COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard No. 2, 2003 WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH 2003

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—FOURTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE

INTERNET The Journals for the Senate are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/work/journals/index.htm Proof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives, the Senate and committee hearings are available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

SITTING DAYS—2003 Month Date February 4, 5, 6 March 3, 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27 May 13, 14, 15 June 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26 August 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 September 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 18 October 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28, 29, 30 November 3, 4, 24, 25, 26, 27 December 1, 2, 3, 4

RADIO BROADCASTS Broadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified.

CANBERRA 1440 AM SYDNEY 630 AM NEWCASTLE 1458 AM BRISBANE 936 AM MELBOURNE 1026 AM ADELAIDE 972 AM PERTH 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM

SENATE CONTENTS

WEDNESDAY, 5 MARCH Business— Rearrangement...... 9199 Migration Legislation Amendment (Contributory Parents Migration Scheme) Bill 2002 and Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2002— Second Reading...... 9199 In Committee...... 9216 Third Reading...... 9221 Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, Australian Heritage Council Bill 2002 and Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2002— Second Reading...... 9222 Matters of Public Interest— Queensland Government ...... 9236 Centre for Independent Studies ...... 9239 Communications: Media Ownership...... 9241 New South Wales: Hunter Region...... 9244 Hawke Labor Government: 20th Anniversary...... 9246 Questions Without Notice— Goods and Services Tax: Subcontractors ...... 9249 Economy: Performance ...... 9250 Medicare: Bulk-Billing...... 9251 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: Report on Australia’s Economic Performance ...... 9252 Superannuation: Children’s Accounts ...... 9253 Iraq ...... 9255 Banking: Credit Card Schemes ...... 9256 Iraq ...... 9257 Defence: Anthrax Vaccination...... 9258 Agriculture: Economic Outlook ...... 9259 Centrelink: Family Payments ...... 9259 Medicare: Bulk-Billing...... 9260 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Iraq ...... 9261 Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers— Superannuation: Children’s Accounts ...... 9262 Iraq ...... 9266 Committees— Selection of Bills Committee—Report...... 9267 Petitions— Iraq ...... 9270 Notices— Presentation ...... 9270 Postponement ...... 9274 Withdrawal ...... 9274 Postponement ...... 9274 Hawke Labor Government: 20th Anniversary...... 9275 Committees— Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Meeting...... 9275

SENATE CONTENTS—continued

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Meeting...... 9275 Senate: Question Time...... 9275 New South Wales: Regional Forest Agreement ...... 9276 Brown, Eileen Kampakuta...... 9277 Environment: Whales ...... 9277 South Australia: National Radioactive Waste Repository...... 9277 Australian Defence Force: Allowances...... 9277 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Protecting the Great Barrier Reef from Oil Drilling and Exploration) Amendment Bill 2003— First Reading ...... 9278 Second Reading...... 9278 Environment: World Heritage Convention ...... 9280 Foreign Affairs: West Papua ...... 9281 Foreign Affairs: West Papua Conference...... 9281 Matters of Public Importance— Education: Higher Education ...... 9281 Committees— Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee— Corrigendum...... 9293 Scrutiny of Bills Committee—Report ...... 9293 Public Accounts and Audit Committee—Report...... 9295 Documents— Auditor-General’s Reports—Reports Nos 31 and 32 of 2002-03...... 9301 Responses to Senate Resolutions...... 9302 Iraq ...... 9303 Workplace Relations Amendment (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Bill 2002 [No. 2]— First Reading ...... 9306 Second Reading...... 9306 Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 [No. 2]— Consideration of House of Representatives Message...... 9307 Documents— National Health and Medical Research Council...... 9314 National Biotechnology Centre of Excellence ...... 9315 Adjournment— Political Debate ...... 9316 Iraq ...... 9316 Australian Defence Force: Townsville ...... 9318 Foreign Affairs: West Papua...... 9320 Centrelink: Service Delivery ...... 9322 Documents— Tabling...... 9324 Tabling...... 9325 Indexed Lists of Files ...... 9325 Questions on Notice— Aviation: Air Traffic Controllers—(Question No. 1025)...... 9326 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit—(Question No. 1044)...... 9326 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit—(Question No. 1045)...... 9327

SENATE CONTENTS—continued

Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit—(Question No. 1047)...... 9327 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit—(Question No. 1048)...... 9328 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit—(Question No. 1049)...... 9328 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Chief Pilot—(Question No. 1050)...... 9329 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr John Brown—(Question No. 1051)..... 9329 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr John Brown—(Question No. 1052)..... 9330 Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Pilot Qualification—(Question No. 1053). 9330 Environment: Greenhouse Gas Emissions—(Question No. 1063)...... 9331 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1091)...... 9332 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1094)...... 9334 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1109) ...... 9335 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1110) ...... 9335 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1111) ...... 9336 Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants—(Question No. 1113) ...... 9338 Health: Self-Extinguishing Cigarettes—(Question No. 1149) ...... 9346

Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9199

Wednesday, 5 March 2003 Indigenous Australians—either migrants or ————— descendants of them. The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. The purpose of the Migration Legislation Paul Calvert) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., Amendment (Contributory Parents Migration and read prayers. Scheme) Bill 2002 is to amend the Migration Act 1958 to accommodate the new contribu- BUSINESS tory parent visa under the visa application Rearrangement charge in the Migration (Visa Application) Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Charge Amendment Bill 2002 and, in so do- Australia—Manager of Government Busi- ing, to amend the Migration Regulations ness in the Senate) (9.31 a.m.)—I move: 1994 to create new classes of contributory That consideration of the business before the parent visas, permanent and temporary, with Senate on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 be interrupted increased financial obligations in relation to at approximately 5 p.m., but not so as to interrupt health charges and social security payments. a senator speaking, to enable Senator Humphries That this is the third attempt by the Howard to make his first speech without any question government to introduce a new class of user- before the chair. pays visa for parent migration to Australia Question agreed to. speaks volumes for the paucity of policy tal- MIGRATION LEGISLATION ent on the other side of the chamber. It is AMENDMENT (CONTRIBUTORY good that parents who wish to join their chil- PARENTS MIGRATION SCHEME) dren here in our country should be able to do BILL 2002 so. But I believe the Australian community would rightly insist that such arrivals, at later MIGRATION (VISA APPLICATION) ages and with a higher degree of likelihood CHARGE AMENDMENT BILL 2002 of requiring expensive medical treatment that Second Reading comes with age, should be at least basically Debate resumed from 4 March, on motion able to guarantee that they can support them- by Senator Ian Campbell: selves without a call on the public purse. That these bills be now read a second time. While discussing the historic policy fail- Senator SANTORO (Queensland) (9.31 ure that we see across the chamber and in a.m.)—I want to make a contribution to this parts of the cross-bench, I would like to re- debate on the Migration Legislation cord the fact that, in January, the Labor Party Amendment (Contributory Parents Migration finally discovered the importance of citizen- Scheme) Bill 2002 and the Migration (Visa ship, multiculturalism and settlement to our Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2002, nation. The Minister for Citizenship and which add significantly to the body of sensi- Multicultural Affairs said of this Australia ble law as it relates to migration. It is a mat- Day conversion of the Labor Party—perhaps ter of regret that measures to place parent it was not on the road to Damascus and visas on a sounder basis and to expand their maybe it did not involve a blinding flash of availability to people who wish to reunite light, but it was nevertheless significant— families have been the victim of political that the Labor Party shadow minister had rebuff in this place. I offer some sound ad- done an excellent job of summarising the vice to the opponents of the previous bill, directions and changes in citizenship policy which attempted to both liberalise parent since the 1948 act. He went on to say: reunion arrangements and defray potential future costs on the Australian community: We thank him for his expressions of support for the Howard government’s initiatives over the past think it through and think it through seri- seven years. ously. Having done that, reverse the position you previously held and vote to pass this It’s great to have the Labor Party on board eminently sensible bill. There should be no with us on citizenship, multicultural and set- reason for argument over migration policy in tlement policy. The minister pointed out that, this country. We are, after all—apart from while Labor had produced a disappointing 9200 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 document, it did support what the Howard the Rotary Club of Hamilton for recently government had done over seven years. The hosting one such citizenship ceremony at the minister said it was unfortunate that the La- Hamilton Town Hall in conjunction with a bor spokesman had called for numerous local councillor, Councillor Tim Nicholls. It time-wasting reviews at every opportunity in was a very moving ceremony on Australia his paper and he noted that this was typical Day. I had the pleasure of attending after the of Labor’s approach to policy and implemen- ceremony and was told it was a ceremony tation—all talk and no action. that really touched the heart. I think there The minister provided a list of initiatives were something like 19 new Australians who in the area of citizenship and multicultural proudly took their place in the Australian affairs by the Howard government. I believe community, and the Hamilton Rotary Club it is worth placing at least some of them on and Councillor Nicholls really deserve to be the record. They have included the appoint- commended for putting together an event ment of the first ever Commonwealth Minis- that will be memorable in the minds of all ter for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs; the people who were made citizens on that the passing by parliament in March 2002 of day and all of those who attended to show the Australian Citizenship Legislation their support and appreciation for that brave Amendment Act, which allows dual citizen- step that they took. ship for Australians; the increase in take-up There have been other achievements in rates for citizenship by more than 75 per citizenship and multiculturalism by this gov- cent; an advertising campaign targeting eli- ernment: the observance of the first Citizen- gible residents that produced a 56 per cent ship Day on 17 September 2001; the ap- increase in applications for citizenship dur- pointment of 31 notable Australians as citi- ing the period of the campaign in 2001; the zenship ambassadors; the provision of citi- commitment of $7.3 million by the coalition zenship education and kits to schools under government since 1996 to promote Austra- the 2030 program; promotion of citizenship lian citizenship; the introduction of the awareness by using high-profile days like course, ‘Let’s participate—a course in Aus- Australia Day, Citizenship Day and Har- tralian citizenship’; the introduction of the mony Day—which is just over two weeks What it means to be an Australian Citizen away, on 21 March—as the focus for citizen- booklet to educate prospective citizens about ship ceremonies, with numbers increasing civics and citizenship; and, in particular, the over recent years; distribution of new promo- introduction of an affirmation using similar tional materials, including citizenship and language to the citizenship pledge to allow affirmation kits and a citizenship stamp with Australian-born people to publicly affirm Australia Post; the promotion of a highly their commitment to Australia and its people. successful 50th anniversary in 1999 and the In addition, the Australian Citizenship Coun- promotion of the Centenary of Federation of cil was formed and it delivered the report Australian citizenship; and collaboration Australian citizenship for a new century and with the National Australia Day Council and the Australian Citizenship Council recom- the Australian of the Year to highlight citi- mendation for the presentation of individual zenship to a broader audience. citizenship certificates to all new citizens, That is the record, or at least part of the including children—who, until then, had record, and I would respectfully submit to been noted on the back of a parent’s certifi- honourable senators that it is a full and fine cate—has been implemented. There has been record. It stands in complete contrast to the expanded community involvement in local 13 years in office in which Labor had plenty neighbourhood welcomes to citizens by in- of opportunities to implement the measures creasing the number of service clubs and they are now calling for—13 years, in fact, organisations holding citizenship ceremo- to do anything at all. While Labor are appar- nies. ently now on board on modern citizenship In this regard, could I just deviate a little policies for the new century, they still cannot from my prepared statement and commend get their act together properly. For example, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9201

Labor want Australia to have a citizenship Under the current visa system, the cost for council. The Howard government in its first a sole surviving parent to migrate would total term commissioned the Australian Citizen- $5,725. This includes a health charge of ship Council of eminent Australians to re- $1,050, an assurance of support bond of view citizenship law and policy. Labor have $3,500 and a visa application charge of missed the boat yet again. $1,175. This is no small amount of money, With their new call for a legislative state- but it remains within savings reach for most ment of purpose, Labor seem to be dissatis- people. Under the new visa class, the cost fied with the preamble to the Citizenship Act would include a fee of $25,000, an assurance that was introduced during the time of their of support of $10,000 and the visa applica- own Keating government—again, a critique tion charge of $1,175. This adds up to a total of themselves. They do not seem to know of $36,175. Simply to bring one parent, let whether they are coming or going, but I think alone both parents, to Australia becomes that we should be good sports on this side of prohibitive. For many Australians or rela- the chamber and offer them the chance to tives and families to gather this amount of redeem themselves on such an important money is unachievable or will cause signifi- issue, which really should be above politics cant hardship. and petty point scoring. As I indicated at the beginning of this speech, here is an opportu- Labor has always maintained that, whilst nity—just the latest of many, in fact—for it is appropriate for sponsoring families to those opposite to get with the strength. I urge make a contribution to the health and welfare the Labor Party and others opposite to sup- costs associated with the migration of par- port the passage of this legislation. ents, the system needs to be equitable and Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) not cause undue hardship. The scheme out- (9.39 a.m.)—I too would like to make a con- lined in these bills is not equitable and is tribution to the debate on the Migration Leg- likely to cause hardship. It is irresponsible islation Amendment (Contributory Parents for the Minister for Immigration and Multi- Migration Scheme) Bill 2002 and the Migra- cultural and Indigenous Affairs to crow in a tion (Visa Application) Charge Amendment media release ‘More parent migrants to be Bill 2002. These bills will enable 4,000 more reunited with their families’ when this an- parents of migrants to come to Australia, nouncement will come as nothing but a cruel which everyone would agree is a welcome joke for those who simply cannot raise that turnaround from the harsh cuts that this gov- kind of money or are waiting patiently for ernment made to the scheme earlier. their parents to be allocated two of the 500 There is a catch, however. All but 500 of places that are currently on offer. these new places will be available only to the parents of well-off migrants, while 3,500 of Given the uncertainty surrounding the the new places are being provided under a length of the queue and the scarcity of new visa which requires the applicant to pay places, many of those in the existing queue a non-refundable health charge of $25,000 if will aim to transfer to the new visa if this they want to apply for a permanent visa. If legislation goes ahead, regardless of what it they are happy enough with a temporary might cost them. For some, this will be un- visa, with options to cough up more for a achievable; for others, it will impose consid- permanent visa, this amount can be paid in erable financial hardship. I would like to instalments, with an up-front charge of point out that, even with the 4,000 new $15,000. On top of this, an assurance of sup- places, that is still only just over half the port bond must be paid. This will cost number of places that were available under $10,000 for the primary applicant and $4,000 Labor. These bills are not providing more for the secondary applicant. The bond is re- places; they are replacing only a fraction of fundable after 10 years, minus the cost of the places that the Howard government had any welfare benefits they may have accessed already taken away, and they are doing so during that time. 9202 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 with the unfortunate addition of a $36,000 in helping migrant women back into the price tag. workplace after having children. Family re- In the language of this government and its union primarily serves social, not economic, immigration department, to live in the same functions. As Bob Birrell from Monash Uni- country as your ageing parents is a case of versity has pointed out: ‘family plus’—in this case, an added extra, a If entry is available only to the rich, it makes a little luxury for those who can afford it—but mockery of the social purposes of family reunion. is certainly not within the scope of the gov- For all of that, some of us might love to have ernment’s obligations or interest. I would a bit of distance between us and our in-laws! think the primary interest of the government We all understand why people who come would be to ensure the wellbeing, both from other countries to live here would want physical and emotional, of those in its care. to bring their parents after them. They want Strong, supportive families are surely an im- their children to know their grandparents, portant factor in the wellbeing of all Austra- with all of the cultural and social benefits lians. that brings, and they want to be able to look In considering parent migration there is after their parents as they get older. We can always going to be something of a balancing all understand why there are thousands of act. Parent migrants tend to be in an older people every year who apply to bring their age bracket and so cost more to the budget, parents to Australia under this scheme. as they create more additional health and In the last year that the scheme was ad- welfare costs than they offset by tax. People ministered by a Labor government, 8,900 wanting to bring their parents to Australia parent visas were issued. Labor had already usually expect to support them and are per- introduced measures that required migrants fectly willing to do so. Countries such as the to make a contribution to the future health United States, Canada, New Zealand and the and welfare costs of their parents. Labor had UK require some kind of an undertaking on also introduced the balance of family test, the part of a relative that they will be finan- which helped to ensure that the migration cially responsible for the parents who are program was focused on those parents who migrating. But viewing parent migrants as a needed to be reunited with their families in burden that Australian taxpayers should not order to achieve adequate personal, social have to shoulder is unfair and mistaken. The and economic support. countries I mentioned do not require up-front charges for health costs or a monetary bond. Under the Howard government, parent vi- The amount of money the legislation before sas were capped at 7,600 in 1996-97 and us requires of people up-front is simply un- then cut back even further in 1997-98, to warranted. This government’s user-pays 1,000 places. After attempts to create a new framework is not very good at taking into and much more expensive class of visa were account the contributions people make to rejected in the Senate, the number of places society that cannot be counted in dollars. available for parents under the existing Economic analysis is not sufficient to weigh scheme was cut back even further, to a mere up the pros and cons of parent migration. 500 places. That is 500 places for all of Aus- Parent migrants form no small proportion tralia’s migrant parents all over the world. of Australian society and are an important This measure was always going to create a part of our community. They are valuable to severe shortage of opportunities for migrants Australia—to our culture, to our social cohe- to bring their parents to Australia, and that is sion and to the structure of our families. Par- exactly what it did. I do not need to point out ent migrants take up much of the unpaid and how much stress and unhappiness that has undervalued work—such as child care, caused many people both here and overseas. housework and work with community and There are now over 22,000 applications volunteer organisations—as well as help to currently awaiting processing or being proc- create strong and supportive families. This essed. Unsurprisingly, applicants can expect, kind of assistance from families can be vital as DIMIA puts it, ‘a substantial wait before Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9203 their application is finalised’. It has been achieving family reunion can be a significant estimated that it will take 40 years to clear disincentive to come here. In encouraging the queue, even if there were no more appli- people with skills that this country needs to cations. This situation should never have come here, I think we should be serious come about. It was never inevitable that the about our investment in both their skills and number of parents waiting to migrate to Aus- their lives in Australia. It is not unreasonable, tralia should grow so large and wait so long. therefore, for them to be able to be reunited There is now a crisis in parent visa ar- with their parents in this country. rangements. The Howard government delib- Australia is also home to people who ar- erately produced this crisis in order to bully rive here under our humanitarian program. It the Senate into passing legislation that is is not unreasonable for those who came here patently unfair. The 500-place cap has cre- seeking asylum, those who have fled perse- ated a situation where people are desperate, cution of some kind and often had little often with little hope of their ageing parents choice about where they would end up, to ever being able to arrive here. This is cer- want to be reunited with their parents and, tainly the case for the constituents who ap- indeed, to share with their parents the new proach my office about parent migration, lives they have made for themselves. It is usually at their wits’ end. They are in a situa- reasonable to expect that family reunion be tion where any increase in places, at any an important aspect of any humanitarian mi- price, will be welcomed, because by this gration program. stage they have no other options. This is not It is also reasonable to expect migrants to an acceptable means of getting legislation make some contribution towards the health through the parliament, and it is not an ac- and welfare costs of their, often, ageing par- ceptable means of forcing Australia’s mi- ents. However, it is neither reasonable nor grant community to accept these new and fair to enable only the most wealthy migrants exorbitant fees and charges. What would appear to be a choice for the opposition to Australia to have access to this privilege. when looking at this legislation is a no-win The Howard government is always quick to situation that only the Howard government bring up the question of the queue. The could cook up: do we agree to legislation queue—and those who supposedly jump it— that will allow some people a good outcome, has been this government’s ballast against if this outcome is only achievable for those local and international criticism of its hu- who can afford it? manitarian program. Australia detains asy- Equity must be at the forefront of our lum seekers—families and children—in un- minds when deciding on legislation that will suitable conditions, with inadequate access affect people’s everyday lives. We do not to judicial review, in order that the queue want to see the idea of ‘luxury’—an added remains fair. How are these asylum seekers plus afforded only to those who are rich—to apparently jumping the queue? They do that start applying to things like quality health by having enough money to pay their way. and education or a decent standard of living. So under some circumstances it is not ac- We are seeing this mentality seep slowly out ceptable to pay more money to get migration of this government’s offices and into the outcomes, even if this outcome is asylum public sphere. Australians should not be from persecution. forced to accept this. Parent migration should As I understand the bills before us, it is not be solely the precinct of the rich. acceptable to the Howard government that It goes without saying that migration is vi- people pay more money to achieve migration tally important for Australia’s economic fu- outcomes, provided that you are not in dire ture. The emphasis in this government’s mi- humanitarian need and provided that you are gration program is on skilled migration. Aus- paying them. We are not really talking about tralia competes with other countries for jumping the queue here. We are talking about skilled young migrants in professions in the creation of two different queues: one which we have shortages. The difficulty of very fast queue for the rich parents and one 9204 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 very slow queue for the poorer parents. The hardship and will meet Australia’s new visa could be considered as a $36,000 e- needs into the future”. tag for the parent migration tollway. Senator WONG (South Australia) (9.53 The government’s manipulative campaign a.m.)—I would like to speak briefly to the to sell this legislation to the parliament and Migration Legislation Amendment (Con- to Australia’s migrant community has been at tributory Parents Migration Scheme) Bill the cost of thousands of parents who have 2002 and the Migration (Visa Application) not been able to migrate here since the cap of Charge Amendment Bill 2002 because the 500 places was implemented. It has also legislation is obviously something that some been at the cost of these parents’ families, of the communities with whom I have con- their communities and our society as a tact have raised with me on a number of oc- whole. The number of places available to casions, and I refer particularly to the Chi- parent migrants in Australia must be in- nese community. Unfortunately, we are deal- creased. But these places must be equally ing with a piece of legislation that is a cyni- available to all who apply, not just to those cal play on the very strongly held views and who happen to be lucky enough to afford desires of many migrants in Australia to have them. On behalf of Senator Sherry, I move their parents migrate to join them. The reality the opposition second reading amendment is that the Howard government has created a No. 2580 which has been circulated in the crisis in parent migration, and what we are chamber: seeing today is a response to that crisis. The At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate: bills may well receive some support from members of the community, people who (a) notes that: have been waiting an extraordinarily long (i) the Howard Government slashed time to have their parents join them and who the number of visas available for have the prospect of many more years of parents seeking to migrate to Aus- waiting if the current draconian cap remains tralia to join their families to 500 in 1998, in place. So, on that basis, it would not sur- prise me if some members of the community (ii) through this savage cut in visa think, ‘This is the best that we can get, and numbers, the Howard Government has deliberately created a queue of we will welcome it.’ But the reality is that over 20 000 parents seeking to mi- these communities have been put in this po- grate, sition by the draconian approach that the (iii) the deliberate creation of this Howard government has taken to the issue of queue has caused stress and suffer- parent migration and by the cynical way in ing for the families involved, which the Minister for Immigration and Mul- (iv) having created this crisis, the ticultural and Indigenous Affairs, Mr Rud- Howard Government’s only an- dock, has manipulated the numbers in this swer is a new visa class which re- visa class in order to put pressure both on the quires the payment of a $25 000 communities that have this need and on the fee which will be beyond the Senate. I am disappointed that he appears to means of many, and have been successful in doing so. (v) while Labor has historically sup- I would like to go back over a number of ported sponsoring families making years, but I do not propose to canvass all the a contribution to the health and information, particularly that which Senator welfare costs associated with the Stephens has already put before the chamber. migration of parents, the system needs to be equitable and not cause In 1995-96 under a Labor government, the undue hardship; and number of parent visas issued was 8,900. If only those numbers were available today to (b) therefore calls on the Government immediately to introduce a fair the people in the Chinese and other commu- system of parent visas, which will nities who are waiting for their parents to stop families in the current queue join them. However, consistent with its poli- suffering additional stress and cies in a lot of areas, the Howard government Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9205 upon coming to office immediately took a of 500. About 14,800 have been fully proc- very aggressive approach to limiting parent essed and have queue dates. Given the ages migration. It tightened the balance of family of most of the people seeking entry in this test, successfully introduced a two-year wait- category, and given this government’s ag- ing period for social security and introduced gressive approach to capping the number of a cap on parent visas, from 8,900 in the pre- parent visas, many of these parents are likely vious year under Labor, as I said, to 7,600 in to die before they ever get to the front of the 1996-97. This number was slashed to 1,000 queue. So it is not surprising that their fami- in the following year. So, over a period of lies are pretty desperate, and it is not surpris- two years, the number of parent visas ing that many families are so desperate they dropped from nearly 9,000 to 1,000. It is no are prepared to pay any price they can afford, wonder that many in the migrant communi- or even that they cannot afford, in order to ties, both in South Australia and in other ensure that their parents join them in this states, who desire to have their parents join country. I have had quite a number of con- them are feeling extremely stressed and up- stituents lobby me about this issue, and it is set at the delays, and the prospect of intermi- extraordinarily sad to see people in such dis- nable and continuing delays, on the applica- tress when they have elderly parents who tions of their parents to join them in this wish to join them but who are prevented country. from doing so, not for any reason other than We have a situation where the government the fact that this government has chosen to has created a crisis in parent visas by reduc- slash the number of parent visas issued and ing the issue of parent visas from 8,900— to cap the number at 500. that is, nearly 9,000—to 1,000 in 1997-98. A very cynical approach has been taken But it gets worse. Similar amendments were by the minister in both the capping of the put to the parliament subsequently which parent visa category to 500 in response to the would have created a second, quicker visa Senate’s prior disallowance of the regula- application category for those who could tions and also his subsequent response. In afford to pay it. Labor combined with the May 2002, Minister Ruddock announced the minor parties to disallow those regulations, 2002-03 migration numbers. He made the and in response the minister then reduced the statement as follows: number of places available for parents in this ... 4,000 places in a full year remain available for ordinary queue to 500. That cap remains in parent migration should there be support from place. opposition parties to allow legislation to ensure a If any of those opposite wish to trumpet fair share of health and welfare costs is covered their support for the parent migration pro- by a parent and the Australian sponsor compared to taxpayers in general. gram and wish to go to migrant communities to assert that they are supportive of parent In that statement it is clear that the minister migration, I would remind them and I would was indicating he would be prepared to add remind these communities that Labor has a an additional 3½ thousand places on the ba- record of nearly 9,000 issued visas in this sis of the new and more expensive visas and category in 1995-96 and that, until these an additional 500 places over and above the amendments are passed, if they are, this gov- existing 500 cap in the ordinary queue if the ernment has chosen in this recent year to cap Senate passed the sort of legislation that is the number of parent migrant visas at 500. before us today. In other words, the Senate This is a crisis of the government’s own has had held before it a stick and carrot. We making, and it is not surprising that members are told, ‘If you don’t pass it we’ll cap it at of many ethnic communities, and I speak an inhumane number of 500, which will en- particularly of my contact with the Chinese sure that the great majority of people who community, are both fearful and upset about apply for this category will not ever reach this situation. Australia, but if you do pass it then we’re going to expand the number of visas for It is estimated that there around 22½ thou- those people who can scrounge together suf- sand applications in the pipeline, with a cap ficient money to pay for this.’ It is an objec- 9206 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 tionable way to deal with the strongly held The rationale that has been put forward by desires of migrant families who wish for the Labor Party ignores the reality that cur- their parents to join them. rently exists. I very much agree that the La- I welcome the amendment which has been bor Party’s record on parent migration is far moved by Senator Stephens on behalf of the better than the current government’s. But that opposition. It is a sad day when we have a was 1996; this is 2003. situation where we have such a small number It is true that the government is in effect of visas for ordinary people—for people trying to hold the Senate to ransom by insist- whose families do not have $25,000—but we ing that it will not expand parent intake are prepared to fast-track parent visa applica- without the passage of this type of legisla- tions for the wealthy. I oppose this. I do not tion. But it is not really the Senate that is oppose it because I am opposed to an expan- being held to ransom; the hostages are the sion in parent visa numbers—obviously I thousands and thousands of parents who are think that the current government’s position wanting to reunite with their families. Quite on parent visas is appalling—but because it frankly, as much as I dislike the intent of means that many families who are waiting implementing a visa with such a large fee for their parents to join them but cannot af- attached, I do not think it is appropriate for ford this sort of money will continue to wait those many thousands of parents that are whereas those families who have the money being kept apart from their families to be can pay their way in. To my way of thinking, simply told, ‘We would like to help you but this is an inequitable and unfair piece of leg- it’s the government’s fault,’ and then to have islation that has been brought about by a the government saying, ‘We would help you manufactured crisis in parent visa migration but it’s the Senate’s fault or Labor and the which the community is desperate to have Democrats’ fault.’ That is all very well, but changed. that just leaves them in the middle with fin- Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— ger-pointing either way. I have no doubt it is Leader of the Australian Democrats) (10.03 the government’s fault that has left them in a.m.)—On behalf of the Australian Democ- that situation. But simply saying to them, rats I speak today on this piece of legislation ‘Don’t blame us, blame the government,’ is to do with parent migration, the Migration not going to help them. Legislation Amendment (Contributory Par- The final comments of Senator Wong ents Migration Scheme) Bill 2002. I make it were that many families who cannot afford clear from the outset that the Democrats do the sort of fee that is required under this new not like this legislation, in a large part, but visa will continue to wait. If you oppose this the Democrats like the existing situation legislation, they will also continue to wait even less. That is the dilemma and the chal- and they will continue to wait longer. Whilst lenge that the Senate finds before it. It is this is far from the ideal mechanism, it will true, as Senator Stephens and Senator Wong mean that the current existing visa category from the Labor Party have said, that the cur- intake will double from 500 to 1,000; so rent situation of parent migration is a crisis, quite clearly people will not wait as long as and it is a crisis generated by the government they otherwise would have. Also, those that and the Minister for Immigration and Multi- can afford the new visa with the increased cultural and Indigenous Affairs. For that rea- fee will obviously go across to that category, son, I am fully in agreement with the first which will reduce the numbers in the queue parts of the opposition’s amendment. None- for the existing visa. So not only will those theless, I do not agree with a couple of their who cannot afford the new visa have to wait editorial comments at the end, so I move to for a shorter period of time because the amend the amendment by deleting parts 4 number allowed in will double but the num- and 5: ber in that queue will undoubtedly shrink, Omit subparagraphs (iv) and (v), and para- which will also mean that they can get graph (b). through much quicker. It is simply not true to say that people will continue to wait as long Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9207 if they cannot afford the amount of money where the crisis has deepened enormously. It that is required for this new visa. That is the would be irresponsible for the Democrats to reality of the situation. ignore the depth of the crisis and to simply The other thing that needs to be empha- continue to say, ‘It is the government’s fault; sised is to do with the history of this. We go and complain to them,’ because one thing have heard some of that history from other is quite clear: this minister is not going to speakers, and quite rightly so. Back when shift on this matter. Labor was in government the intake was We have now had four years of this dra- 8,900. In the first year of the Howard gov- conian cap of only 500, and in just the last ernment it was 7,580. It dropped to 1,080 the two years the queue has ballooned from next year and then 3,120. Then, when the 5,000 to 15,000. If we reject this legislation minister tried to introduce regulations to in- now we will condemn those parents to at troduce a similar sort of visa with an in- least another two years with a cap of 500; creased fee for a health charge, the minister that is absolutely guaranteed. Imagine what quite openly said, ‘If this isn’t supported, I the queue will be like then. If it went from will cut the intake back to 500 from 3,000.’ 5,000 to 15,000 in the last couple of years, He made that threat before the Senate made after another two years it could well be any- its decision. If I remember correctly, I on thing—beyond imagination—30,000 or behalf of the Democrats moved to disallow more. That is a completely untenable situa- that regulation and got the support of the tion. I would welcome another mechanism ALP. That new visa category was scrapped for addressing this, but another mechanism is and the minister held true to his threat and not available. It is the best that we can do cut places to 500. under this government. It is worth noting that the government, at We have a responsibility in the Senate— that time, did not maintain the existing visa and certainly the Democrats, as a party that category—what might be called the takes its balance of power role seriously, has ‘cheaper’ category. It abolished it and every- a responsibility—to look at what this means body was made to go into the more expen- for the people that are affected by the legisla- sive category. So there would have been no tion. It is important to look at the principles scope for people who could not afford the behind things and it is appropriate to talk greater amount. Again, in 2001, the govern- about them. We should never forget that leg- ment brought it forward by way of legisla- islation is about people and how people are tion and it was very similar to the current affected by it. If we say no to this legislation, situation, except that it had a lower intake. the queue will continue to be at least 40 Again, it closed the cheaper category of the years long and will continue to grow. The current intake of 500 people for that year so, torment of families being kept apart will get again, fewer were able to get in under the worse, unresolved for at least another two existing category, with no likelihood of even years, and who knows beyond that—there that 500 remaining. It is also worth noting are no guarantees. that the queue, at that stage, was just under The alternative is to significantly enhance 5,000 people. The queue now, two years the intake, including doubling the intake un- later, is over 15,000, with a pipeline of over der the existing visa category and shortening 22,500, so the crisis has become far worse in the queue in the existing visa category, be- the intervening period. cause many will move across to the new The other thing, of course, is that at that category. Nobody knows which queue will stage there was a reasonable prospect of La- move quicker, because nobody knows how bor winning the election and certainly, many people will choose to go in which through discussions I had with their then queue, but the key thing is that the queues shadow spokesperson, Mr Sciacca, there was will be significantly shorter. It is not the ideal a reasonable prospect of an increase in the outcome but, in the Democrats’ view, it is far intake if Labor gained office. That, of course, preferable, given where we are now, to pro- did not happen and we now have a situation vide that relief to those families to ensure 9208 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 that thousands more families are able to be again, just after they have had another child reunited over the next couple of years than and are trying to rebuild their family. One of would otherwise be the case. If we oppose them has a four-year visa and the other has this bill there will be 1,000 families over the an expired visa and is in danger of being de- next couple of years who can be reunited: if ported. That is all because of the Labor we support it there will be 9,000, including Party’s support for the temporary protection 2,000 under the existing intake. It is a diffi- visa. So do not come in here or the lower cult choice but, in many respects, after think- house and talk about having support for the ing through the human impact, for the De- sanctity of the family and family reunion. mocrats it is a clear choice. Spare us the humbug. It needs to be highlighted that the one It does need to be emphasised—and some party that I do not think can make any claim of the arguments that have been made both to standing on principle in relation to migra- by the opposition here today and, indeed, in tion matters is the ALP. I noted in the debate the lower house, reinforce this fact—that it is in the lower house Dr Emerson saying that a crisis. With at least 22,000 people waiting, bipartisanship on the migration program was over 40-odd years, what are we going to do shattered in 1988 when the current Prime about it? Labor’s solution is to say, ‘We’ll do Minister, the then opposition leader, declared nothing but blame the government for the that he thought there might be too many creation of it.’ The Democrats’ solution is to Asians coming into the country. There may say, ‘Yes. It’s been created by government, have been some difference in some aspects, but we have a responsibility to try to address but let us not forget the massive show of bi- it and redress it as feasibly as possible, given partisanship between the Labor Party and the the current circumstances.’ That is what we Liberal Party leading up to the last election, are doing. I am quite willing to deal with the particularly in the area of destroying families shallow and inconsistent criticisms that the and keeping families apart. The member for Democrats will get from the Labor Party Lowe, Mr Murphy, spoke in the lower house because I know that this legislation, flawed about his strong support for family reunion. as it is, will help many thousands of families In natural law alone it is intrinsic that parents who are quite literally desperate. That it is be cared for by their children, and this is the government’s fault that they are desper- done through family reunion. Not only is he ate does not alter the fact that they are des- preventing family reunion by opposing this perate. Our doing nothing about it, other than bill but also the Labor Party supported the blaming the government, is not going to ad- government’s introduction of the temporary dress that desperation. protection visa, specifically aimed at keeping Whilst I am always willing to deal with, families separated—and not just parents accept and wear criticism, however flimsily from their children, but spouses from their based it is in logic, it is worth noting the partners and their children. criticisms that were made by the shadow A more direct shattering of family reunion minister, Julia Gillard. They surprised me a opportunities has never occurred before in bit, because I did not think that was her style. this nation’s history. We are seeing the direct She used the phrase of the Democrats being consequences of that in the community. ‘rented by the hour’. I am surprised that such Many refugees are suffering hugely, not just a sleazy, sexist piece of abuse came from Ms because they have hanging over their heads Gillard. I have heard it from others—from the prospect of returning to a place where the bovver boys of the ALP—and it does not they face genuine persecution, but because surprise me when it comes from them, but it they are not able to reunite with their fami- does surprise me when that cheap, sexist lies. We have families with one person on rubbish comes from her. It is the sort of thing Nauru and another in Australia. We have the that one might expect from perhaps Mr outrageous situation at the moment where a Latham, who seems quite comfortable call- family that lost three children that drowned ing people whores quite openly in the lower on the SIEVX are at risk of being separated Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9209 house, but I expect better from the shadow ing migrant families apart in such circum- minister. stances is hardly going to help maintain that As Mr Ferguson himself said in the lower fabric. Family is a central component to the house, significant elements in the Chinese ongoing strength and diversity of multicul- community support this change. There is turalism. Whilst it is an imperfect way to do significant pressure from many migrant it, the fact that we are able to dramatically communities in Australia. I have a great deal increase the family reunion intake is wel- to do with many of them and their peak bod- come in the sense that it will help strengthen ies and with bodies such as the Migration the fabric of multiculturalism at a time when, Institute. Many of them say that this is a step I think all of us would agree, it is under some in the right direction. They are not saying, threat. ‘This is the perfect solution, this is great, we It is also worth noting that the two-year love it.’ But they are saying, ‘The crisis has waiting period for social security that Sena- got so bad we have to do something.’ And tor Sherry complained about in his speech that is what the Democrats are doing; we are was something that would not be around to- doing something to try to redress it. If Labor day if it were not for eventual Labor Party gets into government in the future and it support. Again, we need to look at the record wants to move some changes to reduce the in relation to migration measures in this inequities, we will be all for it, but we are chamber over the course of this government. not going to leave parents and families con- If we look at the ones that have been sup- tinuing to suffer in the meantime. ported by the Labor Party and the ones that At the moment we have to deal with the have been supported by the Democrats, you reality of this government and the reality of can see the Democrats have a much more the immense desperation that is in the com- consistent record in ensuring that there is a munity as a consequence of the govern- better outcome for people and that suffering ment’s actions. All the nostalgia in the world is reduced wherever possible. about how things were better, in this area It is worth again noting the differences anyway, when Labor was in government is over time when this measure was first pro- not going to help one tiny bit those families posed by the government. It would have who are in difficulty now. That reality simply completely abolished the existing category has to be acknowledged. That is part of the and only allowed a category with a signifi- important role that the Senate plays and cer- cantly increased fee and health charge at- tainly the Democrats play. We are not just tached. That was rightly rejected by the De- going to make nice, purist, principled pro- mocrats in the Senate. Two years later the nouncements and not care about what the existing category was retained but closed at actual human impact is; we are going to deal 500, and the queue was a third of what it is with the reality of the human impact. Many now. The situation now is that the existing of the comments that have been made by category under this bill will be doubled. It is Labor Party commentators and speakers in probably the first time that we have seen any this debate in both the Senate and the House sort of movement upwards in family reun- of Representatives have reinforced the fact ions coming from this government, which that something needs to be done. That is an has dramatically increased the focus on undeniable situation. skilled and business migration in recent It is important to acknowledge the role of years. It will also increase the total intake for migrants and the role of family in the the year to 4,500—nearly nine times the in- strengthening and building of the marvellous crease on the current intake. fabric of the Australian community. It is im- This will undoubtedly mean that the queue portant to acknowledge that some of that will shrink much more quickly. It will still fabric is at risk at the moment because of the take some time to clear the backlog. Let us situation that our nation finds itself in and not forget that there is still the prospect, even because of some of the decisions and rhetoric with 4½ thousand a year, of at least a five- being used by some political leaders. Keep- year wait, given the numbers that are cur- 9210 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 rently in the queue and the pipeline. And it lia, but for one reason or another have not should not be forgotten that, even with this made it onto the official list. You cannot un- measure, we are still putting people in a derestimate the difficulty that some relatives situation where they will face a significant of people who have migrated to Australia wait if they apply now. But at least those who do not have English, who do not have who have been in the queue for some time easy access to Australian consulate or em- are likely to have some relief a lot quicker, bassy facilities, have in converting their wish and that reality needs to be acknowledged. to join their children into an actual applica- Whilst the Democrats are far from pleased tion and then the ability to get here. The with the mechanism put forward in this legis- problem with this legislation is that for most lation, there is no doubt that it is far better people it puts a huge economic barrier—in for the families that would be affected, in- fact, an impossible economic barrier—in cluding many migrant Australian families their way. It says that, if you are rich, you are that have been here for many years, than able to join your family in Australia; if you simply just opposing it and allowing them to are poor, your chances are much more lim- continue to suffer for a minimum of another ited. We totally object to that. two years and, quite possibly, indefinitely. That said, the legislation will enable 500 Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.22 parents who otherwise would not be able to a.m.)—The Migration Legislation Amend- come here to be able to come, besides the ment (Contributory Parents Migration 3,500 who will be able to buy their way. That Scheme) Bill 2002 presents both opportunity presents an opportunity that the Greens do and great difficulty as far as the Greens are not want to dismiss out of hand. However, I concerned. We have a great empathy with the am very attracted by the contribution to this families of people who have migrated to debate in the House of Representatives by Australia who are still back in the country of the innovative member for Calare, Mr Peter origin and cannot come here. We have a hu- Andren. He put forward an important manitarian impulse in our immigration pol- amendment which did not get the notice and icy, which says that those in greatest need the attention that it deserved from the gov- from a humanitarian point of view ought to ernment or the opposition. I am grateful to be at the front of the immigration queue to Mr Andren for allowing me to take up that Australia. That said, the difficulty arises in amendment and I now foreshadow that I will this legislation because it is moving away present it to this chamber, where I hope it from the government’s avowed position of will get very serious consideration from the giving favour to so-called skilled migrants, Labor Party and from the Democrats, be- which effectively means that potential mi- cause it manifestly makes this legislation grants to the country who have money—for fairer. If this amendment is put into the bill, example, business migrants who have great it will answer some of the problems at least wealth in their pocket and can therefore buy that the Labor Party sees in the legislation. It a way into the country by potential invest- certainly will make it a better piece of legis- ment, or people who have been in the corpo- lation as far as the Greens are concerned, but rate sector and in charge of a corporation it is not taking away from the government its with 50 or more staff—get a queue jump in wish to enable people who can pay to come the immigration queue for coming to Austra- to Australia as parents of residents, or citi- lia. zens, of Australia, to do so. With apology, I This bill aims to increase the number of will crib from Mr Andren’s speech to explain parents waiting to come to Australia to join the amendment that the Greens are bringing their families by 4,000 per annum. We know forward here: that the list of parents waiting is at least Much of the debate on the Migration Legisla- 22,000 at the moment. It is probably very tion Amendment (Contributory Parents Migration much bigger than that. There is anecdotal Scheme) Bill 2002 and the Migration (Visa Ap- evidence that some parents have been wait- plication) Charge Amendment Bill 2002 has been ing an incredible 40 years to come to Austra- focused on the principle of equity. The Labor opposition does not dispute the principles of a Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9211 user-pays system or mutual obligation, and this is who can afford it the opportunity to leave this reflected in its failure to make any substantial existing queue and therefore speed up the process. amendment towards improving the equity of the In this way, the new visas are good for every- proposed migratory system, save a meagre second body—so goes the government’s argument. reading amendment. Further, as I understand it, What is really required is to deal with both of there will be no amendments moved by the oppo- these problems—to redress the inequity and to sition when this bill goes to the Senate— speed up the processing. and we have seen that that effectively is the So I will be proposing an amendment. I have case— circulated it in my name in the same form as because of the supposed deal that has been done it was proposed by Mr Andren in the House between the Democrats and the government. But of Representatives. I will be putting that why not at least try to back up its rhetoric with amendment in the committee stage. He con- suggested improvements here in this place? tinues: Mr Andren says: This amendment will specify that the minister, I have been following this debate with a lot of while retaining the power to decide the number of interest. Most opposition members, while recog- visas available for each particular class, must nising that some contribution is required from determine that the number of visas available un- potential migrant parents, say that this bill none- der the existing non-contributory parent visa theless remains an outrageous attack on migrant scheme is equal in number to those visas avail- families, in the words of the member for Green- able under the new class of user-pays visas to be way, as I recall. If it is such an outrageous attack introduced under this bill. on new Australian families, why then has the It is a simple change that will achieve what opposition declined to make any attempt here in both sides of this debate believe is desirable in this place to redress the inequity it recognises is this new parent migration scheme. It will speed inherent in this bill? up the queues, and it will provide equality of op- Under the new scheme, a parent who wishes to portunity for those who can afford a new con- migrate can pay $25,000 as an additional visa tributory visa and for those who cannot. In rela- application charge, as well as provide a $10,000 tion to cost, which I anticipate will be the basis on bond for 10 years to guard against possible use of which the government will oppose my amend- the social security system. This is in addition to ment, I remind the government that its proposal the $1,175 initial visa application charge. A sec- of a $25,000 health services charge, which is the ond parent applicant pays both visa charges in full crux of the user-pays scheme, represents an esti- and provides an additional $4,000 bond as sup- mate of 12 per cent of the costs involved in look- port assurance. So, for a parent couple, a brand ing after aged citizens. The Government Actuary new visa can be bought for $66,350. describes this figure as ‘12 per cent of immeasur- That, as I said earlier, is an impossible bar- able costs’. I invite— rier to many, many parents of people in Aus- the government and the opposition— tralia coming here. Mr Andren continues: to make of that what they will. But if we accept Under the existing scheme, the visa charges this figure as the basis of the government’s calcu- amount to $2,225 ... with a $3,500 bond for two lations, it leaves 88 per cent of health services years and $1,500 for any second applicant. If you costs still to be borne by the Australian taxpayer. are struggling to afford the $9,500 to bring your If we can afford to bear 88 per cent of the parents to Australia under the current scheme, you health costs of 3½ thousand people who can pay will not have a hope of gaining entry under the for their visas, we can afford to pay the costs of new system proposed in this legislation. the same number who cannot afford to buy their On the government side, at least members are way in. This is all the more pertinent in light of sticking to their position, however inequitable and the fact that the government is relying on figures economically discriminatory it may be. They that were decided apparently so arbitrarily, evi- rightly recognise that there is a considerable denced by the fact they are based on ‘immeasur- backlog of applications to be processed, with able costs’. I urge that this amendment be given applicants waiting on average almost six years to serious consideration— receive their visas. This is a considerable problem by the government, by the opposition and by for aged parents in particular, waiting to join their the Democrats. I will be advocating this families. According to the government members, amendment and pursuing it in the committee the new classes of user-pays visa will give those stage and will be looking at the government’s 9212 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 response. It is not a new amendment. The by a parent and the Australian sponsor compared government looked at it when it was pro- to taxpayers in general. posed in the House of Representatives and The minister in that statement was publicly will have done the homework on it. While it heralding that he would be prepared to add does not meet the Greens’ requirement that 500 places to the available 500-place cap to the queue should be on a needs basis, not on make a total of 1,000 places in the ordinary an ability to pay basis, it does make it much queue, provided that legislation passes this more equitable. It will extend to over 500 parliament to allow new and more expensive parents each year the opportunity to come visas which would see 3,500 places created. into the country. On that basis, obviously, as I have said, I Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (10.34 think we have seen the unfolding of a cruel a.m.)—I rise to speak on the Migration Leg- and cynical strategy—the minister holding islation Amendment (Contributory Parents out to people who were desperate to get their Migration Scheme) Bill 2002 and the Migra- parents here a potential solution, provided tion (Visa Application) Charge Amendment that they, this parliament and everybody else Bill 2002. I will answer in part Senator accepted something that was politically un- Brown’s comments in this way. Firstly, to acceptable: the creation of new and more those with parents in the queue who are expensive visa classes. watching or listening to this debate closely, A little bit later, the minister outlined four Labor says this: always remember that you options for the new parent visa classes. They are in the position you find yourself in today, were the subject of a consultation paper is- isolated from your parents and desperately sued by the minister. But I make this one worried about them, because the Howard observation on these four options, which government implemented the savage cap of were a matrix of different levels of charges 500 parent visas. And why did the Howard and different time payment arrangements: government do this? It did it in order to make two of them were distinctly better in terms of people so desperate that what had been po- minimising financial hardship than the provi- litically unacceptable became acceptable. sions of these bills—that is, of the four op- Families are now so desperate that they tions consulted on, two of them were dis- know—given the age of their parents and the tinctly different to the measures that are in size of the waiting queues—the only way to the bills before the Senate today. get them here is to pay the price. This is the Turning to the current bills, it is instruc- Howard government saying: ‘Show me the tive to at least try to work through what their money.’ The Howard government introduced effects would be. That brings me to a de- this cap to force a reluctant migrant commu- scription of what is in the bills before the nity who want their parents here to accept Senate today. The scheme outlined in these new fees and charges and to accept a system bills is as follows, as far as I can understand with two queues—one for those with money it. The current parent visa categories would and one for those without. I turn to com- be kept open to fresh applicants—that is, we ments by Mr Ruddock in this debate from have 22,000-odd people in what I have been the earlier part of his strategy—if you could terming ‘the ordinary queue’. People will be call it that. This strategy has been both cruel free to join that queue, and the number of and cynical. It is as a result of this cruel and places available in that queue will be in- cynical strategy that these bills are now in creased from 500 to 1,000. Then there will the Senate. The genesis of these bills dates be a whole new queue created, with 3,500 back to 7 May 2002 when Minister Ruddock places per annum. People seeking to have announced the 2002-03 migration numbers. their parents migrate to Australia in that new In doing so he made the following statement: and more expensive queue will have two ... 4,000 places in a full year remains available for options. Option No. 1 is that they can pay an parent migration should there be support from up-front charge of $25,000 per person and an opposition parties to allow legislation to ensure a assurance of support bond of $10,000 for the fair share of health and welfare costs is covered principal applicant and $4,000 for the secon- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9213 dary applicant, which is then refundable after fused and see the numbers as just numbers. 10 years less any take-up of welfare benefits. Migration matters, as we all know, are not That is the first option: the immediate pro- straightforward. For families who are trying duction of $25,000 and the production of a to work out where they stand under this leg- further $10,000 for the assurance of support islation, it will not be simple at all. But the bond for the principal applicant. Of course, best way of thinking your way through it is the fees keep rolling on from there and esca- to take an example to get a feel for the real late if you are migrating two parents. Then qualitative and quantitative differences be- there is option No. 2, which at least gives tween the ordinary queue and the new queue. people some respite in that it gives them Take the example of a sole surviving parent some ability to pay over time. This option is who is somewhere other than Australia. If structured on the basis that the up-front pay- you sought to have that sole surviving parent ment is $15,000 per person rather than migrate in the standard queue the costs $25,000. If you go with that option, you will would be a total of $5,725, comprising a receive a two-year temporary visa for the health charge of $1,050, an assurance of parent who migrates—obviously, they still support bond of $3,500 and a visa applica- have to meet all the other relevant criteria in tion charge of $1,175—unless, of course, terms of character and the like—and, at the there have been amendments to those figures end of two years, they can make an applica- recently. To migrate a parent in the new, ex- tion for a permanent visa and pay a further pensive queue, it will cost a total of $36,175, $10,000 charge and an assurance of support comprising a fee of $25,000, an assurance of bond of $10,000 for the principal applicant support bond of $10,000 and a visa applica- and $4,000 for the secondary applicant, re- tion charge of $1,175. fundable after 10 years less any take-up of You do not need to be particularly good welfare benefits. with figures to be able to compare the enor- Put simply—not that it is easy to put this mous difference between $5,725 and simply—the difference between the two ar- $36,175. In terms of the finances of ordinary rangements is that, in the first arrangement, families, with a bit of a stretch many families you pay $25,000 and the assurance of sup- might be able to raise $5,000 to $6,000—by port bond and immediately get permanent saving, by small extensions to the mortgage, entry to Australia. If you take the second by short loans or by whatever mechanism option, you effectively pay the charges over people generally use to obtain those types of two years and get a two-year temporary visa sums of money when they are in financial which will become a permanent visa when stress—but we all know from personal ex- you have finished paying off the money that perience it is a quantum difference to try to is owed. For those who have followed this access more than $36,000. It is the difference debate closely, we need to make a couple of between an expenditure that it is realistic to things clear. One is that, for those people save up for over time and an expenditure that who are in the current queue, arrangements most people would necessarily have to bor- are made under this legislation to enable row for and, in borrowing, would need to people to pay the higher charges and move to have a substantial asset to secure the loan the new and more expensive queue. Obvi- against. It is not going to be provided in an ously, given the level of anxiety that many unsecured capacity. You are talking about people feel from having their parents in this people using the equity in their houses, for extraordinarily long queue of more than example, to access that amount of money. 30,000 people, numbers of families will con- We all know many people who are simply sider that option, irrespective of the hardship not in that position and may not have an as- that it places on them. set to cover or secure a loan of that nature. Turning to the costs of parent visas, I In responding to these bills, Labor main- think when you roll off a whole lot of fig- tains the position that it has always main- ures—and people have been doing that in tained on the question of parent migration. this debate—it is easy for people to get con- The position we have consistently main- 9214 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 tained from government to opposition—and have an asset or, if they do, they will be which we will take into government again— mortgaging the family home. There is no is that, whilst it is appropriate for sponsoring equity in this. Labor believe that these bills families to make a contribution to the health as a package have failed the tests of equity and welfare costs associated with the migra- and of not causing undue hardship. tion of parents, the system needs to be equi- While Labor have remained consistent, table and not cause undue hardship. This is unfortunately the Democrats have not. When where we differ from the government and the you look at it, it appears there were a number Democrats. We believe that all families of occasions in the past when Labor and the should have realistic options for reuniting Democrats combined to block passage of with their parents in Australia. The bills en- comparable legislation or regulatory change. sure that only very few and perhaps rich, Perhaps proving the old adage that you might well-off or more fortunate families will now not be able to buy the Democrats but you can have this option available to them. These rent them by the hour, they have done a deal visa charges will rule out the everyday with the government and agreed to support worker, most single parent families and most these bills. It seems that the Democrat prin- recently settled people who are still setting ciple of believing that wealth or otherwise up home and getting established in Australia. should not be a determining factor in In fact, it will rule out anybody who does not whether or not people can get into this coun- have $25,000, or $50,000 for a couple. try has completely gone out the window and We believe the system detailed in these I find that disappointing. As we all know, it bills fails the tests of equity and of not caus- is not the first time this has happened. ing undue hardship. It fails the test of equity To return to where I started—the cruel and by creating two queues, and people are very cynical political strategy that this govern- highly advantaged if they have the financial ment is pursuing—these bills will be passed means to get themselves into the expensive with Democrat support, if that is forthcom- queue. With the test of equity, we need to ing. However, while we know that these bills recognise that the standard queue will have will be passed, Labor believe that we should only 1,000 places per year and that the more never have got into this position. We should expensive queue will have 3,500 places per never have got into a position where there year. So if you have the financial re- are more than 20,000 desperate families in a sources—if you can access just over queue for parent migration. We should never $36,000—you have, in effect, 3½ times more have seen the unfolding of a cruel and cyni- chance of getting your parents into this coun- cal political strategy that is designed to cre- try. On the test of equity, of putting people in ate the desperation and the political pressure comparable positions, of not allowing privi- for a new and more expensive visa class by leged access for those who have financial so radically capping the current queue. This resources, we think this package fails. has, I think, been a bit of a three-card trick As I have indicated, we also think it fails by the government, played on people who the test of not causing undue hardship; by simply want to do no more than have their anybody’s standard, $36,175 is a lot of parents join them in Australia. money. That is for the migration of one par- So what do you do? You make it virtually ent. You can effectively pretty close to dou- impossible for them to migrate their parents ble it for two parents. Obviously the assur- in the ordinary queue; having made it virtu- ance of support is slightly different, but just ally impossible for them to do that, you al- as a rough calculation you can pretty close to low a huge queue to blow out. People are double it if you want to get two parents here. then so desperate that they will tick any box, Therefore, it will mean that people will need pay any amount of money or jump any hur- to go down the path of borrowing money and dle in order to get their parents through. will need to find security to borrow those When desperation is at that point, the gov- amounts. It is not just, it is not equitable and ernment comes in with legislation like this it is not fair. Many people will simply not and asks people to support it. It is a cruel and Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9215 cynical political strategy that is being perpe- parent migration to Australia. The existing trated. We on this side of politics believe that parent visa classes will remain open to new we have been consistent about this matter. applications with an increase from 500 avail- We believe that this political strategy is one able places per year to 1,000 places per year. that really hurts a lot of people and should That is separate to the extra 3,500 places we not be pursued. have in the new category. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Australia is a migrant nation so there are Minister for Justice and Customs) (10.51 many parents of migrants who would like to a.m.)—I acknowledge the contributions come to Australia. It is not surprising that made by senators in this very important de- one follows the other. The migration pro- bate on the Migration Legislation Amend- gram is not discriminatory, but it does have ment (Contributory Parents Migration selection criteria. There are limits and, of Scheme) Bill 2002 and the Migration (Visa course, we cannot take everybody. The gov- Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2002, ernment do appreciate the benefits of parent which deal with parent migration, a very im- migration. We accept that having parents to portant issue for many Australians. These assist with child rearing assists people eco- bills implement the government’s policy for nomically and in many other intangible parents who wish to migrate to Australia. ways. We totally reject any criticism that this The policy recognises the contribution— government is anti family or anti family re- tangible and intangible—that parents make union, but we have to bear in mind that the when they come to Australia and seeks to costs of parent migration are high. A report balance this with the need to offset the sub- from the Government Actuary showed that stantial costs of parent migration. This is the cost is even more than it first thought perhaps in a different category from other and, in fact, runs into hundreds of thousands aspects of migration when you consider the of dollars for each person. If people are in a program as a whole. position to make some contribution towards The passage of these bills will enable a supporting their family, then it is not unrea- significant increase in parent migration, sonable to ask them to do so. The Labor op- while minimising the cost to Australian tax- position has never said that it opposes a con- payers. That is the balance we have to strike tribution. People are being asked, in this here. It is very important to remember that, case, to pay $25,000 towards the cost of a should this measure be passed, it will open lifetime’s health cover through Medicare. I the possibility of an extra 4,000 places a year will come to the detail of that in a moment, for parent migration to Australia. but it is a generous offer. In response to the willingness of parent I now turn to briefly address the second applicants and their sponsors to contribute a reading amendment moved by the opposi- fair share to the costs of parent migration, the tion. Let me stress that the proposal by the government have set aside a contingency government is fiscally responsible and is a reserve of 4,000 places in a full year in the balanced package. In the Labor opposition migration program. The government will amendment we have a suggestion that would introduce these new entry arrangements for lead to a blow-out in costs over time. The parents as soon as possible after legislation is ALP has called for more parent migration, passed by the parliament. The four new par- yet if we were to continue with the numbers ent visa classes proposed by the Migration under Labor we would see the costs blowing Legislation Amendment (Contributory Par- out over the period of the program from $2 ents Migration Scheme) Bill 2002 will assist billion to $12 billion. We have a duty to those parents who were adversely affected by achieve a balance in this package, and that is the Senate’s previous rejection of parent en- what we are doing. In that $25,000 contribu- try arrangements. You have to remember that tion we have asked that the parent or sponsor this proposal has had a very long history in- contribute 12 per cent to the health and wel- deed. This is a golden opportunity for the fare costs which would be involved. The Senate to provide greater opportunity for Australian taxpayer contributes the remain- 9216 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 ing 88 per cent. We believe that is not only amendment is passed, it will put the bill in a generous but also fair. We have achieved a form that the government cannot proceed balance. What Labor is proposing is a blow- with; in other words, it will kill this bill. It out in costs. It is interesting that, as I said will kill the opportunity for these extra par- earlier, Labor has never opposed a contribu- ent places. So I say to the Senate: be very tion being made. Yet we have no detailed careful when you consider this. This is a very proposal put by the Labor opposition. We important issue. It has had a long history. can rely only on its previous record and the You have a golden opportunity now to offer figures we saw under the previous Labor the possibility of up to 4,000 more places government. This has to be a fiscally respon- being available for parents who wish to come sible package and it has to be fair, and it is. to this country. We cannot accept the Greens’ There is also some criticism about skilled amendment for the reasons which I have out- migration. There is absolutely no evidence lined, and we will go into more detail on that that our parent policy has had any effect on in the committee stage. I just say that for the skilled migration. Our skilled program is record. We have had a constructive approach growing and we have a healthy pipeline of from the Democrats to this debate. They applicants. This is not the case in other coun- have not merely criticised but have made tries that can be compared to Australia. The suggestions, and we have taken those on skilled program will benefit from the addi- board. I commend this proposal to the Senate tional places for parents. What we have done and also to the Australian people for what it is fair. We have doubled the number of fully offers. subsidised places. The existing queue will The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT shorten and allow others to access these (Senator Cherry)—The question is that 1,000 places more quickly. It is fair that Senator Bartlett’s amendment to Senator those who can are able to contribute and get Stephens’s amendment be agreed to. one of the contributory parent places. If not, Question negatived. they are able to wait a little longer and obtain one of the fully subsidised places—which, as Question put: I have mentioned, have doubled. The gov- That the amendment (Senator Stephens’s) be ernment have got the balance right. The re- agreed to. sponsibility now rests with the Senate to ac- Question negatived. cept this proposal and to allow 4,000 extra Original question agreed to. places for parents who wish to come to Aus- Bills read a second time. tralia. If the Senate does not grasp this op- portunity now, it will be lost. Many Austra- In Committee lians will be justifiably disappointed with MIGRATION LEGISLATION such a rejection. On this point, the govern- AMENDMENT (CONTRIBUTORY ment acknowledge the constructive contribu- PARENTS MIGRATION SCHEME) tion that the Democrats have made, and I BILL 2002 thank Senator Bartlett for his contribution to Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. this debate. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.01 Senator Brown has outlined an amend- a.m.)—I move Australian Greens amend- ment which he proposes to put at the com- ment (1) on sheet 2852: mittee stage. The government oppose that (1) Page 4, (after line 22), after Schedule 1, amendment. If the division were to be bro- insert: ken down as proposed by the Greens in rela- tion to the existing program and the proposed Schedule 1A—Limit on visas additional places, there would be a blow-out Migration Act 1958 in costs; it would cost over $5 billion in the 1 Section 85 20-year period involved. For that reason, the Repeal the section, substitute: government cannot support that Green amendment and will oppose it. If that Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9217

