are owed moneys approximating $6.3 worry and the concern that they experience at million in redundancy and other entitlements. what is a very painful period during their Today, I would like to touch on some of the lives. Also in the broader community the issues and the particular problems in solving issue has caused concern, and I think that is the matters of the just due legal entitlements reflected in the widespread media coverage of employees on bankruptcy and to suggest a that employees in these difficult circum- possible option for resolving that particular stances have received. problem. I note that, regrettably, the Oakdale While stiffening the legal protections will miners—who were in Canberra yesterday and improve the situation to some extent, particu- had a meeting with the Minister for Employ- larly in the area of Corporations Law, this ment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi- does not deal with the time delays that occur ness, Mr Reith—went away from this place when bankruptcy proceedings are under way, with the matter unresolved. nor does it ensure full payment of an Once a business is placed in receivership, employee’s entitlements. Recently, the there is a significant time period—it usually Minister for Financial Services and Regula- takes a year or two, and sometimes longer— tion, Mr Hockey, announced legislation to before assets are sold to determine what move the payment of employee entitlements moneys are left to pay entitlements. That is, to first priority once bankruptcy proceedings of course, if any moneys are left at all. One are completed. However, the Liberal-National of the particularly difficult aspects of this is Party government appear very reluctant to that, if there is money left, employees are not introduce an effective fund to compensate paid first. The employees’ entitlements will employees, almost certainly, I suspect, be- vary according to the provisions of the indus- cause employers oppose such a proposal. 7256 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Interestingly, employers have argued that they payment of superannuation contributions. So do not want a new bureaucratic structure as it is important to improve the regularity of they see it, nor do they want to incur any payments where possible so that drawings on additional costs. any compensation fund are minimised. This A number of options have been put forward also creates a more level playing field for the for solving the problems. Firstly, I would vast majority of responsible employers. So my emphasise that this issue needs a total solu- suggestion in this area is that superannuation tion, and I think the latest proposal from moneys should be paid at least quarterly in Minister Reith of some sort of safety net that order to minimise the level of superannuation would ensure part payment is totally unsatis- moneys that are outstanding, that are owed to factory. Workers in these circumstances and the superannuation fund but have not been their families are entitled to the full moneys paid. owed. They are moneys that have been earned The next area that requires improvement is and they are entitled to full payment—part the issue of legal supervision. Clearly, lifting payment is unacceptable. It is also unaccept- employee payments on bankruptcy to first able that employees in general should have to priority, as has been announced by Minister pay what is an employer obligation. Hockey, should occur, but it has a number of Secondly, this requires national action. The drawbacks, as I outlined earlier. Also, legal solution should be national. The use of state sanctions against employers who enter con- laws and/or state based compensation funds trived arrangements shifting assets to related would obviously not protect all Australian but separate legal structures should also occur. employees. It would be very difficult to legally enforce state based funds where they But I would like now to turn to what I see were introduced. For example, if a company as the total solution of this particular problem, went bankrupt and it had operations in two and that involves the concept of a national states, which is a common occurrence, and employee entitlements guarantee. The twin one state had a fund and the other did not, goals should be to guarantee timely and full you would have the absurd situation where payment. A number of options have been employees in one state would receive pay- proposed in the current public debate, includ- ment but those in the other would not. I also ing creation of a special trust fund and/or note in passing that businesses argue that this insurance on employers. I do note that em- would be an impediment to investment. In ployers have strongly opposed such proposals reality, this would be a minimal barrier to on the grounds of additional costs of both the investment, but it is argued nonetheless. So structure and the levy. They argue: why we do need national action, and this should should responsible employers pay? So is there take a number of forms. another option? I believe there is, and I would Firstly, we need to improve the regularity like to advance this option in the debate. of payments to employees where possible. Currently, all employers are required to pay The major problem here is in the area of the superannuation guarantee into their superannuation. Employers are legally obliged employee’s appropriate superannuation fund. to make payment of the superannuation The funds are governed by trustees, equal guarantee, known as the SG—currently seven employer and employee, usually nominees of per cent of base wages—up to 12 months employer organisations and trade unions. after they fall due. Employers are increasingly These structures are tried, tested and trusted using this provision to delay payments. in terms of handling superannuation moneys. Accordingly, there are significant moneys They also in the main provide compulsory outstanding if the business fails. death and disability insurance at a very Interestingly, as a side consequence, an competitive price. The sheer size of the funds employee’s death and disability insurance, enables the trustees to bargain with insurance which is part of the superannuation package, companies in a very cost-efficient way, and also expires after 60 days because of late the premium in this area usually amounts Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7257 from 80c to $1 a week that is deducted from could be used to fund such a compulsory the employer SG contributions. insurance to be paid and administered by the I would suggest that we should be requiring superannuation fund. I do also note in passing a loss of entitlement insurance of superannua- that some state governments do hold lost tion trusts. The cost would be minuscule, superannuation moneys, and they should also likely to be between 20c and 40c a week, contribute to such a funding option. Employ- depending on the claims on the fund. When ers may even support such a proposal. It is no an employee loses their job, they can make an additional paperwork or cost, and it may immediate claim on their superannuation fund improve their appreciation of the value of the for the moneys outstanding. Interestingly, the superannuation system. superannuation fund will also at the same I would say in closing that such a proposal time be pursuing superannuation payments could also be made retrospective for a certain from the employer for the employee. Usually time period to cover at least some of the these are not paid to the employee; they outstanding cases that have been recently remain in the fund unless the employee is highlighted in the media. I would also note aged 55 or older and allowed to access them. that, through its shadow industrial relations So the superannuation fund is invariably minister, Arch Bevis, and Janet Crosio, Labor involved in taking legal actions to collect has introduced a private member’s bill in the outstanding superannuation moneys. Superan- House of Representatives. This legislation was nuation trusts with specialist lawyers are more introduced some 18 months ago. Regrettably, likely to succeed legally as they have the it has been delayed by the Liberal-National greater resources to fund long-term legal Party. This does also present another feasible actions than individuals do. I note in passing and workable solution to what is an extremely that indirectly this would assist government difficult and distressing problem for workers revenue as much of the recovered moneys is who lose their money in these circumstances. taxed. It is an issue that should be dealt with. It should be dealt with quickly, effectively and How would the cost of this compulsory fairly because workers and their families insurance be met? There are a number of should not be disadvantaged in these particu- options. The superannuation guarantee could lar circumstances. be increased. It would be a relatively minuscule amount of money—0.1 or 0.2 per Port Hinchinbrook Development Project cent—to cover the cost. This would raise Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (1.11 between $150 million and $200 million a p.m.)—I wish to raise a matter of public year, if indeed that sum is necessary. The interest today and to perhaps update the second option is to debit the existing employ- Senate on a long saga that has been going on er contribution, which effectively passes the in Queensland. It has nothing to do with cost on to the employee account. I believe whistleblowers this time, but it is another that this proposal should rightly not be pro- issue that I have pursued over many years— ceeded with because the employee should not that is, the whole issue of Hinchinbrook. I be required to effectively cover their own loss know Senator McLucas will be interested in of entitlements insurance. this because of the interest that former Sena- But there is a third area. Significantly, there tor Reynolds had in the issue. I also do so to is a rapidly growing amount of unclaimed and try to protect some people who have sought lost superannuation moneys. At last count, it to fly the flag, if you can put it that way, for was approaching the figure of $3 billion. the environment in North Queensland and Much of this money will never be claimed or who have suffered a lot of personal abuse and collected. For example, when we have people personal attacks because of that. The most visiting from overseas who are employed and outstanding person, of course, is Margaret they return overseas, most of those moneys Thorsborne, who is well known and quite will never be collected. So I would contend famous really for the work that both she and that some of the lost superannuation moneys her husband have done over many years as 7258 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 environmentalists in that area through their son—apparently a female—says she was a own personal contributions and the other personal friend of Sue. Again there is more work that they have done. unparliamentary language, indicating that she I wanted to place on the record the fact is no longer a friend and asking them to leave that, very sadly, the community of Cardwell town—which is the thrust of the document is still divided over the issue of the develop- and where the threat is implied. Another ment at Port Hinchinbrook. It is divided to document, obviously from the same person such an extent that at least some of the people and in the same kind of language, made even who are part of the Friends of Hinchinbrook more severe threats—one against the daughter group are still receiving threats, written and of this person and one that these people could verbal. I visited Cardwell a week ago and lose their house. again received some written material which I have put this on the record because we does horrify me, but putting it on the record need to know how such issues sometimes may give a certain amount of protection to develop. When you are part of it, you feel a those who are being threatened. I will not responsibility for those who are being at- table the material because it does have some tacked, no matter which side they come from. unparliamentary language contained within it, One would wish that in some way or other we so I will perhaps make reference to the could handle these controversial issues better. documents—at least in that way they will be The appeal that some of us would make is given some public scrutiny. that, rather than resorting to such threats, we The person who was attacked—and I will ought to be able to handle the issues in a far use only her first name—was a woman named more responsible way and recognise that, Sue who lives in Cardwell and who has whether we agree or disagree with other continued to protest against the development people, they have a right to their opinion. I there. That has caused a lot of anger in the will not table the documents. I wanted to town, although of course there are people on quote from them to show that the woman Sue both sides of that debate. There are those who and other Friends of Hinchinbrook are not are in favour of the resort and there are those intimidated by such documents. But certainly who are against it, and I would have thought it does leave one wondering, if that is the that it was the right of everyone in a demo- kind of support you need for a development, cratic society to be on either side of that whether there is a question mark over it. The debate. But I do object to the tactics which documents were signed ‘Jenny and friends’. are sometimes used by one side or the other There are still some problems in that develop- and, in this case, by those who apparently ment and within the town of Cardwell over support the resort development against those the Hinchinbrook development. who continue to protest. I will read some of the material. I read from a document which I refer to a couple of other issues surround- begins by stating: ing the development and put it on the record What a hypocritical lot of— that some of the debate which continues is also not very helpful. The Sunday Mail word deleted— published a very glowing article on the you lot are. developer on 11 July this year and then later, The document goes on to say that people on 18 July, published a correction in which have protested but that they have been using Mr Williams was quoted as saying that his the marina boat ramp facilities. That was built development was not for sale and he had not as a public facility anyway, so I do not know at any time suggested that it might be. That why they should not be allowed to use it. The statement contradicts many statements made document abuses them for doing that. It by Mr Williams, and made publicly. I will speaks of shame on those who are still pro- quote from a few. There was an article in the testing and says that those on the side of the Courier-Mail of 10 November 1994 headlined development are the majority. I might add ‘Developer offers to sell resort’, an article in that no-one has established that. This per- the Townsville Bulletin of 30 June 1995 Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7259 headlined ‘Williams wants to sell Port Hin- Today I would like to say a little about the chinbrook site’, another article in the Cairns Parliamentary Education Office and put on the Post of 1 July 1995 headlined ‘Developer is record the fine work it does to promote ready to sell’, and an article in the Courier- knowledge of our parliamentary system and Mail of 1 March 1996 which reads: our Constitution among school children. The I gave them— Parliamentary Education Office has a mock parliament in one of the committee rooms in that is, the federal government— Parliament House. In the past year the the opportunity to buy it at cost plus interest. millionth student has passed through the mock He’s— parliament in Parliament House and that is a that is, Mr Keating— remarkable achievement. been advised of that several times by me verbally and in writing... The Parliamentary Education Office was established, I understand, in 1988—just over It is interesting to continue to follow this 10 years ago—with the object of increasing debate and the claims and counterclaims by the awareness, understanding and appreciation both sides. I have been told that one of the of the significance of the functions and casualties of war, which must include war procedures of our parliamentary system. It between people over these kinds of develop- sought to provide an information service on ments, is truth. So I thought it was worth parliament for senators and members who putting that correction about the claims on the wished to pass on information to people who record. But my main concern was to put on wrote to them about how our parliament the record the threats which continue against worked and also to teachers and students as those who protest at the development and in well as members of the public. It has also that way to bring to the attention of the assisted in writing curriculum material and Senate the conflict that continues. While one conducting professional development courses could hope that one day it will be over, it is for teachers from all over Australia. In fact, certainly a lesson to people in this chamber— teachers come to Canberra every year on so- and I point the finger at myself—that in such called parliamentary fellowships to see how protests one has to take responsibility for the system works and they take curriculum divisions which occur within the community material back to their schools all over Austral- and which seem very difficult to heal. ia. That material is now available on the Parliamentary Education Office Internet. It is available very easily around this country. Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (1.21 p.m.)—Last week I accompanied the I understand that during 1988 something in Parliamentary Education Office on a tour the order of 1,271 schools or 2,008 groups— through the Pilbara in Western Australia. The which meant 66,921 students—participated in Parliamentary Education Office spent two the program at Parliament House. Most of weeks there. The first week was spent going them came from areas close by. I understand through the western Pilbara where they visited that 54 per cent came from New South Wales, the schools in Tom Price and Paraburdoo and there were high percentages from Victoria before going on to Karratha. They visited all and southern Queensland, but only 3.15 per the schools in the Karratha, Dampier, Wick- cent came from Western Australia, which is ham and Roebourne area before going to the my particular area of interest. As a member eastern Pilbara last week. They visited New- of the Parliamentary Education Office advis- man and provided their services in mock ory committee, earlier this year I expressed parliaments to all the schools in the Hedland the view that I thought the outreach program, area. I was very impressed with the way the which the Parliamentary Education Office Parliamentary Education Office worked in runs, should go to some of the more remote providing school children with an appreciation parts of Australia because it was highly of how parliament works and how our Consti- unlikely that students in those areas would tution operates. have an opportunity to come to Canberra. 7260 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

That was the genesis of the visit to the Pilbara for these people to live in and enjoy. They last week. I believe that the PEO intends to also run a very successful cattle station and visit the Kimberley area of Western Australia mining operation. next year. Again, I was very impressed by the way The PEO does not take the outreach pro- Geoff Clarke and his staff—Camilla Blunden gram just to areas which are very distant. It and Ali Garnet—simply walked into this has taken the outreach program to areas of Aboriginal community and talked to the kids country Victoria, Queensland and South about something which interested them, and Australia because not all students can find the that was the idea that people were stealing money to come to Canberra. If Mohammed snakes, birds and other animals from their cannot come to the mountain, it is a case of country and what should they do about it. taking the mountain to Mohammed—or to the They all decided that it was wrong and there school children concerned. I was very im- should be a law to prevent people stealing pressed last week at the way the teachers their snakes and birds. So a bill was set up to brought students into the district education be passed in the mock parliament. These little office in Port Hedland, which is where I was, Aboriginal children very enthusiastically and set up a parliament, appointing a prime joined in the role-playing. minister, a speaker, a leader of the opposition I commend the Parliamentary Education and ministers. The children became totally Office for devising a concept which these absorbed in role-playing the respective jobs Aboriginal children could relate to. In the that they were given. other schools they had a proposal, for exam- In addition, last week the Parliamentary ple, that school hours be extended, which of Education Office went to Hedland College course most children opposed. This would not where it provided a mock parliament to the have worked so well at Yandeyarra because English as a second language class at the they do not have regular school hours: people college. The nationalities represented in that seem to come and go as they choose. But the class included Malay women, Thai women, idea of a law where animals should not be Venezuelan women and Vietnamese women. stolen appealed very much to these Aboriginal As it happened, they were all women. Given children. I would certainly like to thank the the restrictions on their understanding of people at the Yandeyarra school: the princi- English, the Parliamentary Education Office pal, Mark Rawlins; the teachers—Lisa Carthy managed to get these people to participate in and Tina McVicar—who helped set up that a mock parliament and to do so enthusiasti- mock parliament; as well as the Aboriginal cally. They all left with a good appreciation educational assistants, Marlene Walker and of how our parliamentary system works. Jenny Walker, who were very helpful. The other unique and important thing that One of the objectives of the Parliamentary the PEO did last week during its visit to the Education Office is to improve young Pilbara was to visit an Aboriginal community. Australians’ understanding of our Constitution It went to the Yandeyarra community, which and our system of government. They are is about 120 miles out of Port Hedland. That doing this through the program, Discovering was the first time the Parliamentary Education Democracy. The Discovering Democracy Office had been to a school at an Aboriginal program was established because a Constitu- community anywhere in Australia. Yandeyarra tional Commission report in 1988 found that is a very successful community. It is a model only 50 per cent of our population understood almost of what an Aboriginal community that we had a written constitution. A 1994 could be, with a very nice village, a good study found that 73 per cent, no less, of school and a medical centre which is well set people over the age of 15 had a total lack of up. They have a station of about one million knowledge of the role of the Governor-Gener- acres in the old coinage. As was said by one al in our Constitution. The Parliamentary of the officers from the Parliamentary Educa- Education Office is part of the program to tion Office, it was like having a vast parkland ensure that Australians have a better under- Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7261 standing of our Constitution and our form of be submitting a full report on that trip to the government. Senate in the next few weeks. One of the findings of the Turnbull commit- The media background information, which tee, which looked into the question of the is available to members of the Australia Tibet republic about five or six years ago, was that Council, reports that next week the third most Australians assumed that our Constitu- annual round of the Australia-China bilateral tion was similar to the American Constitution, human rights dialogue takes place in Beijing. and were stunned to find that we did not have These private talks between bureaucrats will things like a bill of rights and so on. The take place only three weeks before President need to educate Australians about our political Jiang Zemin of China visits Australia. China system, our Constitution and our form of has already indicated that President Jiang is government is one of the great unmet needs likely to announce a $15 million natural gas in this society of ours. We should be paying deal with Australia during the visit, partly more attention to educating children about our because of the support that Australia has political system at a school level to overcome given to China in its recent confrontation with this huge deficiency in knowledge about how Taiwan. This is only one of several bilateral our political system works. trade deals under negotiation in the lead-up to President Jiang’s arrival. In this climate, the It is interesting that in other countries, like third round of the dialogue in Beijing seems the United States, children have a very good certain to be at least as ineffectual as the understanding of how their political system previous meetings when it comes to confront- works. They have a very good understanding ing the serious human rights abuses taking of the history of the American Revolution, place in Tibet and, indeed, throughout China. and they also have a very highly developed sense of national pride—the American flag is The Australia Tibet Council’s position is everywhere one goes in the United States— that the dialogue should be suspended pend- and that is an example that we could well ing a parliamentary review into its effective- emulate in Australia. ness. I cannot but wholeheartedly agree. The position of government in Australia regarding As I said, I would like to place on record the military repression in Tibet is totally out my appreciation of the fine work that the of keeping with the feelings, as I have gauged Parliamentary Education Office is doing to them, of the people of Australia. We need to promote knowledge of our political system redress that. A starting point for that is in- and the workings of our parliament. I would creased debate in this national parliament— like to once again congratulate Geoff Clark something that I intend to foster. and his team for the particularly good work that they are doing with their outreach pro- When I went to Tibet with other people at gram and for taking that program to many the start of August, we first went to the parts of Australia when students are not able western city of Xining and from there bussed to come to Canberra to participate. to Dulan, a town on the main road from Beijing to Lhasa. In doing so, we went onto Tibet the northern part of the central Tibetan plat- eau. This is where the World Bank intends to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.33 p.m.)— invest some $US40 million, backing a Chi- Tibet is a nation of six million people on the nese scheme for the resettlement of 58,000 roof of the world in Central Asia, but it is not Chinese people from the Xining area, 400 a free nation. It is the largest occupied nation, kilometres to the east, onto the plateau. This and the largest colony on the face of the will be done by the diversion of a river, the planet at this end of the 20th century. I made establishment of 126 villages and the creation a private visit to Tibet over the winter break, of a massive network of irrigation canals, and I want to make some preliminary com- which directly obstructs the passage of the ments about that visit and forthcoming events nomadic Mongol and Tibetan herdspeople to do with Tibet. I can inform you that I will bringing their herds down off the mountains 7262 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 for winter onto the plains and back again in The first thing you note on the way into summer. Lhasa is the destroyed buildings on a hillside. When you ask what happened there, you are There are a number of delegations: a media told that that was part of the massive destruc- delegation last week, and the Australia China tion of Tibetan culture which took place Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue delegation under Mao Tse Tung’s government, the is being hosted to the area by the Chinese Cultural Revolution and the immediate prede- government. I think all these visits are going cessors of the current government—many of to fail on two counts. Firstly, none of the whom were in Beijing fostering this destruc- delegations will be taken to the wetlands—an tion of the Tibetan people’s culture back in important breeding site for the black-neck the sixties and seventies. In Lhasa itself there crane, which is emblematic of China and are military vehicles, but these are not gun Tibet—because they are 200 kilometres out in carrying and rocket carrying vehicles, which the desert. The wetlands are going to be people might look for; they are military deprived of water by this scheme. I doubt any vehicles—trucks and four-wheel drives— of the delegations are going to see the carrying military personnel. There are military herdspeople whose lives are going to be personnel and police on the street like I have dramatically changed by this influx of 58,000 seen nowhere else in China, let alone in the people from elsewhere, because they are with free countries of the world. their flocks up in the mountains at the mo- ment. In two- or three-day visits it is simply It is very easy for MPs, as well as other not possible to contact those people. people, to visit a place like Tibet and, not seeing people being knocked down in the There will be a lot of debate about this streets or hearing gunshots, to think every- issue in the coming months. At least the thing is toward. You have to have contact World Bank has put its commitment on hold with the Tibetan people to realise the repres- until there is a further study. The World Bank sion that is going on there. It is only safe to ought to require a minimum one-year environ- do that out of the vigilant watch of the mental impact study and cultural and econom- military personnel and the predominantly ic impact studies of that massive area to be Chinese population in the business centre of affected on the northern Tibetan plateau Tibet. Most of the businesses these days are before it goes ahead with that project. As owned by the Chinese. The ownership pre- well, the World Bank ought to be insisting dominance has transferred from the Tibetan that 58,000 poor Tibetans are put into that people to the Chinese immigrants, who have region—not add to the immigration problem become the extension, the watching eyes, of by which China is quite deliberately moving the government. millions of Chinese citizens into the Tibetan plateau so that the Tibetan people will be, if One thing that impressed me enormously they are not already, a minority in their own was the readiness of young Tibetans—they land. are the ones who tend to speak some English and, given the opportunity and reassurance I went to Lhasa and was immediately that they are speaking to a friend of Tibet, impressed by the militarisation of that place. will come up and start conversing with a I cannot understand how other parliamenta- Westerner—to express their utter wish that the rians visiting the area could have come to a Dalai Lama return to Tibet and that Tibet be different conclusion. On landing at the airport given its freedom. I think that visitors who do in Lhasa, I saw nine fighter jets at one end of not expose themselves to or do not find the airport, a military camp at the back and themselves in that situation have missed a soldiers with guns placed on all four perim- connection with the Tibetan people. It is okay eters of the airport. On the way to and from to be taken around by Chinese guides, to stay the airport in Lhasa, there were passing in Chinese hotels, to be given the Chinese convoys of military vehicles—some of them tour patter, but this is very little different, in full of troops. my book, from parliamentary delegations who Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7263 went to the USSR in the thirties, forties or the China, let alone the Tibetan people their right fifties and came back reporting that all was to freedom of expression, or at least a going well, that there was advancement of the minimal right to vote for self-determination as people, that the economy was getting better, espoused by the International Commission of that production was better and that education Jurists. standards were better—that all these param- eters were better—while not daring to push Next week, this next round of bilateral the authorities and look behind the brutality dialogue will take place with Australians, of that regime in those times. We now all including Mr Peter Nugent from the House of know better. Representatives, going to Beijing. I believe these dialogue talks should be, at minimum, I do not believe we can shut our eyes to suspended and, better still, abandoned, be- what is happening in Tibet. When you put cause they are a charade which allows the your head down at night in the comfortable Chinese and Australian governments to put modern hotels—Chinese-owned hotels—in the issue of Tibet on the shelf. We go to Tibet, you know that in the prisons a few those talks under terms dictated by China but blocks up the road there are monks and nuns foreign to our open, free and democratic by their hundreds who have dared to stand up system. Why should these talks be held in for their beliefs, who are not just in prison but secret? Why should there be no definitive who are in lengthy months of solitary confine- reporting? Why is it the government has such ment—very often in fouled cells—and who a minimal cost allocation and such a minimal are subject to torture, including electrified delegation system for these talks? Why are cattle prods and, unfortunately, on occasions, non-government organisations or, indeed, rape. There are harrowing accounts of extend- representatives of groups like the Tibetan ed periods of torture. I believe that no MP people not taken into account, let alone taken worth their salt should ever leave this country along on these visits? again and go to Tibet without speaking first to ex-prisoners from those gaols who are now I am mindful that President Jiang Zemin part of the exiled Tibetan community here in himself will be in this country at the start of Australia. I believe it is a failure to properly next month. I understand there will be a understand the plight of the Tibetans for MPs, parliamentarians dinner on 8 September to business people and visitors at large who want honour him. to understand what is going on in Tibet to not Senator Boswell—I hope you behave do the study at home first. yourself at that. The Australia Tibet Council has now issued Senator BROWN—Senator Boswell’s a list of recommended procedures for people interjection is a reference to me calling going to Tibet which I thoroughly endorse as President Clinton’s attention to the issue of a minimum for anybody who does not want Tibet when he was here two years ago. I am to be foxed by the propaganda and the tightly forever glad I did. If behaviour means our controlled guiding system that the Chinese having a steely resignation to the repression government invokes in this occupied country of the Tibetan people, going silent and acqui- to our north. escing, acceding to the dictates of the Chinese Of course China wants to keep control of authorities—remember these are not elected Tibet. It is to them ‘a treasure trove of forests, Chinese authorities; this is, in effect, a dicta- mineral resources and hydro-electric poten- torship—then I am not going to have a part tial’, and of course they keep vilifying the of that. Of course I will behave, but I will be Dalai Lama and misrepresenting the position impelled in any circumstance where I have of the Tibetan government in exile. Do we the opportunity to speak with Chinese offi- have to accept that as a parameter in our cialdom—and they turned down that oppor- negotiations with the Chinese government? tunity when I was in Beijing as if they were The Chinese government, remember, denies frightened to talk about this issue—of putting all other political parties the right to exist in to them the plight of the Tibetan people. 7264 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

