COMMONWEALTH OF

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard No. 9, 2003 MONDAY, 18 AUGUST 2003

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SIXTH 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

For searching purposes use http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au

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 972 AM 585 AM HOBART 729 AM DARWIN 102.5 FM

FORTIETH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SIXTH PERIOD

Governor-General

His Excellency Major-General Michael Jeffery, Companion in the Order of Australia, Commander of the , Military Cross

Senate Officeholders

President—Senator the Hon. Paul Henry Calvert Deputy President and Chairman of Committees—Senator John Joseph Hogg Temporary Chairmen of Committees—Senators Hon. Nick Bolkus, George Henry Brandis, Hedley Grant Pearson Chapman, John Clifford Cherry, Hon. Peter Francis Salmon Cook, Alan Baird Ferguson, Stephen Patrick Hutchins, Linda Jean Kirk, Susan Christine Knowles, Philip Ross Lightfoot, John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) Macdonald, Gavin Mark Marshall, Jan Elizabeth McLucas and John Odin Wentworth Watson Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Manager of Government Business in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate—Senator Joseph William Ludwig

Senate Party Leaders

Leader of the of Australia—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston Leader of the National Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator Stephen Michael Conroy Leader of the Australian Democrats—Senator Andrew John Julian Bartlett

Printed by authority of the Senate

i

Members of the Senate State or Senator Territory Term expires Party Abetz, Hon. Eric Tas. 30.6.2005 LP Allison, Lynette Fay Vic. 30.6.2008 AD Alston, Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Vic. 30.6.2008 LP Barnett, Guy (5) Tas. 30.6.2005 LP Bartlett, Andrew John Julian Qld 30.6.2008 AD Bishop, Thomas Mark WA 30.6.2008 ALP Bolkus, Hon. Nick SA 30.6.2005 ALP Boswell, Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Qld 30.6.2008 NP Brandis, George Henry (2) Qld 30.6.2005 LP Brown, Robert James Tas. 30.6.2008 AG Buckland, Geoffrey Frederick (4) SA 30.6.2005 ALP Calvert, Hon. Paul Henry Tas. 30.6.2008 LP Campbell, George NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Campbell, Hon. Ian Gordon WA 30.6.2005 LP Carr, Kim John Vic. 30.6.2005 ALP Chapman, Hedley Grant Pearson SA 30.6.2008 LP Cherry, John Clifford (3) Qld 30.6.2005 AD Colbeck, Richard Mansell Tas. 30.6.2008 LP Collins, Jacinta Mary Ann Vic. 30.6.2005 ALP Conroy, Stephen Michael Vic. 30.6.2005 ALP Cook, Hon. Peter Francis Salmon WA 30.6.2005 ALP Coonan, Hon. Helen Lloyd NSW 30.6.2008 LP Crossin, Patricia Margaret (1) NT ALP Denman, Kay Janet Tas. 30.6.2005 ALP Eggleston, Alan WA 30.6.2008 LP Ellison, Hon. Christopher Martin WA 30.6.2005 LP Evans, Christopher Vaughan WA 30.6.2005 ALP Faulkner, Hon. John Philip NSW 30.6.2005 ALP Ferguson, Alan Baird SA 30.6.2005 LP Ferris, Jeannie Margaret SA 30.6.2008 LP Forshaw, Michael George NSW 30.6.2005 ALP Greig, Brian Andrew WA 30.6.2005 AD Harradine, Brian Tas. 30.6.2005 Ind. Harris, Leonard William Qld 30.6.2005 PHON Heffernan, Hon. William Daniel NSW 30.6.2005 LP Hill, Hon. Robert Murray SA 30.6.2008 LP Hogg, John Joseph Qld 30.6.2008 ALP Humphries, Gary John Joseph (1)(7) ACT LP Hutchins, Stephen Patrick NSW 30.6.2005 ALP Johnston, David Albert Lloyd WA 30.6.2008 LP Kemp, Hon. Charles Roderick Vic. 30.6.2008 LP Kirk, Linda Jean SA 30.6.2008 ALP Knowles, Susan Christine WA 30.6.2005 LP Lees, Meg Heather SA 30.6.2005 APA Lightfoot, Philip Ross WA 30.6.2008 LP Ludwig, Joseph William Qld 30.6.2005 ALP Lundy, Kate Alexandra (1) ACT ALP Macdonald, Hon. Ian Douglas Qld 30.6.2008 LP ii

State or Senator Territory Term expires Party Macdonald, John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) NSW 30.6.2008 NP McGauran, Julian John James Vic. 30.6.2005 NP Mackay, Susan Mary Tas. 30.6.2008 ALP McLucas, Jan Elizabeth Qld 30.6.2005 ALP Marshall, Gavin Mark Vic. 30.6.2008 ALP Mason, Brett John Qld 30.6.2005 LP Minchin, Hon. Nicholas Hugh SA 30.6.2005 LP Moore, Claire Mary Qld 30.6.2008 ALP Murphy, Shayne Michael Tas. 30.6.2005 Ind. Murray, Andrew James Marshall WA 30.6.2008 AD Nettle, Kerry Michelle NSW 30.6.2008 AG O’Brien, Kerry Williams Kelso Tas. 30.6.2005 ALP Patterson, Hon. Kay Christine Lesley Vic. 30.6.2008 LP Payne, Marise Ann NSW 30.6.2008 LP Ray, Hon. Robert Francis Vic. 30.6.2008 ALP Ridgeway, Aden Derek NSW 30.6.2005 AD Santoro, Santo (6) Qld 30.6.2008 LP Scullion, Nigel Gregory (1) NT CLP Sherry, Hon. Nicholas John Tas. 30.6.2008 ALP Stephens, Ursula Mary NSW 30.6.2008 ALP Stott Despoja, Natasha Jessica SA 30.6.2008 AD Tchen, Tsebin Vic. 30.6.2005 LP Tierney, John William NSW 30.6.2005 LP Troeth, Hon. Judith Mary Vic. 30.6.2005 LP Vanstone, Hon. Amanda Eloise SA 30.6.2005 LP Watson, John Odin Wentworth Tas. 30.6.2008 LP Webber, Ruth Stephanie WA 30.6.2008 ALP Wong, Penelope Ying Yen SA 30.6.2008 ALP (1) Term expires at close of day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives. (2) Chosen by the Parliament of Queensland to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. Warwick Raymond Parer, resigned. (3) Chosen by the Parliament of to fill a casual vacancy vice John Woodley, resigned. (4) Chosen by the Parliament of Queensland to fill a casual vacancy vice John Andrew Quirke, resigned. (5) Appointed by the Governor of to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. Brian Francis Gibson AM, resigned. (6) Chosen by the Parliament of Queensland to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. John Joseph Herron, resigned. (7) Chosen by the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory to fill a casual vacancy vice Hon. Margaret Reid, resigned. PARTY ABBREVIATIONS AD—Australian Democrats; AG—; ALP—Australian Labor Party; APA—Australian Progressive Alliance; CLP—Country Labor Party; Ind.—Independent; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; NP— National Party of Australia; PHON—’s One Nation Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H. Evans Clerk of the House of Representatives—I.C. Harris Departmental Secretary, Parliamentary Library—J.W. Templeton Departmental Secretary, Parliamentary Reporting Staff—J.W. Templeton Departmental Secretary, Joint House Department—M.W. Bolton

iii

HOWARD MINISTRY

Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Minister for Transport and Regional Services and The Hon. John Duncan Anderson MP Deputy Prime Minister Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Minister for Trade The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MP Minister for Defence and Leader of the Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Government in the Senate Minister for Communications, Information Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston Technology and the Arts and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate Minister for Employment and Workplace The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP Relations, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Leader of the House Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation Minister for the Environment and Heritage and The Hon. Dr David Alistair Kemp MP Vice-President of the Executive Council Attorney-General The Hon. Daryl Robert Williams AM, QC, MP Minister for Finance and Administration Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP Minister for Family and Community Services and Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women Minister for Education, Science and Training The Hon. Dr Brendan John Nelson MP Minister for Health and Ageing Senator the Hon. Kay Christine Lesley Patterson Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources The Hon. Ian Elgin Macfarlane MP

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

iv

HOWARD MINISTRY—continued

Minister for Justice and Customs Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald Minister for the Arts and Sport Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Minister for Small Business and Tourism The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP Minister for Science and Deputy Leader of the The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP House Minister for Regional Services, Territories and The Hon. Charles Wilson Tuckey MP Local Government Minister for Children and Youth Affairs The Hon. Lawrence James Anthony MP Minister for Employment Services The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Minister The Hon. Danna Sue Vale MP Assisting the Minister for Defence Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer Senator the Hon. Helen Lloyd Coonan Minister for Ageing The Hon. Kevin James Andrews MP Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs The Hon. Gary Douglas Hardgrave MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister The Hon. Jacqueline Marie Kelly MP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell Transport and Regional Services Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell Manager of Government Business in the Senate Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Christine Ann Gallus MP Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Frances Esther Bailey MP Defence Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the The Hon. Dr Sharman Nancy Stone MP Environment and Heritage Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Peter Neil Slipper MP Finance and Administration Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator the Hon. Judith Mary Troeth Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Family The Hon. Ross Alexander Cameron MP and Community Services Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health The Hon. Patricia Mary Worth MP and Ageing Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Warren George Entsch MP Industry, Tourism and Resources

v

SHADOW MINISTRY

Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Jenny Macklin MP Minister for Employment, Education and Training and Science Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Shadow Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Special Minister of State and Shadow Minister for Home Affairs Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator Stephen Conroy Shadow Minister for Trade, Corporate Governance, Financial Services and Small Business Shadow Minister for Employment Services and Anthony Albanese MP Training Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Senator Mark Bishop Shadow Minister for Customs Shadow Minister for Children and Youth Senator Jacinda Collins Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation, Science Senator Kim Carr and Research and Shadow Minister for the Public Service Shadow Assistant Treasurer David Cox MP Shadow Minister for Ageing and Seniors and Annette Ellis MP Assisting the Shadow Minister for Disabilities Shadow Minister for Workplace Relations Craig Emerson MP Shadow Minister for Defence Senator Chris Evans Shadow Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Laurie Ferguson MP Affairs Shadow Minister for Urban and Regional Martin Ferguson MP Development and Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure Shadow Minister for Resources and Shadow Joel Fitzgibbon MP Minister for Tourism Shadow Minister for Health and Deputy Manager MP of Opposition Business Shadow Minister for Consumer Protection and Alan Griffin MP Consumer Health Shadow Treasurer and Manager of Opposition Mark Latham MP Business Shadow Minister for Information Technology, Senator Kate Lundy Shadow Minister for Sport and Shadow Minister for the Arts Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Minister Robert McClelland MP for Justice and Community Security

vi

SHADOW MINISTRY—continued Shadow Minister for Cabinet and Finance and Bob McMullan MP Shadow Minister for Reconciliation and Indigenous Affairs Shadow Minister for Heritage and Territories Daryl Melham MP Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Senator Kerry O’Brien Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Shadow Gavan O’Connor MP Minister for Local Government and Shadow Minister for Housing Shadow Minister for Population and Immigration Nicola Roxon MP andAssisting the Leader on the Status of Women Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs MP Shadow Minister for Retirement Incomes and Senator the Hon. Nick Sherry Savings Shadow Minister for Family and Community Wayne Swan MP Services Shadow Minister for Communications Lindsay Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Sustainability and the Kelvin Thomson MP Environment Parliamentary Secretary (Manufacturing Senator George Campbell Industries) Parliamentary Secretary (Defence) The Hon. Graham Edwards MP Parliamentary Secretary (Family and Community Senator Michael Forshaw Services) Parliamentary Secretary (Sustainability and the Kirsten Livermore MP Environment) and Parliamentary Secretary (Heritage) Parliamentary Secretary (Attorney-General) and Senator Joseph Ludwig Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate Parliamentary Secretary (Leader of the John Murphy MP Opposition) Parliamentary Secretary (Communications) Michelle O’Byrne MP Parliamentary Secretary (Primary Industries) Sid Sidebottom MP Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Australia and The Hon. Warren Snowdon MP the Territories) and Parliamentary Secretary (Reconciliation) Parliamentary Secretary (Regional Development, Christian Zahra MP Transport, Infrastructure and Tourism)

vii

CONTENTS

MONDAY, 18 AUGUST Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, Australian Heritage Council Bill 2002 and Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2002— In Committee...... 13731 Questions Without Notice— Australian Defence Force: Allowances ...... 13746 Health: Commonwealth-State Health Agreements...... 13747 Health: National Health Summit ...... 13749 Indonesia: Terrorist Attacks...... 13750 Health: National Diabetes Services Scheme ...... 13751 Health: National Health Summit ...... 13753 Medicare: Bulk-Billing...... 13755 Family and Community Services: Child Support Legislation...... 13757 Taxation: Family Payments ...... 13758 Electoral Roll: Integrity...... 13760 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Health Insurance: Mental Illness ...... 13761 Immigration: Sex Industry...... 13762 Answers to Questions on Notice— Question No. 1584...... 13762 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers— Indigenous Affairs: Education...... 13762 Indigenous Affairs: Education...... 13762 Education: Report...... 13763 Education: Report...... 13763 Education: Report...... 13764 Answers to Questions on Notice— Questions Nos 1584 and 1585...... 13764 Questions Without Notice: Take Note of Answers— Answers to Questions...... 13764 Notices— Presentation ...... 13772 Business— Rearrangement...... 13775 Committees— Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Extension of Time...... 13775 Economics Legislation Committee—Meeting ...... 13776 Notices— Postponement ...... 13776 Children: Domestic Violence...... 13777 Documents— Work of Committees...... 13778 Environment: Carbon Dioxide Emissions ...... 13778 Tail Docking of Dogs ...... 13778 Assent ...... 13780 Australian Protective Service Amendment Bill 2003— Report of Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee ...... 13780 Parliamentary Departments: Proposed Department of Parliamentary Services...... 13780

CONTENTS—continued

Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, Australian Heritage Council Bill 2002 and Australian Heritage Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2002— In Committee...... 13803 Adjournment— Kaiser, Mr Mike ...... 13849 Henderson, Mr Ian...... 13852 Australian Red Cross...... 13854 Environment: Automotive Industry...... 13854 Rocky Creek War Memorial Park...... 13856 Documents— Tabling...... 13859 Indexed Lists of Files ...... 13860 Questions on Notice— Telstra: Contractors—(Question No. 1313)...... 13861 Telstra: Staff and Contractors—(Question No. 1314) ...... 13862 Telstra: Staff—(Question No. 1316)...... 13864 Health: Meningococcal Disease—(Question No. 1439) ...... 13865 Education: Agents—(Question No. 1584)...... 13869 Education: Providers—(Question No. 1585)...... 13871

Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13731

Monday, 18 August 2003 procedure only and not to the emergency ————— listing procedure, which is outlined in amendment (16). The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Paul Calvert) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., Amendments (10) to (16) are on emer- and read prayers. gency listing. Amendments (10) to (15) are relatively technical and do not have any sub- ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE stantial impact. They clarify the wording LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL concerning the emergency listing process. (No. 1) 2002 Amendment (16) alters the decision making AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL process for places included on the list via the BILL 2002 emergency listing process, to account for the AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL additional consultation process. Amendments (CONSEQUENTIAL AND (17) to (18) are relatively technical and ac- TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL count for the additional consultation process. 2002 Amendments (19) and (20) concern disclo- In Committee sure of the Australian Heritage Commission assessments and advice, and they ensure that Consideration resumed from 14 August. the heritage council’s assessments can be ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE disclosed during the additional consultation LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL period. (No. 1) 2002 That is really the crux of our set of The CHAIRMAN—The committee is amendments—the need for disclosure of considering the Environment and Heritage heritage council decisions with regard to Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, as which sites are of heritage significance. We amended, and amendments (1) to (40) on think that at the very least the government sheet 3045 moved by Senator Allison. The ought to agree—in fact it did agree, in my question is that the amendments be agreed talks with Minister Kemp and his advisers to. over the last few months—that this disclo- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (12.31 sure keeps the government accountable. It p.m.)—I need to continue my explanation of does not stop the minister from deciding not the amendments put last Thursday. Amend- to list. It does not stop the minister from say- ments (3) to (8) are to do with public consul- ing, ‘That listing won’t happen at this point tation by the minister. Amendment (8) clari- in time.’ What it does is allow there to be fies that, if the Australian Heritage Commis- disclosure of a difference between what the sion finds a place has national heritage val- heritage council says ought to be listed—that ues, the minister cannot refuse to list the is, what is assessed to be of heritage value— place or all of its national heritage values and that which the minister determines. unless it has complied with the additional I do not know whether, Senator Hill, you public consultation process. Amendment (9), have had a chance to look at these more care- which is about the inclusion of a place on the fully over the weekend—and I am sure you National Heritage List, changes the current have spent most of it on this legislation—but provisions concerning the making of the fi- I remind you that this was the fourth in a line nal listing decision so as to be consistent of different models that we attempted to per- with the amended nomination and assess- suade the government to address. Clearly, I ment process. It relates to the standard listing

CHAMBER 13732 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 think most of us in this place would like to discretion of the minister to list or otherwise. see the heritage council determine what is on As I said, this seems to me to be central. that list. We do accept that there is a political The Democrats did understand the politi- judgment to be made in some circumstances. cal reality and it is the case that this provides However, the very least that should happen is better protection for heritage—there is no that this requirement for disclosure be question about that. But again, at the end of passed. Amendments (21) to (40)—and I the day it comes down to the will of the min- remind you, Senator Hill, in case you missed ister to apply that protection. We think that, it before, that the government did agree with in terms of accountability and of being able us at some earlier stage but now chooses not to publicly demonstrate what is going on, to—mirror those discussed previously in this amendment is reasonable—even more relation to Commonwealth heritage listing than reasonable. This was compromise No. 4 processes. as far as we were concerned. I strongly urge Before finishing my remarks on this de- the minister to consider supporting it. We bate, I thought I would point to some of the thought there was no opposition to this at the statements that have been made on listing. end of the day by the government, but it As I said, it is a crucial part of this whole seems that the minister has changed his bill. The protection or otherwise of heritage mind. I would be interested in the minister sites can be politicised, a matter just for the indicating to the Senate what his delibera- minister to determine, or a process whereby tions have been on this matter. there is public involvement when there is Senator HILL (South Australia— disagreement. So when the council deter- Minister for Defence) (12.38 p.m.)—The mines that a site is worthy of listing and the government does not support the package of minister decides otherwise, I think it is rea- amendments before the chamber now but it sonable to say that there should be a process does support the general direction of many of which involves the public. I will quote from those amendments. As I said on the last oc- the joint letter that was sent to me from the casion, there has been a very long process of Humane Society, the WWF and the Tasma- debate on the listing process not only be- nian Conservation Trust. It contains a set of tween the political parties involved but with recommended amendments, and I think they the various interest groups. Whilst I could go are important. They say: through each of the amendments and express The bill should be amended to include a require- the government’s concern about particular ment that the minister be compelled to designate aspects of them, I do not know that it is a all heritage values of a place as national heritage constructive use of time in the circum- values or Commonwealth heritage values if he or stances, whereby I can say that at least a she is satisfied that they meet the national or number of these amendments have been Commonwealth heritage criteria. Further, there should be a presumption in favour of the inclu- picked up—but, we would argue, im- sion or retention of a place or values on those lists proved—in amendments that are to be de- if there is uncertainty regarding whether the place bated further along the line. satisfies the listing criteria or continues to have So, in terms of the efforts Senator Allison certain heritage values. has made in improving—from her perspec- I quote from that document because it is tive—the listing processes, if the Senate does typical of the positions that were put by con- pass the foreshadowed amendments she will servation groups. It does go to the absolute see that they have achieved some of the out-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13733 comes she has been seeking. In those in- ing the EPBC legislation—which was good, stances, efforts have been made to improve considering that it is new legislation—but it the drafting so that, if the bill is passed in did suggest some modifications, as indicated terms of the foreshadowed amendments by Senator Brown. I am told that the minister rather than these amendments, the govern- has accepted that advice in each instance and ment will be more confident that they will that the department is currently developing achieve the outcomes which Senator Allison the ways in which it will meet the commit- and others within the heritage community ment that it has made in regard to the proc- have been seeking. That would be my re- esses that relate to each of the particular sponse to the block of 40 amendments we recommendations. So my advice is that that are looking at. is work in progress. Senator Brown will Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.41 understand that, because the audit report is p.m.)—The Australian Greens support the very recent. amendments and think they are good ones. I Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.44 think it is the proper place for me to ask the p.m.)—Thank you. If the minister has any minister, because it crosses some of these written response to that report, I would be amendments, for a response in general to the pleased to see it. Because it crosses a number report by the Australian National Audit Of- of parts of the legislation, I ask the minister fice for January to June 2003. It is an audit about the report in this morning’s Age on the activity report which I am sure the minister erection of the Telstra tower on the Patri- has. Page 74 says that the office made six archs group of rocky mountains on Flinders recommendations to Environment Australia Island. I quote from that report by Melissa which aim, firstly, to improve the consis- Fyfe, the environment reporter: tency and quality of referrals made under the An 850-metre-long swathe—in places 12-metres act, which is the act we are dealing with; wide—has been cut through a patch of the rare secondly, to address the risks from referrals dogwood Pomaderris intermedia, listed under the of staged developments that may circumvent Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act. the objects of the act; thirdly, to improve The Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, awareness of the requirements of the act; Water and Environment is investigating the inci- fourthly, to strengthen monitoring and re- dent. view arrangements; fifthly, to finalise com- Telstra said its contractors were told only to make pliance and enforcement procedures and a 45-centimetre trench for a power line under an guidelines, ensuring that there are timely and existing narrow track. effective responses to all potential breaches Another plant, Isopogon ceratophyllus or horny of the act; and, finally, to enhance the quality cone bush, listed as vulnerable under the legisla- of public reporting on the administration of tion, was also bulldozed, along with many centu- the act. The report says that Environment ries-old slow-growing grass trees. Australia has agreed with all the recommen- The 30-metre tower, part of Telstra’s mobile dations. Could the minister explain how En- phone roll-out on the island, was approved de- vironment Australia is going to remedy those spite the area’s zoning as visually significant un- shortcomings that were listed by ANAO? der the island’s planning scheme. It goes on to say how the local plant expert Senator HILL (South Australia— Mr John Whinray, a very famous local resi- Minister for Defence) (12.43 p.m.)—I read dent, had come across the environmental that audit report, and it did seem to be gener- destruction—and there is a picture of the ally supportive of the processes implement-

CHAMBER 13734 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 cobra greenhooded orchid recently found on tion to the detail of this particular action and Flinders Island by Mr Whinray. whether it affects any Commonwealth val- Could the minister tell me what progress ues, that is something that I need some spe- has been made in discovering why Telstra cific advice on and I will report to the Senate made the extraordinary swathe—and there is when I get that advice. a picture of it—through this particular high Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.48 conservation area on Flinders Island? Could p.m.)—I thank the minister for that because I he tell me whether the species that are en- am very interested to hear what information dangered there have federal listing or listing there may be on this matter. On the matter of under this legislation? What is there in this Tasmanian heritage, it is spotty down there. legislation that is going to specifically whack The breach is very often what is honoured people like Telstra and/or its contractors who and extensive habitat, for example, of rare create havoc like this which cannot be un- and endangered plant and other species done? Mr Whinray points out that he does which are listed on both the national pro- not think that what has been done there will tected list and the Tasmanian protected list ever be undone. are repeatedly bulldozed in Tasmania under This follows on my noting of the Auditor- the regional forest agreement. General’s report about the difficulty of some- The minister might like to comment at this times getting to the very people who might stage because it is the next one that is very breach components of the act—and if Telstra important. He will be aware that there has does not know then who does? If Telstra is been an application to Dr Kemp, the Minister able to behave in such an environmentally for the Environment and Heritage, to ap- irresponsible fashion, then what can we ex- prove the Meander Dam at the headwaters of pect of other enterprises which do not have the Meander River. The planning authorities the wherewithal of Telstra or their stated in Tasmania decided not to go ahead with avocation for the environment? this project because, amongst other things, Senator HILL (South Australia— the area is a threatened habitat and a particu- Minister for Defence) (12.47 p.m.)—I have larly rich one for the endangered tiger quoll asked for specific advice relating to that mat- in Tasmania, which, if my understanding of ter. I do not have that to hand but will get it. this is correct, is listed under this piece of This is obviously another instance where the legislation, the EPBC. heritage—and it sounds as if this is princi- Not accepting the umpire’s ruling on this, pally natural heritage values—is protected by the Tasmanian Labor government of Premier both the state and the Commonwealth ac- Jim Bacon, who is the Minister for National cording to the values that are protected. If Parks, hurried through legislation after the they are national heritage values then, as de- land and environment umpire had said, ‘No, fined, they would be protected under the you cannot proceed with the dam,’ to over- Commonwealth legislation, and there are ride the heritage legislation in Tasmania so very significant penalties attached to that that it will proceed. Now the gatekeeper on legislation for breach. Whilst I am not very this is the federal minister. I do not see how familiar with the Tasmanian legislation, I on earth, if we are to have faith in this legis- assume there are penalties attached to that lation for the protection of the species and legislation if it relates to an asset that is pro- Australia’s heritage, he could give the go- tected by the state of Tasmania. But in rela- ahead for the flooding of a prime habitat—as

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13735 found by the planning commission in Tas- whichever way it might be, as to what he mania—for the tiger quoll, a large carnivo- needs to know about the issue of the Mean- rous marsupial with its healthiest stronghold der Dam and the threat it poses to this impor- in Tasmania. The matter is now before the tant habitat for the tiger quoll—and, I under- minister for the environment, Dr Kemp. stand, a number of other species—and what I know there is a great deal of anxiety other matters are entered into. about this particular habitat in the headwa- The other matter that impressed the Tas- ters of the Meander River both locally and manian planning commission was the failure statewide. It is a very important test case as of the government and the lobby group in- to whether this EPBC Act that we are dealing volved to be able to show that there were the with is going to be honoured by the Austra- financial benefits that were touted from this lian government. I wonder whether the min- dam. There was very good evidence that it ister could tell the committee what the pro- was not going to be as financially beneficial gress is as far as the minister making the de- as pointed out. I know the minister will have cision is concerned—and I think it can only the planning commission’s full report on his have one conclusion. Can he tell us whether desk. And I know that financial matters like there is a time line and what the process is that will be subservient to the environmental that is being undertaken to ensure that this consideration being made by the minister process is not listed by political actions, like about such an important endangered species those high-handed actions of the Tasmanian as the tiger quoll. I would be very pleased to Premier and government just a couple of hear if there is an expected date of decision weeks ago? and what the parameters are of the advice the Senator HILL (South Australia— minister has sought. Minister for Defence) (12.52 p.m.)—I am Senator HILL (South Australia— advised that the process is advanced and that Minister for Defence) (12.55 p.m.)—The Dr Kemp determined that the proposed ac- reference is on the web site and the details of tion was a controlled action in terms of the the proposed action and the triggers as iden- EPBC legislation. That triggers an evaluation tified by the proponent are referred to in that process which has been taking place. Dr reference. Detail, as it relates to any particu- Kemp will have to make a decision, ulti- lar known endangered species, should have mately, on whether the project can proceed been included in that reference and be on the in terms of EPBC legislation. Advice to him web site. As I said, the advice of the depart- on that issue from the department has not yet ment to the minister was that it amounted to been received but I understand it is not too a controlled action and therefore triggered far away. the Commonwealth legislation. Dr Kemp, I Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.53 am told, accepted that advice. That leads to a p.m.)—I wonder if the minister would be process, as set out in the legislation, that en- good enough to provide the committee with ables public submissions to be lodged. No the terms of reference of the minister’s in- doubt the proponent has put further informa- quiry to the department, which species are tion, and that information is being evaluated involved in that terms of reference, what the by the department. Advice will be given to process is for making an evaluation and in- Dr Kemp. In the end he is obliged to take deed if there is a time line. By terms of refer- into account other circumstances, which is ence, I mean the minister’s briefing, in the balance that is created within the EPBC Act, and no doubt he will do so.

CHAMBER 13736 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

At the time of the drafting of the legisla- the minister seeking other advice, or is he tion that was one of the differences the gov- going to go on the advice of the planning ernment had with Senator Brown because commission in Tasmania or will he simply Senator Brown was of the view that other take the advice from the biased point of view circumstances should not be taken into ac- of the Tasmanian government? count in the final evaluation process. It might Senator HILL (South Australia— be that the state government is putting an Minister for Defence) (12.59 p.m.)—The economic argument to Dr Kemp through his usual practice is that the department would department; I do not know. As I said, that is seek verification of a submission that did work in progress within the department at the argue some economic benefit. Exactly how moment. I was asked whether we had an in- the department is doing that in this instance, dication of a closing date and I am told that I do not know. If Senator Brown wants to we do not but I have also been told that the know, I can make those inquiries and see matter is expected to be completed in the what information is available. If Dr Kemp is reasonably near future. uncertain about any particular issue in the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.57 advice given to him by the department, he p.m.)—I thank the minister for that. Yes, I can require further work to be commis- am very strong on the environment being sioned. In the end, it is his decision and he given pre-eminence when it comes to envi- must be satisfied. I am sure Dr Kemp will ronmental legislation. I would remind the ensure that he will make these very difficult minister that it is not unusual thinking. The decisions on the best evidence available. World Trade Organisation legislation, which Whilst we have great respect for the states, the government signed and put through this the statutory obligation is on the Common- parliament in 1986, was made on the basis wealth if it is a matter of national environ- that economic considerations were para- mental significance, and I would expect that mount, and the environment and social jus- Dr Kemp would exercise that responsibility tice were considered zip when it came to with great care. making decisions by that international body, Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.01 with Australia’s authority. So there is a p.m.)—I would be pleased if the minister precedent for not being across the board in would furnish me with the information about an assessment of a piece of legislation. In how the assessment is being made and who this case, the environment should be seen as is involved, so I thank him for making that pre-eminent. That being said, can the minis- offer. Secondly, because water policy is so ter tell the committee what the other consid- important at the moment and this decision erations are—I know they will be listed on cannot be extricated from that, how is the the web site—and whether these include the government going to assess—because it must economic considerations and, of course, be built into this decision—the cost to the those political considerations which come community of an environmental flow down down to lobbying from the pressure groups the Meander River below this dam in the in Tasmania who are in favour of the dam, future, because that is a cost against the including both of the big political parties? I dam? Could the minister also explain how wonder if the minister could say how the the current evolution of government water financial assessment, which is the chief one policy is going to affect this decision by the of those other considerations, is being made minister on the Meander Dam? There are by the department? Does it have expertise? Is

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13737 very big environmental as well as other so- serve the natural system and those environ- cial and economic factors involved there. mental values that are obviously important to Senator HILL (South Australia— us all and that commercial exploitation is Minister for Defence) (1.02 p.m.)—I do not subject to that necessary minimum. It is not know the answer to that. The evolution of easy to apply in practice, but I think ap- Commonwealth water policy is, firstly, to proaching it in that way is actually better determine that important natural values are than the approach that I think is being advo- not lost through overextraction—in other cated by Senator Brown. words, that extraction for commercial, rec- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.06 reation or other uses is maintained at a sus- p.m.)—The obvious question that comes tainable level—and, furthermore, that the from that is: how do you make an assessment usage of such water goes to highest value that you can take away part of the flow of a outcomes. The determination of that is never natural watercourse and maintain its natural easy, particularly if you are trying to equate, health? That is absurd. As soon as you start for example, a recreational benefit against a to interfere with the ebb and flow and the commercial benefit. But, because of our rise and fall of a river’s natural reaction to prejudices, we think there is room for the precipitation and other factors, you start to market to assist in that regard, certainly be- have an impact on the environment. I want to tween commercial uses, and thus we are correct the minister here: it is not within the seeking to encourage and support regimes realm of human capability to be able to sub- that properly cost water, that allow transfer tract water from a river and still maintain its of water to higher value outcomes and that in natural environmental health. What has to be other ways seek to reduce waste and low- judged here is how much detrimental impact value usage. But all of that is after assess- you will have on the environment by taking ment and support for maintaining the flows water away and how far you will allow that that are at least necessary to preserve the to go. health of the natural system. Maybe as a result of the discussion about Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.04 the Snowy Mountains getting 28 per cent p.m.)—The Meander River currently has a returned to it—and I saw in this morning’s natural flow but has water extracted for vari- Age that even that is not sure—there is some ous downstream purposes. If a dam comes magic percentage below 100 at which you along, can the minister foresee circumstances can draw a line and the river will not be af- in which the environmental flow of a river fected. That is absurd; it is not true. What such as that will have a price put on it? you are measuring is how much detriment to Senator HILL (South Australia— the environment you are going to allow to Minister for Defence) (1.05 p.m.)—I think happen. There is no argument or debate in what I said is better than trying to attach to that; it is just a fact—it is just how life is on environmental flows a somewhat artificial this planet. There is a lot of obfuscation and financial figure. Our preference—and Sena- green wash that gets in there to say that we tor Brown indicated the direction of the gov- can take away 72 per cent of a river’s flow ernment’s proposed reforms—is that an as- and we have done the right thing to ensure sessment be made of the flows that are nec- what is called an environmental flow, which essary, not just simply the quantity of water is a misnomer for a massive impact on the but the timing of the flows and so on, to con- environment—that is, the water will get down there in a way that we can tout as a

CHAMBER 13738 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 good thing for it and maybe we will not have have some consequences on the environ- to look at the damage that continues to occur ment. If you adopt a policy of no extraction through taking that water away. of water from Australia’s river systems, that The Meander Dam is going to be the first would be an uncomfortable experience for in-stream dam on this river. It is one of those all of us who live in Adelaide, which is now rarities in Australia these days where there is totally reliant on extraction from the River not a dam on the river—but it is coming. The Murray. How do we try and assess what people who are proposing that would put quantity can be extracted sustainably? That is their shoulder behind another dozen or so not an exact science, but you obviously take dams being proposed in north-east Tasmania the advice of specialists and, in the end, and down the east coast in the near future. I make a judgment on the basis of that advice. do not think that the minister is right in say- If you find that you have made a mistake, as ing that there is going to be an outcome we have on many river systems in Australia which says you measure what is good for the that perhaps had not been thought through in environment and then people can pay for quite that way, then you have to find a way what else is required to come out of the river. of winding back the level of extraction. That It will be the other way around: people will is not easy either. One way in which you fight over the water they can get out of the may do it in the public interest is to purchase river and the highest bidder will pay. Under water for environmental outcomes. those circumstances, it leaves the environ- I have a little more information in relation ment with no leverage, unless the govern- to the Meander Dam proposal, in part to ment has policy. I am trying to establish what modify slightly my earlier answer. I am now the government’s policy is for defending the told that, in the first instance, the proposal inevitable impact of subtraction of water out was assessed by the Tasmanian government of rivers. Where is that defined? Is it true that on behalf of the Commonwealth under an it is not defined but left for an environmental assessment bilateral agreement. However, grab-bag at the end of the day: the old left- the Commonwealth then stopped the clock over mentality of the age of materialism and on the assessment process by requiring fur- resource extraction? I think that that is the ther information. Further submissions have case. If it is not, I would be pleased to hear been made by both the proponent and the from the minister as to the defined policy his Tasmanian government and they are being government has in ensuring that the current taken into account. I am further told that, in circumstances for rivers around Australia are this instance, the department sought inde- maintained or improved when it comes to the pendent economic advice from ACIL Tas- environment and that we just do not get ter- man. No doubt that will also be taken into minology like minimal impact, mitigation or account by the minister when he gets to environment flow—whatever that might make his ultimate decision. mean. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.13 Senator HILL (South Australia— p.m.)—The Commonwealth required further Minister for Defence) (1.11 p.m.)—I am not information from the proponent and the sure that I can say much more. I have out- Tasmanian government. That is two propo- lined the structure of the best practice pro- nents. Why didn’t they require it from the posal that the Commonwealth is taking to the opponent—that is, the environmental de- forthcoming COAG meeting. It is obvious fenders of the Meander’s natural values? that, whenever water is extracted, it does

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13739

Senator HILL (South Australia— velopments on the coast just to the east of Minister for Defence) (1.14 p.m.)—I am told that river? that the Tasmanian Conservation Trust was Senator HILL (South Australia— in fact given access to the additional infor- Minister for Defence) (1.17 p.m.)—I do not mation provided and was given the opportu- have information on that particular matter nity to comment on that. The TCC, which I and I will seek it. understand has been a principal objector in Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.17 this process, does seem to have been kept p.m.)—Minister, we raised questions here informed throughout and given the opportu- last week on the subject of those Norfolk nity to respond. Island sites. Could you indicate whether any Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.15 further information is forthcoming on those? p.m.)—Were the Meander Dam to proceed it In particular, are you able to give the Senate would involve an alteration to the flow obvi- the commitment that the nine properties with ously and an extra impost on the river. Who Crown tenure on Norfolk Island—the ones will pay for that environmental impost on the that were nominated for entry onto the RNE river that is inevitable if the dam goes ahead? back in 1997 that we talked about—will be Or is it a given that nobody will pay for it transferred onto the Commonwealth Heritage because it has no dollar significance to the List before they are sold? Commonwealth government—I know it does Senator HILL (South Australia— not to the Tasmanian government—or to the Minister for Defence) (1.18 p.m.)—There is proponents? a long answer to that question, which goes Senator HILL (South Australia— back to the whole process of land reform on Minister for Defence) (1.15 p.m.)—As I Norfolk Island. In relation to the nine proper- said, that matter has not yet been determined. ties that Senator Allison has referred to, I am It is under consideration by the department told that it is not a straightforward issue. I and will ultimately be determined by the gather that each of these properties has a dif- minister. Certainly, in some circumstances ferent mix of tenures and none of them will that I can recall, obligations have been be wholly owned by the Commonwealth. placed on the proponent as part of the cost That obviously does not affect the listing towards enhancing some other related or un- under the RNE but whether they would be related environmental benefits. I am not eligible for listing under the new legislation judging this, and I certainly would not want as a Commonwealth property would depend to prejudge it, but there are mechanisms to on whether that bit of the land that is in require a proponent to spend money on a Commonwealth tenure at the moment meets beneficial environmental outcome as part of the standards as set out in the legislation. an approval process. I have a lot more here on the complexity Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.17 of the issue, which is probably not what p.m.)—On a different river system, has there Senator Allison wants to hear. The bottom been any approach to the Commonwealth line is that I cannot give an assurance that the about the Apsley River in eastern Tasmania, processes that are under way in Norfolk Is- which drains the southern boundary of the land under their so-called land initiative will Douglas Apsley National Park, with a view be put on hold whilst these matters are as- to extracting water from that either in the sessed under this new piece of legislation if park or downstream for purposes of the de-

CHAMBER 13740 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 it passes in this place. That is an issue that is them onto the National Heritage List. We are not totally within our control in any event. talking here about what effect the sale of this Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.21 land will have and whether this legislation p.m.)—Perhaps the minister could clarify picks up those sites in any form. what he means by ‘land initiative’? Is this Senator HILL (South Australia— another term for selling the land? I would be Minister for Defence) (1.24 p.m.)—That interested in the complexity you are talking goes to the timing of the implementation of about. Maybe that document could be tabled, the land initiative. Whilst I have quite a bit of Minister, if you think that is appropriate. I information on that, I do not know that I am assuming from your response that you have a specific answer to the question that cannot stop the sell off of this land— has been asked. I might take that aspect on otherwise known as land initiative. Firstly, is notice and give Senator Allison a response a that correct? Secondly, is it possible at least little later today. to have a commitment from the government Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.25 that those nine areas would be assessed prior p.m.)—Senator Allison mentioned that the to the land initiative or sell-off of those prop- paper that the minister was quoting from erties? If it is not possible to do that, why might be tabled. That would help clear the not? air, so I wonder whether the minister would Senator HILL (South Australia— like to table it. Minister for Defence) (1.23 p.m.)—I am a Senator HILL (South Australia— little surprised, Mr Temporary Chairman, but Minister for Defence) (1.26 p.m.)—I can I am told that the assessment of the nine provide further information on the nine places will be completed by the Australian properties that were of concern to Senator Heritage Commission before the enactment Allison, which deals with the tenure and the of the new legislation; thus any Common- complexity of each site. I will table that wealth pieces that have been added to the document. It is headed ‘Norfolk Island Land- RNE would be eligible to come under the scape Area nominations’. I have some infor- new legislation if they meet the criteria set mation on the processes under the land initia- out in the new legislation. tive. I need to seek some further advice as to Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.23 whether I can table that. I suspect that I can. p.m.)—I am not sure that I understand the It seems to be factual; nothing unkind is said implications of that statement. If they are in the note about the Australian Democrats or assessed before the enactment of the legisla- anything like that. Having said that, I still do tion, that is one thing; but what happens if not think it specifically answers the last they are sold between the time of the as- question asked by Senator Allison. She asked sessment and the enactment of the legisla- whether she could be assured that the Com- tion? That is the key point. I would have monwealth pieces of land within the nine thought that if they are sold before the en- properties that she has outlined would not be actment of the legislation they do not have sold before assessment under the new legis- any protection from it. So there is not much lation. So it would be after enactment and point in being assessed unless there is also a assessment. This is assuming that they met commitment to transfer the properties onto the criteria under the old Australian Heritage the Commonwealth Heritage List or, if they Commission Act assessment regarding are no longer Commonwealth, to transfer

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13741 whether they should also be included within the minister about Point Nepean and the a Commonwealth list. Commonwealth’s role in that, and its place Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.28 of shade under the EPBC Act. The minister p.m.)—I ask one other question on this mat- will be aware that it is a highly contentious ter. To some extent it is hypothetical, but we matter which is unresolved but the Com- are dealing with hypothetical situations be- monwealth does have a role. There is huge cause we do not know when this land will be public contention about the future of Point sold. All we know is that it is up for sale. Nepean and I wonder whether the minister Minister, if an assessment is done which in- could tell the committee what the current dicates that the commission feels the values state of play is and what the influence of this of the property are such that it should be legislation will have on the outcome for the listed, is the government prepared to take environment and cultural heritage of Point whatever action is necessary to do so? Nepean. Senator HILL (South Australia— Senator HILL (South Australia— Minister for Defence) (1.28 p.m.)—Because Minister for Defence) (1.31 p.m.)—The vast each of these properties that Senator Allison majority of the land is being transferred to is referring to includes a range of tenure, the Victorian government and it will, as I although that does not affect listing under the understand it, form an extension of their na- existing Commonwealth legislation, only tional park. A small piece of land is to be those parts that are Commonwealth owned transferred to the local council, and I do not would be eligible for listing under the new think that is of particular concern to Senator legislation, and that requires a separate as- Brown. But there is a remaining area, in sessment as to whether those pieces that are which a number of the historic buildings are Commonwealth owned would individually located, which the Commonwealth wishes to be eligible for inclusion. I suspect that that is dispose of—it no longer being of need, in not a straightforward issue. It would be defence terms. That process is ongoing. The something that would be considered during Commonwealth has given certain commit- the assessment process. I think that is fairly ments in terms of restraints on the use of that clear cut but I do not know the timing in re- property to ensure that the heritage values lation to the proposed sale of any of those are preserved. The EPBC legislation does not Commonwealth pieces. That falls under a trigger sales per se; it triggers actions that are different portfolio than that of Dr Kemp. potentially contrary to national heritage val- Nevertheless, I will seek some advice on the ues. Therefore it would be the issue of usage matter. of the land, as it might affect any national heritage value, that could cause that legisla- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.30 tion to be triggered—and it has not reached p.m.)—It would be useful if the minister that stage at this time. could seek some advice on whether, if the properties for which the Commonwealth Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.33 previously had ownership and responsibility p.m.)—Does the Commonwealth not see the are not to go on the Commonwealth list, the need for national heritage in the sense of a proposal might include covenants or other competing needs spectrum? The minister just protections on that land. said that the historic buildings at Point Ne- pean are now surplus to the Common- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.30 wealth’s needs. There is again this idea—in p.m.)—At this juncture I would like to ask this market fundamentalist age—that if there

CHAMBER 13742 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 is not a dollar coming out of it, or a use possible to find a private sector purchaser which contributes in this case to government who is prepared to fund the proper conserva- performance outside the cultural and natural tion of these assets whilst at the same time environment, then there is not a value put gaining some economic return for them, we there. I ask the minister how on earth he believe it may be possible to achieve a win- could believe that if he is going to dispose of win outcome: not only is the heritage pre- such heritage it is not going to be eyed off served but it is also properly conserved. That for a different function. Is he not, by his own is the approach that the government are tak- philosophy, saying to people with money— ing to this particular asset. that is, to the market—‘See what you can do Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.37 with this piece of national heritage’? Does p.m.)—Minister, you said that there was not the very fact of divesting it immediately protection for these sites, but isn’t it the case expose it to market control of its future? that the only protection is that those who Doesn’t the government see other values, might buy this land are obliged—at least in outside the market, which are important to the first instance—to not object to the heri- communities and to the nation when it comes tage protection application, and that of to heritage? I think this is right at the crux of course if the sites are then on sold there is no what we are debating here today. Ought not guarantee that a third party would be obliged that value to the nation have been assessed by that requirement? Or has the government more clearly before the government began to now upgraded its protection of those sites? divest itself, saying that there was not a need Senator HILL (South Australia— for this heritage being in national ownership? Minister for Defence) (1.38 p.m.)—There I think many constituents would say, ‘There are a number of ways in which the values is a need for it, a very important need.’ It is can be protected against a subsequent pur- not based on the dollar sign but on other aes- chaser, and the government has that matter thetic, historical, cultural and environmental under consideration. As Senator Allison values which are part of the needs of a knows, expressions of interest were called healthy community, when you view it from and the government received a number of all aspects. expressions of interest which it has been Senator HILL (South Australia— considering. The government is now deter- Minister for Defence) (1.36 p.m.)—Certainly mining its next step forward. But, without the government see important heritage value detailing that next step because that would be in this site. It is a very important built and premature, the government has taken on cultural heritage asset that the government board this and certain other issues that were would wish to see conserved. Where the raised at the estimates committee and will government differ from Senator Brown is ensure that the values are properly protected that we do not necessarily see public owner- for not only this generation but future gen- ship as the only way to conserve such an erations as well. Of course, if this property asset. In fact we are finding that public own- was listed as a Commonwealth asset under ership in some circumstances is not always the legislation that is before the chamber the best way, if you look at the state of quite today and was sold by the government, it a lot of Australian built heritage that is in would be sold subject to those heritage val- public ownership—that governments have ues and the protections that are set out in trouble funding the proper maintenance and clause 341ZE of the bill. conservation of these assets. If it is therefore

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13743

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.40 part of Australian history as any senator on p.m.)—The question there obviously is: why the other side or on the independent benches. not apply those standards as set out to the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.42 sale of this Point Nepean property? What is p.m.)—But the point here is that that assur- the covenant that is being placed on the ance has not been felt in the community. property? And if there was not a covenant There are, as the minister knows, enormous placed on the property before the sale was misgivings about the future of these proper- mooted, why not? Is that fair to prospective ties at Point Nepean. I again ask: what is it purchasers? What is going to be done now to that can give assurance to the community, ensure that the heritage values are protected? short of a spelt-out covenant which is prop- What is the form of covenant—and it has to erly screwed down? Can the minister state be a covenant in perpetuity—that the gov- how he is going to assure these values? We ernment is applying to the agreed high values have here a process which is under way—it of this property? is not being considered; it is under way. Senator HILL (South Australia— There is great community apprehension Minister for Defence) (1.40 p.m.)—I cannot about it. The minister says, ‘No, be assured answer that at the moment because that is a the heritage values will be protected.’ It is a matter that is currently under government very simple thing, then, to say how that is consideration. What I have said is that this going to happen. I ask the minister to let the government is equally determined to ensure committee know how that assurance can be that the heritage values are conserved, for justified. What is it that we or, more impor- not only this generation but future genera- tantly, the community down there can hear tions, and will ensure that any sale process from the minister that is going to spread the properly takes that requirement into account. assurance he has to the bosoms of all those Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.41 who are very worried indeed about Point p.m.)—Can the minister tell the committee Nepean? how else other than by covenant the govern- Senator HILL (South Australia— ment might ensure those values are protected Minister for Defence) (1.43 p.m.)—As I by the inevitable string of private developers said, all that has occurred so far is to seek that will come along over the next century or expressions of interest. There certainly are two when these heritage properties go into purchasers who believe that they can obtain the private domain, as the government wants an economic return from the property whilst, them to be? at the same time, conserve the heritage val- Senator HILL (South Australia— ues in the short term and the long term. Minister for Defence) (1.41 p.m.)—That is There is a lot of money that needs to be spent speculative. There are a number of ways in in the short term. The Commonwealth is ac- which it can be done. As I said, the govern- tually expending quite a little at the moment, ment has those matters under consideration but there is a great deal more that is going to and has taken considerable legal advice on be needed to be spent if these buildings are the issue. The important point at the moment going to be properly conserved. The gov- is that I can assure the Senate that the gov- ernment is considering these matters and, ernment is equally as concerned to protect before moving to the next step in relation to those values that attach to a very important a disposition of the asset, the details will be made clear. But whilst the alternatives are being considered it seems to me that it would