85 Limit on visas 4,000 entry, with the balance now being (1) Subject to subsection (2), the Minister 2,000 to 2,000. So at least we would increase may, by notice in the Gazette, deter- the number of parents who are able to come mine the maximum number of: on a needs basis by a further 1,500 or there- (a) the visas of a specified class; or abouts. (b) the visas of specified classes; There has to be a pause for thought for the that may be granted in a specified fi- situation of people in this country who want nancial year. their parents to join them and that of parents (2) The Minister must determine that the elsewhere around the world who want to join maximum number of visas that may be their children—very often, their children and granted for Parent (Class AX— their grandchildren—in this country. None of Migrant) and Aged Parent (Class BP— us should be oblivious to that. There is an Residence) applications is equal to the enormous human component to this, which is total of the maximum number of visas the longing of people to be reunited with that may be granted for Contributory their families. In this country, every Austra- Parent (Class CA—Migrant), Contribu- lian who knew of the plight of immigrants— tory Parent (Class UT—Temporary), and, unfortunately, too many Australians do Contributory Aged Parent (Class DG— Residence) and Contributory Aged Par- not know of their plight—who have waited ent (Class UU—Temporary) applica- long, long years to get their parents to join tions. them would, I think, have enormous sympa- As I said in my speech in the second reading thy with them. debate, this amendment originated in the I note that, in his summing-up a moment House of Representatives, where it was put ago, the minister indicated that the Greens’ forward by the Independent member for Ca- proposal would cost $250 million a year or, lare, Mr Andren. We think it has merit. I reit- as he put it, $5 billion over the next 20 years. erate that the Greens are opposed to the in- I will be asking him to give a breakdown of equity in the government’s legislation that those costs, if he would. This is a serious would mean that 3,500 parents would be able debate and I do not want ballpark figures to to come to Australia because they could pay be used in it. Frankly, I do not believe that over $60,000 and 500 extra would be able to figure. I refer to Mr Andren’s speech indicat- come on the merits of their case. This is tilt- ing that the government’s figures were based ing the whole immigration scheme further on an immeasurable set of presumptions under the government’s philosophy that, if anyway—or a measurable set of presump- you want to come to this country, you have tions which lead to an immeasurable figure. to pay for it, no matter what your needs or So, politically, it is easy to bring a figure in circumstances are and no matter how harsh here and say, ‘It is going to cost this amount and heart-rending the severance from your of money.’ family may be. ‘Pay out large amounts of The minister has given a figure of billions money or you do not get here’ is a despicable over the next 20 years. I could come back philosophy. right onto that and say that that is much less The government has relented to past Sen- than the government is prepared to pay at the ate obstruction of the user-pays principle—it moment in its contribution to an attack on is not user-pays; it is about paying a ransom Baghdad, which most Australians do not up-front—and it has now said that an extra want. I think that, if we could have a plebi- 500 places will be made available for those scite or just an opinion poll in the next week parents who have the greatest need to join over this matter, Australians would be enor- their families in Australia. The amendment mously more in favour of having those peo- we put forward would mean that, instead of ple who have come to this country, including that 500 to 3,500 balance, it would ostensibly those from Iraq, reunited with their parents be 2,000 to 2,000. It does leave the overall than of having the government spend the number to the minister, but the minister has same amount of money supporting an attack already indicated that he takes that as being a by the Bush administration on the people of 9218 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Iraq, where it would be sandwiched between in rejecting the boat people who get to this George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. But country and that has led them to shamefully that is a different matter. I do want to hear treat those people as criminals. ‘Sure, we the government justify the figures it is using. will put it into law now,’ says the govern- I do appeal to the opposition and the Democ- ment—this philosophy that, if you have the rats to look at this amendment that the money, you can get to the front of the queue. Greens have brought from the House of Rep- We are not going to knock the government resentatives into the Senate, because it has out of that position but we can ameliorate it. enormous merit. If the opposition and the Democrats were to We are not the government. The Greens, join the Greens in supporting what I will call very often indeed, are accused of being un- the Andren amendment, then we would get a able to put forward solutions from a position much better outcome here. And there does of strongly held principle. Here I am, doing not have to be a cost at all: the amendment is that, trying to extend the principle that we structured so that the minister is able to keep should have a more humanitarian solution. I the same cost basis to the public purse but think the government’s solution is harsh. It is increase the number of immigrant parents on based on the almighty dollar to the exclusion a needs basis, with a concomitant reduction of the human heart. I know the government in the number of those who are able to pay is not going to accept a rejection of the bill the huge cost that is involved in this legisla- by increasing to 4,000 the number of parents tion. allowed to come into the country on a needs Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— basis—and that will be the outcome of a Minister for Justice and Customs) (11.10 straight rejection, as the Labor Party is pro- a.m.)—I was asked a question on migration posing. However, there should be far greater figures. In July 2002 the Australian Govern- equity in this. I do not believe there is a cost ment Actuary was commissioned to do an barrier. If there is a cost barrier, then there independent report. The final report was pro- should be an increase in the number of par- duced in October last year and is in the Par- ents coming into the country on a needs ba- liamentary Library, and I understand the fig- sis, at the expense of those who can simply ures are available. I am advised that the re- queue jump because they have money in port has estimated that over 20 years the total their pockets. cost for the proposed parent migration pack- Let us look at the government’s own age is $2 billion in net present value terms. rhetoric on queue jumping. The government If, however, 4,000 parent migrants per year has been accusing boat people coming to this came to Australia, paying only existing visa country of being criminals and treating them charges, the total cost to the Commonwealth as such, locking them up behind razor wire over 20 years would be about $5.2 billion in based on the argument that they paid money net present value terms. So, if there are an to people smugglers and were queue jumping extra 4,000 migrants with no contribution but because they had the money. Yet the gov- current visa charges, then the extra amount ernment is making that official policy when would be $5.2 billion. As I said, the report it comes to parents wanting to come to the was handed down in October last year and is country: ‘You can queue jump if you have available in the Parliamentary Library. I the money.’ It is a people smuggler philoso- think that answers Senator Brown’s question. phy that the government is employing— If any other aspects of the legislation raise surely the government can see that for itself. questions, I am happy to deal with them. You cannot have it both ways. The govern- Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (11.11 ment is putting its hand out and saying: ‘If a.m.)—I do not know whether Senator you can put $60,000 in that hand, your par- Brown posed that question, but I posed it by ents can come to this country—or, if they interjection. I was not aware the report was can, they can come to this country. If you publicly available, so I thank the minister for can’t, go back in the queue.’ It is the very providing us with that advice and I will have thing that the government has been arguing a look at that document. I would point out Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9219 that the Australian Government Actuary is ment and will kill the bill. I am not always not an independent statutory position, unlike one who will simply take ministers at their that which exists in other countries where the word. I think these sorts of statements need government actuary has an independent to be tested some of the time. I have dealt statutory position and reports to parliament with Minister Ruddock many times on mi- directly—but that is another issue that I will gration matters, most often in strong dis- take up at another time. The reason I raise agreement. The very genesis of this crisis the issue of the Government Actuary’s inde- that we now have was a similar threat that pendence is that the Government Actuary Minister Ruddock made back in 1998-99, can be directed by the government of the day that if the Senate disallowed his regulation as to the way in which matters are re- seeking to introduce a health charge he searched. I have more concerns about that in would slash the intake from 3,000 to 500, other areas, but that is for another time and which is exactly what he did. I am certain another debate. that the Democrats’ decision would not have Senator Brown’s amendment could be been any different back then; nonetheless, dubbed the fifty-fifty proposal. The difficulty this is one minister who when he makes a the Labor Party have with it is that amending threat carries it out, even if it is to the detri- the government’s legislation with a prescrip- ment of people. I have no doubt that the gov- tive fifty-fifty formula may not be the best ernment almost certainly would kill the bill if way of ensuring an equitable allocation; this amendment got through. therefore, the Labor Party will not support a There is a time issue here in terms of get- precise formula in this way via amendment. ting what is a reasonably complex new visa There may be a different proportion that is regime in place for 1 July so that those sig- more appropriate and so, to enshrine in a nificant increases in parent numbers can fixed way this particular proposal in the leg- come through. Another concern I have is that islation, Labor believe, is inappropriate. the amendment does not set a maximum Consequently, we will not be supporting the number—even if the government were to amendment moved by Senator Brown. accept the amendment, they could keep the Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— total number at 500 and have 250 on the cur- Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.13 rent visa price and 250 on the increased a.m.)—I will speak briefly to both the one—and does not ensure an increase in the amendment and comments that have been intake. If the government wanted to be made. The amendment, as Senator Brown bloody-minded, as I suggest they have been said, is the same one moved by Mr Andren in in the past in this area, then that is a possible the House of Representatives on this legisla- approach they could take to the amendment, tion—and I want to note and pay tribute to which again would not address the underly- the job Mr Andren does in what must be a far ing crisis, which is simply that the numbers more frustrating chamber in which to put allowed in are far too small. forward ideas and amendments. He takes his The amendment would still entrench the legislative and parliamentary role responsi- new visa, which does have some equity bly, and I am pleased to see his approach and problems. I openly acknowledge those and I his views on this issue being put forward hope that Labor’s appropriate criticisms of here through Senator Brown, who has also them, which are matched by the Democrats, proposed this amendment as a way forward. will be mirrored in a commitment by them to The Democrats have a couple of difficul- scrap it when they get back into government. ties, even though we have some sympathy We will wait with interest to see if that hap- for what is being proposed here. Certainly, pens. Certainly, they would have the Democ- having a higher proportion of people in the rats’ support if they moved that way. If their existing category who have to pay less words are genuine here today, then that money is supported by the Democrats. The would be what they would do—scrap this big danger, as the minister outlined, is that charge when they get into government. I the government will not accept the amend- hope to see it in their policy for the next 9220 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 election. I put on the record now that we So the $5.2 billion relates to an extra 4,000 would support them instantly in the Senate if places and does not include the existing 500 they were to move that way. places. I will have to take on notice your We had a statement from Senator question about the breakdown. We do have Ludwig—who, you may not have known, that breakdown here. While I am on the point was reading word for word Julia Gillard’s of this AGA report, I might add for the bene- speech, certainly the last component of it, fit of the Senate that it was the Labor Party from the lower house; but I shall not put in a that requested that the report be obtained. plagiarism complaint—that the Labor Party The member for Lalor requested that there be have been consistent on this and the Democ- an actuarial study of the cost of parent mi- rats have not. On the surface, that may be the gration. As a result of that, the AGA’s report case. Leaving aside the obvious retort— that was obtained. for the Labor Party to talk about consistency Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.21 on migration legislation, given their dis- a.m.)—I thank the minister for that. The fig- graceful record over the last three years in ure has dropped to $3.9 billion straight off. this area, is a bit rich—the thing is that a That means $180-odd million a year. But I couple of things have changed; the Democ- do not accept that figure. If you take into rats’ position has not changed. The first thing account the amendment as it is written, you that has changed is that initially the proposal will find that it does allow for an adjustment was to abolish the existing visa category and of the overall number being accepted into the require everybody to pay increased health country. It will increase the number of peo- charges, so nobody would have been able to ple who come on a needs basis by some get in unless they had the extra money. The thousands, but there will be a concomitant second thing that has changed is that this decrease in the number who can buy their severe cap of 500 has now continued for four way into the country, and that could be ad- years, and will continue for at least another justed to make this cost neutral. There is no two if this legislation fails. So the situation argument for or against that; that is the case. has changed. The queue has changed dra- I again ask the minister—and, indeed, the matically. That is a reality, a human reality, Labor opposition and the Democrats—to that we have to acknowledge. We are dealing recognise that that is the case. with people’s lives here. That should not be This is a better outcome. The govern- forgotten. There would be a significant nega- ment’s argument is about money; I have just tive impact on many people’s lives if this said that that argument is met by the amend- legislation— flawed though it is—were not ment. The opposition’s argument is about to pass. equity; this enormously increases the equity Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.19 involved. For the Democrats, it will give the a.m.)—The minister said that the cost would government the opportunity to take this back be $5.2 billion, but he did not take into ac- to the House of Representatives for further count that 500 of the immigrants are already consideration. I think that such an important catered for in the government’s proposal. So amendment deserves further consideration. I ask: is that $5.2 billion extra, and therefore Quite clearly it will not necessarily knock accounting for 3,500, not 4,000, people? If out the bill. You may predict that, with due that is not the case, what is the case? I know consideration, the government will decide there is a report in the library, but could the from the House of Representatives that it minister please give this committee a break- does not accept this amendment. The De- down of those costs? mocrats have the numbers to ensure that that Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— rejection is accepted by the Senate, and the Minister for Justice and Customs) (11.20 bill will go through under the government- a.m.)—The figure I gave was based on 4,000 Democrats formula. But this is a better for- places. The current allowance is for 500. I mula; it is a very responsible option being was talking on the basis that there would be a offered. I again ask all parties in the chamber further 4,000, distinct from the 500 existing. to take it seriously and support it. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9221

Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— The committee divided. [11.30 a.m.] Minister for Justice and Customs) (11.23 (The Chairman—Senator J.J. Hogg) a.m.)—The government does not accept Senator Brown’s figures and it stands by Ayes………… 3 what it has stated in relation to the costs. I Noes………… 40 think Senator Brown’s proposal fails to rec- Majority……… 37 ognise that even with those who make a con- tribution—they are contributing only 12 per AYES cent of the total costs in health and welfare Brown, B.J. * Harradine, B. terms—88 per cent is still being borne by the Nettle, K. taxpayer. That has to be remembered. NOES Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.24 Allison, L.F. Barnett, G. a.m.)—That compounds the problem for the Bartlett, A.J.J. Buckland, G. government. In that case, take 88 per cent off Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. the figures the government was just giving. Cherry, J.C. Colbeck, R. The minister is saying that there will be a big Collins, J.M.A. Crossin, P.M. cost impost on the public purse even with the Denman, K.J. Ellison, C.M. fee-payers and that they are only paying a Evans, C.V. Ferris, J.M. * small percentage. So I ask: what is the prob- Forshaw, M.G. Greig, B. lem with making sure that those contribu- Hogg, J.J. Hutchins, S.P. tions are met from the government purse Kirk, L. Knowles, S.C. under this formula? There will be a minimal Lees, M.H. Ludwig, J.W. reduction in the overall number of parents Lundy, K.A. Marshall, G. who can come but a huge rise in the number Moore, C. Murphy, S.M. of those who come on a needs basis. So we Murray, A.J.M. O’Brien, K.W.K. Payne, M.A. Ridgeway, A.D. will get this onto a proper humanitarian basis Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. and not on the money barrier basis for those Sherry, N.J. Stephens, U. people who do not have a lot of money, Stott Despoja, N. Tchen, T. which is the government philosophy: block Tierney, J.W. Watson, J.O.W. people out if they are poor, if they are needy, Webber, R. Wong, P. if they do not have a bag of money, and wel- * denotes teller come them in if they do. Question negatived. That is what we object to and that is what the opposition objects to, and I know that is Bill agreed to. what the Democrats object to. The Greens Migration (Visa Application) Charge are putting forward the Andren amendment, Amendment Bill 2002 agreed to. which does not fix the problem—it does not get rid of the people who can pay being able Migration Legislation Amendment (Con- to come—but it does say, ‘Let’s bring more tributory Parents Migration Scheme) Bill balance to this and increase the number who 2002 and Migration (Visa Application) can come who are otherwise prevented by Charge Amendment Bill 2002 reported with- the $60,000-plus impost.’ The costs are not out amendment; report adopted. nearly as great as the government would Third Reading make out, and I think the government knows Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— that. Minister for Justice and Customs) (11.34 Question put: a.m.)—I move: That the amendment (Senator Brown’s) be That these bills be now read a third time. agreed to. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (11.34 a.m.)—There now comes the very difficult decision of what the Greens should do about this migration legislation. We note that it 9222 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 does increase the number of parents who can and maybe not even then, we have for deal- come to the country by 4,000. Five hundred ing with it again. of those will be on a needs basis and that is It is worth noting the rationale behind the better than the current situation, which de- Democrat decision. I think a lot of the com- nies those 4,000 people, and particularly mentary from the ALP is fairly two-faced in those 500 people, the opportunity to come that they say they support family reunion but here. We will be fighting very hard to have do nothing to increase it. It is disappointing the whole 4,000 on a needs basis. It is an again to hear the remarks of people like Ms uphill battle with this government but, like Gillard that are full of cheap, sexist, sleazy the Democrats, we will be hoping that Labor shots about being rented by the hour being write into their policy that the whole 4,000 mouthed by Senator Ludwig. Those sorts of and, indeed, the queue of all the parents cheap shots will not deter us from doing wanting to join their people in this country what we need to do in the interests of the will be afforded the opportunity to do so. So community and the people. As I said earlier, we support the legislation, despite our great it is worth acknowledging and reminding objection to the weighting that there is for ourselves that legislation is about people and the rich over the needy. people’s lives. I do not think we can leave Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— them being held to ransom in a political Leader of the Australian Democrats) (11.35 stand-off any longer. a.m.)—It is worth noting for the record the Question agreed to. position of the Democrats on this. As I said at the start of my second reading speech, the Bills read a third time. Democrats dislike many aspects of this mi- ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE gration legislation but we dislike the existing LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL situation much more. It is some improvement (No. 1) 2002 on the versions that were bowled up to the AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL Senate in previous times, although the fun- BILL 2002 damental problem of a visa for people with AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL large amounts of money remains. It is an (CONSEQUENTIAL AND issue which the Democrats have been trying TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) to find a way through for some time. We BILL 2002 have at least managed to get an increase from 500 to 1,000 in the existing number Second Reading allowed in under the existing category, so the Debate resumed from 15 November 2002, intake of those people who are paying at that on motion by Senator Ian Campbell: level will be doubled and of course the queue That these bills be now read a second time. will be shortened by those people that can Senator CARR (Victoria) (11.38 a.m.)— afford the extra charge going across to the The Environment and Heritage Legislation new visa. Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 and the two It is a far from perfect solution to a crisis, associated bills are matters which may well but it will at least alleviate that crisis. If La- take considerable time to debate in this bor—if and when they get into government chamber, highlighting their importance for again—have a better solution, then we will the Australian people. In this speech, I will happily support it, but the Democrats are not attempt to address the substantive issues prepared to leave tens of thousands of par- raised by this package of bills, and I note at ents separated from their families for dec- the outset two significant features of this ades and decades, as is the situation now. proposed legislation. Firstly, the bills now The situation is far worse now than it was before the Senate are substantially different even two years ago. If we do nothing now, it to those initially proposed by the govern- will be far worse again in two years time, ment. In their original form, these bills repre- which is likely to be the earliest prospect, sented an outright attack on heritage protec- tion in Australia. Even though amended, this Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9223 proposed legislation will still result in an first introduced by the Whitlam government. unacceptable and destructive reduction in the However, the past quarter of a century has level of effective protection that we can pro- seen many innovations, and grounds do exist vide. Secondly, although the importance of to bring this legislation up to date. Labor these bills is not disputed by the government, recognise that a consensus exists on a num- they come to the Senate largely undebated. ber of new legislative provisions and support When they were introduced last year in the those aspects of the legislation. But we draw other place, the government gagged debate, the line at gutting the very institutions and thereby preventing any consideration of La- legislative provisions that provide the bed- bor’s amendments to these unsatisfactory rock of heritage protection in this country. measures. We know of the continuing com- Let us have a look at what these bills in- munity resistance to many of the unaccept- volve. The Environment and Heritage Legis- able aspects of these bills, but the govern- lation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002 seeks, ment’s obvious reluctance to debate their among other things, to establish a Common- position can only serve to undermine further wealth heritage regime focusing on matters any confidence in either their willingness or of national significance and Commonwealth capacity to protect our precious natural and responsibility; list places of national heritage cultural heritage. significance on a National Heritage List; and I highlight that these bills are indicative of protect and manage places on the National the government’s recidivist attitudes to the Heritage List. It also seeks to list places in broad fields of heritage, culture and the arts Commonwealth areas with heritage signifi- in Australia. We are watching a significant cance on a Commonwealth Heritage List and government retreat from many of these as- provide for the management of such places. pects of Australian life. Australia is now see- The associated bill, the Australian Heritage ing a government increasingly reluctant to Council Bill 2002, replaces the existing Aus- meet its full obligations in cooperation with tralian Heritage Commission with an Austra- the states. We also see a government intent lian Heritage Council to create a list of on curtailing effective community and expert places of national heritage significance—that contribution to heritage and cultural pro- is, the National Heritage List—creates a grams. This is most evident in the current Commonwealth Heritage List of Common- debate and the deliberate downgrading of the wealth owned heritage sites and requires Australian Heritage Commission—which management plans for all places on either of currently possesses considerable powers to those lists. Finally, the Australian Heritage protect heritage sites—to the status of an Council (Consequential and Transitional advisory body operating solely under minis- Provisions) Bill 2002 seeks, among other terial direction. things, to withdraw from any future heritage Notwithstanding the government’s own regime access to current gifting rules for amendments to this legislation, it is still fa- taxation purposes and delete from the pur- tally flawed. Labor will not vote to demolish view of heritage legislation places of tele- the Australian Heritage Commission, nor communications significance. will we vote in favour of reducing existing These bills in their original form were the heritage protection. I will be seeking to in- subject of a Senate reference committee in- troduce a series of amendments to this legis- quiry in 2001. That process identified wide- lation. I indicate to the government that, if spread community concern as well as a large the government does not support these number of weaknesses in the provisions of amendments, Labor will oppose these bills. those bills. This revised version of the legis- Australia enjoys a high international repu- lation, which we are now considering, has tation for its pioneering initiatives in the pro- addressed a number of concerns but contin- tection of heritage sites and places. The ues to reduce heritage protection in a number original and current regime based on the of key areas. Australian heritage protection act is just an- I wish to draw the attention of the Senate other of the many valuable policy initiatives to a number of these deficiencies. Firstly, the 9224 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 decision-making process for identifying heri- the Australian Capital Territory. It is one of tage sites is at risk. The downgrading of the the few heritage sites that illuminates both Heritage Commission to the status of an ad- the origins and the extent of the scientific visory group is not acceptable to Labor and and research interests of the early Common- to many others within the community. A de- wealth, and yet the legislation, in the form cision maker, with a measure of independ- offered by the government, does not provide ence, able to draw on a range of institutional a vehicle whereby the Commonwealth gov- expert advice is a necessary guarantor for ernment can support restoration of such sites. heritage protection. The assessment process Labor also questions the government’s over- to list or delist sites should be on the basis of emphasis on protecting heritage values of a rigorous assessment and not expedient politi- place rather than protecting the place itself. cal need. We intend to move amendments to This, too, is open to obvious abuse. Protec- reinstate the functions and the powers of the tion must be afforded to the physical site, as Australian Heritage Commission and to re- well as to the values of the place. The two tain its title. are symbiotic. We reject, too, the argument Secondly, the definition of action has been that consideration of both physical site and diluted under this new legislation. It is not as associated heritage values will restrict the inclusive as in the current act, for it deletes number of places that can be considered for references to the provision of funding via either protection or preservation. grants and the granting of authorisation, in- The process by which these bills have cluding permits and licences. Labor, there- been developed has left heritage interest fore, will move amendments to reinstate groups deeply divided. Some are now ac- those Commonwealth actions for heritage commodating the government’s wishes, items now deleted by the government to en- while others remain resolutely opposed. Oth- sure that these things, such as the making of ers still continue to oppose key sections but Commonwealth decisions on grants, are in- echo our belief that an updating of the legis- cluded. lation is required. Most significant, perhaps, Also, a number of areas require amend- is the public opposition to those aspects of ments to the proposed new management the bills and their regressive consequences plan, strategies and commission functions. expressed by the former heads of the Austra- Regarding the approval of heritage strate- lian Heritage Commission itself—the very gies, before approving a heritage strategy the people who have overseen the heritage de- minister should be required to consult the velopments in this country that have put us at commission. Similarly, the commission the forefront of heritage protection schemes should be able to provide advice directly to around the world. the Commonwealth or to state agencies, as It is worth looking at why the government well as to any other person who seeks it. We has ignored these concerns. As I said earlier, also need to do a lot more in protecting we are watching a government in cultural Commonwealth heritage places, whether and heritage retreat. We are seeing a return to they are sold or leased. The provisions of the the bad old days when the Commonwealth legislation are open to abuse or provide too government created an arbitrary division wide a discretion for the minister, as demon- between the concepts of what it called ‘the strated by the recent problems regarding in- national’ and ‘the federal’, and it used this ternationally recognised heritage sites such spurious argument to avoid both the obliga- as Point Nepean, sited at the entrance to Port tion and the cost of supporting effective na- Phillip Bay in Victoria. tional programs in a wide range of areas in It is clear, too, that this proposed legisla- our cultural and social life. In passing, it is tion lacks the capacity to address issues of worth noting the opportunism of the gov- immediate relevance to the Commonwealth’s ernment on the issues. If passed, this legisla- own heritage and history, such as the near tion will enable the Commonwealth to act as destruction of the Mount Stromlo Observa- a Pontius Pilate on heritage matters, washing tory heritage site in the recent bushfires in its hands of responsibility for many of the Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9225 heritage sites because they will be regarded Reform in heritage protection we accept; as a state responsibility. Such an attitude, if destruction we oppose. Labor’s amendments enshrined in legislation, would serve not will ensure that improvements to the legisla- only to reduce the effectiveness of heritage tion can be made without abandoning either protection in Australia but also to divide the protective standards currently in force or those very groups on whom we rely to give the management measures that draw on both life to that protection. community and expert contribution. It has We are watching a process of marginalisa- been a truism to say that, as Australians, we tion and a concerted attempt to undermine occupy a fragile continent. It must become the cooperation and collaboration that has equally commonplace to observe that Austra- proved decisive in the long-term effective- lia is now home to the world’s oldest surviv- ness of heritage legislation. By seeking to ing cultures as well as to its newest—our ensure that some groups will have a short- multicultural societies. But such familiarity term advantage and be short-term winners, with these observations must not blind us to the government is, in reality, ensuring in- the reality that Australia’s physical and cul- stead that we all be long-term losers. It is a tural landscapes require both protection and process that has been under way for some renewal if they are to survive. It is this fun- time. In the heritage field this was seen more damental test that the government’s proposed than five years ago when, at the time of the heritage legislation fails. Accordingly, Labor first assault on education, research and cul- will move a series of amendments to these tural expenditure, the government unilater- bills. We will invite other parties and inde- ally abolished the National Estates Grants pendent senators to join us in ensuring ade- scheme and replaced it with a smaller and quate levels of heritage protection. We will less flexible scheme. The National Estates call on the government to accept the deci- Grants Program was a federally funded co- sions that are made. Labor will vote against operative scheme between the Heritage this legislation if its major defects are not Commission and the state heritage agencies removed. providing funding, on a competitive basis, Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (11.53 for community heritage projects across Aus- a.m.)—The Environment and Heritage Leg- tralia. Many of those projects were small in islation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, the terms of the amounts of money involved but Australian Heritage Council Bill 2002 and were of enormous value to local communi- the Australian Heritage Council (Consequen- ties. Its abolition was a disaster not just for tial and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2002 heritage funding but also for important seek to create a new regime for the protec- community projects and for the principles of tion of Australia’s historic, natural and In- cooperation itself. digenous heritage, using the structure and Any programs of national interest or im- processes of the Environment Protection and portance, whether they are dealing with heri- Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The tage sites, VET qualifications or programs to bills are intended to implement the new combat salinity, must be based on recognised Commonwealth and state arrangements for community values, not on expedient political the listing, protection and management of definitions or bureaucratic concerns. The places of heritage significance, agreed at the government’s artificial distinction remains at Council of Australian Governments meeting odds with the concept of mutually shared in 1997. At this meeting, the Commonwealth heritage interests in which we all share a government agreed to focus on the protection common responsibility. The latter concept of sites of national environmental signifi- has the virtue of avoiding the arid distinction cance. between national, regional and local impor- Heritage reform bills were first introduced tance and instead recognises the essential in the Senate in December 2000 and referred interrelationship between all sites or collec- to the Environment, Communications, In- tions of heritage importance. formation Technology and the Arts Refer- ences Committee. Since then, there have 9226 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 been further and ongoing consultations with replace the current Australian Heritage heritage, conservation and other groups and Commission. The council will comprise the individuals. I would like to acknowledge the chair and six members, including two mem- hard work of the Cultural Heritage Forum bers who are Indigenous persons with ex- and its members, as well as other interested perience or expertise in Indigenous heritage. groups, in dealing with these bills. Their One of the council’s key tasks will be to as- commitment and persistence has led to im- sess places for inclusion on the National provements to the bills that are now before Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage us in this chamber and, on behalf of the De- List. While the council will have responsibil- mocrats, I sincerely thank them for their ef- ity for the assessment of sites for inclusion forts. on these lists, it is the minister who will have The new heritage regime which these bills the final say on whether or not a site is added seek to establish centres on the development to either of them. I will return to that point of two heritage lists—the National Heritage later. List and the Commonwealth Heritage List. The main concessions the government has These lists are to comprise places that are made to the bills since they were first intro- deemed to have one or more national or duced are: firstly, the retention of the Regis- Commonwealth heritage values. Both lists ter of the National Estate as a statutory list; will include sites of natural, Indigenous or secondly, the ability of the council to under- historic significance. Sites on the Common- take assessments of places for listing on their wealth Heritage List will only include those own initiative; thirdly, the protection of na- places that are owned or leased by the Com- tional and Commonwealth heritage places monwealth. outside Australia; and, fourthly, the require- As mentioned, the new heritage protection ment that Commonwealth agencies prepare regime will form part of Australia’s broader heritage strategies and maintain heritage reg- environmental protection system established isters for the places they own or control. through the EPBC Act. Sites on the National We are particularly pleased with the gov- Heritage List will become an additional mat- ernment’s decision to retain the Register of ter of national environmental significance, the National Estate. The register, as Senator meaning that they will be subject to the same Carr has already indicated, is Australia’s only environmental impact assessment process for composite list of heritage sites, incorporating assessment and approval as other NES mat- places of all levels of heritage significance. It ters. That is to say that national heritage will was a visionary project and we are indebted become another trigger under the act. Com- to those Australians who initiated the list and monwealth heritage places will be protected established a commission to progress the by existing provisions dealing with the envi- identification and protection of Australia’s ronment on Commonwealth land and in the unique heritage. Commonwealth marine environment. Sig- The Democrats fully support the retention nificant penalties for noncompliance will and ongoing development of the RNE. This apply. In addition to this, management plans was a very strong recommendation of the will be required for sites on the National many submissions to the inquiry. As men- Heritage List which are wholly within a tioned, it is a unique list because it includes Commonwealth area, and the Common- places of all levels of heritage significance. It wealth must try to make management plans is also important to many Australians be- in cooperation with the states and territories cause sites that are of personal importance to for other National Heritage listed sites. them are listed on it. Many Australians will Commonwealth agencies with responsibility never have the opportunity to visit this coun- for sites on the Commonwealth Heritage List try’s outstanding world heritage sites, like will also be required to make management Kakadu, Fraser Island, Shark Bay, or Heard plans. and McDonald Islands, or to visit other sites If the new regime is enacted unamended, that may be eligible for inclusion on the Na- the new Australian Heritage Council will tional Heritage List. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9227

For some, the most personally significant protect Australia’s heritage at the national sites are local sites, which from an academic level since the legal protection afforded to perspective may only be of local signifi- sites on the Register of the National Estate is cance. Such locally significant sites also de- very limited and in most cases non-existent. serve greater recognition and protection. The only substantive protection for sites is That is why the Democrats, whilst under- provided through section 30 of the Australian standing the Commonwealth government’s Heritage Commission Act. That section re- desire to focus on sites of national and quires that the Commonwealth must only Commonwealth heritage significance, urge take action which ‘adversely affects’ a place the Commonwealth, states and territories and on the RNE or interim RNE if the minister or local government to work cooperatively to the authority proposing the action is satisfied improve heritage protection for sites that that there is ‘no feasible and prudent alterna- may be of state or local significance. These tive’. Secondly, it requires that, if there are sites should not be allowed to be destroyed no alternatives to the taking of such action, through neglect or destruction, which is un- the minister or authority must be satisfied fortunately happening to an increasing num- that all measures that can reasonably be ber of them. taken to minimise the adverse effect will be We are also pleased that the government taken. The commission must be notified has decided to implement key recommenda- about any proposed action of a minister or tions from the Schofield report. Common- authority. However, there is no requirement wealth agencies, particularly the Department for the commission’s advice to be taken into of Defence, own a number of sites that are of account. There are also no civil or criminal great heritage significance. One such site is penalties for breaches of these requirements. the defence department land at Point Nepean Another major shortfall is that, as section 30 which has been mentioned on numerous oc- only applies to the actions of the Common- casions in the past and here again today. That wealth, listing a place on the register does place is up for sale, as we know. The Democ- not impose any direct legal obligations on rats were very pleased with the recommenda- state, territory or local governments or on the tions made by the consultants engaged by the owners of private property. government to look at this site. We hope that Whilst the Australian Heritage Commis- the Commonwealth will work cooperatively sion has been fearless in its advice to various with the state government to ensure that this parties, it is fair to say that the current act site is added to the Mornington Peninsula does not strike fear into those who may wish National Park for the benefit of all Austra- to take action adversely affecting a place on lians. The Democrats are of the view that it is the register. For these reasons, it is not sur- the Commonwealth’s responsibility to pay prising that a number of sites on the National for the clean-up of this site and that the con- Trust’s annual list of endangered places are siderable revenue obtained through the sale also listed on the Register of the National of other defence department properties could Estate. In the ACT, the Ginninderra Black- be allocated for this purpose. smith’s Shop is threatened by neglect; in the The changes to the bills that I have men- Northern Territory, the Adelaide River Rail- tioned are steps in the right direction, and we way Heritage Precinct is threatened by deg- welcome them. One change we are not so radation through the inappropriate siting of a happy with is that the new bills weaken the new railway; and in Queensland, Hinchin- obligation imposed on Commonwealth agen- brook Island and Hinchinbrook Passage are cies to protect the heritage values of national threatened by development. or Commonwealth heritage properties that In my home state of Victoria, the No. 2 are sold or leased. The 2000 version of the Goods Shed in the Docklands, which is a bills was better in this respect. Other devel- stunning example of Victoria’s 19th century opments are welcome. Amongst heritage railway heritage—I believe it is the longest professionals, there is now widespread railway shed in the Southern Hemisphere— agreement that much needs to be done to now has a road through the middle of it. It is 9228 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 the extension of Collins Street. As I have beginning of Australian history in this land said, the fact that the No. 2 Goods Shed is are now starting to have a very different per- listed on the Register of the National Estate spective. means very little. In 2000, 12 sites were re- These bills have been a long time coming, moved from the register, demolished or oth- and we are looking forward to the committee erwise damaged. stage of the debate. Our amendments pertain Indigenous heritage sites are under par- to the following matters, although this is not ticular threat. One Indigenous leader I was a comprehensive list. We support the separa- speaking to last year informed me that a tion of listing and management functions, high-pressure hose was used to erase a rock including a heritage based listing process. art site in Queensland. This was a site that We support retaining the independence and had been there for thousands of years and integrity of the current Australian Heritage which was of great significance to the local Commission. This means supporting a com- Indigenous community. In Western Australia, mission that is able to provide frank and rock art sites on the Burrup Peninsula are fearless advice. We also support increasing threatened by damage and destruction caused the commission’s range of functions and en- by industrial pollution. There are numerous suring that it has an appropriate budget with other places that could be mentioned here if which it can implement its mandate. We also there was time. support retaining the commission’s name, I firmly believe that any nation that allows since it is an institution in itself. We support its heritage to be destroyed is impoverished increasing the level of protection for places for it. Our natural heritage reminds us that on the National Heritage List and the Com- we are part of an ecological story that has monwealth Heritage List through various been going on for millennia. It reminds us means. We support tightening up of time that we are part of the environment, not sepa- frames and providing improved transparency rate from it. These are special places that are and accountability arrangements. We also important for the human spirit. They also support expanding the minister’s capacity to have very significant intrinsic value. Our deal with those actions and threats to our historical heritage provides a link with the heritage under the act. past and reminds us of how we are part of an Our task from a legislative perspective is evolving community. For Indigenous Austra- to ensure that these bills will give rise to a lians, their heritage is of great personal sig- strong and robust protection regime. At the nificance. Their heritage lies in the land, and moment, whilst the bills represent a much we respect their right to manage their cul- needed step forward, it is our opinion that the ture. step is likely to be a relatively modest one. During the committee stage of this debate, We would like to be satisfied that the bills we hope that the government will be able to represent more of a stride. Much has been provide us with details of where consulta- said of the potential of these bills to achieve tions are at with Indigenous people about a higher level of protection for those sites on amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres the National Heritage List or the Common- Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. This wealth Heritage List. But the point I would act needs to be amended to incorporate the like to stress is that the value of this new re- recommendations of Justice Evatt. We note gime is only as high as the willingness of the too that Indigenous Australians’ heritage is of government of the day to enforce the acts increasing significance to non-Indigenous and to ensure that they are appropriately im- Australians. More and more non-Indigenous plemented and enforced. This not only re- Australians are seeking to understand and quires political will but also requires added celebrate the culture of those Australians resources. who have occupied the Australian continent As I have said, the Democrats believe that for more than 60,000 years. It is a reawaken- these bills can be substantially improved, and ing process for many. Those who have previ- for this reason we look forward to the com- ously thought of European settlement as the mittee stage of the bills, when we will be Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9229 moving a number of amendments to achieve lian American Association; Ms Robin Potter, this outcome. I hope that all parties in the from the Queensland Department of State Senate will be persuaded by our arguments. I Development; Mr Justin O’Connor, Official think they can, and should, be. Indeed, it is Secretary to the Governor of Queensland; Mr my hope that through a successful committee P. Herman of the Department of Veterans’ stage of this debate we will be able to bring Affairs; and Lieutenant Colonel J. P. Dwyer this new heritage regime into being with the AM, who is executive officer to the commit- full support of the Australian parliament on tee. It should also be placed on the record behalf of the people. that the MacArthur family in America has Senator SANTORO (Queensland) (12.08 given permission for the family name to be p.m.)—I rise to speak on the Environment used in the Brisbane project. and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill Under the development program, estab- (No. 1) 2002 , the Australian Heritage Coun- lishment of the full museum is contingent on cil Bill 2002 and the Australian Heritage recurrent funding, although the refurbish- Council (Consequential and Transitional ment of the MacArthur Chambers site com- Provisions) Bill 2002. I want at the outset to menced in late 2001 under commercial de- congratulate the government and the Minis- velopers. Phase 1 includes the restoration of ter for the Environment and Heritage for act- General MacArthur’s World War II office ing in so positive a way to improve Austra- and refurbishment of the eighth-floor mu- lia’s record in the heritage area. Before going seum. The MacArthur Museum project is to the substance of the bills, I would like to being funded through government, corporate take the opportunity presented by this debate and public donations, with a target of $1.7 to note the great work that has been done by million to establish the displays. Donations the steering committee of the General Doug- by December 2002 had reached $555,000. las MacArthur Brisbane Memorial Trust in For many years there has been public interest Brisbane. Their work is at the very heart of in providing recognition of the presence in our built heritage. The project to develop the Brisbane of General Douglas MacArthur and MacArthur Chambers site under an approved the headquarters of allied forces in the south- conservation plan uniquely links a vital part west Pacific area during 1942 to 1944, a cru- of our history with the vitality of our future. I cial period in Australia’s history. The trust am a strong supporter of the project and of itself has the Queensland Governor, Major the steering committee. General Peter Arnison, as its patron, and the The steering committee is chaired by Ma- chairman of trustees is Sir Leo Hielscher, jor General M. Blake AO, MC. The other Chairman of the Queensland Treasury Cor- members are Mr Geoff Rodgers, Managing poration. The MacArthur Museum project is Director of the Rowland Communications a fine example of the kind of historically Group, who is deputy chairman; Mr C. John- based built environment concept that de- son, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, serves full support. who is honorary treasurer; Ms S. Pitkin, a Incidentally, a few years ago I visited the partner in Clayton Utz, who is legal counsel; offices of our consul general in New York Mr A. Harvey Ross of Corporate Property where I and my fellow travellers were (Queensland) Pty Ltd, who looks after prop- greeted with much grace by a former mem- erty management; my friend Mr Geoff Tho- ber of this place, the very distinguished and mas, chairman of CapitalCorp Financial Ser- accomplished Michael Baume. The then con- vices, who assists with fundraising and has sul general showed us into quite a beautiful very significant commercial and political room that only a few months earlier had been connections in the United States—in fact, it named the MacArthur room by our Prime is worth while noting in this place that Mr Minister, John Howard—another clear indi- Thomas is also Queensland’s special trade cation of the special place General MacAr- representative to the United States of Amer- thur has in the hearts of all Australians. It ica; Brigadier Mike Harris MC, who handles was very good to see former senator Michael military history; Mr J. Negus of the Austra- Baume in this place this morning and to en- 9230 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 joy the conviviality and interchange that one It is a shame that agreement similarly eluded always enjoys when engaging with him. I governments on the development of common wish him well in his forthcoming visit to heritage protection standards. Clearly, we hospital. He is going for some minor recon- still have some way to go as a nation in struction work, which I am sure will improve reaching an effective and efficient accord on an already decent human being. which level of government does what. It ap- There is another development that I be- pears that conservation groups in particular lieve deserves recognition, and that is the are concerned that accreditation of state and report on the first year’s progress of the envi- territory processes may reduce the overall ronmental industry action agenda that was level of protection of the environment. The presented to the Minister for Industry, Tour- bottom line there, for most people, would ism and Resources and the Minister for Envi- surely be community expectation, chiefly at ronment and Heritage last month. The action the local level. As a general principle, gov- agenda canvasses progress on 18 recommen- ernments should seek to make regulation as dations, including clearer financial reporting light as possible and to devolve decision of environmental business criteria, a user- making to the lowest possible level. This is pays system for the collection of household sometimes difficult in an ever increasing and industrial rubbish, and a sustainability administrative environment. That too needs index on the Australian Stock Exchange. to be kept as simple and as straightforward These are, I stress, practical measures, and it as possible. is practical measures that people right across The minister noted in his second reading this nation expect from their government and speech that there was a gap between state from agencies working with government. It regimes, which protect places of local or is also true that the built environment is often state significance, and the World Heritage overlooked when the broad issue of the envi- regime, which protects places of significance ronment is being discussed in the commu- to the world. This bill establishes a mecha- nity. Yet it is in the built environment that nism for the identification, protection and people live. As a general principle, we need management of heritage places of national to be more conscious of the requirements of significance which will be inscribed in a na- that environment. tional heritage list. It provides for the minis- I turn now to the substance of the Envi- ter, when making heritage decisions, to be ronment and Heritage Legislation Amend- guided by a body of heritage experts—the ment Bill (No.1) 2002 and the two other bills Australian Heritage Council. This too is an being debated today, the Australian Heritage advance, although it seems the Labor Party Council Bill 2002 and the Australian Heri- does not agree that it is. The legislation is tage Council (Consequential and Transitional based on the national consensus reflected in Provisions) Bill 2002. It is important to note the outcomes of the 1997 Council of Austra- that the states and territories have accepted a lian Governments Agreement on Federal- number of key issues. These are the heritage State Roles and Responsibilities for the Envi- roles and responsibilities of governments, the ronment, which was signed by all levels of process of listing places of national heritage government. That alone, in my view, should significance and the principle that the Na- have persuaded the Labor Party to support tional Heritage List should aim to include the the bill without substantial amendment. truly outstanding places of national heritage I note that Labor assert that the bill and significance. others in the suite of measures introduced to It is a pity that agreement could not be improve heritage management in Australia reached on the referral of state powers to the constitute a reduction of effective heritage Commonwealth to enable the full protection protection in a number of important respects. of nationally listed places. It is perhaps not These demerits, according to the shadow surprising that agreement could not be minister for environment and heritage, are reached on the request by states for a veto on that the Australian Heritage Council that is to the nomination of a place for national listing. replace the Australian Heritage Commission Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9231 is an advisory body only, that the definition nous peoples and the natural areas of Cape of action which triggers heritage considera- York in Queensland, the Tarkine in Tasma- tion has been narrowed and deletes matters nia, the Kimberley and Ningaloo in Western such as the provision of grants and the grant- Australia and the Nullarbor. This is in addi- ing of authorisations, that the minister will tion to ‘icon sites’ like the Sydney Opera acquire the status of listing authority and that House and the Harbour Bridge and Uluru heritage protection will now be accorded on and the Blue Mountains. You would think the basis of ‘the values of the place’ rather that we would want to do everything to pro- than ‘a place and its associated values’. tect this heritage, that we would invest in Labor—the party that believes in guided heritage protection. The reality is very dif- democracy, as long as it is guided by the ferent. Total Commonwealth government ALP and ruled by commissions, placed men funding this financial year for the Australian and other non-elected people—would think Heritage Commission was just $6.935 mil- that, of course. I believe it is vital that we in lion. This funding is meant to allow the Aus- this country sort out the complexity of de- tralian Heritage Commission to identify, marcation lines in terms of who is responsi- value and conserve heritage places by advis- ble for what. And I believe it is fundamental ing the government on national estate mat- to Australia’s true human heritage, which is ters, by compiling an inventory of national democracy, that people with other than estate places throughout Australia with natu- chiefly bureaucratic interests have the bigger ral and culture heritage values and encourag- say in matters such as the environment. ing community appreciation of and concern for the national estate. Senator NETTLE (New South Wales) (12.18 p.m.)—The Environment and Heri- For too long the Australian Heritage tage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) Commission and heritage protection gener- 2002, the Australian Heritage Council Bill ally have been allowed to run down. The 2002 and the Australian Heritage Council commission, established in 1976, has lost its (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) independence and the strength and vitality Bill 2002 substantially change federal laws that it had during the first two decades of its that protect Australia’s cultural and natural life. Now the federal government wants to heritage. This is the latest attempt by the fed- introduce a new heritage regime that replaces eral government to step back from its obliga- the commission with a council without pow- tions to protect our heritage. The Australian ers, which would devolve responsibility for Greens recognise that existing laws are in- protection of many sites on the register to adequate to protect the nation’s special state and territory governments, even though places. The government has made some im- they have a chequered history of protecting provements to its original proposals, but the our heritage. The federal government has measures in these bills fail to redress the cur- also failed to provide additional funding to rent shortcomings. They constitute a back- the states and territories to help them with ward step in the protection of Australia’s this additional responsibility. natural and cultural heritage. The campaign to save Sandon Point in Our heritage helps define who we are as New South Wales illustrates why we should Australians—our Indigenous heritage, our not leave it to the states to protect our heri- European heritage, our relationship with the tage sites. Archaeologist Dr Peter Hiscock land and our truly spectacular natural envi- has found that the area is one of the most ronment. The Register of the National Estate significant Aboriginal sites on the eastern lists 14,000 sites around the country of his- seaboard. The site has been recorded as a torical, natural and Indigenous significance. roosting site for Latham’s snipe, which is a These sites tell an incredible story of the his- protected migratory species. The community tory of this nation. They include historic ho- in Wollongong has struggled since 1996 to tels, churches, memorials, halls, cottages and save this site of natural and Indigenous sig- cemeteries from country towns to major cit- nificance from inappropriate residential de- ies. They include dreaming sites of Indige- velopment. People have formed a commu- 9232 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 nity picket that has just marked its second agency responsible for a heritage site must anniversary. Wollongong City Council and ensure that the sale contract includes a cove- the developers Stocklands failed to ade- nant protecting the Commonwealth heritage quately consult the community, but the resi- values of the places. However, if the agency dents’ persistence in trying to save this im- believes that such a covenant is unnecessary portant site has finally led the New South to protect the values, or is unreasonable or Wales government to appoint a commission impracticable, then it is not required to enter of inquiry. While it will not re-examine the into one. This provision places the minister portion of the site for which medium- to in a secondary role. The minister cannot en- high-density housing has been approved, it force the requirement for a covenant. This will make recommendations about the use of creates a loophole that would allow Com- the remainder of the site. The Greens say that monwealth sites to slip outside the protection the government should buy back this site. Of regime. The discretion of the agency is wide course, the final decision on whether to save and potentially open to abuse. If the contract this area is in the hands of the New South does not include a covenant, the minister Wales Minister for Planning. This is a strong must enter into a conservation agreement pointer as to why, at the national level, we with the prospective buyer or lessee for the should not be moving away from an inde- protection and conservation of the Com- pendent body, the Australian Heritage Com- monwealth heritage values of the place. But mission, to the Commonwealth Minister for this may not be a strong as a covenant. the Environment and Heritage as the author- These bills are also a backward step be- ity empowered to list heritage sites. cause the strong definition of an ‘action’, Under the regime that these bills establish, which is outlined in the Australian Heritage the Register of the National Estate will con- Commission Act 1975, has been removed tinue to exist but the limited powers of pro- and replaced with the weak definition con- tection that currently apply will cease to have tained in the Environment Protection and effect. This means that all places on the reg- Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The ister will be at risk unless and until they are effect of narrowing the definition of an ac- protected by a state or territory government tion is to exempt all government decision- or assessed for inclusion on one of two pro- making and funding activities from the op- posed federal government lists: the National eration of the legislation. Currently, under Heritage List and the Commonwealth Heri- the Australian Heritage Commission Act, the tage List. This could take years, and in the taking of an action includes: ‘the making of a meantime these sites are at risk. decision or recommendation, including direct The federal government will be responsi- financial assistance to a state or territory, the ble only for those places of ‘genuine national approval of a program, issue of a licence or significance’ which end up on the two new granting of permission’. However, the Envi- lists. The government has provided no in- ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conser- formation about which places will be on the vation Act definition of an action excludes lists under its responsibility. The icon heri- these decisions. tage sites are likely to be included, but these The reduction in the types of actions to be sites are generally well protected under other covered in this bill will result in many laws. Even worse, these bills leave the deci- Commonwealth actions that affect heritage sion to list a site to the minister for the envi- places being exempt from proper considera- ronment. Instead of a place’s heritage value tion, assessment and decision. The Australian being the basis of whether to list, the minis- Greens will be moving or supporting ter will take into account competing political amendments to restore the definition of an and economic issues. action that is outlined in the Australian Heri- The bills also fail to provide sufficient tage Commission Act 1975. The consequen- protection for Commonwealth properties of tial amendments that the government is pro- heritage value when the properties are sold. posing omit tax deductibility for donations Under these proposals, the Commonwealth for places listed on the Register of the Na- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9233 tional Estate. These could undermine protec- My final example is from the wet tropics. tion of those places. Recent illegal logging in the wet tropics re- Currently, a gift to a place on the register, gion did not lead to any prosecution under to any of the National Trust bodies in Austra- the Environment Protection and Biodiversity lia, is tax deductible. Under the proposed Conservation Act. Although the activity was amendment, a gift of a place on the national discovered within the World Heritage area, or Commonwealth lists only will be tax de- the definition of ‘values’ as opposed to ductible. As the register will continue to exist ‘place’ opened up for debate the question of under the new regime, we see no reason to whether these actions could be prosecuted limit this provision. As it stands in the bill, under the EPBC Act. The Greens will be the proposed provision will act as a disincen- supporting the amendments that we under- tive to the gifting to the National Trust of stand Labor has to ensure that both the heri- heritage properties that are included on state tage place and the heritage values are pro- heritage lists. We will be moving an amend- tected. ment to restore tax deductibility to properties listed on the register. Australia has a rich natural, cultural and Indigenous heritage, as recognised in the The Greens are also concerned about the 14,000 sites listed on the Register of the Na- heritage bill’s reliance on the values ap- proach to heritage protection. This values tional Estate. These are places of signifi- approach has lessened heritage protection. It cance to all Australians and the national gov- has not protected everything that is important ernment is the appropriate sphere for their about a place, only the defined values of a protection. It is worth remembering that the site. I will provide three examples to illus- portfolio minister for this legislation, Dr trate the problem with this approach. The David Kemp, is the Minister for the Envi- first is the Basslink project in Tasmania. The ronment and Heritage. The Greens want to environmental impact assessment recognised see more attention given to heritage protec- that the Basslink project will cause fluctua- tion and more funding for heritage protec- tions in the height of the Gordon River, in tion, not less protection. These bills fail to the World Heritage area, of up to four metres deliver stronger protection. They require above current riparian zones, upsetting sand- substantial changes and the Greens will be banks and adversely affecting riverine plants seeking the support of the Senate for a num- and animals. Despite these revelations, the ber of measures to improve these bills. final assessment of this project, conducted Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.30 under the Environment Protection and Bio- p.m.)—I congratulate Senator Nettle on that diversity Conservation Act, concluded that outline of the shortcomings of the Environ- the values of the World Heritage area would ment and Heritage Legislation Amendment not be affected. This conclusion fails to rec- Bill (No. 1) 2002, the Australian Heritage ognise that the damage to a particular place Council Bill 2002 and the Australian Heri- within the listed site affects the entire site. tage Council (Consequential and Transitional Another example is the Great Barrier Provisions) Bill 2002. I also congratulate the Reef. There have been a number of commer- previous speakers Senator Carr and Senator cial shipping incidents, including a recent oil Allison for highlighting shortcomings and I spill, on the Great Barrier Reef, none of note the heritage interest and concern of which have resulted in prosecutions under Senator Santoro, which I welcome. Senator the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Nettle has outlined the Greens’ position on Conservation Act. Although these were inci- the legislation. I want to take a little while to dents of great concern, it is arguable whether talk about why we are in this position today. they had a significant impact on the ‘values’ It is because of the Australian Heritage of the Great Barrier Reef. An impact on the Commission Act 1975. That legislation was ‘place’ would, however, clearly bring such brought in 28 years ago by the Whitlam gov- actions within the ambit of potential prosecu- ernment after the furore over the destruction tion. 9234 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 of Lake Pedder in Tasmania, amongst many are imperilled and under enormous threat. other things. This legislation has not staunched it, nor has When the Whitlam government came to the other environmental legislation that this office at the end of 1972, the then Reece La- country has. bor government in Tasmania was close to Of all things, 28 years after the legislation completing the dams that were going to was brought in to give the federal govern- obliterate the gently and magnificently beau- ment that power—and the Whitlam govern- tiful Lake Pedder National Park, 300 metres ment signed the World Heritage convention up in the highlands of the wilderness of Tas- to augment it—we have the Howard federal mania. In fact, it was the gem at the heart of government moving back to 1972 and hand- the western wilderness of Tasmania. The lake ing back powers to the states, all except for a itself was two miles square. The beach, high so-far inadequate—and it always will be in- up in the mountains, was 800 metres in width adequately defined—smaller list of those and two or three kilometres in length when places judged to be of national significance exposed at this time of the year, although it and which go onto a national list. But most was covered after the heavy rains and snows of the 14,000 places, sites and entities on the of winter. It was an extraordinary part not list will be handed back to states or will dis- only of the nation but also of the world’s appear into some sort of non-status. What a heritage. But it was destroyed by vandals of remarkable turnaround by the body politic in the Hydro-Electric Commission and the then Australia, under the pressure of the moneyed Labor and Liberal governments that serially interests! That is where it comes from. It is supported this destruction of a national park, not coming from people pressure, but from which was illegal until they brought retro- the pressure of the moneyed interests, mov- spective legislation through the Tasmanian ing through this government to dismantle parliament in the early 1970s. what little there is to recognise and protect in This led to arguably the first national con- Australia’s heritage. servation furore, with people right around the Let me look at some of the places I know country aghast at serial state governments— well that will be threatened under this sys- the Bethune Liberal government as well as tem. They include the Tarkine forest that the Reece Labor governments which came Senator Nettle referred to—Australia’s before and after it—destroying such an heir- greatest temperate rainforest. It is of World loom for a tiny aliquot of electricity, a very Heritage stature, but it has been denied a tiny fraction of what comes out of the aver- nomination because the state government age coal-fired power station. But they were wants to log it and not to keep it as heritage. determined and they went ahead. Under Federal governments, both Labor and Lib- enormous pressure, but with the great sup- eral, have said yes to that. That, by the way, port of the first Minister for the Environment is an abrogation of Australia’s obligation of that federal government, Moss Cass, there under the World Heritage convention to was an inquiry which went national. It came nominate sites of World Heritage signifi- up with a recommendation for an Australian cance. But it is listed on the Register of the Heritage Commission and from that came National Estate and it is being logged. Under the Australian Heritage Commission Act. a regional forest agreement signed by no less We are still in a country where the na- than Prime Minister Howard, it is open for tional heritage is being fragmented and de- mining. What a way to treat this extraordi- stroyed at a remarkable rate. Look at the in- nary piece of national heritage! That is how creasing number of species of our wildlife it is being treated. and botanical heritage we in this Senate see What we should be seeing here today is being put onto the rare, endangered and legislation that says, ‘No; such a place’—this threatened lists. That is not just happening great temperate rainforest of extraordinary out of the blue through some natural form of importance to the Indigenous people of Tas- attrition; it is happening because the basic mania, as well as for its rainforest, wildlife living units of our ecosystems in Australia and other values—‘should be protected un- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9235 der national legislation.’ We should be arm- making a very important stand, and it is a ing the nation with the means to protect such stand based on the Labor Party’s history of a site. In the United States, where the federal having brought the Australian Heritage government has authority over lands, this Commission into being so long ago but in a would be a national park—a big ‘n’ national period where, for once, the nation was rec- park. Here, it is relegated to the cut-up proc- ognising through the Whitlam government ess of state governments under pressure from the importance of the natural, Indigenous and woodchipping and mining corporations, and historic heritage of this country. we are getting legislation to say, ‘That’s go- I want to talk about Recherche Bay in ing to be okay, Jack.’ What a reversal of the Tasmania. Recherche Bay is a magnificent process of protecting our heritage. natural harbour. If we were in the Northern Why should responsibility for the envi- Hemisphere, it would have a metropolitan ronment be passed down the line, as Senator city built upon it by now. Instead, it is largely Santoro argued, saying we should devolve as it has been for centuries and millennia. In decision making to the ‘lowest possible 1792, along came D’Entrecasteaux with his level’—he is referring to local government— two ships, the Recherche and the Esper- when it is of national significance? I cer- ance—meaning ‘research’ and ‘hope’ respec- tainly agree that we need to have local input tively—which were full of scientists. They into heritage decisions, but if you left it at had, amongst other things, instructions to that, under the pressure of promises of jobs look for La Perouse, who had disappeared and development which very rarely come somewhere in the Pacific after going via Port true we would have lost the Franklin River, Jackson on his expedition some years earlier. for example. If you leave it to state govern- When D’Entrecasteaux’s expedition got to ments, we are going to lose much of the Recherche Bay, having passed the southern Tarkine Rainforest, which is of national and part of Tasmania and gone around a little World Heritage significance. onto the east coast, and found this harbour, Why is it that this government says, ‘De- they were mightily grateful, because they volve it to local power’ when it comes to the had been through some violent storms in the environment, but says, ‘Let’s send it across roaring forties coming across the Indian to Geneva’ when it comes to the World Trade Ocean from South Africa. Organisation and economic matters? There is They stayed there for five weeks. They duplicity here. If corporations want to get rid loved it so much that—after circumnavigat- of Australian protective measures for eco- ing Australia and going to Esperance in nomic or trade considerations, the govern- Western Australia; Esperance was named ment says, ‘Fine. Legislate through the par- after one of their ships—they decided to liament, and let’s hand this power across to come back again to get fresh water and new 1,500 faceless bureaucrats somewhere near timber. And this time, during their five-week Geneva.’ But if the issue is our national heri- stay, they met the Indigenous people of the tage, the pride of this nation, what makes this region, the Palawa people. It is all closely nation different, then it says, ‘Devolve the recorded and is the most magnificent story, power.’ The government fails to give it even including the planting of a garden ashore federal protection, let alone list it according with European vegetables. On the morning to our obligations under the World Heritage the French met the Indigenous people—for convention where appropriate. The govern- the first time, the French thought—the ment wants to devolve it down to where the Palawa took them back to their camp site of corporate interest, when it comes along and the previous night. In other words, the wants to develop, can have a smack at it and Palawa had been along and looked them over rip it to ribbons. What a double standard that during the night, then left them and gone is on the part of the Howard government. fishing in the morning. This is a remarkable Let me congratulate at this point the Crean interaction between these two societies, and opposition, the Labor opposition of the day, the places where these walks and this inter- for making a stand on this issue. They are 9236 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 action occurred are still intact on this small this year, fuelled by housing and business peninsula. investment and continued strong population Now Gunns woodchip corporation wants growth. That is the consensus view for the to log it, and the Bacon Labor government, current budget year, a year in which Queen- in the spirit of Lake Pedder, has said nothing sland government tax revenue is now fore- to indicate it is going to stop that. The Bacon cast to rise by 8.6 per cent to $5.3 billion. government might protect the postage stamp With strong revenue growth—from stamp sized site of the garden—the 211-year old duty and gambling tax in particular—and the site that is still intact and perhaps the oldest inflow of GST dollars from the Common- intact European built site in our nation—but wealth, Queensland should be sitting pretty the context will be lost. They might even comfortably, despite the crippling drought protect the site of the observatory down on and low commodity prices. Unfortunately, it Bennetts Point, where a global breakthrough is not. We need to ask why. The answer is in navigation was made by the French, or the very simple: Labor simply cannot run budg- site where a woman fought a duel—she was ets. They are good at the spin—and the dressed in men’s clothes so she could get on Queensland Premier is particularly keen on these ships—and was winged. We do not turning sows’ ears into silk purses—but they know exactly where that was yet, but that is are no good where it matters: in the detail, in a magnificent story in itself. There is so the substance of financial management. That much of our nation’s history in this remark- is why we see the budget running away from able place which is about to be wood- them, to the detriment and the cost of each chipped. If we were standing here today with and every Queenslander. legislation to protect that, we could be proud Labor likes to spend on the headline pro- of it, but instead we are devolving the power jects—for example, the Lang Park stadium that we have, which might protect it, back to and that ultimate extravagance the Goodwill the Bacon government. Bridge, the footbridge over the Brisbane Debate interrupted. River that started out as a $13 million project MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST and ended up costing twice that much—but it cannot do the hard yards. It cannot run the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT public hospital system without forcing the (Senator Cook)—Order! It being 12.45 hospital authorities to close beds and cut p.m., I call on matters of public interest. staff hours and service delivery in an attempt Queensland Government to stay within inadequate operational funding Senator SANTORO (Queensland) (12.45 budgets. It cannot run the police service p.m.)—Last week the Queensland govern- without forcing the police to cut operational ment released its midyear budget review. It is and training budgets—and it has made things with displeasure that I inform the Senate that worse this year by underbudgeting for the it really is a shocker. It is testimony to La- new police enterprise agreement. bor’s historic inability to run a budget prop- The Queensland government cannot run erly or efficiently. Labor in Queensland has the state school system without running foul turned in a third consecutive deficit—a mas- of underresourced teachers; and classroom sive deficit of $741 million, which only last numbers, even by its own measures, do not June was going to be a surplus of $23 mil- meet requirements. The teachers are among a lion. This is a sad and expensive re-run of the range of government employees now fight- picture last year, when Queensland Labor ing bitter enterprise bargaining disputes. The turned in a deficit of $894 million. Queensland government cannot run the am- Yet all the forecasts point to Queensland bulance system—the ambulance system that continuing to lead Australia in most of the used to run itself because non-Labor gov- measures by which economic performance is ernments allowed local communities to con- measured. Most private analysts—and, in- trol it and to raise funds locally. Now Labor deed, the Queensland government—say that is introducing a new tax, introduced by a the state’s economy will expand at a fast rate Premier who promised no new taxes, to pay Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9237 for its centralised system that simply does ... is extremely difficult to forecast investment not work. returns associated with the full funding of super- annuation and other employee entitlements. For There is no doubt that the Queensland the purposes of the Mid Year Review, an assump- government is struggling to maintain eco- tion of 0% has been used for 2002-03, which is nomic credibility after turning in its third generally consistent with the assumptions used by budget deficit in a row. It is plainly desper- other jurisdictions … ate. Now it is even proposing to tax ride-on While other states have also been impacted mowers; it wants to make owners pay an by poor investment returns, the impact on the annual registration fee to cut their grass— Queensland general government sector is how desperate can you get? Stay tuned. magnified because of the relatively larger Queensland is clearly in a serious budget- asset holding associated with the full funding ary position. Nothing demonstrates that with of employee entitlements; in contrast with more clarity or more starkly than the fact that other jurisdictions, the assets and liabilities for the second year running its midyear re- associated with superannuation are held and view has made a lie of the budget papers. reflected in the general government sector. Treasurer Mackenroth has basically had to The Queensland Treasurer went on to say: admit that for the second consecutive year If Queensland’s superannuation arrangements the government’s budget day forecast in were structured on the same basis as other juris- terms of net operating balance in the GFS dictions, the General Government sector underly- sector was a work of fiction. Last June, in the ing result for 2001-02 and 2002-03 would be in budget the Queensland government forecast surplus ... a surplus of $23 million—razor thin in the These are weasel words, and Queenslanders context of the overall size of the budget but, should worry very much about what their nevertheless, a surplus. Now it says it will subtext is. Does the Queensland Treasurer produce a deficit of $741 million. This adds propose to put up a case for not fully funding to the horrendous $894 million deficit for public sector superannuation? He makes the 2001-02 and to the $820 million deficit in point that, if the superannuation investments 2000-01. When he released the midyear had been excluded from the budget, the un- budget review last week, the Queensland derlying operating result in 2001-02 would Treasurer said something truly extraordinary. have been a surplus of $294 million and that He told the Australian Financial Review: the estimated 2002-03 operating surplus I’m able very comfortably to look at this deficit would be $42 million on the basis of the that’s based on only one thing, and that is the midyear review. returns on our investments. Historically, Queensland has fully funded It is funny that when investment returns were its public sector superannuation liabilities— running at or near their long-term average of something that stands the state in very good around seven per cent he never felt he had to stead. But, naturally, these are invested funds say—and I will try to imagine the quote he and the return they get obviously depends on should have been saying—‘I’m very com- the global investment market. These funds fortable to look at this surplus that’s over- are invested with the Queensland Investment whelmingly based on only one thing, and Corporation. Like every other managed that is the returns on our investments.’ What funds investor, QIC showed a negative return the Queensland Treasurer said in his midyear last year because of the plunge in the local review on the fully funded superannuation and world financial markets. I want to make question is very worrying and worth putting one other thing very clear: what is under on the record, because to date it has escaped critical scrutiny here is state government significant mention. He said that the: mismanagement, not the investment returns ... forecast General Government operating deficit or the funds management performance of position for 2002-03 is due to a significant QIC, which is absolutely beyond reproach downward revision in investment earnings— and described as that by every serious finan- reflecting ongoing volatility in equity markets ... cial commentator in Australia. He went on to say that it: 9238 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