I have a very strong feeling that is what between hard drugs and soft drugs and when most Australians would want all parliamenta- they distinguish between the use of pharma- rians to be doing. I will be referring this ceutical drugs and what they term recreational matter through a full report to the parliament drugs. Think about the implications of such in the next few weeks. I urge the government terminology for the type of attitude that we to rethink about being a part of this charade are fostering in our community, particularly next week in Beijing. amongst our young people. Drugs: Strategies What is a soft drug anyway? What does it mean to say that a drug is soft and what is a Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) recreational drug? My Oxford English Dic- (1.48 p.m.)—This is the sixth in a series of tionary tells me that, if something is soft, it addresses that I have given in this chamber on is ‘gentle, smooth and calm, and produces an the matter of illicit drug taking and the agreeable or pleasant sensation characterised ongoing drug crisis in Australia. I am very by ease and quiet enjoyment. It involves little proud to remind honourable senators that the or no exertion or effort’. My dictionary also Howard government is the first Common- tells me that a recreation is ‘an agreeable wealth government to have taken a national pastime, amusement or occupation which or whole of government approach to refreshes and enlivens the human spirit and Australia’s drug problem. Until the launch of body’. the Tough on Drugs national strategy on 18 March this year and our resolute commitment What sort of attitude are we fostering in our of $290 million in grants under the Tough on young people when we say that marijuana, Drugs program, Australia previously had a hashish and other such types of drugs, which hotchpotch approach to this problem. have such insidiously powerful effects, are What I am not proud of, and what I want gentle and smooth, and freshen and enliven to underscore today, is that, no matter how the human body, mind and spirit? Although much money we spend on the problem of we may be able to understand how a layman drugs within our community, unless we have like the Labor Premier in New South Wales a major and decisive shift in the attitude could inadvisably refer to drug taking as part about illicit drug use in our community, all of our Australian way of life, I do not think our efforts are going to be constantly put at we should show the same restraint when risk and with potential lethal ramifications someone like Professor David Penington, a that most people simply are not aware of. former Vice Chancellor and Professor of Medicine at the University of Melbourne, Let me explain what I am getting at. I will agitates for the decriminalisation of marijuana start by quoting something that Bob Carr, the use because it is a soft or recreational drug. Labor Premier of New South Wales, said in the opening of the Drug Summit on 17 May I listened to what he had to say when I 1999. The Premier said: attended the New South Wales drug summit in May this year, and I really could not Drug use is part of our society, part of our culture, part of the Australian way of life. believe my ears. Here was a leading scientist and medical practitioner who seemed to be This is a statement that should have everyone ignoring the growing evidence of the insidi- really worried. It should set off alarm bells ous effects of marijuana because it did not everywhere. I really do not think that the suit his personal point of view. By taking this Premier would accept that drugs are now so stand, he does policy makers, the community inexorably and irredeemably part of Austral- and individuals who might be tempted by so- ian way of life that all we can do effectively called soft drugs a great disservice. Like so is just fiddle at the margins. That would be a many others who trivialise the enormous risk nonsense if it were the case. taken by people when they get onto the But that is exactly what is likely to happen slippery slope of drug taking, Professor if people continue to make fine speeches and Penington seems to choose to ignore the write long academic texts that differentiate reality that marijuana can cause a vast array Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7265 of medical as well as psychiatric problems, depression, schizophrenia and other drug including, in some cases, death. Most people related psychoses. They invariably go to their do not usually associate marijuana usage with local GP who, more often than not, puts them death, but Dr John Anderson, a consultant onto an antidepressant type of drug. psychophysiologist with the Brain and Behav- Point 5: we now come more directly to the iour Centre in Westmead, set out just such a scenario which was outlined for me by Dr terminal scenario in a major policy conference Anderson and for which there is growing last weekend. medical and scientific correlating evidence. I will reconstruct Dr Anderson’s argument Parents who find their children dead might and will do so point by point, because it think they had been a bit depressed for a time deserves our very serious consideration. Point and might have encouraged them to go to the 1: the level of THC, which is the active family doctor. Their children would have ingredient in marijuana, has been steadily seemed happy enough once on prescribed increasing over the last few years, due partly antidepressants, but young people often do not to ongoing developments in hydroponics and tell the doctor that they are smoking marijua- the use of hormones to induce growth in na. It is the interaction of marijuana and plants. The level of THC in marijuana has antidepressant drugs like prozac which can gone from being just four per cent in the cause a deadly effect in some young people. 1970s to 10 per cent, then 15 per cent and up What can result from that situation is acciden- to 30 per cent in the 1980s. Even without all tal and inadvertent death. the fancy equipment and growth hormones, It will be shown up that the person died of we now have in our midst a type of marijuana an overdose of antidepressants, and the called ‘New Guinea gold’ from the highlands parents would anguish about this because they of Papua New Guinea which has an amazing would be wondering where they went wrong. THC level of 42 per cent. Why did their child join the growing suicide Point 2: the higher the level of THC present statistics? But there is increasing evidence in marijuana, the more profound the effect on that a lot of these deaths could be caused by the brain of the user. It does not just make the the interaction of these two substances and, if drug user of the 1990s a lot higher than the the level of THC in marijuana had not gone Woodstock hippie of the late 1960s and early from four per cent up to as high as 42 per 1970s; it actually retards his or her brain cent through today’s usage, this sort of death function. It is not just that it slows down the might be avoided. brain’s actual growth, which continues in Let me say here that it is unlikely that human beings up to the age of 27, but it does many parents and doctors would have come this in an exponentially more thorough way to this realisation, as Dr Anderson explains: than it has ever done before. Most doctors are not aware of the interaction of Point 3: the solubility of marijuana, which prescribed medications and illicit drugs. Currently is referred to in medical literature as its there is no reference source for them to use. lipophyllic nature, has two extremely danger- Medical evidence of this correlation is now ous characteristics, which function to prevent only just starting to come to light. Only last rapid metabolism and excretion from the year, in 1998, there was a report in the Aus- body. As a result, THC stays in the human tralian Journal of Psychiatry of someone who system for about 30 days through cumulative died because of that patient being on a lethal use, and can now be stored for longer and combination of antidepressants and marijuana. longer durations. Dr Anderson has told me of similar reports Point 4: in conjunction with other well- from overseas. documented effects of marijuana, like a Point 6: my final point is the appalling reduced flow of oxygen to the brain, what connection between marijuana—which people happens after a period of constantly storing so claim to be a so-called soft or recreational much THC in the body is that people invari- drug that the Oxford English Dictionary tells ably start to exhibit classic symptoms of us is gentle, smooth and refreshing to the 7266 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 system—the classic medical symptoms which of the APEC meeting in September and the are usually alleviated by antidepressant types upcoming World Trade Organisation meeting of medication and the tragically bizarre in November-December, will the new protec- phenomenon of an increasing number of tionist Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, be Australians, mostly young people, apparently offering to brief other APEC and WTO committing suicide by taking an overdose of member nations on the virtues of slowing their medication. down the pace of tariff reform, as he believes There is nothing approaching the concept of Australia should do? Does the government recreation or fun in anything I have told you believe that Minister Vaile will get interna- today—quite the opposite. There is nothing tional support for this view? How many of soft about the statistics on marijuana. The Australia’s export industries are in support of hard fact, as stated in the documentation that Mr Vaile’s preferred policy position? Dr Anderson has sent me, is that: Senator HILL—I think that Senator Cook Australia has the dubious honour of the world’s might have misunderstood Mr Vaile’s position highest suicide rate aged 14 to 55 per capita and in this matter. Mr Vaile obviously reflects the also the same dubious honour of being the largest government’s position—and that is that consumers of cannabis in the world. ongoing trade liberalisation is in Australia’s While I conclude my contribution to this interest. We are burdened by trade barriers in debate on a very depressing note, we must our markets, and the more they can be re- face the darkness of this issue before we can duced, the better off Australia is going to be. walk towards the light. We have to do this so I even recall that being a position advocated that we can rescue those who are most vul- by Senator Cook when he was the minister in nerable in our community, and we need to do this area, so he will be pleased to hear my this before they settle into the increasingly answer in that regard. At the forthcoming deadly option of so-called soft and recreation- trade discussions Australia will be taking the al drugs like marijuana. position that further liberalisation should be encouraged and supported, and we will be DISTINGUISHED VISITORS endeavouring to persuade others to that The PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the position. attention of honourable senators to the pres- ence in the chamber of a parliamentary Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask delegation from Ethiopia led by the Speaker a supplementary question. I thank the minister of the House of Federation of the Federal for that assurance. It is different from what Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the Hon. Mr Vaile told Laurie Oakes in his Sunday Woi-Zero Almaz. On behalf of honourable interview. In view of that answer, is it still the senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to government’s policy to pursue the goal of the Senate and trust that your visit will be ‘aggressive bilateralism’ at the expense of both informative and enjoyable. With the multilateralism as outlined in the coalition’s concurrence of honourable senators I propose 1998 election policy? Does the government to invite the Speaker to take a seat on the believe that aggressive bilateralism is prefer- floor of the Senate. able to trade multilateralism, and will this be Australia’s position as it enters the APEC and Honourable senators—Hear, hear! WTO trade round discussions? How is ag- The Hon. Woi-Zero Almaz was thereupon gressive bilateralism of more advantage to seated accordingly. Australia’s exporters than the opening of many markets under a multilateral approach? QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Senator HILL—Regrettably, again I fear Trade that Senator Cook has misread or misunder- Senator COOK—My question is to the stood the government policy. Government Leader of the Government in the Senate, policy is to take all opportunities to reduce Senator Hill, in his capacity as Minister trade barriers and open markets—whether it representing the Minister for Trade. In view can be achieved on a bilateral basis or on a Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7267 multilateral basis. What the coalition did say Senators will be aware that during the was that the previous government, of which debate there was the attempt to constantly Senator Cook was a member, erred in putting portray that there would be massive price too much emphasis upon multilateralism at rises. That was quite untrue. As Senator the expense of taking full opportunity under Gibson reminded us, on 29 July, 21 days after bilateral occasions as they present. In its royal assent was given to the new tax system bilaterals this government has vigorously bills, the first tax cuts began and most goods sought—and I think Senator Cook need only that were previously taxed at 32 per cent refer to the record of Mr Fischer in this wholesale sales tax fell to being taxed at 22 regard—to open markets at each and every per cent wholesale sales tax. As we know, opportunity as it has presented. Through the those goods will fall to 10 per cent GST next WTO and other venues, it has similarly year. These goods include clocks, TVs, sought to persuade a broadscale opening of cameras, watches, radios, stereo players, et markets. So it just requires a correct interpre- cetera. These tax cuts represent the first stages tation of the policy. (Time expired) of the change to the tax system in this coun- try—changes and tax cuts that the Labor Party Tax Reform opposed. Senator GIBSON—My question is to the Let me inform the Senate of some of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. Will the comments from retailers regarding the whole- minister inform the Senate about the price sale sales tax reductions on 29 July. I have reductions which have occurred in the imple- before me the Queensland Times from Ips- mentation of the new tax system? Will he also wich. The headline is ‘Town races to grab tax inform the Senate of reactions to the reduction bargain’. The article says: of wholesale sales tax on 29 July? Ipswich BT Edwards store manager, Mr Brian Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator McNamara, said $200 came off items such as TVs, Gibson, for that question. Senator, you have stereos, videos, hi-fis and walkmans. had a long role in the history of tax reform. He went on to say: In fact, you headed up a consultative commit- I think it’s a tremendous thing. It’s great for the tee, as you will be aware, that assisted in the general public in terms of prices being more development of this very successful tax reasonable. It will boost business. package, which we went to the election on, which we were elected on and which we And it is not just on the east coast. passed in this chamber after a very long Retravision’s chairman said: debate. The floodgates are well and truly opened, and we aren’t complaining. We’ve already done 50 per cent Some of the benefits of the new tax system more than what we would normally do on a good are already flowing through to Australian Thursday. consumers. Firstly, may I remind the Senate That is what the Retravision manager said in of the abolition of Labor’s complex wholesale relation to the tax cuts we were able to sales tax, which was originally formulated in deliver in wholesale sales tax. The headline the 1930s and of which Senator Sherry and in the Adelaide Advertiser of 29 July sums up the Labor Party remain among the few sup- the mood for retailers and indeed for consum- porters. The abolition of the wholesale sales ers—‘Day one for GST shopping bargains’. tax will complement the massive income tax If there is a supplementary question, I might cuts that the government is delivering to continue. (Time expired) taxpayers. Of course, many families will receive tax cuts of up to $40 to $50 a week Senator GIBSON—Madam President, I ask when the system becomes fully operative. a supplementary question. Does the minister These tax cuts will mean that 80 per cent of have any other comments to make about the Australian taxpayers will have a marginal rate reduction in wholesale sales tax to inform the of 30c in the dollar or less. And it is to be Senate of? remembered that many goods will not rise in Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator. price but many will fall. Indeed I do. Let me inform the Senate of how 7268 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 the first stage of the government’s tax reform consistent with our APEC obligations to has affected some of the prices of various review our general tariffs. In particular, we goods. I am advised that a medium range TV are focusing on nuisance tariffs, those tariffs set would go down by up to $42, a video which do not protect any Australian industry player down by some $24, a higher end stereo and which are the least defensible of tariffs down by up to $126 and a higher end camera and ones that I personally hope we are in a down by up to $70. It is worth noting that position to remove as soon as we possibly Labor opposed these tax cuts every inch of can. the way. In their debate Labor opposed these We specifically said in that statement that cuts. If we had left Labor’s tax system in we have put in place special arrangements for place, these major cuts in these goods would the automobile industry and the TCF indus- not have occurred. That is one of the reasons tries. The tariff position with them is clear why the new tax reform system brought in by and known. I also made clear in that state- this government will be welcomed by the ment I made that in any review of general Australian people. tariffs by this government we will be very Trade: Tariffs closely watching the performance of our trading partners with respect to their own Senator COOK—My question is to Sena- tariff position. tor Minchin, the Minister for Industry, Sci- ence and Resources. Does the minister en- Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask dorse the comments of the trade minister, Mr a supplementary question. I welcome that Vaile, who has stated that Australia was answer but, in view of that answer and the entitled to a pause on the further removal of announcement made on the Sunday program trade barriers? How is this consistent with his in a Laurie Oakes interview by the then trade own decision to commence the process of minister elect, Mr Mark Vaile, that he be- removing the remaining industrial tariffs in lieves that Australia should pause their tariffs the automotive and TCF industries? Is it until other nations catch up, who is speaking government policy, as stated by the Minister for the government, Minister—you or Mr for Trade, to wait for other countries to catch Vaile? Who is telling the truth—you or Mr up before continuing with the removal of Vaile? tariff barriers? The PRESIDENT—Senator, you should Senator MINCHIN—The feeble opposition direct your question through the Chair. is trying desperately to find some small chink Senator MINCHIN—Madam President, of light that they might pursue in relation to you will understand that of course the govern- government policy on tariffs. The government ment was extremely upset with the decision has a very consistent policy on this, one not by the United States government about lamb. indistinct from the previous government’s. We The interview given by Mr Vaile was of applaud the fact that one of the very few course in that context. It is not government things the previous government did honour- policy to pause our tariff reductions. How- ably and sensibly was to embark on a pro- ever, consistent with Mr Vaile’s sentiments, gram of significant tariff reductions, and we it is government policy that in reviewing our are continuing with that program. tariffs we take full account and cognisance of I was pleased to announce at the end of the the performance of our trading partners with last session that we have instigated a com- respect to their own barriers to trade, includ- plete review of our general tariffs. That is ing tariffs. because we do believe in trade liberalisation, just as the previous government did. Every Rural Transaction Centres member of this government supports the cause Senator McGAURAN—My question is to of trade liberalisation and supports the review Senator Ian Macdonald, the Minister for of general tariffs which I have announced. Regional Services, Territories and Local That is not an announcement that the general Government. Will the minister inform the tariffs are to be removed; it is a statement Senate of details of progress with the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7269 coalition’s initiative to provide rural transac- We expect that the first of the rural transac- tion centres in rural Australia? tion centres will be open within the next Senator IAN MACDONALD—Senator couple of months. We are very keen to get McGauran has an interest in these matters, from local communities their ideas of what representing rural and regional Australia as he they want. That is what the whole scheme is does. I am very pleased to be able to advise about. They tell us the services they need, Senator McGauran and other senators who are they propose the solutions and we then fund interested, which obviously does not include them for the capital costs and for the first many on the Labor side because very few of period of their operation. This program was them know what it is like outside the capital funded from the social bonus from the sale of cities, that on 20 July— the next 16 per cent of Telstra. Opposition senators interjecting— I had an uplifting experience during the so- The PRESIDENT—There are too many called break. I visited a number of communi- senators shouting on my left. ties in remote, rural and regional Australia. I drove from my home in Ayr some 3,000 Senator IAN MACDONALD—On 20 July kilometres down through western Queensland, the government was able to announce that the calling in on small country towns and under- first of its rural transaction centre allocations standing their problems. I was delighted to be had been made. Seven communities were able to go into the town of Aramac, which funded for the establishment of the first of had received funding for a rural transaction these rural transaction centres. They included: centre. The joy in that community was tre- Cabonne Council in Eugowra, Gresford mendous to experience. Community Group, Urana Shire Council, Aramac Shire Council, Dirranbandi Progress Association, St Marys Association for Com- Since the Labor Party got rid of all the munity Development in Tasmania and the banks in rural and regional Australia and Welshpool and District Advisory Group in since services left regional Australia during Victoria. the Keating and Hawke Labor governments, they have been without these facilities. To Those seven communities are the first cabs experience that pleasure and joy was very off the rank, so to speak. They will get uplifting. In Aramac the funding is going into federal government money to set up these a licensed post office. The postal licensee was rural transaction centres which will, for the able to show me exactly where the money is first time in many years, provide these small going and demonstrate the services that will communities with basic banking access, be provided. postal, telecommunications, Medicare Ezyclaim, fax and phone facilities and video I was pleased to be able to get out into conferencing. regional Australia. I understand the shadow In addition to the seven who were funded minister, Ms Kernot, was also visiting region- outright, another 15 communities were given al Australia. She flew into Rockhampton—a money to provide business plans so that they major provincial city—with her leader, Mr can make applications to provide rural trans- Beazley, and flew out again. That was her action centres. The groups successful in those visit to rural and regional Australia. business plan applications cover many areas in Australia from the Jabiru Town Council Senator Mackay—That is not right. right through to the Greenvale Progress Association near Townsville—which is where Senator IAN MACDONALD—I urge her I come from—a group in Nanango, the and Senator Mackay to get out to these Furneaux Enterprise Group on Flinders Island, smaller communities and then they will Murrindindi Shire Council and the Bremer understand the benefits of the government’s Bay Community Resource Centre, just to initiatives in providing services for rural and name a few. regional Australia. (Time expired) 7270 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Federation Cultural and Heritage Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects Pro- Projects Program gram? Senator FAULKNER—My question is Senator HILL—I would expect that the directed to Senator Hill in his capacity as Auditor-General will do so. That is the task Minister for the Environment and Heritage of the Auditor-General. That is no surprise. and Minister representing the Prime Minister. Senator Faulkner—Why? Are you expect- How can the minister claim that the process ing an audit of that program, are you? for determining grants under the Federation Senator HILL—Well, the Auditor-General Cultural and Heritage Projects Program was chooses what he thinks is desirable. thorough, fair and consistent with the require- ments of the Auditor-General when we now Senator Faulkner—I asked you whether know that the minister and Senator Alston you invited him. completely ignored this process in relation to Senator HILL—No, you did not ask me 16 of the 60 successful projects? Why did whether I had invited him; you asked me ministers ignore departmental assessments in whether I had any objection and I said that I relation to these projects? Why has the would expect the Auditor-General to do his government consistently resisted opposition task. But there are a couple of falsehoods. attempts to get details of these 16 projects? This is the old Senator Faulkner technique: What is the government trying to hide? we recall it with the Baillieus—defame a dead person and then refuse to apologise to the Senator HILL—I am surprised to receive relatives. The point is that 60 projects were this question because the issue had been approved. They are all good quality projects. debated at length in the estimate committee They are all public. The 60 projects are hearings. As Senator Faulkner is well aware, public. the process was that guidelines were pub- lished and were followed by ministers. In this Senator Faulkner—Why don’t you identify instance, two ministers were to make the them? decision. As I recall, some 700-odd applica- The PRESIDENT—Order! There is far too tions looking for funding of about $1 billion much shouting. were received. Seventy million dollars was Senator HILL—No-one has suggested that made available in this program. there is one inappropriate project. In addition to the published guidelines, Senator Faulkner—Name them. ministers received advice from both officials The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, it is and the Centenary of Federation Council. The your supplementary question. advice of both bodies was taken into account in making the decisions. Ministers made their Senator HILL—They are on the public decisions and endorsed some 60 projects. The record. All projects were eligible for choice reasons for the decisions were given as well. by the ministers. (Time expired) The structure was set up pursuant to the Telstra: CS First Boston previous advice that had been given by the Auditor-General. We believe that in form and Senator ALLISON—My question is to the in implementation it properly met the Audi- Minister for Communications, Information tor-General’s requirements. Technology and the Arts. I refer the minister to Minister Fahey’s appointment of a probity Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, adviser to inquire into the operations of CS I ask a supplementary question. Given that the First Boston following cancellation of their minister seems so satisfied with the processes operating licence in Japan. I remind the used to design this ultimate in pork-barrelling minister that CS First Boston are the lead exercises, will he undertake to provide details managers of the Telstra 2 share float. Will of the 16 shonky projects? Would the minister that inquiry also look into the role of CS First have any objection to the Auditor-General Boston in the first Telstra float, particularly being invited to conduct an audit of the the scandalous undervaluation of Telstra Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7271 shares which cost taxpayers $5 billion in the stratosphere compared to those earlier unrealised proceeds? Will it ask why CS First predictions. Those numbers are ones that were Boston advised the government to price put forward in good faith by those respon- shares at $3.30 when major stockbroking sible. We have no reason at all to regard the houses like JB Were and HSBC James Capel assessments made at the time as deserving of were advising their clients that Telstra shares any probity inquiry. were worth $4? The fact is that the concerns that Mr Fahey Senator ALSTON—Here we go again. has addressed were ones that involved him This is the crowd that do not even believe in approaching Mr Andrew Rogers before the privatisations, let alone want to take account Japanese Financial Supervisory Agency of the way in which the real world market- handed down its sanctions against CS First place operates. Boston on 2 August, and the chief executive Senator Schacht—Don’t upset her. You are of investment banking at CSFB Australia, Mr not supposed to abuse them any more. They John Wylie, has made it plain on the public are on your side now. You have broken the record that the issues examined by Japan’s rules now. Financial Supervisory Agency had no impact on the Australian operations of the company, Senator ALSTON—It is all right. I told were not related to share trading and equity you we would not declare your low impact as capital and there is no suggestion that these silly, but I could reconsider. issues, which are peculiar to the Japanese The PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, that financial market, apply anywhere outside of is a most inappropriate interjection and I ask Japan. So in other words, it is perfectly proper you to abide by the standing orders. for Mr Fahey, out of an abundance of caution, to have a look at what it was that led to that Senator ALSTON—Quite right. Senator action being taken by the Japanese authorities. Allison does not even pretend to understand But that in no way of itself reflects upon the how the marketplace operates, let alone process that was followed in the course of T1. understand that there is always a great ele- The government has no reason at all to go ment of uncertainty in terms of the forward down the path that you are suggesting. movement of share prices which are obviously significantly affected by other factors quite Senator ALLISON—Madam President, I often beyond the control of individual com- ask a supplementary question. I thank the panies, let alone local markets. In other minister for his answer. However, he talks words, international factors, particularly in the about the benefit of hindsight but this govern- US, can have a very significant impact upon ment had foresight. It had the advice of major the ultimate share price and its trajectory. To stockbroking firms—it had the advice of the suggest that somehow because the share price Australian Democrats—that these shares were of Telstra rose as investors recognised that it worth more than $4 each. Again, I ask: how had great long-term potential represents some is it that the float advisers got this so terribly sort of scandalous undervaluation is a prepos- wrong? How is it that within weeks those terous proposition that can only ever be Telstra shares were worth $4 and how is it trotted out in hindsight. that CS First Boston was again contracted to In other words, if the share price had gone help run the second float? Will they now be down, we would not for a moment have removed and what action will the government Senator Allison saying, ‘How could they take to recover the $5 billion lost on the first possibly have come up with that figure?’ Telstra float because of poor advice? Senator Allison must be aware of the numbers Senator ALSTON—I suppose this gets a that were put on the total market cap of good run in the Democrat newsletters because Telstra by the other side. Over a period of it plays to the prejudices of those who have three or four years it ranged from $15 billion not a clue about how privatisations operate in to $20 billion. When we said $20 billion we the real world. I seem to recall that about two were laughed out of town. We are now up in weeks before Telstra 1 actually went to 7272 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 market there were some significant events that Richardson said, ‘These two senators ignored caused certain people to say that we should independent advice, and they gave funding to postpone the float, that we should not really what they now admit were 16 projects, even go ahead at all. Were those people fundamen- though the projects did not meet the minimum tally wrong? You weren’t one of them, I take criteria.’ Talk about a strict exchange of it. You sat on your hands just hoping that the prejudices! share price would dive, I suppose, so you were very keen for us to go ahead into those Richardson knows, as do you, that we were stormy waters. Of course what happened was the recipients of two sets of advice from the that people recognised the underlying strength National Council for the Centenary of Feder- of the share and the management behind the ation and a task force comprising joint offi- company. That is a judgment that people will cials from Senator Hill’s department and continue to have to exercise. I do not pass mine. We made the ultimate decision about any judgment on its current valuation or its that. We took their advice, they gave us a list, prospects for the future. I simply say that you we took that into account and we looked at appoint experts to give you that advice and all the projects. Of course, that does not stop we did just that. (Time expired) you getting out there and saying, ‘I think they are probably dodgy projects.’ I noticed you Federal Cultural and Heritage Projects said so for the first time. I suppose you think Program you have to go a bit further to try to beat it Senator FAULKNER—My question is up. Now, of course, he does not think; he directed to the Minister for Communications, knows. He comes into question time today Information Technology and the Arts. Can the and says, ‘These are shonky projects.’ Let me minister shed any light on the 16 shonky just ask you: the 16 must be included federation cultural and heritage projects which amongst the 60 that we approved. Is that he and his colleague Senator Hill selected for right? The logic of that is that, somewhere in funding, notwithstanding departmental assess- amongst those 60 projects, all of which are on ments that they did not make the grade? I ask the public record, you are saying that at least Minister Alston: what were the 16 projects? 16 of them are shonky. Does that include the Why were they chosen? Who recommended restoration of the Great Synagogue Tower in them? And why is the government refusing to Sydney? Does it include the restoration of one provide any information about them? of the most important historic ships, the Polly Senator ALSTON—You really know you Woodside in Melbourne? have run out of steam when you have to Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I recycle this little issue that Senator Faulkner have a point of order. has been desperately trying to get up now for months and months. How long is it since the Government senators interjecting— last election? It must be coming up to 10 months, and yet here we are still trying to get The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my it off the ground. This issue was trawled over right will let me hear this point of order. exhaustively in the estimates process. Of Senator Faulkner—Let the minister come course, Senator Faulkner got a letter some clean and tell us what the 16 shonky projects weeks ago. He had to wait until Mike are. The question is directed to him, and he Seccombe got back from holidays before he ought to answer it. could find someone who would actually give it a run. The PRESIDENT—There is no point of To really capitalise on this issue and make order. sure he really hit the spot, what did he do? Senator ALSTON—I am delighted to Did he get out there, call a doorstop and talk answer it, because they were not shonky. It is to all of the major media players? No, he very simple. went on Graham Richardson’s program this morning. Were they feeding one another! Mr Senator Faulkner—What are they? Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7273

The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Senator Ian Macdonald—Madam Presi- Faulkner, stop shouting like that. Interjections dent, I raise a point of order. Senator Faulkner of the kind that are going on are disorderly. is again ignoring your repeated urgings to him to address the question through the Chair Senator ALSTON—They are quite simply rather than talking directly to Senator Alston. projects that were selected by us from all I know it is very difficult for Senator those projects that were regarded as eligible. Faulkner to understand these things, but could In other words, these were not ruled out you remind him again of what the standing because they did not meet minimum criteria. orders say? Look at that stuff that Seccombe trotted out this morning. I hope you were not responsible The PRESIDENT—Senator, you have had for the series of mistakes that he made. Talk an opportunity to ask your supplementary about getting it fundamentally wrong—to say question. You ought not to keep interjecting that they did not meet minimum criteria when while the minister answers. they did, to say that we overturned an inde- Senator Alston—I thought you had fin- pendent assessment process when we did not ished that time. Have you got more? and to go on and say that we are in breach of Senator FAULKNER—What were the the caretaker conventions when we were not. projects, and why were they chosen? Are you responsible for this, or is Seccombe? Make up your mind. I can understand where Senator ALSTON—They were chosen you are coming from. You even went so far because we judged that they were deserving as to suggest that this was worse than the case on the criteria that were adopted. The funda- of Ros Kelly. mental mistake that you make is that you somehow think that we were obliged to accept Let me just remind the Senate why Ros the advice offered. We never were. Anyone Kelly is relevant to this whole debate. This who looks at this understands that. I think you was the case of the missing coupes. There even got a glimmer of an understanding of were four that were non-existent. Senator this in estimates. Your trouble is that you Faulkner went to cabinet indicating that all of have slipped back. When they had the tactics those were of high conservation value, when meeting, poor old Mr Beazley, who was on a it turned out that four of them did not exist at very big slide, said, ‘What on earth can we all. What did Laurie Oakes say? He said that run with this week?’ Senator Faulkner said, Senator Faulkner had made a mess of things ‘Maybe it’s about time we dredged up that comprehensively, had intended to make Federation Fund project again.’ After all, you himself a hero of the environment movement, remember that they are not too good on that disillusion was setting in in caucus with policy. This is the bloke who got dumped as Senator Faulkner’s performance and that, shadow minister for social security. He is now rather than wanting to be Graham Richardson, shadow minister for politics. Lord knows he emerges from this episode more like Ros what he will do if they ever get to govern- Kelly! There you go. It says it all. We know ment, because there will not be a portfolio how to make decisions properly. You clearly with that responsibility. You know as well as did not. we do that we made the decisions. We took into account the advice that was offered. It Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, was very valuable advice, but we were not I ask a supplementary question. I ask again going to simply slavishly follow what the for the minister to name the 16 projects. Isn’t department did in terms of cut-off points. You it true, Minister, that you received a depart- would; we would not. (Time expired) mental submission on 14 August 1998 where the departments, yours and Senator Hill’s, DISTINGUISHED VISITORS presented to you a list of 114 projects which The PRESIDENT—Order! I draw the ranked 15 and above out of a total of 24 attention of honourable senators to the pres- points? You and Senator Hill now admit that ence in the chamber of a parliamentary you approved 16 projects. delegation from the Hashemite Kingdom of 7274 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Jordan led by the Deputy Speaker of the If you want to give comfort to people who House of Representatives, His Excellency Mr are overseas who think they can evade auth- Mefleh Al-Rhimi. On behalf of honourable orities, get yourself quoted overseas as saying senators, I have pleasure in welcoming you to that the Australian government is wasting its the chamber and trust that your visit to this money and that the other side is a bit smarter country will be informative and enjoyable. than the Australian government. It is almost Honourable senators—Hear, hear! breathtaking, because these comments come from the man who was justice minister at the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE time the extradition proceedings failed. He was in government at the time. Now we can Skase, Mr Christopher see why the then Attorney-General would not Senator PAYNE—My question is to the let him anywhere near the Skase matter: he Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator would have messed it up even more than the Vanstone. Would the minister advise the Labor government messed it up at the time. Senate of the current status of Australia’s For the people who gave Mr Skase a brand efforts to get Christopher Skase to answer the spanking new passport and who failed in the criminal charges against him in an Australian extradition proceedings to be now quoted in court? Spanish newspapers as saying that Mr Skase Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator will run rings around Australian authorities is Payne for her question. As all senators know, somewhat breathtaking. Mr Skase has been the subject of serious Who does Mr Kerr think he is? He goes on criminal charges—company and bankruptcy and says that we are wasting our money. He charges—under Australian law since 1991. A does not seem to understand—the proceedings number of warrants have been issued by in Spain are between the Spanish government Australian courts for his arrest, and those and Mr Skase. We are not funding these warrants remain active. The Australian proceedings. It is just ludicrous. He does not government is committed to bringing him even understand that much. As to the sug- back to Australia to face these charges. Given gestion that new charges should be laid, Mr the failure of the previous government’s Skase would have to commit some new attempts to extradite Mr Skase from Spain in offences. You cannot charge people with 1994, we know our best shot at bringing Mr something for the fun of it. New charges were Skase back to Australia is if he leaves Spain laid in 1997, I think, but they related to the for one reason or another. same criminal conduct. There can be no new I would have hoped that this is an issue on extradition proceedings—Mr Lavarch, as which all Australians agree. We could all pull Attorney-General, clearly understood that. We together on this. At least in this instance, we are not wasting taxpayers’ money, and Mr could all be batting on the same team. We Skase is not running rings around Australian could hope that everyone at home wants to authorities. The only upsetting thing is that bring him home. After all, life is a confidence we have headlines like ‘Chase for Skase game. You would not want to think anyone Waste of Money’ in the Majorca Daily in Australia would be giving confidence to Bulletin. That undermines the confidence of the Skase team. However, on 20 July 1999, Spanish authorities in our determination to the Majorca Daily Bulletin quoted Mr Kerr— chase Skase, and it gives a boost to Mr Skase the opposition spokesman on these matters— and to all his clan of hangers-on. My view is as saying a number of things. Firstly, they that Mr Beazley should bite the bullet now quoted him as saying that ‘the only way and sack Mr Kerr, because he does not Skase will finally be forced back to Australia understand his job. is if new charges are laid’; secondly, that we, the Australian taxpayers, are wasting our Departmental Secretaries money at the moment; and, thirdly, that Senator FAULKNER—My question is ‘Skase will continue to run rings around the directed to Senator Hill, the Minister repre- Australian authorities’. senting the Prime Minister. Is the minister Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7275 aware that, according to his affidavit to the influencing a case is realistic only where Federal Court, Mr Moore-Wilton concluded comments could influence a juror or a wit- in February this year that all departmental ness. There are no jurors in the Barratt case— secretaries were performing sufficiently well even Senator Hill would know that. It is being to maintain their positions and receive their heard by a judge only—Senator Hill probably 40 per cent salary increases? Is he aware that knows that—and judges are unlikely to be Mr Moore-Wilton reached this conclusion influenced by parliamentary debate. following discussions with the Minister for The PRESIDENT—This is a very long Defence and with the concurrence of the point of order, Senator. Prime Minister? How is it that Mr Moore- Wilton’s affidavit shows that Minister Moore Senator Faulkner—It is, Madam President, indicated his dissatisfaction with Mr Barratt but it is an important one, because he is as early as January this year? How is it that trying to duck the question. As I understand Mr Moore-Wilton was able to tell a meeting it, witnesses have concluded giving evidence of departmental secretaries in March this year in this case. I would ask you, Madam Presi- that no minister was seeking the replacement dent, to direct him to answer this question, as of their current secretary? Given that Mr he is required to do. It is not good enough for Moore-Wilton’s own statement to the court him to speculate on these matters. He is details this totally incompatible series of required to answer them in accordance with representations, what possible credibility can the conventions and forms of this place. any of his recommendations ever have on the The PRESIDENT—There is no point of assessment of the performance and tenure of order. In answering the question, the minister departmental secretaries? has not raised the question of sub judice as a Senator HILL—No, I have not been reason for dealing with the answer to the trawling through the affidavits filed in the question. He is answering the question and I Federal Court. But I have been reflecting cannot direct him as to how he deals with it. overnight on the question asked by Senator He must be relevant to the topic which has Faulkner yesterday. Yesterday’s question was been put to him and it is for him to answer based on what Senator Faulkner alleged to be that as he sees fit. He has not raised the sub an affidavit of Mr Barratt filed in court, the judice question. It would not be relevant if he proceedings of which are current. Today’s did, as you have pointed out, but he did not question relies upon what purports to be an raise it. affidavit filed by Mr Max Moore-Wilton in Senator HILL—As I said, in contrast to that court proceeding also. I think it is inap- Senator Faulkner, I have not been trawling propriate for us to speculate on matters arising through affidavits filed in the Federal Court out of the proceedings that are currently that are the subject of current proceedings. taking place. The more I think about it, the The question asked by Senator Faulkner is more I think it is totally inappropriate for us based upon his assertion that there is an to contribute directly or indirectly. affidavit to a certain effect. I do not know whether that is the case. It would be specula- Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I tive of me to answer. Furthermore, I think it rise on a point of order. It may be that Sena- is also inappropriate to be dealing with these tor Hill does not want to speculate upon these matters whilst the court case is on foot. If issues. He is entitled to a personal view, but Senator Faulkner wishes to make some politi- I would ask you to rule that he is required to cal point arising out of legal proceedings, it answer the question that I have directed to seems to me that the appropriate time to do him. He is well aware of the issue of the that is after the proceedings have been com- parliamentary sub judice convention, as are all pleted, not when the proceedings are in senators in this chamber. He is well aware process. that that convention is to safeguard legal proceedings from being prejudiced by any- Senator Schacht—You’re claiming sub thing said under privilege. Such a danger of judice, are you? 7276 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

The PRESIDENT—Senator Schacht, it is that this delay will also mean that companies not your question and you do not have the will still not have to report highly toxic call. substances, such as dioxins and hydrochloric Senator Schacht—I am just helping things acid? Will there also be a delay in the along. planned review of the operation and scope of the National Pollutant Inventory? Don’t all The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner is Australians have a right to information now perfectly capable of pursuing his own ques- on the release of pollutants into the environ- tion. ment, not in four years time? Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, Senator HILL—I thank the honourable I ask a supplementary question. I ask Senator senator for his question. For most industries Hill whether he would acknowledge the very affected, as I recall, workbooks have been significant public interest that exists in the completed and the gathering of information Barratt sacking issue, given the light that it for the reporting process has already taken sheds on the government that Senator Hill is place. In some industries it has not because a member of and the government’s handling the workbooks, as has been mentioned by the of public administration responsibilities at the honourable senator, have not been completed. highest level. Now that Mr Barratt has been That is because, as it turned out—and this is so unceremoniously dumped by Mr Moore obviously a new experience for Australia— and his former friend the Prime Minister on many more workbooks were necessary than the basis of underperformance, what does this was appreciated and the production of those episode say for the competence of Mr Moore- books turned out to be a much more compli- Wilton and the rigour of his much vaunted cated and demanding process than anticipated. lemon hunt review process? Will Mr Moore- The government’s desire is to have the pro- Wilton have the responsibility for making cess side of the NPI put in place as quickly recommendations to the Prime Minister in as possible so that full reporting can take respect of the new performance bonuses for place. secretaries? In light of the Barratt fiasco, what credibility could any of Mr Moore-Wilton’s I regret the fact that there will be some recommendations have? (Time expired) delay in some sectors as a result of these matters. This government put the NPI in place Senator HILL—The question as I under- and we are committed to it. We believe that stood it, if I could repeat it in a brief form, the public has a right to know and that the was: does the government require high stand- NPI will therefore contribute to better public ards of its senior public servants? The answer knowledge and community decision making is yes; it requires demanding and high stand- in this regard. In its original concept, the ards, and it requires that of all secretaries to scope of the NPI was designed to be reviewed departments, as of all public servants. If it and it is still to be reviewed in scope—and does not receive performance that it regards the honourable senator will know some of to be satisfactory, it will take appropriate those questions, such as whether or not action. transfers should be included. There is also the National Pollutant Inventory issue as to when the expanded list of substan- ces should come into effect. So there are to Senator BARTLETT—My question is be reviews and a review is under way. It is directed to the Minister for the Environment taking a little longer than we would have and Heritage. Can the minister explain to the hoped, but it will work. It will provide the Senate why the federal government has community with information that we believe delayed in fully implementing the National it has a right to know and it will obviously be Pollutant Inventory? If there has been a delay appreciated by that community, which has in compiling industry handbooks, why cannot concerns about quality matters. those which have been completed be released so that at least some reporting can begin in Senator BARTLETT—Madam President, line with the original timetable? Is it correct I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7277 minister for his answer. The minister indicat- 100,000 cables’? Isn’t it a fact that this was ed that there are to be reviews; I would be actually a category B cable, indicating an pleased if he could indicate when those important matter requiring urgent attention reviews will occur. Is it not the case that the and action? Doesn’t the minister’s office NPI was seen by Australia and agreed to by receive only 20 to 30 of these cables a day? Australia as a necessary part of our commit- Is the minister expecting us to believe that ment to implement agenda 21 from the envi- no-one in the department ever thought to ronment summit in Rio? The minister has just draw the minister’s attention to this high indicated that part of the review was to look priority cable? Is the minister expecting us to at whether or not the transfer of wastes should believe that the department never saw fit to be added to the NPI. How is it possible to provide him with a written brief on the have an effective NPI in accordance with our implications for Australia of such a significant international commitments without including development? Is the minister expecting us to waste transfers? Won’t this delay that has believe that the department provided him with occurred further delay the possibility of no advice or options on the issues arising out including waste transfers in our overall Na- of the cable? tional Pollutant Inventory, in accordance with Senator Conroy—Here’s your chance, the commitments we have given to the inter- Robert. national community as well as the Australian community? Senator HILL—I’m a Downer supporter; Senator HILL—I think the best course of I think he’s doing a brilliant job, Senator. action would be if I got a full brief for Sena- Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I tor Bartlett on the whole process and time- raise a point of order. Senator Hill has just table. There were clearly differences of view misled the parliament. about how many substances should be includ- ed. We relied upon gains, I might say, from The PRESIDENT—There is no point of the experiences of those countries that have order. been down the path of an NPI before us. The Senator HILL—The only misleading I issues of transfer have also been debated know of today is Senator Faulkner misleading extensively internationally. One of the argu- Mike Seccombe—and Graham Richardson, I ments for not including transfers was that they am sorry, but we can understand that because are accounted for otherwise within state they were not the best of friends in the old regulatory processes. days. But, accepting that the honourable senator Senator Faulkner interjecting— is obviously serious about the detail of this matter, I will get him the full brief which he Senator HILL—Good mates after this can consider. If he has any ideas or wants to morning, are you? He might not be when he assist us in our further development of this realises that you misled him. In terms of program, we would be pleased to receive that Senator Ray’s question, I would have thought support, as we have been to receive the that 20 to 30 cables in itself on top of all of support of the Australian Democrats in a the— number of environmental matters in recent Senator Bolkus—This is going to war times. stuff. East Timor: Peacemaking Operations Senator HILL—But the problem is, Sena- Senator ROBERT RAY—I direct my tor Bolkus, apparently what was in the cable question to Senator Hill, the Minister repre- was inconsistent with what the Americans senting the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the said publicly yesterday, in any event. It would minister aware of Mr Downer’s statement yes- seem that what Mr Downer was saying was terday that he did not notice a cable regarding consistent with the public statements of the the issue of peacemaking operations in East United States. Senator Ray seems to be saying Timor because ‘no minister could read that it is a hanging offence for Mr Downer 7278 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 not to have read and absorbed 20 to 30 cables it would seem that what was in the cable was a day on top of all his other workload. inconsistent not only with public statements Senator Cook—We used to do that! but also with Mr Downer’s understanding from his many meetings and other written Honourable senators interjecting— materials on the very same matter. The PRESIDENT—Order! The sorts of breaches of standing orders going on at Telstra: Second Share Offer present on both sides are unacceptable and Senator BROWNHILL—My question is make it very difficult for anybody to hear to the Minister representing the Minister for what is being said. Finance and Administration. Can the minister Senator Alston interjecting— inform the Senate of the measures which are The PRESIDENT—Senator Alston, I am being taken to ensure the government’s speaking. There is an appropriate time to Telstra 2 share offer is accessible to all debate this matter and it can be done after Australians? question time, but Senator Hill is entitled to Senator ELLISON—Thank you, Senator the call at present. Brownhill, for that important question. The Senator Carr interjecting— government announced on 25 July this year the Telstra 2 offer, an offer which has the The PRESIDENT—Senator Carr, I have potential to include a great number of Austral- just spoken about disorderly conduct. ians in owning shares. It is a policy of this Senator HILL—We have learnt something government that Australians should regard the today. We have wondered for some time why dream of owning one’s home alongside Senator Cook was so ineffective; we now owning shares. What we have done in this know that it was because he spent all day offer is make available to those people who reading cables. But I think Senator Ray has want to pre-register by 16 August this year made the point himself: 20 to 30 cables a day, the opportunity to purchase 400 shares in plus he expects briefing notes on each of Telstra. They have the option to put them- those cables, on top of the total workload is selves forward for the purchase of even more asking a great deal. So one slip, one failure to shares. Existing Telstra shareholders are not read one part of one cable on one occasion in required to pre-register, and they will have the my view is not a hanging offence. opportunity to even further their ownership of Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam Presi- Telstra shares. dent, I ask a supplementary question. How do The important aspect of this matter is the we know that this is the one failure? The real question of accessibility. We have written 9.6 point of the question, Senator Hill, is why Mr million letters to all those who are currently Downer’s staff or Mr Downer’s department Telstra fixed line customers, to those who did not identify this cable as a very signifi- registered for the first Telstra offer and did cant one? Anyone who looks at the subject not purchase shares and to all of the brokers’ matter of American marines going into East clients. That is a very large mail-out indeed, Timor post plebiscite would regard this as a and it is aimed at including all Australians, very serious issue with implications for giving them the chance to participate in this Australia. Why didn’t the department contact venture. Anyone who wishes to pre-register Mr Downer on this? Why didn’t Mr Downer’s can do so over the phone by calling the free staff draw his attention to it? On how many call number 1800 181818. other occasions—we are entitled to know— has similar material slipped through the net Senator Murphy—What are you reading because of poor procedures? now, Chris—Telstra’s ad? Senator HILL—Senator Ray is now asking Senator ELLISON—Yes, it is an ad. It is me to speculate, which is obviously inappro- a chance to let Australians have a go at priate; nevertheless, taking the hook—having becoming part owners in a great Australian a go, as they say—it might well be because company. If this is an ad, so be it. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7279