CHAMBER 13744 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 be unhelpful for me to speculate upon them a process under way, but the government has at this time. no extant plan. It should have one. It should Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (1.45 be saying to the public at large that is con- p.m.)—I have a specific question. I thought cerned about Point Nepean: ‘Here is your we had an understanding on this, but it seems guarantee. Look at this. Our cards are on the not to be the case. Firstly, could the minister table.’ But it is not doing that. It is saying, confirm that the quarantine station, at least, ‘Trust us—coming down the line is some is on the Register of the National Estate. It sort of formula that you will be happy with.’ was my understanding that the assessments People do not accept that because, when that had been done and that this site would be has been said in the past on matters like this, transferred to the Commonwealth list. Per- it has been found to be hollow, full of short- haps the minister could advise whether or not comings and a let-down for those people that will be the case. Minister, have you con- who see the conservation of heritage values sidered whether section 14 of the EPBC Act as important. could be used to put in place conservation If we are dinkum about this the developers agreements covering these parts of the site? that are interested, the government that is As I understand it, they would cover current giving assurances and the public that is wor- and future purchasers of the site. Wouldn’t ried should all be informed on the same ba- that be a way of dealing with providing heri- sis. The problem is that the government and tage protection? the developers know what is going on but the Senator HILL (South Australia— public does not. It is time the public was let Minister for Defence) (1.46 p.m.)—I am not into this. I do not feel at all reassured by sure about the undertaking to which Senator what the minister has had to say. Where is Allison has referred; therefore I will seek the heritage values guarantee—the HVG? advice on that. I have said that our advice is People do not believe the government is go- that there are a number of ways in which to ing to protect the heritage values and they protect the conservation values against sub- certainly do not believe that developers who sequent purchasers and the government is buy at a prodigious cost and develop at a considering those alternatives at the moment. prodigious extra cost to make a profit are going to have heritage values right at the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.46 forefront of their minds. It just does not work p.m.)—The minister has said that the gov- that way. I say to Minister Hill and, through ernment is looking at a number of ways of him, Minister Kemp: for goodness sake protecting, variously, heritage and conserva- come out with this insurance plan on the tion values. The minister has said that people heritage values. It is missing. You should who are interested in developing the sites of have it at the front. If you are happy with it these heritage buildings can conserve the you should be able to give it to the public, heritage values and get on with their pro- but you do not have one that guarantees jects. What is missing, if that is the case, is these values. So far the clearest assurance I the government’s list of heritage require- have had is that the developers—people who ments and the means by which they are go- want to make this into a project—can con- ing to be strapped down in perpetuity. The serve the heritage values. I would like to see developer has no trouble with the heritage that. values being protected. The government is going to protect the heritage values. We have Senator HILL (South Australia— Minister for Defence) (1.50 p.m.)—I do not

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13745 quarrel with the call for assurances of this on the Heritage List—that is, if it is going to type. That is not an unreasonable call from be transferred from the old to the new and, community interest groups. I know that the perhaps prior to that, what its current status National Trust and such bodies are deeply is? interested in this issue. Senator Brown will Senator HILL (South Australia— not accept it, but the government is also and Minister for Defence) (1.53 p.m.)—I am told that is why it has been taking advice on the that the Australian Federal Police cottage is site from the Australian Heritage Commis- leased by the Commonwealth government. It sion. What I cannot do at the moment is de- has been nominated for entry in the Register tail the protections the government will im- of the National Estate. Therefore, it is identi- plement because, as I have said several times fied as an indicative place, which means that already today, that matter is still under con- the data provided to or obtained by the sideration. But the information about the commission have been entered into the data- form of protection would be made publicly base and placed at some stage in the assess- available before the next stage of the proc- ment process. The commission has not made ess. I think it is reasonable that, before we a decision on whether the place should be proceed to the next stage of the disposal entered in the register. Under the bill we are process, the public be made aware of the debating, if the place is inscribed in the Reg- protective regime we will put in place to en- ister of the National Estate on completion of sure that the values are protected against the assessment, the minister must have re- subsequent purchasers. gard to this when making any decision under Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- the EPBC Act, to which the information is ritory) (1.51 p.m.)—I too would like to take relevant. the opportunity to follow up questions asked Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- of the minister late last week, in particular ritory) (1.54 p.m.)—You mentioned the the general question about the sale of Com- EPBC Act. Can you clarify what you mean monwealth land, its transfer to freehold land by raising that in particular? Also, even and the timing of decisions about the trans- though the police cottage has an indicative ferring of any item on the list within that status or place, what are the options forward process. Could the minister provide details of for that process and what is the time frame what specific Commonwealth assets could be that exists around that decision having to be caught in that time zone? It is a similar ques- made? Can you also elaborate on the criteria, tion to that about the Norfolk Island proper- if this bill is passed, for the ministerial as- ties. Does that relate to any other Common- sessment of its worthiness? You said the cot- wealth assets that are scheduled for sale but tage is leased and I understand that it is a also have items on the Heritage List, and Commonwealth lease, but it has been sold what are the timing and implications for off as part of that precinct—that pocket of them? the water police station and the cottage. If In particular, I ask the question about the you could just clarify those questions, that police cottage at Yarralumla Bay here in would be helpful at this stage. . My understanding is that this is an Senator HILL (South Australia— asset that has already been sold. Could the Minister for Defence) (1.56 p.m.)—I think I minister clarify the heritage status of the po- need some further information on this one. lice cottage and tell me what is happening Senator Lundy might know more about this with the transferring of that particular item

CHAMBER 13746 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 than I do. It seems it was sold by the Com- of the nomination for Recherche Bay to Sep- monwealth and leased back, and it is being tember this year. When this assessment is utilised by the Commonwealth under that available, the commission will decide how it lease. If that is correct, it is no longer a will proceed in this matter on the basis of the Commonwealth asset for the purposes of the Tasmanian documentation. If the commis- new legislation. If somebody wants to nomi- sion is not satisfied that the documentation is nate it for listing under the new legislation, sufficient for its purposes, it will consider as any other asset, they have the opportunity what additional action is required to obtain to do so. I am not quite sure of what is now the necessary information. being asked of me. Progress reported. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (1.57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE p.m.)—I would just bring to the minister’s Australian Defence Force: Allowances attention one other matter. I will be asking about Recherche Bay later in the day. The Senator CHRIS EVANS (2.00 p.m.)— minister will be aware that there is a very My question is directed to Senator Hill in his significant plan for the protection of the Lake capacity as the Minister for Defence. Can the Condah area in Victoria with the anticipated minister confirm that as of today Australian national heritage listing being one of the cen- troops in East Timor will no longer be classi- tral parts of that project. Could the minister fied as being on warlike service? Doesn’t tell the committee whether that listing will be this have significant tax implications for in or will be considered for the very much those affected? Can the minister confirm that reduced list of places on the national heritage as a result of this change the average infan- register if the amendment to this legislation tryman could suffer a $190 a week cut to were to pass? their take-home pay from next week? Is the minister aware that there is widespread con- Senator HILL (South Australia— fusion amongst troops in East Timor and Minister for Defence) (1.58 p.m.)—I can their families in Australia over this change, provide some information for Senator Brown with Defence simply advising individuals on the issue of Recherche Bay. Whether it that they may be eligible for an exemption satisfies him or not we will no doubt find under the Income Tax Assessment Act? Can out. The site has been nominated for the the minister now confirm whether troops in Register of the National Estate. The Tasma- East Timor are eligible for an exemption, or nian Heritage Council has been considering do they face a $190 a week cut to their take- this place for the Tasmanian Heritage Regis- home pay from today? ter, which was maintained by the council under the provisions of the Tasmanian cul- Senator HILL—The taxation circum- tural heritage act. The Australian Heritage stances differ between an operation that is Commission has been awaiting the heritage warlike and one that is non-warlike. In many assessment by the Tasmanian Heritage ways it is a celebration that the government Council for the Tasmanian Heritage Register has been able to accept advice from the ADF to avail itself of information produced by this that the circumstances in which our forces process before proceeding with an assess- are operating in East Timor can no longer ment for the Register of the National Estate. reasonably be classified as warlike. It is true that the tax consequences now change, but it On 13 August this year, the Tasmanian has occurred in circumstances that most Aus- Heritage Council deferred their assessment tralians would be very pleased to hear about.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13747

Speaking generally, if it is a warlike opera- ceased to be warlike not only would the taxa- tion then the whole of the salary as well as tion consequences change but also the allow- the allowances are tax free; if it is not war- ance would be reduced. We decided that, like, that does not apply. So, yes, there will because this was mid-rotation, the best thing be a taxation consequence as a result of the to do in the circumstances for the soldiers’ government accepting that advice and mak- wellbeing was to continue the $125 per day ing that decision, but it has not been made allowance until the end of this rotation. for any taxation reason; it is simply a reflec- (Time expired). tion of the circumstances of the particular Health: Commonwealth-State Health operation. Considerable advice was in fact Agreements given to the forces that this decision was be- Senator LIGHTFOOT (2.05 p.m.)—My ing made and about when it was to come into question is directed to the Minister for effect. Health and Ageing, Senator the Hon. Kay Senator CHRIS EVANS—Mr President, Patterson. Will the minister outline to the I ask a supplementary question. I thank the Senate the government’s new record offer of minister for his answer. Minister, I am still $42 billion for state run hospitals? Is the not clear from that whether you are confirm- minister aware of attempts by state premiers ing the advice from Defence that soldiers to mislead the Australian public about the may be eligible for exemptions under section Commonwealth’s increase in funding? 23AG of the Income Tax Assessment Act Senator PATTERSON—Thank you for and whether you expect them to make those giving me the opportunity of putting on the applications while patrolling the West Timor record the actual facts rather than the mis- border. It is not clear to them and it is not leading information we saw in the newspa- clear to me. Why have the troops in East pers over the weekend. Under the new health Timor been left in a situation where they do care agreements we are going to be giving not know what the impact will be on their the states $42 billion, which is a $10 billion pay packet from today, and their families do increase and 17 per cent over and above in- not know what income their family member flation. How on earth this can be a decrease will be earning for them in the coming beggars belief. But it does not matter: Mr weeks? Can you please clarify what the ef- Beattie uses taxpayers’ money to take out a fects of the tax changes will be on the in- full-page ad to say we are going to decrease come of those troops and make sure that in- funding to Queensland. Queensland will be formation is delivered to the troops serving getting $2.1 billion more—in fact, Queen- in East Timor? sland gets a 20 per cent increase over and Senator HILL—As I understand it, this above inflation as well as being the first state has been made clear to all of the forces and to benefit from increases from the GST. If nobody has suggested it was unclear. In fact, Mr Beattie wants to tell the truth, he ought to to ensure that the government was reason- use taxpayers’ money to tell the Australian able to the forces, who we very much value public, in particular Queenslanders, that they and appreciate, we decided that even though will be getting $2.1 billion more—a 20 per the decision on warlike conditions was cent increase over and above inflation. To changing in the middle of a rotation the al- use taxpayers’ money in the way he has to lowances could continue as though the decla- misrepresent the facts is disgraceful. ration had not been made. So the normal thing would be that when the operation

CHAMBER 13748 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

If you want the information about each ments is not affected by issues associated state: New South Wales will get $3.1 billion; with GPs. Those doctors working at the coal- Victoria, $2.4 billion; , $1 face tell us that there is an increase, but it is billion; South Australia, $800 million; Tas- an increase in the number of people at the mania, $220 million; and the ACT, $148 mil- very high need end, those people who get lion. It was very interesting on Friday morn- admitted to hospitals. The figures from ing when Mr Corbell came out and said he emergency departments show that a signifi- was going to sign up to the agreements. cant number of people go into hospital as a What happened? He had been left out of the result of going into an emergency depart- loop: the New South Wales Premier, the ment. About one per cent of people who go Queensland Premier and the Victorian Pre- to a GP end up in an emergency department. mier had forgotten to tell Mr Corbell that A much higher proportion of those people they had a little plan—they had a little stunt who would be categorised as normally going they were going to put on, and Mr Corbell to a GP and who front up at an emergency was left out of it. He was hung out to dry and department end up in a hospital. had to run around on Friday saying, ‘Oops, I The states ought to admit that they need to didn’t mean to tell people I was going to sign reform. We have indicated that we need to up.’ address some issues. They need to move on, The state budgets have factored in the sign up to the agreements and sign up to the growth that the Commonwealth is offering reform agenda which we have been working them, so this is grandstanding. This is a stunt on for 12 months and which has been abso- which always occurs when the Common- lutely hijacked and put aside in the debate wealth is making its offer to the states. We over funding. (Time expired) are requiring the states—for the first time in Senator LIGHTFOOT—Mr President, I the history of Australia—to say what they ask a supplementary question. Will the min- will spend this financial year and at least ister further outline the benefits of the match our growth. The Commonwealth has goverment’s record offer of funding to state had to put up in front for five years what it is public hospitals, including emergency de- going to spend on state hospitals. The states partments? contribute to the hospitals and they run the Senator PATTERSON—The states are hospitals. The states have never been put supposed to commit to looking after people under the hammer like this before. They do who are sub-acute or not in need of acute not like it. They do not like having to tell the care as part of the health care agreements, Australian public what they are going to but the states are saying that one of their spend. The Australian public is not aware of problems is that there are older people who what some states have spent for the last two are in hospital who do not need acute care. years. We have offered them, through the health We hear Mr Carr saying that issues affect- care agreements, $253 million to assist them ing general practitioners are affecting emer- in addressing the issue of people who are in gency departments. That is totally untrue. If hospital and who are not assessed as needing he listens to what the President of the AMA to go to a nursing home but who require as- says, to what the President of the Queensland sistance—step down care or transitional branch of the AMA says and to what the Col- care—before they go home. This would lege of Emergency Medicine says, the num- mean that fewer people would have falls or ber of patients going to emergency depart-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13749 take the wrong medication and that more care agreements. I said that it would become people would go home and stay home rather politicised. than being readmitted to hospitals. If the The people organising the conference states were to sign up to the health care came to me with a program that outlined agreements, we could move on and address people who were going to be speaking, but those issues—the issues that they have been guess what? Day after day last week I had raising over a 12-month period, which I have people coming to me saying, ‘My name was agreed to discuss with them. We now have on that program. I was astounded that my areas in which we can work—coordinating name was there. Nobody has asked me.’ So care for cancer patients, quality and safety— the people organising the conference came to (Time expired) me on the pretext that very senior people Health: National Health Summit were going to be speaking at this conference, Senator WEBBER (2.11 p.m.)—My yet a lot of those people had never been question is also to Senator Patterson, the asked. As I said the other day, I do not know Minister for Health and Ageing. I must say, it if that is malevolent, disorganised or dishon- is very pleasing that she could find time in est, but it is not the way I would run a con- her busy diary to attend the parliament, ference. unlike the health summit. I ask: why did the Then I got a leaked email which said they minister squib the chance of arguing the were going to put on a stunt before I was government’s health policy to the high- supposed to speak at the Press Club. Yet this powered health summit in Canberra this was not supposed to be a political event. I weekend? Doesn’t the minister’s refusal to am sorry that some people were involved in attend this weekend’s health summit confirm that summit who were not involved in its the paucity of her case and the fact that her organisation—and some of them, I am sure, case is unable to stand up to the scrutiny of would not have been aware how people have truly independent health policy experts? Isn’t taken their names off—and were not aware the minister’s continual blaming of the states that they were part of an organised event that merely a diversionary tactic and doesn’t her was going to be pro-Labor. I do not believe non-attendance mean she cannot sell her own that everyone involved in speaking at that policy because it is so defective? event is of that mind but a number of people Senator PATTERSON—I didn’t hear all withdrew their names when they saw what of the question. I didn’t need to hear it be- was going to happen. I do not question Pro- cause I could have predicted what the ques- fessor Dwyer’s commitment to reform. I do tion was about. Some weeks ago the people question his sense in having that conference organising the conference—Professor pre the signing of the agreements. Dwyer, Mr Sullivan, Ms Illiffe and a few There is every possibility that we can have other people—came to my office to talk to reform within the agreements. We have done me about the summit. I said to them that it it under the old agreements. Mr Carr on the would be beneficial if they deferred the way to Damascus had some sort of conver- summit until after the states had signed the sion today and talked about a pharmaceutical health care agreements so we could have a scheme that Victoria had initiated, with peo- discussion in calm air—not in the rough, ple getting PBS items as they left hospital. turbulent air of the pre-signing of the health Let me just tell Mr Carr that that was a gov- ernment initiative which three states have

CHAMBER 13750 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 taken up. New South Wales has not bothered Senator PATTERSON—For Senator to do it—and they have had five years to do Webber’s information, I have gone to every it. Mr Carr needs to get hold of the facts, scheduled health ministers’ meeting. I do not debate the issues appropriately and also sign go to stunts that the states put on; I go to up to the agreements and then continue in a scheduled health ministers’ meetings. I went way that we will do—because I have a rea- to the one two weeks ago and I asked the sonable relationship with those health minis- states to talk about reform. I identified the ters—to undertake reform in order, for ex- areas where our officers had said, ‘We can do ample, to streamline care for cancer patients, it and no more money is necessary.’ It was to deliver better quality services to people about cancer care coordination, quality and with mental health illnesses, to ensure that safety, delivering better mental health care people who are old but who do not need to and the Pathways Home program for older go to a nursing home have a transition from people. Did the states want to discuss those hospital to home and to improve quality and issues? Did the health ministers want to dis- safety. These are all items that we addressed cuss them? in that reform process. I told them that if they did not discuss re- Professor Dwyer has never once accepted form I would go out and tell people that they the fact that we have improved doctor num- would not discuss it. They would not discuss bers. During those reform debates they said it. They still wanted to talk about money. We we did not have enough medical graduates. are giving the states $10 billion more, a 17 In conjunction with Mr Ruddock, I produced per cent increase, when they sign up, and 107 new doctors in about three months to they are going to sign up—Corbell has indi- work in the public hospitals to relieve the cated that they are going to sign up! He just stress on their interns. Never once did they fluffed it on Friday and gave the game away. say that this was part of the reform discus- This is all a stunt. It is all grandstanding. sion. I am happy to talk about reform. I am They will sign. It happens every time we not happy to talk about it when the agenda is have it. Every health minister who has gone being driven in a political way. I am happy to through a health care agreement—Michael talk about it when they have signed the Wooldridge, —suffered agreements and we can actually have a sen- the same effects of the states putting on a sible discussion. The forum was advising the stunt. (Time expired) states not to sign the agreements. How on Indonesia: Terrorist Attacks earth could I support that? Senator CHAPMAN (South Australia) Senator WEBBER—Mr President, I ask (2.18 p.m.)—I direct my question to the a supplementary question. Isn’t this the third Minister for Justice and Customs. Will the time the minister has failed to front at health minister update the Senate on recent signifi- meetings or summit this year? Not just once cant developments in the hunt for those re- was she too busy to meet with health profes- sponsible for the Bali bombings? sionals. Why has the minister shown such a Senator ELLISON—Last week we saw a lack of confidence in her own case? Is it that significant development in relation to the the continuing drop in private health insur- arrest of Hambali. That was an exercise ance numbers under her watch is eroding the which was carried out by the United States basis of the Commonwealth’s offer and government and the Thai authorities and it means growing pressure on our public health demonstrates yet again the importance of system?

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13751 cooperation in the region in the fight against When one looks at the great work that has terrorism. Mr Hambali is a crucial figure in already been done we see that there are cur- relation to investigations which are continu- rently 36 people in custody in Indonesia for ing in South-East Asia. It is alleged that he is offences relating directly to, or ancillary to, the architect of the Bali bombings. He is also the Bali bombings. We have recently seen believed to have met with two of the Sep- the cooperative efforts of the Australian Fed- tember 11 hijackers, and their activity re- eral Police with Indonesian authorities in sulted in the catastrophic events in New relation to the bombing of the Marriott hotel York. in Jakarta and we have seen great progress He is also suspected of an involvement in made in that investigation. All this demon- the recent bombing of the Marriott hotel and strates the importance of working together is blamed for around 19 deaths in Indonesia with other countries in the fight against ter- on Christmas Eve 2000 when 20 bombs went rorism. Our relationship with the United off simultaneously in a number of churches. States will stand us in good stead in relation He is also believed to have directed a bomb to this. attack on a train station in Manila in Decem- I also want to congratulate the Thai au- ber 2000 that killed 22 people. When you thorities on the work that Thailand carried look at those situations you can see the im- out in this matter. We have had an excellent portance of the arrest of this man. working relationship with the Thai authori- The American authorities have stated that ties and continue to do so. Thailand has they will cooperate with the Australians, and played a crucial role in the war against ter- I can confirm that the Australian Federal Po- rorism and also in the fight against transna- lice will be seeking approval from the rele- tional crime. This has been a great break- vant authorities to interview Hambali con- through. We applaud it and we congratulate cerning the Bali bombings and other plots the Thai and American authorities on the and events he has been allegedly involved in. arrest of Hambali. This has been a great breakthrough. Hambali Health: National Diabetes Services has been a key figure in investigations in Scheme South-East Asia and this has come about as a Senator MACKAY (2.22 p.m.)—My result of great cooperative efforts through question is to Senator Patterson, the Minister our intelligence agencies. for Health and Ageing. Does the minister It does highlight the crucial nature of the know there are around 1,500 Australians who relationship we have with the United States suffer the most acute type of diabetes, so- of America. In our fight against terrorism we called ‘brittle diabetes’, and need to use an are crucial allies of that country and, as the insulin pump rather than manual injection Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, methods in order to maintain their glucose has said, they will cooperate with Australian levels? Is the minister aware that the insulin authorities in relation to information gained pump costs around $6,500 and that ancillary from Hambali concerning alleged terrorist items for the pump, including cannula lines events. This is extremely important for Aus- and needles, cost about $2,700 annually? tralian intelligence agencies and the Austra- Why has the refused to lian Federal Police in the war against terror- list either the pump or its ancillary equip- ism in South-East Asia. ment on the National Diabetes Services Scheme, putting this life-saving treatment

CHAMBER 13752 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 out of reach of those Australians with brittle depending on the uptake of pumps among diabetes who cannot afford it? Does the min- diabetics. The challenge is to find a way of ister realise that her department has approved managing the costs while ensuring the most criteria for limiting the number of claims that effective use and the best health outcomes. could be made by insulin pump users but has We are committed to ensuring that Australia been stopped in its tracks by her refusal to continues to play a leading role in diabetes approve the listing of the pump ancillaries on research and service provision. Our strate- the subsidy scheme? gies ensure that both health professionals and Senator PATTERSON—As I have said people with diabetes are well positioned to before in this place, there are huge demands improve the prevention, early detection and on the public purse in terms of health. Every management of diabetes. time we turn around there is another issue The total 2003-04 budget estimate for that is very worthy and very demanding of Commonwealth spending on diabetes initia- the health fund. I remind honourable senators tives is $300 million. Our commitment to that the medication we have just put on the diabetes is evidenced by this government PBS for arthritis will cost $100 million a championing the establishment of diabetes as year for 9,000 people. We need to always a national health priority area in 1996 in re- look at the enormous demands there are on sponse to the increasing burden of diabetes the health bill. Two applications have been on the Australian community. People with received from the manufacturer of the latest diabetes are served well by the government’s generation of insulin infusion pumps for two key programs that provide subsidised consideration of subsidy for the consumables access to a range of essential diabetic prod- of these pumps to be included in the National ucts and services, the National Diabetes Ser- Diabetes Services Scheme. A decision on vices Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Bene- subsidising these products will take into con- fits Scheme. These schemes provide insulin, sideration the health benefits provided by the diagnostic agents and syringes at heavily products, the overall cost to government and subsidised prices. Government expenditure the competing priorities for health expendi- on diabetic products for these schemes for ture. Insulin infusion pumps deliver a con- 2002-03 was nearly $260 million, an in- stant dose of insulin that is particularly bene- crease of $27 million or 11.5 per cent over ficial to people with type 1 diabetes who the previous year. In 1999 the government cannot adequately control their blood glu- committed $2.3 million per annum to the cose levels. National Diabetes Strategy, which is en- An expert advisory panel convened by dorsed by all Australian health ministers. The Diabetes Australia has provided advice on strategy provides a focus to coordinate the the health benefits of the new generation of wide-ranging activities being undertaken these products. The panel concluded that the across Australia to improve the early detec- new products are superior to the currently tion, prevention and management of diabe- listed products, with a lower incidence of tes. blockage and kinkage and a lower risk of In the last 18 months this government has diabetic side effects. However, the cost of introduced a world first program to improve consumables is high, at around $200 per the care of people with diabetes through gen- month for each patient, and the overall cost eral practice, with funding of over $43.4 mil- to government of subsidising these could run lion over four years. It is a very successful into tens of millions of dollars per annum, program for diabetes management in general

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13753 practice, and I think it is a great initiative of on diabetic products for 2002-03 was nearly the Howard government. The program repre- $260 million. It increased by $27 million or sents a national approach to improving the 11.5 per cent over the previous year. (Time prevention, early diagnosis and management expired) of people with diabetes through the provision Health: National Health Summit of incentive payments to general practitio- Senator ALLISON (2.28 p.m.)—My ners. question is also to the Minister for Health Senator MACKAY—Mr President, I ask and Ageing. Given that the minister has re- a supplementary question. Minister, isn’t it fused to attend the national health summit, the case that since the inception of the Na- calling it a stunt, which participants does the tional Diabetes Services Scheme by the minister suggest are political stooges? Is it Hawke government in 1987 subsidy of life- Catholic Health Australia, who said: saving technology for Australians with dia- Last year over 60 per cent of people with a di- betes has in fact been the responsibility of agnosed mental disorder did not receive an ap- the Commonwealth government? Minister, propriate service and up to 2,000 elderly hospital isn’t it also the case that there would be con- patients waited for nursing beds ... siderable savings to the taxpayer if the pump And later: and ancillaries were subsidised because there Yet the Commonwealth wants to sign new would be fewer Australians needing treat- agreements devoid of any plans to improve health ment for renal failure, cardiovascular disease services... and retinopathy? Why does the minister’s Minister, given that those at the summit rep- incompetence in dealing with serious health policy or practice mean that diabetes suffer- resent clinicians and health providers, who ers are losing out under the Howard govern- actually do know what is going on at the pa- ment? tient level, which group do you identify as political stooges? Senator PATTERSON—Thank you very much—it is very easy to take a cheap shot. Senator PATTERSON—Mr President, it But I have actually got the responsibility of is very unhygienic for Senator Allison to put words into my mouth. I did not call them the enormous demands on health—as I said, stooges. I have never called them stooges, for example, there is one medication costing $100 million for 9,000 sufferers of arthritis, and I ask her to refrain from saying that I and we have just extended it to two others called them stooges. What I have said is that it is a pity that some of these people who for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and for chronic myeloid leukaemia, which will cost went to the forum were probably not aware $700 million over four years. It is very easy of what was happening behind the scenes. I have actually said on air today that I know for Senator Mackay to get up and choose one item, one group. As much as their demands that Professor Dwyer is very committed to and their concerns are very important, I have the issue of reform, I just happen to disagree with the way he is going about it. I know that the responsibility—not the easy task that Senator Mackay has got of taking one group Francis Sullivan is very committed to re- and identifying it—and the challenge of find- form. I just happen to disagree with the way he is going about it. There is Ms Iliffe and all ing a way of managing the costs while ensur- the others who were involved in organising ing the most effective use of and best out- comes for those products. On that scheme this event. Everybody can decide they are she mentioned, the government expenditure going to have summits, and there are sum-

CHAMBER 13754 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 mits all the time with people who are ex- there who has just received our Cochran col- perts. laboration prize looking at best practice. By The thing is that I asked them when they a simple method of identifying patients at came to me, if they were really committed to risk and deciding which patients should wear reform, to have this discussion outside the a stocking, which patients should wear a debate about the health care agreement fund- stocking and take a drug and which patients ing. It gets confused, it gets lost and it gets should wear a stocking and take a different politicised when a summit is held two weeks drug, he has reduced deep vein thrombosis before the health care agreements are deter- by 25 per cent. Imagine the savings to that mined. They came to me and said, ‘We’re hospital. Imagine the savings to those people not going to have politicians speaking at it. It in terms of pain and suffering and being in is not going to be political.’ Then I suddenly hospital for four or five weeks with deep found a leaked email that said that I had re- vein thrombosis. That is the sort of reform fused to speak—I had not actually had an we need, reform at the interface between invitation to speak at the stage when the primary health care and acute care. email went around—and then I found out I am not going to be embroiled in a dis- that Mr Carr was going to speak. I was then cussion when I asked them to hold the sum- told, ‘He’s only speaking at lunchtime. He is mit after the funding arrangement and when I not on the program.’ Today, I find that he is indicated to them that I was committed to on the program and he is speaking. Really, reform. I did that with those eight health you have to begin to wonder. I am not saying ministers—at great risk to me. I had a rea- that people are stooges; I am saying that they sonable working relationship with them— are naive, at the least, to think this was an and I still have—and after the health care appropriate way and a genuine attempt to agreements are signed I will work with them. discuss reform. The ministers have already come to me and We have had a process with nine commit- said that they want to work with me. When tees, and I stuck my neck out and I told they have stopped this argy-bargy, when the them. When the health minister said, ‘We premiers have let them get on with debating want to have a discussion about reform,’ I and discussing reforms with me—like the said, ‘As long as it is reform on both sides, I $6½ million we have just given Tasmania for will engage in this debate.’ We have had that after-hours care to reduce the number of debate over nine months, but it got lost in people who call doctors out unnecessarily November, December, January, February and and which will take the strain off the doctors March in a debate about funding. When Mr and relieve public hospitals of people ap- Craig Knowles was health minister, he said pearing at night when they do not really need to me twice at that meeting and in front of all to—we can have the sorts of reforms that those ministers, ‘We can do better with the help not only doctors and patients but also money we’ve got. We don’t need more.’ We public hospitals. When we have got over the are giving them more, 17 per cent more. We argy-bargy about funding, we can move for- spend $40 billion a year on health between ward in a sensible way. the state and the federal governments. I be- Senator ALLISON—Mr President, I ask lieve we can do it better. a supplementary question. Professor Dwyer You have only to go across to Canberra said: Hospital to find a young man working over All of us are fed up with trying to improve the health care system with this current divisiveness.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13755

Is Professor John Dwyer naive, is he politi- towns such as Hillston, Lake Cargelligo, cised and, if so, why did you suggest that? Holbrook, Grenfell and Macksville, what she Minister, you said today that you are willing will do to make sure that families in those to deny the states the 17 per cent so-called towns and regions have access to a doctor extra funding if they do not sign the health who bulk-bills? care agreements and that you will cut the Senator PATTERSON—I have said a offer by $1 billion over four years. Does the number of times in this chamber that we in- minister consider that political brinkmanship herited an absolute mal-distribution of gen- with taxpayer dollars is an acceptable trade- eral practitioners when we can into govern- off for the sick and elderly who are queued ment. We had far too many doctors located in on trolleys in emergency departments? the cities and far too few in country areas. Senator PATTERSON—Senator Allison The honourable senator asked me why they will never be in the position I am in—never are not bulk-billing. There are myriad rea- ever. She will never be a minister. She will sons. There is a plethora of reasons why doc- never have to actually make a decision. She tors do not bulk-bill. You only have to look finds it very difficult to make decisions. It is at that article by Sue Dunlevy in today’s very hard to get Senator Allison over the line Daily Telegraph that was referred to. A doc- with a decision, but I had to make a decision. tor from Griffith—and I have forgotten her We have given the states a 17 per cent in- name—said in response to a question at the crease over and above inflation, a $10 billion Medicare inquiry that doctors should not increase coming off a much higher base that have to bulk-bill. I cannot remember the ex- will actually relieve the pressure on public act words, but in effect she said that doctors hospitals through an increase in membership should not have to bulk-bill, that it is not free of private health insurance funds. We have and that doctors should charge. As I have seen a significant increase of 9.5 per cent in said over and over again in this chamber, patients going into private hospitals, with a there are as many billing practices as there 2.6 per cent increase in patients going into are doctors. Some doctors, whatever you public hospitals. What I have said about Pro- paid them, would not bulk-bill. Ms Gillard fessor Dwyer is that he is very committed to will find that out as she moves around talk- reform. I just do not agree with the way he is ing to general practitioners. There are some going about it. who will never bulk-bill. Medicare: Bulk-Billing What we have done is to put $562 million Senator FORSHAW (2.35 p.m.)—My into increasing the number of doctors in rural question is directed to Senator Patterson, the areas. We have seen an 11.3 per cent increase Minister for Health and Ageing. Can the in the number of general practitioners in the minister explain why at least 59 towns in last four or five years. Last year alone there New South Wales do not have any bulk- was about a 4.8 per cent increase in esti- billing GPs? Has the minister seen the article mated full-time doctors—this was a turn- in today’s Daily Telegraph which names nine around. We have a program of overseas of those towns, including major regional cen- trained doctors. We have a program to give tres such as Coffs Harbour, Leeton and Grif- doctors incentives to undertake their general fith, which are without a bulk-billing doctor? practice training in a rural area. If a doctor Can the minister explain to the people of does their training in a rural area, they get those centres, along with the people from $10,000 for their first year, $20,000 for their second year, $30,000 for the third year—

CHAMBER 13756 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Senator Conroy—Why isn’t it working? ern Division of General Practice has now got Senator PATTERSON—Somebody said an after-hours service to reduce the stress on it is not working. The figures show a turn- rural doctors, and that service has resulted in around of an 11.4 or 11.8 per cent increase in a 50 per cent reduction in call-outs. Go to the general practitioners in rural areas. Now Hunter Valley where we have just put over there are some areas where doctors make a $14 million into an after-hours service to decision together that they are not going to provide those very people that you have bulk-bill and of course whether they ought to mentioned access to doctors and to reduce be doing that is a question that should be the stress on doctors so that they actually looked at. There is some pressure on doctors decide to stay and continue to practise in when they come into an area not to bulk-bill. rural areas. The Labor Party did nothing A Fairer Medicare package is about increas- about rural doctors. Not a penny was spent ing the number of doctors and getting more on getting doctors into rural areas. (Time ex- GP registrars on the ground. There are 234 pired) new medical student places and those people Senator FORSHAW—Mr President, I who come out of their training will work in ask a supplementary question. I might point areas of work force shortage, as either a spe- out, Minister, that I have visited some of cialist or a general practitioner. We now have these towns in New South Wales and when university departments of rural health, initi- you came to government they had doctors ated by Michael Wooldridge, which will be a that bulk-billed and they do not today. They great legacy of the Howard government, and have been reducing the number of bulk- we see young people studying to increase the billing doctors under your government. numbers of doctors working in rural areas. The PRESIDENT—Order! Can we have Also A Fairer Medicare package will give the supplementary question? doctors in rural areas incentives to bulk-bill Senator FORSHAW—I ask, Minister: people on a health care card. What I have given that there are around 50 GPs listed in said for years—which the Labor Party just the White Pages for Coffs Harbour, how seems to have discovered—is that there are have you and your predecessors allowed a people in rural areas who are not bulk-billed, situation to arise to the point where there are have never been bulk-billed and some of no doctors in that city of 61,000 people who them, whatever you do or I do, will not be bulk-bill today? bulk-billed. What we can do is put incentives Senator PATTERSON—One of the in place to increase the likelihood that peo- things that happens is that doctors think very ple—at least those on a health care card— seriously before they change their billing will be bulk-billed. That is part of the Medi- practices and they talk to their patients. In care package. It is about increasing the work the seven years before we came into gov- force. ernment, the GPs rebates went up by nine per When you go out and talk to people in ru- cent. That was in a period when we had high ral areas, bulk-billing is not the main issue: inflation and high interest rates. Since we access is the main issue. That is why we have have come to government we have actually after-hours services. I will challenge Jacinta increased GP’s rebates by 20 or 24 per cent Collins—I do not know whether she has but overall there is a 30 per cent increase in been out to Horsham and Ararat lately—to the rebate when you include the practice in- go out there and she will find that the West- centive payments. What has happened is that

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13757 over a period of time we have increased by question, however, was silent on the point 30 per cent GP’s remuneration under low that the case officer in all probability simply inflation and low interest rates compared does not know that it is false or misleading. with Labor. That is why the offence is here. In other Doctors have made some decisions be- words, people will go—it does happen, re- cause, as bulk-billing went up, some of them grettably—to Centrelink or to the Child Sup- have said to me as I have moved around, ‘We port Agency in this case and they do not al- have people coming who don’t need to come ways tell either the truth or the whole truth. I into our practice. We want to send them a believe the majority do, but in all walks of message.’ I do not think Ms Gillard or I are life you will find people who do otherwise. going to be able to change some of their be- The second part of the offence indicates that haviours irrespective of who is in govern- someone might tell the truth but not the ment. What I am doing is putting incentives whole truth and that might be a material fact in place to increase the likelihood that people that should have been taken into account. Of will be bulk-billed. (Time expired) course, if that person is caught in any com- pliance net then they should expect to run the Family and Community Services: Child risk of being prosecuted. Support Legislation I see that the legislation says that a person Senator HARRIS (2.42 p.m.)—My ques- making a misleading statement ‘is guilty of tion is to Senator Vanstone and relates to an offence punishable on conviction by im- section 159 of the Child Support (Assess- prisonment for a period not exceeding six ment) Act 1989. Minister, the section says: months’. Just by way of information, Sena- (1) A person who: tor, in my own state you can apparently (a) makes a statement to an officer that the shoot someone through the eye and walk person knows is false or misleading in a material away with $100 fine and a three-year sus- particular; or pended sentence and never see a day inside. (b) omits from a statement made to an officer So on that basis I would be surprised if any matter or thing without which the statement someone here ever saw a day inside the is, to the knowledge of the person, misleading in slammer—that is in a sense another issue. a material particular; But it does cause significant concern the way is guilty of an offence ... that, in some cases, the judiciary do not ap- Minister, if such a statement is made to a ply the full extent of the law that parliament senior case officer and that case officer uses gives them the opportunity to. that material disrespectfully, how does a per- The second part of your question was: son address or remedy that? Is there any what if a case officer persistently uses incor- process in the Department of Family and rect information which they know to be in- Community Services for the department to correct? That is what I understood the second assess whether a senior case officer continu- part of your question to be, and I see you ally uses statements that have subsequently indicating that that is correct. If there is a proven to be false or misleading? circumstance where a case officer is using Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Sena- information they know to be incorrect, the tor Harris, for your question. The question person who knows that to be happening you put to me is: what is the situation where should be reporting that to the people in a case officer uses information that is given charge of the Child Support Agency. If they to them which is false or misleading? Your are unhappy with that they can report it to

CHAMBER 13758 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 my office or to Larry Anthony’s office. Larry formation does sometimes do that—please is the minister responsible for the Child Sup- raise it with me or Minister Anthony. port Agency. I can assure you that we will I conclude by saying that I was pleased to follow it up. It should not happen. If a case be part of a parliament that introduced the officer does understand that information is Child Support Agency on Labor’s initiative. incorrect, he should not be acting on it. You At that point, unfortunately, we had a dis- give us the information and we will follow it gustingly large proportion of people not pay- up and report back to you as soon as we can. ing maintenance. Now we have the reverse Senator HARRIS—Mr President, I ask a and the parliament should be happy about supplementary question. I thank Senator that. (Time expired) Vanstone for her answer. Section 4(3)(b) of Taxation: Family Payments the act states: Senator WONG (2.48 p.m.)—My ques- (3) It is the intention of the Parliament that tion is also to the Minister for Family and this Act should be construed, to the greatest ex- Community Services, Senator Vanstone. tent consistent with the attainment of its objects: What explanation has the minister obtained … … … from her department as to why thousands of (b) to limit interferences with the privacy of high-wealth families are accessing family tax persons. benefit A, a payment intended only for low Minister, there is today a workshop being and middle income families? In particular, carried out in Parliament House in relation to has the minister sought an explanation as to all aspects of fatherhood. One of those ses- why 778 families earning over $100,000 per sions will look at family law. How is your year are also obtaining a social security in- government going to address this situation come support pension or allowance in addi- where repeated decisions that are made by tion to the maximum rate of family tax bene- the Child Support Agency do impact on the fit A? Is the minister aware that under her privacy of people? Can the minister give the flawed family tax benefit system only a cus- chamber— (Time expired) tomer estimate of income is made when Senator VANSTONE—Privacy law can claiming and no verification of current in- obviously create difficulties. It creates diffi- come actually occurs when a claim is lodged culties for law enforcement and there are and payments commence? Could this loop- times when people want to tear their hair out hole explain why so many wealthy families and say, ‘How did this ever happen?’ When it have accessed the payment? is explained that privacy law limited the ac- Senator VANSTONE—I thank the sena- cess of law enforcement or compliance peo- tor for the question. It gives me the opportu- ple to information it frustrates them. Equally, nity to give some information that I have there are cases where because of compliance acquired as a consequence of a table that was or because of the law one or other party feels given to an estimates committee, and the as though their privacy has been invaded in a estimates committee was notified that we way that it should not have been. If you were not satisfied that the information in that know any breach of section 4(3)(b) as you was correct. I notice that, despite that quali- relate it, if you believe that there are cases— fication being given to the estimates commit- obviously you refer to groups of fathers who tee, Mr Swan has nonetheless proceeded to believe that the Child Support Agency in- release the table and to assume the worst as a consequence of it. The table indicates that

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13759 there might be—and much has been made of $100,000. Four of them have incomes of this—15 millionaires in receipt of family tax over a million dollars. That is as a conse- benefit. I understand why people initially quence of a Labor decision in 1993 which say, ‘Well, how could that be?’ I have made a we have not gone back on; we have contin- point of looking at those first 15 in the first ued to protect these people. You can see from instance, and have asked for an inquiry in that, Senator, that there is a perfectly legiti- relation to all of the payments that have been mate explanation for some of those cases. I raised. I do note that Mr Swan does not ac- do not imagine there will be a legitimate ex- cept there could be any legitimate reason for planation for all of them. However, one other these payments being made. legitimate explanation is that people had ex- I go first to four of the 11, I think they are, pected to have either very low or reasonable because I recall last week in this place and incomes and during that year they had a very elsewhere Mr Swan saying that I, because I significant capital gain. It might not happen am the representative of the government in in your state or mine but it is very likely to this area, was one of the meanest, nastiest happen in the state of New South Wales. people because we were reviewing child dis- Senator Ian Macdonald—They might ability allowance saved cases—and this was have won a Labor Party raffle. a dreadful thing to be doing. In fact, four of Senator VANSTONE—As my colleague the people who have incomes which might interjects, they may have won a Labor Party include fringe tax benefit or capital gains—it raffle—and a Labor senator was the cam- is not necessarily taxable income; it is ad- paign manager but could not remember for justed taxable income—are child disability four or five days that the raffle did not hap- allowance saved cases people. As it turns pen. In fact, I think you were the last to come out, the very people that Mr Swan was com- on board in that respect and indicate that the plaining about being reviewed last week he raffle referred to had not happened. (Time is now complaining are not in receipt of any expired) benefit. Why are those saved cases in receipt Senator WONG—Mr President, I ask a of family tax benefit when they have these supplementary question. Minister, could the high incomes? payments also be explained by admissions in Senator Wong, I would not expect you to Senate estimates by your department that no know this because you were probably genu- independent verification is made of foreign inely in primary school when this happened. income received by families, or that share In 1993, 10 years ago—that is a reasonable market margin lending losses are not fac- assumption; you might look younger than tored into the income test? What responsibil- you are; I don’t know—the child disability ity do you take for loopholes such as these in allowance did not have an asset or income the payments system which you introduced? test on it. However, after 1993 Labor effec- Senator VANSTONE—I neglected to tell tively put an asset and income test on it for the senator in answer to her first question future recipients, but they saved the people that there are over 1,300 families in receipt prior to 1993 and said, ‘You do not have to of incomes of $100,000 or more who have worry, we will not put it on you.’ more than four children and who, if those There are 586 saved child disability al- children are under 13, would be entitled to lowance cases involving people in receipt of get family tax benefit with such an income. family tax benefit who have incomes of over By way of further example, equally some of

CHAMBER 13760 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 these people will have, when their income is None other than the disgraced former reconciled at the end of the year, a debt Queensland Labor MP and electoral roll raised against them and we will be collecting rorter, Mike Kaiser, the new deputy director that money back. That is another explanation of national Labor. And who is supporting Mr and in that sense the system works. But I am Kaiser’s return to the fold? None other than not satisfied just with the knowledge that Mr Crean’s favourite pollster, Eric Roozen- there will be a number of perfectly reason- daal. Mr Crean is reported as saying, ‘We are able explanations for this, including Labor delighted with this appointment.’ What of Mr saved policy. I have asked for an inquiry to Kaiser’s former boss, Queensland Premier be held and where there are any loopholes Peter Beattie? On election night 2001 a you can be sure that I will be looking to journalist asked Mr Beattie: ‘Were you too close them. Senator Wong, you were not here hard on Mike Kaiser?’ Premier Beattie’s during the Skase chase, but one of my great- reply was as follows: est motivations is to make sure that rich peo- Look, I know that there will be some people ple do not get lesser treatment under the law who will say that. But when it comes to matters than anyone else. I am just the person to pur- of principle, when it comes to matters relating to sue these people. (Time expired) the integrity of the electoral system, then I have to be clear. I was clear, I will be clear and my view Electoral Roll: Integrity about that will not change. Senator MASON (2.54 p.m.)—My ques- Not change indeed, Mr President! In a Sun- tion is directed to the Special Minister of day Mail interview just yesterday, this is State, Senator Abetz. Will the minister in- what Mr Beattie said: form the Senate of measures taken by the Howard government to ensure the integrity Mike Kaiser is one of the most gifted cam- paigners this party has ever produced. of the Australian electoral roll? Is the minis- ter aware of any alternative approaches? Also the best rorter, might I add. He contin- ued: Senator ABETZ—As Senator Mason knows, the Howard government has actively I can understand why the federal Labor Party pursued legislation and regulations to im- would want him. prove the reliability and security of the Aus- So what does Mr Kaiser have planned for the tralian electoral roll. We have even tried to electoral roll this time? This is the man who introduce the very sensible measure of doing confessed to committing electoral fraud by what every video shop has been doing for the signing a false declaration to benefit Labor, last 20 years, and have asked people, when and whose greatest distress was felt when he they enrol, to show some proof of identity. temporarily lost his Labor Party member- ship. Interviewed this morning on ABC Ra- Sadly, there are alternative approaches to dio, Mr Kaiser showed no remorse for his the government’s policy of ensuring the reli- actions, only regret at having been caught. ability and security of the electoral roll. Whether it is ripping off the taxpayer Those opposite have opposed repeated at- through the $36 million Centenary House tempts to prevent rorting of the electoral roll, rort or avoiding the donation disclosure rules and the newspapers once again confirm why through the Bolkus rafflegate or Markson Labor protects electoral roll rorters. Just this Sparks, or rorting the electoral roll, there is Saturday, I opened the Weekend Australian to no depth too low for Mr Crean and Labor. read an article headed ‘Labor rorter back in Senator Brandis was right when he said that the fold’. And which rorter might that be? Peter Beattie vowed to drive the rorters out