It is the Queensland Treasurer who is in jects beginning in Queensland this year. This the spotlight. He has redone his sums for this optimism needs to be tempered by future year on the basis of a zero per cent return on expectations. Both the Commerce Queen- investment funds this financial year. Accord- sland Pulse survey and other analysts say ing to market watchers, that is a very tough that on the critical question of business ex- call since it implies an expectation of a seven pectations—confidence, in other words—the per cent plus turnaround in investment re- evidence is clear that expectations are falling turns over the year. Those interested in the in terms of conditions business people expect actual outcome will also remember that last in 2003-04. I note that the Queensland Pre- year’s midyear review forecast an end of mier has questioned the findings of this sur- year outcome some hundreds of millions of vey. He says that private sector investment in dollars better than that which actually oc- Queensland is rising at a ‘record high’, but curred. On that basis, I would suggest that Queensland business is saying that its confi- the new forecast of a $741 million deficit, dence is sliding that the Beattie government against the $23 million surplus originally has much of a clue about anything and that it forecast, can only look very shaky. is also worrying about future global eco- But the state economy is growing faster nomic conditions. than most and government revenue is also These are uncertain and dangerous times rising. As the state Treasury’s midyear re- globally, and economic expectations are not view points out, economic growth in Queen- helped by the stronger Australian dollar and sland in 2002-03 is again forecast to exceed continued slackness in commodity markets. that of Australia as a whole, with growth of Neither the strengthening Australian dollar 4¼ per cent against the forecast national rate nor commodity prices are of course due to of three per cent. And this is in an economic the activity or, for that matter, the lack of environment where drought has taken an activity of the Queensland government. At estimated one half of one per cent off the same time, the primary task of a state growth. That is a distinct credit to Queen- government is to manage its budget as the sland’s business community generally, and to agent of the provider of its funds. I would the small business community in particular. respectfully suggest that the Queensland But it makes the Queensland government’s government is failing in this primary task. budgetary performance, when compared with Labor in Queensland has no more excuse the business community performance, even than any other state government in this coun- more woeful. try to blame everyone except itself for this. It In the budget brought down in June last signed up for the GST deal on the basis that year, capital works spending in 2002-03 was the states would get all the money and access estimated to be $4.837 billion. But that was to the first real growth tax they have had 5.4 per cent less than the budgeted figure of since giving away income-taxing powers 60 $5.115 billion in 2001-02. If we factor in years ago. It is true that the full effect of the inflation, which the budget estimated at 2.75 GST funding flow will not be felt until 2007, per cent in Queensland in 2002-03, then but the money is already coming in in capital works spending falls in real terms by Queensland’s case to the tune of around $6 8.2 per cent. In 2001-02, capital works de- billion a year. clined budget to budget by 3.2 per cent, or The Commonwealth Grants Commission six per cent in real terms. So Labor is wrong has just increased Queensland’s funding rela- again. In a development state like Queen- tivity vis-à-vis the other states in its 2003 sland, capital works drives the economy and, review, with a next-year additional benefit of unfortunately, Labor is again heading the more than $404 million. Queensland’s tax wrong way. revenue in 2002-03 is up by 8.6 per cent on The midyear review says that investment the figure forecast in the June budget papers. is forecast to be a major driver of growth, Current grants and subsidies are 2.9 per cent with business investment rising rapidly in higher than the government was counting on response to several large development pro- last year. The Queensland government is a Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9239 government of stunts and spectacular non- they run companies worth over $100 billion. core spending. Labor in Queensland has At the top of the list is Michael Darling, who proved itself to be an appalling manager of is worth up to $400 million and who lives in the budget it was elected to run efficiently. the dress circle of Bellevue Hill. Then there Queenslanders, as we are now witnessing, is John Calvert-Jones, a Murdoch in-law, are beginning to pay through the nose for who makes personal donations to the Liberal Labor’s economic and budget mismanage- Party according to the Australian Electoral ment. Commission. He is worth $300 million ac- Centre for Independent Studies cording to Business Review Weekly. Calvert- Jones is also a director of a front company Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New for Liberal Party fund raising called Vapold, South Wales) (12.58 p.m.)—Today I wish to a company whose purpose is so thinly dis- place on the parliamentary record my con- guised that its registered address is the same cern that there is an organisation in this as the Liberal Party’s. You can see that these country that is seeking to influence public people are nothing if not independent. I policy in a directly partisan way, despite could go on, but rather than take up the Sen- claiming the mantle of independence. That ate’s time listing all those executives on the organisation is a think tank called the Centre CIS board earning more than $1 million a for Independent Studies. The CIS is nothing year, I will confine my comments to Michael close to independent; rather, it is the out- Chaney who most recently reported salary sourced research arm of the Liberal govern- packages making him $8 million a year. ment. This is the spring from which Minis- Chaney is, of course, a former Liberal Party ters Abbott, Howard and Costello and com- member and he comes from a pedigree of pany draw their ideas and turn them into the Liberal politicians and he is head of the Wes- policies that are ripping up the social fabric farmers empire. of our country. Despite all these Liberal Party connec- The CIS advertises a slogan: ‘Tomorrow’s tions, the CIS is adamant that it has the right ideas, today’. Its slogan ought to be ‘Tomor- to call itself independent. The question is: row’s Liberal policies, today’. To explain independent of what? Yes, they are inde- why, let me start by analysing the back- pendent of morals and honesty, but are they ground of the directors and staff of the Cen- independent of partisan politics? The answer tre for Independent Studies. This allegedly is clearly no. In the past, the CIS has actively independent organisation makes conclusions accepted up to $50,000 a year from a Liberal such as ‘behavioural poverty’ is a cause of Party fund raising company called the Cor- material poverty. Taking that claim at face mack Foundation. Who is on the board of value, you would expect those making the that foundation? None other than Hugh Mor- claim to have some experience of poverty gan, a CIS Distinguished Fellow, and John and you would expect them not to be mem- Calvert-Jones, a CIS board member. bers or supporters of the Liberal Party. You would hope that it was a balanced and di- There are no prizes for guessing that there verse group of people who had come up with are no ALP, Democrat or Green affiliated such a startling conclusion and only after persons on the CIS board. I find this level of there had been thorough and rigorous inves- partisanship at the CIS, and the deception tigation. When it comes to the Centre for that is inherent in this partisanship, particu- Independent Studies, you would be dead larly galling. We are living in a time when it wrong. is harder and harder to decipher what is genuine information and what is simple mar- The researchers at the CIS often have keting spin or political propaganda. I suggest links to the Liberal Party or far Right organi- to the chamber that much of what the Centre sations and the board is mostly rich, white, for Independent Studies offers as research is conservative and male. The board of the in fact thinly disguised political propaganda. Centre for Independent Studies is made up of It is about time someone exposed it for what 17 men and two women. Its members are it is. worth approximately $1 billion and together 9240 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

There is a long history to why much CIS championed it. Right from the outset of the work lends itself to use by the Liberal Party. CIS, it has had links to the Liberals. They Indeed, the CIS, in the words of its Execu- started with Jim Carlton, the New South tive Director, Reg Lindsay, was developed Wales General Secretary of the Liberal Party; using the example of the think tanks that the Western Australian Liberal MP John drove the Thatcher and Reagan policy Hyde; John Elliott; and Hugh Morgan from agenda of the 1980s. The important lesson Western Mining Corporation who personally from similarities between the CIS and over- contributed to CIS coffers and organised seas right wing think tanks is that their on- $200,000 in seed funding that kept CIS slaught will continue until every last asset is afloat in its early years. In recent years, Tony privatised, every last single parent is blamed Abbott has been the most vocal champion of for whatever problem their child faces and CIS research. But it must be noted that the until every person ironically believes univer- four most senior government figures—the sities should give up their independence and Prime Minister, John Howard; the Treasurer, be run like a lean profit making machine. Peter Costello; the Leader of the Opposition The CIS prides itself on its international in the Senate, Robert Hill and Mr Abbott— networks, including a little known group were all guests at the 2002 CIS annual con- called the Mont Pelerin Society. Founded by ference. Friedrich Hayek and including Milton Where has listening to CIS policy advice Friedman amongst its alumni, 22 of Ronald got Australia? A case in point is the recently Reagan’s economic advisers when he took revealed fact that Australia has just recorded office in 1980 were members of this society. foreign debt of $350 billion and its greatest It is involvement in the Mont Pelerin Society quarterly current account deficit ever—some and like-minded networks that is likely to $11.6 billion. Following the CIS’s policy continue feeding the CIS neoliberal propa- prescriptions certainly has a downside. So, ganda machine well into the future. when you read the CIS bulletin Economic I implore members of the public and the Freedom Watch, ask yourself how much press gallery to see through the CIS façade freedom a $350 billion debt will buy you. of independence. Do not fall for the slick When you take a look at the recent CIS arti- spin; ask where the research has come from; cle headed ‘Only deregulation can create do a search on the Australian Electoral jobs’, ask yourself whether skilled and edu- Commission web site when a new board cated workers, fair trade, and research and member is appointed. It is a lack of scrutiny development might also help to create jobs. that has allowed the CIS to develop their Perhaps one task the CIS are doing effec- current reputation and profile and it is proper tively for the current Liberal coalition gov- and ongoing scrutiny that will expose their ernment is that they may well be hiding the shonky research. debt truck—or the debt road train—by park- It is sad that public debate has reached the ing it in their backrooms or garages and point where invective once considered to be keeping it well out of public view. Even if far Right babble is now taken seriously as you think only deregulation can create jobs, policy advice. For example, take a policy it is difficult to argue in favour of the various program called Taking Children Seriously. CIS policy arguments, which are often hypo- The sponsors of the program generally pro- critical. Its economic and social lines of ar- vide about $500,000 a year to the Liberal gument just do not correlate. It is all for lib- Party and include its biggest individual do- ertarianism when the question is about what nor, Richard Pratt, through the Pratt Founda- to do with markets. But ask the CIS about tion. The sponsors of this program, which is moral or family decisions according to their meant to focus on the wellbeing of children, wishes and the interfering, thumping fist of also ironically include a tobacco company 1950s conservatism gets slammed on the called Philip Morris. table. This babble is given credibility because To give you an example of some recent Liberal politicians have systematically CIS work, a former CIS researcher by the Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9241 name of Lucy Sullivan claimed in 1999 that communist or make defamation claims poor people are simply lazy and that, until against you. The Australian Bureau of Statis- divorce was made a less onerous process tics, the Smith Family and the National Cen- under Gough Whitlam, drug problems and tre for Social and Economic Modelling are youth homelessness simply did not exist. recent victims of CIS vitriol, and it will not During her time at the CIS, Sullivan also come as any surprise if I am next on their managed to link the increase in women’s list. participation in the work force to higher lev- Communications: Media Ownership els of rape and homicide. This extraordinary display of intellectual acrobatics is meant to Senator CHERRY (Queensland) (1.11 pass as considered academic research. These p.m.)—I rise today to speak on the media. A claims alone are enough to ask: what process fortnight ago, Roy Greenslade, a columnist does the CIS undertake to review its research with the Observer in London, did a compre- before publication? How often does the CIS hensive analysis of all newspapers owned by Academic Advisory Council meet? Why did News Corporation around the world—all 175 no-one challenge Lucy Sullivan before her major titles. And all 175 newspapers in their absurd conclusion went to print? I challenge editorials were running a line that was pro the CIS to put these details on the public re- war in Iraq. Mr Greenslade described this as cord. an ‘extraordinary unity of thought’ among editors, which is all the more extraordinary In the meantime, the public can shift its because it happens to coincide with Mr Mur- concern to other CIS publications such as doch’s public views on the war, published ‘The Third World Debt Crisis: Can’t Pay or last month in the Bulletin magazine. Won’t Pay’, ‘A Private Education for All’ and ‘Why Christians Should Support the Conrad Black is also on the record as pub- Market Economy’. It shocks me that until licly supporting Tony Blair’s ‘courageous’ now these outrageous examples of nonsense stance on the war, a line enthusiastically have been absent from the Senate Hansard. echoed in his British newspapers. In Austra- One place CIS views have not been absent lia, it has been left to the Fairfax papers, the from is the opinion pages of the national electronic media and the public broadcasters newspapers. The CIS receives hundreds of to run the contrary arguments. This is all media mentions a year and its staff have very significant, because in a few weeks, this more than 100 opinion pieces published each parliament is set to debate a bill to deregulate year. I do not deny the CIS its right to push media ownership. Already, News Corpora- its views wherever it can. However, when the tion control around 57 per cent of the news- CIS dismisses such serious issues as world paper circulations in Australia. Under the bill poverty, I take offence. Helen Hughes of the proposed by the government, they will be CIS did this recently when she backed these able to expand their operations into televi- claims by Indian economist Surjit Bhalla: sion. ... that the World Bank’s poverty count of 1.15 An argument can be put that restraints on billion poor people in developing countries is a cross-media ownership restrict investment, gross exaggeration. and that investment restricts the ability to It would have helped readers to know that develop quality, diversified media. Senator Bhalla’s previous book was called Between Alston went so far as to tell the Melbourne the Wickets: The Who and Why of the Best in Press Club last month that our current media Cricket. laws encourage ‘mediocrity’. On several oc- casions, he has pointed to the British Labour I would like to conclude my remarks by government, which is in the process of over- warning others about the dangers of raising hauling its media laws to loosen up the similar concerns to mine about the CIS. The cross-media ownership restrictions. CIS have a track record of keeping you out of the loop if you are an uncooperative jour- Today, I want to discuss some of the key nalist and, if you are a mere public servant or differences in the British media environment academic, the CIS is likely to label you a from which Australia might learn, which 9242 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 underpin fundamentally the deregulation of radio and television against the standard that cross-media laws in that country and which news and current affairs should be presented do not exist as safeguards in the proposed with due accuracy and impartiality, and that laws for this country. British media laws undue prominence should not be given to the contain far stronger protections of diversity opinions of particular persons or bodies in and plurality than Australia’s proposed law matters of political or industrial controversy. regime does. This should concern all sena- The government’s policy paper notes: tors and citizens who seek to ensure that di- This power may become more important in the versity is maintained in Australia’s media light of the likely consolidation in local radio environment. markets, and OFCOM will need to use it to pay First, the laws will maintain the restriction particular attention to matters of impartiality. on major newspaper companies buying into OFCOM inherits from the BSC its very wide television. If a company controls 20 per cent powers to regulate matters of impartiality, of the national newspaper market, they will fairness and privacy. These include the be prohibited from owning more than 20 per power to impose conditions on licences, the cent of a television licence. Further, if a power to require the broadcasting of correc- newspaper company controls more than 20 tions and findings and the power to fine per cent of a regional newspaper market, broadcasters up to ÃRUÃILYHÃSHUÃFHQWÃ they will be prohibited from owning more of their revenues for breaching conditions. than 20 per cent of a regional television li- As the communications white paper notes: cence. The Blair government, in its commu- One of the cornerstones of broadcasting in the nications bill policy paper, defends these UK has been the obligation on all broadcasters to rules by arguing: present news with due accuracy and impartiality. National newspapers are the most editorially in- The Government believes that these obligations fluential mass medium. have played a major part in ensuring wide public … … … access to impartial and accurate information about our society and the opportunity to encoun- ... joint ownership of a substantial share of the ter a diverse array of voices and perspectives. national newspaper market and a substantial part They ensure that the broadcast media provide a of Channel 3, the only commercial public service counterweight to other, often partial, sources of broadcaster ... would represent an unacceptable news. They therefore contribute significantly to concentration of influence in the current circum- properly informed democratic debate. stances. Second, the British law goes further than the These powers contrast with those of the Aus- government’s proposed ‘editorial separation’ tralian Broadcasting Authority. It has the of jointly owned television and newspaper power to take complaints on issues of fair- newsrooms by requiring commercial televi- ness and privacy and make findings. But it sion operators to contract to a separate news has no powers to enforce its findings against provider for the provision of their news ser- commercial broadcasters, other than going vice. The government argues that this meas- through a very cumbersome process of mak- ure, mandated in the new law, ‘makes sure ing a matter a licence condition. Ironically, that the news service is independent of the the ABA does have a power to require public licensee and unaffected by any of their broadcasters but not commercial broadcast- commercial concerns’. The new communica- ers to broadcast corrections. tions bill will give the regulator more power Fourth, while the British government is to prescribe how much commercial televi- deregulating the mergers and takeover pow- sion must invest to maintain quality news ers for newspapers, it is maintaining an ex- and current affairs coverage, also ensuring ceptional public interest test on plurality. that such coverage is provided in prime time. This test will be directed to cases that in- Third, the British communications bill volve the public interest in the accurate pres- will mandate in the new industry regulator, entation of news, free expression of opinion OFCOM, the current powers of the Broad- and plurality of views in the press. Where the casting Services Commission to investigate exceptional public interest test is invoked, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9243 the competition commission will be expected will not be able to play the role of full coun- to carry out effective tests of local opinion, terweight to commercial media that the BBC for example, by means of citizen juries. does in the UK. The British communications Fifth, the laws carry very heavy obligations white paper picks up the mantra that this on broadcasters to carry regional program- government runs in terms of new options for ming. No such requirement exists in Austra- news, arguing that plurality concerns may lia, with only a first tentative move into the diminish as more people gain access to the area with the proposed regional news licence range of services now available on digital condition recently proposed by the ABA. TV and the Internet, but it concludes: Sixth, the public broadcasters play a much For the time being, however, most people con- more important part in British broadcasting. tinue to rely on terrestrial TV, radio and newspa- The government’s white paper restates this pers. Cross-media consolidations which are desir- role, arguing: able on economic grounds may tend to reduce the First, public service broadcasting ensures that the plurality of viewpoints and sources of information interests of all viewers are taken into account. available. Second, public service broadcasting is a counter- The paper points out that most European balance to fears about the concentration of own- countries, recognising the importance of the ership and the absence of diversity of views. It media, have some specific rules entrenched means news and current affairs are available in in law to prevent the dominance of various peak times, as part of mixed schedules, where players. These measures include numerical citizens are most likely to see them. It guarantees and percentage restrictions on monomedia the availability of full and balanced information and mass media ownership and cross-media about the world at local, regional and global lev- ownership, the establishment of expert media els. Such scheduling, together with the investment bodies to advise competition authorities on which public broadcasters have put into news and current affairs, is the key foundation of an open, media ownership issues, measures to pro- balanced public debate. mote editorial and journalistic independence and the requirement to promote media plu- It is difficult to imagine our own government ralism as a prerequisite to licensing. making a similar public commitment to pub- lic broadcasting here. Indeed, as ABC Man- It is important for policy makers, when aging Director Russell Balding pointed out at they argue that Australia should follow the the Press Club in September, the BBC re- UK approach to deregulating media owner- ceives public funding eight to nine times that ship, to recognise that, while the UK is look- of the ABC, even though Britain’s population ing at deregulating ownership to some de- is three times ours, while its land mass is just gree, this is backed by a far tighter set of three per cent of ours. Mr Balding contrasted conditions on the responsibilities of media the key role that the BBC continues to owners. The Democrats believe that Austra- play—in innovative programming and pro- lia too could benefit from a tougher regime duction and in digital conversion and re- of responsibilities on media owners in terms gional programming—with the approach of the public policy considerations of what adopted in Australia by pointing out: they must provide to the public. We adopted many of the British ideas in our media policy Since 1996, the ABC has been reduced, reformed, refocused and restructured to the limit. Years of which I released in September last year. I doing more with less has taken its toll—and as far would certainly hope that the government as the ABC services go, we are at the limit of our recognises that there is a strong public inter- comprehensiveness without additional funding. est case to be made that must offset the pure To put that into perspective, for the ABC to economic case for the consolidation of own- play the role in the Australian media that the ership. I would hope that, if our media laws BBC plays in the British media would re- are changed, with the added economic clout quire a trebling of its current budget. That is of new owners will come added responsibili- a budget increase of around $1.2 billion a ties as well. The balance implicit in British year. Are we going to see that? Of course media regulation is sadly missing in the gov- not. Then we need to recognise that the ABC ernment’s proposed media ownership laws. It 9244 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 needs to be there if we are to get the most out We get nowhere near the amount of per capita of our media. spending on things like hospitals, schools, TAFE and roads where the need per head of population New South Wales: Hunter Region should be the same regardless of where you are. Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) Mr Monteath said that Western Sydney was (1.22 p.m.)—I rise today to draw to the at- often seen as the poor cousin of the northern tention of the Senate some of the key issues and eastern suburbs, but even it received $2 that are coming up in the forthcoming New compared to every $1 spent in the Hunter. South Wales state election, particularly as Mr Monteath went on to say: they affect my home area of the Hunter Val- ley. I am amazed, having watched some of It also has its own complete Ministry of Western Sydney as opposed to our representation, which is the media and read the press reports, that the a Minister whose job is to assist the Premier, and Carr government seem to be peddling the then on Hunter development and not the region same bag of unfulfilled promises that they itself. brought to the Hunter in the 1999 election. The government treats the Hunter as safe Therefore, I am putting Mr Carr on notice Labor territory—meaning there is no need to and letting him know that the once loyal La- spend money there to buy votes. Mr bor voters of Newcastle and the Hunter are Monteath calculated the spending difference simply sick and tired of being seen as a sure by identifying every capital works project in thing in an election. Like a magician using the state budget paper from 1996 to 2002. In smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of an that time, for example, Hunter schools re- elephant that can disappear and reappear as if ceived capital works of $55 million and Syd- by magic, the Carr government is employing ney received $1 billion. Sydney hospitals similar tricks to make old election promises were allocated $2.5 billion compared with reappear and then disappear. Recently, Mr $70 million in the Hunter. Sydney roads Carr went to Newcastle with another bag of were allocated $2.35 billion and Hunter tricks disguised as election policies. As a roads were allocated $167 million. Mr resident and representative, I can tell the Monteath said that the $2 billion spent on Senate that the regional residents are tired of Sydney sporting facilities over that time being taken for granted just because it is made a mockery of Premier Bob Carr’s offer thought they live in a safe ALP seat. of $23.6 million for the upgrading of Energy Today, I would like to especially com- Australia Stadium. Even if he fully funds the mend the Hunter Business Chamber for ex- stadium, the Hunter would be well behind. posing the confidence tricks of the Carr gov- The Carr government is a very Sydney- ernment in an objective, non-political piece centric government with its eye comfortably of research. The business chamber, through off the ball when it comes to Newcastle and its regional infrastructure committee, re- the Hunter. Recently, Mr Paul Murphy, cently conducted an in-depth analysis of President of the Hunter Business Chamber, relative infrastructure spending, which com- pinned this down when he addressed the pared the amount spent per capita in Sydney Newcastle Business Club in his annual ad- with that spent in the Hunter. In the last six dress. Mr Murphy said: years, the Carr government has allocated $390 million in capital works in the Hunter. I do not dispute for a minute that Australia’s larg- In the same period, the Premier has miracu- est city needs massive investment. What I dispute is that our needs here have not even been assessed lously allocated $11 billion to spend on in- against those in the metropolitan area, let alone frastructure works in Sydney. To save sena- the amount we are allocated. tors from rushing to their calculators, I can confirm that, for every dollar spent in the When he rolled into town recently, Mr Carr Hunter by the Carr government, $2.50 is brought with him a list of promises aimed to spent in Sydney. Mr Rob Monteath, chair of appease the voters on their way to the polling the Hunter Business Chamber infrastructure station. In New South Wales, we have in Mr committee, commented: Carr a lacklustre Premier who believes he not only can dish out empty promises to the Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9245 people of the Hunter but in fact can repeat What else have we been promised that we the same empty promises that he made in the have not received? In 1998, Mr Carr and the previous election. transport minister, Mr Scully, announced that There do not seem to be any state ALP a $1.2 billion high-speed rail link between MPs who are ready to push for the Hunter’s Sydney and Newcastle would be in place by fair share. John Price, John Mills, Bryce 2012. This promise was outlined in the gov- Gaudry, Milton Orkopoulos, John Bartlett, ernment’s ‘Action for transport plan’ un- Jeff Hunter and Kerry Hickey have obvi- veiled on 23 November, 1998, just four ously been told, ‘You have a safe seat. Stop months before the 1999 election. The New- bothering us for money.’ John Brogden, in a castle to Sydney link was to act as a second recent visit to the Hunter, commented that stage to the Sydney to Warnervale link, the gaggle of state ALP Hunter MPs are very which would be completed by 2007. How timid in parliament. It is no wonder that the much progress has been made on the high- Hunter does not get its fair share from the speed rail link to the Hunter? Despite fund- state budget. Paul Murphy again commented: ing allocation for planning studies, Mr Scully’s office was insistent as late as last Last year I suggested that the working man in the Hunter might in fact think a change is due. November that the state government re- mained committed to its ‘Action for trans- I have some good examples of Bob Carr’s port plan’ and subsequent time frames for the smoke and mirror tricks. I want to deal with construction of the high-speed rail link. two major projects that have been promised for the Hunter and have just evaporated. The Strangely, though, in December last year, first one relates to a new steel mill. In April again only months away from this state elec- 2001 and again in October 2001, Mr Carr tion, Treasurer Michael Egan released a announced plans for the resumption of steel ‘State infrastructure strategic plan’ where the making in Newcastle with the announcement Sydney to Newcastle high-speed rail link of the Austeel project for the city. It was re- was identified as nothing more than a feasi- ported that the entire steel production for the bility study. When questioned on this, Mr first 15 years of the giant new Austeel pro- Egan denied that the government had ever ject had been presold for $40 billion. It was committed itself to anything other than a hoped that the site at Tomago, which would feasibility study. Well, Mr Egan, we remem- inject a projected $2.8 billion into the Hunter ber what happened before the 1999 election. economy, would be operating by 2004—that Again, we have more smoke and mirrors: the is, next year. However, this was reliant on promise of high-speed rail by 2012 with the state government approval processes being first stage completed by 2007? Mr Carr completed by February 2002. It is now one boldly stated that the project was fully year after that date and Mr Carr has, again, funded back in 1998. This broken promise— wheeled out this promise to the Hunter. He is yet another broken promise—should stand as dangling this carrot again before us. He came a beneficial lesson to voters that promises up and made a big announcement in front of made by the Carr government four weeks all the media—this is the third time that he before an election are just another con. has announced this project. He hopes we How can Mr Carr and Mr Scully be so ve- have all forgotten the earlier announcements. hemently and publicly committed to this rail The delay by the state government nearly link and then find it so unnecessary just five cost Newcastle this $5 billion Austeel project years later? This makes Mr Carr’s promise once before. So forgive us, Mr Carr, if we do last Wednesday that more will be spent on not give too much weight to your latest community infrastructure an embarrassment pledge. Paul Murphy commented to the to himself, his Treasurer, his transport minis- business club: ter and his entire government. Newcastle and We know the Austeel project has been sitting on the Hunter do not need policy announce- state government desks without any apparent ments delivered to them for the sake of po- progress. How long does this government think litical mileage. Mr Carr cannot just rean- that investors are going to hang around? 9246 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 nounce old budget statements when he Hawke Labor Government: 20th comes to town and expect us not to notice. Anniversary I have put a deliberate focus on Newcastle Senator COOK (Western Australia) (1.34 and the Hunter here today, but the govern- p.m.)—I noticed a gap in the speaking order ment’s failure in this area is far reaching— and therefore decided that I would fill it be- right across New South Wales. In a recent cause today is quite a momentous day. Al- article in the Financial Review, former Audi- though this speech is off the cuff and has no tor-General of New South Wales Tony Harris preparation, I feel confident that I can ad- has delivered a damning public indictment of dress the subject because of my experience eight years of Bob Carr’s government. In an of the era. Today, of course, is the 20th anni- article headed ‘Carr still stuck in neutral’, the versary of the election of the Hawke Labor former New South Wales Auditor-General government in 1983. It is also the 20th anni- indicates that the Carr government has delib- versary of my election to this Senate. erately been sitting on its hands. He writes: Honourable senators—Hear, hear! ... Carr’s political success has cost the NSW Senator COOK—I was elected in that community ... policies requiring thought and ef- election in 1983. Let me acknowledge Sena- fort are ignored. tor Ron Boswell across the chamber. He too On revenue raising issues, Mr Harris reveals was elected in that election and both of us what a master of smoke and mirrors Bob have been joined at the hip because of that Carr really is. He says: for the last 20 years, albeit on different sides of the chamber. I acknowledge the large con- A formulaic approach has also been used for tribution that Senator Boswell has made to budgeting. debate in this chamber. Rarely have we … … … agreed, but we have always managed to get on with one another. ... hidden reserves ... have allowed the Carr gov- ernment to buy its way out of political problems Twenty years ago, Australia, under the as they arise ... Fraser government, was suffering from dou- ble-digit unemployment, double-digit infla- On vision and initiative, there is little danger tion and negative economic growth. It had of New South Wales suffering from ‘reform been a government in which the now Prime fatigue’ under Bob Carr, according to Tony Minister John Howard was the Treasurer. It Harris. He points out that where reforms are was a government that had divided Australia. attempted, the Carr government retreats at Bob Hawke, in his election campaign, talked the first sign of opposition. Tony Harris about bringing the nation back together again writes that his government has avoided diffi- to unify Australia, to focus Australia on its cult policies; it is the ‘unchallenging ap- economic goals and to give Australia a sense proach’. Bob Carr is certainly stuck in neu- of common destiny and common purpose. tral when it comes to appropriate state gov- He also talked eloquently about not only ernment policies in New South Wales. uniting Australia but also recognising the The Hunter Business Chamber study dignity and the standing of honest men and shows the extent to which Newcastle and the women in Australia who worked for a living Hunter have been short-changed on the vital and putting aside the rhetoric about division infrastructure needs for its rapidly changing and union bashing that had characterised the economy. To Mr Carr we say that Newcastle Fraser government. and the Hunter can no longer be relied upon That Bob Hawke had been in parliament to deliver a swag of safe seats because we only for two years is quite an outstanding see through the smoke and mirrors and the element of his sudden rise to the leadership. same empty promises whenever you breeze He was of course a well-known popular pub- into town just before an election. lic figure due to his long period as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. He was a new union leader in his era. He was Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9247 a Rhodes scholar with a degree in economics mitting to a common accord about rebuilding from Oxford University who gave his time to the Australian economy and rebuilding and work for the ACTU and cut a dash as a most re-imprinting the Australian ethos as we outstanding advocate in national wage cases, drew the nation together to tackle what were arguing for wage justice for ordinary work- then insurmountable problems. ing Australians. Out of that national economic summit When he became President of the ACTU came the accord and, as well, the prices and his most famous signature, when asked a incomes policy approach resulting in a Prices silly question by a journalist, was to disman- Justification Tribunal commitment. The idea tle the question, prove how stupid it was, and was to trade off wage claims against tax cuts then provide the question that should have so that the real income of workers remained been asked in the first place followed by a the same or rose, and to deliver to families long and interesting reply, which then be- Medicare and other services so that the dis- came the authoritative text on that subject. posable income in their pockets rose as they He was regarded as a bit of a larrikin. But he paid less for health and had greater access to was also regarded as having a lot of intellec- the health scheme and as they paid less for tual capability, and he was a popular Austra- other services. lian. He was elected in place of Bill Hayden We often hear in this chamber from mem- on the very day that the then Prime Minister bers of the now government that real wages Malcolm Fraser called on the Governor- under Labor fell, and that as a statistical fact General to issue the writs for a federal elec- is true. But the real incomes to families rose tion. because the social wage that was delivered to Labor won that election in 1983 with a 26- households ameliorated the cost of lower seat majority. I am now the only one left wage growth and the tax cuts delivered also from that election on the Labor side of the improved purchasing power. So the relative class of 1983. I wonder what I have done position of ordinary Australian wage and wrong. Everyone else has gone off to pursue salary earners increased. We knew that be- other careers or just left the parliament—I fore the Hawke government was elected. We am the sole survivor. I think Senator Boswell were used to wage claims that were large in might be the sole survivor of the class of dollar value terms but were cut down in taxa- 1983 on his side too. tion as soon as they were awarded. We knew Senator Boswell—Peter McGauran. that their value was eroded significantly as well as you paid higher prices for access to Senator COOK—Okay, you are not the health and higher prices for a range of other sole survivor. The National Party is a little services in the community. more tenacious perhaps. Let me go back to the situation facing Australia at the election That is what the Prices and Incomes Ac- in 1983. There was double-digit unemploy- cord delivered. It was a revolution in the ap- ment, double-digit inflation, negative eco- proach to managing the economy of this nomic growth and a $6 billion deficit in the country. It resulted eventually in lowering budget, as the then Secretary to the Treasury, inflation. It resulted too in increasing em- John Stone, later a National Party senator, ployment and, because a fiscally strong and would remind us. That was the situation fac- disciplined ERC in the cabinet of the day ing the country. presided over the budget, finally the budget was returned to surplus and remained in sur- The first act of the new Prime Minister, plus until the recession that hit in 1991. Ap- Mr R. J. L. Hawke, was to call a national propriately, at that time—as we are now economic summit and for the first time in the hearing from Mr Costello, given the global Old Parliament House to bring into the recession at the present time—there was House of Representatives the captains of pump-priming expenditure to lift aggregate industry, the leaders of the union movement, demand in the Australian economy so that the state premiers and all those from civil the economy could be encouraged to shelter society that had a major role to play in com- from the worst elements of the recession. 9248 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