We are also endeavouring to get to those dence given to a Senate committee by a various sectors of the community which do witness or information laid before the Senate not have English as a first language. We have in a less formal manner. share offers available in languages such as The matter raised by the committee there- Chinese, Greek, Italian, Vietnamese and fore clearly meets the criteria I am required Arabic. We have a translation service avail- to consider. I therefore determine that prece- able on 131450 for those people who do have dence be given to a motion to refer the matter trouble with the English language and we also to the Privileges Committee. I table the have information being extensively publicised documents supplied by the committee. A to the indigenous community via three ATSI notice of motion to refer the matter to the newspapers and Imparja TV. Privileges Committee may now be given. It is very important that this offer be acces- Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) sible by all Australians. We also have braille (3.05 p.m.)—I give notice that, on the next versions of a pre-registration letter, which has day of sitting, I shall move: been sent out to many Australians. We are That the following matter be referred to the indicating by this that we are a government Standing Committee of Privileges: that wants as many Australians as possible to Having regard to the material provided by the participate in this second offer of Telstra Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business shares. It is good news for Australia and good and Education References Committee, whether a news for Australians. witness was penalised in consequence of the Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that witness’s communication with that committee, and, if so, whether a contempt was committed in that further questions be placed on the Notice regard. Paper. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT PRIVILEGE NOTICE The PRESIDENT—The Employment, Trade: Tariffs Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee, by letter Federation Cultural and Heritage dated 2 August 1999, has raised a matter of Projects Program privilege under standing order 81. The com- mittee believes that penalties have been Departmental Secretaries imposed upon a witness in consequence of his National Pollutant Inventory giving evidence to the committee. The committee’s belief is supported by documents East Timor: Peacemaking Operations attached to its letter, which indicate that Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— action has been taken against the person Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.06 concerned in direct consequence of his evi- p.m.)—I move: dence. That the Senate take note of the answers given Past reports by the Committee of Privileges by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, and determinations by the Senate in relation Senator Hill, to questions without notice asked to those reports have indicated that it is a today. contempt of the Senate to inflict penalties One thing that the responsible minister for the upon a witness in consequence of their evi- federation cultural and heritage projects did dence, regardless of whether those penalties admit today is that the opposition has been would otherwise be lawful. In particular, I trying to get to the bottom of the issue—the refer to the 21st, 42nd, 67th and 72nd reports government’s handling of this program—ever of the committee, all of which have, with the since the money first began to flow during the endorsement of the Senate, set out the princi- last election campaign. We have asked ques- ple that a person with lawful power to take tions without notice and questions on notice, some adverse action commits a contempt if we have trawled through the processes at that action is taken in consequence of evi- Senate estimates committees and we have 7280 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 made use of FOI legislation. And what do we in their ministerial offices and what they find at the end of that process? We now know pulled out was 16 pet projects of the Liberal what we have always suspected, that this Party; but those 16 pet projects, in the view program was conceived as a pork-barrel of the two departments, environment and exercise, it was administered as a pork-barrel communications, did not make the grade. exercise and it has never been anything but a What were these projects? What were they pork-barrel exercise. worth? Which electorates did they go to? The government shoehorned the application What was the process that these ministers assessment and approval processes into an used to select them? What were the ministers’ incredibly short time line of less than three reasons for selecting and approving these months from go to whoa in order to have projects? The answer is that we do not know. projects ready for announcement in the course The government has steadfastly refused to tell of the last election campaign. Only four the parliament and has steadfastly refused to weeks were allowed for applications. Remem- own up. Again today you have got the two ber that these were applications for projects ministers who are responsible for this particu- to the value of between $500,000 and $5 lar program, which is a program of $70 million. The government steadfastly ignored million of taxpayers’ money, simply refusing opposition requests to extend the deadline. to put the facts on the table. Thirty-two of the 60 successful projects were announced in the course of the election cam- I think we are entitled to know the truth in paign, in spite of the caretaker convention relation to this program. It is time for a requirement that it is desirable that decisions thorough investigation into the government’s concerning significant initiatives be an- handling of not just this element of the nounced in advance of the caretaker period in Federation Fund but the entire $1 billion order to avoid controversy. program. The opposition believes that the Auditor-General would be the appropriate As to the assessment process itself, we authority to conduct such an investigation, know that the Department of Communica- and I indicate to the Senate that I will be tions, Information Technology and the Arts writing to the Auditor-General tomorrow designed what I admit is an effective and about this matter asking him to conduct an comprehensive system to assess applications audit into the Federation Fund process and and make recommendations. We know that projects. that process, that system, took account of the guidelines of the Auditor-General. But we Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queens- also know that at the critical point of the land—Minister for Regional Services, Terri- process when it reached its conclusion, when tories and Local Government) (3.11 p.m.)— the departments presented their recommenda- Senator Faulkner has a lot of faults but one tions to the responsible ministers, this pair of principal fault is that he judges others by the shabby political operators in the Senate, the standards and action that he and his fellow government leader and deputy leader in the ministers took when they were in government. Senate, pounced. The evidence is legend about the way Labor ministers would rort and pork-barrel. They The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator think that because they did it everyone does Faulkner, could you please use language it. That is where Senator Faulkner always gets which does not reflect upon members in this these things wrong. We are not like his place, unparliamentary or otherwise. government, fortunately; our ministers are not Senator FAULKNER—I will, Madam like the ministers in the previous Labor Deputy President. The Federation Cultural and government. You have to look no further than Heritage Projects Fund became a Liberal the Centenary House fiasco to understand how Party marginal seat investment fund. The the Labor Party rorted the public purse time ministers, Senator Alston and Senator Hill, and time again for the benefit of the Austral- swept aside the departments’ recommenda- ian Labor Party. I mean the cash benefit of tions. They reached into the bottom drawers the Australian Labor Party—not trying to win Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7281 seats but simply giving money into the coffers restoration of one of our most important of the Australian Labor Party. historic ships, the Polly Woodside, in Mel- Senator Faulkner thinks that because he and bourne is a shonky project. I think that is in his colleagues participated in those sorts of a Labor electorate, as is the previous one I rorts then every government does. It is not so mentioned. in the case of our government. You only have Are you saying the development of the to look at Senator Faulkner’s position on the museum to honour the contribution of Sir Hinchinbrook fiasco to understand what I am John Quick in Bendigo is a shonky project? talking about. There were lost coupes in the I think that seat is held by the Labor Party. great forest debates and Senator Faulkner What of the restoration of the naval stores in could never find them. He got NATLIG to do Brisbane, one of Brisbane’s most important some ground truthing and then could not even heritage buildings? Again, I think that is in an find them. Of course, we remember Mrs Ros electorate held by Labor. Kelly, who got the whiteboard out and picked Senator Conroy interjecting— out the Labor Party seats— Senator IAN MACDONALD—That does Senator Conroy—You did not even have not matter. I do not know, and those sorts of a whiteboard excuse. You are hiding the things do not figure in the determinations we whiteboard. make. The restoration of Townsend House in Senator IAN MACDONALD—So you Adelaide, one of Australia’s first schools for concede that that is what the Labor Party the deaf and blind—are you calling that a ministers did, Senator Conroy. You concede shonky project, Senator Conroy? These that it was the way the Labor Party operated: projects all met the basic criteria. Senator Hill get out a whiteboard, see where are the Labor or Senator Alston or Mr McGauran, who marginal seats and then give them grants. made the decisions—and I am not even sure That is not the case in our instance. I suppose who did make the decisions, but anyway the Senator Conroy is going to say that about the ministers who did so—did so on the basis of first seven regional transaction centres that two sets of advice which they then had to have been announced. I suppose he is going look at to determine the projects were all to say that they are all in coalition marginal meeting the basic criteria. None of those that electorates. They well could be, because they were selected failed to meet them. (Time are rural transaction centres and in fact the expired) Labor Party holds very few seats in rural Senator COOK (Western Australia— Australia, and understandably so. It would be Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the logical that most of those decisions were in Senate) (3.16 p.m.)—The motion before us is electorates held by coalition members, but in to take note of answers given by Senator Hill fact I think three or four of the first seven are and the first question Senator Hill received in fact in either Labor held electorates or today was one from me on trade. Before I Independent electorates. That is the way we turn to the faults in that answer and the operate, because we determine things on the confusion in government ranks about its trade basis of what is right and what is appropriate. policy, let me say it is refreshing—at least I Certainly the ministers in this case deter- find this thing refreshing—that a minister mined, after looking at two sets of assess- should come into the chamber in the taking ments, which assessments should be adopted. note debate and defend the government. More As Senator Hill tried to point out, by exten- ministers should do that because more sion what the Labor Party is saying is that 16 ministers are involved in things that are of those 60 projects are in fact shonky pro- answerable in this chamber. Although I do not jects. That is according to the Labor Party and accept anything that Senator Ian Macdonald that means the Labor Party is saying that said, I acknowledge that at least he as a projects like the restoration of the Great minister came forward and spoke. Synagogue Tower in Sydney is a shonky On the trade policy question, let me put on project. It is saying that projects like the the record now a couple of facts that are 7282 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 inconvenient for the government and which contradicted him again by saying that Austral- the self-styled ‘superb economic managers of ia would not pause in its thrust of tariff Australia’ overlook when they talk to the reform and would not take a stance in which Australian community about their economic it said the rest of the world had to catch up. credentials. What is the level of foreign debt The Prime Minister said we would continue in Australia? You recall that before the last to provide the leadership for international election the government ran around with a trade reform and use that principled position debt truck, claiming that Labor was running to encourage the world to follow. The Prime the foreign debt of Australia further up. In Minister contradicted his own trade minister 1996, the year of that election, the level of almost within 24 hours of that minister ven- foreign debt in Australia was $192 billion. turing into public comment. What is it now? It is $242 billion, an increase One in five jobs in Australia depend on it of $50 billion or 26 per cent, and per capita being a nation of exporters. Twenty per cent the level of foreign debt in Australia is of our economy is devoted to exports. We $12,500 per Australian, which is an Australian have an incompetent at the helm of Trade—a all-time record. So the government that critical portfolio for more jobs and greater campaigned on foreign debt has made foreign economic growth—right on the verge of the debt worse. That is the first statistic. APEC conference in Auckland, New Zealand, Let me go to the second statistic and the next September and the WTO conference in question of Australia’s balance of trade in Seattle, Washington, USA, in November- goods and services, our trade account. In December this year. These are the two inter- 1996-97 we were in the black by $1.57 national events in which Australia can change billion. That is the last financial year in which the rules in APEC and the WTO to help Labor was in government. We had a surplus Australia’s exporters. What have we done? in our trade account of $1.57 billion. Last We have sent exactly the wrong signal to the year—1998-99—we had a trade deficit of world community. We have said, ‘We are $14.9 billion. There has been a turnaround of renouncing leadership. We are going into $16 billion in our trade account, not a turn- regression. We are not going to pursue the around for the better but a turnaround for the policies that we used to, we are going to duck worse. This government claimed that it them.’ (Time expired) fireproofed the Australian economy from the Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) Asian economic contagion. It did not; it ran (3.21 p.m.)—It is interesting that Senator our account down by $16 billion in the space Faulkner first raised the issue of the Feder- of about two years. That deficit is also a ation Fund in responding to answers to record. questions, and yet Senator Cook went off on You have never heard that from Mr a frolic about trade. There has not been a Costello. It is an inconvenient fact that Aus- worse trade minister than Senator Cook in this tralia is not doing too well on the trade front. parliament and yet he has the gall to come in Therefore, when the selection of a minister to here and criticise Mr Vaile who has been replace the outgoing Deputy Prime Minister, doing an outstanding job. Senator Cook was Mr Fischer, was made, the government turned the one who came into this parliament in to Mr Vaile. His debut performance was on Labor’s last term of government and said that the Sunday program with Laurie Oakes a the budget was in the black. What was it? It couple of weeks ago. What did he do? He was $10 billion in the red. This is a senator bungled his entire brief. This person does not who simply cannot do his sums. For Senator know what he should do on trade. The day Cook to come in here and criticise Mr Vaile after he bungled his brief, the Prime Minister is absolute nonsense. contradicted him on the lawns of the White Let me go back to the question that Senator House in Washington, saying that Australia Faulkner asked of Senator Hill and Senator would not use its US bases as a pawn in Alston. That question was about the Feder- negotiating trade matters. The Prime Minister ation Fund. He was trying to suggest that Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7283 some of those things were shonky. That was significant decisions should not be made the word he used—‘shonky’. Yet, when during the campaign. These decisions were Senator Alston started to give examples of made before the campaign period came into some of the projects that had been funded effect and were merely announced during the through the fund, Senator Faulkner jumped to caretaker period. That is not an uncommon his feet and took a spurious point of order in practice and nothing is wrong or illegal about an effort to silence Senator Alston. that practice. Let me go through some of the issues. The problem is that the Labor Party people Some of the fund grants that Senator Alston will not accept the rules of the game. They was talking about were: the restoration of the know exactly what they did. That is why Great Synagogue Tower in Sydney; the Senator Faulkner’s own colleagues said that restoration of one of our most important his incompetence, his sheer stupidity, left Ros historic ships, the Polly Woodside in Mel- Kelly way behind. Is it any wonder? If the bourne; the development of a museum to ALP believe that any of the 60 projects honour the contribution of Sir John Quick in should not have received Commonwealth Bendigo; the restoration of the Naval Stores support then they should simply say so. They in Brisbane—one of that cities most important should be up front. They should tell the heritage buildings; support for the Balgo Hills Australian people which projects should not Arts Centre in the Kimberley, which promotes have received funding. They are not game to the efforts of some our best indigenous artists; do that. They come in here and keep referring and the restoration of Townsend House in to shonky projects. Senator Faulkner has not Adelaide, one of Australia’s first schools for been able to identify even one of those. He the deaf and blind. They are just some exam- simply smears all the projects. ples. Today’s report in the Sydney Morning These projects are judged against six cri- Herald contains a large number of errors or teria. Those criteria are the significance, the unjustified innuendos. The Herald has lasting nature of it, the appropriate form for claimed that 16 projects did not meet the the Centenary of Federation, benefits to the minimum criteria. That is plainly wrong. The broader community, good management capa- Herald has not been able to substantiate that bility, and partnerships in funding. The Labor argument. (Time expired) Party, as usual, wants to deem itself irrelevant Senator CONROY (Victoria) (3.26 p.m.)— in the total operation of government in Aus- I also rise to take note of Senator Hill’s tralia. Labor senators come in here and answers. Briefly, on the issue that Senator criticise everything that is going on. The Knowles was speaking about, the simple test claims in the Sydney Morning Herald in that we have here is to name the 16. Which relation to the Federation Cultural and Heri- marginal Liberal seats were they in? Cough tage Projects Program continue the Herald’s it up. It is no coincidence that they were history of incorrectly reporting how grants are prepared to announce the successful projects awarded. during the election campaign. By coincidence, I might add that the government is quite they managed not to announce whom the proud of the contribution it was able to make unsuccessful candidates were. Only the to the 60 projects supported by the Federation successful candidates were told of their Fund through this program. Senator Faulkner success during the campaign. All the other has tried to criticise this—mind you, he tries groups who put in applications for grants to criticise everything—in terms of the an- were not told until after the election. nouncements that were made during the Senator Lightfoot—You’re fraudulent and election campaign. Some projects were an- incorrigible. nounced during the 1998 election campaign, but what Senator Faulkner is not bright The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator enough to realise is that this is not in breach Lightfoot, would you care to withdraw that of the caretaker conventions, which state that comment, please. It is totally unparliamentary. 7284 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Senator Lightfoot—Would you like me to Vaile did not even want to be the trade withdraw ‘fraudulent’ or ‘incorrigible’, Mad- minister, why he has always run the contrary am Deputy President? line when he is out there, when One Nation The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator have been campaigning in the bush. Laurie Lightfoot, unconditionally withdraw all Oakes asked Mr Vaile in a Sunday program unparliamentary language. You have been in interview: parliament long enough to know what that is. If I can just quote exactly what you said seven months ago, in an interview with the Weekly Times. Senator Lightfoot—I will unequivocally You said maybe in some cases Australia should be withdraw ‘fraudulent’. the one being dragged to the line, instead of the one leading the charge. And you also said that Senator CONROY—Thank you. So the Australia had moved up to the line quicker than test is, why don’t you just fess up and tell the necessary in cutting its own protection levels. Australian public and the parliament what This question is to a minister who says, electorates the 16 were in? ‘We’ve improved the core structure of the However, I did not actually come here to economy but let’s turn our back. We’ve gone talk about that today. I am here to talk about too far.’ We have gone too far but we have Mr Vaile. What an embarrassment. Senator improved the core structure of the economy? McGauran could do a better job. Frankly, we Mr Vaile is playing ducks and drakes. He is have a situation where, on his first major schizophrenic. You have put a bloke into this outing, Mr Vaile decided to humiliate the portfolio who says: Prime Minister, who was about to meet We’re in a unique situation, as we’ve improved the President Clinton, by announcing that the PM core structure of the economy, the way that we’re should link bases with beef. What did the manufacturing, the way we’re producing in this Prime Minister have to do 24 hours later, as country and exporting, we’re becoming far more Senator Cook has already said? He had to competitive. slam dunk Mr Vaile on the lawns of the But then he says, ‘Let’s turn our back on that. White House. That is what happened. Let’s pause.’ We know what is going on. We Mr Vaile argues that we must stop and rest know that, in the vote for the leadership to allow everybody else to catch up. How between Causley and Anderson, Vaile is bizarre. If we were in a situation where we really in the Causley camp. He is just stalking were out in front and it was of benefit to the Anderson. country, why would we want to stop to let The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator everybody else in the world catch up? We Conroy, please refer to members by their have got the lead. We have got the edge. correct title. Why say, ‘No, it is time to rest on our laurels Senator CONROY—Mr Vaile is stalking and waste that edge and let the rest of the Anderson. That is what is really going on. We world catch us up’? What an extraordinary heard the vote was only—(Time expired) position to take. Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (3.31 ‘We fireproofed the economy,’ is the proud p.m.)—I rise to challenge the absurd and boast of the government. In their more gener- amateurish guesswork of the senator across ous moments they have been prepared to the chamber in his analysis of the National concede that some of the structural reforms in Party’s inner workings. One thing you can say the 13 years of Labor government helped in about the National Party’s inner workings is some of that fireproofing. But what should we that what happens inside the National Party do now? He says, ‘We have improved the room stays there. Our room never leaks like core structure of the economy.’ Yes, but why your room, Senator Conroy. One thing you would you sit on your hands? Why would can say about the Labor Party caucus meet- you stop? Why would you turn your back on ings is that they leak like a sieve. Faction by those improvements to the core structure of faction they leak. You never know what is the economy? We know what is really going happening inside the National Party, nor will on in the National Party. We know why Mr you ever know the result of our ballots. We Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7285 shred the ballot papers straight after the remember supporting the restructure of the ballot, so I can tell you that, whatever you citrus industry when I sat on the other side of might have read, whatever you might guess, the chamber, but the great concern then—and you will never know, because we do not even they paid the high price—was that you never know the details of the results of the ballots. put in place the proper restructure packages But when it comes to appointing trade to match the liberalisation of Australia’s trade ministers, this is a portfolio that the National barriers, whereas this government has put in Party have always held. From the days of those support packages. For example, we will Black Jack McEwen we have stamped our see those support packages when the deregu- party’s policies and influence upon the trade lation of the dairy industry is put into place. portfolio right up until now. We have always The point I am making is that we have a given it the leader’s or the deputy leader’s two-pronged approach—unlike you. You status. acted as trade minister with one policy— But what about the past government? Who signing the big picture APEC agreements, the knows who the trade ministers were in the multilateral trade agreements—whereas Tim past government? We do not have a clue—or Fischer brought in the two-pronged approach. the public haven’t. I know it was Senator We did not deny that the multilateral agree- Cook, but I can tell you that not many people ments had their purpose, but we brought in know Senator Cook. I only know you by your the most important bilateral agreements. We two points of fame. You were the one who brought a focus back to bilateral agreements. signed the GATT agreement that put us onto And thank goodness Tim Fischer did that in the World Trade Organisation. Congratula- his time as trade minister, because when the tions. But I also know you for another import- Asian economic crisis came upon us and we ant matter. You are the only trade minister started losing trade in that area—and APEC who never did any work during breakfast or basically up until now has lost its oomph—we before breakfast. That is the perception. That were able to rely on those bilateral agree- is the reputation. Tim Fischer ran rings ments. We sent our trade minister out on the around you. He did a day’s work before road to open up new markets, like Europe. In breakfast. You are the trade minister who Europe alone our exports increased by some said, ‘I don’t want any meetings. I have to 40 per cent during the last 12 months. We have my breakfast, and then I’ll go off and do opened up markets in South America that we a meeting.’ So you kicked off at about 9 have never had before. Did you ever go to o’clock, I would say, which is the normal South America? Did you ever go to India? time to clock in for the unionists. Did you ever open up new markets in the Middle East in the live cattle trade that we Senator Cook—You wouldn’t know. had lost? Senator McGAURAN—That is what they said. Deny it! Did you issue that memo, Senator Cook—Yes. Senator Cook, when you were trade Senator McGAURAN—You never did. minister—let us put the story straight—that You just went to the big forums, the APEC you did not want any meetings before or forums. You wasted your time in those areas. during breakfast when most trade ministers Tim Fischer as trade minister burrowed away wrap up their day? That is when most of the and opened up new agreements. He got rice work is done in other countries. That is the into Japan, opened up new beef exports into tradition—you get out there. But you are also the Middle East, got live cattle trade into known for the signing of the World Trade Taiwan, got new markets in India, and new Agreement. The moment the ink dried on that markets in South America. You never got off agreement the Labor Party forgot it. You your butt and went into those countries. walked out from it. You slashed and burnt the tariffs in this country. You never put in place The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The the support packages or the restructure pack- time for the debate has expired. ages—for example, in the citrus industry. I Question resolved in the affirmative. 7286 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

PETITIONS Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate to conduct an enquiry into the banking industry in The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for Australia, the terms of reference of such enquiry to presentation as follows: include, but not be limited to, the social and economic effects of the withdrawal or reduction of Political Asylum Seekers banking services from rural and suburban commu- To the Speaker and the Members of the Senate in nities and in particular the effect of such closures Parliament assembled: on small businesses operating in those communi- Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Dio- ties, and the likely consequences of further bank cese of Melbourne carried without dissent the mergers. following Motion: by Senator Conroy (from 835 citizens). That this Synod regrets the government’s adop- Petitions received. tion of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them NOTICES from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of Presentation beggars dependent on the churches and charities for Senator Woodley to move, on the next day food and the necessities of life; and calls upon the federal government to review such procedures of sitting: immediately and remove all practices which are That the Senate— manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contra- (a) notes the findings of a national report, vention of our national obligations as a signatory released on 10 August 1999, that indigenous of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australians, as a group, are still the most We, therefore, the individual, undersigned disadvantaged in almost every area, includ- members of Ladies’ Group at the Uniting Church, ing housing, education, employment, and Blackburn South, Victoria 3130, petition the Senate morbidity and mortality rates; in support of the abovementioned motion. (b) expresses deep concern that the findings of And we, as in duty bound will ever pray. this report include: by Senator McGauran (from 55 citizens) (i) the fact that many indigenous men and and women will die before their 50th birth- day, by Senator Kemp (from 55 citizens). (ii) twice as many indigenous babies will die Banking: Branch Closures at birth, To the Right Honourable, the President of the (iii) death rates for indigenous Australians in Senate and Members of the Senate in Parliament the 35 to 54 year old age bracket are six assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows to eight times higher than for non-in- that we as citizens of Australia share a common digenous people, belief that: (iv) the unemployment rate for indigenous It is the right of every Australian to have ser- people is 23 per cent, compared to 9 per vices, including financial services, available to cent for non-indigenous people, and them which are accessible, user friendly, conveni- (v) indigenous people are still vastly over- ently located and provided at reasonable cost. represented in prison; and Continuing closure of bank branches in rural and (c) calls on federal, state and territory govern- suburban communities throughout Australia is a ments to take immediate steps to rectify the denial of that right. current disadvantage suffered by indigenous people. Bank branch closures are demonstrably causing hardship and distress. Senator Chapman to move, on the next Further bank mergers will inevitably lead to a day of sitting: further reduction in services, higher charges and job That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on loss. Corporations and Securities be authorised to hold The banking sector occupies a privileged and a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate, secure status relative to other businesses in Austral- on 23 August 1999, from 7.30 pm to take evidence ia and as such has a clear community service for the committee’s inquiry into matters arising obligation. from the Company Law Review Act 1998. This community service obligation should be Senator Murphy to move, on the next day mandatory for all banks. of sitting: Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7287

That the Senate— proposed law is subject to the outcome of a refer- (a) notes, with the gravest concern, the recent endum proposed for 6 November 1999. Australian Quarantine and Inspection Ser- Clause 4 of the proposed law would insert a new vice (AQIS) decision to allow the importa- s.125A into the Constitution to provide that the tion of uncooked and partly processed preamble would have no legal force and not be salmon product into Australia; considered in interpreting the Constitution or any (b) in noting the AQIS decision, believes that law in force in the Commonwealth or any part of it ignores the very real risk of exotic fish the Commonwealth. diseases finding their way into the Austral- Reason for urgency ian freshwater marine environment with The Government proposes to put the proposed law disastrous consequences for Australia’s to the people at a referendum on 6 November 1999 recreational fisheries, native fish populations in conjunction with a question on whether Australia and currently disease-free salmon farming should become a republic. The cost of a separate industry; referendum on the preamble would not be justified. (c) seriously questions the AQIS decision, given Section 128 of the Constitution requires that a the lack of scientific research on the poten- referendum be held not less than 2 and not more tial for these diseases to afflict resident fish than 6 months after the passage of a proposed populations in Australia; Constitution Alteration. This requirement, in (d) considers the risk placed on Australia’s conjunction with statutory requirements for the natural water environs as unacceptable; and holding of referendums that need to be met by the (e) calls on the Government to reject the AQIS Australian Electoral Commission, require the pro- recommendations to lift the quarantine posed law to be passed by 20 August if a referen- restrictions. dum is to be held on 6 November. The last sched- uled Parliamentary sitting before 20 August is 12 Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western August. If the proposed law is not passed by then, Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the it will not be possible to have a question on a new Minister for Communications, Information preamble at the 6 November referendum. Technology and the Arts)—I give notice that, For the above reasons, it is necessary that the on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 be intro- duced and passed in 1999 Spring sittings. (1) That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the (Circulated by the authority of the Prime Minister) Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999, Senator O’Brien to move, on the next day allowing it to be considered during this of sitting: period of sittings. That there be laid on the table by the Minister (2) That standing order 110 be suspended to representing the Minister for Transport and Region- enable the third reading of the bill to be al Services (Senator Macdonald), no later than 5 passed without a roll call. pm on 23 August 1999, the following: I also table a statement of reasons justifying (a) the report by Mr Stephen Skehill on the the need for this bill to be considered during circumstances surrounding the appointment these sittings and seek leave to have the of Mr Laurie Foley to the position of Assist- statement incorporated in Hansard. ant Director Aviation Safety Compliance in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Leave granted. and all material considered by Mr Skehill in The statement read as follows— his investigation; STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRO- (b) all minutes of the CASA Board and the Board Safety Committee relating to the DUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 1999 process of establishing the position of SPRING SITTINGS Assistant Director Aviation Safety Compli- CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (PRE- ance and the process of recruiting Mr Foley for that position; AMBLE) 1999 (c) all documents prepared by Mr Wes Wil- Purpose of the proposed law loughby, Mr Spencer Stuart and CASA The Constitution Alteration (Preamble) 1999 would officers relating to the establishment of the insert a preamble into the Constitution of the position of Assistant Director Aviation Commonwealth of Australia. The preamble would Safety Compliance and the recruitment of be located just after the title. Enactment of the Mr Foley to that position; and 7288 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

(d) the transcript from the proceedings of the Senator CALVERT—I also seek leave to Administrative Appeals Tribunal application have the report incorporated in Hansard. V1998/11/92, Melbourne, 30 July 1999. Leave granted. COMMITTEES The report read as follows— Selection of Bills Committee SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Report REPORT NO. 12 OF 1999 Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.40 1. The Committee met on 10 August 1999. p.m.)—I present the 12th report of 1999 of 2. The committee resolved to recommend- the Selection of Bills Committee. (a) That the provisions of the following bills be Ordered that the report be adopted. referred to committees:

Stage at which Bill title referred Legislation committee Reporting date

Superannuation Contribu- immediately Economics 15 September 1999 tions and Termination Pay- ments Taxes Legislation Amendment bill 1999 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral) Veterans’ Affairs Legislation immediately Foreign Affairs, De- 30 September 1999 Amendment Bill (No. 1) fence and Trade 1999 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral) Workplace Relations Legis- immediately Employment, 29 November 1999 lation Amendment (More Workplace Relations, Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 Small Business and (see appendix 3 for a Education statement of reasons for referral

(b) That the following bills not be referred to . Republic (Consultation on an Elected Presi- committees: dent) Bill 1999 . Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation . States Grants (Primary and Secondary Educa- Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 tion Assistance) Amendment Bill 1999 . Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. . Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost 1) 1999 Members) Bill 1999 . Broadcasting Services Amendment Bill (No. . Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost 2) 1999 Members) Consequential and Transitional Bill . Crimes Amendment (Fine Enforcement) Bill 1999 1999 . Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1999 . Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic . Vocational Education and Training Funding Imaging Services) Bill 1999 Amendment Bill 1999 . Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill . War Crimes Amendment Bill 1999. 1999 The Committee recommends accordingly. . Indigenous Education (Supplementary Assist- 3. The Committee deferred consideration of the ance) Amendment Bill 1999 following bills to the next meeting: . Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1999 (deferred from meeting of 20 April 1999) Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7289