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13761 of the party and that Mr Crean has put them QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: in charge. Labor opposed improving the se- ADDITIONAL ANSWERS curity and integrity of the electoral roll for Health Insurance: Mental Illness one reason only—that is, to protect their Senator PATTERSON (Victoria— rorters. But let us give the final word to the Minister for Health and Ageing) (3.00 Labor Party membership. The vice-president, p.m.)—Last week in question time Senator Julie Bignall, says that calls to forgive and Marshall asked me a question on private forget Mr Kaiser’s rorting are ‘simply inap- health insurance. I have a brief answer. Un- propriate’. She continued: der the National Health Act 1953 there is no Allowing Mike Kaiser back into the party would basis for funds to reject applications for be a slap in the face for the vast majority of membership having regard to a person’s members who follow the rules and detest the rort- ing perpetrated by a handful of ex-members. health status. If the senator can provide de- Party members involved in rorting should be tails of funds that are purporting to reject kicked out and they should stay out. applications from people with mental illness, Mr President, we on this side agree, and Mr I will instruct my department to raise the matter with the funds. Crean should agree with it as well. (Time expired) I note that all people joining a health fund, Senator MASON—Mr President, I ask a or upgrading to a higher table of benefits, supplementary question. I was wondering may be subject to waiting periods of 12 whether the minister could further elaborate months for pre-existing ailments, illnesses or on alternative approaches to ensure the integ- conditions. The pre-existing ailment rule is rity of the electoral roll. intended to protect members of health funds from people joining health insurance once Senator ABETZ—It makes it very diffi- they become sick and claiming benefits for cult for this government when those who immediate treatment. However, under the portray themselves as the alternative gov- National Health Act, funds can only restrict ernment of this nation oppose electoral re- benefits for pre-existing ailments for 12 form to kick out electoral rorters at every months after a person joins a fund or trans- possible turn. We now know why—because fers to a higher level of cover. After that they electoral rorters seem to earn their stripes by are eligible to receive benefits on the same having to resign and then being appointed as basis as all other members. the assistant national director of the Austra- lian Labor Party. The stewardship that Mr In 2000-01 some 100,000 of a total Crean shows of his own Labor Party is the 275,000 hospital separations for mental ill- sort of stewardship that he would show of ness were in the private sector. It is true that this nation. If he is willing to appoint Mike most patients compulsorily admitted are Kaiser to the ALP national secretariat it beg- treated in the public sector, as many private gars belief who he would appoint to the High hospitals do not have the required facilities. Court or the Australian Electoral Commis- However, seven per cent of separations for sion if he was in government. compulsorily admitted patients in 2000-01 were from private hospitals. I note that the Senator Hill—Mr President, I ask that state and territory governments are responsi- further questions be placed on the Notice ble for the provision and regulation of mental Paper. health services in their respective jurisdic- tions. States and territories are responsible

CHAMBER 13762 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 via their own legislation for determining the QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: requirements that hospitals must achieve, ADDITIONAL ANSWERS whether public or private, before patients can Indigenous Affairs: Education be compulsorily admitted. Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Immigration: Sex Industry for Communications, Information Technol- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— ogy and the Arts) (3.03 p.m.)—On 14 Au- Minister for Justice and Customs) (3.02 gust, Senator Ridgeway asked me a question p.m.)—Last Thursday I was asked a question without notice regarding year 12 retention by Senator Crossin in relation to an investi- rates for Indigenous students. I undertook to gation involving two Thai women. I under- provide additional information. I seek leave took to get back to the Senate with any fur- to incorporate the response in Hansard. ther information that I could divulge in rela- Leave granted. tion to the investigation. I can say that the The answer read as follows— AFP Bangkok office has advised that one of the victims has been located. She was un- The Minister for Education, Science and Training willing to return to Australia to give evidence has provided the following additional information in relation to the question asked by Senator or assist further in the matter. Unsuccessful Ridgeway. attempts have been made to contact the other victim in Thailand. Evidence of the alleged In 2002, the apparent retention rate to Year 12 for Indigenous students was 38.0% compared with sexual assaults, which Senator Crossin men- 76.3% for their non-Indigenous counterparts. tioned, would have formed part of the overall Apparent retention rates for Indigenous students allegation of any charges of sexual servitude have been improving gradually over time. Year 12 considered by the Australian Federal Police. apparent retention rates for Indigenous students This is worth while remembering when you were 29.1% in 1996 compared to 38% in 2002. consider Senator Crossin’s other question Apparent retention rates of Indigenous about why this was not referred to the New students, Australia (%) South Wales Police. I can also say that these 1999 2000 2001 2002 allegations were not referred to the New Year 7/8 - South Wales Police by the Australian Federal Year 10 82.0 83.0 85.7 86.4 Police as the two victims had departed Aus- tralia voluntarily prior to the matter being Year 7/8 - referred in November 2002. Year 11 56.0 53.6 56.1 59.1 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON Year 7/8 - NOTICE Year 12 34.7 36.4 35.7 38.0 Question No. 1584 Source: DEST derived from the National Schools Statistics Collection 1999-2002 Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Minister for Justice and Customs) (3.03 Indigenous students currently represent 1.2% of Australian domestic higher education students. In p.m.)—Senator Carr asked the Minister rep- 2002, there were 8,871 Indigenous students in resenting the Minister for Immigration and higher education, an increase of 2.4% over 2001. Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, upon Indigenous Affairs: Education notice on 26 June 2003, a question relating to education agents. The answer will appear in Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Hansard. for Communications, Information Technol- ogy and the Arts) (3.04 p.m.)—On 14 Au-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13763 gust, Senator Ridgeway asked me a supple- The answer read as follows— mentary question without notice regarding The Minister for Education, Science and Training government funding for university prepara- has provided the following additional information tory programs for Indigenous students at the in relation to the question asked by Senator Carr. University of New South Wales. I undertook Question: to provide additional information and I seek Can the minister now confirm that two briefs leave to incorporate the response in Hansard. were prepared by DEST for and addressed to Leave granted. Minister Nelson on the completed national report prior to Easter 2002? On what dates were these The answer read as follows— briefs actually provided to the minister or his The Minister for Education, Science and Training office? has provided the following additional information Answer: in relation to the question asked by Senator Ridgeway. There is no record on any DEST system, or recol- lection among senior DEST staff, that any briefs ABSTUDY Away-from-base funding was previ- were provided to Minister Nelson on the National ously approved by Centrelink for the travel and Report other than that provided on 23 July 2003. accommodation for students to undertake pre-law and pre-commerce and economics short prepara- Education: Report tion courses. Centrelink received an application Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for 2003 and advised the University that it did not for Communications, Information Technol- meet the guidelines for an away-from-base activ- ogy and the Arts) (3.04 p.m.)—On 13 Au- ity. gust, Senator Carr asked me a question with- The University was further advised that students out notice regarding payments to Ray Adams may be eligible for assistance with fares and the and Associates for formatting, indexing and ABSTUDY Living Allowance and Rent Assis- other preparations for the national report. I tance for the duration of the course. undertook to provide additional information. The Engineering Summer School was not funded I seek leave to incorporate the response in by ABSTUDY. It was previously funded under Hansard. the Vocational and Educational Guidance for Aboriginals Scheme (VEGAS). Leave granted. However, the application from the University for The answer read as follows— the 2003 Indigenous Australian Engineering The Minister for Education, Science and Training Summer School was for retrospective approval in has provided the following additional information February 2003 for an event which occurred in in relation to the question asked by Senator Carr. January 2003 and as such was not be supported. Question: Education: Report Did the department commission Ray Adams and Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister Associates for formatting, indexing and other for Communications, Information Technol- preparations for the national report? Were they ogy and the Arts) (3.04 p.m.)—On 13 Au- paid $6,000 for the work? Was their consultancy gust, Senator Carr asked me a question with- in fact completed in April 2002? In light of this, out notice regarding the preparation of briefs does the government stand by the claim that edit- to Minister Nelson on the national report ing of this work actually began in April 2002? prior to Easter 2002. I undertook to provide Answer: additional information. I seek leave to incor- DEST commissioned Ray Adam and Associates porate the response in Hansard. to undertake grammatical and stylistic editing of Leave granted. chapters of the national report. DEST paid Ray

CHAMBER 13764 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Adam and Associates $6,000 for this work. The it was incorrectly classified. It is sometimes GLIIL consultancy was completed in May 2002. FXOWÃto work out whether we are purchasing some- Professional editing in preparation for publication thing or actually giving funds to an organisation began around April 2002, including formatting to do something, and people do get confused... “ and indexing, and was undertaken or managed by As noted in the Department’s response to QoN the DEST in-house printing service, JS McMillan. 1304 asked by Senator Carr on the 19 March Education: Report 2003, this misclassification has been noted and will be rectified for any future reporting. Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister for Communications, Information Technol- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ogy and the Arts) (3.04 p.m.)—On 13 Au- NOTICE gust, Senator Carr asked me a question with- Questions Nos 1584 and 1585 out notice regarding the reporting of consul- Senator ALSTON (Victoria—Minister tancy payments for the national reports in for Communications, Information Technol- last year’s departmental annual report. I un- ogy and the Arts) (3.05 p.m.)—On 14 Au- dertook to provide additional information. I gust, Senator Carr requested an explanation seek leave to incorporate the response in from me in my capacity as the Minister rep- Hansard. resenting the Minister for Education, Science Leave granted. and Training as to why answers had not been The answer read as follows— provided to questions on notice No. 1584 and No. 1585, for which notice was given on The Minister for Education, Science and Training 26 June 2003. Question No. 1584 was a has provided the following additional information in relation to the question asked by Senator Carr. question for the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Question: and Indigenous Affairs, and I understand that Has the Minister established who in the Depart- Senator Ellison has tabled an answer to that ment was responsible for failing to report the question today. I can further advise Senator $62,000 of consultancies for the National report in last year’s Departmental Annual Report? I refer Carr that the answer to question No. 1585 to the Minister’s admission that there was a ‘mis- was sent to the Senate Table Office by the classification’ of a $22,000 consultancy from Department of Education, Science and Train- Emeritus Professor Grant Harman. What action ing on Thursday, 14 August. has been taken to establish who was responsible QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: for the error? Was the failure to report accurate TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS records about these consultancies part of a plan to hide this research from the parliament and the Answers to Questions public? Senator WEBBER (Western Australia) Answer: (3.05 p.m.)—I move: No one in the Department was responsible for That the Senate take note of the answers given failing to report the $62,000. As these activities by the Minister for Health and Ageing (Senator were originally classified as Funding Contracts, Patterson) to questions without notice asked today PM&C Annual Reporting requirements did not relating to health. apply. I specifically wanted to tackle the issue of In response to Senator Carr’s enquiry about the the non-attendance of the Minister for Health misclassification on 4 June 2003 at the Senate and Ageing at the national health summit this Estimates Committee Hearings (EWRE page past weekend. The minister is quoted in the 353), the Chief Lawyer replied “... There is noth- ing untoward about it. We have made it plain that

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13765

Canberra Times on Saturday, 16 August as this country. Essentially, she is saying that saying: unless she gets her own way she will not I am concerned that the summit is in danger of engage in any discussion with anyone else on being hijacked by NSW for its own interests. any other issue. Unless you sign up to her How outrageous and reprehensible a proposi- one offer you cannot discuss any other re- tion it is that someone could seek to attend a form agenda within the health industry. Basi- national health summit and put forward their cally, it is the good old-fashioned ‘sign or own case and speak in their own interests! reject’ scenario. You cannot debate the future Isn’t that what a summit is meant to be all delivery of health care services or debate a about? Isn’t that the way summits are meant more collaborative approach until you fun- to work? Did the minister perhaps think that damentally accept her offer. She will not New South Wales should put forward the even have a reasonable debate with the other Commonwealth’s position? Given that the ministers for health about ways of modifying minister did not attend then it may be right or changing her offer. Instead, all of a sudden that the Australian people could be forgiven we have the position being put that she is the for thinking that New South Wales would put one who has made the big increase in health forward the Commonwealth’s position. funding and no-one else has ever made any. The language the minister chooses to use I do not know about the other states but in also tells us about her frame of mind when my state of Western Australia the state gov- tackling this issue. The minister uses some ernment delivered a nine per cent increase in nice descriptive words about those attending health funding in this budget, and in the pre- the summit—words such as ‘hijacked’. There vious year there was a six per cent increase is nothing like resorting to the language of in health funding. That is a fairly good indi- fear and personal attack when you are trying cation that there are going to be continued to get your message across! What an insult to real increases in health funding in Western the many organisations, professions and in- Australia. I accept that a lot of those in- dividuals and the states and territories that creases had to recover from the complete attended the national health summit. Here we sham and debacle under the Court govern- have a minister saying that because New ment’s delivery of health services so there is South Wales is going to advocate a position a lot of catch-up to take place, but they are it is hijacking the summit. Everyone else significant real increases in health funding. who wants to attend the summit is therefore, Western Australia, like most other states, by assumption, just there to behave in a cra- publish these great things called forward es- ven way to the interests of New South Wales. timates, where they actually outline their I know that the New South Wales minister future plans for health expenditure. Appar- for health and, indeed, the Premier of New ently, that is just far too hard for the minister South Wales are very strong advocates for for health. their state and the interests of the people of The minister for health has suddenly dis- their state, but I did not realise they were covered the reform agenda that state and ter- capable of hijacking the entire national ritory ministers for health have been trying to health summit. get her to talk about for some time. But she Perhaps, though, what this really shows is only wants to talk about reform on her the abject failure of leadership this minister terms—and that is after you have locked is offering to the health industry throughout yourself into a funding model and a reform agenda that I do not think is actually going to

CHAMBER 13766 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 deal with things like the decline in bulk- health arena, and she is more than willing to billing. My colleague Senator Forshaw re- participate in those. She has participated in ferred in question time today to figures that my state of Tasmania and, I know, through- have shown the decline in bulk-billing in out Australia in terms of the key stakeholder rural New South Wales. Those figures also groups. But she wants the clean air of a post- show that people in towns where GPs do not Australian health care agreement, and not to bulk-bill use emergency departments 60 per be browbeaten and used as a political pawn cent more often than those in towns where in this whole debate. doctors do bulk-bill. So unless the govern- Let us focus on this health care agreement ment does something about fixing this fun- and what has been proposed. This is a his- damental problem about the lack of access to toric offer, unprecedented in Australian po- bulk-billing services, it is just cost shifting litical history: a $42 billion offer that is a $10 onto the states. It will send all those people million increase on the amount in the previ- to the A and E departments, lock us into a ous five years. Those are the facts; they are funding model and then perhaps it might talk on the table. If you believed what you read about reform if we are lucky. Then there is from the Labor Party in the media you would the question of access to GPs throughout think there are actually funding cuts. What Western Australia. The minister, in talking nonsense! What absolutely outrageous misin- about her reform agenda, does not actually formation, deception and misleading com- want to go to the heart of how the reform ments. There is going to be a 17 per cent agenda is failing. (Time expired) increase in real terms. We are talking about a Senator BARNETT (Tasmania) (3.11 30 to 40 per cent increase. p.m.)—I am so pleased to be standing here to In my state of Tasmania we are talking discuss and debate health with the Labor about a $220 million increase on $700 mil- opposition, in particular to debate Senator lion—it is going to increase to $920 million Webber’s comment at the end of her speech over the next five years. What does that about access to GPs. This is the key: access mean for Tasmania and Tasmanians? It is no to adequate health care. There have been a good just having point scoring and political lot of smoke and mirrors and a lot of mis- debate unless you look at what the impact is leading and deceptive statements in the me- on the people. I will tell you. We have a dia by the Labor Party with respect to health. waiting list for surgery in Tasmania of over Let us get a few facts on the table and make 6,000 people. I know what will happen to a few of these things clear. The first is about that waiting list if they take up the offer: it the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator will go down. Two things have to happen. , and her willingness to attend First, they have to sign up to the offer and health ministerial meetings. She has attended the agreement. Secondly, the waiting list will every—I repeat, every—scheduled ministe- go down and waiting times will also go rial health meeting. She does not attend down. But the key issue here is whether La- events that are set up for political purposes. bor are going to hold good and support the That is really the point. She does not particu- 30 per cent health insurance rebate. The larly support the summit that has been re- question for those on the other side of the ferred to today in question time when she chamber is: will they? I seek an interjec- knows she is going to be set up and brow- tion—in fact, I would welcome it—saying, beaten. She does support summits that are ‘Yes, we will support the 30 per cent private debating these important reform issues in the health insurance rebate.’ By their silence I

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13767 suggest that is not the case. That is because together in the calm air and we have been their counterparts in the state Labor govern- informed that the minister ‘does not wish to ments—certainly in Tasmania, in the ACT take part in any organisation, information or and, as far as I am aware, in the other meeting that is purely a stunt’—only a stunt, states—have said, ‘No, we want to reallocate manipulated by the ALP, about health issues. those funds elsewhere.’ That means abolish- I would hope that people would agree. But ing the 30 per cent health insurance rebate. this is certainly not a stunt; we are sharing That means 44 per cent of the Australian information about health. population, and in Tasmania that means We need to know what actually constitutes 208,000 Tasmanians, will be detrimentally a stunt according to the minister. It seems to affected and will have to pay an extra $750 us that perhaps anything that does not agree per family and lose that 30 per cent rebate. with the minister, does not accept the minis- It also means that waiting lists in the pub- terial policy or is not humbly grateful for the lic hospital system will blow out. People will government’s options is automatically a move out of private health insurance and into stunt. Minister Patterson, we do not agree the public hospital system. That is going to that a stunt is correspondence from current be very damaging and hurtful. You will see GPs working in remote and regional parts of the waiting times blow out and the waiting the community who have been forced over lists lengthen immeasurably. This will be the the last six or seven years to seriously recon- impact of Labor policy. We have a great sider their options for providing health care health system in Australia. I am not saying it to their communities and have had to face is perfect—we can always improve—but we the decision to stop bulk-billing—not a have a mix of private and public that works choice they wanted to make but one that has well. I call upon the Labor opposition to re- been forced upon them. That is not a stunt; consider their position with respect to the 30 that is a decision forced upon them by poli- per cent rebate. With respect to getting GPs cies of the current government. into rural and regional areas, we have a host You cannot always say, as the minister of policies to try to make that happen and we frequently does in this place, that every ill to seek the support of the Labor opposition. We do with the medical system in this country have the runs on the board in terms of an 11 can be immediately traced back to what hap- per cent increase in getting GPs into those pened under previous governments. It is too areas in the last few years. That has in- late to use that excuse all the time, particu- creased under us. It went down under Labor. larly as we heard today in answers that we We have the runs on the board and we have can create a large number of doctors over- further policies and reforms to make things night—or perhaps within three months. even better. (Time expired) Hopefully that process can continue. Senator MOORE (Queensland) (3.16 It is not a stunt when you listen to people p.m.)—I also rise to take note of answers who work in the community such as those given by Senator Patterson this afternoon in we have heard from through the Senate the ongoing discussion about what is going Standing Committee on Community Affairs on in health in our community. The Minister inquiry into poverty and financial hardship, for Health and Ageing, backed up very in which many senators from all sides of the strongly by her colleagues, said that she pre- house are sharing. We hear from community ferred to talk ‘in the calm air’ about the is- workers who work with families in low- sues to do with health reform. We are now

CHAMBER 13768 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 income areas who cannot access doctors. We participation and the agenda of the govern- are not talking about remote areas in this ment. Minister, that is effective health policy case; we are talking about areas in the im- and that makes sure that people across the mediate suburbs of Wollongong where chil- country can be involved, not just those who dren affected by outbreaks of scabies cannot share one particular view of the world. That attend school. They have been forced is not a stunt; that is effective policy being through poverty, lack of support in their implemented. (Time expired) community and no immediate access to Senator KNOWLES (Western Australia) health care to have their schooling reduced (3.21 p.m.)—Here we are debating the health because they cannot go back into their com- issues again and talking about some stunt munity because they are sick. They are sick that was pulled at the weekend. It is interest- because they cannot get medical help. Not ing. Senator Webber asked a question about only can they not get to see a doctor; they this of Senator Patterson and I—admittedly cannot get the pharmaceutical help they need in an unparliamentary fashion—interjected to fix their problem. That is not a stunt; that and asked Senator Webber to confirm is reality. whether or not she had attended that stunt at It is not a stunt when we hear about whole the weekend. Her lack of response indicates communities in rural New South Wales that to me that she did not. If she had attended have had to admit, not proudly, that they something she thought was so important as have no bulk-billing doctors. As we have to ask the minister for help about, she would heard from Labor senators who know them have been the first to accept an interjection well, these are areas that used to have bulk- and say, ‘Yes, I did attend.’ But clearly Sena- billing doctors. What has happened is that, as tor Webber did not attend and was prattling I said earlier, doctors have had to review on about something she has had no contact their practices in good faith simply because with and no information about—no noth- they have not been able to continue to pro- ing—but saying how wonderful it was. I find vide that service to their community—not in that pretty amazing. I cannot talk about a 1991, 1993 or 1994 but now. That is not a show unless I have seen it, so I go and see it. stunt. If Senator Webber thought this was so impor- We need to understand that there has to be tant, why didn’t she go? She then tried to tell some calm in the process. We need to know everyone else that they should go. That is the that there has to be some trust. Minister Pat- squib’s way out by saying, ‘I do not want to terson, we agree that, as your current state- go—I do not want to use my weekend—but ment says, ‘We can do it better.’ We can do it you should go.’ That is absolutely preposter- better, but that does not automatically mean ous. doing it your way and it does not mean im- The minister is saying to the states that we posing penalty clauses when your policies have Medicare agreements for the expendi- are not accepted by other people who share ture of public funds and part of that comes your concerns about providing effective from the Commonwealth government. We medical services to the community. We have to say that over recent years much of can—we must—do it better, but that de- the money that has gone from the Common- mands cooperation. That does not demand wealth to the states has gone into the states’ direction; it demands cooperation and a will- Bermuda Triangle, never to be seen or ac- ingness to take part in all kinds of meetings, counted for again. With this agreement the not just those which can be controlled by the minister has gone to the states and said, ‘Be-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13769 cause money has disappeared with no appar- do not seem to care about that and never ent accountability in previous agreements, have. This is all about trying to get the for this agreement I want accountability; I Commonwealth government because it is not want to see how it’s going to be spent.’ Un- of their political persuasion. That is naive; it der the new agreement the states will have to is stupid. It is not in the interests of constitu- recommit to the Medicare principles, and ents, and the state governments are the ones specifically the availability of free public who will have to account for it. If they do not hospital treatment for all Australians who want to sign up for a 17 per cent increase seek it, and will have to publicly commit to a over five years, that is their business; but specified level of funding for each year of they will be held accountable for it. I look the next agreement. Guess what? They will forward to the day when they are held not do it. Why won’t the states simply agree accountable and they all lose office. to a set amount of increase per year in public Senator KIRK (South Australia) (3.26 funding? They only have to agree to commit p.m.)—I also rise to take note of answers to a new financial and performance reporting given today in question time by the Minister framework. If you were dinkum, you would for Health and Ageing, Senator Patterson, in not think that that would be too hard. What is relation to the crisis in Australia’s health sys- wrong with asking the states to agree to a tem. The federal government’s attitude to reporting framework and a financial system health has been nothing short of appalling. It that is clear and transparent to all who put in has consistently attempted to shift the buck the money—that is, the taxpayers? But, no, to the states, as we have heard here today, the states will not do that. rather than implement reforms that will So why should Minister Patterson go off genuinely improve the deep-seated problems to some frolic at the weekend with a bunch in our health system. of people who may be well intentioned but We heard today in question time that, as who are putting the cart before the horse in- reported in the Daily Telegraph, in at least stead of saying, ‘Let’s look at the way in nine towns in New South Wales it is simply which this can work once the agreements are not possible to visit a GP who bulk-bills. It is signed’? Nothing that happened last weekend more than likely that the figures in rural and is going to change the proposal that is on the regional parts of the other states would re- table at the moment and to which the states flect these figures. The Daily Telegraph re- have to agree or not agree. ported that pensioners and general patients By not signing and continuing to carry on, must often pay almost twice the Medicare the states look set to deprive the hospital sys- rebate amount to see a doctor. For these peo- tem of over $3.6 billion over the next five ple, the decision to visit a doctor is not sim- years. I would say that $3.6 billion amounts ply one that relates to their health; it also to a lot of explaining that they will have to becomes a financial consideration. These do to their constituents. I will make sure that people often have to pay up to $44 for the I do my bit to have it exposed that the states consultation before they can turn up and see are going to deprive their constituents of a doctor. This is the situation in which Aus- $3.6 billion in Commonwealth funding be- tralia’s health system finds itself under this cause they want to play politics—just be- government. cause it is all Labor states against a Labor has committed to strengthening federal government. That is not acting in the Medicare and bulk-billing, which would take best interests of their constituents, but they

CHAMBER 13770 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 the pressure off the hospital emergency de- end of this month. In addition, in my state of partments. We heard today that it has been South Australia Trish Worth, federal member shown that, in towns where doctors do not for Adelaide and the Parliamentary Secretary bulk-bill, emergency departments are used to the Minister for Health and Ageing, last 60 per cent more than in towns where bulk- month had the nerve to send a letter to her billing is available. The government’s pro- constituents asking them to make appeals to posed changes to Medicare would do nothing the state Premier, Mike Rann, to sign the to stop this outrageous misallocation of re- Australian health care agreement. She also sources that leaves the states with nothing had the nerve to imply that the South Austra- short of a task for Sisyphus. The Premier of lian Minister for Health, Lea Stevens, would New South Wales, Bob Carr, reported yes- welcome pressure on the South Australian terday that some 9,000 people went to emer- state government to sign the fundamentally gency rooms in hospitals across New South flawed Australian health care agreement. Wales last year for coughs and colds, some The minister’s parliamentary secretary did 3,500 for ear infections and some 900 for not once mention the need for reform of the treatment for ear wax—all of which could, system nor the minister’s continued refusal and should, have been treated by general to meet with the states or her complete lack practitioners. of interest in attending the Australian health Senator Patterson has refused to address care summit, a gathering over the weekend the correlation between bulk-billing and of some 200 health professionals from across overflowing emergency rooms. These issues Australia. This was not a stunt; it was a seri- go fundamentally to the quality of health ous meeting of people who are concerned care Australians are able to access. What we about the crisis in Australia’s health system. need is an approach from the Minister for Senator Patterson’s non-attendance at the Health and Ageing that will address the prob- weekend summit shows her complete lack of lems of the health care system—the 60,000- concern for the urgent need for reform of odd Australians who have dropped out of the Australia’s health care system. What better government’s so-called solution to private opportunity to show a genuine commitment health cover which has done nothing to stop to sorting out the health system—a genuine overflowing emergency rooms and help commitment that will simply never be given towns where bulk-billing has disappeared by the present government. altogether. The government has its priorities Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (3.32 fundamentally wrong. The federal govern- p.m.)—I also take note of the answers given ment is effectively blackmailing the states by the Minister for Health and Ageing, both into signing the Australian health care to the ALP and to us. I think that in this case agreement by the end of the month. The ac- the minister is being extraordinarily hypo- tual agreement would mean a cut of the order critical—not only that, but she may actually of $75 million over five years to public hos- be threatened by serious debate about policy. pitals in South Australia and would deny In an attempt to belittle what is a very seri- public hospital treatment to some 35,000 ous debate at this time, the minister chooses South Australians—my constituents. to describe it as naïve and politically moti- Senator Patterson is even refusing, as we vated—Senator Knowles added to that and heard today, to sit down and discuss the called the meeting at the weekend a ‘frolic’. stalemate at the next Council of Australian The reason we have a serious debate going Governments meeting in Canberra, due at the on outside this place is that we do not see a

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13771 great deal of it from this government. This What we should be able to expect from government seems to think it has all the an- the Minister for Health and Ageing is vi- swers. What does it do? It puts a Medicare sion—some pulling together and leadership package on the table. Who says it is a good on how limited resources can best be spent. solution? Nobody: not a single body, except We want some leadership to facilitate the maybe the private health insurance groups. implementation of health strategies that Not a single other individual or group has health providers and policy developers ac- stood up and said, ‘What a great idea. This is cept as best practice. For Senator Knowles’ a fantastic package; we can buy into it.’ benefit: I was not able to get to the national When it comes to policy, this government health summit yesterday afternoon but I was likes to do it by itself and does not like to there last night and I talked with a great think that anybody else may be having a dis- number of people. They are extremely wor- cussion about it. ried about the future of health in this country. With regard to politicisation, if there is We need leadership to facilitate the imple- one sector that has politicised this debate, it mentation of health strategies that health is this government. Let me go to the media providers and policy developers can ac- release that was put out by the alliance. The knowledge as being best practice. What was final paragraph says: said yesterday, is being said today and will be said again tomorrow is not likely to be The harsh reality is that while both state and fed- eral governments have expressed their strong terribly different, in terms of its generality, support for a reform agenda, so far they have from papers that have been written over the failed to deliver. The conference will be held in past 30 years. I would also encourage Sena- time for suggestions made to seriously examine tor Knowles to look up those papers—they the state premiers when they meet with the Prime are on the web site; she does not need to go Minister for the COAG meeting at the end of to what she describes as a frolic. Over and August 2003. over we have heard from clinicians and re- That is the political statement. It says that searchers about the ways money is spent in- both the state and the federal governments efficiently and against patients’ best interests, have failed. If all these people are part of a merely because of administrative fragmenta- great conspiracy for the Labor Party then tion and responsibility fragmentation. obviously they have their wires crossed The Senate inquiry into public hospital when it comes to putting out their press re- funding is an excellent testament to the ideas lease, because they are not politicised—they that have been generated and discussed for are not interested in which party says what. Australia in the recent past. If the Minister What they want are outcomes. That affects for Health and Ageing sponsored the devel- all of us one way or the other. Those of us opment of options by nine working groups of who are ill and need hospital care, those who health policy analysts then why isn’t the are frail and aged who need age care and minister announcing reforms, together with rehabilitation, those who need care in the the associated expenditure? Surely, it is in- community because of chronic illness or dicative of a failure of leadership if the frailty—these are the people who want out- health minister cannot come up with solu- comes; they want policy that is based on tions that improve the health outcomes of sound advice and they are sick to death of Australians. Minister, what we need are solu- the divisiveness and the arguments between tions. If the minister for health at a national both levels of government, for starters. level cannot effect change then perhaps it is

CHAMBER 13772 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 time to revisit the responsibilities of the fed- Senator George Campbell to move on eral health portfolio. If it is all too political, the next day of sitting: then perhaps we need a fixed formula—an That the time for the presentation of the report independent body to provide this funding of the Employment, Workplace Relations and and allow the states, through block funding Education References Committee on the refusal perhaps, to provide services. We have had of the Government to respond to the order of the enough of the rhetoric of the Commonwealth Senate of 21 August 2002 for the production of purchasing services on our behalf, and we documents relating to financial information need to move on from there. The Democrats concerning higher education institutions be extended to 17 September 2003. have called for an independent arbiter in the health funding round since February this Senator Ridgeway to move on the next year, and I note that more recently this ap- day of sitting: proach has been endorsed by the Australian That the Senate— Health Reform Alliance. We should proceed (a) notes: down that path to avoid some of this bicker- (i) the great loss suffered by the ing and some of the accusations of politicisa- Indigenous community and the tion. (Time expired) Catholic communities of New South Question agreed to. Wales and Victoria following the death of Mrs Alice Ellen Kelly on 30 June NOTICES 2003, and Presentation (ii) that Alice was a senior custodian of the Senator Stott Despoja to move on the Mutthi Mutthi people of south-western next day of sitting: New South Wales and is survived by 10 children, 53 grandchildren, 109 great- That the Senate notes that: grandchildren and 5 great-great (a) 16 August to 24 August is National grandchildren; and Science Week 2003; (b) recognises the contributions made by (b) National Science Week is an annual Alice to the Indigenous and non- nation-wide celebration of science, Indigenous community during her innovation and technology with the aim of lifetime, including: inspiriting curiosity, discussion and debate (i) the integral role in preserving the about science and its impact in our world; Aboriginal heritage of the Mutthi (c) during National Science Week numerous Mutthi people in the Mungo National universities, private companies, museums, Park area, galleries and research centres will offer (ii) imparting vital anthropological and members of the public access to their archaeological knowledge of the facilities and staff; Willandra Lakes area, (d) National Science Week events are being (iii) receiving the Aboriginal Woman of the held in every state and territory and will Year award in 1988, and look at topics as diverse as the science of sex, drugs and rock’n’roll to that of code (iv) participating on many government and breaking machines and burping sheep; and non-government committees concerned with land preservation and cultural (e) as 2003 is the Year of Freshwater, this will heritage, including the World Heritage be the focus for National Science Week Committee. 2003 and school students are encouraged to ‘investigate freshwater’ during the Senator Ridgeway to move on the next week. day of sitting:

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13773

That the Senate notes: (i) cardio-vascular disease such as heart (a) with sadness, the death of Mr Charlie disease, Donovan on 23 July 2003; (ii) kidney disease, (b) that Charlie was a pioneer Indigenous (iii) ulcers and limb amputation, and sportsperson in athletics and in rugby (iv) retinopathy that is still the leading league during the 1950s and 60s and cause of blindness in Australians under played with Canterbury Bankstown, the age of 65; Parramatta, and South Sydney Rugby (d) that of every 100 Australians with diabetes League Football Clubs; and it is estimated that: (c) Charlie’s love of the South Sydney Rugby (i) over 75 will develop heart disease, League Football Club with whom he played and later worked as a volunteer (ii) 43 will have severe kidney disease by gear man for many years, with the club the time they are 50 years old, recently rewarding him with a ‘Life (iii) 60 to 70 will have mild to severe forms Membership’ award. of nervous system damage, Senator Ridgeway to move on the next (iv) 24 will develop retinopathy after 5 day of sitting: years, almost 60 after 10 years and all That the time for the presentation of the report 100 after 20 years, and of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (v) one will have had an amputation, as a References Committee on forestry plantations be result of diabetes; extended to 8 October 2003. (e) type 2 diabetes is costing Australians a Senator Brandis to move on the next day staggering $3 billion a year with the bill of sitting: for each sufferer averaging nearly $11 000 in expenditure and benefits according to That the time for the presentation of the report the Ausdiab Study (26 September 2002) of the Economics Legislation Committee on the but, on a per person basis, the cost of type provisions of the Financial Services Reform 1 diabetes is higher, with people with type Amendment Bill 2003 be extended to 21 August 1 diabetes accounting for 10 per cent of 2003. the diabetic population but 42 per of the Senator Barnett to move on the next day economic burden; of sitting: (f) that Australia has one of the highest rates That the Senate notes: of type 1 diabetes in the world; (a) that children in Australia who have type 1 (g) the important work of the Juvenile or insulin dependent diabetes face the Diabetes Research Foundation to highlight future of long-term health and social the concerns of Australians with type 1 consequences of this disease and its diabetes and, specifically, the watershed complications; event ‘Kids in the House’ held in (b) that people with type 1 diabetes also have Parliament House, Canberra, during the to inject themselves between two and five week beginning 17 August 2003; times each day, monitor their blood (h) the outstanding work by Australian glucose levels (BGL) and maintain the researchers to find a cure for type 1 balance between too high BGL which diabetes through pancreatic islet cell leads to complications and too low BGL transplantation; which can lead to hypoglycaemia, in (i) that research is essential to finding a which the person can lose consciousness; transplant procedure that is safe and (c) the complications of type 1 diabetes which available to children with type 1 diabetes; include: and

CHAMBER 13774 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(j) the need for support from the Australian (h) the implications for Australia of the recent Government to establish: criminal charges against the Canadian Red (i) a national clinical islet cell transplant Cross for not implementing surrogate centre to advance islet cell transplan- testing for Hepatitis C in the 1980s; tation, and (i) the Commonwealth’s involvement in the (ii) a research grant to attract the world’s provision of compensation to victims of best scientists and ensure Australia’s transfused Hepatitis C, including the use position at the forefront of global of confidentiality clauses in those research. compensation payments; Senator Hutchins to move on the next (j) the high infection rate of Hepatitis C for day of sitting: people suffering from haemophilia; (k) the extent to which Australia has been That the following matters be referred to the self-sufficient in blood stocks in the past 3 Community Affairs References Committee for decades; inquiry and report by the first sitting day of the 2004 winter session:Ã (l) the importation of foreign-sourced blood plasma for use in the manufacture of (a) the history of post-transfusion Hepatitis in blood products, and its potential role in Australia, including when Non-A, Non-B the proliferation of Hepatitis C infected Hepatitis (Hepatitis C) was first identified blood; as a risk to the safety of blood supplies in Australia and internationally; (m) the number of Australians who have been infected with Hepatitis C through blood (b) the understanding of Hepatitis C by blood transfusion; bankers, virologists, and liver specialists during the past 3 decades, including when (n) the impact that blood-transfused Hepatitis Hepatitis C was first identified as a virus C has had on its victims and their families; transmissible through blood; and (c) when the first cases of post-transfusion (o) what services can be provided or remedies Hepatitis C were recorded in Australia; made available to improve outcomes for people adversely affected by transfused (d) when the Australian Red Cross and the Hepatitis C. plasma fractionator Commonwealth Serum Laboratories first become aware of Senator Mackay to move on the next day infections from blood contaminated by of sitting: Hepatitis C, and the actions taken by those That the Senate— organisations in response to those (a) notes that: infections; (i) the Special Minister of State (Senator (e) the process leading to the decision by the Australian Red Cross not to implement Abetz) has launched a petition in Tasmania calling on the Australian testing (such as surrogate testing) for Hepatitis C once it became available; Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to overturn its decision to cancel the (f) the likelihood that Hepatitis C infections program Behind the News, and could have been prevented by the earlier implementation of surrogate testing and (ii) this decision by the ABC was taken in response to insufficient funding to donor deferral; allow the ABC to deliver its full range (g) the implications for Australia of the of services; and world’s most extensive blood inquiry, (b) given the Government’s direct Canada’s Royal Commission (the Krever Report); responsibility for the lack of funding, calls on Senator Abetz to more usefully use his

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13775

ministerial influence to lobby his Senator FAULKNER (New South colleagues, the Minister for Com- Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- munications, Information Technology and ate) (3.40 p.m.)—by leave—Mr President, the Arts (Senator Alston) and the Prime you would be aware that late last week I ap- Minister (Mr Howard), to provide proached you on behalf of the opposition and sufficient funding to the ABC to allow the show to be continued. requested that this matter not be debated on Thursday of last week but be postponed to BUSINESS this week. I understood that there had been Rearrangement communicated to me a similar sentiment on Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western your part also, Senator Brown, that this mat- Australia—Manager of Government Busi- ter be deferred for debate until this sitting ness in the Senate) (3.38 p.m.)—I move: week. Mr President, I was grateful that, hav- That general business notice of motion no. 525 ing received that approach from the opposi- (relating to the proposed amalgamation of parlia- tion, you quickly acted to ensure that the mentary departments) be considered before the matter did not come on for debate on Thurs- resumption of government business orders of the day, and as I understand it your office was day today. involved in communicating that to parties Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.38 and senators in the chamber. p.m.)—by leave—Could the Manager of This is not a straightforward matter. It was Government Business tell us why this mo- dealt with by the House of Representatives at tion is being brought on in this manner—that the end of the last sitting week, as Senator is, for discussion on the same day? It would Brown and other honourable senators may be have been at least polite to have given us aware. But it seemed sensible in the circum- warning that it was coming on the next day stances, given the broad sentiment around or a day later in the week. I am ready and the chamber, that we ought to deal with it able to debate the matter, but it is an impor- now. I hope my having provided that infor- tant debate. It has been on the Notice Paper. I mation might assist the chamber. It is possi- am wondering why it has been brought on bly easier for me to provide it to the cham- for today. ber, Mr President, than for you to do so. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western The PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator. Australia—Manager of Government Busi- Question agreed to. ness in the Senate) (3.39 p.m.)—by leave—I am at a bit of a loss in that I was not present COMMITTEES in the Senate on Thursday. Apparently there Environment, Communications, Informa- were some discussions between parties—I tion Technology and the Arts Legislation presume at whips’ meetings on Wednesday, Committee if not Thursday—and there was an agree- Extension of Time ment that it be postponed until today. The Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (3.42 motion that is now before the Senate is to p.m.)—by leave—At the request of the Chair postpone it until a little later today. As I un- of the Environment, Communications, In- derstood it, everyone at the whips’ meeting formation Technology and the Arts Legisla- indicated that they were happy for it to be tion Committee, Senator Eggleston, I move: dealt with today. So it is news to me that That the time for the presentation of the report someone has a problem with it. of the Environment, Communications, Informa- tion Technology and the Arts Legislation Com-

CHAMBER 13776 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 mittee on the provisions of the Postal Services the postponement of business of the Senate Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 be extended to notice of motion No. 1 be put. 19 August 2003. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.44 Question agreed to. p.m.)—by leave—I inform Senator Economics Legislation Committee Humphries that there have been a number of Meeting postponements for this disallowance motion. Senator FERRIS (South Australia) (3.42 This is the last one that I will be seeking. I p.m.)—by leave—At the request of the Chair assure him that I will be bringing it forward of the Economics Legislation Committee, on the dates specified if this postponement is Senator Brandis, I move: agreed to. Otherwise I would take the matter to a vote. That: Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capi- (1) the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during tal Territory) (3.44 p.m.)—by leave—I am the sitting of the Senate today, from 5 pm, to quite happy to consider accommodating take evidence for the committee’s inquiry senators who have a need for postponement into the provisions of the ACIS for certain reasons. I do not know what Sena- Administration Amendment Bill 2003 and a tor Brown’s reasons are for this postpone- related bill; and ment. I do know that I took the opportunity (2) the Economics Legislation Committee be in about May of this year to ring Senator authorised to hold a private meeting Brown after an earlier postponement and ask otherwise than in accordance with standing him about the reasons or the timing of his order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate intention to bring this matter on for debate. on Tuesday, 19 August 2003, from 3 pm to Senator Brown advised me then that it would 3.30 pm. be brought on for debate in the last two sit- Question agreed to. ting weeks in June. I accepted that assurance NOTICES on his behalf, but I note that subsequently the Postponement matter was not debated in that period but postponed until this period of sitting. Items of business were postponed as fol- lows: Senator Brown is aware of my interest in the matter. It is a matter that affects the peo- General business notice of motion no. 530 standing in the name of Senator Cherry for ple of the ACT very directly and very perti- today, relating to compensation for Indige- nently, given the importance of the route nous workers in Queensland, postponed till proposed for the Gungahlin Drive extension. 20 August 2003. I think that postponement and delay are ac- Postponement notification announced: ceptable to a point, but I think that point has been reached and passed. I believe that in Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of Senator Brown this sitting period the matter should be dealt for 19 August 2003, relating to the disal- with and, for that reason, I urge the Senate lowance of Amendment 41 of the national not to support the postponement of the mat- Capital Plan (Gungahlin Drive Extension), ter. to be postponed till 4 November 2003. Senator FAULKNER (New South Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capi- Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- tal Territory) (3.44 p.m.)—Pursuant to stand- ate) (3.46 p.m.)—by leave—I think there is ing order 67, I request that the question for some good sense in what Senator Humphries

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13777 has said, but I also accept the general ap- senators in the chamber. If it finds favour proach to postponements that works coopera- with the government as well, it seems to be a tively around the chamber. My expectation is sensible way through in this circumstance. that this matter will come on tomorrow. I We are expecting the postponement to come think the original postponement was effec- before us tomorrow anyway. Senator tive as of tomorrow—I can be corrected if I Brown’s notification has brought forward the am wrong about that—but Senator Brown matter to today that we were expecting to has given notification of a further postpone- deal with tomorrow. If that is withdrawn, we ment and that is the issue which should be can deal with the matter, as I understand it, before the chamber today. and there would be the substantive question It seems to me that the sensible thing to do of dealing with that tomorrow. With a bit of here, without wasting an inordinate amount luck and a little bit of goodwill, perhaps we of time, is for Senator Brown, if it were able can work that through in a cooperative way. to be done by leave, to withdraw the notifica- The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, if tion of this current postponement. This Senator Brown were to withdraw, by leave, would mean effectively that a question for his notification today, he would then be able postponement will come back before the to put a motion for postponement tomorrow. chamber tomorrow. You can correct me if I The situation is that if the notification is am wrong, Mr President, and no doubt you withdrawn the matter will come up tomor- will quickly do so, but I think my under- row; if it is not withdrawn it will come up in standing is correct. I know that Senator November. Lundy, as well as Senator Humphries and Senator FAULKNER—With due respect, Senator Brown, has an interest in this and Mr President, you have put quite succinctly there may be a way that it can be worked what I was putting not so succinctly. through to see agreement being reached. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.50 Hence, the delay may well only be 24 hours, p.m.)—In the spirit of what Senator Faulkner which is probably acceptable. has been so sensibly putting forward, I seek I think the general point made by Senator leave to withdraw the notification, and we Humphries has substance and I think the will see what happens in the next 24 hours. chamber needs to take account of that. But Leave granted. surely, without getting into a long drawn out, knockdown debate about this now, the sensi- CHILDREN: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ble way would be for Senator Brown to Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— agree to withdraw the notification before the Leader of the Australian Democrats) (3.51 chair and see if it can be worked through to p.m.)—At the request of Senator Stott De- agreement to bring on the debate at the earli- spoja, I move: est possible opportunity. If it cannot be That the Senate— agreed, obviously we can go to determining (a) notes that: the matter substantively tomorrow. That is (i) the impact on children who witness my suggestion to the chamber through you, domestic violence is consistent Mr President, which I think might be a sen- with symptoms of Traumatic Stress sible way of dealing with this. At worst, it is Disorder, only delaying this matter for final determina- (ii) the effects of domestic violence on tion tomorrow as opposed to today, but it mothers and their children are regarded may be able to be agreed upon amongst

CHAMBER 13778 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

as so debilitating that some form of Ordered that the report be printed. separation from the perpetrator must Environment: Carbon Dioxide Emissions occur, and (iii) both the Family Law Council (2002) The PRESIDENT—I present a letter report titled, Family Law and Child from the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Protection, and the Family Court’s Carr, responding to a resolution of the Senate Magellan Project have recognised that of 24 June 2003, relating to carbon dioxide children who are subject to serious emissions. abuse are not protected in the current Tail Docking of Dogs Family Court system from continuing abuse; and The PRESIDENT—I present a letter (b) urges the Government to: from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Truss, responding to a reso- (i) give urgent consideration to amending lution of the Senate of 26 June 2003, con- the Family Law Act 1975 to ensure that child safety is prioritised, including by cerning tail docking of dogs. giving consideration to requiring Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— judges to prioritise child safety when Leader of the Australian Democrats) (3.53 determining the child’s best interests as p.m.)—by leave—I move: the first condition of meeting those That the Senate take note of the document. interests, (ii) establish a Federal Child Protection The motion, which I moved, was passed by Service for the family law system, as the Senate on 26 June and was supported by recommended by the Family Law the Senate, which called on the federal Min- Council’s 2002 report, in order to ister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, perform the function of investigating Mr Truss, to obtain consensus at the 30 June child abuse concerns and provide meeting of the Primary Industries Ministerial information arising from such Council on the implementation of a national investigations to courts exercising ban on the tail docking of dogs for cosmetic jurisdiction under the Act, purposes. In effect, the minister’s response (iii) increase funding to develop cooper- has completely ignored that resolution. He is ation between state and territory child simply saying that responsibility for the issue protection authorities in order to rests with the states and territories and each provide the level of investigation and reporting required to improve current jurisdiction of the states and territories has child protection services, and agreed to confirm its position on a ban out of session from the PIMC meeting in April. (iv) improve the current lack of coordin- ation between state and territory That agreement by the jurisdictions was authorities and courts exercising not met by the state of New South Wales; it jurisdiction under the Act. did not confirm its position out of session Question agreed to. and it did not confirm its position at the DOCUMENTS 30 June meeting. It is incorrect for the minis- ter to say that this rests with the states and Work of Committees territories. He is a member of the Primary The PRESIDENT—I present Work of Industries Ministerial Council and he is quite Committees for the period 1 January to certainly able to work to obtain consensus. 30 June 2003 and consolidated statistics for He has basically ignored the complete thrust 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. of the Senate resolution, which is urging him