These were groundbreaking and signifi- wear industries and the automotive indus- cant achievements. On a number of occa- try—we had a reborn, internationally com- sions the Australian Council of Trade Unions petitive Australian industry sector. This was traded off a wage increase for a tax cut. On done with some cost because, when the old one famous occasion—the year, I think, was rewarding jobs for the labour-intensive in- 1984—the Australian Council of Trade Un- dustries fell away, people came out of em- ions traded off a wage increase for the intro- ployment and needed to be retrained or relo- duction of Medicare, the first universal free cated to take up the new jobs in a growing health service delivered for Australians. Over economy. Some people do not like change; subsequent elections there were many efforts there was a backlash about the reform. by conservative oppositions to try to disman- What now underpins the strength of the tle Medicare. The history of the Australian Australian economy, what gave resilience to electoral cycle is that to tamper with Medi- our economic performance in 1997 when the care is to lose government. No conservative Asian currency crisis hit and what gives re- effort to dismantle Medicare was ever re- silience now when there is a global downturn warded with a popular vote. So when John are those fundamental structural changes to Howard came to office in 1996, after many the economy. We have a more vibrant econ- years of trying to undermine, destroy or re- omy because of those benchmark changes of duce Medicare, he just promised to keep it. the Hawke era. It should always be recalled Medicare is a Labor achievement that now that that is the truth of the matter. Academic, endures even though now this government industry and business economists all say so. wants to destroy the health system. Of course, the economic cycle does not al- One of the other great economic reforms ways perfectly attune itself to the political of the Hawke era that needs to be recalled— cycle. So the beneficiaries of this structural and is vividly presented in the many maga- change, pioneered by the Hawke and later zine and newspaper articles that are doing a the Keating administrations, are the current retrospective on the Hawke years—is the government. They boast that these economic government’s commitment to reducing tariff strengths are theirs. Well, there is precious protection in Australia. Back in 1983 we little that this government has ever done to were a highly protected economy. There was structurally and fundamentally reform the an interest on both sides of politics in keep- economy, but they have managed to surf ing that protection in place. If you recall the along on the back of Hawke-Keating gains, Holden motor car in 1983, you will remem- claiming them to be their own and pretend- ber it was overpriced and underquality and ing that they are the responsible government. did not run all that well. The result of protec- That is not true. You can consult just about tion from global competition was that we had any economist in Australia who will tell you a soft economy that did not produce the qual- that that is the case. In the retrospectives that ity of goods at the price needed to compete we are now seeing in the press of what was on the international market. achieved in the Hawke-Keating era, that is a The Hawke government, with the coop- point that is strongly made. eration of many significant employer groups Mr Acting Deputy President Sandy Mac- and the trade unions, started to wind back the donald—if I can acknowledge you in the level of tariff protection at a slow pace but in chair as an honourable and distinguished a manner that enabled Australian business senator representing the National Party—you gradually and increasingly to be exposed to will be aware that one of the other great fun- international competition—not in a way that damental changes that the Hawke-Keating would wipe them out but in a way that that era spawned, led in this case by the then exposure to international competition would Prime Minister Bob Hawke, was the intro- make them more competitive and stronger. duction of Landcare. I happen to know about Eventually, when tariffs for all industries fell this because I was the resources minister to about five per cent—with the notable ex- who had the privilege of introducing that ceptions of the textiles, clothing and foot- scheme. It has been honoured, because it has Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9249 been continued by this conservative govern- tunity to make a comment. I will get Senator ment and it continues today. George Campbell an answer. I am out of time. There are many other As Senator George Campbell is so inter- things that deserve to be mentioned. I con- ested in tax reform, he has been here long clude on this fundamental point: Australia, enough to be making some contribution to under Hawke and Keating, became a country debate in this country about tax reform. Of that is a citizen of this region. We were course, we know that the Labor Party is not opened to the world. We forged closer rela- only missing in action in relation to tax re- tions with Asia. We established APEC. We form— led in international trade negotiations by pur- Senator Faulkner—Mr President, on a suing reform through the Cairns Group, point of order: the minister has indicated she which we helped establish—the Minister for is ignorant in relation to the important ques- Trade at the time, John Dawkins, formed tion that Senator Campbell has asked of her. that. There were a number of fundamental She has indicated she will try and find an changes which changed the complexion of answer, as she should, although I think many Australia. Multiculturalism was a good word would expect her to know the answer and to use during the Hawke-Keating period and provide it in question time. In this circum- it should remain a good word to use today. stance, I think it would be better if Senator Sitting suspended from 1.49 p.m. to Coonan resumed her seat so that we can get 2.00 p.m. on with the rest of question time. She has QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE indicated she cannot answer the question. Surely, she should sit down. Goods and Services Tax: Subcontractors The PRESIDENT—Senator Coonan, do Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (2.00 you have anything further to add to the ques- p.m.)—My question is addressed to Senator tion asked by Senator George Campbell? Coonan, Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Revenue. Can the minister confirm that an Senator COONAN—On the point of or- Australian subcontractor supplying goods or der, Mr President: Senator George Campbell services directly to an Australian company asked me a specific but also a wide-ranging on behalf of an overseas prime contractor is question on the administration of tax policy liable to charge a price that includes a 10 per and the GST, and it is only appropriate in cent GST? Given most overseas businesses those circumstances that I said that I will get choose not to register for the GST, doesn’t a detailed answer. But, in wishing to add to this mean the overseas prime contractor can- the answer, it is appropriate that I refer to the not claim input tax credits? Doesn’t this re- utter paucity of tax policy on the part of the sult in an Australian subcontractor having to Labor Party. As I was saying, the Labor quote a price 10 per cent greater than an off- Party on tax policy is not only missing in shore subcontractor where they provide action but just missing. I understand that it goods and services to an Australian business would be very important to the Labor Party through an overseas prime contractor? to try and take a point of order on this matter, because they do not want to have any atten- Senator COONAN—Thank you to Sena- tion whatsoever drawn to the fact that they tor George Campbell for the question. have not had a tax policy since 1993. In Senator Faulkner—It is a pleasure! those circumstances— Senator COONAN—I am glad that Sena- The PRESIDENT—Senator, I presume tor Faulkner thinks it is a pleasure. The an- you are still speaking to the point of order. swer to Senator Campbell’s question is obvi- The point of order was made on relevance, ously a matter of tax administration and it and I do not believe that the latter part of obviously deserves some detailed considera- your answer was relevant to the question that tion, not only because it involves a question was asked, so I uphold the point of order and of law but also because it is important that we will move to the next question. the Commissioner of Taxation has an oppor- 9250 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Mr GDP grew by three per cent, second only to President, I ask a supplementary question to Canada among the leading 15 countries in the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for the world. More significantly, the non-farm Revenue. Minister, isn’t it the case that economy grew by 0.8 per cent in the quarter. Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office That is 3.9 per cent for the calendar year 02, have been aware of this problem for at least clearly reflecting the underlying strength in three years? Didn’t you write to Minister the economy. Allowing for the drought, Macfarlane in May last year confirming that, which is a one-in-100-year drought, and the ‘The Tax Office is currently examining this weakness caused by global uncertainty, then situation with the aim of minimising any clearly, based on these national account fig- competitive disadvantage to Australian enti- ures, our economy is in very good shape. ties’? Why is this government hindering Aus- They are consistent with our MYEFO fore- tralian companies attempting to reduce the casts of growth of three per cent this finan- massive current account deficit with these cial year and four per cent in the ensuing anticompetitive GST laws? Why, Minister, financial year. have you done nothing since May last year to This week we have had the very good re- rectify this disadvantage caused by your port from the OECD on the strength of our government’s incompetent GST manage- economy and its performance under our ment? policies. We have also had the restoration, The PRESIDENT—Senator Campbell, I after about 15 years, of our AAA rating by remind you that you are to ask your question Standard and Poor’s, showing the strength of through the chair, not directly to the minister. our economy. From the national accounts, Senator COONAN—I had, I thought, in- we see very significantly business invest- dicated that I would get an answer from the ment rising by 19 per cent in the calendar commissioner relating to the detailed issue year 2002. That is a fantastic outcome and that Senator Campbell wants an answer on. points to how solid growth is out into the But on the broader point, and looking at the future. We have the ACCI Westpac survey of competitiveness of our tax system, I certainly industrial trends also showing very strong hope that by the time we bring some issues expectations for our manufacturing sector. on international tax reform to this Senate we More importantly, our automotive industry, will not see the same obstruction that we our strongest manufacturing sector, had a have seen from the Labor Party on every record performance in January. It was its best issue to do with taxation since 1996. ever January, with 61,000 vehicles sold. This came on the back of the best ever year for Economy: Performance the industry in 2002. I think all this good Senator CHAPMAN (2.05 p.m.)—My economic news is a very good sign of the question is directed to the Minister for Fi- strength of our responsible economic man- nance and Administration and Minister rep- agement over seven years. resenting the Treasurer. Will the minister I am very happy to acknowledge today, on provide the Senate with an update on the the 20th anniversary of the election of the performance of the Australian economy and Hawke Labor government, that some of the the benefits of the government’s responsible very sensible things that government did dur- economic management? Furthermore, is the ing its period in office have made a big con- minister aware of any alternative policies? tribution to the strength of our economy. Senator MINCHIN—I thank Senator There is no doubt that some of the reforms— Chapman for his question. I am happy to which were opposed, no doubt, by the Left give an update on the state of our economy of the Labor Party—championed by Bob based on the release of the national accounts Hawke, such as tariff reform, financial de- today, which are a further demonstration of regulation and floating the dollar, were all the inherent strength of the Australian econ- very important in producing the outcomes omy. GDP in the December quarter grew by we have had. I think the tragedy for Australia 0.4 per cent. Over the year to December, is that the ALP in opposition has completely Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9251 turned its back on economic reform. It has am not going to play your game,’ and they trashed the very good position that Hawke say, ‘Well, you are not ruling it out.’ I said, ‘I and Keating adopted in the 1980s in relation do not know how you would means test.’ to economic reform despite the opposition of Although I totally disagree with the article their own Left. The ALP in opposition, since that Professor Duckett has in the paper today, 1996, has opposed virtually every single he says that he does not know how you economic reform that we have put forward to would means test because people move in the Australian people. Paul Keating himself and out. I cannot exactly find where he says condemned the Labor opposition only last it, but he indicates that it would be difficult week when he said: to means test access to bulk-billing because More’s the pity that the Labor Party between people move in and out. That is exactly what 1996 and certainly 2000 vacated the field of com- I said. I said, ‘I do not know how you would petition and productivity. do that,’ meaning that I was not even con- I endorse entirely what Mr Keating said. The templating it. Then the media started running point is that it is now 2003 and the Labor the line, as Labor has done, that I was going opposition is still vacating the field of eco- to means test. nomic reform. I want to assure the Australian It is very interesting. If Labor cannot actu- people that, despite the continued opposition ally get the issue, they concoct a conspiracy from the Labor Party to further economic about something being hidden or they make reform, we will stick to the task. Economic up a myth. So the press went out and said reform is an ongoing task. It must never stop that I had not ruled out means testing access if we are to ensure that we continue to build to Medicare and bulk-billing and we came one of the world’s great economies. out and made a categorical statement on that Medicare: Bulk-Billing day to clear the air and make it very clear. I repeat: we will not be means testing bulk- Senator CROSSIN (2.09 p.m.)—My billing. That is the answer to that question. I question is to Senator Patterson, the Minister understand that Senator Crossin was not at for Health and Ageing. Can the minister con- that press conference. I was very clear. I said firm that on 10 February, the same day that that I do not know how you would do that. she refused to rule out the means testing of bulk-billing, her office was responsible for She also asked a question about my ap- briefing journalists on a $1 billion plan to pearance on Insiders. I have not briefed any- stop the decline in bulk-billing. Why then did body about any amount of money. I think the minister tell the ABC program Insiders there was one comment in one newspaper on 23 February that the $1 billion figure was where some journalist had some figure for just the ‘speculation of one journalist, who what was going to be in this package. I think worked out some figures in a corridor’? Can it was one journalist who reported that fig- the minister confirm the report today in the ure. That is what I indicated in my response Australian that the government has a $1 bil- on Insiders. I have not indicated any figure lion plan for doctors to bulk-bill disadvan- to anybody and, as I said, what I want to do taged patients only or is that also the specu- is work on a package to make sure that we lation of one journalist who worked out some have reasonable and fair access to doctors. figures in a corridor? As I have mentioned over and over again, when we came into government we had a Senator PATTERSON—Senator Cros- total maldistribution of general practitioners. sin’s question is a hypothetical question. She There were far too many in the city and far was not actually there, but there was a press too few in the country and outer metropolitan conference about the issue and one journalist areas. We have spent $562 million getting said to me, ‘Will you or won’t you rule this doctors out into rural areas. In the last five out?’ Senator Crossin, you most probably years we have had an 11 per cent increase in will never get the chance to be in the situa- full-time equivalent doctors, more in terms tion where you have to do that sort of thing. of doctors on the ground. That is the first That is the most dangerous question: will you rule in or rule out something. You say, ‘I 9252 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 time we have seen a turnaround in getting side. Do you know what the states have done doctors back out into rural areas. to their contribution, which is about 43 per Some of the measures we have put in cent? They have not even increased it by the place such as rural bonded scholarships will CPI—no real increase. So if doctors in state take time to wash through because the stu- public hospitals want to know why they have dents are still at university. To try and undo had a $3,000 decrease over the last five the damage Labor left, especially in work years— force issues, takes ages. The work force and Senator Crossin—Mr President, I rise on access to doctors are some of the issues that a point of order. The first part of my supple- affect access to bulk-billing. Where there are mentary question was whether or not the more doctors it is more likely that people minister could assure us if anyone in her of- will be bulk-billed. I also have indicated that, fice had briefed the media. since the inception of Medicare, there has Senator PATTERSON—What a major never been 100 per cent bulk-billing. Even policy issue! Did someone in my office brief Professor Deeble, the father of Medicare, a journalist or not? I was walking down a yesterday agreed with the Prime Minister corridor with a journalist who said, ‘If you that no government could guarantee to make did this, it would be $80 billion; or, if you bulk-billing 100 per cent universal. He said, did this, it would be $4 billion.’ I said, ‘You ‘We cannot make doctors charge a certain fee can make up all the figures you like. You and whatever rebate you gave patients there were never briefed.’ But that is not a policy would be some doctors who would not direct issue. I want to talk about the issue of the bill people.’ So even the architect of Medi- Australian health agreements, which Senator care, Professor Deeble, has indicated that Crossin raised. The Labor states increased you would never be able to achieve a 100 per funding to the public hospitals by less than cent rate of people being directly billed; that the CPI. We have increased it by just on six is, not having an out-of-pocket expense. per cent, on average, across the five years, (Time expired) over the life of the agreements. Senator CROSSIN—Mr President, I ask The PRESIDENT—Minister, are you a supplementary question. Minister, can you speaking to the point of order? assure us that no-one in your office briefed journalists on the $1 billion plan to stop the Senator PATTERSON—I am answering decline in bulk-billing? If the Treasurer is the question. right in saying that there will be no new The PRESIDENT—Your time has ex- money for health in this year’s budget, will pired. the government’s $1 billion plan for bulk- Organisation for Economic Cooperation billing be funded from the Australian health and Development: Report on Australia’s care agreements? Is that the real reason you Economic Performance refused to attend a meeting of health minis- Senator MASON (2.17 p.m.)—My ques- ters recently and why you refuse to guarantee tion is to the Minister for Revenue and Assis- that there will be no cut in funds for public tant Treasurer, Senator Coonan. Will the hospitals? minister update the Senate on yesterday’s The PRESIDENT—Senator Crossin, I OECD report which included analysis of the also remind you to address your questions Howard government’s reforms to our taxa- through the chair. tion system. Is the minister aware of any al- Senator PATTERSON—I am grateful for ternative policies in these areas? the opportunity to answer the question; it is Senator COONAN—I thank Senator Ma- like a dorothy dixer. In the Australian health son for his question. He has been a keen ad- agreements—the current health care agree- vocate of the ongoing structural and taxation ments over a five-year period—we have in- reforms that the government has imple- creased the spending on public hospitals by mented since coming to office. I know that six per cent in real terms. That is over and he is committed to ongoing tax reform. Sena- above inflation, for those people on the other tors on this side of the chamber would be Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9253 well aware of yesterday’s glowing endorse- The OECD report also points to the ongo- ment from the OECD of the resilience of ing tax reforms and, in particular, the major Australia’s economy and the Howard gov- review of the international tax system. It ernment’s policies that have delivered that points out that this provides an opportunity outcome. As Senator Hill pointed out yester- to assess the impact of our current interna- day, the OECD have quite rightly indicated tional tax arrangements on the expansion that the pursuit of structural reforms across a plans of Australian companies offshore and broad front has been a key factor in sustain- whether there are impedients to the attraction ing Australia’s economic performance. These of domestic and foreign equity. We can only reforms, combined with our exceptional hope that, in the interests of a competitive macro-economic management, have made tax system, when these issues eventually Australia a truly standout performer amongst come before the Senate, instead of wrongly OECD economies. banging on about the big end of town the While the success of the Howard govern- Labor Party will adopt a more constructive ment’s economic reforms no doubt irks the approach in the interests of all Australians. opposition, it is a fact that most Australians Australians should not have their future and external observers both appreciate and prosperity and success continually hijacked understand it. The recent OECD report made by a lazy and opportunistic opposition that it quite clear that, on the taxation front, the have not had a tax policy of their own since government has implemented an impressive 1993. The OECD report should act as a and comprehensive overhaul of the tax sys- wake-up call for Labor, and Labor should tem in recent years. It made the point that the stop blocking important budget reforms. If government’s reforms to indirect tax have the OECD report concludes that the PBS and not only helped broaden the tax base, and disability reforms are necessary and desir- thus provide a secure and buoyant source of able changes, surely the opposition should be revenue for the states, but also improved the listening. These changes are far too impor- efficiency of the tax system. tant for petty political gains; Australians The OECD report notes that these reforms need responsible action from the opposition, have also delivered a fall in the price of most and they need it now. investment goods and services faced by Superannuation: Children’s Accounts business due to the removal of the cost of Senator SHERRY (2.21 p.m.)—My business inputs embedded in the previous question is to the Minister for Revenue and wholesale sales tax system. As senators Assistant Treasurer, Senator Coonan. In light would know, this has removed a huge em- of the minister’s conspicuous failure yester- bedded tax burden on all businesses, particu- day to know anything about how many chil- larly so for our exporters. This is important, dren’s superannuation accounts have been given the impacts of the drought, the tough opened since July— trading conditions and the weak external demand faced by our farmers and other ex- Senator Hill—Mr President, I rise on a porters. point of order. The honourable senator is supposed to ask questions, not to make I have been asked about alternative poli- comments. I suggest you bring him to order. cies. It is bizarre that the Labor Party argued up hill and down dale, right up to the last The PRESIDENT—I agree. Would you election, about the alleged flaws in these tax reask the question, Senator Sherry. reforms and how they would damage our Senator SHERRY—How many chil- economy. But the outstanding performance dren’s superannuation accounts have been of the economy since the introduction of tax opened since July last year? Can the minister reform and the recent assessment from the have another go today. How many Austra- OECD simply shows how utterly wrong La- lians have responded to the rallying calls bor were to oppose tax reform and how po- from the Assistant Treasurer and the Prime litically opportunistic their behaviour has Minister, who has claimed that ‘Australians been. should participate in order to enjoy com- 9254 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 pound interest in this trailblazing initiative of against the need for savers and saving in children’s superannuation accounts’? Australia, we have not got a policy on choice Senator COONAN—I thank Senator yet that has been agreed to by the Labor Sherry for giving me another opportunity to Party. It is an absolute disgrace when the explain the child accounts policy. Clearly Labor Party simply obfuscates and tries to Senator Sherry is obsessed with it, even invent reasons as to why choice—which will though the rallying cry for superannuation in enable people to move funds so that they are this country is for choice, where people do not trapped in a poorly performing fund— not want to be trapped in underperforming should not be implemented. The govern- funds. In any event, the government has im- ment’s suite of measures that it took to the plemented its ‘superannuation for life’ elec- election—which it costed in the budget and tion commitment to allow superannuation which will comprehensively make superan- contributions to be made on behalf of chil- nuation more attractive and more available— dren. The measure is only one of a compre- are being comprehensively thwarted by the hensive suite of superannuation measures opportunistic Labor Party. designed to make the superannuation system We do not ever see any policy put up by more attractive and more accessible for Aus- the Labor Party on superannuation. We still tralians. Parents, grandparents, other rela- have that very famous blank sheet of paper tives, friends, even those in the Labor Party, from Senator Sherry. All of the new people can make superannuation contributions of up who have come in on the Labor side of the to $3,000 every three years on behalf of a record, sitting over there on the other side of child. The measure has been in effect for a the chamber, obviously have not got any short time only, with commencement on 1 ideas to contribute either to trying to do July 2002. Not surprisingly, the measure is a something about Labor’s policy on superan- voluntary savings vehicle and builds on the nuation. The child accounts have barely had government’s commitment— time to be implemented. They only started on Senator Sherry—Mr President, I rise on 1 July last year. Cavilling about statistics a point of order. The point of order goes to entirely misses the point about the range of relevance. The question asked was: how superannuation measures ready and costed many accounts have been opened? I want a and available to the Australian people if only number. the Australian Labor Party would stop ob- structing. The PRESIDENT—There is no point of order. The minister is answering the question Senator SHERRY—Mr President, I ask a that you asked. She has not given a precise supplementary question. I asked yesterday number yet but I feel that she was heading in twice and I have asked again today: how that direction. She has two minutes and 42 many accounts have been opened? Can the seconds left to answer the question. minister inform the Senate. Also, given the Assistant Treasurer’s commitment to Senate Senator COONAN—This measure only estimates on 14 February, when she said on started on 1 July last year and, whilst it is this issue: ‘There is obviously a very good appropriate and required that child accounts underlying policy rationale for it. It is a good be identified within funds, there are certainly policy, and I will be doing everything I can no statistics yet available that would indicate to talk about it,’ when will the minister do whether or not this measure has been taken something—anything—about some of the up and in what sorts of numbers. It is entirely real barriers to the opening of children’s su- conjecture on the part of the Labor Party and perannuation accounts, such as banning the those who would like to see the policy fail as outrageous commissions that apply to some to whether or not this has been taken up. of these accounts, even to children’s ac- More broadly, when you look at the suite counts? When will the minister ban these of measures of which this was only one, and sorts of impediments and barriers to her pol- the Labor Party’s obstruction to the imple- icy? mentation of these measures, you see that, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9255

Senator COONAN—Thank you for the forced. That is our preference and we hope supplementary question, Senator Sherry. This that that will be the outcome. is where we get to the nub of where the La- If a resolution fails or if it is withdrawn bor Party are on fees and charges. They want because of insufficient support then we will to come in and regulate the whole of the su- move into a new realm. I think the United perannuation industry. They do not want to States has made it clear that it is going to see competition and they do not want to see ensure that Saddam Hussein is disarmed choice. They do not want to see choice for whether or not the Security Council meets its children. They do not want to see choice for responsibility. If that is the case and if Aus- adults. They do not want to see choice for tralia is asked to participate in the coalition anyone in this country. They want an entirely of the willing in such circumstances, Austra- regulated superannuation industry where it is lia would have to consider that request at that all for the benefit of industry funds—at least time, which would be considered by the gov- it is largely for the benefit of industry funds. ernment in Australia’s national interest. We The Australian public have had enough; they hope that will not come about, because we want choice. We know it works across the hope that although there is not much time board, and the Labor Party should get on left the Security Council nevertheless will with passing that policy. meet its responsibility and act in this matter. Iraq Senator BARTLETT—Mr President, I Senator BARTLETT (2.28 p.m.)—My ask a supplementary question. I thank the question is to the Minister representing the minister for clarifying that situation, which is Prime Minister, Senator Hill. I note the clearly that the government is willing to fol- Prime Minister’s statement today, which mir- low the US even if the United Nations has rors that of Senator Hill in answer to my not resolved a clear position. Given that that question yesterday, that cabinet will not is the case and the government is potentially make a decision on Australian involvement on the verge of sending Australian troops in military action in Iraq until the United into a war on Iraq in, as the Prime Minister Nations resolves its position. Given that the has said, potentially as little as one week’s US administration have made it clear that time, creating a new generation of Australian they do not believe a further UN resolution is veterans of conflict in Iraq, will the govern- necessary and have even mooted the possi- ment commit to releasing the health study of bility of withdrawing the current draft reso- the last generation of Gulf War veterans from lution if it looks likely to fail, how can the 1991 which has been completed and which Australian government be giving any consid- has been with the government for many eration to supporting the US in such a cir- weeks? If we are about to create a new gen- cumstance where the UN would clearly not eration of veterans, shouldn’t we at least have resolved its position? know what the health impacts on the last Senator HILL—I think the language the generation of Australians sent to war over 12 Prime Minister has used is that we want to years ago have been? see the UN processes fully explored. That Senator HILL—Senator Bartlett misin- remains our position. We believe in the Secu- terprets, for his benefit, what I said. What I rity Council process. We believe in collective said was that if Australia is requested to par- security under the Security Council. That is ticipate in a coalition of the willing to disarm why we have been urging that the Security Saddam Hussein we will consider that re- Council meet its responsibility in this regard. quest at that time in Australia’s national in- Unfortunately, for 12 years Saddam Hussein terest. In relation to the health study to which has basically operated in breach of a series of the honourable senator refers, I will in turn UN Security Council resolutions, which we refer that to Minister Vale, who has responsi- believe has significantly undermined the au- bility for those issues, and see what she is thority of the Security Council. What we say prepared to do. is that it is now the responsibility of that council to ensure that its resolutions are en- 9256 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Banking: Credit Card Schemes tion time—that is correct. It is also true that Senator COOK (2.33 p.m.)—My ques- the opposition took strenuous objection to tion is to the Minister for Revenue and Assis- the President’s ruling at the time. It is also tant Treasurer, Senator Coonan. Through true that, subsequent to the issue being raised you, Mr President: Minister, do you support by former President Reid, she relaxed the use the stated intention of Qantas to surcharge of that terminology in question time because customers for using their credit cards whilst both government and opposition senators offering them no discount if they choose to regularly used it. It is also true that on no pay by cash? Do you accept that this would occasion since you have been presiding have mean that there would be no savings to Qan- you ruled such a matter out of order. What tas customers arising out of the RBA credit you have consistently done is request that card reforms? senators address their remarks through the chair. That is, in my view, a correct ruling on Senator Abetz—Mr President, I rise on a your part. This is a deliberate attempt on the point of order. On a number of occasions you part of Senator Abetz to try and help save a have spoken to the opposition about the use minister in this chamber, Senator Coonan, of the word ‘you’, as opposed to directing who is struggling in question time, by inter- questions through the chair. Just because you rupting the important question that is being preface the question, ‘through you, Mr asked by Senator Cook. I ask you to rule—as President,’ that does not allow the asker of has been consistently done over recent years the question to revert to the personal. Mr and months—this absurd point of order out President, I would ask you to draw this to the of order. attention of Senator Cook who, although he has been in this place for 20 years, still does The PRESIDENT—Points of order dur- not know the standing orders and is a bad ing question time do take time from those example to its newer members. wanting to ask questions. All I have been doing is reminding senators to put their re- The PRESIDENT—Senator, you are now marks through the chair. If senators were to debating the matter. I take your point of or- refer to the minister occasionally it would be der. I have reminded senators on both sides most helpful. on more than one occasion to address their remarks through the chair and I will continue Senator COOK—Thank you, Mr Presi- to do so. dent. Does the minister accept that this would mean there would be no savings to Senator COOK—Through you, Mr Qantas customers arising out of the RBA President, do you accept that this would credit card reforms? Wouldn’t this contradict mean that there would be no savings to Qan- the statements made by the minister about tas customers— the benefits to consumers from credit card Senator Abetz—Mr President, I rise on a reform? Has the minister communicated her point of order. The honourable senator does view to Qantas and, if so, what was Qantas’s not understand what the standing orders re- response? What action has the minister taken quire. You cannot say ‘through the chair’ and in response to the statement by Qantas? then immediately revert to the personal, say- Senator COONAN—I thank Senator ing ‘you’. He might deal with a lot of sheep Cook and congratulate him on finally getting on that side and therefore the word ‘ewe’ his question up. Before I get to the issue of comes to mind, but, Mr President, the fact is Qantas, in relation to credit card reforms he has to address the question to the minister generally it is important to say that this is, of and not through you. It ought to be, ‘My course, just the first stage of the credit card question is to the minister,’ not to ‘you’. reforms. On 1 January this year the restric- Senator Faulkner—On the point of or- tion on merchants charging consumers for der, Mr President: it is true that your prede- using credit cards was lifted. This is the first cessor, former President Reid, when she was element of the reforms. The restriction on presiding made a ruling in this chamber in surcharging has inhibited the normal market relation to the use of the word ‘you’ in ques- mechanisms from operating. Consumers who Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9257 do not use credit cards have been paying the minister taken to establish how many more and those who use credit cards have other companies, if any, intend to follow been paying less than they otherwise would Qantas’s example? Through you, Mr Presi- have been. Price signals about the costs of dent, what action has the minister taken to different payment instruments have been ensure other companies do not follow Qan- distorted, to the detriment of the economy as tas’s example in this regard? Can we have a whole. Generally, business has chosen not straight, clear answers shorn of all the gob- to surcharge. Customers are aware of sur- bledegook used to misrepresent the position charging and are prepared to consider pay- of the government? ment methods other than credit cards and, Senator COONAN—Thank you for the generally, to shop around to different provid- supplementary question, Senator Cook. You ers. would of course be aware that the Labor In the case of Qantas, the government Party backed these RBA reforms. Senator would certainly not be sympathetic to the Cook asked me to agree with his proposition airline, particularly when there are routes on that Qantas are charging the surcharge fee, which there is little competition. The reforms and he said, ‘Isn’t the answer yes?’ I hate to have only been in place for a short time, and spoil his fun, but the answer is no. Qantas we need to see how they settle down. To en- have not introduced this, and I do not think able monitoring of the implementation of the they will. They suffered—no doubt quite standard, the RBA is keeping a close eye on rightly—a consumer backlash when they the situation and collecting data from finan- suggested it, and it has not been introduced. cial institutions. The Australian Securities Iraq and Investments Commission and the ACCC are, as I said yesterday, maintaining a watch- Senator NETTLE (2.43 p.m.)—My ques- ing brief on surcharging developments. ASIC tion is to Senator Hill, the Minister repre- is monitoring merchants to ensure that where senting the Prime Minister. The minister surcharging occurs there is appropriate dis- would be well aware that the US Congress, closure, and the ACCC will ensure that there the House of Commons in the UK and the is no anticompetitive behaviour between French National Assembly have all had the merchants in setting the surcharge levels. opportunity to vote on whether to endorse an The answer to Senator Cook’s question is attack on Iraq. Why does this government that, because this is only the very first stage continue to deny the representatives of the of comprehensive reform in relation to the Australian people this opportunity, a democ- provision of credit by way of credit card, it is ratic right that our allies and others have seen being monitored in the ways I have indi- fit to uphold? cated. I might add that, with the ACCC being Senator HILL—There is a distinction one of the monitors, this government would within our system between executive respon- be mightily pleased if those on the other side sibility and legislative responsibility. It is would use whatever influence they can bring true that the executive is responsible to the to bear on their Labor mates in the states parliament, and if and when the executive who are opposing the appointment of makes a decision on this particular issue the Graeme Samuel, as the ACCC clearly needs Prime Minister has said that the decision will an outstanding chairman. be taken to the parliament and the parliament Senator COOK—Mr President, I ask a will have the opportunity to debate it. supplementary question now that the minis- Senator NETTLE—Mr President, I ask a ter has danced around the point and not quite supplementary question. Will the govern- answered the first question. Minister, is the ment allow the parliament to vote on our answer that you do support Qantas applying involvement in a war on Iraq? the surcharge on credit cards whilst offering customers no discount if they choose to pay Senator HILL—It might be news to cash? Through you, Mr President, isn’t the Senator Nettle, but in this place the govern- answer yes? Further to that, what steps has ment do not have the numbers and the oppo- 9258 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 sition parties can implement whatever proc- being replaced or will be replaced by others. ess they wish. The distinction is between the In relation to why they were not vaccinated responsibility of the parliament and the re- on the LPA before the ship left Australia, we sponsibility of the executive. This is an ex- have answered that question before, and in ecutive responsibility and the decision will some depth in estimates when we set out the be made by the executive. The form that we time frame of when the government made have committed ourselves to is the same as the decision and so forth. I think that pretty that adopted by the Labor Party at the time of much covers the suite of questions asked by the Gulf War in 1991 when a decision was Senator Evans. made by the Hawke government and that Senator CHRIS EVANS—Mr President, decision was taken to the parliament and I ask a supplementary question. I thank the debated. minister for covering the suite of questions Defence: Anthrax Vaccination but not answering any of them. I would ap- Senator CHRIS EVANS (2.45 p.m.)— preciate his commitment to take on notice My question is directed to Senator Hill, the how many were to return and whether they Minister for Defence. Can the minister in- have all been returned because he has failed form the Senate exactly how many ADF per- to answer that on a number of occasions sonnel deployed to the Gulf have refused the now. I would also like him to respond to the course of anthrax vaccines and whether all question of what caused the change in policy. those who have not been inoculated have Why were sailors told at one stage that they been returned to Australia? Is the minister would be allowed to stay on the deployment aware that two days after telling sailors of if they refused anthrax vaccination and then the vaccination requirement on 4 February subsequently told they had to return to Aus- this year the ADF was advising them that tralia immediately and be taken off the they could remain with the deployment if ships? I want an answer to the question of they refused the vaccine? When was the de- why that policy was changed. It is clear from cision taken that those refusing the vaccine information now received that a change in would have to return to Australia, and by policy did occur during that period and I whom? Why was this decision and the proc- would like to know why. I would also like ess for informing personnel about the vac- the minister to answer the questions as to cine not put in place in the three weeks be- whether or not the ADF will be conducting tween 10 January and the sailing of the an investigation into the inoculation process, HMAS Kanimbla? What happened to cause whether or not all information was available the change in policy? to those personnel about the vaccine’s com- ponents and whether or not there have been Senator HILL—There were many ques- any personnel seeking formal grievance as a tions asked by Senator Chris Evans. Basi- result of that process? (Time expired) cally, the ADF has a policy in relation to vaccinations that they are voluntary. Service Senator HILL—I do not believe that personnel are not obliged to be vaccinated, there was a change of policy. I have not as they are in US forces, but if they choose heard that suggested before. I have always not to be vaccinated, the ADF view is that its understood the policy to be as I expressed in duty of care to that person is such that they answer to the first question. Our policy is should not be put at risk. Therefore, if they different from that of the British, who allow choose not to be vaccinated, Defence Force their forces to sign waivers. We think that commanders will not allow them to be put at that is not sufficient to override the duty of risk from that particular threat. In relation to care. In relation to information being avail- how many have refused the vaccination, I do able, it is true that when the LPA sailed some not have an up-to-date figure on that—I will of the educational information was not avail- make inquiries. I am also not sure whether able and that was relevant to the decision at all of those who have declined to be vacci- that time not to vaccinate—to delay vaccina- nated have returned to Australia or are in the tions. I think that answers the two specific process of returning or will return—or are Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9259 questions that were asked in the supplemen- the community to understand this—for two tary question. years following the declaration of excep- Agriculture: Economic Outlook tional circumstances. So even if rains come, that assistance will be available for another Senator COLBECK (2.50 p.m.)—My two years. question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and For- Since September last year, the Common- estry, Senator Ian Macdonald. Will the min- wealth has moved to introduce a number of ister inform the Senate how recent rains are new initiatives to the exceptional circum- expected to benefit farmers and the Austra- stances policy, particularly to those parts of lian economy? the policy over which the Commonwealth really has had no control. We are providing Senator IAN MACDONALD—I thank immediate income support once the EC ap- Senator Colbeck for again drawing our atten- plication is referred to ENRAC, we are using tion to a natural calamity that has a very sig- predictive modelling, we have waived the nificant impact upon the Australian economy 12-month minimum deposit period, and the and on our exports. I know all senators will time taken by the Commonwealth depart- be very happy, as I am, with the recent rains. ment to determine EC applications has been It is a little early to say that the drought is halved. over, but certainly recent rains have been very well received. If we do have some fol- However, one of the key problems with low-up rain, the winter crop planting season the exceptional circumstances assistance is will make the outlook very much brighter for the very recalcitrant attitude taken by all of farmers in 2003-04—brighter both emotion- the states to EC applications. It is a very un- ally and financially. According to figures that fortunate situation that the system at the have been released by the Australian Bureau moment is such that the states are responsi- of Agricultural and Resource Economics at ble for making the application. Some of them their Outlook Conference—which, as all do it with little care or responsibility and use senators will know, is happening over these it for political purposes—putting in the ap- two days in Canberra—farmers are poised plication, knowing that someone else will for a $4 billion crop led recovery. ABARE’s have to foot the bill. Mr Truss has announced predictions for 2003-04 show a dramatic in- the very sensible approach where, when this crease in the fortunes of the rural sector, pro- drought is out of the way, he will be calling a vided that there is a good autumn break in national summit of all of the industry leaders the drought. According to Dr Brian Fisher, and the states to get a better approach to the the Executive Director of ABARE, the net exceptional circumstances assistance. value of farm production should nearly triple Centrelink: Family Payments to $6.1 billion in the next financial year and Senator FORSHAW (2.54 p.m.)—My that is in very stark contrast to the $2.3 bil- question is directed to Senator Vanstone, the lion plunge in the current financial year. The Minister for Family and Community Ser- recovery will come from increased crop vices. Can the minister confirm that she met plantings. Plantings should increase by about with the National Council for Single Mothers 12 per cent on last season to a record of 20.5 and their Children in February last year? Is it tonnes. Whilst the increase will come from true that at that meeting Senator Newman’s crop plantings, livestock industries are ex- commitment, made in parliament on 13 April pected to take a little longer to recover fol- 2000, to conduct a review of the shared care lowing the drought. provisions in the family payments legislation The government has continually pledged was raised? Is it true that the minister made a its support for those in the rural sector af- personal commitment to examine the Han- fected by the drought. Part of this ongoing sard record and to conduct a follow-up on commitment includes the income and busi- the issue? I further ask: what action has the ness support components of the exceptional minister taken to honour her promise to the circumstances assistance. These will be National Council for Single Mothers and available—it is important for senators and their Children about the shared care review 9260 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 and why is she now claiming, one year later, cated—I have said this most probably five not to know anything about it? times in the last two sitting weeks. Where Opposition senators interjecting— you have a higher number of doctors, you get a high bulk-billing rate—sometimes up Senator VANSTONE—I thought it was a around 90 per cent—and where you have most applicable line to Ms Macklin’s speech fewer doctors you get a lower bulk-billing yesterday on China. I thank you for the ques- rate. Competition is one of the things that tion, Senator Forshaw. I have a pretty good drives up bulk-billing rates. When Labor memory and I have to tell you that I do re- were in government in their last six years, member meeting with the executive director they increased the Medicare rebate for a or president on her own in Adelaide—not the standard consultation by only nine per cent national council—and it was some consider- over that period. Over the last six years we able time ago. I do not remember the detail have increased it for a short consultation by of that meeting. I will inquire and see 20 per cent. For a long consultation, we have whether someone in my office was in atten- increased the rebate by 23 per cent; Labor in dance with me. They usually would be and their last six years increased it by only five they have a daybook. As I said to Senator per cent. All these things affect bulk-billing. Faulkner yesterday, I will have a look at that. We also now have payments for doctors—it I have asked someone to do that and, as soon works out at about $18,000 per doctor—for as I have an answer, I will come back to you. dealing with issues like diabetes, mental Senator FORSHAW—Mr President, I health and asthma to achieve better out- ask a supplementary question. Minister, I comes. Unlike Labor, who had our children thank you for acknowledging that you still being vaccinated at the rate of 53 per cent— do not know, but I put to you that the prom- which was down around Third World lev- ise of a review was made. Minister, can you els—we actually put incentives in and gave guarantee that such a review, as promised, doctors assistance to get that rate up. We now will be completed quickly and made public have it up at First World levels. when it is completed? Medicare came in, and I have a paper here Senator VANSTONE—I gave an answer from a speech that Dr Blewett made on 26 to this matter to Senator Faulkner yesterday. August 1983 to none other than the Doctors I have asked that the matter be dealt with in Reform Society. He said, ‘On 1 February my office. I do not have a follow-up briefing next year, all Australian residents will be on that issue. I say the same to Senator For- guaranteed automatic entitlement under a shaw as I said to Senator Faulkner: I will get single public fund to a medical and optomet- back to you as quickly as I can. rical benefit of 85 per cent of the scheduled Medicare: Bulk-Billing fee.’ Do you know what it is now? It is 85 Senator ALLISON (2.56 p.m.)—My per cent of the scheduled fee. Do you know question is to the Minister for Health and what it will be tomorrow, at the end of this Ageing. Yesterday in question time, the min- year and next year? It will be 85 per cent of ister did not answer my question on just how the scheduled fee. much more people should be expected to pay Despite the myths that are being put above the GP Medicare rebate. Again, I ask: around, all Australians will have access to a will the minister indicate what she thinks is a doctor and a doctor can direct bill a person. reasonable amount to pay to see a GP and If they charge 85 per cent of the scheduled what the government will do to limit high fee, a person will have no payment to make. copayments, particularly for people on low That is the case now and that will be the case incomes with no access to bulk-billing? in the future. We cannot tell doctors what to Senator PATTERSON—As I said yes- charge. Some of them—92 per cent of them terday, there are a number of issues which in some cases—in some areas do not charge affect the bulk-billing rate and affect it dif- an additional gap and in other areas they do. ferently in different areas. One of them is the One of the things that concerns me—and it number of doctors and where they are lo- does not seem to be a concern for anybody Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9261 on the other side—is that, since the inception same rebate. That is the universality. The of Medicare, there have been some people issue is that some people on low incomes who live in areas where they do not have live in an area where doctors charge a gap access to a doctor who direct bills and does and some people on low incomes live in an not charge them an out-of-pocket expense. area where doctors do not. One gets a gap So we have people on the same income and one does not. That is of concern to me. I living in different areas and some pay an out- have not heard anybody express that con- of-pocket expense and some do not. That is cern. It has been ever thus since the inception of concern to me, especially if they are low- of Medicare. It was never set up in a way income earners. It is not about how much that would ensure that people on low in- gap or whatever. There has always been a comes would be treated the same. There is gap. Some doctors charge a significantly universal access and everyone has 85 per larger gap and some charge none. But there cent of the scheduled fee. is an issue about the fact that we should have Senator Hill—Mr President, I ask that equitable access. We have spent $562 million further questions be placed on the Notice getting doctors into rural areas, and we have Paper. seen an 11 per cent increase in the number of QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: full-time equivalent doctors in rural areas. ADDITIONAL ANSWERS We have a program to get doctors into outer metropolitan areas without detracting and Iraq taking away from the incentives in the other Senator HILL (South Australia— areas. (Time expired) Minister for Defence) (3.03 p.m.)—On 3 Senator ALLISON—Mr President, I ask March 2003, Senator Bartlett asked me a a supplementary question. The minister has series of questions. I can provide further re- begun to answer my question. However, I sponses to those questions. I seek leave to will just expand on what I asked so that she have them incorporated in Hansard. is clear. The most common consultation Leave granted. claimed by GPs is level B. In 1993 the MBS The answer read as follows— rebate for level B consultations was $24.15. Has the US informed the government of which The average copayment was $7.20. That is, chemical weapons may be used? If so, will the people who were not bulk-billed were being Minister inform the Senate? asked to pay about 29 per cent of the sched- The United States, like Australia, is a party to the uled fee. The December 2002 statistics show Chemical Weapons Convention. There has been that the MBS rebate for a level B consulta- no indication that the United States would use any tion was $29.45 and the average copayment weapons in contravention of its obligations under was $12.78. That represents 43 per cent of this convention. the scheduled fee. Minister, you said today Can he also check the veracity of reports that that you cannot make doctors charge a par- the US Marine Corps confirmed last week that ticular fee, but are you satisfied that patients both these substances, CS gas and pepper who are now paying almost half of the spray, had already been shipped to the Persian scheduled fee can afford to do so? How does Gulf? Can he also give a guarantee that, if this sit with your guarantee that we have there is any possibility of any agents in contra- universal, free health care in this country? vention of the Chemical Weapons Convention being used, Australian forces will not be oper- Senator PATTERSON—Medicare was ating in support of any such actions? never meant to be universal, free care, as I It would be inappropriate for the Government to said before. Dr Deeble, the father of Medi- comment on what the US military may or may care, yesterday came out and agreed with the not have shipped to the Persian Gulf. Members of Prime Minister that no government could the ADF will at all times comply with Australia’s guarantee to make bulk-billing 100 per cent obligations under the laws of armed conflict in- universal. What is universal is that every cluding the Chemical Weapons Convention. Aus- Australian gets the same rebate to visit a tralian forces are at all times under Australian general practitioner. Every patient gets the national command, and appropriate command 9262 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 arrangements are in place to ensure that ADF workers whose employers go bankrupt; and, personnel do not become involved in any activity most of all, a failure to come up with any- that contravenes the Chemical Weapons Conven- thing that will seriously address the problem tion or other laws of armed conflict. of the lack of adequacy of retirement in- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: comes that faces many Australians. We know TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS that the real policy of the Liberal Party is to Superannuation: Children’s Accounts force Australians to work until the age of Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (3.04 70—to work until they drop. p.m.)—I move: This policy of children’s superannuation That the Senate take note of the answer given accounts was announced by the Prime Minis- by the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treas- ter, Mr Howard, on 5 November 2001—the urer (Senator Coonan) to a question without no- date of the Liberal Party’s superannuation tice asked by Senator Sherry today relating to policy launch. When he launched the chil- children’s superannuation accounts. dren’s superannuation accounts package, he On no less than four occasions—twice yes- said it ‘trail blazes … in the area of superan- terday and twice again today—I asked Assis- nuation for children’ and that ‘the wonders of tant Treasurer Senator Coonan, who is re- compound interest’ on contributions made on sponsible for superannuation in this country, behalf of young people would ‘yield consid- a very simple question: how many children’s erable returns’ and produce ‘a strong savings superannuation accounts have been opened? and investment culture’. The Prime Minister It is a very simple question, to which we of Australia was arguing that children’s su- have received no answer. One of the minis- perannuation accounts were one of the great ter’s defences is that she cannot find out. magic fixes to retirement incomes. That is simply not correct, because the regu- The Prime Minister said at that time that latory requirements for children’s superan- $42 million was being set aside to provide nuation accounts introduced by this govern- for the cost to revenue of these superannua- ment and this minister do stipulate that there tion accounts. That $42 million prior to the have to be special application forms and election was approximately 447,000 chil- clear identification of children’s accounts dren’s accounts—almost half a million chil- within a superannuation fund in order for dren’s accounts were budgeted for in the them to be opened. Given the regulatory re- Liberal Party’s election promises. But by quirements, all the minister has to do is ask June last year, just before the legislation was how many of these accounts have been passed in the budget, the Liberal government opened. But the minister is too embarrassed had scaled down from $42 million to $3 mil- to ask, because, at least as of yesterday, the lion the moneys allocated to children’s su- Labor opposition has been informed that no perannuation accounts. Treasury informed us children’s superannuation accounts had been that this $3 million was to fund 47,000—not opened. half a million but 47,000—children’s super- I must inform the Senate that today I have annuation accounts. had contact and we now know that one chil- Given the Prime Minister’s boast at elec- dren’s superannuation account has been tion time that children’s superannuation ac- opened—one. This is an important issue, counts were one of the great fixes to retire- because children’s superannuation accounts ment incomes and a trailblazer in the area of are the latest in a long line of failures in re- superannuation, and his talk of ‘the wonders spect of the Liberal government’s approach of compound interest’, the Labor Party is to retirement incomes policy and superannu- quite interested to know how many Austra- ation—a failure to protect consumers from lians have actually taken up children’s super- entry and exit fees and high fees and com- annuation accounts. Before the election missions; a failure to compensate victims, 447,000 accounts were planned by the Lib- where a theft and fraud has occurred, with eral Party, but they have been scaled down to 100 per cent compensation; a failure to pro- 47,000. (Time expired) tect the superannuation entitlements of those Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9263

Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (3.09 treated as undeducted contributions. They are p.m.)—The election commitment of chil- not deductible. It would be inappropriate for dren’s superannuation accounts is a great these contributions to be taxed in the hands initiative and has been passed by the Austra- of the superannuation provider; however, the lian parliament. It enables parents, grandpar- exclusion of the tax does not extend to non- ents, other relatives and friends to contribute complying funds. The Prime Minister was to a complying superannuation provider on right: the magic of compound interest is very behalf of children. Up to $3,000 can be con- important over a 30- to 40-year period— tributed over a three-year period for a child there is no doubt about it. So this is a great under 18. This change came into effect, notes initiative to get more people into superan- Senator Sherry, on 1 July 2002. I think Sena- nuation and to increase national savings. tor Sherry is being a bit premature. I ask I also take this opportunity to congratulate him: where did he get his statistics that not Mr Stan Wallis on returning his $1.6 million one account has been opened? Did Senator in retirement benefits. He has set a fine ex- Sherry write or phone every superannuation ample, because there is a perception that un- fund in Australia to determine this figure? I der the circumstances the payment is unwar- think not. It is a further example of his ranted. To a lot of people in the community scaremongering and worrying people about superannuation appears to be a gravy train, superannuation. which is unfortunate. It is up to the superan- Where did Senator Sherry get his figure nuation industry to tidy up its act. And it is from? He came in here yesterday saying that up to Senator Sherry to tidy up his act and not one account had been opened. Today he get a bit more relevance into the issues that has discovered that one has been opened. It he believes are important in relation to su- is an interesting statistic. I submit that the perannuation rather than create fictions and Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treas- present inaccuracies to the Senate. It is not urer, Senator Coonan, has better things to do good enough on his part. than to get her office staff to ring up all those Senator COOK (Western Australia) (3.14 super funds right around Australia just to p.m.)—I think Senator Watson’s time should determine how many of these children’s su- be extended. If that is the best the govern- perannuation accounts have been opened ment can do, we have no fear about the point when not one year has elapsed since the ini- that we want to make. I did not think that tiative came into effect. Yes, it is true: it is was a very compelling argument. necessary for the super funds to monitor su- perannuation accounts. They must monitor Today is an important day. Today is the these superannuation accounts and the level 20th anniversary of the election of the of contributions to ensure that the limit of Hawke government. One of the great reforms $3,000 over three years is not exceeded. in this country, which was introduced by the Hawke government, was the reform of su- Less than 12 months have passed, and perannuation. Those people opposite op- Senator Sherry is alleging that not one ac- posed it, did not support it and, when they count has been opened. I doubt that he has got the opportunity, tried to vote it down. We rung up every superannuation fund, so the remember well the words of Alexander authenticity of his claims is suspect, to say Downer when in 1985 he described compul- the least. In time the funds themselves will sory superannuation in Australia as—and I provide this information. True, we might get laugh when I say this—being a threat to the some statistical information after a 12-month capitalist system; he said that he would re- period—but the honourable senator is preoc- move compulsory superannuation. cupied with figures after nine months. I think he should have better things to do and better We know that compulsory superannuation questions to ask than those he is asking at does three very important things for the Aus- present. tralian economy: it enables Australians to prepare for their own retirement, it enables The important thing about this great initia- the level of national savings to be increased tive is that contributions are going to be and it creates a pool of investment capital to 9264 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 buy back the farm, to enable Australians to until you hit the age of 70. We know that the invest in Australian industry. That was one of government wants people to work longer, the great Labor reforms. Before we came and there is some virtue in that proposition. along, superannuation was the preserve of But to coerce them into working longer by the rich and of the Public Service. Only 40 denying them access to their superannuation per cent of Australians had it; now 90 per entitlements by lifting the preservation age cent do. What did this government do when from 55 to 70 is not choice. How can Senator they came to office? They wanted to abolish Coonan sit there and pretend to lecture us superannuation. about choice when she is trying to introduce Senator Hill—Abolish superannuation? a coercive measure that lifts the preservation age from 55 to 70 and denies Australians Senator COOK—Yes, you did. You leg- access to their hard-won superannuation enti- islated out the three per cent copayment that tlements, and thus a more comfortable re- Labor had on the books, so the superannua- tirement? That is not choice; that is black- tion copayment never went to 15 per cent but mail. That is not choice; that is coercion. remained stuck at 12 per cent. As a conse- That is not choice or freedom. (Time expired) quence, the effect of the measure is far less now than it could have been. The security Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (3.19 that Australians could have looked forward p.m.)—As Senator Cook rightly said, today to in their retirement will be less as a conse- is the 20th anniversary of the election of the quence. That is your contribution—fiddling Hawke-Keating government. In press com- with the scheme, coming up with stunts, pre- mentary today and this week we have heard tending to make the scheme more efficient much of the reforms that were undertaken by but all the time trying to undermine it. This is the Hawke and Keating governments, and we one of the great reforms; you did not like it, on this side of the chamber give credit where you continue to try to undermine it. it is due to those reforms. But we ought also today, when we consider that anniversary, I cannot blame Senator Coonan for all of consider the lost opportunities of that period. this; her predecessor—the serial incompe- tent, Senator Kemp—was one of those who Two great areas of lost opportunity stand tried to do these things too. Senator Coonan out from the 13 years of the Hawke and today used that favourite Liberal word Keating governments when it comes to the ‘choice’. I say to Australians: when you hear economy. The first—a battle that we are still a Liberal talk about choice, watch out, be- fighting today—was the lost opportunity to cause when they talk about choice they are reform the labour market. The labour market going to take from you a right that you have. remained unreformed through the deregula- What are Senator Coonan and this govern- tion of financial markets, the floating of the ment party up to on this new usage of the Australian dollar, the freeing up of the Aus- word ‘choice’ with respect to superannua- tralian economy that we saw, which was tion? We know that on 7 August last year the driven particularly in the early days of the Treasurer said—and this is the way they get Hawke government. The most needed reform you: of the lot—the reform of the labour market— was serially neglected by the Hawke and More flexible working arrangements, training and re-training, and raising the preservation age for Keating governments. Australians are paying superannuation would all be positive moves ... for it to this day. Still in this chamber we struggle week by week and month by month That jargon—that raising the preservation to get reforms of the labour market through age for superannuation would be a positive against the blockage of the Labor opposi- move—makes that sound like something tion—who are tied to the trade unions—and positively virtuous. What does it actually the minor parties. That was the first, and mean? What it means is that the age at which probably the greatest, lost opportunity of the people can access their superannuation sav- Hawke and Keating years. ings is now 55, and the government proposal is to raise the preservation age so that you The second was the lost opportunity to cannot access your superannuation savings develop a comprehensive, national savings Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9265 strategy. Senator Cook referred to the funds that are, funnily enough, by and large changes to the superannuation policies that controlled by trade union trustees. We are were introduced during the period of the proud of our superannuation policy, because Hawke government. But those policies failed it links the concept of superannuation with to make the link between superannuation and the more important and wider concept of a comprehensive, lifetime savings strategy. lifetime savings and because it instates the We had to wait for the election of the How- core liberal value of choice at the heart of ard government before we had a government our policy. which laid on the table a comprehensive, Senator WONG (South Australia) (3.24 lifetime savings strategy for Australian fami- p.m.)—We saw again today a repeat of yes- lies. An important part of that strategy, a terday’s performance by the Minister for keystone of that strategy, was the ‘superan- Revenue and Assistant Treasurer when she nuation for life’ document. In particular, that was asked yet again to disclose to the Senate document did two things. Firstly, it enabled the number of Australians who have taken up superannuation savings to be made from the this so-called great reform that gives one the time of childhood onwards. So, as Senator ability to open superannuation accounts on Watson—a person who, I pause to say, is behalf of one’s children. The question was respected by all senators in this place as the asked some four times—twice yesterday and Australian parliament’s most learned author- twice today—but the minister has refused to ity on superannuation policy—said, parents, provide any information to the Senate about grandparents, relatives and friends can now the numbers of accounts that have been contribute up to $3,000 every three years on opened in this category. It does seem strange behalf of a child from its infancy, from the that this initiative, which the Prime Minister beginning of childhood. That makes the link has described as trailblazing, is something between superannuation and lifetime sav- that the minister is so reticent to talk about. It ings. is a reform that Senator Coonan herself said Secondly, it breaks the nexus between su- that she would do all that she could to talk perannuation and employment. We in the about, but that does not appear to extend to government do not believe that the only providing answers to the Senate in question mode of delivering superannuation invest- time about the numbers of Australians who ment ought to be through the employment have taken up this initiative. This trailblazing nexus. That is why we have facilitated the initiative, this trailblazing reform, trumpeted contribution from childhood onwards to a by the government as being one of the an- lifetime of savings. When you break the em- swers to the complex issue of ensuring that ployment nexus so that superannuation is not Australians do have lifetime savings and do exclusively a function of employment, you have a plan for their retirement, has really also give people choice. been nothing more than a flop. Unless the Senator Cook used the word ‘choice’ minister can provide us with an indication about 20 times in his harangue, but he failed that there has been an enormous take-up of to mention that to this day the Labor Party this reform, we say that so far it has been remains wedded to a superannuation model nothing less than a spectacular failure. based around industry superannuation that There are many reasons you could pose denies the superannuation policyholder for the failure of Australians to take up the choice. Under the Liberal Party’s superannu- option of a children’s superannuation ac- ation for life policy, the investor is free to go count. The first is an obvious tax incentive to any superannuation fund of their choosing issue: there is little tax incentive as contribu- and not be locked into an industry fund. You tions have to be made with after-tax income. know, Mr Deputy President, that the industry But the second and probably more important funds, generally speaking, have been the matter at this point is that people are, and poorest performing of the Australian super- continue to be, justly concerned that fees and annuation funds in the recent past. Under charges will continue to eat into the savings Labor policy, people are locked into industry that they make for their children and may 9266 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 well leave the children upon their retirement This government has refused to address the age with very little. It is this second barrier issue of fees and charges, and that is a criti- of fees and charges that highlights the Lib- cal issue if we are to have a proper savings eral government’s failure to deal properly plan, if we are actually going to make na- with the issue of fees and charges. This fail- tional superannuation work. Instead, the ure continues despite the fact that a number government will leave it to the market and of reports recently have highlighted—as if it benefit a particular end of town. (Time ex- did not already need to be highlighted—the pired) importance of dealing with unreasonable fees Question agreed to. and charges in this industry. Iraq Only recently—last month, I think—a re- port was released by the nation’s prudential Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— regulator, APRA, which was a pretty strong Leader of the Australian Democrats) (3.29 indictment of some aspects of the superan- p.m.)—I move: nuation industry and the fees they charge. That the Senate take note of the answer given Despite the fact that those on the other side by the Minister for Defence (Senator Hill) to a trumpet this issue of choice and argue that it question without notice asked by Senator Bartlett today relating to military action against Iraq. does not matter that some funds charge exor- bitant fees—fees that are manifestly beyond It was a very straightforward question and what the market rate should really be— for a moment, when I heard the minister’s because they are well performing, this fal- answer to a question which he gave yester- lacy has been destroyed by the APRA report. day, I thought that perhaps there was some The APRA report quite clearly said that there faint hope in the position of this government, appears to be no relationship between high and then today I saw exactly the same words administration costs and high returns. So coming out of the Prime Minister’s mouth. there goes that fallacy that has been articu- Those words were that the government and lated on the other side: ‘It is okay, we don’t the cabinet would not make a decision on have to regulate, we don’t have to protect Australian involvement in military action in consumers and their retirement savings be- Iraq ‘until the United Nations resolves its cause, if the funds are charging more, they position’. The fact that exactly the same are getting higher returns.’ phrase was used by Minister Hill and the Prime Minister might lead one to suggest APRA has indicated that that is simply not that perhaps this was a clearly decided line the case. Despite that, you still hear from the of the government’s. other side this view that the big end of town is allowed to charge whatever fees it wants in But, as the minister’s answer today made relation to people’s superannuation accounts. clear, if it was a deliberate line of the gov- The government says that they do not need ernment’s it was one deliberately designed to be regulated and that they will just be re- once again to deceive the Australian people. turned in the returns to the superannuation As Minister Hill made clear in his answer, if account, despite the fact that APRA has indi- the United Nations does not resolve its posi- cated that is not the case. tion in the near future or in a way that is sat- isfactory for the United States, that will not A one per cent fee, which is a not unusual be relevant to the consideration that the gov- fee in the retail sector, does not sound like a ernment gives. As the minister said today, we lot, but over a lifetime that can translate to will then just move to the next phase. over $100,000. Australians should know that this government is basically saying to a cer- So the minister’s answer yesterday and the tain aspect of the industry, ‘We don’t mind if Prime Minister’s statements to the Australian you charge up to $100,000 to manage this people are completely misleading. The gov- person’s account. We don’t care if that un- ernment is not going to wait until the United reasonably eats into their retirement income. Nations resolves its position; quite clearly, it We’re not going to regulate it; we’re going to is going to wait until the United States de- let the market determine what will occur.’ cides whether or not it is willing to continue Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9267 working through the United Nations or be released. This is simply a disgrace. It is 12 whether it is going to withdraw its resolution years after the last Gulf War and we have or ignore the Security Council altogether and still not examined and released publicly the go ahead regardless. That is completely dif- health impacts on the last generation of Aus- ferent to the statements that the Prime Minis- tralians that were sent to that war, just as we ter and Minister Hill have made and, again, it are about to create a new bunch of veterans. is yet another in the great long litany of ex- The government have had this report for ages amples of where the government has com- now; they are sitting on it. It was initiated pletely misled the Australian people by not back in the middle of 2000 and it was meant providing the truth and the facts about what to take six months, yet here we are nearly this government has decided to do. three years later with still no sign of a report. In the same way as this suggestion that the It is completely unacceptable and everybody, government are waiting until the United Na- particularly the veterans and those defence tions resolves its position is clearly not cor- personnel who are in the Persian Gulf at the rect, as the minister’s own answer today moment, would have to wonder what it is shows, similarly the suggestion that the min- that the government is trying to hide in rela- ister also made today that they will wait until tion to the real health impacts. (Time expired) that stage to decide whether or not to support Question agreed to. any military action once the United States COMMITTEES initiates it is clearly not correct. Everyone in the country knows what the answer to that Selection of Bills Committee question will be. As soon as the United Report States decides to go to war the Australian Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (3.34 government and the Australian cabinet will p.m.)—I present the second report of 2003 of make that decision to join in that war, regard- the Selection of Bills Committee. less of the United Nations’ position or even Ordered that the report be adopted. whether it has resolved a clear position. Senator FERRIS—I seek leave to have That is totally unsatisfactory to the major- the report incorporated in Hansard. ity of Australian people and, indeed, the ma- jority of people around the world—although, Leave granted. as was pointed out separately in question The report read as follows— time today, at least in some of those nations, SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE like the United States, the UK, France and REPORT NO. 2 OF 2003 indeed Spain, as I read today, the parliaments 1. The committee met on Tuesday, 4 March have had a chance to actually vote on 2003. whether to ratify going to war. Of course, 2. The committee resolved to recommend— Australia—the Australian people and the That— Australian parliament—is once again being denied that opportunity and will once again (a) the Plastic Bag Levy (Assessment and Collection) Bill 2002 [No. 2] and the be denied that opportunity. It is worth noting Plastic Bag (Minimisation of Usage) that if statements by US officials are cor- Education Fund Bill 2002 be referred rect—and there is no reason to doubt them— immediately to the Environment, Com- it is quite possible that the end of next week munications, Information Technology will be the final deadline. So this sitting and the Arts Legislation Committee for week—today and tomorrow—is the final inquiry and report by 7 October 2003 opportunity for parliamentary examination of (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons any of the issues involved, and it is an oppor- for referral); tunity that once again the government is (b) the provisions of the Designs Bill 2002 clearly going to ensure is not utilised. and the Designs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 be referred I should mention also the fact that the immediately to the Economics Legisla- minister knew nothing about when the pro- tion Committee for inquiry and report posed Gulf War veterans’ health study will 9268 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

by 27 March 2003 (see appendices 2 and • Occupational Health and Safety (Common- 3 for statements of reasons for referral); wealth Employment) Amendment (Employee (c) the provisions of the Energy Grants Involvement and Compliance) Bill 2002. (Credits) Scheme Bill 2003 and the En- Bills deferred from meeting of 19 November 2002 ergy Grants (Credit) Scheme (Conse- • Workplace Relations Amendment (Award quential Amendments) Bill 2003 be re- Simplification) Bill 2002 ferred immediately to the Economics • Legislation Committee for inquiry and Workplace Relations Amendment (Choice in report by 24 March 2003 (see appendix Award Coverage) Bill 2002. 4 for statement of reasons for referral); Bill deferred from meeting of 3 December 2002 (d) the order of the Senate of 5 February • Environment Protection and Biodiversity 2003 adopting the committee’s 1st report Conservation Amendment (Invasive Species) of 2003 be varied to provide that the Bill 2002. Customs Legislation Amendment Bill Bill deferred from meeting of 10 December 2002 (No. 2) 2002 be referred immediately to • Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) the Legal and Constitutional Legislation 2002. Committee for inquiry and report by 20 March 2003 (see appendices 5 and 6 for Bill deferred from meeting of 4 February 2003 statements of reasons for referral); • Terrorism Insurance Bill 2002. (e) the provisions of the Corporations Bills deferred from meeting of 4 March 2003 (Fees) Amendment Bill 2002, Corpora- • Family Law Amendment Bill 2003 tions Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, • and the Corporations (Review Fees) Bill Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2003 2002 be referred immediately to the • Workplace Relations Amendment (Compli- Economics Legislation Committee for ance with Court and Tribunal Orders) Bill inquiry and report by 24 March 2003 2003 (see appendix 7 for statement of reasons • Workplace Relations Amendment (Protecting for referral); and the Low Paid) Bill 2003. (f) the following bills not be referred to (Jeannie Ferris) committees: Chair • Criminal Code Amendment (Terrorism) Bill 2002 5 March 2003 • Dairy Industry Service Reform Bill 2003 ————— Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Appendix 1 Amendment (Dairy) Bill 2003 Proposal to refer a bill to a committee • Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Name of bill(s): Imaging, Radiation Oncology and Other Plastic Bag Levy (Assessment and Collection) Measures) Bill 2002 Bill 2002 [No. 2] • Migration Legislation Amendment (Pro- Plastic Bag (Minimisation of Usage) Education tected Information) Bill 2002 Fund Bill 2002 • New Business Tax System (Consolidation Chair and Other Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2002 Selection of Bills Committee New Business Tax System (Venture Capital Deficit Tax) Bill 2002 Dear Senator Ferris • Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibi- I ask that the committee consider referring the 2 tion of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill 2002 bills on plastic bags to the Senate Environment, [No. 2]. Communications Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee. The committee recommends accordingly. (signed) 3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to the next meeting: Senator Bob Brown Bill deferred from meeting of 20 August 2002 ————— Appendix 2 Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9269