. Customs Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999 . Superannuation Supervisory Levy Determina- . Customs Amendment (Temporary Importation) tion Validation Bill 1999 Bill 1999 . Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 1999. . Employment, Education and Training Amend- (Paul Calvert) ment Bill 1999 Chair (deferred from meeting of 25 May 1999) 11 August 1999 . ACIS Administration Bill 1999 . ACIS (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 1999 . Customs Tariff Amendment (ACIS Implemen- Appendix 1 tation) Bill 1999 Proposal to refer a bill to a committee (deferred from meeting of 22 June 1999) Name of bill: . Social Security (Family Allowance and Re- lated Matters) Legislation Amendment Bill Superannuation Contribution and Termination 1999 Payments Taxes Legislation Amendment Bill 1999. . States Grants (General Purposes) Amendment Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Bill 1999 sideration: (deferred from meeting of 29 June 1999) Consideration of Government amendments to . Australian Tourist Commission Amendment superannuation surcharge tax. Bill 1999 Especially clarification of ‘surchargeable Customs Tariff Amendment (Tradex) Bill 1999 contributions’ for defined benefit funds or contribu- tions holiday. . Customs (Tariff Concession System Valida- tions) Bill 1999 Possible submissions or evidence from: . Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Noel Davis, Clayton Utz, ASFA, Institute of Amendment Bill 1999 Actuaries. . Tradex Duty Imposition Bill 1999 Committee to which bill is to be referred: . Tradex Scheme Bill 1999 Senate Economics Legislation Committee. . Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment Possible Hearing date(s): 30 August 1999—2 (Youth Employment) Bill 1998 [No. 2]. September 1999 (deferred from meeting of 10 August 1999) Possible reporting date: 30 September 1999 . A New Tax System (Taxation Laws Amend- (signed) ment) Bill (No. 1) 1999 Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee Member . Authorised Non-operating Holding Companies Supervisory Levy Determination Validation Bill 1999 Appendix 2 . Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 Proposal to refer a bill to a committee . Electronic Transactions Bill 1999 Name of bill: . Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill No. Amendment Bill 1999 1 1999 . Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Transitional Provisions) Bill (No. 2) 1999 sideration: . General Insurance Supervisory Levy Determi- This bill contains a number of proposals which nation Validation Bill 1999 relate to the Government’s election promises. It . Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Determina- would be very useful to give the veterans’ com- tion Validation Bill 1999 munity an opportunity to comment on the bill’s content. . Parliamentary Service Bill 1999 Possible submissions or evidence from: . Retirement Savings Account Providers Super- visory Levy Determination Validation Bill The major Veterans’ Organisations. 1999 Committee to which bill is to be referred: . Social Security Amendment (Disposal of preferably Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Assets) Bill 1999 Legislation Committee. 7290 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Possible hearing date(s): Friday or evenings of a Committee to which bill is to be referred: sitting week. Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business Possible reporting date: End of September 1999. and Education Legislation Committee. (signed) Possible hearing date(s): Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member Possible reporting date: Under discussion with Democrats. Currently 6 December 1999. Appendix 3 (signed) Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member Name of bill: Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More NOTICES Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 Postponement Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- sideration: Items of business were postponed as fol- Complex legislation that requires detailed analysis. lows: Legislation has significant community impact General business notice of motion no. 254 particularly in view of original 1996 legislation and standing in the name of Senator Allison for outcomes. today, relating to year 2000 (Y2K) compliance, postponed till 12 August 1999. The committee’s inquiry should have particular reference to: COMMITTEES (a) the impact of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, including (but not limited to): Rural and Regional Affairs and (i) whether the principal objects of the Act Transport Legislation Committee (particularly paragraphs 3(j) and (k) have Reference been fulfilled in practice; (ii) the impact on wages, employment, pro- Motion (by Senator Calvert and Senator ductivity and industrial disputation levels; O’Brien) agreed to: (iii) the impact on job security, unfair dismiss- That the following matter be referred to the als, job prospects, the protection of em- Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla- ployee entitlements and conditions, and tion Committee for inquiry and report by the last whether these can be improved; sitting day in October 1999: (iv) the impact on the balance between work The effectiveness of the legal and regulatory and family responsibilities, and whether regimes governing the Australian Quarantine and these can be improved; Inspection Service (AQIS) and the need to ensure (v) the balance provided between the roles, transparency, consistency, scientific rigour and rights and obligations of employers (in- the highest standards of protection of the envi- cluding small business), employees and ronment, the local fish population and the fishing their representative organisations; and recreational fishing industries of Australia, having regard, in particular, to the administrative (vi) the powers, standing and procedures of procedures and decision-making processes the Australian Industrial Relations Com- involved in the recent AQIS decision to allow mission, the Office of the Employment the importation of salmon products into Austral- Advocate and the Industrial Registrar; ia. (vii) whether provisions to promote indus- trial democracy and employee owner- BUSINESS ship can be enhanced; and Consideration of Legislation (b) in light of the committee’s findings in relation to the matters listed in paragraph (a), the Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed provisions of the Workplace Relations Legisla- to: tion Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999, and all relevant matters related thereto. That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of standing order 111 not apply to the Aboriginal and Possible submissions or evidence from: Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill As per 1996 Workplace Relations Act with added (No. 1) 1999, allowing it to be considered during emphasis on disadvantaged groups. this period of sittings. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7291

COMMITTEES (i) violence to life and person, in particular, murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel Socio-Economic Consequences of the treatment and torture, National Competition Policy Committee (ii) the taking of hostages, Appointment (iii) outrages upon personal dignity, in particu- lar, humiliating and degrading treatment, Motion (by Senator O’Brien, at the request and of Senator Quirke) agreed to: (iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying (1) That the resolution of appointment of the out of execution without previous judge- Select Committee on the Socio-Economic ment pronounced by a regularly consti- Consequences of the National Competition tuted court, affording all the judicial Policy, agreed to on 1 July 1998 and varied guarantees which are recognised as indis- on 9 March 1999, be further varied in pensable by civilised peoples; accordance with this resolution. (d) the role of humanitarian non-government (2) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 organisations such as the International nominated by the Leader of the Government Committee of the Red Cross and the role in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of they perform in providing protection and the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated assistance to those in distress; by the Leader of the Australian Democrats (e) that the convention is a necessary interna- and 1 nominated by independent or minor tional instrument and has a unique and party senators. important role to play in recognising that human suffering, conflict and war is not (3) The quorum of the committee be 3 mem- particular to time, race, religion or culture; bers, with 1 member present being appoint- and ed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, (f) that the convention is important in bringing 1 appointed on the nomination of the Leader to justice, those who violate the human of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 ap- rights of others. pointed on the nomination of the Leader of the Australian Democrats or by independent COMMITTEES or minor party senators. Environment, Communications, (4) At least one member of any subcommittee Information Technology and the Arts be a member nominated by the Leader of References Committee the Australian Democrats or by independent or minor party senators. Reference (5) The committee report on or before the first Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (3.42 p.m.)— sitting day of October 1999. I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name GENEVA CONVENTION for today before asking that it be taken as a Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: formal motion. That the Senate notes— Leave granted. (a) that 12 August 1999 is the 50th anniversary Senator ALLISON—I amend the motion of the signing of the Geneva Convention; in the terms circulated in the chamber and I (b) that the convention forms part of interna- ask that it be taken as formal. tional human rights law by providing a Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western framework for the protection of persons Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the engaged in armed conflict or hostilities, Minister for Communications, Information including civilians, or those who are sick, wounded, in detention, or in any other Technology and the Arts) (3.43 p.m.)—by circumstances, so that they shall be treated leave—We have not seen the amendment. It humanely and without any adverse distinc- has only just been circulated. We do not tion founded on race, colour, religion or know whether it is good, bad or indifferent. faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other If Senator Allison can do this, if it is not time similar criteria; critical, perhaps we could defer it for one day (c) that the convention prohibits: so we can have a look at it. 7292 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Senator Allison—As I understand it, the (ii) the international response to the Frame- government was not supporting this in any work Convention, case. (iii) the development of an effective inter- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.44 p.m.)— national and domestic emissions trading system, by leave—I thank Senator Allison for talking with my office and making considerable (iv) the effectiveness of Australia’s policies amendments to what is an extremely good and in comparison to international practice, such as emissions trading regimes and important motion. This is an inquiry into other measures, Australia’s response on global warming. Having just spoken to a group of Australian (v) the level, and greenhouse implications, youngsters concerned about the future of the of the direct and indirect economic incentives currently offered to both environment, what could be more important fossil fuel and renewable energy pro- than this? It is an extremely important Senate jects, inquiry. It will require the goodwill of (vi) the effectiveness of existing local, state government if it is going to function ad- and federal government policies and equately. I certainly hope the government will programs and their implementation, come on side and make it a multipartisan effort to review Australia’s performance and (vii) the economic, employment and devel- opment consequences of greenhouse the way ahead as far as Australia is concerned abatement measures, with particular in response to the global concern about global reference to regional Australia and the warming. differential impact on each state and It would be terrific if the government, in territory, its deliberations—even if it does take another (viii) the social and equity consequences of day—came on board and supported this greenhouse abatement, inquiry. It will to be a very important marker (ix) the effectiveness of industry programs and informative inquiry for politicians as well and policies in actual emission reduc- as the rest of the nation. This is an issue that tion, is not going to go away in the lifetime of any (x) Australia’s contribution to global of us. greenhouse gas abatement through The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—The ques- export of alternative energy sources, tion is that the motion as amended be taken (xi) additional measures, including, but not as formal. There being no objection, I call limited to, carbon trading, Senator Allison. (xii) the adequacy and effectiveness of Motion (by Senator Allison)—as amended, greenhouse gas emission inventories, by leave—put: and That the following matters be referred to the (xiii) the potential for carbon leakage associ- Environment, Communications, Information Tech- ated with energy intensive industries to nology and the Arts References Committee for countries not party to the framework inquiry and report by the first sitting day in August convention; 2000: (b) whether Australian government programs The progress and adequacy of Australia’s poli- and policies, both state and federal, are cies to reduce global warming, including: sufficient to provide for the development in Australia of emerging renewable energy, (a) the effectiveness of Australian policies to energy efficiency industries, the more reduce greenhouse emissions, in the light of efficient use of energy sources, the imple- Australia’s commitments under the Frame- mentation of new energy technologies (eg work Convention on climate change, includ- fuel cells, hydrogen), including: ing: (i) the effectiveness of Australia’s efforts in (i) whether Australia is likely to meet its relation to other governments, and commitments under the framework convention December 1997 Kyoto (ii) the potential of these technologies to Protocol, and the potential costs if it contribute to a reduction in Australia’s does not, greenhouse emissions; Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7293

(c) potential improvements to Australia’s poli- AYES cies to reduce greenhouse emissions, in the Lundy, K. Mackay, S. light of available studies of: McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E. (i) current and projected fossil fuel use in Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. Australia, taking into account the effects O’Brien, K. W. K. * Quirke, J. A. of current greenhouse reduction policies, Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D. trends in transport use of fuels, the use of Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. energy by high-demand manufacturing, Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. and changes to electricity ownership and Woodley, J. generation, NOES (ii) projected climate change impacts on Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. Australian industries, such as fishing, Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. tourism, agriculture and others, Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G. Coonan, H. Crane, W. (iii) estimated costs of such economic impacts, Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. to assist cost-benefit analysis of various Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. climate change abatement programs and Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. policies, Herron, J. Hill, R. M. (iv) the impact of current land management Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. practices and policies on current and Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. projected greenhouse emissions, and the Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. potential for Australian agriculture in Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. greenhouse abatement measures, Parer, W. R. Payne, M. A. (v) the potential role for vegetation as carbon Reid, M. E. Tambling, G. E. J. sinks and emission reduction by decreas- Tchen, T. Tierney, J. ing land clearing, and Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. (vii) the availability and effectiveness of other means of sequestration as an PAIRS abatement option; and Faulkner, J. P. Patterson, K. C. L. Forshaw, M. G. Chapman, H. G. P. (d) the projected effect of climate change on * denotes teller Australia’s ecosystems including but not limited to: Question so resolved in the affirmative. (i) reef systems, NATIVE TITLE (ii) alpine areas, and Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to: (iii) wetland areas. That the Senate— Question put. (a) expresses grave concern that the United The Senate divided. [3.50 p.m.] Nations Committee on the Elimination of (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Racial Discrimination has found that amend- Reid) ments to Native Title legislation appear to ‘wind back protections of indigenous title Ayes ...... 37 offered in the Mabo decision of the High Noes ...... 33 Court of Australia’; —— (b) supports the committee’s call for Australia Majority ...... 4 ‘to address these concerns as a matter of —— utmost urgency’; AYES Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. (c) condemns the Government for its refusal to Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. acknowledge the basis for the committee’s Bourne, V. Brown, B. condemnation of the Coalition’s Wik Campbell, G. Carr, K. amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. and the negative impact these changes have Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. had on Australia’s indigenous peoples; Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. (d) urges the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. immediately ‘reopen discussions with the Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A. representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P. Strait Islander peoples with a view to find- Lees, M. H. Ludwig, J. W. ing solutions acceptable to the indigenous 7294 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

peoples and which would comply with health services, standards of care, waiting Australia’s obligation under the times for elective surgery, quality of care Convention’; and and health outcomes; and (e) calls on the Prime Minister to invite mem- (i) the effectiveness of quality improvement bers of the committee to visit Australia and programs to reduce the frequency of adverse examine the situation first hand, in com- events. munication with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. NOTICES COMMITTEES Presentation Senator Bartlett to move, on the next day Community Affairs References of sitting: Committee That the following matters be referred to the Reference Environment, Communications, Information Tech- Motion (by Senator Chris Evans)—as nology and the Arts References Committee for amended by leave—agreed to: inquiry and report by 1 December 1999: That the following matter be referred to the (a) an examination of fisheries in the Great Community Affairs References Committee for Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, includ- inquiry and report by 30 June 2000: ing: How, within the legislated principles of (i) the impacts of fisheries on the world Medicare, hospital services may be improved, heritage values of the Great Barrier with particular reference to: Reef, (a) the adequacy of current funding levels to (ii) an assessment of whether the fisheries meet future demand for public hospital in the reef are ecologically sustainable, services in both metropolitan and rural (iii) the reforms needed to ensure ecological Australia; sustainability in fishing practices and (b) current practices in cost shifting between management, levels of government for medical services, (iv) state and federal fisheries management, including the MBS, pharmaceutical costs, policies and practices, outpatient clinics, aged and community care, (v) an assessment of the adequacy of therapeutic goods and the use of hospital legislative framework regulating fisher- emergency services for primary care; ies, (c) the impact on consumers of cost shifting (vi) an identification of the various practices, including charges, timeliness and commonwealth and state agencies with quality of services; responsibility for managing fisheries in (d) options for re-organising state and common- the reef, wealth funding and service delivery respon- (vii) an evaluation of the adequacy of man- sibilities to remove duplication and the agement of fisheries by those agencies incentives for cost shifting to promote and whether they are discharging their greater efficiency and better health care; responsibilities properly, (e) how to better coordinate funding and ser- (viii) whether those agencies are properly vices provided by different levels of govern- resourced, and ment to ensure the appropriate care is (ix) the best way of achieving structural provided through the whole episode of care, adjustment for fisheries in the reef; both in hospitals and the community; (b) the adequacy of the areas of protection for (f) the impact of the private health insurance biodiversity found in the World Heritage rebate on demand for public hospital ser- Area, with particular reference to: vices; (i) current zoning including green zones (’no (g) the interface between public and private take zones’), hospitals, including the impact of privatisation of public hospitals and the (ii) the comprehensive, adequate and repre- scope for private hospitals to provide ser- sentative areas program, vices for public patients; (iii) whether those areas should be increased, (h) the adequacy of current procedures for the and collection and analysis of data relating to (iv) the timeline for increasing those areas; public hospital services, including allied and Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7295

(c) the potential impacts on the World Heritage Bill 1999, together with submissions and Area and associated intertidal zones from all Hansard record of proceedings. coastal oil shale mines, including: Ordered that the report be printed. (i) increased sediment pollution of sea grass and mangrove systems due to land clear- COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT ing, construction and mining, (IMPORTATION OF SOUND (ii) disturbance of acid sulphate soils, RECORDINGS) BILL 1999 (iii) disturbance of clay material in the marine environment, Report of Senate Legal and (iv) offsite water and air pollution from the Constitutional Legislation Committee project sites, Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.58 (v) future increases in oil tanker traffic, p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Payne, I present including oil spills from accidents during the report of the Senate Legal and Constitu- transport and oil loading and transfer, and tional Legislation Committee on the Copy- (vi) the impact of open cut mining in the right Amendment (Importation of Sound World Heritage Area and associated Recordings) Bill 1999, together with submis- intertidal zones. sions. COMMITTEES Ordered that the report be printed. Scrutiny of Bills Committee DEFENCE LEGISLATION Report AMENDMENT BILL (No. 1) 1999 Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (3.56 First Reading p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Cooney, I Bill received from the House of Representa- present the 12th report of 1999 of the Senate tives. Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed Digest No. 11 1999, dated 11 August 1999. to: That this bill may proceed without formalities Ordered that the report be printed. and be now read a first time. DOCUMENTS Bill read a first time. Auditor-General’s Reports Second Reading Report No. 7 of 1999-2000 Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—In accord- Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the ance with the provisions of the Auditor- Minister for Communications, Information General Act 1997, I present the following Technology and the Arts) (3.59 p.m.)—I report of the Auditor-General: move: Report No. 7 1999-2000—Protective Securi- That this bill be now read a second time. ty Audit—Operation of the classification I seek leave to have the second reading system for protecting sensitive information. speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOOD AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL The speech read as follows— 1999 This bill makes various amendments to Defence legislation which are associated with the Report of Senate Community Affairs Government’s commitment to improving the Legislation Committee management and administration of the Defence organisation. Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (3.57 p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Knowles, I The first set of amendments made by the bill establishes a urinalysis drug testing scheme. This present the report of the Senate Community will apply to members of the Australian Defence Affairs Legislation Committee on the Austral- Force who undertake combat and combat-related ia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment duties, and forms a key element of the Defence 7296 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Force’s ‘No Drugs’ policy. The scheme will help management initiated early retirement) to an officer to ensure that members of the Defence Force will not below the rank Brigadier or Commodore. This continue to discharge their duties in a safe, efficient will bring the Army and Navy provisions into line and effective manner. with the corresponding Air Force provisions, and Selection for testing will be made on a random enable the devolution of the management of these basis. Safeguards will ensure the dignity and matters to more appropriate areas in the Defence privacy of the members to be tested, and ensure Force. that they are notified of the testing requirements The fourth set of amendments extends, from 3 to and results. Samples will be forwarded to an 5 years, the time limitation that applies to most Australian Standards accredited laboratory for charges under the Defence Force Discipline Act, testing for illegal drugs such as Cocaine, Opiates, and removes an obsolete provision from that act. Cannabinoids and Amphetamines. The extension of the time limitation on charging Commanding Officers will initiate administrative persons results from the Government’s response to action against individuals detected using illegal the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence drugs under this scheme. Administrative action will and Trade References Committee on the crash of include an assessment by a qualified medical a RAAF Nomad Aircraft. practitioner of the individual’s fitness for further The final set of amendments are essentially techni- service. Other administrative action that can be cal in nature, and include the repeal of the Supply taken against a member includes reduction in rank and Development Act which formerly provided the as well as posting action. However, members who legislative framework for defence production are detected using illegal drugs under the scheme activities. With the creation of Government-owned will not be charged under the Defence Force companies such as Australian Defence Industries in Discipline Act, given the range of administrative the late 1980s and the closure of all the remaining action that can be taken against them. factories, the act no longer serves a useful purpose. The second set of amendments: I am confident that the Senate will support the legislation. enable the Chief of the Defence Force, the Vice Chief of the Defence Force, the Chief of Army I commend the bill to the Senate. and the Chief of Navy to be transferred to the Debate (on motion by Senator O’Brien) Reserves, on the expiration of fixed term ap- adjourned. pointments; and enable officers who are subject to limited-tenure CONSTITUTION ALTERATION promotion or management initiated early retire- (ESTABLISHMENT OF REPUBLIC) ment to be transferred to the Reserves on the 1999 expiration of the limited-tenure promotion or relevant management initiated early retirement In Committee period. Consideration resumed. 2. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- At present, these officers must as a general rule be retired at the expiration of these periods. As an tor Bartlett)—The committee is considering alternative, the amendments will enable them to be government amendment No. 1 on sheet transferred to the Reserves before the expiration of EE205 moved by Senator Ellison. The ques- these periods, where they request this action. tion is that the amendment be agreed to. These amendments will maintain access to these (Quorum formed) officers’ expertise, and avoid the more cumbersome Question resolved in the affirmative. present requirement of an officer being first retired from the Defence Force and then appointed to the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Reserves under separate processes. The retention of Special Minister of State) (4.02 p.m.)—Before these officers in the Reserves will also enhance the we go further, I was just about to answer a Defence Force’s capacity for rapid expansion question put to me by Senator Brown in should an emergency situation develop at some relation to the question of the time of qualifi- stage in the future. Corresponding amendments will be made to the regulation provisions dealing with cation and how it related to nomination. I officers in the Air Force. dealt with those aspects of disability which would disqualify someone from being able to The third set of amendments enable the Chief of Army and the Chief of Navy to delegate their be put forward as a President of this country powers to retire officers and terminate officer under the proposed legislation. The amend- appointments (including their powers in relation to ment is not designed to give politicians a Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7297 chance. It is designed to give a chance to a and we have heard maiden speeches today wider class of people, such as judges, people and earlier in the week—come here with the who are in the public service and teachers. intent of doing what is good for the country. That was really the means to open up that The category of politicians, for a start, is not class of person and say, ‘Whilst we are a category that should be condemned as such. deciding the question of nominations, we are If you look at their performance overall, they not precluded from doing so simply because are a category that have striven to do well by they happen to be a judge or in the employ- this country. There are great examples of ment of the public service.’ It is not a ques- politicians in the past. The people who wrote tion of getting politicians into the position of the Constitution were, by and large, politi- President; it is more a question of widening cians. In my view, it would be wrong to make the choices at the time when nominations are people give up a political allegiance before considered. That is the government answer in they had to. I can see nothing wrong with a relation to the previous amendment which has person who is a member of a political party now been dealt with. being appointed to the judiciary, as now happens, and then giving it up on being Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.04 p.m.)— appointed, having been warned. I have a brief comment on what Senator Ellison has just said. It has been dealt with. In other words, if we take the approach I hope that my opposition to it will be record- suggested by Senator Brown, people would ed. Senator Murray was quite right when he have to give up a right, an entitlement and a said that it puts paid to the argument that this contribution that they were making to the is an alternative which will prevent political community to take the position. Once appoint- appointments to the presidency. I simply put ed to the position, they should—as this it this way: if there is a candidate, be they in requires—give up allegiances which may in the field of the judiciary or in politics, who is fact make them biased or give them the an aspirant to the presidency, they should appearance of being biased. But I do not think stand down to be available for nomination to that, simply because a person has been a the committee and not just stand down when member of a political party or a member of they know that they have gone through the this chamber, the other chamber or any other process and been selected. Because of that parliament, they should be disqualified there- situation, we are going to see in the future by. without doubt prime ministers nominating favoured members of cabinet to the presiden- I come back to the issue of the way politics tial post and then having the people stand works and the fact that there are forces that down both from the cabinet and from the would prevent happening what Senator Brown political party. I do not think that is a good quite properly raises as an issue for us to precedent. If somebody is really going to put discuss. It is proper for us to make sure that their career on the line for this post, they things are done properly and appear to be should stand down before the nominations are done properly. This provision enables that to sorted out by the Presidential Nominations be done. I do not want to see us talking Committee. That is why I opposed that last ourselves down, discounting the currency, as amendment. it were. Senator Brown, for example, makes an excellent contribution to the country. He Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.05 p.m.)— is a politician. He has done much for this I have great respect for Senator Brown, who nation, and so have many others here. So I has contributed much to this chamber, but it make the points that the term ‘politician’ seems to me that the provision under discus- should not be a derogatory term, that there are sion is a reasonable one. First of all, I think political forces that operate to ensure that it is wrong for us to downplay politicians. As whoever is appointed is a good appoint- soon as I say that, everybody will say, ‘Yes, ment—in a democracy, people are subject to you’re supporting politicians.’ The thing to elections, which are every three years in this remember is that, by and large, politicians— case—and that there are protections in the 7298 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 political process of an open society where mittee raised in its recommendations either. everything is patent and out in the public It is a situation where a President would have arena, where there is accountability and where his or her term limited to two such terms. I that accountability is impressed. do not believe they need be consequential; Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) they just have to be two terms in total. The (4.09 p.m.)—I move amendment No. 5 on government’s view is that this could prevent sheet 1472 revised: a very popular President from commencing a third term, and that option should be avail- (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 12), at the able. It could also prevent a removed Presi- end of the paragraph, add: dent being chosen again as President if that ; (iii) the person must not have held office President had exceeded the limit concerned. as President for more than one term of office. It basically limits the flexibility of this. Flexibility is something that was commented As the clerk rightly points out on the running on by the joint committee. I do not think sheet, amendment No. 5 can coexist with the there is anything to be had by limiting the government amendment just passed. This terms of a President. amendment adds a stricture to the tenure of a President and therefore disqualifies any Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.13 p.m.)— President who has reached the appropriate It is quite the contrary; it increases the flexi- tenure term from being put up as President bility for the people of Australia. If we cannot again. In the background of this amendment provide a different President every 10 years is an issue which probably needs a brief out of the 18 million to 30 million Australians airing and needs to be noted for the record. in the next 30 to 50 years, we are something That is the issue as to whether a member of short of flexible. I agree with this amendment. the executive—which, whether a President is I think 10 years as a term for a President is independent or not, he or she is, because they a maximum. I am also very well aware of the have executive authority—should have open- way in which these terms can be potentially ended and unlimited tenure at the discretion altered so that a real limitation is put on the of the Prime Minister of the day. To my turnover and the variety of presidents and on reading of the proposal, that appears to be the the input of the Australian people. The fact case. that this has not come through the Constitu- As we know, the tenure of parliamentarians tional Convention should not worry the is restricted by the process of regular elections government. It has not found itself restricted which are set out in law. We know the tenure in this legislation by recommendations from of the judiciary is restricted by age. There are the Constitutional Convention or anybody very few situations where tenure is not prop- else. It has taken it as a guide, and that is it. erly confined and expressed. It is my view The fact that Senator Murray has come in that it would not diminish the office or in any with an extremely good suggestion should not way harm the concept of a President—in fact, discount it from being taken up. It is a good it would improve it—if their term were suggestion, and I support it. limited. However, this is not a recommenda- tion from the Constitutional Convention. I do Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.15 not think it is a recommendation from the p.m.)—The opposition does not support this committee. I merely express this as something amendment, essentially for the same reasons about which we should be concerned as yet as the government. It has not been part of the another flaw in this model. process that has been recommended through Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— the ConCon or through the committee and we Special Minister of State) (4.12 p.m.)—The do not know whether it is going to be an government opposes this. It was not some- issue at the end of the day—that is, as to thing which came from the convention model, whether a President will be seeking a third as Senator Murray has mentioned. Further- term. As the minister says, I am sure they will more, it was not a matter that the joint com- not be, but we do not see a need to amend the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7299 legislation in the way suggested by Senator topic of discussion and investigation by the Murray. committee. It follows the advice given by The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- some distinguished witnesses before the tor Bartlett)—The question is that the committee, such as Professor George amendment moved by Senator Murray be Winterton and Dr John Hirst and also my agreed to. distinguished colleague, Senator Andrew Murray, in his submission to the joint select Question resolved in the negative. committee. We recognise that this amendment Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.15 would substantially have the same effect as p.m.)—The opposition will not be proceeding those that were going to be moved—but have with its amendment No. 3 relating to schedule been withdrawn—that would delay the vacat- 1, item 3. The government will oppose it and ing of the office by 30 days. To the extent we do not think it is going to add all that that it is an incentive to future governments much to the legislation. As a consequence, it to set the nomination and appointment process presents an irritant rather than a matter of in train early, we will be supporting the principle. As an irritant, we are not going to amendment. proceed with it. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (4.18 p.m.)—I just want to briefly record that (4.16 p.m.)—In view of what has gone on I think this is a well-conceived amendment before, I withdraw amendment No. 6 on sheet and I support it. 1472 revised. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Special Minister of State) (4.18 p.m.)—The Senator Brown, are you proceeding with your government opposes this amendment and does amendment? so for a number of reasons. Firstly, this is a Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.16 p.m.)— matter of detail not specifically addressed by Yes, I am. I move Greens amendment No. 3 the convention model. It is something which on sheet 1480: is perhaps best left out in such a thing as a (3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 30), at the constitution because it adds detail which end of the second paragraph of section 61, add complicates matters. Page 38 of the report of "or until the expiration of thirty days after the the joint committee—and we are talking about end of the term, whichever first occurs". how the term of office of the President This amendment is to ensure that a limit is ends—states: put on the term of office. It is self-explana- The Committee therefore agrees that there should tory and again it is a clarification of the issue be a mechanism to ensure that there is an occupant of turnover of presidents. of the office if the nomination and appointment process has not been finalised before the end of the Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.17 incumbent’s term. The Committee recognises that p.m.)—The opposition supports this amend- this objective could be achieved in a number of ment. It adds a little bit to the machinery. ways, including by permitting an outgoing Presi- Once again, it is not a matter of principle but dent to continue in office until the next President is chosen. However, the Committee takes the view one that makes it clear that action has to be that this is not the best option. Rather it would be taken before the term of the President is up so preferable if a President’s term of office were to that following arrangements can be made. end after five years, at which time the office would Thirty days is a fair period. fall vacant. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- The government’s view is that the committee tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian did canvass, as an alternative, the continuation Democrats) (4.17 p.m.)—The Australian of the incumbent until the replacement by the Democrats will be supporting the amendment incoming President. On balance, it opted to before us to impose a time limit of 30 days fix the term at five years, saying that the on the end of the term of a President where office would fall vacant. It is preferable, the a replacement has not been appointed. As government believes, that that not be adopted. Senator Bolkus indicated, this has been a Under the proposed changes, a new President 7300 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 could be chosen in advance of the end of the AYES incumbent’s term so as to allow a seamless Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. * transition. The process might, for one reason Faulkner, J. P. Gibbs, B. Greig, B. A. Harradine, B. or another, be delayed. You would then have Hutchins, S. P. Lees, M. H. the situation where there is a finite term for Ludwig, J. W. Lundy, K. the incumbent and you find yourself having Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P. the incumbent’s term expiring whilst the Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. incoming President has not yet been installed. O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. Ridgeway, A. D. I think it is important that there be allow- Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. ance for the incumbent to continue as it Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. reflects the realities of the appointment Woodley, J. process. I am not saying that that would be a NOES regular occurrence, but you do have to cater Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. for these situations and that is what you do in Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. constitutions. I think the government’s propo- Calvert, P. H. * Coonan, H. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. sal that there be this seamless transition is Ellison, C. Ferris, J. reasonable. If this amendment were passed, it Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. could truncate that seamless transition. Herron, J. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.21 p.m.)— Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. I thank the Labor Party and the Australian Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. Democrats for their support on this. I think it Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. will actually encourage the seamless transition Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. that the government is concerned to ensure Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T. and it will discourage a government which Tierney, J. Troeth, J. has not got on with the business of moving to Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. the appointment of a new President at the PAIRS Collins, J. M. A. Ferguson, A. B. expiry of a term of presidency. Again, it just Evans, C. V. Macdonald, I. clarifies the issue and prevents a government Forshaw, M. G. Hill, R. M. from allowing a presidency to continue way Hogg, J. Campbell, I. G. beyond the five years without any definite McLucas, J. E. Chapman, H. G. P. limitation. It is a good amendment and I am * denotes teller glad that it has the support of the other two Question so resolved in the affirmative. parties on this side of the House. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Question put: (4.30 p.m.)—I move amendment No. 7 on That the amendment (Senator Brown’s)be sheet 1472 revised: agreed to. (7) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 31), omit the paragraph, substitute: The committee divided. [4.26 p.m.] A person may not serve more than two terms as President. (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) Ayes ...... 35 I will be brief with this. We have already had the discussion about tenure. This amendment Noes ...... 30 —— limits the tenure of the President to two terms Majority ...... 5 as President. You have to take a philosophical —— view in these matters as to whether you AYES believe section 61 should allow, as it does at Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. present, an open-ended tenure or whether you Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. believe a limited tenure is appropriate. Bourne, V. Brown, B. Campbell, G. Carr, K. All of us who have read a bit of history Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. know the difficulty of prying out of jobs Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. people who may have become a bit aged, Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7301 infirm or incapacitated in some way. In those If the President had come to be closely circumstances the Prime Minister would be associated with the government of the day obliged to eventually decide to dismiss some- and was therefore considered no longer body. It is far better from a practical point of neutral, it is unlikely that he or she would view to have limited tenure so that those secure the opposition’s support, for a start. kinds of eventualities do not arise. I add those The Democrats consider it unlikely that the remarks to my earlier remarks as to the nomination process would re-nominate a desirability of limiting the tenure of anyone President for a second term let alone for a who has an executive role and the kinds of third or fourth or indefinite period. Therefore, powers—as limited as they are—the President I suggest that this amendment is not a neces- may enjoy. sary amendment and that it is perhaps an unnecessary fetter on the nomination process Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.32 and the safeguards contained therein. p.m.)—The opposition opposes this amend- ment. Much of the debate over recent days Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.34 p.m.)— has been about how easy it will be to get rid I would like to raise another issue here. This of a President; now we have the reverse from is a concept that runs through the American Senator Murray. He is now concerned that the Constitution. It was brought in after President President may be appointed for more than two Franklin Roosevelt was elected four times. Up terms. We do not think it is going to happen, until that time the people had followed the but we also do not recognise the need to precedent set by President Washington of amend this legislation to ensure that it does filling the office for two terms only, that is, not happen. It is something that did not come for two four-year terms. Senator Murray’s up at the Constitutional Convention nor was amendment is reflecting that. One of the it a matter of major concern for the joint reasons for opposing this is that the President parliamentary committee. It is one of these who will be appointed under this system will issues which, I suppose, if the government be quite different from the President who is were inclined to pick up would be a matter elected under the American system. There the that you could incorporate in legislation, but President has executive powers—is the exec- it is more of a superfluous type of irritant and utive—whereas here the President is to be a we do not see a need to support it. symbolic head. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Senator Murray interjecting— tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (4.33 p.m.)—Similarly, on behalf Senator COONEY—He will not have the of the Democrats, I will be supporting the executive power that resides in the Prime findings of the Joint Select Committee on the Minister, and that is the point. Under our Republic Referendum on this issue. I certainly system it is the Prime Minister who has the appreciate the evidence given to that com- executive power that the President has in the mittee outlining concerns on this matter from United States. If the President is to have some individuals such as Mr George Williams. The executive powers, reserve powers, that is nomination process is in many ways an good, but he will not have the extent of the adequate safeguard against some of the powers that the American President has, nor concerns that have been raised. For a Presi- the full range of those powers, and will not be dent to serve successive terms he or she able to exercise those powers in the way that would have to undergo the same nomination the American President can. It is important processes with all the other prospective that, even though we are using the title candidates. As such, he or she would be President, everybody understands that the considered for nomination against the new President we talk about here is entirely—I use publicly nominated candidates and would then the word advisedly—different from the Presi- have to secure the support of the Leader of dent that occupies the White House in the Opposition and two-thirds of a joint Washington. It is important to keep that sitting of the federal parliament. distinction alive. 7302 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.37 p.m.)— The Committee accepts that there are good policy Once again I find myself agreeing with reasons for permitting a person to serve more than Senator Murray. The Greens worldwide have one term as President. It also notes that the process set out in the Republic Bill for the selection and had long debates about rotation, that is, appointment of the President involves a number of limitation of the terms of elected representa- steps and requires input from a number of persons tives. At one stage in Germany they closed it and bodies. It therefore considers that, in order to down to a two-year term. They found that ensure that the best candidate is ultimately appoint- was not such a wise idea because it did not ed, the process should incorporate maximum give the incumbents time to really get used to flexibility. office before they were facing the door out. What we have here is a situation where the That, of course, is a limitation that is too President serves a term and would then have extreme. To use in reverse the argument that to be reappointed through the appointment Senator Cooney has just been putting, the process. That is a safeguard against any Americans with an elected President moved situation where there might be just a rubber- to change their constitution to limit the stamping of the return of the President. That elected President to two terms. Here we have President would have to go through a process got a non-elected President, because the direct and would succeed only if he or she had election option is not being given to the bipartisan support. Leaving it open-ended people of Australia, and we are saying that does not pose any risk, because of that re- we should not limit that to two terms. I do quirement of appointment at the conclusion of not go along with that. I think that Presidents each term. will certainly have varying degrees of popu- larity and some of them are going to be Furthermore, the question of flexibility extremely popular, but that is not to say that arises, and this does allow flexibility. It does at any given time in this nation there will not not say that after a period of time you are not be a range of other extraordinarily accom- eligible to return to office or to run again for plished and potentially very popular people as that office. If the people want you, they can well. have you. A comparison to the United States President I do not think is really appropriate, I think the office of President is going to be because we are dealing with two very differ- one that will be greatly honoured by its ent creatures, if you like. The President who incumbents and I think it is in the interests of is being envisaged for Australia is not one the nation that at least every 10 years we who has the same powers or manner of allow another citizen to take that high office. election as the President of the United States. To not do so is to move in the direction of They are very different roles indeed. This is stultification. By the way, as with the United a role for Australia where the people of States, those Presidents who have served their Australia might want to have someone there five- or 10-year term in office are going to be for three terms. If they do not, that person part of the group of elder statespeople, if you would not be reappointed. The community like, of the nation. They will continue to have opinion would be gauged by the Prime their influence and they will continue to be Minister of the day and the Leader of the honoured. But I think the moving aside once Opposition. For those reasons, the government a decade for a new face is an extremely opposes this amendment. healthy thing, and I support this amendment. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.42 p.m.)— The people of Australia are not empowered to Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— vote for the President. Let us get this straight. Special Minister of State) (4.39 p.m.)—The We are here dealing with a system where the government opposes this amendment on ultimate appointment is by the Prime Minister grounds previously outlined. I would agree and the Leader of the Opposition; it is a with the comments made by Senators Bolkus political appointment. The big parties might and Cooney. I might point out that the com- live to rue the day they turned down this mittee in its report at page 37 stated: sensible amendment. After two terms, if they Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7303 want to change the President and do not (R2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), select a renominating President, it is going to omit section 62, substitute: be seen as a political act extraordinaire to 62 Removal of President remove the President, effectively, and put The Prime Minister may, by instrument signed someone else in place. I would have thought by the Prime Minister, remove the President that this is a very sensible move. I do not on the ground of proved misbehaviour or think it has been well thought out by the big incapacity, with effect immediately. parties. I think it is in their interests. A Prime Minister who removes a President must, within thirty days after the removal, The last argument that can be resorted to seek the approval for the removal of the here is that the Australian people will at some President of two-thirds of the total number of stage or other want to have the President kept the members of the Senate and the House of in office because she or he is popular. I Representatives in a joint sitting, unless: reiterate that that is not going to be their (i) within that period, the House of prerogative. That option is not what we are Representatives expires or is dis- dealing with. We are dealing with a system solved; or where ultimately the Prime Minister puts (ii) before the removal, the House of forward the nomination and has to get the Representatives had expired or been agreement of the Leader of the Opposition. I dissolved, but a general election of think under those circumstances it is even members of that House had not taken place. more important that we have some end of tenure so that there is a smooth and politics The failure of a two-thirds majority of the total number of the members of the Senate and minimised—it cannot ever be politics free— the House of Representatives to approve the turnover of Presidents at least once a decade. removal of the President does not operate to I put it to both the Labor Party and the reinstate the President who was removed. coalition that they should reconsider. It gives me great pleasure to move this Amendment not agreed to. amendment on behalf of the Australian Demo- crats. That is because we believe it seeks to Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.43 restore the Senate to its rightful role in the p.m.)—Opposition amendment No. 4 is dismissal process and to give protection to the actually in the same category as the previous President in an Australian republic. amendment. It is one that we would have liked to have seen accepted by the govern- The amendment before the chamber offers ment. It does not really add a great deal. It similar protection to a President as is current- adds the words ‘as soon as practicable after ly afforded federal judges under section 72 the removal but in any event not later than 30 (ii) of the Constitution. The President of an days’. At the moment there is a requirement Australian republic would otherwise be placed that there has to be report back to parliament in the invidious position of being able to be no later than 30 days. We thought it was dismissed by the Prime Minister without a important to try and make that as soon as stated cause. Much was made of this issue at practicable after the removal and not have the the 1998 Constitutional Convention—as I said Prime Minister or the government wait for 30 in my address to the Senate last night—and days. However, it would seem as if the of the need to balance the powers of the government is not prepared to pick this Prime Minister and the President. The Demo- amendment up, and as a consequence we do crats have concluded that the power is very not see any real value in pursuing it. As I say, much weighted in favour of the Prime it fits in the category of a minor amendment Minister. It is not only our opposition that and not one that really affects the structure of supports this analysis, it is the view of a things in a great way. number of prominent witnesses before the select committee; that is, the balance is tipped Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- too far in favour of the Prime Minister, tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian potentially undermining and undervaluing the Democrats) (4.44 p.m.)—I move: role of an Australian President. 7304 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