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13779 to act to generate a consensus rather than to will not go forward unless everybody agrees, simply say it is a matter for the states and and that is the case with every state as I un- territories and they have not got their act to- derstand it. They support the implementation gether yet. That is the whole point of having of this ban but they do not want to do it national leadership on an issue. unless every state and territory agrees. New It is my concern that the Senate’s will and South Wales, unfortunately, is not agreeing indeed the Senate’s call to the minister have for whatever reason. That is not just a poor been ignored completely in the response that reflection on New South Wales but a poor he has provided. It is not the most pressing reflection on the paucity of the whole ap- issue on the planet, I must confess, and it is proach to animal welfare in Australia where, not even the most pressing animal welfare unless you can get universal agreement, issue; nonetheless, it is a straightforward nothing happens. issue. It should be straightforward. The Pri- This is a very uncontroversial policy, ex- mary Industries Ministerial Council has re- cept with a very small number of breeders. It peatedly indicated, since last year, that a na- has been advocated for many years by the tional position on banning tail docking was Australian Veterinary Association and the imminent. At the April 2003 meeting, it reit- RSPCA, who are very much on the moderate erated its commitment to ending tail docking side of the spectrum in terms of animal wel- of dogs but, once again, failed to reach con- fare organisations, as well as by others who sensus. Instead it indicated that it would sort are committed to animal welfare issues. De- that out on 30 June but, once again, there spite all that and despite the obvious animal was no consensus reached. welfare benefits involved and the clear sup- It appears quite clear that the New South port of the Veterinary Association for the Wales government, for whatever reason, is removal of this practice, we still have no dragging its heels on this issue. A number of movement forward. The federal minister has state and territory governments have gone basically washed his hands of it, which again forward—the ACT government has in par- indicates why we need to get a clearer na- ticular and I congratulate it on doing so. The tional regime for animal welfare issues. Queensland government has put in place Quite frankly, the risk is there that if New similar regulations to be automatically en- South Wales continues to stall and the federal acted in October 2003, so there are some government refuses to take a position and good actions there by those Labor govern- allows them to stall, then we could have ments. But, unfortunately, the Labor gov- things sliding backwards very quickly and ernment in New South Wales is continuing to other states would then start backing out. refuse to provide a clear position. That is something that would very much be a lost opportunity for straightforward, simple, This is a clear example of why we do need positive change in one area of animal welfare a more clear-cut national approach and over- purely because one state government refuses sight of animal welfare issues. If this rather to commit itself and because the federal gov- minor animal welfare issue cannot be dealt ernment will not play any sort of leadership with effectively by the Primary Industries role at all. Ministerial Council, then it highlights once again why we need the ability for a national For the minister to say, as he has in his re- approach to be put in place. At the moment sponse, that the finalisation of this issue is a we have a circumstance where most states priority for the Primary Industries Ministerial Council simply is not borne out by the re-

CHAMBER 13780 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 cord. If it had been a priority then they (1) That, in accordance with section 54 of the would have sorted this out a long time ago. If Parliamentary Service Act 1999, the it is a priority for the council, as the minister Senate resolves that: says, he is part of that council—I think from (a) the Joint House Department, memory he chairs it, although I may be Department of the Parliamentary wrong—and he certainly can ensure that a Library and Department of the priority means a priority and that we get Parliamentary Reporting Staff are abolished with effect from 31 January resolution. I urge the minister to reflect once 2004; and again on the content of the Senate resolution and do something to act in accord with it. (b) a new joint service department, to be called the ‘Department of Question agreed to. Parliamentary Services’ be established ASSENT from 1 February 2004 to fulfil all the functions of the former joint A message from His Excellency the Gov- departments; ernor-General was reported informing the and supports the Presiding Officers in the Senate that he had assented to the following following endeavours: law: (c) to reinforce the independence of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Legislation Parliamentary Library by strengthening Amendment Act (No. 1) 2003 the current role of the Library AUSTRALIAN PROTECTIVE SERVICE committees of both Houses of AMENDMENT BILL 2003 Parliament; Report of Senate Legal and Constitutional (d) to bring forward amendments to the Legislation Committee Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to provide for a statutory position of Senator FERGUSON (South Australia) Parliamentary Librarian within the new (4.00 p.m.)—On behalf of the Chair of the joint service department and conferring Legal and Constitutional Legislation Com- on the Parliamentary Librarian direct mittee, Senator Payne, I present the report of reporting responsibilities to the the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legisla- Presiding Officers and to the Library tion Committee on the Australian Protective committees of both Houses of Service Amendment Bill 2003, together with Parliament; the Hansard record of proceedings and sub- (e) to ensure that the resources and missions received by the committee. services be provided to the Parliamentary Library in the new joint Ordered that the report be printed. service department be specified in an Senator LUDWIG (Queensland) (4.01 annual agreement between the p.m.)—by leave—I move Departmental Secretary and the Parliamentary Librarian, approved by That the Senate take note of the report. the Presiding Officers following I seek leave to continue my remarks later. consideration by the Library Leave granted; debate adjourned. committees of both Houses of Parliament; and PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS: PROPOSED DEPARTMENT OF (f) to consider, after the establishment of the joint service department, that PARLIAMENTARY SERVICES department providing human resources The PRESIDENT (4.01 p.m.)—I move: and financial transaction-processing activities for all the Parliamentary

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13781

departments, subject to such an On 23 October 2002, I tabled the commis- arrangement being proven to be both sioner’s report, with an invitation to senators, cost-effective and efficient. parliamentary staff and other interested peo- (2) That this resolution be transmitted to the ple to read the report and provide comments. House of Representatives. Separately, the Speaker and I wrote to Since 1901 the Australian parliament has had party leaders and Independent senators and five separate and distinct departments— members about the report. Senate, House of Representatives, Joint The Standing Committee on Appropria- House, Parliamentary Library and Parlia- tions and Staffing examined the report and mentary Reporting Staff. Over the last 102 submissions made to the Presiding Officers years there have been various attempts to on it. streamline the administration. It reported to the Senate on 23 June 2003 Early last year the former President and and agreed, without binding any member, the Speaker commissioned the Parliamentary that the President put a motion before the Service Commissioner, Mr Andrew Podger, Senate recommending the amalgamation of to examine the efficiency of the administra- the three joint service parliamentary depart- tion of the parliament with a view to improv- ments into a single department. ing the management of security at Parliament House and, in addition, the commissioner The Appropriations and Staffing Commit- was to consider any measures which would tee recommended that the new position of make the administration of Parliament House Parliamentary Librarian be a statutory office, more efficient and more cost effective. within the new joint department, and the Speaker and I agree with that suggestion. Mr Podger reported on security matters in June 2002 and, as a result, the security func- Section 54 of the Parliamentary Service tion has been largely centralised in the Joint Act 1999 provides that each House can pass House Department and a Security Manage- a resolution to alter the structure of the joint ment Board has been permanently estab- departments, but not the chamber depart- lished, including amongst its membership the ments. Usher of the Black Rod. Honourable senators will see that the mo- In terms of parliamentary administration, tion before the Senate provides for a starting the Commissioner has recommended that the date of 1 February 2004 for a new Depart- three joint departments—that is, the Joint ment of Parliamentary Services. House Department, the Department of the The starting date is to allow preparation of Parliamentary Library and the Department of financial statements; finalisation of asset the Parliamentary Reporting Staff—be registers; completion of annual reports for merged into a single department. the abolished departments; and settling of He also recommended that, to preserve the certain staffing and administrative details, independence of the Parliamentary Library, a including a recruitment process for the posi- separate position of Parliamentary Librarian tions of secretary of the new department and be established within the joint department, the Parliamentary Librarian. with that person to have direct reporting re- The Speaker and I have decided that, if sponsibilities to the Presiding Officers and each chamber passes motions for amalgamat- the Library committees of the Senate and the ing the joint departments, the position of sec- House of Representatives. retary and the position of Parliamentary Li-

CHAMBER 13782 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 brarian will be advertised nationally. The Hawke and Keating governments to reform appointment will be made following a report the structure of the parliamentary depart- by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner ments. I note that at the time the Liberal and in accordance with the legislation. National parties were strongly opposed to In his report, Mr Podger estimates a sav- such a course of action, and they had the ing of around 35 positions in the joint de- support during those debates of the Inde- partments. This will mean some initial cost pendents and the minor parties here in the for redundancies, but a significant saving in Senate. One of the outcomes of the debate the longer term. Mr Podger estimates annual during the time of the previous Labor ad- savings in the longer term of around $10 mil- ministration was that any proposal in support lion per annum. The Speaker and I do not of amalgamations needed to come back be- expect any forced redundancies as a result of fore the chambers for endorsement, and of this measure. course that is why you, Mr President, have put that proposal to the Senate. The Senate, Duplication of secretaries, corporate, per- obviously, has to agree with any such amal- sonnel and similar functions in the joint de- gamation before it can occur. partments will cease, and there are possible future savings in additional rationalisation of You were right, I think, Mr President, to chamber department corporate services, sub- outline to the Senate the fact that the former ject to those being proven to be cost effective President of the Senate, Senator Reid, and and efficient. the Speaker commissioned Mr Podger, the Parliamentary Services Commissioner, to I submit the motion to the will of the Sen- examine the administration of the parlia- ate. ment—with a view to improving the man- Senator FAULKNER (New South agement of security here in Parliament Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- House—and also to consider any measures ate) (4.06 p.m.)—I move the following that would make the administration of the amendment to the motion before the chair: parliament and of Parliament House more After paragraph (1), insert: efficient and more cost effective. It is impor- “(1 A) That any savings achieved by the amal- tant to remember that the terms of reference gamation may be used to offset increases in costs established at the time did not contemplate of security measures approved by the Presiding Mr Podger examining the issue of the merger Officers for Parliament House, but if those in- of parliamentary departments. But, anyway, creases in costs exceed those savings, the appro- Mr Podger went ahead and did so. I recall priations for the parliamentary departments are to Senator Ray’s questioning recently of former be supplemented for the excess.” President, Senator Reid, before an estimates It is true, of course, as you said, Mr Presi- committee. His questioning made this point dent, that there have been many attempts to absolutely clear. But, of course, this did not amalgamate the parliamentary departments. inhibit Mr Podger’s work at all. Mr Podger Former Prime Minister Fisher was one such did it. He went ahead and examined the issue advocate of this particular course of action, of departmental amalgamations anyway, and so the efforts to rationalise the five parlia- he has made recommendations. mentary departments in fact date back as far You, Mr President, mentioned Mr as 1908. My own memory of this, of course, Podger’s involvement in this. It is quite un- really only goes back directly to the efforts clear to me how much responsibility for this that were made during the lives of the Mr Podger really has. The truth is that he

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13783 delegated most of the work on this to Mr Len plies to other agencies and departments in Early, who is well known to many senators government. Evidence given to our estimate because he is a former Deputy Secretary of committees confirms that no other depart- the Department of Finance and Administra- ment or agency has had to find savings to tion. He in turn shunted most of this work fund enhanced security measures. Over the out to PricewaterhouseCoopers. So it was four-year period, an extra $374.7 million has done by Mr Podger in name only; that is all been allocated for new security measures and it was. The Senate Standing Committee on Budget Paper No. 2 directly links parliamen- Appropriations and Staffing and the Senate tary security funding to savings measures. Finance and Public Administration Legisla- This is the situation we face—find these tion Committee have, thankfully, been able savings. The only mechanism that has been to keep a weather eye on this issue as it has established is the implementation of the developed. Podger report or literally the core functions The situation is that you cannot now ex- of all the parliamentary departments will be amine the issue of security around Parlia- attacked. The only way of making up these ment House and the question of amalgama- shortfalls would be to attack core functions tion of parliamentary departments separately. of the parliamentary departments. That is the I want to deal with that matter in some detail. situation the Senate and the parliament face In the most recent budget, $6.8 million was in relation to these particular matters. The allocated in the current financial year to sus- Senate Staffing and Appropriations Commit- tain the new security measures around the tee has been unconvinced that the level of building. In the financial years 2004-05 and savings claimed or indicated in the Podger 2005-06, an extra $6.2 million was allocated, report is achievable. Even if the $5 million and in the year 2006-07 an extra $6.4 million can be harvested it will still leave the parlia- was to be spent on security measures. But in mentary departments with another $1.2 mil- the out years—2004-05, 2005-06 and lion to be found in savings in the next out 2006-07—there is no funding provided by year. Hence the sensible amendment that government for security measures. In fact, in stands in my name: those years we are required to find the funds That any savings achieved by the amalgama- for those security measures here in Parlia- tion may be used to offset increases in costs of ment House through savings measures. That security measures approved by the Presiding Of- is the trick here. As a result, the five parlia- ficers for Parliament House, but if those increases mentary departments must, through savings in costs exceed those savings, the appropriations measures, generate $6.2 million in 2004-05 for the parliamentary departments are to be sup- and 2005-06 and $6.4 million in 2006-07. plemented for the excess. Of course, the Department of Finance and I note that the government accepted that amendment in the House of Representatives. Administration argues that the savings can be found via the Podger report. The government The plan under the Podger report is that is saying that the only way you can imple- the number of parliamentary departments ment the security measures is by implement- will go from five to three. You will have one ing the Podger report. That is not tantamount large joint parliamentary department com- to blackmail; it is blackmail. The parliament prising the Department of the Parliamentary is being held over a barrel on the issue of the Library, the Joint House Department and the safety and security of all those who work in Department of the Parliamentary Reporting this building. This is not a situation that ap- Staff. That will be combined into a joint par-

CHAMBER 13784 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 liamentary services department. The two Mind you, I do not think anyone would chamber departments will remain in some- have expected that a different approach thing like their current form. would be applied to the parliamentary de- I am amazed that the Liberal Party and the partments than is applied to any other de- National Party have so diametrically changed partment or agency across the breadth of their view in relation to the amalgamation of government in relation to forcing the parlia- the parliamentary departments. Whatever mentary departments to fund security meas- else you can say about the opposition on this ures through offset savings within the par- issue, we have been consistent in our ap- liamentary departments themselves. I would proach. We have been consistent in relation have a different attitude to this if other de- to the need for parliamentary departments partments and agencies faced the same sorts since 1908, whether you agree with us or of challenges, but it is only the parliamentary not. This did not happen right through the departments that have had to face that chal- period of the Hawke and Keating govern- lenge. I say respectfully to you, Mr Presi- ments most recently because the Liberal dent, and the Speaker that your trip to the Party and the National Party would not have ERC was a highly unsuccessful one and we a bar of it. Now that the Liberal Party and the are now debating the consequences of that National Party find themselves in govern- lack of success in the chamber. ment you can bet your life no-one will stand If the amalgamation does not occur, you up in the chamber and take the same view and Mr Speaker will be required to develop that they so trenchantly argued for—this po- alternative savings measures to the tune of sition of principle—in this debate. You can $1.2 million on the part of each of the five bet your life that they will fold like a deck of parliamentary departments. The conse- cards. I think that the hypocrisy of this posi- quences of that I do not think are yet well tion as far as the coalition is concerned is understood around parliament. Certainly, on extraordinary. information that has been made available to We in the Labor Party have been the only us, the consequences are far reaching. The political grouping in this parliament to ac- parliament has been unable to stand up to the tively support the amalgamation of the par- Department of Finance and Administration, liamentary departments but we are not will- unable to stand up to the ERC and unable to ing to see the parliamentary departments stand up to executive government and that is strangled by an approach that is nothing why the amendment has been moved by the other than blackmail. That is the approach in opposition to try to ensure that if the in- the budget. That is the approach that has creases in costs for security exceed the sav- been effectively put to the Presiding Officers ings of amalgamation, the appropriations of by the Expenditure Review Committee of the parliamentary departments, of which cabinet. The President gives reports to esti- there will be three, I expect, are supple- mates committees and to the Senate Staffing mented for the excess. and Appropriations Committee on how the Governments have to face up to the fact Presiding Officers have gone at the ERC, but that the parliamentary departments do not I must say that I do not think they have dem- have the capacity to find savings on a major onstrated a huge amount of power in the scale. Of course, we know from the informa- processes of government. It seems to me that tion provided to us by the Clerk of the Senate they have not been successful in holding the what the impact would be in relation to cuts line. in that department. I am pleased that efforts

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13785 have been made—and I think they are genu- mounted in relation to the amalgamation of ine efforts that have been made—to protect parliamentary departments but not with the the independence of the Parliamentary Li- sword of Damocles hanging over the heads brary. That is important and absolutely es- of those who sit in both chambers. sential. I am pleased that something that is It is possible that this will develop over long overdue will occur—the appointment of time into a positive reform for the parlia- a Parliamentary Librarian. It seems to me to ment. Time will tell. I can assure the Senate be one of the very few positive things that that, as far as the opposition is concerned, we might well come forward from this proposal, will be closely monitoring the amalgamation. although we will make an assessment, I sup- We will be using all the accountability pose, of what all the consequences and mechanisms that are available to us to ensure knock-on effects of the amalgamation of the that this matter proceeds in an orderly way. I parliamentary departments might be. But note the commitments that have been given there will be a statutory position of Parlia- in relation to the question of involuntary re- mentary Librarian, reporting to the Presiding dundancies. I do not think there is a need for Officers and the library committees of the the Senate to express a view on this matter. I parliament, and that is in my view one im- can assure the Senate that the Speaker has portant and positive development from what told the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, has been a very unfortunate situation. that there will be no involuntary redundan- The problem that we face in relation to cies. I, for one, am willing to take the Presid- this matter is that this debate, as it is held in ing Officers at their word. I think that is the this chamber, leaves the parliament with no appropriate way for us to proceed, as op- choice. That is the difficulty with this situa- posed to providing an expression of opinion tion as it has evolved. It is very difficult to on the matter in this chamber. I commend the deal in a debate like this with amalgamation opposition’s approach to the Senate. of parliamentary departments on the merits Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western of the proposal. Really, we are not debating Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the the merits of the proposal. Really, we have Treasurer) (4.26 p.m.)—The government no choice but to agree with the amalgama- supports the motion that has been moved by tion of the parliamentary departments. It is you, Mr President, which would have the just a case of political blackmail from the effect of facilitating an amalgamation of government. three of the parliamentary departments. I Senator Brown interjecting— think it is a little unfortunate that the Leader Senator FAULKNER—The conse- of the Opposition in the Senate should once quences of not agreeing with this proposi- again, in his well-practised style, find every tion, Senator Brown, whether you like it or possible political point to create a partisan not, are too awful to contemplate. Finding debate— that level of savings across the parliamentary Senator Robert Ray—That is what you departments would mean that the way this used to do. What did you do back in 1988 place has operated in the past could not be and 1993? contemplated into the future. I do not think Senator IAN CAMPBELL—In 1988 I that is a responsible course of action for the had a real job. Mr President, the Labor Party Senate or the House of Representatives to spokesman wants to say that they cannot take. I do think that a strong case can be really support this proposal on its merits.

CHAMBER 13786 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

However, Labor has supported this since President Sir and the then 1901 or 1903. Speaker, Sir , also initiated Senator Faulkner—I actually said 1908. reviews of each of the five departments and said that there was significant scope for effi- Senator IAN CAMPBELL—Okay, since ciencies. the early 1900s. The proposal that you have put before us, Mr President, is one that will So this is an area where parliamentarians not proceed without a partisan and rancorous from both political parties have agreed on the debate, but credit should be given to people need for reform. And I think it is fair to say who have been proposing and refining this in light of today’s debate that they did so reform for generations. without any rancour and without trying to score cheap political points. Over the genera- It was Alfred Deakin who suggested, only tions they all agreed that there are efficien- two years after the formation of the national cies that can be made. Only recently, the last parliament, that there must be a more effi- speaker of the House who was a Labor Party cient way of running the national parliament. member, Speaker Martin, introduced a bill. Professor , in his book Austra- In the explanatory memorandum to the bill— lia’s Commonwealth Parliament, which was which you have probably reread recently, Mr published in 1988 for the Bicentenary, re- President—he identified savings of about lated the Rt Hon. Andrew Fisher’s approach, $1½ million per year. So not only has the taken in June 1910. Andrew Fisher suggested government, through the Expenditure Re- at that time that there should be a single par- view Committee, said to parliament that it liamentary department, but this was not pro- would be helpful to make some savings, but ceeded with. In 1933 Mr Pinner, who later also a very recent Labor Party Speaker iden- became the Commissioner of the Public Ser- tified potential savings. vice Board, examined the organisation and the working of the departments of parlia- I do not think anybody here would say ment. He did so at the request of the Presid- that the parliament should be exempt from ing Officers. He made a report that also sug- running its affairs efficiently and trying to gested the adoption of a single department find savings where possible. The people of with a single clerk of the parliament who Australia read articles in newspapers and would be ultimately responsible to the Presi- hear stories on the television and the radio on dent and the Speaker. a very regular basis about waste by parlia- mentarians and parliament. I think many of That was again suggested by the 1953 those stories are unfair. They are usually a Public Service Commission report and by the way for journalists and newspaper proprie- National Commission of Audit in 1996. So it tors to fill in a bit of space between the ad- is not a new idea; it is one that has been vertisements they sell and to denigrate, in pushed by Public Service reformers and poli- their own way—and not a particularly intel- ticians decade after decade after decade. So lectually sound way—the workings of the the proposal that is now before us is indeed a parliament and parliamentarians. credit to those who have worked on it and to you, Mr President, for bringing it before the I do not think, if you look at all govern- Senate today. In the other place in 1977, ment expenditure at a time when you are former Speaker Gordon Scholes suggested trying to ensure that taxpayers’ dollars are that the three joint departments should be spent efficiently, that any areas of govern- merged into one. In 1980 former Senate ment expenditure should be exempt. I think

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13787 it is quite brutally unfair to seek to score po- them and not a reflection on the government litical points against the government on this or anybody else in this place. particular issue—on this particular motion of Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (4.35 yours, Mr President—because it detracts p.m.)—This proposal does have a long his- from the importance of the reform ‘on its tory. Poor old Senator Campbell does not merits’, to use Senator Faulkner’s words. For want to rebut any of the points that Senator the record, we will not oppose the amend- Faulkner has made because he is incapable ment moved by Senator Faulkner; in fact we of doing so. This proposal has been around will vote for it. for a long while—Houdini had the first pow- I now turn to the substance of the reform. ered flight in Australia in the same year that It is fair to say that many of the previous Andrew Fisher decided to move on this. This proposals for the amalgamation of depart- proposal was around at the same time that ments have failed for a range of reasons, but the great American fleet first visited Austra- one of them that seems to go through all the lia. Indeed, Carlton Football Club was a literature and discussion on this issue football power way back then. That is how through the last century is the independence long ago it was, Mr President. of the Senate and, particularly, the Parlia- Over the years there have been five seri- mentary Library. Some of the outstanding ous attempts to amalgamate the parliamen- achievements encapsulated within the pro- tary departments. A major step forward was posal before the parliament today are that it when the executive government in 1987 de- safeguards the independence of the library cided to amalgamate 29 departments into and, as Senator Faulkner has referred to, it 18—17 portfolio departments plus the De- establishes the position of Parliamentary Li- partment of Veterans’ Affairs. The argument brarian. And I believe your proposal, Mr came up that, if government was willing to President, is to make that position a statutory take all the risks necessary to amalgamate one. what was an ever growing list of government The 1999 reforms to the Public Service, departments back into 18, why should not when the Australian Parliamentary Service the parliament do so? It was frustrated on was established, separated officers working every occasion, not by a lack of will from the for parliamentary departments from the gen- Presiding Officers, not by a lack of encour- eral Public Service. It was a major reform, agement from government, but by an intran- one which received bipartisan support at the sigent opposition aided and abetted by the time, and was something which was long minor parties. That is why it is before us to- overdue. Indeed, the special role and inde- day and was not solved 10 or 15 years ago. pendence of staff of the parliament was one We cannot divorce this issue from security of the drivers of Andrew Fisher’s approach at Parliament House. Not only are the two way back in 1910. I do not intend to go into things intertwined in the argument; they are serious rebuttal of the points made by Sena- intertwined in the budget papers. The Presid- tor Faulkner about the ERC and the process. ing Officers, the President and the Speaker, I do not think it adds to the quality of the have had to take courageous and drastic ac- debate on this particular measure. The Senate tion to tighten security in this building. Some can determine exactly what it wants to do in of my colleagues come to me and say: relation to the proposal. If Senator Faulkner ‘We’re not that happy with these new, en- or anyone voting for this believe that they hanced measures. We don’t worry so much are being blackmailed, that is a reflection on

CHAMBER 13788 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 about our own security.’ I tell them: ‘Frankly, Mr President, you might recall watching the neither do I.’ I do not care whether they get evidence—that included ‘a revenue meas- shot or not, but there are 3,500 people work- ure’. I was asking about savings, not about ing in this building and half a million to a offsets. They can now quote that answer and million visitors. That is where our responsi- say I am wrong and that other departments bility lies. That is where the President’s re- have had to make a contribution. You wonder sponsibility lies and he has taken up the chal- why at times we get a little hostile and cyni- lenge. Maybe not everything that has been cal about answers from public servants. The done has been aesthetically pleasing, but it is reason is that we get this distorted backslid- absolutely necessary. Parliament House is a ing when provided with answers. We should national icon. It is a natural target, and we have had an accurate answer to the particular must have tough security measures based on question that I asked. All we got was an in- the best advice. The best advice has been accurate one. That is evasion. sought and obtained and proper action has Senator Campbell does not like the term been taken by the Presiding Officers. ‘blackmail’. The two issues are linked. Secu- The great exception here is that when it rity and the amalgamation of departments is comes to the security of Parliament House the way it has been put. We have three those savings measures have to be found by choices. Firstly, we could not implement the the parliamentary departments. It is okay to security measures and not amalgamate the get $500 million and trundle it into Attorney- departments. That is not a choice we could General’s and Foreign Affairs. They get make. Secondly, we could not agree to the given all the money for their enhanced secu- amalgamation and we could find another rity. The Presiding Officers and the parlia- $6.4 million to $6.8 million in savings per mentary departments do not; it is deducted annum. Thirdly, we could agree with the from the other end. They are told: ‘You’ve long-held aspiration of the Department of got to make the savings if you want to put in Finance and Administration and amalgamate security.’ Why the inconsistent approach the departments and possibly make sufficient from government? The government spokes- savings to fund security. Those are the man here today has nothing to say on it. He choices we have. We have one other choice: probably says it is a political point. We get next year when the parliamentary supply no explanation as to why the parliamentary bills come before us we can take the appro- departments are being treated separately. priate action there. But do any of us want to Maybe they are not in a position to defend get involved in that sort of argy-bargy themselves, as other government depart- around the end of June when we are trying to ments are directly represented in cabinet. negotiate all the appropriation bills and try- When I asked a question at the estimates ing to get a proper appropriation for this par- committee, the Department of Finance and liament? I doubt it. Administration could not point to savings in The consequences of non-amalgamation the budget papers, so they took it on notice. I are that nominally each department will have asked: what savings measures, other than for to cough up $1.2 million a year. You might the parliamentary departments, have been argue that there is a slight capacity in the made to fund these security matters? What current Joint House Department to do so, but did this duplicitous department answer? there is no capacity in the Department of the They said, ‘Savings and offsets’. I got a de- Senate, the Department of the House of Rep- liberately distorted answer to my question— resentatives, and least of all in the Depart-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13789 ment of the Parliamentary Library, to find will necessarily deliver the level of savings those savings. We know it. For the last 15 that the Podger report claims and the De- years, parliamentary departments, quite ap- partment of Finance and Administration gul- propriately, have had to pay an efficiency libly accepts it will without any proper dividend. Every hollow log around has been analysis. emptied out. In addition to that, salary rises Senator Murray—As they did with IT. now also have to be driven by efficiencies. Senator ROBERT RAY—As they did So there are three pressure points on parlia- with the cluster of IT. You could go on and mentary appropriations. Whilst we might be on. Here is a department that enforces finan- able to survive with two of them—that is, the cial probity and had $8 million embezzled efficiency dividend and funding salary straight out the back door just a few years rises—it is not possible to survive with the ago, Senator Murray. You would recall that. three of them, without major and drastic cuts. We also have on the record Senator Reid’s A cut of $1.2 million per year to the library assurance that the Podger inquiry would not must eventually affect their collection. That even look at the question of amalgamations. does not worry governments too much; par- They were answers given to me so that we liamentary libraries are really for minor par- were all reassured on that particular point, ties and oppositions. But what they should but in fact they went ahead and did it. think about is that sooner or later they will be in opposition and they will require a parlia- The one pleasing feature of Podger, mentary library to assist them. Maybe they clearly, is the attitude to the library. Four will not be around, but their successors will major recommendations are contained be. Maybe people in the coalition do not therein: think too much about their successors. The position of Parliamentary Librarian be estab- I will move on to the Podger report. As lished at a senior level within the amalgamated service provision department. Senator Faulkner indicated, it was a bit like a cleaning contract. First of all, it was sublet to That is welcome. It is also recommended Mr Len Early and then he sublet it to Price- that: waterhouseCoopers. It went three rungs The independence of the Parliamentary Library down before any real work was done, and I be granted by Charter from the Presiding Offi- think it has that weakness. We asked the De- cers. partment of Finance and Administration That is welcome. whether they looked at the financial consult- The independence of the Parliamentary Library ants’ report. They had never read it. It had be reinforced by strengthening the current terms never been referred to them. They had only of reference for the joint Library Committee. read the Podger report; they had not read any That is another step forward. And, finally: of the underlying analysis provided by the The resources and services to be provided to the financial consultants. Having looked at all Library in the amalgamated department be speci- the figures, I would have to say the Podger fied in an annual agreement between the Depart- report is a tad rubbery. One document that mental Secretary and the Parliamentary Librarian, they provided to the Senate Standing Com- approved by the Presiding Officers following mittee on Staffing and Appropriations comes consideration by the joint Library Committee. up with $5.165 million in savings. When I All those are major advances and they are read down that list, I am not convinced. I welcomed. If you have a look at the amend- want to be, but I am not convinced that it ment that Senator Faulkner has moved, and

CHAMBER 13790 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 which I strongly support, you see that it over 1,000 days. Then, because the parlia- really does get to the guts of the issue. We ment was prorogued, they were never an- know that the current savings projected out swered. I had others that went for 200, 300 of Podger are not enough to fund the cuts and 400 days without an answer. The gov- occasioned by the supplemented funds for ernment voted for a 30-day rule and yet do security. We are saying that, firstly, the gov- not abide by it. ernment has to supplement those in any For years we listened to their hand- event and, secondly, if the Podger savings do wringing speeches on returns to order, yet we not meet the assumed level, government have a whole series of returns to order not really should supplement the parliamentary fulfilled in this chamber. What was good for departments for those security measures. them in opposition is not good for them in People may say, ‘Why is this motion before government. These rules do not apply to Lib- us today?’ The reason the motion is before us erals; they are just meant to be imposed on today is that former Senator Georges, back in others. Thirdly, let us look at the question of the mid-eighties, moved a motion saying that cut-off motions. They imposed them on the both houses had to approve any amalgama- previous government. They have made over tion proposal. Given the fact that every gov- 400 requests to be absolved from the cut-off ernment member here today supports it— motion on legislation since they have been in eight or 10 of them—you would wonder how government. It was good enough for a Labor that motion ever got through. The reason it government to have cut-off motions, yet the got through was that it got strong support— Liberals have put up their hands 400 times to genuine support—from the minority parties. be absolved from them. Take the question of Senator Harradine was one of those at the committees looking at legislation. They are time, I recall. They beat us; we copped it always whingeing about having bills referred sweet, I think. to legislation committees. Who set them up? But the Liberal and National parties voted Who imposed them on the chamber? It was for that motion. You would not know about it the Liberal and National parties that did today, because if we point it out they say that these things. we are political point scoring. When we Finally, the ultimate thing is, of course, point out their double standards and hypoc- Senate power. If you go back and look at the risy, apparently, that is political point scor- speeches of the current Prime Minister and ing. But it does have some relevance. We others when they were in opposition, you see have seen it time and time again on issues: that they lauded the Senate. They praised the the Liberal and National parties stand up on Senate for its representativeness. They an issue of principle when they are in oppo- praised the Senate for being the bulwark sition, and it means nothing at all to them against the executive government. What when they are in government. Let me give a happens today? They condemn the Senate as few examples of that. When in opposition an obstructionist institution. They are con- they insisted that a 30-day rule for answering stantly campaigning to try to denigrate the of questions on notice be imposed on the Senate because it does not pass all their leg- then Labor government and the executive islation. Indeed, they try to rort the electoral government. What happened when they system—whenever they get a chance to pro- came into government? Do they observe the pose it—to try to change the representation 30-day rule? Of course they do not! I had a in this chamber. I must say, for the record, series of questions that went unanswered for that I welcome the slight change in their atti-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13791 tude: the coalition are now looking where Let me finally say, in terms of the they always should have looked, and that is amendment which is to be proposed by Sena- at Senate power rather than Senate represen- tor Brown, that I do not support it, though of tation. course I support the sentiments. The two Pre- So what does all this add up to? It just siding Officers have given us a commitment, means that this particular motion will almost and I want them to keep it. I do not want certainly go through this chamber today and them to have to say that they kept it because leave you, Mr President, with a lot of re- they were directed to by this chamber. I sponsibility in implementing it. I wish you should correct myself: when I say two, I well in that. I know how well-intentioned mean that at least one Presiding Officer—the you are in all these matters and that you will Speaker—has given an assurance that there try to handle this with great delicacy. But, will be no involuntary redundancies. As I am when Senator Campbell comes in here and entitled to, I want to take the Speaker at his says that we are just political point scoring, word, and I am sure he will deliver on it. I we do have a duty to point out the double am concerned that, if the amendment which standards of the Liberal Party—the hypoc- is to be proposed by Senator Brown is car- risy of the Liberal Party—in constantly frus- ried, it will be used as an excuse by the De- trating amalgamation moves when they were partment of Finance and Administration to in opposition and so readily embracing them say, ‘You didn’t try to generate all the sav- the moment they got a chance in govern- ings measures; therefore, we are not going to ment. supplement the budget of the parliament.’ I do not want to give them that particular ex- Where are the backbench objectors that cuse. We should note that, if the Speaker’s we saw 15 and 10 years ago? Suddenly they assurance is given to us, people will not be have become the lickspittle of executive forced to lose their jobs. You cannot say that government. Yesterday’s heroes have just of all other government departments, so that become craven toadies today. Eight or 10 of is reassuring. them voted against this way back in 1987 or 1993 and are still here; where are they? They In conclusion, this motion is long overdue. have done the chicken run: shot back to their It would have been implemented back in offices, saying that they have constituents to 1987 and 1988 if the Liberal and National attend to or something else. The last thing parties had had any integrity at all. If they they want to come and do is justify their pre- had not been such sleazy opportunists, had vious intransigence in this chamber, which not opposed for opposition’s sake or had not would expose their double standards and been involved in such hypocrisy and double hypocrisy in opposing these measures in the standards you would not have had the task past. Time and time again, not just on this today, Mr President, of implementing all issue but also on a whole range of issues to this—it would have long been buried. But at do with this chamber, we have seen a 180- least, after today, you can get on with the job degree turnaround. I am proud to say that and continue to protect this parliament that has not occurred on this side of the through the good job you have been doing in chamber. We supported amalgamations from terms of all the security arrangements, which 1908 right through to 1993, and I am proud we all admire you for. You can be assured of the fact that we are going to do it again that in the next estimates round and on the today. Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing we will continue to scrutinise your

CHAMBER 13792 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 activities—not pursue you—and get a meas- having been in your job, Mr President— ure back. more than I would the arithmetic that has I want to finish on one last point. A col- been presented to give us the contrary point league of mine, Mr Roger Price, has been of view through the Podger report. There was both agitating and giving notice for the an extension of a week or so and in that short House of Representatives to have a staffing time, by some sort of mysterious signal, the and appropriations committee. It is not my investigation went on to look at the effi- job to interfere in their business, but I think it ciency to be gained by amalgamating the is long overdue. In the end, whilst it might be three departments, not the matters that had inconvenient for the President to have an been canvassed, which were to do with effi- appropriations and staffing committee, it is a ciency in the three departments. Out of that, good safety valve. It is a good fall-back posi- we got these figures of some 35 staff and tion for trying to gauge the reaction of a wide perhaps $5 million to $10 million in the long range of senators. If they did the same thing term but not the corroboration that is re- in the House of Representatives, there would quired to back up those figures, simply be- then be some level of scrutiny. As it currently cause it is not there. stands, it is the only government department There is no breakdown of the 35 staff po- not to be scrutinised at all. sitions that would go—they are not stated. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.54 There is no recognition that many of these p.m.)—I and the Greens oppose this mo- positions have multiple functions: some of tion—much as we would like to support you, them will be retained under the proposed Mr President—because we think it is wrong. amalgamation; some of them will be lost. The argument that is being put forward, How that is going to be rationalised or sorted firstly, by the government, comes down to it out is not stated here, and the assessment of being, in Senator Ian Campbell’s words, a $5 million to $10 million is simply pulled ‘credit’ to those who have worked on the out of the air. It is not backed up with the proposal. The problem is that the work on sort of financial rigour you would expect if the proposal was not done. If you were to use there were to be a consultant to stand by this proposal as an example of the financial those figures down the line. When you can- thoroughness and excellence of the govern- not stand by the figures, you say that, instead ment then it would lose its ratings right of there being that sort of cost saving, it will across the board. be in the longer term. What about the shorter term? There is no figure given here at all. As has been said earlier in this debate, the There is the real potential for the costs to report by Mr Podger was commissioned last grow. I think one of the Democrat senators year. The report did not stipulate that there mentioned earlier the cost blow-outs from was to be an investigation into the cost sav- the Department of Finance and Administra- ings of the amalgamation of the three joint tion’s much touted savings that we were go- departments. That became an add-on at the ing to get through rationalisation of IT ser- time of the transition of Presidents, with the vices. It did not happen. outgoing President, Senator Margaret Reid, your predecessor, having said that she The best you can do to hedge against that, thought it would actually lead to a cost in- Mr President, is to get a very thoroughgoing crease if the departments were to be amal- cost-benefit analysis before you move into gamated. I would trust her assessment—she making the sort of move that is flagged in your motion, but that has not been done. The

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13793 opposition has quite clearly got an ideologi- How extraordinary to move an amendment cal commitment, going way back, to an effi- like that but say in the same breath that the ciency they see could be gained through the whole economic argument, as I heard it, is amalgamation of these departments. As that it would be unconscionable to leave Senator Robert Ray and Senator Faulkner these departments—and there are five in- have said, the government had an opposite volved now—to find $1.2 million each to ideological commitment. I can tell you what meet security needs because those savings has happened here: there has been an ideo- cannot be found. This squeeze is being put logical commitment which has overrun all on by the government, and the opposition that. It is called market fundamentalism: ra- has to go along with it. But it says in the tionalise wherever you can in parliamentary amendment that the government should sup- and government services to the people and, plement the appropriations if there is a short- in this case, do it blindly, without the proper fall. I move an amendment to Senator Faulk- analysis that you would expect of a parlia- ner’s amendment: ment and that a parliament, government and Omit “That any savings achieved by the opposition would insist on. None of them are amalgamation may be used”. going to insist on that today. Omit “, but if those increases in costs exceed This motion is going to go through for those savings,”. ideological reasons which do not stand up. If Omit “for the excess”. that is going to be the case, let us have those My amendment would have Senator Faulk- reasons put forward. Let us not have the spu- ner’s Labor Party amendment reading: rious argument that there are going to be cost To offset increases in costs of security meas- savings, when they have not been demon- ures approved by the Presiding Officers for Par- strated. Mr President, I would be very liament House the appropriations for the parlia- pleased to hear you explain to the chamber mentary departments are to be supplemented. where the cost savings have been demon- Let us have the government come up with strated in this process. I will not make that a the money. Why go halfway like the opposi- challenge, because I do not want to make tion want to? The principle is exactly the things difficult for you. Where are the guar- same. Let us take this squeeze off the par- anteed savings coming out of this? They are liamentary departments. Senator Faulkner simply not there. There are losses involved in argued very cogently that nowhere else is it, and they concern the Greens. this being done. The government is putting The Greens are going to oppose the mo- out new expenditure for security elsewhere tion because this move has not been legiti- but when it comes to this parliament—this mised and does not warrant the changes that icon, as Senator Robert Ray so aptly de- are going to occur in this parliament as a scribed it—and the great services that are consequence. Senator Faulkner has moved: being provided to the nation, not least to us That any savings achieved by the amalgama- as elected representatives, the parliamentary tion may be used to offset increases in costs of departments are being squeezed to find the security measures approved by the Presiding Of- extra money. No, the government has to find ficers for Parliament House, but if those increases that money. That is what we should be insist- in costs exceed those savings, the appropriations ing on as a baseline. for the parliamentary departments are to be sup- plemented for the excess. If this amalgamation is going to go through—and the government wants it—I

CHAMBER 13794 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 would have thought the opposition would vious stages indicate that there is justification for make sure that that squeeze was taken off the doing so: five departments in this place. They are • adoption by the departments of common halfway there to doing it, and my amend- financial management and human resource ment to Senator Faulkner’s amendment will management systems in effect go the whole hog to ensure that we • transfer of corporate management functions do not squeeze the 3,500 departmental em- of the joint departments to one of them or to ployees in this place that Senator Ray re- a shared services bureau ferred to—and I am not sure where those • outsourcing of the processing functions of figures come from—who do such a magnifi- the corporate management sections of the cent job for the parliament. I foreshadow that two House departments, either to an outside I will move on behalf of the Australian provider or to one of the joint departments— Greens: and if all that were to work— After paragraph (1), insert: • amalgamation of all the joint departments. “(1 B) That any redundancies arising from the The Clerk goes on to say: amalgamation must be of a voluntary nature and Without such analyses, in that order, the Pre- that no staff will be forced to take involuntary siding Officers run all the risks of embarking on redundancies as a result of the amalgamation.” an expensive and disruptive reorganisation exer- Senator Ray and Senator Faulkner both said cise with no way of knowing whether real savings that the opposition are going to oppose that will result. When recommended by management amendment. They will leave it to the grace, consultants, such exercises invariably result in the to the word, of the Presiding Officers. I like consultants and the persons who have carried to see these things formalised. Parliament them out declaring them to be a great success with massive savings, but with no real evidence House can be a very stressful working place of any such savings, and with new problems for very good staff and employees. An which then have to be disentangled at further amendment such as that will take a stress cost, while the consultants move on to their next burden off a lot of people who are going to reorganisation project. go to bed tonight wondering if and how long Clearly, there are grave concerns that this their jobs are going to last and what sort of proposal is not going to have the outcomes pressure is going to be brought upon them to that you envisage, Mr President—that there leave voluntarily or otherwise. I recommend are not going to be cost savings. Implicit in both those amendments. what I would submit to you and to the Senate Finally, there have been recommendations is that enormous pressure is being brought on put forward by the Clerk to the Senate Stand- staff in this parliament, which of course are ing Committee on Appropriations and Staff- going to be self-interested to some degree ing. I simply want to end by reading those but which I believe primarily know how this out. I think they should go into the Hansard. parliament works and how it does not, and I think this is what we should be supporting. which must be astonished that such a pro- The response from the Clerk states: posal as this could go forward without any This response to the report therefore recom- proper financial analysis. We should at least mends that no decisions be taken until begin by going back and requiring that a cost/benefit analyses are undertaken of proposals cost-benefit analysis of this far-reaching pro- in the following order, with the successive stages posal be done before proceeding with it. being considered only if the outcome of the pre-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13795

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (5.08 have been about 10 proposals altogether p.m.)—I want to indicate the Democrats’ since Federation and, as Senator Faulkner strong opposition to this motion. I have lis- points out, the first of those was in 1908, but tened with great interest to Senator Faulk- most of the proposals to amalgamate all or ner’s and Senator Ray’s contributions to the some of the five parliamentary departments debate and I think that what you say to have come after 1977. Until today, I am sad blackmailers is, simply, ‘No.’ If you give in to say, none of them have been successful, to them, you give in to poor processes, you and for very good reasons. give in to lack of analysis—whether it be The genesis of this current proposal comes cost-benefit analysis or any other sort of cost out of the Podger report, as I said, which was analysis at all, in this approach—and you commissioned by the Presiding Officers in give in to very poor practices indeed. You April 2002 and presented to them in Septem- give in to a proposal which has absolutely no ber of the same year. The review originally arguments for it. Senator Ray said in a de- was to look at the sharing of corporate man- bate, I think it was last year, that he is an agement and purchasing functions. Then it amalgamationist—as if that is some sort of became pretty obvious that this was not go- belief that you cannot step outside. ing to produce much by way of efficien- There is absolutely no evidence to support cies—which, in the case of purchasing, was this motion. It has arisen from recommenda- already being done and being done very suc- tions in a report by the Senate Standing cessfully—and Mr Podger used his last term Committee on Appropriations and Staffing in of reference to look at such other matters June that the Joint House Department, the which may arise during the review. And, lo Department of the Parliamentary Library and and behold, the ‘such other matter’ became the Department of the Parliamentary Report- the old favourite: the proposal to amalgamate ing Staff be abolished and replaced by a new the three so-called service departments. That joint service department to be called the De- was not authorised by the outgoing or the partment of Parliamentary Services. The Ap- incoming President. As Mr Evans points out, propriations and Staffing Committee, of the Senate President in May 2002 gave as- which I am a member, made this recommen- surances that the review had nothing to do dation without binding any committee mem- with the amalgamation of departments ber to supporting the proposal, to allow the which, in her view, would involve greater Senate to decide this matter as a whole. The costs. recommendations come about after an un- The Podger report had little in it that happy—I would say—conjunction of events: would enable any sort of informed decision a review, by the Parliamentary Service as to the benefits or not of such amalgama- Commissioner, Mr Andrew Podger, of as- tions. The consultants who did this work pects of the parliamentary administration and consulted, supposedly, with staff in this the emergence of a need to finance enhanced place, but the report from that consultation security measures at Parliament House. suggests that they were very uninterested in The proposal, to make one service provi- the information that staff were bringing to sion department by combining these three them and that they clearly did not agree with departments, was floated in 1996 and legisla- any ideas that were brought forward or any tion was introduced into the House of Repre- information or opinions that did not agree sentatives by the ALP government of the with the preconceptions that those consult- time but never brought on for debate. There ants had. The cost efficiencies were claimed

CHAMBER 13796 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 at between $5 million and $10 million a year The Clerk of the Senate provided the once they were fully implemented, which committee with a list of the kinds of costs equates to roughly from 4.7 per cent up to that he argued had not been properly taken 9.3 per cent of the current combined depart- into account: redundancy payments for the ment budgets. The Appropriations and Staff- staff who are shed; the need to keep staff ing Committee asked for more detailed cost longer than would otherwise be the case be- analysis and that produced a further briefing cause of their knowledge of the separate de- from Mr Podger in March this year. That cost partments; the new position of secretary of saving was narrowed down to an annual cost the enlarged department and support staff, saving of between $4.9 million and $5.2 mil- presuming that the new secretary would be at lion but still it was unclear as to where this a higher level than the current departmental saving was going to be made, and a lot of secretaries because of their greater responsi- reference was made to staff and to the middle bility and management of an enlarged de- management group of officers in this place. partment; the proposed new position of the So it is our conclusion that the review was Parliamentary Librarian, which of course we very unsatisfactory. In fact, I think it has to support, but that should be done without be said that the vast majority of members of these changes; the costs of the implementa- the Appropriations and Staffing Committee tion of the amalgamation over many areas thought this way and expressed that on nu- from new stationery to remaking certified merous occasions during our meetings. That agreements and the costs of inefficiencies is another reason why I am disappointed that arising from the distinct functions of the de- the ALP feels they can support this when, in partments—for example, the need for differ- that environment, so much was expressed by ent treatment of building maintenance staff way of concerns about this proposal. and research staff in the provision of human resource management services. I think it is As has been said already by other sena- fair to say that the committee was not per- tors, the process was dodgy. It was con- suaded that even the second round of cost ducted as a subcontract to a private manage- estimates took that into account. ment consultant who, in turn, subcontracted it to PricewaterhouseCoopers, thereby wast- With regard to funding the enhanced secu- ing $170,000 on a consultancy to tell us what rity, the Democrats did agree that there was a we already knew and what were, effectively, need for better security for Parliament back of the envelope figures in the first House, although I must say we do not agree place. It was properly criticised as being a with the current white plastic barriers that are flawed, superficial consultation and badly around this place. We think they are neither argued analysis of the benefits and an inade- suitable nor adequate to do the job and, as I quate analysis of the costs. The answer to have indicated before in the Appropriations those criticisms was, ‘We won’t really know and Staffing Committee, I think there were if the savings are achievable until we do the many more aesthetically suitable arrange- amalgamation.’ In other words, suck it and ments that could have been made, but I will see. But, of course, once you have done that, not dwell on that matter. What is worse is once you have lost staff—whether you have that the Minister for Finance and Administra- sacked them or whether they have departed tion announced that the extra security for the voluntarily—it is very difficult to turn that financial year 2003-04 would be funded around and undo the work that has been separately but that funding for security for done. the three financial years after that would