Name of bill(s): Possible submission or evidence from: Designs Bill 2002 Institute of Patent Attorneys and Trade Mark At- Designs (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 torneys of Australia (IPTA) Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys sideration (FICPI) • treatment of spare parts under new regime Arthur Robinson and Hedderwicks (Tim Golder) inputs on consumers, insurers and car manu- Law Council of Australia. facturers IP Australia • proposed maximum term of registration Ford • proposed reforms to Copyright Act and their GM Holden effectiveness Insurance peak bodies • new design registration system plus the 14 submitters to the draft exposure of the Possible submissions or evidence from: Designs Bill 2001 IP Australia, Attorney-General’s Department, (IP Australia have the details but list includes: Insurance Australia Group, Australian Consumers NRMA Australia; Australian Automotive Afer- Association, Ford Australia, General Motors Hol- market Association; Watermark Patent Attorneys) den Committee to which bill is to be referred: Committee to which bill is referred: Economics Legislation Committee Economics Legislation Committee or Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Possible hearing date: Possible reporting date: Possible reporting date(s): One month after (signed) Senator Lyn Allison hearing Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member (signed) Senator Sue Mackay ————— Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member Appendix 4 ————— Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Appendix 3 Name of bill(s): Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme Bill 2003 Name of Bill: Energy Grants (Credits) Scheme (Consequential Designs Bill 2002 Amendments) Bill 2003 Designs Bill (Consequential Amendments) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- 2002 sideration Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Explore the provisions of the bills and the impact sideration; on the development and uptake of cleaner fuels. Examination of provisions of the bill with spe- Possible submissions or evidence from: cific reference to: Australian Institute of Petroleum (a) reasonableness in reducing the time limit BP from 16 years to 10 years; Caltex (b) adequacy of ‘new’ and ‘distinctive’ defini- Shell tion; Mobil (c) cost and other implications of expanding the Australian Conservation Foundation required prior aunt base to universal applica- tion; Greenpeace (d) robustness of proposed registration process; Australian Biofuels Association and Bus Industry Confederation (e) implications of spare parts provisions for Australian Trucking Association consumers, insurers and car manufacturers Australian Railway Association Australasian Natural Gas Vehicles Council Australian Gas Association 9270 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Committee to which bill is referred: Appendix 7 Economics Legislation Committee Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Possible hearing date: Name of bill(s): Possible reporting date(s): Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2002 (signed) Senator Lyn Allison Corporations Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member Corporations (Review Fees) Bill 2002 ————— Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- Appendix 5 sideration 4 March 2003 To explore the impact of the structural changes made by these bills. Senator Jeannie Ferris Possible submissions or evidence from: Government Whip ASIC/Treasury SELECTION OF BILLS AGENDA, Committee to which bill is referred: I write to seek your cooperation to add the Cus- toms Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) to the Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial agenda of the Selection of Bills Committee meet- Services ing on Tuesday 4 March 2003. Possible hearing date: Mid to late March 2003 This Bill was previously considered at a meeting Possible reporting date(s): End March 2003 of the Committee but as yet has not been intro- (signed) Senator Sue Mackay duced into the Senate. Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member I am available to discuss this matter with you if required. PETITIONS Yours sincerely The Clerk—A petition has been lodged (signed) for presentation as follows: Senator Sue Mackay Iraq ————— To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition Appendix 6 of the undersigned calls on the members of the Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Senate to support the Australian Democrats’ mo- Name of bill(s): tion opposing Australia’s involvement in pre- emptive military action or a first strike, against Customs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) Iraq. 2002 We believe a first strike would undermine interna- Reasons for referral/principal issues for con- tional law and create further regional and global sideration insecurity. Proposals contained in Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the We also call on the Government to pursue diplo- bill may be in violation of Australia’s obligations matic initiatives towards disarmament in Iraq and to China under the World Trade Organisation’s worldwide. system of international agreements. Inquiry will look into the extent of such incompatibility and by Senator Bartlett (from 639 citizens) options to remedy them. Petition received. Possible submissions or evidence from: NOTICES Industry associations, law firms Presentation Committee to which bill is referred: Senator Ian Campbell to move on the Economics Legislation Committee or Legal and next day of sitting: Constitutional Legislation Committee That the following bill be introduced: A Bill Possible hearing date: for an Act to amend legislation relating to private Possible reporting date(s): within one month health insurance, and for related purposes. Health (signed) Senator Sue Mackay Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance Reform) Bill 2003. Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member Senator Conroy to move on the next day ————— of sitting: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9271

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill That the Senate calls on the Minister for for an Act to provide for interest to be levied on Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) to: the late payment of commercial debts arising in (a) use all means at his disposal to relation to contracts for the supply of goods and investigate allegations that the United services, and for related purposes. Late Payment States of America (US) has intercepted of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill 2003. telephone and e-mail communications of Senator Hutchins to move on the next United Nations (UN) delegates in order day of sitting: to ascertain the voting intentions of members of the UN Security Council; That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee (b) ask the US Ambassador to Australia to on poverty and financial hardship be extended to explain the US position in relation to the 18 September 2003. allegations; and Senator Murray to move on the next day (c) report to the Senate on the outcome of of sitting: his investigations and the explanation, if any, provided by the US Ambassador. That the Senate— Senator Greig to move on the next day of (a) notes that an estimated 41 per cent of the sitting: Iraqi population is below the age of 14; That the Senate— (b) believes that in any war in Iraq that a significant proportion of any killed, (a) notes, with concern, that the United wounded, or affected civilians could States of America (US) has: therefore be children under the age of (i) refused to ratify the Rome Statute, 14; which established the International (c) requests the Government to advise the Criminal Court (ICC), Senate in writing, by no later than (ii) adopted a national security strategy Tuesday, 18 March 2003, in the event of which seeks to ensure that its military Australian participation in war in Iraq, efforts ‘are not impaired by the what plans it has to contribute to the potential for investigations, inquiry, recovery of injured children, and or prosecution by the ICC’, improving the circumstances of other (iii) entered into agreements with a children materially affected by the war. number of states under Article 98 of Senator Payne and Senator Ridgeway to the Rome Statute to prevent the move on the next day of sitting: prosecution of American citizens for That the Senate— crimes against humanity, and (a) notes that: (iv) is seeking to enter into such an agreement with Australia; (i) 9 March 2002 is a Global Day of Prayer for Burma, and (b) acknowledges the possibility that leaders and service personnel may be charged (ii) on this day, people throughout the with war crimes arising from unlawful world will pray for the physical and conduct during any attack against Iraq; spiritual freedom of Burma; (c) reaffirms its support for the ICC and the (b) acknowledges that the human rights important role that it plays in bringing to situation in Burma remains extremely justice those who commit crimes against grave, with severe restrictions on humanity; and political freedoms and continued use of forced labour, torture, child soldiers and (d) urges the Government to take all other serious abuses; and measures necessary to ensure that, if Australia joins the US in an attack (c) calls on the State Peace and against Iraq, Australian personnel are Development Council of Burma to: subject only to Australian command and (i) take immediate steps to end human are not required to engage in any activity rights violations, and which may render them liable to (ii) restore the rule of law to Burma. prosecution under the Rome Statue. Senator Stott Despoja to move on the Senator Cherry to move on the next day next day of sitting: of sitting: 9272 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

That the Senate— (a) notes, with great sadness, the passing of (a) notes that: Maurice Gibb; (i) after more than a year and a half, the (b) conveys its sympathy to Robin, Barry Howard Government is yet to respond and the Gibb family; to the July 2001 unanimous report of (c) recognises the important contribution the Rural and Regional Affairs and that Maurice and the Bee Gees have Transport References Committee on made to the Australian music industry; the National Ovine Johne’s Disease (d) records its appreciation for the (OJD) Program, inspiration that Maurice and the Bee (ii) the administration of the program Gees have provided to generations of continued to cause severe hardship to young Australian musicians to venture sheep producers in New South Wales, overseas, build international audiences, (iii) more than 1 000 sheep producers in expand Australia’s exports and economy; Forbes on 3 February 2003 passed a and vote of no confidence in the handling (e) notes that the works and great success of of the OJD Program in New South Maurice Gibb’s career as musician will Wales, be shared by future generations through (iv) New South Wales Agriculture has his prolific recordings. estimated that, if uncontrolled, the Senator Ridgeway to move on the next disease would escalate to cost the day of sitting: New South Wales economy $204 That the Senate— million in stock losses and $248 million on lost wool income annually, (a) notes that: and (i) respected world leaders such as Pope (v) the recent announcements by the New John Paul II and Mr Nelson Mandela South Wales Government to improve have called for war against Iraq to be the management of the OJD Program, avoided, including: (ii) the Pope said ‘the future of humanity (A) assistance to stud operators to help can never be assured by the logic of them show their animals at shows war’, and called for a day of fasting and trade fairs; on Ash Wednesday to remind people of the long years of suffering endured (B) recent changes to policy to provide by the Iraqi people, wider access to the OJD vaccine for farmers in the disease control (iii) that Mr Mandela said ‘the problems zone; are such that for anyone with a conscience (who) can use whatever (C) the provision of a $4.2 million to influence he may have to try to bring cover the shortfall in industry levy about peace’, and has warned funds caused by the drought; and President Bush that his administration (D) the creation of the new OJD Man- risks destroying the United Nations if agement Area, formerly known as it attacks Iraq without international the Southern Tablelands Residue support; Zone, to provide producers with (b) notes also that Interpol have urged the greater trading opportunities; and world’s police forces to prepare for an (b) calls on the Howard Government to increase in terror attacks in the event of a respond to the Senate report, and war, warning that terrorist groups like al- demonstrate leadership on the Qaeda could use the war as a pretext to development of a national OJD program increase attacks; and as its contribution to the alleviation of (c) urges the Australian Government to stay social and economic hardship out of a war with Iraq with regard to experienced by producers and rural Australia's international standing and the communities. clearly expressed views of the Australian Senator Ian Campbell to move on the people. next day of sitting: Senator Johnston to move on the next That the Senate— day of sitting: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9273

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on would not be possible while weapons Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait inspectors were there, and Islander Land Fund be authorised to hold a public (iv) that according to United States (US) meeting during the sitting of the Senate on nuclear weapons analyst, William Tuesday, 18 March 2003, from 8 pm. Arkin, the US Strategic Command is Senator Nettle to move on the next day of compiling a list of Iraqi targets with sitting: planning focussed on the role for nuclear weapons in relation to That the Senate calls on the Prime Minister underground facilities and to stop (Mr Howard) not to commit Australia to joining a chemical or biological attack; ‘coalition of the willing’ in a military invasion of Iraq. (b) acknowledges the letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the Senate, Senator Cherry to move on the next day dated 3 March 2003, in which he said, of sitting: ‘…I see no prospect of nuclear weapons That the Senate— being used against Iraq’ and, ‘…if I (a) notes the opinion of former Australian believed that nuclear weapons were ambassador to the United Nations (UN), going to be used, I would not allow Richard Woolcott: Australian forces to be involved’; and (i) that it is not in Australia’s national (c) urges the Government to seek guarantees interest to get involved in a distant, from the US Administration that no costly war, nuclear weapons will, under any circumstances, be used against Iraq. (ii) that Iraq has been perfectly well contained by the UN for more than a Senator Forshaw to move on the next decade, and day of sitting: (iii) that Australia is becoming That the time for the presentation of the report increasingly isolated diplomatically in of the Finance and Public Administration its support for the United States; and References Committee on recruitment and (b) calls on the Government to pursue training in the Australian Public Service be continuing containment of Iraq under extended to 26 June 2003. UN supervision as a viable alternative to Senator Bartlett to move on the next day a devastating and costly war. of sitting: Senator Allison to move on the next day That the Senate— of sitting: (a) notes that: That the Senate— (i) the United Nations (UN) General (a) notes: Assembly President, Mr Jan Karvan, (i) the remarks by the Prime Minister has criticised the Australian (Mr Howard) in January 2003 that he Government’s statement that the UN believed Iraq’s ‘aspiration to develop would become irrelevant if it failed to a nuclear capacity’ might be a enforce its resolution on Iraq, and sufficient reason for Australia to join intends to meet with the Minister for in pre-emptive action, claiming ‘there Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) in the is already a mountain of evidence in week beginning 2 March 2003 and the public domain’, explain the position of the UN General Assembly, and (ii) that the Prime Minister has not provided any evidence that Iraq has or (ii) the United States Administration had has access to nuclear weapons, indicated that it considers another resolution on Iraq desirable but not (iii) that former United Nations inspector, necessary; and Mr Scott Ritter, has said that, by 1998, Iraq’s nuclear infrastructure and (b) opposes Australia joining or supporting a facilities had been 100 per cent war against Iraq without, at a minimum, eliminated and that whilst scientists a UN resolution authorising force. there would still have the knowledge Senator Brown to move on the next day to reconstruct this infrastructure, this of sitting: 9274 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

That the Senate calls on the Commonwealth been occasioned by their families and Government: clans; (a) to demonstrate leadership in cooperation (b) further notes that: with the states in addressing the unmet (i) Indigenous cultural expression is a need for disability services, recognising fundamental part of Indigenous that the Australian Institute of Health heritage and identity, and and Welfare report, Unmet Need for unauthorised use of Indigenous art Disability Services: Effectiveness of and cultural expression can be Funding and Remaining Shortfalls, July inappropriate, derogatory, and 2002, identified that 12 500 people still culturally offensive, need accommodation and respite services, 8 200 places are needed for (ii) individual Indigenous artists are community access services and 5 400 custodians of the knowledge and people need employment services; wisdom their work incorporates and reflects and Indigenous moral rights (b) to publicly release the offers made by the are therefore collective rights that are states and the Commonwealth for the inalienable from their community of next 5 years in the negotiations to date, origin, and recognising the failure of the Commonwealth and state governments (iii) Indigenous artists are particularly to reach agreement in the current round vulnerable under Australian law, of negotiations on a new Commonwealth which offers no protection for the state and territories Disability Services moral rights owned collectively by Agreement; Indigenous communities; and (c) to immediately double its offer of new (c) urges the Government to take immediate funding; and action to amend the Copyright Act 1968 to ensure the adequate recognition and (d) in consultation with the states, to protection of Indigenous collective develop and implement a comprehensive moral rights, as proposed by the plan beyond the current negotiations to Australian Democrats in 2000. address the unmet need for services over the next 5 years. Postponement Senator Ridgeway to move on the next Items of business were postponed as fol- day of sitting: lows: That the Senate— General business notice of motion no. 355 standing in the name of Senator Allison for (a) notes the outcome of recent action today, relating to cancer deaths attributed to against the International Olympic nuclear testing, postponed till 6 March 2003. Committee for using the work of Indigenous artists during the Sydney General business notice of motion no. 370 Olympics without permission and, in standing in the name of Senator Nettle for particular, that the Olympic Museum today, relating to the detention of Australians Foundation has: in Guantanemo Bay, Cuba, postponed till 6 March 2003. (i) issued an apology to Sam Tjampitjin, Richard Tax Tjupurulla and Mary General business notice of motion no. 371 Kemarre, acknowledging that they are standing in the name of Senator Nettle for the authors and copyright owners of today, relating to the health care system, works displayed on the Museum postponed till 6 March 2003. website from July to 12 December Withdrawal 2000 without proper licence, Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (3.38 (ii) asked any persons who downloaded p.m.)—I withdraw notice of motion No. 342 the artistic works in any digital form standing in the name of Senator Cherry for to delete it immediately from their today. computer hard drives, and (iii) sincerely apologised for any harm or Postponement inconvenience their actions may have Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.39 caused to the artists, regretting any p.m.)—by leave—I move: cultural or other harm that may have Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9275

That business of the Senate notice of motion Government’s vision and relevance to no. 1 standing in my name for today, relating to the future of Australia. the reference of matters to the Foreign Affairs, Question agreed to. Defence and Trade References Committee, be postponed till the next day of sitting. COMMITTEES Question agreed to. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport HAWKE LABOR GOVERNMENT: References Committee 20TH ANNIVERSARY Meeting Senator COOK (Western Australia) (3.39 Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Wales) p.m.)—I move: (3.40 p.m.)—I move: That the Senate notes that: That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to (a) 5 March 2003 is the 20th anniversary of hold a public meeting during the sitting of the the election of the Hawke Labor Senate on Wednesday, 5 March 2003, from 6.30 Government; pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry (b) Bob Hawke served the nation as Prime into forestry plantations. Minister from March 1983 to December Question agreed to. 1991 and is the second longest serving Prime Minister since Federation; Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (c) the Australian Labor Party under Bob Legislation Committee Hawke’s leadership won elections in Meeting 1983, 1984, 1987 and 1990; Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (3.41 (d) the Hawke era saw the restructuring of p.m.)—At the request of Senator Heffernan, the Australian economy with the floating I move: of the dollar, the opening of the banking and financial sector, across the board That the Rural and Regional Affairs and cuts in tariffs and protection, the Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to decentralisation of the wage fixing hold a public meeting during the sitting of the system, the introduction of Senate on Thursday, 6 March 2003, from 4 pm, to superannuation for all workers, the take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the reform of the public service, and provisions of the Wheat Marketing Amendment formation of the Australian-led Cairns Bill 2002 Group of free trading agricultural Question agreed to. nations; SENATE: QUESTION TIME (e) significant social reforms during this Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.42 period included the introduction of Medicare, reform of the social welfare p.m.)—I move: system, establishment of the Office of (1) That the Senate— the Status of Women, and (a) approves a question time each day commencement of Aboriginal encompassing a minimum of 14 reconciliation; questions, or more if the hour (f) major environmental achievements of permits; the Hawke Government were the (b) allocates questions as follows per 4 establishment of the national Landcare day sitting week: program, the formation of the Murray- Darling Ministerial Council, and World Number of Heritage listings in Tasmania and senators Kakadu; Opposition 28 28 Government 15 35 (g) in foreign relations, the Hawke Australian De- 7 7 Government forged closer ties between mocrats Australia, Asia and the Pacific, and led Crossbench 6 6 the formation of APEC; and (c) notes that this involves a loading for (h) many of these achievements have non-government senators; and survived the change of government and are indicative of the Hawke (d) notes that the Australian Democrats and crossbench groups will work out 9276 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

an order of senators asking questions, That the Senate congratulates the Carr Labor based on these two groups having the Government on its announcement of Sunday, 2 sixth, eighth and twelfth questions March 2003 of its decision to protect a further 15 each day and the fourteenth question areas of forest in the north east of New South on Wednesday. Wales in addition to those areas already protected (2) That standing order 72(3)(a) is amended under the Regional Forest Agreement. by omitting ‘4 minutes’, and substituting Senator RIDGEWAY (New South Wales) ‘3 minutes’. (3.50 p.m.)—I seek leave to amend the mo- (3) That standing order 72(3)(b) is amended tion so it will read: so that supplementary questions are not That the Senate notes that the New South permitted when the substantive question Wales Carr government has announced that it will is asked by a Government senator. protect old growth forests in north-eastern New Question put: South Wales after its re-election, condemns the That the motion (Senator Brown’s) be agreed fact that under this commitment the same area of to. forest will still be logged under the New South Wales Regional Forest Agreement between the The Senate divided. [3.46 p.m.] New South Wales and Commonwealth govern- (The Deputy President—Senator J.J. ments, and no announcements about the south- Hogg) east forests have also been forthcoming in wil- derness and old growth areas like Badger, Deua Ayes………… 2 and Coolangubra, which will continue to be Noes………… 37 woodchipped. Majority……… 35 Leave not granted. AYES Question put: That the motion (Senator Brown’s) be agreed Brown, B.J. * Nettle, K. to. NOES The Senate divided. [3.57 p.m.] Allison, L.F. Barnett, G. (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Bartlett, A.J.J. Boswell, R.L.D. Buckland, G. Campbell, G. Calvert) Campbell, I.G. Carr, K.J. Ayes………… 27 Cherry, J.C. Colbeck, R. Noes………… 34 Denman, K.J. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Forshaw, M.G. Majority……… 7 Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. AYES Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. Bishop, T.M. Bolkus, N. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Brown, B.J. Buckland, G. Mackay, S.M. Marshall, G. Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. Conroy, S.M. Cook, P.F.S. Murray, A.J.M. Payne, M.A. Crossin, P.M. Denman, K.J. Ray, R.F. Ridgeway, A.D. Faulkner, J.P. Forshaw, M.G. Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. Hogg, J.J. Hutchins, S.P. Stephens, U. Stott Despoja, N. Kirk, L. Ludwig, J.W. Tchen, T. Troeth, J.M. Mackay, S.M. * Marshall, G. Watson, J.O.W. Webber, R. McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. Wong, P. * denotes teller Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. Ray, R.F. Sherry, N.J. Question negatived. Stephens, U. Webber, R. NEW SOUTH WALES: REGIONAL Wong, P. FOREST AGREEMENT NOES Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.50 Allison, L.F. Barnett, G. p.m.)—by leave—I move the motion as Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. amended: Calvert, P.H. Campbell, I.G. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9277

Chapman, H.G.P. Cherry, J.C. (b) points out to the Prime Minister (Mr Colbeck, R. Eggleston, A. Howard) the hypocrisy of the Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Government in giving an award for Greig, B. Heffernan, W. services to the community to Mrs Brown Hill, R.M. Humphries, G. but taking no notice of her objection, and Johnston, D. Knowles, S.C. that of the Yankunytjatjara/Antikarinya Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, J.A.L. community, to its decision to construct a Mason, B.J. McGauran, J.J.J. national repository on this land; and Minchin, N.H. Murray, A.J.M. (c) calls on the Government to reverse its Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. decision to construct a national Ridgeway, A.D. Santoro, S. repository in South Australia. Scullion, N.G. Tchen, T. Question agreed to. Tierney, J.W. Troeth, J.M. ENVIRONMENT: WHALES Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.01 PAIRS p.m.)—by leave—I move the motion as Collins, J.M.A. Coonan, H.L. amended: Lundy, K.A. Abetz, E. That the Senate, recognising that the blue Evans, C.V. Alston, R.K.R. whale, the largest creature ever to move on the * denotes teller face of our planet, faces extinction (its numbers Question negatived. are less than 10 000) and heeding scientific BROWN, EILEEN KAMPAKUTA advice that seismic testing at sea may damage the ability of blue whales to feed and breed in Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (4.01 Australian waters, calls on the Government to p.m.)—by leave—I move the motion as immediately prohibit seismic testing in areas amended: affecting blue whales or other whale species. That the Senate— Question agreed to. (a) notes that: SOUTH AUSTRALIA: NATIONAL (i) Eileen Kampakuta Brown, senior RADIOACTIVE WASTE REPOSITORY Yankunytjatjara/Antikarinya woman Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (4.02 and member of the Kupa Piti Kungka p.m.)—I move: Tjuta from Coober Pedy, was awarded an Order of Australia (AO) That there be laid on the table, no later than 4 for services to the community pm on Thursday, 6 March 2003, the written ‘through the preservation, revival and advice provided by the Department of Defence to teaching of traditional Anangu the Department of Education, Science and (Aboriginal) culture and as an Training concerning the defence-related issues in advocate for Indigenous communities connection with the National Radioactive Waste in central Australia’, Repository in South Australia. (ii) Mrs Brown’s extensive traditional Question agreed to. cultural knowledge has compelled her AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE: to lead a 10-year struggle against the ALLOWANCES Federal Government’s proposal to dump radioactive waste in the South Senator GREIG (Western Australia) Australian desert, (4.03 p.m.)—I move: (iii) just days before Mrs Brown was That the Senate— awarded the AO, the Federal (a) notes: Government released its final (i) the commitment by the Prime environmental impact statement for Minister (Mr Howard) that the the waste dump project, and Government would look after the (iv) the Government also announced that loved ones and families of Australian $300 000 is to be spent to ‘re-educate’ Defence Force (ADF) personnel in or the South Australian public and to heading to the Gulf and into a nullify opposition to the dump; potential war with Iraq, 9278 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

(ii) that this undertaking includes grief Second Reading counselling, death benefits compen- Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (4.05 sation and surviving spouses’ pensions, in the event that ADF p.m.)—I move: personnel are killed or injured, That this bill be now read a second time. (iii) that this social, more and financial I seek leave to have the second reading support only applies to heterosexual, speech incorporated in Hansard. married, and de facto partners in the Leave granted. ADF, and does not apply to the loved The speech read as follows— ones and families of same-sex It is a great honour and privilege to, on behalf of partners in the ADF, and the Australian Labor Party and the people of (iv) that this discrimination against gay Queensland co-sponsor this bill in the Senate. I and lesbian service personnel is note that the Labor Shadow Minister for the Envi- inconsistent with the 1992 lifting of ronment and Heritage, Mr Kelvin Thomson intro- the ban on homosexual people duced this bill into the House of Representatives serving in the military and on the 10th February 2003. inconsistent with the ADF’s equity The intent of this legislation, is to once and for all program aimed at redressing protect the Great Barrier Reef from oil prospect- discrimination in the forces; and ing and, ultimately, oil drilling. Extending the (b) calls on the Government to end this boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Region to unacceptable discrimination against gay include all waters east of the Great Barrier Reef and lesbian service personnel and their Marine Park Area to the boundary of Australia’s partners to ensure that all personnel and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) will achieve their partners, both heterosexual and this. These are areas currently under threat from homosexual, receive equal treatment, oil exploration and drilling. TGS-NOPEC, a multi including access to grief counselling, national oil exploration company is seeking ap- death benefits compensation and proval to undertake seismic testing in the Towns- surviving spouses’ pensions, in ville Trough, only 50 km from the boundary of recognition of the fact that all ADF the Marine Park. personnel are asked to put their lives on It is important to note that under the Great Barrier the line for their country. Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the Great Barrier Reef Region and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Question agreed to. Park Area exist as separate entities. It should also GREAT BARRIER REEF MARINE be noted that mining, and petroleum drilling are PARK (PROTECTING THE GREAT not permitted in any part of the Great Barrier BARRIER REEF FROM OIL DRILLING Reef Region, under the Great Barrier Reef Region AND EXPLORATION) AMENDMENT (Prohibition of Mining) Regulations 1999. The BILL 2003 extension of the Great Barrier Reef Region boundary will therefore protect the whole area First Reading from oil exploration and drilling. It is extremely Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (4.04 important to note that the adoption of this legisla- p.m.)—I move: tion will have no other effect than ruling out oil prospecting and, subsequently, drilling—no effect That the following bill be introduced: a Bill for on any fishing, commercial or recreational inter- an Act to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine ests, and no effect on visitation, whether it be Park Act 1975 to provide for an extension of the private or through tourist operators. boundaries of the Great Barier Reef Region. Labor took a policy to the last Federal election Question agreed to. that would have effectively ruled out oil drilling Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (4.04 and exploration under the current TGS-NOPEC p.m.)—I move: application. This private senator’s bill gives effect to that commitment. This legislation will rule out That this bill may proceed without formalities threats to the Great Barrier Reef from all off shore and be now read a first time. mining forever. Question agreed to. It is particularly pleasing, then, to be supporting Bill read a first time. this legislation, given the government’s lack of desire to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We have been calling for the government to think laterally, Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9279 to think differently and to try a little harder to register complies with all four Natural Heritage develop a method to protect the reef from oil criteria: geological phenomena; ecological and drilling. The Environment Minister, Dr Kemp and biological processes; asthetics and natural beauty; his predecessors however have done everything and biological diversity, including natural proc- possible to avoid taking action to protect the reef esses. from oil exploration and exploitation. Can I sug- As well as these natural values, the Great Barrier gest to the Minister, Dr Kemp that this is his Reef has enormous social and economic values. It chance? This is his real chance to do something to is impossible to put a value on the time one outlaw oil drilling on or near the Great Barrier spends with family or friends in places like the Reef. Great Barrier Reef. There will be many people all It is clear that oil drilling is precluded within the over the world who have cherished memories of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This legislation their time visiting the Reef. Recreational experi- deals with the area between the eastern boundary ences like snorkelling, diving, recreational fishing of the marine park and the Exclusive Economic and boating will hold lasting memories for mil- Zone, and that point needs to be made clear. That lions of people around the world. The education is where enormous prospectivity exists, and that values that flow from the Reef are also enormous. is where damage could occur to the reef unless Social values, by their very nature, are not easy to something is done to manage it. As I said before, quantify, but it is important in any assessment of Dr Kemp can legally make a decision to prevent such a wonderful icon that we do not overlook exploration in the Townsville Trough region, these values. which is in that area between the eastern bound- Economic values are easier to quantify. The value ary and the EEZ. He can support this legislation of the Great Barrier Reef is estimated to be in the in the House of Representatives and then we will order of $1.5 billion annually to the state of have ruled out oil prospecting and drilling, and Queensland. Well over half of this value is from protected the reef, I believe, for all time. the tourism industry with more than 2 million Labor has consistently opposed oil prospecting visitors travelling to the Reef every year. In em- and drilling on or near the Great Barrier Reef. We ployment terms, the Great Barrier Reef is vital to have pursued the issue consistently since TGS- the ongoing economic health of Queensland. NOPEC expressed its interest in exploration There are workers in the tourism, fishing and rights. At the last election, Labor’s policy entitled associated industries and in hotels, tackle shops, “Caring for the Great Barrier Reef” included restaurants and on tour desks—the list goes on. these words: There are an enormous number of workers who To preserve the health of the reef, Labor will: depend on the viability and sustainability of the Prohibit all mineral, oil and gas exploration and Great Barrier Reef for their jobs. operations in Australian waters offshore of the Tourism is an industry dependent on perceptions. Great Barrier Reef. Oilrigs, even 50 kilometres from the Marine Park On April 16 2002, in Townsville, Labor’s leader, boundary, do not promote a perception to poten- Mr Simon Crean, reaffirmed Labor’s commitment tial visitors of a pristine ecosystem that is valued to protect Australia’s greatest natural tourism by its community and by its government. asset—the Great Barrier Reef—from two devas- The tourism industry is opposed to oil exploration tating environmental threats by banning oil drill- or drilling. Stephen Gregg, Tourism Queensland’s ing and exploration both on and off the reef, and Chief Executive Officer has said that Queensland ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to tackle the disas- tourism operators want to see a permanent ban on trous impacts climate change would have on the exploration or any potentially harmful activities reef. That commitment from the Labor Party is anywhere near the Reef. testimony to the ongoing desire that Labor has to The seafood industry has similar views. John protect the reef both from oil drilling and climate Olsen, President of the Queensland Seafood In- change. dustry Association, formerly the Queensland The Australian Labor Party recognises the intrin- Commercial Fishermen’s Association, has said, sic values of the Great Barrier Reef. The Great “It would be ridiculous for the Federal Govern- Barrier Reef is one of the most significant listings ment to give the go ahead for a seismic survey— on the World Heritage register. There are not that is, the seismic survey required for the EIA— many other icons in the world that have that level that if oil was discovered, would inevitably lead of significance. It is the international icon of all to full-scale drilling”. coral reef systems. It is the largest listing on the Mr Olsen can work it out. Why can’t the Gov- World Heritage register, listed in 1981. The listing ernment? Guy Lane, an environmental scientist, of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park area on the has said that if they find petroleum reserves in the 9280 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Townsville Trough, “It’ll create this enormous view that we make sure the Great Barrier Reef is political and economic vacuum and there’ll be protected”. great pressure to start drilling. It really should be I would have said to Senator Chaney—although I nipped in the bud at this stage”. Don Henry, Ex- was not here then—and I do say now: you can’t ecutive Director of the Australian Conservation have your cake and eat it too. Fortunately, then Foundation agrees. He said “It is a disastrous Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke intervened to ecological accident waiting to happen if it is ap- stop oil exploration. The current Prime Minister proved”, adding that, “the Reef is worth more via should do as the then Prime Minister, Mr Hawke tourism than any oil field”. did and rule out oil drilling and exploration adja- The Queensland Government supports these calls cent to the Reef. to ban oil exploration or drilling on or near the It is becoming increasingly clear that this Liberal Great Barrier Reef. Government is seriously considering allowing oil I can’t understand how the Howard Government exploration and drilling adjacent to the Reef. We can be prepared to jeopardise the Great Barrier have TGS-NOPEC seeking approval to undertake Reef’s values—the social values, the economic seismic testing in the Townsville Trough just values and the environmental values. Industry 50km from the Marine Park boundary and this leaders and the broader community can see the Government is doing nothing. sense in protecting the reef from oil exploration The Labor Party though is not going to sit by and and drilling, so why can’t this Government. allow this Government to place at risk the envi- The history of oil and the Great Barrier Reef is a ronmental, economic and social values of the long one. I do not intend to give a complete chro- Great Barrier Reef. The position that we need to nology today of those interactions, but it is true to establish is that we, as a nation and as a commu- say that in 1968 Mr Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the then nity, are not prepared to compromise the values of Premier of Queensland, issued 16 licences to the Great Barrier Reef—not at all, not in any way. prospect for oil in the waters east of Queensland. Oil prospecting and drilling on or near coral reefs In 1970, two companies, Ampol and Japex, post- and the sustainability of those coral reefs are con- poned drilling near Whitsunday Island after sig- flicting notions. nificant opposition from the community. In 1974, The ongoing desire of the oil industry to explore a Royal Commission into oil drilling on the Great in areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef such as Barrier Reef concluded. The commissioners were the Townsville Trough is not going to be averted split on whether oil drilling should be allowed on until clear direction by government is established. the Great Barrier Reef. In 1981, the coalition This legislation provides the Coalition with a government passed the Act opening the Coral Sea sensible and practical mechanism that has no cost to oil drilling. The government claimed that it to Government to provide that direction—to rule would not allow oil drilling within 30 miles of the out oil exploration and mining for good and I Great Barrier Reef. In 1990, oil exploration adja- invite the Government to take up this opportunity. cent to the Great Barrier Reef was again pro- posed. The then Labor Prime Minister Bob Senator McLUCAS—I seek leave to con- Hawke quickly quashed this proposal. tinue my remarks later. I was disappointed then to find that the current Leave granted; debate adjourned. Environment Minister, Dr Kemp trying to rewrite ENVIRONMENT: WORLD HERITAGE history in a media release of the 10th February CONVENTION 2003 suggesting that Labor was in fact proposing oil exploration back in 1990. It just goes to show Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.05 how little he knows about the history of proposals p.m.)—I move: to drill for oil on or near the Reef. That the Senate— I think the current Environment Minister has (a) notes the extraordinary meeting of the much in common with the Liberal Shadow Envi- World Heritage Committee of the United ronment Minister of the time, Fred Chaney, which Nations Educational, Scientific and just goes to show how progressive the Liberal Cultural Organization to be held in Paris Party is on issues like the environment. from 17 to 22 March 2003 to consider The then Liberal Shadow Environment Minister, proposed changes to the operational Fred Chaney, said on ABC radio: guidelines of the World Heritage “I’m certainly in favour of continued oil explora- Convention; tion in prospective areas just as I’m firmly of the (b) reaffirms its support for the World Heritage Convention, in particular: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9281

(i) the power of the World Heritage vulnerable to pressure from foreign Committee to inscribe a property on governments to cancel such events. the World Heritage List in Danger Question negatived. without the consent of the state party, Senator Brown—I note that Senator Net- (ii) the power of the World Heritage Committee to remove a property from tle and I both voted for that motion. the World Heritage List without the MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE consent of the state party, Education: Higher Education (iii) the current interpretation of the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Convention, which recognises that sites have integrity and the (Senator Knowles)—The President has re- management of World Heritage sites ceived the following letter from Senator Carr be directed at safeguarding both the proposing that a definite matter of public World Heritage values and the importance be submitted to the Senate for property as a whole, and discussion, namely: (iv) the role of the advisory bodies to the Dear Mr President Convention in making representations Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that directly to the World Heritage today I propose to submit the following matter of Committee in relation to any World public importance for discussion: Heritage property; and “The failure of the Government to defend Austra- (c) condemns the Government for its efforts lia’s national system of higher education, as evi- to undermine the integrity of the denced by: Convention by supporting changes to the operational guidelines which would (a) declining public funding for higher educa- undermine all the above mentioned tion, powers, interpretations and (b) a deliberate policy of cost shifting to stu- responsibilities. dents, Question agreed to. (c) an inability to tackle problems of growing FOREIGN AFFAIRS: WEST PAPUA unmet demand, Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.06 (d) the continuing brain-drain of researchers out p.m.)—I move: of Australia and the continuing decline in re- search infrastructure, particularly at regional That the Senate supports the rights of the universities, and people of West Papua to develop their own distinctive culture and institutions and to (e) a consequent decline in the standards and determine their own political future. quality of higher education.” Question negatived. Yours sincerely FOREIGN AFFAIRS: WEST PAPUA Senator Kim Carr CONFERENCE 5 March 2003. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.06 I call upon those senators who approve of the p.m.)—I move: proposed discussion to rise in their places. That the Senate— More than the number of senators re- (a) congratulates the organisers—the quired by the standing orders having risen in Globalism Institute, the New Internationalist magazine and David their places— Bridie—for the successful West Papua The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— conference and concert held in I understand that informal arrangements have Melbourne last week; and been made to allocate specific times to each (b) condemns the Howard Government for of the speakers in today’s debate. With the cutting university funding so heavily that concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the universities, like RMIT, are forced to clerks to set the clocks accordingly. rely on revenue from overseas students for their very survival, leaving RMIT Senator CARR (Victoria) (4.08 p.m.)—I begin by suggesting that the Australian uni- 9282 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 versity system is in crisis. Remedial action to ‘great eight’ universities now have a third of repair the damage is desperately needed. The the sector’s enrolments and almost half of status quo is simply not sustainable. This is the sector’s revenue. They account for two- clearly the view the Labor Party has put over thirds of the operating result and three- the last two years and the view that I ex- quarters of the cash and investments. The 13 pressed in last year’s research paper entitled regional universities, on the other hand, have Research: engine room of the nation. The less than 25 per cent of the sector’s enrol- Minister for Education, Science and Train- ments, 21 per cent of the revenue, 13 per ing, Dr Nelson, says that the Australian uni- cent of the operating result and about 10 per versity system is characterised by blandness cent of the cash and investments, but they and homogeneity. I take the view that noth- have a third of the sector’s debt. ing could be further from the truth. The dif- The financial loads on students have sky- ferences between our universities, especially rocketed under the Howard government. Un- between the largest or wealthiest and the rest, der Labor, students were required to pay have created a huge gulf between the haves about 25 per cent of the cost of their degree. and the have-nots of Australian higher edu- They now pay on average 40 per cent. Class cation. That is the basis of the crisis that I am sizes have blown out, with staff-student ra- talking about. The problems are well known. tios up from one to 16 to one to 19. This has It is not just about money, but money is at obvious implications for staff workloads. the core of the problem; the system is in- The range of subjects and programs offered creasingly divided between winners and los- by our universities and the research that they ers. Those universities that are already rich are able to provide have substantially con- and powerful are being further advantaged tracted. These are the facts. There has been by a government that sees the market as an an increase in the appeal to the very crude answer to all our problems. commercial values within the university sys- The themes of the government’s Cross- tem itself. The number of qualified students roads review of higher education have been missing out on a place—or unmet demand— emphasised by Dr Nelson. The truth is that is growing at an extraordinary rate across the he can no longer deny that there is irrefutable country. There is now a profound problem, evidence of a decline in quality, even if pro- particularly in teacher education and in nurs- ductivity has increased. He cannot deny that ing, which, if not immediately addressed, access to tertiary education is becoming will have profound social impacts on this more difficult for people who are less well country. off and less well connected. He cannot deny The traditional values that once defined that there is a decline in the regional, social our universities—that is, being committed to and economic responsiveness of universities excellence in both teaching and research, and as they are forced by the financial squeeze to being committed not just to the pursuit of narrow their teaching and research profiles. vocational training but to greater public good Those financial pressures can be measured and to community service—have all been put by simple facts such as that expenses over under serious strain by this government. A the last 10 years have increased by 102 per very grim picture is emerging now. For evi- cent while revenues have increased by only dence of this we look no further than the 81 per cent. The Commonwealth’s share of government’s own documents, particularly those revenues, including HECS, has de- the Department of Education, Science and clined from 72 per cent in 1996 to 61 per Training’s own higher education triennial cent in 2001. The aggregate sector operating report, which was published in the dead of result has declined from $560 million in night on Christmas Eve last year. It lays bare 1997 to $460 million in 2001. That is a drop the damage done to universities by deregula- of $100 million. I acknowledge that there has tion and their exposure by this government to been a recent improvement in the financial an unnecessarily heavy reliance on the free position. It is due mostly to currency move- market. The report says that expenditure by ments and the improved performance of the universities is growing faster than their reve- four big universities in eastern Australia. The Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9283 nue base. They have real trouble identifying versity of Sydney—but the sector-wide aver- further and larger sources of income to com- age was $12 million. pensate for the government’s financial cuts. At risk is the capacity to generate new The financial management of the public ideas and new knowledge. Places for Austra- higher education institutions is generally lian students in postgraduate courses has de- pretty poor. Financial reporting processes clined by 16 per cent between the 1996 and and practices lack transparency and thor- 2001. The proportion of students obliged to oughness. Universities have made a number pay fees for these courses jumped over that of disastrous decisions leading to massive time by 30 per cent to almost 70 per cent. cost blow-outs in the purchase and adapta- Higher degree, or research, students com- tion of large-scale computer software. The mencing study have fallen as a percentage of report says that the diversification of revenue all new students from about four per cent in sources—for example, through international 1996 to less than three per cent last year. The students and consultancy markets—has cre- government’s new research training scheme, ated real threats to educational quality as which is part of its flagship Backing Austra- well as, in a number of cases, considerable lia’s Ability, looks set to implode after only financial losses. There has been an increased two years of operation. The four megafauna reliance on fee-paying students, particularly universities share between them over $200 through the use of franchising arrangements, million of the total $527 million available in which has led to unacceptable risks to quality 2003. Another $113 million goes to just four and financial stability, especially with the more. The remaining 29 universities—or 78 smaller universities. per cent of institutions— are allocated only Universities have experienced significant 40 per cent of the research training funding. problems managing their capital expendi- The big four are running a sustained cam- ture—that is, their building maintenance and paign to make the allocations of research construction programs. They are increasingly funding entirely competitive and perform- being called upon to use their capital moneys ance based. Such a change would fundamen- to fund their recurrent operations. This all tally undermine the basic principle we have adds up—as the opposition has been saying come to accept in this country as defining a for the last couple of years—to a crisis. The university—that is, an institution that en- undue reliance on an ideological obsession courages excellence in both teaching and with the market obscures the need for sig- research. nificant public investment in higher educa- What we are seeing under this government tion. Instead, our public universities are be- is a change from what we have understood to ing thrown wholesale to the wolves in the be the basic principles of what it is that marketplace and to the broader commercial makes a university. Commonwealth funding environment, which is far from benign, espe- has declined from 68 per cent to just 61 per cially for inexperienced players. cent over the last couple of years. Individual Minister Nelson tries to reassure us by students are being asked to make up the dif- quoting system-wide financial data, but the ference. What we also notice—and it was in financial soundness of Australia’s universi- the press today—is that the Australian Vice- ties rests largely upon four super performing, Chancellors Committee are saying that they what I call ‘megafauna’, universities—the cannot see anything from the government real winners in the competition jungle. They that would give them reason not to be up- are the universities of Queensland, Sydney beat about the government’s future inten- and Melbourne and New South Wales. They tions. constitute some 50 per cent of the operating I was quite surprised by this, because the result for the whole sector. We are looking at Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee ex- a situation where the operating surplus of ecutive officer says: two of these four hyperachieving universities Certainly our information gathering is that our is $29 million, for the University of New objective of 1.6 per cent of GDP by 2007 ... is South Wales, and $88 million, for the Uni- likely to be achieved. 9284 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