The Democrats are conscious of the safe- As I have mentioned previously, we also guards that are in this model which the seek to ensure that grounds for dismissal— committee sought to strengthen in some ways. that is, that a President can only be dismissed But we do not believe that the requirement, for proven incapacity or misbehaviour—be that a Prime Minister who dismisses the incorporated into this legislation, as well as President must seek the ratification of a the support of a two-thirds majority of a joint majority of the House of Representatives sitting of the federal parliament. We believe, within 30 days, is an adequate protection and I have stated this a number of times in against a politically motivated or peremptory the last couple of days, that the Australian dismissal. It would be highly unlikely—and President will be a unique figure, a symbolic I would be very surprised if anyone in this head of state—a constitutional empire—and chamber would suggest this—that a Prime that we should not seek to undermine or Minister of the day could not command a undervalue in any way these important quali- majority vote in the House of Representatives. ties. The Democrats believe that the lower house If the Senate is left out of the dismissal alone would merely act as a rubber stamp to process, we would be doing that. Similarly, if the actions of the Prime Minister of the day. we fail to give appropriate constitutional protection to an Australian head of state or So we think it is appropriate that the Senate afford the security that we give to, say, be included in this process of ratification. Federal Court judges, the importance of that That is a view which we have held for a long office will be underestimated and potentially time. That is a view which we sought to have undervalued. So we think there are natural incorporated into this original model during justice principles as well as other important the Constitutional Convention proceedings. principles in relation to democracy and the Obviously, we were not successful. We role of the two houses of parliament. That is recognise that the intent of these bills is to what we seek to do through the Democrat reflect as much as possible the communique, amendment to this legislation. I do hope, the outcome and the model that was voted on especially because we are debating this in the at the Constitutional Convention and so we Senate chamber, that government and opposi- acknowledge that this is a diversion from the tion senators will respect their office—and the model. But we think it is an appropriate chamber in which we all work and legislate— diversion. and consider supporting the Democrats in this endeavour. We are aware of comments from witnesses The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- who gave evidence to the select committee tor Bartlett)—I would just clarify, Senator, that, in fact, they think perhaps a minority of that you have moved amendment No. 2 on delegates at the Constitutional Convention— revised sheet 1474. Is that correct? this is perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, Senator Stott Despoja—Yes. and I do not know if it is a bit presumptu- ous—would these days support a role for the Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.50 Senate in that dismissal process. So we view p.m.)—The opposition opposes this amend- that divergence—or diversion, if you like—as ment. This issue was deliberated upon at disappointing and unfortunate but we do length at the Constitutional Convention last believe that this model has undermined the year and was canvassed by the joint parlia- role of the Senate as an equally representative mentary committee as well. It is obvious that and sovereign house of the parliament. We a different form of dismissal was embraced by also believe that this undermines the security both those forums and it is that form of of the tenure enjoyed by a President. We are dismissal that the opposition also supports very keen, through this amendment, not only here today. to elevate the Senate to its rightful place but The proposal put up by the Democrats once to ensure a degree of protection and security again gives us the gridlock situation. It means for an Australian President. a substantial shift in the balance of power Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7305 from where it is now and basically has deep- to power, in particular, in the office of the seated implications for our constitutional Prime Minister and in the office of the Leader system. Basically, the Democrats would like of the Opposition. They already have an the approval of a two-thirds majority, not just extraordinarily powerful position in the of the House of Representatives; they want a process of appointment of the President. I joint sitting. They want to ensure that the think it is extraordinarily important that there Senate has power in the process as well. That be a whole-of-parliament approach to the does, in a sense, provide for the buttressing of dismissal of the President. I will support each a President who may be keen to take on a of these proposals, but it worries me greatly Prime Minister and a government. But you that the Labor Party is not going to. just cannot read this amendment on sheet I think the people of Australia would want 1474 in isolation from the rest of the Austral- us to support it as well, just as the people of ian Constitution to which the words of this Australia support very strongly the retention amendment are sought to be added. of the Senate and the powers of the Senate. I Basically, under the Constitution, we have cannot help but think that the big parties are the powers of the current Governor-General, very happy to have the Senate involved in the reserve powers and the like, and in a sense two-thirds vote for the appointment of a those powers would also be buttressed by the President because it gives some validity to the impact of this particular amendment. As the naked reality—which is that, in the main, it Constitutional Convention did, we see this is going to be left to the offices of Prime sort of proposal as leading very quickly to a Minister and Leader of the Opposition to substantial shift in the power balance. Like make that appointment. the ConCon and the government, the opposi- When it gets to the dis-appointment of the tion is keen to ensure that we do not move President—the dismissal of the President— from a position of a ceremonial head of they do not need that cloak of respectability state—President or Governor-General—to a of involving the Senate anymore, so the situation where the President might have process is to knock it out. Senator Stott powers buttressed by a Senate which is more Despoja is right. The Senate should be in- keen to cause political havoc than it is inter- volved in both the appointment and a dismiss- ested in the ordinary affairs and transitions of al if it occurs. One of these three formulas government. We oppose this amendment and, should be used. They involve either a joint unfortunately, we cannot support you at this sitting with a two-thirds majority, as in time, Senator Stott Despoja. Senator Stott Despoja’s amendment, which is Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.53 p.m.)— the same as the appointment process, or the There are three similar amendments here. houses separately coming to the conclusion There is the Democrat one that Senator Stott that, due to misbehaviour or incapacity, a Despoja is putting forward, there is an amend- President ought to be removed from office. ment from Senator Murray and then there is Unfortunately, there is the need for a the Australian Greens amendment, which I dismissal process. There is not the need for have put forward. All of them involve the the power to be concentrated at that time in Senate in the dismissal process. So it should the hands of the two offices of the Prime be. The Senate is involved in the appointment Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. I of the President through the requirement for support this motion. If this fails, I will be a two-thirds majority of a joint sitting of both supporting the one from Senator Murray and, houses. The Senate should be involved in a if that does not succeed, I will, of course, be dismissal, should that unhappy event come to supporting my own motion on behalf of the reality. Australian Greens. Cloaked in what we are hearing yet again I also say to the opposition and to the pro- from the government and the opposition is the republican members of the coalition that, by wish to concentrate powers ostensibly in the not adopting one of these alternatives which representatives, but that sheets it right home involves the two houses of parliament approv- 7306 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 ing the dismissal of a President, you will mental to the proper democratic functions of make the campaign that much more vulnera- government that judges be secure. ble. This is its most vulnerable point. The To use Senator Stott Despoja’s words, a Prime Minister made that clear the other symbolic figure is not in that position; a night. He is already onto it. He made a road symbolic figure is there to personify the good with potholes in it and his job now, as a things about the country. The executive monarchist and an opponent of this nation power, whether we like it or not, is with the becoming a republic, is to try and make those Prime Minister. Yet the argument goes for- potholes appear as deep as possible. I have ward on the basis that somehow that is criticised him before for his role in the pro- wrong—it is all right for a President to have cess. executive powers but not for a Prime I say to the Labor opposition that this is the Minister. That really is an argument to change biggest pothole of the lot. If the campaign the whole system of government under which were not to succeed because of concentration we now operate—to change what is called the on this dismissal process, be that on your Westminster system into the system that heads. I think you are wrong. The Senate operates in America. And we cannot have that should be involved if Australia finds itself in concept going around without a lot more the terrible situation of having to dismiss a debate than we presently have had. President. It is as simple as that. We argue about the effect of what is called Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.58 p.m.)— the lack of security for the President, but it I understand what Senator Brown is saying. has to be looked at in the general framework He is saying that, as the debate about the of the balancing of powers. Under section 59 republic is presently situated, what is in this of this bill, the President has the power to amendment is something that the Australian dismiss the Prime Minister, which was done people would find attractive. However, when in 1975 and caused at that time all sorts of we are arguing the issue of the constitutional consequences and all sorts of problems. So framework in which the country is going to we must decide as a nation where we are go ahead, we really have to look at what is going to repose our power. The United States going to give good government that will be says it should be with the President; we say properly scrutinised and kept in check by a it should be with the Prime Minister, subject parliament. As Senator Stott Despoja said, this to all the consequences. The Prime Minister President is a symbolic figure with, as Senator will be appointed or otherwise, depending Murray said, some—but really very little— upon the numbers in the House of Representa- executive powers. It is a model that is quite tives. That is a matter of reality. distinct from the situation in the United States If we raise the status of the President above of America. This particular amendment is what will give a proper balancing of powers based on the concept that the President-to-be within the community then we have some in Australia would be like an American Presi- trouble. That point has been made again and dent. It would not. again. I speak now in respect of the amend- Senator Stott Despoja said that we have ment put forward by Senator Stott Despoja. provisions to protect judges. But that is a Why go through all that trouble, when this different issue, because judges are people who appears in the amendment, at least on the make decisions which have far-reaching sheet that I have? It finishes off: consequences for governments and other The failure of a two-thirds majority of the total people who come before them. They must number of the members of the Senate and the have tenure of position because they are House of Representatives to approve the removal making decisions which clearly are going to of the President does not operate to reinstate the be unpopular—at least with one side—and President who was removed. they are going to make decisions between So we go through all this crisis for no out- states, between the Commonwealth and the come of any consequence. If the Prime states and between other people. It is funda- Minister seeks to dismiss the President under Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7307 the scheme put forward here by Senator Stott parliament, so the Crown devised matters so Despoja, what is to stop the Senate and the that elected representatives would have House of Representatives talking about that allegiance to the Crown, but always at least and criticising the government about that as there was sufficient separation of powers to it is? So to a certain extent this amendment protect the people from an over-mighty attacks a straw figure—raises an issue which executive. That is the thing that direct seems to give the House of Representatives electionists fear more than anything. That is and the Senate power but in the end does not, a thing which monarchists fear—an over- because the amendment finishes up by saying mighty executive. And when you allow this that the failure of the two-thirds majority to Constitutional Convention model to go come to a conclusion that the Prime Minister through you are giving greater and greater is wrong does not in any way negative what power to the Prime Minister, whoever the he in fact has done. Prime Minister might be in the future—and Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) none of us in this place can foresee that. (5.03 p.m.)—Many people think that the fate That is why I say that this question lies at of this referendum will rest on the question. the heart of the possible failure of this refer- I personally think that the fate of the referen- endum and the very real gamble the Labor dum will also rest on the failure of the Labor Party is taking on this matter. If it were not Party to accept one of these three amend- for this dismissal issue, supporters of the ments: that put by Senator Stott Despoja on appointed model who find the model fatally behalf of the Democrats, which I fully en- flawed might be with you and might get it dorse and support; that put as a variant on over the line. When the Leader of the Labor that by me; or that put by Senator Brown. I Party, the very experienced Kim Beazley— say that because there are three main groups from my state of Western Australia—puts his of people opposed to this referendum ques- weight and authority behind this, if this tion: the first group are monarchists, the referendum goes down I think it will cause second are direct electionists, and the third are some difficulties for the Labor Party. those republicans who will support an ap- In my judgment, this decision is a very pointed model but find this model fatally material one. People try to tell us, ‘This is flawed. merely replacing the existing system.’ It does Right at the heart of the fatal flaw is this not, because at the moment there is a third issue that unfair dismissal is possible for the party involved in the dismissal of the President—that there is no role for the Senate Governor-General, and that is the Crown. in that matter. Right at the heart of Senator There has never been a dismissal of a Cooney’s response is this very dangerous and Governor-General, so we do not know how scary scenario whereby we are attempting to the Crown would behave in that instance. We move to reinforce an elective dictatorship. can take a very informed and intelligent view The separation of powers concept requires based on likely precedent, but we do not that the President or the Governor-General be actually know. Conceive a position where 49 as independent as they can be from the per cent of the House of Representatives executive. If you put the President into the petitioned the Crown not to accept the remov- status of a junior minister, subject to unfair al of a Governor-General because it was done dismissal, it is the Prime Minister in this wrongly by an overmighty Prime Minister. country who has supreme and absolute power. Conceive the same position whereby maybe And that is not a wise thing. two-thirds of the Senate also petitioned the The Americans understood this problem and Crown on the same basis. I could not imagine they took the President out of the parliament. that the Crown would not hesitate over The parliament is distinct and separate from accepting the advice of an overmighty Prime the executive—and should be. The British— Minister to dismiss the Governor-General. they are a cunning lot, the British—had the It is that sense of uncertainty, that sense Crown, which was distinct and outside of that the Crown is ultimately there as a protec- 7308 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 tive mechanism for our constitutional system, and extends to the execution and maintenance of which has helped give us stability and certain- this Constitution, and of the laws of the Common- ty over 100 years of Australian nationhood. wealth. That is why the monarchists support it. That The Constitution says that the Queen is part is why the direct electionists have common of parliament. So she has legislative power to cause with the monarchists. They want that that extent. She also has full executive power protection. This model takes away that protec- under section 61. They are the terms of the tion, and it is a fearful thing. That is why Constitution. somebody like me, if these amendments go down, will oppose the referendum. If you look at it in those terms, you could hardly say that that mixture of powers, which I cannot support enough the concepts here. has operated over the last hundred years, has Section 62 creates an unprecedented concen- brought about dictatorship. But what is going tration of power in the hands of the Prime to happen under the new regime is that the Minister. There are no stated grounds for Governor-General, as he is now, who would dismissal and no mandatory parliamentary become President and take over the functions, oversight. Look at the protection that Senator is going to have a much sturdier base on Stott Despoja’s amendment provides. Firstly, which to stand because of the way he is to be the removal of the President is determined on elected. I say that because section 2 of the known grounds which are used constitutio- Constitution reads: nally with respect to the judiciary. Secondly, the Senate is involved, and we have used the A Governor-General appointed by the Queen— same mechanism of the joint sitting. who, as I said, has a legislative and executive The other points have been well made by function— previous speakers. If the parliament is to be shall be Her Majesty’s representative in the good enough to appoint the President, the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise parliament is good enough to oversee the in the Commonwealth during the Queen’s pleasure, dismissal. The parliament is the representative but subject to this Constitution, such powers and of the people, not the executive. I cannot functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be stress strongly enough that I think this is the pleased to assign to him. watershed moment for this bill and the pros- She has power both legislatively and exec- pects of the referendum going up or down. utively. The Governor-General can be dis- That is why, Senator Cooney, the government missed at the Queen’s pleasure. She has to will oppose this amendment. They know that act, as I understand the constitutional position, this is the linchpin which will guarantee the on the advice of the government of the day. referendum failing. You talk about dictatorship of the Prime Senator COONEY (Victoria) (5.11 p.m.)— Minister. The Prime Minister is in effect Thank you for that, Senator Murray. You say elected by a majority of the House of Repre- at the moment there is a separation of power. sentatives and represents the House of Repre- If you read the Constitution in terms of its sentatives. Who elects the members of the black-letter law, that is hardly the situation. House of Representatives? The people who Section 1 of chapter I of the Constitution elect the members of the House of Represen- states: tatives are the people of Australia. The legislative power of the Commonwealth Every three years the Prime Minister is shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate and a House of subject to that sort of check. When you look Representatives, and which is herein-after called at the Constitution and the way it is spelt out "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the at the moment it is not right to say that the Commonwealth." way we are going is much less democratic. It Section 61 of chapter 2 states: is much more democratic. It might not be The executive power of the Commonwealth is democratic enough. I can understand someone vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the saying, ‘You have not gone far enough,’ but Governor-General as the Queen’s representative, the position of the President, as he or she will Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7309 become, will be more secure under the new That is what the Labor Party fears. That scheme than the old. time delay was what enabled the Governor- General to dismiss a Prime Minister. That is Senator Murray—That is rubbish. as it should be because a dismissed Prime Senator COONEY—Senator Murray, can Minister can go back to the people but a you explain to me what sections 1, 2 and 61 dismissed Governor-General or President of the Constitution mean if they do not mean cannot. That is the simple answer. That is that there is a very strong connection in the why I responded in the way I did. I am sorry Constitution between the executive power and if it was slightly offensive. It was not intend- the legislative power of the Commonwealth ed so. vested in the Queen and exercisable by the Senator COONEY (Victoria) (5.18 p.m.)— Governor-General? What else does that mean? No offence was taken, Senator Murray. If you say it is rubbish, you tell me what that People have been trying to struggle through means in terms of the debates that were held this. No matter what position you take in this during the 1890s. debate, everyone seems to have agreed that Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) the Prime Minister is going to be the head of (5.16 p.m.)—I will respond to Senator the executive. This particular amendment Cooney’s question. Senator Cooney would continues the position of 1975 whereby the know, because of the warmth of our relation- Prime Minister can be dismissed by the ship, that the shouting of ‘That is rubbish’ President, as he or she will be. In my view, was not aggressively intended. that is one of the great issues in Australian history. Those of us who were there at the I will simply encapsulate it in this manner. time still suffer some shock from what hap- The proposal says that the Prime Minister can pened in that period—or at least I do. dismiss the President out of hand, immediate- ly. He will give that President a letter and at Instead of concentrating on the elected that instant that person is dismissed. It is an government, people are talking about a sym- immediate, one-to-one transaction. Of course, bolic figure—namely, the Governor-General, I understand what the Constitution says about as he is now, or the President, as he or she is the present relationships between the various to become. To me, it is a topsy turvy argu- sectors of the executive, but right now if the ment. It is all right to dismiss an elected Prime Minister attempted to dismiss government, but it is not all right to subject Governor-General William Deane he would a Governor-General or a President to any have to ask the Queen of Australia’s permis- force because he or she cannot be re-elected. sion. There is no ‘instant’ about it. She could He or she can be appointed again—there is no take a day, a week, a month, a year. There is doubt about that. no time frame in the Constitution which The whole argument seems to be that the specifies that she must act immediately. We elected parliament, the government and the have no knowledge, no experience, no prece- Prime Minister have a taint of evil about them dent of how the Crown would react if there and are not competent or able to carry out the was a hotly disputed dismissal. duties they should, whereas the President will, I accept absolutely, Senator Cooney, that if by taking on that office, be sanctified in some the Prime Minister said, ‘This particular way and therefore worthier and carry more Governor-General unfortunately has a terminal weight, even though he or she is only a illness which has affected their capacity to symbolic figure, than the executive which we perform the job. They will not go. I must hope will run this country. dismiss him or her,’ the Crown would no In 1975 Australia was in near chaos. It was doubt be extremely helpful in resolving the the steadiness of the people of Australia and matter. But we have no precedent or under- the steadiness of the government that kept us standing of how it would be dealt with if it going. To now say that somehow a symbolic was hotly disputed. The particular point is figure, the President, with very limited exec- that there is no immediacy about it. utive power, should be elevated above the 7310 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 system and that what we are proposing to do majority of people vote for the question in a here will make us closer to a dictatorship than majority of the states? Yet when you come to under the present Constitution is not right. the question of the dismissal of the President Senator Murray, you have put forward some the second chamber of parliament has no role powerful arguments, as you always do. I at all. I do not think that is going to go down simply say that I do not think those argu- too well in places like Tasmania, for example. ments, if acted upon, would get the result we Senator Stott Despoja—Or South Austral- wanted. ia. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.22 Senator HARRADINE—Or South Austral- p.m.)—I do not intend to speak for long. We ia, as indicated by Senator Stott Despoja. are under time constraints. As I understand it, There are quite a number of people who have we need to get this measure through this for some reason or another asked me how I chamber by 7.20 this evening so that the will vote in the referendum. I am sorry that I matter can be dealt with by the House of did not speak on the second reading of this Representatives. Of course the time frame is legislation. I thought that speeches on the governed by the proposed date of the referen- second reading were going to continue to take dum. So it is not my intention to speak for place this morning. Unfortunately, I was not very long. I just want to put forward argu- able to speak on the second reading. There ments that have already been put forward are a number of issues I would have liked to against the very great power the Prime canvass, including the question of sovereign- Minister has in this particular area of the ty—the sovereign states or Australia as a dismissal of the President. sovereign state, a sovereign nation. In whom There are a couple of things that need to be is that sovereignty vested? There are a num- said, however. Senator Cooney mentioned the ber of other major issues that I would have symbolic office of President. Yes, it is sym- liked to canvass. bolic but the President also has the power to I want to make it very clear that I am a dismiss the Prime Minister. I think the situa- supporter of Australia having its own head of tion was outlined very cogently by Senator state in the nature of a President. Therefore, Murray whereby under the current Constitu- I am a republican—I am a supporter of a tion the Governor-General would have a republic. Yet this measure will be defective. window of opportunity to dismiss the Prime Whether it will be so seriously defective as to Minister. Again, the Prime Minister could influence voters in their choice when they appeal to the people, as was stated by Senator come to vote in the referendum I do not Murray, whereas the new President could not know. I hope not. But at least I would appeal if the legislation is put forward unamended. to this chamber to consider this matter very I think this is a very important issue to a lot carefully indeed. I know you have, but you of people. I do appeal to the Senate to ensure need to ask yourselves the question: is it that the Senate has its rightful place. After all, appropriate to remove this chamber altogether the appointment of the President is not by the from the process of dismissal when it has a Prime Minister; the appointment of the Presi- clear mandate in the legislation to be involved dent is by a two-thirds majority of both in the appointment procedures? I offer that for houses of parliament sitting together. If that what it is worth. I will not continue at great is a method of appointment, why is that not length because it looks as though things are also the method of dismissal? Furthermore, a fait accompli, but I do appeal to those on should we remove the Senate, the second the government side and those on the opposi- chamber, from this process all together? The tion side to give consideration to this. second chamber is a house of review, but it Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.30 p.m.)— is also the chamber where the interests of the Senator Harradine has been reiterating quite state are protected and promoted. Isn’t it clearly the point of view that the Greens and interesting that under the referendum legisla- the Democrats are taking here. This is a tion a referendum can only be passed if a sidelining of the Senate by the big parties. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7311

Senator Cooney said a little earlier that, in will be getting more support there from the effect, the presidency would be largely cere- Labor Party. monial. But behind this—the big parties The Labor Party are making a big mistake getting together to block the Senate from in not supporting any of the options which being involved in the dismissal of a Presi- would involve the Senate as a safeguard in a dent—is the theory that, in some way or process of dismissal of the President by a other, a President who is under some sort of Prime Minister. It is the major mistake that suspicion or who is facing potential dismissal the Labor Party are making in this process, or real dismissal by a Prime Minister is going and they cannot escape responsibility. If they to go to the Senate to try to have that deci- were to support this and, indeed, if the Aus- sion by the Prime Minister overruled. You tralian Republican Movement, the ARM, were cannot have it both ways, Senator Cooney. doing its job on this, we would be getting a You cannot say, on the one hand, that this is different result here and we would be much a ceremonial post, in which case that would more assured of a positive result on 6 Novem- not matter, and, on the other hand, that the ber. It is a real lapse by the Labor Party. I Senate ought not be involved because it can cannot help thinking that it is because of this in some way or other thwart the wishes of the feeling that the Senate ought to be sidelined. Prime Minister. That is not what the people of Australia think. Both houses of parliament are involved in It is all the more important that the Senate the appointment of the President. Both houses be involved here, because the option of an of parliament ought to be involved in the elected President is not on the table. We are dismissal of the President. This makes the talking about an appointed President, appoint- positive outcome of this referendum most ed by the two big political parties, by the vulnerable. The Labor Party will be respon- Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposi- sible if it goes down, because of the argument tion, then getting the stamp of approval from that will be raised on this very point. I have a two-thirds majority of both houses. When told Mr Turnbull of the Republican Move- the reverse process occurs—and that is when ment in no uncertain terms that his move- you have a crisis in politics—it is all the more ment, the ARM, should be behind these important that the two houses of parliament amendments, because this does make the yes are then involved. That is why the Greens case vulnerable. But there has been an appar- have put up the option of having a majority ent failure there; there has certainly been no of each house of parliament. It is in the public support coming from the ARM on this. Constitution, it has been there for 100 years— fortunately it has never had to be used—in I have made it clear, moreover—I share the the case of High Court judges misbehaving or home state of Tasmania with Senator being incapacitated. It should be the same for Harradine—that the Greens will be pivotal in a future President. It is a necessary, common- the campaign down there, not least Christine sense safeguard and it ought to be supported. Milne, former leader of the Greens in the Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- parliament, who was a delegate to the conven- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian tion. I said, ‘Mr Turnbull, if you want the Democrats) (5.35 p.m.)—I wish to respond to Greens to be in full flight in support of this some of the comments made about the positive outcome in the pivotal state of amendment that I have moved. Firstly, I will Tasmania, remembering that you do require not be holding only the Labor Party to ac- a majority of votes in a majority of states, count on this matter; I do not think the Labor then make sure that the Senate is involved in Party is the only party culpable in this cham- the dismissal process as well as the appoint- ber. Clearly, the government—both the ment process.’ I have not heard a word since members of the National Party and the Liberal then. I might add that we are going to shortly Party—had the opportunity to show their get to the need for a consequent convention, support for the houses of parliament by with the people involved, and I hope that we supporting the amendments before us. 7312 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

I think it is important to put on the record That brings me to the other part contained that this is a changed position from at least in these amendments on the issue of security one political party in this chamber, that in fact of tenure and on the rights as well as the the previous models advocated by the Austral- responsibilities of the President. We support ian Republican Movement and the Republic the comments made by committee witnesses Advisory Committee, which was established such as Mr Williams regarding the impact that under the Keating government, allowed for uncertain tenure would have on the independ- the inclusion of the Senate in the dismissal ence and the status of the President. We know process. So this is actually a changed posi- the evidence presented to the committee tion. At the Constitutional Convention I strongly argued that the independence and moved comparable amendments to these to status of judges, for example, had evolved include the Senate in the dismissal process; I from their security of tenure. That is why the was not successful. The numbers in the Australian Democrats are equally anxious that Senate and the indications from party repre- the independence and the status of an Austral- sentatives today suggest that again I will not ian head of state be fostered and protected as be successful. much as possible. There are worthy compari- This represents a changed position from not sons between the role of judges as legal and only the ALP but also one of our foremost judicial umpires, if you like, and that of an republican advocacy groups, the Republican Australian head of state. Movement. That saddens me, because I am a I come to Senator Cooney’s last point—a patron of the South Australian Republican good point—in his first contribution in this Movement, but they are aware of my differing debate. Senator Cooney, I hope I do not views on this issue. misrepresent you on this. You looked at the amendments and noted that a vote by that To respond belatedly to Senator Cooney on total number of members of the Senate and a couple of points, I agree with him on one the House of Representatives to approve the point. I cannot argue for the superiority of the removal would not reinstate the President. current system, perhaps unlike my colleague. You would be aware, I hope, that this simply I am not going to defend the status quo—I do reflects the current provisions of the proposal. not wish to. I think the model being proposed That wording is the same wording used in the and some of the safeguards incorporated into proposal before us, which is supported by this legislation in relation to the dismissal both the government and by Labor. This was process are an improvement on the current something I grappled with at the Constitution- system. For that reason, as many people al Convention. Was that issue of natural know, I will be supporting this referendum. justice a dilemma? Is it a problem that, even But I do not like supporting legislation that if the President were dismissed and that has some defects and that is flawed. Here is ratification were not approved, that person a perfect opportunity, with the amendments I would still lose their job? That is something move on behalf of my party today, to rectify that I have grappled with, but I think your that particular problem. bringing that up supports the inclusion of the In relation to Senator Cooney’s comments Senate in the dismissal process. I hope I do on the Australian head of state being symbol- not misrepresent Professor Zines, but I think ic, I am aware that I used that word, but I his arguments also bolstered the inclusion of have also pointed out repeatedly that an the Senate in the dismissal process simply Australian head of state under an Australian because it provided further disincentive for republic would be in a unique position of the Prime Minister to embark on such a power. Not only would they perform the role course of action unless he or she ensured that of a symbolic and constitutional head of state he or she would be supported, but supported but they would also be a constitutional um- by a majority and a more representative and pire. That has been pointed out by Senator diverse group. Murray, Senator Brown and Senator Senator Andrew Murray likes to refer to Harradine. this dismissal process as an ‘unfair dismissal’. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7313