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13797 have to come from the parliamentary de- ment is, but we get no answers to those ques- partment’s operating budget. The minister tions. The Senate department has already made it quite clear that the savings are to be absorbed costs for extra security out of its achieved either by implementing the Podger current budget, money which could have proposals or by any other means. The cuts gone into enhancing services like the vital demanded are $6.1 million in 2004-05, $6.3 but very busy Senate committee system. My million in 2005-06 and $6.4 million in colleague Senator Cherry and his committee 2006-07. is feeling the pinch in terms of resourcing It will be immediately obvious that the es- from the secretariat. Times are tough at pre- timated savings from amalgamating the three sent in this place, and there are often not departments is very unlikely to be enough to enough resources to do the work that is fund the extra security needs. I agree with needed. Why should the Department of the Senator Brown that it makes the ALP Senate, Hansard or the Parliamentary Library amendment to this motion a very cynical and have to shed functions and staff to find sav- contradictory one. On the one hand, they say ings to cover the costs of security? It just that the savings are probably not there or does not make any sense. We say that secu- they do not think they are there but if there is rity measures should not be funded at the anything extra over and above those savings expense of key parliamentary services. that is not needed for security then it should Three heads of department are in favour go back into the departments. We know that of amalgamation—the Clerk of the House of is not going to happen. We know there will Representatives, the Joint House Department be a shortfall because those savings are not Secretary and the Hansard-Parliamentary obviously there. The $1.2 million a year, Library Secretary—and one head made no which is the Senate department’s share of the recommendation. Submissions from the de- funding required for future years, is about partment staff mostly follow along the same four per cent of the Senate’s current budget. departmental lines. In other words, Senate The Senate’s current budget is only for staff- staff groups are not supportive; others are. ing, so it would appear that the savings will The Clerk of the Senate declined to recom- have to be found by decreasing staff and, mend a decision on either option until a therefore, senators’ services. It is all very proper cost benefit analysis was undertaken. well to talk about involuntary redundan- He noted the unsatisfactory process, the lack cies—and nobody, least of all me, wants to of detailed cost analysis, estimated savings see anybody sacked in this place—but the without foundation and savings already made downside of that approach is that we will by the Senate department by good manage- lose people who may not necessarily be in ment continuing and being of far more sig- the right positions for this to be a workable nificance than the small savings gained by arrangement. eliminating a small number of corporate Budget estimate questions told us that no management staff. He pointed out that 14 per other government department or agency is cent had been cut out of departments over being asked to find savings from ongoing the last four or five years and that there is departmental expenses to fund enhanced se- very little—in fact nothing—still to be curity costs. No-one has explained to us why gained by cuts. Of course, Mr Evans’s an- this is necessary. Why is it that the ministe- swers to the questions in estimates by my rial wing is not contributing? It is sharing the colleague Senator Murray show where other costs of security, just as every other depart- savings can be made, but I will leave him to

CHAMBER 13798 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 talk about that. The Secretary of the Joint of Representatives, not the other way around. House Department endorsed the amalgama- We know that the real scrutiny of legislation tion option as ‘achievable’ and having a bet- takes place in this place, and it needs re- ter chance of success than the shared services sourcing, and I doubt very much that those in centre option also proposed. He noted that an the other place will be sympathetic to the inherent dynamics problem could be created needs and the costs that are associated with by the new balance of a superdepartment that proper service in here for real democracy. was bigger than either of the two chamber The premise that merger equals better is departments. flawed. That is why I cannot understand why Our position is that we have consistently the Labor Party is supporting this. Again, opposed all previous attempts to amalgamate there just have not been any serious argu- any or all of the parliamentary departments. ments to say why merging is going to be We think it compromises the independence beneficial. The cost benefits are very small of the Library, which is noted as a problem and not warranted, given the other costs. We in the Senate Appropriations and Staffing need to find more innovative and structured Committee report with its warning advice ways of achieving practicalities within exist- that there is a need to take measures to guar- ing departments rather than having efficiency antee the independence of the library. I do proposals always imposed from above. We not think that the appointments that have think that the five departments can work out been discussed so far will do that. There is areas of cooperation and shared resources often an unacceptable extra layer of man- between themselves. They do this now from agement and salaries resulting from amalga- time to time. Let us have a look at exploring mations. There is an enormous cost to staff, what other opportunities there are, if there and I am talking here about work structure are any. We also need a much more suppor- changes, resources and morale. This is some- tive environment for them to do that, which thing we need to take into account very seri- has not happened with these amalgamation ously. When staff know that there are large processes and proposals always being on the numbers of redundancies that are about to cards, as it were. occur, it can be extremely difficult for them We have heard no real arguments for to maintain the work that they have to do and amalgamation. Is this empire building? Are to keep up their morale. these fanciful notions of savings that might The creation of a superdepartment would be made? There has been no independent have inherent problems as opposed to assessment of those savings. We cannot smaller departments which, we would argue, compare amalgamation with outsourcing in are better as service specialists and have achieving savings and, again, no decision proved that over the past 100 years. The new ought to be made until a proper cost-benefit joint department would be much bigger than analysis is done, not just some dodgy back of either of the chamber departments, as has the envelope calculation. Senator Brown has already been mentioned. It can be argued that already outlined the stages which the Clerk none of these departments is even in the of the Senate recommends before we go to same business. There is certainly a lack of this kind of decision, and the Democrats are commonality between the Senate and the strongly supportive of that approach. We are House of Representatives. I can see that in also very supportive of the Greens amend- the future this amalgamated department will ment to the ALP amendment. This place seek to make the Senate more like the House should not be wearing the cost of security.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13799

That should be properly and separately the Prime Minister and cabinet members, funded and should not impinge on the ser- ought to be provided by the Australian gov- vices that are available to this place. ernment. I was told that we have to make Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.26 these efficiency gains and that other depart- p.m.)—I want to say a couple of things about ments are making efficiency gains, and I the proposal that we amalgamate into one wrongly assumed that was for security pur- parliamentary services department the three poses. So far as I know, the security re- departments of the Department of the Par- quirements of the Department of Foreign liamentary Library, the Department of the Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General’s Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the Joint Department are being paid for by the Austra- House Department. I am concerned that the lian government. For us to determine any current proposal for restructuring the parlia- reform of parliament, such as that being sug- mentary departments is being driven by a gested, the arguments should have been put need for cash for security rather than being forward on their merits. Frankly, I cannot see based on any merit at all. I am also con- the merit in it because it has not been tightly cerned that there are 35 staff positions to be argued. Indeed, I am concerned that such an sacrificed for our security. I cannot for the impost on the parliament’s resources threat- life of me see where the $10 million savings ens the parliament’s very independence in come in over a particular period of time. It some ways. remains to be seen whether amalgamating I have not seen it adequately proven any- the Joint House Department, the Department where that there are 35 staff positions we do of the Parliamentary Library and the De- not need. Which area are these 35 positions partment of the Parliamentary Reporting going to be taken away from? I have not Staff will in fact be an efficient way of or- really seen evidence of that. I have worked in ganising matters. this place for 28 years and have had the I acknowledge that there have been a privilege of working alongside many staff number of attempts, based on the suggestion from the various parliamentary departments. that this is a more efficient way to go, over I and other senators know there is more than 100 years or so to organise more efficient use enough work to go around in the parliament. of taxpayer funding by reducing the number For my own information needs, I am particu- of departments. In 1977 the then President, larly concerned about the impact of staff Senator Sir Condor Laucke, and Mr Billy losses in the operation of the Department of Snedden had a study done. I can see Condor the Parliamentary Library. I and other sena- Laucke in the chair in Old Parliament House tors depend on timely, concise and accurate with the big wig on that he used to wear. I do information, which is provided by the staff of not know how much that wig actually cost to the Parliamentary Library, often meeting manicure et cetera, but that is now not worn unreasonable deadlines. A lot of that is back- by you, Mr President, so you have made a ground policy information which you need to saving there. assess what is being proposed in a particular area of public policy. Irrespective of the view one might have, it is difficult to see how people can accept that The parliament would know that I do not this proposal should be driven by security have a big party behind me and therefore I fears for the parliament. Our security and the do not have policies in the sense of party security of the parliament, including that of political platforms. I do rely very much on advice that is given not only by people

CHAMBER 13800 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 whom I know from all sorts of professions the Australian government to provide money but particularly from the Parliamentary Li- for that without reducing resources available brary, and I am very grateful for that. I am to the Australian parliament. Under those concerned that this proposal may affect the circumstances, I must say that I oppose this operations of the Parliamentary Library. It proposition. I do so reluctantly, because I would be ironic if we sacrifice the capacity know of the work that has been done. If it of the library to provide us with information were proven that all other departments were central to our work. If we damage the quality providing for their own security by adjust- of the work done in this parliament we will ments in departmental appropriations then be increasing spending on parliamentary se- that would be another matter. I have found curity to protect what may be a devalued that all of them are not doing that. So why product. That is going to an extreme because, should we? by that time, there will be alarm bells ring- The PRESIDENT (5.38 p.m.)—In clos- ing. ing the debate, I would like to thank all hon- Mr President, I acknowledge very much ourable senators for their contributions. If the the work that you and Mr Speaker have done motion receives the support of the Senate, I to make sure the position of Parliamentary believe a major improvement in the efficient Librarian is re-established, with certain operation of the parliament will result. The amendments that will be made to the Parlia- consequences of the passage of the motion mentary Service Act. That will enhance the will lead to the appointment of a Parliamen- position of Parliamentary Librarian and I tary Librarian, which I believe will reassure congratulate you for that. I do not know senators, such as Senator Harradine, who are whether it was a victory but it was certainly a rightly concerned about the independence of very important decision that was accepted. the Parliamentary Library. That person will Mr President, I note you are proposing that each year conclude a resource agreement there be no forced redundancies. I think it is with the secretary for the proper funding of very important that we make a stand on this the library and its research services. The new particular matter. All redundancies must be joint services department will have around unforced redundancies and, where there is a 750 staff. As I mentioned, the Speaker and I vacancy so caused, the Presiding Officers have agreed that there will be a selection must surely have much regard for the merits process for the secretary to the new depart- of not filling that vacancy. ment, including national advertising and an I have not really had time to focus on the independent assessment of the merits of details of the issue, but I have been thinking those who apply. The same will apply to the of the matter in general principles. I have to recruitment of the Parliamentary Librarian. say that, despite the good work that has been This debate provides an appropriate op- done by you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker portunity for me to emphasise that officers to uphold and enhance the position of Par- who currently serve in the Joint House De- liamentary Librarian, I am concerned that the partment, the Department of the Parliamen- service we receive from the Department of tary Library and the Department of the Par- the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the liamentary Reporting Staff have given and Joint House Department may diminish as a continue to give excellent service to the insti- result of this. Why? Because we have to pay tution of the parliament—as have their for our own security. If there are genuine predecessors, who have worked in those de- security concerns, it is the responsibility of partments since 1901. Without the work of

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13801 the joint departments neither the Senate nor McGauran, J.J.J. Moore, C. the other place would be able to adequately Ray, R.F. Scullion, N.G. function. I take this opportunity to publicly Sherry, N.J. Stephens, U. thank the personnel of the joint departments. Tchen, T. Tierney, J.W. Webber, R. Wong, P. If this motion is passed, I look forward to * denotes teller their continuing contributions to the work of Question negatived. the single, joint parliamentary department. The PRESIDENT—The question now is I understand that we have quite a few that the amendment moved by Senator amendments. My advice is that the first Faulkner be agreed to. question is that the amendment moved by Senator Brown to Senator Faulkner’s Question agreed to. amendment be agreed to. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (5.49 Question put. p.m.)—I move: The Senate divided. [5.45 p.m.] After paragraph (1), insert: (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul “(1B) That any redundancies arising from the Calvert) amalgamation must be of a voluntary na- ture and that no staff will be forced to take Ayes………… 12 involuntary redundancies as a result of the Noes………… 46 amalgamation.” Majority……… 34 Question put. AYES The Senate divided. [5.51 p.m.] Allison, L.F. * Bartlett, A.J.J. (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul Brown, B.J. Cherry, J.C. Calvert) Greig, B. Harradine, B. Lees, M.H. Murphy, S.M. Ayes………… 38 Murray, A.J.M. Nettle, K. Noes………… 23 Ridgeway, A.D. Stott Despoja, N. Majority……… 15 NOES Barnett, G. Bishop, T.M. AYES Boswell, R.L.D. Brandis, G.H. Allison, L.F. Bartlett, A.J.J. Buckland, G. * Calvert, P.H. Bishop, T.M. Bolkus, N. Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. Brown, B.J. Buckland, G. * Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Campbell, G. Carr, K.J. Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. Cherry, J.C. Collins, J.M.A. Cook, P.F.S. Coonan, H.L. Conroy, S.M. Cook, P.F.S. Crossin, P.M. Denman, K.J. Crossin, P.M. Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. Evans, C.V. Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. Faulkner, J.P. Ferguson, A.B. Forshaw, M.G. Greig, B. Ferris, J.M. Forshaw, M.G. Harradine, B. Hogg, J.J. Harris, L. Hill, R.M. Hutchins, S.P. Kirk, L. Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. Lees, M.H. Ludwig, J.W. Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. Lundy, K.A. Mackay, S.M. Kemp, C.R. Kirk, L. Marshall, G. Moore, C. Knowles, S.C. Ludwig, J.W. Murphy, S.M. Murray, A.J.M. Lundy, K.A. Mackay, S.M. Nettle, K. Ray, R.F. Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. Ridgeway, A.D. Sherry, N.J.

CHAMBER 13802 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Stephens, U. Stott Despoja, N. Macdonald, J.A.L. Mackay, S.M. Webber, R. Wong, P. Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. NOES McGauran, J.J.J. Moore, C. Patterson, K.C. Payne, M.A. Barnett, G. Boswell, R.L.D. Ray, R.F. Santoro, S. Brandis, G.H. Calvert, P.H. Scullion, N.G. Sherry, N.J. Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R. Stephens, U. Tchen, T. Coonan, H.L. Eggleston, A. Tierney, J.W. Troeth, J.M. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Watson, J.O.W. Webber, R. Heffernan, W. Hill, R.M. Wong, P. Humphries, G. Johnston, D. Kemp, C.R. Knowles, S.C. NOES Macdonald, J.A.L. Mason, B.J. Allison, L.F. * Bartlett, A.J.J. McGauran, J.J.J. Santoro, S. Brown, B.J. Cherry, J.C. Scullion, N.G. Tchen, T. Greig, B. Lees, M.H. Tierney, J.W. Murphy, S.M. Murray, A.J.M. * denotes teller Nettle, K. Ridgeway, A.D. Question agreed to. Stott Despoja, N. * denotes teller The PRESIDENT—The question now is Question agreed to. that the motion moved by the President, as amended by Senator Faulkner and Senator Senator FAULKNER (New South Brown, be agreed to. Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- ate) (6.04 p.m.)—by leave—I wish to make a Question put. brief statement in relation to the divisions The Senate divided. [6.00 p.m.] held on the previous matter before the chair. (The President—Senator the Hon. Paul We had an unusual circumstance in the Sen- Calvert) ate a moment ago. A four-minute division Ayes………… 53 bell was rung and the nature of the division was that the government and the opposition Noes………… 11 were voting together on an amendment be- Majority……… 42 fore the chair. Subsequently a one-minute AYES division bell was rung, as sometimes occurs, and the unusual circumstance was that in that Barnett, G. Bishop, T.M. Bolkus, N. Boswell, R.L.D. division the government and the opposition Brandis, G.H. Buckland, G. were voting in a different manner. The ques- Calvert, P.H. Campbell, G. tion before the chair in relation to that par- Carr, K.J. Chapman, H.G.P. ticular amendment was agreed to by the Sen- Colbeck, R. Collins, J.M.A. ate. Conroy, S.M. Cook, P.F.S. Coonan, H.L. Crossin, P.M. The approach the opposition takes on Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. these matters, obviously, is to try and ensure Evans, C.V. Faulkner, J.P. that the will of the Senate is always reflected Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * in divisions. Quite clearly there was not an Forshaw, M.G. Hill, R.M. opportunity for a number of senators—in this Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. case, certainly some government senators Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. Kemp, C.R. Kirk, L. and possibly other senators—to attend the Knowles, S.C. Lightfoot, P.R. Senate. I intend no criticism of any of those Ludwig, J.W. Lundy, K.A. senators by this contribution. I merely make

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13803 the point that we all have a responsibility to presiding in the Senate. In this particular try and ensure that the will of the Senate is case, it is question of who is in the chamber. reflected accurately in divisions. It is a matter of certain senators not coming It is for that reason I indicate to the gov- to the chamber because it is not necessary or ernment that the opposition would support required in the management procedures that recommitting that vote, if the government parties might adopt. wished to do so, although I do not think the ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE outcome of the division would be any differ- LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL ent. I make the point that there is an obliga- (No. 1) 2002 tion on all of us to be careful in circum- AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL stances when divisions change in their nature BILL 2002 between the four-minute bell and the one- AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL minute bell. I think all senators are aware of (CONSEQUENTIAL AND that circumstance. It does not happen often, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL but sometimes it can work to the disadvan- 2002 tage of any senator in the chamber—in this case, I think the vast majority, if not all, of In Committee the senators who were inconvenienced were Consideration resumed. government senators. We need to be careful ENVIRONMENT AND HERITAGE about those sorts of things. In this instance I LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL do not think it altered the result of the divi- (No. 1) 2002 sion in any way. I merely indicate that there The CHAIRMAN—The committee is would be an opportunity, as there should be, considering the Environment and Heritage to recommit such a division if it were the Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002, as wish of any interested party or senator in the amended, and amendments (1) to (40) on chamber. sheet 3045 moved by Senator Allison. The PRESIDENT—Thank you, Senator. Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- Is there any wish to recommit the vote? ritory) (6.08 p.m.)—In the debate earlier to- Senator Kemp—No. day we were discussing the implications for The PRESIDENT—I must say that I did the sale of Commonwealth assets and their ask senators to remain in the chamber be- placement on the list. In response to a ques- cause there could be more divisions. Obvi- tion I asked about the implications for Com- ously, some of them did not hear what I said. monwealth assets that had already been sold Senator FAULKNER (New South and that had an indicative place on the list Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- under the current regime, the minister in- ate) (6.07 p.m.)—by leave—The point is that formed the committee that the process would there are senators who are not in the cham- effectively have to begin again under the ber, who do not attend a division when the new regime if this legislation were to pass. government and the opposition are voting on That would mean that Commonwealth assets the same side of the chamber. I appreciate that were being considered but which were that you did that—as is properly your re- not formally on the list would effectively sponsibility. This particular issue is one of have to start the process again. There would good chamber management. I do not think it be no ability for them to transfer onto the is a matter for the chair, for the person who is new list because they are not Commonwealth

CHAMBER 13804 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 assets anymore. Because they are former the heritage values and was therefore Commonwealth assets, they would not be adopted. locked into any sort of transferring process. Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- So to be listed they would effectively have to ritory) (6.12 p.m.)—Thank you, Minister. If be nominated again. The example that was this legislation were to pass, can you tell me used was the police cottage—part of the Wa- what the process would be for the police cot- ter Police station at Yarralumla Bay—that tage to be entered onto the Register of the was sold off. It is my understanding that it is National Estate? I acknowledge that you said currently leased by the Commonwealth. it was a condition of the sale for that not to Minister, I know you are undertaking to get be opposed, but is it effectively a ministerial some additional information about that par- decision whether or not to place it on the ticular circumstance, but can you further Register of the National Estate, as opposed clarify whether, if these bills were to pass, to an ACT government process, which would there would be any process by which the relate to the ACT Heritage Register, which police cottage would find its place on a list you also mentioned? I guess I am asking under the new regime? Would it be part of a whether, as part of this transition—if these process that was at least moving in that di- bills are passed—the police cottage will be rection if these bills were to pass? automatically nominated to go on the Regis- Senator HILL (South Australia— ter of the National Estate. Minister for Defence) (6.11 p.m.)—I can Senator HILL (South Australia— provide some further information on the po- Minister for Defence) (6.13 p.m.)—I under- lice cottage. I am not sure that it totally an- stand that it has also been nominated to the swers the question, but it shows the efforts Register of the National Estate under the that are being made to protect its heritage existing legislation. I am also told—and I values. It is true that the cottage was sold in may have been in error this morning—that if May this year. The property was leased back it is leased back to the Commonwealth then by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth it is eligible to be listed, under the Com- nominated the place to the ACT Heritage monwealth part of the new legislation. That Register in June this year. The Common- would be a question of whether its values wealth took that initiative. The place is cur- meet the standards under the new legislation. rently being assessed by the ACT Heritage It seems that whether they meet them under Council. The Australian Heritage Commis- the existing legislation is still being assessed. sion was involved in the contract of sale to What surprises me a little bit is that, while it ensure the protection of heritage values. Spe- is not inconsistent to be going down the ACT cial conditions were attached to the sale Heritage Council path as well, that seems to document to require: (1) that the purchaser be the emphasis that those who have a pri- was made aware of the intention to list the mary responsibility to protect these values place on the ACT Heritage Register and (2) have preferred rather than putting an empha- that the purchaser cannot lodge an objection sis on a future Commonwealth list. to the place being entered onto the ACT Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- Heritage Register or the Register of the Na- ritory) (6.15 p.m.)—I just make the observa- tional Estate. So it seems that, between them, tion that that itself says something about the the Commonwealth and the Australian Heri- relative merits of the two systems. I do not tage Commission decided that the process know if this is anything that the minister can that I have just outlined would best protect

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13805 answer, but I will put the question anyway. I legislation? That is the answer that I do not am curious, given the location, as to why that have, and that is the answer that I will seek. is the preferred path. One, the location is Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.17 very much in an area that is, obviously, un- p.m.)—I ask the minister, because it is perti- der the auspices of the National Capital Au- nent to this, about the answer he gave to thority, being immediately on the lake fore- question on notice No. 1553, which was shore. Two, it is in an area where the Na- about the Iraq war. The minister, Senator tional Capital Authority—and, therefore, the Hill, said: Commonwealth—have had the greatest in- On 25 February 2003, I declared under subsec- terest in everything from design and siting to tion 28(3) of the Environment Protection and planning arrangements on the lake foreshore. Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in the inter- Three, what is the view of that organisation? est of Australia’s defence and security, that ac- But I think that, for the purposes of this tions, as deemed appropriate by the Common- bill, the issue here is that it seems to be per- wealth Government, undertaken outside the Aus- ceived by those who are trying to protect the tralian jurisdiction in relation to the training, de- ployment and operation of members of the Aus- heritage value of the police cottage that in tralian Defence Force in the Persian Gulf region fact—in the light of the bills we are debat- in support of any military action against Iraq, are ing—ACT heritage registration is perhaps actions to which section 28 of the Environment the stronger of the two. I think that that re- Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act flects very unhealthily upon the propositions 1999 does not apply. before us. If I can think of any more ques- The minister then went on to say that this tions about this particular circumstance, I was not put up on the public list on the web will ask them. I think it is quite a reasonable site, because the government is not required case study to demonstrate what happens to to do so. The minister said, in this reply: former Commonwealth assets—or, as we I am aware of the penalty provision associated have now heard, former Commonwealth as- with the unlawful taking of an action under the sets that are leased by the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conser- and, therefore, are still eligible to transfer to vation Act 1999. the Commonwealth list. I think that the min- I ask the minister: could he elaborate on ister is learning more about these bills as we that? Why did he move to remove actions go along. I know that the more questions we that might be taken under the Australian ask, the more convoluted it seems to get, government’s decision to go to war in Iraq particularly about the issues that arise when from the provisions of the EPBC? Why did you introduce the sale or pending sale of he not make a public notification that he had Commonwealth assets into the considera- taken that action back on 25 February? tions of heritage status. Senator HILL (South Australia— Senator HILL (South Australia— Minister for Defence) (6.19 p.m.)—This was Minister for Defence) (6.17 p.m.)—I do not a decision that was open to be taken under know that it is more convoluted, but I do not section 28(3) of the EPBC legislation, and it have the answer to that specific question. was duly taken. In other words, it was in the The question is: whilst this property is being interests of Australia’s Defence Force secu- assessed for National Estate values, is it also rity. I am not sure what the date of that was being assessed or is it going to be assessed in relation to the actions that Australia was for Commonwealth values under the new involved in, but certainly there was no secret

CHAMBER 13806 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 at any stage on this matter. I am sorry; I time, and why did the minister make the dec- missed the last point. laration anyway? Senator Brown—The declaration was— Again, what is the point of this legislation, Senator HILL—It was made under the the EPBC Act? There were enormous con- provisions of this act—the provisions spe- cerns about both the environmental and cul- cifically designed for these reasons. It is tural heritage of Iraq at the time. The minis- made where it is either impossible or inap- ter will remember some of the destruction of propriate to be carrying out an assessment cultural heritage, which was obvious. It al- process, and that was deemed to be so in ways takes a long while before the environ- these circumstances, for obvious reasons. It mental impact comes through, but there are was made particularly to protect the interests great worries about a whole range of things, of Australian forces, and there was no secret obviously, when armies are invading a coun- in the matter. try. I ask why the minister made the exemp- tion. Where do you draw the line? It seems Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.21 that the exemptions are made domestically p.m.)—There was. The exemption for the for social and economic parameters and that purposes of the war was not listed under the they are made internationally before the war public notices on the Environment Australia is on and then you protect the site after the web site, as are other such exempt actions. I war is over—the minister has mentioned will give you the question again, to put this Gallipoli a number of times. When does the in context. I asked: Australian government get to the stage of With reference to the Commonwealth Envi- believing that it should protect environ- ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva- mental and cultural heritage, particularly of tion Act 1999, under which the Australian De- fence Force must not take action that has, will world heritage significance, and make sure have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on that it is protected under all circumstances? the environment anywhere in the world without After all, there is a 1954 code which says the approval of the Minister for Environment and that such places should be protected in times Heritage: of war. (1)Did the Minister provide this approval prior Senator HILL (South Australia— to Australia’s war on Iraq; if not, is the Minister Minister for Defence) (6.24 p.m.)—There aware that the unlawful taking of an action can are a few points. Firstly, the Australian forces attract a civil penalty of up to $1.1 million, or a obviously make every endeavour to protect criminal penalty of up to 2 years imprisonment. cultural heritage assets, whether or not they I further asked: are in Australia. My second point is that we (2)If the Minister was notified and gave ap- are a party to various conventions in which proval for military action in Iraq by exempting we accept a national responsibility to protect the action under the Act, why is the exemption heritage—that is a fact of life and we are not listed under the public notices on the Envi- proud of it. We do everything possible to ronment Australia website. meet our obligations under those conven- I asked that original question in June this tions. The third issue is in relation to making year, and I wonder why it took some work to public the determination made under subsec- find out that in fact the minister had made tion 28(3) of the Environment Protection and that decision. In other words, why didn’t the Biodiversity Act. There was no reason not to minister make that declaration public at the make it public. I understand from the offi- cials of Environment Australia that it was

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13807 simply not put on the web site because there What is the point of a piece of legislation is no obligation in the legislation to put it on when you have a government or a minister the web site. able to do that and, moreover, able to cover it When I said there was no secret in this re- up? If there is one amendment which obvi- gard, clearly there was no secret that Austra- ously needs to be made here it is that such lian forces were going to that region of the declarations must be published. What excuse world—at various times during the conflict could you have for not publishing such a they had different tasks, but it was made very critical decision by the government in the public at the time and debated almost on a run-up to the Iraq war? We all remember the continuous basis in this parliament. So there ferment and the intense national interest, and is no secret in that regard. As to why the de- it is still a matter of great contention. I main- cision was taken: as I recall, the decision was tain, unless the minister has an argument to taken as a precaution to protect Australian the contrary, that he made this critical deci- servicemen in case there was an argument sion to waive the Environment Protection that an action they may have taken was in and Biodiversity Conservation Act for the breach of this piece of legislation. The legis- Iraq war and did not tell the Australian peo- lation provides that in circumstances of na- ple. That is reprehensible; there is no excuse tional security they can receive an exemp- for it. tion, and the government so acted. Senator Allison—There was no copy of a Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.26 notice of exemption. p.m.)—The reason the government did not Senator BROWN—As Senator Allison publicise this is that it covered it up during said, there was no copy of the notice of ex- the onset of the Iraq war. The government emption. People were not told about it. The did not want the people of Australia to know government did not want the people of Aus- about it. This minister, the Minister for De- tralia to know about it. The Howard govern- fence, did not make a public declaration ment covered up this component of its war about this very important matter, and there preparations for Iraq, and it should be had already been worldwide alarm about the ashamed of itself. This legislation needs potential for destruction of the cultural heri- amending now so that it cannot do that again. tage of global significance in Iraq—of It was part of the deceit that the government course, that is heritage of the whole of hu- engaged in at that time. There is no excuse mankind. I believe it was a contentious mat- for not having made that public, and there is ter and I believe this minister covered it up also no excuse for not putting it on the web by not making it public. All down the line, site and not making the document public and the government was flagging other intentions sending it out with a press release at the which were of public moment—put aside time. But for political reasons the govern- secret matters, but this is definitely not in ment did not do those things. that category. The minister, quietly and with- Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to out notifying the public, declared that, as far 7.30 p.m. as Australia was concerned, the invading Senator BROWN—Before the dinner forces were exempt from the act which was break I was asking Senator Hill to explain designed to ensure that we protect places of the government’s behaviour in covering up global significance anywhere in the world. the exemption it gave to the Australian De- fence Force from the requirements under the

CHAMBER 13808 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Commonwealth Environment Protection and world if the minister is going to do this? Biodiversity Conservation Act that the ADF Could the minister explain what the point of not take an action that has, will have or is that clause is? What is the point of putting a likely to have a significant impact on the clause in an act which I think quite rightly environment anywhere in the world. The protects global heritage from Australian ac- minister responded to my question by saying tions overseas if the first time it is tested you he did make such a declaration on 25 Febru- bring out an exemption clause? We have seen ary this year but did not put it on the Envi- serial transgressions of the so-called protec- ronment Australia web site—he did not put tion of the domestic environment under this out a publication of it, in effect—and that he legislation. We have heard the minister say is not required to do so. I ask the minister that social and economic interests, which would he care to say what he has done with means the interests of the big end of town, other such actions and why he thought that in need to be in no way trammelled when it the middle of such a massive public debate comes to heritage listing—in other words, as there was over the Iraq war, with very real you do not list a place because of its heritage concerns about world heritage sites in Iraq, value; you first of all ask the developers he made that determination but did not tell whether they have something in mind and for anybody in the public about it. goodness sake do not let the heritage get in Senator HILL (South Australia— the way. Minister for Defence) (7.32 p.m.)—We did But this is the government’s own legisla- cover these matters before the dinner break, tion. Remember it was guillotined through and I do not know that there is a lot more this Senate on the last day of June in 2000. that I can add. Environment Australia chose Here we have the first test of a very impor- not to put it on their web site because there is tant component of it and the minister gives a no obligation in the act to do so. They put on secret exemption and does not tell the public their web site what they are obliged to do. about it—in a matter of high public interest There was no wish to hide anything from the and in a moment of high contention. Minis- Australian public, but I will never convince ter, what is the point of that component of Senator Brown of that. The government was the bill? When are you going to agree to the very up front about the role of Australian terms of your own legislation? What is forces. I think most reasonable Australians meant by it? Can you make a commitment would see that there is always the chance of that in future when you or your colleagues inadvertent damage to a heritage site and do make an exemption you will let the public would wish us to protect Australian forces, know about it in the time-honoured way—by who are acting responsibly and with the ap- putting it into the news stream one way or propriate level of care given the nature of the the other? operation. So we took this action to protect Senator HILL (South Australia— Australian forces in such circumstances and Minister for Defence) (7.35 p.m.)—The act believe it was the correct thing to do. of course is structured for environmental Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.33 assessment processes and approvals in cer- p.m.)—What could possibly be the point of tain circumstances, and that is by far the having a section in the act which says that most desirable way to go where damage to the Australian Defence Force must not take an important asset might be caused by an an action that is likely to have a significant action. However, in certain circumstances it impact on the environment elsewhere in the is not possible to go through that process,

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13809 and this was one of those circumstances. the minister has done this and it was a com- There was not time or the capability to do an plete cover-up. It was totally inexcusable. It analysis on what might be the consequences took quite a bit of deliberation—it was not of Australia’s involvement in military action just an off-the-cuff thing—to make a deci- in Iraq. In those circumstances and to protect sion to give a written exemption for the war the interests of Australian forces the exemp- in Iraq to Australia’s single environment bill, tion was given. which this minister has advocated so As to whether we should have put out a strongly. With a pen, in secret, he got around public statement, I hear the argument. As I it at a time of great national contention. Out said, there was no reason that I can recall, no of that came a deceit of the Australian public. secret agenda and no plot in this regard to The government should be ashamed of that. keep anyone in the dark. Generally speaking, Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (7.39 my view is: when administrative actions can p.m.)—I apologise for delaying the commit- be transparent they should be. I think the tee, but again I seek clarification regarding general approach should be: when decisions Point Nepean. I have just checked and there are made that are of public interest and there are four Point Nepean sites on the RNE. Is it is no reason why they should not be made the expectation of the government that the public then it is better that they are. As far as sale will precede the enactment of this legis- I can recall this is the only occasion that I lation and therefore those sites will not be have had to act under this particular provi- subject to the legislation? sion, but both I and the department could Senator HILL (South Australia— bear in mind the issues that have been dis- Minister for Defence) (7.40 p.m.)—My ad- cussed here if ever there is another instance. vice is that that issue has not been specifi- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.37 cally considered in those terms. Obviously, p.m.)—That is it, isn’t it? Section 28 of the the legislation has not passed, so it is diffi- act states: cult to respond. Consideration has been The Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency given in some circumstances, but it has not must not take inside or outside the Australian really been in circumstances where the prop- jurisdiction an action that has, will have or is erty is to be sold. The answer that I have likely to have a significant impact on the envi- given is that it is a matter upon which there ronment inside or outside the Australian jurisdic- has not been a determination. tion. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.41 The first time the section applies to an action p.m.)—Earlier today the minister was giving outside the Australian jurisdiction, the gov- some explanation about the state of play re- ernment exempts it. The point I make is that garding Recherche Bay and time ran out. I there is deceit involved in this legislation. wondered if he wanted to continue that, be- Time after time we are seeing the exemption, cause I have a question or two that might be the out, the refusal to enforce. The first time obviated by his completed answer. that it gets applied overseas, an exemption is given. But what is worse than that—and this Senator HILL (South Australia— is the third and last time I will say this—is Minister for Defence) (7.42 p.m.)—I think it that there was a cover-up involved. The min- might be better if I asked Senator Brown to ister acted in secret and did not make this restate his specific question because I have a known to the public, and that is inexcusable. feeling that what I was saying may not have It was a political action. It is the only time been totally relevant to the specific issue that

CHAMBER 13810 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 he was addressing. I have further information How the state level assessment is undertaken on the issue and I hope that I will be in a po- and information for that assessment is pro- sition to answer his specific question, but I vided is a matter for the Tasmanian govern- would ask that he restate it. ment. As to the action of the Australian Heri- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.42 tage Commission, it has been awaiting the p.m.)—The minister will remember from last heritage assessment by the Tasmanian Heri- Thursday that I drew his attention to the tage Council before considering the issue of situation at Recherche Bay, at which the assessment for the Register of National Es- D’Entrecasteaux scientific expedition sent by tate. In other words, there is no point in do- the French government arrived in 1792 and, ing two assessment processes in parallel. It is after circumnavigating Australia, came back waiting for the assessment process to be to in 1793. Both times they went ashore in completed by the Tasmanian Heritage Coun- southern Tasmania for five weeks. On the cil and will take that into consideration. first occasion they built a rock-wall garden On 13 August this year I am told that the which has recently been rediscovered and Tasmanian Heritage Council deferred its as- which may well be one of the oldest, if not sessment to September this year. So we are the oldest, intact European structures in Aus- expecting an outcome at that time. That will tralia—a site of great interaction with In- be made available to the AHC, which will digenous people as well as many other mat- then decide how to proceed with the Com- ters about which I spoke last week. The monwealth matter—whether it can proceed question was: is it true that the assurance on the basis of the Tasmanian documenta- given to me and other people in writing by tion. If the AHC is not satisfied the docu- the Minister for the Environment and Heri- mentation is sufficient for its purposes, it will tage, Dr Kemp, that the Tasmanian Heritage consider what additional action is required to Council was undertaking an independent obtain the necessary information. The Com- inquiry into the heritage values of this place monwealth’s position has been at this stage is in fact not so? to allow the Tasmanian initiated processes to Senator HILL (South Australia— run their course. But it is true, as I said, the Minister for Defence) (7.43 p.m.)—As I process seems to have changed from one think I said the other day, the position is that where the Heritage Council was taking the the council was making an assessment but, initiative to one where it is responding to the with the agreement of other parties, it de- initiative of a number of concerned parties. cided to do it by different means—that is, by Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.46 an application from a number of different p.m.)—No; that is not true. What happened organisations—including the Tasmanian was that the Tasmanian Heritage Council, Greens, as I recall it—for protection. The under the authority of Premier Bacon, an- issue is whether it should be listed on the nounced that it would be making an inde- Tasmanian Heritage Register, which is main- pendent investigation of the heritage values tained by the Tasmanian Heritage Council of Recherche Bay. Then suddenly two weeks under the provisions of the Tasmanian cul- ago it told the interested parties—which do tural heritage act. include the Tasmanian Greens but, more im- As Senator Brown no doubt knows, the portantly, the local community groups— that register is a list of places that have historic it was not going to do so; they would have to cultural heritage significance in Tasmania. do it themselves. They did not make any of- fer; they were told. The Tasmanian Heritage

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13811

Council unilaterally withdrew from that that commitment. The Greens have no ex- commitment it had made, by the way, to En- perts on staff who can take up this matter. vironment Minister Kemp and which he had You should go down there and do all the in- then made to me. Premier Bacon had made it vestigations that the Tasmanian Heritage too. I ask why. Council and the Tasmanian Premier said they The answer is that the woodchip industry would do. What is more, on 13 August the and Gunns leant directly or indirectly on the council’s decision was deferred and we are Tasmanian Heritage Council, unless the min- closing the gate on this in September. And, ister can give some other explanation. It just what is more, you know that you have to get does not add up. There has been political the permission of the owners, and there are influence on a process that had been publicly all sorts of hoops to go through down there. announced. If the Australian government It is a terrible process, and I want the min- allows it to get away with it again, what is ister to restore some confidence in it. Again, the point of this legislation? Now it is left, by it is this act that we are dealing with here and the way, to the community groups who, ear- part of this act, which we were given all sorts lier on, may have had decent time—I know of assurances about three years ago, covered they do not have the money to get independ- the transfer of many of the obligations for ent expertise because it does cost money— assessing and protecting the national heritage and suddenly their time is almost out and to the states. But you cannot transfer that they have no wherewithal to do that except authority; this is federal legislation. You can- to get together the best information they not transfer the responsibility. I am asking have. I suggest to the minister that the proc- the minister what the Hon. David Kemp, ess is wrong. The national government can- Minister for the Environment and Heritage, not allow itself to be compromised by the has done to investigate why that change took Tasmanian government in that fashion. The place in Tasmania. Surely we are owed an minister says, ‘When the assessment comes explanation here. The minister says that sud- back, if there is not sufficient information we denly the groups decided to undertake it. will get an independent study done here.’ I They did nothing of the sort. They were told do not have any faith in that. If you cannot there was no option; they would have to do it keep the Tasmanian government to its word, or it would not be done. There was going to what is the difference when we hear the word be no investigation. So I presume they are coming from this government? cobbling together whatever they can at the I would submit that the minister should go moment. What a process—a process that can back to Tasmanian Premier Bacon and say, be cut in two by vested interests in such an ‘You made this commitment; you stick by it. extraordinary way as that! We require you to stick by it.’ Otherwise this I also asked the minister last week about process is breaking down through interfer- the eyebright, which is critically endangered ence by vested interests—and that is what is and on the protection list under this bill. worrying me all the way down the line—and Premier Bacon has to make a decision as to here is a clear example of it happening. If I whether he will allow a resumption of road- am wrong, please give an explanation as to works going right through the territory of the why that commitment from the Tasmanian one known place where that critically endan- Premier and his Heritage Council has sud- gered flowering plant in southern Tasmania denly evaporated. It just does not make exists. What is the process here? Who is do- sense. After long consideration they made ing the independent analysis this time? What

CHAMBER 13812 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 assurances have we that Premier Bacon will the EPBC Act does not apply to the construc- not be allowed to give the go-ahead to that tion of the access road through the Southport road which damages that environment and, Lagoon Conservation Area as the road is for therefore, is likely to push this critically forestry purposes. Forestry operations under- endangered native closer to, if not all the taken in accordance with the forest practices way to, extinction? plan meet the requirements of the Tasmanian Senator HILL (South Australia— Regional Forest Agreement and, therefore, Minister for Defence) (7.53 p.m.)—The are exempt from the EPBC Act. The Forest Tasmanian assessment process is one under Practices Plan for the construction of the Tasmanian legislation, with a protective re- access road was certified in April 2002. gime set up thereby. Whilst we seek coopera- I am advised that the swamp eyebright is tion, because we think the most effective listed as critically endangered under the form of protection for the nation is each level EPBC Act and the Tasmanian Threatened of government playing its part, nevertheless Species Protection Act. Officials from the how the Tasmanian government implements Department of the Environment and Heritage its statutory obligation is primarily in its have been in contact with the Tasmanian of- hands. I am advised that there was no com- ficials in an effort to find further information mitment as such to Dr Kemp. Certainly Dr on the matter. As a result, I understand that Kemp was led to understand that the process the access road is located approximately one was being driven by the Tasmanian Heritage kilometre from the swamp eyebright popula- Council, but I am told that on 14 August the tion in the conservation area and that the ac- Commonwealth department was advised that tion will not directly impact on the eyebright the Tasmanian Heritage Council was adopt- population. In fact, it is the officials’ view ing a different approach to that originally that the uncontrolled access by recreational advised. four-wheel drive vehicles is actually a I have outlined what that different ap- greater threat to the swamp eyebright. How- proach is. What I have said is that, whilst the ever, the department is informed that poten- Commonwealth can take the outcomes, the tial for impacts on the eyebright was consid- assessments or the matters that were in- ered during the forest practices plan process volved in the Tasmanian process into account and that the plan for the road incorporates in its obligations—and, sensibly, it would—it specific construction measures designed to is not limited by the Tasmanian investigation prevent unauthorised recreational four-wheel under the Australian Heritage Commission drive vehicles from using the road to gain Act, as it is now, in terms of a listing applica- access to the conservation area where the tion, of which there is one, as I have said, or eyebright is located. I think Senator Brown if the EPBC Act comes into play the Com- made reference to a particular study. Com- monwealth is free to seek what other advice monwealth officials have been unable to it considers necessary in order to make the identify that study. I hope that that basically best decisions and I am sure under Dr Kemp answers the issue that Senator Brown has will do so. raised. I have some further information which I Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (7.58 can give to Senator Brown on the swamp p.m.)—I am surprised that the Common- eyebright. I understand that Minister Kemp wealth officials have not been able to get the has previously advised Senator Brown that study by Parks and Wildlife in Tasmania which lists the potential for a logging road to

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13813 be a threat to the eyebright. The minister will am outlining here regarding Recherche Bay, know, from his years of experience with the and a cascading series of events that all tum- environment, that a logging road going ble against the environmental interest and the within a kilometre of a critically endangered public interest, has not been countermanded plant is a very serious threat indeed— in any way by Commonwealth action. The particularly where it is not warranted and minister makes an assertion that there is go- where it is going through a conservation ing to be an independent inquiry, and then area. We get into a downward spiral with the within a month of that there is not. Efforts logic the minister used. He says, ‘Forestry is are made to try to feed me that the commu- a protected activity as far as this bill is con- nity group opted to take up responsibility, cerned.’ So here we go: this bill is to protect when I know that is wrong. The government Australia’s heritage, logging operations not down there intervened, one way or another, included. The minister says, ‘This critically and the Tasmanian Heritage Council said it endangered plant is on the list, but if it is a will haul off the independent investigation— logging operation it does not count.’ because there is money involved here. The first attempt on that road, by Gunns The minister is listening to this debate, Pty Ltd, to get in and woodchip the north- and I would have thought that he would be east peninsula was in May last year. A com- able to respond to that. I can tell him that the bination of factors including bad weather Recherche Bay issue has drawn international stopped them, but I bet it was not even attention. It is being watched by the interna- brought to the minister’s attention that this tional media, not least the French media, and critically endangered plant was in the vicin- there is national and international archaeo- ity, let alone the values of the north-east pen- logical, anthropological and environmental insular. If either of those factors were interest. The Commonwealth government is brought to the attention of the minister, I going to get itself into a big stew here if it would like to see that evidence. I point out does not have the backbone to say to the that on both counts this legislation and the Tasmanian state government, ‘Haul off on process of divesting authority to the logging this occasion. You can’t do that.’ operatives in Tasmania and to the Tasmanian In concluding, let me tell you where the government has failed. It failed with a criti- state government and the Tasmanian Heri- cally endangered species and it failed with tage Council are going to do. They are going top-rank national, cultural and environmental to put in two postage stamp exclusions: one heritage. If it is going to that down there, for the French garden and one for the obser- where is the guarantee of this legislation? vatory. The observatory is outside the log- That is the question I was putting here three ging range anyway, and they will argue that years ago. the French garden is too because they have a The Commonwealth has an obligation to 100-metre zone around the outside and it understand what is going on at state level happens to be just within the zone, next to because otherwise anything goes—and I said the coast. They are going to put in postage that three years ago. You get maverick state stamp exclusions to what should be a cultur- governments when it comes to the environ- ally protected landscape. This is a cultural ment—you get maverick premiers, ministers landscape of international significance. I and chief ministers—and this legislation has have handed the minister the sum of the evi- no way of dealing with that. You are ran- dence on that. There are known historic sites somed by their behaviour. The behaviour I all over this peninsula.