It seems to me, when I look at the details of of the government’s policies. It strikes me it, that if we take the current estimate that that, in these circumstances, we are likely to higher education is funded at 1.4 per cent of see a situation where a number of universi- GDP it will require a further 0.2 per cent of ties are going to be facing very serious fi- GDP to be committed to higher education by nancial problems in the years to come. We 2007. On current estimates of Australian note already the uneven impact of the gov- GDP in 2005 and 2006, that will exceed ernment cuts. If we look across Australia we $883 billion. Given that universities rely see that, because the cuts that have been upon the federal government for about 60 per made were to the forward estimates, the cuts cent of their funding, that would involve the appear disproportionately to affect south- Commonwealth share increasing by ap- eastern Australia. Victoria lost effectively 5.4 proximately $1.06 billion per year. That is an per cent of its operating grants; Tasmania additional $5 billion to 2007. lost 5.26 per cent; South Australia lost 5.01 You have to ask yourself: what is the per cent; the Australian Capital Territory lost AVCC up to in these sorts of circumstances, 2.56 per cent and New South Wales lost 1.28 where a basic mathematical conclusion can per cent. Queensland and Western Australia be drawn from the statements that have been were able to achieve some additional sup- made that the government commitment port. The Northern Territory, particularly the would have to be $5 billion extra to meet Northern Territory University, on the other their claims? The government’s own figures, hand suffered a serious cut of 5.73 per cent. in table A8 in the first Crossroads paper, They are official DEST figures. show a decline in public spending on higher It pays to remember, when we are looking education as a percentage of GDP—a de- at these programs, that the government is in cline. Those figures are 1.1 per cent in 1991 fact proposing to fund growth. According to to 0.93 per cent in 2000. They are official Dr Shergold, at a recent seminar he gave be- government figures that I am quoting. Dur- fore moving on to bigger and better things, ing the same period, private expenditure in- there is likely to be an increase in student creased only marginally, and that was largely places of about 0.5 per cent by 2014. This off the back of increased student fees. was predicated on the assumption that Tas- If we look at the 730 submissions that mania and South Australia would actually have been put to the government, the seven lose places and would see a decline in the discussion papers and the 50-odd forums that number of places that are offered. If we take have been held as a result of this Crossroads into account the effect of lifelong learning, process, we note that the government paid we see that many of the calculations the gov- the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee ernment is making about future demand are $100,000 to have one of its officers seconded quite cavalier and are misplaced. They take to this review. We ask ourselves: what is the no account of the changes to the work force. government proposing under these circum- They take no account of the changes that are stances? I see nothing in any of the specula- occurring within Australian society. It strikes tion so far which goes to the issue of the me, in the circumstance where the govern- fundamental crisis within the Australian ment is calling upon us to endorse a proposi- higher education system. What we are seeing tion that students should take on a greater is that the proposals being advanced will burden in the funding of higher education, strengthen the already rich, the already privi- that we are entitled to ask the question: what leged—those who are able to call upon the has the government done to defend higher investment for what is now nearly 150 years education in this country? It seems to me the of public support in those major institutions. system cannot flourish in circumstances wrought by years of funding neglect and pol- It seems that the government is attempting icy vandalism by this government. Our fine to shift the burden to students and their fami- university system is reeling. There are very lies to unprecedented levels. What we are strong reasons to fear what this government noticing here—and it is a pattern that has is intending to do to the higher education emerged over recent years—is a continuation Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9285 system. The Australian Labor Party believes increased interference in academic work and re- that our nation—(Time expired) sulted in too many institutions trying to do the same things and getting equally rewarded regard- Senator MASON (Queensland) (4.23 less of how well they did it. p.m.)—I listened with interest to Senator Carr’s contribution to this debate and his As I say, competition and excellence were obsession with our alleged obsession with not rewarded under the Dawkins scheme. market ideology. Given that it is 20 years That, of course, was a major problem. In a since the election of the Hawke government, sense this ideological obsession with equity I assume his speech was made in tribute to punished diversity, stifled excellence and that occurrence. I recall also that today is the failed to reward entrepreneurial activities in 50th anniversary of the death of Joseph Sta- higher education. That is the core problem. I lin. Perhaps it is the latter that is more impor- have taught at a couple of universities and I tant to Senator Carr. However, on the 20th know that Senator Carr has taught as well. anniversary of the election of the Hawke There are often enormous pressures on aca- government it is important to look back at demic staff today and I recognise and accept why we are where we are. Writing in the Age that, but the answer is not simply an injection last year, the former Labor Federal President of public funding. Just like the market that Barry Jones said: Mr Hawke and Mr Keating embraced in the 1980s, universities have to be able to special- A turning point in the history of Australia’s ise in what they do well. For example, James higher education was the comprehensive reor- ganisation that was initiated, and indeed imposed, Cook University in my state of Queensland from 1987 by John Dawkins, Bob Hawke’s minis- might be able to specialise in tropical medi- ter for education and training. I have little doubt cine. For the University of Central Queen- that Dawkinisation will prove to have been the sland, in Rockhampton, it could be dry basin greatest single mistake of the Hawke-Keating agriculture. Also, universities specialise in years. what their strong faculties are and what their If the Hawke government got it wrong, and I strong academics do. That is extremely im- think they did, at least they had some poli- portant. Just like societies and economies cies. We have heard the outline of some con- flourish by concentrating on what they do cerns by Senator Carr, but we have not heard well, institutions, and indeed universities, anything about policies or solutions. Of must concentrate on what they do well. That course, that is becoming the theme for the is what they have to be allowed to do, and Labor Party in the year 2003. One thing that is what the Labor Party miss. They think about the Hawke government is—and we it is a matter of public funding. Universities read the tributes today in the Australian must be able to do what they do and do it where Mr Kelly wrote about Mr Hawke be- well. That is why Dr Nelson, in a sense, has ing one of the great prime ministers—they taken a leaf out of Mr Hawke’s book. He has did believe in competition. They got over been very consultative and has spent last class warfare and all that stuff, and they em- year and this year producing seven discus- braced the market. They believed in competi- sion papers covering a range of topics. He tion, but sadly they did not believe in compe- has asked the Productivity Commission to tition in the university sector. They believed, examine the resourcing of the university sec- in effect, that one size fits all. Senator Carr tor. He has held 49 consultative meetings and I would probably agree that in the uni- around the country with 800 participants. He versity sector one size does not fit all. The has examined over 700 submissions and con- editorial in the Australian Financial Review sulted with various stakeholders including on 18 February this year said: the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, In the early 1990s Labor’s John Dawkins tried the National Union of Students, the National to do it by merging universities and colleges of Tertiary Education Union and the Council of advanced education to form fewer large institu- Australian Postgraduate Associations. So the tions. But, instead of freeing them from bureau- government is listening. cratic controls and letting them compete on price, Senator Tierney—Absolutely. quality and specialisation, the Dawkins reforms 9286 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Senator MASON—It is listening, isn’t it, Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Senator Tierney, to what the stakeholders tralia) (4.31 p.m.)—I will begin by picking believe. That is a very important thing. We up on a statement made by the previous were all, of course, waiting for the reforms to speaker in relation to people who oppose come through and the report to be submitted. fees. Senator Mason was referring to argu- But we listened, and that is important. There ments put forward in the early eighties. I is one thing that Senator Carr and I probably might add that it does seem a long time ago agree on— that the ALP opposed fees. However, when Senator Carr—Only one? they did or when proponents of publicly funded or free education, for lack of a better Senator MASON—It is a very important expression, opposed fees, we did it not be- one from the perspective of social justice, cause we thought fewer people would go to and I know that you would care about that. I university but because we thought fewer refer to access to tertiary education. That is people from disadvantaged backgrounds— critical. I remember too well when I was an those traditionally disadvantaged back- undergraduate student in the eighties that the grounds—would have access to universities. Labor Party initially opposed tertiary fees. Remember that? They said, ‘If you impose If this government had not abandoned the tertiary fees, fewer people will go to univer- research, by postcodes and other demo- sity.’ That is what they said 20 years ago. It graphic traits, through the higher education was appalling. In effect, they were giving the roundtable and HEC, as it was called then, middle class welfare. They were subsidising we would be able to put on the record today middle-class kids. These were not disadvan- the demographics that have either benefited taged kids; they were middle-class kids. The or been disadvantaged as a consequence of post-Whitlamite baby boomers were giving a fees and charges in our institutions. Those of pathetic display of middle-class social wel- us who believe strongly in publicly funded fare. To the credit of Senator Walsh and oth- and accessible education believe in it be- ers, finally the Labor Party thought we had to cause we acknowledge that higher education, have tertiary fees. Do you know why they or education generally, is a public invest- thought that? They thought that because it ment; it is not a cost. It does not work in the would increase access to tertiary education. way traditional markets work. In fact, I do It would help poor kids who came from dis- not think that it is particularly useful to con- advantaged places to have access to tertiary sider university education in a market con- education. text because the conventional market ap- proach is not appropriate. The first part of this process involves in- creasing access to tertiary education, and Returning to the debate initiated by Sena- access to tertiary education has doubled in 20 tor Carr, the Australian Democrats support years. The next part of the process is to allow this MPI debate. We have consistently op- universities the entrepreneurial capacity to posed barriers to education in the form of charge fees and to encourage overseas stu- fees and charges. We remain profoundly dents because that would give them more concerned about the massive cuts to univer- money to attract more students. The problem sities. There have been cuts of more than 15 is that we have gone only half way down the per cent in real terms since 1996. In the past road. The Labor Party thinks it is a matter of seven years under this government we have more public funding. It is not; it is a matter seen massive cuts to public funding for edu- of specialisation, of universities doing what cation and specifically for higher education. they do well and of carrying on with the re- That has led to the very real decline we see forms introduced many years ago by Senator today in the quality of educational experi- Walsh and others. As usual, the Labor Party ence at our universities. believes that this is simply a matter of more If people doubt that, it is well documented public money. Indeed, it is all about letting in the Senate committee report entitled Uni- universities do what they do well. versities in crisis. You just have to look at staff-student ratios which have blown out Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9287 from one to 19 in 2001, up from one to 12 in most privatised higher education system. the early 1990s. There is overcrowding and That is extraordinary. On average, Australian course closures. We have uncompetitive aca- students pay more than their American coun- demic salaries, overworked and stressed staff terparts for public university education. We and general and academic staff who have know that fees and charges are a psychologi- been waiting on staff pay claims for a num- cal and financial disincentive for aspiring ber of years in some institutions. There have students, particularly for those from disad- been major cuts to libraries and other infra- vantage backgrounds. structure. These typify the climate within our I want to send a very clear message to the higher education institutions in Australia government today: the Democrats do not today. The government is well aware of these believe that reform of student fees is a solu- problems. If we do not believe that, we only tion. No amount of fiddling with student debt have to look at that leaked cabinet submis- can mask the real problem of insufficient sion from Dr Kemp back in 1999. Education is not a mere commodity; it is an investment. public investment in higher education. I look At some point, governments that want a sus- forward to debating Crossroads. My message tainable education system and to ensure to Minister Nelson is: ‘Bring it on. Let’s benefits and access for the students of today have this debate. No more leaks.’ Our educa- and tomorrow will have to acknowledge that. tion sector requires public funding and any reports of $1 billion or $1.5 billion in around In the past few weeks we have had selec- tive leaks about the Crossroads paper. I call 2007 will only begin to make up for the cuts on Minister Nelson, who I acknowledge has that were debated in this place in 1996. I been consultative in this process, to release would love to have a debate about binary Crossroads so that we are not hearing just divides versus the unified national system, selective leaked reports through certain because that is what Senator Mason was al- newspapers. From the leaks so far, we can luding to with the green and white papers see that we are looking at further deregula- introduced by John Dawkins, but now is not tion of undergraduate fees by allowing uni- the time. (Time expired) versities to charge top-up fees. We are also Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) looking at real interest rates on top-up loans; (4.37 p.m.)—I rise this afternoon to support a Big Brother approach to managing stu- the motion moved by Senator Carr. In fact, I dents; penalties for slower completions with- believe it goes only part of the way in exam- out any examination of the constraints on ining what the government has done in rela- completions as a result of hopelessly inade- tion to higher education. The words are not quate income support measures in this coun- strong enough, in my mind, to portray what try; further undermining of universities by has happened to this sector of the education providing Commonwealth loans to students system since 1996. It is not only the govern- in private colleges—an increasing trend we ment’s failure to defend Australia’s national have seen from this government—where system of higher education but also the ab- private colleges are not universities; and we horrent and abysmal neglect of this system are looking at an expansion in the number of throughout the government’s last seven years domestic full-fee undergraduate places from in office that needs to be addressed. Well around 25 per cent to 50 per cent in courses. may the Prime Minister celebrate his seventh That is really code for this government to anniversary this year, because there are not say, ‘We have no intention of fully funding too many people in the higher education sec- genuine growth in places.’ In short, the gov- tor jumping for joy and celebrating with him, ernment is looking to abrogate its responsi- as they have had to endure massive cuts and bility for addressing the very serious and massive changes in that sector due to the very real problems that afflict our institu- government’s neglect and failure to recog- tions. nise that there are significant problems. The recent Productivity Commission re- Not only that, we have a government that port stated that we already have the fourth is unwilling to accept any responsibility for 9288 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 the dismal state it has put this sector into fact, you will find that the cuts to the operat- since it came to office in 1996. Some 10 ing grants between 1997 and 2000 in the years ago, this country had an internationally federal budget have averaged around six per recognised and renowned and efficient cent. The costs have shifted from this gov- higher education system. That has sadly ernment to students and their families by changed and gone downhill under the How- increasing the HECS fees as well. Under this ard government. There have been three ma- government, HECS fees have risen by 69 per jor reviews in higher education sector in the cent from 2000—from $2,442 to about last five years—three major reviews and a $4,120. We have had massive cuts to operat- leaked cabinet submission. We had the West ing grants and the cost of funding higher review in 1997-98. We had the Senate in- education in this country has shifted to fami- quiry—a massive inquiry which has been lies and students. spoken about many times in this chamber— Senator Tierney—Try looking at the total where at the end of the day even the Austra- money. lian Vice-Chancellors Committee admitted to the Senate committee, on the record, that we Senator CROSSIN—The figures are have a higher education sector in this country there, Senator Tierney. Get up and explain to that is in crisis. That is from the people who us why your government has increased manage the system on the ground on a day- HECS by 69 per cent and why you believe to-day basis. Then there was a cabinet sub- you can justify students propping up a higher mission, which was leaked. When the wheels education system that used to be well funded started to fall off, the previous education and publicly funded before your government minister tried to cobble together some decent was elected. Not only that, we have also seen policy. Now we have the Crossroads paper massive pressure put on students. As I said, and its seven subsequent discussion papers. HECS contributions are up. Australian stu- dents are paying some of the highest study Senator Stott Despoja talks about an edu- and living costs in the world—higher than cation minister who embarks on a consulta- the US, Britain and Germany. We have seen tive process. Let us see at the end of the day a shift in the responsibility—from publicly when that paper is released whether that con- funded institutions to students having to find sultative process has been genuine. There is those funds in order to study and survive, consultation and there is real consultation and to prop up a system that should be pub- where you actually listen to what the com- licly funded. We have seen overcrowding in munity and the sector are asking for in rela- classrooms. Students, we know, are forced to tion to higher education, not just what the sit on stairs and in corridors. Tutorials of 30 bosses, the Australian Vice-Chancellors students and lectures of 400 or more are Committee or industry are asking for. Par- common. ents, students and people who work in that sector need to be listened to as well. At the Senator Tierney—Where are your poli- end of the day, we will see how genuine this cies? consultation has been. Senator CROSSIN—We heard that, This government has missed in its seven Senator Tierney. You were sitting with us years since being elected an opportunity to during the Senate inquiry when you would invest in the economic and social future of have heard day after day about crowded lec- this country by backing, supporting and put- tures, packed tutorials, not enough staff and ting the public funds that are needed into the staff being overworked and severely stressed. higher education system. Let us have a look In fact, the figures show that increases in the at a report card, if you like, on the university average number of students per teaching staff sector in this country at this point in time. are up to as high as 70 per cent in some We know now that a staggering amount of places. At Central Queensland University the funds have been ripped out of the public staff-student ratio increased by 70 per cent funding purse that should have gone towards from 1996-2001. At Charles Sturt University the Australian universities since 1996. In the ratio increased by 53 per cent. At RMIT it increased by 40 per cent. At my own Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9289

Northern Territory University the staff- is wrong. It believes that everything is going student ratio has increased by 28 per cent. quite fine along this road in the higher edu- Universities are having to do less with the cation area and that if there are any changes publicly funded purse and the emphasis has to be made its hands will be totally off the gone onto either students or private industry. wheel and it will not be the government that The evidence does not support sugges- picks up the pieces. (Time expired) tions that Australian universities are over- Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) reliant on public funding or are heavily sub- (4.47 p.m.)—I want to talk about excellence sidised by international students. In fact, our in higher education. Excellence is the new tertiary education system, as Senator Stott currency, the new perspective, in higher edu- Despoja said, is already the fourth most reli- cation in Australia today, thanks to the qual- ant on private funding, largely through stu- ity and outstanding work by the Minister for dent fees or funding from privately owned Education, Science and Training, Dr Brendan and operated entities attached to universities. Nelson. Higher education outcomes have Only Korea, Japan and the United States are dramatically improved since the Howard more heavily reliant on private funding than government introduced a long overdue de- Australia. In fact, if we look at the source of gree of sound administration in this area, funds for Australian universities from 1981 which was mismanaged and neglected by the to 2000, funds from the government in 1981 Labor government prior to 1996. There were amounted to 90 per cent; by the year 2000 almost 500,000 domestic student places in they were down to 46.8 per cent, so less than 2002, up 75,000 since 1995. 50 per cent. By the year 2000 this govern- Senator Carr—What has happened to ment was putting into the higher education quality? system from the public purse less than 50 per cent of the funds. Non-government funds Senator JOHNSTON—I will say that have risen from 9.9 per cent in 1981 to 17.1 again for the benefit of Senator Carr—up per cent in 2000. Student fees in 1990 ac- 75,000 since 1995. Of these, just over counted for 20.3 per cent of funds to the 393,000 were subsidised undergraduate and higher education sector and now account for postgraduate places, around 23,000 were 36.2 per cent. government supported research student places and the remaining were undergraduate So the evidence is clearly there before us, and postgraduate fee paying places. There and there are figures to back up the claims, were around 6,500 fee paying places in 2002, that funding from the public purse to the representing less than two per cent of under- higher education system has significantly graduate students. Only 242 transferred to a reduced in the last 20 years and that funding HECS place after the first year. There are 23 out of the purse of students has significantly institutions offering undergraduate fee pay- increased since 1990 to at least the year ing places around the nation. Fee paying un- 2000. This is really about the government dergraduate places are additional to those walking away from its responsibility to sup- places subsidised by the government. Most port a publicly funded system of higher edu- domestic fee payers would be in a HECS cation in this country. We know that students place for a different course if they did not are paying more and the universities are get- pay fees. By taking a fee paying place, they ting less. In real terms universities received have freed a HECS place for someone else. on average $1,103 less per student in 2001 than they did in 1996. We know that the Generally, institutions that accept fee pay- share of the costs of subsidised places borne ing students keep their entry scores to within by students has increased from 19.6 per cent five points of HECS cut-off. Courses that in 1996 to 34.5 per cent in 2001. On average, accept fee paying students tend to be highly students were liable for $1,745 more per year competitive with high cut-off scores pushed in 2001 than they were in 1996. We have a up by strong levels of demand from students. system that is in crisis. We have a govern- Fee paying students are still required to meet ment that is blinded by the ‘fact’ that nothing academic standards set by the universities and are deemed by the particular institution 9290 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 to be above the academic cut-off for the rele- leagues and union friends all put their hands vant course. Commonwealth funding for up and all had a say, we have heard nothing higher education in 2003 will be $6.7 billion, from the federal Labor Party. There is a pol- $500 million more than in 1995. icy black hole from them. However, Senator Senator Carr—Get your brief right! Carr, to his credit, has raised some issues that the government has sought to highlight over Senator George Campbell—Who wrote the last 12 months. this speech—the minister’s office? Senator Carr—Some issues! Senator JOHNSTON—Let me say it again for the benefit of senators opposite— Senator JOHNSTON—These have in- $500 million more than in 1995. It is esti- cluded how universities are funded, how we mated that universities will reap revenues of should support both university research and $11.3 billion this year, $2.7 billion more than teaching— in 1995. The sector has net assets of $20.8 Senator Carr—And quality. billion and cash and investments of $4.8 bil- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT lion—a very healthy sector. Unmet demand (Senator Knowles)—Senator Carr, you have was highest under Labor in 1992, when done nothing but yell since Senator Johnston 100,000 applicants missed out on a univer- started. Could you please desist. sity place. There is the mark of their great management! There is the mark of their great Senator JOHNSTON—and the availabil- expertise: 100,000 students seeking to get a ity of university places. It is pleasing that place in higher education could not do it in Senator Carr sees these issues as important. 1992. The Australian Vice-Chancellors It is a tragedy that he has no-one behind him. Committee estimated that in 2002, after dis- There is an absolute constipation of policy counting for a range of factors including on that side of the House. people applying multiple times, the number Senator Carr—A constipation of policy. of genuinely unsuccessful eligible applicants Senator JOHNSTON—Absolutely, a was between 10,600 and 17,450. One in 20 constipation of policy. Let us talk about what missed out. The number was much higher the Australian Financial Review said on this under Labor in 1994: one in 10 missed out. subject: What a track record! What a recipe for suc- ... liberating universities from the straitjacket of cess those opposite bring to this debate! In current funding and bureaucratic controls and your own state, Senator Carr, 9,800 to letting them map their own courses is as impor- 14,400 applicants could not get a spot in tant as boosting grants. 1994. Currently 2,800 to 5,200 cannot— In the early 1990s, Labor’s John Dawkins tried to what an improvement. do it by merging universities and colleges of ad- Senator Carr—That is not true. vanced education to form fewer, larger institu- tions. But instead of freeing them from bureau- Senator JOHNSTON—What an im- cratic controls and letting them compete on price, provement—thank you, Minister Nelson. quality and specialisation, the reforms increased Senator Carr—That is not true. interference in academic work and resulted in too many institutions trying to do the same things and Senator JOHNSTON—This situation is getting equally rewarded regardless of how they evident: six months ago Labor’s education did it. spokesman, Ms Macklin, admitted in a tele- vision interview that Labor had nothing to There is your history. There is your track contribute to the debate about the future of record. There is your form. The article in the higher education in Australia. She said we Australian Financial Review went on to say: would see Labor’s ideas over the coming Dr Nelson has set out to fix these problems ... His months. We are still waiting. The minister for methodology ... merits a distinction for transpar- education, Dr Nelson, repeatedly invited the ency and thoroughness. federal Labor Party to contribute to the re- The Nelson reforms face a rocky path in the Sen- view of higher education which he con- ate but none of the opposition parties have put up ducted last year. While Labor’s state col- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9291 a credible alternative. They should treat the Nel- which is public money, to private providers son reforms on their merits. within the sector. There you go, Senator: we are waiting to Dr Nelson’s elitist views that universities hear from you. We are desperate to hear a are overpopulated with students who do not modicum of policy. We are screaming to hear really belong there are complemented by an something concrete, something well thought attack on those who have made it through: out and something intellectual on what is one the introduction of a Big Brother style ID of Australia’s most important issues, and all card and a database system to deal with slow we get is carping or silence. completion rates in a coercive and aggressive Senator NETTLE (New South Wales) manner that looks to strip numbers and make (4.54 p.m.)—Higher education is not so savings rather than assist struggling students much at crossroads but in crisis. A healthy and increase completion rates. The govern- education sector is a necessary prerequisite ment has abandoned the goal of universal, for a healthy economy and a healthy society. comprehensive, equitable public higher edu- What we need is speedy and diligent action cation. Instead, it is ushering in a bargain on behalf of the government to return the basement, deregulated, user pays service, sector to full health, continuing this country’s which features growing privatisation both in proud tradition of equitable access to a qual- public university services and in competition ity higher education system. But, of course, with them. this is not what is happening. The Greens’ vision is for a comprehen- Instead, we are about to see the culmina- sive, publicly funded, well-resourced and tion of a long-term goal of this government: accessible higher education sector. The peak to enact a significant withdrawal by the student bodies, academic staff and unions are Commonwealth from the responsibility of crying out for an immediate injection of delivering a high-quality university sector. funding of $1 billion. Solutions to the prob- This is a transformation that has been under lems caused by reduced public funding and way since the coalition government came to increased competition will not be solved by office—and to a certain extent before that as more reductions in public funding and in- well—which has seen the systematic under- creased competition. The Greens will oppose funding of the sector, softening up the key the systematic attack on this country’s com- players for the sucker punch that appears prehensive public university system—an imminent. investment we cannot afford to shirk. The leaks in the Sydney Morning Herald Senator TIERNEY (New South Wales) have made this abundantly clear. In the area (4.58 p.m.)—I rise also to speak in this dis- of fees, we are looking at further deregula- cussion of a matter of public importance re- tion of the current fee structure, an increase garding higher education. I have listened in the HECS-liable fee for all students—an very carefully to the Democrats, the Labor increase that will be used to the maximum by Party and the Greens. I have listened very vice-chancellors eager for precious re- carefully but, I am afraid, it has been in vain sources—and the threat of a move back to a because there has not been anything vaguely two-tiered system with some, perhaps those resembling any policy ideas on the future of regional universities, forced to focus on higher education. We have heard a lot of teaching and losing their research compo- carping, and a lot of dodgy figures have been nent. This is in spite of a mountain of evi- thrown around, but we have not heard a vi- dence that shows that such a move will un- sion for the future. Having been in govern- dermine teaching quality. A third tier may ment for seven years now and having been also be in the offing, consequent to Dr Nel- through a number of elections, all parties on son’s fixation on having one or two top 100 the other side have form in terms of putting universities, even if this comes at the ex- up policies that are credible in regard to the pense of the sector as a whole. We are look- future development of higher education. ing at a continuation of the process embarked We are incredibly fortunate to have Bren- on last year with the extension of PELS, dan Nelson as the Minister for Education, 9292 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Science and Training. With his Crossroads make it take out if they had won the election document and the whole process of Cross- in 1996. Not only were they bereft of ideas; roads, he has done a systematic review of the they were a bit bereft of money, having a $10 entire higher education sector. He has under- billion black hole at the time. They certainly taken consultation right across the sector and had no way of funding the future expansion has come up with a coherent plan for the and development of higher education. future direction of higher education. We are Let us move on to 2001. Kim Beazley still waiting to hear a peep of an idea of any came out with his policy for higher educa- description from the ALP. tion. We had Knowledge Nation. We all Senator George Campbell—You will get waited with bated breath for Knowledge Na- it, just be patient. tion, and all we got was spaghetti and meat- Senator TIERNEY—Oh, will we, Sena- balls. They did not have any really visionary tor? We have actually been waiting 20 years, idea. They did not provide two things: first, Senator. I have here a document titled ‘La- they did not provide any money—there was bor’s policy for higher education 1983’. This no extra money for this program, as usual, is a very interesting document. It is the 20th from the Labor Party—and, second, they had anniversary of the election of the Hawke no vision for where the sector was going. government, so I pored over this document I have had a look at the plan regarding to see what visionary approach the Labor where we are going in higher education. Party was trying to adopt at that time. Well, I Compared to what those opposite were pro- was out on Cape Barren, I tell you! I could posing at that last election, the difference is not find anything here at all in terms of vi- just incredible. All they put up, really, was a sion for higher education—nothing whatso- proposal to have a cyber university with ever. There was a bit of tinkering here and 100,000 students. We asked the question: there at the edges and criticism of the Fraser ‘When is this going to happen?’ The answer government, which was pretty predictable, was: ‘It is going to happen in 10 years.’ but no vision for higher education. There was going to be an extra 100,000 stu- Let us move on in time to the next oppor- dents and it was going to take 10 years to do, tunity. Let us look at what they were doing at and they were all going to be online. We the end of the Hawke-Keating era. For 13 know now—and I am not going to go into years we had massive numbers of students the details—what professional educators who could not get into higher education; we think of that idea. It was just a wacky idea. It had a funding crisis in higher education; we was never, ever going to work. had increased enrolments and we did not Those are the ideas of the Labor Party. We have matching resources. What was Labor’s have heard from Labor Party senators today, answer at the end of 1996? Their plan—this as they have joined in this debate, or tried to is a serious plan; the Minister for Finance create a debate on higher education, criti- and Administration is here so I am sure he cisms of the system but, as I have said, we will be very interested in this plan—is to have heard absolutely no plans in relation to suggest to universities that they take out where higher education would go. They have loans. It is suggested that universities take had plenty of opportunity to contribute. We out loans to pay for their expansion and for have had the Crossroads review and we have their increased costs and repay that money had the minister provide the opportunity for within six years. the Labor Party to join in that review. We If the former Labor government had re- welcome their ideas. But did they participate mained in office, just think of the position at all? Did Jenny Macklin put anything in? we would be in today. We would have a to- Did the Labor Party put anything in? The tally cash-strapped higher education system Australian Education Union did; they put in because they would be not only fighting to a submission. I was at the plenary session find funds to expand higher education but when we heard what they had to say. But also having to pay back the loans that the there were no new ideas. There was no co- Labor government said they were going to Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9293 herent plan for actually developing the future ARC, the CRCs and other research mecha- of higher education. nisms. Senator Crossin—Yes, there was; move We have actually developed the university public funds back into it. system. We are meeting demand far better Senator TIERNEY—Oh, we have a sim- than Labor ever did. We have funding de- ple answer, again, from Senator Crossin. vices that will actually maintain the univer- Senator Crossin wants fully publicly funded sity system and expand it. We have a very higher education. Is that what you want, comprehensive plan for the future of higher Senator? Supporting the Democrats, no education. We wait with bated breath to hear doubt, in that regard. Let us have a look at from the Australian Labor Party, the Austra- that idea. If you want to do that and just lian Democrats and the Greens as to what maintain universities at their current level, their plan is. We will be waiting a while be- you are going to have to find another $5 bil- cause, as the last few elections have shown, lion to do it. Senator, where are you going to no such plan has been put down and I doubt find $5 billion? What is it going to come out that within the next few years it will be. That of? Schools? Is it going to come out of is why this opposition deserves to stay in roads? Is it going to come out of hospitals? opposition. What is it going to come out of, Senator? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT You have no answer at all. You put up this (Senator Hutchins)—Order! The time for simplistic solution that has absolutely noth- discussion of the matter of public importance ing to do with the real world of funding in has expired. higher education. COMMITTEES In contrast to that, we have a minister who Employment, Workplace Relations and has come out with a very systematic review Education References Committee process. In addition to coming out with a systematic review process, he has a series of Corrigendum plans and ideas for the future of higher edu- Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New cation. He put out seven discussion papers South Wales) (5.08 p.m.)—I present a corri- covering a range of topics. He tasked the gendum to the report of the Employment, Productivity Commission to do a thorough Workplace Relations and Education Refer- analysis of the sector. He held 49 consulta- ences Committee entitled Education of stu- tive meetings, examined 700 submissions, dents with disabilities, which was tabled in consulted with the stakeholders and then the Senate on 10 December 2002. produced a series of documents, and now we Ordered that the report be printed. are moving that through to the cabinet proc- Scrutiny of Bills Committee ess. Report We have a plan for higher education. We Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) had a Labor government that left the sector (5.08 p.m.)—On behalf of the Chair of the bankrupt. We have managed over the last six Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of years to diversify the funding sources. We Bills, Senator McLucas, I present the second have an excellent education export industry report of 2003 of the Senate Standing Com- that is bringing $3½ billion into the sector. mittee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I also lay on We have continued the fee system which was the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 2 established by the ALP, and which Senator of 2003, dated 5 March 2003. Crossin now wants to abolish. But she knows that if Labor ever got into government it Ordered that the report be printed. would not change that at all. We have indus- Senator CROSSIN—I move: try far more involved. We have developed, That the Senate take note of the report. through the Backing Australia’s Ability pro- Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (5.09 gram, a range of different research ap- p.m.)—In speaking on the motion to take proaches and increased real funding through note of the report of the Standing Committee Backing Australia’s Ability to things like the 9294 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 for the Scrutiny of Bills, I would like to achieved. The existence of these committees, make some comments to the Senate on the in the view of Justice Cox, clearly stimulates committee and its report. Together with my and promotes a democratic environment. colleague Senator David Johnston, I recently The chief justice returned to these themes had the pleasure of representing the commit- in comments expressly addressed to scrutiny tee at the Eighth Australasian and Pacific of bills committees, noting that their impor- Conference on Delegated Legislation and the tance cannot be understated. He observed Fifth Australasian and Pacific Conference on that an important function of such commit- the Scrutiny of Bills held in Hobart from 4 to tees is to stimulate debate to provide a more 6 February. These biennial conferences have principled answer to complex issues rather been held around Australia and New Zealand than a policy process whereby discussion of since 1987 to discuss problems and issues of rights is either absent or marginalised. In his mutual interest. opinion, processes under which governments As usual, the chairs and deputy chairs of had to justify their actions relating to rights the Australian legislative scrutiny commit- should be welcomed, particularly where a tees met a day before the conference to re- parliament is likely to be dominated by the view the activities of the working group executive. which operates between conferences. Among The chief justice illustrated his comments other things, the meeting discussed the many by reference to uniform national schemes of significant matters affecting national uniform legislation under which the Commonwealth, scheme legislation—and I know that topic state and territory executives agree on a has been a bit of a hardy perennial. But it model of legislation which cannot be certainly resulted in a series of imaginative amended from that agreed form. He sug- proposals. Another subject was regulation gested that the result is effectively no par- impact statements which, as a part of the liamentary scrutiny of this type of bill. As a explanatory material for a bill, is of concern consequence there is a real challenge to en- to our committee. sure that parliament is not relegated to a rub- The conference itself was opened with a ber stamp for national legislative schemes. In paper by the Chief Justice of Tasmania, the a generous concluding comment, the chief Hon. Mr Justice William Cox, which contin- justice observed that the systematic referral ued a tradition of having these conferences of bills to committees in the Senate has been opened by senior figures in public life. For a significant and in many ways a successful instance, when the Commonwealth held one innovation. of the previous conferences it was opened by One of the other highlights of the confer- the then Governor-General, the Hon. Bill ence was a paper by former Senator Barney Hayden. The Hobart opening was also at- Cooney, who was a member of the Scrutiny tended by the President of the Legislative of Bills Committee for 17 years and a chair Council, the Hon. Don Wing, and the of that committee for 12 years. The confer- Speaker of the House of Assembly, the Hon. ence recognised former Senator Cooney’s Michael Polley, which illustrated the parlia- contribution to legislative scrutiny by invit- mentary rather than party political character ing him to be a co-patron of the next confer- of legislative scrutiny committees. ence, together with Dame Catherine Tizard, a The chief justice emphasised the protec- former Governor-General of New Zealand. tion by our committees of fundamental civil Former Senator Cooney’s paper empha- liberties and rights and their development of sised the role of legislative scrutiny commit- procedures to ensure good governance and tees in the original dimension of parliament, accountability. He added that legislative which saw the development of the rule of scrutiny was not concerned with the political law, the curbing of arbitrary power and the acceptability of what was proposed but appropriate restraint of the executive. This rather—in words that I think are very appo- function was vital to a fair and democratic site—it looks for wisdom, fairness, justice society. Former Senator Cooney observed and restraint in the way policy objectives are that the parliamentary committees which Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9295 scrutinise legislation may be the only way to Commonwealth legislation, illustrating the ensure that some action is taken over flawed role of the committee in protecting personal legislation. Former Senator Cooney saw the rights, while Senator Johnston gave a paper parliament as having a central position in on regulation making powers in bills which good governance, exemplified by legislative focused on the committee’s function in rela- scrutiny. tion to parliamentary propriety. The commit- Former Senator Cooney saw common tee’s report to the conference on its activities values in legislative scrutiny principles during the last two years indicated that for which were recognised by parliamentarians the first time it has reported in a systematic regardless of their party political stance. way upon amendment of bills, and noted the These values were a continuation of those encouraging number of cases where minis- expressed in great historical documents such ters have agreed to amend provisions upon as the Magna Carta, the United States Bill of which the committee has commented. The Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights committee will table a detailed report of the of Man and, in more recent times, the United conference papers and proceedings after con- Nations Universal Declaration of Human sultation with our colleagues on the Regula- Rights. He warned, nevertheless, of the ten- tions and Ordinances Committee. sion created in parliament between its an- The Commonwealth has always been an cient role as a check on the executive and active participant at these conferences, and more recent perceived dominance of the leg- Senator Johnston and I found this one to be islature by the executive. Happily, however, worth while and productive. The nature of former Senator Cooney concluded that par- the conference was perhaps best expressed liament had not surrendered its older func- by the chair of a state legislative scrutiny tion. Legislative scrutiny committees were committee who was on the record as saying vital in protecting personal rights and liber- that he learnt more from one hour at the con- ties, which are the foundations of civil soci- ference than from his previous nine months ety. in parliament. I put on the record my thanks Other papers and ensuing discussion also to Janice Paull from the Regulations and Or- raised issues with which the committee has dinances Committee for her support to Sena- been concerned. Among others these in- tor Johnston, Senator Marshall and me in cluded international best practice for ex- attending the conference. planatory material for primary legislation, Question agreed to. about which the committee recently agreed to write to the minister responsible for the Public Accounts and Audit Committee legislation handbook. Other topics included Report matters with which the committee has be- Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (5.17 come only too familiar, such as incorporation p.m.)—On behalf of the Joint Committee of by reference to external material, and dele- Public Accounts and Audit, I present the gated legislative power with no provision for 394th report of the committee entitled Re- parliamentary scrutiny. However, the confer- view of Australia’s quarantine function. I ence did not restrict itself to current concerns seek leave to move a motion in relation to but included more speculative questions such the report. as the desirability of routine public hearings for the legislative scrutiny process and Leave granted. whether our committees should issue press Senator WATSON—I move: releases, in the same way as courts, in rela- That the Senate take note of the report. tion to their more significant actions. The This report presents the committee’s review relationship between the scrutiny of bills of Australia’s quarantine function. The re- committees and a possible bill of rights at- view arose from the committee’s statutory tracted considerable attention. obligation to review reports of the Auditor- On behalf of the committee I presented a General, namely, Audit report No. 47 of paper on entry and search provisions in 2000–01, Managing for quarantine effec- 9296 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 tiveness, which was tabled in June 2001. Be- Notwithstanding these comments, the sides the audit findings, the government pro- committee received evidence of a long-term vided in the 2001-02 budget almost $600 decline in the level of scientific expertise million over four years to strengthen Austra- available in Australia which might be needed lia’s defence against the introduction of ex- to assist in identifying disease incursions. otic pests and diseases. This followed the foot The committee is concerned at this decline. and mouth disease outbreak in the United The creation of a critical mass of expertise Kingdom in February 2001. often requires a significant lead time, begin- The committee has therefore sought to re- ning with university undergraduate courses. assure the parliament on two issues: (1) that While the committee did not take detailed the Auditor-General’s recommendations have evidence regarding how to build up scientific been carried through; and (2) that the addi- expertise, it supports any practical moves to tional funds allocated to the quarantine func- address this particular weakness. tion are being well spent. In general, the The committee has reviewed Australia’s committee believes that Australia’s quaran- appropriate level of protection, or ALOP, and tine function is in good shape and additional in particular whether the ALOP needs to be funding is being appropriately used. It is not more precisely defined. The committee does possible for Australia to adopt a zero risk not consider greater definition is warranted. stance with regard to quarantine, so there A more quantitative ALOP would invite de- will be, from time to time, incursions of ex- bate and legal challenge as to whether quar- otic pests and diseases. The committee be- antine measures for particular imports were lieves Australia is well placed to meet those consistent with the ALOP. Moreover, the threats. World Trade Organisation considers that However, the committee has found some Australia’s current definition is appropriate. gaps where enhancement is warranted. Evi- Indeed, other countries do not have a pre- dence to the inquiry has revealed a signifi- cisely defined ALOP. There is little by way cant gap in border protection with regard to of precedent provided by previous dispute the potential for exotic biofouling organisms cases before the World Trade Organisation, to enter Australia on the hulls of foreign ves- so altering Australia’s ALOP would need- sels. The committee believes that biofouling lessly increase uncertainty. organisms on foreign vessels is primarily a Evidence received by the committee is quarantine matter and has recommended that that Australia is no longer at the forefront in Northern Australia, where the threat is regarding import risk analysis and has, in greatest, the activities of the Northern Aus- this respect, slipped behind New Zealand and tralia Quarantine Strategy—NAQS—be ex- the United States of America. The committee panded to meet this threat. The committee believes, therefore, that it is time to revisit considers that the Quarantine Act should be the recommendation of the 1996 Nairn quar- amended so that biofouling organisms fall antine review that a centre of excellence be within the legislation. As well, the committee established to undertake risk analysis re- has recommended that relevant agencies search. identify areas and introduce procedures A problem with the import risk analysis whereby vessels posing a quarantine risk can process identified by the Auditor-General be routinely, expeditiously and safely dis- and confirmed by the committee is that there posed of. The committee has reviewed quar- is a significant backlog in dealing with appli- antine preparedness and effectiveness under cations to import commodities. A contribut- the NAQS program and has taken evidence ing factor is that Australia is vulnerable to a on Australia’s ability to meet the threat of wide range of exotic pests and diseases. exotic pests and diseases. The committee Nevertheless, evidence indicated that the believes that Australia is well prepared to backlog was leading to a degree of frustra- meet existing and future quarantine threats, tion expressed by some of Australia’s trading especially those emanating from the north. partners. The committee believes that it would be reasonable for applicants to have to Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9297 wait no longer than six months before con- the evidence which was being received by sideration of their application was com- the committee and addressing issues as they menced, and it has recommended that addi- emerged, as well as responding to the com- tional resources be provided to allow this to mittee’s queries. I would also like to thank be achieved. members of the sectional committee in- I turn to current and projected free trade volved for their time and dedication in con- negotiations. The committee notes that there ducting this inquiry. I also thank the secre- has been no credible indication that Australia tariat staff: the previous secretary to the is likely to trade off its current position on committee, Dr Margot Kerley; inquiry secre- quarantine. However, the committee empha- tary, Dr John Carter; research staff member sises that determination of quarantine meas- Ms Mary-Kate Jurcevic; and administrative ures based on scientific assessment and risk staff member Ms Maria Pappas. analysis should not be compromised to fa- I would like to add a couple of other cilitate free trade agreements. comments which I thought were quite sig- During the inquiry, the committee con- nificant. For example, evidence from the ducted extensive inspections of Australia’s Australian Society of Parasitology suggested quarantine border operations. The committee the biggest threat to Australia’s future quar- was impressed with the enthusiasm, profes- antine function is the national decline in edu- sionalism and performance of those officers cational research training. They said: it met and the strategy in Northern Australia There is no department of parasitology left now in of involving Indigenous peoples in quaran- this country. That has become a department of tine activities. During the inspection of the microbiology, and I believe from next year there Sydney Mail Exchange, the committee saw will be two people who are parasitologists left in various goods, such as vacuum packed brat- that place. wurst sausages and plant material that had They then go on later in their submission to been seized from international mail items. say: These had been detected by X-ray operators. CSIRO have cut back extensively on their para- The sensitivity of the quarantine detector site area as part of their cutback in the whole of dogs was also demonstrated when a packet the agricultural research area. of seeds in an airmail letter from Europe was These are issues that I want to draw to the detected during the committee’s visit. Senate’s attention. Also, as I mentioned ear- Indeed, the committee experienced at first lier, in all the inspections we have been im- hand quarantine in action when it returned pressed with the professionalism, dedication from its Torres Strait inspection visit. To his and enthusiasm of the various personnel in embarrassment, the inquiry secretary was the field. I would like to take this opportunity bailed up by a beagle: his bag had contained to recognise, for example, the dedication and several oranges some days before. The professionalism of NAQS botanist Dr Bar- committee also took the opportunity to in- bara Waterhouse. Dr Waterhouse, in her own spect the new Customs container X-ray facil- time, in addition to her other duties, has pro- ity in Melbourne. This facility is expected to vided many thousands of specimens, includ- X-ray some 100 containers a day and is able ing Siam weed, to the Queensland Herbar- to detect items such as illegal hand guns, ium. Officers like Barbara Waterhouse really drugs and plant material, including contra- do need public commendation for their dedi- band cigarettes. The committee notes that in cation and hard work in the interests of keep- December 2002 this facility identified some ing exotic weeds and diseases out of Austra- 3.8 million cigarettes secreted in a consign- lia. I think Australia is well served by people ment of radio headphones. with the professionalism of Dr Barbara I would like to express the committee’s Waterhouse and her colleagues. Indeed, we appreciation to those people who contributed would like to thank all people who have to the inquiry by preparing submissions and gone beyond the call of duty in keeping un- giving evidence at the public hearing. AFFA desirable plant material out of Australia. I was particularly cooperative in shadowing commend the report to the Senate. 9298 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (5.27 ... several US agriculture interests have raised p.m.)—I am pleased to support the motion to serious concerns about Australia’s use of sanitary take note of this report. I congratulate the and phytosanitary measures as a means of re- Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Au- stricting trade. dit on its review of Australian quarantine For those who are not aware, that is a refer- functions. I want to address the term of ref- ence to the measures relevant to our quaran- erence concerning the impact of international tine system. agreements on quarantine activities, includ- This week the Minister for Trade made a ing proposed bilateral free trade agreements. song and dance about Australia’s objectives From the government’s point of view, forma- in respect of negotiations about an FTA with tion of the free trade agreement between the United States. The government has been Australia and the United States is this na- much more reluctant to tell the Australian tion’s key trade focus. The WTO Doha community about the United States objec- Round negotiations have faded into the tives, which include, in addition to diminish- background as the Howard government has ing our quarantine barrier, the dismantling of turned its full attention to the proposed FTA our single export desks for wheat, sugar and with the United States. So skewed has the rice. On Tuesday this week, the Minister for government’s focus become that yesterday Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr the Minister for Trade, Mr Vaile, signalled Truss, said the government would defend our that the government had just about given up quarantine system and the single desk. What on success at the World Trade Organisation. he did not say is that these issues are on the According to Mr Vaile: table and subject to ongoing negotiations ... we cannot discount the possibility that the with the United States. How do we know WTO round will not deliver a result—in agricul- this? Because that is what the Department of ture, or in any other sector for that matter. Foreign Affairs and Trade told Senator Cook This is the sort of defeatism that only a trade and the estimates committee during the re- minister who is not up to the job would en- cent estimates round. gage in. Success during the Doha Round is Senator Boswell—They don’t make the crucial for Australian exporters, particularly decision. exporters of agricultural commodities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Equally important to our agricultural sec- (Senator Hutchins)—Order! Senator Bos- tor is the maintenance of our quarantine bar- well, if you want to make an interjection, rier. In part, that is why the government’s you should come and sit back in your seat. focus on an FTA with the United States is of Senator O’BRIEN—Yes, I think you such concern to so many of our rural indus- should remind Senator Boswell to be orderly tries. The fact is that the United States has in his conduct in the Senate chamber. Just our quarantine system firmly in its sights. I three weeks ago, Australia’s senior free trade want to tell the Senate what the US admini- agreement negotiator told a Foreign Affairs, stration told the US Senate about its ambi- Defence and Trade committee—and he tions for our quarantine system. The Bush should know—that: administration’s Special Trade Representa- tive, Mr Robert Zoellick, wrote to the US The government’s consistent position in relation Senate on 14 November last year. He said: to the FTA negotiations with the United States has been that no sector or issue would be excluded We recognize that an FTA with Australia is of from the scope of the FTA negotiations. particular interest and concern to the U.S. agricul- ture community. Making progress on a number of The clear position of the government is that issues of concern to U.S. agriculture will be es- no sector or issue is excluded from the scope sential for the successful conclusion of these ne- of the free trade agreements negotiations. As gotiations. a matter of fact, the committee was told that Mr Zoellick specifically identified our quar- ‘nothing is ruled out’. antine system as a target, again saying: Compare that statement to the assurance given by the minister for agriculture to farm- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9299 ers earlier this week. Mr Truss said our quar- with the United States commence. That antine system and the single desk would not would be a deadline based not on a consid- be on the negotiating table. This government ered process but on a need to gain some lev- has a well-deserved reputation for verbal erage in upcoming trade talks. dexterity on matters of honesty. In this case I am also aware that representatives from Mr Truss, the Department of Foreign Affairs a company known as Smithfield, the third and Trade, and the senior FTA negotiator largest pork producer in the United States, cannot all be right. The government is run- were in Australia in January looking at ning with the hares and hunting with the strategies for marketing their product in this hounds: on the one hand, fronting up to Sen- country— ate estimates and telling the truth—that is, that it is all laid out on the table and up for Senator Boswell—They might want to— grabs: quarantine, the single desk, the lot— Senator O’BRIEN—Their product from but, on the other hand, turning up to farming the US, Senator Boswell. That company is meetings and saying that the government clearly backing the Bush administration to would not think about giving up the right to get the right outcome on pig meat in the up- manage our quarantine system. This issue is coming free trade agreement negotiations. particularly important in the context of the Most of us have an understanding of the import risk assessment management process threat to our domestic industries from uncon- that Senator Watson touched on. trolled disease outbreaks. Australia is bless- I understand that informal discussions be- edly free from many animal and plant dis- tween the Department of Foreign Affairs and eases that afflict our international competi- Trade and industry representatives have tors, but the difference between our situation raised the outcome of the current import risk and theirs is sliver thin. The only difference assessment processes concerning chicken is the foresight of previous governments in meat, pig meat and citrus, which have been establishing a comprehensive, rigorous and identified as matters that may be of interest science based quarantine system—the sys- to the US free trade agreement negotiators. tem which complies with the WTO rules and The government says that the free trade serves our national interest. agreement negotiations will not compromise It is vital that the government stands up the integrity of our quarantine standards. and defends the integrity of our quarantine That is all well and good, but the government barrier. That is the clear message received by must also commit to ensuring that the integ- the committee in written submissions and rity of the import risk assessment process evidence. It is a message that Labor ac- will not be compromised. I am concerned knowledges and understands. It is disap- that, while the priorities that underpin our pointing enough that the government has quarantine standards may survive the FTA given up on the reform of agricultural trade negotiations, they will survive in name barriers through the WTO, but I am calling only—that is, the integrity of the import risk on the Minister for Trade to reconsider his assessment system will be diminished. defeatist approach. I call on the government I am also concerned that the import risk to come clean on what is really up for grabs assessment process will be compromised during negotiations on the free trade agree- through reducing the number of steps in the ment with the United States. process, the time available for each step in I want to congratulate the participants in the process, or a combination of both of the inquiry. I was not part of it, but I think it these actions. Taking short cuts in an IRA has done a very good job. I want to acknowl- process is a dangerous move that may risk edge the many individuals and organisations hundreds of thousands of rural and regional that provided submissions and evidence to jobs. I understand the government is placing the inquiry. The interest in the inquiry is due pressure on Biosecurity Australia to release a to the evidence of the important role that draft import risk assessment for uncooked quarantine plays in protecting our rural in- chicken meat before serious negotiations dustries, our natural environment and the 9300 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 health and welfare of the people of Australia. years since you got into government and Any attempt by the Howard government to seven years since you got out, and you are undermine our quarantine regime will be at not even making sense. A public servant said its peril. I referred earlier to a document, a one thing. Senator O’Brien, you know how letter from Mr Zoellick, which I seek leave this system works. It works through the min- to table. (Time expired) ister making a decision. You come in here Leave granted. and try to confuse and upset people by trying to string together a few different arguments Senator BOSWELL (Queensland— that are not related, from a few different Leader of the National Party of Australia in people, then you draw a conclusion that the the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to single desk policy is at risk and that we are the Minister for Transport and Regional Ser- going to open the doors of import risk as- vices) (5.37 p.m.)—I thought we would have sessment and put our primary industries at a bit of relief from Senator O’Brien. He usu- risk from all sorts of diseases. No-one be- ally books himself in on Wednesday for his lieves that—not even the right-wing extrem- weekly tirade against the minister for Agri- ists would believe that—and you come in culture, Fisheries and Forestry, Warren Truss. and say it. But unfortunately that was a hope rather than an expectation, because all he did was put it If it can be negotiated, a free trade agree- off until a later date. That must be one of the ment between America and Australia will most desperate speeches I have ever heard in mean that an immense amount of wealth will this chamber. It was almost like something go into the rural sector. The wealth will be from the McCarthy era—that is, looking for absolutely phenomenal. But you are trying to something to turn up so that you can attack confuse the issue and to pull the rug from it. The essence of the speech was that a pub- under a free trade agreement which is going lic servant said in a statement at an estimates to bring great wealth and prosperity to rural committee that everything was on the table. and regional Australia. Guys, you have to do Senator O’Brien—You had a negotiator, better. All you are doing is looking for the Mr Deady. Didn’t he know what was going negatives in this world. You are trying to on? undermine everything. You are almost get- Senator BOSWELL—I do not care who ting to the point where you are finding fault he was. The point is that in this government with everything. I can tell you this: you are it is not the Public Service that makes the going to be there for the next seven years and decisions on what is going to happen; it is the next 70 years if you persist in looking for the minister, the party room and the cabinet the negatives, never looking for the positives that make the decisions. It does not matter a and never telling the truth. You are trying to hoot what a public servant says to an esti- worm your way through by saying, ‘A cou- mates committee, because in the end it is the ple of people said this and a couple of people government that make the decision. If you said that, therefore we draw this conclusion.’ think that a government of this persuasion What a stupid thing to do. What a stupid way would put at risk our import risk assessment to carry on. Senator O’Brien, you are not and Australia’s primary industry, then you kicking any goals at all. In fact, you are be- are crazy. There is no way in the world we coming an embarrassment to your party in would do that. There is no way in the world the bush. You are not getting anywhere. The that we would interfere with an import risk Labor Party will never get anywhere in the assessment. bush, but you are not doing the cause any You say that the minister for agriculture, good. Warren Truss, is telling the farmers that the Senator O’Brien—Where are the Na- single desk policy will remain, while the tional Party in the bush? You have lost all Public Service are saying it is all on the ta- ble. What is happening here? Have you guys your seats. gone completely off your trolley? It is 20 Senator BOSWELL—The National Party is doing very well in the bush. It still Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9301 holds the portfolio of primary industry, been an improvement in retention since the where the decisions are made. Do not think last report they did, report No. 35 of 1999- you are ever going to get the ministry. I have 2000, which was tabled on 3 April 2000. If been here 20 years and I will be here another that conclusion is correct—and I have no 20 years before you even get across to this doubt that it is—it is welcome indeed. But side of the house. That speech was a non- the real question is: is the improvement sense. A couple of inconclusive remarks enough? made on different occasions were strung to- My real concern goes to the initial stages gether out of desperation to say that the gov- of the report done by the Senate Foreign Af- ernment is going to put at risk the whole fairs, Defence and Trade References Com- great primary industry of Australia. What mittee on the recruitment and retention of absolute, unmitigated nonsense. ADF personnel, when it tracked the number Question agreed to. of reports that have been done into this spe- DOCUMENTS cific issue over a period of time. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Refer- Auditor-General’s Reports ences Committee report said: Reports Nos 31 and 32 of 2002-03 Over the last 20 years, there has been an exten- The PRESIDENT—In accordance with sive range of reports on the Australian Defence the provisions of the Auditor-General’s Act Force (ADF) touching on personnel issues. In 1997, I present the following reports of the fact, internal reports on personnel issues, espe- Auditor-General: cially on recruiting, have been issued about every two years. This plethora of reports has had the Report no. 31 of 2002-03—Performance Audit— unfortunate consequence of maintaining the state Retention of military personnel follow-up audit. of turmoil; they have not allowed Defence to set- Report no. 32 of 2002-03—Business Support Pro- tle down and work through a series of recommen- cess Audit—Senate order for departmental and dations before the next report was issued. agency contracts. That is a real concern. When we went out to Senator HOGG (Queensland) (5.44 the Defence Force Recruiting Organisation p.m.)—by leave—I move: in Tuggeranong we saw such a range of re- That the Senate take note of report No. 31 of ports there, and no sooner would one be pro- 2002-03. duced than it would start to gather dust be- I rise to speak on audit report No. 31 2002- cause there was another one produced that 03, Performance audit: retention of military had superseded it. It raises concerns about personnel follow-up audit. Having been in- where Defence are going. volved in both the Senate Foreign Affairs When one reads the recommendations and Defence and Trade References Committee the issues that were identified in that previ- and the legislation committee for a long time ous ANAO report, and we see that those is- now, I have had a great interest in this. I sues were also identified in the report of the know that you, Mr Acting Deputy President Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Hutchins, were involved, with me and other References Committee on the issue—after a members of this chamber, in an inquiry very thorough and intensive inquiry, I might which looked specifically into the issue of add—one would expect that by now the De- recruitment and retention of ADF personnel. partment of Defence would have moved on. Given the increased tempo of the Austra- But when one looks at just some of the rec- lian defence forces, the follow-up report of ommendations that are in the report that has the Australian National Audit Office is just been tabled, report No. 31 of 2002-03, timely indeed. As in all audit office reports— one has just cause for concern. and I have laid this criticism in this chamber If one looks at recommendation 1—and I before—I feel they have been a little bit too am not going to read the whole of the rec- kind in their approach in dealing with this ommendation but just that part that I think is government agency. But, having said that, appropriate—it says: the report, in my brief read of it, does say that the ANAO have noted that there has 9302 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