In many respects, he is right. The Australian the President, because the President—beyond republic’s President would have the dubious his or her power of dismissal—has very little honour of being the only public official in power. The main thing is that he or she is a this country not entitled to rely on natural symbolic figure. The Prime Minister is the justice principles in the event of a move to sort of person whom, as history has shown, a dismiss that person, and the term ‘unfair Governor-General or President might get rid dismissal’ comes to mind. Not only would he of. As you say, there is no precedent so far or she not have the opportunity to hear or for a Governor-General having been dis- answer reasons for the dismissal but half the missed. There is a precedent for a Prime body responsible for the appointment of that Minister having been dismissed. In the whole person would have no say in that dismissal of this, that is to be remembered. process. The last point that I want to make is this: Finally, Senator Bolkus said initially that you talk about the House of Representatives this changed the balance of power. He used moving without the Senate, but of course the the term ‘gridlock’ again in his argument—a Prime Minister is made by the House of point that was picked up by one of the wit- Representatives without the Senate. If you nesses to the joint select committee, Professor want a balance between the President and the Galligan, who said: Prime Minister, that is to be remembered. The All the more reason— Prime Minister is both made and unmade in to involve the Senate— the House of Representatives. It is true en- ough that, under this system, the President because if it is that sort of stand-off between the houses, why give the whistle to one house? will be made in both houses. However, the fact that the House of Representatives will There is a change in the balance of power. unmake him or her is not as bad as may first This proposal not only entrenches the primacy be thought, when you realise that the Prime of the House of Representatives but also—as Minister is subject to the same sort of pro- we have seen in earlier debates and unsuc- cess—except that, in the case of the President, cessful amendments—entrenches the power of two-thirds of the parliament has to dismiss the bipolar political system, or the old two- him or her whereas, in the case of the Prime party system, and the power of not only the Minister, 50 per cent plus one can get rid of Leader of the Opposition but the Prime him or her. Minister. We seek to move away from that. We seek to restore the Senate to its rightful Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— place in this process. For that reason, I urge Special Minister of State) (5.46 p.m.)—The honourable senators to consider the amend- government’s position is that it does not agree ment before them. with this amendment. This amendment shares Senator COONEY (Victoria) (5.43 p.m.)— some similarity with two other amendments I thank my good friends Senator Harradine, that are to be moved. In this instance, the Senator Murray and Senator Stott Despoja for Democrat amendment provides for the Prime what they have said. But Senator Stott Minister to remove the President on the Despoja said that the only person who would ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. be subject to an unfair dismissal if this goes A similar sentiment is expressed in relation to through would be the President. That is not the Greens amendment. The government finds quite right because the Prime Minister would that this is perhaps both legalistic and vague. be too, under this. I want to take up that The question is one of how you judge balance. Given the power that the Prime misbehaviour. Is it justiciable? Minister has and the sorts of functions that he In the United States, we have seen the or she is going to perform and given the conduct of a President come under scrutiny power that the President will have if this goes and there have been all sorts of conjectures as through and the functions and power he or to whether that has constituted misbehaviour. she will perform, who is more likely to want There does seem to be something of a subjec- to get rid of the other? I would suggest it is tive aspect in the whole matter. There is of 7314 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 course the involvement of the Senate and (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) there has been much debate about that. The Ayes ...... 11 government has taken the view that this was Noes ...... 44 not a matter which was contained in the —— convention model. Indeed, there was no Majority ...... 33 recommendation by the committee that there —— be any dismissal, or removal of this sort, of AYES the President by the Prime Minister. I refer to Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. Bourne, V. * Brown, B. page 73 of the joint committee’s report: Greig, B. A. Harradine, B. The Committee notes that the draft legislation Lees, M. H. Murray, A. substantially implements the dismissal model Ridgeway, A. D. Stott Despoja, N. recommended by the Constitutional Convention. Woodley, J. I have just referred to that. It was, after all, an NOES undertaking by this government to carry out Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. the model as recommended by the Conven- Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, G. Carr, K. tion. The committee went on to state: Coonan, H. Cooney, B. The Committee is not persuaded that any of the Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. alternative dismissal mechanisms suggested was Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A. better than that contained in the Republic Bill. In Ellison, C. Evans, C. V. particular, the Committee considers that the pro- Ferris, J. Gibbs, B. posed ‘quasi-judicial’ dismissal procedure, which Gibson, B. F. Hill, R. M. is appropriate in relation to a judicial officer who Hogg, J. Hutchins, S. P. must be independent of Parliament, would not be Knowles, S. C. Ludwig, J. W. appropriate in respect of the President, who would Lundy, K. Mackay, S. be part of the executive arm of government. Mason, B. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Furthermore, the Committee feels that most of the McKiernan, J. P. McLucas, J. E. alternative dismissal mechanisms put forward Murphy, S. M. Newman, J. M. would probably, in practice, be extremely difficult O’Brien, K. W. K. Parer, W. R. to satisfy. Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. I think that really sums up the position. For Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. Reid, M. E. Schacht, C. C. those two very strong reasons—that this is not Tambling, G. E. J. Tchen, T. contained in the convention model or one put Tierney, J. Troeth, J. forward by the committee—the government Watson, J. O. W. West, S. M. does not accept or agree to this amendment. * denotes teller In any event, there are aspects of both this amendment and the other—perhaps I am Question so resolved in the negative. debating it cognately, but I think that is wise Progress reported. in view of the constraints we have on time— that approve misbehaviour, and that is some- BUSINESS thing which I have said is perhaps both Government Business legalistic and vague at the same time. For that reason, the government is not persuaded to Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— agree to the amendment. Special Minister of State) (5.58 p.m.)—I seek leave to move a motion to dispense with the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.49 p.m.)— consideration of government documents today. It is for the very reason of the presumption I understand that through discussion outside that the President will be part of the executive of the chamber, in view of the time con- arm of government that this amendment needs straints in relation to the Constitution Alter- supporting. ation (Establishment of Republic) 1999, Question put: agreement has been reached to do away with That the amendment (Senator Stott Despoja’s) government documents this evening. be agreed to. Leave granted. The committee divided. [5.54 p.m.] Senator ELLISON—I move: Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7315

That: government does not agree with that amend- (a) consideration of government documents not ment. The grounds have been stated adequate- be proceeded with today; and ly and I thank Senator Murray for his com- (b) consideration of government business con- ments. tinue from 6.50 p.m. to 7.20 p.m. today. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.02 Question resolved in the affirmative. p.m.)—The opposition is of the same opinion. CONSTITUTION ALTERATION We have had the debate. We also oppose this amendment as we will oppose Green amend- (ESTABLISHMENT OF REPUBLIC) ments (4) and (5) when they come up later. 1999 Amendment not agreed to. In Committee Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.02 p.m.)— Consideration resumed. I move: Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), (6.01 p.m.)—I move: omit section 62, substitute: (8) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 4 to 16), 62 Removal of President omit section 62, substitute: The President may be removed from office by 62 Removal of President resolution of both Houses of the Parliament in The President may be removed from office by the same session, agreed to by an absolute resolution of both Houses of the Parliament in majority of the members of each House, on the the same session, agreed to by not less than ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. two-thirds of the members of each House, on This is the third alternative to involve the the ground of proved misbehaviour or inca- Senate in the dismissal of the President. This pacity. The President may not be removed Australian Greens formulation would mean from office before each House of the Parlia- ment has considered a report from a commis- that the removal of a President would require sion established by the Parliament for the the same process as is currently in the Consti- purpose of inquiring into the alleged ground tution—and has been for 100 years—for the for removal of the President. removal of a High Court judge who either The President may address a house before that misbehaves or becomes incapable, and that is house votes on a resolution to remove the that each house of parliament would have to President from office. vote to approve of that dismissal in the same I advise the committee that I will take the period of the sitting of parliament. This vote on this on the voices. I believe we have formulation is taken, as I said, from the had the debate on this issue so I do not intend Constitution. Fortunately, it has never been to speak at any length. I merely want to point used for a High Court judge. I hope it does out that the addition I have put in this amend- not have to be used for a President in the fu- ment to the wording put earlier by Senator ture, but it does give a check on the exec- Stott Despoja is that the parliament would utive. It does mean that the parliament which appoint a commission to inquire into any appoints the President is also involved in the alleged grounds for the removal of the Presi- dismissal. We have had the debate; we are not dent. To me that was the addition of a natural going to succeed with it, but let that not justice process. The second addition was that diminish the importance of this amendment. the President may address a house before that It is crucial, as far as the Greens are con- house votes on the resolution to remove the cerned, to this legislation. President from office, again a second natural Amendment not agreed to. justice safeguard, if you like. That is the key Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.04 p.m.)— difference between that and the earlier amend- I move: ment put, but I think we have had the debate and I will take the vote straightaway, if the (5) Schedule 1, item 3, page 5 (lines 14 to 16), omit the third paragraph of section 62, substi- committee so wishes. tute: Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— The failure of the House of Representatives to Special Minister of State) (6.02 p.m.) The approve the removal of the President shall be 7316 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

taken to be an expression of lack of confidence the first part of section 4 of the Constitution in the Prime Minister. and put beyond doubt that persons holding This amendment at least puts some pressure office during the pleasure of the President on a Prime Minister, who now is given this under the Constitution do not cease to hold extraordinary power to remove the President office on the expiration of the term of a with effect immediately. It would mean a vote President or an Acting President. The govern- of no confidence in the Prime Minister if the ment submits that this would enhance the Prime Minister failed to get a vote in the technical operation of the bill. I commend the House of Representatives within 30 days of amendment to the chamber. that removal. This is an amendment to ensure Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- that the Prime Minister does not ever under- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian take the dismissal of a President too lightly Democrats) (6.07 p.m.)—The Democrats will and knows that, if they were not to succeed be supporting this machinery provision, if you in a House of Representatives vote, which like. I am just wondering why ‘for the time Prime Ministers ought to be able to command, being’ was chosen rather than acting or they in turn would be dismissed and the serving. matter would be put to the people in an election. That would be the effective outcome Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— of this amendment. It is a backstop amend- Special Minister of State) (6.08 p.m.)—It is ment. It does not get over the problem of the a drafting point. ‘For the time being’ is a Senate not being involved in a dismissal, but common expression used which gives an it does add some very important gravity to the office or some situation an ongoing nature. If actions of a Prime Minister and may have a you said specifically ‘the President or Acting sobering effect at least on a Prime Minister President’, that is always rather specific, and who is not giving due weight to the serious- I think that really the phrase that the govern- ness of an act to dismiss a President. ment has adopted is one that is more widely understood. I think that really covers it ad- Amendment not agreed to. equately. It is simply a drafting aspect. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.09 (6.06 p.m.)—I withdraw amendment No. 9 on p.m.)—The opposition supports this minor sheet 1472 revised. amendment. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.06 Amendment agreed to. p.m.)—The government has indicated that Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.09 p.m.)— opposition amendment No. 5 can be dealt I move: with by ordinary legislation. On the basis of that assurance, we withdraw this amendment. (6) Schedule 3, item 1, page 14 (after line 32), after clause 3, insert: Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— 3A Constitutional Convention to be held Special Minister of State) (6.06 p.m.)—I Not less than three years and not more than move: five years after the commencement of Schedules (2) Schedule 2, item 41, page 13 (after line 14), 1 and 2 to the Constitution Alteration (Establish- after the definition of The original States, ment of Republic) 1999, the Prime Minister must insert: convene a Constitutional Convention to consider, The President means the President for the time and report to the Parliament on, the following: being. (i) the operation and effectiveness of the This amendment is in relation to the tenure of alterations of this Constitution made by the Constitution Alteration (Es- office holders. The term ‘President’ would be tablishment of Republic) 1999; defined in proposed section 127 to mean the (ii) any other matters relevant to the President from time to time. Proposed section operation of Australia’s federal sys- 63 would provide that provisions relating to tem of government including (but the President extend and apply to any person not limited to): acting as the President. Together these sec- (a) the roles of the Commonwealth, State tions would mirror the current operation of and local governments; Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7317

(b) the rights and responsibilities associat- It would be an act of bad faith for this not to ed with citizenship; become part of this legislation. It is not good (c) the need for the Commonwealth to enough to leave it to some other political have the power to make laws with mechanism; we need it built in as part of this respect to the environment; legislation. To not do so is to not keep faith (d) the electoral system and, in particular, with those members of the convention who the use of proportional representation expected this as an outcome and went along to elect the members of the Parliament; with the outcome of the convention with this (e) the method for making alterations to as a condition. So it is a very important this Constitution; amendment. (f) constitutional aspects of indigenous reconciliation; It would enable, for example, the review of the Constitution, taking into account delegates (g) equal representation of men and from all across Australia, on such matters as women in the Parliament; the roles of the Commonwealth, state and (h) options for enhanced involvement of local governments. I particularly note there the people in the processes of govern- ance. local government, which is currently left out of the Constitution. Another matter is the Not less than two-thirds of the total number of rights and responsibilities associated with delegates to the Convention must be directly chosen by the people of Australia voting as citizenship. There has been a lot of talk of a one electorate. bill of rights in this country. The United States has one and many other countries do; This is a very important amendment being put we do not. Another matter is the need for the forward by the Australian Greens. It holds Commonwealth to have the power to make faith with the Constitutional Convention itself. laws with respect to the environment. This is It is a crucial amendment from the Constitu- crucially important for the majority of Aus- tional Convention to ensure that a further tralians, particularly in a situation in which convention would be held, two-thirds elected the reverse is happening, where the Common- by the people of Australia, within three to wealth is devolving laws away from itself five years after the convention last year and regarding the environment at the moment. after the establishment of the republic. I might add that without this recommendation going It would look at the electoral system, in forward the Constitutional Convention would particular predicated on the notion of one not have succeeded in the outcome of recom- person, one vote, one value in this country. mending the republic in the way that it did. Other matters are methods of altering the There were critical votes in that convention Constitution, constitutional aspects of indigen- which depended on this further convention to ous reconciliation, the equal representation of look at the whole of the Constitution, to men and women in parliament and options for involve all of the Australian people and to enhanced involvement of the people in the look at sections of the Constitution not just processes of governance—that is, to improve restricted to the presidency, with a view to democracy. These are very important matters, improving the Constitution as we move into and I think it is incumbent as an act of faith the 21st century. I am moving this amend- that the government and the opposition ment in good faith from that convention. It is support this amendment. extraordinarily important that it be supported. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- It is an act of faith with those people who tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian were disappointed with the options coming Democrats) (6.13 p.m.)—The Australian out of the convention. Democrats will be supporting this amendment. The amendment opens up with a definitive We think it is important that there be another type of time line preceded by an information opportunity—in fact, ongoing opportunities— and education program and then an informa- for Australians to be involved in the debate tion seeking program from the Australian about constitutional reform and indeed mod- people for further review of the Constitution. ernisation of our Constitution. I think you will 7318 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 find that Australian Democrats in this cham- tions of New South Wales and Victoria. So, ber and around the country have been at the Senator Brown, there are some matters of a forefront of a lot of constitutional debates and technical nature that need to be canvassed. I advocacy for constitutional reform. We have do suggest you pursue this as a motion in the long favoured broad ranging constitutional Senate. changes. An Australian head of state and the Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— move towards a republic is just one of those Special Minister of State) (6.15 p.m.)—The changes. Senator Brown has referred to government does not support this amendment. everything from a bill of rights to the roles I might say at the outset that the Prime and rights of the states to the republican issue Minister’s commitment to put the model to a and reconciliation. There is a whole range of referendum did not extend to the convention’s issues that we would like to see examined. proposals for other changes which are not We believe that extensive community consul- necessary to implement a republic. Of course, tation processes, as referred to in the Consti- the convention resolved that, if a republican tutional Convention communique, are also system of government were introduced, the appropriate. government should convene a further Consti- Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.14 tutional Convention. This question, the p.m.)—The opposition does not support this government believes, is best addressed in the amendment. In doing so we do not think we event that Australia does vote to become a are breaching faith with many people at the republic. A further Constitutional Convention, Constitutional Convention. Labor has indicat- in that case, would be one option that the ed its support for the concept in principle. government would consider as it looked for There needs to be a greater understanding of practical means of progressing the public the Constitution and the need for change to it. debate on important constitutional issues. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has in recent The government does note that the joint days specifically indicated that he would committee did take the view that further support this sort of concept, and Labor mem- community discussion on constitutional bers, as did the majority in the joint parlia- reform would be beneficial. I think the mentary committee on the republic referen- government would not take issue with that. dum, indicated support for this concept as However, it does not see its way clear to well. support the inclusion in this legislation of a further convention. It was just pointed out to We think it is inappropriate to be put into me that a former French monarch, apparently legislation, particularly this legislation. How- Napoleon III, said he would be baptised by a ever, we do think Senator Brown should—and referendum but would not live with his feet we would encourage him to do this—move a in it. That is a good point, because here we motion in the Senate. We would support that. are looking at future change and future If you are to introduce this sort of concept in engagement with the people of Australia, this legislation, once again you may find it which can be done by policy and not by an may have some unintended consequences. For amendment of this sort which is casting it in instance, the concept of delegates being concrete. elected by the people of Australia voting as one electorate throws in a snag which, once Through the chair to Senator Brown: we are again, would imperil the chances of the main not breaching faith at all. In fact, we are question being successful. If you are telling demonstrating good faith. We said we would the people of Tasmania, South Australia and take the convention model to the people of Western Australia that they will come at the Australia and we are doing just that in the end of the list of all other people when voting event that this bill is passed. That will be for delegates to this convention, you will done on 6 November. minimise your chances in those states. They Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.18 p.m.)— will recognise that there is no way that their Senator Ellison has got up repeatedly during combined population would match the popula- the day and said the government was voting Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7319 this way or that way because the Constitution- the government has done today, you just use al Convention found in favour of this way or the outcome of the Constitutional Convention that way. But when it gets to the opportuni- when it suits you but you turn your back on ty—moved by delegate Tim Costello, if I it when it involves people getting a further remember correctly, and seconded by Chris- hearing down the line. Why? Because the big tine Milne—that the Constitutional Conven- parties want to keep that power to themselves; tion felt so strongly about, that there ought they want to restrict it to themselves. They do to be further consultation with the Australian not want to be tied down by any commitment people, suddenly it is reverse gear. It is the to a gathering of the people which was not same with the Labor Party. Senator Bolkus totally under their control, much as that effect gets up and says, ‘Chair, there are technical was attempted. This is a shameful outcome. difficulties with this.’ Why aren’t those It is a breach of faith. Again, it must make technical difficulties being dealt with by the people wonder about the health of the big Labor Party right here and now so that this parties and the respect that they have for the amendment can be got through? That is a people when they can break an agreement cop-out. coming from a convention as important as this The ALP, by the way, supported a motion one. So be it. to this effect put forward by Senator Margetts Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.21 when we were dealing with referendum p.m.)—The government and the opposition legislation back in March this year. But what are quite capable of defending themselves, but happens time and time again with the big Senator Brown has accused the government parties is that, when they get to the point of of welshing on a commitment that it has keeping faith—with having to consult with given. Similarly, Senator Brown has indicated the Australian people and give a bit of power that the opposition is welshing on a commit- back to the electorate—faith is breached, and ment. We have heard from Senator Ellison this is a breach of faith. Those people who that the government has given no such com- were at the convention will know it is. mitment. We have heard Senator Bolkus We would not be sitting here tonight debat- indicate that Senator Brown can move this ing this matter had this commitment not been sort of resolution in the Senate. Accusing made, through the convention, that a further people of welshing on commitments does not convention would be held further down the advance the discussion, especially when the line to resolve so many issues which that government, for example, has indicated that Constitutional Convention wanted to deal with such a commitment was never ever made. but could not. ‘Yes, Senator Brown can move You suggest that this is a shameful outcome. a motion in the Senate,’ says Senator Bolkus. Clearly that is not the case in respect of what ‘Leave it to us. Trust us. Trust the big politi- has been said to us here by both the govern- cal parties.’ Well, I am saying that if you ment and the opposition. have trust in the people, if you are going to Serious questions have been raised in my give faith to the people, you would be sup- mind about the matters that have been sug- porting this amendment and you would have gested in this amendment—for example, the overcome the technical difficulties that you suggestion of a bill of rights. The chambers see in it. have debated this on previous occasions and In not supporting this amendment, Labor a considerable amount of concern has been and the coalition are welshing on the Consti- expressed by members of parliament and tutional Convention outcome. It is welshing others that the incorporation of a bill of on the good faith that the delegates expressed rights, either into the Constitution or as at that time to get a resolution, part of which legislation through both houses of parliament, was this pivotal commitment to the establish- tends to remove power from the people. That ment of a further Constitutional Convention. is, it tends to clothe judges in powers to make No wonder people lose faith in politics. No judge made laws—and judges are not ac- wonder people lose faith in the big parties. As countable to the people. That is an argument. 7320 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

I have heard that sort of argument over many Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— years and I think there is some validity in it. Special Minister of State) (6.28 p.m.)—I On another point on Senator Brown’s move: amendment, I seriously suggest that the last (3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 15 (after line 24), at sentence should certainly not be moved by a the end of clause 4, add: senator from a smaller state—a senator from Despite the alteration of section 117 of this Tasmania. As has been indicated by Senator Constitution made by the Constitution Alter- Bolkus, leaping in uncharacteristic fashion to ation (Establishment of Republic) 1999, that section continues to apply for the benefit of the defence of the smaller states— subjects of the Queen who were resident in a Senator Bolkus—Where did I come from? State immediately before the alteration took Not far from Peterborough. effect. Senator HARRADINE—I apologise, This amendment is a somewhat technical Senator Bolkus. We are grateful. The amend- aspect in that it provides continued protection ment says: for subjects of the Queen. This matter was brought up during the course of the hearing Not less than two-thirds of the total number of delegates to the Convention must be directly chosen before the joint committee. I will refer to that by the people of Australia voting as one electorate. part of the evidence which is relevant. On page 83 of the committee report, in referring I agree with Senator Bolkus that that certainly to the previous amendment, the committee minimises the power and likely influence of stated: persons from the smaller states and regions. I do not think that is appropriate, particularly . . . the main objection was that the substitution of the term ‘Australian citizen’ for ‘subject of the in the Senate, which is supposed to be the Queen’ effectively narrows the scope of s.117 in its chamber which protects the rights of the present form. Mr Jeremy Buxton— states. who was from Western Australia— Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.26 p.m.)— stated that the Clearly Senator Harradine was not at the amendment apparently fails to recognise those Constitutional Convention. I did not draw up ‘subjects of the Queen’ who enjoy such rights of this outcome. The delegates at the Consti- citizenship as voting in State and Commonwealth tutional Convention did. Senator Harradine, I elections but who are not formally Australian believe in calling a spade a spade. I also citizens. These people will presumably lose the believe in honouring outcomes and not being protection of s.117 that they currently have selective about them. I have my own opinion through this amendment. on a bill of rights. Your opinion and my I might just recap from there. Section 117 of opinion do not come into this. It is the people the Constitution currently precludes a subject of Australia who have the right to debate the of the Queen, resident in any state, being matter and to have another convention look at subjected to any disability or discrimination that matter. The fact that it has been debated in another state that is not equally applicable in this chamber over the last few decades to a subject of the Queen resident in that does not put a halter on it being debated in other state. The republic bill would substitute the future. ‘Australian citizen’ as the most equivalent Senator Harradine—Yes it did. You are expression for ‘subject of the Queen’ in accusing me of something you did. section 117. The term ‘Australian citizen’, although an appropriate replacement expres- Senator BROWN—You entered into this sion, arguably has a slightly narrower mean- debate; you defend yourself. The fact is I am ing than ‘subject of the Queen’ in the Austral- bringing forward in good faith a pivotal ian context. I hark back to the evidence given outcome of the Constitutional Convention and by Mr Jeremy Buxton in that regard. The the big parties—and now Senator Harradine— government would maintain that the conver- are saying no to it. I cannot do any more than sion to a republic should not remove rights that. Let that be on the record. already accrued to individuals under section Amendment not agreed to. 117 of the Constitution. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7321

The amendment that is being proposed, This relates to the amendment of the Australia therefore, would alter schedule 2 to ensure Acts. In relation to this, the government that the bill does not remove any right ac- would submit that section 7 of the Australia crued under section 117 at the time of the Acts should be amended as part of any move conversion to a republic. This issue was to a republic to rule out any argument that it addressed by the joint committee in recom- entrenches Crown links at a state level. This mendation 13, which recommended: can be done either following a request from . . . that the Republic Bill be amended so that no all states or by constitutional amendment. The person who currently enjoys the protection from republic bill as introduced included a fall- discrimination on the basis of residence afforded by back provision which would have facilitated s.117 of the Constitution would be deprived of that the amendment of the Australia Acts by the protection as a result of the amendment to s.117 Commonwealth parliament. proposed in the Republic Bill. I believe that this is an appropriate amend- However, all states have passed legislation ment. It is technical in nature. It is something requesting the Commonwealth parliament to that was not specifically considered by the amend the Australia Acts if the republic bill Convention but, certainly from the spirit of is approved at the referendum. With that in the discussions at the Convention, I do not mind the amendment removes that fall-back think delegates thought that in the transition provision from the republic bill. This proposal to a republic any Australian should lose any honours the government’s commitment to the rights thereby. I therefore commend the states on the preferred procedure for amend- amendment to this chamber. ment of the Australia Acts. The states had preferred that the amendment be done at the Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.31 behest of a request from all the states, and p.m.)—The opposition supports this amend- that has now been done. Therefore, this fall- ment. It has virtually the same objective as back provision is of no consequence. I would opposition amendment No. 8, which, as a submit to this chamber that this is an appro- consequence of our supporting this amend- priate amendment, one which has the support ment, we will not be pursuing. We indicate of the states and goes to the efficacy of the support for this for the reasons given by the legislation and the transitional arrangements minister and we indicate that we withdraw to a republic if it is voted for. opposition amendment No. 8. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.34 Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- p.m.)—The proposal is technical in nature and tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian is supported by the opposition. Democrats) (6.32 p.m.)—The Democrats will also be supporting this machinery provision. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- question is that clause 7 stand as printed. tor Bartlett)—The question is that the Question resolved in the negative. amendment moved by the minister be agreed Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— to. Special Minister of State) (6.35 p.m.)—We Question resolved in the affirmative. are now dealing with a new amendment The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We which has recently been circulated. It is on move now to schedule 3, item 1, clause 7 of sheet EE211 and relates to schedule 3, item the bill, dealing with the amendment of the 1 on page 16. I move: Australia Acts. The question is that clause 7 (1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (line 15), after stand as printed. "conventions", insert ", including those". Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— This deals with the evolution of constitutional Special Minister of State) (6.32 p.m.)—The conventions. This is an amendment of a government intends to oppose clause 7 in the technical nature. Proposed clause 8, schedule following terms : 3, provides that the constitutional conventions (4) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (lines 1 to 11), in relation to the reserve powers are able to clause 7 to be opposed. continue to evolve. This amendment will 7322 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 make it completely clear that any other amendment No. 6 sought to do. We indicate constitutional conventions will also be able to support for this amendment. We also indicate continue to evolve. These other conventions that we will not be moving opposition amend- may deal with issues such as who advises the ment No. 6. We were concerned about the President in particular circumstances. This evolution of conventions, including the amendment will therefore simply confirm conventions that govern the areas from which what the government believes to be the case: a Governor-General/President could get that any constitutional conventions in relation advice. Senator Ellison is therefore right when to the non-reserve powers will continue, and he says that this amendment, if carried, would that these conventions will be able to evolve. also replace an opposition amendment which This amendment will deal with the issues was carried earlier in the debate. I indicate raised by the committee in its recommenda- now that if this amendment is carried I will tions 8, 9 and 10. This amendment will make seek to recommit—probably immediately so opposition amendments (1) and (6) unneces- we can do it all in one bundle—opposition sary. I might just refer to recommendations 8, amendment No. 1 and indicate that we would 9 and 10 of the joint committee. Recommen- not be pressing that amendment. dation 8 stated: Amendment agreed to. The Committee recommends that consideration be Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.39 given to amending the Republic Bill to state that the conventions which currently determine the p.m.)—I seek leave to recommit opposition appropriate source of advice for the Governor- amendment No. 1, which was carried earlier. General apply in respect of the President. Leave granted. Recommendation 9 then goes on to state: Senator BOLKUS—For the sake of defeat- The Committee recommends that, if Recommenda- ing it, I move: tion 8 is accepted, consideration be given to (1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 25), at making specific provision in the Republic Bill to the end of section 59, add: maintain the capacity of the conventions which currently determine the appropriate source of advice Until the Parliament otherwise provides, but to evolve. subject to the Constitution, the constitutional conventions concerning the appropriate sources So those conventions which currently deter- of advice for the Governor-General in respect mine the appropriate source of advice will of the exercise of the reserve powers applying continue to not only exist but also evolve. immediately before the office of Governor- Recommendation 10 states: General ceased to exist shall apply in respect of the President. The Committee recommends that cl.8 of proposed Schedule 2 of the Republic Bill be amended to Amendment not agreed to. provide for the continuing evolution of all constitu- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— tional conventions, including those not associated with the reserve powers. Special Minister of State) (6.40 p.m.)—I move government amendment No. 5 on sheet What we have is the continuation of the EE205: evolution of constitutional conventions, which (5) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (after line 16), is the case at the moment. They are evolving after clause 8, insert: over time. They are in existence. This is a proposition which the government believes 8A Justiciability will maintain as much as possible the status The enactment of the Constitution Alteration quo in relation to these conventions. The (Establishment of Republic) 1999 does not make justiciable the exercise by the President government does not believe that this is of a reserve power referred to in section 59 of inconsistent with the convention. It is certain- this Constitution if the exercise by the Gover- ly in accordance with the three recommenda- nor-General of that power was not justiciable. tions that I have mentioned which were put This amendment deals with the justiciability forward by the joint committee. of reserve powers. The government believes Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.38 that this is an important amendment. The p.m.)—This amendment does what opposition traditional view is that the reserve powers and Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7323 the conventions which govern their exercise Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) are high political matters which are not (6.43 p.m.)—I indicate that I welcome the justiciable. That view, however, has been amendment by the government. It seeks to questioned. Proposed section 59 of the Consti- deal with some of the mischief that an earlier tution is not intended to resolve the existing amendment of mine was addressing. Whilst it uncertainty. It has been designed to leave is somewhat of an unusual way to do it, I things as they are while keeping faith with the think it does assist in that matter. convention model and ruling out any argu- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— ment that the reserve powers or conventions Special Minister of State) (6.44 p.m.)—I want are lost with the removal of the Crown. This to put on the record that by his support of this could be clearer, however. Clause 8A has Senator Murray has been making efforts to been added to rule out any argument that the improve the bill and he has not been, as some enactment of proposed section 59 of the people have been saying, trying to instil flaws Constitution would, in articulating a require- in it so he can vote against it. ment that the reserve powers are to be exer- cised in accordance with the constitutional Amendment agreed to. conventions, make the exercise of a reserve Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.45 p.m.)— power by the President justiciable. I move Green amendment No. 7: Clause 8A is intended to ensure that the (7) Page 16 (after line 20), at the end of the Bill, changes made by the bill do not of them- add: selves make justiciable the exercise of a Schedule 4—Amendment of the Constitution reserve power that was not justiciable when to insert a new Preamble exercised by the Governor-General. The 1 After the heading "THE CONSTITU- government would say that this clears up the TION" matter and maintains the status quo, again Insert: keeping faith with the sentiments of the Preamble constitutional model and recommendation 7 Having come together in 1901, relying on God, of the joint select committee. Recommenda- as a Federation under the Crown, and the tion 7 states: Commonwealth of Australia being now a sover- eign democracy, our people drawn from many The Committee recommends that consideration be nations, we the people of Australia, proud of our given to including in the Republic Bill a provision diversity, celebrating our unity, loving our unique which makes it clear that the amendments made by and ancient land, recognising indigenous Austral- the Republic Bill to the Constitution do not affect ians as the original occupants and custodians of the justiciability or otherwise of anything concern- our land, believing in freedom and equality, and ing the reserve powers or the associated conven- embracing democracy and the rule of law, tions. commit ourselves to this our Constitution. I would submit that this amendment is intend- This amendment seeks to insert into the ed to put beyond doubt that the enactment of legislation the favoured preamble. the bill does not affect the question of wheth- Senator Bolkus—The bill is coming in er a reserve power may be justiciable and that tomorrow so why not do it then? the status quo remains. Having said that, I commend the amendment to the chamber. Senator BROWN—I will do it now be- cause it is here. It is here as an amendment. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.43 p.m.)—Once again, this amendment seeks to Senator Bolkus—Why not do it tomorrow? do what opposition amendment No. 7 was Senator BROWN—Senator Bolkus, in the seeking to do. In supporting this amendment, spirit of goodwill, if the opposition would we indicate that we will not be pressing prefer me to hold this over until the morning, opposition amendment No. 7 for the reasons I will. We will also be dealing with the new the minister has mentioned. Essentially what government and Democrat preamble tomor- we are doing here is maintaining the status row. I would be quite happy to deal with it quo. That is what we were seeking to do with then. However, because this amendment is our amendment. here tonight I would like it dealt with first 7324 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 tomorrow. If Senator Bolkus can see a means God out of the preamble than to descend from of doing that, I would be happy to hold it relying on God to hope in God? over. I will make a couple of comments on I believe in a secular society like ours that the alternative preambles. This preamble has it would be better if the first phrase in the a much greater commitment to the relation- proposed government and Democrat preamble ship not only as custodians of the land— were removed, and I will so move at the Senator Bolkus—Mr Temporary Chairman, appropriate time tomorrow. I also underscore I raise a point of order. The suggestion I and highlight the difference between the make, Senator Brown, is that we deal with preamble that I am putting forward and that this amendment tomorrow because my under- which was released today, in so far as recog- standing is that the actual legislation will nising indigenous Australians. The preamble come before the Senate tomorrow. We may released today does not have the strength and have a debate about it tonight and then have validity that the words in my proposal have, to address the whole issue again when the those words being ‘recognising indigenous preamble bill is introduced in the Senate Australians as the original occupants and tomorrow. I am told it is expected that we custodians of our land’. How important those will debate this tomorrow. That is why I words are. How much stronger they are than suggest that we debate it not in the context of the preamble today, which says: this legislation but in the context of the honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, preamble bill, which will be before us tomor- the nation’s first people, for their deep kinship row. I add that for Senator Brown. with their lands and for their ancient and con- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- tinuing cultures which enrich the life of our tor Bartlett)—That is not really a point of country... order. I call Senator Brown. That falls very short of recognising indigen- Senator BROWN—I think the alternative ous Australians as the original occupants and argument, Senator Bolkus, is that we deal custodians of all our land. For those two with this amendment tonight so that we know reasons, I believe the preamble that I have where we stand. In the spirit of goodwill, let moved to have adopted is better and stronger. me say that, if the opposition is keen for me It better represents the feelings of Australians. to hold this over until tomorrow, I will. I will Maybe it would be worth the Democrats speak for a few moments on the matter while reconsidering this matter overnight, in particu- the opposition comes to a determination about lar with regard to the strength of recognition that. of indigenous Australians which is in the preamble that I am proposing here. There are two points I want to make. The preamble that the Greens are putting for- I will wait to hear what Senator Bolkus has ward—and this is the one that came from Mr to say. I think the timetable we have is much Evans and was discussed with Senator Stott less important than getting the better resolu- Despoja early in the year—states: tion and that we stand by the better proposal, which I put forward on behalf of the Austral- Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as a Federation under the Crown, and the ian Greens but which I have no difficulty in Commonwealth of Australia being now a sover- attributing to the Labor Party and Gareth eign democracy, our people... Evans and, more particularly, the hundreds, if This deals with the historic relationship not thousands, of Australians who, over the between the Australian people and God at the last couple of years, contributed to it through establishment of the Commonwealth in 1901. the process of gathering opinion on how they It does not pass my notice that the current thought the preamble to the Constitution Constitution, in which we rely on the blessing should be worded. of the Almighty, is very different to the Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.51 wording of the preamble which has come up p.m.)—I understood that the preamble bill is today, which puts hope in God. Goodness being debated tomorrow. Senator Brown, we gracious, isn’t it better to leave reference to do not want to vote on this tonight in the Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7325 context of this legislation but would rather wealth of Australia being now a sovereign democ- debate it tomorrow in the context of the racy... preamble legislation. As you have quite He is referring to a historical event in 1901 rightly said, there is joint parentage of the when, he says, those people who came to- preamble that you have moved, though some gether relied on God—nothing to do with parents have abdicated in recent hours, if not what we now should be doing. I think people days. I would suggest to you that it would be looking at this particular proposal by Senator best not to proceed with your amendment Brown should realise, as he I think admits, now, but to debate it tomorrow. By that stage that he wishes to have God effectively taken we will be in a better position to digest the out of the Constitution. We could discuss the issue and develop a different position. If you matter but let us be very clear about it and choose not to proceed with this amendment not hide it by using the word ‘God’. He is now, then we can proceed with the rest of the actually using the words ‘relying on God’ to bill and tackle the amendment in the morning refer to a historical coming together in 1901. in the context of the preamble legislation. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Is Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— leave granted for Senator Brown to withdraw Special Minister of State) (6.52 p.m.)—I his amendment? support Senator Bolkus in that and ask Sena- Amendment—by leave—withdrawn. tor Brown to bear in mind that tomorrow we The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We will have a discrete debate, if you like, on the now turn back to page 1 of the bill and the preamble. Deferring it or not voting on it title. (Quorum formed) tonight will not limit in any way the debate on the preamble, Senator Brown, but it is Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— perhaps better placed when the preamble bill Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (6.59 is introduced, and the government would p.m.)—I move: agree to it being debated then. (1) Title, page 1 (lines 11 to 16), omit the title, substitute "A Bill for an Act to alter the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.52 p.m.)— Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of I hear those sentiments and I concur. I think Australia as a republic, with the Queen and it is better that in that circumstance we do Governor-General being replaced by an Aus- hold it over to tomorrow and have a preamble tralian President". debate on the merits of the two options with The committee now turns its attention to the the benefit of overnight thinking. I seek leave central element of the Constitution Alteration to withdraw the amendment, and in doing so (Establishment of Republic) 1999, which we I give notice that I will move this amendment as parliamentarians know as the ‘long title’ effectively to the new legislation tomorrow. but which the Australian people will become familiar with as the actual wording of the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- question on their ballot papers on Saturday, tor Bartlett)—Is leave granted? 6 November this year. As such, the set of Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.53 words which is now before the committee will p.m.)—No, not at the moment. I think it is become the public face of the referendum. important to speak to some of the things that The Australian public understands very well have been said by Senator Brown. Senator just how important it is that these words Brown is really indicating that he wants God accurately and fairly reflect the fundamental out of the Constitution effectively. Senator issues being put to the vote at the referendum. Brown is moving a preamble which relegates For any holder of office in the Common- God to history. If you analyse what is before wealth government to propose a referendum you, that is precisely what this does. He question which is inaccurate or biased would, mentioned the word ‘God’ but he relegates in my view, be committing a considerable God to history, because his preamble says: disservice to the Australian people and to the Having come together in 1901, relying on God, as Australian Constitution itself. The Labor Party a Federation under the Crown, and the Common- believes that that is a very reasonable descrip- 7326 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 tion of the Howard government’s actions in the Australian Democrats, to what we under- relation to the wording of the question to be stand will be the proposed long title of the put before the people later this year. The Democrats. We were told during the Prime Labor Party will continue to stand up for Minister’s press conference this morning that proper constitutional reform in this nation, the Democrats were not successful in chan- including the fundamentally accurate and ging the government’s mind on this particular unbiased wording of referendum questions. It question. I have got to say that it seems to me is for this reason that I have moved this that the Democrats did not fight very hard for amendment on behalf of the opposition. their preferred option, and I think that does As I indicated in my speech at the second throw a little bit of doubt on perhaps their reading stage, Labor prefers the long title willingness to follow through with their stated recommended by the Joint Select Committee agenda. I made what I believe were some on the Republic Referendum. The commit- generous comments in my speech at the tee’s brief description of the outcome of the second reading stage in relation to the referendum process was an accurate and a Democrats’ approach— very well formed description. It is a long title Senator Chris Evans—That was out of born of compromise on an all-party committee character! representing all sides of the republican debate. Senator FAULKNER—I would have It is unquestionably the fairest and most thought that it was in character, Senator accurate description of the change that Aus- Evans. But you are entitled to your opinion, tralians are being asked to vote on. First, it which I doubt would be shared by many. I says what we all accept; that is, if the referen- think I mentioned that, although we do not dum is passed, then Australia will become a think that the Democrats’ proposed form of republic. the question is as good as the all-party select Secondly, it provides a brief description of committee’s version, we did indicate that we the type of republic that we will become. It believe that the long title proposed by the says that the President will replace the Queen Democrats is reasonable. I understand that the and the Governor-General. We believe that Democrats’ preferred long title was con- this is important because it distinguishes the sidered by the joint select committee and was type of republic proposed for Australia—if an alternative compromise to the one that was you like, a Westminster system republic actually adopted by the committee. While it where executive government is responsible to is not as good as the one ultimately recom- parliament, as opposed to the United States mended—because it only provides the briefest style of executive presidency. The commit- description of the outcome of the process; tee’s and Labor’s version of the question namely, that Australia becomes a republic— focuses on the powers of the President—an we believe it is accurate. It is not misleading. issue that we believe is more important than I do not think a reasonable person can say the process by which the President is chosen. that it is weighted in favour of either side of the debate on this important issue. Finally, it makes it clear that the President must be an Australian. As we know, the I turn to the government’s proposed version Queen is not an Australian; the Governor- of the long title and the question because, in General need not be an Australian. These are its present form, that long title is unaccept- the reasons that we prefer the long title able. It is clearly biased in favour of the recommended by the committee. We are keen monarchist cause. It neglects to state that the to see whether anyone in this place, particu- President will be an Australian, which is an larly those who are proposing alternative essential feature of the republican model that questions, is able to explain to the chamber would result from the successful vote of the why they believe the Labor Party’s amend- referendum. It describes only part of the selection process—naturally, the most un- ment is in any way inaccurate or biased. popular part of the selection process—without I turn to the preferred version of the long describing the participation of Australians in title that is being sponsored and supported by the process. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7327