CHAMBER 13814 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Minister Kemp needs to know that he is mania, are being obliterated by clear-fell dealing with a very dangerous situation as far logging are not in fact well founded. as the environment and Australia’s interna- Senator HILL (South Australia— tional kudos are concerned, because the deci- Minister for Defence) (8.06 p.m.)—I have sions the Tasmanian government makes un- been able to get quite a bit of information on der this legislation are the decisions the this subject as well. In Tasmania the protec- Howard government makes. If I were the tion of Aboriginal sites in areas proposed for national government I would not simply be logging is informed by the state govern- the fall guy for the delinquency that is com- ment’s Forest Practices Code, which is un- ing down the line over this particular, ex- derpinned by the National Parks and Wildlife traordinarily important historic, environ- Act, the Threatened Species Protection Act, mental and—well above all—Indigenous the Aboriginal Relics Act, the Forestry Act site, which has so far remained miraculously and the Commonwealth EPBC Act. The intact but which is about to be blitzed within Tasmanian Heritage Office and the Tasma- the next six to eight months. nian Forest Practices Board have advice that Senator HILL (South Australia— logging activities are not exempt from the Minister for Defence) (8.04 p.m.)—I hear provisions of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, what Senator Brown says but I do not think I which provides penalties for any person can take the swamp eyebright or the Recher- found to have interfered with a protected che Bay matters any further at this time. He Aboriginal relic or site. The Forest Practices is unhappy with the state government and he Code, which is a public document, sets out is unhappy with the Commonwealth gov- the process whereby cultural values should ernment. Both assets are very important as- be assessed at the strategic or property level sets in different ways. I do not think that is in and evaluated during the preparation of for- dispute. The issue is whether the state or the est practices plans. The code stipulates: Commonwealth protective regimes, or both Requirements for the conservation of ... cultural in conjunction, provide adequate protection. values, including specific sites, should be re- The process in relation to Recherche Bay is corded to aid in future decision making and en- still under way, so I think it is premature to sure continuity of management. make a judgment on that. In relation to … … … swamp eyebright, the agreement that was Areas of high conservation significance may be reached between the Commonwealth and the designated as special management zones ... state gave the responsibility to protect those … … … assets primarily to the state. The state is ar- guing that the course of action it is taking is During the planning for broad areas of forest, areas of Aboriginal cultural heritage site potential not going to threaten the asset, and no doubt and/or sensitivity should be identified using the there will be debate and public interest on Archaeological Potential Zone maps ... or the that particular issue. potential zoning predictive statements ... Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.06 Heritage specialists within the Forest Prac- p.m.)—On another matter, I did ask the min- tices Board advise that all areas of high ar- ister last week about the protection of Abo- chaeological potential are surveyed within riginal heritage by the logging operations the limits of access and visibility. A propor- under the regional forest agreement. I asked tion of the areas of medium and low archaeo- him to let the committee know that my fears logical potential are also surveyed. Known that such sites, including listed sites in Tas-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13815 sites are managed by avoidance. Following during that submission that known sites are the logging of coupes, an assessment is un- managed by avoidance. Let me be a bit more dertaken to determine ongoing management particular. Your good officers have had some requirements. time to work on this. I mentioned last week The Tasmanian Heritage Office advise quarry sites, middens and scatter sites that that the Forest Practices Board were origi- are listed, and I asked specifically if such nally provided with data relating to some sites had been destroyed, isolated or removed 3,500 sites around Tasmania. They advise or were under threat of same. I want the min- that since 1994 they have undertaken some ister to know that his information is not right. 3,000 pre- and post-operational surveys of I would like to ask the minister if all logging logging areas. Information relating to cul- operations in the Tarkine in north-west Tas- tural heritage sites located during these sur- mania—that is, in that corner of the state—at veys is provided to the Tasmanian Heritage the moment exempt damage to Aboriginal Office for inclusion on the Tasmanian Abo- sites. I very specifically ask if there are in- riginal site index. Information used to pre- tentions, applications or otherwise to forgo pare the Tasmania-Commonwealth Regional protection of logging sites so that logging Forest Agreement identified some 180 natu- can take place or is taking place already. An- ral and Indigenous heritage places located in other way of asking that is: has the Tasma- forest areas either in the interim list or in- nian government or any of its instrumentali- scribed in the Register of the National Estate. ties or ministers given exemption for the in- Both the Tasmanian Heritage Office and the terference in such sites at the request of log- Forest Practices Board advise that producing ging operatives or have logging operatives specific figures on the number of sites identi- made such a request? fied within logging coupes and the manage- Senator HILL (South Australia— ment status of each would take some time to Minister for Defence) (8.13 p.m.)—Again, generate. Senator Brown asks for a great deal of detail I am also advised in relation to applica- about the application by Tasmania of its pro- tions for protection under the Aboriginal and tective legislation. I do not have the answer Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection to that specific question, but I have said to Act—that is, the Commonwealth act. Until the Senate that the Tasmanian relics act takes 1998 the administration of the act rested with precedent. If a site has been protected then to ATSIC. There was up until that date only one damage it is a serious offence. There seems application that related to a claimed threat to have been an extensive process of evaluat- from forestry actions. That was the Koo- ing Aboriginal sites in Tasmania, which is paroona Niara application. I understand that obviously a good thing. If they have been a buffer zone was provided to protect the site identified and listed, they are managed by and that ultimately the matters were re- avoidance—which seems to me to be the solved. As I suspected, there have been no best way to manage them. I do not know of further applications for protection since the any provision under the Tasmanian legisla- Commonwealth department took over the tion that allows for what I think Senator administration of that piece of legislation. Brown referred to as an exemption, which I take to mean that the forestry operation Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.11 would be permitted to destroy a protected p.m.)—Thank you, Minister. I know you are site. Certainly that would not occur under the giving us the information you have. You said Commonwealth legislation, but the fact that

CHAMBER 13816 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 there have not been applications under the saying it does not. The question is: how can Commonwealth legislation would suggest the Commonwealth allow that to happen? that, by and large, interested parties are How can it have national heritage being happy with the operation of the Tasmanian damaged or destroyed under its authority, regime. under the Prime Minister’s signature? Don’t Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.14 they value the Prime Minister’s signature? p.m.)—I ask the minister if he will go back Isn’t there an expectation that the state gov- to the Tasmanian government and ask if an ernment, inheritors of that regional forest exemption has ever been given to exempt agreement, will be honest and true to its re- from protection a listed Aboriginal site in quirements and to the assurances given to the Tasmania, if a request for an exemption has people of Tasmania and indeed everywhere been made and if there is the facility for the else about the Tasmanian heritage? Or is the minister or the Premier or anybody else to minister saying to the committee that the make such an exemption. The minister has national obligation to protect sites, places indicated that is not the case—that is not my and values of national significance does not information. I am very serious about the mat- apply to logging in Tasmania? If that is the ter. The minister says, ‘Well, under the For- case, say so. It has never been said before. If est Practices Board, there are 3,500 sites and it is not the case, I ask: how do you protect there have been 3,000 surveys in the last Indigenous and other cultural and environ- eight years.’ He says this is Tasmanian legis- mental heritage from those people who lation. No, it is not. This is this legislation, breach the spirit of this legislation? And it is which transfers the Commonwealth’s guardi- being breached. You cannot wash your hands anship of such heritage to the Tasmanian of it. You cannot be Pontius Pilate and say, authorities. It exempted logging operations ‘That is not my business; it is somebody because there is a code of practice there. else’s.’ You have signed that power to the What I am talking about breaches that code Tasmanian government: how do you police of practice, but the responsibility is with the it? federal government. The Prime Minister Senator HILL (South Australia— signed that regional forest agreement giving Minister for Defence) (8.18 p.m.)—My ad- authority to the state to do the Common- vice is different to the assertion of Senator wealth’s work. The minister knows that that Brown. As I said, my advice is that logging is the case. I do not know whether any other activities are not exempt from the provisions member of this committee wants to comment of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, which on this, but we are talking about legislation provides penalties for any person found to here to protect the nation’s heritage. have interfered with a protected Aboriginal Is the minister saying to me, ‘Yes, the site or relic. I will have that double-checked, Commonwealth exempts logging operations but that is the advice that Commonwealth from protecting known sites of national cul- officials have given to me and that is after tural or environmental heritage’? Is that what consultation with the state officials. But I you are saying? That is new. The line we will check that. have always been given here is that the For- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.19 est Practices Code, which operates under the p.m.)—I am very worried by what is going regional forest agreement which Prime Min- on down in Tasmania. I am, through this ister Howard devised with then Premier process, alerting the Commonwealth to it. I Rundle, does the Commonwealth’s job. I am think there needs to be very close scrutiny of

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13817 the responses coming back. I have been Commonwealth Heritage List under the new pretty particular. All I have not done is name legislation. I presume that also means that specific places, and that is not my job in this they would probably meet the test for listing situation. But I think it is pretty clear. You under the existing legislation. In relation to can send the Hansard down to Tasmania but Minister Kemp’s processes that flow from if I were the minister I would want an iron- that, my understanding was that he had not clad guarantee from your Tasmanian coun- given any undertakings in that regard, but I terpart that what you said here tonight is true. will seek further advice. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.20 Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.23 p.m.)—Minister, it was in fact my under- p.m.)—Minister, I realise you are not minis- standing that the Point Nepean sites had been ter for the environment—that is Dr Kemp’s assessed and were said to be ready for trans- area—but we are talking here about Defence ferring. It has also been said by the minister land. As this is your portfolio, I would have and the minister’s office that it is the inten- thought you could enlighten us as to whether tion of the Commonwealth, once assessment this land is to receive the protection of the is done in some cases, to transfer all of those new legislation. If all those sites—there are sites onto the Commonwealth Heritage List four of them, and I did say they are already that are currently on the RNE. I note that you on the RNE, that is the point in raising say that no decision has been made on this these—have been assessed, what is the bar- and you are currently looking into it and so rier to them shifting directly across to the forth, but there is also, as I understand it, a Commonwealth list? list of Commonwealth places that were ready Senator HILL (South Australia— for transfer. I ask you directly: are those four Minister for Defence) (8.24 p.m.)—I do not sites at Point Nepean on that list of sites that think there is any barrier if they have been are ready for transfer and can the most up-to- assessed as meeting the criteria, but that is date version of that list be tabled? Can you not a judgment that I make as Minister for also table the list of Commonwealth places Defence; that is an issue and a responsibility that remain to be assessed? I think I made for Dr Kemp as Minister for the Environ- this request last Thursday and I am not sure ment and Heritage. I am interested in the that you gave an undertaking one way or the values being protected. In some instances we other, but it must be available amongst all of are protecting natural values by transfer to the departmental staff you have with you, the state, which we hope will do its job— and I ask that it be tabled. although I am not sure that Senator Brown Senator HILL (South Australia— would be very confident of that. I have said Minister for Defence) (8.21 p.m.)—What I in relation to the piece of land which the can say is that the quarantine station is al- Commonwealth government proposes selling ready on the Register of the National Estate that there are a number of ways in which we and I think there may be some other specific can protect the historical and cultural values assets that are already on the register. I am on that land, and it is our determination to do told that other areas have been assessed, so so. What I also said is that, of the number of there must be instances where there has been different options that are open to us, a deci- a nomination, they have been assessed and sion as to exactly what protective regime will the Australian Heritage Commission believes be put in place has not yet been made. that they meet all of the tests and would Question negatived. therefore be eligible for transfer to the

CHAMBER 13818 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Senator LEES (South Australia) (8.26 National Heritage List under this p.m.)—by leave—I move amendments (1) to section and the Minister has not done (18), (21), (25) to (36), (38) to (48), (50) to so within 10 business days after (65), (67) to (76), (78) to (81), and (83) to receiving the request, the Minister (110), on sheet RA235: must: (a) publish on the Internet notice of (1) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (line 30), omit those facts; and “place.”, substitute “place; or”. (b) advise the person that the Minister (2) Schedule 1, item 18, page 17 (after line 30), has not included the place in the at the end of section 137A, add: List; and (c) a plan that has been prepared for the (c) give reasons why the Minister has management of a National Heritage not done so to the person and to place under section 324S or as anyone who requests them. described in section 324X. This subsection has effect (despite (3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 22 (line 26), after subsection (1)) whether or not the “and”, insert “may”. Minister has the belief described in (4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 24 (after line 31), that subsection in relation to the after subsection 324E(3), insert: place and its heritage values (if any). (3A) Within 10 business days after giving (9) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (lines 1 and 2), the request to the Chair of the omit “However, the Minister may extend the Australian Heritage Council, the period in paragraph (a) or (b).”. Minister must publish on the Internet a (10) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (after line 2), brief description of the nomination. after subsection 324G(2), insert: Note: Section 324Q may affect the (2A) If the Australian Heritage Council does amount of detail in the not give the Minister the assessment description. within the period required by (5) Schedule 1, item 31, page 26 (line 11), omit subsection (2) but makes all reasonable “, within a reasonable time”. efforts to do so, the Minister may, by (6) Schedule 1, item 31, page 26 (lines 12 and notice in writing, extend the period by 13), omit paragraph 324F(5)(a), substitute: up to 24 months. (a) within 10 business days, publish, on (2B) If the Australian Heritage Council does the Internet and in each other way not give the Minister the assessment required by the regulations (if any), within the period as extended under a copy of the instrument published subsection (2A) but makes all in the Gazette; and reasonable efforts to do so, the Minister (7) Schedule 1, item 31 page 26 (lines 19 and may, by notice in writing, further 20), omit paragraph 324F(c), substitute: extend the period by up to 24 months. (c) within 10 business days, advise each (2C) Within 10 business days of extending person (if any) who nominated the the period by notice under subsection place or requested the Minister in (2A) or (2B), the Minister must: writing to include the place in the (a) publish on the Internet: List under this section that the place (i) a copy of the notice; and has been included in the List. (ii) the reasons for the extension; and (8) Schedule 1, item 31, page 26 (after line 20), (b) give a copy of the notice to each at the end of section 324F, add: person (if any) who nominated the (6) If a person requests the Minister in writing to include a place in the

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13819

place being covered by the section continues to apply even if the assessment. Minister revokes the decision. (11) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (after line 6), (14) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (line 33), omit after subsection 324G(3), insert: “a”, substitute “the”. Requirements relating to assessments (15) Schedule 1, item 31, page 28 (lines 5 and 6), generally omit the note. (3A) Before giving the Minister an (16) Schedule 1, item 31, page 28 (lines 11 to assessment under this section whether a 13), omit “include a statement setting out the place meets any of the National National Heritage criteria the place meets or Heritage criteria, the Australian may meet and must allow the comments”, Heritage Council: substitute “state that comments are”. (a) must publish, in accordance with the (17) Schedule 1, item 31, page 28 (lines 22 to regulations (if any), a notice: 26), omit subsection 324H(5), substitute: (i) stating that the Council is (5) On the first day on which the Minister assessing whether the place publishes the notice, the Minister must meets any of the National publish, in accordance with the Heritage criteria; and regulations (if any): (ii) inviting comments in writing, (a) the assessment given to the Minister within a specified period that is under section 324G for the place; reasonable having regard to the and time by which the Council must (b) a summary of the documents (if give the assessment to the any), copies of which were given to Minister, on whether the place the Minister by the Australian meets any of the National Heritage Council under that section Heritage criteria and whether the with the assessment; and place should be included in the National Heritage List; and (c) if the place has not been included in the National Heritage List—one of (b) must consider, subject to subsection the following: (5), the comments (if any) the Council receives within the period. (i) a statement (the listing proposal) that the Minister proposes that The Council must give the Minister a the place be included in the copy of the comments with the National Heritage List; assessment. (ii) a statement that the Minister (12) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (line 30), omit proposes that the place not be the heading to section 324H, substitute: included in the National Heritage 324H Inviting public comments after List; assessment (iii) a statement that the Minister does (13) Schedule 1, item 31, page 27 (before line not have a view whether or not 30), before subsection (1), insert: the place should be included in (1A) This section applies if and only if, the National Heritage List; and within 20 business days after the day (d) if the Minister publishes the listing on which the Minister receives from proposal—a statement: the Australian Heritage Council under (i) identifying the National Heritage section 324G an assessment whether a values that the Minister proposes place meets any of the National be included in the National Heritage criteria, the Minister decides Heritage List for the place; and that this section should apply. This

CHAMBER 13820 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(ii) explaining why the Minister However, this subsection does not believes the place has those apply if the place is wholly or partly values. outside the Australian jurisdiction. (18) Schedule 1, item 31, page 28 (line 29) to (21) Schedule 1, item 31, page 29 (lines 21 and page 29 (line 9), omit subsections 324J(1) 22), omit “, within a reasonable time”. and (2), substitute: (25) Schedule 1, item 31, page 29 (lines 29 to (1) After receiving from the Australian 31), omit “Within 15 business days after the Heritage Council an assessment under end of the period mentioned in subsection section 324G whether a place, except 324H(3) for a place included in the National one that is or includes a place included Heritage List under section 324F in the National Heritage List under (emergency listing),”, substitute “After section 324F (whether before, on or receiving from the Australian Heritage after receipt of the assessment), meets Council an assessment under section 324G any of the National Heritage criteria, whether a place that is or includes a place the Minister must: (the listed place) included in the National (a) by instrument published in the Heritage List under section 324F (whether Gazette, include in the National before, on or after receipt of the assessment) Heritage List the place and its meets any of the National Heritage criteria,”. National Heritage values specified (26) Schedule 1, item 31, page 29 (line 34), omit in the instrument; or “place”, substitute “listed place”. (b) decide not to include the place in the (27) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (line 1), omit National Heritage List. “place”, substitute “listed place”. Note 1: Section 324F is about (28) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (line 5), omit emergency listing. “place”, substitute “listed place”. Note 2: The Minister may include a (29) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (line 7), omit place in the National Heritage “place”, substitute “listed place”. List only if the Minister is (30) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (lines 18 to satisfied that the place has one 20), omit the note. or more National Heritage (31) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (after line 20), values (see subsection after subsection 324J(5), insert: 324C(2)). (5A) The Minister must comply with Note 3: Section 324N deals with how subsection (5): additional National Heritage values may be included in the (a) within 20 business days after the National Heritage List for a day on which the Minister receives National Heritage place. the assessment; or (2) The Minister must comply with (b) if section 324H applies in relation to subsection (1): the place covered by the assessment—within 15 business (a) within 20 business days after the days after the end of the period day on which the Minister receives mentioned in subsection 324H(3) the assessment; or for the place. (b) if section 324H applies in relation to However, this subsection does not the place—within 60 business days apply if the place covered by the after the end of the period assessment is partly outside the mentioned in paragraph 324H(3)(a) Australian jurisdiction. for the place.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13821

Note: Subsection (5) cannot apply regulations (if any), a copy of the to a place wholly outside the instrument. Australian jurisdiction, (38) Schedule 1, item 31, page 33 (lines 9 to 14), because a place wholly omit subsection 324M(1), substitute: outside the Australian jurisdiction must not be (1) Before the Minister removes from the National Heritage List under section included in the National Heritage List under section 324L all or part of a place or one or more of a place’s National Heritage 324F. values in a removal for loss of value, (32) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (line 35), omit the Minister must: “, within a reasonable time”. (a) give the Chair of the Australian (33) Schedule 1, item 31, page 30 (line 36) to Heritage Council a written request page 31 (line 5), omit paragraphs 324J(7)(a) for the Council to give the Minister and (b), substitute: advice on the proposed removal; and (a) within 10 business days, publish on (b) publish, on the Internet, in a daily the Internet: newspaper circulating in each State (i) a copy of the instrument and self-governing Territory and in published in the Gazette; and each other way required by the (ii) the reasons for the removal or regulations (if any), a notice: alteration; and (i) describing the proposed removal; (b) within 10 business days, give and written reasons for the removal or (ii) inviting anyone to give the alteration to each person identified Minister comments, within 20 by the Minister as an owner or business days, on the proposed occupier of all or part of the place; removal. and The Minister must publish the notice (c) give written reasons for the removal within 20 business days of giving the or alteration to anyone else who request. asks the Minister for them; and (39) Schedule 1, item 31, page 33 (lines 17 and (d) if the place was included on the List 18), omit subsection 324M(3), substitute: following a nomination of it by a (3) The Minister must consider the advice, person—within 10 business days of if he or she receives it by the end of the removal or alteration, advise the that period, and the comments (if any) person of the removal or alteration received in accordance with the notice. and give the person written reasons (40) Schedule 1, item 31, page 35 (before line for it. 33), before subparagraph 324R(2)(a)(i), (34) Schedule 1, item 31, page 31 (line 12), omit insert: “subsection 324G(4)”, substitute “section 324G”. (ia) publication under section 324H of the assessment; or (35) Schedule 1, item 31, page 31 (line 14), after (41) Schedule 1, item 31, page 36 (line 4), omit “notice”, insert “(if any)”. “324J(1) or (5)”, substitute “324J(2) or (36) Schedule 1, item 31, page 33 (lines 5 and 6), (5A)”. omit subsection 324L(6), substitute: (42) Schedule 1, item 31, page 38 (lines 1 to 4), (6) Within 10 business days of publication omit subsection 324S(6), substitute: of the instrument in the Gazette, the Minister must publish, on the Internet (6) Before making, amending or revoking and replacing a plan, the Minister must: and in each other way required by the

CHAMBER 13822 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(a) seek in accordance with the (b) assess whether the plan is effective regulations, and consider, comments in protecting and conserving the from anyone about the matters to be National Heritage values of the addressed by the proposed plan or place; and amendment; and (c) make recommendations for the (b) seek and consider comments from improved protection of the National the Australian Heritage Council Heritage values of the place. about those matters. (3) The person carrying out the review (43) Schedule 1, item 31, page 38 (lines 15 to must publish, on the Internet and in a 19), omit section 324U, substitute: daily newspaper circulating in each 324U Compliance with plans by the State and self-governing Territory, a Commonwealth and Commonwealth notice inviting anyone to give the agencies person comments within 20 business days on: (1) The Commonwealth or a Common- wealth agency must not: (a) whether the plan is consistent with the National Heritage management (a) contravene a plan made under principles; and section 324S; or (b) the effectiveness of the plan in (b) authorise another person to do, or protecting and conserving the omit to do, anything that, if it were National Heritage values of the done or omitted to be done by the place. Commonwealth or the Common- wealth agency (as appropriate), (4) In carrying out the review, the person would contravene such a plan. must consider the comments (if any) received in accordance with the notice. (2) If there is no plan in force under section 324S for a particular National (45) Schedule 1, item 31, page 40 (line 26), omit Heritage place described in subsection “identification and assessment”, substitute (1) of that section, the Commonwealth “identification, assessment and monitoring”. and each Commonwealth agency must (46) Schedule 1, item 31, page 41 (after line 3), take all reasonable steps to ensure that after subsection 324ZA(1), insert: its acts (if any) relating to the place are (1A) The Commonwealth agency must give not inconsistent with the National the Minister at least 40 business days’ Heritage management principles. notice before executing the contract. (44) Schedule 1, item 31, page 38 (lines 27 to (47) Schedule 1, item 31, page 43 (line 3), omit 32), omit section 324W, substitute: paragraph 324ZC(2)(e), substitute: 324W Review of plans at least every 5 (e) all nominations, assessments and years changes to the National Heritage (1) At least once in every 5 year period List under this Division during the after a plan for managing a National period of review; and Heritage place is made under section (f) compliance with this Act in relation 324S, the Minister must cause a review to National Heritage places; and of the plan to be carried out. (g) any other matters that the Minister (2) The review must: considers relevant. (a) assess whether the plan is consistent (48) Schedule 1, item 32, page 43 (line 16), after with the National Heritage “and”, insert “may”. management principles in force at (50) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (line 2), omit “, the time; and within a reasonable time”.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13823

(51) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (lines 3 and 4), efforts to do so, the Minister may, by omit paragraph 341F(5)(a), substitute: notice in writing, extend the period by (a) within 10 business days, publish, on up to 24 months. the Internet and in each other way (2B) If the Australian Heritage Council does required by the regulations (if any), not give the Minister the assessment a copy or summary of the within the period as extended under instrument published in the Gazette; subsection (2A) but makes all and reasonable efforts to do so, the Minister (52) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (lines 10 to may, by notice in writing, further 12), omit paragraph 341F(5)(c), substitute: extend the period by up to 24 months. (c) within 10 business days, advise each (2C) Within 10 business days of extending person (if any) who nominated the the period by notice under subsection place or requested the Minister in (2A) or (2B), the Minister must: writing to include the place in the (a) publish on the Internet: List under this section that the place (i) a copy of the notice; and has been included in the List. (ii) the reasons for the extension; and (53) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (after line 12), (b) give a copy of the notice to each at the end of section 341F, add: person (if any) who nominated the (6) If a person requests the Minister in place being covered by the writing to include a place in the assessment. Commonwealth Heritage List under this section and the Minister has not (56) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (after line 33), after subsection 341G(3), insert: done so within 10 business days after receiving the request, the Minister Requirements relating to assessments must: generally (a) publish on the Internet notice of (3A) Before giving the Minister an those facts; and assessment under this section whether a (b) advise the person that the Minister place meets any of the Commonwealth Heritage criteria, the Australian has not included the place in the List; and Heritage Council: (c) give reasons why the Minister has (a) must publish, in accordance with the regulations (if any), a notice: not done so to the person and to anyone who requests them. (i) stating that the Council is This subsection has effect (despite assessing whether the place meets any of the Commonwealth subsection (1)) whether or not the Minister has the belief described in Heritage criteria; and that subsection in relation to the (ii) inviting comments in writing, place and its heritage values (if any). within a specified period that is reasonable having regard to the (54) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (lines 28 and 29), omit “However, the Minister may time by which the Council must give the assessment to the extend the period in paragraph (a) or (b).”. Minister, on whether the place (55) Schedule 1, item 32, page 47 (after line 29), meets any of the Commonwealth after subsection 341G(2), insert: Heritage criteria and whether the (2A) If the Australian Heritage Council does place should be included in the not give the Minister the assessment Commonwealth Heritage List; within the period required by and subsection (2) but makes all reasonable

CHAMBER 13824 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(b) must consider, subject to subsection (c) if the place has not been included in (5), the comments (if any) the the Commonwealth Heritage List— Council receives within the period. one of the following: The Council must give the Minister a (i) a statement (the listing proposal) copy of the comments with the that the Minister proposes that assessment. the place be included in the (57) Schedule 1, item 32, page 48 (line 21), omit Commonwealth Heritage List; the heading to section 341H, substitute: (ii) a statement that the Minister 341H Inviting public comments after proposes that the place not be assessment included in the Commonwealth Heritage List; (58) Schedule 1, item 32, page 48 (before line 22), before subsection (1), insert: (iii) a statement that the Minister does not have a view whether or not (1A) This section applies if and only if, the place should be included in within 20 business days after the day the Commonwealth Heritage on which the Minister receives from List; and the Australian Heritage Council under section 341G an assessment whether a (d) if the Minister publishes the listing place meets any of the Commonwealth proposal—a statement: Heritage criteria, the Minister decides (i) identifying the Commonwealth that this section should apply. This Heritage values that the Minister section continues to apply even if the proposes be included in the Minister revokes the decision. Commonwealth Heritage List for (59) Schedule 1, item 32, page 48 (line 24), omit the place; and “a”, substitute “the”. (ii) explaining why the Minister (60) Schedule 1, item 32, page 48 (lines 30 and believes the place has those 31), omit the note. values. (61) Schedule 1, item 32, page 49 (lines 1 to 3), (63) Schedule 1, item 32, page 49 (line 20) to omit “include a statement setting out the page 50 (line 5), omit subsections 341J(1) Commonwealth Heritage criteria the place and (2), substitute: meets or may meet and must allow the (1) After receiving from the Australian comments”, substitute “state that comments Heritage Council an assessment under are”. section 341G whether a place, except (62) Schedule 1, item 32, page 49 (lines 12 to one that is or includes a place included 17), omit subsection 341H(5), substitute: in the Commonwealth Heritage List under section 341F (whether before, on (5) On the first day on which the Minister or after receipt of the assessment), publishes the notice, the Minister must meets any of the Commonwealth publish, in accordance with the Heritage criteria, the Minister must: regulations (if any): (a) by instrument published in the (a) the assessment given to the Minister Gazette, include in the Common- under section 341G for the place; wealth Heritage List the place and and its Commonwealth Heritage values (b) a summary of the documents (if specified in the instrument; or any), copies of which were given to (b) decide not to include the place in the the Minister by the Australian Commonwealth Heritage List. Heritage Council under that section with the assessment; and Note 1: Section 341F is about emergency listing.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13825

Note 2: The Minister may include a (ii) the Minister’s reasons for place in the Commonwealth including the place and those Heritage List only if the values in the List. Minister is satisfied that the (67) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (line 23), after place: “decision”, insert “within 10 business days”. (a) is entirely within a Common- (68) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (line 24), omit wealth area or is both outside “decision.”, substitute “decision; and”. the Australian jurisdiction and (69) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (after line 24), owned or leased by the Com- monwealth or a Commonwealth at the end of subsection 341J(4), add: agency; and (c) within 10 business days, publish on the Internet notice of the decision (b) has one or more Common- wealth Heritage values. and the reasons for the decision. See subsection 341C(2). (70) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (lines 26 to 28), omit “Within 15 business days after the Note 3: Section 341N deals with how end of the period mentioned in subsection additional Commonwealth 341H(3) for a place included in the Heritage values may be Commonwealth Heritage List under section included in the Common- 341F (emergency listing),”, substitute “After wealth Heritage List for a receiving from the Australian Heritage Commonwealth Heritage Council an assessment under section 341G place. whether a place that is or includes a place (2) The Minister must comply with (the listed place) included in the subsection (1): Commonwealth Heritage List under section (a) within 20 business days after the 341F (whether before, on or after receipt of day on which the Minister receives the assessment) meets any of the the assessment; or Commonwealth Heritage criteria,”. (b) if section 341H applies in relation to (71) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (line 31), omit the place—within 60 business days “place”, substitute “listed place”. after the end of the period (72) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (line 33), omit mentioned in paragraph 341H(3)(a) “place”, substitute “listed place”. for the place. (73) Schedule 1, item 32, page 51 (line 1), omit However, this subsection does not “place”, substitute “listed place”. apply if the place is wholly or partly (74) Schedule 1, item 32, page 51 (line 3), omit outside the Australian jurisdiction. “place”, substitute “listed place”. (64) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (line 15), omit (75) Schedule 1, item 32, page 51 (lines 16 to “List.”, substitute “List; and”. 18), omit the note. (65) Schedule 1, item 32, page 50 (after line 15), (76) Schedule 1, item 32, page 51 (after line 18), at the end of subsection 341J(3), add: after subsection 341J(5), insert: (c) publish on the Internet: (5A) The Minister must comply with (i) a copy of the instrument subsection (5): published in the Gazette (a) within 20 business days after the including the place and its day on which the Minister receives Commonwealth Heritage values the assessment; or in the List; and (b) if section 341H applies in relation to the place covered by the assessment—within 15 business

CHAMBER 13826 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

days after the end of the period (83) Schedule 1, item 32, page 54 (lines 20 to mentioned in subsection 341H(3) 25), omit subsection 341M(1), substitute: for the place. (1) Before the Minister removes from the However, this subsection does not Commonwealth Heritage List under apply if the place covered by the section 341L all or part of a place or assessment is wholly or partly one or more of a place’s outside the Australian jurisdiction. Commonwealth Heritage values in a (78) Schedule 1, item 32, page 51 (line 34) to removal for loss of value, the Minister page 52 (line 4), omit paragraphs 341J(7)(a) must: and (b), substitute: (a) give the Chair of the Australian (a) within 10 business days, publish on Heritage Council a written request the Internet: for the Council to give the Minister advice on the proposed removal; and (i) a copy of the instrument published in the Gazette; and (b) publish, on the Internet, in a daily newspaper circulating in each State (ii) the reasons for the removal or and self-governing Territory and in alteration; and each other way required by the (b) within 10 business days, give regulations (if any), a notice: written reasons for the removal or (i) describing the proposed removal; alteration to each person identified and by the Minister as an owner or occupier of all or part of the place; (ii) inviting anyone to give the and Minister comments, within 20 business days, on the proposed (c) give written reasons for the removal removal. or alteration to anyone else who asks the Minister for them; and The Minister must publish the notice within 20 business days of giving the (d) if the place was included on the List request. following a nomination of it by a person—within 10 business days of (84) Schedule 1, item 32, page 54 (lines 28 and the removal or alteration, advise the 29), omit subsection 341M(3), substitute: person of the removal or alteration (3) The Minister must consider the advice, and give the person written reasons if he or she receives it by the end of for it. that period, and the comments (if any) (79) Schedule 1, item 33, page 52 (line 11), omit received in accordance with the notice. “subsection 341G(4)”, substitute “section (85) Schedule 1, item 32, page 57 (before line 341G”. 16), before subparagraph 341R(2)(a)(i), (80) Schedule 1, item 32, page 52 (line 13), after insert: “notice”, insert “(if any)”. (ia) publication under section 341H (81) Schedule 1, item 32, page 54 (lines 16 and of the assessment; or 17), omit subsection 341L(7), substitute: (86) Schedule 1, item 32, page 57 (line 21), omit (7) Within 10 business days of publication “341J(1) or (5)”, substitute “341J(2) or of the instrument in the Gazette, the (5A)”. Minister must publish, on the Internet (87) Schedule 1, item 32, page 59 (lines 16 to and in each other way required by the 18), omit paragraph 341S(6)(b), substitute: regulations (if any), a copy of the (b) seek in accordance with the instrument. regulations, and consider, comments from anyone about the matters to be

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13827

addressed by the proposed plan or (1) At least once in every 5 year period amendment. after a plan for managing a (88) Schedule 1, item 32, page 59 (line 25), at the Commonwealth Heritage place is made end of subsection 341T(1), add “If the under section 341S, the Common- Commonwealth agency does so, it must give wealth agency concerned must cause a the Minister a copy of the plan.”. review of the plan to be carried out. (89) Schedule 1, item 32, page 59 (after line 27), (2) The review must: after subsection 341T(1), insert: (a) assess whether the plan is consistent (1A) The Minister must decide within 60 with the Commonwealth Heritage business days of being given the copy management principles in force at of the plan whether or not to endorse the time; and the plan. (b) assess whether the plan is effective (1B) Within 10 business days of making the in protecting and conserving the decision, the Minister must inform the Commonwealth Heritage values of Commonwealth agency in writing of the place; and the decision and publish on the Internet (c) make recommendations for the a notice of the decision. improved protection of the (90) Schedule 1, item 32, page 60 (lines 13 to Commonwealth Heritage values of 17), omit section 341V, substitute: the place. 341V Compliance with plans by the (3) The person carrying out the review Commonwealth and Commonwealth must publish, on the Internet and in a agencies daily newspaper circulating in each State and self-governing Territory, a (1) The Commonwealth or a Common- notice inviting anyone to give the wealth agency must not: person comments within 20 business (a) contravene a plan made under days on: section 341S; or (a) whether the plan is consistent with (b) authorise another person to do, or the Commonwealth Heritage man- omit to do, anything that, if it were agement principles; and done or omitted to be done by the (b) the effectiveness of the plan in Commonwealth or the Common- protecting and conserving the wealth agency (as appropriate), Commonwealth Heritage values of would contravene such a plan. the place. (2) If there is no plan in force under (4) In carrying out the review, the person section 341S for a particular must consider the comments (if any) Commonwealth Heritage place, the received in accordance with the notice. Commonwealth and each Common- wealth agency must take all reasonable (92) Schedule 1, item 32, page 61 (line 17), omit steps to ensure that its acts (if any) “identification and assessment”, substitute relating to the place are not inconsistent “identification, assessment and monitoring”. with the Commonwealth Heritage (93) Schedule 1, item 32, page 61 (lines 20 to management principles. 26), omit subsection 341ZA(1), substitute: (91) Schedule 1, item 32, page 60 (lines 25 to (1) If a Commonwealth agency owns or 32), omit section 341X, substitute: controls one or more places, the agency 341X Review of plans at least every 5 must: years (a) prepare a written heritage strategy for managing the places to protect

CHAMBER 13828 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

and conserve their Commonwealth nomination of the place for inclusion in Heritage values; and the Commonwealth Heritage List. (b) give a copy of the strategy to the (99) Schedule 1, item 32, page 63 (lines 1 to 8), Minister; omit section 341ZC substitute: as soon as practicable and in any 341ZC Minimising adverse impact on event within 2 years after the later of: heritage values (c) the time the agency first owns or A Commonwealth agency must not controls a place; and take an action that has, will have or is (d) the commencement of this section. likely to have an adverse impact on the National Heritage values of a National Note: The heritage strategy will apply Heritage place or the Commonwealth to every place the agency owns Heritage values of a Commonwealth or controls. Heritage place, unless: (1A) Before making a heritage strategy, the (a) there is no feasible and prudent Commonwealth agency must consult alternative to taking the action; and the Australian Heritage Council and take into account any advice the agency (b) all measures that can reasonably be receives from the Council. taken to mitigate the impact of the action on those values are taken. (94) Schedule 1, item 32, page 61 (line 28), at the end of subsection 341ZA(2), add “The (100) Schedule 1, item 32, page 63 (after line 34) Commonwealth agency must give the after subsection 341ZE(1), insert: Minister a copy of the amended or (1A) The Commonwealth agency must give replacement strategy within 20 business the Minister at least 40 business days’ days of the amendment or replacement.”. notice before executing the contract. (95) Schedule 1, item 32, page 62 (line 3), omit (101) Schedule 1, item 32, page 66 (line 22), omit “any).”, substitute “any); and”. paragraph 341ZH(2)(e), substitute: (96) Schedule 1, item 32, page 62 (after line 3), (e) all nominations, assessments and at the end of subsection 341ZA(3), add: changes to the Commonwealth (d) not be inconsistent with the Heritage List under this Division Commonwealth Heritage manage- during the period of review; and ment principles. (f) compliance with this Act in relation (97) Schedule 1, item 32, page 62 (lines 4 to 8), to Commonwealth Heritage places; omit subsection 341ZA(4), substitute: and (4) The Minister must advise the (g) any other matters that the Minister Commonwealth agency whether or not considers relevant. the agency’s heritage strategy (whether (102) Schedule 1, item 33, page 66 (lines 25 to original, amended or replacement) is 31), omit paragraph (j), substitute: inconsistent with the Commonwealth ; and (j) if the reserve includes a National Heritage management principles. Heritage place: (98) Schedule 1, item 32, page 62 (after line 32), (i) not be inconsistent with the at the end of section 341ZB, add: National Heritage management (5) If a report under paragraph (1)(c) principles; and indicates that a place owned or (ii) address the matters prescribed by controlled by a Commonwealth agency regulations made for the purposes may have one or more Commonwealth of paragraph 324S(4)(a); and Heritage values, information from the (k) if the reserve includes a report may be used or referred to in a Commonwealth Heritage place:

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13829

(i) not be inconsistent with the Place may be included in National Commonwealth Heritage man- Heritage List within 6 months agement principles; and (2) The Minister may, by instrument (ii) address the matters prescribed by published in the Gazette within 6 regulations made for the purposes months after this item commences, of paragraph 341S(4)(a). include in the National Heritage List (103) Schedule 1, item 46, page 68 (after line 27), the place and the National Heritage after paragraph (e), insert: values it has because of subitem (3). To avoid doubt: Note: The places mentioned in paragraph (d) of the definition (a) all those values must be included in of environment include places the List if the Minister includes the included in the Register of the place in the List under this item; and National Estate kept under the (b) this item does not prevent the Australian Heritage Council Minister from including in the List Act 2003. at any time under the Environment (104) Schedule 1, item 48, page 69 (lines 8 to Protection and Biodiversity Conser- 10), omit the definition of indigenous vation Act 1999: heritage value, substitute: (i) the place; and indigenous heritage value of a place (ii) a National Heritage value the means a heritage value of the place that place has because of subitem (3) is of significance to indigenous persons or otherwise. in accordance with their practices, World heritage values taken to cause observances, customs, traditions, place to meet National Heritage criteria beliefs or history.Ã (3) For the purposes of this item and the (105) Schedule 3, heading, page 73 (lines 2 to 4), Environment Protection and omit “Transitional provision: places Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, included in the Register of the National each world heritage value that the Estate”, substitute “New listings of places World Heritage Committee has in other lists”. identified the property as having is (106) Schedule 3, page 73 (before line 6), before taken to cause the place to meet a item 1, insert: National Heritage criterion. 1A Including World Heritage Note: This has the effect that, under properties in National Heritage List subsection 324D(1) of the (1) This item applies to a place Environment Protection and Bio- consisting of a property that, at any diversity Conservation Act 1999, the time within 6 months after this item place has a National Heritage value commences, is included in the corresponding to that world heritage World Heritage List after being value. Under that subsection, the place submitted by the Commonwealth to will also have another National the World Heritage Committee Heritage value if the place has a under Article 11 of the World heritage value that causes the place to Heritage Convention. It does not meet one of the National Heritage matter whether the property was criteria apart from this item. first included in the List before, on (107) Schedule 3, item 1, page 73 (before line or after the commencement of this 17), before subparagraph 1(2)(a)(i), insert: item.

CHAMBER 13830 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(ia) is, or is part of, a place to which (b) publish in accordance with the item 1A (about World Heritage regulations (if any), a copy or properties) applies; or summary of the decision. (108) Schedule 4, heading, page 74 (line 2), omit 1B After subsection 75(1) “amendment”, substitute “amendments”. Insert: (109) Schedule 4, page 74 (before line 6), before (1AA) To avoid doubt, the Minister is item 1, insert: not permitted to make a decision under 1A After section 74 subsection (1) in relation to an action Insert: that was the subject of a referral that was not accepted under subsection 74A Minister may request referral of a 74A(1). larger action 1C Subsection 77(3) (1) If the Minister receives a referral in relation to a proposal to take an action Repeal the subsection. by a person, and the Minister is 1D Subsection 77(5) satisfied the action that is the subject of Repeal the subsection. the referral is a component of a larger 1E After section 77 action the person proposes to take, the Minister may decide to not accept the Insert: referral. 77A Action to be taken in a particular (2) If the Minister decides to not accept a manner referral under subsection (1), the (1) If, in deciding whether the action is a Minister: controlled action or not, the Minister (a) must give written notice of the has made a decision (the component decision to the person who referred decision) that a particular provision of the proposal to the Minister; and Part 3 is not a controlling provision for the action because the Minister (b) must give written notice of the believes it will be taken in a particular decision to the person who is manner (whether or not in accordance proposing to take the action that was with an accredited management plan the subject of the referral; and for the purposes of a declaration under (c) may, under section 70, request of the section 33 or a bilaterally accredited person proposing to take the action management plan for the purposes of a that was the subject of the referral, bilateral agreement), the notice, to be that they refer the proposal, to take provided under section 77, must set out the larger action, to the Minister. the component decision, identifying the (3) To avoid doubt, sections 73 and 74 do provision and the manner. not apply to a referral that has not been Note: The Minister may decide that a accepted in accordance with subsection provision of Part 3 is not a (1). controlling provision for an à  à If the Minister decides to accept a action because he or she referral under subsection (1), the believes that the action will be Minister must, at the time of making a taken in a manner that will decision under section 75: ensure the action will not have (a) give written notice of the decision to (and is not likely to have) an the person who referred the proposal adverse impact on the matter to the Minister; protected by the provision.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13831

(2) A person must not take an action, that 318 Commonwealth compliance with is the subject of a notice that includes a plans particular manner under subsection (1), (1) The Commonwealth or a Common- in a way that is inconsistent with the wealth agency must not: manner specified in the notice. (a) contravene a plan made under Civil penalty: section 316; or (a) for an individual—1,000 penalty (b) authorise another person to do, or units, or such lower amount as is omit to do, anything that, if it were prescribed by the regulation; done or omitted to be done by the (b) for a body corporate—10,000 Commonwealth or the Common- penalty units, or such lower amount wealth agency (as appropriate), as is prescribed by the regulation. would contravene such a plan. 1F Paragraph 78(1)(b) (2) If there is no plan in force under Omit “in the notice under subsection section 316 for a particular property 77(3)”, substitute “under subsection described in subsection (1) of that 77A(1) in the notice given under section, the Commonwealth and each section 77”. Commonwealth agency must take all reasonable steps to ensure that its acts 1G Application (if any) relating to the property are not The amendment of paragraph 78(1)(b) inconsistent with the Australian World of the Environment Protection and Heritage management principles. Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 1K Section 330 made by this Schedule applies in relation to notices given under section Repeal the section, substitute: 77 of that Act after the commencement 330 Commonwealth compliance with of that amendment. plans 1H Section 137 (1) The Commonwealth or a Common- Repeal the section, substitute: wealth agency must not: 137 Requirements for decisions about (a) contravene a plan made under World Heritage section 328; or In deciding whether or not to approve, (b) authorise another person to do, or for the purposes of section 12 or 15A, omit to do, anything that, if it were the taking of an action and what done or omitted to be done by the conditions to attach to such an Commonwealth or the Common- approval, the Minister must not act wealth agency (as appropriate), inconsistently with: would contravene such a plan. (a) Australia’s obligations under the (2) If there is no plan in force under World Heritage Convention; or section 328 for a particular wetland described in subsection (1) of that (b) the Australian World Heritage section, the Commonwealth and each management principles; or Commonwealth agency must take all (c) a plan that has been prepared for the reasonable steps to ensure that its acts management of a declared World (if any) relating to the wetland are not Heritage property under section 316 inconsistent with the Australian Ramsar or as described in section 321. management principles. 1J Section 318 (110) Schedule 4, page 74 (after line 7), at the Repeal the section, substitute: end of the Schedule, add:

CHAMBER 13832 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

2 After Part 20 of environment includes places listed on the Insert: Register of the National Estate. They insert PART 20A—PUBLICATION OF INFOR- obligations for the minister when making a MATION ON THE INTERNET decision in relation to the taking of an action 515A Publication of information on the in regard to World Heritage or national heri- Internet tage places. Also they increase transparency Without limiting the operation of in the listing process by requiring the minis- section 170A, the Secretary must ter to publish his preliminary decision about publish on the Internet each week a list listing, the council’s assessment report and of: the value statements when the minister in- (a) all permits issued or granted under vites public comments. this Act in the immediately Amendment (116) specifically relates to preceding week; and transparency and inserts time frames. I will (b) all matters required by this Act to be go through some of the publishing require- made available to the public in the ments—and I list these—in relation to nomi- immediately preceding week. nations that need to be assessed, the minis- I will speak to these amendments as a pack- ter’s statement of reasons for listing or non- age, as I have moved them that way. These listing, notifying the nominator and other amendments go to the heart of issues relating interested persons. Amendments (37) to (39) to both transparency and accountability. relate to seeking comments on proposed re- Senator Allison—Mr Temporary Chair, I movals; amendment (42), to seeking com- raise a point of order. It is my understanding ments on management plans; amendment that Senator Lees’s amendment (18) at (88), to the minister’s decision on endorse- least—and I did not write down all of those ment of Commonwealth management plans; that she has moved together—was identical and amendment (10), to providing reasons to one of my amendments which was de- for extending the council’s assessment pe- feated last week. According to standing order riod. All of these will now have a require- 92, it is not permissible to move an identical ment to be published and to be openly acces- amendment when the previous one was de- sible, increasing the transparency of the feated. process. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Amendment (53) clarifies the fact that (Senator Hutchins)—There have been pre- anyone may notify the minister if they be- vious rulings that, if this becomes part of a lieve a place has national heritage or Com- different package of amendments, it can be monwealth heritage values and is under moved again. threat. It clarifies that management plans in Commonwealth reserves that include a heri- Senator LEES—These amendments tage place must be consistent with the man- cover three areas. In general terms, they are agement principles and the regulations. heritage related amendments: some relate to Amendment (106) allows for the transfer of Commonwealth obligations and some are World Heritage properties to the National general amendments relating to the Envi- Heritage List or the Commonwealth Heritage ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conser- List. It expands requirements in relation to vation Act. Firstly, the heritage related reviewing management plans and reviewing amendments cover a raft of different issues. and reporting on the lists. Amendment (104) They stipulate that the EPBC Act definition amends the definition of Indigenous heritage

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13833 value to ensure that historic places of Indige- ters, not just those affected by this legisla- nous heritage value can be protected under tion. the new heritage legislation. As well as the amendments, I have re- I want to look quickly at the Common- ceived a number of non-legislative commit- wealth obligations. Amendment (109) says ments from the minister. Environment Aus- that the Commonwealth must not, or author- tralia’s administrative procedures will pro- ise any other person to, contravene a man- vide for consultations with Indigenous per- agement plan in a Commonwealth area or a sons or groups with rights and interests in a state or territory, or act inconsistently with place, identified at the time of listing the the management principles and the Ramsar place, to be alerted to the referral stage—so or World Heritage conventions. Then there it will happen much earlier. They will be are a series of amendments that relate to im- provided with the opportunity to comment. proved protection and management of Com- All regulations associated with the heritage monwealth heritage places by Common- amendments will be placed on the Environ- wealth agencies: amendment (100) gives the ment Australia Internet site—again, a trans- minister prior notification of an intended parency issue. Environment Australia will disposal; amendment (92) assists the minister maintain a consolidated register of Com- and the council to monitor a place’s heritage monwealth heritage registers received from values; amendment (93) seeks the council’s agencies. Environment Australia will review advice before making a heritage strategy for the operation of the EPBC Act in 4½ years a place; amendment (97) involves seeking time. the minister’s advice on the heritage strategy Environment Australia will ensure that the in relation to management principles, assist- new Australian Heritage Council will be a ing the minister in nominating places to the separate budget item in the annual budget Commonwealth Heritage List and publishing statement to enable a year-to-year scrutiny of general implementation details about the the funds appropriated to the new council. heritage strategies in agencies’ annual re- This is an issue that was raised by quite a ports; and amendment (99) involves not un- number of groups who were concerned that dertaking any actions that may have any im- funds would be effectively pooled and the pact on the heritage values of a national or a actual amounts of money available to the Commonwealth heritage place unless there is new body would be very difficult to track no feasible or prudent alternative. and monitor. I have also been given the Finally, there are amendments that relate commitment that the government will work to the EPBC Act. These amendments deal with the states to ensure the protection of with referrals that relate to split projects or national heritage values through the regional staged referrals. There are general amend- forest agreement process. I recommend to ments that tighten up the EPBC Act itself. the chamber that the amendments that I have They amend the EPBC Act by providing moved tonight, which considerably penalties for not taking an action in a speci- strengthen the legislation, be supported. fied manner; increase transparency by re- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.34 moving an exemption for giving reasons p.m.)—The Democrats will support the where the person referring a proposal states amendments, but I may ask that one or two that the action is a controlled action; and in- be voted on separately. Most of them are sert additional publishing requirements for almost exactly the same as Democrats the secretary in relation to all EPBC Act mat-

CHAMBER 13834 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 amendments, as would be obvious to any- control processes here. The amendments in body in this place. Amendments (13) to (18) this section go to timely listing and making are ones that I would like to speak about sure that we do not have drawn-out processes briefly. They relate to the listing procedure. that put places of significance at risk. How- The amendments include the obligation to ever, this amendment argues that places out- undertake consultation in circumstances side or partly outside Australian jurisdiction where the Heritage Council indicates that a are not subject to the time frames. In the dis- site should be listed and the minister either cussions, the fact that there might be some has not made up his mind yet or simply extra sensitivities in negotiating with other wishes not to indicate one way or the other— parties was allowed for. that is the difference between this amend- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.39 ment and the last. p.m.)—I am still not altogether clear why we Amendment (17)(5)(iii) states that the need that time frame. It seems to me that this minister may make a statement that he or she effectively takes away the ability to have does not have a view whether or not a place emergency listing. As I said earlier, this only should be included in the National Heritage applies to Australian citizens or Australian List. I want to draw honourable senators’ companies. It is hard to see why we would attention to that clause. We might as well not need time limits and or at least would not have that provision there at all because it have the provision for emergency listing. simply means he can advise that there is no Even though a site may not be within our advice on the matter—whether the minister jurisdiction, at least the actions of those who proposes to list or otherwise. So it is rather a might damage the site would be. It seems to nonsense amendment in our view. me that it would be possible to advise for- I would also like to raise some questions eign governments of any action to be taken. about amendment (31). This act applies to It is hard to see why there should sensitivity Australian residents, but there is a provision to this question. for emergency listing which—as I under- Senator LEES (South Australia) (8.40 stand it—amendment (31) changes. I wonder p.m.)—It is my understanding that subsec- if there could be a further explanation of the tion (5) cannot apply to a place that is wholly implications of that amendment. In our outside Australian jurisdiction because a amendment, for instance, in our listing op- place wholly outside must not be included in tion the time line for decisions applies to all the list under this particular section—324F. places, including those that are outside Aus- We were advised that this was the way to tralia, whereas—as I understand it—in this make sure that obligations are met. amendment it does not. I wonder what the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN implications of that are for foreign sites, such (Senator Watson)—Senator Allison, would as Gallipoli, and for our companies operating you like the vote split? You hinted that you overseas. There is also the question of what might like to vote for amendments (13) to this amendment does about emergency list- (18) separately. ing. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.41 Senator LEES (South Australia) (8.38 p.m.)—Yes. I ask that amendment (31) be p.m.)—It was presumed that there might be taken separately. some difficulties with sites outside Australia. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— The government certainly should be able to Only amendment (31)? What about amend-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13835 ments (13) to (18)? Will you proceed with Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- them? ritory) (8.43 p.m.)—I take this opportunity to Senator ALLISON—My request also re- restate Labor’s position. We will not be sup- lates to amendment (53), which I think is in porting these amendments because we do not the group. believe that these bills are salvageable. Labor moved a series of amendments, when we The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— first started debating this bill in committee, Could you summarise your request to the relating to the independence of the Heritage committee in relation to Senator Lees’s Commission. Those amendments were de- amendments? feated. We now feel that this bill no longer Senator ALLISON—I request that has integrity or provides the foundation for amendments (31) and (53) be taken sepa- an independent Heritage Commission. rately. Therefore, regardless of these amendments Senator HILL (South Australia— or earlier Democrat amendments, this bill is Minister for Defence) (8.41 p.m.)—The gov- not able to be supported by Labor. ernment will support Senator Lees’s amend- I would also again make the observation ments. They have come about after long and that what we have witnessed with a series of difficult, but constructive, negotiation. We very lengthy amendments by the Democ- believe that they will also largely meet the rats—the first batch, and the second batch requirements of the Australian Democrats— that we voted on a few minutes ago— although there were obviously some differ- demonstrates quite a humiliating attempt by ences of detail which the government was the Democrats to try to be the ones to do the not prepared to agree to in the alternative deal with the government on these heritage Democrat amendments that have been voted bills when in fact the deal has been done down today. But, as I say, if these amend- with Senator Lees. As we have just heard, ments now pass, the Democrats can be the government is about to support the re- pleased that at least the general direction that maining amendments that Senator Lees has they were seeking for the further improve- moved which exclude identical ones that the ment of this legislation has been achieved. I Democrats have moved previously that the thank Senator Lees for her cooperation in government found it in their hearts to sup- being prepared to negotiate a package of port. On my count—and it was a pretty amendments that can lead to the better pro- rough tracking of a very complex series of tection of Australian heritage. amendments with some eight of 65 in the Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.43 first batch and then none out of 40 in the p.m.)—It is my understanding that the opera- second batch—we are dealing with the left- tion of emergency listing that Senator Lees overs, if you like, of those amendments. The talked about is not correct. Places outside government obviously prefers to do the deal Australia can currently be included on lists, with Senator Lees on this occasion. From under emergency listing procedures, but the Labor’s perspective, we think that this is all government’s amendments—which we will quite unfortunate, as the bills themselves are deal with shortly—will alter that. There is a no longer worthy of overall support. None- fairly complex relationship between those theless, in the forthcoming amendments we amendments. I do not now need amendment will be seizing a couple of opportunities to (53) to be dealt with separately, so that could comment, and we look forward to the debate be included as part of the group. continuing.