A project to assess the cost of replacing personnel find now that they are subject to a number of is expected to be completed by 2004. new planning processes. The report goes on Given that the previous report of the ANAO to say that the proposed Defence people plan was back in April 2000, and we had a Senate will continue to provide a vision and strate- inquiry report in October 2001, finally we gic guidance for Defence personnel policies, see in this report that Defence are getting will specifically target recruitment and reten- around to assessing the cost of replacing per- tion issues, and is to be considered by the sonnel and are to complete this by 2004. Defence People Committee in 2003. Surely that is something that they could eas- One would hope that we are going to see ily have got on top of a lot earlier, because it more activity than just these platitudes that is one of the key issues in looking at the are repeated in the ANAO report tabled here wastage that is occurring in retention of per- today. One would trust that there is more sonnel in the Australian defence forces. One activity in the Department of Defence than is then goes on to recommendation 2, which indicated here. Looking at the issue of edu- says: cation in this report, which is a real problem Specific responsibility for retention has been as- within the Department of Defence, would signed to several organisational levels in defence. tickle the fancy of anyone. Young people, Immediately I see that, I start to shudder, moving with defence families, find them- because it means that it is getting the good selves the subject of a number of education old shuffle around the Department of De- systems throughout Australia because of the fence once again. It goes on: transfer system. This report alludes to the The Services ... are also working to refine the key fact that Defence is continuing to use the drivers and the effects of retention issues. Ministerial Council on Education, Employ- ment, Training and Youth Affairs, together Surely these have been canvassed enough with ongoing discussions with state and terri- over the years, going back, as I said, to the tory education departments, to promote the Hamilton report in 1986; the Cross report, educational interests of defence families. I which was a very comprehensive report met a young person the other day who, dur- making 48 recommendations, in 1988; the ing their school career, had been to 13 differ- Glenn report in 1995, which made 120 rec- ent schools. Of course, that must have an ommendations; issues arising out of the De- impact on the continuity and quality of edu- fence efficiency review back in 1997; the cation they receive. In our Senate defence From phantom to force: towards a more effi- committee inquiry into the retention and re- cient and effective Army of August 2000; cruitment in Defence, we found that that is a and, of course, the Defence white paper it- major issue. Here in this ANAO report we self. find that there are still ongoing discussions. One wonders what is really happening in- This is something that has been the bane of side Defence. Are they just stalling once Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade again to have appropriate reform take place References Committee inquiries over a long so that the important issue of retention can period of time. Former Senator West often be addressed? In recommendation 2, they go spoke of the difficulties in this area. I seek on to say: leave to continue my remarks later. It is estimated this framework will be com- Leave granted; debate adjourned. pleted in July 2004. Personnel matters within Defence have been, and continue to be, the sub- Responses to Senate Resolutions ject of new planning processes ... The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT If anything has ever been planned, it must be (Senator Hutchins)—I present various re- personnel matters within Defence. They have sponses to resolutions of the Senate as listed been hauled over, they have been reviewed, at item 15(a) on today’s Order of Business. they have been put under very close scrutiny The list read as follows— over a long period of time and, with three Response from the Prime Minister (Mr How- fairly substantial reports on the status of re- ard) to a resolution of the Senate of 6 Febru- tention and recruitment within the ADF, we Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9303

ary 2003 concerning the use of nuclear At no point during my recent meetings in Wash- weapons ington and London was I given any cause for Response from the Minister for Police and concern with regard to the threat or use of nuclear Emergency Services (Mr Wood MLA) to a weapons … resolution of the Senate of 11 December There is a big difference between not being 2002 concerning the protection of unsuper- given any cause for concern and being given vised children a clear-cut guarantee that nuclear weapons Response from the Premier of Western Aus- will not be used. We all know, and the Aus- tralia (Dr Gallop MLA) to a resolution of the tralian public knows—they are not fools— Senate of 9 December 2002 concerning that this Prime Minister is very good at not photovoltaics in Australia being told what he does not want to know. Iraq We have seen it with this Prime Minister in Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— the children overboard affair amongst other Leader of the Australian Democrats) (5.54 things. People who have discussions and p.m.)—by leave—I move: meetings such as these are clearly not going That the Senate take note of the document. to raise anything. Who in their right mind would raise the possibility with the leader of This response from the Prime Minister is to a another nation that nuclear weapons might resolution of the Senate of 6 February, and is be used if that leader has said that if he a particularly important response in the cur- knows there is going to be the use of nuclear rent context of Australian troops who are weapons Australia will not be involved? Of quite likely to shortly be committed to war in course they are not going to tell him, which Iraq with troops from the US, the UK and is why the Prime Minister should have asked possibly other nations. The resolution of the for—it is pretty straightforward—and re- Senate specifically expressed opposition to ceived a clear-cut guarantee. Simply provid- any use of nuclear weapons in any conflict in ing this misleading half statement to the Sen- Iraq and sought that the Prime Minister op- ate in this response to the Senate’s resolu- pose any Australian involvement in a war tion, saying that he had not been given any where there was the possibility of nuclear cause for concern, is simply not good weapons being used. It builds upon questions enough. It is the sort of diplomatic double- that were asked by the Australian Democrats speak that might sound fine on the surface of the Prime Minister’s representative in this but is clearly not convincing. If he did get a chamber, Senator Hill. These questions clear-cut guarantee he would say so. So, sought the Prime Minister’s action in getting again, you have to wonder why he didn’t get a clear-cut statement ruling out the possible it and why he won’t make such a simple use of nuclear weapons by the governments straightforward statement. of the UK and the US. We wrote to the Prime Minister specifically asking him to use his From the Democrats’ point of view, it is so-called peace mission to the US and the another indication of the approach this gov- UK, and to the United Nations, to get a clear- ernment has taken in leading Australia into cut guarantee from those nations that they an unjust and unnecessary war, tying us im- would not use nuclear weapons. What we movably to the foreign policy objectives of have, in this response by the Prime Minister, United States and ignoring the multilateral is another occasion where he will not make a frameworks for peaceful disarmament. Every clear-cut statement, leaving himself wiggle step of the way there has been obfuscation. room all the time. You wonder why the Aus- There has been an unwillingness to provide tralian people sense that there is something information to the Australian people. There just not right at all about this whole plan for has been a lack of interest in providing in- war when even on something as basic as the formation to the parliament. There has been possible use of nuclear weapons you cannot continual dodging and weaving about what get a clear-cut statement from the Prime decisions were made when and what the de- Minister. His statement says: cisions actually mean. We still have the pre- tence being followed that, somehow or other, it is actually a realistic possibility that if war 9304 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 starts the Australian government may still mament. President Bush was on the televi- decide to turn our troops around and pull out. sion again today saying, ‘We will disarm That is an absurd concept, as every Austra- Saddam Hussein.’ That is good. Everyone lian knows, yet we still have the Australian wants to do that. The Democrats say we Prime Minister continuing to hold up this should ensure peaceful disarmament and let fiction that no decision has been made and the current processes through the UN run Australia may still decide not to participate their course and not cut them short because in any war that starts. they do not meet the US timetable. If we are We had the fiction today and yesterday seriously considering doing this as a gov- when the Prime Minister and Minister Hill ernment and as a nation—because if the gov- said that no decision would be made until ernment decides to pull us into war our na- UN processes were finalised. When pressed tion will, for better or worse, be at war— on what that meant in question time today, it supposedly we are doing that predominantly quite clearly meant nothing of the sort. It for disarmament. However, one of the key meant, ‘If we don’t get what we want out of issues that would undercut any prospect of the UN then we’ll look at the situation and genuine disarmament around the globe is the do something else if we so decide.’ This con- use of nuclear weapons. It would dramati- tinual sophistry and the Prime Minister’s cally annihilate any prospect of serious dis- lack of being direct, straightforward and up- armament. If we are serious about disarma- front is part of the reason why so many Aus- ment, it cannot stop at Saddam Hussein. tralians are apprehensive and very concerned There has to be a genuine global commit- about the prospect of war. They know the ment—a commitment globally that seems to case does not stack up. They know that the have weakened in recent years, I might arguments are flimsy and the justifications add—for disarmament across the board with are poor. When you continue to get from the other nations building on the frameworks, Prime Minister these half answers, contain- conventions and agreements to reduce those ing escape clauses, as some kind of response weapons and particularly weapons of mass to a clear-cut resolution of the Senate, it is no destruction, such as nuclear weapons. wonder that the Australian people do not For the UK to refuse to rule out the use of support this approach. those weapons, and for many senior US offi- For the Prime Minister to get a clear-cut cials, including their defence secretary, to guarantee from his allies that they will not have repeatedly refused to rule out the use of use nuclear weapons is a simple request and, nuclear weapons—leaving aside any pros- one would have thought, a simple thing to pect that Australia could be party to an action achieve. The reason why these questions that may lead to our side using nuclear continue to be asked and the reason why the weapons—is grossly irresponsible. There Senate supported this resolution on 10 Feb- should be no wriggle room. There should be ruary is that Prime Minister Blair and the UK no room for doubt or for manoeuvre. There defence secretary, Mr Hoon, continually re- should be no prospect whatsoever of that. fuse to answer—using the usual diplomatic Any risk is too big a risk in this area. I ac- trick of neither confirming or denying and knowledge that some people who are genu- saying that it is hypothetical and all those inely concerned about weapons of mass de- sorts of tricks—the straightforward question: struction argue about humanitarian issues in is there any prospect of nuclear weapons Iraq. Some people, whose views I respect, being used? As Mr Howard says in the re- say that the choice is difficult, but there is a sponse, ‘I see no prospect of nuclear weap- case. The Democrats believe that that case ons being used.’ It is easy not to see some- has not been made by a long shot, but I rec- thing if you do not want to look, but that is ognise some people believe that. However, if simply not good enough for something as people feel that there is some need for war as fundamental as this. a difficult, hard and unfortunate choice, the least they can do is ensure that there is a Let us remember that one of the key justi- cast-iron guarantee that nuclear weapons will fications for this potential conflict is disar- not be used. The Prime Minister has failed to Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9305 get that guarantee from the UK and the US sonnel are not going if nuclear weapons governments when he is in the perfect posi- could potentially be used.’ This Prime Minis- tion to get it, and he has failed to give that ter does not have the gumption to say to the guarantee to the Australian people despite President of the United States, ‘I want you to being given the opportunity by the Senate’s clearly rule out nuclear weapons.’ That is resolution. In his response to the Senate to- what the Senate asked him to do, and that is day he has once again left the door open and what commonsense says he should do, but he refused to make a simple, clear-cut, categori- did not do it—and ditto for London and cal statement of absolute certainty. (Time Prime Minister Tony Blair. That is irrespon- expired) sible of Prime Minister Howard. He said that Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.04 he would rule out our troops being in Iraq if p.m.)—The Prime Minister has been very there was a chance that nuclear weapons duplicitous on this matter. He initially said, would be used, but he failed to clear the air and he reiterates this in his letter to the Sen- on the matter when he could have. He told ate, that if he believed that nuclear weapons the Senate: were going to be used, he would not allow At no point during my recent meetings in Wash- Australian forces to be involved. His original ington and London was I given any cause for statement on that led me to put the motion concern with regard to the threat or use of nuclear before the Senate, which the Senate sup- weapons should there be conflict in Iraq. ported, that, during his trip to Washington Because he did not ask, and that was stupid and to London, he should put to President and irresponsible. That was a prime minister Bush and to Prime Minister Blair the Austra- tugging his forelock to George W. Bush. Our lian position that no nuclear weapons should Prime Minister does have a subservient atti- be used in any war with Iraq. tude to the President of the United States if If you read the Prime Minister’s letter he is unable to raise a question like this, eye- carefully—and you have to read between the ball him and say: ‘No nuclear weapons, lines with this Prime Minister—he did not do George, or Australia is not going to be there. that. The Prime Minister did not have the Let’s clear the air on that.’ Prime Minister gumption when speaking about war prepara- John Winston Howard does not have the tions with President Bush or Prime Minister gumption, so the spectre of nuclear weapons, Blair to say, ‘I am not going to allow Austra- however dim, remains hanging over the po- lian defence personnel to be involved in a tential for war—which is effectively a reality war where there is even the smallest poten- now—with Iraq. tial for nuclear weapons to be used.’ He did Many of us here will remember the threat not have the gumption to say that on behalf by President Nixon of the use of nuclear of the Australian people, let alone on behalf weapons in Vietnam. The world was horri- of the 2,000 defence personnel he has placed fied. When you look at the character of that in that theatre of war. The Prime Minister president, you can see that that threat had to quite clearly should have had the guts to be taken seriously. We have to remember that raise the issue because it has been raised in there is only one country on the face of this the international media. In fact, it has not just earth that has ever used nuclear weapons in been raised out of thin air; it has come from conflict, and that is the United States of US defense sources. They leave open the America. The Iraqis do not have the where- option of using nuclear weapons—so-called withal; they do not have nuclear weapons. bunker busters—if needs be. It is a remote The biggest arsenal in the world is under the chance, but that option is left open. The control of George W. Bush. The reports com- President of the United States, no less, has ing from his camp—and maybe they are just refused to rule out the use of nuclear weap- to frighten Saddam Hussein, but nevertheless ons. they are reported in the American and world Australians would be appalled by the use media—say that there are exigencies where of nuclear weapons. But this Prime Minister bunker buster nuclear weapons are going to will not say, ‘Australian Defence Force per- be used in this war. 9306 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

The Senate told our Prime Minister, when Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— he left to go to the United States and Britain, Minister for Justice and Customs) (6.14 to raise the issue and clear the air on this. He p.m.)—I move: did not do that, and instead he sends this fob- That this bill may proceed without formalities off, pathetic letter to us. The Prime Minister and be now read a first time. has squibbed on this. He has squibbed on the Question agreed to. right of his Defence Force personnel to know that nuclear weapons are ruled out as far as Bill read a first time. the coming conflict is concerned. He has let Second Reading them down. These are the very people he Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— went to see off. They have a right to maxi- Minister for Justice and Customs) (6.14 mum security and backing from their gov- p.m.)—I move: ernment, but they do not get it when it That this bill be now read a second time. counts. I seek leave to have the second reading We know the fear there is about having in- speech incorporated in Hansard. jections to vaccinate against anthrax and smallpox, which personnel could be exposed Leave granted. to in this war. We know the division of feel- The speech read as follows— ing there is about that among our Defence This bill makes a secret ballot of employees a Force personnel. Let none of us believe that precondition for protected industrial action. the spectre of even the smallest chance of This bill is identical to one introduced into the nuclear weapons being used in this war is not House of Representatives on 20 February 2002, a matter of enormous concern to our Defence which was rejected by the Senate on 25 Septem- Force personnel, their families and this coun- ber 2002. try. The Prime Minister has let the country A secret ballot is a fair, effective and simple proc- down once again. He has let the troops ess for determining whether a group of employees down, and he cannot say, ‘I didn’t know,’ at a workplace want to take industrial action. It because the Senate asked him specifically, will ensure that the right to protected industrial days before he went, to speak to President action is not abused by union officials pushing Bush and Prime Minister Blair. He did not agendas unrelated to the interests of the workers and he sends this pathetic response to the at the workplace concerned. Senate. Let that be on his record, and let us Predictably, the ALP opposed the previous bill in all pray that nuclear weapons do not enter the Senate. The Australian Democrats also op- into the coming conflict which Prime Minis- posed the previous bill, but proposed amend- ments. Those amendments would not have made ter John Howard supports and to which he a secret ballot a mandatory pre-condition to pro- has sent our Defence Force personnel to en- tected action. They would not have protected gage in against the wishes of the majority of union members from possible coercion or intimi- the people of this country. But it should not dation in requesting a secret ballot prior to indus- be left to us to pray that that will be the out- trial action. Hence the government rejected the come. The chance of this should have been Democrats’ amendments, and is pursuing the pre- eliminated, but the Prime Minister failed sent bill. when he had the opportunity to do just that. Under this bill, secret ballots will not impede Question agreed to. access to lawful protected action, but will provide a mechanism to ensure that protected action is a WORKPLACE RELATIONS genuine choice of the employees involved. This AMENDMENT (SECRET BALLOTS will protect jobs by avoiding unnecessary strikes. FOR PROTECTED ACTION) BILL 2002 The bill will enhance freedom of choice for [No. 2] workers and strengthen the accountability of un- First Reading ions to their members. The conduct of a ballot will commence with an Bill received from the House of Represen- application to the commission for a ballot order. tatives. The applicant will propose a ballot agent, to con- duct the ballot, and will propose the ballot ques- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9307 tion and the way in which the ballot is to be con- WORKPLACE RELATIONS ducted. AMENDMENT (FAIR DISMISSAL) An applicant, such as a union, can be the ballot BILL 2002 [No. 2] agent, provided an independent advisor is ap- Consideration of House of Representatives pointed to oversee the ballot process. Message The bill provides for postal ballots as the default method for a ballot, but gives the commission Message received from the House of Rep- discretion to approve other methods, including resentatives returning the Workplace Rela- on-site ballots. tions Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 If a union applies for a ballot, only union mem- [No. 2], acquainting the Senate that the bers whose employment would be covered by the House has disagreed to the amendments proposed agreement would be entitled to vote. made by the Senate, and requesting the re- Where employees seeking a non-union agreement consideration of the bill in respect of the make an application, all employees whose em- amendments disagreed to. ployment would be covered by the proposed Ordered that the message be considered in agreement would be entitled to vote. Only those Committee of the Whole immediately. union members or employees entitled to vote in a ballot would be able to take any subsequent Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— authorised protected industrial action. Minister for Justice and Customs) (6.15 The bill does not require precise details and tim- p.m.)—I move: ing of the proposed industrial action to be speci- That the committee does not insist on its fied in the ballot question. The bill allows for amendments to which the House of Representa- industrial action to commence within a 30 day tives has disagreed. period, beginning from the date the ballot result is Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (6.15 declared, or the nominal expiry date of the rele- vant certified agreement, whichever is the later, p.m.)—On behalf of the Australian Labor although the commission may extend this validity Party, I indicate to the chamber that the La- period once, with the agreement of the parties. bor Party will be insisting on the amend- The bill makes the Commonwealth liable for 80 ments and that we will not be supporting the per cent of the reasonable costs of a ballot, which request of the House of Representatives to the Commonwealth will pay directly to the ballot remove the amendments that were success- agent. This addresses accessibility concerns by fully moved to this piece of legislation by the requiring the Commonwealth to bear the majority Australian Labor Party with the support of of the cost, and limiting the impact which upfront the Australian Democrats and, I think, the costs would otherwise have on applicants. Australian Greens. The bill limits the scope for legal challenges to The request that has been forwarded to the ballot orders and ballots, to minimise the possibil- Senate from the House of Representatives ity of delays and uncertainty that could affect deals with the workplace relations amend- employees’ access to lawful protected action. ment so-called ‘fair dismissal’ bill. When At the completion of a ballot, both the ballot this matter was considered in the Senate on agent and the independent advisor, if any, will the last occasion, the Labor Party success- provide the industrial registrar with a written re- port about the conduct of the ballot. fully moved a number of amendments to this legislation. The Labor Party took a positive As before, the bill sets out simple and practical approach in addressing a number of issues ballot requirements that guarantee the opportunity for employees to democratically decide whether and in successfully moving amendments that to take industrial action. relate broadly to issues such as the ability of the commission to place some greater restric- Debate (on motion by Senator Mackay) tions on legal representation and the associ- adjourned. ated costs. There was an amendment on the publication of guidance information by the minister and a further amendment allowing for the grouping of unfair dismissal claims where they have occurred at the same time in 9308 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 relation to more than one employee of a sin- dismissal’ legislation applies to the federal gle employer. industrial jurisdiction but does not remove The major issue of contention is the suc- that right in respect of all the state industrial cessful move by the Australian Labor Party commissions which allow the right for small to not remove from federal legislation and business employees to argue a case. This from federal awards provisions that entitle legislation does not propose—indeed it can- employees of small business to argue a case not—to take away the right of small business of unfair dismissal in front of the independ- employees to argue a case in state industrial ent Australian Industrial Relations Commis- jurisdictions. sion. In the Senate the Labor Party has re- If the message from the government were moved a provision that the Liberal govern- accepted and if this legislation were ac- ment was attempting to have passed which cepted, you would have two categories of removes a fundamental protection and secu- small business employees in Australia: those rity and right of employees of small business in the federal jurisdiction, the 30 to 40 per where they believe they have been unfairly cent of small business employees who would dismissed—and I would acknowledge it is a have no right at all and who would have had small number of cases where a small number their right to argue a case removed by this of small businesses behave prima facie in- legislation; and those in the state industrial correctly and do not follow due process in jurisdictions who work for small business dismissing employees—to argue for their and who would still have a right. We would reinstatement and/or compensation in front have, of course, another category of employ- of the independent industrial commission. ees who work for a so-called ‘large business’ The Liberal government’s legislation re- of more than 20 employees in the federal moves that basic, fundamental right and se- jurisdiction who would have an ongoing curity and protection from small business right to argue for basic security and protec- employees in respect of the federal industrial tion and the right to argue that their dismissal relations jurisdiction. We estimate that this was unfair. would remove that right and protection and This matter has been before the Senate on, security from the 30 to 40 per cent of small I think, seven or eight occasions. The Labor business employees who are covered by the Party will not be backing down. It will not be federal industrial relations jurisdiction. The changing its mind. It will not agree to the Labor Party will maintain its position and removal from a substantial number of Aus- will vote tonight to reject the message from tralian employees the fundamental right to the Liberal government. We believe that all have their day in front of the independent Australian workers have a fundamental right industrial commission to argue that they have to security and protection and a fair go—the been unfairly dismissed. The Labor Party right to argue in an independent commission believes that it is fundamental in Australian that they have been unfairly dismissed. It is a political culture that all Australian citizens right to argue; it is a right to present a case. have a right to their day in court if they so They may not win their case but they should choose. A Liberal government wants to re- at least have a right to argue the case. move that right for a considerable number, Senator Murray—Half don’t win their probably a million plus, of Australian work- case. ers. That is unacceptable to the Australian Labor Party. It is a fundamental principle Senator SHERRY—That is exactly right; from which it will not be backing down. I take the interjection of Senator Murray on behalf of the Australian Democrats. Where I have indicated that there were a number they do present an argument, half of them do of amendments. The Labor Party took a posi- not win their case. But at least they have a tive approach to this legislation. It success- right to argue their case, a right to be heard fully moved what would be considered to be and a right for that case to be determined by minor amendments in the context of the issue an independent industrial commission. It is I have been discussing but, nevertheless, interesting to observe that this so-called ‘fair they are important amendments because they Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9309 improve the process of unfair dismissal for you know that they have said things which small business. But the Liberal government have turned out not to be true.’ cannot even see that these amendments im- I can easily name a few of these times, al- prove the process of considering an applica- though I am sure that senators around the tion of unfair dismissal by a small business chamber can think of more than I can. There employee in the federal jurisdiction. was the statement that 70 per cent of Austra- As I said earlier, I think this matter has lia faced a land grab by Indigenous people been debated by the Senate seven or eight for native title and that people were at risk of times. The Labor Party has not changed its losing their freehold title. There was the view, and it will not be supporting the mes- ‘children overboard’ affair. There was the sage from the Liberal government in the claim that getting rid of a couple of thousand House of Representatives. It will not back unfair dismissal applications involving small down on the fundamental principle of pro- business under federal law would result in tecting small business employees and provid- 50,000 jobs. The trouble is that the Senate ing security for them in the federal jurisdic- record shows that the person who originated tion. As a consequence, if this message is that claim is the head of COSBOA. He told rejected, the government has two or, possi- the Senate committee quite clearly how he bly, three options. Firstly, it will have estab- did it. It was a thumb-suck; it was an off-the- lished a trigger for a double dissolution elec- cuff remark. Subsequently, he recanted that tion. Of course, exercising the use of that claim. However, ever since, the government trigger is a decision for the Liberal-National has hung its hat on that specific claim. Party. Secondly, it can choose not to proceed I want to return to a more immediate bit of with what the Labor Party believes is an un- excessive hyperbole and exaggeration. Sena- fair approach which removes essential pro- tor Ian Campbell, who otherwise is a very tections and securities and removes the fun- nice man, gave a radio interview—and he damental legal right of all Australians to a can correct me if the record shows other- fair go to argue, in this case, in an independ- wise—in which I recall him saying that the ent industrial tribunal. That is the Liberal Senate opposes legislation all the time, that government’s call. That is a decision that it the Australian Labor Party and the Democ- will have to make on the assumption that the rats should stop being negative all the time Senate continues on the path of ensuring that and should stop opposing for the sake of op- small business employees continue to be pro- posing, and that we do not have any alterna- tected and continue to have a right to argue tive policy ideas. Those comments were for unfair dismissal in the federal industrial made with a view to persuading the people commission. of Australia that the non-government parties Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) in the Senate behave in a particularly ob- (6.26 p.m.)—The starting point for me is the structive and destructive way, and with a question of whether the truth is being told in view to trying to insist that the executive this matter. In this place we all put up with— government of this country has an authoritar- and probably indulge in at times—a bit of ian right to impose its will. hyperbole or political puffery. The difficulty Let us look at the facts and at this idea that for the government is that, when it wants to the Labor Party and the Democrats are nega- be believed on a big issue like Iraq and it tive and oppose legislation all the time. Let wants people to trust them and to believe its us start, if we may, with the period when assertions and its point of view, it must re- Labor were in government. You would as- member that people take into account when sume that the coalition would let through the government does not tell the truth or every single bill. Of course, they did not. In when it exaggerates a situation. Things stick conjunction with the Democrats, they quite in people’s minds. They say, ‘Well, it is the properly stopped certain legislation going government, they must know what they are through. For the period May 1990 to De- doing.’ I ask, ‘Do you trust them?’ They say, cember 1992, 602 bills were passed by the ‘Perhaps not.’ I say, ‘Think of the times that Senate; two bills were negatived. Again, un- 9310 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 der the Labor government, from the period House of Representatives, where legislation May 1993 until December 1995, 496 bills is productively debated, often clause by were passed by the Senate and seven were clause, where expert and community input negatived. I assume that at that stage Senator into that legislation is invited by the Senate’s Ian Campbell was in the chamber and would committee system and where it is possible to have participated in opposing bills, quite make the government of the day accountable. properly and well done for it. For the period They have to justify their legislation. They May 1996 to July 1998—this is the first pe- cannot just impose it. riod in which the coalition were in power— There is another bit of information which 427 bills were passed by the Senate and two concerned me in terms of its accuracy. In a were negatived by the Senate. For the period press release on Sunday, 2 March 2003 the November 1998 to September 2001, 582 Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, bills were passed by the Senate and 14 were Senator Ian Campbell, said: negatived. Opposition parties have voted against the unfair The number of bills passed from February dismissal legislation 27 times. 2002 to 3 March was 162 bills in 123 pack- I do not know how that figure is arrived at. I ages. Six bills were negatived by the Senate: went back and checked. Perhaps you can the National Health Amendment (Pharma- substantiate it. Unfair dismissal and small ceutical Benefits-Budget Measures) Bill, in business legislation, as I have it, have been June 2002; the Trade Practices Amendment rejected in seven bills. Maybe there have (Small Business Protection) Bill, in August been more but these are the only ones I can 2002 and March 2003; the Workplace Rela- find. The first is the Workplace Relations tions (Secret Ballots for Protected Action) Amendment Bill in 1997, which was nega- Bill, in September 2002—voted against, I tived at the second reading on 21 October seem to recall, by the government—the Fam- 1997. ily and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill, in No- By the way, you might recall that in the vember 2002; and the Migration Legislation debate I said that the Democrats had an Amendment (Further Border Protection agreement with the government that there Measures) Bill, in December 2002. would be a fair go all round and that fair dismissals would apply for all workers— Three bills have been laid aside by the every worker would be entitled to access House with unacceptable Senate amend- unfair dismissal legislation. I said that the ments: the Workplace Relations Amendment government had made a public commitment (Fair Dismissal) Bill, in June 2002; the in the 1996 election that all workers would Workplace Relations Amendment (Prohibi- be covered by unfair dismissal legislation. In tion of Compulsory Union Fees) Bill, in Sep- response, the parliamentary secretary said: tember 2002; and the Australian Security ‘Ah, but we went to the election in 1998 and Intelligence Organisation Legislation 2001 with a changed policy and we have the Amendment (Terrorism) Bill, in December mandate of the people.’ I will remind you 2002. that the Workplace Relations Amendment The point is that the people of Australia Bill in 1997, after our agreement but before were misled by the view of the parliamentary the next election, actually reneged on our secretary, who carried the debate on this bill deal. That was negatived at the second read- and who is the Manager of Government ing on 21 October 1997. Business in the Senate. He misled the people The Workplace Relations Amendment Bill of Australia over the behaviour of the non- 1997 No. 2 was negatived at the second read- government parties in the Senate. But he is ing on 25 March 1998. The Workplace Rela- truthful in saying that some bills were re- tions Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill jected—he did not say ‘some bills’; he said 1998 was negatived at the second reading on ‘lots’ or ‘all’ or ‘many’—because the Senate 14 August 2000. The Workplace Relations is the only chamber, unlike the house of the Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 executive, which is sometimes called the No. 2 was negatived at the second reading on Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9311

26 March 2001. In the case of the Workplace This is despite the fact that many of the Relations and Other Legislation Amendment states have more rigorous regimes than does (Small Business and Other Measures) Bill the federal regime. The report continues: 2002, which was introduced to the House of Employee conduct in economic redundancy or Representatives on 30 August 2001, an elec- retrenchment are legitimate grounds for dismissal. tion was called before the bill was dealt with There are also relatively low legal requirements in the House of Representatives. The Work- for notice periods. In addition, regulations for place Relations (Fair Dismissals) Bill 2002 temporary employment are comparatively light- was laid aside by the House of Representa- handed. There are no restrictions on the type of tives on 28 June 2002 with unacceptable work or areas of economic activity where tempo- Senate amendments. The Workplace Rela- rary work agencies can become active. Current legislation neither specifies a maximum number tions (Fair Dismissals) Bill 2002 No. 2 of successive contracts or contract renewals. It is passed the Senate on 3 March 2003 with likely to have played a facilitative role in the amendments yet to be considered by the adoption of new techniques such as ICT, which House of Representatives. I am sorry to take often require changes in personnel. you through that litany but that says to me My interpretation is that they are saying we seven bills, not 27 times. But perhaps the are an easy to dismiss country where flexibil- parliamentary secretary can justify it. ity in work practices contributes to job My point is that I do not see why on radio growth and performance. To be fair, the arti- that night Senator Ian Campbell felt the need cle does then go on to quote the Harding re- to exaggerate. I think he is right. I think his port. It does go on to say that the government constituency absolutely supports the coali- is attempting to make further changes to tion campaign to get rid of unfair dismissal make it even easier. But Australia is not re- legislation, not just for small business work- garded by the OECD at least as a repressive ers but for all business workers. I think that regime which restricts job growth. It has is so. But the fact is that the parties which been included in an overall report which represent the rest of the Australian popula- ticks off Australia very well as a highly pro- tion do not support that, and that is a debate ductive and performing economy. contest. You do not need to say that the Sen- The points I want to conclude with are as ate opposes legislation all the time—I have follows: we and my party, who are not be- read you the record that it does not—or that holden to either business or the unions, have it has been voted against 27 times when I can the view that the evidence does not show that find only seven bills. you should be taking away the human rights The other thing that emerged since the de- of individuals in employment circumstances bate which interested me—and I was inter- where they have been unfairly dismissed. ested to hear Senator Coonan recounting When this legislation was defined and set out from the document today—was the OECD originally we know that all parties agreed to Economic Survey into Australia, March, the 1996 election commitment that all work- 2003. It says at page 80: ers would have unfair dismissal coverage. OECD assessments consistently show that Aus- We believe that the government invented this tralia’s employment protection legislation is one bill and type of approach solely to provide of the least strict in the OECD area— double dissolution triggers, and they have this is March 2003— used them for that purpose for three elec- the only countries with more relaxed EPL being tions. We believe that no evidence has been the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada proven to show the actual job consequence and Ireland. Australia’s strictness of EPL ranks of getting rid of unfair dismissals. We accept particularly low with regard to procedural re- that getting rid of impediments to how you quirements in the case of individual dismissal and hire and fire do indeed affect the mentality of on the criteria used in the compensation given for people when they hire and fire, but quite unfair dismissal. properly they are therefore more careful about the people they hire and they are there- 9312 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 fore more careful about the means by which Senator Murray—I do not think they are they dismiss them. in this chamber. Our view remains that the Workplace Re- Senator IAN CAMPBELL—No, four- lations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill is a legged dogs are not allowed in here! But you contrived bill and it should not be supported. have admitted that you at least thought I was But our view remains, as does the Labor a nice guy, perhaps just because I buy you Party’s view, that the unfair dismissal regime the odd brandy or so—and we are cooking does need further reform. And we and they, I up some reform on alcohol taxation behind am sure, will contribute to further reform of the Treasurer’s back. Senator Murray, against the processes concerned. his better judgment, because he is very sensi- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western tive about this obstructionist tag, would re- Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the spect the fact that when the government loses Treasurer) (6.41 p.m.)—With the exception measures that are close to its heart and to its of the last few minutes, Senator Murray has program we are not likely to go on the AM spent the last 15 minutes responding to my program and say, ‘Sorry, we will try harder claim that the opposition parties— next time.’ particularly the Labor Party and the Democ- We are very committed to this reform. rats—in relation to this measure and some Small business are committed to it. The trou- other key budget measures including the ble is small business are a minority. They do PBS reforms that were negatived by the Sen- not have a powerful trade union representa- ate yesterday—were oppositionist. As I said tive. They are disorganised in terms of a na- in an interview on the AM program, they tional structure. Small business people, as displayed an oppositionist mentality. It was Senator Murray knows, spend an enormous negative and carping. It also defined the La- amount of their waking hours just trying to bor Party because they define themselves by pay the bills and the rent and put food on the what they oppose not what they propose. I table for their families. They do not have a stand by that. lot of time to get involved in political activ- Senator Murray has had to show a sensi- ity. They do not have a trade union. They do tivity to being exposed as being part of a not have a union structure that puts the rep- trenchant opposition to a number of meas- resentatives of the labour movement into the ures. It is not entirely fair on the Democrats Senate on an almost guaranteed set of rail- because they have, particularly where he has way tracks. They are not organised; they are been involved, shown an openness to negoti- a minority. But they feel very strongly about ating and trying to get better public policy— this measure. We feel strongly not only be- and I commend him for that. But I stand by cause they do but also because we believe my claims that the government has been re- that it will in fact improve employment op- elected twice on a mandate—and I think he portunities for the most disadvantaged peo- respects this—to reform unfair dismissal ple in Australia. laws, particularly in relation to small busi- Senator Murray wants to have a piece of ness. the best econometric modelling in the coun- Senator Murray described me as a nice try which will give him a cast-iron guarantee guy—I do not know whether I would do that that it will create 50,000 new jobs before he or not. I try to be nice sometimes and it is will even contemplate putting this measure struggle sometimes, but I am sure I can be into place. His main argument is that we do grumpy, nasty and horrible sometimes as not have any evidence to show that it will well. I do try to be nice, unlike Senator create that outcome, so he is not prepared to Murray who is nice almost all of the time. buy it. I doubt that we could buy the research There are some who may disagree, Senator that Senator Murray wants. Murray—some dog owners in Perth in par- In relation to his attack on my truthful- ticular. ness, I have said that this is an oppositionist and obstructionist Senate. If you analyse the figures that Senator Murray quoted to the Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9313

Senate about the number of bills negatived members, trade union bosses and trustees of under the previous Labor governments—the trade union superannuation organisations; we terms of the Hawke and Keating govern- want to build an opportunity society for the ments—and our government, they show that people who are least able to defend them- this is in fact the most obstructionist Senate, selves because they are not a member of the in those terms, that there has been. I am Labor Party or a member of a trade union. happy to analyse and debate that at another The government will insist on this bill. I time, but the Senate has opposed a number of commend the motion to the Senate. serious measures that are at the core of this Question put: government’s program. The Senate has the right to do that, and I will defend that right. That the motion (Senator Ellison’s) be agreed But if you are going to do that, please accept to. the political responsibility for doing it. The The committee divided. [6.53 p.m.] government wants to put a program in place to deliver economic reform, economic (The Chairman—Senator J.J. Hogg) growth, job security and enhanced employ- Ayes………… 32 ment prospects. You do not get job security by locking people into jobs that they are not Noes………… 37 suited to. Majority……… 5 In defence of my truthfulness in relation AYES to this, the opposition’s record on defeating Abetz, E. Alston, R.K.R. unfair dismissal reform goes back to 1996. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. The opposition had voted against these Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. measures 27 times up till when I made the Campbell, I.G. Chapman, H.G.P. claim, 28 times by Monday, 29 times by the Colbeck, R. Coonan, H.L. debate in the House of Representatives yes- Eggleston, A. * Ellison, C.M. terday and, I suspect, 30 times by tonight. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. Senator Sherry—Haven’t you got the Humphries, G. Johnston, D. message by now? Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. Lightfoot, P.R. Macdonald, I. Senator IAN CAMPBELL—I will ta- Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. ble—in fact, I will give it to Senator Murray McGauran, J.J.J. Minchin, N.H. over a brandy later—the full list of the num- Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. ber of times the Australian Labor Party have Santoro, S. Scullion, N.G. voted against unfair dismissal laws. I hope Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. he will accept that they had voted against it Vanstone, A.E. Watson, J.O.W. on 28 occasions up till Monday and, in about NOES one minute’s time, it will be 30 times in both chambers. Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Bishop, T.M. Bolkus, N. So we get the message that Labor do not Brown, B.J. Buckland, G. want to reform unfair dismissal laws. They Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. do not want to help small business. They are Cherry, J.C. Collins, J.M.A. beholden to their trade union roots. They are Conroy, S.M. Cook, P.F.S. beholden to their vested interest of support- Crossin, P.M. Denman, K.J. ing their mates in the trade unions. They care Evans, C.V. Greig, B. about the rights of people who are members Harradine, B. Hogg, J.J. of unions and who have jobs. We care about Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. those people too, but we also want to give Lees, M.H. Ludwig, J.W. other people who do not have a job an oppor- Mackay, S.M. * Marshall, G. tunity to get a job and to get the self-esteem McLucas, J.E. Moore, C. and economic opportunities that attach to Murphy, S.M. Murray, A.J.M. having employment. We want to build an Nettle, K. O’Brien, K.W.K. opportunity society not just for trade union Ray, R.F. Ridgeway, A.D. 9314 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Sherry, N.J. Stephens, U. ethical and certainly privacy issues that re- Stott Despoja, N. Webber, R. late to this information. Also, in Australia we Wong, P. have yet to come up with a comprehensive PAIRS regulatory regime that seeks to protect peo- Heffernan, W. Faulkner, J.P. ple’s personal information—that is, their ge- Hill, R.M. Forshaw, M.G. netic information—DNA, for example. We Troeth, J.M. Lundy, K.A. have no state laws, and certainly no federal * denotes teller laws, that specifically refer to the special characteristics of genetic information and Question negatived. thus seek to guard it in a way that ensures Resolution reported; report adopted. that people not only have confidence that The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT that information is protected but also that it (Senator Knowles)—I now call on consid- cannot be used in any form of discrimination eration of government documents. Senator against them. Murray, are you seeking the call? In late 2000 the government announced a Senator Murray—Yes, Madam Chair. I joint committee inquiry into genetic privacy. just have a query. If there is a double dissolu- I am glad to see some of the recommenda- tion resulting from that, will we all be able to tions and some of the debates that have sur- claim unfair dismissal? rounded this joint inquiry and I look forward The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— to seeing some legislation, some regulatory We will take that on notice, Senator Murray. system, emerge as a consequence of the work that has been done. One of the recommenda- DOCUMENTS tions that has come out of this inquiry is the National Health and Medical Research establishment of a Human Genetics Com- Council mission of Australia—the HGCA. That was Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- recommended through the discussion papers, tralia) (6.58 p.m.)—I move: particularly the one released last August. I That the Senate take note of the document. think honourable senators should look at some of those recommendations, but that one I wish to refer to a specific section of the in particular. I think it is a very good idea to review of the implementation of the National establish such a genetics commission. Health and Medical Research Council’s stra- tegic plan 2000-03. That is the section that For issues as complex as the protection of relates to the Australian Health Ethics Com- the genetic information of humans, I think mittee and the Australian Law Reform detailed consideration must be provided. The Commission’s joint report into the issue of best way of doing that would be through an human genetic information. Members in this independent, stand-alone statutory authority place would know that this is an issue that such as the proposed commission. It is in- the Democrats have had a long-running in- tended that that body would provide high- terest in. I would like to begin by commend- level technical advice about human genetics ing the ALRC and the Australian Health Eth- and, of course, advice on the ethical, legal ics Committee for their joint inquiry. They and social implications that arise from the have yet to present their final report into the advances in biotechnology. I agree that the protection of human genetic information; commission should liaise closely with other however, the comprehensive discussion pa- government departments, authorities and pers that have been provided so far through a entities to provide a national and coordinated series of wide-ranging consultations are im- approach to the protection of genetic infor- pressive indeed. mation. However, the requirement for wide- ranging consultation should not be so oner- Most people in this place, particularly ous that the entire process is allowed to delay those involved in the stem cell and other sci- the introduction of federal laws to protect ence debates recently, would recall that ge- genetic information. netic information is often predictive rather than prescriptive. There are some specific Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9315

While I commend the work of the com- the money to the National Stem Cell Centre. mittee, and it is certainly outlined in the re- The centre will undertake experiments on port before us this evening, the instigation of human embryonic stem cells derived from that inquiry was long overdue. It has been a the destruction of human embryos. It was 10 long time coming. When I first introduced weeks between the Prime Minister’s an- some of these issues to the Senate back in nouncement and the tabling of this report. 1998—and certainly as others before me Again I say that the report is in fact a white- have done, such as my predecessor, Senator wash because of the narrow terms of refer- John Coulter—it was described as simplistic, ence. futuristic or just not necessary. Since 1998 The concerns I raised earlier have not and the Senate committee report into my been addressed. The report is limited to ex- private member’s bill in 1999, we have fully- amining the bureaucratic selection process fledged, documented cases of genetic dis- for awarding the grant. But the selection crimination in this country—cases of people panel, which was heavily influenced by who have applied for bank loans and have commercialism and persons with drug com- been denied bank loans on the basis of their pany interests, made no ethical evaluation genetic information or indeed information whatsoever of the proposal. In addition to that suggests that they could get a disease at that, no evidence was provided in the appli- a certain point in time, or people who have cation of any proof of concept that there was been discriminated against in employment a likelihood of funding cures for diseases situations. It is time for law; it is time for using this money, let alone proof of actual regulation. I look forward to seeing the final cures anywhere in the world using human report. I urge members of the Senate to con- embryonic stem cells. Mr Allen nevertheless sider such a regulatory approach in the near highlighted a number of disturbing trends, future. including the involvement of a concentration Question agreed to. of experts ‘in peer review in grant making, National Biotechnology Centre of complicated by the inevitable interconnec- Excellence tion between their institutions and research programs’. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (7.04 p.m.)—I move: In December I called on the Prime Minis- ter to give an undertaking that this funding That the Senate take note of the document. would be supervised by an independent and The Allen report was tabled this morning. publicly accountable ethics body. Without That report is a whitewash of the decision by this guarantee, ethical review of the Stem a panel recommending the grant of $43.55 Cell Centre will be undertaken by an in- million to Dr Trounson’s National Stem Cell house ethics group whose members will be Centre. Saying it is a whitewash is no reflec- appointed by the centre itself. The centre will tion at all on Mr Allen or the Allen group. not of course appoint people who are likely The fact is that the Allen report was written to slow or interfere with its work. The Prime to address very narrow terms of reference Minister has not responded as yet to that call, which ignored the central ethical issue of and I urge him to do so. funding human embryo experimentation. It will be said that these will go through a hu- Senator BOSWELL (Queensland— man research ethics committee, but they are Leader of the National Party of Australia in institutional committees and are not answer- the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary to able to the public. The grant was for activi- the Minister for Transport and Regional Ser- ties that are contrary to Victorian law and the vices) (7.09 p.m.)—The Review of the Na- grant pre-empted parliamentary debate on tional Biotechnology Centre of Excellence human embryo research legislation. selection process makes it clear that there are numerous potential conflicts of interest in In August last year the Prime Minister an- this matter, as I and others have sought to nounced that the government would be re- show. The following expert panel members viewing the May funding decision to award are listed as having conflicts of interest: Dr 9316 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Geoff Garrett, who resigned over it, and Pro- a supportive paper had been published by the fessor Wade, Professor Langridge, Professor prestigious journal Nature when it actually Sutherland, Dr Pitman, Professor Sawyer, Dr had been rejected. The report calls for ‘the Sleigh and Dr Tolstoshev. The report found most stringent and transparent arrangements that Dr Tolstoshev had share options in Bres- concerning conflict of interest’ and says that aGen and that Dr Sleigh did not raise with ‘the Commonwealth should satisfy itself par- the panel her connection with BresaGen. The ticularly with the detail’ of the arrangements report notes: with ES Cell International and BresaGen. In ... there is a high degree of interlocking relation- relation to the interest held by the CEO and ships ... This has led to the same names appearing chair of the Stem Cell Centre, the report on many projects, governing and advisory com- states: mittees, grant making bodies and commercialisa- There may be a reasonable expectation of a re- tion enterprises. quirement in the formal application documenta- This has been further illustrated by the numerous tion to demand a declaration of such interests. declarations of interest and withdrawals of Panel Equity involvement in potential business partners members from the Centre of Excellence selection or other pecuniary interests of parties related to process. proposed Centres were not required to be dis- The report further notes: closed. Such equity participation was not in the sights of the probity, risk assessment or due dili- On 26 August 2002 Professor Trounson indicated gence advisors and the review is not aware that to Senator Boswell that he had “given back my any other Commonwealth granting process ... shares in ESCI”— requires that shareholdings of applicants be cross- ES Cell International Pty Ltd— referenced with participant organisations during however, formal checks revealed they were still the selection process. registered in his name. I find it difficult to understand how grant While the process of divestment had commenced applicants could be assessed without a basic at the time he spoke to Senator Boswell, it had knowledge of their financial interest. This not technically been accomplished. report requires a lot more time to investigate The report also states: than the five minutes that I have available to me at the moment. I seek leave to continue Professor Trounson’s wife has also divested her- self of her shares held in ES Cell Australia Ltd. my remarks later. The divestment of shares occurred only after Leave granted; debate adjourned. they were made publicly known. The report ADJOURNMENT notes that Bob Moses, the Chair of the Na- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT tional Stem Cell Centre, held shares in Bres- (Senator Cook)—Order! There being no aGen. It says: further consideration of government docu- Collaboration with foreign entities that might ments, I propose the question: benefit from the public funding was a concern That the Senate do now adjourn. outside the scope of this review. Nevertheless, it remains a significant concern. Political Debate In relation to selection on the basis of scien- Iraq tific assessment, the report makes much of Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— the options of the international referees Minister for Family and Community Ser- nominated by the applicant. No mention is vices and Minister Assisting the Prime Min- made of any checks of their conflicts of in- ister for the Status of Women) (7.14 p.m.)—I terest. would like to commence by thanking those The report goes on to note that Professor colleagues who had their names on the list Trounson’s application contained an error. before me but who, I think in acknowledg- He had apparently claimed a grant which he ment that I very rarely take this opportunity, had not won. This is described as ‘a careless were kind enough to make way for me. I error’. This is in addition to the errors relat- would like to make some general remarks ing to shares, the rat video and the claim that this evening about the obligations that we have to listen to each other and to consider Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9317 each other’s views rather than the opportuni- more respect for our own views. The bell of ties that we have to slag off at each other freedom can be extremely frustrating, and I because we are on different sides of politics. think never more so for me at the moment I am talking about when someone has a dif- than in relation to a potential war in the Mid- ferent view in the community generally dle East. I have never thought that free rather than in this chamber. speech means that person A gets the right to This proposition was brought to my atten- speak and person B must listen but person A tion recently because a mate of mine who does not have to listen. It does not mean you had a very strongly different view from mine must listen to me because I have got free on a relatively minor issue became exasper- speech and you have to hear my views but, ated when he was arguing his case because by the way, I am not going to stay around of questions and counterarguments that I and listen to yours. Free speech does not would put. He then tried on me the oldest mean that; it is meaningless if you try to at- trick in the book, which all of us, in opposi- tribute that process to it. tion and in government, would have had I completely accept that there are many played on us. He said: ‘Look, am I just wast- people who hold very genuine reasons for ing my time? Haven’t you made up your believing that Saddam Hussein should be mind on this issue?’ I thought: ‘Hello! Are given more time, that he should have been these the words of someone who has made believed in the first place or that some addi- up his mind on the issue but expects me to tional form of appeasement should be en- keep an open one?’ We would all have found dorsed. I do not happen to agree with any of this to be a common situation; one that poli- the views I have heard so far, but I accept ticians are often afflicted with. People ap- that there are people who genuinely hold proach us, they expect us to have an open those views, and I welcome a proper airing mind to their view, but they do not have nec- of them and a further airing of them if any- essarily have an open mind to our view and one feels they have not properly had their certainly do not have an open mind to the say. But I would also welcome those people views that others express. having the good grace to listen to alternative This is not unusual. All of us will have views, just as I argue theirs should be lis- had the experience, in opposition and in gov- tened to. ernment, of people expecting politicians to What I do find somewhat repugnant is a agree with them. That is just par for the view by some who were protesting a few course. Many will have experienced being weekends ago that somehow, because they told that they are weak, lily-livered popu- were protesting, they were right and that the lists—people unwilling to lead. When we rest of us should understand that there were choose to do something that is popular, that a hundreds of thousands of people out there so Joe Citizen happens to not agree with at the we all have to agree with them. I find equally time, Joe Citizen will say we are weak, lily- repugnant the proposition: ‘Because I am livered and unwilling to lead. He will remind protesting, I care and it follows that the rest us that you cannot lead from behind; you of you do not.’ I am sure the rest of us do. cannot lead by following opinion polls. Even people who disagree with the prospect However, when we do something unpopular, of a war and did not protest, care; and cer- it may well be that the same Joe Citizen will tainly those who might see it as being more claim that we simply do not understand; that inevitable than otherwise, nonetheless care. we are servants of the people, polling clearly Perhaps the most offensive of the proposi- shows what the people want and we should tions is: ‘I’m opposed to war’—as if it fol- follow what they want. lows that anyone else is in favour of a war; Generally, I welcome dissent. I enjoy the as if anybody could be in favour of that as an battle of ideas. I think the voice of dissent is ideal option. And then there is the ever pre- the bell of freedom. But I do think we need sent: ‘I want peace. I want to march for more respect for the views of others and we peace. I feel good about it. I have made a are entitled to get in return, if we give that, contribution. I can go home and have my 9318 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 yum cha and tell my grandchildren I played a save us from going to hell, are borne in part.’ As if anybody I know would not prefer mind. peace— yet it is the somehow smug and Lastly, I draw attention to remarks made condescending attitude of some of the pro- by a United States admiral, who visited here testers and some of the people participating in the 1980s for one of the Coral Sea com- in this debate to make the immediate as- memorative services, which as you know we sumption that, because they do not want war have in Australia in early May. He reminded and they do want peace, everyone else has the people present that Australian servicemen the contrary view. That is simply not the lie in graves all over the world, but he made case. the point: I would like to make the point, although it ... the only territory which Australia has won from probably does not need to be made, of how those wars is the soil in which its dead lie. horrific war is. People die. Families are shat- That is an important point to understand: tered. Civilian deaths are quite chillingly Australians have never gone to war to take referred to as collateral damage. But, despite other peoples’ property or land. He says: the horrors of any war, there is a certain type ... the Australian came as a liberator and ... died of honesty to it in the sense that it is missing with his allies in a common quest to turn back the of the covert acts of terrorism that we see. tide of aggression. There is a warning, there is a build-up, there He goes on to point out that Australians have are rules of engagement, there is the Geneva always acted on the belief that the security of convention. As ghastly as it is, it is con- the free world is indivisible. I think that is a ducted in some type of order. It is quite the very important point. I have heard people opposite to terrorism, where there are no say, ‘This isn’t our problem. This is far rules of engagement. The Geneva convention away.’ He congratulated Australia on being, is not recognised by terrorists and they in this century, a model of a distant country would not see it as being applicable to them. that has recognised the responsibilities of Terrorism is quite the opposite to war: mili- free men everywhere and who have sent their tary targets and military personnel are not the sons to fight, and sometimes to die, for those focus; civilians are. So, pretty clearly, I responsibilities. Everyone I know hopes that would have a preference for one over the that does not have to happen, just as we hope other. that our policemen, on a day-to-day basis, do The horrors of Saddam’s regime have not lose their lives when protecting the rest been terribly well documented. I have not of us. Finally, he says: heard anybody arguing that it is a great re- Australians have stood and died with other free gime. I have heard arguments for believing men in defence of others, just as American sailors him or giving him more time and more ap- stood and died in defence of others here in Aus- peasement. I have not seen a better outline of tralia and in the Coral Sea. the horrors of that regime, and the people I think it is worth asking ourselves where we who have assessed it as being horrific, than would be if people in the United States had an article by Paul Kelly in the Australian last said at that time, ‘That is on a distant shore; Wednesday, entitled ‘Craven trudge to a it is not our problem.’ moral morass’. I would like to remind those Australian Defence Force: Townsville who take some comfort from recent conces- Senator McLUCAS (Queensland) (7.24 sions that they are concessions, they are not p.m.)—I rise to provide the Senate with cooperation. They have not been made will- some clarity about reported events that in- ingly and they have only been made because volve the member for Herbert, Mr Peter of a building threat of war against Saddam Lindsay, making comments about harass- Hussein. I hope the UN debate expands the ment of Defence Force personnel in Towns- coalition of the willing and I hope the words ville in mid-February. I am motivated to pro- of a former Secretary-General about the UN, vide this explanation for a number of rea- that it is there not to take us to heaven but to sons. Firstly, there has been some local and national coverage of Mr Lindsay’s allega- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9319 tions and it is of concern to me that the level to Defence Force personnel quite a lot. There of accuracy in the coverage varied consid- is a deal of resentment about Mr Lindsay erably. Secondly, on returning to Canberra beating up a story to make their community this week, I was concerned at the number of looked divided in the national media when, my colleagues who expressed concern to me in fact, there is an extremely high level of that ADF personnel had been mistreated in local support for our defence personnel. Sen- Townsville. Mr Lindsay himself is responsi- ior officers in the ADF in Townsville were ble for the story gaining any status at all. He appalled that this story got away in the way it is personally responsible for raising the issue did. Unfortunately, the editorial writer of the and bringing the obvious support for the Cairns Post picked up the Lindsay line, did Australian defence forces in the cities of not bother to check the veracity of the story Townsville and Thuringowa into question. and blew it up into an attack on the opposi- On Wednesday, 19 February Mr Lindsay was tion, amongst others. He essentially blamed interviewed on The World Today. The tran- the opposition for the ‘ratbags in the anti-war script states: movement’. The Townsville Bulletin was far Louise Willis: Can you describe some of the more circumspect. The editor did not blame abuse that you’ve heard about? media outlets for simply doing their job but Peter Lindsay: Well, the terms used were certainly had a good swipe at Mr Lindsay for “warmongering”, that sort of thing. jeopardising the bond between the ADF and Louise Willis: Could it be mistaken for just the Townsville community. The editorial people expressing a normal expression of views went further by saying, ‘One stupid incident about the federal government’s stance on Iraq? could serve to harm those putting one side of Peter Lindsay: There was no mistake on the the argument—the peace movement— tone of the harassment that occurred. It was peo- unfairly.’ ple— So this is where the story started and note the plural— where ‘spitting’ at soldiers comes from—Mr targeting, directly targeting, members— Lindsay’s careful choice of words. This is someone trying to ratchet up what sounds again, note the plural— like one exchange of views between a soldier of the defence force. And you’ve got to, you’ve and a member of the public at a shopping got to respect people’s views, you’ve got to listen centre into Mr Lindsay’s several incidents, to people’s views. There’s ways of doing that in spitting and a no-uniform guideline—all in a Australia. But you don’t go to a shopping centre town where relations between the Army and and verbally spit at a soldier from the Defence Force. the public are extremely good. Thank you, Mr Lindsay. It is a low act. The Townsville Fortunately, Louise Willis did take the op- Bulletin did not buy the whole vilification portunity to interview General Peter story and went back to one of the local Cosgrove, who attempted to clarify the situa- members. On the following day, 21 February, tion. He said that it was, ‘One report of a the state member for Thuringowa, Ms Anita minor incident.’ But, unfortunately for Phillips, challenged Mr Lindsay to prove his Townsville, the damage was done. This be- allegations. What did he say? The Townsville came a national story that escalated to other Bulletin states: alleged incidents, including alleged spitting. Quite rightly, the next day the Townsville The army had acknowledged the case of har- assment and he had spoken to several soldiers Bulletin reported that a soldier was vilified in who had confirmed a number of instances, but he a Townsville shopping centre as a warmon- would not name the soldiers. ger. The story apparently came from a group of soldiers who told Mr Lindsay of the inci- The article quotes Mr Lindsay as saying: dent on Tuesday night. There was also a ru- “Their commanding officer would just come out mour going around that soldiers had been and say to them, ‘Why have you been speaking to told not to wear uniforms in public places. a federal politician?’” I know Townsville fairly well—I have I have to say that that is just pathetic, consid- lived in the city for some years and I speak ering Mr Lindsay is their federal representa- 9320 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 tive and they have every right to speak to Using the ADF to bring into disrepute the him, given that any alleged vilification could protests against the war, to bring into disre- be because of the government’s decision to pute the good relationships between the deploy. community and the barracks in Townsville The Townsville Bulletin went on to say and to generally cause bad feeling around the that Mr Lindsay said his objective for putting place is to be condemned. To make Towns- the issue on the national agenda was to ‘stop ville look divided in the national eye is also this sort of behaviour before it gets away on disloyal to his own constituents because it is us’. This is more slippery rationalisation. So not true. the behaviour that was widely reported, Senator Lightfoot interjecting— thanks to Mr Lindsay running breathlessly to Senator McLUCAS—I will take up the media, had not taken off. Mr Lindsay is Senator Lightfoot’s interjection because heroically stepping in and beating up an is- there was no spitting. Read the transcript sue which he imagines may occur around later. Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Mr Lindsay has a history of trying to poli- Senator McLucas, address your comments to ticise the ADF for his own personal agenda. the chair. During the 2001 election campaign, he claimed that the 2nd Battalion commonly Senator McLUCAS—The ADF is nonpo- referred to themselves as ‘Howard’s own’. litical, no matter what this government may This was complete nonsense. The Financial want to do with it. Their brief is to profes- Review reported on 19 October 2001 that at sionally serve the government of the day and least one soldier: they do so to the best of their ability. They should not be used as Mr Lindsay’s or Mr ... was perplexed by a report in the local newspa- Howard’s propaganda tool. Mr Lindsay per yesterday claiming that Lavarack’s second should stop using the ADF to make political battalion referred to themselves as ‘Howard’s Own’ because of the PM’s close affinity with the capital and to get his name in the newspa- soldiers he had previously deployed to East pers. Timor. Foreign Affairs: West Papua The press corps asked Major Bob Worswick Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- whether that was really how the battalion tralia) (7.33 p.m.)—I rise tonight to address referred to itself. He looked perplexed and the current situation in West Papua. I begin replied, ‘We are the 2nd Battalion Group.’ by congratulating the RMIT Globalism Insti- Another paper at the time reported other tute and the New Internationalist on organis- soldiers ‘blaming local Liberal member Peter ing a successful conference in Melbourne Lindsay’ for the battalion’s new name. The last week that debated issues in relation to Adelaide Advertiser went on to say: West Papua. I would also like to acknowl- Certainly none of the dozen or so troops we chat- edge and congratulate David Bridie on his ted to thought much of it. They were clearly be- extraordinary efforts not only in relation to mused. the conference but in staging a concert on the This is the sort of weaselly disingenuous Friday evening for the benefit of the West behaviour that we have come to expect from Papuan people and for the protection of their Mr Lindsay. Just last week he claimed that human rights. everyone in Townsville has access to a bulk- The conference provided a long-overdue billing doctor. That is nonsense and everyone opportunity for a comprehensive, honest and in Townsville knows it. Let me make my wide-ranging debate on the future of West position very clear: I have no time for those Papua. It is encouraging to hear that, among who would abuse ADF personnel—no time the people who participated in the confer- at all. But I also have no time for a politician ence, there were a number of Indonesians who will use a casual conversation, not in- who participated actively in the delibera- vestigated or substantiated, to beat up a na- tions. Any debate on the future of West tional story to get his name in the limelight. Papua has to begin with an honest assess- Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9321 ment of the past and particularly in the case The other outstanding issue relates to the of West Papua there is clearly a need to ac- 1969 Act of Free Choice, an act which many knowledge the mistakes of the past. of us consider to be legitimate. The Act of Many countries, if not most—I presume— Free Choice—ironically named, I think—has have some aspects of their history which consistently been challenged by the West continue to cast a shadow on the present. Of Papuan people and is frequently referred to course, Australia and certainly Indonesia and as the ‘act of no choice’. Under the terms of other countries are not immune from that. the New York agreement, which gained the Each country, and its people, has a responsi- support of the UN Assembly, all West Papu- bility to account for past actions and recent ans were to be given the right, given the op- past wrongs, whether that involves quashing portunity, to vote on their future. Instead, as legal untruths such as the doctrine we have we know in retrospect, the Indonesian gov- seen in our country of terra nullius, or simply ernment selected 1,025 people to represent saying sorry. However, it is not about who is the entire population of 800,000. Those peo- right or who is wrong. It is not about guilt or ple voted—and I think most of us know the blame. It is about moving forward, particu- history—to remain a part of Indonesia. It has larly in the case of West Papua. Obviously since been revealed that there was consider- wrongs should be acknowledged where pos- able duress involved. In fact some of those sible and remedied if they can be. voters have claimed that their lives were threatened. They were told, for example, that In the case of West Papua, there are two they would have their tongues cut out if they obvious issues that require attention. One is voted for independence. the appalling human rights abuses that have occurred and the other is the illegitimacy of It is useful, in this context, to think of arti- the Act of Free Choice. There is now a great cle 21 of the Universal Declaration of Hu- deal of evidence to establish that grave hu- man Rights, which states: man rights abuses have taken place against Everyone has the right to take part in the govern- the West Papuan people over a number of ment of his country, directly or through freely decades. I know that there is conflicting evi- chosen representatives. dence over the number of deaths that have Not through hand-picked individuals who are occurred, but it is widely accepted that at unable to represent the views of the wider least 100,000 West Papuans have been mur- population because they are prevented from dered by the Indonesian army. In addition to communicating with them or they are subject these murders there is clear evidence of to serious threats to compel them to vote a wrongful imprisonment, torture and general particular way. Article 21 of the universal intimidation. The first priority in considering declaration also provides: the future of West Papua is to put an end to The will of the people shall be the basis of the these human rights abuses. This will require authority of government; this will shall be ex- the further establishment and maintenance of pressed in periodic and genuine elections which proper democratic processes and the rule of shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall law in West Papua. be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. The history of atrocities committed against the West Papuan people also stands If these procedures are considered a mini- as a clear warning to our country and to Aus- mum standard for the election of govern- tralians that we should not engage in joint ments, it follows that they should also apply military activities with Kopassus. The evi- to decisions regarding independence—which dence against Kopassus, as we have seen are, after all, decisions about who should over many years, is overwhelming and its ultimately govern a group of people. disregard for human rights continues to this Given the circumstances surrounding the day. Australia should have nothing to do with Act of Free Choice, it cannot be said that the an organisation that so flagrantly violates West Papuan people have ever been given a human rights and particularly the rights of genuine opportunity to determine their own innocent civilians. future. As such, they have been prevented 9322 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 from exercising a fundamental right under York. As a relatively powerful neighbour of international law, such as the Universal Dec- West Papua, separated by only 200 kilome- laration of Human Rights. It is time this was tres or so, Australia has a responsibility to- acknowledged by Indonesia and by us, as a wards that region and the West Papuan peo- country, remembering that Australia played a ple. First and foremost, our priority must be key role in the Act of Free Choice. I hope, to prevent any further human rights abuses too, that the international community will being committed against them. This will in- recognise the fact that the West Papuans have volve listening to the accounts given by West not had a genuine opportunity to determine Papuans and providing them with whatever how they want to be governed. assistance we can to ensure that democratic If such an acknowledgment were to be processes are adhered to and that the rule of made, the real challenge would then lie in law operates effectively, and that has to in- determining how to remedy the injustice. For volve the allocation of resources, too. The example, should another vote for independ- East Timor experience demonstrated the ef- ence be conducted? If so, who would be eli- fectiveness of concerted action by the Aus- gible to participate in such a vote? I am not tralian government. This should inspire us to pretending that these issues are anything less play a role, particularly in relation to West than complex. To what extent would the Papua. more than one million transmigrants who At the conference last week, Mr John now reside in West Papua affect the outcome Rumbiak—who will visit Parliament House of the vote? What practical planning would tomorrow, I understand—warned that ten- need to be involved to facilitate West Papuan sions in West Papua are escalating. He said independence if that were the outcome of the that West Papua had the potential to erupt ballot? These issues are hard, but they should into a bloodbath. In this respect, he predicted not dissuade us from remedying the wrongs that West Papua could well be the next East of the past and assisting the West Papuans to Timor. At a time when Australia is sending determine their own future. We must tackle its troops to engage, potentially, in a war these issues. We must ensure that all parties against Iraq, I think that Mr Rumbiak’s are equipped with the relevant information, warnings are timely in reminding us that our that they have the opportunity to freely par- immediate responsibility has to be to our ticipate in democratic governance processes region. I hope that the Prime Minister, and without the threat of human rights violations, others in the parliament, listened to the warn- and that the debate can occur in good faith. ings of Mr Rumbiak and I encourage people It is important to recognise that independ- to look at the papers from last week’s con- ence will not signal the end of West Papua’s ference—it is fascinating reading. Given our challenges; it will probably signal a whole proximity to West Papua and our compara- set of new challenges, and we have seen that tive wealth and power, we have a unique in relation to East Timor, of course. It would opportunity to play a role in putting an end to be a mistake to restrict this debate to the is- the human rights abuses that the West Papu- sue of independence alone. There are broader ans have suffered for so many years. I hope issues to be considered, such as how to en- this government will play a leading and sure that the West Papuan people benefit compassionate role in resolving this issue in from their rich natural resources and how to a way that assists our region as a whole. prevent further degradation of their environ- (Time expired) ment. Australia, too, must take responsibility Centrelink: Service Delivery for our involvement in past wrongs against Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) the West Papuan people. It is a documented (7.43 p.m.)—In rising to speak tonight, it is fact that in 1969 Australian government offi- with considerable pleasure that I bring to the cials boarded a plane at Port Moresby and Senate in this adjournment debate a positive forcibly removed two prominent pro- story of service delivery by a Common- independence West Papuans who were trav- wealth agency in my home state of Western elling to meet with UN officials in New Australia. I raise the issue of service delivery Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9323 in the area of social welfare and social jus- This gratifying outcome has been tice in response to the relentless cynicism achieved because of the professionalism, and negativity brought to this issue by the dedication and sheer hard work of the staff opposition. I want to discuss the concept of and senior management and, most impor- mutual obligation—and its administration by tantly, because of the innovative policy Centrelink in Western Australia—a concept guidelines put into place by my colleague which is obviously going to continue to Senator Vanstone, the Minister for Family shape and influence Australian social secu- and Community Services. The policy innova- rity beneficiaries in a positive and successful tions in this area are working, are successful way long into the future. Having been the and are an enduring example of plain good target of constant opposition attack, mutual government. The minister’s and the depart- obligation is said to be not working and to be ment’s achievement in this area stands as one difficult to administer. I want to make the of the government’s brightest stars. point that I see no opposition policy on the I say this acknowledging that the opposi- subject matter at all. More particularly, there tion have now plainly lost the high ground is no policy that has, as a central plank, the that they once prided themselves on occupy- removal of mutual obligation as the founda- ing, a loss which they themselves concede tion stone of social service delivery. daily in their total incapacity to provide any My comments tonight relate to and arise hint of a policy initiative which does not from a very positive and uplifting experience have mutual obligation as a central plank. that I have had, in the short months that I We live in an ever-changing world and the have been a senator for Western Australia, in government have now firmly stamped our dealing with Centrelink and their delivery of authority on an area that we have reformed services to beneficiaries and recipients in for the betterment of all stakeholders, includ- Western Australia, particularly during the performance year 2001-02. One of the key ing vastly improved services and outcomes performance indicators of a service organisa- for those who need assistance, particularly in tion such as Centrelink always is, of neces- the area of unemployment benefits. sity, client satisfaction. The story of Centre- Centrelink in Western Australia has re- link in Western Australian is a very positive sponded magnificently to the reform agenda and encouraging one from the perspective of and continued to work hard to achieve out- policy initiative and delivery within the re- standing results in providing high-quality form context that this government has laid services to its clients. In Western Australia out. In 2001-02 customer satisfaction com- there are 24 Centrelink offices stretching menced at 73 per cent. It rose, on their from South Hedland, in the north, to Kal- benchmarks, in the 12-month period to 82 goorlie in the east, and Esperance in the per cent. This is a truly outstanding effort. south. Two years ago, only three of the of- I pause to observe that this organisation fices were meeting 65 to 70 per cent of their has a central function of directly dealing with key performance indicators. The perform- very large numbers of people and with meet- ance of other offices ranged down to meeting ing their demands and needs. At Centrelink’s just 35 per cent of KPI measures, with a gen- Cannington and Mandurah offices, for ex- eral feeling that it was impossible to improve ample, highly professional and dedicated their performance to any significant degree. staff see on average hundreds of people By June 2002 the position had improved every day, thousands of people every week to such an extent that 18 out of the 24 offices and hundreds of thousands of people every were able to meet over 90 per cent of the year. There are, for example, 800 personal KPI measures, including seven who achieved contacts at the Cannington office each day. 100 per cent. The lowest-performing office That is quite a staggering figure, and when I was able to achieve 81 per cent of its KPI visited that office I was amazed to see the measures. Remember that only 12 months level of expertise and enthusiasm there. previously achieving 50 per cent or more of the KPIs was not seen as attainable by the 9324 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 majority of offices in Western Australia. By example of how ordinary people can do ex- June 2002 the position was reached that all traordinary tasks when they are needed and offices across the state attained 100 per cent of how people in their normal jobs, even of- of their KPIs, a remarkable turnaround and ten much maligned public servants, can do achievement. At this time 17 per cent of more than what is asked for in the spirit of WA’s offices were in the top five per cent of helping their fellow Australians in a time of national office performance across the na- great crisis. tion. This level of performance is truly a I have attended the Cannington offices of cause for celebration and a credit to Centre- Centrelink and have been impressed and link’s WA management and staff. amazed by the capacity and ability of the In Western Australia the number of com- staff in their dealings with their clients. They plaints received by this agency has fallen, have lived up to all my expectations of what from 342 in May 2001 to 225 in April 2002. an efficient and successful government Through weekly discussions with the Om- agency should be. As members of parlia- budsman’s office, the feedback has been that ment, we often hear of only the worst-case complaints about timeliness have been experiences of our state and federal depart- greatly reduced. The most significant drop in ments and it can, I believe, warp our per- the number of complaints has been in the spective. When do we ever get a call out of student allowance area. This is largely attrib- the blue from one of our constituents saying uted to the establishment of the Student Ser- what a good result they have had or compli- vicing Centre. With the encouragement of menting us on administration or service de- the minister, a new office on the Curtin Uni- livery? This is why I wanted to congratulate versity campus is soon to be opened. The the staff of Centrelink around the country Western Australian Centrelink offices have and particularly in Western Australia, where made great gains over the past 12 months. my personal experience has shown me that The achievement of all offices in meeting they are making a fine contribution by carry- 100 per cent of their KPIs is nothing short of ing out fine work on behalf of the parlia- magnificent, considering that only 12 months ment, the government and all Australians. ago such an achievement was not even con- Senate adjourned at 7.52 p.m. templated or indeed thought about. DOCUMENTS To gain a short insight into Centrelink’s operations, one has only to look at the efforts Tabling of their officers after the devastating Bali The following government documents bombings—and members of the Kingsley were tabled: Football Club and many Western Australians Advance to the Finance Minister— were deeply affected by that tragedy. Staff Statements and supporting applications for from Centrelink helping victims of the Bali funds for— bombings went above and beyond the call of October to December 2002. duty. On the Sunday morning after the event January 2003. one of my staff spoke to a Centrelink em- Airservices Australia—Corporate plan July ployee on his mobile phone and on that Sun- 2002 to June 2007. day he actually went into the office to assist National Biotechnology Centre of Excel- one of my constituents with an issue. I was lence—Review of selection —Report to gratified by the level of commitment, enthu- the Prime Minister by the Allen Consulting siasm and ease with which that employee Group, December 2002. shouldered the burden and assisted us. Cen- National Health and Medical Research trelink staff have shown great compassion Council—Review of the implementation of towards and empathy with the people af- the National Health and Research Coun- fected by the Bali tragedy by assisting with cil’s strategic plan 2000-03, December payments, helping with flights to other states 2002. for funerals and referring people to other services that were needed. They are a real Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9325

Telecommunications carrier industry de- Indexed Lists of Files velopment plans—Progress report for The following document was tabled pur- 2001-02. suant to the order of the Senate of 30 May Tabling 1996, as amended on 3 December 1998: The following documents were tabled by Indexed lists of departmental and agency the Clerk: files for the period 1 July to 31 December National Health Act—Determination un- 2002—Statements of compliance— der— Department of Education, Science and Training. Section 5D—PHS 1/2003. Schedule 1—PHS 2/2003. 9326 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE The following answers to questions were circulated: Aviation: Air Traffic Controllers (Question No. 1025) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 11 December 2002: Further to the advice given to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee in the estimates hearing on 20 November 2002 that Air Marshal Houston and Airservices Australia had agreed to work towards the provision by Airservices Australia of air traffic control services at Towns- ville and Darwin airports: (1) (a) When will the consultation phase commence and conclude; and (b) which transport and related agencies and organisations will be included in that consultation. (2) Will this involve Airservices Australia providing defence and civilian air traffic control services. (3) Does this decision relate to previous reports of a shortage of defence air traffic controllers; if so, can the Minister assure the public that sufficient defence resources exist to safely cover the func- tions until the proposed changes occur or, if defence resources are not sufficient, will interim measures be put in place. (4) Is the decision to transfer functions from the department to Airservices Australia a ministerial or an agency level decision. (5) Will any other airport or aviation functions be involved in the transfer of functions at Darwin and/or Townsville airports, or any other location; if so, which services and locations. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: I would refer to the answers provided to these questions by the Minister Assisting the Minister for De- fence (House of Representatives question on notice number 1218), which are set out below: (1) The decision on which organisation will provide air traffic control services at Darwin and Towns- ville is still to be made. Government is reviewing the feasibility of integrating military and civil air traffic management systems to reduce duplication and costs. (a) January 2003. (b) July 2003. Department of Transport and Regional Services, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Regional Air- space Users Advisory Committee, local aviation groups. (2) Possibly. The review is to determine whether integration would cut duplication and costs. (3) Sufficient Defence resources exist to safely cover existing functions. (4) Ministerial level decision. The decision to conduct the study was made by Ministers Hill and An- derson. (5) The review will focus on integrating civil and military air traffic management systems at Darwin and Townsville. This focus could broaden in time. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit (Question No. 1044) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 856 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6636) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft: (1) Did the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit lodge an amended Air Support Unit operations manual and a request for a reissue of the Police Support Wing Air Operators Certificate with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for approval in early 1998; if so: (a) what was the exact date of the lodgement of the amended manual; and (b) which CASA office received the applica- tion. (2) Were the proposed amendments approved; if so: (a) who approved the amendments; and (b) on what date were the amendments approved. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9327

(3) If the amendments were not immediately approved: (a) what was the concern with the proposed amendments; (b) who raised those concerns; (c) when were those concerns raised with the unit; and (d) how were the concerns raised. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has no record of an amended operations manual for the Western Australia Police Air Support Unit being lodged with the Authority for approval in early 1998. While CASA may have received specific amendments to the Manual, these details are not recorded on file. A request for the re-issue of the Western Australia Police Air Support Unit Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) was received on 7 April 1998. The AOC was issued on 14 May 1998. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit (Question No. 1045) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question number no. 855 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002 p. 6636) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circum- stances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft, and in relation to the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit’s request to amend its Air Support Unit operations manual and for its Air Operator’s Cer- tificate to be reissued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in early 1998: (1) If there were concerns held by CASA officers about the proposed amended arrangements, what was the nature of the concerns. (2) Did the CASA officers who raised concerns about the amendments to the operations manual refer those concerns to their superiors within the authority: if so: (a) to whom were those concerns re- ferred; (b) when were these concerns referred; and (c) how were these concerns referred. (3) If those proposed amendments to the operations manual were eventually approved: (a) who finally approved the amendments; (b) how was that information communicated to the unit; (c) what was the name of the police officer to whom the communication was addressed. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) See answer to number 1044. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit (Question No. 1047) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 853 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6635) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft, and in relation to the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit operations manual and its Air Operator’s Certificate: (1) On how many occasions since January 1998 has the unit been the subject of an audit, scheduled or unscheduled, by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). (2) On how many occasions during these audits were the qualifications of the officers checked against those required by the operations manual to ensure the safe operation of the unit. (3) In each of those audits, on how many occasions were the qualifications of officers not in compli- ance with the requirements of the operations manual. 9328 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

(4) In each case: (a) what action did CASA take; (b) when was that action taken; (c) who took that action; (d) what was the result of that action. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) Since January 1998, CASA has performed 18 audits of the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit. (2) In accordance with the audit requirements, the qualifications of the officers were checked against those required by the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit Operations Manual on 6 occa- sions. (3) to (4) CASA believes it is inappropriate to provide the level of operational detail requested. Dis- closure of information on the outcomes of audit processes could prejudice the ability to obtain in- formation from other operators during the course of CASA’s normal investigations where compul- sory extraction powers are not used. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit (Question No. 1048) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 852 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6635) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft, and in relation to the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit operations manual and its Air Operator’s Certificate: (a) on how many occasions since January 1998 has the District Flying Operations Manager raised concerns with the Officer in Charge about the safe operation of the unit; and (b) in each case: (i) what was the nature of the concern; (ii) when was the concern raised; (iii) how was the concern raised; and (iv) what action followed the con- cern raised by the manager. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (a) CASA’s files have revealed two occasions in which the District Flying Operations Manager at the Perth Area Office raised concerns with the Western Australia Air Support Unit’s Officer in Charge. (b) (i) It is inappropriate to provide the level of operational detail requested. Disclosure of information on the outcomes of audit processes could prejudice the ability to obtain information from other operators during the course of CASA’s normal investigations where compulsory extraction powers are not used; (ii) 1998 and 1999; (iii) by letter and by telephone; and (iv) it is inappropriate to pro- vide the level of operational detail requested. Disclosure of information on the outcomes of audit processes could prejudice the ability to obtain information from other operators during the course of CASA’s normal investigations where compulsory extraction powers are not used. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Western Australian Police Air Support Unit (Question No. 1049) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 851 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6635) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft, and in relation to the Western Australian Police Air Support Unit: Was the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advised of the appointment of a new Officer in Charge in January 1999; if so, how did CASA satisfy itself that the officer appointed to the position had the appropriate qualifications and experience to ensure he could meet his responsibilities under the terms of the unit’s Air Operator’s Certificate; if not why not. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9329

CASA advises: Yes; CASA is not required under current civil aviation legislation to formally assess persons who oc- cupy the CEO position or equivalent. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Chief Pilot (Question No. 1050) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 850 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6634) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft: (1) Is a chief pilot required to hold all appropriate licences, endorsements or ratings to cover opera- tions authorised by an Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) for which he or she is responsible; if not, in what circumstances is a chief pilot not required to hold such qualifications. (2) If a chief pilot does not hold all necessary qualifications to cover the terms of an AOC, how does the Civil Aviation Safety Authority satisfy itself that the organisation has the necessary qualifica- tions and experience to ensure it is able to comply with the terms of its AOC. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) and (2) Yes, the chief pilot is required to hold all appropriate licences, endorsements or ratings to cover operations authorised by an Air Operator’s Certificate. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr John Brown (Question No. 1051) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 848 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6634) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft: (1) When did the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) suspend the medical certificate of Mr John Brown of Bibra Lake, Western Australia. (2) (a) What was the basis of the suspension; and (b) what procedures did CASA officers follow prior to the suspension of the above medical certificate. (3) Was a notice to show cause issued to Mr Brown prior to the suspension of his medical certificate; if so: (a) when was the notice to show cause issued; and (b) what actions were then undertaken by CASA following the issue of that notice to show cause; if no notice to show cause was issued, what was the process followed by CASA that led to the suspension of Mr Brown’s medical certifi- cate. (4) Did Mr Brown advise CASA that he was on sick leave prior to the suspension of his medical cer- tificate; if so: (a) on what date was that advise provided to CASA; (b) which CASA officer was provided with that information; (c) where was the officer located; and (d) what was the officer’s position within the Authority. (5) (a) What action was taken by the CASA officer in receipt of the advice from Mr Brown; (b) when was the action taken; and (c) when was the decision to suspend Mr Brown’s health certificate taken. (6) If the matter was referred to other CASA officers before the decision to suspend Mr Brown’s medical certificate was taken, which other officers were involved in the assessment of Mr Brown’s circumstances and the decision to suspend his certificate. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has advised it does not provide detailed information about its enforcement actions against individuals to public forums without those individuals’ express authorisa- 9330 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003 tion. In particular, matters relating to the medical standard and fitness of individuals are of great sensi- tivity, and have only limited and highly controlled circulation even within CASA. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Mr John Brown (Question No. 1052) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 847 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6633) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft: (1) Prior to CASA suspending the medical certificate of Mr John Brown, what action did CASA take to establish Mr Brown’s medical condition and its impact on his ability to meet the conditions of his licence. (2) (a) How many medical practitioners were consulted by CASA in relation to Mr Brown’s condi- tion; what were the names of those medical practitioners; (c) what were their qualifications; and (d) in each case, where were they practising medicine. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) does not consider it appropriate to answer the questions in the absence of specific authorisation to do so by the individuals concerned. CASA has advised it does not provide detailed information about its enforcement actions against indi- viduals to public forums without those individuals’ express authorisation. In particular, matters relating to the medical standard and fitness of individuals are of great sensitivity, and have only limited and highly controlled circulation even within CASA. Civil Aviation Safety Authority: Pilot Qualification (Question No. 1053) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 December 2002: With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 846 (Senate Hansard, 2 December 2002, p. 6633) and the completion on 17 December 2002 of the coronial inquiry in Western Australia into the circumstances surrounding the crash of a police aircraft, and with reference to Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) instrument number 53.99/00, the Approval under Civil Aviation Order section 82.0, issued on 12 January 2000: (1) What qualifications were required by Pilot Special Constable Pek Ha (ARN 537160) to perform the functions delegated to him. (2) Specifically, what qualifications and experience are required to carry out pilot emergency training and testing under Civil Aviation Order 20.11 Appendix IV. (3) (a) What processes were followed by CASA officers to satisfy themselves that Constable Pek Ha was appropriately qualified; (b) who undertook those checks; (c) when were the checks under- taken; and (d) what were the results of these checks. (4) What were the other company standards for operations conducted under the company’s Air Oper- ating Certificate (AOC) referred to in the above instrument. (5) What qualification and experience are required to satisfactorily perform these other company standards for operations conducted under the above AOC. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) In accordance with Instrument Number 53.99/00, Pilot Special Constable Pek Ha was required to demonstrate competency and experience on the helicopter aircraft type. (2) In accordance with the pilot emergency training and testing requirements detailed under Civil Aviation Order 20.11 Appendix IV, Constable Pek Ha was required to demonstrate competency and experience on the helicopter aircraft type and competency and knowledge of the requirements of Civil Aviation Order 20.11, Appendix IV. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9331

(3) Constable Pek Ha demonstrated proficiency in the emergency procedures. (4) and (5) While the Instrument required Constable Pek Ha to have regard to other company stan- dards for operations conducted under the company’s Air Operator’s Certificate, there were no spe- cific tasks to be assessed against this requirement. Environment: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Question Nos 1061, 1062 and 1063) Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Re- sources, upon notice, on 7 January 2003: (1) (a) What is the best current estimate of the cost of sub-surface sequestration of carbon dioxide, separated into capture, compression, transport and storage; (b) on what evidence is this estimate based; and (c) does it take account of the loss of efficiency (energy cost) resulting from the seques- tration process itself. (2) (a) What is the meaning of ‘zero emissions coal’; and (b) what evidence is there that this is techni- cally feasible. (3) (a) What funding or other assistance has been given by the department or related agencies to re- search, develop or commercialise any aspect of subsurface sequestration in each year since 1995; and (b) on each occasion what was: (i) the name of the recipient, (ii) the amount of funding or as- sistance, and (iii) the purpose of the grant or other assistance. (4) Has subsurface sequestration been demonstrated or implemented overseas; if so what aspects and where. Senator Minchin—The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) (a) Analysis presented by the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D (IEA GHG R&D) program in a publication entitled “ Solutions for the 21stCentury – Zero Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels”, provides reliable estimates of the costs of subsurface seques- tration of CO2 produced in electricity generation. This study estimates the costs of CO2 avoided from different electricity generating technologies, namely pulverised coal power stations (PC), natural gas combined cycle power stations (NGCC) and coal integrated gasification combined cycle power stations (IGCC).

This report estimates that the total cost per tonne of CO2 avoided ranges between $US22 and $US111, of which $US16-86 or around 75% of the total cost is the additional cost of capturing and compressing CO2 at the power station, $US1-3 is the cost of transporting CO2 per 100km of pipeline, and $5-21 is the cost of CO2 storage.

The additional cost of capturing and compressing CO2 at the power station is estimated to in- crease the cost of electricity by US 1.7 cents per kilowatt hour for IGCC, US 3.32 cents per kilowatt hour for PC and US 1.61 cents per kilowatt hour for NGCC. It is estimated that by 2012, these additional costs could be reduced to US 1.04, 2.16 and 1.23 cents per kilowatt hour respectively. (b) These estimates are based on research, analysis and other analytical evidence examined by the IEA GHG R&D Program as reported in “Solutions for the 21st Century – Zero Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels”, published in May 2002. (c) The analysis presented by the IEA GHG R&D program in “Solutions for the 21st Century – Zero Emissions Technologies for Fossil Fuels” appears to indicate that it does take into ac- count the loss of energy efficiency resulting from the CO2 capture and sequestration process. (2) (a) Zero emissions is a relatively new concept but is receiving increasing interest, particularly in terms of developing sustainable long term greenhouse solutions. The concept involves the cap- ture and storage of emissions such as CO2 or their conversion into inputs that can be used in other production processes. These technologies have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions from coal power generation to very low levels. (b) Many of the technologies associated with zero emissions technologies are available on a com- mercial basis in various applications including power generation, the petroleum industry, chemical industry and food processing. Recent advances in clean coal technologies and the bringing together of various energy research and development streams suggests that zero 9332 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

emissions technologies are technically feasible and can be developed into affordable solutions for achieving large scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. (3) (a) The Australian Greenhouse Office provided $100,000 in 1999/00 and $100,000 in 2000/01 to the Australian Petroleum Cooperative Research Centre (APCRC) GEODISC Research Pro- gram. Geoscience Australia provided in-kind assistance valued at $158,000 in 1999/00, $248,000 in 2000/01 and $355,000 in 2001/02 to the APCRC GEODISC Research Program. Under the Department of Education, Science and Training’s Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Program for the period 1997 to 2004, the Commonwealth provided funding to APCRC for use in its approved research program. This program includes research into six discrete top- ics, one of which is the GEODISC program which is assessing the feasibility of geological se- questration of CO2 through injection into deep geological formations. As a core participant of the APCRC, CSIRO (through its Division of Petroleum Resources) has provided in-kind contributions of $300,000 per annum from 1999/00 to 2001/02 specifi- cally to the GEODISC project. The Australian Research Council (ARC), within the Education, Science and Training portfolio, will provide grants awarded on a competitive basis to two projects related to sub-surface se- questration. In each case the recipient is Associate Professor V. Rudolph of the University of Queensland. The titles of the projects and the amounts are: Multi-components gas transport in deep coal - $340,000 over 3 years (2003-2005), and; Se- questration of CO2 with enhanced methane recovery from deep coal - $660,000 over 3 years (2003-2005). (b) (i) Advice on recipients is provided in the response to 3(a). (ii) Advice on funding is provided in the response to 3(a). (iii) The purpose of funding and other assistance provided to the APCRC GEODISC Re- search Program was to research the technological, environmental and commercial feasibil- ity of geological sequestration of carbon dioxide in Australia. Part of this research involved assessing Australia’s potential for geological storage of CO2 derived from any source, and then injecting it into geological formations and depleted oil and gas reservoirs, as well as using it for enhanced oil recovery. The purpose of the grants to Associate Professor V. Rudoph is to support basic research to improve the understanding of aspects of deep coal seams related to the use, management and optimisation of deep coal as an economic resource for methane recovery, CO2 seques- tration, pipeline gas storage and underground gasification.

(4) Various projects in North America and Europe are being undertaken to develop subsurface CO2 sequestration. The Weyburn Project in Canada involves CO2 being transported from a power sta- tion in North Dakota to Weyburn in Canada for enhanced oil recovery. In Norway, approximately 1 million tonnes per year of CO2 has been taken from the Sleipner gas field since 1996 and injected into a saline formation located around 1000 metres below the ocean floor for geological storage. In New Mexico (USA) a demonstration project is currently underway investigating storage of CO2 in a fully depleted oil field. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1091) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9333

(5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Transport and Regional Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) Black Spot Programme Roads to Recovery Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government Regional Flood Mitigation Local Government Incentive Programme Rural Communities Programme Rural Plan Regional Solutions Programme Regional Assistance Programme (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Rural Transaction Centres Programme Understanding Rural Australia Programme (2) Black Spot Programme: 1996 Roads to Recovery: 2000 Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government: (general purpose grants 1974-75) (local roads funding 1990) Regional Flood Mitigation: 1999 Local Government Incentive Programme: 1999 Rural Communities Programme: 1998 Rural Plan: 1998 Regional Solutions Programme: 2000 Regional Assistance Programme: 1999 (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Dairy Regional Assistance Programme: 2000 (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Rural Transaction Centres Programme: 1998-99 Understanding Rural Australia Programme: 1999 (3) Funding provided through these programmes and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02, are as follow: Black Spot Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $170,000 $325,000 Roads to Recovery: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - - $9,168,776 Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $26,473,531 $26,922,954 $29,558,593 Regional Flood Mitigation: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $50,000 - Local Government Incentive Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $147,820 - 9334 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Rural Communities Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $279,743 $231,978 - Rural Plan: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $191,359 - - Regional Solutions Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $834,817 $481,026 Regional Assistance Programme: (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $240,640 $256,850 $237,270 Dairy Regional Assistance Programme: (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $1,165,078 $198,000 Rural Transaction Centres Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $155,000 $148,760 $10,300 Understanding Rural Australia Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $28,130 - (4) and (5) Funding appropriated for these programmes and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year are available in the Departments Budget Papers at the web site: http://www.DOTARS.gov.au/dept/budget/index.htm. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1094) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. (5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Hill—The answer to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows: (1) There are two Grants administered by Defence: • The Family Support Funding Program, which provides grants to organisations supporting Ser- vice families; and • The Army History Research Grants Scheme, which fosters research into Army History. (2) The Family Support Funding Program commenced operations in 1989-90. The Army History Re- search Grants Scheme commenced in 1993. (3) The Family Support Funding Program: 1999-2000 $34,193 2000-2001 $22,130 2001-2002 $93,379 Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9335

No Army History Research Grants were awarded to people living in the Gippsland electorate in any of the financial years mentioned. (4) The Family Support Funding Program - $1.25million. The Army History Research Grants Scheme - $50,000. (5) The Family Support Funding Program has approved grants totalling $72,298 to organisations as- sisting Service families in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. No Army His- tory Research Grants have been awarded to people living in the Gippsland electorate in the 2002- 03 financial year. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1109) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business and Tourism, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. (5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Abetz—The Minister for Small Business and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Small business and tourism are part of the Industry, Tourism and Resources portfolio. Information in respect of small business and tourism programs has been incorporated in the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 1106. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1110) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. (5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Alston—The Minister for Science has provided the following answer to the hon- ourable senator’s question: (1) In relation to the Science Division of the Department of Education, Science and Training, assis- tance has been provided to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland via grants under the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) and National Innovation Awareness Strategy (NIAS) programmes. The CRC Programme is providing funding to two Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) that have research nodes in the federal electorate of Gippsland. The CRC for Waste Management and Pollu- tion Control has 1 of its 5 research nodes and the CRC for Sustainable Production Forestry has 1 of its14 research nodes in the electorate. 9336 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

The NIAS has provided funding to the South Gippsland Secondary College and the Orbost Pri- mary School through National Science Week (NSWk) grants. (2) Funding for both the CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control and the CRC for Sustain- able Production Forestry commenced in July 1997. The two NSWk grants were provided in 2000- 01 and 2001-02. (3) Funding for individual research nodes in the electorate of Gippsland is not separately identified. The Commonwealth funding provided under the CRC Programme to the two CRCs is for use in its approved research programmes across all research nodes including those located in the Gipp- sland electorate. CRC Funding Year 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Payments $4,859,123 $4,387,795 $3,421,255 NIAS Funding Year 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Payments Nil $2,400.00 $4,598.00 (4) The CRC Programme appropriation for 2002-03 for all CRCs in Australia is $148.6 million. The NIAS funding allocated for National Science Weeks grants in 2002-03 is $200,000. (5) Approved CRC Programme grant funding in allocation for 2002-03 for the two CRCs with re- search nodes in the federal electorate of Gippsland is $2.8 million. The selection process for 2002-03 NSWk grants is presently in progress. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1111) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Services, Terri- tories and Local Government, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. (5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Gov- ernment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) Black Spot Programme Roads to Recovery Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government Regional Flood Mitigation Local Government Incentive Programme Rural Communities Programme Rural Plan Regional Solutions Programme Regional Assistance Programme (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Rural Transaction Centres Programme Understanding Rural Australia Programme (2) Black Spot Programme: 1996 Roads to Recovery: 2000 Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9337

Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government: (general purpose grants 1974-75) (local roads funding 1990) Regional Flood Mitigation: 1999 Local Government Incentive Programme: 1999 Rural Communities Programme: 1998 Rural Plan: 1998 Regional Solutions Programme: 2000 Regional Assistance Programme: 1999 (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Dairy Regional Assistance Programme: 2000 (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) Rural Transaction Centres Programme: 1998-99 Understanding Rural Australia Programme: 1999 (3) Funding provided through these programmes and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02, are as follow: Black Spot Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $170,000 $325,000 Roads to Recovery: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - - $9,168,776 Financial Assistance Grants to Local Government: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $26,473,531 $26,922,954 $29,558,593 Regional Flood Mitigation: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $50,000 - - Local Government Incentive Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $147,820 - Rural Communities Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $279,743 $231,978 - Rural Plan: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $191,359 - - Regional Solutions Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $834,817 $481,026 Regional Assistance Programme: (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $240,640 $256,850 $237,270 Dairy Regional Assistance Programme: (DOTARS responsible after November 2001) 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $1,165,078 $198,000 Rural Transaction Centres Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 $155,000 $148,760 $10,300 9338 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Understanding Rural Australia Programme: 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 - $28,130 - (4) and (5) Funding appropriated for these programmes and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year are available in the Departments Budget Papers at the web site: http://www.DOTARS.gov.au/dept/budget/index.htm. Gippsland Electorate: Programs and Grants (Question No. 1113) Senator O’Brien asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 17 January 2003: (1) What programs and/or grants administered by the department provide assistance to the people living in the federal electorate of Gippsland. (2) When did the delivery of these programs and/or grants commence. (3) What funding was provided through these programs and/or grants for the people of Gippsland in each of the following financial years: (a) 1999-2000; (b) 2000-01; and (c) 2001-02. (4) What funding has been appropriated for these programs and/or grants in the 2002-03 financial year. (5) What funding has been appropriated and/or approved under these programs and/or grants to assist organisations and individuals in the electorate of Gippsland in the 2002-03 financial year. Senator Alston—The Minister for Employment Services has provided the following an- swer to the honourable senator’s question: (1) The following programmes, administered by the department provide assistance to the people liv- ing in the federal electorate of Gippsland: (a) Work for the Dole; (b) Return to Work; (c) Transition to Work (replaced Return to Work in July 2002); (d) Job Network; (e) Indigenous Employment Programme; (f) Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (EESS); (g) General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme (GEERS); and (h) Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett employees (SEESA). (2) (a) Delivery of Work for the Dole commenced in November 1997. (b) Places in the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme (NEIS) were first available on 1 May 1998. (c) Delivery of Return to Work commenced on 1 March 2000. (d) Delivery of Transition to Work commenced on 1 July 2002. (e) The first contract period for Job Network commenced on 1 May 1998 and concluded on 28 February 2000. The second contract period for Job Network commenced on 1 March 2000 and will conclude on 30 June 2003. (f) The Indigenous Employment Programme commenced in May 1999. (g) The Indigenous Small Business Fund commenced in October 1999. (h) Assistance under EESS is available for eligible employees terminated due to their em- ployer’s insolvency from 1 January 2000 to 11 September 2001. (i) Assistance under GEERS is available for eligible employees terminated due to their em- ployer’s insolvency from 12 September 2001. (j) Assistance under SEESA is limited to eligible employees terminated due to the insolvency of the Ansett Group of companies from 12 September 2001. (3) (a) For details of funding provided through these programs for the people of Gippsland in 1999- 2000, refer to Attachment A. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9339

(b) For details of funding provided through these programs for the people of Gippsland in 2000- 2001, refer to Attachment B. (c) For details of funding provided through these programs for the people of Gippsland in 2001- 2002, refer to Attachment C. Attachments A, B and C must be read in concert with Attachment D. Attachment D provides vital information on the derivation of the data in the attachments and additional information about each of the programmes listed in the Attachments. Please also note that in the financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 the department delivered a number of programs that are no longer the responsibility of this department, including Regional Assistance Program, Dairy Regional Assistance Programme and Area Consultative Committees. A number of programmes delivered during these financial years have been superseded by new pro- grammes: Community Support Programme (CSP) was replaced by the Personal Support Pro- gramme (PSP) that is administered by the Department of Family and Community Services; and Return to Work was replaced by Transition to Work in July 2002. (4) (a) The appropriation for the Work for the Dole Programme nationally for the 2002-2003 finan- cial year is $147.009 million. (b) The appropriation for the 2002-03 financial year for the Transition to Work Programme is $10.227 million. (c) The appropriation for Job Network (including Intensive Assistance, Job Search Training, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme and Project Contracting (Harvest Labour Services)), for 2002-2003 financial year is $874,632 million. (d) The appropriation for the Indigenous Employment Programme for the 2002-03 financial year is $57.586 million. (e) The appropriation for the Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (EESS) and the General Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (GEERS) for the 2002-03 financial year is $85.183 million. (f) Funding for the Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett employees (SEESA) is not appropriated for any one financial year, however, $500m was appropriated for the life of the programme under the Air Passenger Ticket Levy (Collection) Act 2001. (5) (a) In the 2002-03 financial year, $403,833 has been approved for delivery of Work for the Dole (WfD)activities in the electorate of Gippsland. Work for the Dole activities are approved on a monthly cycle depending on applications received. It is not possible to predict whether new activities will be approved for the delivery of WfD activities in the remainder of the 2002-03 financial year. (b) Funding will be made available to Mission Australia under the Transition to Work pro- gramme for the 2002-03 financial year in the electorate of Gippsland. Transition to Work funds are disbursed in response to the number of participants that apply and are eligible within an Employment Service Area. The boundaries of the relevant Employment Service Area and the electorate of Gippsland are not aligned. It is not possible to predict the number of participants that may live in the electorate of Gippsland. (c) Job Network funding is not appropriated on the basis of electoral boundaries. The estimated expenditure in the electorate of Gippsland to the end of December 2002 was $3,207,000. Projected expenditure for 2002-2003 will be in the order of $7,000,000. (d) The Indigenous Employment Programme (IEP) is not appropriated on an electorate basis. However it is determined that expenditure to end December 2002 under the IEP in the elec- torate of Gippsland was in the order of $205,000. (e) The various employee entitlement schemes are national schemes that are demand driven, according to insolvency, therefore funds are not regionally allocated. Recipient electorates are determined by claimants’ postcode where available. Some postcodes cover more than one electorate and the information contained shows all relevant data for each electorate. Due to postcodes covering multiple electorates, some payments to recipients will be assigned al- phabetically to an electorate. This may result in a minor statistical anomaly. Funding figures are based on actual expenditure. 9340 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Attachment A Funding provided to the people of Gippsland in Financial Year 1999-2000

Programme Recipient Project Start Date End Date Amount ACC1 - GST SPO Gippsland ACC Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $16,000 funding ACC - IEP Marketing/ Gippsland ACC Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $20,000 Facilitator ACC operational Gippsland ACC Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $76,456 funding Community Support Central Gippsland Ac- Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $40,600 Program2 commodation and Sup- port Service Inc. Community Support Commonwealth Rehabili- Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $10,000 Program2 tation Service Community Support Employment Innovations Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $10,700 Program2 Victoria Pty Ltd Return to Work Pro- Job Futures Ltd Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $13,879 gramme 3CDEP Placement 2 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $4,000 Incentive 3Structured Training & 5 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $31,617 Employment 3Wage Assistance 9 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $22,368

Regional Assistance Centre for Workplace Developing Skills 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $91,425 Program4 Cultural Change - RMIT for Tourism and Hospitalitiy Busi- nesses in East Gipp- sland and Cairns - Stage 1 Regional Assistance Gippsland Regional Gippsland Informa- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $52,690 Program4 Economy and Ecology tion Technology Network Inc (GREEN Skills Audit and INC) Analysis Regional Assistance Lakes Entrance Commu- Gippsland Import 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $63,184 Program4 nity Health Centre Replacement Pro- gramme Regional Assistance Victorian Eastern Devel- Workforce Devel- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $28,215 Program4 opment Association opment in the Horti- culture Industry Job Network Commercial in confidence Not Applicable 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $5,243,000

Work for the Dole 244 recipients 36 projects 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $441,992

Dairy Regional Assis- PowerWorks Pty Ltd RePowering Pow- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $57,200 tance Program5 erWorks Dairy Regional Assis- South Gippsland Farmers Dairy Financial 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $98,334 tance Program5 Support Group Counsellor/ Business Facilitator - Gipp- sland Dairy Regional Assis- Gippsland Area Consulta- Dairy Industry 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $77,000 tance Program5 tive Committee Facilitation Officer Gippsland Dairy Regional Assis- Maffra Area International Agr “e” Business 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $45,834 tance Program5 Inc Facilitation Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9341

Programme Recipient Project Start Date End Date Amount Dairy Regional Assis- East Gippsland Organic Gippsland’s Organi- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $59,510 tance Program5 Agriculture Association cally Grown Future Inc Dairy Regional Assis- Victorian Eastern Devel- Food Industry Re- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $49,500 tance Program5 opment Association sponse Plan Dairy Regional Assis- South Gippsland Shire Jinshan Ducks - 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $29,700 tance Program5 Council South Gippsland Joint Venture Project Dairy Regional Assis- Maffra Cheese Company Maffra Cheese 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $88,000 tance Program5 Pty Ltd Company - Plant Extension Dairy Regional Assis- Patties Bakery Pty Ltd Pattie’s Pies - Manu- 1/07/1999 30/06/2000 $660,000 tance Program5 facturing Extension TOTAL $7,331,203 1 Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 2 Community Support Programme (CSP) was superseded by the Personal Support Programme (PSP) following the 2001-2002 Budget and is administered by the Department of Family and Community Services. 3 Indigenous Employment Programme comprises Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP),Wage Assistance, Direct Assistance, Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, National Indigenous Cadetship Project and Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Placement Incentive. 4 Regional Assistance Programme (RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 5 Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (Dairy RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. Attachment B Funding provided to the people of Gippsland in Financial Year 2000-2001

Programme Recipient Project Start Date End Date Amount ACC 1 - GST SPO fund- Gippsland ACC Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $69,850 ing ACC 1 operational fund- Gippsland ACC Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $120,900 ing ACC 1 - IEP Market- Gippsland Area Consulta- Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $50,308 ing/Facilitator tive Committee ACC 1 - SBAO Gippsland Area Consulta- Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $57,500 tive Committee ACC 1 operational fund- Gippsland Area Consulta- Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $114,900 ing tive Committee CSP 2 Central Gippsland Accom- Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $15,918 modation and Support Service Inc. CSP 2 Commonwealth Rehabilita- Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $4,788 tion Service CSP 2 Employment Innovations Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $11,962 Victoria Pty Ltd CSP 2 Mission Employment Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $37,520 9342 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Programme Recipient Project Start Date End Date Amount CSP 2 Central Gippsland Accom Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $37,520 & Support Srvce CSP 2 Employment Innovations Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $12,864 Victoria Pty Ltd

CDEP Placement Incen- 1 Recipient Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $2,200 tive Direct Assistance 3 1 Recipient Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $22,940

Structured Training & 3 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $9,053 Employment 3 Wage Assistance 3 11 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $27,151

RAP 4 South Gippsland Shire Barry Point Industrial 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $110,000 Council Precinct, South Gipp- sland RAP 4 Bung Yarnda CDEP Co- Business Development 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $17,518 Operative Plan - Bung Yarnda Timber Enterprise RAP 4 Victorian Eastern Devel- Value Added Timber 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $33,000 opment Association Industry Development Project RAP 4 Victorian Eastern Devel- Value Adding the 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $49,500 opment Association Wool Clip in the Omeo District and East Gippsland RAP 4 Gippsland Development China Desk Project 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $64,350 Ltd RAP 4 Gippsland Group Training Employer Pack 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $35,475 Ltd Job Network Commercial in confidence Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $6,306,000

Work for the Dole 267 recipients 45 projects 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $658,950

Return to Work Pro- Job Futures Ltd Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $30,368 gramme6 Employee Entitlements 7 recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2000 30/06/2001 $10,269 Support Scheme 7 TOTAL $7,910,803 1 Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 2 Community Support Programme (CSP) was superseded by the Personal Support Programme (PSP) following the 2001-2002 Budget and is administered by the Department of Family and Community Services. 3 Indigenous Employment Programme comprises Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP),Wage Assistance, Direct Assistance, Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, National Indigenous Cadetship Project and Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Placement Incentive. 4 Regional Assistance Programme (RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9343

5 Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (Dairy RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 6 Return to Work was superseded by Transition to Work in July 2002. 7 The Employee Entitlements Support Scheme is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of their employer from 1 January 2000 until 13 September 2001. The General Employee Entitlements Scheme (GEERS) is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of their employer post 13 September 2001. The Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett (SEESA) is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of the Ansett group of Companies after 13 September 2001. Attachment C Funding provided to the people of Gippsland in Financial Year 2001-2002

Programme Recipient Project Start Date End Date Amount CSP 2 Central Gippsland Accom & Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $202 Support Srvce CSP 2 Mission Employment Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $37,520

CSP 2 Central Gippsland Accom & Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $37,520 Support Srvce CSP 2 Employment Innovations Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $12,864 Victoria Pty Ltd Direct Assistance 3 1 Recipient Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $24,397

Structured Training & 1 Recipient Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $37 Employment 3 Wage Assistance 3 8 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $28,585

Job Network Commercial in confidence Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $7,088,000

Work for the Dole 280 recipients 43 projects 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $617,965

Return to Work Pro- Job Futures Ltd Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $50,860 gramme 6 Employee Entitlements 1 Recipient Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $373 Support Scheme 7 GEERS 7 4 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $27,637

SEESA 7 5 Recipients Not Applicable 1/07/2001 30/06/2002 $64,952 TOTAL $7,990,912 1 Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 2 Community Support Programme (CSP) was superseded by the Personal Support Programme (PSP) following the 2001-2002 Budget and is administered by the Department of Family and Community Services. 3 Indigenous Employment Programme comprises Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP),Wage Assistance, Direct Assistance, Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, National Indigenous Cadetship Project and Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Placement Incentive. 4 Regional Assistance Programme (RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 5 Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (Dairy RAP) was transferred to the Department of Transport and Regional Services in November 2001. 6 Return to Work was superseded by Transition to Work in July 2002. 9344 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

7 The Employee Entitlements Support Scheme is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of their employer from 1 January 2000 until 13 September 2001. The General Employee Entitlements Scheme (GEERS) is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of their employer post 13 September 2001. The Special Employee Entitlements Scheme for Ansett (SEESA) is accessible to employees who were terminated due to the insolvency of the Ansett group of Companies after 13 September 2002. Attachment D The following disclaimer statements must be read alongside Attachments A, B and C. Return to Work* Return to Work (RtW) programme places were allocated by Labour Market regions (LMRs) and expen- diture has been attributed to the electorates relevant to the region, giving regard to area of the electorate and the size and distribution of population within it. Year and participant numbers of RtW were as fol- lows: 1999-2000 (596) 2000-2001(3,851); 2001-2002 (7,455). RtW became Transition To Work (TTW) as part of the Australians Working Together (AWT) initiatives. TTW is now one part of the AWT transi- tional pathway, whereas RTW was formerly a discrete programme. RtW was primarily aimed at carers who had been out of the workforce for two years or longer. Figures are based on projected expenditures. Transition To Work (TTW) Return to Work (RtW) was superseded by Transition To Work (TTW) in July of this year. To date, there have been 4,046 commencements in TTW. The service is on target to place 10,000 people during the 2002-2003 financial year. Transition to Work Services is a key component of the Transitional Support pathway in the Australians Working Together initiatives. The service aims to assist parents and carers, mature age people 50 and over, those who are starting work for the first time, are not currently in full- time education or training, or are returning to work after at least two or more consecutive years’ ab- sence. Participants do not need to be in receipt of any type of income support from Centrelink to access these services. Job seekers participating in or eligible for other services such as Job Search Training, Intensive Assistance or Work for the Dole are not eligible for participation in Transition to Work. Indigenous Small Business Fund* The system used to collect the data in the spreadsheet is not a payment system. As such, financial allo- cation information is recorded on a whole of project basis and not necessarily by financial year. For projects that cross two financial years, 50% of funding has been apportioned to the first year and the balance to the second year. Figures are based on allocated funding, not actual expenditure. IEP Programmes (Structured Training and Employment Projects (STEP), Wage Assistance, Di- rect Assistance, Corporate Leaders for Indigenous Employment Project, National Indigenous Cadetship Project, Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Placement Incentive) The figures provided are presented on the basis that the address of the project or employer that received funding was in the specified electorate. It should be noted that in some cases this will be the address of a central office of the organisation and does not necessarily reflect the location of actual employment. Figures are based on actual expenditure. Job Network Programmes (Intensive Assistance, Job Matching, Job Search Training, New Enter- prise Incentive Scheme, Project Contracting (Harvest Labour Services) Job Network is administered on the basis of 19 Labour Market Regions and 137 Employment Service Areas, the boundaries of which do not align with those of federal electorates. Expenditure has been al- located to electorates on the basis of the location of Job Network sites. Small or zero expenditure against electorates does not mean that job seekers living in those electorates are not receiving Job Net- work services. The distribution of sites by electorate is entirely coincidental; sites are generally located near shopping centres and centres of employment. Job seekers choose Job Network members for a vari- ety of reasons including location, proximity to transport routes/Centrelink office, satisfaction of friends and others. Figures are based on actual expenditure. Employee Entitlements Support Scheme (EESS), General Employee Entitlements and Redun- dancy Scheme (GEERS) Recipient electorates are determined by claimants’ postcode where available. Some postcodes cover more than one electorate and the information contained shows all relevant data for each electorate. Due to postcodes covering multiple electorates, some payments to recipients will be assigned alphabetically Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9345 to an electorate. This may result in a minor statistical anomaly. Funding figures are based on actual ex- penditure. Special Employee Entitlement Scheme for Ansett (SEESA) Figures are based on a report from the Ansett Administrator and there are a small number of payments where the postcode does not match an electorate or where there are no postcodes. Where there has been a postcode relating to more than one electorate all employees residing in the affected postcode have been assigned to that one electorate. Funding figures are based on actual expenditure. Work for the Dole Programme (WfD)* All figures derived in this spreadsheet are based on funding approved. Funding to deliver activities has been linked to electorate by the geographic location or locations where the activity occurs (as advised by the activity sponsor). Where, as a result of this process, the locations associated with an activity fall into more than one electorate, the funds and approved places associated with the activity have been divided equally among the electorates involved. Funding figures are GST inclusive. The number of approved places for which funding is available has been provided because the number of recipients by electorate is not available. Funding and expenditure are normally linked to administrative areas which are used for a number of purposes related to the operation of a program, for example, Labour Market Regional (LMR), Employment Service Area (ESA) or Area Consultative Committee (ACC) location. The borders associated with these administrative areas do not necessarily coincide with electorate boundaries. Figures are based on approved funding, not actual expenditure. Regional Assistance Programme (RAP) *, Dairy Regional Assistance Programme (Dairy RAP)* Expenditure after 1 July 2000 has been linked to electorate on the location where the bulk of project occurs. In cases where a postcode applies to more than one electorate the expenditure has been assigned to the electorate with the greater geographic area. Figures are based on allocated funding, not actual expenditure. With the machinery of government changes following the 2001 election, each of these programs were moved to the Department of Transport and Regional Services, (DoTaRS). The depart- ment has therefore not recorded data against these programs since 10 November 2001. Area Consultative Committees (ACC) ACCs cover multiple electorates. Figures for each electorate have been calculated by dividing the total funding for an ACC equally among the electorates involved and are based on funding allocated, not actual expenditure. All figures prior to July 2000 are GST exclusive. Those post July 2000 are GST inclusive. With the machinery of government changes following the 2001 election, each of these programs were moved to the Department of Transport and Regional Services, (DoTaRS). This department has therefore not recorded data against these programs since 10 November 2001. Community Support Programme (CSP)* Year and participant numbers: 1998(3,352); 1999(5,772); 2000 (13,810); 2001 (17,579); 2002 (5,286). In the 2001-02 Budget the Commonwealth Government announced the Personal Support Programme (PSP) as part of Australians Working Together. The PSP, managed by the Department of Family and Community Services (DFaCS), replaced the CSP and improves on the CSP by expanding the eligibility criteria and tailoring the programme to better meet the needs of its participants. The above figures are allocated to electorate based on the postal address of the recipients. Funding figures are based on actual expenditure. Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) The figures represent all AWAs approvals between March 1997 and end October 2002. There will be some slight inaccuracies for the following reasons: • The total number of AWAs is slightly higher than the total number of AWAs by post code as some employees with AWAs did not provide their addresses. • Some employees indicated an incorrect post code (some that do not exist). • Some post codes appear to be missing from the electorate list, for example 0811 and 0821. • Some localities are split between electorates, for example, Carlingford has one post code but dif- ferent areas fall within four different electorates, (the program has allocated all AWAs with a post code of 2118 to the first electorate on the list). 9346 SENATE Wednesday, 5 March 2003

Small Business Incubator The figures provided are presented on the basis that the address of the project or employer that received funding was in the specified electorate. The figures are GST exclusive and based on allocated funding as opposed to actual expenditure. With the machinery of government changes following the 2001 elec- tion, this programme was moved to the Department of Industry, Tourism, Science and Resources, (DITR). This department has therefore not recorded data against this programme since 10 November 2001. Office of Labour Market Adjustment The Office of Labour Market Adjustment (OLMA) provided labour market assistance through specific regional, and enterprise packages when employment was affected by structural adjustment or downturn in the economic and business cycle. Following the 1996-97 Budget, the functions of OLMA were sub- sumed and the regional aspects of the OLMA programmes were refocussed under the Regional Assis- tance Program (RAP) administered by the Area Consultative Committees (ACCs). Working Women’s Centres Working Women’s Centres service the entire State and not just the electorate in which they are located. There are no Working Women’s Centres operating in Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory or Victoria. The following statements should be read in conjunction with the figures in this document. 1. Funding and expenditure are normally linked to administrative areas which are used for a number of purposes related to the operation of a program, for example, Labour Market Regional (LMR), Em- ployment Service Area (ESA) or Area Consultative Committee (ACC) location. The borders associ- ated with these administrative areas do not necessarily coincide with electorate boundaries. 2. Where additional information is held such as the location of a program, this has provided a basis to link expenditure to an electorate. The information provided in the attached spreadsheet is therefore an approximation based on information available. 3. Figures in the attached spreadsheet generally indicate monies allocated, not monies spent. However, it should be noted that all IEP programme figures reflect actual expenditure. 4. An asterisk (*) assigned to a programme indicates that allocated funding is GST inclusive. 5. Only those DEWR programmes administered in the examined electorate are detailed in this docu- ment. Health: Self-Extinguishing Cigarettes (Question No. 1149) Senator Nettle asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 4 February 2003: (1) To what extent is the Minister aware that tobacco companies, including Philip Morris Ltd and British American Tobacco, are now producing self-extinguishing cigarettes. (2) What information is there regarding the technology involved with the product of self- extinguishing cigarettes. (3) If the Minister is aware of the existence of self-extinguishing cigarettes does the Minister plan to adopt a national standard for self-extinguishing cigarettes; if not, why not. (4) If the Minister is not aware of such a product will the Minister look into the viability of self- extinguishing cigarettes in Australia. Senator Patterson—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) I am aware that there is overseas interest but not aware of any tobacco companies releasing self- extinguishing cigarettes on the Australian market. (2) (3) and (4) My Department will request the National Expert Advisory Committee on Tobacco to provide advice on the issue of self-extinguishing cigarettes including the technology involved in their production and an assessment of international developments. Wednesday, 5 March 2003 SENATE 9347

The findings of the Committee will provide an initial indication of whether regulation of the igni- tion potential of cigarettes and development of a national standard merits further investigation. If so, further consultation with relevant expert bodies and Ministers, including State and Territory Ministers, would be required.