This has been done to deliberately and party room. He has dudded genuine republi- cynically bolster the monarchist argument that cans throughout Australia in the framing of this model will see the President chosen by the referendum questions. I believe a poll like politicians. This is rather ironical, given that the AC Nielsen poll has outed the Prime our current Constitution vests the choice of Minister on this issue. I would urge members Governor-General in the most partisan of all of the coalition in the Senate, and perhaps I political figures—that is, the Prime Minister. should include the Australian Democrats in Similarly, the current referendum proposal has this—they are emerging coalition partners; I built-in safeguards, again relying on the think that is a fair thing to say— institution of the parliament, in relation to the Senator Woodley—At least we’re not the termination of a President’s term. Under the fourth faction of the ALP! current system, as Gough Whitlam has noted on a number of occasions since 1975, there Senator FAULKNER—I would urge the are no safeguards regarding the termination of coalition parties to consider the results of the a Governor-General’s commission. As we all Nielsen poll and the very clear message it know, the necessity of having the Queen contains about the motives and manipulations herself withdraw a commission is no effective of Prime Minister John Howard. I say to safeguard at all. The Australian Constitution Senator Woodley: if only you would be so requires the monarch to act on the advice of honourable as to be the fourth faction of the her ministers. Labor Party, you would also be welcome. The Prime Minister should not be allowed to The opposition has not seen or heard dictate the result of constitutional reform. He anything which can change our view that the should not be allowed to do it in the shabby Howard government’s referendum question, and deceptive way that he has. We are going in either the original form or the amended to work as actively as we can against these form, does not accurately or fairly reflect the tactics. proposed constitutional alteration. In this way, The bipartisan joint select committee made the government’s proposal fails the basic a clear compromise recommendation on the fairness and accuracy tests for any referendum long title. It is a compromise that is fair to all. question. The inaccuracy and bias have been In my view, to give in to the tactics of the deliberately pursued by the Howard govern- Prime Minister would be absolutely unaccept- ment with a clear objective in mind, and I able. Further compromise would mean giving mentioned this last night. The government in to the Prime Minister’s tactics and the understands implicitly that, in any form of tactics of his monarchist supporters. The polling, manipulation of the framing of the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, has question is a sure-fire way to manipulate the often spoken of his own passion for the end result. republic. I reckon that is a passion that is a Madam Temporary Chair, you would recall feature of the Labor Party as a whole. It the AC Nielsen poll earlier this week which reflects the view of the significant majority of offered concrete proof of the scope to dictate Australians. We also passionately believe all an end result. When the government’s ques- Australians deserve to be presented with a fair tion was put to respondents, the question was and accurate referendum question. We are lost. But when the joint committee’s question committed to ensuring that a proper choice is was put to the sample group—that is, the put before the people, and I would urge all same question that we are moving via this senators to support the amended long title that particular amendment today—there was a I have moved on behalf of the opposition. resounding win for the proposal. I have no Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.14 p.m.)— doubt that the government’s internal polling The Australian Greens are also moving an has told them exactly the same thing. We identical amendment. Therefore much of what have a situation where the Prime Minister has Senator Faulkner had to say applies. The hour probably snowed the genuinely republican is late, so I am not going over that territory members of his own frontbench and his own again. This amendment is the outcome of a 7328 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 committee that looked at it very closely and with it.’ The Prime Minister has not liked is one that we support. I endorse the amend- quite a number of things about this process, ment. all the way through. He did not in fact like Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- having the process. He is obviously no repub- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian lican. Democrats) (7.15 p.m.)—The Australian What we have at this stage of the debate is Democrats will not be supporting the amend- a Prime Minister who is saying to us, ‘Either ment. However, I wish to put on record an take what I want or take nothing at all.’ We acknowledgment of the joint select should make him blink. The Senate should committee’s good work, not only in its advis- stand up and say, ‘Prime Minister, your ory report but also in its recommendation that proposal is not fair. It is not balanced against is before us. I signed off on that recommenda- fairness in outcome in this debate.’ But we do tion. I certainly felt that the wording was not want to be led by the Democrats, who in acceptable and worthy, but the amendment one sense I suppose, if you look at the state- before us does not have the total support of ments over the last 24 hours, have graduated my Democrat colleagues. We believe that the from being fairies at the bottom of the garden following amendment will provide an equally to developing their own child-care centre simple and accurate, but we think also a new down there when it comes to negotiations. and improved, version in this debate. Senator Murray—Ha, ha! Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (7.15 Senator BOLKUS—Senator Murray, you p.m.)—I want to go through a little bit of may laugh but, if you are serious about your history in respect of the opposition’s amend- proposal, do not tell us that you are going to ment and Senator Brown’s amendment, and be serious about it for 24 hours. If we are also to reflect for a moment on the Democrat going to support it as a second best to ours, amendment. We are concerned here about we want to know that you are prepared to getting a real outcome. Our concern is that take the Prime Minister on in respect of it. there has been a long period of consultation We also need you to know that on a number and development of the amendment that both of occasions so far he has said, ‘No, this is the Labor Party and the Greens put up today. not on’—but he has had to move in the It is the amendment that basically came from interests of fairness and in response to public the bipartisan joint parliamentary committee. reaction. He looks very much like a spoiler It reflects both the concerns and the desire of when he says, ‘You will take what I give you that committee—the desire being to get a fair and nothing else.’ He has said that consis- reflection of the process. tently through this debate; he says it again now. But what should be motivating you, as Before going back to analyse what we have Democrats, and also the whole chamber, is done as a committee, can I say to the Demo- how we get a fair and balanced question, and crats that this debate will obviously go on how we persist with it. As I said, the until the morning—we have got only three messages were somewhat mixed last night as minutes to go and I am sure that other people to how serious the Democrats were in respect want to speak in respect of this—but I am of their amendment. For instance, we are not sure that the chamber would like to be ap- going to be victims of a charade, if we have prised of how serious you are in respect of to support second best, and find ourselves your amendment. If you are not going to supporting the Democrat amendment and then support the Labor amendment and the Greens being told by the Democrats, ‘Well, the Prime amendment then, as you of course have your Minister has said all or nothing and he may own, you can tell us how good that is. We do defer the referendum.’ This issue is not the not want to be victims of a charade here. We plaything of this Prime Minister, and that is do not want to be taken down the garden path a view that the public has expressed time after by the Democrats and then be told, ‘Oh, we time in reaction to the way that he has played were not really serious. The Prime Minister this debate. does not like it. Therefore we will not persist Progress reported. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7329

ADJOURNMENT this year, without drawing his gun and with The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! It no lives being lost, Sergeant Huitson disarmed being 7.20 p.m., I propose the question: a drug-crazed gunman who had hijacked a tourist bus. His medal of valour for this That the Senate do now adjourn. extraordinary act of heroism was presented at Huitson, Sergeant Glen his funeral to his widow, Lisa, by the Police Senator TAMBLING (Northern Terri- Commissioner in a most moving ceremony. tory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister This tragic event has shocked the people of for Health and Aged Care) (7.20 p.m.)—I rise the Northern Territory to the core. It has tonight to speak about an exceptional young made many reflect on the sacrifices that our policeman who died tragically last week in police make in the interests of the public the Northern Territory: Sergeant Glen good and the risks they are called on to face Huitson. By all accounts he was a remarkable courageously in carrying out their duty. This person with a great capacity for giving and young officer and his family have made the caring, and a strong love of life. He was the ultimate sacrifice for the community. Sergeant sort of person who holds a community to- Huitson was an exceptional police officer with gether and makes it strong and good. Now, an outstanding career to date and so much to unfortunately, he has been lost to us. On look forward to. Most importantly, he was a Tuesday, 3 August at 11.45 a.m., Sergeant husband, a father, a son, a brother and a Glen Huitson was shot by a gunman in a friend to so many. His great loss is shared by cowardly attack while manning a roadblock the whole Northern Territory community. He on the Stuart Highway. He died in Royal will be missed. Darwin Hospital approximately an hour after the shooting and is survived by his wife, Lisa, Health: Funding for Smoking Prevention and their two children, Joseph, aged 2, and Programs Ruby, aged six months. Huitson, Sergeant Glen Sergeant Huitson was based at Adelaide Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) River, a small and important community on (7.23 p.m.)—I rise to speak tonight about the Stuart Highway, approximately 100 smoking, heart disease and, in particular, the kilometres from Darwin. He had served in Northern Territory government’s lack of Alice Springs, Nauiyu Nambiyu and other commitment to funding prevention programs. communities throughout the Northern Terri- Two weeks ago the Heart Foundation, when tory, and was respected as a good cop who celebrating its 40th birthday, praised the looked after people in his community with a generosity of the Australian people, whose gentle but firm hand. Sergeant Huitson was at donations have greatly assisted the foundation the forefront of active policing with all its in its mission of reducing heart disease in our rewards and dangers. He was given a full community. The research carried out by the police funeral on Saturday morning at St Heart Foundation provides important informa- Mary’s Cathedral in Darwin. As a mark of tion which can be used in the fight against recognition and respect, over 2,000 people— heart disease, and this information is often family, friends, fellow officers and the general most powerfully channelled through the public—attended the funeral of this most medium of television and video. well-known and loved man. Three months ago, during National Heart For such a fine young man to have died in Week, I had the pleasure of attending the such a senseless attack is an absolute tragedy launch of a video called Listen to your heart. which now impacts so cruelly on his family, This short video, produced by the Heart colleagues and the community. Sergeant Foundation in Darwin, tackles the very seri- Huitson had everything in life to live for, but ous level of heart disease in Australia’s he gave his life for the community of the indigenous community. The video with its Northern Territory doing his duty as a police simple messages and humour, using boxer officer. He was a brave man. In February of James Swan as a role model, was impressive, 7330 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 and I congratulate both the Heart Foundation es the risk of several serious health condi- and those who were involved in producing the tions, including heart disease. The real video on the results of their efforts. The aim message is getting people to stop as well as of the video is to promote the reduction of preventing young Australians from starting to lifestyle factors which increase the risk of smoke in the first place. This involves putting heart disease and to encourage people to give in place a range of programs which deter up smoking, to adopt healthy eating patterns young people from starting to smoke and and to get more exercise. The distribution of different strategies aimed at helping people to this video to Aboriginal communities will be quit the habit. a small but important step in the effort to Governments in all states have recognised reduce heart disease in our indigenous com- this by committing funds to smoking preven- munities. tion and cessation programs. Yet the Northern At its launch, the video was introduced by Territory government has shown less commit- the Director of the Northern Territory Heart ment to funding tobacco programs than any Foundation, Dr Chris Burns. Dr Burns told other state or territory government. Given the the assembled crowd that heart disease and high incidence of smoking-related illness in stroke had reached epidemic proportions in the Northern Territory, this is particularly Australia’s indigenous community. In this disturbing. It is astonishing that, while the context, he acknowledged that the video was Northern Territory government receives an a small but important contribution towards estimated $48 million in revenue from tobac- reducing heart disease amongst indigenous co, it spends only $500,000 of this on smok- people. He also talked about the higher ing prevention programs. What is worse is prevalence of juvenile smoking in the North- that it has shown little interest in policing the ern Territory and pointed to the alarming sale of tobacco to juveniles. It was recently differences between national and Territory revealed that, since legislation prohibiting the rates of heart disease. The rate of heart dis- sale of tobacco was introduced, there has been ease in the Northern Territory is 1½ times the only one such charge. The health minister’s national average. But the facts on indigenous reluctance to see there is a need for more heart disease rates are particularly frightening. resources to police the sale of tobacco to Indigenous Australians between the ages of 25 juveniles is particularly concerning, given and 64 have seven to nine times greater risk reports that smoking prevalence is growing of death from heart disease and stroke than amongst Territory schoolchildren. other Australians. Unfortunately, around 40 The Northern Territory government’s per cent of all heart attacks and strokes cannot shameful record on tobacco control reached be fully explained by the risk factors we its peak this year when it received the Aus- already know about, so some aspects of heart tralian Medical Association’s Dirty Ashtray disease are still puzzling medical scientists. Award. It managed to achieve this embarrass- However, the message that came through ing title by scoring zero for performance on from both Dr Burns and the video was loud a range of tobacco control measures. These and clear: when it comes to heart disease, included a zero for restrictions on smoking in prevention is better than cure. Some people outdoor public places, a zero for point of sale might see this as a tired old cliche, a fact that advertising restrictions, a zero for regulation is so blindingly obvious that it is barely worth of nicotine and a zero for industry accounta- wasting breath on. We believe that people bility. have long since got the message—but perhaps During National Heart Week, the Northern not. Dr Burns went on to share some more Territory Health Minister, Steve Dunham, was statistics about rates of heart disease in the asked on radio about the level of government Territory and in Australia’s indigenous com- spending on smoking prevention programs. munity which might seem even more shock- His response was stunningly evasive. He ing than the ones I have already mentioned. insisted that spending on smoking prevention Most people now know that smoking increas- was not limited to half a million dollars. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7331

Why? Because the Northern Territory govern- ment is serious about reducing the level of ment spends millions of dollars on hospital preventable chronic disease and death associ- treatment of people with smoking related ated with smoking, it should do the right illnesses. Even the interviewer seemed thing and commit the resources to smoking amazed that the health minister could attempt prevention and tobacco regulation. to dodge the real issue in such an obvious In closing, I would like to reiterate the way. The point of smoking prevention pro- words of my colleague from the Northern grams is to stop heart disease developing in Territory Senator Grant Tambling in relation the first place. The minister’s claim that to Sergeant Huitson’s death in the previous money spent on hospital treatment of smoking fortnight. The words that Senator Grant related illness could in any way be considered Tambling said are true: it has shocked the as money spent on smoking prevention is Territory community. Along with many ridiculous. others, I attended Sergeant Huitson’s funeral last Saturday. The police community is a big The Country-Liberal government have family. It is not only his immediate family talked a lot recently about the overburdened that were most upset by his death but every public hospital system and the cost of provid- member of the police force and most mem- ing health services in the Northern Territory. bers of the community in the Territory. I In fact, they were so concerned about the cost congratulate Grant for putting on record the of hospital care that they recently considered efforts that Glen Huitson made to the Terri- privatising the entire public hospital system. tory and I would also like to put on record But primary prevention could go a long way my sympathy for his family and my heartfelt to relieving the burden on the public hospital thanks for the contribution he made to the system. It would go a long way to preventing Territory during his short life. people from developing the diseases which put them in hospital in the first place. But Drugs: Schools when it comes to divvying up the govern- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.33 p.m.)— ment’s spoils from people’s unhealthy habits, I rise tonight to speak on the issue of drugs primary prevention barely gets a look in; the in schools. I have noticed with interest Sena- purse strings seem to be drawn very tightly. tor Tierney’s contribution to the drugs debate. Today he criticised the terminology of ‘soft’ It is a pity that the attention currently being drugs and ‘recreational’ drugs. While these given to illicit drugs seems to have diverted terms are flawed, I do not think the solution the attention of governments away from the is to portray all drugs as equally bad and issue of tobacco smoking and its health dangerous. Marijuana is not heroin, is not effects. We should not forget that tobacco is ecstasy, is not speed, is not LSD. Yes, mari- a dangerous and addictive drug, claiming juana can cause schizophrenia, it would seem, many more lives than either marijuana or but let us not exaggerate the risks. Hyping up heroin. In particular, heart disease is claiming the dangers is no match for the attraction that more lives in the Northern Territory than illicit drugs exert through popular culture. anywhere else in Australia and the association with smoking is clear. The Northern Territory Brian McConnell of Families and Friends health department’s own figures prove this. In for Drug Law Reform has warned that school- the Northern Territory, smoking has been children need the facts about drugs without shown to double the risk of heart disease. exaggeration, embellishment or hype. As we With 35 per cent of the population smoking, know, the Prime Minister advocates zero much higher than the national average of 25 tolerance of illicit drugs in schools. What will per cent, smoking cessation should be treated this mean in terms of the $18 million National as a serious public health issue and funded Drug Education Strategy? Can any school accordingly. It is high time the Country- based harm minimisation initiatives coexist Liberal government used more of the bounty with this aim? it reaps from tobacco to prevent this danger- Hardly any of the $18 million has been ous habit. If the Northern Territory govern- spent so far. A draft paper has been produced, 7332 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 but that is about it. The government has said it will eventually overtake heart disease as the fighting drugs in schools is a priority, yet it world’s biggest killer. has spent less than a seventh of the amount We need a debate on how we can help allocated for the strategy for 1998-99. In young people develop the resilience they need response to the strategy, Mr McConnell cited to negotiate an increasingly tough, complex the UK instance of a 10-year-old boy bringing world. A recent Queensland study of children marijuana to his school’s ‘show and tell’. in detention showed that most have a history Should this boy have been expelled from of hard drinking and illicit drug use by the school? Prime Minister Howard has urged age of 15 and inject amphetamines and heroin schools to expel any student using illegal at 40 times the rate of others their age. They drugs. Perhaps the marijuana came from the begin using tobacco at the age of 10, alcohol boy’s parents. This incident neatly illustrates and cannabis at 11, drank in excess of 10 the point that, rather than being readily standard drinks at a session and had a 50 per identifiable deviants, cannabis users often cent chance of having used sedatives or come from all walks of life. They are parents, amphetamines. Forty per cent of those sur- employees, executives, teachers, stockbrokers, veyed identified as Aboriginal and 90 per cent newsreaders, our favourite musicians and even were male. politicians. Widespread usage is exactly why we cannot get through to children on a ‘just A recent mental health week campaign say no’ message alone. featured a range of celebrities exercising their mental health by reading, fishing and playing We are far more comfortable with the idea sport. It was very well intended, but I doubt that alcoholics are often respected members that anyone seeing those billboards would of society holding down good jobs and have come away with a different perspective bringing up children. It does not mean we on their own mental health. In a society with condone the addiction. Alcohol is implicated widening gaps between the haves and the in family violence and, with tobacco, accounts have-nots, it seems strange to me that ordi- for far more deaths and disease than illicit nary people are expected to take a message drugs. Yet, legal drugs are not addressed in from comparing themselves with celebrities. the National Drug Education Strategy. We My office recently came in contact with a risk being thought of as hypocrites if we high school student who had some strong lecture children on the dangers of illegal ideas on drug education that I think are worth drugs but do not address legal drugs. Drug repeating here. She is not on a youth use is everywhere in popular culture. We roundtable or any other organisation that expect to whack emotional problems on the filters the opinions of young people to make head with a new pill, whether it is viagra or them fit for politicians’ consumption. She is a new range of drugs to treat social disorders. an ordinary student at a school that is well There is an expectation that we will find a pill regarded in the community, but there cannabis for every problem. is rife, with children as young as year 7 Recent findings by the Australian Bureau of desperate to start smoking. Joints are some- Statistics indicate that more than 40,000 times laced with heroin and speed, something children under 14 are on antidepressants. I doubt even school leavers five or 10 years Some of these are as young as four. I would ago had to contend with. Kids deal drugs at love to know what causes children this young this school. Drug education sessions, she said, to be depressed and what we might be able to were a joke because the students usually knew do about it. In no way do I want to criticise more than the teachers. medical solutions to child depression or Most students did not know there was the attention deficit disorder and so on, but we do school counsellor, but in any case counselling need to be vigilant in monitoring trends in was stigmatised. This young woman wished diagnosis and usage and to always look for students could visit a counsellor off the preventative measures. Depression is endemic, premises to ensure privacy. There were also with the World Health Organisation expecting concerns that anything said to a counsellor Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7333 would be passed on to teachers or parents. What do we do about those kids who instead Professor David Penington’s report argues of saying no just say yes? Risk taking is a against a mandatory reporting approach such part of adolescence. It is unfortunate that the as exists in New South Wales because such palette of substances available these days is a requirement undermines the work of school so much more varied. Inevitably, some chil- counsellors. Professor Penington was criti- dren will experiment with drugs. For some it cised by Senator Tierney today for being will just be a phase, and for others it will be permissive. This girl and her friends want to just the start of their problems. I think we know the real risks of schizophrenia from must also acknowledge that children growing marijuana use. And she talked of a crisis in up in abusive homes will often turn to drugs self-esteem among kids at the school. She to mask their suffering. Schools can be the wants to be taught skills to negotiate the lifeline for children in such circumstances. world instead of feeling like a passive con- We must not turn them into yet another agent sumer of education. There is a self-esteem of punishment. Professor Penington has movement of sorts in American schools, and warned that expulsion increases the risk of I have been approached by constituents who children moving to harder drugs and addic- argue that self-esteem education should be in tion. The overriding aim of any strategy, he schools. My only caution is that such educa- says, is to keep children at school. In April, tion cannot be expected to fill the vacuum the Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, told the created by rising youth unemployment, the National Press Club: cost of further education, the expectation that What sort of message do they get if you just say young people should be dependent on their throw them out so they’re denied education? If parents financially until the age of 25 and the you’re talking about users, I’d much rather know general narrowing of life opportunities. who they are and help them rather than piling further pressures on their shoulders and ridicule and just throwing them back to their parents who in This girl also wanted to know what to do in most cases won’t have known their child was a drug related crisis. She said, ‘We don’t want taking drugs or won’t be able to handle it because to be told it’s wrong; we want to know how they themselves don’t know enough about the issue. to deal with it.’ She described being in a We need to listen to young people’s stories group of friends, one of whom had an adverse about drugs and accept that even very young reaction to an illegal drug. As her lips turned people may have their own stories. Perhaps blue, the rest of the group kept a lid on their we need to defer judgment as we listen to panic, hoping she would come to. Luckily, those stories and perhaps we need to come up she did, but what would happen if things had with more questions than statements. turned out differently? Clearly, a just say no approach on its own is not up to these chal- Rural and Regional Australia: Living lenges. Obviously we need to reassess puni- Standards tive attitudes when they get in the way of Senator COONAN (New South Wales) young people seeking help. This is the princi- (7.43 p.m.)—A matter of significant concern ple that is emphasised by Professor to all of us who care deeply about the direc- Penington’s research. We can wring our hands tion in which Australia is heading is the all we like at the idea of 15-year-olds taking growing disparity in living conditions between drugs, but what are we going to do about it? those who live in rural and regional areas of The National Drug Education Strategy unfor- Australia and those who live in our cities. The tunately seems unrealistic with its aim of no Howard government has achieved much in its illicit drugs in schools. Mr McConnell from first and second terms to get the macro Family and Friends for Drug Law Reform settings right for all Australians irrespective notes: of where they live. I refer briefly to the reduction of the budget deficit, historically Our most secure institutions, gaols, do not stop inmates from obtaining or using drugs. It is there- low inflation and interest rates, employment fore unrealistic for less secure institutions such as coming down at least in the cities, industrial schools to be able to do it. relations reforms and restructuring and, as we 7334 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 are about to see, a new tax system that should What also struck me—and struck me be of great benefit to regional Australia. hard—is that successive governments at both a state and federal level have let regional These achievements are very important in Australia down by failing to develop a coher- making Australia economically viable both for ent strategy to identify the opportunities for job and wealth creation and for prosperity for regional growth. The need for such a strategy the people. However, it is apparent to me and is great. The social and economic indicators indeed many others that there are substantial of regional Australia are profoundly atypical differences in living standards in some parts from the national average. I mention higher of Australian society, that there are some than average levels of unemployment, lower Australians who have less opportunity to than average weekly income, higher than better themselves than others. Unfortunately, average rates of increasing drug abuse and over successive decades rural and regional higher than average rates of adult suicide, Australia has found itself increasingly disen- with youth suicide, perhaps the most tragic franchised from the overall prosperity of our statistic of all, up to 13 times the national nation. average. Indeed, the day I arrived in Eden some of the people I was meeting with were As someone born and bred in the country, forced to leave early to go to the funeral of a the concerns of regional Australia have young mother who had killed herself follow- always been a focus of my attention. During ing the loss of her job at the Eden tuna can- the last parliamentary recess, I conducted the nery. first of a number of regional visits in my home state of New South Wales. It was a Access to health, education and community fact-finding mission, if you like, designed to services is also far more limited in non- better understand the day-to-day difficulties metropolitan areas, with up to a two-month which people living outside the metropolitan waiting list for a consultation with a GP. Just areas face. Over a period of two weeks I met to give the Senate some idea of what this with local community groups in Cowra, really means, when I was in Armidale I was Young, Eden, Bega, Cooma, the Southern advised that the one doctor permitted to Highlands, Armidale, Tamworth, Maitland, prescribe methadone to patients participating Newcastle and on the Central Coast. In Eden in the methadone program was retiring in six and Cooma I was joined by my friend and weeks time—and that doctor was in Tam- colleague Senator Bill Heffernan. worth. No replacement has been found, which means that patients will be forced to go to I met with representatives from a number of Grafton for the nearest doctor able to pre- primary industries—poultry, pork, dairy and scribe their treatment. These are people lamb—as well as stone fruit and vegetable obviously in a very fragile state who are producers and croppers. I met with employers trying to stabilise a drug habit. Since each and employees in small and medium sized treatment lasts only eight weeks, patients will businesses, largely those involved in manufac- be required to make a seven- to eight-hour turing and food processing. I met with local round journey every two months just to councillors of all political persuasions, all of remain on the methadone program. Consider- them—like their city counterparts—struggling ing the rate of drug abuse is high in regional to provide the best possible service to their Australia and that drug related crime in constituents, but—unlike their city counter- regional Australia has reached unprecedented parts—struggling to overcome the relative levels, such poor access to health services will tyranny of distance when providing services only exacerbate the problem. for a dwindling and sparsely settled popula- tion. What struck me most of all was that I Finally, in political terms 33 of the 37 had been reintroduced to a breed of Australian poorest federal electorates in Australia are quite different from the city folk, a breed rural. However, despite the obvious social and made more resilient due to ongoing hardship. economic difficulties that the groups I met They were filled with self-determination. faced, not one of them would ever have Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7335 accepted a hand-out. That really was not what regional Australia has the capacity to regener- they wanted. What they did want, however, ate itself as long as the conditions are right. was a hand up. There have been innumerable Revitalising rural Australia requires at least studies carried out on the problems in region- five major coordinates. al Australia and many constructive proposals I have referred to the macro settings. I have have been made to address the problems. The referred to the need to return facilities to the problems are well known but comprehensive bush and I have also referred to the need to solutions are more elusive. Whilst the marvel- make sure that the benefits of competition are lous economic record of the Howard govern- distributed equitably. Far too often we have ment has benefits for all, the trickle down not taken account of the socioeconomic effect is slow to reach many rural areas. impact of competition in restructuring packag- The government has sought to address the es that make an industry much more efficient. loss of services in the bush with good pro- It also requires superior telecommunication grams, such as Networking the Nation, and facilities and a good skills base for our youth. also rural transaction centres and rural Then what is required, which is the really the traineeships for doctors. One of the com- most difficult part, is a coordinated regional plaints I encountered when meeting local development policy. The role of government communities was the perception that competi- is not to impose top-down solutions but to tion policy had unfairly impacted on small resource communities to find their own communities, causing the loss of jobs and solutions, to identify what the community is leaving small towns with a limited choice of good at and what resources it has to deploy essential services. In Cooma, Woolworths into growing viable businesses and to create bought out its only competitor, with price new jobs. rises and scaled down hours of operation the Obviously, government has a role to pro- unfortunate, if inevitable, result. Whilst it vide adequate transport, energy and access to must be said that just about every ill that water. All these things of course are vital to faces rural Australia is blamed unfairly and regional Australia. Clearly, one size does not selectively on competition policy, it is prob- fit all regions. Very different circumstances ably right that the benefits of competition do apply in different areas of New South Wales impact unevenly and that some rural commu- and throughout Australia. However, as a nities are thus adversely affected. senator for New South Wales, I am totally Restructuring the farm cannot be done committed to understanding the concerns of overnight. As was so succinctly pointed out my country constituents so that their needs to me in Cowra, a lingerie factory can change and concerns can be better reflected in the the colour of its dye in one run. To change a policy process. strain of crops and livestock takes at least one season and quite often several. Furthermore, Aborigines: Health and Welfare in Tamworth it was pointed out that changing Senator HUTCHINS (New South Wales) from cattle to sheep required changes to more (7.52 p.m.)—I would like to comment on a than just the type of livestock: in order to very disturbing report that was released maintain the new stock, differently configured yesterday by the Australian Bureau of Statist- yards have to be built, making initial start-up ics. That report was entitled Health and costs quite extensive. welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Often typified as whingeing cockies, the Strait Islander peoples. It was released by bush is worth saving. For anyone in doubt, an both the ABS and the Australian Institute of interesting fact to ponder is that only seven Health and Welfare. The contents of that per cent of Australians actually live and report have been labelled by a number of produce from the land and this mere seven Aboriginal leaders, health workers, welfare per cent in fact feeds the remaining 93 per workers and politicians as a national shame. cent of our population. What was so abun- I will briefly go through some of the statist- dantly clear from my visits is that rural and ics that this report highlighted which, as the 7336 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 nation’s leaders, we need to take into account different from what we know as non- in our policy deliberations. Aborigines repre- indigenous Australians, but these people are sent only 2.1 per cent of Australia’s popula- trying to overcome them. tion. Their median age is only 20 years, During my visit I found out that it is very whereas that of the rest of the population is difficult for indigenous people to uproot and 34 years. This difference between median to leave their communities and relocate to any ages is no doubt due to the fact that their life sort of learning institution. It is particularly expectancy is much less than that of the rest difficult for young adult male blacks to do of the Australian community. that. The University of Notre Dame is at- In terms of post-secondary education, the tempting to deal with the fact that these figures are 31 per cent of non-indigenous people have entrenched connections with their Australians and only 11 per cent of Aborigi- family, their land and their local community. nes. In terms of adult male unemployment, Those roots are so strong that, if they did nine per cent of adult male Australians are uproot themselves, it would lead to intolerable unemployed, yet 27 per cent of adult male social alienation. Aborigines are unemployed. In terms of home At Notre Dame I witnessed a flexible and ownership or purchasing a home, 71 per cent tailored education system that allowed the of non-indigenous Australians are in that local Aboriginal communities from the north- category, whereas only 31 per cent of Abo- west to participate in schemes that allowed rigines are. These problems have been high- them to upgrade themselves so that they could lighted by this report and, as I said, as the make sure that they were no longer dependent nation’s leaders, it is up to us to try to find on others, on us, and which gave them pride some solutions. in raising themselves—as, no doubt, time will During the winter break I accompanied the allow them to demonstrate. This will not be shadow minister for education, Michael Lee, done in the short term. Changing attitudes is to a meeting with the Board of Governors of not like changing shirts. It will take time, the University of Notre Dame in Broome in patience and tolerance from us to assist the Western Australia. We were exposed to a communities to lift themselves. I believe that different way of how we in the Labor Party— we can do that. I am sure this view is shared by the govern- Michael and I saw how these people were ment—could deal with this difficulty by prepared to get involved in the education starting at the beginning with that great system and how they had the courage to equaliser education. At the University of participate. If the majority of Australians Notre Dame we met committed people. They show compassion and goodwill to these had come from all over Australia and from people, I believe that, in one way or another, the United States to try to come to terms with the Aboriginal people will triumph over the these problems. Local communities, educators suffering that was demonstrated so clearly, so and concerned people from around the coun- intolerably and so tragically in the report that try had come together to try to offer solutions was released by the ABS yesterday. to alleviate this suffering and to try to assist Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m. people to triumph over it. We have all heard the phrase ‘to fix the DOCUMENTS problem not to blame’. I think a number of Tabling people in our country have tried to blame Aborigines for the state they are in. It is very The following government documents were comforting, particularly in adverse times, to tabled: find a scapegoat and to blame him or her for Treaties— our difficulties or problems. In Broome we Bilateral— have a good example in the local communi- National interest analysis—Agreement on ties of the cultural problems which are, as I Social Security between the Government of am sure a number of people know, very Australia and the Government of the United Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7337

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Ireland, done at London on 1 October 1990, Income, of 20 August 1980. as amended on 22 April 1992—Notice of Multilateral— Intention to Terminate. [The text of the Agreement was tabled on 6 November 1990 Text, together with national interest analyses— in the House of Representatives and on 7 Food Aid Convention, 1999, done at Lon- November 1990 in the Senate] don on 13 April 1999. Text, together with national interest analy- Fourth Amendment, done at Hong Kong on sis— 23 September 1997, of the Articles of Agreement between the Government of Agreement of the International Monetary Australia and the Government of the United Fund of 27 December 1945. States of America on Mutual Antitrust New [Second] Revised Text of the Interna- Enforcement Assistance, done at Washing- tional Plant Protection Convention of 6 ton on 27 April 1999. December 1951, done at Rome on 17 Agreement, done at Brussels on 8 July November 1997. 1999, amending the Agreement Relating to Text, together with national interest analysis Scientific and Technical Cooperation be- and regulation impact statement— tween Australia and the European Com- Agreement, done at Geneva on 20 March munity of 23 February 1994. 1958, concerning the Adoption of Uniform Text, together with national interest analysis Technical Prescriptions for Wheeled Vehi- and regulation impact statement— cles, Equipment and Parts which can be Agreement between the Government of Fitted and/or be Used on Wheeled Vehicles Australia and the Government of the Repub- and the Conditions for Reciprocal Recogni- lic of South Africa for the Avoidance of tion of Approvals Granted on the basis of Double Taxation and the Prevention of these Prescriptions, as amended with effect Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on from 10 November 1967 and 16 October Income and Protocol, done at Canberra on 1995. 1 July 1999. The following documents were tabled by Protocol, done at Sydney on 2 August 1999, the Clerk: to amend the Agreement between the Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- Government of Australia and the Govern- tions—Civil Aviation Orders—Exemption No. ment of Malaysia for the Avoidance of CASA 25/1999. Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Migration Act— Income, of 20 August 1980, and Exchange Declaration under section 33, dated 10 June of Letters constituting an Agreement to 1999. extend the Application of Certain Provisions of Article 23 of the Agreement between the Statement for period 1 January to 30 June Government of Australia and the Govern- 1999 under section 33. ment of Malaysia for the Avoidance of Public Service Act—Foreign Affairs and Trade Double Taxation and the Prevention of Determinations 1999/8 and 1999/10. 7338 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Aviation: Incident at Cairns Airport Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for (Question No. 685) Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- senator’s question: senting the Minister for Transport and Re- gional Services, upon notice, on 21 April (1) Yes. The Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) has advised that an Electronic Safety 1999: Incident Report (ESIR) was received on 27 March (1) Did a separation breakdown occur at Cairns 1999. On the basis of that ESIR, BASI commenced Airport on 24 March 1999 involving an an investigation of the incident and is currently Aerocommander aircraft and another aircraft on reviewing the appropriate radar and voice tapes. A final approach for runway 15. copy of the final report will be forwarded when (2) Did the supervisor on duty at Cairns Airport completed. at the time of this incident fail to report to the (2) Airservices has advised that the supervisor on Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (BASI) within duty was not in the aerodrome control position at 48 hours as is required by the Air Navigation Act the time and was therefore unable to determine if 1920. an incident had occurred. An ESIR was subsequent- (3) If the supervisor failed to report the incident, ly submitted by the Aerodrome Controller (see 6 what action was taken by Airservices Australia below), and BASI has advised the ESIR was (ASA) or BASI. received on Saturday, 27 March 1999. (3) BASI has advised that no action was required (4) Was Cairns air traffic control (ATC) manage- as an ESIR on the incident was received. ment advised of the incident on the day that it occurred. Airservices Australia has advised that: (5) Did ATC management advise the officer who (4) The circumstances surrounding a possible reported the incident that the matter should not be breakdown of separation was discussed at a team taken any further. meeting later on 24 March. It was not possible at that meeting to determine as to whether an incident (6) Did Cairns ATC management fail to take any had occurred. action following the incident until 3 days later when an air safety incident report was submitted by (5) No. The Aerodrome Controller was advised another party. to submit an ESIR if he considered a breakdown in separation had occurred. (7) Was any action taken against the ATC responsible for the separation breakdown; if so: (a) (6) No, as the responsible Aerodrome Controller what was the nature of the action; and (b) when did submitted an ESIR three days later and this was it occur. investigated by Airservices. (8) Did ASA undertake an inquiry into the (7) (a) Yes. The incident was discussed with the separation breakdown at Cairns Airport on 24 controller by the Team Leader. The investigation March 1999. of the incident showed that the controller acted properly in accordance with established procedures (9) (a) Who undertook the investigation; and (b) when he observed separation decreasing between what qualifications and experience did the investi- the two aircraft. gator bring to the investigation into the separation breakdown. (b) Beginning of April 1999. (10) Was the investigator from another ATC unit (8) Yes. to ensure there was no potential for local bias in (9) (a) The most experienced Cairns Area the investigation; if not, why not. Terminal Team Leader. (11) (a) What was the outcome of this investiga- (b) The Team Leader has over thirty years air tion, and (b) can a copy be provided of the findings traffic control experience in all facets of Check and recommendations that resulted from the invest- Control and Standardisation. Also, he had partici- igation. pated in previous investigations. Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7339

(10) No. the nature of the incident was such that (b) Transmission planning engineers of the NTA an investigator from another unit was not warrant- determined potential locations for the Lilydale ed. translator using topographical maps, and identified (11)(a) The outcome of the investigation was that Browns Hill as the only site that could adequately a brief breakdown of separation had occurred. serve Lilydale, Lilydale North, and Underwood. NTA officers then conducted a field survey of the (b) Yes. The investigator’s report and recommen- Browns Hill site to ensure adequate signal could be dations were inserted into the ESIR report which received for retransmission, and to determine the is circulated within Airservices, BASI and the Civil optimal location on the hill for the propagation of Aviation Safety Authority. A paper on the findings the transmitted services. and recommendations has also been provided to the (3) (a) The site, and the access route to the site, Table Office. were surveyed for leasing and construction pur- National Transmission Agency: Lilydale poses in December 1994. Archaeological and flora surveys were conducted at the site and along the Transmission Tower proposed access route, in accordance with a request (Question No. 1010) from the Launceston City Council dated 26 Februa- ry 1996. Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for The Australian Property Group (Department of Communications, Information Technology and Administrative Services) advised the NTA on 7 the Arts, upon notice, on 25 May 1999: May 1997 that Launceston City Council had given (1) When was the decision taken to investigate approval for the development and that no develop- possible sites for the construction of a transmission ment application was required. tower near Lilydale in northern Tasmania. (b) The NTA did not engage a contractor to (2) (a) When was the decision taken to construct construct a road to the proposed site. the tower on Browns Mountain; and (b) what (4)(a,b&c)TheNTAdidnotconstruct a road processes were followed in determining the best to the proposed site. possible site. (5) By 30 April 1999, when the National Trans- (3) When did the National Transmission Agency mission Network was sold, the Commonwealth had (NTA): (a) apply for permits from the Launceston obtained the approval of Launceston City Council Council for the construction of the road to the for the project, and had begun negotiations with the proposed site; and (b) engage a contractor to registered owner of the land for a lease. construct a road to the proposed site. However, the land on which the proposed (4) (a) When was construction of the road Browns Hill translator is to be located has been commenced; (b) when was the work completed; subject to legal disputation over its ownership. This and (c) what was the cost of the work. prevented the Commonwealth from finalising a lease over the proposed site and the access route. (5) At what stage were the formal processes and Pending the resolution of ownership issue, the NTA actual construction of the Browns Mountain suspended its planning activities and did not begin transmission tower site, when the NTA was priva- any construction of the facilities. tised. (6) With the sale of the National Transmission (6) What provisions has the Government made Network on 30 April 1999, the national broadcast- to ensure the Browns Mountain transmission tower ers have, for the first time, become responsible for is completed by a private operator. their own transmission arrangements, and are being Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- funded accordingly. It is now the responsibility of able senator’s question is as follows: the ABC and the SBS to complete the negotiations for access to the site and arrange for the installation (1) The Lilydale area was identified as likely to of the television services at Lilydale. The Govern- require translator facilities during planning for Band ment will provide funding to the ABC and the SBS II Clearance in 1991. The National Transmission for the Lilydale services. Agency (NTA) began actively considering potential Officers from the Department of Communica- sites for the establishment of the translator in late tions, Information Technology and the Arts met 1993/early 1994, concurrent with the commence- with the ABC and the SBS on 7 July 1999 to ment of ABC TV simulcast UHF transmissions discuss the steps now to be taken. The national from Mt Barrow, Launceston. broadcasters are treating the provision of these (2) (a) The decision to start the process of site services as a high priority, and will obtain the acquisition to construct translator facilities at necessary technical and costing information to Browns Hill, as it is known, was taken in March enable the planning and implementation to com- 1995. mence. 7340 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

Former Minister for Transport and Former Parliamentary Secretary to the Regional Development: Office Minister for Transport and Regional Operational Costs Development: Office Operational Budget (Question No. 1096) (Question No. 1097) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- senting the Minister for Transport and Re- senting the Minister for Transport and Re- gional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999: gional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999: With reference to the answer (reference (1) Did the office of the former Parliamentary EXEC08(S)) to a question taken on notice during Secretary for the Minister for Transport and additional estimates supplementary hearings on 4 Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) have a May and 6 May 1999, in which the Minister specific budget; if so, how long had this arrange- advised that there were no budgets at all for the ment been in place; if not, why not. office of the former Minister for Transport and (2) If there were no budgets in place for the Regional Development (Mr Sharp) in the 1996-97 former Parliamentary Secretary’s office, was and 1997-98 financial years and that all expenditure funding drawn from running costs from the Finance for the former Minister’s office came out of and Services Branch of the department. running costs from the Finance and Services Branch of the department: (3) What was the cost of operating the former Parliamentary Secretary’s office in the 1996-97 and (1) What was the cost of operating the former 1997-98 financial years. Minister’s office in the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years. (4) What controls were there over expenditure by the former Parliamentary Secretary’s office during (2) What controls were there over expenditure by those two financial years. the former Minister’s office during those two financial years. (5) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent to the former Parliamentary Secretary’s office for (3) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent verification ; if so, who was the officer in the to the former Minister’s office for verification; if former Parliamentary Secretary’s office responsible so, who was the officer in the former Minister’s for this task. office responsible for that task. (6) Did the department acquit all expenditure by (4) Did the department acquit all expenditure by the former Parliamentary Secretary and his office; the former Minister and his office; if so, are all if so, are all those records still held by the depart- those records still held by the department. ment. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the senator’s ques- the following answer to the senator’s ques- tion: tion: (1) For 1996-97, the cost to the then Department (1) No. There was no need to introduce one. of Transport and Regional Development of operat- (2) Yes. ing former Minister Sharp’s office was $178,039. (3) For 1996-97, the cost to the then Department For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department of of Transport and Regional Development of operat- Transport and Regional Development of operating ing the office of the former Parliamentary Secretary former Minister Sharp’s office was $71,764. for Transport and Regional Development (Mr (2) During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial Ronaldson) was $42,855. years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department of Minister Sharp were processed by the Department Transport and Regional Development of operating if marked by the Minister or one of his staff as the office of the former Parliamentary Secretary for being ‘OK to pay’ or ‘Goods/Services Received’. Transport and Regional Development (Mr The decision to spend appropriated funds on Ronaldson) was $51,225. ministerial office operations is at the discretion of the Minister. Invoices relating to payments by the (4) During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial then Department of Administrative Services were years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former redirected, as appropriate. Parliamentary Secretary Ronaldson were processed by the Department if marked by him or one of his (3) No. staff as being ‘OK to pay’ or ‘Goods/Services (4) The department acquitted all expenditure that Received’. The decision to spend appropriated came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes. funds on his office’s operations was at the discre- Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7341 tion of the Parliamentary Secretary, within the (3) For 1997-98, the cost to the then Department framework of the authority given by the Minister. of Transport and Regional Development of operat- Invoices relating to payments by the then Depart- ing the office of the former Minister for Transport ment of Administrative Services were redirected, and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, was as appropriate. $149,904. (5) No. For 1998-99, the cost to the then Department of (6) The department acquitted all expenditure that Transport and Regional Development of operating came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes. the office of the former Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, was $70,924. Former Minister for Transport and (4) During the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial Regional Development: Office years, invoices for expenditure incurred by former Operational Budget Minister Vaile were processed by the Department if marked by the Minister or one of his staff as (Question No. 1098) being ‘OK to pay’ or ‘Goods/Services Received’. Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- The decision to spend appropriated funds on ministerial office operations is at the discretion of senting the Minister for Transport and Re- the Minister. Invoices relating to payments by the gional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999: then Department of Administrative Services were (1) Did the office of the former Minister for redirected, as appropriate. Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) (5) Yes; the statements were addressed to the have a specific budget; if so, how long was this then Minister’s Chief of Staff, Mr Chris Falvey. arrangement in place; if not, why not. (6) The department acquitted all expenditure that (2) If there were no budgets in place for the came within the responsibility of the portfolio; yes. former Minister’s office was funding drawn from running costs from the Finance and Services Department of Transport and Regional Branch of the department. Services: Grants to the Electorate of Bass (3) What was the cost of operating the former (Question No. 1102) Minister’s office in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years. Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- senting the Minister for Transport and Re- (4) What controls were there over expenditure by gional Services, upon notice, on 9 June 1999: the former Minister’s office during those two financial years. (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the Minister’s department provide assistance to (5) Were monthly statements of expenditure sent people living in the federal electorate of Bass. to the former Minister’s office for verification; if so, who was the officer in the former Minister’s (2) What was the level of funding provided office responsible for this task. through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years. (6) Did the department acquit all expenditure by the former Minister and his office; if so, are all (3) What level of funding provided through these those records still held by the department. programs and grants has been appropriated for the 1999-2000 financial year. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the senator’s ques- the following answer to the honourable tion: senator’s question: (1) No. There was no need to introduce one. The attached table provides the answers to (2) Yes. questions (1), (2) and (3). 7342 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

(1) (2) (2) continued (3) Name of Program/ Grant Ad- Funding for 1998-99 ministered by the Department of Funding for 1997- (estimates unless other- Transport and Regional Services 98 (actual amounts) wise indicated) Appropriation for1999-2000 Financial Assistance Grants (in- $9,637,521 $10,031,621 Allocations have not yet been cluding identified local road determined, but would be of the grants) same magnitude as for 1998-99 Tamar River Environs Project $500,000 Local Government Development $90,000 $94,000 Program(LGDP) * Inveresk Railyards Redevelopment $3,435,793 $1,659,213(actual) Project Rural Communities Program $85,393 $140,940(actual) $144,840 LGDP—Statewide projects * $340,000 $176,000 Rail Reform Transition Program * $330,000 Tasmanian Freight Equalisation $41.4m $41.8m $56.4m Scheme * Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle $12.94m $14.8m $11.2m Equalisation Scheme * Export Gateways Initiative: Tas- Nil $120,000 Allocation has not yet been deter- manian Export Council * mined. * The program/grant is likely to provide assistance to people living in Bass but the exact level of assistance is unable to be disaggregated from the program budget. (ie the program/grant assists the greater Tasmanian community, not just the electorate of Bass).

Department of Communications, Networking the Nation, the regional telecom- Information Technology and the Arts: munications infrastructure fund, has provided Grants to the Electorate of Bass assistance to benefit people living in the electorate. National Council for the Centenary of Federation (Question No. 1104) administers a History and Education Program. The Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Program supports activities which encourage Australians to gain a better understanding of the Communications, Information Technology and processes that led to Australia’s Federation, to the Arts, upon notice, on 9 June 1999: reflect on the changes that have taken place in (1) What programs and/or grants administered by Australia over the past 100 years, and to look the Minister’s department provide assistance to ahead to Australia’s future as a nation. The Pro- people living in the federal electorate of Bass. gram is open to people and organisations through- out Australia and has provided assistance to benefit (2) What was the level of funding provided people living in the electorate. through these programs and grants for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years. The Department is administering Commonwealth Government funding assistance to the redevelop- (3) What level of funding provided through these ment of the historic Launceston railway workshops. programs and grants has been appropriated for the Funds are being provided to develop visitor orienta- 1999-2000 financial year. tion and services facilities as part of the redevelop- Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- ment program, with further funding being provided under the Federation Cultural and Heritage Projects able senator’s question is as follows: (FCHP) program to fund the development of an (1) The Department of Communications, Infor- interpretive gallery and heritage trail. The FCHP is mation Technology and the Arts administers a part of the larger $1 billion Federation Fund. It is number of programs and/or grants which can (or a $70m program. Applications were sought once have) assist(ed) people living in the federal elector- and closed on 30 June 1998. 60 projects were ate of Bass, including: chosen and no additional funding is available. The Government makes an annual grant to the Festival organisers from the Bass electorate are Community Broadcasting Foundation Ltd (CBF). eligible to apply to the Commonwealth The CBF is an independent company established by Government’s funding program for regional and the community broadcasting sector to allocate the community festivals, Festivals Australia, for annual grant to community broadcasters. Communi- assistance. Performing arts organisations and ty radio stations in the Bass electorate would be eligible not-for-profit organisations may apply to eligible to apply to the CBF for funding. the Commonwealth Government’s National Per- Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7343 forming Arts Touring Program, Playing Australia, CBF: In 1997-98 the CBF made grants valued at for assistance. Similarly, eligible non profit organi- $11,099 to community radio stations 7LTN and sations may apply to Visions of Australia, the 7WAY located in the electorate of Bass. Commonwealth Government’s national touring exhibitions program. In 1998-99 the CBF made grants totalling The National Office for the Information Econ- $16,172 to 7LTN and 7WAY, this included satellite omy administer the Information Technology Online equipment nominally valued at $934. Program and have two projects being managed by the Tasmanian Electronic Commerce Centre, who Networking the Nation: Grants totalling are based in Launceston. ITOL is designed to $4,731,190 have been provided and an estimated accelerate the national adoption of electronic $7,925,568 is being provided which will benefit commerce business solutions, especially by commu- people living in the electorate. Of these figures, nities of small and medium enterprises. grants totalling $1,520,000 and an estimated Every electorate in the country has been allocat- $1,700,000 relate to grantees within the electorate. ed $200,000 for the Federation Community Projects program. Successful application for funding will be National Council for the Centenary of Federation: announced in early July 1999. 1997-98—Nil (2) In relation to the electorate of Bass, funding for the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial years is as 1998-99—Grant of $80,000 approved for Queen follows: Victoria Museum and Gallery, Launceston.

Launceston Railway Redevelopment:

Govt Grant FCHP Program 1997/98 Nil Nil 1998/99 Nil $100,000

Touring Arts Programs: Festivals Australia Theatre Company to Hobart and Launceston in funded two cultural projects at festivals in the Bass September 1997. electorate in the 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial Visions of Australia—Nil to electorate of Bass years: The George Town Folk Club Inc was funded Information Technology Online Program: $3,500 for Bluegrass Experience at the Tamar The Multi-Industry Procurement Project is based Valley Folk Festival in Georgetown. Bluegrass in the Burnie area and includes the Burnie City bands Colcannon and Country Express performed Council as one of its members. The project also has at concerts throughout the January 1999 festival. participation from a number of mines (Pasminco, The artists also conducted a series of guitar, Aberfoyle, Renison, Beaconsfield, David Mitchell) harmony and instrumental arrangement workshops and assorted suppliers identified by the council and for the Tamar Valley community. the mines. The ITOL grant payments for this Top of the Tamar Regatta was funded $1,650 for project is $8,000 in 98-99. Seaweed & Song at the Top of the Tamar Regatta The Food and Beverage Procurement Project is in Georgetown. An arts program, including artists’ based in the Hobart area and includes Wrest Point workshops, theatre and music performances and Casino, Calvary Hospital, Chung Sing Provedores visual arts displays were introduced to the February and the Australian Antarctic Division as project 1998 Festival. members. The ITOL grant payments for this project Playing Australia funded two Launceston-based is $19,200 in 98-99 companies to tour their work in the 1997-98 From the information at hand it is not possible financial year: to determine the amount of the grant money that Stompin Youth Dance Company was funded will be received by people living in the federal $44,122 for a tour of Grind to the first Australian electorate of Bass. Youth Dance Festival in Darwin in October 1997. Federation Community Projects: None Theatre North was funded $9,940, with an additional guarantee against loss of $18,811, for a (3) In relation to the electorate of Bass, funding tour of Private Lives by Melbourne Theatre Com- for the 1999-2000 financial year is as follows: pany to Hobart, Burnie and Launceston in March CBF: The 1999-2000 grant to the CBF is 1997; and a tour of Vita and Virginia by Sydney $4.871m. The community broadcasting stations in 7344 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999 the Bass electorate will be eligible to apply for Other funding through the History and Education funds during the year. Program will be dependent on successful applica- Networking the Nation: Tasmania was allocated tions in the current Round 2 and future rounds of $58 million of $250 million Networking the Nation the Program. program. Each year, $50m is being appropriated for the NTN trust account. Launceston Railway Redevelopment: National Council for the Centenary of Federation: Grant payment to Queen Victoria Museum and Funding projections for the project for 1999/00 are Gallery of $20,000 due this financial year. Balance as follows. As the project is scheduled to continue of grant funds is due to be paid in financial year into 2000/01, estimates for this year have also been 2000-2001. included.

Govt Grant FCHP Program 1999/00 $1.5m $600,000 2000/01 Nil $300,000

The redevelopment project is estimated to cost Department of Family and Community a total of $9.5m. Services: Complaints Touring Arts Programs: No announcements have been made to date. (Question No. 1139) Information Technology Online Program: Multi- Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for Industry Procurement Project—the ITOL grant Family and Community Services, upon notice, payments for this project is $12,000 in 99-2000. on 23 June 1999: Food and Beverage Procurement Project—the ITOL grant payment for this project is $28,800 in 99- (1) How many complaints were received by the 2000. department, and its predecessor, and agencies attached to the department via the office of the Federation Community Projects: program grant Commonwealth Ombudsman in: (a) the 1997-98 funds will be expended between the 1999-2000 and financial year; and (b) the 1998-99 financial year 2001-2002 financial years. The timing of payments to date. is subject to the availability of funds and negotia- tion with individual grant recipients. (2) How many of these complaints have been resolved. Minister for Family and Community (3) How many were resolved in favour of the Services: Tasmanian Office Postage Costs complainant. (Question No. 1131) (4) In how many instances did the Ombudsman Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for make an adverse finding in relation to the depart- Family and Community Services, upon notice, ment. on 23 June 1999: Senator Newman—The answer to the (1) What was the total cost of postage provided honourable senator’s question is as follows: by the Department to the Minister’s Tasmanian In answering the honourable Senator’s question, office for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 the department has sourced information from the financial years. Ombudsman’s Office to ensure the consistency of (2) Can a breakdown be provided of the cost by data. It should be noted that the Ombudsman’s data the form of postage used, that is, franking credits, reflects the number of complaints about specific postage stamps or any other Australia Post product. issues, not the number of complainants. The number of complainants would be less than the Senator Newman—The answer to the number of issues about which complaints have been honourable senator’s question is as follows: received. (1) The Department of Family and Community The details of complaints in respect of each of Services did not pay any postage costs of the the financial years 1997-98 and 1998-99 include Minister’s Tasmanian office for any of the financial data in respect of all functional areas of the current years in question. department. The figures reflect, therefore, the (2) Not applicable. number of complaints across the same span of Wednesday, 11 August 1999 SENATE 7345 departmental activities for the two financial years Minister for Family and Community in question, although those functions and activities Services: Media Officer were not amalgamated into the current department until October 1998. (Question No. 1141) (1) The total number of complaints received by Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for the department, and its predecessor, and agencies Family and Community Services, upon notice, attached to the department via the office of the on 23 June 1999: Commonwealth Ombudsman in the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 4,419 and (b) the 1998-99 (1) (a) Who currently holds the position of the financial year was 2,951. second media officer in the Minister’s office; and (b) what duties does that person perform. (2) The number of complaints resolved for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 4,410; (b) and the (2) Does that person perform any media monitor- 1998-99 financial year was 2,686. ing functions. (3) The number of complaints resolved substan- (3) What is that person’s current home base. tially in favour of the complainant for the: (a) (4) (a) Who currently holds the position of the 1997-98 financial year was 2,193; and (b) the 1998- personal 99 financial year was 993. The number of com- assistant attached to the additional media officer; plaints resolved partially in favour of the complain- (b) what duties does that person perform; and (c) ant for the: (a) 1997-98 financial year was 2,030; what is this staff member’s current home base. and (b) the 1998-99 financial year was 1,047. (5) What resources are provided by the Depart- (4) During the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June ment to these two staff members. 1999 the Ombudsman made one adverse finding in relation to the Child Support Agency. Senator Newman—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: Minister for Family and Community Services: Departmental Liaison Officers (1) (a) Simon Bush; (b) Advises media adviser in handling media inquiries on behalf of the (Question No. 1140) Minister for Family and Community Services and Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women and assists in the dissemination Family and Community Services, upon notice, of government information to the media, the public, on 23 June 1999: members and senators. (1) How many departmental liaison officers (2) No. (DLOs) are employed in, or seconded to, the office of the Minister as at 22 June 1999. (3) Canberra. (2) (a) What are the names of the DLOs; (b) (4) (a)(b) and (c) There is no such position. what are their employment classifications; and (c) (5) The Department provides Mr Bush with a what duties are they assigned, that is, to which mobile telephone and the use of equipment in the policy areas or agencies are they allocated responsi- office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier bility. and facsimile machine). (3) What was the total cost to the Department of Department of Family and Community these officers. Services: Act of Grace Payments Senator Newman—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (Question No. 1146) (1) Three. Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, (2) (a) Kylee Bates, Sue Costello and Ian Sharples; (b) FaCS 2; and (c) all DLOs deal with on 23 June 1999: matters relating to all policy areas and agencies (1) How many applications were received for Act within the Family and Community Services port- of Grace payments: (a) in the 1997-98 financial folio. year; and (b) in the 1998-99 financial year to date. (3) FaCS 2 officers receive an annual salary in (2) How many of these applications have been the range of $52,421—$60,265 plus an allowance granted. in lieu of overtime of $11,424. In addition, the (3) What has been the cost to the Department of Department provides each of these officers with a the granting of these applications. mobile telephone and the use of equipment in the office (eg. personal computer, printer, photocopier Senator Newman—The answer to the and facsimile machine). honourable senator’s question is as follows: 7346 SENATE Wednesday, 11 August 1999

(1) (a) One; and (b) one by the Australian Customs Service under section 58 (2) One. of the Customs Act 1901; (3) $227.40 per fortnight from 12 January 1999 (b) will depart Australia to a place outside onwards. Australia during the course of the voyage. Under regulation 2.40 (7), crew members signing Seafarers: Immigration Requirements off for repatriation from Australia can be permitted (Question No. 1177) to stay up to 30 days with SPVs (in practice, they are given 5 working days to leave) on the basis that Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- the master, owner, agent or charterer of the vessel senting the Minister for Immigration and provides a letter of guarantee that the person will Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 5 July leave Australia within that period. 1999: Crew members who sign off with the intention (1) What immigration and customs arrangements of remaining in Australia (eg for holiday or other apply to seafarers on foreign vessels visiting purposes) must hold an appropriate visa before Australian ports. travelling to Australia as crew, or must apply at a DIMA office in Australia, after signing off, for an (2) How long can these seafarers remain in appropriate visa. Australia. (2) A seafarer can remain in Australia as long as (3) How are the controls that limit the time he/she remains a member of the crew of a non- foreign seafarers can remain in Australia policed. military vessel (under regulation 2.40(6)) during the (4) What level of resources was applied to this course of the vessel’s voyage. task in the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 financial (3) Crew of foreign vessels must comply with the years. conditions of their SPV and leave Australia, as (5) Since March 1996, how many seafarers from provided in regulation 2.40(6). Masters of foreign foreign vessels have attempted to remain in Aus- vessels are required to report any crew desertion as tralia. soon as possible before their vessels leave Austral- ia. Foreign crew who desert their vessels will (6) In each case: (a) what was the nationality of automatically become unlawful non-citizen and will each seafarer; and (b) what was the flag of the be subject to detention and removal. foreign vessel on which they entered Australia; (c) what was the basis for their application to remain (4) Not available. There is no specific resource in Australia; and (d) how many applications were allocation for compliance activities in respect of successful. foreign seafarers. (5) My department does not collect statistics on Senator Vanstone—The Minister for seafarers who apply to remain in Australia. Statist- Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has ics are collected on seafarers who desert their provided the following answer to the honour- vessels in Australia and become unlawful non- able senator’s question: citizens. Between March 1996 and 30 April 1999, (1) Under Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Migration 263 ship deserters were reported by the Australian Regulations, crew of non-military vessels must hold Customs Service. Of the 148 who were located, 53 applied to remain in Australia. an identity document or passport for entry into Australia. They have a prescribed status under (6) (a) The 53 applicants were from the follow- regulation 2.40 and are taken to hold Special ing nationalities: Purpose Visas (SPVs) under section 33 of the 3 PRCH (China), 1 Hong Kong, 1 Portugal, 11 Migration Act 1958. Turkey, 2 Fiji, 2 Bangladesh, 2 Egypt, 7 Iran, 1 Algeria, 2 former USSR, 1 Romania, 1 Yugoslavia, Under regulation 2.40 (6), a non-citizen is taken 1 UK and 18 stateless; to be member of crew of a non-military vessel and hold a special purpose visa if the vessel on which (b) they are recorded on the basis of their he/she travel as crew: nationalities only; (a) enters Australia at: (c) 5 applied under parent and spouse provisions; 8 under general residence, prospective marriage, (i) a proclaimed port; or change in circumstance and family residence (ii) a port other than a proclaimed port, if per- provisions, and 40 applied for refugee status. mission for it to do so has been given in advance (d) 17 were approved.