CHAMBER 13836 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.46 that have been made by the minister—for p.m.)—The Greens will be supporting the example, the amendments being the result of amendments. They do not give teeth to the long and difficult negotiations. As I have said bill, but they give an indication of teething before in this debate, they were difficult ne- troubles. I think it was John Gould who said, gotiations because I have never seen negotia- back in 1863 or thereabouts, about the Tas- tions conducted in such bad faith in my life. manian tiger, that not many years must Bad faith is not about not reaching agree- elapse before that creature went to extinc- ment but about misleading people about tion. He was noting the troubles and so on. what you are doing and what you are agree- There is an inverse process going on here. It ing to. Obviously Senator Hill was not the is going to be many years before this bill person involved, so that is not a direct reflec- becomes worthy of becoming the environ- tion on him. mental legislation that this nation should Also, I think that Senator Lundy is basi- have. Incremental bits and pieces are being cally mistaken. Personally, I am not inter- added on against enormous pressure to pre- ested in doing a deal one way or the other. vent that from happening. The problem with These amendments are in effect Democrats that process is that the government can go to amendments, but they are slightly weaker. a series of players and, as Senator Lundy has Unfortunately, the ability to have them just pointed out, shed off pieces each time, stronger has been lost. But, as Senator which then have to be picked up—hopefully, Brown has said, any advance forward is al- somewhere further down the line. ways better than none and is better than go- That said, who knows what the final vote ing backwards. The Democrats’ approach to on the legislation will be? I will not be sup- this issue, as it is with every issue, is not to porting it, but I have been around long try to wrap ourselves with some ribbon enough to know that one has to stand by where we can say that we have the deal or even little increments on the environment. So whatever; it is about trying to get an out- I will be supporting the amendments. Good- come. Whether that outcome is achieved ness knows: somewhere an eyebright or through specific amendments we have put something might have its status marginally forward, or in this case amendments that improved by some clause in the legislation. were developed by the Democrats in discus- It is like the butterfly’s wings moving in the sions with government and then put forward forest somewhere. Many of these amend- by others, is fairly irrelevant. The outcome is ments are hoping that sort of thing, because to try to get a move forward. this legislation simply does not measure up. My only disappointment is that the oppor- Practice has found that it does not measure tunity for a stronger outcome can be lost by up to protecting the nation’s heritage. But, misjudgments about where the best gains can for the reasons that I have outlined, I will be be made. But that is a very different thing supporting the amendments. I would rather from just deciding that, unless we can get do that than reject the very marginal im- something that has our name on it, we are provement that they might make to very not going to agree on it. The end result that I faulty legislation. think all of us, most of the time, recognise as Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— the reality is that we are trying to get the best Leader of the Australian Democrats) (8.48 possible legislative outcome. That is the ap- p.m.)—I will address a couple of things just proach we have taken with our amendments briefly in response to a few of the comments and, as has been widely reflected in this

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13837 chamber, these amendments are basically negotiate, but the end seems to be further Democrat amendments rebadged and slightly negotiations. After six years, it is the gov- weakened. But, as Senator Brown has said, ernment’s view that the matter has to be they are nonetheless an advance forward, brought to a head, and if it can garner the albeit not as far forward as would be desir- numbers within the chamber to pass what it able. Of course, these are not the only believes is a piece of legislation that will amendments that are being considered in the take huge steps forward in terms of protect- context of the bill. We have to look at what ing Australia’s heritage then, as a govern- the end product will be in making a judg- ment, it has a responsibility to do so. ment about that. I think that there are still That is not bad faith; it is the path the some issues to be considered about that— Democrats have chosen to go down. As I some very substantial and important issues said, this bill has been in development and that I think need to be flushed out properly. negotiation for some six years, during which Again, in part because of the approach the time the Democrats have had to reach a con- government or at least the minister—not the clusion that will lead to the passage of the minister in the chamber, but the relevant bill, but they are still not there. As far as we government minister—has taken on this has know, the Democrats will still vote against meant that we have had to take up more time this bill in the end. That does not achieve the than would otherwise have been necessary to government’s outcome; the government must try to ensure that we get accurate informa- negotiate towards an ultimate passage. tion. Particularly in a process that to date Senator BARTLETT (Queensland— has, as I have said, involved bad faith and, Leader of the Australian Democrats) (8.53 therefore, an absence of trust, you have to try p.m.)—Minister Hill, it is not an allegation to use the public process of the Senate of bad faith; it is a straightforward fact. I do chamber to get things on the record and to at not expect you to agree to that but you were least try to get something slightly more clear- not involved in it and so you would not cut for the public. Even though we have had know; I was, and I do know that it is a commitments to the chamber gone back on straightforward fact of blatant bad faith. Ob- in the past, at least as far as possible we have viously, the government is keen to get the to try to get some accurate information in the numbers wherever it can, and I do not blame public arena that we can then use to hold the it for that. But I can absolutely say, having government accountable. given a very clear-cut message to the rele- Senator HILL (South Australia— vant minister and advisers a few times about Minister for Defence) (8.52 p.m.)—I really an interest in trying to bring the matter to a do not want to take more time than is neces- conclusion, that it is impossible to get any sary, but it would be inappropriate for me not sort of agreement on something when you to respond again to this allegation of bad get written correspondence from a minister faith. Dr Kemp does not negotiate in bad that suggests one thing and then a completely faith. The problem for the Australian Democ- opposite action happening at the same rats is their failure to understand that nothing time—that is bad faith. It is nothing to do is achieved through years of negotiation if, with getting the numbers; it is to do with ultimately, a bill is not passed. The Democ- basically misleading people, stringing them rats do not seem to be prepared to negotiate along and giving inaccurate information. towards the ultimate passage of a bill. They That is a very unhelpful process in any cir- are prepared to negotiate and negotiate and

CHAMBER 13838 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 cumstances, in anyone’s language; it is com- the protection of heritage and for the people pletely different from having disagreement. of Australia. I have been and I am still very keen to get Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.56 an outcome on this. Despite everything, how p.m.)—I have a question to raise about the Democrats vote has nothing to do with amendment (106), which relates to including how the government has behaved; it is about World Heritage properties on the National whether or not our view of the legislation is Heritage List. The Senate may recall that the that, overall, it is an advance forward. We Democrats put forward amendments which can deal in other venues and circumstances would have seen World Heritage sites trans- and in other ways with the issue of the bad ferred, and we had some debate about that. faith shown by the Minister for the Environ- This amendment applies to properties that, ment and Heritage. We are not going to pre- at any time within six months of the amend- vent beneficial legislation, however mar- ment commencing, are included on the ginal, from going through simply because we World Heritage List, which would then be are annoyed. That would not be responsible automatically transferred onto the National or mature. It would be nice if the government Heritage List. My question is: why is there took the same approach, but they obviously the six-month period? Why would not all have not done so in this debate. Hence their future World Heritage sites, as they are in- refusal to support Democrat amendments cluded as World Heritage sites, automatically despite them reflecting what they had agreed be included on the National Heritage List? It in written correspondence to support, apart is a question about why there is the six- from verbal assurances. As I said, that is not month time frame—in other words, what our game; that is not the way we do business happens after that six months? Is there an- here. other, separate assessment process that takes It would be worth while for the minister in place? What is the purpose of that six the chamber, the Minister for Defence, to months? realise for his benefit and that of all his col- Senator LEES (South Australia) (8.58 leagues that it is not helpful for any minister p.m.)—In some discussions I had with them of the government to behave in this way. If it about 12 months ago now, the various groups is seen to be acceptable by his colleagues who have a very particular interest in heri- then that makes it difficult to trust anybody tage were concerned that, while World Heri- in any form of negotiation at any time. I tage places are already protected and are al- would prefer that not to be the case, because ready under the EPBC Act et cetera, virtually I do not like wasting my time, as I am sure all of them on mainland Australia involve neither the minister nor anybody else here Indigenous heritage. There has been very does. The simple fact is, nonetheless, that little, if any, consultation to date with In- that is what occurred in this circumstance. I digenous people. This amendment gives the am not going to labour the point but neither opportunity for that to take place. There are am I going to back away from it or ignore certainly no suggestions whatsoever that the fact that it has happened. However, our there would be any loss of protection for approach to the legislation and the amend- World Heritage sites—as I said, they are al- ments will not be based on our justified out- ready locked in. But we have to acknowl- rage at the completely inexcusable manner in edge that in the past we have bypassed In- which the minister has behaved in this case; digenous people; we have not consulted with it will be on what the better outcome is for

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13839 them. According to the groups that have scribed on the World Heritage List but also raised these issues with me, this was one of for these additional values. This period of six the mechanisms to do so. months will allow such matters to be ad- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (8.59 dressed. p.m.)—With respect to Senator Lees, that is Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.01 not what this amendment does. Our amend- p.m.)—Minister, why is 106(3) there? I can ments did in fact ask for current Australian understand that through this mechanism we World Heritage sites to be immediately trans- are putting World Heritage listed places on ferred onto the National Heritage List—this the Register of the National Estate, but does amendment goes forward six months. The that mean that World Heritage properties in argument for not supporting our amendments Australia are not protected except insofar as was that Indigenous groups would want to values are concerned? Do the properties have that additional time to be part of a new themselves have lesser status under the Na- assessment. We argued that you could still do tional Heritage List in terms of protection that; you could put them onto the National than they do under the World Heritage List? Heritage List and then you could have a sub- Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.02 sequent assessment process whereby other p.m.)—Amendment (106) states: cultural and Indigenous values might be For the purposes of this item and the Environ- taken on board and added to those World ment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Heritage values for the purposes of the Na- Act 1999, each world heritage value that the tional Heritage List. World Heritage Committee has identified the As I read it, this amendment provides for property as having is taken to cause the place to the automatic transfer of World Heritage meet a National Heritage criterion. sites which, after the enactment of this legis- As Senator Hill said a minute ago, there lation, would go automatically onto the Na- might be some additional values, in particu- tional Heritage List without further process lar Indigenous values, that as yet have not or procedure. That is my understanding of been identified. But I take it from the discus- what this does. My question is: why the six- sions that we have had that it basically month limit? What happens after the end of means we do not have to redo it; they are that time? I wonder if the minister would going to accept as a given the values that attempt to at least answer this question, be- have been decided upon by those making the cause it is otherwise left up in the air. decisions on World Heritage. They are just Senator HILL (South Australia— going to accept those, roll them over and say, Minister for Defence) (9.00 p.m.)—I do not ‘We are looking at Kakadu and the particular know that it is for me to speak for Senator values it was listed for.’ I think that is a bad Lees, but a good argument for it is that it example, as it has Indigenous heritage in it, does relate to Indigenous values. For exam- but I know some of them have not and they ple, the wet tropics is not listed on the World were listed on other criteria. Those other cri- Heritage register for Indigenous values and teria are accepted but we can now go through neither is the latest Australian listing, Purnu- the process of seeing whether or not there are lulu, but it may well be that Indigenous val- Indigenous values that should also be recog- ues do meet the standard required under this nised. Under our listing under the national legislation and that the asset could be listed heritage criteria they might pick up some not only for the values that are currently in- extra values officially.

CHAMBER 13840 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.03 nate a particular spot, building or garden as p.m.)—Senator Lees, why not just list the having value. places in toto for protection under this legis- Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.06 lation? There has been a big debate in the p.m.)—Amendment (106) does not apply to World Conservation Union on a proposal existing World Heritage places or properties. coming from Australia to devalue World It applies to new World Heritage places and Heritage listing by simply saying you protect properties that would come on board after the values but you do not protect the places. this legislation is enacted. That is my under- It allows operators to get in there under all standing. Not only does it provide for auto- sorts of guises—they say they are not going matic transfer to the National Heritage List to affect Indigenous heritage here or rare but it provides the minister with the power to woodland over there, but they are going to do so without going through any other as- put a mine in there. It was rejected by the sessment. I wonder if I could have clarifica- International Union for Conservation of Na- tion that that is the effect of this amendment. ture and Natural Resources, but here we are It has nothing to do with existing World getting the government putting it into this Heritage sites, as I understand it. This is legislation. This means that World Heritage about those which in the next six months will properties put on the National Heritage List be put on the list, nominated or included. are going to have less protection than they That is why I ask why it is six months and are intended to have under the World Heri- not some other time. Obviously the govern- tage List itself. Why simply go to values cri- ment has agreed to this, Minister. I think it teria? Why not protect the places in toto? would be useful if you could explain to the The reverse way of saying this to Senator committee why it is six months you have Lees is: why not protect the place? Once all agreed to and clarify that we are talking here the studies have been done and it has been about new World Heritage sites, not those given World Heritage status, why not say, that currently exist. ‘This place in its totality should be listed’? Senator HILL (South Australia— Why reduce it to the values of the place? Minister for Defence) (9.08 p.m.)—I thought Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.05 it did apply to existing World Heritage list- p.m.)—Amendment (106) does not actually ings—given, as I said, that period of six deal with the values question. The whole months during which values that may not be idea of themes is not really covered here. I the basis of the World Heritage listing may am happy to do that later. This is giving total be considered. As was said in response to the protection to World Heritage places. We are exchange on clause 3, if the values have been not taking anything away. It is simply an assessed as World Heritage values then there opportunity to further list them, to look at the is no need to do a reassessment; they can be possibility that they have additional values. taken as such. But values that may not have When a site is listed on the new national list been deemed to be of sufficient standard or it may be for additional reasons. This is in no for some other reason—there may not have way reducing the protection. If you want to even been an application—may nevertheless talk about why we are now looking at themes be considered under this legislation and, if and protecting values, in the opinion of the they meet the standard of this legislation, groups that I have been working with it is would enable the asset to be listed for those actually an improvement to look at a place in values as well. its entirety as an entity and not try to desig-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13841

Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.09 open if you only have the values based ar- p.m.)—I wonder if we could remove amend- gument, and that is written right into this ment (106) so that it may be voted on amendment (106). I am happy to wait and separately. If it is the intention that existing hear an explanation later on or to have one World Heritage sites are able to be trans- from the minister now. This was debated at ferred without further assessment, I think the World Heritage Bureau. There was a that ought to be made clear in the amend- move by Australia to go to values based. The ment. I would be happy to move an amend- Australian government got the support of ment to the amendment to do so. So I ask other governments, but the Iraq war inter- that that be taken separately. vened and it did not succeed. It happened to The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN be Australia, Britain and the United States (Senator Watson)—For the clarity of the putting it forward, wouldn’t you know, and committee, we will vote on amendments the Iraq war broke out and the rest of the (106) and (31) separately. world did not like the look of it very much. So the environment did get a quite incidental Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.10 gain out of those events. Senator Lees, I am p.m.)—With regard to amendment (106), I very concerned about simply listing World draw the committee’s attention to the issues Heritage values, which is inherent in this paper from the Australian Conservation amendment, rather than listing World Heri- Foundation which says the Australian Con- tage places which have values. servation Foundation has: The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The ... consistently highlighted critical shortfalls in the government’s heritage legislation and called on question is that Senator Lees’s amendments all parties to seek amendments which include ... to schedules 1, 3 and 4, with the exclusion of amendments (31) and (106), be agreed to. And the second point is: Question agreed to. • Protection for the place and its values—not just values. The values only approach, which The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The the Government unsuccessfully tried to foist question now is that amendment (31) moved on the World Heritage Convention, allows by Senator Lees be agreed to. for piecemeal protection of sites of signifi- Question agreed to. cance. The existing Australian Heritage Commis- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The sion Act focuses on the place and does not question now is that amendment (106) mention values. That is the danger that is moved by Senator Lees be agreed to. inherent in the wording of the third part of Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.13 amendment (106). It is a values based as- p.m.)—I am not quite ready with the words sessment; it is not a place based assessment. of the amendment, but I wonder if the minis- It means that you can go in and make ter could indicate whether he would accept changes to the place because you can say, an amendment which would allow for the ‘We are protecting that value—for example, minister to have the ongoing capacity to in- that Indigenous site over there—by logging clude new World Heritage sites on the list. In around it.’ But the whole site loses its con- other words, we do not stop after six months nection to the Aboriginal site over there. and that six months is the time frame within The argument for piecemeal intrusion on which this is done for existing sites—if that sites of World Heritage significance is left is the intention of the amendment, and I am pleased it is. The six-month time frame

CHAMBER 13842 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 would relate to existing sites, but for new trying to do, but I think what he is now going sites the minister would have an ongoing—in to do is stop the automatic acknowledgement other words, no stopping after six months— and acceptance by Australia of what the ability to make that transfer without further World Heritage Committee has done. The assessment. World Heritage Committee has said that this Senator HILL (South Australia— place under discussion is of biological sig- Minister for Defence) (9.14 p.m.)—I do not nificance and Senator Brown is now saying, think it is necessary because, as I read the ‘No, we are not going to accept that; we are legislation and as I am advised, there is the going back to square one.’ While I under- capacity for the inclusion of subsequent sites stand Senator Brown’s concerns, he is doing that would get World Heritage support. That the opposite. He is actually undermining is the intention and that is a fact. In this in- what we are trying to do. stance we are supportive of the sentiment of Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.17 Senator Allison, but my advice is that it is p.m.)—Can you explain why it says, ‘The already adequately covered. World Heritage area will go onto the Na- Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.15 tional Heritage List because of its values, not p.m.)—I will go back to the first part of because of its integrity as a place’? amendment (106). The last sentence says: Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.17 It does not matter whether the property was first p.m.)—What we are talking about is the cur- included in the List before, on or after the com- rent listing system for World Heritage prop- mencement of this item. erties. There are a number of reasons why I ask Senator Allison whether that goes any places go onto the World Heritage List. I do way towards helping with her concerns. not have in front of me the list of all the Aus- tralian places and why they have been put on Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.15 the World Heritage List. I know from talking p.m.)—I am puzzled by the minister’s last to some of the groups which have worked comments. He says, effectively, that there is with me on this legislation that the concern is no reason to have the amendment and we do that there has not been a thorough assess- not need to include this for future World ment of the Indigenous importance and In- Heritage sites beyond six months because it digenous values of particular places. Not is already provided for. If that is the case, only is this giving us the opportunity to what are we doing considering an amend- move straight across from those values and ment that does precisely that? accept those values that have been assessed Senator HILL (South Australia— but also it gives us the opportunity to include Minister for Defence) (9.16 p.m.)—I should other reasons why we are putting this in the have said ‘the bill’ rather than ‘the legisla- national heritage criteria. tion’. The bill, as amended by this amend- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.18 ment, will achieve the outcome that Senator Allison is seeking. p.m.)—Exactly. If you have Indigenous val- ues in the subtropical forests of New South Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.16 Wales which are not on the World Heritage p.m.)—I move: List, then when you get the National Heri- Schedule 3, omit subitem 1A(3). tage listing— Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.16 Senator Lees—We’ve got a chance to do p.m.)—I understand what Senator Brown is it.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13843

Senator BROWN—But why not list the and, yes, the theme will be very clearly de- whole place? fined—for example, its convict heritage— Senator Lees—We are listing the whole but, if someone wants to put up an additional place. building within sight of the place that is nothing like a convict ruin or in keeping in Senator BROWN—But you are listing it any way with that particular classification, not because it is a place but because of the that can be stopped. If all you have listed is a values that are listed here, and then you add series of buildings, you may not be able to piecemeal more values. do that. Senator Hill—That is what you do with Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.21 the World Heritage List. p.m.)—I have a suggested form of words by Senator BROWN—No. For World Heri- way of an amendment to the first sentence of tage you list a boundary and then within that amendment (106), which would read: ‘This you list the values. item applies to all declared World Heritage Senator Hill—You list the place for its places— values. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Senator BROWN—But you supply (Senator Watson)—Senator Allison, we boundaries, you supply areas and you supply have an amendment moved by Senator management plans that apply to that. Brown. Is this an amendment to Senator Senator Lees—We still have all of that. Brown’s amendment? Senator BROWN—Where is that? Senator ALLISON—No. Senator Lees—We still have all of that. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—It is That is in the legislation. a separate amendment. Can you foreshadow that? Senator BROWN—But why list it for those values? Why not just list it as a place Senator ALLISON—Yes, I foreshadow which is protected? that amendment. Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.19 The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—You p.m.)—I will give an example that was put to will put that in writing to assist the clerks. me by an individual, and it related to Port Senator ALLISON—Yes. Arthur. Apparently the Tasmanian govern- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.21 ment is very keen to see that entire place p.m.)—I point out item (2) to the minister listed for its values. While we will put in a and to Senator Lees: boundary and we will have management Place may be included in National plans et cetera as under the legislation, by Heritage List within 6 months— listing it in its entirety for its convict heri- tage—and who knows what the theme will and we are referring here to World Heritage properties. It continues: eventually be, but something to do with con- victs is pretty well assured—that helps to (2) The Minister may, by instrument protect the site in its entirety. We do not have published in the Gazette within 6 to go to this building or that particular path months after this item commences, include in the National Heritage List or that bit of bridge; we can stop inappropri- the place and the National Heritage ate activity that impinges anywhere on those values it has because of subitem (3). particular values. Yes, it will have boundaries

CHAMBER 13844 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Having said you are going to list the place, the values, when you get to section (3) of why is it that you list it because of the values this amendment, suddenly the place is gone. and not because of the place itself? Why If the place is listed because of its values, suddenly go to the values and not to the you are in trouble. place and the values it contains? There will be the argument that says, Senator HILL (South Australia— ‘That’s the situation we’ve got.’ We should Minister for Defence) (9.22 p.m.)—I am told improve on it because, as the minister will that the World Heritage regime was actually know, in the Tasmanian World Heritage the model that was used in the development place, there are all manner of ‘get rich’ op- of this listing language. In other words, with erators wanting to move in for all sorts of a World Heritage item, the place is listed but reasons. You get death by a thousand cuts. it is listed for certain specified values. It is You should protect the place, make sure the those values that are assessed and found to developers stay outside that place— meet the required standard. That is why all particularly if it is the cream, a World Heri- sorts of activities may be permitted within a tage listed place. But, when you get down to World Heritage listed site, provided they do protecting only the values, sure. We have not damage the values for which it has been even had this recent example of the World listed. Obviously that is World Heritage, but Heritage in Tasmania: they can put in basically the same scheme has been adopted Basslink and they can allow floods to go in this legislation: the place will be listed, but twice a year down the Gordon River because what is protected are the values for which it they can look after the values there and the is listed. place has not got the protection it deserves. It Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.23 does not have it under national legislation, p.m.)—I am going to make a stand here. I and it is not going to get it under this legisla- know what the minister is saying and I know tion—because they will just bring in consult- what Senator Lees is saying, but what the ants and argue, ‘A flood a couple of times, minister just said is to the point of my argu- ripping down through the Gordon Gorge, to ment. Yes, we have World Heritage places, meet the airconditioning needs of Melbourne and then you allow all manner of activities might even improve the place.’ Terrific! You within them as long as they do not infringe can find an argument for saying it is going to on certain values. The places themselves are actually improve the place because you have not protected. There is a whole drift to that paid your consultants well enough. They will because, in the world of greenwash— find it. developers wanting to make money out of It is time we got away from that and gave World Heritage—they can always go in there guaranteed protection to places of World and do whatever it is they are going to do Heritage significance. When you list them, without damaging the values, because that you know what they are and that is where it becomes a matter of opinion. The place is stays. Leaving this values approach opens not a matter of opinion. The boundary is set; them to all sorts of attrition in the future. you protect it. Once you start to say, ‘You The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN can do this in there without damaging this (Senator Watson)—Senator Brown, as a value’, you can get a consultant to say you point of clarification, could you help the can do that. It is very fraught. It needs to be committee? Your amendment for deletion of listed and protected because of the place it is clause 3 does not, I believe, necessarily meet as well as the values it has. If you just go to

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13845 the twin objectives that you have outlined to tion unless you have the theme of the river the Senate. Do you propose to follow it up and are protecting the river in its entirety. with another amendment? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The Senator BROWN—It is very difficult. If question is that Senator Brown’s amendment I can help you: I am making a stand of prin- relating to the deletion of clause (3) of Sena- ciple here. I do not have the numbers. Yes, I tor Lees’ amendment (106) be agreed to. could follow it up and I could change this to Question negatived. reflect what I am saying—and I have only Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.29 gone halfway—but I am going to leave it at p.m.)—I move: that because I am going to lose. But the prin- ciple needed to be stated right here and now. Schedule 3, omit subitem 1A(1), substitute: Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.27 (1) This item applies to all declared world heritage places at the time of p.m.)—I apologise to the Senate; I realise commencement of this item and any that time is getting on. I just want to make properties included on the World one further point—that is, what perhaps Heritage List at any time within 6 Senator Brown is missing is that some of months of commencement of this these properties may indeed now be on pri- item. vate land. They may be, for example, a This is an amendment to amendment (106) working farm. I can think of a couple—one, on sheet RA235, moved by Senator Lees, certainly, in eastern Victoria and another one and I think this would clarify the intent of the on another site in Victoria—where, yes, amendment as drafted. My preference would some of the buildings are in fact already be for the ongoing new properties to be in- listed in this place under state legislation. cluded or for the minister to have the capac- But, if the entire property were to be listed ity to include them at any time, but I accept under this legislation, it is not just the activi- that this is a reasonable compromise. ties related to an individual building; it is the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.30 activities on the entire farm and every part— p.m.)—I must say I agree with Senator Alli- Senator Hill—Whole cities are listed un- son’s last comment, without the last clause; it der World Heritage: Dubrovnik. should apply to all properties in the future as Senator LEES—That is right, Senator well. Hill: whole cities may be listed. This gives Question negatived. us flexibility. Indeed, regarding what Senator The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Brown has just mentioned, that particular (Senator Cherry)—The question now is that wild river is already in a protected area but amendment (106) moved by Senator Lees be there are other wild rivers that we may be agreed to. able to protect. That is one of the themes that the groups supporting this legislation are Question agreed to. rather hopeful of: that we will be able to fur- Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- ther protect those few rivers in Australia that ritory) (9.31 p.m.)—I will take this opportu- are still running free and that are not nity to say that I am not going to move oppo- dammed. In some cases they run through, sition amendments (1), (3), (4) and (5) on and parts of the catchment are in, private sheet 3039. land. You will not be able to give the protec-

CHAMBER 13846 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.31 24C Interpretation p.m.)—I move Australian Greens amend- In this Act: ment (1) on sheet 2851: greenhouse gases include any of the (1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after item following: 4, insert: (a) carbon dioxide; 4A After Subdivision F (b) methane; Insert: (c) nitrous oxide; Subdivision FA—Greenhouse gas (d) hydrofluorocarbons; emissions (e) perfluorocarbons; 24B Requirement for approval of (f) sulphur hexafluoride. greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gas emissions are (1) A person must not take an action that emissions of greenhouse gases will or is likely to lead to emissions of measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide greenhouse gases in excess of 500,000 equivalents. tonnes in any year. Civil Penalty: This amendment inserts a greenhouse trigger into the legislation; we have tried before and (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty I hope this time we will be successful. It is units; very difficult to conceive of truly national (b) for a body corporate—50,000 legislation on the environment without some penalty units. effort to contain both air pollution and global (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an warming. On the last day of sitting, the Sen- action if: ate passed a motion calling on the govern- (a) an approval of the taking of the ment to do much more about reversing Aus- action by the person is in operation tralia’s status as the world’s worst per capita under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or greenhouse gas emitter. The Senate agreed to that motion, taking into account that we are (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action now seeing a rapid series of very troubling without an approval under Part 9 for the purposes of this section; or events, including the heatwave that tonight’s news tells us has claimed 5,000 lives in (c) there is in force a decision of the France, the almost doubling of the record Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 that this section is not a controlling number of tornadoes in the United States in provision for the action and, if the May, the bushfires and droughts we had in decision was made because the Australia last season and before that, and the Minister believed the action would fact that most of the hottest years recorded be taken in a manner specified in the for the globe in human history have been in notice of the decision under section the last decade; and that Australia is in the 77, the action is taken in that sad position of being up there with the manner; or United States as the world’s worst performer (d) the action is an action described in on a per capita basis. What this amendment subsection 160(2) (which describes says—I think it is far too lax; however, it is actions whose authorisation is there—is: subject to a special environmental assessment process), or the giving of A person must not take an action that will or is an authorisation (however des- likely to lead to emissions of greenhouse gases in cribed) of such an action. excess of 500,000 tonnes in any year.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13847

It is extraordinarily important that we do Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.36 make some stand on this critical matter of p.m.)—I ask Senator Lees: who is the gov- greenhouse gases, which are listed in the ernment discussing these two mechanisms amendment. I commend this very important with? amendment to the committee. Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.36 Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.34 p.m.)—As far as land clearing in Queensland p.m.)—I remind the minister that we would is concerned, there is still ongoing debate not have the need to be putting up green- and I have been assured that some conclu- house amendments every time EPBC came sions over funding issues are being reached. along if the government had honoured its With respect to the issues of substance, I undertaking to pursue this question of a have not been involved in a time line but I greenhouse trigger. Whilst the Democrats have been kept up to date with where they would like very much to see a greenhouse are going. As for a greenhouse trigger, the trigger, I think there are some difficulties government is undertaking—as Senator Alli- with this amendment as it has been drafted— son has just said—to discuss this with the which is why the government needs to do states. Hopefully we can come up with a sys- this and not rely on individual amendments tem that is workable and that has flexibility from this chamber. One of the problems I but that catches any major emitters and is foresee is that 500,000 tonnes of CO2 gradually built into a system whereby we can equivalents would be quite a small amount if have an actual reporting and recording proc- you were to take into account a series of ac- ess. tivities as an action. For instance, I imagine Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.37 that a reasonably large transport company p.m.)—On both those matters, we are three would generate that level of CO2 emissions years down the line from the year 2000, in a year. I imagine there would be a lot of when the same commitment was made and activities that would fit this action. So whilst when this was guillotined through by the the Democrats are very keen to see a green- government and the then Democrats. I just house trigger, the minister may wish to com- think that time is up. These are really impor- ment about how this would work and tant triggers. I say to Senator Allison: sure, whether the government has a view on an you cannot always expect people on the alternative approach that might be workable. crossbench to get the perfect amendment up, Senator LEES (South Australia) (9.35 but if you allow the government to get away p.m.)—I agree with Senator Allison and I with no amendment at all then you absolve have some real concerns about us proceeding them of the pressure that should be put on not only with this specific amendment but them. Senator Lees, one thing that will move also knowing tonight that the government is, the government to action on the greenhouse hopefully, still in debate and discussion with trigger is getting this amendment through the others and is making some progress on both Senate tonight. this issue and land clearing, particularly land Senator Lees—It will just sink the bill. clearing in Queensland. So, at this point in Senator BROWN—I do not accept that. time, I do not believe we should deal with That is a matter of where you put the line this issue. Hopefully, the government will be with the government. This government has able to tell us very shortly about its discus- no intention of coming up with a trigger; it sions and debate with the states and be able has none. You go along with that if you turn to announce that it has made some progress.

CHAMBER 13848 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 down the amendment—and I think it is a Collins, J.M.A. Conroy, S.M. good amendment—that tries to tackle this Cook, P.F.S. Crossin, P.M. issue. Everybody has had plenty of time to Denman, K.J. Eggleston, A. come up with alternatives, but no-one has. Faulkner, J.P. Ferguson, A.B. Ferris, J.M. * Forshaw, M.G. The government is sitting over there pat be- Harris, L. Hill, R.M. cause it has no intention of bringing in a Hogg, J.J. Humphries, G. greenhouse trigger. It is up to us to put it in Hutchins, S.P. Johnston, D. there and to have the government improve it Kirk, L. Knowles, S.C. and not simply say, ‘Oh, well, the govern- Lightfoot, P.R. Ludwig, J.W. ment is still working on it.’ When Rip Van Lundy, K.A. Macdonald, I. Winkle wakes up, it might have done some- Marshall, G. Mason, B.J. Moore, C. Payne, M.A. thing. Let us hope. It just does not work that Ray, R.F. Sherry, N.J. way. Stephens, U. Tchen, T. Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Ter- Tierney, J.W. Troeth, J.M. ritory) (9.39 p.m.)—Every now and again Watson, J.O.W. Webber, R. Wong, P. Senator Brown says something I agree with. * denotes teller He says this is a good amendment. We think Labor has a better one and we will also be Question negatived. moving an amendment, which is coming up Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (9.47 shortly on the running sheet, on a greenhouse p.m.)—I move Greens amendment (2) on trigger, and we too will be seeking the cham- sheet 2851: ber’s support. We are looking for support for (2) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after our amendment and will not be supporting item 4, insert: this amendment. 4B After Subdivision FA Question put: Insert: That the amendment (Senator Brown’s) be Subdivision FB—Native vegetation agreed to. 24D Requirement for approval to clear The committee divided. [9.44 p.m.] native vegetation (The Chairman—Senator J.J. Hogg) (1) A person must not take an action that will lead or is likely to lead to clearing Ayes………… 9 of native vegetation in excess of 1,000 Noes………… 43 hectares in any period of 5 years if the Majority……… 34 action will have or is likely to have an adverse impact on any of the following: AYES (a) the habitat of flora or fauna; Allison, L.F. * Bartlett, A.J.J. (b) ecological processes; Brown, B.J. Cherry, J.C. Greig, B. Murray, A.J.M. (c) the genetic diversity of flora and Nettle, K. Ridgeway, A.D. fauna and their potential for Stott Despoja, N. evolutionary development in the wild; NOES (d) greenhouse gas emissions; Barnett, G. Bishop, T.M. Bolkus, N. Brandis, G.H. (e) erosion, salinisation and other forms Buckland, G. Campbell, G. of land degradation; Chapman, H.G.P. Colbeck, R.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13849

(f) wetlands, waterways and water This is a requirement of approval before a resources; person removes more than 1,000 hectares of (g) landscape quality. native vegetation. It is extraordinarily impor- Civil Penalty: tant and it is to help redress Australia’s posi- (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty tion as the world’s worst destroyer of native units; vegetation cover amongst the developed (b) for a body corporate—50,000 countries. penalty units. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (9.48 (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an p.m.)—The Democrats have been very keen action if: to see land clearing triggers included in the (a) an approval of the taking of the EPBC specifically. However, I do have some action by the person is in operation questions about how workable this might be. under Part 9 for the purposes of this For it to apply to the clearing of native vege- section; or tation in excess of 1,000 hectares in any five- (b) Part 4 lets the person take the action year period, whilst I am sure 1,000 hectares without an approval under Part 9 for is important in the scheme of things, one the purposes of this section; or could imagine 200 hectares per year being (c) there is in force a decision of the cleared over a five-year period and having Minister under Division 2 of Part 7 the capacity to monitor whether or not that that this section is not a controlling was happening might be a very difficult provision for the action and, if the thing to do. The minister may wish to com- decision was made because the ment on that. I just think the administration Minister believed the action would and enforcement of this might be difficult, be taken in a manner specified in the notice of the decision under section and the Democrats would like Senator 77, the action is taken in that Brown to consider another limit. manner; or Progress reported. (d) the action is an action described in ADJOURNMENT subsection 160(2) (which describes actions whose authorisation is The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT subject to a special environmental (Senator Cherry)—Order! It being 9.50 assessment process), or the giving of p.m., I propose the question: an authorisation (however That the Senate do now adjourn. described) of such an action. Kaiser, Mr Mike 24E What is native vegetation? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland) (9.50 In this Act: p.m.)—Last Saturday, the Australian people clearing, in relation to native learned of the appointment of the disgraced vegetation, means: former Queensland Labor MLA, Mike Kai- (a) lopping native vegetation; or ser, to the position of Assistant National Sec- (b) destroying native vegetation; or retary of the ALP. A spokesman for the (c) removing native vegetation. Leader of the Opposition, Mr Crean, was native vegetation means vegetation that reported as saying that he was ‘delighted is indigenous to the land, local with the appointment—he’s acknowledged government area, Territory or State in as a superb campaigner’. The appointment of question. Kaiser to the second most senior professional

CHAMBER 13850 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 office within the ALP is an example of cyni- heavy political price. He was forced to relin- cism and double standards so odious that, if quish his Labor Party endorsement for the it were possible, it would even put the Labor safe seat of Woodridge and, apparently, his Party to shame. And it exposes the Premier political career. of Queensland, Mr Beattie, for the grinning Mr Beattie went on to lead the Labor hypocrite that he is. Party to a famous election victory, largely Let me remind the Senate of the circum- because he succeeded in convincing voters stances in which Mike Kaiser was forced out that he was sincere in his strong stand of the ALP. On 15 August 2000, I told the against Kaiser and the other rorters. When Senate about serious and systematic corrup- asked on election night whether Kaiser and tion within the ALP in Townsville. The se- another fraudster, Jim Elder, had paid too quence of events which followed ultimately high a price, Mr Beattie was as eloquent in led to the establishment of the Shepherdson his denunciation as he was uncompromising inquiry into electoral fraud, which reported in his righteousness. He said: on 17 April 2001. That inquiry revealed the Look, I know that there’ll be some people who existence of a culture of systematic corrup- will say that but when it comes to matters of prin- tion, vote-rigging, branch-stacking and the ciple, when it comes to matters relating to the falsification of electoral enrolments endemic integrity of the electoral system, I have to be within the Queensland branch of the Labor clear. I was clear, I will be clear and my view Party throughout the 1980s and 1990s. about that will not change. In the course of evidence before the in- Two months later, after the release of the quiry, Mike Kaiser, then seen as a Labor ris- Shepherdson report, Mr Beattie told the ing star, admitted that he had been a party to Queensland parliament: the falsification of enrolments for the Bris- I welcome the Shepherdson report on electoral bane City Council ward of South Brisbane in fraud, and so does my government. The inquiry 1986. The Commissioner, Mr Tom Shep- was good for the Labor Party and good for de- herdson QC, found that Kaiser’s conduct mocracy. The actions of a few rorters nearly de- stroyed a good Labor government ... and I will would have constituted the offence of mak- never forgive them for it. ing a false declaration under section 117 of the Queensland Elections Act and the corre- Earlier on, on 6 November 2000, Mr Beattie sponding penalty provision under the Crimi- had said: nal Code. However, because the charge was I don’t want people who break the law in the La- statute-barred—in other words, the time bor Party. I don’t care whether this goes back to within which a prosecution could be com- 1917. If people are still alive and they’ve broken the law in these electoral matters, they should go menced had expired—since Kaiser’s fraud to jail. only came to light 14 years later, the charge could not be brought. For the same reason— Beattie made the treatment of the electoral that the fraud had been concealed for so rorters the test by which he invited Queen- long—and for only that reason, Mr Shep- slanders to judge his own integrity. Speaking herdson declined to recommend a charge of of the electoral rorters, he told the journalist criminal conspiracy. Hedley Thomas, in remarks quoted in the Courier Mail on 2 December 2000: So Kaiser did not end up in jail, as did other Labor Party identities who had en- I have had at different times every faction in this party after my guts for garters because I never gaged in similar behaviour. But he did pay a compromised on these matters, on principles, on

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13851 matters of decency and honesty. ... I have had a quoting from an article does not make such gutful of these crooks. My sensitivity is about language acceptable to the parliament. I have this—my integrity means something to me. It’s had occasion recently to pull up members on about my honesty. And I will not compromise on both sides of the Senate for using unparlia- these— mentary language, so I will listen carefully in expletive deleted— future. things ever. Senator BRANDIS—Under the headline And you know, most people believed him. ‘Beattie backs new role for ex-MP Kaiser’, As a piece of political performance art, it the Brisbane Sunday Mail reported: was breathtaking. He put in a bravura per- Mr. Beattie told The Sunday Mail yesterday the formance as a political ingenue—as a bewil- ALP national executive advised him this week of dered innocent—which would have given its plans to appoint Mr. Kaiser, who was dumped Jimmy Stewart a good run for his money in from Queensland Parliament two years ago for Mr Smith Goes to Washington. And he got electoral rorting. away with it! The people of Queensland “I was contacted after the decision had already trusted him, because, sick of a decade of the been made,” he said. “I indicated that I was not corruption of the Bjelke-Petersen govern- going to oppose it. ment, they so badly wanted to believe him. “Mike Kaiser is one of the most gifted campaign- And it was all phoney. It was all just an act. ers this party has ever produced. I can understand Now, as we know, he was conning them all why the Federal ALP would want him.” along. After a performance like that, nobody should Yesterday, Beattie welcomed Kaiser’s ap- ever believe a word Mr Beattie says again. I pointment— am glad to say that in Queensland these days, fewer and fewer people do. The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator, I be- lieve it is appropriate to refer to a premier or Let me give the lie to the suggestion that a person in another parliament as Mr Beattie the time has come to forgive Kaiser for what or Premier Beattie. was nothing more than a youthful indiscre- tion. In the first place, it was a matter of the Senator BRANDIS—As you wish, Mr utmost seriousness—it wasn’t a frolic, it was President. Yesterday, Mr Beattie welcomed a fraud. The Shepherdson inquiry heard ex- Kaiser’s appointment—the appointment of tensive evidence of the same conduct, part of this man who, to steal an election three years a pattern of conduct over numerous episodes ago, he had described as ‘scum, scum, in the course of many years—during most of scum’. which Kaiser, as state secretary, was the Senator Forshaw—Mr President, I rise chief executive of this most corrupt organisa- on a point of order. I draw your attention to tion. I refer to the evidence of Mr Warwick standing order 193(3). I think the reference Powell and Mr Lee Bermingham in relation by Senator Brandis to the Premier of Queen- to Kaiser’s conduct in the East Brisbane sland is an improper reflection on the Pre- plebiscite of 1993, the Archerfield plebiscite mier and I ask you to listen carefully to his of 1994, the Townsville plebiscite of 1996, words in respect of this matter. as well as his systematic handling of large The PRESIDENT—Senator Forshaw, I sums of cash, delivered in unmarked enve- will listen carefully. I was of the opinion that lopes of which Powell and Bermingham tes- Senator Brandis was quoting from an article tified. In fact, Mr Powell went on to describe or something similar, but I have to admit that how Kaiser boasted about his behaviour, tell-

CHAMBER 13852 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 ing ‘war stories’ at Young Labor retreats in assurances he gave Queenslanders three which he regaled new recruits with tales of years ago. And I call upon Mr Crean, if he his shenanigans—and, no doubt, thereby has any respect for the integrity of his own perpetuated the Labor Party’s corrupt culture party, to countermand this disgraceful ap- by letting each new generation of recruits pointment forthwith. (Time expired) know that this behaviour was not only ac- Henderson, Mr Ian ceptable, it was the way to get ahead—it was Senator FAULKNER (New South fun—it was cool. Wales—Leader of the Opposition in the Sen- So this is not a case of a gifted young man ate) (10.00 p.m.)—Ian Henderson was a condemned forever to the political wilder- principled and decent person. Some people ness for a youthful indiscretion. Here is a pretend they are like that; some people aspire case of a hardened young serial offender— to be like that; Ian actually was. Mr Presi- premeditated, systematic, amoral, shameless, dent, Ian died on the weekend, aged 54. He remorseless—educating and corrupting new was a Newcastle boy: he grew up there and generations of young Labor activists into the was educated there. I got to know him after corrupt old culture over which he presided. he joined the staff of the then opposition No wonder Mr Beattie struck such a chord leader in 1978. After Bill re- three years ago when he called him ‘scum, signed as Labor’s leader, Ian went to work scum, scum’. with Peter Walsh. He served as Peter Walsh’s The PRESIDENT—Order! I have al- senior adviser. His three years with Peter ready ruled on that. I do not believe that is involved, among other things, resolving the parliamentary language. While you may be difficult uranium policy issue and imple- quoting, I still do not believe that is the ap- menting the petroleum resource rent tax. I propriate sort of language that we want to reckon just working with Peter would have hear in this place. been difficult enough. Senator BRANDIS—Very well, Mr In March 1986, from a slate of 21 candi- President. There is one further aspect to this dates, Ian was appointed an organiser at the story. Oddly, when Kaiser assumes the posi- national secretariat. He ran unsuccessfully tion of assistant national secretary, he will for the position of assistant secretary in the remain resident in Brisbane. I am informed Queensland branch in 1988, but in March by a reliable senior source within the Queen- 1990 he did take on additional responsibili- sland Labor Party that a deal exists whereby ties when he became the Assistant National Kaiser will only hold the position of assistant Secretary of the ALP. Ian retained that posi- national secretary briefly and that, after the tion until he left the secretariat in mid-1994 next Queensland state election, the current after nominating for but losing the position state secretary, Cameron Milner, will replace of national secretary. him, and Kaiser will return to his old posi- In his eight years at the national secre- tion as Queensland state secretary, from tariat, Ian did a remarkable job for the Labor which position he will be given the opportu- Party. Between 1986 and 1990, he was heav- nity to rehabilitate his political career. ily involved in the review of Labor’s ura- I call upon Mr Beattie to assure the people nium policy, which he shepherded through of Queensland that this is not the case, that two national conferences in those four years. Mike Kaiser will not return as state secretary, He was also largely responsible for the pol- and to honour the unambiguous, emphatic icy work on telecommunications reform

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13853 which went to a special national conference manian seats. He did not eat it, but he was in 1990. seen regularly wearing it for years afterward. Ian designed Labor’s policy committee Ian served as the party’s international sec- structure at the national level, and those pol- retary from 1989 to 1994. In 1992, Ian got a icy committees were in place from 1986 to call from the British High Commission ask- 1994. He always had a focus on policy. Ian ing whether, as the party’s international sec- was capable of being tough enough to prevail retary, he would entertain two members of in internal party ructions, including interven- the British Labour Party. Not thinking the tions by the national executive into state occasion warranted a trip to a fancy restau- branches, and he proved in election cam- rant or the expenditure of party funds on a paigns that he did not live in a policy ‘ivory dinner, he took the two guests home and tower’. But he was not a factional warrior. cooked pasta. The significance of these two The hard slog of policy was what Ian consid- visitors—Tony Blair and Gordon Brown— ered the real work of politics: the rest of it soon became apparent. was just what made implementing policy Also in his capacity as international secre- possible. tary, Ian spent quite some time in South Af- There were rare occasions when Ian’s rica from late 1993 through to the post- concern for the best outcome did blind him apartheid elections of 1994. Those were ex- to the short-term political considerations. I citing times for the international labour was reminded by his friend Gary Gray to- movement and Ian worked tirelessly for the day—and Gary is in the chamber tonight— ANC. He used to recall that the ANC had a that in 1991 Ian came up here to Parliament clean sweep everywhere—except in the House to advise Bob Hawke about proposed South West Cape where Ian ran the cam- ministerial changes: who should be promoted paign. and who should be demoted. When Hawke In 1994, Ian left the national secretariat to realised that all the demotions Ian suggested begin a new career in journalism, first with were of Hawke supporters, Hawke said to the Canberra Times, then the Australian and him: ‘You owe it to me to bring me your finally as national economic correspondent good ideas. You owe it to yourself to think with ABC Radio—a move viewed by some about it first.’ as ‘adventurous’ because of Ian’s long asso- Ian was based in Tasmania for a period of ciation with the ALP. However, to the great six months from March 1992 following fed- disappointment of not a few Labor Party eral intervention into the Tasmanian branch flacks, Ian’s journalistic integrity was iron- of the party. Labor had returned a devastat- clad. Put simply: he proved to be a very pro- ing 27 per cent of the primary vote in the fessional and balanced journalist in both previous state election. After assisting in re- print and radio. building the fortunes of the Tasmanian Ian’s unassuming character, his dry, self- branch, Ian famously told Sylvia Smith, the deprecating sense of humour and his gener- Labor candidate for Bass, that he would eat osity of spirit made him widely respected his hat if she won the seat of Bass in the and admired in both politics and journalism. 1993 federal election. Ian was duly presented It is not common for a Prime Minister to take with a hat at the party conference following time in parliament to send good wishes to a the election where Labor won all five Tas- former staffer and party official from the other side, but it is a measure of Ian’s high

CHAMBER 13854 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 standing with those who knew him that, branch manned telephones after the Bali when he first became ill this year, Prime bombing and during the drought appeal—in Minister Howard did just that. I know the both of which events the Red Cross played a best wishes of those from all parties in the vital and honourable role. parliament meant a great deal to Ian’s family. At this point I believe it is appropriate to Our thoughts and our sympathy are with say something about the Red Cross and Bali. Ian’s parents, Albert and Norma; his partner, After the terrorist attack there, the Australian Fiona; and his close friend and supporter of Red Cross was, as always, among the first many years Margaret Ward. They have en- into the field to lend assistance. It set up the dured an extraordinarily difficult six Bali Assistance Fund, which, as honourable months—difficult beyond belief—during senators will know, later became the object Ian’s long illness, and they have done so with of some criticism. In May this year the Red courage and grace. I consider myself lucky Cross asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to pro- to have known Ian. With his passing we have vide an independent audit of the fund. It did lost an advocate for a better and fairer nation. this so that the Red Cross could benefit from We have lost a principled and decent Labor an objective assessment of its management activist and latterly a commentator on Aus- of the fund and be provided with recommen- tralian politics. We will miss him. Vale, dations on how to improve its processes. The Hendo. report has now been delivered, and the Aus- Australian Red Cross tralian Red Cross has accepted its findings Environment: Automotive Industry and will fully implement the recommenda- tions outlined in the report. In a statement Senator SANTORO (Queensland) (10.09 issued on 8 August, Secretary-General Mar- p.m.)—I rise to speak tonight on two issues tine Letts said the Red Cross hoped the Aus- that, while vastly different, relate to the es- tralian public would accept that it had dem- sential principle of local initiative. On July onstrated that it was an open, transparent and 22, the Ascot-Hamilton branch of the Austra- fully accountable organisation. I do not be- lian Red Cross held its annual general meet- lieve there is anyone who would take any ing, and its 54th annual report was delivered view of the Red Cross other than that it is by its energetic and—if I may say so— among the most public-spirited and commu- highly proactive president, Mrs Myra Carter. nity-minded of organisations that we could As all of us here in this chamber know, wish for. Its operations rest on those of its unless things work at local level they will not branches—such as the Ascot-Hamilton work—or at least not as well as they could— branch in Brisbane—throughout the country at higher levels. For that reason it is wonder- and around the world. ful news that Myra Carter and her Red Cross troops are hard at work in the Ascot- Here at home we are so fortunate to live in Hamilton area of Brisbane. Branch meetings a safe, lawful and democratic society. The are held on the fourth Tuesday of each month Ascot-Hamilton branch of the Red Cross at St Augustine’s hall in Racecourse Road, runs card days, where members have a great Hamilton. The rector, Reverend Robert deal of fun under the leadership of Mrs Glo Braun, and the churchwardens give the Red Marshall and help to raise the relief funds Cross the use of the hall rent free. Myra that are always much needed. There are of Carter has been the branch’s disaster offi- course a great many other activities, both cer—a post she relinquished on 22 July. The locally and more widely, that reflect the Red Cross as a caring and compassionate con-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13855 tributor to human wellbeing. It would be ap- honour of helping to launch in Queensland propriate, in the context of the Ascot- the national eco-efficiency green stamp pro- Hamilton branch, to mention some of the gram for the automotive industry. This is a people who feature so largely in its affairs— modest scheme, and it is all the better for people who, as a state representative, I have that fact. The more modest a scheme, the had the pleasure to meet and to enjoy so easier it is to implement and keep on track. many good times with. I mentioned Mrs Glo- This is a principle of governance that some- ria Marshall. These days she is the patron of times seems to elude modern administrators. the Ascot-Hamilton branch of the Red Cross. Modest it may be, but it is operating at the For many years she was the president and is workshop level in an industry that, because now the new deputy president. Mrs Joanne of the products with which it has to deal and Blakely and Mrs Merryl Suthers are vice- the inescapable residues that result, is right at presidents. Mrs Judy Howel is the secretary. the forefront of local area environmental Lieutenant Colonel Malcolm Stuart is the management concerns. I believe that it is treasurer of the organisation and a thorough action at this level that will have the greatest gentleman, as is Brigadier Ian Hunter, who impact—a positive one, of course—on the has been a long-term supporter of the Ascot- lives of most Australians. It is the built envi- Hamilton branch and a state president of the ronment that most concerns the majority of Red Cross. I mention also his wife, Rose- people—or should. It is where we live. We mary Hunter. Dr Carmel Marshall provides owe it to ourselves, and even more to our constant assistance and support to her mother children and their children, to eliminate the and has received a distinguished award, a toxic residues of urban existence. medal for her great service to the Red Cross. The national eco-efficiency green stamp I also mention Dr John and Margaret Camp- program is a joint initiative in Queensland of bell. One cannot forget people like Joan the Motor Trades Association of Queensland, Lugg, who is a member of the Floral Art So- as the state affiliate of the Motor Trades As- ciety of Queensland and puts together the sociation of Australia, and the Common- Red Cross Chelsea Flower Show arrange- wealth, represented by Environment Austra- ments every year. There are other people to lia. Environment Australia has provided mention who have left this world: the late $50,000 in support for the first year of the Bill and Marcia Webber, who did so much program. Program funding assistance from for that particular branch of the Red Cross; the National Heritage Trust and the product the late Bob Marshall, husband of Glo Mar- stewardship arrangements for waste oil pro- shall; and the late Canon Bill Carter, husband gram has been arranged for a three-year pe- of today’s president, Myra Carter. There are riod to develop a national green stamp pro- so many good people who have done so gram. This program will implement im- much in that community and for the Red proved environmental practice by state coor- Cross as a whole. As with everything, it is dinators for the national MTA. the human element that makes an organisa- The strategy that has been implemented tion work. The Red Cross works—as it aims to demonstrate to the community the proved in its immediate response to the Bali commitment of motor traders—a commit- tragedy—and because of that we are all bet- ment that is ongoing—to the reduction or ter off. abatement of their environmental impacts. Local initiative is also important on the Eco-efficiency is a concept that links envi- environmental front. On 30 July I had the ronmental strategy with economic processes

CHAMBER 13856 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003 to create better management of environ- ing their interests and offering great sense mental resources, improved resource effi- and commitment to the corporate and the ciency and reduced environmental impacts public good. I believe, Mr President, that by using economic strategies. The green local effort is always worthy of mention in stamp program aims to generate an the Senate—the states’ house—and I am understanding of the range of eco-efficiency happy to place the remarks I have made to- and good environmental management night on the national record. initiatives throughout Australia’s automotive Rocky Creek War Memorial Park repair industry on a state and national level. Senator HARRIS (Queensland) (10.17 The program will chiefly assist small- to me- p.m.)—I rise to bring to the Senate informa- dium-sized businesses meet their legislated tion relating to the memorial service that I requirements and ethically fulfil ‘beyond attended yesterday at the Rocky Creek War compliance’ responsibilities related to Memorial Park. This memorial service was environmental impacts. in recognition of the 58th anniversary of VP The green stamp program will be imple- Day—that is, Victory in the Pacific Day. The mented through a range of strategies. These concept for a memorial park at Rocky Creek include provision of technical advice and was raised when Tim Foley, who is affec- support to business owners—an essential tionately now known as the ‘Mayor of Rocky element of any practical implementation Creek’, and Mark Alcock discovered the plan. It will provide obligation-free work- remnants of the 2nd/6th and the 2nd/2nd shop auditing to investigate current environ- Army hospitals in 1992. Realising the sig- mental practices and suggest improved tech- nificance and historical value of the site, they niques in environmental protection. It will began clearing much of the area and exposed also provide information resources and me- huge concrete slabs, tent pegs, bottles and dia opportunities, and offer guidance on leg- rock gardens, which had been left undis- islation and updated information on industry- turbed for 50 years. Trackback in October related environmental issues via personal and 1993 saw the return to the tablelands of electronic communications. Included in the many ex-service men and women who had overall strategy is a plan to develop case taken part in the celebrations and visited the studies—always a useful resource—and to old camp site. collect baseline data on small- to medium- In 1995—the year of ‘Australia Remem- sized motor repair industry current practice. bers’—the mayor of Atherton, Mr Jim This is a very worthwhile initiative which, Chapman, became Chairman of the Victory in Queensland, is being given a great start by in the Pacific committee. Through the efforts the MTAQ, and its Executive Director, Mr of this committee a memorial Victory in the Tony Selmes, and his entire executive. In Pacific Day was celebrated in 1995. This Queensland, the program is coordinated by incorporated the unveiling of a plaque, do- the MTAQ’s environmental officer, Cressida nated by Myra Jones BEM, formerly Myra Strang. When I launched that program a few Shue, from the 2nd/2nd AGH, in memory of weeks ago, the motor industry of Queensland all medical units and personnel who served was represented. What was most impressive in the hospitals at Rocky Creek from 1943 to about the representation was that it was the 1945. All units that served ordinary players—the little and the big play- on the tablelands during World War II were ers who make the industry the successful invited to supply plaques, describing the industry that it is—who were there represent-

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13857 campaigns in which they participated, for the ties on this site were far from ready when the memorial park. Plaques are mounted on a 2nd/2nd ACH arrived on 5 January. large granite boulder supplied by Wongabel While at Rocky Creek, the 2nd/2nd ACH Quarries. This has been an ongoing exercise, was involved in a malaria research program with new plaques being unveiled each year and catered for thousands of troops training on the nearest Sunday to Victory in the Pa- and recuperating on the tableland between cific Day. At yesterday’s ceremony the total overseas campaigns. Patients were received was over 70. from casualty clearing stations operating in I will give a little history of the area. In New Guinea, and the RAAF began opera- mid-1942 the Army secured War Cabinet tions from the Mareeba airstrip in mid-1943. approval for a hospital in the area and a From then on, most patients from the battle- commitment of £730,000 over three stages fields of New Guinea travelled by plane to was allocated. Why was Rocky Creek cho- Mareeba. Occasionally, a sudden influx of sen? The land was Crown reserve; therefore, patients would result in the normal 1,200-bed no civilian enterprises would have been dis- capacity of the hospital being extended up to rupted by the Army’s occupation. However, 1,800 beds, with several hundred beds set up when plans were being drawn up for the in annexes. At such times, all leave for hos- various hospital buildings, it was found nec- pital staff was cancelled and normal on-duty essary to compulsorily obtain leases of ad- hours were extended to cope with the emer- joining land. There was an excellent perma- gency. During January 1944, when the 7th nent and pure water supply nearby at and 9th divisions were engaged in battles on Barney’s Springs. The elevation was more the Huon Peninsula, there were so many new than 600 metres and, therefore, out of the patients expected that a number of the nurses range where malaria-carrying mosquitoes were asked to temporarily give up their mat- can survive. As well, the general area in this tresses for patients. vicinity is renowned for having a very equa- The concept of the Rocky Creek War ble climate. There was an existing railway Memorial came about as a program by the siding; railway transport of personnel and Eacham Historical Society, and the publica- supplies, as well as ease of transport for bed- tion that I have was produced by them with ridden patients, was of paramount impor- support from a considerable number of peo- tance. Also, it was serviced by a road in the ple in North Queensland. It is timely that we process of being upgraded to become the recognise the victory in the Pacific, which Kennedy Highway. was recognised last week, and the 37th anni- The 19th Field Ambulance, already in versary of the battle of Long Tan. Back in North Queensland, was ordered to prepare a 1966, on 18 August, as we all know, a rela- site for a camp hospital at Rocky Creek and tively small number of Australian Defence moved there on 5 October. The 5th ACH— Force personnel came into contact with what that is, the Australian camp hospital—arrived turned out to be a major force against them, on 14 October to take over, and the 19th and the battle of Long Tan occurred. In clos- Field Ambulance moved out the following ing, I would like to quote again from the day. During the latter part of 1942 prepara- document, because I believe it encapsulates tions for the establishment of two 1,200-bed so very well both the pride we have in our hospitals with semipermanent buildings and Australian forces and the privileges we have adequate water and sewerage facilities were today: proceeding at Rocky Creek. However, facili-

CHAMBER 13858 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Whilst we move forward as a nation privileged by The writings highlight the uncertainty of ‘their more than 60 years of peace, we should never tomorrows, their determination to succeed, and forget the sacrifices of the men and women who above all, their acceptance of duty in harsh, iso- served to keep Australia free from invasion. This lated and primitive conditions. particular area played a very promising part dur- I would strongly recommend that you read this ing WWII and the legacy of the people of today is historical record, and when time permits, visit the freedom. area and study the surrounds. Imagine you are I seek leave to table the document that I have back in time, and perhaps you will hear the. fa- been quoting from and the order of service miliar sounds of military life as it once was at from the memorial service. Rocky Creek. The bugle calls; the metallic clang and rattle of kitchen utensils; the busy urgent Leave granted. footsteps and hushed voices of doctors and nurses Senator HARRIS—I also seek leave to as they tend the sick and wounded. incorporate the foreword from the document If you try hard enough, you might even hear the in Hansard as well as the poem Faded Suits youthful laughter at some bush picnic, or perhaps of Green. The poem Faded Suits of Green the muffled sobs of loved ones as the troops de- was written early in 1943, when the ambu- part for the jungles of the South West Pacific. lance trains were carrying from Cairns to Perhaps you will even see the flickering of the southern hospitals the wounded and stricken hurricane lanterns or glimpse some ghostly shad- men from the battlefields of New Guinea. ows of those who were part of a tough, disci- plined, determined and proud generation of Aus- The American soldiers in our midst, who had tralians. not yet seen action, looked so smart and trim My sincere congratulations to all involved in in their well-cut uniforms. Rather than those making this book possible. men having any reservations about the uni- form they wore, they wore it with dignity, Brigadier George Mansford AM (RL) pride and dedication. Lest we forget. 27 January 2003 Leave granted. ————— The documents read as follows— I am standing at my window, I can hear the tramp of feet, FOREWORD I can hear the soldiers marching down the bush The Eacham Historical Society once again pro- road to the street, vides a valuable service to our community by They are coming into vision, now they plainly recording another segment of our proud and rich history. The Society has chosen well. Rocky can be seen, Creek was very much a focal point and provided That swinging line of figures, in their faded suits a strong and regular pulse beat for the Military in of green. Far North Queensland during WWII. Suits that went into the dye-pots in a hurry as you This latest research provides an insight into life know, and social attitudes as they were in such desperate For the Jap was at our doorstep, a cruel and crafty times when our nation was fighting for its very foe. survival. No time for fuss or finish, very little lay between Thanks to the efforts of those dedicated individu- Those swarming hordes of Nippon and those als such as Henry and Elaine Tranter you will faded suits of green. read the observations of young Australians from all walks of life and who were located an the The dye came out in patches of pale yellow, green Atherton Tablelands during WWII. and brown.

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13859

They were fashioned for the jungle, not, for tour- Glory, everlasting glory, for those, faded suits of ing round the town. green. They were not meant for dandies just to strut in Standing watching at my window, my thoughts and to preen, wing as before, They were made for men of action, streaky faded To the rice fields of Malaya, to the docks of Sin- suits of green. gapore, There were men who went to outposts to the flies To the prison camps of Nippon, where our loved and dust and heat, ones gaunt and lean, To monotony and boredom, no defence and no Weary wait there to be rescued by those faded retreat, suits of green. For they, missed the path of glory with their They are coming, captive soldiers, tho’ the way mates at Alamein, be grim and hard, They were left to guard Australia in their faded They will fight on to the finish, inch by inch, and suits of green. yard by yard, Those valiant men of splendour, men of Libya, For no suits of shining armour worn by knights Greece and Crete, before the Queen, Heard the call of their own homeland, “Help us Ever held such pride and honour as those faded ‘ere it is too late.” suits of green. So they hurried to our rescue, tho’ wide oceans When the bells of peace are ringing, as they did in lay between, days of yore, Gladly changed their suits of khaki for those When the hated sound of war drums shall cease, faded suits of green. for evermore, On the battlefields of Papua, on the shores of When we live in love and laughter, and happiness Milne Bay, serene, On the road to far Kokoda, and down Gona, Buna Oh! Australia, please remember those faded suits way. of green. Through the fever stricken jungles, where the Senate adjourned at 10.28 p.m. Nippon lurked unseen. DOCUMENTS Into slime and slush and slaughter went those faded suits of green. Tabling Pressing onward, ever onward, rivers crossed and The following documents were tabled by pathways strange, the Clerk: Facing death, defying danger on the Owen Broadcasting Services Act—Determination Stanley range, under clause 37EA of Schedule 4 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (No. 1) Up the cliffs and down the valleys, through the 2003. dark and deep ravine, Class Rulings CR 2003/66-CR 2003/68 Torn and tattered, splashed with crimson glorious faded suits of green. Customs Act—CEO Instruments of Approval Nos 10-23 of 2003. Doctors tending wounded in the dim and fading light, Federal Court of Australia Act—Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 2003 No. 206. Heroes, bleeding, suffering, dying through the long and tortuous night, Health Care (Appropriation) Act— Statement under section 4, dated 11 August When the gates of heaven were opened and Saint 2003. Peter drew the screen

CHAMBER 13860 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Medical Indemnity Act— Departmental and agency contracts for Medical Indemnity (Non-participating 2002-03—Letters of advice— MDOs) Determination 2003. Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Medical Indemnity (Unfunded IBNR portfolio— factor—United Medical Protection Dairy Adjustment Authority. Limited) Determination 2003. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries Product Ruling PR 2003/28 (Notice of and Forestry. Withdrawal). Department of Defence. Sydney Airport Curfew Act— Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio— Dispensations granted under section 20— Dispensation No. 6/03 [4 dispensations]. Australian National Audit Office. Taxation Ruling TR 2003/10. Australian Public Service Commission. Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Instruments Department of the Prime Minister under section 196B—Instruments Nos 31-40 of 2003. and Cabinet. Office of National Assessments. Indexed Lists of Files Office of the Commonwealth The following documents were tabled Ombudsman. pursuant to the order of the Senate of 20 June Office of the Official Secretary to the 2001, as amended on 27 September 2001, 18 Governor-General. June and 26 June 2003:

CHAMBER Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13861

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE The following answers to questions were circulated: Telstra: Contractors (Question No. 1313) Senator Mackay asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 March 2003: With respect to question no. 14 taken on notice by Telstra during the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee hearing, on 6 December 2002, into the Australian Telecommunications Network: (1) Who accredits the Comet sub-contractors. (2) Who does the security checks on Comet sub-contractors. (3) What steps does Telstra take to ensure contractors and sub-contractors, are International Standards Organisation accredited; can details be provided of the process that takes place before these contractors and sub-contractors commence work for Telstra. (4) How many contractors and sub-contractors undertook the theoretical and practical training and testing conducted by Telstra’s Contracts and Logistics Group in each of the past 3 years. (5) Does Telstra sight the workers compensation arrangements of all contracting and sub-contracting companies. (6) What steps does Telstra take to ensure that all worker entitlements are adequately guaranteed by contracting and sub-contracting companies. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question, based on information provided by Telstra, is as follows: (1) Contracted field staff, including sub-contractors, are accredited by Telstra approved external training facilitators. (2) Telstra’s External Contractor Management team issues Contractor Photo Identification to contractors and sub-contractors conditional on compliance with Telstra Security and Investigation Policy Guidelines which includes individuals satisfactorily establishing their identification. (3) A prime contractor’s ISO certification is evaluated during a ‘Request for Tender’ (RFT) sourcing process. All contractors provide within 14 days of contract execution and before commencement of works, a copy of their quality management system (complying to ISO standards) and a contract specific quality plan for review. Where contractors employ sub-contractors they must ensure that the sub- contractor meets these requirements. (4) Telstra’s Contracts and Logistics group do not directly provide training to contractors or sub- contractors. They are however, accountable for accrediting external training providers, their trainers and the courses they provide to contractor field staff. (5) Telstra routinely sights proof of insurances, including workers compensation, as a condition of contract award. Telstra contractually mandates that prime contractors shall ensure all subcontractors have similarly insured their employees. (6) Telstra has the contractual right to request a prime contractor provide a Statutory Declaration that all employees, agents and sub-contractors who have been engaged by the Contractor in respect of work under contract have at the date of request been paid all moneys due and payable to them in respect of their employment on the work under contract.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13862 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Telstra: Staff and Contractors (Question No. 1314) Senator Mackay asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 March 2003: With respect to question no. 15 taken on notice by Telstra during the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee hearing, on 6 December 2002, into the Australian Telecommunications Network: (1) If there is not generally a significant difference in costs for installation and maintenance costs between Telstra Service employees and contractors, why is it that Telstra does not employ its own people to do this work. (2) What is the total value of all contracts to contractors and sub-contractors in the field service and maintenance areas, for each of the past 6 years. (3) How many full-time staff does Telstra have in each business unit. (4) How many part-time staff does Telstra have in each business unit. (5) How many casual staff does Telstra have in each business unit. (6) How many contractors does Telstra have in each business unit. (7) How many sub-contractors working for contractors does Telstra have in each business unit. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question, based on information provided by Telstra, is as follows: (1) Telstra does employ its own staff to carry out installations and maintenance. Work is primarily contracted for two reasons: 1. To meet variations in demand, beyond the capacity of the internal workforce to handle. This occurs due to fluctuations in customer demand, seasonal factors and weather. 2. To facilitate ongoing sustainable testing of the market to ensure that service levels are delivered at best market prices. Telstra will continue to place work with internal and external workforces as appropriate, to sustainably deliver best service levels to its customers and best value to its shareholders. (2) Infrastructure Services’ (excluding Network Design and Construction - NDC) Contract Service Payments for Customer Access Network (CAN) capital activities: 2000/2001 $346.4m June YTD 2001/2002 $284.3m June YTD 2002/2003 $307.0m March YTD Infrastructure Services’ (excluding NDC) Contract Service Payments for Maintenance & Activation activities: 2000/2001 $166.0m June YTD 2001/2002 $162.4m June YTD 2002/2003 $179.5m March YTD The contracting dollars for 00/01 and 01/02 are based on Infrastructure Services (IS) current 02/03 organisational structure and are therefore comparative to the 02/03 result. The information prior to 00/01 has been archived and is not in a format that is comparable. The 00/01 information is based on the “IS” organisation structure of that time and is therefore difficult

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13863

and problematic to compare to subsequent years due to the many and various organisational changes that have occurred since then. (3) See Table 1. (4) See Table 1. (5) See Table 1. (6) See Table 1. (7) Telstra has no information on the number of sub-contractors that contractors have employed on Telstra work. Table 1 Workforce Numbers as at 31 May 2003 Business Unit Full Time Staff Part Time Staff Casual Contractors Total Total Total Staff Work- Full Full force Time Time Num- Staff Equiva- bers (FTS) lent (FTE) Perm- Fixed Perm- Fixed anent Term anent Term CEO (HDRF) 2 1 3 2 2 HUMAN RESOURCE 409 21 34 464 409 423 DIRECTORATE (HERG) FINANCE & 3,050 247 5,089 8386 3050 3226 ADMINISTRATION GROUP (HFAG) LEGAL & REGULATORY 126 9 93 228 126 132 (HLRF) BROADBAND ONLINE 2,290 63 596 2949 2290 2332 MEDIA SERVICES GROUP (BOMG) INFRASTRUCTURE 17,930 161 8 2,082 20181 17930 18227 SERVICES (CCTG) TELSTRA COUNTRY 629 2 1 50 682 629 631 WIDE GROUP (CWTG) TELSTRA CONSUMER & 4,499 1,225 1,401 4,765 11890 4499 6232 MARKETING (GC0G) INTERNATIONAL 40 57 14 592 703 40 2350 GROUP (I00G) TELSTRA BUSINESS & 5,259 198 102 1,974 7533 5259 5521 GOVERNMENT (MAWG) TELSTRA TECHNOLOGY 2,277 34 2,581 4892 2277 2299 (NTGG) WHOLESALE GROUP 758 5 36 308 1107 763 788 (ZSSG) TELSTRA AUSTRALIA - 37,269 5 2,053 0 1,526 18,165 59,018 37,274 42,164 GROUP (TELG) Note: Only FTS and FTE are included in the Annual Report

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13864 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Telstra does not separate statistics on contractors, subcontractors and agency staff. The number of con- tractors, subcontractors and agency staff together form the numbers in the Contractors column. Telstra: Staff (Question No. 1316) Senator Mackay asked the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 24 March 2003: With respect to question no. 27 taken on notice by Telstra during the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee hearing, on 6 December 2002, into the Australian Telecommunications Network: (1) Can a definition for ‘in the past’ be provided. (2) On how many days in the past 3 months has Telstra requested staff to work overtime and can these figures be provided on a Telstra area basis. (3) Does Telstra ever offer field staff unlimited overtime. (4) On how many occasions in the past 12 months, and in which areas, has Telstra offered field staff unlimited overtime. (5) On how many occasions did Telstra move staff from one adjoining service area into another in the past 2 years. (6) How many staff have been moved from one service area into another in the past 2 years. (7) What was the travel and accommodation cost of moving staff in this way. (8) Regarding the figure of $70 000 for interstate travel of technicians for the 2002-03 financial year, which Telstra service areas required interstate assistance. (9) How much of the $70 000 spent was associated with the extreme rainfall conditions in the broader Sydney metropolitan area in early 2002. (10) Can a state-by-state breakdown for this figure be provided, including the number of individual staff movements. Senator Alston—The answer to the honourable senator’s question, based on information provided by Telstra, is as follows: (1) ‘In the past’ was intended to refer to, “prior to the current financial year”. (2) Telstra responds to customer demand and utilises overtime to meet that demand. This demand fluctuates in location, quantity and timing and may be required for either provisioning or restoration activities. According to Telstra, it is difficult to quantify accurately all areas where overtime has been offered to staff over the 3 months leading up to 31 March 2003. The collection of the data and breakdown into areas would require extensive manual gathering, verification and correlation of data. There is a business requirement for overtime to satisfy customer requirements and network outages outside of normal business hours as well as fulfilling any previously made commitments for "on the day". This is further impacted by inclement weather conditions and natural disasters. High level analysis of total overtime payments to field staff by region shows stable and declining payments in all regions in 2002-03 compared to the previous year. (3) Telstra does not offer unlimited overtime. During periods of "contingency" (prolonged periods of excessive localised work demand) and on specific occasions local management may request all staff to work outside of normal business hours. Local management monitor their staff undertaking overtime and adjust allocation

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13865

accordingly, while applying duty of care and protecting the health and safety of employees. Health and safety considerations also limit the extent to which intensive overtime is appropriate. In the last 3 years total overtime payments in all States of Australia have been stable or declining. (4) See answer to part (3) above. (5) This data is not readily available. Collection of the data and breakdown into areas would require extensive manual gathering, verification and correlation of data. (6) This data is not readily available. Collection of the data and breakdown into areas would require extensive manual gathering, verification and correlation of data. (7) This data is not readily available. Collection of the data and breakdown into areas would require extensive manual gathering, verification and correlation of data. (8) At the time the answer was provided, Canberra Metro was the only service area that required interstate assistance (bushfire related). The period covered was 22 January to 14 February 2003. (9) Telstra’s response tabled was for the financial year 2002/03. All movements during this period were directly related to the bushfires in Canberra in January and February 2003. (10) All resources that were moved, came from NSW (Sydney Metropolitan). Resource details below. DATES Nights Away No. of Communica- tions Technicians (CT's) 22/01/03 to 31/01/03 9 24 03/02/03 to 07/02/03 4 12 03/02/03 to 08/02/03 5 13 10/02/03 to 14/02/03 4 16

Health: Meningococcal Disease (Question No. 1439) Senator Allison asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, upon notice, on 7 May 2003: (1) Can a progress report be provided on the National Meningococcal C Vaccine Program. (2) Is it the case that a report from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) in October 2002 recommended that a program of pneumococcal, meningococcal type C, injectable polio and chicken pox vaccines be funded. (3) Is it the case that the department, in consultation with ATAGI, initially recommended that $47.5 million be spent on a targeted meningococcal type C vaccine program. (4) Can a copy of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s consultation report into ATAGI’s recommendations, “National Health and Medical Research Council public consultation into the draft 8th edition of the Australian Immunisation Handbook” be provided; if not, why not. (5) Why did the Government ignore expert advice and proceed with a universal meningococcal type C vaccine program in all states at a cost of $250 million, in spite of the fact that meningococcal type C disease is only prevalent in a limited number of geographic locations. (6) As a result of this decision, is it now the case that the funding of the other essential vaccines recommended by the ATAGI in October will be deferred indefinitely. (7) Is one of the reasons the ATAGI recommended funding for pneumococcal vaccination that, according to data from Communicable Diseases Australia, there were 18 cases of meningococcal type C infection and 512 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease reported in children under 5 years of age in Australia in 2002.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13866 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

(8) Can rates of hospitalisation, disability and death, by state, be provided for meningococcal type C disease and pneumococcal disease. (9) Can the Government confirm that: (a) pneumococcal disease can affect the blood, spinal cord or brain and is therefore very serious; (b) invasive pneumococcal disease is the most common bacterial cause of serious disease in Australian infants and young children; (c) invasive pneumococcal disease is more common than meningococcal disease; (d) in young children, pneumococcal meningitis occurs 20 to 30 times more often than meningococcal type C meningitis; and (e) pneumococcal meningitis has a higher fatality rate and causes a higher rate of permanent and serious disability than meningococcal infection, half of all children who contract pneumococcal meningitis during the first year of life are left permanently disabled and about 11 percent of children with pneumococcal meningitis will die. (10) Is the Government aware of the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1 May 2003, that concludes; “The use of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine is preventing disease in young children, for whom the vaccine is indicated and may be reducing the rate of disease in adults. The vaccine provides an effective new tool for reducing disease caused by drug resistant strains.” (11) Will this report lead to a re-evaluation of the decision not to fund pneumococcal vaccines. (12) Can the Government provide a progress report on the distribution of pneumococcal vaccine to Aboriginal children. (13) Is it the case that the take-up for Aboriginal children has been poor due to excessive restrictions designed to prevent leakage to unsubsidised children, excessive paperwork and difficulties in implementation; if so, how does the Government propose to improve the take-up rate. (14) Is it the case that Aboriginal children have the highest rate of pneumococcal disease in the world. (15) Can rates of hospitalisation, disability and death, by state, be provided for pneumococcal disease in Aboriginal children. (16) When will an evaluation of the National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program be conducted. Senator Patterson—The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) The National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program has commenced in all States and Territories. Free meningococcal C vaccine from general practitioners and other immunisation providers for children turning 1 to 5 years of age in 2003 is now available. The majority of States and Territories have commenced school-based vaccination of adolescents turning 15 to 19 years of age in 2003. (2) In addition to its role in recommending vaccines for inclusion on the Australian Standard Vaccination Schedule, the ATAGI presented a series of vaccines, including pneumococcal, meningococcal C, inactivated poliomyelitis and varicella, to Government for consideration of funding under the National Immunisation Program. (3) No. It is not the case that the Department consults with The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) to recommend vaccination programs. The ATAGI assesses the evidence on a range of criteria and makes recommendations to Government for consideration of funding under the National Immunisation Program. The ATAGI made a series of recommendations to Government on meningococcal C vaccination ranging from a targeted program to a universal program. It is unclear where the figure of $47.5 million, stated in the question, comes from. The currently funded National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program was announced in August and expanded in November 2002 and will cost $291 million over four years to vaccinate all children between 1 and 19 years of age. (4) Yes. (5) The Government did not ignore expert advice. The currently funded National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program will vaccinate all children between 1 and 19 years of age. This recommen-

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13867

dation from ATAGI was based on disease epidemiology, and identification of high risk groups. It is not the case that meningococcal C disease is only prevalent in a limited number of geographic locations. Cases of meningococcal C disease have occurred in each State and Territory. (6) The decision to fund the National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program has not led to the decision not to fund the remaining ATAGI recommendations at this time. The recommendations remain under consideration for future funding. (7) The Department is not able to comment on the detailed deliberations of an expert committee such as the ATAGI, in making technical recommendations for new candidate vaccines from a population health and disease prevention perspective. However, the Department is aware of the factors considered by ATAGI in making recommendations to Government. They are: • total cost of the intervention • the estimated cost-effectiveness of the intervention • a commitment to using the safest vaccines available • the short and long term health benefits for the Australian population; and • the certainty of intended public health outcome in the context of Federal funding. (8) Yes. The data presented in the following tables comes from two sources. Table 1 was prepared using data presented in the minutes of meetings of the Communicable Diseases Network of Australia (CDNA) (15 January 2003). This information serves only as a guide to disease incidence. Table 2 data is derived from reports in Communicable Diseases Intelligence (Invasive pneumococcal disease in Australia, 2001). Table 1: Notifications of meningococcal C disease, 2001 and 2002 2001 data 2002 data* State/Territory Cases notified Deaths (case fatal- Cases notified Deaths (case fatal- ity rate, %) ity rate, %) ACT Nd Nd 4 1 (25.0) NSW Nd Nd 41 9 (22.0) NT Nd Nd 1 0 (0.0) Qld. Nd Nd 43 1 (2.3) SA Nd Nd 8 1 (12.5) Tas Nd Nd 17 2 (11.8) Vic. Nd Nd 88 5 (5.7) WA Nd Nd 4 0 (0.0) Total 155 23 (14.8) 206 19 (9.2) Nd – data not available *Source: Comm. Dis. Network Australia Data provisional for 2002 No individual State/Territory data available for 2001 Table 2: Invasive pneumococcal disease, 2001 and 2002 2001 data* 2002 data* State/Territory Cases notified Deaths (case fatal- Cases notified Deaths (case fatality ity rate, %) rate, %) ACT 18 Nd Nd Nd NSW 434 75 (17.3) 667 99 (14.8) NT 97 3 (3.1) 65 4 (6.2) Qld. 425 Nd 228 4 (1.8)

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13868 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

2001 data* 2002 data* State/Territory Cases notified Deaths (case fatal- Cases notified Deaths (case fatality ity rate, %) rate, %) SA 114 9 (7.9) 211 12 (5.7) Tas 61 3 (4.9) 62 11 (17.7) Vic. 327 19 (5.8) 454 19 (4.2) WA 205 16 (7.8) 210 19 (9.1) Total 1,681 125 (7.4) 1,897 168 (8.9) Nd – data not available *No mortality data available for ACT or Qld in 2001, and for ACT in 2002 The Department is unable to provide disability data for either pneumococcal or meningococcal disease. (9) (a) Yes. (b) The Department is unable to confirm that invasive pneumococcal disease is the most common bacterial cause of serious disease in Australian infants and young children. (c) The Department can confirm that there were 8.6 cases per 100,000 population of invasive pneumococcal disease reported in Australia in 2001, while there were 3.5 cases per 100,000 population of meningococcal disease reported during the same period. (d) No, this is not correct. Meningitis is a rare clinical presentation in any case of pneumococcal disease and of the 512 cases of pneumococcal disease in children under 5 years of age, only 46 were cases of meningitis. (e) Pneumococcal meningitis is a severe disease and is one of three possible presentations of those with invasive pneumococcal disease. The other two presentations being bacteraemia and pneumonia. In 2001, there were 512 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease in children under 5 years of age, 46 (or approximately 9%) were reported as meningitis. During this same period five children under five years of age died of invasive pneumococcal disease. Two of these deaths presented as bacteraemia, one presented as invasive pneumonia and two were unknown. There is no data that confirms the Senators statement that 11% of children will die from pneumococcal meningitis. There is insufficient data to enable a comparison of fatality rates in children under five between pneumococcal and meningococcal diseases. (10) Yes. (11) The ATAGI has recommended a universal pneumococcal vaccination for children on technical and scientific grounds. This newly published article supports this recommendation. The recommendations remains with Government for consideration of future funding in the context of the remaining ATAGI recommendations. Since 2001, the Government has funded a National Childhood Pneumococcal Vaccination Program for children most at risk of developing pneumococcal disease. This includes all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children under 5 years, all children living in Central Australia under 2 years and all children under 5 years with medical risk factors for developing pneumococcal disease. (12) States and Territories are required to report on a number of performance requirements through the Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements, the mechanism by which vaccines under the National Immunisation Program are funded. For the period August 2001 to June 2002, States and Territories indicated that 48,525 doses of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine had been purchased and 40,858 doses distributed under the Childhood Pneumococcal Vaccination Program. This Program provides vaccine to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13869

children under 5 years of age, all children living in Central Australia under 2 years of age, and all children under 5 years of age with medical risk factors. (13) The Commonwealth, including the Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH), in partnership with the States and Territories and the National Immunisation Committee (NIC) continues to work to improve the level of uptake of the Childhood Pneumococcal Vaccination Program. Data provided by the Northern Territory and Queensland Health Departments at a pneumococcal workshop in 2002 and published in Communicable Diseases Intelligence Vol 27 No 1 April 2003, indicate that the uptake of the program is good. In the Northern Territory 96% of the eligible cohort received the first dose of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine at 2 months of age. Approximately 74% of older children had commenced the catch-up schedule and 64% of older children had completed the catch-up schedule. In Queensland the figures for children in the eligible cohort considered to be fully vaccinated varies according to region. In northern Queensland 69% of children were fully vaccinated. As part of the Public Health Outcome Funding Agreements (PHOFAs), States and Territories are encouraged to minimise wastage and leakage of vaccines under the National Immunisation Program. States and Territories implement measures such as education of GPs through the Australian Division of General Practice (ADGP) and linking vaccines supplied to provision of data. (14) Past studies have shown that Indigenous people living in central Australia have the highest rates of invasive pneumococcal disease in the world. (15) Accurate measurement of the true incidence of pneumococcal disease is limited by several factors including the need for the collection of blood cultures, prior administration of antibiotics and the level of notification of isolates from pathology laboratories. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) advises that the quality of data on hospitalisation of Indigenous children is only of acceptable quality in the Northern Territory and South Australia. The Department has been unable to obtain any data on the incidence of disability from invasive pneumococcal disease in Indigenous children. Details on case fatality rates from invasive pneumococcal disease for 2001 is available from an article in Communicable Diseases Intelligence (Roche P, Krause V. Invasive pneumococcal disease in Australia, 2001. Commun Dis Intell 2002:26). (16) The National Meningococcal C Vaccination Program will run over four years. As a result, an evaluation is planned for the second half of the Program, that is from 2004. No commencement date has been set for the Program’s evaluation. In the short term, an evaluation of the national awareness campaign will be managed by the Department’s Research and Marketing Group. This will determine the effectiveness of communications with parents and providers. Education: Agents (Question No. 1584) Senator Carr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicul- tural and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 26 June 2003: Can a list be provided of all education agents in China and Korea dealing with student visas to Austra- lia, together with an equivalent list of such education agents and the visa refusal rate for each agent, expressed in both numerical and percentage terms Senator Ellison—The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13870 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

China The Australian Embassy in Beijing has provided a detailed list of education agents in China who deal with student visa applications to Australia. As the list contains the personal names of many education agents, disclosure of the complete list may be in breach of the Privacy Act. An extract of the data is, therefore, provided at Table A below. The data relate to the 25 education agents who had more than 45 applications finalised in Beijing between 1 March 2002 and 31 May 2003. In the 2 cases (numbers 1 and 7) where the agent appears to be an individual, that person’s name has been omitted. Korea The Immigration Office in Seoul does not collect information on student visa application outcomes by education agent. The Department of Education, Science and Training Office in Seoul collects informa- tion on education agents which only includes the agent’s name and contact details. My Department is developing a more comprehensive database to record and monitor education agents.

Agent Name Approved Refused Withdrawn Total No Refused as of Appli- Percentage of cations Total 1 Personal Name 34 11 0 45 24% 2 Austar Migration and Education Service 36 10 0 46 22% Centre 3 Hubei Educational Service for Scholarly 39 7 0 46 15% Exchange 4 AMCO Migration Services Pty Ltd 38 10 0 48 21% 5 Century 21 Student Service Centre 33 15 0 48 31% 6 UniLink Australia 30 17 1 48 35% 7 Personal Name 41 6 2 49 12% 8 Beijing Jinghua Yu Yuan Company 35 15 0 50 30% 9 Huashan Overseas Studies Service 41 9 1 51 18% Centre 10 Shanghai Shenyuan International Educa- 43 15 0 58 26% tion Service Co Ltd 11 Beijing JJL Overseas Education 50 22 0 72 31% 12 RMIT 79 15 0 94 16% 13 Guangzhou Service Centre of Scholarly 74 21 0 95 22% Exchange 14 Advisory Centre For Australian Educa- 55 43 1 99 43% tion 15 Zhejiang Shinyway Overseas Studies 84 15 1 100 15% Service Centre Co Ltd 16 China Star Corp 91 22 0 113 19% 17 Education Information Centre (EIC) 95 15 3 113 13% 18 Shanghai CIIC Education International 106 8 1 115 7% Co Ltd 19 Guangdong Education Service of Inter- 118 25 0 143 17% national Exchanges 20 A & A International Education 184 11 2 197 6% 21 Country Representative China-Victoria 165 35 6 206 17% University of Technology 22 CSCSE 264 54 5 323 17% 23 IDP 305 53 4 362 15% 24 China Program La Trobe University 340 36 21 397 9% 25 Beijing OZ Enrolment Centre of Interna- 413 78 13 504 15% tional Education

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE Monday, 18 August 2003 SENATE 13871

Education: Providers (Question No. 1585) Senator Carr asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on 26 June 2003: Can a list be provided detailing the main source countries and education agents for the following educa- tion providers: (a) International Management Centres Association Limited; (b) Marrickville Commer- cial College Ltd; (c) Australian International College; (d) Australian International College of Business Pty Ltd; (e) Canterbury Business College Pty Ltd; (f) New South Wales International College; (g) The Educationists Pty Ltd, trading as Sydney College of Business and Technology; (h) Frankarens Pty Ltd; (i) Australian International College of Business Pty Ltd; (j) InterCollege Australia Pty Ltd; (k) Power Business Institute; (l) Lloyds College, and any other providers associated with Caprock International Pty Ltd; (m) Bridge Business College; (n) Australian International Management College, also known as Radiance Australia; (o) Northstar International Graduate School; (p) Raffles La Salle Institute; (q) Aus- tralian College of Natural Therapies; (r) Melbourne Institute of Business and Technology; and (s) Perth Institute of Business and Technology. Senator ALSTON—The Minister for Education, Science and Training has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: Of the 19 education providers in question: • four have been cancelled from the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Over- seas Students (CRICOS); • one has yet to seek registration on CRICOS; • one has never enrolled any overseas students; and • one provider name was listed twice (Australian International College of Business Pty Ltd). The following table lists the providers in question and the main source of students for each provider. Provider Main source of students (a) International Management Centres Association China Limited (b) Marrickville Commercial College Ltd t/a Hurl- Philippines, India stone-Marrickville Business College (c) Australian International College Pty Ltd Cancelled from CRICOS on 24/3/2003 (d) Australian International College of Business Pty Cancelled from CRICOS on Ltd 20/12/2002 (e) Canterbury Business College Pty Ltd Bangladesh, China, Slovakia, Fiji, India (f) New South Wales International College Pty Ltd Cancelled from CRICOS on 30/4/2002 (g) Educationists Pty Ltd, trading as Sydney Col- India lege of Business and Technology (h) Frankarens Pty Ltd t/a Sydney College of Tech- Korea, Republic of (South), China, nology Thailand (i) Australian International College of Business Pty See (d) above Ltd

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 13872 SENATE Monday, 18 August 2003

Provider Main source of students (j) InterCollege Australia Pty Ltd (former name of Intercollege changed its name to the the Australian College of Technology Pty Ltd) Australian College of Technology Pty Ltd (ACT) on 4/1/2000. ACT was cancelled from CRICOS on 23/8/2002 (k) Power Business Institute (aka The Power Group Poland, Thailand Pty Ltd t/a Power Business College) (l) Caprock International Pty Ltd t/a Lloyds Inter- China, Korea, Republic of (South), national College Japan, Poland (m) Bridge Business College Czech Republic, Brazil, Slovakia, Thailand, Hungary, Korea, Republic of (South) (n) Radiance Australasia t/a Australian International China, India, Bangladesh Management College (o) Northstar International Graduate School Not registered on CRICOS (p) Raffles La Salle Institute No overseas students (q) Australasian College of Natural Therapies Pty Czech Republic, United Kingdom Ltd British, Japan, Korea, Republic of (South) (r) Melbourne Institute of Business and Technology Indonesia, China, Malaysia, (s) Perth Institute of Business and Technology China, Hong Kong, Zambia, Malaysia, United Kingdom British. Under the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation, providers are not required to provide the Department details of education agents and it does not hold such information.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE