COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

TUESDAY, 22 JUNE 1999

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—THIRD PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

TUESDAY, 22 JUNE

Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998— Suspension of Standing Orders ...... 5893 Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 5898 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]— Second Reading ...... 5898 Questions Without Notice— Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Legislation . . . 5909 Telstra Sale: Social Bonus ...... 5911 Ministerial Code of Conduct ...... 5913 Telstra: Further Sale ...... 5913 Member for Leichhardt: Disclosure of Interests ...... 5914 Cross-vesting: High Court Decision ...... 5915 Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development ...... 5916 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Legislation . . . 5917 Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development ...... 5918 Albury-Wodonga Freeway ...... 5918 Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development ...... 5920 Skase, Mr Christopher: Assets ...... 5920 Goods and Services Tax: Public Housing ...... 5921 Telstra Sale: Environment ...... 5922 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Member for Leichhardt: Disclosure of Interests ...... 5923 Ministerial Code of Conduct ...... 5923 Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development ...... 5923 Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development ...... 5924 Condolences— Luck, Mr Aubrey William George ...... 5930 Petitions— Sexuality Discrimination ...... 5930 Genetically Engineered Food ...... 5930 Notices— Presentation ...... 5931 Postponement ...... 5931 Committees— Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Extension of Time ...... 5932 Personal Explanations ...... 5932 Electoral Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill 1999— First Reading ...... 5932 Second Reading ...... 5932 Goods and Services Tax: Environmental Impacts ...... 5935 Goods and Services Tax: Legislation ...... 5936 Goods and Services Tax: Environmental Impacts ...... 5937 Committees— Privileges Committee—Report ...... 5937 Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee—Submission and Supplementary Information ...... 5938 Budget 1998-99— Consideration by Legislation Committees—Additional Estimates .... 5938 Committees— Treaties Committee—Report ...... 5938 Budget 1998-99— Consideration by Legislation Committees—Reports ...... 5939 CONTENTS—continued

Committees— Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Committee —Membership ...... 5939 Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999— Report of Economics Legislation Committee ...... 5939 Commonwealth Grants Commission Amendment Bill 1999— First Reading ...... 5940 Second Reading ...... 5940 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]— Second Reading ...... 5940 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Bill 1999 . . . 5993 A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999— First Reading ...... 5994 Second Reading ...... 5994 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]— In Committee ...... 5996 Adjournment— Jubilee 2000 ...... 6001 Information Technology: Equity of Access ...... 6003 Telstra Sale: Social Bonus ...... 6005 Telstra: Further Sale ...... 6007 Documents— Tabling ...... 6009 Questions On Notice— Minister for Industry, Science and Resources: Newspapers, Magazines and Other Periodicals—(Question No. 530) ...... 6010 Minister for Sport and Tourism: Newspapers, Magazines and Other Periodicals—(Question No. 545) ...... 6010 Department of Industry, Science and Resources: Accrual Accounting—(Question No. 559) ...... 6010 Department of Industry, Science and Resources: Cost of Legal Advice—(Question No. 577) ...... 6011 Christmas Islanders: Repatriation and Resettlement Compensation—(Question No. 584) ...... 6011 Community Aged Care: Subsidies—(Question No. 594) ...... 6012 Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business: Public Opinion Polling Research—(Question No. 614) ...... 6013 Bulk Billing Medical Centres—(Question No. 649) ...... 6014 Australian Customs Service, Coastwatch Branch: Staff— (Question No. 668) ...... 6015 Australian Customs Service, Coastwatch Branch: Illegal Foreign Fishing Vessels—(Question No 669) ...... 6016 Coastal Surveillance Program: Civil Aviation Contractors— (Question No. 670) ...... 6016 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 689) ...... 6017 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 690) ...... 6017 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 691) ...... 6018 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 692) ...... 6018 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 693) ...... 6019 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 694) ...... 6019 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 696) ...... 6019 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 697) ...... 6020 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 698) ...... 6021 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 699) ...... 6021 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 700) ...... 6021 Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project—(Question No. 701) ...... 6022 Reeves, Mr John QC: Appointment—(Question No. 711) ...... 6022 National Land and Water Resources Audit—(Question No. 714) .... 6024 SENATE 5893

Tuesday, 22 June 1999 formed correctly and that the proper outcome had come from the will of the Senate. This is one of those occasions when, if The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. more of us had had the information in front Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., of us, we may well have called a division. A and read prayers. division was not called and I believe that had it been called it would have gone in a differ- TELECOMMUNICATIONS ent direction than was recorded last night. (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND I ask for support on this issue. As I said, SERVICE STANDARDS) BILL 1998 there are lots of important issues, and I would Suspension of Standing Orders like to think that the whole process is such that we will not end up with an outcome Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) which contradicts the will of the Senate. It (12.31 p.m.)—Pursuant to contingent notice, may well be that decisions are being made I move: which mean that votes are with the govern- That so much of the standing orders be suspend- ment but, if it is the case that the will of the ed as would prevent Senator Margetts moving a Senate has not been abided by, I think it motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, deserves recommittal. namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister reconsider the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Bill 1998. for the Environment and Heritage) (12.33 p.m.)—The government will not agree to the I hope the debate will not necessarily take too suspension. With all respect to Senator long. The motion is in relation to the confu- Margetts, if she were serious about this matter sion that occurred during the debate last night. she would have given us notice of it this Most of the attention yesterday was in rela- morning so that it could be properly inves- tion to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private tigated. To be told that this was to be moved Ownership) Bill 1998, but the Telecommuni- as we came into the chamber for prayers this cations (Consumer Protection and Service afternoon is not a sign that that this is an Standards) Bill 1998, a bill relating to the issue of serious moment. I can only presume services of Telstra, was also in there. On the that it is another one of the Greens’ stunts— night, there was a lot of confusion about the ungracious for me to say—to try to attract amendments. I asked about the running sheet attention to their cause, which in this instance and about continuing without knowing exactly is a lost cause. In such circumstance, I see no the relevance of the particular amendments we reason why the suspension should be granted were voting on. and the matters recommitted. The government I believe that the will of the Senate was not will therefore vote accordingly. necessarily done last night because, on reflec- Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— tion, there was at least one amendment which Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) indicated that the vote would have gone an- (12.34 p.m.)—I have heard the contribution other way if it had not been put through in of Senator Margetts and Senator Hill’s re- such a rushed process. Under standing order sponse. Mr Acting Deputy President, as you 104, I simply ask that government amend- would know, the approach that the opposition ments Nos 5 and 39 from the Telecommunic- has consistently taken on these sorts of mat- ations (Consumer Protection and Service ters is to ensure that, where there has been Standards) Bill 1998 be recommitted. The bill misadventure, the will of the Senate is reflect- has not yet gone to the House of Representa- ed in votes on the floor of the chamber. We tives. Although we deal with lots of issues adopt that principle because in a chamber like here—and there are many issues which other this—where no party has a majority and people believe are more important—this is where many votes are close—any one of those areas where we would like to misadventure can lead to a situation where the think that Senate processes had been per- will of the Senate is not reflected in voting. 5894 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

I indicate that I am inclined to support the floor of the chamber—that the opposition suspension motion on the evidence available. support the recommittal. It is not enough to The problem I have with the suspension say that you, Senator Margetts, with the motion before the chair is this: Senator opposition voting in a different way would Margetts has indicated that, as far as she is mean that the outcome would be different. concerned, she did not vote as she would The opposition commands 28 votes in this have intended to because of a series of conse- chamber; you are another one, Senator quences. I find that difficult to understand in Margetts, but it is not enough. That is the one sense because you will recall that, in only way I can approach this situation. That relation to the votes on this particular matter, is why I indicate to the Senate that the oppo- Senator Ray did call this issue to the attention sition would support a suspension—and we of all the Senate, and he did ask that standing do not want a long drawn out debate on this; order 195 be applied in this circumstance. The I can assure you—if by the end of the suspen- opposition was worried about the confusion sion debate that issue of the will of the Senate that was on the faces of certain senators— is not clear. But if it is clear that the will of particularly the Democrat senators, who the Senate would not be any different if the nowadays look to the government for guid- amendments are recommitted, then the oppo- ance, as you know, Senator Margetts, in how sition will not support an approach that there they vote. be a recommittal, and I do not think there is any other reasonable way that the opposition Senator Margetts, I accept what you say, can approach this issue. that you inadvertently did not vote in support of this motion. The opposition voted no Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (12.39 against government amendments Nos 5 and p.m.)—I just indicate briefly that the Demo- 39. We did not call a division because there crats are of a mind to support Senator were no other voices in voting no to govern- Margetts’s call for a suspension of standing ment amendments Nos 5 and 39. Senator orders on this issue, despite Senator Margetts, you have indicated clearly—and I Faulkner’s assertion that the Democrats now appreciate that—that you would have voted look to the government before we decide what that way if there had been, in your view, we are doing. Once again, the hollowness of more clarity at the time. I think the case that sort of rhetoric is demonstrated by the would need to be made that not only you but fact that we will be supporting Senator other senators were in that situation. I will Margetts on this issue, despite the very listen to what Senator Harradine, who is in cogently argued position put by Senator Hill. the chamber, might say and I would be I could say that I was swayed by the argu- interested to hear what the view of the repre- ments of Senator Faulkner but, again, I think sentative of the Australian Democrats might that would sound fairly fatuous, given the be. There would need to be a substantial quality of them. number of other senators who found them- selves in a similar situation to yourself, Senator Margetts has outlined the confu- Senator Margetts, for the case for recommittal sion, and all of us who were here last night to be made. would be aware of it, that specifically applied to the amendments that she has drawn atten- I think that is as objective an analysis that tion to. In that context, I think it is important I can make on this situation, and that is why that the vote of the Senate recorded in the I say that I am minded to vote for the suspen- Hansard clearly reflects the position of all sion to allow briefly for that case to be made. senators in this place. Whether we end up If it is made and it is clear that there would with a different outcome or not is something have been a different outcome, then I think it that we will find out if we get the chance to is proper, in accordance with the principles recommit the amendments to a vote. We think you would know that I have consistently it is important that the position of the various espoused in this chamber—that is, that the parties on that vote is on the public record. It will of the Senate be reflected in votes on the is clearly indicated that there was some Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5895 confusion amongst some senators about what Senator BROWN—Yes. I support Senator the vote was to be, and that is the purpose of Margetts, and I believe that the matter ought Senator Margetts’s aims in trying to get this to be recommitted and tested in a vote. recommitted. We support her in her aim. Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Aus- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (12.42 tralia) (12.44 p.m.)—I should make a few p.m.)—Senator Faulkner is right in that a comments on behalf of the opposition in recommittal is warranted if in the course of respect of this matter— the debate it appears as though a vote has Senator Ian Macdonald—I thought Sena- gone the wrong way. What happened last tor Faulkner did that. night with the guillotine process is that votes were put very quickly. Senator Faulkner and Senator MARK BISHOP—Whatever— other senators might remember that we could considering that I had running of it in the not get a running sheet, and did not have a chamber last evening. My recollection of running sheet, at the time. That made it more events is that, as the telephone sex amend- difficult. ment was discussed, the opposition moved an amendment. It indicated that it treated it Senator Alston—The Chairman pointed out seriously and it wanted the government to that a running sheet had been made available treat it in such a fashion. The government in May. indicated it was going to oppose our amend- Senator BROWN—The Deputy Leader of ment. Consequent upon that, I stood and the Government indicates that a running sheet advised that the position of the Labor Party had been distributed in May. I do not think I had not changed: because of the actions in am too different from other senators in that I respect of the guillotine and the fact that our do not have the papers from May on my desk amendment had not been treated seriously, we at the moment. I asked for them at the perti- would vote against the amendment when it nent time, Mr Acting Deputy President, and was put. Subsequent to that, Senator Ray rose that is what is important. in his place and, on two occasions, asked the Chairman to read out the amendment before Let me come to the point here: these were us, and the Chairman read the preamble to the government amendments so a clear majority amendment. So there was no confusion or of the Senate was needed to succeed. It was misunderstanding on our part that we were called on the votes but there was not a divi- discussing, and later voting on, the telephone sion. Senator Margetts is asking for a divi- sex amendment. I accept that Senator sion. The outcome of that division, if Labor, Margetts and Senator Brown might have been the Democrats and the Greens are on one side confused and might not have had access to and the government is on the other side, the running sheet on the bill at the appropriate depends on the Independents and how they time. As far as I was concerned, we had the are going to vote. running sheet all evening and the Labor Party I note that Senator Colston is not here, but was aware of the context of the particular I have a feeling that he may not vote with the amendment that was being put. government on this issue. I think therefore Firstly, taking the lead from Senator that it ought to be tested because, if that is the Faulkner, it is clear to us that if some or all case, the government would not have succeed- minor party senators were not aware of what ed with its amendments. That is the message was going on, it would be appropriate for I get. It is therefore up to us to test that. I am Senator Allison, who has had carriage of acting on information here which I think is telecommunications matters, to rise in this reliable and I think, therefore, it ought to be place and advise the chamber that she was tested because I believe that the vote has gone confused and did not understand the particular the wrong way and would not have succeeded amendment that was being put. Secondly, had there been— Senator Colston, as we are all aware, was the Senator Faulkner—Would you have voted swing vote in this. We had advised Senator against the amendment, though? Harradine that we were going to oppose the 5896 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 amendment. Senator Harradine went to the in support of the amendments. Then the government side, as did Senator Colston, Chairman said: when the motion was put by the Chairman. It The question is that government amendments Nos was called on the voices. Only opposition 5 and 39 be agreed to. senators voted no. Government senators voted Senator Robert Ray got up and asked: yes, and there was no objection, no movement Under standing order 195 could the chair read out and no shifting from Senator Harradine or the amendments? Senator Colston. The Chairman read the amendments: We looked down to the end of the chamber Government amendment 5:... and there was no movement by the Democrats . Telstra is subject to price control arrangements or other minor party senators. On that basis, ... we understood the will of the chamber to be as called by Senator West, the Chairman. In . This act regulates telephone sex services. that context, we would seek a full explanation Government amendment 39:... from Senator Allison. We would also seek a Part 9A—Telephone sex services— full explanation from Senator Colston— and so on. For anybody who was listening or because we looked at him, he did not move following the debate at all, there was no or indicate opposition in any way, and we confusion at all; none whatsoever. If you were think it appropriate for him also to advise the listening—you did not have to have the sheet chamber as to whether his position was before you—you would have known what it misrepresented. was all about. Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (12.48 The remaining stages went through. Senator p.m.)—I think ‘confusion’ was a good word Brown indicated that he did not understand a to use for the passage of these amendments. response from the chair about Senator Ray’s I indicated in various speeches, both last night request for the amendments to be completely and when we previously dealt with this bill, read out. Then the question was put and that we would oppose those amendments. So resolved in the affirmative. These were the I think the Labor Party was quite clear about government amendments. Then a further vote it. I cannot recall whether I actually heard the took place, and was resolved in the negative, Labor Party say they were opposed to these in respect of Democrat amendments Nos 2 amendments, and I am quite happy to say that and 7. So it was perfectly clear to everybody we would like to see a recommittal of the what the situation was, if they had ears to vote because of that general state of confu- hear—particularly as Senator Mark Bishop got sion. up and explained why the opposition was not supporting government amendments Nos 5 to Senator Faulkner—That was truly pathetic. 39. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (12.49 I do not propose, therefore, to support the p.m.)—I agree with what the Leader of the suspension of standing orders, and I think that Opposition in the Senate said. That was a we ought to get on with what I am down here pathetic attempt, Senator Allison, to be quite for, which is the biodiversity bill. frank. I draw your attention to page 5772 of yesterday’s Hansard, which deals with this Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (12.52 question. The Chairman said: p.m.)—I am not going to go into all the ins and outs of this. Normally if there is a claim The question is that government amendments Nos of inadvertence in the Senate, the matter goes 5 and 39 on sheet ER229 be agreed to. to another vote and there is not a lot of Then Senator Mark Bishop got up and made analysis as to why a particular person has a few comments, and he made it perfectly missed a vote or otherwise. So I think most clear that the matter was about phone sex, of the debate today is irrelevant from that and, in a minute or two, he outlined it suc- point of view. If the people in the chamber cinctly. If anybody was listening, they would were too dopey to understand what was have heard the proposition being put forward before the chair, that is bad luck. It was Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5897 unfortunate—I have to say to Senator reflected, and it would have been quicker— Harradine and others—that, having asked for we would have been on to the next bills an explanation as to what was before the now—if we had just done that. chair, we had half of it read out and the I have no idea where Senator Colston is guillotine then cut off the other half of it. voting on this. I think I have probably tagged Senator Alston—But the half made it where everyone else in the chamber is voting. abundantly clear what it was about. Why not just put it to the vote and get it over Senator ROBERT RAY—To most people, and done with. Then the next time there is Senator—to people of your eminent percep- inadvertence by the government, you will get tion who grasp issues so quickly. Of course the same cooperation from us and the rest of it became clear to you. the parties to recommit. But if in fact you knock it off this time, maybe it will be a bit Senator Alston—Even people like yourself harder next time to get that cooperation. at the opposite end of the spectrum. Question put: Senator ROBERT RAY—I would not have asked for it to be read out if I had not That the motion (Senator Margetts’s) be agreed actually grasped what was before the chair to. because I was on other duties at the time. Senator Alston—The cricket had finished. The Senate divided. [12.59 p.m.] Senator ROBERT RAY—That is right, but (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret you are the expert on phone sex, not me. I Reid) have always left those areas for you to pur- Ayes ...... 33 sue. I heard Senator Hill’s contribution, and Noes ...... 33 I think it was unwise. I think it would have —— been better to cut and run on this issue, put Majority ...... 0 it to a vote—which I assume it probably —— went; I do not know—and get it over and AYES done with. If all the debate about recommittal Bartlett, A. J. J. Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. Bourne, V. goes to the circumstances— Brown, B. Campbell, G. Senator Alston—But it is not a fair dinkum Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A. claim. You know that. Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. Senator ROBERT RAY—We do not know Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. * that. You have asked me to put myself in the Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. minds of the Democrats. Apart from Senator Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Ian Campbell, no-one else in this room other Hogg, J. Lundy, K. than the Democrats could do that. It is very Mackay, S. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. difficult. O’Brien, K. W. K. Quirke, J. A. Senator Ian Campbell—I tried that. Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. Senator ROBERT RAY—Yes, you tried Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. and were rejected—the senator that the John Woodley, J. West Democrats rejected. But to be serious NOES about it, are we actually going to debate the Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. circumstances every time as to why Senator Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Alston missed four divisions? We did not Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G. want to know the details of why he missed Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. four divisions and why the whip had to Crane, W. Eggleston, A. constantly go around to his office and berate Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. him and explain that when the bells ring you Herron, J. Hill, R. M. come down to the chamber. We did not want Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. all that; we wanted the will of the Senate Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. 5898 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

NOES finetuning of it so that we can see what will MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. be passed in this parliament. Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. This legislation should not be debated Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. before we have a chance to see the govern- Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M. ment’s amendments and before we have a Tierney, J. Vanstone, A. E. chance to draft amendments to the govern- Watson, J. O. W. ment’s amendments. We have a situation PAIRS where right at this moment the Australian Carr, K. Ferris, J. Hutchins, S. Gibson, B. F. Democrats are announcing the structure or the Lees, M. H. Troeth, J. formality of a deal with the government—the Murray, A. Tambling, G. E. J. final details of it or the start of it, one or the * denotes teller other; we do not even know that. But what Question so resolved in the negative. we do know is that, for a party that has for a long time protested as being a green party, the BUSINESS Democrats have become gangrene. They have Consideration of Legislation lost their direction. They are going to lose their constituency, and they are going to lose Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western it for good reason. This is a bill that is not Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the just about legislative efficiency. This is not a Minister for Communications, Information debate about reducing administrative com- Technology and the Arts)—I seek leave to plexity and duplication. It is not a debate move a motion to enable government business about clarifying the responsibilities of each orders of the day Nos 1 and 2 to be taken to- level of government for the protection of the gether for their remaining stages. environment. This debate is about the Howard Leave not granted. government’s determination to revisit history and to remake it. This debate is about this ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND government’s ideologically driven obsession BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION to restage battles long lost by the forces of BILL 1998 [1999] conservatism in this country, to reset the rules Second Reading of engagement and thus to erase from the record the victories won by environmentalists Debate resumed from 12 November 1998 for some 30 years. The Australian Democrats, on motion by Senator Kemp: sad to say, are compliant partners in this That this bill be now read a second time. course. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (1.04 The government seeks to remove the p.m.)—I start off by saying that the Envi- Commonwealth as an active combatant on the ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conser- side of environmental and biodiversity pro- vation Bill 1998 [1999] has been brought into tection. They would have this nation turn its the chamber before the chamber is ready to back on international undertakings and re- debate it. It has been brought in here before sponsibilities by radically diluting the we have seen the amendments the government Commonwealth’s power. No matter how you is going to move to this legislation. It has try to amend this legislation, as the Democrats been brought in here before we have had a probably now will protest they have done, chance to scrutinise the deal that has been there are at least 17, if not more, escape done between the government and the Aus- clauses through which the Commonwealth tralian Democrats on this extremely important minister and the Commonwealth government piece of legislation. This is a bill that can can flick back Commonwealth responsibilities wait. If a deal has been done with the Demo- to the states. crats, let that deal become subject to public The government has presented this bill as scrutiny. If a deal has been done, let all the the only comprehensive and fundamental stakeholders involved have access to the attempt to reform environmental responsi- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5899 bilities in the history of our federation. Unfor- high on the list of community concerns. This tunately, however, although this bill may be consciousness has emerged in parallel with the largest environment bill introduced into such developments as international human this parliament, neither is it comprehensive in rights institutions and the recognition of the coverage nor does it achieve fundamental right of colonised people to self-determina- reform of Commonwealth environmental laws. tion. The fact is that in many ways this bill returns The 1972 declaration of the United Nations environmental law in Australia to the pre- Conference on the Human Environment 1970s situation, when environmental concerns marked the beginning of a serious attempt by were the sole province of the states. The bill the world community to weld world environ- significantly limits the scope for Common- mental concerns to economic and social wealth activity on environmental issues. Even issues. As with the UN’s Universal Declara- within that limited scope, the bill provides for tion of Human Rights, the declaration in 1972 an extremely broad range of exemptions from on the environment is an aspirational state- its standard procedures on the so-called ment concerned with the potentially cata- matters of national environmental signifi- strophic effects of unchecked industrial cance. Ministerial discretion in this legislation development and resource use on the quality is uniformly unfettered by any semblance of of life of all people and the conservation of clear environmental standards. Public partici- nature and ecosystems. During the past three pation in critical environmental decisions is decades these aspirational statements have negligible. been fleshed out in a range of specific inter- Unsurprisingly, this bill and its companion national environmental treaties relating to consequential bill engage in another mean- environmental damage, the marine environ- spirited attack on the hard-won rights of ment, protection of the atmosphere, nuclear indigenous people in this country. This bill risks and the conservation of nature and other contains amendments which have taken no living things. account of the principles of joint management In the early 1970s the ALP introduced the and show no respect for the expertise of in- first ever national approach to environmental digenous communities in caring for their regulation with the introduction of the EPIP environment and for their attachment to it. Act. This legislation was aimed at ensuring This is a bill which has met with universal that significant environmental matters are opposition from stakeholders, no matter where considered in relation to actions, proposals they come from in the political spectrum. and decisions taken by the federal government Let us look at the history that has been and its agencies. It was through this national overturned by this legislation, and let us look approach to environmental legislation that we at the history that the Australian Democrats conducted an inquiry into sand mining on are compliant in overturning. National and Fraser Island in Queensland. That inquiry was international awareness of the importance of able to proceed and the recommendations of protecting the environment has blossomed that inquiry convinced the Fraser government over the last 40 to 50 years. International to use other Commonwealth powers—those ad awareness of the environment is a significant hoc powers that the current minister refers example of the new social movements of the to—to stop sand mining on the island. late 20th century. This is a movement driven We have had other Commonwealth initia- by local communities’ concern about the tives on the environment which have also effects of unchecked pollution, industrialis- been critical to saving what are now con- ation and unsustainable resource use. sidered inviolable national environmental Australia has been no exception to this icons. The National Parks and Wildlife Act international phenomenon. All of the great 1975, again passed by the Labor government, environmental battles fought in Australia have ensured that invaluable areas such as Kakadu had strong community support and polling and Uluru-Kata Tjuta became national parks still consistently shows environmental issues under national Commonwealth control. Fol- 5900 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 lowing the 1983 election, fought partially on wealth and the states. They use a definition of the question of the construction of the Gordon so-called matters of national environmental below Franklin dam, the Hawke government significance. Even this small list of matters is introduced the World Heritage Properties in some senses not sufficiently protected by Conservation Act. That act was used later in Commonwealth action because even in these that decade to stop the logging of the Queens- areas Commonwealth control can cascade land wet tropics, including the Daintree forest, directly to state and territory control. There by the Queensland National Party. are narrow concepts of the operation of We had then a mentality in the states which ‘national’ matters within the bill. For instance, is probably still the same now, a mentality there are only six specific matters of national best reflected by the Queensland Premier Joh environmental significance and one catch-all Bjelke-Petersen, whose attitude was, ‘You can provision through regulation. Even with do so much with a bulldozer.’ You can do so respect to those matters there can be a cascad- much with a bulldozer unless you have a ing of Commonwealth powers. Commonwealth government that is respon- The policy justification for these six matters sible and acting responsibly. This government is the COAG agreement, but let us remember is not. We must remember that both these that the COAG agreement identified some 30 Commonwealth interventions were fought matters of national environmental signifi- tooth and nail by conservative state govern- cance. In this legislation we have only six and ments and also by the then federal opposition the most important matters relating to climate under the guise of protecting state rights. The change, greenhouse gases, ozone depletion, air Commonwealth government, under Labor, quality, soil salinity, desertification, water invoked the Australian Heritage Commission allocation, land degradation, land clearing and Act 1975 to stop the logging of the Lemon- so on have all been left to languish either thyme forests in Tasmania—forests identified with the states or in that never-never land for world heritage listing. The Commonwealth between Commonwealth and state responsi- similarly intervened to stop the proposal to bilities. This is hardly a satisfactory outcome mine the ecologically and culturally unique for the environment. It is hardly a satisfactory Coronation Hill site in Kakadu. outcome for certainty for industry and the states. The telling point about all this is that you But that is not the only concern. It is not need a national approach to environmental just a limitation in terms of matters of nation- security. All these icons would have been al environmental significance; we have a destroyed had their future been allowed to be whole raft of other mechanisms through determined by state governments. From a which the states are given responsibility to constitutional perspective, the legal struggles exercise the power that the Commonwealth initiated by the states against the Common- should be assuming. In respect of that, we wealth’s legitimate use of power to achieve have the concept of bilaterals. I must start such environmental protection has resulted in with the concept of bilaterals because I think a series of High Court decisions finding that this is a particularly insidious concept. the Commonwealth has near to plenary consti- Through bilateral agreements we basically tutional power to enact laws to protect the have a situation where the Commonwealth environment. Nothing in this bill protects that can vest authority in the states for both the constitutional power. This government has approval and the assessment of a particular drafted a bill that provides the potential to project. The bilateral agreement concept has hand over environmental control to the states met with universal reaction and concern from and territories. We have come full circle. This across the stakeholders. The proposed oper- time, however, we are completing that circle ation of bilateral agreements has caused acute without the Australian Democrats on board. concern for both industry and environmental I will now move to the details of this groups. legislation. This bill purports to carve up the The bill provides that a bilateral agreement respective responsibilities of the Common- may declare certain classes of action exempt Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5901 from the Commonwealth approval processes world heritage area if it falls within a if they have been approved by the Common- Commonwealth area. There is no requirement wealth, a state or a territory; they have been in this legislation for such a plan in relation approved by a specified agency in a specified to a world heritage area falling within a state matter; or the actions are in accordance with or a territory, despite the Commonwealth’s a strategic assessment. Let me say in respect specific international obligations on this point. of all those concepts—specified action and The history of the seventies would provide specified matters—that it is essentially left to testament to the fact that we need a broader an unfettered discretion by a federal minister. range of areas to be covered here. For in- The bill explicitly excludes a decision by the stance, the bill—in respect of world heri- Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency tage—only requires the Commonwealth to to grant a governmental authorisation, how- establish a permit system in relation to a ever defined, to another person to take an threatened species, threatened ecological action that excludes from environmental communities and migratory species in relation control. Moving on from bilateral agreements, to Commonwealth land only. So if you want the bill also provides a capacity for the certainty and if you want a lack of duplica- minister to declare that a proposed action tion, you will not get it here, because the does not require Commonwealth approval if Commonwealth has responsibility in respect the Commonwealth or one of its agencies has of a limited range of land and the states may approved the action in a specified manner. choose not to take up their responsibility in The list goes on. There is a capacity for the respect of other sectors of Australian land. So minister to agree to a strategic assessment of you will find stakeholders having to go the impact of a policy, plan or program with through two processes to get one outcome. a person or corporation responsible for such I mentioned indigenous communities. Their plans. So they can get together, they can concerns over this legislation are many. come to an agreement in respect of a policy, Despite a last minute concession by the plan or program and then the minister can government, given what we know so far— declare that such policy, plan or program does and, once again, we have not seen the agree- not require Commonwealth approval. Given ment with the Democrats—there is concern the wideness of the phrase and given the lack that there will be disruption to joint manage- of scrutiny over the mechanism used here, ment arrangements in respect of areas such as there has got to be concern—and it is quite Kakadu, Uluru and Wreck Bay; disruption amazing that once again the Democrats have that will be unacceptable to the traditional decided they can actually come to an agree- owners and their supporters. The environ- ment with the government in respect of this. mental bills were developed—despite a We then have conservation agreements. The commitment by the minister that nothing minister says, ‘Oh, you’ve got them already,’ would be done without the consent of TOs— but what we do not have already is the with negligible consultation with indigenous breadth of conservation agreements that the communities. They got a commitment that minister introduces in this legislation and also there would be no change without consent; the lack of scrutiny over them. In terms of the next thing they saw was legislation which these conservation agreements, there are no disrupted the existing system of joint manage- environmental requirements for conditions on ment. the discretion of the minister to enter into Bilateral agreements, for instance, may conservation agreements. There is also, for impair or extinguish aspects of native title, instance, no requirement for input from and they significantly undermine world traditional owners in relation to conservation respected joint management practices in the agreements. I mentioned world heritage Kakadu and Uluru-Kata Tjuta national parks. earlier. In respect of world heritage listed Let us be mindful of this: by disrupting those areas, the bill only obliges the Commonwealth existing joint management plans, there is a to develop a written management plan for a real legal possibility that the existing arrange- 5902 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 ments between traditional owners and the is a suggestion that this legislation should go Commonwealth could very well be over- through as quickly as possible so that stake- turned. Leases held by the Commonwealth holders do not become wised up to the impli- could be terminated by the Director of the cations of it. We will try to take every oppor- National Parks and Wildlife Service and land tunity in this place to ensure that there are taken from the traditional owners. There are amendments. As I say, we have some 300 specific clauses proposed in this legislation amendments. We have amendments that go to that anticipate such an event, clauses that the review mechanism, transparency of deci- would lead to the termination of leases. More sion making, public accountability, natural than most other Australians, I would say, justice and the rights of indigenous Aus- indigenous people have a very strong interest tralians. We need to broaden the scope of the in the environment through their continuing legislation in accordance with the COAG close physical, spiritual, social and economic agreement. We need to have greenhouse attachment to it, and in many cases there is triggers, for instance. We are basically going dependency on the land and its native flora to try to do in this parliament what the and fauna. These people have been ignored in government has not done with this legislation the process. These people get ridden over in over the last 12 months or so. this legislation. Any acceptable bill will retain a pivotal role Our view of the bill is that it needs amend- for the National Parks and Wildlife Service— ment. I said to the minister a few weeks ago not just as a token position or as a substitute that we have some 200 to 300 amendments to for the body as a whole. Clear penalties are this legislation. We really have close to 300 needed—in some circumstances, criminal amendments but they cannot be finalised until penalties. We will provide for the Auditor- we see the government’s amendments. They General to fulfil the environmental audit cannot be finalised until we see what deal has functions that this legislation prescribes. We been done, once again behind closed doors, will move amendments to better protect world between this minister and the most gullible of heritage areas. We do not want to water down senators, Lyn Allison and Meg Lees. We do the currently existing provisions. We need to not know what is happening with the Demo- ensure that this legislation takes the oppor- crats. They have basically excluded from tunity to protect Ramsar wetlands. We need consultation their self-claimed constituency, to redraft provisions for committees to ensure, the environmental groups. They have been for instance, indigenous representation with told over the last few weeks that they have no respect to some. place at the table. But now we seem to have Basically, this is a bill drafted in the depart- an outcome which is acceptable to both the ment of, I suppose, wishful thinking on behalf Democrats and the government. From our of a minister who is wedded to the concept of perspective and the perspective of so many state rights. It seeks to banish the pesky concerned people, not just now but over the greenies from the agenda. This is a bill that, last 30 or 40 years in the struggle for environ- basically, will trigger broad community mental issues in this country, there is real concern. It will trigger the sort of action that disquiet, unrest and concern about this ar- we used to have in the 1960s and 1970s. rangement. A bill that we think—and that the When people cannot access the rights they Environmental Defender’s Office thinks— fought for through the parliament and the needs some 300 amendments is coming in for courts, they will take to the streets, the forests debate in this place at the last moment with- and so on to protect the areas they have out any clear idea of what the government’s always wanted to protect and they thought amendments are. were protected from the hands of government, We will try to amend this legislation. We avaricious developers and other such stake- fear a guillotine. We know that the Democrats holders. and the government do not fear a guillotine. The minister could have dealt with this We have had the message already that there better. He should take the bill away and start Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5903 again. The least he should do is complete the ously considered has been government, and debate on the second reading at this stage and the lowest common denominator has often bring the bill back in August. That would prevailed. give the public, stakeholders and the parlia- The Greens (WA) believe that more genu- ment some time to scrutinise the legislation. ine efforts to consult with the public during (Time expired) the development of the bill would have Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) resulted in legislation that better reflected (1.24 p.m.)—I will be speaking on what is community concerns. Although the minister contained in the Environment Protection and released a consultation paper on the proposed Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998. My legislation, many of the witnesses told the colleague Senator Brown, who will make a committee that there was limited time to contribution later, I am sure, will be speaking respond to the proposals and the government in detail about what the bill is actually going appeared not to have taken into account the to be when it is presented to us, as it has been comments that had been made. Complaints transformed in view of the deal between the about the process came from the full range of Australian Democrats and the government. industry, environment and community groups. We admit that a review of Australia’s Traditional owners were not consulted in any environment legislation is well overdue. Since meaningful way on proposed changes to their the pioneering environmental legislation of lease agreements in Uluru, Kakadu and the 1970s and the 1980s was put in place, Booderee. there have been considerable changes in our The consideration of the bill by the public understanding of ecological processes, in the and the committee was also made difficult by community’s expectation of government and the lack of detail in relation to bilateral in our understanding of the extent of the agreements and the regulations which are Commonwealth’s powers, which can be fundamental to an understanding of the considerable, as shown by various High Court implications of the bill and to its ‘successful’ decisions. That community expectation, I operation. Industry groups noted time after hasten to add, has not decreased; it has time that this created an unacceptable degree increased. of uncertainty for them, and consistently We also have a greater desire to deal with requested that the legislation be delayed. the environment and the economy in an Overall, the bill is an attempt to wind the integrated manner. I would argue, and have clock back and allow the Commonwealth to argued over the last six years, that separating retreat from its responsibilities. This is the those is artificial and damaging. The bill is a only explanation, for example, that can be severe disappointment in terms of providing given for limiting Commonwealth environ- Australia with forward looking legislation that mental assessment and approval to a mere six can help us face the environmental challenges matters in the bill. that are either emerging or already with us. In The Commonwealth is also retreating from some respects the bill has the potential to be its national and international environmental a complete disaster. obligations in its proposed use of bilateral The Greens (WA) consider that the devel- agreements with the states and territories to opment process of the bill itself reflects the hand over Commonwealth assessment and government’s underlying desire to wash its approval responsibilities. While the Greens hands of any significant involvement in (WA) have no conceptual difficulties with the environmental affairs. The main genesis of the states and territories having a role in assess- bill is the heads of agreement by the Council ment processes, this must only occur subject of Australian Governments of 1997, otherwise to best practice environment processes and known as the COAG agreement. We do not other safeguards, and based on an acceptance consider that COAG is a valid basis for of Commonwealth involvement and approval. legislation because of its secrecy and lack of These safeguards and constraints are missing, accountability. The only interest group seri- reinforcing the overall impression of the bill 5904 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 that the Commonwealth is giving itself as mental decisions, maybe. It does not require many avenues as possible to devolve its environmental factors to be part of social or environmental obligations, despite the various economic decision making. answers given by the minister in response to Why I said ‘maybe’ is that in the past once questions leading up to this bill. again the Labor government set up the Re- Overall, there are three fundamental objec- sources Assessment Commission to do this tions to the bill. There are lots of others, but very thing. Currently, there is no equivalent these are fundamental. The first is the inad- of the Resources Assessment Commission. So equate definition and use of ecologically what process is going to take place? Could it sustainable development principles in the bill. be that resources and economic ministers are ESD has become the concept that encapsu- still going to have the say over what goes on lates the desire to ensure that environmental in the environment? Hence the objects of this considerations are taken into account in all EPBC Bill, for example, should indicate an economic and social decision making. The unequivocal commitment to protect the concept of ecologically sustainable develop- environment, rather than ‘to provide for the ment, it was argued, was originally designed protection of the environment’. to ensure that environmental considerations In a similar vein, the bill should commit to were taken into account in all decision mak- ecologically sustainable development, rather ing, economic and social. I have heard it than ‘to promote ecologically sustainable argued also that originally ESD principles development’; that is, to promote as in, ‘We’ll were to give industry a greater say, but when think about it, we’ll look into it’—the mirror- people started looking at those principles they mirror syndrome. And the bill should con- realised they had to strike a balance that was serve biodiversity, rather than ‘to promote the fairer to the environment. conservation of biodiversity’—send out a few So ironically the process of ESD was about leaflets; that should do. The objects should giving industry a greater involvement and also explicitly acknowledge the importance of even governments have turned away from public consultation and involvement in envi- that, especially this government. Unfortunate- ronmental protection and biodiversity conser- ly, the phrase has been contorted even further vation, but it becomes very inconvenient for in the intergovernmental negotiation pro- federal governments to actually listen to the cess—and hence in the EPBC Bill—so that all community, doesn’t it? Australian governments could at least give Ecologically sustainable development lip-service to it. For example, the definition should be defined rigorously in all environ- of ESD in the EPBC Bill has the precaution- mental legislation, and the objects of any ary principle and public involvement as legislation should place ecologically sustain- ‘guiding principles’ only, not as core objec- able development and its principles at centre tives. stage. For example, qualifications like those Many submissions and witnesses com- in the objects of the EPBC Bill are unaccept- mented that the objects clause contains able. Public involvement at all key stages in watered-down objectives that do not project environmental planning and approval process- a strong commitment to environmental protec- es should also always be required. Quite tion and that environmental issues take second frankly, within government departments there place to economic and social issues. For is not the knowledge, skill and depth of example, while the bill requires decisions on information to provide for proper decision environmental approvals to take all economic making unless the community is involved. and social considerations into account, ESD There is not the money to provide that within principles, such as they are, need only to be the environment departments. The knowledge taken into account in relation to the particular is often with the community and it is not even matter which triggers assessment—clause 136. possible for all that intimate, detailed local In effect, the bill ensures that economic and knowledge to be gained by one government social factors are incorporated into environ- department or even two. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5905

Let us look at the limited view as to the of witnesses and submissions indicated that Commonwealth’s responsibilities. There is no appropriate thresholds could be applied so question that the EPBC Bill is based on a that only major activities of national environ- very narrow view of Commonwealth environ- mental significance require environmental ment involvement. There can be no justifica- assessment and approval by the Common- tion to restricting Commonwealth involvement wealth. in assessment and approval to a mere six Any list of matters of national environment- matters of national environmental signifi- al significance requiring environmental impact cance. The set chosen by COAG ignores assessment should therefore include at least some of the most significant environmental climate change, native vegetation, forests and challenges facing Australia today: climate the sustainable use of water, with appropriate change, the clearing of native vegetation thresholds to exclude matters that are not of which is one of the most serious threats to national significance. These are in addition to Australia’s biodiversity, the loss and degrada- those matters proposed by the government in tion of native forests, and the unsustainable the EPBC Bill. There is concern about the use of water. These matters are undoubtedly large scope for ministerial discretion and other of national environmental significance and exemptions from the bill. should be subject to the Commonwealth’s environmental assessment and approval The bill does contain a number of positive process. elements. However, these are relatively small benefits when the overall bill and the process The majority report on the EPBC Bill by which it was developed are considered. argues that the bill is not intended to address While the bill purports to deal with matters of all matters of national environmental signifi- national environmental significance, the cance identified in the COAG Heads of omissions are so obvious, and the qualifica- Agreement. The government asserts that tions to those remaining potentially so exten- broadscale matters such as climate change and sive, that they amount to a fundamental vegetation clearance are being adequately abrogation of the Commonwealth’s environ- dealt with by programs and policy responses. mental responsibilities. Yet Australia continues to see, for example, Many witnesses expressed concern about an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the numerous avenues for exemption under an alarming loss of native vegetation. The the EPBC Bill. In addition to the problem of involvement of the Commonwealth in govern- the limitation to six matters that can ‘trigger’ ment programs such as the Greenhouse Chal- Commonwealth assessment and approval, lenge is not a substitute for the capacity to there are a number of ways by which the assess and approve the environmental impacts requirement for an approval can be avoided of particular projects; for example, the build- altogether. ing of a large coal power plant. Similarly, the The way that bilateral agreements can be existence of the national pollutant inventory used is discussed above. The Greens (WA) is not a substitute for the capacity to assess, and the Australian Greens consider it essential approve and impose conditions on a new that the Commonwealth not be able to evade petrochemical plant. It is clear that adminis- its environmental responsibilities through trative approaches alone are not sufficient and ministerial declarations, conservation agree- require legislative backing. ments and things such as regional forest The majority report argues that there are agreements. Ministerial discretion also needs practical difficulties in applying environment- to be reined in to reduce the potential for al impact assessment to climate change, making arbitrary decisions and evading vegetation clearance and water issues in a obligations to protect the environment and way which is consistent with Commonwealth conserve biodiversity. environmental powers and which does not There also appears to be a clear intent on overlap state and local government responsi- the part of the Commonwealth to use the bilities. The Greens (WA) note that a number EPBC Bill to give away its responsibilities for 5906 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 approving actions impacting on matters of began with the ESD Working Group process national environmental significance, despite in the early 1990s—has been lost. The Greens what the minister has said again and again. (WA) believe that the momentum must be The EPBC Bill does not even provide for renewed by placing an obligation on sufficient safeguards to ensure that accredited Commonwealth departments and agencies to state governments fulfil the national obliga- prepare and implement individual strategies tions entrusted to them. So it has no teeth. for achieving ecologically sustainable devel- That these safeguards and constraints are opment. We heard just yesterday in the report missing reinforces the overall impression of on energy efficiency strategies that a great the bill that the Commonwealth is giving deal of those policies have not even been itself as many avenues as possible to devolve implemented in Commonwealth buildings. So its national and international environmental it just shows how lacking in political will we obligations. It is unacceptable to devolve are at the moment. approval powers relating to matters of nation- A commissioner for the environment would al environmental significance, particularly have an important role in auditing the per- given the Commonwealth’s responsibility for formance of departments in implementing meeting Australia’s obligations under interna- their strategies. This concept has been put into tional environment agreements and the poor practice in other countries such as Canada, record of states and territories in protecting where the annual green reports of the Com- the environment. I mention my own state of missioner for the Environment and Sustain- Western Australia’s poor record on green- able Development are providing valuable house gas emissions. Then the Western independent information on the performance Australian government say that the rest of the of the federal government in fulfilling its states have to reduce theirs so they can environmental objectives and promises. produce more. What a joke. A commissioner for the environment should Given the need for consideration of the be established as an independent authority to environment in all policy decisions and for review the performance of the Commonwealth those decisions to be reviewed and audited, in fulfilling its environmental objectives and the Greens would like to propose that a priorities. For example, it could review the commissioner for the environment be estab- performance of Commonwealth departments lished. There is no provision in the EPBC Bill in implementing their ESD strategies. for independent reviews of the environmental The Greens believe that the bill should be role and operations of the Commonwealth withdrawn. I will give you another reason for government. this: to enable a genuine community consulta- A number of submissions and witnesses tion process to be implemented to help draw presented compelling evidence on the need up replacement legislation that reflects the for an independent authority to conduct such Commonwealth’s responsibility to protect reviews and report to the public. The Austral- Australia’s environment. We are backed up in ian Greens and the Greens (WA) consider that this by a number of key Aboriginal groups a commissioner for the environment would who have had concerns. There are major provide an important safeguard for ensuring issues in the bill of great concern to indigen- best environmental practice. For example, a ous Australians, and indigenous Australians commissioner could investigate and report on have been some of the most determined in whether any environmental agreements with their approach to us on the need for deferral the states were consistent with rigorous of this bill accreditation criteria and whether states were Indigenous people have a very strong complying with conditions in those agree- general interest in the environment through ments. their continuing physical, spiritual, social and It is clear that the momentum for achieving economic attachment and dependency on the ecologically sustainable development in the land and its native wildlife. Many indigenous operations of the Commonwealth—which people live within an integrated set of cultural Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5907 and natural heritage values, transforming land tion have not been taken seriously—not by and environment into landscape and country. the government, in this case, or the Demo- They often have an intimate knowledge of crats. They stress that the consultation must native flora and fauna and its relationship to involve more than just putting advertisements the environment. Indigenous people own and in the media and talking to peak organisa- reside in a significant portion of Australia’s tions. A bill as important to Aboriginal people marginal and fragile landscapes. Indigenous as this must be taken to the people. There people have historically suffered the most must be a period of listening and waiting. from environmental effects, mistakes and Before my time expires, I move my second disasters of inappropriate land use and ex- reading amendment: ploitation. At the end of the motion, add "but, noting concerns expressed by the Australian Conservation Any proposals on these issues need to be Foundation, Greenpeace Australia, the Wilderness thoroughly canvassed with indigenous com- Society, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander munities, and consultations need to take Commission, aboriginal traditional owners and account of culturally appropriate methodolog- others about the need to consult properly with ies. These include allowing time for consider- respect to any proposed amendments to this bill, ation by traditional owners, representative the Senate resolves that consideration of the bill be bodies and the broader community. Most indi- an order of the day for the first day of sitting in August 1999". genous stakeholders do not have access to national media or familiarity with legislative There is more that I can say, but I hope that processes and have therefore not had an this bill at least will be given proper consider- opportunity to consider the nature and sub- ation. I would hate to think that this bill stance of the government’s proposals. While would be the source of a gag later on this they may be represented by organisations day. such as land councils or ATSIC, these bodies Senator COONEY (Victoria) (1.44 p.m.)— cannot truly represent all of the indigenous Mr Acting Deputy President, at about the time concerns without the opportunity, in a realistic I was born—about 10 years before you were time frame, to consult directly with their brought forth—the last live thylacine, the last constituents. Tasmanian tiger to be captured alive, was There has never been a dedicated and brought in to Waratah. complete exercise to map the range of in- Senator Patterson—Has that got any digenous environmental concerns. On this relationship with his birth? basis, until there is consultation directly with Senator COONEY—It has, you see. The indigenous stakeholders, the government parliamentary secretary quite properly asks cannot be sure that they have appropriately has that got anything to do with his birth; and framed the range of Commonwealth powers it has got a lot to do with his birth, in the or developed appropriate mechanisms to sense that Senator McKiernan has lost the reflect and respond to indigenous concerns. I opportunity of ever seeing in the wild, or have heard very concerning reports in relation even in the zoo, a Tasmanian tiger—and that to the bill that indigenous stakeholders went means that the generation to which he belongs to the Democrats and put those concerns has been denied that ability, because of what strongly to them and that they believe they previous generations have done. have not been properly heard. We will hear That leads to the first point I want to make, what the outcome is today. I am sure my and it is this: the whole issue of the environ- colleague Senator Brown will mention them. ment is a matter of what is right not simply A major issue for indigenous people is the for this generation but for other generations lack of monitoring of state regimes by the as well. Martin Flannigan in the Melbourne federal government and the conditions under Age recently wrote a very evocative piece which responsibilities may be transferred to about the Tasmanian tiger and said not only the states. The stakeholders are very clear in that had it gone, apparently disappeared, but their view that their concerns about consulta- that there are now desperate efforts to try to 5908 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 get it back, to recreate the Tasmanian tiger, shall take up the task that is needed to ensure the thylacine, because of what has been lost. that the place we live in is a proper and That is very much what this debate on the reasonable place in which we can, as Austral- Environment Protection and Biodiversity ians, enjoy the life that is potentially there. Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] is all about That is a wrong conception of the constitu- and what the issue of the environment is all tional and legal obligations of the Common- about. It is about what is lost and cannot be wealth. It is clear from cases, such as the regained, and about what is proper to main- Franklin Dam case, that the Commonwealth tain and what is not. Does it matter that the has the power and, indeed, the obligation to Tasmanian tiger has disappeared? Does it protect our environment. To make that clear, matter that it was slaughtered and a bounty I will quote—and Senator Cook will recognise put upon it for many years before, too late, this—from the Chief Justice of the High people realised what they were losing? I think Court at the start of the 1970s, Sir Garfield it does matter and I do think it is a symbol. Barwick, who was, prior to being the Chief Unless you are careful, of course, you lose Justice, a member of the Menzies government. not only an animal that is unique but a desert This is what he says about the states and that is unique, a piece of ground that is Commonwealth and the relationship between unique. You might—going back to Senator the two, in the case of Victoria and the Patterson’s remarks—lose the state that the Commonwealth: Great Ocean Road in Victoria is in at the I have observed elsewhere that the Constitution moment, unless proper care is taken. You may does not represent a treaty or union between lose clean air over cities, the beaches upon sovereign and independent States. It was the result which the children play or the atmosphere in of the will and desire of the people of all the which people work. They are all issues of colonies expressed both through their representative institutions and directly through referenda to be what the environment is about. united in one Commonwealth with an agreed Nobody, it seems to me, is arguing that the distribution of governmental power. environment is not important. But this legisla- He says later on: tion is such that there are signs that the The constitutional arrangements of the colonies Commonwealth is not taking the issue of the were retained by, and subject to, the Constitution environment as seriously as it should. It is as the constitutional arrangements for the govern- also taking the approach that somehow the ment of those portions of the Commonwealth to be states are separate in this issue from the known as States. These, though coterminous in Commonwealth; that somehow it is the states geographical area with the former colonies, derived their existence as States from Constitution itself: that are really responsible for the environment and being parts of the Commonwealth became and not the Commonwealth; that the states constituent States. have inherited the environment from the time that they were colonies and that it is the He goes on later, and this is the last bit that states’ right or obligation to do all that really I will quote from him: needs to be done about the environment, But the outstanding fact that the Act— except on some big issues which are quite that is, the act of the Imperial Parliament— limited. created the Commonwealth as the embodiment of The bill, if passed, would give up rights the people of Australia and gave it, amongst other that the Commonwealth has under the Consti- things, legislated power over the enumerated tution, in the sense of not exercising those subject matters cannot be gainsaid. rights. I do not mean that they would lose What is being said is that the Constitution those rights under the Constitution but that creates not only the Commonwealth but also they would give them up, in the sense of not the states and that the Constitution gives the exercising them as they should. There is a Commonwealth power. On the basis of the concept behind this bill which says that the power given by the Constitution, the states have the primary responsibility in Commonwealth—and this is me speaking protecting our environment and that the states now, on the basis of what Sir Garfield Bar- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5909 wick said—has a duty to ensure that all parts about the issue in hand. That is a statement of Australia are properly protected. which, in my view, condemns the government When Lake Pedder was lost in Tasmania in its approach to this issue. The issue then that was a loss not only for Tasmanians but arises against what standards, against what for Australians as a whole. Do we as a nation criteria are measurements to be made as to say that the Great Barrier Reef is the respon- whether the land, air and sea are being used sibility of the Queensland government only? as they should be, with proper respect for the Do we say that the Great Australian Bight, integrity of the land, sea and air. I notice on which you fly over regularly, Mr Acting page 81 of the report on the Environment Deputy President, is a place that Victorians Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill have no interest in, that only South Austral- 1998 the following statement: ians and West Australians have a say in that? A large number of submissions criticised the Bill Or are they part of a land which affects us all on the grounds that it contains few environmental in terms of not only the comfort with which standards in relation to bilateral agreements. we might live but also our spiritual existence? It goes on to say: When we talk about Australia we are talking Key conservation groups were concerned that the about a certain sort of place; we are talking standards set out in clauses 51 to 55 are ‘vague, about an embodiment of a land that we love non-binding and weakened by Ministerial and respect. discretion’ and that the Bill provided too much discretion to set detailed standards in the regula- This bill unfortunately, if passed, would tions. enable people to exploit in a wrong manner the land which belongs to us all. That is what This is a matter of great and grave import- the issue of environmental protection and ance. How are we, as a nation, going to proper development is concerned with—how measure whether we have properly treated the the land can be used in a way that is suitable land, air and sea which we claim is ours? The to the sort of place it is. History has shown us Commonwealth has not set out any criteria. that over the couple of centuries that we as There is no measurement set forth so that Europeans have been in Australia the land has people who live on this land can measure been violated in a very serious manner. We against a set of tests as to how we as a nation have recently had sessions on television—I are treating the land, sea and air with which think it has been repeated a couple of times we have been blessed, and we have been on the various channels—about the salt rising blessed in Australia. But, having been blessed in the land and killing off the soil so that the with this land, we have not, up until recently land cannot properly be used. Is that an issue in any event, turned our minds to how we can simply for the states in which that occurs or best protect the place we have been given. is that an issue for us as Australians? During the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s When the second reading speech to this bill we were as a nation taking on the responsi- is looked at there is cause for alarm in terms bilities we had to this place that is ours, but of the concepts that the government has this bill turns back the clock. As Senator brought into the debate. For example, it Margetts has said, and as Senator Bolkus has states: pointed out, this is a backward step; this is going back to where we should not be. Mad- An activity which does not have a significant impact on one of the matters of national signifi- am President, I notice that two o’clock is cance will no longer trigger Commonwealth upon us so I will sit down. involvement in the assessment and approval Debate interrupted. process—even if it requires a Commonwealth decision or approval such as foreign investment QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE approval. The second reading speech states quite explic- Environment Protection and Biodiversity itly that the Commonwealth is going to draw Conservation Legislation back from its responsibilities, even when a Senator BOLKUS—My question is to the decision is required from the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage, 5910 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator Hill. Has the minister recently re- protect the environment from a national ceived a request from the New South Wales perspective but also would be easier to oper- government for urgent discussions with the ate from the point of view of the users—those states and territories on its proposed amend- who have to operate within the legislation. ments to the Environment Protection and That negotiation took place during 1997 and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]? an agreement was reached under the head of Did the New South Wales government also COAG late in 1997. That became the frame- express concern at the lack of process with work for the development of the legislation. negotiations on the bilateral agreements under Then a further discussion paper was issued that bill—agreements which impact directly which fleshed out the details of the COAG on Commonwealth-state responsibilities? Will agreement. The stakeholders, including the the minister give an assurance that any states, were invited to contribute further, and amendments to the bill which may have been they so did. A bill was drafted well over a hatched in a secret deal with the Australian year ago, Madam President. Democrats will be circulated with sufficient Senator Bolkus—Madam President, I rise time to enable informed input from all stake- on a point of order. This is a history lesson holders before we proceed to detailed debate from the minister. I have asked him about the on the bill in the Senate? amendments which even the Senate has not Senator HILL—This is an extraordinary seen as yet, and I have asked him about question because the Environment Protection bilateral agreements which are still being and Biodiversity Conservation Bill is imple- negotiated with the states. I asked the minister menting an agreement between the Common- to address his mind to whether there will be wealth and the states. enough time for stakeholders to address their Senator Bolkus—Agreement with the concerns in respect of the amendments which Democrats. have not even seen the light of day in this place. Senator HILL—No. Regrettably Senator Bolkus fails to understand the situation, so I The PRESIDENT—I am sure the minister will explain it to him. will deal with that, but he seems to me to be putting the answer in the context of the Senator Ian Macdonald—Speak slowly. question. Senator HILL—Take it slowly? This is a Senator HILL—The bill was then drawn bill putting into law an agreement reached and obviously became public knowledge. between the Commonwealth and the states in There followed some 11 months of assess- 1997—a process that started in 1996. For ment of the bill by the parliament—through Senator Bolkus’s benefit, it started with the parliamentary committee process of this publishing a discussion paper and a request Senate. So the states and all stakeholders for input from the states and from stakehold- contributed again. For Senator Bolkus’s ers. benefit, they all wrote in and submitted their Senator Bolkus—That’s right—we know views. After that, there was a process of all this. negotiation, again taking into account the Senator HILL—I do not think Senator advice of the Senate committee and submis- Bolkus does know, Madam President; that is sions that had been made direct to govern- why I am spelling it out for him. After that ment by all of the key stakeholders, including ensued a long and at times difficult negotia- the state governments. Then the states sent a tion between the Commonwealth and the list of changes that they would like to see. I states to settle such matters as what should be called a meeting of the state governments. defined as national environmental signifi- That took place, and we have been able to cance, because both the Commonwealth and take up a number of their suggestions. the states were in agreement that existing laws After that, the states wrote again and sug- had failed and that there needed to be a new gested that we look at some further sugges- rationalisation that not only would better tions. For the benefit of Senator Bolkus, we Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5911 have been able to take up some of their outcomes on the ground. Out of this piece of further suggestions. Never has there been such legislation those better outcomes can be a cooperative process; never has there been achieved. It is good for the state governments; such a comprehensive process. This has gone it is good for the environment; it is good for on since 1996, with all the steps that I have industry because they will have streamlined set out, and it has finally reached the situation processes of assessment; and, most of all, it of debate in the chamber. Most of the con- is good in terms of a better national environ- cerns of the states we have been able to mental outcome. accommodate, but within this scheme there is a recognition that there are Commonwealth Telstra Sale: Social Bonus responsibilities and there are state responsi- Senator EGGLESTON—My question is bilities. The goal is that we then work co- directed to the Minister for Communications, operatively together to implement the scheme Information Technology and the Arts. The in the interests of getting a better national social bonus provides a unique opportunity to environmental outcome. make a national commitment to improving telecommunications infrastructure. In relation to the assessment process, yes— for the benefit of Senator Bolkus—there is Senator Chris Evans—That’s not what envisaged a set of bilaterals on assessment Richard Court said. and approval processes which, pursuant to the Senator EGGLESTON—I am sure that is bill when it becomes law, will be negotiated not the case. Will the minister explain to the with the states. (Time expired) Senate the benefits which the nation will Senator BOLKUS—Madam President, I receive as a result of the social bonus associ- ask a supplementary question. I remind the ated with the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of minister that we have not as yet seen these Telstra? amendments; they have not been presented to Senator ALSTON—I do not think there parliament. Can the minister confirm that should be any doubt in the minds of all there will be a meeting of the Australia and Australians that last night’s result was a New Zealand Environment and Conservation tremendous boost to information infrastruc- Council on 2 July, and that he has had a ture, particularly in regional and rural Austral- request from at least the New South Wales ia. It will mean expanded access to informa- and Tasmanian governments to ensure that tion technology; it will mean that an extra one state ministers are given an opportunity for million Australians will have access to SBS; constructive discussion on these amendments and it will mean that our networks will be which have been hatched in a secret meeting world class and that moneys that would not with the Democrats? Will the minister agree otherwise ever have been available will go to to this request, or will he ignore it and rush the most needed areas. the bill through, with the connivance of the It is critically important that these oppor- Australian Democrats, in order to prevent any tunities are shared equitably amongst all inconvenient input from the states? Australians, not simply concentrated in a Senator HILL—How can something be couple of the major states on the east coast. referred to as being rushed through if it One of the major programs, of course, is started in 1996? It is just impossible. If Building Additional Rural Networks, a $70 Senator Bolkus had taken up the opportunity million program which will give $10 million we offered for a briefing, he might know to each of the states. It is extraordinary, isn’t more about the content. Until today, he has it, that once you actually distribute money to been uninterested in the issue. All of a sudden all of the states you get howls from the Labor he is playing catch-up politics and trying to Party. Do they hate the minor states? Do they win back a bit of a constituency. The con- hate the bush? Clearly they do because, at the stituency he is seeking has moved on; the time of the last election, we had a Regional constituency he is seeking wants to work with Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund government to achieve better environmental which had about $150 million in it and 5912 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator Schacht’s lasting contribution to half pregnant; you’ve gone to a point where public debate was that he got up and prom- we now have only 50 per cent or a bit more.’ ised to knock it off, close it down, put the He says that Telstra ‘will be left in a state of money in his back pocket. He did not even suspended animation’ until ‘Kim Beazley have something else to spend it on. It was abandons cargo-cult populism, Labor gets a absolutely extraordinary. So why do they hate real leader, or wins an election, or Meg Lees the bush? I do not understand it, Madam stops thinking of chickens, whichever comes President, and I am sure the bush does not first.’ Some of those are much more likely either. than others. It is much more likely they will We have a $45 million local government get a decent leader before the next election fund to enable local governments to get their and it would be a classic opportunity— services online. There is $6 million to each of Opposition senators interjecting— the states and half that to each of the territor- Senator ALSTON—There are a couple of ies. Again, Labor want to knock it off. They people who are clearly positioning them- hate this billion dollar program, do not see selves. (Time expired) any redeeming virtue in it and carry on with rhetoric about bribes. What sort of a message Senator EGGLESTON—Madam President, is this sending to rural Australia and to the I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if outlying states? It is basically that Labor the minister would please advise the Senate could not give a damn. They are only interest- whether there is any expanded mobile tele- ed in the people who Martin Ferguson is phone coverage in South Australia, Tasmania interested in. In other words, he is very and Western Australia? Would he advise the worried about the chardonnay socialists who Senate about the TIGER program and any dominate places like the Australian Capital other infrastructure initiatives which will flow Territory. Quite rightly so; if you look at him, from this social bonus? he obviously prefers a rough red. It ought to Senator ALSTON—As I was saying before be blindingly obvious to the Labor Party that, I was so politely interrupted, there is a million if you want to get into the game, you have dollars for each of those three states that got to do a bit more than pander to a few of Senator Eggleston pointed out. Again, it is the elites in the metropolitan areas. puzzling, isn’t it, that Labor senators from Of course all of this is premised on the South Australia, Western Australia and Tas- privatisation of Telstra. Why is the Labor mania should be opposed to these initiatives. Party against it? Who knows? Their current Again, what sort of message does this send? leader, of course, is on the record as saying: TIGER is a very important program—not just The Government has a proud record of successful Tasmanian tigers; this is all about ensuring privatisations... that we have programs to deliver electronic . . . I can claim to have been in on the ground floor services in regional Australia which will of that process . . . when we sold the Williamstown extend to a range of innovative programs. We Dockyard, corporatised the aircraft factories to form want to get incubators in place. We want to Aerospace Technologies . . . and corporatised the get small and medium sized enterprises rest of the factories and Garden Island Dockyard. plugged into the information revolution. In addition, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation was sold . . . Preparations were also Senator George Campbell—Is that for made . . . for a number of sales, including Qantas, cooked chooks? ANL, ASTA, AIDC, and HLIC. Senator ALSTON—It is all very well for There was also the Commonwealth Bank. people like Senator Campbell, who want to be There was not anything left when we got to on the front bench but are not prepared to do government. We felt very frustrated. All the anything concrete about it, to just get up there work had been done. There was only Telstra and sandbag and, of course, argue for break- left. Where did Labor end up? Of course, ing Telstra up into little pieces. That is not opportunistically opposed. As Terry McCrann the sort of thing Australians want to hear, quite rightly says this morning, ‘You can’t be Madam President. They want sensible, ra- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5913 tional policies. You have got one chance to Of course, the point is that it is for the Prime get it right. Louise Dodson’s article said why Minister to interpret and enforce the guide- Beazley’s privatisation number is up. She is lines, and he does that. He did it in relation dead right. to Senator Gibson, and he did it in relation to (Time expired) Mr Entsch. All I would like to say in relation to Senator Gibson is that I think he is an Ministerial Code of Conduct excellent senator. I think he did an excellent Senator FAULKNER—My question is job as a parliamentary secretary and, further- directed to Senator Hill, representing the more, he did no wrongdoing. The Prime Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that Minister is more than happy to say that he it is still a requirement, even in the watered paid a high price, but the Prime Minister down mark II version of the Prime Minister’s demands very high standards. That might be code of conduct, for frontbenchers to resign something unfamiliar to the Labor Party, but directorships of companies which are not this Prime Minister demands high standards family farms or businesses? Can the minister and expects them to be met. also confirm that the Prime Minister has not Telstra: Further Sale required his front bench colleague Mr Entsch to resign his directorships of two non-family Senator WATSON—My question is businesses, Cape York Concrete Pty Ltd and directed to Senator Chris Ellison, the Vervale Pty Ltd? Does this mean it is no Minister representing the Minister for Finance longer a requirement for frontbenchers to and Administration. What opportunities will resign directorships of companies which are be offered to the people of Australia to further not family businesses, or is the Prime invest in the share market through the sale of Minister granting Mr Entsch a special dispen- Telstra shares? How will the further sale of sation from his ministerial guidelines? Telstra improve the Australian economy? Senator HILL—Madam President, I did Senator ELLISON—I thank Senator not bring a copy of the guidelines with me—I Watson for that question; I know he has a thought it was yesterday’s issue. So, rather longstanding interest in matters of this sort. than go on recollection, I will get a copy The sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra during question time and have a go at answer- to the public is indeed exciting news for the ing the question afterwards. people of Australia; in fact, it is an opportuni- Senator FAULKNER—Thank you. That ty for all Australians to invest in this great would certainly be a change for Senator Hill. company. Look at the success of the first sale Madam President, I ask a supplementary of 33.3 per cent of Telstra and the fact that question. As he is going to get a copy of the 559,000 Australians invested in shares for the code, does the minister recall the Prime first time. It was a great thing for ordinary Minister explaining Senator Gibson’s resigna- Australians to be able to invest in a great tion as parliamentary secretary in October company. This government is offering a 1996 as being due to ‘the perception of a further opportunity for ordinary Australians to conflict of interest, and a proper application invest with this sale of a further 16.6 per cent of the guidelines means he has been obliged of Telstra. More than 1.8 million Australians to tender his resignation’? Is the minister also took advantage of the opportunity to invest in aware that, in defending Mr Entsch, the Prime Telstra. What we are seeing is Australians Minister has stated that ‘the ministerial code voting with their savings. They are saying: is meant as a guide for people’s behaviour—it ‘We want to be a part of this.’ We are look- is not meant as a death sentence’? Why was ing at another success story in the sale of a the code a death sentence for Senator Gibson further 16.6 per cent of Telstra. I might say but, for Mr Entsch, it is merely a guide which that some members of the opposition also can be ignored with impunity? took up the opportunity to invest in the last sale— Senator HILL—That is wrong, Madam President; it cannot be ignored with impunity. Senator Ian Macdonald—Very sensible. 5914 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator ELLISON—It was a very sensible whether the minister is aware of the Prime investment, and I would encourage other Minister’s response to a question about Mr Australians to follow suit. But we are not just Entsch’s failure to fully and accurately dis- looking at those people who invested previ- close his financial interests when the Prime ously; we are also looking at those who did Minister stated: not. So we are saying to the people of Aus- I am satisfied, on the information available to me, tralia: you have another chance to make a that the honourable member has behaved in a bona great investment. fide fashion. There is no evidence of a conflict of interest. This sale will also benefit the economy of this country. The proceeds will go to cutting Does the Leader of the Government in the out debt—the irresponsible debt that Labor Senate agree with the Prime Minister’s most left us with. Most Australians understand, in recent interpretation of the parliament’s their own personal finances, that they want to requirement to disclose pecuniary interests, in limit debt and cut it back, and so should a particular the view that a non-disclosure is responsible government when it looks at the only a sin where a definite conflict of interest affairs of its country. This is something that exists? Isn’t this just a further sign of the Labor refused to look at. It was something Howard government’s refusal to understand that it did not address. the importance of ongoing and rigorous checks and balances to avoid conflicts of Another aspect is increasing consumer interest? Why is it that the Howard govern- confidence. What we are doing is involving ment believes that a frontbencher’s blatant Australians in investing in their own country. failure to accurately describe his personal They want to have a part of their country, and interests should escape any sanction at all, so this is going to increase consumer confidence long as he is not caught? which, in turn, will benefit the economy of this country. The members of the opposition Senator HILL—I thank Senator Pete Cook are very quiet about this because they have for that question. It is a nonsense, though, failed to support this great initiative— because the Prime Minister has made it quite especially those members of the opposition clear that— from remote parts of Australia. They have Senator Faulkner—That went over like a failed to address the great benefits that will be lead balloon. visited on regional Australia, as Senator Senator HILL—He wants to call me Bob; Alston pointed out earlier when he addressed I call him Pete. This is the new spirit of that question from Senator Eggleston. camaraderie. This sale will be handled by a government Senator Faulkner—He got a laugh; you that is financially responsible and has shown didn’t. that it can deal with this sort of sale. It will Senator HILL—Yes, I know, but at least be a successful sale and one which the Aus- we have a sense of humour on this side of the tralian people can have great confidence in. chamber. It gives me another minute to try to There will also be investment in the infra- interpret the question, and that is what is structure of this nation, and that can only important. The Prime Minister has made it push the economy forward. So I say to the quite clear that there was an inadvertent error opposition: don’t fight this; join with us in by Mr Entsch: he acknowledged his share- promoting this great sale of Telstra to give holdings in the company but he failed to Australians a chance to invest in this great record his directorship. The explanation was company and in the future of their own quite reasonable, particularly when it was country. pointed out that a number of Labor Party members had made the same mistake—and Member for Leichhardt: Disclosure of that ought to be acknowledged and recognised Interests by the ALP. It was inadvertent. There was no Senator COOK—My question is to Sena- detrimental consequence that flowed from it. tor Hill, representing the Prime Minister. I ask There was no wrongdoing by Mr Entsch and Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5915 that, I would have thought, would even have Commonwealth government to ensure that been acknowledged by Senator Cook. The existing proceedings will be safeguarded? I matter has now been corrected and is at an am also wondering if the minister could tell end. us what will happen to concluded cases. Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask Senator VANSTONE—I thank the senator a supplementary question. Is it not the case for her question. For those senators who that parliament’s right to full public disclosure might not be aware of the details of the case of the financial interests of all persons elected that Senator Stott Despoja refers to, on 17 to public office was designed to ensure that June this year the High Court handed down any conflict of interest would be transparent, its decisions in four cases concerning the as a means of ensuring that such conflicts or operation of cross-vesting schemes. The court perceptions of conflicts do not arise? Was this held by a six to one majority that the states not a preventative measure which members of could not confer jurisdiction on Federal Prime Minister Howard’s frontbench have Courts and that the Commonwealth could not continually attempted to sidestep by wide- consent to the vesting of that jurisdiction. spread recourse to the ‘dopey’ defence: ‘I didn’t understand the question on the disclos- The immediate effect of that decision is ure form, Your Honour’? fourfold. It renders voidable many decisions Senator HILL—As I tried to explain made in the past 12 years by the Federal and yesterday—but I will repeat it for Senator Family Courts where those courts were Cook—there are obligations imposed by the exercising jurisdiction conferred by a state. parliament on— Secondly, it operates to prevent further exer- Senator Faulkner—Senator Peter Cook to cise of jurisdiction by the Federal and Family you. Courts in matters where they rely on cross- vesting. It makes it desirable for all such Senator HILL—Senator Cook—there are matters currently before those courts to be obligations imposed by the parliament, and transferred to state Supreme Courts and to we seek to meet those obligations. If we fail, give additional work to state courts and then we stand the sanction of the parliament. reduce the work of Federal Courts. In addition, there are obligations imposed by the Prime Minister upon his executive and, as This decision did not come as a surprise, in has been demonstrated by an earlier question the sense that a decision was impending for today, the sanction can be very grave indeed, some time. People have been watching, even if there was no guilty act by the party. waiting and in fact preparing for it. The In this instance, there was an inadvertent Commonwealth government has made appro- omission to state a directorship. As has been priate preparations in consultation with the demonstrated, it can easily occur. Even the states and territories. All the states are plan- Labor Party makes that mistake. But I really ning to introduce remedial legislation as soon do think the contrast is remarkable, though. as possible. That legislation will validate past The Labor Party that had the Prime Minister decisions of the Family Court and Federal running a pig farm from the Prime Minister’s Court which have been affected by the High office has the nerve to come in here and Court decision. The legislation will also attack Mr Entsch. (Time expired) provide for the smooth transfer to state Sup- reme Courts of ongoing matters that the Cross-vesting: High Court Decision Family Court or the Federal Court can no Senator STOTT DESPOJA—My question longer handle. The Federal and Family Courts is addressed to the Minister representing the will continue to have jurisdiction over matters Attorney-General. In light of last week’s High arising under state laws that are closely Court decision in relation to cross-vesting, related to federal matters before the courts. which may result in some uncertainty in This means there will be very few cases different jurisdictions, could the minister where proceedings will be split between state explain what urgent steps will be taken by the and federal courts. 5916 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Most Corporations Law disputes will have were the NatWest development to proceed, to be heard by state Supreme Courts. Before the value of Mr Entsch’s leasehold would in- the decision, Corporations Law work account- crease significantly? Minister, if that is not a ed for only a small proportion of the work of conflict of interest, what is? the judges of the Federal Court and state matters accounted for a very small proportion Senator HILL—I know nothing about the of the work of Family Court judges. The purchase of these properties. Attorney-General is working with his state Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, and territory colleagues to consider longer that is, of course, not a satisfactory answer. term alternatives to the arrangements which The minister not only indicates that he knows were invalidated by the High Court’s deci- nothing but also does not make to the Senate sions. In the meantime, all governments are the offer of finding out about it if he does not working together to ensure that any disruption know anything. But I will ask him to take caused by the decision is kept to a minimum. those issues on notice and provide an urgent Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam response. While he is at it, perhaps he can President, I ask a supplementary question. I explain to the Senate why the Parliamentary thank the minister for that answer and I note Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science that the minister has said that the government and Resources can find the time to be in- has been making preparations. I am wonder- volved in what seem to be shonky land deals ing whether the minister believes that it is and concreting companies. He has respon- actually possible to make legislation that sibilities as the member for Leichhardt as well would be constitutionally valid to deal with as his duties as a frontbencher in this govern- these matters, including the enforceability of ment, but he can still find enough hours in the judgments. I am also wondering whether the day to engage in blatant conflicts of interest resolution of these cross-vesting issues re- with his public responsibilities. quires constitutional change. Senator VANSTONE—The advice that I Senator HILL—I must have misheard have from the Attorney at this point does not Senator Faulkner, because I thought Senator indicate a necessity for that, but that of course Faulkner said these properties were purchased would be an option. It might be one way to in 1996, and I did not think Mr Entsch was handle it, but it is not my advice that it is a a parliamentary secretary in 1996. necessity to handle it that way. Senator Faulkner—I said that as parlia- Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity mentary secretary he released the CSIRO Development report. You weren’t listening. Senator FAULKNER—My question The PRESIDENT—Senator Faulkner, stop without notice is directed to Senator Hill as shouting. Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is the minister aware that the Parliamentary Senator HILL—As for this determination Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science of guilt by the traditional method of Senator and Resources purchased the leasehold to two Faulkner—that is, you just assert it as loudly large investment properties near Trinity Bay as possible—I think that is appalling. I think in June last year? Is the minister aware that that is an appalling abuse of the privilege that Mr Entsch purchased those leaseholds for Senator Faulkner has in this place. Who was $26,000, even though the unimproved capital it said 50 yards of courage? Let us see Sena- value was $195,000 in October 1996? Is it a tor Faulkner walk outside that door and make fact that as parliamentary secretary Mr Entsch these assertions rather than use the coward’s released the CSIRO land and water technical castle to try and make a political point. If report into East Trinity soils? Is the minister Senator Faulkner really believed there was aware that Mr Entsch proceeded to misuse the something in this, the question would not be findings of that report to advocate NatWest’s being asked of me; it would be being asked East Trinity development? Is it a fact that, elsewhere. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5917

Environment Protection and Biodiversity heritage listed. At present there is no such Conservation Legislation process. At present there is no Common- Senator BROWN—My question is to the wealth trigger in an activity that takes place Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I in a world heritage area simply because of the want to test the teeth in this sell-out, now fact of its location. So I would have thought Democrat endorsed, environment bill. On that Senator Brown would have seen a posi- page 9 of the bill there is provision that any tive step forward. company which takes action which is likely I hope that within his question there is a to have a significant impact on world heritage hint that he recognises that for the Common- is liable to a penalty of $5.5 million. In view wealth government to take responsibility for of the advice of the minister’s own depart- world heritage in this way is something that ment— he might like to commend. It is a first step Senator Ian Campbell—Madam President, for the Commonwealth to designate areas of I raise a point of order— national environmental significance and The PRESIDENT—I am listening to the accept a Commonwealth responsibility for question and there are some aspects with it their protection, and then to work hand in that cause difficulty. I would like to hear the glove with state governments that are dealing whole question. with their areas of environmental protection to deliver an overall better national outcome. Senator Ian Campbell—My point of order That is what this government is seeking to is that he cannot ask the minister a question achieve, and it is good that those who want about the bill— to work constructively with this govern- The PRESIDENT—That is correct, and ment—some of the green groups, for exam- that is why I am listening very carefully to it. ple; the Australian Democrats and others— Senator BROWN—In view of the depart- have come on board and asked what can be mental advice to the minister that the pro- delivered. They might ask for more, but what posed roads and forest harvesting operations can be delivered is a significant step forward in the Huon and Picton valleys of Tasmania in the protection of our natural environment. are a significant adverse impact on the current Tasmania wilderness world heritage area, is Instead of just pulling stunts, today could the minister, with the passage of this bill, be a day for Senator Brown to finally turn the going to take action, with that $5.5 million corner and say he wants to contribute to a penalty in hand, against the woodchip corpo- better outcome. He could actually vote for it. rations which are causing that significant He might even come in here for the first time adverse impact on world heritage? with suggestions to improve it. Of course, we asked him whether he wanted to engage in a The PRESIDENT—The first part of the consultation process, and he knew better and question clearly deals with a clause of the bill had no wish to do so. He has never wished to and is out of order. The second part of the work with government towards a better question may have some matters in it that I environmental outcome and in his years in refer the minister to. this place he has never delivered one better Senator HILL—At the risk of being ruled environmental outcome. That must be a out of order in answering the second part, it matter of great disappointment to his constitu- is true that the new scheme for national ency. I would have thought that they sent him protection of the environment includes desig- here to get better environmental outcomes. nating areas of national environmental signifi- Never once, with all the influence he has got cance. For the first time in the history of this of a very valuable vote, has he been prepared country, there will be direct triggers, rather to negotiate to achieve a better environmental than indirect triggers that are linked to irrel- outcome. All he wants to do is pull a stunt— evant activities. One of the areas of national climb a tree, fall in front of a bulldozer and environmental significance which appeared to hope he gets on the evening news. But it is be obvious to me was matters that are world too late. Real environmentalists have gone 5918 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 forward and are actually improving the out- east side of Trinity Inlet near Cairns? Is he comes on the ground, and Senator Brown has aware that this is also the site for the pro- been left behind. posed NatWest East Trinity Development, Senator BROWN—Madam President, I ask which will house up to 20,000 residents and a supplementary question. The minister include 15,000 square metres of retail devel- ducked that; I will ask him to be more direct opment? Can he confirm that when his parlia- with this one. He mentions the Democrat mentary secretary, Mr Entsch, released the cooperative approach. I ask the minister: did report he stated that, in response to such the Democrats approach the government to damning environmental findings, the only ensure that global warming would be a trigger economically viable option may be to allow in this legislation? Did they also approach the NatWest to go ahead with its development government to get clearance of native vegeta- plans? Did Mr Entsch inform the minister that tion as a trigger? Did they ask the government he owns two investment properties near the to establish a commissioner for the environ- development site? Did he inform the minister ment? I ask the minister: on all three key that, if the development goes ahead, he is set Democrat counts did they fail and are their to make a significant profit on his own pro- actions in trying to put a gloss on this disas- ject? trous legislation for the people of Australia Senator MINCHIN—The answer to the more akin to the actions of a politician of the first question is no. The answer to the second past called Quisling when it comes to the question is no. The answer to the third ques- Australian environment? tion is that I cannot confirm that matter; it The PRESIDENT—Senator Hill, if there will have to be checked after question time. are any aspects of that you can comment on On the fourth question, I have no knowledge without debating the legislation before us, you of any alleged investments by Mr Entsch at may do so. the alleged site. Senator HILL—It is largely boring and Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam Presi- irrelevant. The point is that the bill— dent, I ask a supplementary question. Is the obviously Senator Brown has not read the minister saying that he has not read the bill—is an implementation of a COAG agree- CSIRO report? It may well be—I understand ment which sets out areas of national environ- arrangements in portfolios—that that has been mental significance and it allows for further delegated to someone else. I would like him areas to be listed by means of a consultative to at least confirm that he has neither read the process. In relation to global warming, Sena- report nor received, if you like, a submission tor Brown is two weeks behind the game on the basic contents of the report. I would because the government, out of another like that established before we take this any negotiation, has announced that it is prepared further. to enter into that consultation process with Senator MINCHIN—I have not read that stakeholders. So, Senator Brown, it is just a report. pity that you did not come to the government and suggest such an initiative. If you had Albury-Wodonga Freeway done so you would not be so irrelevant. Senator WOODLEY—My question is ad- dressed to the Minister for Regional Services, Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Territories and Local Government, Senator Development Ian Macdonald. I refer to the decision by the Senator ROBERT RAY—I direct my federal government to proceed with the question to Senator Minchin, the Minister for Albury-Wodonga freeway and I ask: (1) does Industry, Science and Resources. Is the the projected costing for the internal route for minister aware of a report released by the this freeway include all costs or does the CSIRO earlier this year which reveals that government expect there will be further costs some of the worst acid and heavy metal incurred in the design and construction stages; pollution in the country is to be found on the (2) do the current estimates include social and Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5919 health costs; (3) has a full costing of the alter- mates committee. The New South Wales native external route been done and is this Roads and Traffic Authority is the main costing available to the public; (4) is the planner of this area. Both the New South government aware that the majority of Albury Wales government and the Victorian govern- residents are opposed to the internal route for ment in fact support the internal route but the the freeway; and (5) should this freeway be New South Wales government has the respon- renamed, as the internal route through the sibility for route selection and associated middle of Albury could not be called a planning and environmental considerations. ‘bypass’? They are a state responsibility in the first Senator IAN MACDONALD—I am aware instance. I am not trying to buck-pass: we the that a road through and by Albury is a con- federal government accept what both state tentious issue. I am aware there was a demon- governments have said in relation to this. stration or gathering outside Parliament House The proposed route, we think, will have a yesterday which, I understand, Senator lot of benefits. It will result in a massive Woodley and Senator Allison attended. I also improvement in the amenity of the residents understand that the Deputy Prime Minister, along the existing route. It will remove the Mr Fischer, left an important cabinet meeting traffic problems currently affecting the com- to go out and speak with the people who had mercial and residential areas of Albury. Even some concerns about that particular issue. if the external route were built, it would Senator, wherever there are different routes provide very little benefit to the residents of for roadways you get conflict and differences Albury because nearly 90 per cent of the of opinion. I assume it is no different in the traffic along the existing route would still Albury area. The proposed route of the road enter Albury, so I am told. Senator, you through Albury-Wodonga is one that the would be pleased to know—as would your Albury City Council has been lobbying constituents or the people who approached successive federal and state governments for you yesterday—that extensive measures are for over 30 years now. The member for being taken to reduce the visual and noise Farrer, the Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr impact of the route. Senator, I appreciate your Lou Lieberman, the member for Indi—just on concern. You are representing a view of some the other side of the border—both support of the people of the Albury area, but I do not that internal route. As well, the Liberal state think it is a majority. This proposal has been member for Albury, Mr Ian Glachan, also reviewed any number of times and we think supports that route and he was just recently we are right. (Time expired) re-elected to his seat. So, Senator, when you Senator WOODLEY—Madam President, say the people of Albury are opposed to it, I I ask a supplementary question. I do thank the cannot imagine that is right when all three minister for his answer. However, I wonder, elected people representing the area support Minister, if you are aware that despite three it and their support is well known and they elections, as you point out—and it is always continue to be re-elected. a debate about whether a mandate applies to I am sorry I did not write down the precise specific items in terms of elections—four questions, and if I miss some of the specific polls have shown that a majority of the questions you have raised, Senator, I will try residents of Albury are opposed to this route? and get you answers to them—but you did Secondly, is the government aware that in raise the question of budgets and money. In most other states road construction avoids the last budget we provided $7 million for internal routes, even through small country further preconstruction works, such as investi- towns? That is certainly true in Queensland, gation and design; preparation of tender as you would know, and I cannot understand documents; and land acquisition for the why the government is supporting the build- construction of this major project. In fact, ing of an internal freeway through Albury your colleague Senator Lyn Allison went when most road authorities avoid such out-of- through this in some detail at the recent esti- date, unhealthy and dangerous options. 5920 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator IAN MACDONALD—Why we That might be something that Senator are supporting the internal route is that it has Reynolds was involved in, as a senator from been investigated any number of times by any Far North Queensland. In relation to number of independent and other authorities. GBRMPA: yes, the Great Barrier Reef Marine It is supported by the two governments—New Park Authority is concerned about damage South Wales and Victoria—and the Albury and potential damage to the reef from acid City Council—and my own department. It has sulphate resulting, in turn, from developments been the subject of very wide consultation up the Queensland coast. It is a complex with the people of Albury and, all in all, all issue. There is a growing awareness of that of the experts and all of the authorities be- fact and the science is improving on what are lieve that it is the right one. I know you do the direct and indirect consequences that can not want me to give a dissertation on polls flow therefrom. That is all interesting back- and opinion polls and mandates but, when ground but I am not sure it is the political you say that a poll of Albury people opposes point the honourable senator is wanting to it, you have to ask what the question was and make. It is a bit sad in fact that she has been how many actually responded to the poll. As dragged into this exercise because I thought we always say in this business, the only poll she was someone of higher standing. that really counts is on election day. This was Senator REYNOLDS—Madam President, a big issue both in the recent federal election I ask a supplementary question. I note that the and in the state election; it was a very big minister has attempted to answer the second issue and candidates who were supporting it part of my question but my supplementary is: were elected by their constituencies. (Time has Mr Entsch had any contact with the expired) minister in relation to the proposed develop- Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity ment? Development Senator HILL—I do not know what Senator REYNOLDS—I address my ques- development you are talking about. tion to the Minister for the Environment and Skase, Mr Christopher: Assets Heritage, Senator Hill. Have the activities of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator KNOWLES—My question is Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Entsch, directed to the Minister for Justice and Cus- in support of the proposed development at toms, Senator Vanstone. Minister, earlier this East Trinity near Cairns been drawn to the month the government announced that it had attention of the minister? Was the minister, allocated over $1.4 million since November his staff, his department or the Great Barrier 1996 to the trustee of Mr Skase’s bankruptcy Reef Marine Park Authority invited to partici- to help him recover Mr Skase’s overseas pate in the recent bus trip around the pro- assets. Minister, could you please inform the posed development site with Mr Entsch and Senate as to the present position with respect the developers? Is the minister aware of the to Mr Skase? widespread concerns that a development in Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator this area will exacerbate the already serious Knowles for her question. She is correct in acid sulphate problems in Trinity Inlet? Has identifying that we did confirm, during the Mr Entsch had any contact with the minister budget estimates hearings, that the federal in relation to the proposed development or the government is continuing to fund the trustee acid sulphate problem? to pursue Mr Skase’s assets. The funding of Senator HILL—I knew that there was an $1.45 million is the extent of the Common- acid sulphate issue and I understood that there wealth’s commitment in this matter in respect were papers to be released on it which would of completed activity. The federal govern- better inform us all of the extent of that ment’s funding has allowed the trustee to problem and hopefully what remedial action conduct overseas investigations in countries might be taken. Otherwise, I do not recall including the United Kingdom, Spain and the matters relating to a bus trip around Cairns. Cayman Islands and applications for injunc- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5921 tive relief in Australia, the Cayman Islands, time of the original extradition proceedings. the United Kingdom and Spain, and the court However, I would also make the point that examination in 1998 of the United Kingdom Australia is naturally prepared to arrange for lawyer. The government is continuing in its his direct return here on a properly equipped commitment to pursue Mr Skase in addition medical evacuation jet should he be sensible to its commitment to fund his trustee in enough to decide that the time for fighting bankruptcy. We will not let him, by any act this is over and it is time for him to come of omission on our part, obviate his obliga- home. We will provide a properly equipped tions as a bankrupt under Australian law. medical evacuation jet to bring him home. However, it would be inappropriate for me to The advice I have is that that evacuation give any details at this stage of further activi- would be at least as safe as the conditions ty being undertaken by the trustee. under which Mr Skase is presently residing in Senators can be assured that the Spanish Majorca. I conclude by saying, in response to authorities remain committed to ensuring that some of the interjections from the other side, the current expulsion proceedings are appro- that those people who gave him a 10-year priately resolved in accordance with Spanish passport, who let him get away in the begin- law. Mr Skase was notified by the Spanish ning, who failed in their extradition proceed- authorities in October 1998 that his applica- ings to bring him back to Australia and who tion for residency had been denied. The released Federal Court documents in relation Spanish authorities presented Mr Skase with to this matter have no business interjecting a formal order. Mr Skase has appealed against whatsoever. that order. Even if he loses his current appeal to the Spanish Administrative Court, he still Goods and Services Tax: Public Housing has a further right of appeal back to the Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is regional Superior Court. The government directed to Senator Newman, the Minister for stands ready to seek his extradition from a Family and Community Services. I refer to country other than Spain. It bears repeating the new public housing measure included in that it is not possible for us to reopen extradi- the government’s GST deal with the Demo- tion proceedings in Spain. What I want to do crats. I ask whether the minister can confirm at this point is put on record the Australian that last week she told state housing ministers government’s appreciation of the continued that: firm commitment from the Spanish govern- ment to ensuring that the current expulsion Additional funding in respect of the impact this will have on state housing authority revenue has been proceedings are appropriately resolved in agreed between the Commonwealth and the states accordance with Spanish law. and territories. I intend now to gazette the draft As to Mr Skase’s health, we have all seen agreement which has been amended to reflect this media reports of Mr Skase’s recurring health additional funding. problems. I am not—and Australian authori- Can the minister inform the Senate precisely ties are not—in a position to comment on how much additional funding the Common- media reports of his health, beyond noticing, wealth has agreed to provide the states as as we all do, that the reports appear to in- compensation for this measure? crease as the legal steps associated with his removal from Spain proceed. Senator NEWMAN—There is additional Senator Robert Ray—That has a ringing funding available for the states in respect of familiarity. the impact of taxation reform on public housing. The amount was $269 million and Senator Schacht—Like someone else we the Commonwealth invited the states to know. decide on how best it could be divided be- Senator VANSTONE—Australian doctors tween them. I have not yet heard whether have never had the opportunity to properly they have been able to reach agreement. The examine Mr Skase. Skase has consistently last time I heard they were finding it impos- refused requests for an examination from the sible to agree and were suggesting that they 5922 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 should come back to the Commonwealth and One thing that particularly pleases me about have us determine it. the Natural Heritage Trust, which also draws a contrast between now and the way that the Senator CHRIS EVANS—I thank the conservation groups practised in the past, is minister for her answer. I have a supplemen- the way in which we are able to support the tary question as a result. Can the minister community on the ground in rectifying its explain why the Treasurer, on 2 June, told the own mistakes, in remedying the damage that House of Representatives that the government has been done. So rather than governments will not dip any further into the surplus to just preaching, or conservation groups just fund the new public housing measure in his protesting under the Bob Brown banner, what GST deal with the Democrats? I believe he we now have are so many community organi- also confirmed today in question time that the sations going out there and remedying the government is not engaging in additional mistakes that have been made. claims for housing from the states. Can the minister explain the difference between the In fact, under the Natural Heritage Trust in answer she has provided to the Senate and the just over two years we have already spent half answer provided by the Treasurer? a billion dollars which has supported more than 6,500 individual projects around Austral- Senator NEWMAN—I think it is a ques- ia. That is very different from the way in tion of the timing of when each was an- which this country approached its environ- nounced. The $269 million was announced mental problems in the past. So yes, I am before 2 June. pleased that out of the sale of a second Telstra Sale: Environment tranche of Telstra we will be able to make another substantial capital investment in our Senator BROWNHILL—My question is natural resource base. We have set up the to the Minister for the Environment and Heri- Natural Heritage Trust, we have invested tage, Senator Hill. The coalition government’s $1.25 billion, we now have another quarter of establishment of the $1.25 billion Natural a billion, we have negotiated and agreed the Heritage Trust has assisted in restoring and arrangements with the states—for Senator enhancing our land and water resources. What Bolkus’s benefit—through which most of are the additional benefits for the environment these programs can be delivered, we set up following the further privatisation of 16.6 per the advisory group at the advice of the Senate cent of Telstra? to oversee the development, under Sir James Hardy, of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Senator HILL—It is another win for the Committee, and we have established the environment because a further $250 million community based state and local assessment will be invested by this government in re- bodies that can give us the best advice as to medial work and also in putting in place how the money can be spent on the ground to processes designed to avoid mistakes that give the best outcomes for each and every have been made in the past. The Natural dollar. Heritage Trust is the largest investment in our natural environment, our natural assets, in the I take the opportunity to give particular history of this country. The Howard govern- credit to the over 4,000 Landcare groups and ment is very proud of it. The amount of $1.25 other community based environment groups billion is now to be topped up with another that are doing all this hard work on the quarter of a billion dollars in a way that no ground. They are not launching themselves on previous government has ever invested our the Prime Minister’s car as a protest because capital. If the sale of two tranches of one they are too busy out there pulling weeds, capital asset, which is what we are talking planting trees and repairing damage that has about—a telecommunications company—can been done. How often has Senator Bob be sold and in part deliver this fantastic Brown been out there pulling the weeds and environmental outcome, it is a further good planting the trees? Never. He is too busy reason for that sale. protesting. The real environmental movement Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5923 has moved on from the days of confrontation In view of the media comments attributed to Mr to delivering better outcomes on the ground. Entsch, it is presumed that the Senator’s question Anyone who wants to join that partnership relates to the issues of whether or not written quotations were received and whether Boral had with government is welcome to do so. It is a been contacted for the works at RAAF Base pity that Bob Brown and the remnants of his Scherger. environmental— Based on the information available to Mr Corey at Senator Faulkner—Senator Bob Brown to the time of the Senate Legislative Hearings on 8 you. June 1999, it was his understanding that written quotes were not obtained, Defence had received a Senator HILL—Senator Bob Brown—I verbal quote from Cape York Concrete and De- sometimes wonder, I have to say—and the fence had only referred to a current Boral price list. remnants of his environmental movement are It is now apparent that both Boral and Cape York not prepared to do so as well. How are we Concrete were contacted on 9 March 1999 by spending the money? We will invest $430 Sergeant Goddard. As a consequence, Cape York million in native vegetation and farm forestry; Concrete provided a written quote and Sergeant $380 million will be invested in our inland Goddard concluded from Boral’s verbal response waters and wetlands. (Time expired) that it was uninterested in the project. Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that On 24 March 1999, Flight Sergeant Jones took over further questions be placed on the Notice from Sergeant Goddard. Additional quantities of Paper. concrete were required for the works and Flight Sergeant Jones approached Cape York Concrete for a revised quote. Flight Sergeant Jones did not ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT approach Boral given its earlier response as con- NOTICE veyed by Sergeant Goddard. A written revised quote was received from Cape York Concrete on Member for Leichhardt: Disclosure of 31 March 1999. Interests Mr Corey did not knowingly mislead the commit- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister tee. His evidence was based on the best information for Family and Community Services and available and this is reflected in his responses to Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the the Senator. Additional information provided to the Status of Women) (3.02 p.m.)—Yesterday I Senator on 21 June 1999 to Questions on Notice from the committee should clarify the outstanding took some questions on notice from Senator issues. Faulkner to the Minister for Defence. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Ministerial Code of Conduct Hansard. Leave granted. Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity Development The answer read as follows— Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister SENATOR FAULKNER, asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, without for the Environment and Heritage) (3.02 notice, on 21 June 1999: p.m)—During question time I said that I would call for a copy of the Prime Minister’s Is the Minister aware that Mr Entsch has stated that Mr Rod Corey, the head of the Defence Estate ministerial guidelines and answer the question Organisation, ‘unwittingly misled’ the Senate asked by Senator Faulkner. The relevant estimates committee the week before last? Can the provision, which is self-explanatory, states: minister inform the Senate in what respect Mr Corey allegedly unwittingly misled the Senate? Ministers are required to resign directorships in What action has the minister taken, as the minister public companies and may retain directorships in in the chair at the estimates hearing, to ensure that private companies only if such company operates, the public record is corrected at the earliest oppor- for example, a family farm, business or portfolio of tunity. investments, and if retention of the directorship is not likely to conflict with the minister’s public duty SENATOR NEWMAN—The Minister for Defence (eg, a minister should question the retention of a has provided the following answer to the honour- directorship in a company in which share holdings able senator’s question: extend beyond the minister’s own family). 5924 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

That might not have been the answer Senator between the Cairns CBD and the new suburb Faulkner wanted, but that is the guideline as opposite, further adding to the value of Mr laid down by the Prime Minister. Entsch’s holdings. What the opposition is I want to add one point to the answer I gave concentrating on is what occurred after the to Senator Reynolds. I have been reminded election last year because Mr Entsch became that we, being the government, supported the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for attendance of two CSIRO scientists at a Industry, Science and Resources. On 2 April conference on acid sulfate soils in the Cairns this year, in that capacity, Mr Entsch region and that we also had an officer from launched a CSIRO study into acid sulfate on Environment Australia attend that conference. the Natwest site and told the Courier-Mail: The only economically viable option might be to Member for Leichhardt: East Trinity allow Natwest to go ahead with its development Development plans. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— That is in the paper. The report gives another Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.05 option. It says: p.m.)—I move: It’s likely that viable management strategies are That the Senate take note of the answers given available for rehabilitation, including reflooding. by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage (Senator Hill), to questions without notice asked by Then you have the workshop—perhaps Senators Faulkner, Cook, Ray and Reynolds today, Senator Hill had officers there. Who knows? relating to the financial interests of the Parlia- There was a workshop on the acid sulfate mentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, problem, sponsored by Mr Entsch, using the Science and Resources (Mr Entsch). services of CSIRO to discuss an initial site I thought it might be useful to provide some investigation that they had carried out on the brief background to the questions which were Natwest site and ways of dealing with the asked of the minister in question time today, acid sulfate soil problem, which we acknow- given that the government ministers seem ledge is a serious issue. Mr Entsch told the particularly ignorant about these matters. The Cairns Post on 20 May this year that the truth is that Mr Entsch bought two lots of Commonwealth is sponsoring further monitor- land at Koombal Park on East Trinity Inlet, ing by CSIRO and the Great Barrier Reef jointly with his wife—that is, 400 metres up Marine Park Authority in Senator Hill’s port- the road from a 700 hectare block that the folio. British banking company Natwest hopes to develop. Although he bought the land for The stench of Entsch just gets worse and $26,000, the unimproved capital value of Mr worse. There is nothing wrong with a local Entsch’s recent acquisitions was $195,000 in member pushing for economic development October 1996. in his electorate—we know that every local member does that. But when a local member In September 1998, the Cairns City Council is the parliamentary secretary and can use the changed the East Trinity development control good offices of his own portfolio organisa- plan to relax planning controls along the East tion—that is, CSIRO—to look into the poten- Trinity foreshore, giving this Natwest plan a tial of East Trinity, and when that same very new lease of life. The proposal currently parliamentary secretary has investment proper- has a couple of stumbling blocks which are ties up the road which depend on the develop- lack of access—you can only get there by ment happening, we say that is not just an water taxi or by a round-about road—and the altruistic concern of a local member. We have severe acid sulfate leaching and other soil concerns that it is a capital-C conflict of toxicity problems that have been raised in interest. Mr Entsch is obviously desperately question time today. trying to find a way to ameliorate the acid If the Natwest development goes ahead, it sulfate soils problem using CSIRO, desperate- will house up to 20,000 residents and include ly trying to promote the NatWest project 15,000 square metres of retail. In time, it will which will inevitably lead to a bridge bring- also necessitate the building of a bridge ing his property within a few minutes drive Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5925 from Cairns. But the Prime Minister, as weak ably required for Australians, whether they be as he is, as incapable as he is of exercising health, education or any such fields. moral authority, should deliver to the Austral- In such circumstances as these, one can ian public what everyone has been waiting understand why an opposition would be for: some leadership. Mr Entsch must be desperate to find some issue that is irrelevant stripped of his parliamentary secretaryship this to the rest of Australia but on which they afternoon. (Time expired) hope they can get a headline or two. We saw that demonstrated in the stunt from Senator Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister Faulkner in his presentation a moment ago. for the Environment and Heritage) (3.10 We all picked the grab that he hopes will be p.m.)—I appreciate that it must be very the one on the television tonight. difficult for this opposition at the moment. He tried to trick me—all right, I suppose Here we have Australia in an economic that is part of the game during question circumstance where it is the envy of the time—on what the rules are that the Prime world. Having inherited a deficit of over $10 Minister has set down in relation to directors. billion, in just three years this Howard He got that wrong and I suspect he has got a government has turned the economy to pros- lot of other things wrong as well. Okay, Mr perity, prosperity particularly envied within Entsch, we concede, made a mistake and did our region. This prosperity has been achieved not list his directorships—not a big mistake, through good policies of soundly restraining because he had actually listed his share- expenditure, reforming industrial relations holdings. We know that Labor members on laws, privatising assets that are no longer the other side made the same mistake. I did appropriate in public hands and using the not hear Senator Cook accuse them of using money to repay debt, keeping down interest the dopey defence. And when Senator Rich- rates—the lowest level in 30 years—keeping ardson—former minister in this place—forgot down inflation to a stable and historically low that he was a member of a board that ran a level, giving the opportunity for Australians radio station, Senator Cook did not come in to prosper and, in particular, bringing the here and say, ‘He is entitled to the dopey unemployment rate down to the lowest level defence.’ Of course, there is one set of rules it had been before we had the recession that for the coalition and another set of rules for was inflicted upon us deliberately by the the Labor Party. former Labor Prime Minister, Mr Keating. Nothing has been demonstrated against Mr The government is delivering so many Entsch that would suggest in any way that benefits to the community as a whole, the there has been improper behaviour on his latest of which we trust will be implemented part. He made a mistake. He owned up to the in the next few days, and that is fantastic tax mistake. The Prime Minister accepted the reform for this country. That tax reform will explanation, because it was a reasonable finally deliver to us a contemporary taxation explanation in the circumstances system with $12 billion of reductions of What this opposition ought to do, instead of income tax to put in place even more incen- trawling in the gutter in this way, is to start tives for small business to grow, to invest and looking at some questions of policy, to start to provide jobs. It will give particular benefit organising itself into an opposition that might to exporters to address the current account one day be capable of governing again, to set difficulties which Senator Cook reminds us of itself some goals to do better than when it so often and get rid of the wholesale sales tax was last in government, to develop its poli- that is so inefficient and cumbersome and, cies, to get some new blood on the front- with all the other benefits, get rid of the bench, and give some of the newcomers a go, poverty trap so that all Australians can benefit because I am sure they could do better than in that way. The tax reform will provide a the tired lot that sit on the front bench in this capital base from which governments in the place. When that starts to happen—and I do future can deliver the services that are reason- not care whether it is the new way, the 5926 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 second way or the third way: it is good to see The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! there are a couple of backbenchers wanting to Please do not reflect upon a member. make a difference, and it is a pity that the Senator ROBERT RAY—This is leadership of the Labor Party, including SeaChange all over again; this is reality Senator Cook, cannot pick up the challenge reflecting fiction. What we have, obviously as well—then the Labor Party will start to be without the knowledge of his senior minister relevant, and then the Australian people will Senator Minchin, is this particular parlia- see that they are at least entitled to consider- mentary secretary trying to use a proper ation. But whilst they just continue trawling scientific report to get this massive develop- in the gutter on irrelevancies they will not be ment going. What is the advantage to him? seen as relevant. (Time expired) His property is up the road. Once the bridge Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (3.15 goes in and once the development starts there, p.m.)—Imagine that last contribution. Imagine his property is going to go through the roof. that Senator Hill was able to speak for five Ask yourself how he got it so cheap—most minutes without breath. What a transformation people know. Most people know what the from half an hour ago to now. He could not auction process was on this occasion. Sure, he answer anything at question time. He would did buy the land before he went on the front not even take it on notice, but eventually he bench, and so buying the land is legitimate; did—‘I’ll go and make inquiries.’ Suddenly, but he cannot use his front bench position to half an hour later, he is voluble. But what he then enrich himself. He is the one that con- is doing is defending Mr Entsch on the first venes the workshop on the area. Guess what: set of charges. Today there is a new set of after the workshop, they have a bus that does charges, so he is playing catch-up. a tour of all the development area. I do not If Senator Hill wants to lecture us on our know if they stop at the ex-caravan park that behaviour in this place, one of the crucial Mr Entsch owns, but a lot of people get on responsibilities for opposition is to hold the bus. Most of the Queensland government governments accountable. The main reason people do not get on the bus, because they are that Senator Coonan and everyone else in the awake-up. They know that something stinks Howard government want to change the about this particular issue, and so they do not Senate rules is not about legislation—they can get on it. usually stitch up a sleazy deal with a few The answers that we have received today, opportunists; that is never hard. They hate the admittedly without notice, shed no light on scrutiny. They hate being held accountable. this at all. What Senator Hill did today was defend his past crimes, not his current ones. In this case, we are entitled to ask questions This is the second strike and, if anyone thinks about Mr Entsch’s behaviour. We are entitled there will not be a third strike, do not bother. to ask why, when he was bringing down that One of my pleas is to those people in North CSIRO report, he put that fantastic spin on it. Queensland: stop sending us information on This is a serious report; it goes to the prob- Mr Entsch. We cannot deal with it all at the lems of the East Trinity area. Who other than moment. It is flooding in, and it shows Mr Mr Entsch would have the gall to say that the Entsch as an unscrupulous businessman in the only way you solve those problems is to put north of Queensland. on a massive development; that 13 million cubic feet of topsoil was needed to raise it all The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! by about four feet; and that a bridge be put Please do not reflect upon a member of the straight across to the CBD of Cairns. In spite other house. of the fact of all the defence facilities and the Senator ROBERT RAY—Madam Deputy oil and sugar facilities further on, you are President, let me say that the information going to whack a bridge right across it. Mr coming in from North Queensland does not Entsch is into that. He was referred to in the do Mr Entsch any credit in any of the busi- other place today as the Bob Jelly of the ness dealings he has been involved in. The north. Senate and the other place have only been Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5927 told about one-tenth of it so far. Many other to Mr Keating not even disclosing his pecuni- issues are now emerging as to his behaviour. ary interest in the matter. Sure, I do not mind, I do not take offence At least Mr Entsch put it on the table for when Mr Entsch refers to us on this side as everyone to see that he had a pecuniary ‘sewer rats’, but I tell you what: when this is interest. Where was Mr Keating’s declaration all over, it will be Sewer Rats 10, Mr Entsch of a pecuniary interest in relation to the nil. If you have got form like he has got form, piggery? In fact, he lied to the parliament. He you will be held accountable. denied his involvement, and it has now been No amount of bluster and bluff by Senator revealed that in fact he did have such an Hill is going to stop us from pursuing these involvement and such a pecuniary interest. issues—and the Prime Minister on them. The These people opposite still idolise Mr Keating Prime Minister simply will not enforce any as supposedly a great leader of this country. code of conduct whatsoever. It is just the Well, if you want to apply some sort of Wild West rules that are being applied here. standard to the parliamentary secretary Mr Mr Howard is too weak an individual to Entsch, why is it that you did not even think actually discipline people such as Mr Entsch about applying that standard to your former that misuse their position. (Time expired) leader? Why don’t you stand up and have Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary some credibility and say, ‘We now agree that Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (3.20 Mr Keating lied. He should have disclosed his p.m.)—The only thing that I could agree with interest in the piggery’? in relation to the contributions from Senator Senator Cook—Madam Deputy President, Faulkner and Senator Ray is the self-descrip- on a point of order: that is an unparliamentary tion of Senator Ray as a sewer rat. reflection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order, Senator ABETZ—He is no longer a Senator! I have asked other senators not to member of the parliament. reflect upon other members, so please do not The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! I continue this reflection. will rule on the point of order. I do not need Senator ABETZ—Madam Deputy Presi- any help, Senator Abetz. dent, I trust you will ensure that that is the Senator Cook—Madam Deputy President, course that you adopt with those on the other my point of order is that that is an unparlia- side. Last night, we had a fantastic result in mentary reflection on a distinguished member relation to the further 16.6 per cent sale of of this parliament. Telstra. What do the Labor Party do in re- sponse? Devoid of any alternative policies for The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—He is no this country, they jump straight back into the longer a member of parliament, therefore gutter where they wallow, thinking that there is no point of order. somehow, if they dredge around enough, they Senator ABETZ—The Australian people, might be able to convince the Australian through that intervention by Senator Cook, people that they ought to be entitled to govern have yet again witnessed how the Labor Party this nation again. will jump to Mr Keating’s defence. Senator Of course, whenever they jump back into Cook, of course, was a senior minister of that the gutter and trawl around, the thing they government sitting around the cabinet table cannot overcome is the political corpse of the knowing about Mr Keating’s piggery involve- former leader, Mr Keating. If ever there was ment and getting involved with Indonesia. a conflict of interest in this nation, it was Senator Cook—You’re the liar. while Senator Faulkner and Senator Ray sat The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator around the cabinet table, undoubtedly fully Cook, will you please withdraw that. aware of Mr Keating’s outrageous involve- ment in a piggery and his involvement with Senator Cook—Withdrawn. the Indonesian contact—with not a word from Senator ABETZ—If he did not know those two senior cabinets ministers in relation about the piggery involvement, it indicates 5928 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 that the Prime Minister of the time, Mr In the case of Mr Warren Entsch, what has Keating, made no declaration whatsoever. been the defence? The defence for Mr Entsch Those in the Labor Party, those opposite, has again been articulated today by the have the choice now to let us know whether Leader of the Government in this chamber, they knew about the financial interests of Senator Hill, when he said that Mr Entsch their former Prime Minister. If you did, you made a mistake in filling out his forms, that sat here in guilty silence all along knowing he inadvertently filled out his forms improper- that the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, ly. What is this person who cannot fill out a was lying to the parliament and you did not form in which he is supposed to set out his raise one word of objection to it. Where does pecuniary interests? This person is the parlia- that leave those opposite? Without any feath- mentary secretary to the Department of ers to fly with in this debate. But, more Industry, Science and Resources, a central tragically for the Australian people, you have parliamentary department in the running of no policies to fly with either. this nation. He is someone who is charged with overseeing industry policy for all indus- That is why question time after question try in Australia, someone charged with work- time you waste the time of this parliament ing with the minister helping to deliver with motions to take note of answers. You outcomes for the science community of waste the time of this parliament in trawling Australia and someone with a view on re- through the gutter because you have no policy sources and resource development of Austral- positions to put before the Australian people. ia. You seek to regain office by besmirching The defence for Mr Entsch is that he cannot people rather than coming forward with good, fill out a parliamentary form. This is the sound policies. The challenge for people like dopey defence: he was too damned dumb to Senator Ray, Senator Faulkner and indeed be able to do it right. If he is not guilty of Senator Cook is not to trawl through the being, in this case, misleading, he is guilty of gutter. I suggest to Senator Cook that in his being dopey and he should not be occupying contribution he talk about policy and how he a high office in this parliament and discharg- would like to improve the economic well- ing responsibilities on behalf of Australian being of this nation. taxpayers, because he has not got the native cunning just to know where to put his name Senator COOK (Western Australia— and how to write down the companies for Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the which he is an owner or shareholder. Senate) (3.25 p.m.)—I will not be provoked Senator Ray said that he is very much like by Senator Eric Abetz in his smearing of a Bob Jelly, the mayor of Pearl Bay in the TV distinguished Prime Minister of Australia in series SeaChange. I remind the chamber that order to try to deflect parliamentary attention by ironic coincidence the actor who plays from his colleague, the parliamentary secre- Bob Jelly in SeaChange is John Howard. But tary to the Department of Industry, Science the Prime Minister, John Howard, who is a and Resources, Mr Warren Entsch, and his different person from that actor, has in fact alleged improper behaviour and certainly his acted away from his own standard of conduct. proven failure to comply with the Prime Let me quote from the Melbourne Sunday Age Minister’s code of conduct. Before the last of 13 June, just last weekend. An article by election, the Prime Minister said he was going Shaun Carney, the political correspondence to introduce into Australia a higher level of for the Melbourne Sunday Age, is headed public probity. The Prime Minister broke ‘Howard’s code is cracked.’ He begins: down his own standards time after time after time as more and more members of his own So now we know. Unless a frontbencher in the Howard Government is, say, caught on video frontbench were caught in contravention of sticking up a 7-eleven, perhaps sporting a black- the terms of that code of conduct—in contra- and-white striped T-shirt and black mask in the vention of its explicit terms as well as the style of the McDonald’s hamburglar just for effect, spirit of that code of conduct. resignation is out of the question. Sounds ludicrous, Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5929 of course, but so does virtually everything the because this week alone is going to be a Government has said and done in its defence of momentous week for the government. parliamentary secretary Warren Entsch. Last night we passed the Telstra (Transition The next paragraph reads: to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998, to sell The case against Entsch, half-owner of Cape 49 per cent of Telstra, and with that came a York Concrete, which won a $175,000 contract $1 billion package for rural and regional with the Defence Department in far north Queens- areas. Later on this week, or perhaps early land is open and shut. By failing to disclose his next week, we will be passing the most directorship of the company and two others, he significant tax change in this country—since breached the Prime Minister’s code of conduct, plain and simple. Federation, ever. We have done it through a very tortuous path and with agreement with Plain and simple, Madam Deputy President, the Democrats, with the opposition completely he breached it, but will the Prime Minister out of the play. With that tax change we will defend his own code of conduct? Will he start to reduce the former Labor government’s demand satisfaction? Will he sack his parlia- debt. Both are major reforms within one mentary secretary? No, he has defended him. week. And what is the opposition doing? Therefore, he has devalued that code of What is their target? What is their focus for conduct, devalued integrity in public office, the whole week? An attack on a frontbencher devalued probity on behalf of frontbenchers in the hope of getting a spurious scalp. in his own government, and devalued as a consequence the standing of his government They are attempting to establish that the and the institution of this parliament. There is standards in this parliament have lowered. now only one way out for the Prime Minister, When we came into government, they were in view of the disclosures on the Trinity Bay never so low. In fact, the previous govern- fiasco adduced in the questioning in question ment as a whole—and none less than Senator time today where Mr Entsch is a compliant Cook—were lying to the Australian public. player in providing approval for a develop- Senator Cook—Madam Deputy Presi- ment he has a financial interest in. (Time dent— expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Cook, if you are going to take a point of Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (3.30 order, you should be on your feet to do so. p.m.)—As my colleague Senator Calvert, the Government Whip, will attest, we know only Senator Cook—Madam Deputy President, too well—having served in coalition for 13 I am on my feet. I think the senator used an years in opposition, long and cold as it was— unparliamentary term. He should promptly that these moments of personal attack upon a withdraw it and observe the decorum of the frontbencher and the chance perhaps to get a chamber. scalp are great moments of politics. They get The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I did not your own side excited, they even get the hear whether you did, Senator McGauran. If media excited, and they sustain your troops you did use an unparliamentary term, with- through those long years in opposition. We draw it, please. know that only too well. Senator McGAURAN—I do wish to But the opposition have to ask themselves: withdraw it. I tried to save myself at the last are the likes of Senators Cook, Ray and moment. The previous government lied to the Faulkner going to get them into government? Australian people in relation to budget mat- Is this issue really cutting it out there in the ters, and Senator Cook was part of that public? The answer to both is no. Is there any government. No less, they went to the elec- substitute for policy? The answer is no. So, in tion saying that they had a surplus, when they the final analysis, the opposition—if they did not. We had to introduce a Charter of want to get into government; if they want to Budget Honesty, which is now recognised start making inroads into this government’s throughout the world. In political legend and credibility—ought to start on the policy front, political lexicon, there was the sports rorts 5930 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 affair—the whiteboard affair. You cannot go CONDOLENCES to a political meeting where that is not made fun of and a joke is not raised in that particu- Luck, Mr Aubrey William George lar area. We had a Prime Minister who could The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—It is with not fill in his own tax form on two occasions. deep regret that I inform the Senate of the So when it comes to establishing parlia- death on 9 June 1999 of Aubrey William mentary standards, I would say the parlia- George Luck, member of the House of Repre- mentary standards have well and truly been sentatives for the division of Darwin from lifted. 1951 to 1955 and the division of Braddon from 1955 to 1958. In relation to Mr Entsch, you have to look PETITIONS at the core issues of concern. Did he use his position to influence? The answer to that is The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for no. Did he gain financially? The answer to presentation as follows: that is no. Were the proper tender procedures Sexuality Discrimination undertaken by the defence forces? The answer To the Honourable the President and Members of to that is yes. Was there any conflict of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. interest with his particular portfolio? The The Petition of the undersigned shows: That answer to that is no. Where is the Labor Party Australian citizens oppose social, legal and eco- on the High Court constitutional issue? They nomic discrimination against people on the basis of seem to have backed off from that at 1,000 their sexuality or transgender identity and that such miles an hour; it is no longer raised. Are you discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic going to take Mr Entsch to the High Court? society. That is no longer an issue. Your petitioners request that the Senate should: pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of They have scooted around looking for sexuality or transgender identity so that such something else against Mr Entsch. The reason discrimination or vilification be open to redress at for that is there is only one case that they can a national level. use as precedent back in 1975—the Webster by Senator Bartlett (from 105 citizens). case, which happened to be about a former National Party senator. It is quite obvious Genetically Engineered Food how the High Court would interpret that. It To the Honourable President and Members of the wouldn’t interpret on a narrow basis. Senate in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned call on the It has to be reasonably established that there Federal Parliament to ensure that the current regulations relating to food content are retained by was knowledge, there was involvement and the Australian New Zealand Food Authority and there was remuneration. In other words, you that adequate food labelling is introduced which have to use a commonsense approach, and allows the Australian community to make a real that is why the Labor Party have backed off choice when it comes to the purchase and con- in relation to the High Court and constitution- sumption of food. al questions. That is why they are ferreting Your Petitioners ask that the Senate support around looking for other issues in relation to legislation which will ensure that all processed food Mr Entsch. The truth of the matter is that the products sold in Australia be fully labelled. This code of conduct cannot be so threadbare as to labelling must include: not include people who come into this parlia- all additives ment with business acumen and business percentage of ingredients background. nutritional information country of origin The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The food derived from genetically engineered organ- time for the debate has expired. isms by Senator Bartlett (from 75 citizens). Question resolved in the affirmative. Petitions received. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5931

NOTICES Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the next day of sitting: Presentation That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for Senator Stott Despoja to move, on the an Act to amend the War Crimes Act 1945. War next day of sitting: Crimes Amendment Bill 1999. That the Senate— Senator Ian Campbell to move, on the (a) notes the first statement on genetically- modified organisms by a major medical next day of sitting: organisation, the British Medical That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for Association’s report, The Impact of Genetic an Act to validate certain decisions made, and acts Modification on Agriculture, Food and and things done, under Part XVA of the Customs Health, launched on 18 May 1999; Act 1901. Customs (Tariff Concession System (b) recognises the association’s concerns regard- Validations) Bill 1999. ing the effects of genetically-modified foods on human health and the environment; and Senator Hill to move, on the next day of (c) endorses the association’s recommendations, sitting: including: (contingent on the expiration of time for the (i) an open-ended moratorium on the com- consideration of a bill under standing order 142) mercial planting of genetically-modified crops until there is scientific consensus on That so much of the standing orders be suspend- the safety of such crops, ed as would prevent non-government amendments being put and determined. (ii) detailed research on allergic reactions to genetically-modified products and the (contingent on A New Tax System (Goods and cumulative effect of genetically-modified Services) Tax Bill 1998 and 26 related bills being organisms and transgenic DNA in the called on) environment and food chain, (iii) the segregation at source, identification That so much of the standing orders be suspend- and traceability of all genetically-modi- ed as would prevent the moving in committee of fied products, the whole of an amendment which is the same in substance as an amendment already negatived by (iv) the provision of satisfactory evidence by the committee or which is inconsistent with an biotechnology companies that genetically- amendment already agreed to by the committee. modified crops will not increase agricul- tural chemical use, and Postponement (v) an inter-governmental consultation to review the World Trade Agreement to Items of business were postponed as fol- ensure that governments rather than lows— companies determine whether countries accept, with or without restriction, the General business notice of motion No. 144 importation and use of genetically-modi- standing in the name of Senator Bourne for fied seeds, plants or foods. today, relating to the 50th anniversary of the Chinese invasion of Tibet, postponed till 12 Senator Crane to move, on the next day of August 1999. sitting: That the time for the presentation of the report General business notice of motion No. 147 of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport standing in the name of Senator Bourne for Legislation Committee on the provisions of the today, relating to human right abuses in China Petroleum Retail Legislation Repeal Bill 1998 be and Tibet, postponed till 12 August 1999. extended to 29 June 1999. General business notice of motion No. 233 Senator Allison to move, on the next day standing in the name of Senator Margetts for of sitting: today, relating to global capitalism, postponed till 23 June 1999. That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications, Information Business of the Senate order of the day No. 2, Technology and the Arts References Committee on relating to the proposed reference of matters to the development of Hinchinbrook Channel be the Finance and Public Administration Refer- extended to 24 August 1999. ences Committee, postponed till 29 June 1999. 5932 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

COMMITTEES invitation was not extended, the meeting did not occur, no comment was made about the Rural and Regional Affairs and then Senator Kernot and I do not use lan- Transport Legislation Committee guage of the type that was alleged. Extension of Time ELECTORAL AMENDMENT (SENATE Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request ELECTIONS) BILL 1999 of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to: That the time for presentation of the report of the First Reading Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legisla- Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: tion Committee, in respect of the 1999-2000 budget estimates, be extended to 24 June 1999. That the following bill be introduced: a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 1918 to provide for the division of States into Wards for the purpose of choosing senators, and for Senator COLSTON (Queensland) (3.37 related purposes. p.m.)—I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Motion (by Senator Colston) agreed to: Leave granted. That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Senator COLSTON—I thank the Senate. An article headed ‘Rank outsider’ appeared in Bill read a first time. the Weekend Australian of 19 and 20 June Second Reading 1999. Because this piece of pure vitriol may become the subject of legal proceedings I do Senator COLSTON (Queensland) (3.40 not intend to comment on it at this stage, p.m.)—I move: apart from one particular matter. One part of That this bill be now read a second time. the article read as follows: I seek leave to table the explanatory memo- Cheryl Kernot came to Canberra in 1990, Queens- randum and to have the second reading lander to Queenslander, Colston invited her to his speech incorporated in Hansard. office. "Mal was so nice to her," recalls Andrew Hillard, a research officer on Colston’s staff. "I The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave thought: ‘This is great. Even though she’s a granted? Democrat, at least he’s trying to strike some kind of allegiance with her.’ Which he was. There was Senator Faulkner—The opposition is a vote coming up for the Deputy President of the happy to grant leave to table the explanatory Senate, which he desperately wanted. But as soon memorandum to the bill and, in the normal as she walked out the door, Mal just turned to me course of events, will also be willing to grant and said: ‘F. . . ing pretentious bitch.’" leave for the second reading speech to be That is the end of the quote. Two particular incorporated. I just want to be satisfied that aspects of this excerpt are false. One of these the government has seen the second reading is the comment that I was alleged to have speech and that it does relate to the bill. If made; I do not use language of this type. The that is the case, and I can be assured of that, remark is a figment of Andrew Hillard’s vivid then leave will be granted. imagination. The second is that the meeting The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave never occurred. I did not invite the then granted? Senator Kernot to my office, nor did she call on me so that I could be ‘so nice to her’ or Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— ‘strike some kind of allegiance with her’. Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I seek leave to make a short statement. I am not certain whether Mr Hillard con- cocts stories such as this one because I re- Leave granted. vealed at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Senator FAULKNER—I have indicated, hearing why I dismissed him as an employee Madam Deputy President, that the opposition or because he is a pathological liar. Perhaps is happy to grant leave for the explanatory both reasons are appropriate. To recap: the memorandum to be tabled. I am trying to get Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5933 clarity, but we really need the attention of the priate that we look at the speech and then government here. give him an assurance that it relates to the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I under- bill. stand, Senator Faulkner. Senator Faulkner—I just want to be Senator FAULKNER—Thank you, Madam assured that there are no extraneous matters. Deputy President. Shall I recap for the benefit Senator IAN CAMPBELL—I do under- of the parliamentary secretary? stand where you are coming from, and I am happy to proceed on that basis. So I guess The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I think that leave is granted. might be helpful. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I will put it Senator FAULKNER—I have indicated two ways: is leave granted for the explanatory through you, Madam Deputy President, to the memorandum to be tabled? Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, in relation to the Electoral Leave granted. Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill 1999, the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave opposition is willing to grant leave for the granted for the second reading speech to be explanatory memorandum to be tabled. Leave incorporated? has been sought for the second reading speech Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— to be incorporated in Hansard, and I have Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.44 indicated on behalf of the opposition that I do p.m.)—I again seek leave to make a brief not have a problem with that as long as the statement. government can assure me that the second Leave granted. reading speech relates to the bill, not to other extraneous matters. In that circumstance, I am Senator FAULKNER—I do not particular- more than happy to grant leave. ly wish to refuse leave, which means that the senator has to read the speech into Hansard. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Would it be I merely want to be assured, by whatever the wish of the parliament to defer? mechanism you care to invoke, that the Senator FAULKNER—No. If Senator Ian speech relates to the bill—and only to the Campbell can give me an extra commitment bill—and that is fine; leave will be granted. in that regard— But I want to be sure that there are not Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western extraneous issues being canvassed in the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the speech. Minister for Communications, Information An honourable senator interjecting— Technology and the Arts) (3.43 p.m.)— Senator FAULKNER—It is not my name Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to I am concerned about. I couldn’t give a damn make a short statement. what he said about me. Leave granted. Senator Colston—I was going to indicate Senator IAN CAMPBELL—I regard it as that I would read the speech, but Senator unusual. I know the normal protocol is that Campbell might have some different message. one would want to look at a document before Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western it was tabled. The government obviously Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the benefits greatly, and I guess the chamber Minister for Communications, Information does, from having most of its second reading Technology and the Arts) (3.45 p.m.)—by speeches incorporated. We welcome the indul- leave—I have now had a chance to peruse the gence of the Senate in ensuring that literally speech, and I am quite confident that the hundreds of second reading speeches are speech relates to the bill. It is a relatively incorporated by ministers in any given year. short speech and, on my quick reading of the We normally always extend that courtesy to speech, it looks to be all in order. I would be people introducing second reading bills. I am very happy to grant leave and can give that happy if Senator Faulkner thinks it is appro- assurance to opposition senators. 5934 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is leave formalise and acknowledge what, in actual fact, is granted for the incorporation of the second really happening in our "House of Review". reading speech? In the context of the present debate, several sugges- tions have been canvassed regarding the possible Leave granted. electoral system on which the Senate is based. I consider that this bill is a concrete step towards the The speech read as follows— pursuit of Senate reform. I will outline the main We are fast approaching the centenary of the features of this bill. establishment of our Federal Parliament. Just as the Section 7 of the Constitution states, among other last decade of the 19th century witnessed impas- things, that "The Senate shall be composed of sioned debate on the matters concerning the senators for each State, directly chosen by the constitution and the nature of the two houses in the people of the State, voting until the Parliament soon-to-be Federal Parliament, so too do we otherwise provides, as one electorate." The parlia- witness renewed debate on these issues as the 20th ment has not otherwise provided and senators are century draws to a close. But the similarity in the therefore chosen by the people of the various topics is only superficial; for the nature of the States—and now the Territories—each voting as discussion is as different and divergent as the one electorate. century or so that has passed between. The Electoral Amendment (Senate Elections) Bill In the 1890s, our Constitutional debate was not 1999 proposes to alter the manner in which sena- about becoming a republic or remaining a constitu- tors are elected to the Senate. Rather than represent tional monarchy. It was about turning a group of the State as one electorate, the bill provides that disparate colonies into a working federation. The each of the states is to be divided into six Wards, debate over the form of the Senate at the time was each ward having two representatives in the Senate. closely linked to what our forebears apparently The representatives will still be regarded as Sena- envisaged the role of the states in that federation tors for the particular State in which their Wards would be. That debate culminated in a limiting of exist. At a periodical half senate election, each the powers of the larger colonies, New South Ward would return one senator for that State while Wales and Victoria, and gave the colonies equal at a Senate election following a dissolution, each status as States of the Commonwealth. If we fast- Ward would return two senators. The bill does not forward to the late 1990s, we find debate about alter the method of selection of Territory senators. power is still with us, only this time it is about the At a Senate election following a dissolution, powers of minor parties and independents. This bill senators would be chosen using the current system will allow the Senate, the House of Representatives of proportional representation, but at a half-senate and the wider community to consider the issues election preferential voting, as currently used for involved. The bill provides for the division of House of Representatives elections, would be relied States into Wards for the purpose of choosing upon. It is proposed that ticket voting be retained senators. It will limit the opportunity for minor for both types of elections in order to minimise the party members and independents to exercise power possibility of informal votes where a large number far beyond the extent of their electoral support. of candidates is involved. I have been considering the issues in this bill for The bill also makes consequential changes to the some time now—that it corresponds with contem- administration of the electoral system. The Austral- porary public debate on the role of the Senate is ian Electoral officer in each State retains primary merely coincidental. The contentious issues in the responsibility for administration of the Ward current debate include the question of a "mandate", system, including the establishment and mainte- "fair representation" and what it means to review nance of separate Ward rolls. The Australian government legislation. Reference is still made to Electoral Officer is empowered to make whatever the importance of a "states’ house" as the founding arrangements are necessary to maintain the rolls. It fathers would have intended the Senate to be versus is envisaged that this would involve administrative the current existence of a partisan approach to the arrangements with the divisional Returning Officers review of legislation proposed by the Government to ensure that information acquired by DROs in the in the House of Representatives. While the pres- course of their maintenance of divisional rolls is ence of independent senators from time to time has passed on to the Australian Electoral Officer for given us a glimpse of how the Senate could work corresponding action in relation to the Ward rolls. in favour of specific states—and perhaps to the The bill also provides for some modifications to the detriment of others—the Senate now is party-based existing forms for nomination for the Senate. and it is this reality with which we must deal. Thus As the expansion of the administrative structure the division of States into Wards as proposed by required to administer the Ward system is untested, this bill will more accurately reflect the contempo- the bill provides that the establishment, mainte- rary mechanisms of this House—it merely seeks to nance and use of Ward rolls will be reviewed by Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5935 the Australian Electoral Commission five years GOODS AND SERVICES TAX: after the commencement of the act and a report of ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS the review will be tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (3.46 p.m.)—I ask that general business notice of The bill also provides for transitional arrangements. motion No. 237, standing in my name for Senators holding office at the commencement of today and relating to an order for production the act will continue to represent their States as a of documents, be taken as a formal motion whole for the remainder of their terms of office. It will be necessary for the initial distribution of each and, in doing that, indicate that, after discus- State into Wards to be undertaken as a first step to sions with the Manager of Government Busi- implementing the system. If a Senate election is ness, I will be moving it in amended form. held before a buffer period of twenty-one days has The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any elapsed after this distribution process is completed, the transitional provisions provide that senators will objection to this motion being taken as for- be elected in accordance with the current system. mal? There is no objection. Any casual vacancies occurring in relation to the Senator BOLKUS—I seek leave to amend places held by senators representing States as a whole would be filled on the same basis. the return date on the motion from after question time tomorrow to midday on Friday, There is some argument that section 15 of the 25 June. Constitution, as changed by the Constitution Leave granted. Alteration (Senate Casual Vacancies) 1977, en- trenches direct elections of senators by the people Senator BOLKUS—My motion will now of a state as a whole. It is not entirely clear wheth- read: er section 15 precludes the appointment of a person by a State Parliament to represent a Ward, as That there be laid on the table by the Leader of opposed to the State as a whole. To safeguard the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no against this possibility, item 17 of the bill provides later than midday on Friday, 25 June 1999, the that a senator appointed to a casual vacancy in a following documents: State is deemed to represent the Ward in respect of (a) ‘Analysis of the impact of the proposed which the vacancy arose, for the purposes of the taxation changes on alternative fuel use and Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. the alternative fuel market’, prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics; and Section 13 of the Constitution requires the Senate (b) any other modelling commissioned by the to decide who shall be "long term" and "short Government of the environmental impacts term" senators following a dissolution of the of the goods and services legislation as Senate. In part, that section provides that "the introduced or as proposed to be amended. Senate shall divide the Senators chosen for each State into two classes, as nearly equal in number Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western as practicable; and the places of the senators of the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the first class shall become vacant at the expiration of Minister for Communications, Information three years, and the places of those of the second Technology and the Arts) (3.47 p.m.)—by class at the expiration of six years, from the leave—It is obviously not our call here—we beginning of their term of service". do not have a majority of senators—but I do The decision of which Senators are to be "long understand there might be a majority for the term" and "short term" is the untrammelled right of proposition that the documents be tabled by the Senate. It is expected, however, that should the no later than the commencement of the debate proposed legislation in this bill be passed, in any on the relevant bills, which are the so-called future dissolution of the Senate, the new Senate diesel fuel bills or whatever you want to call would choose one senator from each Ward to be a them, and the government would not oppose senator of the first class and the other senator of the motion if it were amended in those terms. that Ward to be a member of the second class. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (3.48 I commend the bill to the Senate. p.m.)—by leave—I would still prefer to stick to the return date that I mentioned, because Debate (on motion by Senator Calvert) we would of course like some time to look at adjourned. that documentation before the debate starts. 5936 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (3.48 p.m.)— AYES by leave—I would just like clarification— Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. through you, Madam Deputy President—from Sherry, N. West, S. M. the government that what we are talking NOES about here is the debate on the diesel fuel Abetz, E. Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. component of the GST legislation in the Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. parliament as a whole—because the informa- Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G. tion ought to be available in either chamber. Chapman, H. G. P. Colston, M. A. It is going to be a bit late if it only applies Coonan, H. Crane, W. here in the Senate, and it would be important Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. to have that information so it can be assessed Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. Heffernan, W. Herron, J. before the Senate debate gets under way. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is there any Knowles, S. C. Lightfoot, P. R. objection to this motion being amended in the Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. form outlined by Senator Bolkus? There being McGauran, J. J. J. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. no objection, Senator Bolkus, would you like Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. to move your amended motion? Reid, M. E. Synon, K. M. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (3.49 Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. p.m.)—I move: Watson, J. O. W. That there be laid on the table by the Leader of PAIRS the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no Faulkner, J. P. Gibson, B. F. later than midday on Friday, 25 June 1999, the Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H. following documents: O’Brien, K. W. K. Macdonald, I. (a) ‘Analysis of the impact of the proposed * denotes teller taxation changes on alternative fuel use and Question so resolved in the negative. the alternative fuel market’, prepared by the Bureau of Transport Economics; and GOODS AND SERVICES TAX: (b) any other modelling commissioned by the LEGISLATION Government of the environmental impacts of the goods and services legislation as Motion (by Senator Cook) put: introduced or as proposed to be amended. That the Senate— Question put. (a) notes that 24 days after the Government and the Australian Democrats reached agreement The Senate divided. [3.53 p.m.] on a goods and services tax (GST) deal: (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret (i) the Democrats are reported to have prom- Reid) ised to pass the GST by 30 June 1999, Ayes ...... 28 (ii) two Democrat Senators, Senators Bartlett Noes ...... 37 and Stott Despoja, have vowed to vote —— against the GST deal in the interests of Majority ...... 9 all Australians, —— (iii) no GST amendments have yet been tabled AYES by the Government or the Democrats for Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. the scrutiny of the Parliament, Brown, B. Campbell, G. Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. (iv) the GST bills are listed for debate in the Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. Senate on 22 June 1999, and Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. (v) there are reports that the Government has Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.* made available to the Democrats the Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G. revised GST amendments, but has not Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Lundy, K. made them available to other parties; and Mackay, S. Margetts, D. (b) calls on the Government and the Australian McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Democrats to immediately make available Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. their GST amendments for appropriate Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5937

public scrutiny and consideration in suffi- GOODS AND SERVICES TAX: cient time to enable proper debate. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister The Senate divided. [4.01 p.m.] for the Environment and Heritage) (4.04 p.m.)—by leave—In case there is any (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret misunderstanding, it is the government’s Reid) intention to table the modelling that has been Ayes ...... 28 done, both the BTE modelling and other Noes ...... 42 modelling, in relation to the diesel fuel mat- —— ter. We intend to table that material before the Majority ...... 14 —— debate on the diesel bill commences. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.05 p.m.)— AYES Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. by leave—I seek a point of clarification on Brown, B. Campbell, G. what the minister has said. I wonder whether Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. Senator Hill could make it clear to the cham- Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. ber whether he meant that the information Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. would be released by the government before Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J.* the debate gets under way in the parliament, Evans, C. V. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. that is in the other place, the House of Repre- Hogg, J. Lundy, K. sentatives, or here in the Senate. Mackay, S. Margetts, D. Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. for the Environment and Heritage) (4.06 Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. p.m.)—by leave—I meant in relation to the Sherry, N. West, S. M. Senate.

NOES COMMITTEES Abetz, E. Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. Privileges Committee Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.* Report Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Senator ROBERT RAY (Victoria) (4.06 Colston, M. A. Coonan, H. p.m.)—I present the 76th report of the com- Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. mittee, entitled Parliamentary privilege— Ferris, J. Heffernan, W. Precedents, procedures and practice in the Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Australian Senate 1966-1999, together with a Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. volume of the Clerk’s advices to the Commit- Lees, M. H. Lightfoot, P. R. tee of Privileges. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Murray, A. Ordered that the report be printed. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. Senator ROBERT RAY—by leave—I Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. move: Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M. That the Senate take note of the report. Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. This present report of the Committee of Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. Privileges is, in effect, a third edition of the committee’s report on its operation; the first PAIRS was presented in 1991 and the second in Faulkner, J. P. Gibson, B. F. 1996. The committee understands that con- Hutchins, S. Minchin, N. H. O’Brien, K. W. K. Macdonald, I. siderable use has been made of these two * denotes teller reports, particularly the second, which consti- tuted a compendium of privilege case studies Question so resolved in the negative. and documents. 5938 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

This edition incorporates and updates all COMMITTEES relevant materials contained in the previous two reports and also includes details of and Treaties Committee comments on a further 13 reports covering Report some 20 references. It will be placed on the Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.09 p.m.)— Internet, and extra copies will be printed for I present report No. 21 of the Joint Standing general use and for use in and distribution at Committee on Treaties, entitled Five treaties seminars for public servants and statutory tabled on 16 February 1999, together with the officials of the Senior Executive Service and Hansard record and minutes of proceedings. above. These seminars are now regularly I seek leave to move a motion in relation to conducted by the Public Service and Merit the report. Protection Commission, as well as by the Leave granted. Department of the Senate, in response to recommendations made in several committee Senator COONEY—I move: reports and adopted by the Senate. We hope That the Senate take note of the report. that the Senate, and others for whom it has I seek leave to incorporate my tabling state- been prepared, will find it a short and useful ment in Hansard. report. I would like to take the opportunity to Leave granted. thank the secretary of the committee, Ms Lynch, and all her staff, who put an enormous The statement read as follows— amount of effort into this particular document. Madam President, I am delighted to be tabling I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Report 21, Five Treaties Tabled on 16 February 1999. This report contains the results of the review Leave granted; debate adjourned. by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties of the following proposed treaties: Environment, Communications, . a treaty on extradition with South Africa; Information Technology and the Arts . a treaty with Sweden on mutual assistance in Legislation Committee criminal matters; Submission and Supplementary Information . an agreement with New Zealand on the status of visiting defence forces; and Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (4.08 . two defence agreements with the United States— p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I the first concerning the reciprocal provision of present a further submission and supplemen- logistic support, services and supplies, and the tary information received by the Environment, second concerning communications services. Communications, Information Technology and In each case we support the proposed treaty and the Arts Legislation Committee in response to recommend that binding action be taken. the committee’s inquiry into the Environment Our comments on the extradition treaty with South Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill Africa represent a continuation of our support for the negotiation of modernised extradition arrange- 1998 [1999] and the Environmental Reform ments. (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. The key element of these arrangements is that the country requesting extradition has only to provide BUDGET 1998-99 the other country with a statement of the conduct of the alleged offences by the accused. This is a far Consideration by Legislation Committees more flexible and effective basis for extradition than the traditional arrangements, which require the Additional Estimates provision of material sufficient to demonstrate a Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (4.08 prima facie case against the accused. p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Eggleston, I It is important to note that the treaty with South present additional information received by the Africa, like all modern arrangements, balances this flexibility by allowing the requested country to Environment, Communications, Information refuse extradition in circumstances where either the Technology and the Arts Legislation Commit- extradition, or the punishment arising from any tee in response to the 1998-99 additional conviction, would infringe the civil, political or estimates hearings. human rights of the accused person. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5939

The treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters BUDGET 1998-99 with Sweden also represents an improvement to our international network of law and justice arrange- Consideration by Legislation Committees ments. Mutual assistance treaties play a valuable role in Reports ensuring that law enforcement agencies are able extend their reach beyond national borders. Without Senator CALVERT (Tasmania) (4.09 such arrangements, the task of investigating and p.m.)—With the exception of the Economics prosecuting trans-border criminal behaviour is Legislation Committee and the Rural and complicated immeasurably. Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation The proposal to conclude a status of forces agree- Committee, on behalf of the respective chairs ment between Australia and New Zealand is I present legislation committee reports on another step in maintaining the long-standing and proposed expenditure in respect of the year close defence relationship between the two nations. ending 30 June 2000, together with the While it can hardly be argued that the agreement Hansard records of proceedings. is a central plank in our defence relationship, the establishment of a standard scheme for the rights Ordered that the reports be printed. and obligations of visiting forces will secure a firm footing for two of the important elements in a COMMITTEES healthy defence relationship—the exchange of personnel and participation in joint exercises. Employment, Workplace Relations, Small In our view, Australia’s national interest is also Business and Education References well served by the two defence agreements with the Committee United States canvassed in our report. The agreement on the reciprocal provision of Membership logistic support, services and supplies (known as The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT the Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement) is a standard form agreement that the United States (Senator Knowles)—The President has Government is seeking to negotiate with all of its received a letter from the Leader of the Aus- major defence partners. tralian Democrats seeking a variation to the The agreement establishes rules for the reciprocal membership of a committee. provision of support and services in ‘combined exercises, deployments, operations and for unfore- Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell)—by seen circumstances and exigencies’. The agreement leave—agreed to: will update an agreement initially signed in 1990, That Senator Allison replace Senator Stott Despoja during the Gulf War. on the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small The Agreement on Defense Communication Business and Eduction References Committee for Services clarifies the division of responsibility for its inquiry into the effectiveness of education and the provision of on-line communication services training programs for indigenous Australians. between the Australian Defence Force and the United States military. This agreement is substan- SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION tially the same as the expired 1989 agreement on AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1999 the same subject and involves an annual expendi- ture, by Australia, of only $10 000. Report of Economics Legislation Both agreements contribute to our broader strategic Committee relationship with the United States and are import- ant to the extent that they clarify our mutual Senator O’CHEE (Queensland) (4.12 understandings, expectations and requirements. p.m.)—On behalf of Senator Ferguson, I I would like to thank my committee colleagues present the Economics Legislation Committee from both sides of the House, and in the Senate, for report on the provisions of the Superannuation their continuing commitment to the work of the Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1999, Treaties Committee. together with submissions and the Hansard I commend the report, and its conclusions, to the record of proceedings. Senate. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Ordered that the report be printed. Leave granted; debate adjourned. (Quorum formed) 5940 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS this bill enables it to be asked to examine the needs COMMISSION AMENDMENT of indigenous people. BILL 1999 The Grants Commission is an independent statutory authority and has always acted with absolute First Reading freedom in making its recommendations to Govern- ment. During an inquiry into the distribution of Bill received from the House of Representa- resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tives. programmes, it will need to have close contact with Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) agreed the Departments and agencies currently involved in deciding the distribution of funding for those to: programmes, but it will continue to operate with its That this bill may proceed without formalities traditional degree of independence. and be now read a first time. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Bill read a first time. will be given opportunities to make both written and oral submissions to the Commission, and to Second Reading show it the magnitude of their problems. This approach is in line with the Government’s commit- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western ment to work with ATSIC and the wider indigen- Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the ous community to develop arrangements to improve Minister for Communications, Information the allocation of funding, and to give the Aborigi- Technology and the Arts) (4.16 p.m.)—I nal and Torres Strait Islander people every chance move: to discuss their situation with those directly in- volved in advising the Government. That this bill be now read a second time. I commend the bill. I seek leave to have the second reading Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) speech incorporated in Hansard. adjourned. Leave granted. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND The speech read as follows— BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION The bill is central to the Government’s intention BILL 1998 [1999] to ensure that funding for programmes aimed at improving the situation of Australia’s Aboriginal Second Reading and Torres Strait Islander communities is distribut- ed on a needs basis. It will allow the Common- Debate resumed. wealth Grants Commission to report on the distri- Senator COONEY (Victoria) (4.16 p.m.)— bution of funding for meeting the needs of indigen- Before question time, during the debate on the ous people. It will also further the Government’s aim of improving the situation of Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity indigenous people by ensuring that an independent Conservation Bill 1998 [1999], I was saying assessment of their need for services and that the issue of the environment is clearly a programmes is undertaken. national issue, an issue that affects generation The intention of the Government in taking this after generation and one where we as the important step in providing a better basis for the present generation must act responsibly. I was distribution of funding for indigenous affairs was saying that the Commonwealth must not roll announced as a commitment during last year’s back the constitutional obligation it has to election campaign. The new approach is designed look after the environment, and I was suggest- to increase the confidence that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have in the ing that the bill that is before the chamber is distribution of funds because it will give them deficient in that respect. That proposition is greater assurance that the distribution is based on well borne out by the amendments that are to need. be moved on behalf of the government and The Commonwealth Grants Commission is a world- that have now been put on the tables of the renowned agency that has, until now, been restrict- senators in this place. ed to measuring the relative needs of the States and As you will see, Madam Acting Deputy Territories for untied Commonwealth funding, and to advising on the needs of the small Island Terri- President, those amendments are many and tories. Its expertise in assessing the relative needs the package that they are set out in is quite of different communities has been underutilised and thick. As I go through them, I see such issues Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5941 raised as whether a person should be guilty of to the Environment Protection and Biodiver- an offence for recklessly taking members of sity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] will speci- a listed threatened species or community and fically concentrate on the impact of the whether that should be punishable by a term aspects of this legislation and the Environ- of imprisonment, dealt with by a civil penalty mental Reform (Consequential Provisions) or dealt with by a fine that has a criminal Bill 1998 [1999] on Aboriginal Territorians, effect. So, just casting my eyes over these especially the traditional owners of Aboriginal amendments, it appears that there is quite a freehold land now leased to the Director of considerable change in the thrust of what this National Parks and Wildlife. In the Northern legislation is all about. Territory this specifically refers to the Uluru- I see in the amendments that have been put Kata Tjuta and Kakadu national parks. forward that the issue of commercial-in- This bill is about a withdrawal by the confidence is dealt with. One of the amend- Commonwealth from its environment protec- ments says that the secretary must not be tion role. This bill is about a withdrawal by satisfied ‘that a part of the report is commer- the Commonwealth from many of its respon- cial-in-confidence unless a person demonst- sibilities in relation to the environment protec- rates’ that to the secretary, and then it sets out tion and biodiversity conservation in favour a number of criteria. It is clear that the whole of the states and territories. The Common- concept of what is proper environmental pro- wealth has been involved in a large number tection and how that environmental protection of areas of environmental protection over should be given expression in legislation is many decades. Existing Commonwealth now very much up for reappraisal. I am not environment protection and conservation sure how much time will be given to this legislation covers a wide range of matters, debate but, since there has been this sudden including environmental impact assessment, shift not only in the legislation but also in the endangered species, heritage and national concept behind the legislation, in my view it parks management, as well as giving effect to is a situation where a lot more time is needed various international environmental obliga- for us to look at the issues that are before us. tions such as trade in wildlife, ozone layer The legislation is now before us, and we protection and sea dumping. have the bill itself and the massive number of amendments that have been put before us at When one looks at the government’s ma- this late hour. The original concept was that jority finding from the report of the Senate there would be agreements between the Environment, Communications, Information Commonwealth and the states to set up Technology and the Arts Legislation Commit- regimes whereby different aspects of the tee on the bill that we are now considering, environment could be protected, so we have it seems that the government has been fairly the issue of the Ramsar wetland attended to, dismissive of indigenous concerns. I have to the issue of world heritage property attended say that I was rather surprised at the response to, the issue of migratory species dealt with in the government’s majority report because and so on. They are dealt with in the bill a quick look at the transcript of the committee itself in a way which is not sufficient because hearings and the various submissions provided the penalties for people that breach the envi- to the committee gives an indication of how ronmental laws that are going to come into concerned indigenous people are about the operation if this bill is passed are not salutary impact of these bills. enough to get a situation where people adhere I met recently with the traditional owners of to the environmental laws and the environ- both the boards of management from the mental spirit of Australia. Hopefully, if we get Uluru-Kata Tjuta and Kakadu national parks a good chance to look at these amendments, and they have left me in no doubt about the that may help but it is clear now that the intensity of their concerns. What are those whole basis of this debate has changed. concerns? One thing that was raised time and Senator CROSSIN (Northern Territory) again was the view of these indigenous (4.22 p.m.)—My comments today in speaking people that there has been no real consultation 5942 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 regarding those aspects of the bill which saying yes or no to these changes. It is disrespect- would impact upon them, despite assurances ful and rude. given by the Minister for the Environment He also said: and Heritage, Senator Hill, that he would do It does not happen to other private landowners. Our so. We heard again today his pretence in ancestors have lived on our land for 60,000 years. question time about those so-called consulta- We should have been respected as landowners and tions. Aboriginal people seem quite confused consulted about any changes. about why Senator Hill was not prepared to Those feelings reflect the confusion and the do what he promised to do, and that is talk hurt that is currently being experienced by the with them—not to them—in a meaningful traditional owners who entered into the joint way before he proceeded with any plans to do management agreement with the Common- anything that changed the joint management wealth via the director of national parks in arrangements. Perhaps it is because Senator good faith. The current leases agreement Hill’s idea of consultation differs from that of between the traditional owners and the direc- the traditional owners. tor of national parks to establish Kakadu Evidence was presented to the inquiry on National Park was signed in October 1978. 17 March this year when it was stated that For Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, the Senator Hill met with the Kakadu board on 4 current joint management arrangements were April 1996. The inquiry heard that Senator established in 1986. In agreeing to a lease, the Hill advised the board that any future changes traditional owners said very clearly that they to the joint management arrangements would wanted a central role in the management of only be made with the agreement of the the park alongside the director. traditional owners. Despite requests by the So what is Senator Hill trying to achieve by board to be involved in discussions regarding imposing changes to the joint management any review of the joint management areas in arrangements and why is he putting the Kakadu, the Aboriginal owners have told me people’s and the public’s access to Kakadu that Senator Hill has not consulted with them and Uluru at risk? The joint management about the proposed changes in any meaningful agreements were established under the terms way. Senator Hill clearly seems to be under of a 99-year lease governed by section 14C of the impression that telling people what chan- the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation ges will be imposed upon them amounts to Act 1975 and, of course, the Aboriginal Land consultation. He is wrong. Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Key indigenous concerns include: changes joint management arrangements are nationally to the joint management arrangements; impo- and internationally recognised as representing sition of Northern Territory government best practice in the fields of cultural and representation on the joint boards of manage- natural resource management because the ment; disregard for Aboriginal culture and current joint management arrangements intellectual property rights; and the fact that involve the traditional owners in all aspects of there is no equivalent of section 70 of the natural and cultural resource management. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act In 1995 the park was awarded the pres- in the new bill. Mick Alderson, the chairper- tigious UNESCO Picasso gold medal for son of the Kakadu board of management, outstanding management in cooperation with speaking at the inquiry hearing in Darwin in the traditional Aboriginal owners. However, March said: the current minister for the environment, Please remember that most of the Kakadu Aborigi- Senator Hill, seems determined to change the nal land is private land. We are the landowners, but arrangements, whether or not he has the we are landowners with a difference. We are agreement of the traditional landowners and landowners that have agreed with the people of regardless of what impact it might have on Australia to share our country with all Australians. the public access to both of these parks. This is why we feel offended that this government has tried to change the management structure on An article in the Age of Thursday, 29 April, our land without talking to us and without us titled ‘Bill warning over Kakadu’, included Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5943 comments from a barrister who has prepared confident that the traditional owners do not wish to advice for the Northern Land Council and the see an end to the public enjoyment of the parks. Kakadu board of management about whether In that respect, Mr Styles is right. There has the proposed changes would constitute a been a breakdown of trust between the boards breach of the lease. The barrister, Mr Robert of those two parks and the federal Minister Blowes, was quoted as saying that the new for the Environment and Heritage, Senator legislation in its present form would be Hill, who just does not seem able to under- inconsistent with the lease and detrimental to stand the importance of the joint management the traditional owners, putting at risk the 99- arrangements for the traditional owners. year lease between the traditional owners and Joanne Willmot, Chair of the Uluru-Kata the Commonwealth government. Why then is Tjuta National Park Board of Management, Senator Hill prepared to jeopardise this described joint management as being support- relationship, something which is valued by ed by four legs: the Aboriginal Land Rights both Australians and overseas visitors alike? Act, the National Parks and Wildlife Conser- If the traditional landowners decided the vation Act, the park lease and the park’s plan lease arrangements with the Commonwealth of management. But the federal government government were no longer valid, as a result is threatening the very existence of the joint of the unilateral changes being imposed on management arrangements by chopping off them by Senator Hill, then the Northern one of those legs. Territory’s tourism industry would be dealt a When the Uluru-Kata Tjuta board of man- heavy blow. The traditional landowners could, agement was established on 10 December as would be their right as private land- 1985, the Northern Territory government was owners—which is something that this govern- entitled to a seat on that board. However, in ment continually forgets or does not want to a fit of pique over the hand-back of the land know about, that is, the rights of indigenous to the traditional owners, that government people—decline to allow public access to refused to make a nomination. It is no secret their property. that the Northern Territory government wants Tourism in the Northern Territory is the ultimate management control over Uluru and second largest industry after the minerals Kakadu. However, this is something which industry and is worth around $700 million understandably is resisted by the traditional annually to the Northern Territory. It is based owners, knowing the Northern Territory on Aboriginal art and culture and on the government’s patronising attitude to indigen- environment. Tourism operators in the Terri- ous Territorians. Senator Hill has claimed that tory are very concerned about the belligerent it is necessary to have a Territory representa- attitude of Senator Hill in regard to his deal- tive on the board in order to build a more ings with the owners of Kakadu and Uluru. constructive relationship between the Northern Paul Styles from the Northern Territory Territory government and indigenous people. branch of the Tourism Council said in evi- Also, the minister has said it would be an dence to the Senate’s inquiry into this bill on opportunity for funds to be properly directed 17 March this year: to essential services for residents of Uluru and Kakadu. We are concerned— Handing over of management control to the that is the Tourism Council— Northern Territory government would cancel that progress on this bill is continuing without the the effect of the hand-back of Uluru and support of the traditional owners of the two Kakadu, even if traditional owners retained Commonwealth-run national parks within the formal title. To suggest that NT representation Northern Territory, and that that has resulted in a on the boards of management would assist breakdown of trust between the boards of those two parks and the federal minister. The tourism industry with the provision of services is, in itself, a is concerned that that is occurring, and, of itself, is damning indictment on the Territory govern- beginning to create some uncertainty about the ment for its failure to provide essential ser- future of those parks. We are assured and are vices and infrastructure to indigenous people 5944 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 living at Mutitjulu, Jabiru or elsewhere in the look after and sustain biodiversity. In fact, parks. they probably know that better than any non- The Northern Territory government does Aboriginal person we know of. not provide local government services and Access to biological resources is an import- infrastructure to the Mutitjulu community ant issue for Aboriginal traditional owners. located in Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park— Aboriginal people have expressed concern something that is probably not widely known, that there is insufficient protection given in particularly by members of the federal the bill to prevent the appropriation by phar- government. Essential services are provided maceutical companies of indigenous biologi- by Parks Australia. Nor does the Territory cal knowledge, without acknowledgment or government provide local government ser- compensation, for significant industrial and vices—roads, footpaths, rubbish collection— commercial gain. Section 301 simply leaves outside of Jabiru. That is a town located control of access to biological resources in within Kakadu National Park. The provision Commonwealth areas to regulation—and of essential services and infrastructure by the ignores non-Commonwealth areas altogeth- Northern Territory government should not be er—and is unlikely to address their concerns. tied or linked to NT government representa- Indigenous people, whose human, plant and tion on the board of management. animal genetic and scientific resources are As Senator Margetts has suggested, it seems being collected and studied by geneticists, that the greater the contribution of indigenous should be involved in policy development in communities in the Northern Territory, the this area. fewer the resources the Northern Territory Another key concern indicated by indigen- government makes available for basic human ous people was the proposal to repeal the services; or, the more a community earns, the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act more you are expected to be self-reliant and 1975. This would have repealed the statutory fewer government resources go into your position of the Director of National Parks and community. It should also be remembered that Wildlife. Recently, on 25 May, the minister the Northern Territory government opposed announced that he had done a backflip and world heritage listing for both Kakadu and had decided to retain the statutory position of Uluru and advocates mining in Kakadu. Now the Commonwealth Director of National Parks though, it seems they are quite keen to get and Wildlife. Having just received the numer- their hands on the joint management commit- ous amendments this afternoon, many of us tee. have probably not had time to see whether There is no equivalent of section 70 of the that commitment is translated into fact. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act However, questions remain about the role and 1975 in the current bill. That section assures resources of that position. traditional owners that their rights prevail Jabiru is crown land vested in the Director over non-Aboriginal conservation interests, of National Parks and Wildlife, and this bill within proper limits. It should come as no seeks to weaken indigenous control over the surprise that there is no duplication of this township of Jabiru, which is situated in section in the new bill. It allowed traditional Kakadu National Park. The town lease, the owners the right to continue hunting and Kakadu plan of management and the Jabiru gathering on the land and in the sea. It is in town plan regulate development of the town. their lease agreement and they want it written The bill seeks to weaken the limited control in law as well. However, under the proposed over management and future development of legislation, the minister will have to be Jabiru that traditional owners currently enjoy satisfied that ‘the action is of particular through the board of management. It seeks to significance in indigenous tradition’. Aborigi- weaken its role in the development of the nal people have pointed out that they know plan of management and the influence of the the right times to hunt and how much they board on the decisions of the Director of can take, and that it is in their interests to National Parks and Wildlife. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5945

The bill makes no provision for what Australian Democrats. We could have walked happens in Jabiru when there is no plan of away from this legislation. That would have management in force, and it weakens existing been the easy path to choose. Instead, we arrangements that limit the capacity for the chose to do the hard yards and to be at the government to remove Jabiru from the park. negotiating table. I think we have played a Any weakening of the control of the devel- constructive role and achieved an outcome opment, expansion and ownership of Jabiru which is far better than the status quo and far would have a detrimental effect on the nation- far better than the original legislation. al park, the environment, the biodiversity and the local Aboriginal people. I summarise the key points that our role in this negotiation will lead to: more effective In conclusion, I put on the record that there protection for world heritage areas, Ramsar are many areas of the bill which affect not wetlands of international importance, threat- only indigenous people in the Northern ened species and ecological communities, Territory but the Northern Territory as a migratory species, whales and dolphins, and whole. Time prevents me from going through the marine environment; approvals processes each of those, but the essence of my speech remaining under Commonwealth auspices, and today is to point out that indigenous people public consultation and transparency instead in the Northern Territory are not happy with of secretly negotiated bilateral agreements the proposed changes and they are not happy with the states; recognition of more threaten- with the lack of consultation regarding these ing processes, more triggers for environmental changes. Indigenous people have a better assessment being added through a public understanding—better than any Australians— review process, and greater accountability of the importance of the environment. It is through audited processes and strong enforce- part of their life. They depend on the land. ment measures; greater consideration being They live it and they enact it each day. This given to indigenous people’s role and interests legislation does not recognise that role that in the protection of the environment and indigenous Australians play and the role that conservation of biodiversity. So our bottom they maintain in achieving good conservation line in this legislation has been the best outcomes. Therefore, as part of the ALP’s environment outcome, and I think we have position, I will be strongly opposing this achieved that. legislation in its current form. I go first of all to the objects of the act and Senator ALLISON (Victoria) (4.40 p.m.)— ecologically sustainable development. The I do not think it is an overstatement to say community and all levels of government have that this Environment Protection and recognised ESD as an important national goal, Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] but much more needs to be done to make this represents a landmark for environment legisla- goal a reality. The objects of the bill and the tion in Australia. We said when it first em- bill as a whole represent a major advance in erged that it needed major surgery. It was full this area. Firstly, the promotion of ecological- of loopholes. There was too much discretion ly sustainable development is an explicit for the minister and too high a risk of devolv- object of the bill. The amended bill also ing decision making to the states on matters includes a definition of ESD which we con- of national significance. Well, a Senate sider reflects a good balance between environ- inquiry, hundreds of submissions, hearings in mental, economic and social considerations. almost all states and more than 400 amend- These principles will apply to key decisions ments later, that surgery is complete. I might under the act, such as the granting of approv- say that that surgery would not have been als following environmental impact assess- possible on the floor—trying to juggle so ment. This will give new life to the concept many amendments. I welcome the of ESD and ensure that ESD is applied in government’s willingness to take on board the decision making, not only by the Common- concerns of conservation groups, ordinary wealth government but also by businesses citizens, indigenous Australians and the putting forward development proposals. In 5946 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 contrast, the current legislation, showing its of national environment significance without age, includes almost no mention of ESD. In appropriate approvals. We consider that the fact, I think the only act in which ESD is criminal penalties proposed in the amend- mentioned is the Endangered Species Protec- ments—that is, up to seven years imprison- tion Act of 1992. ment and/or $460,200 for individuals—are We also support amendments to the objec- appropriate, given the national significance of tives that explicitly recognise the role of these matters. The minister will not be able to indigenous people in the conservation and approve the construction or operation of ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s nuclear facilities, such as nuclear fuel fabrica- biodiversity and recognise indigenous tion plants and nuclear power plants. people’s knowledge, which can provide a A significant amendment will provide for significant contribution to the conservation of reviews every five years on whether the biodiversity. For example, in the Uluru operation of the act should be extended and National Park, Aboriginal knowledge has been on the addition of new triggers. This will be important in undertaking biodiversity surveys, a public process, with public input being and Aboriginal knowledge and practices sought before preparation of a review report relating to fire management have been in- commences and with public comments being corporated into the burning strategy to main- sought on the draft report. This will ensure tain the diversity and mosaic of vegetation. public consultation and transparency in the Indigenous knowledge relating to the medici- evolution of the Commonwealth’s triggers for nal pharmacological, food and other values of the environmental assessment and approval Australia’s biological resources could also process. The proposed amendments will not lead to important products of commercial and limit the minister’s ability to add new triggers social value. The recognition of the need for at any time to deal with environmental chal- a partnership approach to environmental lenges that are not foreseen or adopted protection and biodiversity conservation, through the review process. including through conservation agreements Going on to conservation agreements, the with land-holders and community involvement proposed amendments will remove any ex- in management planning, is consistent with emptions from the environment assessment the community’s desire to be directly in- and approval process through conservation volved in environmental management and the agreements. This amendment will ensure that interest expressed by many individuals and even where a conservation agreement exists, organisations during the Senate inquiry into approvals will have to be sought for any the bill to be involved in the implementation activity which is regulated by this bill. of this bill. On the question of bilateral agreements and Going on to matters of national environ- declarations, the bill provides for the environ- mental significance, we very much welcome ment minister to accredit state environment the designation of world heritage properties, assessment and approval processes through Ramsar wetlands, threatened species and bilateral agreements and Commonwealth ecological communities, internationally pro- processes through declarations. The proposed tected migratory species, the marine environ- amendments deliver enhanced safeguards ment and nuclear actions as matters of nation- relating to accreditation which we very al environment significance. These are matters strongly support. In particular, bilateral which should trigger the environment assess- agreements will be developed with full trans- ment and approval process, as they are clearly parency and public consultation, with the of national or international significance for minister notifying his or her intention to which the federal government must be respon- prepare a bilateral agreement and seeking sible. public comments on a draft agreement, and We sought the inclusion of criminal of- publishing finalised agreements. fences for breaches which involve taking Before entering a bilateral agreement, the actions with a significant impact on matters minister will need to consider the role and Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5947 interests of indigenous peoples in promoting bilateral agreements will not apply to these the conservation and ecologically sustainable parks. use of natural resources in the context of the agreement, taking into account Australia’s These safeguards provide the public with relevant obligations under the biodiversity greater confidence in the concept of accredit- convention. The safeguards for declarations ing state and Commonwealth agencies to accrediting Commonwealth processes have fulfil responsibilities for matters of national been brought into line with those applying to environment significance. The proposed bilateral agreements accrediting state process- amendments address a major concern express- es. States and Commonwealth agencies will ed about the bill, that only impacts on matters be accredited to grant approvals only in of national environment significance would be accordance with management plans which are addressed. It was assumed that the states and in force under state or Commonwealth law territories would address the impacts of a and which have been accredited by the proposal on matters of state or local signifi- Commonwealth environment minister. cance. However, with the proposed amendments, The minister may accredit a management the bill will require that states and territories plan only if satisfied that the plan accords accredited to assess or approve proposals with the objects of the act; that the plan and relating to matters of national environment the relevant state or Commonwealth law meet significance must also ensure that other criteria specified in the regulations; that there environmental issues are addressed. In addi- has been or will be adequate assessment of tion, the Commonwealth environment minister the impacts of actions approved in accordance must not approve proposals before receiving with the plan; that actions approved in ac- a notice from the relevant state or territory cordance with the management plan will not stating that impacts on matters of state or have unacceptable or unsustainable impacts local significance have been assessed to the on matters of national environment signifi- greatest extent practicable. These proposed cance; that the plan is not inconsistent with amendments will ensure that no environ- Australia’s obligations under the treaties mental matter falls between the cracks. dealing with world heritage, Ramsar, biodiversity and migratory species; that a plan Going on to assessment and approval dealing with world heritage and Ramsar sites processes, the proposed amendments will is consistent with Australian world heritage require the minister to publish all referrals and and Ramsar management principles; and that to seek public comment on whether the the plan has been tabled in both Houses of referred action should be subject to environ- Parliament and has not been disallowed. In mental assessment and approval. The minister other words, the only delegation of must consider public comments received on Commonwealth approvals is itself subject to the referrals. This amendment introduces the scrutiny of the parliament. public consultation and strengthens accounta- bility in the screening of proposals, which is The proposed amendments require the a crucial step in the assessment process. making of regulations which specify criteria for accredited management plans. Bilateral An important consideration in the screening agreements will include a provision recognis- of proposals is whether an action has a ‘sig- ing that the Commonwealth Auditor-General nificant impact’ on the matter protected by may undertake audits relating to the agree- the bill. During the Senate inquiry into the ment. State assessment processes which are bill, concerns were raised by various stake- accredited on a project-by-project basis must holder groups about the meaning of ‘signifi- be carried out under state law, and both the cant impact’. We are pleased to see that the process and the law must meet standards amended bill will provide for regulations specified in mandatory regulations. Consistent which set out matters to be taken into account with the wishes of the traditional owners of when determining whether an action has a Kakadu, Uluru and Booderee National Parks, significant impact. This will provide addition- 5948 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 al guidance and certainty to the community, rals, the availability of assessment documenta- as well as to the environment minister. tion and reports, invitations for public com- Public consultation will now be mandatory ment and relevant decisions by the minister. for all assessments conducted on the basis of Traditional media will, of course, continue to preliminary documentation—currently an be employed for these purposes for members often used form of assessment which does not of the public who do not have access to the involve a public environmental report, envi- Internet. ronmental impact statement or inquiry. The In terms of enforcement, the Democrats proposed amendments provide that important note that the bill and proposed amendments safeguards to claims of commercial confi- provide a comprehensive, consistent and dentiality in relation to assessment documen- effective enforcement system. There is now a tation are genuine. The onus will be on wide range of enforcement options available persons claiming commercial confidentiality to the Commonwealth to deal with non- to prove the basis of the claim against criteria compliance such as criminal offences and spelled out in the amendments. penalties, directed environmental audits, Currently, the bill proposes that the minister conservation orders for threatened species in be able to revoke an approval where a breach Commonwealth areas, injunctions, appropriate of conditions has resulted in a significant third party standing provisions for judicial impact on the matter protected by the bill, or review and injunctions, civil penalties, liabili- where the predicted impacts have underesti- ty of executive officers of corporations, mated the actual impacts of a proposal. We infringement notices, the capacity to publicise support the proposed amendments to extend contraventions and liability for loss or damage this capacity to include situations where the arising from a contraventions. These provi- minister believes that certain or likely impacts sions will provide the ‘teeth’ that are sorely were not accurately identified in the assess- lacking in much of the existing legislation ment process, either deliberately or due to which is to be replaced by the bill. negligence. As a result of amendments negotiated by The provision for strategic assessment of the Democrats, criminal offences will now policies, plans and programs is a step forward complement the civil penalties in the bill—it for environmental assessment legislation. The is appropriate that jail terms are available to Democrats support the mandatory strategic deal with the worst offences, particularly assessment of fisheries without current man- those relating to matters of international and agement plans. We are conscious that no national environmental significance—and the public environmental report or environmental capacity of the minister to require an inde- impact statement has been prepared for any pendent environmental audit is widened to fishery under the current Environment Protec- include situations where the minister suspects tion (Impact of Proposals) Act. The proposed that the actual or likely impacts of an action amendments to the provisions on strategic authorised by an environmental authority are assessment will ensure that public comment significantly greater than indicated in the is sought and taken into account in develop- information available to the minister when the ing the terms of reference for any assess- authority was granted. ments, as well as in preparation of the assess- We are very pleased with the proposed ment report. amendments which will require, for the first An innovative provision proposed in the time, Commonwealth departments, authorities, amendments, and negotiated by the Demo- companies and agencies to report on their crats, relates to the weekly publication on the performance in achieving ecologically sustain- Internet of information on environmental able development. We believe that this man- assessments—that is, clause 170A. This will datory requirement will reinvigorate the provide a clearing house of information which Commonwealth’s commitment to implement will be extremely useful to members of the ESD and establish greater accountability for community who wish to be notified of refer- environmental performance. We also support Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5949 the proposed amendment requiring state of the differently. They were not at the table, and environment reporting every five years. they are not satisfied with environmental State of the environment reporting is a crumbs. They stayed in contact with their powerful tool for informing the public about constituency and they stayed true to principle, their environment. Importantly, state of the which is something the Democrats have environment reports assist decision makers totally failed to do. In the press release from and the community to protect and conserve the Australian Conservation Foundation, the environment. Although the first national Greenpeace Australia and the Wilderness state of the environment report was published Society this afternoon, these groups said that in 1996 without legislation, the amended bill this deal does not address the major environ- will provide greater certainty that future mental problems with the government’s bill; reports will be prepared. We support regular that is, the Democrats’ deal. We are not con- review of the operation and effectiveness of vinced that the dangerous thrust of this bill, the act and we are pleased to see the proposed which hands powers to the states, has been amendment requiring such reviews. My turned around. colleague Senator Andrew Bartlett will com- The representatives of the Australian envi- plete the description of the amendments and ronment movement and millions of Austral- the bill itself in his speech in the second ians who depend on them for holding the line reading debate. I conclude my comments. on the environment, said this to the Demo- crats: Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.57 p.m.)— The struggles of thousands of environmentalists to What we have just heard is a total failure to expand Commonwealth powers at Fraser Island, the explain the Democrats’ central role in the Franklin Dam, the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet most disgusting sell-out of the Australian Tropics must not be in vain. The 400 amendments environment and laws to protect the Austral- to the bill must not be rushed. They should be put ian environment that this Senate chamber has on the table so that Australians who love their ever seen. I guess that is why Senator Allison country can have a look. has just left the chamber, and there is not one What do we have instead? Instead, we have Democrat in here to defend their role in this one softly spoken, totally unconvincing sell-out of the Australian environment. It is Democrat senator, Senator Allison, fleeing the absolutely gobsmacking that the Democrats, Senate straight after her contribution because who have always touted themselves as sav- she knows that, when she spoke about this iours of the Franklin River, who have claimed legislation giving Australians ‘full that they were the protectors of the Daintree transparency’, to quote her, and public consul- Rainforest, Kakadu, Fraser Island and tation, she was not prepared to make that Australia’s environment in general, have, for stand herself. For the last few months, she a place at the Howard table of power— and other environmental quislings have been fleeting as that may be—given their tawdry at the table of this anti-environmental govern- imprimatur to this 400-page document which, ment selling out. if it had been in place 30 years ago, would Full transparency, my foot! Public consulta- have seen the Franklin flooded by the Demo- tion: none of it. The Australian Democrats are crats, the Daintree logged by the Democrats, no longer worthy of the name of their party. and Fraser Island and much more of Kakadu Democrats, my foot! They are involved in mined by the Democrats. All of this for a backroom deals because they like the position small place at the table of Howard power in at the table of power, as Senator Allison put 1999. it at her press conference today. To do that, Some environmentalists who were very they are prepared to throw transparency out unpractised at the way that power works in the window. this place were sucked into this downward Indeed, just this morning, the same Senator Democrat vortex, which takes Australia’s Allison told the nation on the AM program environmental laws down the plughole. that there was no deal. At 1 o’clock today, However, the major environmental groups feel she and her shameful colleagues were at a 5950 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 press conference enumerating the hundreds of time today, I asked the minister accredited amendments that the government has now with being for the environment but who I brought in here on their behalf, ostensibly to maintain is against it, Senator Robert Hill, make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. What about page 9 of this 400-page document. It they have is a sow of a purse. This nation, says that any company that takes an action through successive economic rationalist which is even likely to have a significant governments, has decided that matters of trade impact on world heritage values shall be and economics and, therefore, employment— liable to a penalty of $5.5 million. That measures to protect the national interest under sounds like real environmental teeth. How- the Constitution, such as tariffs—will be ever, because of the bilateral agreement dismantled and given across to the altar of endorsed by the Democrats, that logging, international trade agreements. When it comes which the government’s own advisers have to the environment, we go the other direction. said has a significant adverse effect on the We turn our back on international agreements current world heritage area, is going to pro- and hand the powers back to the states and ceed a la Democrat philosophy. territories. We give them to not just any state Moreover, under this bilateral agreement and territory but the whole lot of them. now endorsed by the Democrats, if the federal In future, the great environmental issues of government were to make any move in the the day in Australia will be determined by next 20 years to protect those world heritage what are called bilateral agreements. These values, to protect the tallest forests in the are bilateral sell-outs of the environment, and Southern Hemisphere, to protect the rare and I will tell you why. They involve the federal endangered white goshawk or Tasmanian government entering into an agreement about wedge tail—down to 200 breeding pairs each such things as forests with the state and and dependent on forests in Tasmania— territory governments involved. It is a process massive compensation would have to be paid of the lowest common denominator dictating to the woodchip corporations, which never national policy. paid a cent for those forests. There is no Let us look at the one set of bilateral compensation for workers and no compensa- agreements already in place. These are the so- tion for other industries such as tourism, called regional forest agreements already which has more jobs dependent on forests in signed for parts of Victoria, for all of Tas- Tasmania than the woodchippers, but the mania and for all of Western Australia, where woodchippers have the bilateral—state-fed- there has been almost a revolution over this eral—agreement, and the Democrats have issue. When the Democrats say that they are endorsed that here today. serving the popular good, they ought to look Senator Bartlett—Rubbish! at the Western Australian situation, where 87 Senator BROWN—Senator Bartlett from per cent of people want the loggers out of the Queensland says, ‘Rubbish.’ This sell-out of wild forests. However, because of this bilater- the forests of Tasmania by Senator Bartlett is al agreement process, the loggers have been underscored by his own pathetic effort to given a licence to continue cutting over the somehow or other say, ‘Further down the line next 20 years into thousands of hectares of we can undo this.’ He endorses the destruc- the great jarrah, karri and other forests, their tion of world heritage value forests, wild magnificent wildlife and their ecosystems in habitats and ecosystems around this country, Western Australia. When it comes to Tasman- and he says, ‘Well, we couldn’t get an ar- ia, world heritage value forests are being cut rangement different from that with the under these bilateral agreements as we sit here government so we went along with the today. government. We’re going to get this legisla- The Democrats now endorse regional forest tion through this parliament.’ And then, weak- agreements because they endorse this legisla- kneed, pathetic and quisling-like, these Demo- tion and the bilateral component of it. To crats are going to bring in an amendment make this point to the Democrats, at question outside that government agreement and are Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5951 going to ask Labor, the Greens and the Mr Acting Deputy President, let me tell you Independents to endorse it, knowing full well who is going to do the fixing. The Democrats that any amendment made outside the agree- are political poodles. They have engaged in ment at the Howard table—where they have poodle politics—running round the room been fronting up and feeling falsely powerful barking at everybody and then jumping into as they were done in in the last few days—is the first lap available. On this occasion it going to be blocked in the House of Repre- happens to be the Howard lap, the Hill lap sentatives. They know that, and they know and the Costello lap. that no matter what is done in the Senate These purveyors of poodle politics have outside this agreement, which Senator Bartlett said, ‘We’ll fix it later. Somehow or other in will forever be remembered for because I’ll the next 12 months we are going to bring in make sure he is as the environment goes these triggers and these independent functions down the stream, it has no chance of being we failed to get now.’ They are only in the amended outside that table of power they Senate; they do not understand the bicameral supped at as they sold out the environment. arrangement of this place. They do not under- They talk about recovering in the coming stand that it does not matter what they bring months those things which are not in this in here; they have now sold their power out. legislation. Mr Acting Deputy President, they Anything that goes through this place will be went to the government and said, ‘There has blocked in the House of Representatives, to be a trigger in this legislation for green- where the Democrats do not have any repre- house gases and global warming—maybe one sentatives. of the greatest, if not the greatest, environ- mental problem confronting humanity in the What will happen in the next 12 months is next century.’ The government said, ‘You that the government will say, ‘We’ve got our can’t have it.’ The Democrats said, ‘Oh, well, Democrat licence legislation. The Democrats we accept that.’ They then went to the table have now given their stamp of approval to the and said, ‘We want a trigger to stop the regional forest agreements, which over the extraordinary destruction of woodlands across next 20 years are going to see the destruction this country—500,000 soccer fields in area— of millions of hectares of Australia’s natural each year.’ forests and their wildlife habitats. We will go next to bilateral agreements on a whole range The government, with these ninnies—these of other issues—nuclear issues, global warm- wet-behind-the-ears sell-out merchants—at the ing, rivers, biodiversity and the things the table said, ‘You can’t have that, Democrats.’ Democrats left out.’ But they will strike these And they said, ‘Oh, well, we accept we can’t agreements without the Democrats at the have that.’ And they went to the table and table. The government, with a chainsaw under said, ‘We want an environment commissioner each arm, will be at the table with the Premi- to give some muscle to this legislation, er of Tasmania, with Premier Court in West- somebody who is independent,’ and the ern Australia and with the new Chief Minister government said, ‘You can’t have that.’ And in the Northern Territory. they said, ‘Well, we’re pathetic; we’re here for the power, not for the environment.’ Who is going to defend the environment at that table with these Democrat puppies shut Senator Bartlett—What have you got out? They certainly are not going to—because now? they have sold out now; they have sold their Senator BROWN—They can weasel their power out. Do you know what they are going way into interjecting, ‘What have you got to do next, Mr Acting Deputy President? now?’ like this pathetic senator is trying to do They are going to come in here, at the behest at the moment. They continued, ‘Oh, well; we of the government, and bring the guillotine accept that,’ and then they and their fellow down on the debate of this monumental travellers came out, having had a lay-down environmental issue. The Labor Party, for misere dished up to them by the government one, have some 300 amendments to try to fix and said, ‘We’ll fix it later.’ the unfixable. The Democrats do not want to 5952 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 debate that; they want to get through their which way the Australian parliament should GST legislation, with its environmental go, and which way the Australian people destructiveness and social inequality. That is should go, in handling environmental issues. the big game for them—this is an add-on. But Without doubt, the Democrat representatives Australia and its environment, and this nation, on that committee were very, very strong in are going to have to live with this perfidy by wanting to strengthen the federal the Democrats—these people who, in my government’s role in establishing environ- submission, do not deserve to be here doing mental policy, outcomes and delivery in this—for decades to come. Australia. I have to say that I argued com- These weasels, who have sold out their pletely in favour of that position. Ideological- electorate of just last October, did not tell the ly, some people might say I am an old-style electorate membership, did not tell the Demo- centralist, but I actually believe I am an crats, that they were going to sell out compre- Australian first before I am a South Austral- hensively on their environmental principles— ian. I believe that, environmentally, you must the same as they sold out on social justice have policies for the whole of this continent, through the GST. It is a day of damning and the best way to deliver them is through shame on these Democrat sell-out merchants, the national parliament, which is responsible and Australians are going to be trying to pick to all the Australian people. up the environment for years to come as a Senator Lightfoot—Centralise everything. result. Senator Patterson—Where were you when Senator SCHACHT—Not centralise the committee— everything, Senator Lightfoot. But let me The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT point out to you that I am as concerned about (Senator McKiernan)—Order, Senator the environment in the Kimberleys of your Patterson! state as I am about the Flinders Ranges in my own state and the Franklin River in Tasman- Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) ia—because I am an Australian, I am in the (5.16 p.m.)—I rise to speak on this Australian parliament and all of those areas Environment Protection and Biodiversity are represented in this parliament. The best Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]. I have to say environmental policies have been delivered that I have not been as noted as Senator out of this parliament. Some of the most Brown has been, in his long history, for controversial issues on the environment have supporting green and environmental issues, been delivered from this parliament—from and I do not claim to have the detailed know- these two chambers. And I thank goodness ledge that he has, but I have served on the that we have succeeded in changing the Senate references committee covering the perception that the environment is just a environment from 1996 to 1998— states’ issue, constitutionally left to the states. Senator Patterson—A very good commit- tee. Through a mixture of the powers that are Senator SCHACHT—Senator Patterson available to the Commonwealth of Australia has interjected. For part of that time she was through the Constitution, we have been able the chair of the legislative committee of that to insist that there be decent outcomes. For area. example, Fraser Island would be mined to nothing now if not for the fact that the Fraser The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT government used its export powers to stop (Senator McKiernan)—Don’t encourage her, giving permits to export the sand from Fraser Senator Schacht. She has been called to order Island. That was an excellent long-term already. outcome that, economically, is important for Senator SCHACHT—I see. Thank you, Mr that region of the central coast of Queensland Acting Deputy President. I remember sitting because of the tourist potential of Fraser through some of the hearings on this legisla- Island, which is now a world icon environ- tion and the references that were dealing with mentally. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5953

It was the Fraser government—I am men- The one of all icon decisions was, of tioning the Fraser government because recog- course, the Franklin River. At the 1983 nition and credit should be given where they elections we said, ‘We will go to ban it. We are due—that took the decision to ban whal- will use our national treaty powers to say, ing. I happen to know that in your state, "You can’t dam the Franklin River".’ I think Senator Lightfoot, Albany in the south-west a lot of people voted for the Labor Party at was one of the last whaling places left. There that election because they did not want to see was an industry there and some people lost one of the last great wild rivers of the world their jobs. There is no argument that those turned into another concrete dam. decisions that were taken affected people in Senator Lightfoot interjecting— Albany and in Western Australia. But can anyone say now that the decision to ban Senator SCHACHT—I note the interjec- whaling was wrong? tion from Senator Lightfoot, who, I accept, is a strong state righter. He has always argued In my own state, the economic regeneration that position since he has been here, and I of the south coast around Victor Harbor every understand that, when he was a member of winter is astonishing. Why? Because people the Western Australian parliament, he took a come every weekend and during the week in very strong pro-Western Australian view—a their tens of thousands to see the whales. states’ rights view. I think he is wrong. We They spend money locally in small busines- would argue ideologically that we have a ses. It has been the economic saviour of this difference of opinion. I am arguing here to region. People are going out on the Eyre him that saving the Franklin River would not Highway to see the whales now breeding at have occurred if we had relied on a state the top of the Bight. Those decisions of the Labor or Liberal government in Tasmania. It Fraser government, supported by the Labor wrecked the Labor Party for a decade. I think Party at the time, have led to major economic we went down to no seats in Tasmania over benefits—far outweighing the few jobs that this issue federally. For a decade, we were may have been lost at Albany when we closed nearly wiped out at the state level. But now the whaling station. But that was a national we have in the south-west of Tasmania a wild decision. If it had been left to the state river that is recognised around the world as government of Western Australia to close the one of the great natural wildernesses to be Albany whaling station, they would never enjoyed by future generations forever. have done it. If it had been left to the And there is another area, I would say to Queensland government to stop the logging of you, Senator Lightfoot, and to others. I the Daintree rainforest—the tropical rainforest remember in 1989-90 debating in this parlia- of the north—they would never have done it. ment the future of Antarctica. We declared We all remember here in this chamber when that the whole of Antarctica should be an Senator Richardson, the minister who got the international wilderness area free from mining world heritage listing for the tropical rain- or exploitation forever. Some people said that forests of North Queensland, was abused by was too radical at the time. In the end I think the National Party of Queensland, who said we even got bipartisan support. This parlia- that he was costing jobs at Ravenshoe. And ment took a national and international deci- that was the attack. You could not imagine a sion that brought great credit to this country National Party government of Queensland and to this parliament. You cannot rely on taking the same decision. Now everybody states to do that. They will never have a says that this was a touch of genius because national view or even an international view. the growth of the tourist industry in Cairns Therefore, we come to this bill. I have not and North Queensland, based on people had a chance to read the Democrat amend- wanting to see natural rainforest, has more ments to this bill in detail. They have put out than outweighed the jobs lost by the closure a press release. I have to say that I find it of some sawmills. Again, it was a national astonishing that the Democrats would put this decision. out as a deal in the last week of the federal 5954 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 parliament before we adjourn for the winter What I also find interesting about this press break. They have every opportunity to tell the statement is that it has a photograph of all the government, ‘Go jump; we will not deal with Democrat team up the top and then over the this bill until we come back in August.’ Why page they have had to go to the trouble of aren’t their amendments being circulated to getting all the Democrat senators to sign it. the broad environmental community, the Does this mean that there was trouble in the Australian community, over the next two camp about getting agreement and that all the months so that there can be proper discus- disputes meant that they had to force people sion? I suspect that, at some stage tonight or to sign and have their photographs up the first thing tomorrow morning, the Democrats top? I would have thought this statement was will vote with the government to guillotine issued either by Senator Meg Lees, as the and gag this bill through. When they do—I Leader of the Democrats, or by Senator Lyn have to agree with Senator Brown—it will be Allison, the spokesperson on the environment. a shameful day for the Democrats. It will be Why did Meg Lees and Lyn Allison need to the end of their credentials as a mainstream have the photos of all the other Democrats up environmentally sensitive party if they gag the top and all their signatures on this state- this bill and their amendments through before ment? It means that they know that there is people have had time to scrutinise them. big strife inside the party about it, and they They skite—to use a good old Australian are trying to show there is some unity. It is term—in their statement that they have 400 clearly a forced unity when you have to get amendments to the government’s bill—tabled down to doing this. today, voted on tomorrow. I will bet two bob We saw yesterday another example of how to London Bridge or the Sydney Harbour the Democrats have been traduced by this Bridge that there are mistakes in these amend- Prime Minister, in the way they did not use ments; that they will be back here in six any of their negotiating position to stop the months time saying, ‘Oops, sorry, we didn’t sale of Telstra being guillotined and gagged realise what that meant,’ because this has through this parliament. They had all the been done in haste as part of the deal and cards in their hands. They had three aces. how Mr Howard—and I congratulate him in Senator George Campbell—Four. one sense on this—has traduced the leader- ship of the Democrats. He has tickled their Senator SCHACHT—They had four aces. belly and called them across. ‘Want to be at We had about a two of clubs and a three of the main table?’ he says, and Senator Lees diamonds in our hand as opposition. They had says, ‘Oh, thank you very much; I now feel all the aces. They could have told the govern- important. I’ll vote. We’ll give you some- ment, ‘We’re dealing with you about the thing; yes, we’ll do this,’— GST; leave the Telstra bill alone. We are not going to let you gag that through, otherwise Senator George Campbell—Two brass other things are off.’ But not only did they pennies. not do that; they then—as it will be by the Senator SCHACHT—Yes, for almost end of tomorrow—let them guillotine and gag nothing they have given away their negotiat- this bill on the environment through the ing position. No wonder we are seeing revolts parliament as well without proper scrutiny. in the Democrat party all around Australia— Every Democrat I have heard for five to 10 they cannot believe it. The GST deal, I years has argued for stronger Commonwealth suspect, was bad enough for them, but the power—‘We want national outcomes for Democrats, who have prided themselves on environmental policy.’ The Democrats say, as their environmental credentials, have told their you read through this statement, that they own supporters, who are overwhelmingly have strengthened it. It says, ‘Democrats strong environmentalists, that they have done deliver expansion of Commonwealth environ- this deal and will have it voted on in 24 mental powers.’ This is doublespeak; this is hours, before even their own membership sees newspeak; this is Orwellian. It does not mean the list of these 400 amendments. that at all. This constrains and constricts the Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5955 federal government’s power over environ- be willing to have them out as an exposure mental policy. draft to their own constituency? This amazes I suspect there are a lot of Liberal Party and me. As I said to one rank and file Democrat National Party members, including Senator supporter earlier today, ‘What is your strat- Lightfoot, who will be delighted with this egy? It has got me whacked. I can’t work out package because there are arrangements to go your strategy.’ If I could see they were going back to the states in these so-called bilateral to get a lot of extra votes for all of this, I agreements. As I understand the way it would say that I do not agree with the policy reads—and no-one has explained to me why but politically they are going to gain support. I am wrong about what I am about to say— But not only are they creating a roaring under such a measure the Franklin River back bushfire of opposition amongst their own in 1983 would have been dammed, the Dain- supporters on the GST but also now on the tree would have been woodchipped and Fraser basic area of support for the Democrats Island would have been mined. Maybe we amongst environmentalists they are doing a could still have stopped the hunting of deal with this government in a rushed way whales, because that was in international and they are going to gag it through, and the waters, but a number of those major environ- rest of the party is going to be up in arms. mental initiatives, which everybody in Aus- Their own natural voters are going to say, tralia, except the last couple of diehards, and ‘Why should we support the Democrats?’ everybody internationally now recognise as a Senator George Campbell—They won’t great achievement, would not have occurred. need a postal ballot; they’ll be able to meet in I cannot see in the statement, in the time I a phone box. have had it, how the Democrats can prove Senator SCHACHT—Senator George otherwise. They say they have strengthened Campbell is absolutely correct. I just cannot certain administrative arrangements, et cetera. work it out. Let the Democrats explain this That is a pig in a poke, to use the old saying. new political strategy and what it is going to How can you guarantee administrative ar- do for their long-term future. It has got me rangements once the legislation is through? whacked. I have to say cynically that this The Senator Lightfoots of the world, who might be a good thing for the Labor Party. state their position openly and up-front, are During the 1980s we lost a lot of voters. A not going to traduce the rules. Will Meg Lees lot of our supporters went to the Democrats, be welcomed into Senator Hill’s office or the particularly in my state; consistently it was office of the Minister for Industry, Science over 10 per cent in most elections federally. and Resources to discuss environmental issues Most of them are ex-Labor voters who voted such as greenhouse gas emissions? Of course for the Labor Party in the 1960s, the 1970s not. Once the bill goes through, the phone and the early 1980s. I have to say that on the will be silent. They will not answer the calls GST and this environment bill we have got a from Meg Lees or Lyn Allison. great opportunity to go back to those people Senator Quirke—The Patagonian toothfish and say, ‘You have been double-crossed; you made an appearance. have been let down. All those things for Senator SCHACHT—As Senator Quirke which you supported the Democrats and stuck quite rightly points out, we have had con- with them through thick and thin have now cerned questions about the Patagonian disappeared. There is no reason for you to toothfish and other things. That will all be vote for the Democrats on social justice irrelevant, because this minister will sit here grounds, on social equity grounds or on and smile cynically and say, ‘I will think environmental grounds.’ about that next year.’ There is nothing in this I am astonished that the Democrats would that constrains him. All of these arrangements just calmly walk off the edge of the cliff like are not going to be locked in. Loopholes will political lemmings into the hands of John be in existence. How could the Democrats Howard for a while, until he lets them drop draft 400 amendments in a few days and not to the bottom of the ocean and says, ‘Bad 5956 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 luck, sport, I’ve got the price. I’ve got the involving governments, the community, and political victory.’ Senator Lightfoot smiles landholders, and nicely at the thought of that. I cannot think of - assist in the co-operative implementation of a stronger indication that my strategic po- Australia’s international environmental respon- litical assessment is correct. sibilities. Senator Lightfoot—I was thinking of the I cannot say I have read every word in the Democrats mixing with the Patagonian bill, but I have got to say that this bill certain- toothfish. ly does not do that. That is quite obvious, be- cause the Democrats have moved probably the Senator SCHACHT—Yes, as John How- largest number of amendments to any piece ard lets them drop to the bottom. You are of legislation seen in this place for a long dead right. This is an astonishing development time—and all to do a deal with the govern- today from the Democrats, as astonishing as ment. their giving away their bargaining position over the GST. I think the last month is going As part of the processes of this legislation to be the most devastating month in the you have bilateral agreements that can be history of the Democrats—since they were developed between the states and territories formed in 1977 on the basis of keeping the and the Commonwealth. It says in division 2 bastards honest. We know that in one sense of the bill, with regard to a bilateral agree- the Democrats have now joined one bunch of ment: bastards and are no longer keeping them (2) A bilateral agreement is a written agreement honest. It is an astonishing political develop- between the Commonwealth with a State or a self ment. Illegitimacy these days is not a deroga- governing Territory that: tory term in many cases, but the way they (a) provides for one or more of the following: have done it, they have certainly made them- (i) protecting the environment; selves the victims of ridicule, as they deserve (ii) promoting the conservation and ecologically to be. We in the Labor Party look forward to sustainable use of natural resources; pointing out, at the coming federal election (iii) ensuring an efficient, timely and effective and leading up to that, to all those long-term process for environmental assessment and approval loyal Democrat supporters, many of them of actions; originally Labor supporters, that it is time to (iv) minimising duplication in the environmental come home to the Labor Party, where they assessment and approval process through Common- will get decent social justice policies and wealth accreditation of the processes of the State decent environmental policies. or Territory (or vice versa); and Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (5.36 (b) is expressed to be a bilateral agreement. p.m.)—As we know, the Environment Protec- Look at the first part: ‘protecting the tion and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 environment’. A number of other speakers [1999] proposes a scheme which purports to have raised this with regard to the states’ or provide environmental protection. I was territories’ records on these issues. I do not reading the explanatory memorandum, which think there would be one state that could says: claim that over time they have acted in the The objects of this Bill are to: best interests of the environment. - provide for the protection of the environment, I will speak about my own state and some especially those aspects of the environment of the very significant examples where state which are matters of national environmental governments have not sought to act in the significance, best interests of the environment. The Frank- - promote ecologically sustainable development lin River was one example that received through the conservation and sustainable use international recognition. The Commonwealth of natural resources, course of action certainly was not supported - promote the conservation of biodiversity, by the majority of Tasmanians. As Senator - promote a co-operative approach to the protec- Schacht said, if you ask Tasmanians the same tion and management of the environment question today—that is, would they support Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5957 that or would they not—they definitely would On a few occasions I have had to agree support it. That is why it is important for the with Senator Bob Brown. We have had many Commonwealth to have a very significant and disagreements over time—some very signifi- senior role with regard to consideration of the cant disagreements over time—but I do on environment. this occasion have to agree with the com- We have some other bilateral type agree- ments he made earlier. The Democrats, for all ments that we have entered into more recently their intent and purpose and for all the rea- with some states. Despite the fact that I feel sons that they find themselves in this parlia- that those agreements, known as Regional ment, have certainly done themselves a Forest Agreements, are important for a num- disservice. They have done their constituents ber of reasons, they are not achieving the and supporters a disservice by going down outcomes they were designed to achieve with this path and supporting the government on respect to, in the terms of this bill, ‘promoting this occasion. Nothing can be done to this bill the conservation and ecologically sustainable to make it worthy of protecting the important use of natural resources’. That is simply not areas of Australia’s environment. the case in any state. Over the years I have had views about the Senator Bartlett interjecting— fact that we need to make sure that if we are to use natural resources—and I have a lot of Senator MURPHY—I am pleased you involvement in the forest industry and forest- interrupted, Senator Bartlett, because one of ry—we should do so in an ecologically your amendments goes to that area of forests. sustainable way. We had to have many hard, I hope that, when it comes to the debate in long and difficult debates about those issues, the committee stage of this bill, we will have but we gradually worked towards a process enough time to debate some of your amend- that could bring that about. The former ments, pathetic as they are, because you will federal Labor government, when it brought need to explain a lot of them not only to us about the national forest policy statement, put in this chamber but also to all the conserva- in place a mechanism through which that tion minded people in this country. How are could be achieved. you going to see some of the things carried Since 1996 that mechanism has been through? How are you going to achieve changed and there has been a totally different outcomes with regard to the amendments that approach. The minister comes into this cham- you are moving to this totally unsatisfactory ber and says, ‘We have spent more money bill? For the information of Senator Bartlett, and provided more money than ever before.’ this is a bilateral agreement in another form. So what? It just goes to show that, despite the fact that the states may be well intentioned, they do Senator Quirke interjecting— not have the capacity to always act in the best Senator MURPHY—That is probably true. interests of the environment. But land clearing has not slowed down. In Look at this government’s role. It picked up fact, it is not the amount of money you might the cudgels with regard to the national forest provide to protect or enhance the environ- policy statement and the criteria that had been ment, it is how you use that money and the set down by us—albeit they are probably not things that you do in conjunction with the use perfect. The negotiations it entered into in of the money. That is where the problem lies. terms of bilateral agreements are the point The government does not really have a here. We have states that have a history of commitment and it cannot, by its own social not being able to act in the best interests of approach, have a commitment to the environ- the environment. We have a federal govern- ment. That is a fact of life, as we have seen ment that will be involved in the negotiation on so many occasions. of these agreements and that has a record of I have to say—to give Senator Hill one bit not negotiating in the interests of the environ- of credit—that, at the edges where there has ment. And of course we have the Democrats been agreement to take certain steps, the who have agreed to support the government. government has taken one or two steps. As a 5958 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 fisherman I have to say I was very pleased to There is no way that the minister, in terms of see him take the step of actually banning the the bilateral agreements that are proposed to commercial fishing of blue marlin and black be undertaken or agreed to, will be able to marlin. But, if I can go to another area of make a proper assessment of all of that. The fishing, what has the government done about bill also allows for the establishment of the issue of albatross? We have had commit- committees but there is no explanation of who tees and ideas—threat abatement plans and a will be involved with regard to the environ- whole plethora of things proposed to be mental impact assessment committees and the done—but at the end of the day nothing really various other committees that are proposed to significant is being done. It is just a lot of be set up—and I think we might even give noise. the Patagonian toothfish a run, Senator You can then go on to the land in terms of Quirke. strategies to deal with salinity, which is a Senator Quirke—Patagonian toothfish and huge problem in this country. What are we chips! doing? Very little—we are relying on com- Senator Bartlett interjecting— munity efforts. If you look at it, over time there have been strategies to plant a few trees Senator MURPHY—I know the fact that here and there. If you were to analyse the the Democrats have taken this step with the expenditure there has probably been on government must hurt you, Senator Bartlett. various little plots of trees around the country I think it was described by Senator Brown as and then say, ‘Well, look, how many of those the poodles jumping into the laps of the survive today?’ you would have to say it Prime Minister and the minister, and I think would probably be one of the biggest wastes Senator Brown used the word ‘weasels’. of money of all time. That is unfortunate Senator Brown, I do not know if you were because I do not think the strategy has ever aiming to get a bit of a menagerie going in been right in terms of how you deal with here, but I know Senator Bartlett certainly environmental issues. They need to be taken was not enjoying the comments. with a more head-on approach. This govern- Senator Bartlett—I have always been an ment clearly does not have the commitment animal lover. to do that and that is evident in this bill. Senator MURPHY—Well, Senator Bartlett, I can point to that by going to the environ- if you have always been an animal lover, you mental impact assessment that is supposed to would not be taking the steps that you and be done as part of preparing for the bilateral your colleagues are currently taking, I can tell agreement. Division 6 of the bill, ‘Environ- you. You are certainly selling them down the mental impact statements’, says: drain. 102 Minister must prepare guidelines for draft With regard to the fisheries aspect of this, environmental impact statement again the bill is very limited in its applica- (1) The Minister must prepare written guide- tion—and I find that amazing. We get some- lines— thing like 108 pages of amendments, and I am and it goes on to say what those guidelines not sure that it is not actually more than that should actually cover. They are to take ac- because there are three pages here of addition- count of a number of things, and the bill says: al Democrat amendments that I assume have to go with those that they have lobbed into (2) In preparing the guidelines, the Minister must the lap of the government to present on their seek to ensure that the draft statement will: behalf with its amendments. (a) contain enough information about the action and its relevant impacts to allow the Minister to As I said, how is Senator Bartlett going to make an informed decision whether or not to explain what the definition is of a forestry approve under Part 9 (for the purposes of each operation that will have a ‘significant impact’ controlling provision) the taking of the action; and on the environment? I would be very keen to (b) address any matters specified by the regula- hear Senator Bartlett’s definition of a ‘signifi- tions. cant impact’, because I am not quite sure how Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5959 you then apply that. It would really be a ians who want to ensure that the right course matter of interpretation for the individual: of action is taken on the environment in the degree of significance is in the eye of the long term. No matter where you go around beholder. From our point of view and my this country, you can find examples of where point of view, this bill does remove what was the Commonwealth has needed to take a and is a very important role for the Common- course of action to ensure that the environ- wealth. ment is protected. The examples do not just I have had arguments about Commonwealth relate to the environment; there is a whole intervention in some matters but at the end of host of them—for instance, animals and fish. the day—in most, if not all, instances—those We have heard examples concerning fisher- interventions have proven to be the right ies management where the Commonwealth interventions. As Senator Schacht pointed out, has had to get the states together to thrash out when we were in government we did cop a agreements on the level of catch, et cetera. It lot of flak from a lot of corners in respect of has been clearly identified that the states do that, but it was proven to be the right process. not have the capacity to do this. It is not To now try and pass off the responsibility that acceptable for us to say, ‘Let’s handpass this we have had over a long time to the states, back to the states. Let them get on with the which, as we know and as I said before, have job and wreck things for the future genera- a history of not being able to act in the best tions of this country.’ That was another aspect interests of the environment, from a national of the bill that I found rather interesting. It perspective in particular, is the wrong move. refers to ‘future generations’, yet it will do It is a move that was opposed by the Demo- nothing in that respect. The bill will exclude crats not that long ago; one that they used to the Commonwealth from the powers it ought speak about very dearly and one that they to have and ought to maintain to ensure wanted the Commonwealth to maintain. I can proper management, protection and conserva- recall that even Senator Bartlett, in making tion of the environment of this country. some comment with regard to regional forest agreements, said exactly that. In closing, I urge the Democrats, on the basis of their own statements and the criti- Senator Bartlett—You betcha. cisms that they have made of the Labor Party, Senator MURPHY—I wonder then how to take a long, hard look at themselves. It is the Democrats arrived at the position they are bad enough that they have gone down the now in. Is this a sort of GST linked, little road with the Prime Minister on the biodiversity linked position? GST, but they ought not sell out on the environment. It ought to be something on Senator Brown—It’s an RFA endorsement which they have at least the capacity to stand licence. up and say, ‘We will protect one of the Senator MURPHY—That is interesting, mainstream issues that brought us into this because I thought they actually opposed the parliament.’ That is what they ought to do. If RFAs. they cannot do that, at the end of the day they Senator Brown—Not anymore. will be judged by the people who put them here. If I were Senator Bartlett, I would think Senator MURPHY—I thought I had seen long and hard. I hope that at some point in some literature from Senator Bartlett that was time they will come to their senses. very critical of regional forest agreements. Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (5.55 Senator Bartlett—You still do. p.m.)—I endorse the remarks that have been Senator MURPHY—Senator Bartlett, on made by my two colleagues on this side of behalf of the Democrats, should withdraw all this chamber—Senator Murphy and Senator his amendments and say, ‘We are opposed to Brown. There are two key issues involved this bill.’ That is what he should do if he here. First of all, why are we rushing 400 wants to do the right thing by the environ- amendments, I understand, through by this ment, his constituents and all those Austral- time tomorrow or even earlier? What is the 5960 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 rush? Why do the Australian Democrats in delegate Commonwealth environmental particular, as has already been said, suddenly powers to the states will not lead to a race to believe that this bill is so important, so the bottom in environmental standards. These acceptable in its current form, that it has to be issues alone mean that this deal cannot be rushed through without consultation? supported. With, I understand, over 400 The second issue is also one of principle: amendments, I do not see how it is realistic what is it about the agreement between the to proceed. Several headlines tell the story Democrats and the government that suddenly pretty effectively: ‘Australia going a paler it is acceptable to hand back powers to the shade of green’, ‘A green policy for the states? This is something that environmental- unenlightened’, and ‘The deal not good ists have worked against for years. It was enough for Australia’s environment’. fundamental in the Franklin Dam case and in There are a number of reasons why the the issues surrounding Fraser Island, the wet Environment Protection and Biodiversity tropics in my own state and the Great Barrier Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] is bad for the Reef Marine Park Authority. Frankly, we have environment. First of all, it is the biggest never been able to trust state governments of rewrite of Commonwealth environmental laws any political persuasion because they are for 25 years. The legislation has major prob- much more concerned with short-term inter- lems which threaten advances in environ- ests and are much more likely to be persuaded mental law made over the last two decades. by developers. Look at what has happened You would think that if you are having a with the Hinchinbrook Island issue and the major rewrite of a piece of legislation—any proposal by Keith Williams. That has finally legislation—and it is the major rewrite in 25 gone ahead under this government, but it years, you would want to take time, you would not have been stopped by a state Labor would want to consult and you would want to government; it would not have been stopped make sure that any amendments are in the by a state conservative government. It could best interests of that piece of legislation. have been stopped by a federal government There are five main problem areas with the because federal governments are supposed to bill. Commonwealth environment powers are take into account, firstly, their broader respon- far too narrowly defined. I have no problem sibilities for doing the right thing by the with saying, ‘I don’t trust the states.’ I do not nation and, secondly, their international trust state governments. They are smaller, obligations. they are more parochial and are far more For those two reasons, I find it extraordi- likely to act in a self-interested way. I say nary that the Democrats are considering that of very good state governments. There applying the guillotine tomorrow. I just do not are and have been very good state govern- understand it. I have many good friends who ments in Australia. Probably a condition of are Democrats and I know that they are being a state government is that the pressure amazed and do not understand what is going is much greater. It is like my experience in on. We all understand pragmatism in politics, local government. It is much harder to make we all understand compromise, but we do not tough decisions in local government because understand a complete sell-out and doing a your constituents are hammering down the complete about-turn in terms of what people door. It is much easier to take a more global have always believed in. perspective if you are at a federal level. When Despite this deal, the Commonwealth has it comes to the environment, that is the not taken responsibility for greenhouse gas perspective which should be being taken. emissions, forests, land clearing and water Exemptions and discretions do not allow for allocation. The disastrous exemptions for certainty and provide many opportunities for thoroughly discredited regional forestry the Commonwealth to duck its responsibili- agreements leave the majority of Australian ties. That is something that I find really forests unprotected by this law. There are still distressing. This government has twice gone no guarantees that bilateral agreements which to the people of Australia and said, ‘We want Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5961 to lead Australia. We think we know what is There have been the historic High Court good for Australia.’ Yet they are prepared to decisions that I mentioned earlier concerning duck their responsibilities in relation to the Fraser Island, the Franklin Dam and the environment. Queensland Wet Tropics. Those decisions indicated that the Commonwealth can, and I Bilateral agreements facilitate a handover of would argue should, utilise a suite of constitu- Commonwealth responsibilities to the states tional powers, if it desires, to provide a broad and, frankly, I do not think any of them can legislative coverage of environmental respon- be trusted with them. Ecologically sustainable sibilities. These include the powers with development is not properly defined or taken respect to external affairs, trade and com- into account and provides a poor platform for merce, corporations, territories and Common- leadership in setting national standards and wealth places. protecting the environment. Maybe I am being too tough on state governments, but what an The previous narrow view of Common- ad hoc approach. Queensland might adopt wealth powers is no longer tenable. But as some very good standards, so might Victoria with so many issues that we face with this and South Australia, but what happens if you government, they want to go back in time. do not have a national approach? It is an ad They are not forward looking. They want to hoc approach to environmental management go back to the 1960s and the 1950s. That has and I would have thought that in the last 20- always been the hallmark of the Howard odd years we would have learnt we need a influence. He is not comfortable with the coordinated, national approach. 1990s and looking forward. He wants to go These are not just the views of environ- back. I believe this is very evident in this mental groups, the Labor Party and the particular piece of legislation. Greens. I have here a submission to the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communica- This previous narrow view is no longer tions and the Arts References Committee by tenable and should not be being seriously Associate Professor Rob Fowler, Director of advanced in 1999. Thus it can be said at the the Australian Centre for Environmental Law outset that there is no substantial constitution- at the University of Adelaide. In the submis- al barrier to defining in a broad way the role sion, he goes in great detail to the heart of the and responsibilities of the Commonwealth. legal issues inherent in this change. I quote This is not to say there are no limitations, but only a small section of the submission. Under simply that there is considerable scope to ‘Commonwealth Constitutional Powers’, work within the limitations which do exist. Professor Fowler says: There has emerged in practice, however, a substantial difference between the legal Relations between the Commonwealth and the Constitution and the realpolitik Constitution. States and Territories . . . have at times been Despite the High Court decisions which acrimonious, particularly where projects being undertaken by or with the support of State govern- support a wider Commonwealth role in ments have been made subject to Commonwealth environmental matters, the legacy of the environmental assessment and approval processes. earlier narrow view has been that the states A dominant theme in this context has been the have proceeded to develop extensive legisla- extent to which the Commonwealth has the consti- tive and administrative arrangements for tutional capacity to regulate the environment. Until environmental management. relatively recently, the prevailing political view within both State and Commonwealth governments Obviously, I am not opposed to working was that primary power resided with the States under the Constitution and that the Commonwealth with state governments, but I think that our had only a limited capacity . . . This view was experience of some of the quite horrendous expressed first in the late 1960’s, when the Senate decisions of some state governments in the appointed two Select Committees to enquire into last 20 years should act as a warning to us air and water pollution problems in Australia. that we need that protection power and we Much has changed since these reports were provid- need it in a much broader way than has been ed to the Senate. presented in the bill. 5962 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

The second major concern I would like to I continue on the issue of international cover is the extent to which this bill recognis- obligations. I would have thought that this es indigenous concerns, because I believe government and particularly the Democrats—I very little account has been taken of them. I do not know if they are part of this govern- start with indigenous involvement in the ment these days; it seems as though they must development of this bill. Despite the specific be—would remember that the committee in centrality of the environment to indigenous Geneva that monitors the elimination of racial people’s rights and interests in environmental discrimination has been extremely critical of protection and biodiversity—acknowledged by this government’s policies in relation to state, territory, national and international consultation and working to protect indigen- political bodies—the bill has failed to recog- ous people’s rights. That is subject to some nise this centrality in the general structure, in response by the government at the moment the specific provisions or in the process and is likely to go back to Geneva in August through which the bills were developed. There and possibly go on to the General Assembly was negligible involvement of indigenous for report in December. This will be yet peoples in the policy and legal development another example of how the Australian of the two bills. government is absolutely dismissive of its responsibilities under conventions signed. ATSIC, with portfolio responsibility to advise the government on all indigenous I would like to just detail some of those issues, was just not consulted. ATSIC only international obligations. The 1992 UN saw a preliminary bill just prior to its tabling Convention on Biological Diversity, ratified in the House of Representatives. In their by Australia, recognises indigenous peoples Senate submission, ATSIC further noted that in sustaining biological resources. For exam- wide ranging consultations with indigenous ple, the preamble recognises the: stakeholders had not occurred. This has been close and traditional dependence of many indigen- reiterated by a range of land councils and the ous and local communities embodying traditional Kakadu board of management. lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirabili- ty of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use This consultation failure not only contra- of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices venes the above national and international relevant to the conservation of biological diversity. obligations but is contrary to the coalition’s Articles in the convention reiterate this aspira- public commitment to inclusive government. tion. For example article 8(j) provides that For example, the coalition’s policy statement each contracting party shall, as far as possible for indigenous peoples during the 1996 and appropriate: election provided that the coalition is commit- ted to ‘developing a political system whereby Subject its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices indigenous peoples participate fully, with their of indigenous and local communities embodying unique contribution recognised and valued by traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation the rest of the community.’ That is very easy and sustainable use of biological diversity and to say in the lead-up to an election but clearly promote their wider application with the approval it is not a priority as far as Minister Hill is and involvement— concerned. I can accept that Senator Hill has Senator Bartlett— decided that he has not got time or that it is expedient not to have extensive consultations of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the with indigenous people—that is also the benefits... hallmark of this government—but what I cannot understand, Senator Bartlett, is how In relation to sustainable use of components the Democrats can be prepared to turn their of biological diversity, each contracting party back on indigenous peoples and rush this bill shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: through. Surely, if for no other reason, this Protect and encourage customary use of biological bill could be delayed for consultation between resources in accordance with traditional cultural now and August when the Senate reconvenes. practices... Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5963

The recognition by the Commonwealth, the lighted a couple months ago in our report states and the territories of international how deeply flawed this bill in its original obligations is at the moment questionable. form is, and that is why we have needed to The National Strategy of the Conservation of move so many amendments. It is probably Australia’s Biological Diversity was prepared appropriate that we move on as soon as we and agreed to by the then Prime Minister, Mr can to discussing those amendments so that Keating, and all state and territory Premiers we can actually start looking at how that has in 1994-95. The strategy aimed to bridge the been addressed and how this bill, as amended, gap between current activities and the effec- will actually lead to a positive outcome for tive identification, conservation and manage- the environment. I certainly will welcome the ment of biological diversity. I am not sure opportunity to start examining the improved that this strategy has even been considered in amendments to this legislation rather than the debate and particularly in the deal that has rehashing all the problems with the legislation been done with the Democrats. We will not as it stands at the moment, problems which have time to question whether the strategy is have already been the subject of quite detailed being incorporated and there certainly will Senate committee reports. not be time for indigenous people to be Some of the previous speakers put forward involved in the process. the quite legitimate question, ‘Why the rush In conclusion, I urge the Democrats to sleep on this issue?’ I think that is a fair enough well tonight, but to think carefully before question and I am quite happy to acknow- sleeping well and to wake fresh and deter- ledge that up front. The Democrats believe mined to come back into this chamber and quite genuinely that what we have achieved require the government to (a) take more time with the very significant number of amend- in the actual process of debating this bill and ments to the significantly flawed original bill (b) refer it back for further consultation with will lead to a significantly better outcome for indigenous peoples. I think that is absolutely the environment now than currently applies essential. There are many Australians who under existing law. As a party that has a have battled for over 30 years to ensure that strong commitment to protecting the environ- Australia has a system whereby there is an ment, we see this as an opportunity to get overriding power of the Commonwealth to better environmental protection. protect the environment so that we are not at Previous speakers have also highlighted the mercy of irresponsible state governments. some of the many problems that are currently The Democrats should be prepared to serious- before us in terms of decimation of our ly rethink these issues and perhaps spend the environment. We agree and acknowledge— time between the middle of next week and and, indeed, we have played a strong role in August consulting widely in the Australian highlighting—many of the detrimental actions community, consulting their own members to the environment that are taking place in who, I know, will be very distressed and our country. And that highlights, all the more disturbed about the Democrats’ decision over importantly, why we need to get improved the last 24 hours. They were unhappy enough legislation in place as quickly as possible so about the GST deal, particularly in relation to that, wherever possible, those negative actions the diesel fuel rebate, and this will just exac- can be prevented. erbate their concerns. In good spirit, I urge the Democrats to rethink this evening. It is also the case, as previous speakers have pointed out—and as the Democrats have Senator BARTLETT (Queensland) (6.15 often pointed out in this place and outside, p.m.)—Speakers from the Green parties and and will continue to do so—that the current the ALP have outlined many of the flaws in government, as with the previous government, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity has not got the best record on the environ- Conservation Bill 1998 [1999], and the ment. For that reason, we think it is important Democrats, of course, are in agreement with that there should not be any risk, however the flaws that they have highlighted. We high- small, that the government may change its 5964 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 mind and not join with the Democrats in important in relation to this is to ensure that making these significant advances in environ- people work together to deliver positive mental protection within this country. outcomes for the environment. If during my time serving in this chamber— I know from my experience in working however long that may be—I can be remem- with very many people who put in very many bered for the amendments that are made to hours in the environment movement that that this bill and nothing else, I will certainly is what they are there for. They are there to happily accept that. The Democrats are about ensure that we get positive net gains for the getting improvements for the environment in environment, and that is what the Democrats legislation. We are about improved protection are here in the parliament for. Sometimes you for the environment. I want to play a role in can lose sight of what you are actually in achieving that because that is certainly what politics for, which is to get positive benefits, I am here for. and you can be in a situation where perhaps you are tempted to play politics. I would ask It is important to emphasise the role played Senator Brown, who has now been a politi- by parliament in dealing with legislation. This cian for a very long time, to perhaps remem- is not its only role but it seeks to achieve a ber what he is actually in politics for, which net improvement in existing legislation, and is to get a better outcome for the environ- that is what the Democrats have done. There ment, and not to simply play politics on an are clearly areas—we are quite up front about issue. this and we are promoting changes—in which there needs to be further action, and we will In his speech, Senator Brown criticised a be highlighting this as strongly as anybody number of people that I am sure he knows else. We will be working as hard as anybody well in the environment movement, including else to ensure that further action is taken in some very esteemed environmentalists in those areas. Tasmania who have worked strongly to promote his aims on the environment over But the Democrats as a party are not going many years. I would have been surprised if he to sacrifice advances in environmental protec- had wanted to indicate previously that those tion because we cannot protect everything people are fools, that they do not understand now. We cannot protect everything now and environmental legislation or advance environ- we are not going to go forward with nothing. mental issues. I urge him to look quite genu- Senator Brown—The chainsaws are hap- inely at the motivations of those people who pening now. have never been on the Democrats’ side, as Senator BARTLETT—The chainsaws are opposed to a Green party side, and remember happening now, under the existing legislation; why they are in this business as well—and and if we knock this bill back the chainsaws that is to get positive environmental out- will keep happening, and we will also lose the comes. opportunity for advancing environmental Let me emphasise and outline some of the protection in other areas. positive outcomes that we have achieved. We It is probably worth saying, and I think it have achieved significant improvements on is widely acknowledged, that Senator Brown, existing environmental legislation that will prior to coming to this place, had a record out enable better opportunities for protecting the in the community of working to advance the environment than what we have as the law cause of the environment. I certainly acknow- currently stands. We have a significant num- ledge that. As this is an environmental issue, ber of amendments which will require the I feel passionate about it. I acknowledge that minister to have regard to relevant bioregional he is passionate about it and I wish more plans in making a decision under the act, people in the country were passionate about which is clearly an advance on what we have it. I would ask him in good faith and good now. We have amendments to require public spirit to consider the actual outcome and the consultation on a draft of each plan to ensure purpose of being in the parliament. What is that bioregional plans reflect the knowledge Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5965 and interests of local communities within a which is something that I am strongly suppor- bioregion—a significant advance on what we tive of. It gives it legislative prescription; it have now. actually puts it in force. We have amendments which will improve Strict new liability offences—stricter than on the current listing procedures for threat- what exists under current legislation—will be ened species. The flaws that exist in the introduced. This will provide a higher level of current law would stay in place if we did not protection for those species than currently pass this bill. Those who are trying to knock exists. We will require Commonwealth agen- back this bill in its improved form are saying cies to ensure that a covenant is put in place to environmentalists, ‘We want the current when selling or leasing Commonwealth land, flawed system to stay in place. We do not to ensure that critical habitat on the register want these improvements on listing proced- is appropriately protected. This is something ures for threatened species.’ Categories of that we do not have now; it is something we threatened species will be expanded in line would lose if we did not allow this legislation with internationally recognised categories. to go through. Proposed amendments will These categories include conservation depend- reinstate provisions in existing legislation that ent species which have not yet become ensure a high level of public accountability in vulnerable or endangered but could be if the issuing of permits. relevant conservation programs ceased. This We also recognise the special contribution is taking a long-term view of a crucial aspect that indigenous people can make to the of better environmental planning. For the first conservation of biodiversity. The proposed time, vulnerable ecological communities will amendments will ensure that roles and inter- be listed, as well as critically endangered and ests of indigenous people will be taken into endangered communities—not just individual account in developing recovery plans, threat species but the ecological communities sur- abatement plans and wildlife conservation rounding them. plans for protected species—a greater involve- The minister will be able to list key threat- ment and greater input than what they current- ening processes on the basis of scientific ly have. There will be greater opportunities criteria. On current law, a process cannot be for control of non-native species, invasive listed if it is not feasible, efficient or effective species, including weeds as well as animals. to develop a threat abatement plan for the That will provide opportunities for greater process. For the first time, with these amend- regulatory control than exists under the ments, there will be a full timetable for the legislation as it now stands. It will give listing process from the point at which a legislative effect to the government’s election nomination is received, forwarded to the commitment of 1998 to establish an alert list Threatened Species Scientific Committee for of invasive species. advice, and a decision made on listing. There are also issues such as access to The bill establishes an Australian whale biological resources and ensuring that the sanctuary. This measure maintains what we extensive knowledge of indigenous people acknowledge is an area where the government over tens of thousands of years about biologi- has performed creditably in the past in the cal resources is employed in research and in leadership in the conservation of whales. We the search for natural substances which have hope that state governments will join in with potential value in a range of fields, not just the mechanism that is now being created by environmental value but economic value. The this legislation to add coastal waters under Convention on Biological Diversity recog- state jurisdiction to the sanctuary. Of course, nised the right of parties to control access to if they do not, that will not be any reversal of their genetic resources and to obtain a fair and what the current situation is but it again equitable share of the benefits arising from provides the scope for further improvement of those resources. Currently, there is no legisla- the existing situation. There would be a ban tion to enable the Commonwealth to control on the capture of dolphins for live display, access to biological resources in Common- 5966 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 wealth areas. The bill, as amended, will improved environmental outcomes, and those address this and is a significant advance will be detailed further in the committee stage which we would lose if we walked away from of the debate when the Democrat amendments this legislation. are put forward. The list of significant extra The amendments proposed by the Demo- advances include provisions enabling conser- crats remove a provision in the original bill vation zones to be proclaimed to protect which gave rise to substantial concern for biodiversity while an area is being assessed environmentalists, which is the capacity for for inclusion. conservation agreements to specify activities Existing provisions relating to indigenous which would be exempted from normal people’s rights to use Commonwealth land for environmental assessment and approval water and hunting have been reinstated. processes. We have put that back in so that Bilateral agreements will not apply to Kaka- there is no capacity for those activities to be du, Uluru and Booderee national parks, which exempted. These requirements provide a is consistent with the wishes of the traditional tangible mechanism for implementing owners, as expressed during the Senate Australia’s international obligations and inquiry into the bill. All of the Democrat national objectives relating to indigenous amendments have been achieved in consulta- people and biodiversity. tion with those environmental and indigenous For the first time, Commonwealth legisla- organisations that have wanted to grasp the tion will explicitly provide for the protection opportunity to make forward moves towards and management of wetlands designated protecting our environment—moves which are under the Ramsar convention on wetlands of a great advance over what is in the existing international importance—legislative protec- legislation. That is why so many of those tion that was not there previously and which groups have supported what the Democrats we would lose if we walked away from this have achieved in this area. legislation. Similar provisions apply to world Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to heritage properties. While such properties are 7.30 p.m. currently protected by the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, that act does not Senator CARR (Victoria) (7.30 p.m.)—The adequately reflect Australia’s international Environment Protection and Biodiversity obligations. The current legislation, which we Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] was always would be stuck with if we walked away from going to be a controversial bill. But as a the improvements that the Democrats have result of the actions that we have heard about achieved, puts a series of obstacles in the way today involving a sordid arrangement entered of the protection of world heritage properties. into between the Democrats and the govern- ment, this bill now becomes even more In contrast, with the amendments and the controversial than it otherwise might have new features that the Democrats have man- been. It has been a matter of some concern to aged to gain, protective mechanisms available those who have a genuine interest in environ- under the bill will apply to all properties. All mental issues. actions which have a significant impact on the world heritage values of a property will be Senator Calvert—Like yourself. addressed by legislation—every single action. Senator CARR—I hear the Tasmanian All the hurdles which are in place under the Liberals casting aspersions upon our interest existing legislation—the hurdles which those in the environment. If ever there were a group who want to oppose the bill want to remain of people in this country who for their own in place—will be removed. self-respect needed to remain silent, given The bill provides some significant innova- their record, it would be the Tasmanian Lib- tions in the protection and management of erals. Commonwealth reserves. The additional The Democrats have for many years sought amendments that the Democrats have negoti- to demonstrate to this country that they are a ated to the bill will provide other areas for new political force. They have claimed to Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5967 have a greater sense of moral values. They candidate in a subsequent election, urging that assert time and again that they are a political Australia needed a Liberal government be- organisation that rises above the hurly-burly cause, in their opinion at that time, it is only of mainstream politics. They claim that they through a Liberal government that you see are out there championing the environment, strong environmental performance. social justice and a range of other very noble What have we seen since the Liberals have causes in a manner which sets them apart come into office? We have seen the Natural from other political parties in this country. Heritage Trust established out of the What we have discovered here today is that privatisation of Telstra. That involved the the Democrats have joined with the Liberals destruction of one of our greatest public and become, like the Liberals, a party that is enterprises. The returns supported a pork- quite prepared, as Senator Brown indicated barrelling arrangement to try to buy off green earlier this evening, to sit at the table of support around this country. We saw how the power and forget the politics of principle. National Heritage Trust became a rort. This What we have established tonight is that the government sought to display its favours Democrats, in their latest capitulation to the around the country in a highly partisan man- demands of the Liberal Party, have surren- ner. dered any claim they might have to moral We saw the actions of the government on superiority on the question of the environ- greenhouse gas emissions. We saw how this ment. What we have established tonight is Liberal government sought to take upon itself that the Democrats have become like any the mantle of strengthening and developing other political organisation in this country. the Jabiluka uranium mine in Kakadu Nation- They are concerned with the immediate and al Park. We saw the devastation of their the practical. They have dispensed with any policies with regard to Hinchinbrook develop- claim to have an attitude superior to any other ment. Before this chamber now is the propo- political organisation in this country. We have sal to hand back a range of environmental the so-called new party, the Democrats, protection powers to the states. We are now behaving just like the old party, the Liberal seeing the expansion of woodchip exports Party. before the completion of regional forest We have been told that their position on the agreements. All these measures that have been deal they have struck with the government on put in place give an indication of the sort of this highly controversial legislation is support- government that the Liberals provide and ed by a range of conservation groups. We saw which the Democrats are now seeking to on the news tonight the example of a range of support. The Democrats are seeking to but- organisations supporting the Democrats. They tress it via their support of the new measures did not tell us that Greenpeace, the Australian contained in the Environment Protection and Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Biodiversity Conservation Bill. Society remain strongly opposed to the The Democrats were once able to present measures that the Democrats have now en- themselves as a party of idealists romantically gaged in with this government. seeking out the truth and seeking to establish I am always surprised when Greenpeace, a higher plane of political activity. We now the Australian Conservation Foundation and have a grubby deal which greatly disappoints others make these sorts of statements because the many people who are in erstwhile support I always look at their record in seeking of the Democrats. We can expect considerable support for the Liberals. We saw just before levels of disruption within the Democrats in the 1996 election a gathering of noted conser- the months to come. I predict that quite vationists down at Sherbrooke Forest in substantive levels of disquiet will be express- Melbourne. They were on TV urging people ed within the Democrats, particularly in my to support the re-election of the Liberal state of Victoria. I look forward to the public government. We saw Alec Marr and Mr discussion that will inevitably develop about Downie, who turned out to be a Democrat the role of Senator Allison in the negotiation 5968 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 of these arrangements. I look forward to the crats, because I have no doubt that these discussion about preselection in the state of pressures will come to bear in all sorts of Victoria when Senator Allison comes forward. ways. I have no doubt that, when it comes to I am sure that a high level of interest will be the discussion of preference arrangements shown by rank and file Democrat supporters, right across this country, there will be enor- who over the years have come to believe the mous pressure for various political organisa- rhetoric that the Democrats are a special sort tions to reassess their attitude towards the of political force and a much more idealistic Democrats. and noble enterprise than could ever be seen I can assure you that, in the state of Vic- in any other part of the country. toria, I for one will find it necessary to draw I am also looking forward to discussions to the attention of the people that I mix with within the New South Wales branch of the the difference between the various parties, Democrats. I am sure that Senator Bourne their attitudes and the way in which they have will enjoy the public attention that will no performed in the parliament. I think it is doubt follow this arrangement as those within important that we do assess the rhetoric and the Democrats in New South Wales seek to the actions that political parties engage in so express their views about the implications of maybe these so-called new politicians, the the Democrats’ betrayal of principles and the Democrats, can be judged on their record. We implications of the Democrats turning their can see quite clearly from the example we back on their established commitments to the have before us tonight that the Democrats environment and social justice questions. have once again been found wanting. I have This follows on from their craven capitula- no doubt there would be hundreds of thou- tion to the government on the GST, so I have sands of Australians who, in their sincerity, no doubt that the green coalition of idealists believed that the Democrats were a different that have made up the Democrats over the type of political organisation. years will now start to crumble. That is a Senator Margetts interjecting— great disappointment to me because I think in Senator CARR—Senator Margetts indi- politics we do need a range of opinions being cates to me that she is surprised by my expressed. I find that a very difficult prospect expression of opinion on this question. I am to have to face—that the Democrats are going sure they do believe in their sincerity that the to enter into a period of great turmoil as they Democrats were trying to achieve certain and ordinary members of the Democrats begin things. After all, was it not the political party to understand the implications of the arrange- that said they were going to keep the rest of ments that their leaders have entered into. us honest? But we find in this arrangement There are some in the Labor Party who that no-one is keeping the Democrats honest. have said to me over the years that the real I trust that the rank and file of the Democrats difference between those on the left and those will be able to give full and proper consider- on the right is that those on the left really do ation to these questions because I suspect that have a deep understanding and know that they there will not be an opportunity in this cham- will be betrayed by their representatives. I can ber to do that. I suspect that, as part of the see why they would think that, and we do grand new alliance between those of the ultra- have a clear example. The Democrats, who left of the Democrats and the ultra-right—the have seen themselves very much on the left tory right—of the Liberal government, there of Australian politics, will now have to will be an arrangement in place to curtail the reassess their role in the political debate in level of public examination of these arrange- this country because quite clearly they are ments. I hope I am wrong, but I have a positioning themselves as a party on the far terrible sinking feeling that, deep down, the right of the political divide in this country. I Democrats do not want a proper discussion of am sure the Liberals will be able to look the implications of these arrangements—they forward to enjoying the benefits of having do not want there to be public scrutiny of the such a stable and reliable ally as the Demo- deal that they have done. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5969

The backroom arrangements bring with We were told of improvements and expan- them great contradictions. The real problem sion of the Commonwealth powers. That is for the Democrats, if I might offer some what they are claiming. They no doubt have gratuitous advice on this question, is that you the government spin doctors working for them do have to have a bit of experience in dealing these days, because that is the sort of state- with people in power. If you are in a minority ment that is worthy of Dr Kemp. What you and you are seeking to demonstrate a commit- do is hand the powers back to the states, you ment to ideals, you ought to be able to have reduce the level of Commonwealth environ- a resolution, you must be resilient, you must mental powers, you make sure the Common- be determined and you must have the capacity wealth withdraws from its responsibilities, but to understand the strength of your own posi- you announce to the public that you are tion. The Democrats have failed on all these expanding the Commonwealth’s role in terms fronts. What has happened, quite frankly, is of environmental protection. All you have to they have been stood over. They have capitu- do, in the best traditions of 1984 and lated. They have allowed themselves to be Huxley’s Brave New World, is to say exactly duchessed. They have allowed themselves to the opposite to what you are doing; and that fall into the old trap of being told how im- is what they are doing here. portant they are and how worthy their contri- We have been told for instance is that this bution is. As a consequence, they have found is a proposition that has regard to the EPIP it necessary to accept compromises and to be Act, the Environment Protection (Impact of flexible in such a way that we have seen them Proposals Act, but it is a proposition that will walk away from long held principles. provide greater certainty—we will see propo- We see in this package before us a situation sitions advanced in such a way that Common- like we saw with the GST—where for many, wealth action will be proposed with greater many months we were told by the Democrats certainty. What they do not tell you is that the that they never, ever move on the question of opportunities for the Commonwealth to get books and the GST. We were told for many, involved will be reduced—they will actually many months there would be a commitment diminish. In a whole range of other issues, the to defend education as a central and important same proposition comes forward. ingredient to which all Australians should have access. The Democrats, with their What I am particularly concerned about is commitment to those high ideals, found it was the way in which the Democrats have capitu- necessary to capitulate. Sad as it was, in the lated and abandoned their long held commit- interest of good government they had to ments. They have put themselves in a situa- capitulate. They had to turn their back on tion, with regard to bilateral agreements, their supporters, they had to turn their back where the most reactionary elements within on the election commitments they had made, the state bureaucracies and the state arenas and they had to turn their back on their long will be able to exercise much greater influ- held philosophical views about the role of the ence. Those who hold real economic power in politician within this chamber. Now we see a this country will have a greater capacity to miserable and totally inadequate proposition: influence development projects, which are it was explained to us tonight that the Demo- much greater in number at the state level, and crats have delivered. They have delivered all they will enjoy greater confidence and greater right. They have delivered lock, stock and certainty. And of course they will have the barrel to the government. They have wound capacity to exercise their will over the will of up all their supporters into a nice tight little the majority of Australians. bundle and delivered them to the tory govern- For instance, when it comes to actions in ment. So much for their commitment to the regard to the Great Barrier Reef Marine environment; so much for their concern to Park—you probably have a greater under- ensure that there was appropriate and ad- standing of these issues, Mr Acting Deputy equate representation for the environmental President Hogg—I am told that, up and down questions within this chamber. the Queensland coast, there are something like 5970 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

150 major developments ready to roll. Of ready been set by the government itself. They course, if you withdraw the Commonwealth have capitulated to the government. from any overriding scrutiny of such proposi- What we will see will be a reduction in tions, there is always going to be confusion Commonwealth control over environmental about responsibilities of the state government regulation—the extent of which is yet to be and the Commonwealth government, and it determined, but there will be a substantial leaves a large gap through which unscrupu- reduction. We will see the absence of a lous developers can jump. That is essentially Commonwealth regulatory framework over a continuation of the policies we have seen in matters and, despite the various COAG relation to the Hinchinbrook development— agreements which have sought to establish policies which have seen this government important principles with regard to, for in- abrogate its responsibilities and act in a stance, climate control and greenhouse gases, thoroughly negligent way. we will see a further devolution of Common- In my judgment, we ought to have been wealth control over projects and other able to expect a much higher level of commit- Commonwealth decision making processes ment and genuine leadership from the with regard to bilateral agreements. We will Commonwealth government. I see that Sena- see an agreed process of capitulation; a tor Hill has just entered the chamber; I am surrender to the interests of development and sure he has come in to listen carefully to the to the interests of powerful companies which comments senators are making about this have the capacity to directly control this miserable proposal before the chamber. We government. We will see the absence of ought to have been able to see as a result of effective public participation in key develop- this extensive review—propositions which, I ment questions and an extension of broad fully acknowledge, were begun under a Labor discretionary powers of the minister in rela- government—initiatives which provide a tion to a whole range of issues being present- genuine opportunity to strengthen the role of ed in this bill. government, ensure proper protection in What the government gets out of this is a environmental questions and ensure the proper continuation of its ideological agenda and a protection of Australians’ future through an winding back of its commitment to participate effective use of government power. Under this in civil society and the development of this government, such an opportunity is lost—it is country in such a way as to ensure proper squandered—and it is now fully supported by protections for all the different people who the Democrats. enjoy the fruits of living in this country. We will see this government being legitimised in The Democrats say they can come in here its drive to abrogate its responsibilities and with a few minor amendments, which will turn its back on what ought to be a commit- make them feel a lot better—and it gives ment to providing effective legislative and them a fig leaf to be able to suggest that they political leadership. (Time expired) have had a big impact on policy. They can be Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (7.50 told how important they are, how responsible p.m.)—In October of this year we are going they are, and how they are now at the table to celebrate—or at least I imagine some and they are important players in the Austral- people will celebrate—the 60th anniversary of ian political debate. They have left the fringes another deal in the 20th century which was of politics but, of course, they have also left supposed to be the deal to end all deals. I their principles and they have left their com- want to ask senators tonight if the name mitment to the sorts of ideals that they have Neville Chamberlain means anything to them. held for a very long time. They have now sat Nev got on his plane and flew all the way to with a tory government and have been able to Munich— exercise what they perceive to be a capacity to set the directions of government. The truth Senator Margetts—Peace in our time? is that they will not set any directions for Senator QUIRKE—I will come to that in government, other than those that have al- a minute, Senator. He sold off half of Czecho- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5971 slovakia and made it pretty clear to the pose, earlier today. Once we saw the Demo- Germans that, if they wanted the rest of it, all crats voting with the government, as I under- they had to do was wait a little while and stand it, on the production of documents, we they would be able to pick it up. Sixty years should have known that this crowd unfortu- ago, that deal was consummated in Munich. nately have sullied themselves, that they are Nev flew home and the aircraft stopped at, I no longer the virgins in white clothing that presume, Heathrow or whatever it was, and he they make themselves out to be, that they are got out and waved a piece of paper. The piece the political whores that we find in all sorts of paper was entitled ‘Peace in Our Time’. of images the public has— I have always had a bit of sympathy for Senator Margetts—I would like to indicate Nev. After all, he went over there, and about that I object to that use of terminology and the only aircraft that Britain could scrounge the sexual innuendo, and I think they should up at the time was the one that carried him to be withdrawn. Munich. They did not have much else going Senator QUIRKE—If I can help you, Mr for them and they did not have any kind of Acting Deputy President, I think I called them strength in the deal, and I guess any time the political whores. Germans wanted to take Czechoslovakia they could do so. It just so happened that Neville The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT helped them along a bit. In fact, a few months (Senator Hogg)—I think you should with- later he loaned them enough money to build draw that, Senator Quirke. an anti-aircraft defence system around Berlin. Senator QUIRKE—I do not think I can in this instance. I do not think I have to, unless The absolute puzzle about the Democrats in the Clerk gives other advice on this. the last couple of weeks is why they are doing what they are doing. I cannot under- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— stand what the strategy is. They were all My advice is that it should be withdrawn, looking forward to the balance of power. We Senator Quirke. I would withdraw. had Senator Woodley a few weeks ago paying Senator QUIRKE—It is unparliamentary, out Senator Bob Brown and telling him he is it? Is that the ruling? was irrelevant and that pretty soon, starting on The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— 1 July, the Democrats would be calling the Yes, it is; it is a reflection. shots. I have to tell you that they are doing it before 1 July. In fact, they are doing it so Senator QUIRKE—Is it? In that case I comprehensively, I do not know what will take out—is it the word ‘political’ or the tomorrow’s deal is going to be. I do not know word ‘whores’, or both? what they are going to wheel in here next and The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I say, ‘We’ve gone around to the Howard think you know what to withdraw, Senator government and, boy, have we got a deal for Quirke. you. We’ve jumped into bed with the Howard Senator QUIRKE—I will withdraw any- government and we are taking the Prime thing that upsets anyone here tonight. I find Minister at his word that he will still respect the deal they have done a staggering one. It us in the morning.’ The consummation of the is the deal that all fishermen in this country deal has taken place—every day there is a would love: you go out with a fishing rod and new deal—and we are told that they will be you forget the bait, but you do not need it; respected in the morning. you just chuck the hook out and the biggest Today’s deal, I think, is one of the more fish jump on it. That is what the Democrats interesting ones. At least with the Telstra have done. They have jumped on an unbaited debate there were a couple of weeks of hook. I am puzzled as to why they would argument around the place before the guillo- want to do this. We saw Senator Bartlett on tine was moved on the whole thing. But this the news tonight with two or three of his one has just come right out from stage left. close mates saying, ‘It’s really not such a bad We should have really picked it up, I sup- deal.’ 5972 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Senator Mackay—The environmental debate on the Environment Protection and groups? Biodiversity Conservation Bill. She said: Senator QUIRKE—No, they looked more I want to talk a bit about the consultation. like his mates, because they had the environ- We do, too. To continue: ment groups afterwards and they were not as There was very limited time for consultation, pleased; they did not look happy at all. They initially with regard to the discussion paper and said that it is really not such a bad deal, that then limited time for the committee to report— it could have been worse, that in fact the that is, the legislative standing committee here Howard government put up this probably in the Senate. She went on: straw man to see if they could get this crowd The COAG agreement, which was the source of to jump on the wagon, and that is exactly this legislation, did not involve the public and was what they did. quite secretive... I do not understand this. In Neville That is the word I want to home in on— Chamberlain’s case, he did not have much ‘secretive’. Not only did the COAG process else going for him. But there is no doubt that keep it secret from the public, but this process the Prime Minister will do anything to get his here today has done exactly the same. I GST up. There is no doubt that this Prime suspect that, by the time we finish tomorrow, Minister was politically lost a few weeks ago that secretive process will see a bill go into when Senator Harradine said that he could not law. It may be a good bill; it may be bad bill, agree. You should have seen the faces on but I can tell you that it is not going to be a those senators opposite—they said it all. They properly scrutinised bill. It is going to be knew that the whole agenda was ripped up rammed through here by a bunch of people and burnt in front of them. But, no, not a who hawk themselves around at each election thing of it: the Democrats came around very saying, ‘We are different; we are going to quickly. keep them honest.’ I will not use that other We are yet to see the argument about what word that has been used here today, because point the chicken becomes 10 per cent dearer I would probably be asked to withdraw it and we are yet to see how this diesel fuel anyway. stuff has been worked out or what other odd At the end of the day, I suspect that there idea these people have. I suspect that is what is such a difference here between the way the we are going to get. We are going to get a Democrats talk out there, what they promise GST bill full of very, very odd ideas from a at election time, and what they are delivering group of basically very odd people who have here today—and what, no doubt, they will gone around and done a deal with Mr Howard deliver here tomorrow and what, no doubt, and his mob. That deal, no doubt, will be they will deliver here next week—that in fact brought in here and I imagine it will be this is an enormous break in faith with the guillotined as well. In fact, I think the party electorate. Senator Allison was dead right of free speech—no doubt before much long- when she said these processes are secretive. er—will not like listening to too much more That was on 27 April. I would not have of this stuff, and they will gag this one as thought that in the short time to 22 June well. They are going to say they are going to Senator Allison and the rest of her friends roll those 400 amendments through just like would actually have joined in the very pro- the other night on Telstra. The only difference cess she was complaining about. was that in Telstra I think at the end of the The other document that has been going day there were about 20 amendments; this around here today reminds me of something time there are about 400. like a death warrant. If you look at the death I think it is rather instructive to have a look warrant for King Charles I—I think I got at a couple of passages of what the Democrats mine off a cornflakes box about 30 years have had to say on this legislation. I want to ago—you see that it had all the signatures on draw the Senate’s attention to Senator it as well. I just wonder what sort of political Allison’s remarks in the second reading show you are running when you have got to Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5973 get everyone to sign on the dotted line at the guillotining, I suspect would have accepted end of a statement. I know they have got a that deal. few stresses and strains in there and not In fact, I think Senator Lees could have everyone is happy with the way things are been even more brazen than that. I think being run. Quite frankly, when you have got Senator Lees could have said, ‘Look, it is like four aces in your hand, why you would want this. We need to keep faith with those people to do a deal between now and next week we have been appealing to for the last 10 or leaves me puzzled. Is it the case that the 15 years, the environmental groups. After all, Democrats are really not up to or not prepared we have got some Green senators who are for having the balance of power, or is there competing with us for this particular constitu- some other explanation? When I look at the ency,’ and doing a fine job too, I might add. document, I find some rather naive state- I think Senator Lees could have said to the ments. One refers to other senators. This Prime Minister, ‘We just want to sort out the document says: GST at this stage. Please don’t stick anything At the time the Democrats pointed out this strategy else on the agenda.’ But, no, we did not get would only be successful if Senators Colston and that. We got a very happy Senator Allison Harradine gave a commitment to oppose the bill at the "second reading". and a very happy Senator Bartlett coming in here today and saying, ‘Boy, have we got a What they are saying there is that the Demo- deal for you.’ They have even got their crats were concerned about the role of Senator photographs on the top of this particular Colston and Senator Harradine and the fact document. that they may have voted this bill into legisla- tion over the top of the Democrats. The document says that the conservation If you have got the Prime Minister by movement is very happy with these arrange- whatever image you want to use, by the hand ments that they have made. I do not know or by some other part of his body, and indeed where they got that information. That would you are holding his entire political future in be a first. Some of these groups would not be your hand, or in both hands, I would have happy with any kind of deal or arrangement thought that you could have done a deal on or any of the rest of it. I suspect that the just about anything. I would have thought you miners will be happy with this arrangement, could have gone around to the Prime and the reason is that they are now probably Minister’s suite—I have never been there and going to have a full swag of what they want. I think I am unlikely to be invited there, at Probably a lot of groups in Australia would least for the next couple of years—and be very happy, because they know that gang- knocked on the door and got past the surly ing up on state governments is a much easier guard. I am sure he would have let Senator task than ganging up on the national govern- Lees and company in and they would have ment. That is really what this is all about at made them a cup of tea or coffee or whatever the end of the day. they drink around there. I reckon Senator This particular document that has come out Lees could have said, ‘Prime Minister, we urges me to read all of the great concessions have a problem. On that argument that unfor- that these people have made and points out tunately we are having about that chicken and that they have all done a very good job: they how is taxed, it is going to take us till about have tightened up all the loopholes and this September to work out which bits of the bill is now repaired. Some of my colleagues chicken are going to be 10 per cent GSTable. have said it is not. I would like to say that I On the other hand, we have got a lot of time might agree with them. It may well be that on this environment bill. If we could have they have done a reasonable job. I doubt it that pulled off the agenda until, say, Septem- very much, but I would like probably more ber then we could deal with the GST this than the next 16 hours or thereabouts to have week and next week.’ The Prime Minister, a look at it. I would like to listen to some of being such a reasonable fellow and basically the debate on this. After all, what are we being in the tumbrel on the way to his own talking about? Are we talking about some- 5974 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 thing insignificant or are we talking about lengths some of these people will go to something that is very significant? Remember achieve their own ends. They used to tell the Franklin Dam? everyone that they were different—that they Senator Calvert—I’ll say. were not like other politicians. Well, they are not. There are a lot of politicians around here Senator QUIRKE—Remember the Dain- who believe in open government, who believe tree? Remember a few of the other issues in that process should be fully adopted, who this country which had to be sorted out at the believe that deals like this ought to be much national level? It may well be that some more accountable and out there in the public senators in here, and I hear some voices, say domain and who believe that these sorts of that they are not too happy with the Franklin things should not happen. River being free. I do not know that too many of them would get up and say that publicly. I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that, at Maybe I am wrong. But I would like those some stage when somebody finally works out senators, like everyone else, to have the which bit of the chicken is going to be taxed opportunity to get into this debate. and which bit is not, we are going to have a What we are seeing develop here is a new gag motion on this bill and on all the amend- political relationship, and that political rela- ments that are floating around on it and, I tionship is just like the old one in the Fraser suspect, on any other bill that suits the Prime government. At the end of the day, that is Minister before we get up on 30 June. where the Democrats came from. No, they I cannot understand why the Democrats are were not a bunch of people in caftans then, in such a hurry on this particular issue. After sitting around in a circle singing Kumbaya. next Wednesday they are the only group the They were in there with the Fraser govern- government or, for that matter, the opposition ment because most of them could not get can deal with to achieve certain legislative preselection within the Liberal Party. I can ends. Possibly, they wanted to jump in there give you a few names if people want me to. quickly in case a couple of others, namely Right up until 1983 and 1984 these guys were Senator Harradine and Senator Colston, beat on the right. Did they have a good industry them to it. But it tells us how fragile this GST policy? I remember the former Senator deal is and that it may not even last the next Siddons in here with his industry policy. He few weeks. It tells us what problems there are was advocating the sorts of reforms Mr Reith in their own show. We will look with interest advocates years before Mr Reith even thought to see what deals emerge in the next 24 to 48 about them. hours. Then in 1984 you had Mr Garrett and Senator MACKAY (Tasmania) (8.10 Midnight Oil and suddenly the Democrats p.m.)—Before I begin my formal contribution, became left of centre. They had a very sudden I would like to concur with some of the com- change in their politics; they changed over- ments made by Senator Quirke. One thing night. They became the left wing conscience that is levelled continually against us on this of the Labor government for the next 13 side of the chamber by the government is the years. They hawked themselves out there as experience that many of us have, including the great greenies. They hawked themselves you, Mr Acting Deputy President Hogg, in the out there as the ones that were going to make trade union movement and in negotiations sure proper process was developed— with employers and industry groups and so transparency, no secrecy. They got the bal- on. In many conversations in Tasmania over ance of power back and a couple of weeks the last couple of weeks I have had cause to before they actually get it they have jumped reflect that I do not think the Democrats into bed with the government. They are would have lasted five minutes in the union practising for what is going to come. movement in terms of negotiation. I have had What we saw here this afternoon when they people say to me on the GST bill, ‘Why voted against documents being produced to didn’t they hold out for more? Why did they this chamber should tell everybody to what cave in so early?’ The answer is that I do not Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5975 know. Normally in politics you do know, you But I am here to talk about local govern- can articulate what the reason is, but I genu- ments, and I would like to say that this bill inely do not know why they folded so early. has been the subject of serious concern by a In terms of negotiating, I do not think they number of groups, a fact which has been would make it past shop steward 1 at the old raised by a number of people today. One of Clyde Cameron college. those groups is local government, which I do not think has got a mention to date. Local Senator Bartlett made some interesting government is not just another lobby group, comments prior to the dinner break. I accept and I am not casting any aspersions on lobby that he was genuinely concerned that the groups at all. Local governments are actually government might change its mind on this bill involved in the delivery of services with if it were deferred for consideration until later regard to the environment, so they have a in the year. As Senator Quirke quite correctly vested interest in relation to this, and they pointed out, it does indicate the fragility of have direct responsibility for many of the the relationship in that clearly the Democrats environmental services that are delivered mistakenly think they have only one ace in within our community. their hand, and that is the GST legislation, so they need to extract these commitments in Local governments play a significant and relation to the GST legislation in order to get critical role. They are responsible for local through the modifications that they believe planning and environmental management, rectify the many difficulties in this bill. But standards of land management, conservation the reality is that from 30 June they are in the of native vegetation including off-reserve ultimate powerful position. The government conservation, rehabilitation of degraded areas, is going to want a lot of things from the urban conservation, eradication of weeds, Democrats. We have the second wave of pollution control and, of course, greenhouse industrial relations legislation coming through, gas reduction. All of those are the responsi- maybe as early as next week, and the govern- bility of local governments and they are ment is going to want to have a talk to the responsible for delivering these programs to Democrats about the second wave as well. the community. On this side of the chamber, we in the I hope the Democrats have had a rethink on Labor Party have long regarded—and I think that. I hope that they do not accede to the this is empirically proven—local government draconian legislation that Minister Reith is as a partner with the Commonwealth govern- putting forward but, as Senator Quirke said— ment across a range of policy issues. We have and I think correctly—we do have a major a long history of working with local govern- shift happening in the political paradigm in ment on national policy and, of course, it was Australia, in that what was for a very long Labor that first introduced Commonwealth time a left of centre party is moving to the funding for local government in 1973. Labor right in political terms. That happened with have always believed in—and in 1988 the GST and it is now happening with this sought—constitutional recognition for local environment legislation. government, which was vehemently opposed I suspect it is a bit like when you first by the current government, in particular become a swinging voter. When you first Minister Reith, in the referendum. break that traditional pattern and stop voting We have also recognised local govern- Liberal, Labor, Democrat, Green or whatever, ment’s important role in the environment. In you are basically a swinging voter for life. 1995, when Prime Minister Keating signed That is what is happening in politics these the first—and so far only—partnership agree- days and that is what concerns me—that we ment between the Commonwealth and local do have this major shift in the political government, the Local Government Accord, paradigm with the Democrats and we may see the Labor Party formally recognised the vital a continuing lurch to a more conservative role of local government in environmental party. management. That accord, which was a state- 5976 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 ment of principles and shared goals that of the states? That is something which strikes would be pursued by the Commonwealth and horror, I must say, into the hearts of most local government in partnership, explicitly councils. included a commitment to the protection of the environment and a recognition of local I note that, despite local government’s government’s pivotal role in relation to that. significant role in environmental protection, In his speech to the National General Assem- the Minister for Regional Services, Territories bly of the Australian Local Government and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdon- Association, the then Labor Prime Minister, ald, has not bothered to participate in this Paul Keating, said: debate and has said absolutely nothing about In all but a few areas of Australia’s public life, the local government’s role in respect of this decisions of Local Government—and the quality of legislation. Let us not forget that this is the those decisions—help determine our progress . . . government that tried to palm off any sem- It is most certainly the case with protection of our blance of a working relationship with local natural environment. I welcome your commit- government by handing local government ment— funding over to the states. In fact, Senator that is, the local government representatives’- Macdonald tried essentially to do himself out to the protection of the environment. The Accord of a job as minister for local government. I provides for an integrated approach to planning and understand he was looking forward to a development and to appropriate involvement in continuing—I will not say illustrious—career areas like waste management, sewerage, stormwater in other portfolios once he had managed to treatment—issues crucial if we are to look after our rivers and our coasts. rid himself of this one and was utterly deva- stated by the arrangement with the Democrats That is quite correct. That historic accord, in terms of the retention of local government. which, I might add, has completely dropped off the agenda of this coalition government, In the end, of course, we saw the deal and included as one of the shared principles we saw that the government was forced, underpinning the agreement ‘safe-guarding kicking and screaming, by the Democrats to environmental quality and promoting ecologi- retain Commonwealth responsibility for local cally sustainable development’. Schedule 4 of government funding—not graciously and not that agreement dealt specifically with environ- with any real commitment to strong and mental management and the view of the effective local government. One thing this Keating Labor government was made very federal government fails to grasp is that local clear in that schedule: government is elected; it is actually elected to The Commonwealth will: represent a constituency much as people in support participation by Local Government as a this chamber are but probably more equitably partner in the development and implementation of in many senses. national strategies in which Local Government has a legitimate interest by virtue of significant statu- So it comes as no surprise that this bill tory responsibility or financial commitment and contains no mention of local government and . . . promote and enhance the role for Local fails to recognise the responsibilities and Government in the implementation of the regulatory powers of local government with Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. regard to environmental management. It also This government, by contrast, regards local fails to recognise local government’s role in government with disdain. It does not recog- implementing national environment policies nise local government as a partner of the at a local level. Local government has been Commonwealth and repeatedly demonstrates gradually and quite deliberately excluded its failure to grasp the role of local govern- from the process in the development of this ment in building our communities and in bill. Its concerns have been ignored and once maintaining and protecting the environment. again it finds itself at the mercy of the states. How often have we heard coalition members, This is something that Senator Hill did not particularly on Senate committees but also in mention in his answer to Senator Bolkus here, describe local government as a creature today in relation to exactly what the role of Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5977 local government has been in the development sible for planning and development control func- of this bill. tions. Local government over the past 20 years That is correct. He went on to say: has taken a greater and greater role in envi- The strategy identifies the steps that need to be ronmental management and the implementa- taken, the indicative costs and advocates partner- ship with the Commonwealth and state govern- tion of national policies at a local level. Only ments, to ensure our diverse biological heritage is seven months ago, the National General protected and managed sustainably. Assembly of the LGA endorsed a national The Australian Local Government Association local government biodiversity strategy. Local has raised some key concerns about the bill government worked very hard, in partnership in submissions to the Senate committee and with the states and the Commonwealth, to in an appearance before that committee. Key, develop a formal strategy to preserve and of course, among those concerns is the failure protect Australia’s biodiversity. It is some- of the bill to recognise the roles and responsi- what ironic that local government took a bilities of local government as an environ- national approach to biodiversity and environ- mental manager and often as the enforcer of mental management at the very time that the environmental standards. It omits any require- Commonwealth was seeking to reduce its ment for preparation of statements and ad- national responsibilities for the environment equate consultation by state governments with and shove them off to the states. That is local government in the preparation of bilater- absolutely ironic. al agreements. At the same time, the general assembly also Local government, through the ALGA, was adopted a unified approach to coastal manage- a full member of the intergovernmental ment. Both these strategies are built on local committee for ecologically sustainable devel- government’s national approach to the envi- opment until it was abolished by this govern- ronment and its adoption of national policies ment in 1998, and local government was a on climate change and waste management in signatory, through the ALGA, to the 1997. In a media release from the ALGA intergovernmental agreement on the environ- president, Councillor Campbell, he reaffirmed ment. It was actively involved in the review the need for cooperation on environmental of roles and responsibilities in the environ- matters between all three spheres of govern- ment. It was that review that was to result in ment. He said: the development of the heads of agreement But local government cannot achieve sustainability which would foreshadow amendments to the on its own. What we need is effective and mean- IGAE, and forms the basis of this bill. ingful cooperation between all spheres of govern- ment to meet these important environmental ALGA pointed out in its September 1998 objectives. submission to the Senate committee that ‘the failings of the heads of agreement are reflect- The national local government coastal management policy identifies the issues which constrain the ed in this bill’. I understand that the heads of involvement of councils in coastal management, agreement still has not been signed by all the and outlines the principles which we believe are states. I also understand that local central to an effective intergovernmental coastal government’s concern about the conduct and management regime. outcome of the so-called consultation pro- Similarly, the national local government cess—and this has had a wide airing in the biodiversity strategy, which was unanimously second reading debate speeches—that has approved, has agreed that biodiversity conservation resulted in this bill is so great that ALGA has become a mainstream function of local government also refused to sign the heads of agreement. subject to adequate resourcing. ALGA in its submission expressed disappoint- That is a caveat that needs to be there. He ment at the failure of the review to recognise continued: local government as a partner of the It recognises that the Commonwealth and state Commonwealth, states and territories in governments cannot achieve these agendas on their environmental management. In fact, the own because local government is generally respon- submission stated: 5978 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Regrettably, the review failed to address its task in ...toensure that the role of local government in the holistic way envisaged by the terms of refer- environmental management is appropriately recog- ence, focussing instead on a limited number of nised in the proposed new Commonwealth environ- intergovernment issues which might be character- mental legislation. In addition, this legislation needs ised as Commonwealth-state demarcation disputes. to ensure that state-territory governments must enter There we have it. The submission went on to into subsidiary agreements with the relevant state- territory local government association regarding say: implementation. The review failed almost completely to address local government issues, again despite its terms of The ALGA is a cross-representation of not reference and despite a specific request by ICESD only local government but also the communi- that the review consider the 1996 COAG resolu- ty. It is certainly not a front for any political tion. party. It is very independent minded. But that That COAG resolution, which arose out of the was the ALGA’s view on this legislation. 1995-96 review of the IGAE, stated: Despite local government’s numerous repre- . . . ICESD examine and report on ways to ensure sentations and repeated calls for recognition, that the role played by local government in envi- there is no mention of local government in ronmental management receives increased recogni- this bill. As I said before, despite the plethora tion and better implementation in terms of the of environmental activities that local govern- agreement and that local government’s role and ment has to carry out, there is not one men- involvement in processes to progress the objectives tion of it in this bill. Once again it has been of the IGAE are clarified. completely ignored by the federal govern- Local government, which was so actively ment. More importantly, I think the federal involved in the beginning of the so-called government has failed to recognise local consultation process which has led us to this government’s contribution to national well- debate today, has been gradually and not so being and the environment in particular. subtly excluded by the Commonwealth and the states—the Commonwealth particularly. I will conclude as I started, with the Demo- According to the ALGA submission, ALGA crats. The Democrats should not think they in 1997 did at one stage endorse the heads of are off the hook either on this disgraceful agreement in principle, with two caveats: piece of legislation. I know that my col- firstly, they would include a positive reference leagues have traversed that adequately. We to the future implementation of the resolution have not yet had the opportunity to closely on the need to enhance local government’s examine the Democrats amendments to this role in the implementation of the IGAE; and, bill. If any belief is to be placed in Senator secondly, relevant schedules would require the Bartlett’s implicit threat before the dinner states to consult with local government and break of a guillotine—he exhorted the Senate prepare statements setting out the implications to hurry up and get onto the consideration of for local government. the amendments—we will not get the oppor- tunity for proper scrutiny. Let us not forget The submission then went on to explain what the Democrats said in their local govern- that, since the 1997 COAG meeting, further ment fact sheet for the 1998 election: discussions took place between the Common- wealth and the states—I think Senator Hill Democrats’ policy is to . . . treat Local Government as an equal partner with Federal and State Govern- mentioned those today—but this time without ment in both the development of major national local government, without the ALGA. As a programs and reform processes. result of those discussions, ALGA believes that local government’s role was watered I will wait with great interest to see whether down significantly. At the general assembly the Democrats remembered local government in November last year, local government when they did their deal with the government representatives from across Australia endorsed on this bill, or will it be a repeat of the tax a motion that called for local government to deal where the Democrats promised so much be included in the legislation and to be and delivered so little? consulted. That motion called on the federal Local government deserves a fair go and government: deserves recognition. It was involved in the Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5979 process up until very recently and then delib- aged to bring about consistency and uniformi- erately excluded in relation to that process. It ty in the national interest and in the interests has to be involved. It should be recognised in of the globe. this legislation because of the services that it provides and the fact that it is a democratical- This legislation will undo all of the effort ly elected sphere of government which de- undertaken over the last 16 years across the serves to be regarded as in partnership with political spectrum in order to protect our the states and the Commonwealth govern- environment, our native flora and fauna and ment. As I said at the beginning, it is a sad our national heritage. It will certainly under- indictment that there is no mention at all of mine the national interest. The basis upon local government in this legislation. which this government puts forward this legislation is contained in the second reading Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) speech of the minister, particularly with (8.30 p.m.)—I begin by picking up on the respect to the references to the COAG agree- closing remarks of my colleague Senator ment. In that speech the minister said: Mackay with respect to the Democrats’ policy The Environment Protection and Biodiversity on local government. It would appear that, by Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] implements the virtue of their actions over recent weeks and COAG agreement. In doing so, it provides the particularly this week in regard to their framework for a more effective national approach approach to the legislation before this cham- to environmental management, ensuring resources ber, they intend to drag local government are focused on delivering better environmental down to the same level at which this govern- outcomes at all levels of government. The Commonwealth’s role in this national approach ment treats the responsibilities of both federal will, for the first time, be clearly and logically government and state government. That would defined. be a disaster. The bill will replace five existing Commonwealth The Environment Protection and Acts—the Environment Protection (Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999] Proposals) Act 1974, the Endangered Species and the Environmental Reform (Consequential Protection Act 1992, the National Parks and Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999] will have a Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, the Whale Protec- tion Act 1980 and the World Heritage Properties significant impact in this country, not just in Conservation Act 1983. the immediate future but in years to come in the next millennium. Unfortunately, the That is a very noble statement. It would be significant impact it will have will not be one wonderful if it were true but, of course, it is which enhances national responsibility and not. Shortly I will demonstrate why not. In national protection of the environment. Rather what can only be the height of hypocrisy, the its significance will be that it will mark the speech goes on to say: point where the national government wound As a result of the previous Labor government’s back the clock on responsibility for the neglect, the Commonwealth’s environmental law environment and for heritage. regime has not evolved to keep pace with the rapid advances in environmental management. This is a government which looks back- wards. We have a Prime Minister who looks If you look at the paragraph which I quoted back to the 1950s and the 1960s, a time a moment ago, you will see the five existing which he thinks was a golden era in Australia. Commonwealth acts that will be replaced by He longs for those days and makes no secret this bill. In just about every case, they are of it. Unfortunately, he translates that view bills that were passed by Labor govern- about this great nation into many areas of ments—the Whitlam government and the public policy and responsibility of his govern- Hawke and Keating governments. As every- ment. We have seen it in health and education one in this country knows, it was the Labor and we are now seeing it in the environment. governments at the national level which This Prime Minister longs to devolve respon- finally took a stand on the big environmental sibility back to the states in important areas issues facing this country in the 1970s and such as the environment where we have man- particularly in the 1980s. 5980 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

I hear Minister Vanstone laugh as she issues such as indigenous affairs, when the enters the chamber. Where was the minister coalition parties did not like the decisions of when the Franklin Dam was proposed to be the High Court so they tried to subtly under- built? Which federal government was it that mine them—indeed, at the end of the day, took on the state government in Tasmania, they were not so subtle. Again, they wanted irrespective of whether it was a Labor govern- to devolve more responsibility to the states in ment or a Liberal government? It was the that area. Hawke Labor government that took on that issue in the national interest, won it and used They have done the same thing in health by Commonwealth powers under the external cutting funding across the board: ‘Oh, this is affairs powers to stop that disgraceful project. a job for the states to look after,’ they say. It It was a project which everyone today recog- is the same with education: ‘Oh yes, we’ll let nises should never have been on the drawing the states do it. That is their responsibility.’ board. What was the reaction to the coalition It is similar with regional development. The parties at that time? They ran off to the High previous minister for regional development in Court and challenged the Labor government’s this government said that there is no place for use of the external affairs powers and other the national government in the area of region- powers to stop that project. al development. What an attitude to adopt in 1999 to the great issues that affect regional It was the same attitude that they adopted areas across this country, many of which to some of Gough Whitlam’s earlier legisla- involve environmental degradation. Of course, tion, particularly with respect to ensuring we are seeing it again in this area of the appropriate control by a national government environment. over our offshore waters. The first chance that they could get they were off to the High I concede that there is a need to get some Court to challenge the use of national powers uniformity in the environmental laws that in that regard. Each of the pieces of legisla- apply. But we also know that we are faced tion replaced by this bill, with the exception with certain constitutional difficulties. Firstly, of one, was passed by a Labor government. there is the situation that the Commonwealth And the minister has the hide to allege neg- does not have a direct head of power to lect by a previous Labor government! intervene to protect the environment. When we were seeking to put those pieces Senator Margetts—Neither do the states. of legislation into law, when we were seeking Senator FORSHAW—Senator Margetts to protect the Daintree, the Franklin River, the intervenes and says ‘Neither do the states.’ Of forests of the Lemonthyme, Kakadu and the course, we know that one of the difficulties is Great Barrier Reef, what was this mob on the that it is the states that essentially have other side trying to do? Stop us at every turn. control of land management in this country. Premier Bjelke-Petersen took us to the High As I reported earlier with respect to some of Court. God knows what would have happened the issues that were prominent in Gough if he had had his way. There would be oil- Whitlam’s time—including disputes over the drilling rigs up there now on the Great Barrier control of territorial waters—this government Reef. That was the policy that he supported. wanted to give those powers back to the Yet you have the hide to come into this states. And we have had to rely upon the parliament and say that you are somehow external affairs powers. We have had to rely fixing up neglect by previous governments. on the powers over export and import, and What an absolutely ridiculous allegation to over corporations, in terms of some of these make. activities as well. So there is a need to try to What you are also doing is, as I said, codify the law. But the bill that has been put continuing a philosophy that your Prime before this parliament does not do anything of Minister is hell-bent on, and that is to reduce, the sort; it actually represents a complete as much as possible, national responsibility abrogation of responsibility. It hands back to for the big issues. We have seen his failure on the states essentially unfettered control. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5981

Whilst there may be provisions in the bill the NSW ALP government recognised what which refer to areas of national heritage, we an absolutely absurd and disgraceful proposal need to consider the bill in detail. Hopefully, that was and stopped it. That area is now on if we get sufficient time and the guillotine is the edge of the Solitary Islands Marine Na- not applied again, those deficiencies will be tional Park, but they wanted to stick a sewer- exposed. As Senator Bolkus outlined in his age plant right on the headland. opening remarks on behalf of the opposition, there is a plethora of areas where this bill is That is the sort of activity that has to be deficient and where all we have is mealy- able to be stopped. One could go on and on, mouthed words and very little by way of as other speakers have identified, regarding all substance in terms of the Commonwealth those areas of macro significance, such as the being prepared to positively and directly Daintree and the Franklin Dam. One could intervene to protect the environment—a talk about the very many other areas that are position that we were always prepared to very important, that may not be on the nation- adopt when it was in the national interest. al spectrum in terms of their environmental The other point that I wanted to make in significance but that still need to be protected. reference to the COAG agreement is that the government says that it bases this legislation These bilateral agreements really would be upon the Commonwealth heads of govern- a bit of a sham. There is little room for public ment agreement. Yet it was in that process consultation and involvement in conservation that some 30 areas of national significance agreements. We have seen the attitude that were identified by the Commonwealth and the this government has adopted to public consul- states as requiring specific reference, specific tation. They have allowed for very little identification. But this legislation identifies public input in respect of their decision to only seven such areas. None of the substantial build a new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights. areas such as climate change, greenhouse When requests are made under freedom of gases, soil salinity, air quality, inland water information legislation for material as to how pollution, land degradation and forest manage- some of these decisions were arrived at, ment is directly addressed in the legislation. ‘Sorry,’ the government says, ‘it is cabinet-in- There is a huge void in what this legislation confidence, and we can’t tell the public about spells out in respect of those areas of national that.’ One could point to a range of similar significance on which this government and instances. The Hinchinbrook proposal in future federal governments would be prepared Queensland is another that comes to mind. to take action. There is little detail on the And, of course, Senator Bolkus particularly bilateral agreements proposed between the drew attention to the disregard for the rights various levels of government. Senator of indigenous people under this legislation. Mackay, as I said earlier, has referred to the Unfortunately, this legislation continues a fact that local government is not even men- sorry tradition of this government in abrogat- tioned. Yet local government increasingly has ing its responsibilities at the national level. Of a role in respect of environmental protection. course, that is their approach. As I said, they After all, local governments exercise many of cut funds to the states and then they say, the planning laws around this country. ‘You look after that area,’—whether it be I can recall a major dispute only a couple health, education or family services. They cut of years ago on the north coast of New South the funding to that reputable organisation, the Wales where there was a proposal from the Australian Conservation Foundation, which Liberal government under Mr Greiner, and has come out and slammed the Democrats for then under Minister Fahey, to locate a sewer- getting into bed with the government with age plant at what is called the Look-At-Me- respect to this legislation. Frankly, handing Now Headland near Coffs Harbour. That was back direct responsibility in so many areas to supported by the National Party and it was the states is a prospect that I tremble at, given supported by local government interests up the sorry record of many state governments in there. Fortunately, the community and later the past on this issue. 5982 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

I conclude by referring to that rather over- that, for the second time around, they are in used word in the political lexicon, ‘vision’. a win-loss situation. We hear references to ‘vision’ all the time The first major stumble that they had was and, in many cases, I have to concede that it with the first wave of the so-called industrial is inappropriately used and overused. But if relations. We have had even Senator Murray there is one issue where one can legitimately stand up in this place and complain about the talk about governments needing vision it has fact that they were dudded and taken to the to be in the area of environment and in the cleaners, and that they did not realise what protection of our environment and heritage, their negotiations were about and what they because that is the legacy that we leave for were agreeing to. I think that is the outcome future generations. of what we see before us here tonight. I do Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister, as not believe that the Democrats really under- I said, who believes that vision is irrelevant, stand what they have done. that we have to look back and not forward. I The second bad deal that they made was notice that Senator Quirke in his remarks with the GST. The deal with respect to the referred to Neville Chamberlain, a man who legislation now before us brings up No. 3, and I do not think could be described as having a so they have got the trifecta—and that is terribly good concept of vision. I am actually nothing to be extremely happy about, even if reminded of the closing words of The Great you were a punter. Of course, they have taken Gatsby, where Fitzgerald wrote: the odds here and they have lost. They have And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown deserted their own constituency—and that has world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first been clearly brought out by my colleagues picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s who have spoken in this debate. They, who dock. are the great ones to get out there and claim ...... that consultation is necessary and imperative Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic and that there is a great need to consult with future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded not just peak organisations but also the great us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will amorphous mass out there, have deserted run faster, stretch out our arms further . . . And one those people that they claim to represent and fine morning— that they claim to in some way represent in So we beat on, boats against the current, borne this chamber. They have absolutely abrogated back ceaselessly into the past. their responsibility to those people in nothing John Howard is rowing the boat and taking us but the worst of ways, because they have back into the past, and the Democrats are in taken a decision which will affect dramatical- there with him. It is a pity that they have ly the outcome for the future of the environ- taken that step. I ask them to get out before ment of this nation. it too late. My friend Senator Quirke alluded to the Senator HOGG (Queensland) (8.49 fact, quite clearly, that Senator Lyn Allison p.m.)—Earlier this evening Senator Bob had complained about the secrecy of the Brown said that the action of the Democrats COAG agreement on 27 April, and yet here was a disgusting sell-out in respect of the we are on 22 June and any problems with the environment. I can only echo those words secrecy that surrounded the COAG agreement strongly, because that is precisely what it is. seem to have completely evaporated. Of Those from my side who have preceded me course what has happened in the meantime, this evening in the debate on the Environment in becoming part of the process, is that she Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill has cut herself and her party off from the 1998 [1999] have clearly shown that the consultative process with those people which Democrats have no understanding of what they so ably claim to represent. negotiations are about and what is required to I have had some experience in this parlia- get a deal where you are in a win-win situa- ment on the Senate Environment, Communi- tion—because in this case there is no doubt cations, Information Technology and the Arts Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5983

References Committee. At the behest invari- government. How the supporters of the ably of the Democrats I became involved in Democrats must feel used and prostituted by a number of references on environmental the process of the Democrats, who have matters. To that end, I have a great interest in offered them so much but, in effect, delivered the environment; always have had. Many them so little. At the end of the day, the people would be surprised at the very good Democrats have been found to be wanting and track record I have on the environment at a this is highlighted by the deal that has been federal level. consummated with the government on this Senator Margetts—You may well say that: environment bill. I could not possibly comment. I have a practical concern rather than an Senator HOGG—I will divulge it for you emotionally driven concern, as I perceive a later, Senator Margetts. I participated in an number of the Democrats have. The Demo- inquiry on marine and coastal pollution. I crats have run their race on emotion and have participated, in part, in an inquiry into the been found wanting when it comes the practi- Hinchinbrook project. I participated in a calities of this legislation. There is no doubt reference committee hearing in the early that this legislation is nothing more than a stages of this bill, before it ended up at the great number of words put together by some legislation committee. I have had the pleasure spin doctor but, at the end of the day, it will of travelling to many parts of Australia with have very little or no practical effect because those inquiries. One of the significant parts of it takes away the influence and the power and those inquiries was that wherever one went the right of the Commonwealth government one found that the Democrats had lined up a to have an overarching role and say in envi- number of witnesses to appear before the ronmental matters. What we will see as a inquiry. That is fair enough—all the parties result of this bill are lower standards rather line up witnesses, but the Democrats were than higher standards. particularly energetic, particularly emphatic If one turns to the second reading speech, about having their constituent groups appear one finds that it is at odds with the so-called before the committee and have their voice direction that the federal government are heard as part of a broader consultative pro- stating that they want us to take, and that cess. their partners, the Democrats, want us to take Of course, I listened to all of these groups in this area. I refer to the fourth paragraph of and had the opportunity to question them. At the second reading speech, which says: the end of the day what we found was that Over the last two years, the Federal Coalition these people were satisfied that they had been Government has worked co-operatively with the State Governments to identify the reforms needed heard. They had been consulted. Of course, to produce a more effective and efficient national this was undoubtedly the major thrust of approach to environmental management. many of these inquiries as far as the Demo- Note the words ‘national approach’. That is crats were concerned. They would line up the focus of the Environment Protection and their supporters and where their supporters Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 [1999]. had to register outrage they did. There is no Further down in the next paragraph it repeats doubt that the Democrats carefully stage- a similar sentiment where it says: managed the appearance of their colleagues, of their fellow travellers, at the various In doing so, it— venues, and for that I give them credit. ‘it’ being the bill— Nonetheless, when it comes to a most provides the framework for a more effective important issue of an environmental nature national approach to environmental management. before this parliament, a major bill, what do In two paragraphs we get hit with the concept we find? Without any consultation at all, as of a more effective and efficient national best as I can understand, the Democrats go approach and the words ‘provides the frame- down the path of deserting their constituency work for a more effective national approach’. and go straight to a sweetheart deal with the Of course, the very last thing that this bill 5984 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 does is give a national approach. It abrogates or break attitude to development at all costs national responsibility. It takes away the and the attitude ‘hang the environment’. responsibility of the federal government. It In the second reading speech, we heard reduces the responsibility of the federal about the so-called national approach. How- government and tries to push the power and ever, the bill requires the powers to go back responsibility back to the states. to the state. If the powers go back to the state, In my view, that is the complete opposite what will we end up with in the states and of where this bill should be heading. As I territories? We will have six states, two understood the original Democrats position, territories and eight agendas. We are not it is the complete opposite of their view. going to have one national agenda. If the From what I understand of their early position Democrats think otherwise, they have pipe in this bill, they have done a complete about- dreams. There are various demands in the face. Everything seems to be heading in the various states. They might be based on their direction of the state government. As some of coastal nature or their rural or regional nature my colleagues quite clearly alluded to here or on tourism or general demographics. We earlier this evening, the track record of state are not going to see a national approach in governments is not good, particularly if you any way. come from a state such as mine, the state of The opening few paragraphs of the second Queensland, where we had a conservative reading speech on this bill claim to have government for many years under the rule of identified reforms to produce a more effective the Hon. Joh Bjelke-Petersen as Premier. The and efficient national approach to environ- more you could knock down, the more trees mental management. However, it produces you could remove and the more land you nothing but a diverse range of views that will could clear, the more you were rewarded. As be at least eightfold. By the time you include one of my colleagues said, we would have in the equation the influence of the various had mining rigs on the Barrier Reef had it not local government areas, you will probably been for other circumstances taking place. find a real grab-bag of environmental agendas There is no doubt that going down the path in the various states. Far from having a of handing the power to the state governments national approach, we will have a very di- is not a good way to be going. Their track verse approach. records leave a lot to be desired. This has The explanatory memorandum refers to a come out in a number of inquiries I have number of matters of national environmental participated in with the Senate Environment significance that will impact on the involve- References Committee. A genuine concern for ment of the federal government. It is interest- our environment has been expressed by many ing to read division 1 on page 21 of the interested people, not just the so-called green- explanatory memorandum: ies, that state government can be too reckless This Division applies to an action that has, will in its capacity to handle the issue of the have, or is likely to have a significant impact on environment. one or more of the matters of national environment- al significance. It was expressed loudly and clearly on numerous occasions that the issue was best That is fine; they are nice words. As I said left with the federal government. State earlier, this has been put together by the word government is seen as being preoccupied with spin doctors. What construction is to be put business initiatives, development projects and on ‘significant impact’? What is of significant employment generation. Some of those things impact to one is of no impact to another. of themselves are not bad; they are not What is of importance to one group has wrong. However, when you have them and absolutely no meaning elsewhere. It goes on: the environment is either being pushed out the The matters of national environmental significance back door or is not being given even anything are— near an equal rating in decisions, one has and it gives a broad listing. World heritage governments totally preoccupied with a make properties can be reasonably defined, as can Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5985

Ramsar wetlands of international importance. do not trust the state governments in these I would like to see the definition of ‘national- areas. (Time expired) ly threatened species and communities’. Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (New ‘Migratory species protected under interna- South Wales) (9.09 p.m.)—The Environment tional agreements’ is reasonably defined. Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill Senator Quirke—Which migratory spe- 1998 [1999] was most aptly described tonight cies? on one of the news programs—I think it was Senator HOGG—Yes. on the ABC’s PM program—as ‘a start of the race to the bottom in environmental Senator George Campbell—Are we standards’. I think that was a very apt descrip- protected? tion of this legislation. It is another piece of Senator HOGG—You’re not protected, Prime Minister John Howard’s back to the Senator George Campbell. The Common- future vision for this country—another piece wealth marine environment is generally three of hankering for the past, to take things back nautical miles from the coast, and any addi- to where they were: relaxed and comfortable tional matter specified by regulation can be in the 1950s. added only after consultation with the states. It is a bit sad when you look at some of the That to me is a very minimalist position at material that has been produced over the past best—a very narrow position—because it is couple of days, particularly the press release wide enough to drive a battleship through. that the Democrats put out today, under a When one considers that the environment photograph of all seven, headed ‘Democrats knows no boundary at all, one can see the deliver expansion of Commonwealth environ- types of impacts by which the federal govern- mental powers’. They said: ment can become involved being relatively For reasons of politics rather than policy, the ALP meaningless indeed. If one looks at the and the Greens declared that the bill was beyond northern Pacific starfish problem in the repair. Derwent River at Hobart— They also went on to say: Senator Vanstone—As one would. All up, we didn’t get everything, but we got very Senator HOGG—Yes, as one would. I am close. WWF estimates we addressed about 85% of happy to take that interjection and I am glad the concerns of the environmental movement in our to see you are right with me on the northern amendments. Pacific seastar, Senator Vanstone, because one Senator Hogg—Is that the Waterside knows that the inquiry I participated in some Workers Federation? 18 months ago saw this fairly well confined Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—No, I to the Derwent River. I understand that the think its the World Wildlife Fund. To con- seastar has now moved beyond that area. It tinue: has moved into waters in southern Victoria The Queensland Conservation Council declared that and also further round into shores closer to the Democrats ‘did an excellent job’. Other envi- South Australia. It knows no boundaries; it ronment groups are also impressed. knows no laws. It is a national problem. Who are these other environmental groups? I Does it have a significant impact? Does it heard Senator Allison today, when addressing come under the significant impact that would this issue, talk about the support they had require the federal government to become from environmental groups, but I also noted involved? It is very much open to question. that Senator Allison was very careful not to There is no doubt in my mind that the agenda identify the other environmental groups that that is being set here is one that will see a lot were supporting this legislation or that have of blurred edges—there will not be clearly supported the package negotiated by the defined involvement by the federal govern- Democrats. When you compare what is ment when it is needed and as it is required. contained in the press release put out by the The vast majority of people in this nation are Democrats with what the reality is, you have simply untrusting of state governments—they to say that they would have been better off 5986 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 including a photograph at the top of the page We had the flooding of the Franklin and all of Senator Hill, entitling the document Snow of those issues. Does anybody think it would White and the Seven Dwarfs and putting in be any different in the next century? Would the song, ‘Hi ho, hi ho. It’s off to work we anyone really entrust the environment of go.’ It would have been as constructive and Western Australia to Premier Court? Would as intelligent as the contents of this press anyone really entrust the issue of capping the release are. water supply through the Murray to Premier What is the environmental movement Kennett? Would anyone really entrust envi- saying about this legislation? A press release ronmental issues in South Australia to Premier was put out by the Australian Conservation Olsen? I do not think so. I do not think that Foundation, Greenpeace and the Wilderness anyone who has any respect at all for the Society which said a few things about it, and environment would want to entrust those I will come to that in a moment. I got some individuals with making decisions that would material in my office the other day from be in the interests of the environment in those Greenpeace. They made three very important states. points in relation to this legislation and the The state and the nature of our environment material that they distributed. They said: is not just a state issue. It is a national and an It is our view that this legislation should be post- international issue, and we need to be a nation poned for major surgery or otherwise rejected by that has strong environmental laws that are the Senate. able to be enforced nationally, that can play You would have to say when you look at the a constructive role, that feed into international legislation that Senator Herron and Senator laws, and that protect the environment for all Eggleston combined could not save it. The of us. following point in the material from Greenpeace is very important: One has to say that the Democrats have got themselves into a real muddle in political The legislation should reflect the Commonwealth’s terms. In the past couple of weeks they have extensive powers, should fully reflect our interna- tional obligations and— moved from being the party of principle and the party that operated on the motto ‘Keep the more importantly— Bastards Honest’ to actually joining the should treat the Australian environment as a whole, bastards. They have become the political rather than artificially dividing at State boundaries. polluters. They have polluted the tax environ- All major environment groups in Australia have ment with their GST, which will finally finish expressed deep concern about the new legislation up—if things go as predicted—being passed and the process by which it was developed. through this parliament. They will not be able In the press release of 21 June, the Australian to walk away from that and they will not be Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace Austral- able to get rid of the odium of it; and nor ia and the Wilderness Society said: should they be allowed to. They are now At the beginning of this century we created a about to pollute the environment by putting nation from a collection of colonies—this Bill legislation through that, in the longer term, returns us to the days of different laws for different will work to the opposite of the interests of States. This does not provide the right legal basis for good nation-wide environment laws and stand- the people they say are their core constituen- ards. cy. When you look at the experience of the I think that is very true. A number of my past couple of weeks, it has clearly emerged colleagues, when making their contribution in that we have a team of players over here on this debate, have referred back to some of the my left who, when it comes to negotiating experiences we have had in this country over anything, are really babes in the wood— the past 20 or 30 years when the control of pardon the pun. They were taken to the environmental laws was firmly in state hands. cleaners with their eyes open and without We had the debacle over Fraser Island. We really knowing it had happened. had the proposals by Bjelke-Petersen to mine I used to play a bit of cards in my younger or to drill for oil on the Great Barrier Reef. days; I suspect Senator Quirke also did, Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5987 coming from the same part of the world. We Hill and Senator Allison strolling arm in arm had to try to get a quid in whatever way we through Kakadu, through Ranger, tiptoeing could, and cards was one of the ways we did through the uranium tailings up around that it. But I will tell you: I have never seen area. That is how close the Democrats have anybody holding a royal flush in a card game come to the government in terms of delivering and folding it. their environmental policy. They will have Senator Quirke—And taking 20 Rothmans, delivered the very policy that they have been which is what they have done. saying was deficient and for which they have criticised Senator Hill and his government Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—That is over many months. what they have done: they have actually The Democrats are becoming a bit like a folded a royal flush. They were sitting with bird which we used to be fond of years ago. the unbeatable hand; they were sitting with It was known as the hoof and dinger bird. It the opportunity to do something really con- was a bird that used to continuously fly structive, and they folded the opportunity. I around in ever-decreasing circles and eventu- have been involved in politics for some 35 ally disappeared up its own passage. In years in this country—a little bit longer if you political terms, you would have to say that is add my involvement elsewhere—and I have a reasonable description of where the Austral- seen a lot of situations where individuals or ian Democrats sit at the moment in the politi- groups have sold out for 30 pieces of silver. cal environment. They are gradually shifting But I have never seen a situation, ever, where their support base into tighter and tighter a group were prepared to sell out for two circles, and it is not too far from disappearing brass pennies. That is what the Democrats got from under them. for delivering the GST to this government, and that is what they will get for delivering It is particularly galling to see a party like this polluted environmental package of legis- the Democrats, who have made their promo- lation to the people of this country. It is an tion of environmental issues an absolute absolute disgrace. What they have done, to virtue—wherever you go, they have been the put it in cricket parlance, is a Herschelle purest of pure in pursuing those issues—being Gibbs. They took their catch and threw the prepared to sell out those principles and ball away. They threw the ball away before destroy those commitments as part of a wider they had it securely in their hands and before deal which involves a GST but is all seen in they used it constructively. terms of them delivering their own political relevancy. But you have to say to yourself: You have to say that it gets a bit wearying relevancy to achieve what? I think it is very at times in this chamber. Over the past few true, as someone else said in this debate months we have seen Senator Allison in earlier, that they have gone the full circle. particular, who is the Democrats spokesperson They have gone from being a fracture of the on environmental issues, come into this conservative coalition in this country— chamber at question time, and at every other established by Don Chipp for his own politi- opportunity, and raise issues relating to the cal agenda at the time—right across the environment. She badgered Senator Hill political spectrum through to trying to posi- almost continuously about what was happen- tion themselves to the left of the Labor Party ing at Kakadu. There was a constant on- and other progressive parties in this country. slaught on Senator Hill, the environment minister, about the evils of the government Senator Margetts—That wasn’t too diffi- and its policy on Kakadu. That was their cult at the time. approach on that issue, and it was constant Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—No, over a whole period of time. It would not everything is relative, Senator Margetts, from surprise me if we were to see, over the next time to time. I am often surprised about your couple of months, a reversal of that situation. position on some issues when you have It would not surprise me if one day we were moved to that side of the chamber, contrary to turn on the evening news and see Senator to where we thought you might have been. 5988 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

But everything is always relative in politics. they are off trying to read what it is that they They positioned themselves to the left of the have agreed to. political spectrum and, all of a sudden, they Senator Quirke—Another deal. have taken a gigantic leap back onto the conservative side of politics. Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL—Or maybe, as Senator Quirke says, there is They have hitched their wagon firmly to another deal in the offering on some other this government. Whether or not this govern- piece of legislation that we are not conscious ment survives will, to a large extent, deter- of. I happened to see Senator Murray on the mine how they go in the political future. But way down here to the chamber and I noted he they will never be able to get up again in this was heading in the direction of where the chamber or anywhere else and lecture us, the Prime Minister sits in this building. So maybe Greens or any other political party about there is another little deal in the offering, or being virtuous, about holding to our princi- maybe he is just going down to see what the ples, about not being prepared to sell out and package is that they agreed to and what the about putting principle beyond pragmatism government has come up with in terms of and do it with any degree of moral authority, delivering that particular package. because the public and their own support base We are all waiting to see it. We are all will not wear it. waiting with bated breath to see the transla- The public clearly understands what the tion of the heads of agreement into a legisla- Democrats have done in this debate on the tive program. I would not be surprised if environment and in the debate over the GST. Senator Hill is sitting there with bated breath Whatever way they mask it, whatever types to see the amendments that are proposed to of press releases they put out, whatever the GST package or maybe to see even what headings they put on those press releases, at the amendments are that are proposed to this the end of the day they have, for very little package. Maybe they have not been finalised gain for their own constituency, assisted this yet, Senator Hill. Maybe they are down government in delivering its agenda. At the having a cup of black coffee in the cabinet end of the day, the very people whom they room or over in the Lodge trying to work out purport to represent in this whole process are the finer detail. But you do not have to worry, the people who will suffer as a consequence because there is one thing that has been of the political actions that they have taken. demonstrated beyond doubt over the past They will have to answer for that. They will couple of weeks: whatever you negotiate with have to come to grips with the decisions that the Democrats, it will not cost you much at they have taken in that context. the end of the day. You will not have to pay much to achieve the outcomes. I am one of those who believe that it will Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister not be long before the political retribution is for the Environment and Heritage) (9.29 delivered. It will not be long before the next p.m.)—In closing the debate, can I, in accord- election. It will not be long before their ance with the usual courtesies, thank senators swollen numbers that will be here in 10 days for their participation. I have to say, however, time are whittled down considerably as a that much of it was a very disappointing consequence of the positions that they have debate. Senator Campbell’s last contribution adopted over the past couple of weeks on typified what I heard from so many Labor these important political issues for the Aus- speakers today. He is capable of much better. tralian public. Listening to him basically attempting to fill It is unfortunate in many respects that they up his allotted time because he had been are not here to hear some of the comments instructed to stretch out this debate really was that have been made by other senators in this very disappointing, verging, I would have to debate. But I presume they are off doing their say, on the pitiful. little negotiations in secret and putting to- These tired old warriors are fighting the gether their little packages of deals. Maybe battles of the past. We heard it all during the Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5989 course of the day: the battle of the Franklin, bilities, in which governments can provide the the battle of Shark Bay and the battle of proper leadership that is necessary and within Fraser Island. Those in the Australian Labor which the users of that legislation can be cer- Party and those in the Australian Greens tain of and comfortable with the processes really wish that they were out there on the that are before them. In other words, it wants campaign trail, climbing the trees and block- a regime that can achieve better environment- ing the bulldozers and doing what they do al outcomes. It is pleasing to see that the best. Of course, that was the era of the 1970s Democrats recognise that fact. It is also pleas- and 1980s. That was the era of confrontation. ing to see that some within what is referred That is when legends were made. That is the to commonly as the conservation movement era that these people in the Australian Labor also see that it is time to move on. Party and in the Australian Greens still live Senator Bolkus—Not many. in. That is where they would like to be again. But the trouble is that the world has moved Senator HILL—It is time to strike out, on and Australia has moved on, and the Senator Bolkus, in a new direction. It is time, environmental challenges facing Australia are as I said, to work cooperatively rather than very different now from what they were in confrontationally. You see, Mr Deputy Presi- those days. dent, practically everyone except the Austral- ian Labor Party, the Greens and a few of the The biggest change, of course, is communi- fringe organisations that still are part of the ty attitudes. The community is now much Senator Bob Brown grouping actually recog- better informed. The community wants to act nises that the existing system of environment- in an environmentally responsible way. It al law in Australia has served its time and is wants governments to show the lead and to now outdated. It is basically broken, and it is support it in so acting, but it is out there time to devise a new environmental structure taking the right decisions. The days when it in law that can reflect the challenges of the was necessary to confront the community to future rather than just the challenges of the try and achieve a particular environmental past. goal are well past. I concede that there were When this new government, as it then was, some achievements in those days, but there addressed this issue, it saw the obvious was a lot that is regrettable about it as well. deficiencies of the existing Commonwealth If some on the other side went again to Shark law. There was not even identified with that Bay, Fraser Island and the like, they would law something that we would recognise as of still find community members deeply embit- national environmental significance. The tered by their experiences of the past. These triggers were indirect triggers that had no people now want to work with governments relationship to particular environmental issues and with community organisations to achieve at all—triggers such as whether the Common- better environmental outcomes. wealth government was to take an action such The second line from the ALP today in this as approve a foreign investment. (Quorum debate has been to come in here and attempt formed) to humiliate the Australian Democrats and in I was just pointing out the obvious defi- fact to attempt to intimidate them. It seems to ciencies of the current Commonwealth legisla- me from observations of the last few weeks tion in relation to the environment. For that they are not so easily intimidated. It is example, if a development in a world heritage pleasing to see that the Democrats have area threatens some environmental value, why moved on and that the Democrats now recog- should it make a difference if it is being nise that the community does not want to funded by overseas money rather than local fight environmental battles in the way they money? Why should one trigger Common- were fought in the 1970s and 1980s. The wealth legislation and responsibility and not community now wants to put in place a the other? It is just a nonsense. How could we contemporary legislative scheme within which have got to the stage at the dawn of the new everyone knows their rights and responsi- millennium where the environment minister 5990 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 in this country does not even make environ- work together to achieve the best national ment decisions? Environment decisions are outcome—something that I would have still made, under Commonwealth laws, by so- thought was pretty obvious, something that called action ministers. I would have thought can achieve a lot better outcome than the that the Australian Greens would be in here existing legal structure. demanding contemporary environment laws We set about that negotiation. In 1996 we for this country. But of course they are not published the discussion paper and entered interested in the structure of government; they into a negotiation with the states to identify are not interested in the cooperative models. what are matters of national environmental All they are interested in is confrontation and significance for which the Commonwealth trying to relive the battles of the past and should take primary responsibility, what other what they would see as some of the victories matters should be primarily dealt with by the of the past. states and then how we can put that into The hypocrisy of the Labor Party in these practice to see that it works to its maximum— environmental issues knows no bounds at all. in other words, how we can use the capacities We were being slammed a moment ago in of both the Commonwealth and the states to relation to uranium policy. Under the Austral- deliver a sound and effective system. So we ian Labor Party there was a greater expansion said that, where the states are better equipped of uranium output in Australia than at any to carry out assessments for the Common- other time in the country’s history. And we wealth in these matters of national environ- get the hypocrisy of Senator Bolkus, for mental significance, they should carry out that example, leading the ALP’s charge to con- assessment, provided they do so under both demn the Jabiluka mine in the Kakadu area, law and practice that meets best contemporary having been in a Labor government for 13 standards. In other words, the Commonwealth years which turned a blind eye to Ranger— should be able to accredit processes of the that huge open-cut uranium mine only a few states to assist the Commonwealth in meeting kilometres away from the small underground its responsibility, provided the standards that modern Jabiluka diggings. The hypocrisy of the state is operating under are those that the Labor in this whole debate is extraordinary. Commonwealth would wish to see for itself. What I was saying was that when this Senator Brown—More ecowaffle. Do you government came to office it saw these believe your own ecowaffle? obvious deficiencies and said it was time to The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT reform Australia’s environment laws and put (Senator Hogg)—Senator Brown, you have in place something contemporary that could had your chance. I think Senator Hill is provide the standards and the practice that entitled to his. would be necessary for the next 10 or 20 years in this country. We recognised that it Senator HILL—I know that Senator Brown needed to be done within our federation. cannot appreciate or understand how a federal There are some who keep talking about the system could actually work well in practice, dream of a national environmental law or a because if you are opposed to it in principle takeover of the states. It is an old dream of you do not turn your mind to how to make it the ALP’s and an old dream of Senator work better. This government wanted to make Brown’s, but it is really not going to work. it work well so we negotiated with the states and we set out a framework for this new Senator Brown—You can do it for big national system of environmental protection. business but not for the people. For Senator Brown’s benefit, for the first time Senator HILL—I will talk about big we also included a bill for biological conser- business in a minute. You have to work with vation in this country to protect our the existing system, the existing federation, to biodiversity. Its time had come. Regrettably identify what is the appropriate role for the the Australian Labor Party, although it had Commonwealth and what is the appropriate entered into the international convention on role for the states and how they can then biodiversity and the national strategy, had not Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5991 got around to upgrading Commonwealth law The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— in this regard. Order! There is too much audible conversa- After the COAG agreement was negotiated tion on both my left and my right which is and agreed we went through a process of making it very difficult for Senator Hill. fleshing it out with further discussion papers Senator Brown, could you refrain and give involving all of the state players—the states, Senator Hill the appropriate time that he is the conservation groups and industry. We due. You will undoubtedly have other oppor- took on board their advice and developed this tunities during this debate. bill. This bill then went through almost 11 Senator Brown—I have doubts about that. months of assessment by this chamber Senator HILL—What I am saying is that through its committee process. Again, the industry wants to adopt high environmental committee moved around Australia and took standards. Industry wants to adopt ESD the advice of the various interest groups that principles. Whether it is the building industry, wanted to put a particular perspective on this the housing industry, the architects, the matter. Out of that came a very helpful report engineers or the miners, they are all working which has enabled us to finetune the bill that with us in the development of guidelines that is before the Senate tonight. record best environmental practice, and within Not surprisingly, after taking into account their various professional bodies they are the Senate’s report we took into account putting it into practice. Now that might not be submissions that had been made direct to us, what Senator Brown wants to hear but that is again by the various state players. We had the new reality in Australia. further meetings with state ministers. We met I want to mention farmers. Farmers have a with industry. We met with conservation particular responsibility but also a particular groups. We met with indigenous groups; challenge in this area. We made a lot of Senator Brown, that may not be of interest to mistakes in this country. Farmers cleared land you. We met with the indigenous groups and that should not have been cleared. It was the we worked on a package of amendments that community’s responsibility in many ways, could improve the bill that we first intro- because we provided land for them on the duced. We are very pleased to have now basis that they cleared it and we told them it before this chamber—finally, after a process was necessary to clear and to develop or that started in 1996—a bill and amendments perish. Mistakes inadvertently were made. that we believe can provide for Australia that Farmers are now seeking to remedy those contemporary system of environmental law. mistakes and new farmers are endeavouring What has made the job easier is the change of to not repeat those mistakes. It is possible— attitude of the community. for the benefit of Senator Brown—to work Senator Brown interjecting— cooperatively with the rural community to Senator HILL—Senator Brown interjected achieve good environmental outcomes, and with one of his usual cracks against big some 4,000 Landcare and community environ- business. I have to say that, in my observa- mental groups who are out there doing the tion, the attitude of business to environmental good works on the ground now have become matters has changed substantially. Business in the leaders of the environment movement in Australia—industry in Australia—wants to co- Australia. That is something that Senator operate. Industry in Australia says, ‘We will Brown hates but it is also part of the new accept high and demanding environmental reality. standards but we want certainty. We want a I am saying that the attitude of the com- process that we know will not be duplicated munity has changed—industries want to work by the Commonwealth and the states, that has with governments on better environmental strict time lines and that is usable—that, in outcomes and they want to achieve win-win other words, is user friendly—so that we can situations. They want to achieve economic achieve the certainty we need in which to growth and they want to see development, but conduct our businesses.’ they want to see it in an environmentally 5992 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 responsible way. They want to see economic ory body. But one issue that needs further growth. They want to see Australia as an assessment is the issue of access to biological internationally competitive economy and they resources—a highly complex issue of particu- are prepared to do so, but they need leader- lar concern to indigenous Australia. Although ship and support from governments and the it is not within this bill, I will cause an community. inquiry to be undertaken to give indigenous Senator Brown—They won’t get it from Australians and all Australians interested in you. this issue the opportunity to participate in a public debate so that the issue of access to Senator HILL—Senator Brown, they need biological resources can be further developed. it from parliamentarians in this place as well. In the few minutes that I have left, I want to Another issue that has been dealt with touch upon a few specific matters in relation during the course of the day is that of bilater- to this package. There has been a debate al agreements. It is true, as I said, that during the course of the day about the trig- through bilateral agreements we will allow the gers—about what are appropriate areas of states in certain circumstances to carry out national environmental significance. It is true assessments and, in very confined areas, very that that was a negotiation with the states and limited areas, even approvals if it is under a it was limited by that negotiation, but it is management plan that has been part of the possible for the Commonwealth to introduce whole process as developed. (Time expired) new triggers. Senators in this place might be Question put: aware that this government has already made That the amendment (Senator Margetts’s)be a commitment to enter a process of negotia- agreed to. tion with the states on the issue of greenhouse gases, for example, as a matter of national environmental significance consistent with the The Senate divided. [9.56 p.m.] COAG agreement. That will be commenced (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret forthwith upon the passage of this bill. Reid) There are new areas that people are recog- Ayes ...... 29 nising in which the Commonwealth has a Noes ...... 42 particular responsibility. Genetically modified —— organisms is one such area and, as honourable Majority ...... 13 senators will know, this government is setting —— up the Office of the Gene Technology Regu- AYES lator within the department of health to Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. Brown, B. Campbell, G. provide approvals. What I can say to the Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. Senate tonight is that matters that affect the Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. environment will be referred to the environ- Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. ment minister for assessment and advice by Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. that independent regulator. That will ultimate- Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. ly be provided for through an amendment to Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. this legislation, when it passes, in conjunction Harradine, B. Hogg, J. Mackay, S. Margetts, D. with the law that is going to be put in place McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. to set up the new GTR. O’Brien, K. W. K.* Quirke, J. A. There are many reforms within this package Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. to support indigenous Australians. They do West, S. M. have a particular knowledge and contribution to make in relation to Australian biodiversity. NOES Somebody said in this debate earlier today Abetz, E. Allison, L. Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. that there should be an advisory body of Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. indigenous Australians. In the amendments Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. before the chamber, we set up such an advis- Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5993

NOES AYES Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Ferris, J. Gibson, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. Heffernan, W. Herron, J. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. NOES Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. Bishop, T. M. Bolkus, N. Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. Brown, B. Campbell, G. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Carr, K. Collins, J. M. A. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. Murray, A. O’Chee, W. G.* Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. Evans, C. V. Faulkner, J. P. Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Hogg, J. Mackay, S. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Watson, J. O. W. Woodley, J. Murphy, S. M. O’Brien, K. W. K.* PAIRS Quirke, J. A. Ray, R. F. Hutchins, S. Newman, J. M. Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. Lundy, K. Coonan, H. Sherry, N. West, S. M. * denotes teller PAIRS Coonan, H. Hutchins, S. Question so resolved in the negative. Newman, J. M. Lundy, K. Question put: * denotes teller Question so resolved in the affirmative. That the bill be now read a second time. Bill read a second time. The Senate divided. [10.05 p.m.] Motion (by Senator Hill) proposed: (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret That consideration of this bill in committee of Reid) the whole be made an order of the day for a later Ayes ...... 44 hour of the day. Noes ...... 28 Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.03 —— p.m.)—I ask the minister for an explanation Majority ...... 16 from the government as to why it should be —— made an order of the day for a later hour. If AYES the minister would like to give that explan- Abetz, E. Allison, L. ation, it may expedite things. Alston, R. K. R. Bartlett, A. J. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Bourne, V. Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. for the Environment and Heritage) (10.03 Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. p.m.)—For the benefit of Senator Brown, Colston, M. A. Crane, W. there are a lot of rumours around, but in Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J. actual fact all I want to do is introduce two Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. new bills. Heffernan, W. Herron, J. Question resolved in the affirmative. Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Lees, M. H. A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY Lightfoot, P. R. Macdonald, I. ASSISTANCE) (ADMINISTRATION) Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. BILL 1999 Murray, A. O’Chee, W. G.* A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. Payne, M. A. Reid, M. E. ASSISTANCE) (CONSEQUENTIAL Stott Despoja, N. Synon, K. M. AND RELATED MEASURES) BILL Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. (No. 1) 1999 5994 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

First Reading organisation using the existing infrastructure of Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and the Bills received from the House of Represen- Health Insurance Commission (Medicare Offices). tatives. It is expected that all Australian Taxation Offices, all Centrelink offices and all Medicare offices will Motion (by Senator Hill) agreed to: have a Family Assistance Office as part of their That these bills may proceed without formalities, office. The extended network of sites will ensure may be taken together and be now read a first time. families have a greater choice about the way in Bills read a first time. which they access assistance. In order to give families these choices, the Secre- Second Reading tary to the Department of Family and Community Services will have the power to delegate his or her Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister powers to constituent agencies of the new Family for the Environment and Heritage) (10.05 Assistance Office. The heads of these agencies and p.m.)—I move: their staff, as delegates of the Secretary, will be able to process claims, make payments and perform That these bills be now read a second time. other functions under the family assistance law. I seek leave to have the second reading Making a claim for Family Tax Benefit speeches incorporated in Hansard. The primary carer will be able to make a claim for Leave granted. family tax benefit in one of the following ways: lodge a claim with the Family Assistance Office The speeches read as follows— (through Centrelink) for fortnightly payments; or A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY claim a lump sum payment at the end of the year ASSISTANCE) (ADMINISTRATION) BILL (through the taxation system), either through the 1999 primary carer’s tax return or their partner’s tax return. Families will have a further option to This bill complements the A New Tax System reduce their (or their partner’s) tax instalment (Family Assistance) Bill 1999 that has already been deductions during the year in anticipation of their introduced into the parliament. That bill, which end of year family tax benefit lump sum entitle- forms part of the fundamental reform of the ment. Australian tax system, introduces reform and improvements to the assistance currently provided Making a claim for Child Care Benefit by government to families. From 1 July 2000, gone Families will be able to claim child care benefit for will be the 12 conflicting and overlapping family formal care (in approved child care services) in one payments. Instead, there will be three well de- of the following ways: signed, harmonised and generous benefits that will as instalment payments paid directly to their make a positive impact on the living standards of nominated child care service to enable the Australian families, particularly those with low service to reduce the fees that the family will incomes. pay (current arrangements under which child care The A New Tax System (Family Assistance) assistance advance payments are made to child (Administration) bill 1999 contains administrative, care services will be preserved for child care procedural and technical rules that will apply in benefit purposes. This will be achieved by relation to the new family assistance payments— regulations); or family tax benefit part A, family tax benefit part B as a lump sum after the end of the financial year and child care benefit. The bill will also include (from the Family Assistance Office). machinery type provisions dealing with two other Child care benefit for informal care will be claimed family-related payments, maternity allowance and as a lump sum for a period of care of up to 12 maternity immunisation allowance. months and paid via the Family Assistance Office. I consider that it might assist this House if I were Child care benefit will not be delivered through the to provide an overview of the delivery of the tax system because of the complexity of the family assistance package. information parents would need to retain to be able A new ‘Family Assistance Office’ will be set up to correctly assess their entitlement. to help families Making a claim for Maternity Allowance and The new Family Assistance Office will deliver Maternity Immunisation Allowance family tax benefit (parts A and B), child care Families will be able to claim single, one-off benefit, maternity allowance and maternity immuni- payments of maternity allowance and maternity sation allowance. The law does not refer to the immunisation allowance from the Family Assist- Family Assistance Office as it will be a ‘virtual’ ance Office (through Centrelink). Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5995

Like child care benefit, maternity allowance and for, family tax benefit and child care benefit will maternity immunisation allowance will not be be reviewable by the Secretary, or an authorised delivered through the tax system. review officer, regardless of delivery option. It is Families will receive their correct entitlement to expected that where family tax benefit is paid family assistance through the tax system, the Commissioner, as delegate of the Secretary, will carry out the review Families who choose to receive fortnightly pay- functions for those customers. There will be further ments will estimate their income for the current rights of appeal to the Social Security Appeals financial year. Their estimated income will be Tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and compared with their actual income at the end of the the Federal Court. Rules explaining the process for year. Families who have overestimated their income review of decisions are set out in Part 5 of this bill during the year and have been underpaid will and will be kept separate from the Australian receive a ‘top up’ payment at the end of the year. Taxation Office appeal and review process. Deter- On the other hand, families who have underestimat- minations made by approved child care services ed their income and have been overpaid, will be regarding child care benefit in special circum- required to pay back the amount they were over- stances will not be reviewable. Approved child care paid during the year. This is much fairer than the services and registered carers will also have the current arrangements for family allowance where right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals families who underestimate their income are Tribunal about the Secretary’s decisions affecting required to pay back the amount they were over- them, except where the decision is the result of a paid but families who overestimate their income Commonwealth planning strategy affecting the during the year do not receive a top up payment. distribution of child care places. It is also fairer than the current arrangement for child care assistance where families do not receive It will be easier for families to repay overpayments a top up payment if they are underpaid, and are not required to pay back overpaid amounts. As family tax benefit is partly administered through the tax system, overpayments of family tax benefit Administrative arrangements for Maternity will be recovered from a claimant’s tax refund Allowance and Maternity Immunisation Allow- where possible. This bill will also allow another ance person, for example the claimant’s partner, to make The administration of these payments will not his or her income tax refund available to offset a change significantly under the new family assist- claimant’s family tax benefit debt. In such cases, ance regime. where consent is given, the Commissioner will apply the partner’s income tax refund to reduce or Administrative arrangements for Family Tax extinguish the claimant’s family tax benefit debt. Benefit and Child Care Benefit will be simplified The new administrative arrangements for recovering Simpler rules will be administered by one agency overpayments of family tax benefit, will make it much easier for families to repay a family tax Rather than dealing with potentially 12 forms of benefit debt. Where it is not possible to recover assistance with different eligibility rules and overpayments of family tax benefit from the payment arrangements through three different taxation system, and for overpayments of child care agencies, families will now have to deal with only benefit, these will be recovered by the Family 3 payments with similar eligibility rules and with Assistance Office under existing Centrelink ar- one agency, the Family Assistance Office. rangements. Same rules for all families Since child care benefit will not be delivered There will be one set of rules for all families through the tax system, tax refunds and debts will regardless of how they choose to receive family not be applied against child care benefit debts and assistance. For family tax benefit, this means that payments. Also other family assistance overpay- regardless of whether families receive fortnightly ments will not be recoverable from child care payments or as an end of year lump sum claimed benefit. However, child care benefit overpayments with their tax returns, they will all be subject to the will be recoverable from family tax benefit or from same eligibility criteria, rate calculators and social security payments. administrative arrangements under the family assistance law. For child care benefit, regardless of Family Tax Benefit paid through the tax system whether families receive ongoing payments or lump will be a payment, not a tax rebate or an in- sum payments from the Family Assistance Office crease in tax free threshold (through Centrelink), the same eligibility rules and rates will apply. Although claimants will be able to lodge claims for family tax benefit and receive lump sum and top up Under the new arrangements, decisions made by payments through the taxation system, the family the Secretary regarding entitlement to, or eligibility tax benefit entitlement will not be in the form of a 5996 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 tax rebate or an increase in a person’s tax free ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND threshold. BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Traditionally, measures like family tax benefit BILL 1998 [1999] (such as the family tax assistance) have been provided as tax rebates or as an increase in a In Committee person’s threshold where the rate of family assist- ance is calculated by the Australian Taxation Office Consideration resumed. and offset against tax payable. The bill. A similar approach was not adopted for family tax benefit because the administrative mechanism of Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister delivering family tax benefit through a person’s for the Environment and Heritage) (10.05 income tax assessment would have been very p.m.)—I table a supplementary explanatory complicated and families would not have been able memorandum relating to the government to benefit from the simpler structure and adminis- amendments to be moved to this bill. The trative arrangements of the proposed system (for memorandum was circulated in the chamber example, it would not have been possible to ensure that all families receive their correct entitlement on 22 June 1999. I would also like to table regardless of delivery option) which is the main the supplementary explanatory memorandum feature of family assistance reform. in relation to the Environmental Reform I commend the bill to the Senate. (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. Senator Faulkner—On a point of order, Madam Chair. A NEW TAX SYSTEM (FAMILY The CHAIRMAN—Before you take your ASSISTANCE) (CONSEQUENTIAL AND point of order, I ask senators who are having RELATED MEASURES) BILL (NO. 2) 1999 conversations in the aisles to do so some- This bill accompanies the A New Tax System where else. (Family Assistance) Bill 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Consequential and Senator McKiernan interjecting— Related Measures) Bill (No. 1) 1999 and the A The CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administra- McKiernan. tion) Bill 1999. Together, they will facilitate the introduction of the new family assistance package Opposition senators interjecting— from 1 July 2000. The CHAIRMAN—Order! The bill: Senator Faulkner—I draw to your atten- amends a number of Commonwealth acts that refer to concepts and terms that are relevant tion the fact that Senator Hill is mumbling under the existing family assistance structure and and it is very hard to hear what he is propos- repeal or amend the references to reflect the new ing. We heard about the explanatory memo- family assistance regime; randum and it is good that he is explaining provides for the appropriate calculation of family himself. On this second matter it is impossible tax benefit part A for those recipients in receipt to hear and I am only a metre or two away of income support (or whose partners receive from him. If you could ask him to speak income support); clearly for the benefit of all senators, I am allows the use or disclosure of information by or sure we would all appreciate it. between the three agencies involved in the transition to the new family assistance regime— The CHAIRMAN—Now that colleagues Centrelink, the Australian Taxation Office and from both sides of the chamber have left the the Health insurance Commission—for the chamber and the noise has been reduced, we purpose of identifying shared customers (so that will all be able to hear what Senator Hill is customers receive only one letter about the new saying. arrangements instead of, potentially, three); and makes some other minor technical amendments. Opposition senators interjecting— I commend the bill to the Senate. The CHAIRMAN—Order! Debate (on motion by Senator O’Brien) Senator HILL—We can always hear adjourned. Senator Faulkner, because he shouts. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5997

Senator Carr—He is not a gentleman, is and time allocation for the debate on this he? legislation in the next 24 hours are. We have Senator HILL—I actually do not think he a right to know that. If the government and/or is one of the chardonnay set of which you the Democrats—because they will need to have many on your side of the chamber, work together on this—are going to use the Senator Carr. In fact, within your party there gag, I suggest, first of all, that we come to is criticism of it. recognise that fact and that then we get some orderly process in place so that the truncated Senator Carr interjecting— debate that will take place can take place with Senator Chris Evans interjecting— all the important matters we need to discuss The CHAIRMAN—Order! Senator Evans, at least getting some airing. it is unruly to interject at the best of times but Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister doing so out of your seat is even worse. for the Environment and Heritage) (10.10 Senator Carr—Now repeat it. p.m.)—One thing I do agree with is that this is monumental legislation—very important in The CHAIRMAN—Senator Brown, are the national interest. I am pleased that that you seeking to raise a point of order? has been recognised by Senator Brown. He Senator Brown—Yes. If nobody else is, I might also recognise that it is long overdue. am. It should have been introduced by Labor a The CHAIRMAN—I am waiting for some decade ago but they could not pick up the order in the chamber before I call Senator ball, they missed their chance, and the natural Hill. resource assets of Australia suffered as a result. Senator HILL—These are the signs of a very frustrated opposition, I might say, Mad- Having said that, I remind Senator Brown am Chair, and I think it is delightful. I was that this has been a process of some 2½ years, seeking your guidance as to whether it might a long process, and it is now time to put a bill be an appropriate time to also table the into law. The Senate itself has had the matter supplementary explanatory memorandum in before it for many months. I think that the relation to the Environmental Reform (Conse- Senate committees had the bill in total for quential Provisions) Bill 1998 [1999]. about 11 months. After that level of consulta- The CHAIRMAN—I think it would be tion and consideration by the parliamentary best done when you are dealing with that bill. process to date, it is not the view of the government that this should necessarily be a Senator HILL—I thank you. very long debate, Senator Brown. The issues The CHAIRMAN—The question is that are well known. The Senate committee has the bill stand as printed. reported. Many of the suggestions of the Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.09 Senate committee have been taken up by the p.m.)—I think at the outset the government government in its amendments that are now and the Democrats—two of whom have made before the chamber. There are actually only it into the chamber at this late hour of night— a limited number of issues that really need to owe us an explanation as to what is going to be debated at the committee stage in this be the procedure. What has been established chamber. is that this is monumental legislation as far as So I would not think it would take a very the future of Australia’s environment is con- long time. I know that the Senate is also cerned. There are different points of view on anxious to get on with debate on the new tax that. Senator Hill said that there are rumours reform package, which is also a monumental about the place, and he was referring to the piece of legislation by a reformist govern- use of the guillotine. I would like to know ment, Senator Brown, and a package of from the government and the Democrats— legislation that I hope Senator Brown will Senator Woodley is in his place; there is only also support a little later in the week. It is not one there now—what the agreed procedure the intention of the government to take any 5998 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 process tonight which might curtail debate, tomorrow as far as the guillotine on this but by tomorrow it may well be necessary to legislation is concerned. seek from the Senate some form of time Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (10.15 management process in order that the debate p.m.)—Minister, I have a question to you, can be contained within a reasonable period. too, and I wonder if you might consider it I do it for the benefit of all honourable sena- along with Senator Brown’s question. tors, because otherwise we will all have to sit Minister, it is— here for two weeks listening to Senator Brown, and that would be unfair on all except Opposition senators interjecting— the Australian Greens. So the government Senator WOODLEY—I am sorry. If you may seek some mechanism in the morning listen, you will be able to get the point. and invite the Senate to join with us to Minister, Senator Brown obviously wants the restrain this debate to a reasonable period of environment powers to remain with the time. Minister for Industry, Science and Resources. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (10.13 Could you explain clearly how your role p.m.)—The government does not have the changes with the legislation to protect the numbers to gag this debate, but Senator Hill environment? has made it abundantly clear it is going to Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister gag the debate tomorrow. What I want to for the Environment and Heritage) (10.16 know is: what are the poodles doing? What p.m.)—Mr Temporary Chairman, I would are the Democrat political poodles in this love to respond to that and I will, but I situation going to do as far as this gag is wonder whether I should do so pursuant to a concerned? There are two of them—Senator block of amendments, because I am sure that Allison and Senator Woodley—sitting here. the Senate is anxious to get on with the There are many people listening to this debate substantive debate. The clerks have given us who want to know what these political con- some guidance and have suggested that venience people over here who are selling out amendments be moved as a block to chapters on the environment are going to do with 2 and 4. I am referring to the running sheet respect to Senator Allison’s assurance that this that has the time of 9.35 p.m. tonight on it, legislation was important because it would and perhaps I could seek leave to move give full transparency and public consultation. government amendments as a block for those With the government they have brought 400 two chapters. If that leave is given, in so amendments in here tonight. These have not moving I will then with great pleasure re- been on the public record before today. spond to Senator Woodley’s point. The Democrats are assuring us that they are The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- in the business of full transparency and public tor Hogg)—Senator Hill, will you specify for consultation. If that is the case, there is no the purposes of the debate what amendments way that they are going to support a gag you are actually moving? tomorrow. Senator Margetts points out that Senator HILL—As I said, I am following there are 900 amendments here. What I want the running sheet that has been distributed in to hear from Senator Allison and Senator the chamber. Woodley is that they will not be part of a gag of this important debate. The minister says it The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes. is monumental legislation—for exactly the I understand that. opposite reason. But we want to hear from the Senator HILL—I will read them out, if mendicants at the prime ministerial table—the that would be of help. sell-out merchants here—how far they are actually going to sell out on this debate. I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Yes; now invite Senator Allison and/or Senator that is what we want. Woodley to have the gumption to get up and Senator HILL—They are (10) to (71), (75) tell this place what they are going to do to (146) and (148) to (174) on sheet DT218. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 5999

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—Thank actions requiring approval for the purposes of you. Is leave granted? Part 3. We need to spend some time on that. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (10.17 Clause 13 refers to declarations under the p.m.)—No. Leave is not granted. Let me put world heritage act in respect of world heritage on record why I believe that leave should not property. Clause 13 talks about strengthening be granted in respect of this. This is becoming protection of matters of national environment- past a joke. We in the Senate tonight have al significance. Then we have a subpart of been asked to address some 906 amendments: amendment 13 which, I must say, goes to 569 all-up from the government, 277 from the clauses 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 34, 38, 47, opposition, 50 from the Greens and a paltry 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. So, within one 10 from the Democrats—906 altogether. As amendment, the minister is asking us to look the minister said, under time management we at some 15 different clauses. Within all that, can expect to finish this debate probably some there is the concept of criminal prosecution time tomorrow. On any analysis, we have and criminal penalties being attached to some been asked to consider 906 amendments at offences. What has that got to do with world something like 20 seconds per amendment. heritage? We may well ask. The next clause, But not only that: we have had 5½ hours clause 14, goes to maximum penalties of since the government’s 511 amendments were seven years imprisonment and so on. We are actually tabled in this place. not dealing with light matters here. Were we to have spent all the time on We are not dealing with similar matters analysing those amendments, we would have when the minister has asked us to address all had some 40 seconds per amendment during those amendments together. For instance, that period—not allowing for dinner breaks or clause 16 refers to declaration of a wetland as whatever. That is 5½ hours for 511 amend- a Ramsar wetland. That also is something that ments, with 40 seconds to analyse each and needs particular attention. Clause 17 is on every one of those amendments. It is a joke. nuclear installations, and the amendments It makes a joke of public accountability and make the definition of a nuclear installation a joke of the parliamentary process. I must consistent with the definition used in the say that, from my 18 years in this place, I do ARPANSA legislation. That is another matter not think this place has ever been asked to which also requires attention. stoop to the standards that we are seeing From Ramsar we go to nuclear, and then in tonight. clause 18 we go fishing. Minister, what are The government, after a secret deal hatched you trying to get at this evening, asking us to between themselves and the Democrats— address all of these in one batch? Clause 19 those lapsed environmentalists—are coming talks about adding new matters of national in here and asking us to approve some 569 environmental significance by regulation. amendments, 511 of which are part of that Clause 20 is in respect of regulation. Now secret arrangement. And now the minister those two might go together, but then clause says to us, ‘Let’s deal with them in a batch.’ 21 goes to the minister’s power to specify that Let us look at the batch that he has asked us an action on Commonwealth land does not to deal with them in. He must think that require approval under Part 9. Then clause 22 basically we are all asleep on this side of the is on national interest. So we have gone from parliament, in the press gallery and out in the fishing to the national interest: not even community. Let us look at the first batch of Warren Entsch can do that on one day, but (10) to (71). He says that this has been we have been asked to do it in this place prepared by the Senate office. I do not know tonight. if it has been with or without instruction or Then we go on to activities and decisions, suggestion, but look at (10) to (71): what technical terms, and conducting of reviews have all those amendments got in common? every five years. Luckily we get a recognition Let us look at them. Amendment (10) in clause 25 of a process for public consulta- relates to something technical in respect to tion. That process for public consultation has 6000 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 attracted so much attention in the committee not be withheld unreasonably. That is what process, through the digest process and they want us to believe. That is information through the work done by the Parliamentary they have sent out to those people in the Library, and yet we are asked to lump that in conservation councils around the country that one batch with all the other matters: heritage, they want to con, and are they conning them! fishing, nuclear, public consultation. When you go further in their lists of achieve- Some of these matters may sit easily to- ments, what do you get? You get a regime gether but I have only gone through about 10 that is documented that says traditional of the clauses and the minister has essentially owners can resist a representation of the asked us to address some 170 clauses together Northern Territory government but, in the in one batch. What always comes out about event of a protracted dispute, the Common- this minister is he always does it with a wealth ombudsman will investigate and make straight face. I have not gone anywhere near a ruling. The minister may terminate the the full extent of the amendments that we appointment of a non-indigenous representa- need to discuss tonight. There is the concept tive on the board if they are not acting in the of the Auditor-General and also lost and interests of the board. So basically this right locked in these amendments is the joint of refusal by traditional owners, indigenous management arrangements of Booderee owners, has been diluted to the Common- National Park, Uluru and Kata Tjuta National wealth ombudsman investigating and making Park and Kakadu National Park—all of which a ruling. What sort of protection is that? have attracted a great degree of attention in Senator Woodley is here. Senator Woodley themselves. has got great connections with indigenous Australians but why try to con them? Not only that, we have been presented today with a set of bodgie and dodgy docu- Senator Crossin—And the TOs have ments from the Australian Democrats saying agreed to that, have they, Senator Bolkus? that they have protected indigenous Austral- ians, that they have done great things for Senator BOLKUS—I do not know if they indigenous Australians because they have have or not. But I must say they would not defended the joint management arrangements have seen it. in respect of those national parks in the Northern Territory. Have they protected them! Senator Hill—You wouldn’t care, would If this is the sort of protection you get, don’t you? let me rely on Democrat protection at any time in the future. What protection have they Senator BOLKUS—Of course I would given them? They have got in their docu- care. But, in terms of caring, this is another mentation three concepts of protection. Not issue that needs to be fronted up to. You are one of those concepts tells the truth. Concept the one who went to the traditional owners one up-front in their press statement is that and said, ‘I will not change anything without they are defending the joint management your consent’. In writing you said that. What arrangements and resisting Northern Territory was the next thing they heard from you? The government representation on the joint man- legislation changing those joint management agement boards. Midway through their docu- arrangements—not only without their consent mentation they say the indigenous representa- but without their prior knowledge and without tives, the traditional owners, will have the prior consultation. Let us put on the record right to refuse Northern Territory representa- that consultation is pretty important. This is tion but they cannot be unreasonable about it. one of the 160 to 170 amendments that this minister wants us to debate in one batch. You In the middle of the documentation they say just cannot do it and nor should this parlia- the appointment of a Northern Territory ment be expected to do it. This is the parlia- representative on the boards of Kakadu and mentary process of a southern American state. Uluru national parks is now subject to the consent of the traditional owners, which may Senator Hill—What are you saying? Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6001

Senator BOLKUS—We are talking here of 1999, when the environment minister of this basically cowboy strategies, cowboy process- country does not have the capacity in es. Commonwealth environment law to make Senator Hill—We have had 11 months of decisions. Senate inquiry. Senator Brown—You don’t have any Senator BOLKUS—Senator Hill keeps on capacity. saying 11 months in the Senate. We have had Senator HILL—Senator Brown does not 511 amendments since four o’clock this read the legislation. He knows the slogans and afternoon and we have been asked as a the war cries, but he does not read the legisla- parliament to make a considered assessment tion. If he sat down and read the Common- of them—not just in our interests as individ- wealth EPIP Act, he would find that the ual parliamentarians but there are stakeholders environment minister in this country simply out there from all sections of the community gives advice to so-called action ministers, who also have been denied access to this including the Minister for Industry, Science grubby little secret deal that you and the and Resources. They are the ministers under Democrats have concocted together. That is the existing regime who make the important why I am opposing giving Senator Hill leave decisions that action Commonwealth process- to consider these 160 amendments together. es. It is not the environment minister. For the In some respects there is some commonality first time in the history of this country, under and we could consider some of these 160 to this legislation the environment minister 170 amendments together. But we should not makes the environment decision. be asked to consider all of them together. We Progress reported. can add to that over 100 opposition amend- ments. So what we have been asked to do— ADJOURNMENT this is the opening gambit by the minister—is to consider close to 300 amendments in one The PRESIDENT—Order! It being 10.30 shot. Give us a break and give the parlia- p.m., I propose the question: mentary process a break, Senator Hill. This is That the Senate do now adjourn. not on. This is over the top. Jubilee 2000 If the Australian Democrats are not going Senator WATSON (Tasmania) (10.30 to be compliant, I would say they will stand p.m.)—Tonight I ask honourable senators and to be condemned not just by their constituen- others listening to this parliamentary broad- cy but by the Australian community. This is, cast to imagine a debt-free start for one as I say, southern American politics. You billion people to the next millennium. This is might as well do away with the bar table and the aim of the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which resort to fisticuffs to work out how this will is now operating in 60 countries. Jubilee 2000 be resolved because this is no law, this is no was started in the United Kingdom in 1990 by process. This is basically a denigration of all a number of individuals who believed that of those processes that we say, and have radical action was needed to address the consistently said, are important. Three hun- devastating impact of Third World country dred amendments in one batch should be too indebtedness to the world. They identified the rich even for Senator Hill and he ought to be year 2000 as a useful focus for a campaign ashamed of himself. calling for a one-off remission of debt along Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister the lines of the Jubilee year described in the for the Environment and Heritage) (10.28 biblical book of Leviticus. p.m.)—I want to respond to Senator The term is used throughout the old and Woodley’s point because it demonstrates the new testaments and other religious teachings. failure of the existing system, the inappropri- The practice of usury is regarded right ateness of the existing system in the year throughout as a repugnant term and a repug- 6002 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 nant practice towards one’s fellow man. The oping countries is immense. Because of this, aim of the Jubilee 2000 charter is, firstly, to they too have a key role. In 1992, they liberate the poorest nations from the burden stepped in, giving debtor countries more time of the backlog of unpayable debt—I emphas- to pay. Accepting their condition has meant ise that it is unpayable debt—owed by their that Third World country governments had governments to other countries, to internation- even less to spend on their own people. al financial institutions or to commercial In Africa as a whole, for example, four banks. It aims to achieve such liberation and times more is spent on interest than on the a return to sustainable development through health care system. In the world’s 37 poorest an unrepeated one-off remission of unpayable countries, spending per person has gone down debt of the poorest countries by the year 50 per cent on health and 25 per cent on 2000. It also aims to provide a focus and education. In Tanzania, where 40 per cent of catalyst for harmonising and mobilising people die before the age of 35, debt repay- international cooperation in supporting actions ments are six times more than spending on to promote and achieve the charter’s aim. It health care. also seeks to promote understanding among creditor nations that the responsibility for high Jubilee 2000 proposes to celebrate the new levels of indebtedness rests with creditors as millennium by cancelling the unpayable debts well as with debtors. of the world’s poorest nations. They have worked with economists, business people, The Jubilee 2000 debt coalition is a practi- politicians, diplomats and aid agencies to cal solution to the problem that has been design a practical proposal balancing the affecting hundreds of millions of people for interests of both the debtors as well as the over 15 years and will only succeed if we creditors. So the Jubilee 2000 plan is to have wide public support. Debt is a crippling identify the poorest debt burdened countries fact in the existence and persistence of pover- and to calculate the debt of each country that ty in so many Third World countries. One could never be repaid. They would then billion people are trapped in poverty, and they negotiate conditions to remove this debt on a can do nothing about countries trapped under country by country basis, ensuring that the a mountain of debt that they can never pay world would benefit. back. In arriving at this decision to remit the In the 1970s, Western banks lent huge sums burden of the backlog of unpayable debts to to Third World countries in the hope that the the poorest countries, arbitrators would take countries would use the funds to boost ex- into account for each debtor country that ports and to make profits. Unfortunately, country’s probity, economic management, interest rates rose rapidly with spiralling debt social policies and human rights record. Debt repayments and the price of primary products remission would be made conditional upon often fell to 30 per cent on average, thereby governments utilising the financial resources considerably reducing the incomes of Third that become available for investment in basic World countries. Another factor was expendi- human needs. Targets for improving access to ture on armaments often used to prop up primary health, basic education, water and despotic dictators. The result was that the sanitation will be established along with the poorest countries in the world began earning costs of meeting them. The debts would be less and less and had to pay more and more. cancelled by the end of the year 2000 as a Today, many of the poorest nations are once-off celebration of the millennium. even deeper in debt than they were when they Supporters are indeed wide ranging, includ- first took out the loans because of the impact ing the Australian Catholic Social Justice of interest. Although they may have repaid Council, the Baptist churches of Australia, much more than the equivalent of the original Caritas Australia, Community Aid Abroad, the loan, their total debts continue to rise. The International Federation of Free Trade Unions, influence of the International Monetary Fund the International Union of Physicians, World and the World Bank on the policies of devel- Vision and many more. International patrons Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6003 include Susan George, the Associate Director of and certainly would not have been viewed of the Transnational Institute, and Desmond as being capable of generating such an enor- Tutu, the former Archbishop of Capetown. mous amount of wealth. Australian patrons boast the Most Reverend All around the world, individuals, com- Keith Rainer, the Archbishop of Melbourne; panies and countries are grappling with issues the Anglican Primate of Australia; Professor surrounding an industry with this capacity, Clifford Hughes from the Department of and Australia is no exception. It is especially Surgery at the University of Sydney; and the true that Australia has the potential, as my much respected Reverend Tim Costello, who colleague Senator Tierney pointed out earlier is incidentally the brother of Australia’s this year in a speech in the chamber, to Treasurer, the Hon. Peter Costello. ‘become the information hub of South-East Over 35,000 children die each year from Asia’. Look at Australia’s take-up of technol- hunger related causes. One and a half billion ogy—1.27 million Australian households were of the world’s population live on less than $1 online last year, an increase of almost 50 per per day. I believe that we could all help by cent in 12 months. That equates to 4.2 million making donations to Jubilee 2000 and by Australian adults having access to the web, telling others about Jubilee 2000, including its making it the third-highest per capita user of aims. the Internet after Finland and the United I also take this opportunity to ask Western States. It equates to 4.2 million Australians governments, including our own, that are not having access to a range of services, informa- prepared to go to the full extent of writing off tion sources and retail outlets through e- the debt to make a gesture of concern and commerce which previously were less acces- goodwill and at least use this important sible. occasion to perhaps venture even a small or E-commerce is without doubt a growth area, a token write-off of part of the debt. This but it is not the only element of the growth of would be a great gesture. In fact, the write-off the information economy with which we is not as unrealistic as some might think, should concern ourselves. There is a plethora given the almost impossible position of so of issues associated with the Internet and many of these nations that are not really in a other innovations which need to be dealt with position to pay off that debt in any case. Why for Australia to make the most from these not write off a portion of it as a gesture of emerging industries and technologies. One of goodwill in celebration of the 2000 the most important challenges is to ensure millennium? that all Australians, especially those across Information Technology: Equity of rural and regional areas, can benefit from Access these innovations. We should remember that, Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) whilst all Australians face particular challen- (10.38 p.m.)—It is opportune to be able to ges in incorporating new technologies into rise this evening to address the Senate in their lives or their businesses, those in rural regard to some rural and regional information and regional areas often face greater and more technology challenges in particular. It is varied challenges. opportune for several reasons, including In reading some of the range of literature recent media reports which listed the world’s that abounds in this growing area, I looked at richest people according to Forbes magazine. an article from an edition of the Economic Few would be surprised that Bill Gates, the Development Review in 1993. In an article founder of Microsoft, gets a guernsey heading entitled ‘Rural economic development using the list, but of particular interest was the information age technology’ the authors inclusion of a Japanese businessman, worth an commented on what they described as the estimated $9.77 billion, who evidently has a ‘potential to alleviate rurality as a barrier to larger proportion of the Internet economy than job creation’ as a result of the manner in any other. It is amazing, considering that 10 which new technologies can overcome issues years ago the industry was virtually unheard of geographic location. There is no doubt that 6004 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 this is a true statement. The potential of the reference to the ‘relatively low adoption’—in Internet and e-commerce to make distance this case, by farmers—‘of computer technol- almost irrelevant is enormous, but it is up to ogy, particularly in comparison to their urban those directing the growth of these areas to business counterparts’. The point was made ensure that the benefits are enjoyed by all. that international developments across a range When the West report—the government’s of areas indicate that it would be beneficial review of higher education financing and for Australian primary producers to utilise policy—was released last year, there was new technologies. The challenge for govern- much discussion of the use of technology in ment is to ensure that those in rural and education. The report noted the potential and regional areas are motivated by the benefit increasing role that technologies such as the that they may derive from the use of tech- Internet might play in furthering education. nologies, understand how to implement them There is enormous benefit to be gained from in an appropriate manner and have access to the Net in terms of breaking down problems what is required to effect that implementation. of access to education. The possibilities are As rapidly as the technologies have become endless. That raises one of the most pressing available, there have been individuals and challenges in relation to rural and regional use organisations seeking to deal with challenges of IT—that of ensuring that access to the specific to bringing those advances to rural necessary technologies that will allow them to and regional areas. Most importantly, there benefit fully from such innovations. It can be have been those who have sought to meet as simple as ensuring access to a computer such challenges, not just in relation to eco- and a telephone line, but it is also about nomic gains which might be made but also in issues that relate to telecommunications and relation to social gains. education. Those issues are magnified by the I have referred previously in the Senate to challenges of distance and isolation. an organisation called Reach Out, which has It is not restricted to Australia. In the been focusing solidly on the challenge of United States, President Clinton has raised providing online advice to young Australians similar concerns and committed the US who might be at risk of suicide. Triple J government to: listeners have heard all about Reach Out and . . . hook up every school and every library in this recent listeners in particular will be familiar country . . . to the Internet and to make sure that with the Reach Out Rural and Regional Tour all the schools and all the libraries in the smallest, which has been occurring recently. The big poorest rural areas and the most densely populated RORRT, as the project has become known, poor urban areas . . . will all be able to afford to involves Reach Out representatives travelling use this invaluable service. across the state to schools, TAFEs and youth Access to technology is not the only chal- centres promoting the organisation and the lenge facing our increasingly technological benefits of Net access for those young people world. Ensuring that people have access to who might require their services. Reach Out information technologies and that they also also plans to provide free Internet access have the understanding and the motivation to terminals in different parts of the state, to be utilise those technologies is just as important. accessed by those who might not have ready Everybody knows that a computer is useless access in other places. unless the people sitting in front of them The coalition have recognised many of the know how to use them and, most importantly, challenges that I have outlined, and we have know how to use them to their advantage. implemented a number of initiatives and pro- In a report on Australian IT and rural grams aimed at ensuring more equitable development in the Bulletin of the American application of IT across the country on a Society for Information Science, comment was broader level. One of the important initiatives made of the enthusiasm with which Austral- was holding a series of regional summits. The ians have embraced innovations as simple as summits were launched in conjunction with mobile phones or VCRs, but there was also a the release of a policy paper, ‘Towards an Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6005

Australian strategy for the information econ- Out, the organisation to which I referred omy.’ Many summits, including one in Pen- earlier, received a sum for Reach Out Bush rith in greater Western Sydney, where I am Network, to build technology resources for based, were conducted across the country young people in rural areas across New South throughout last year, and there are plans to Wales. In my region of greater Western hold several more. They are a crucial way of Sydney, TRI Community Exchange received ensuring that regional communities explore support to develop a comprehensive and the opportunities and the benefits that are to dynamic regional intranet and associated be gained from the Internet and the emerging training for the community services sector, online economy, hand in hand with the which will be extended to 12 local govern- government and the National Office for the ment areas in central western New South Information Economy. Wales. In other areas of the state, the projects Another significant initiative is the Net- have been just as impressive. In Cobar, the working the Nation program, which will Cobar Community Development Station Inc. ensure that Australians can enjoy the benefits received funding to set up an Internet cafe, of improved and increasingly varied telecom- with the aim of providing Internet training munications services. The government realised and awareness raising for business and social that gaps between the quality and cost of use. these services in metropolitan and non- This is technology which has the capacity metropolitan Australia needed to be addressed to deal with the worldwide population and and introduced a program to fund increased economic drift towards major cities that has telecommunications infrastructure across the been occurring for most of this century. It country and specifically in rural and regional may even address some of that trend, and Australia. Funding is open to a range of addressing that would allow rural areas to projects, including those that focus on the compete with urban areas on a level footing provision of one-off infrastructure develop- across a range of issues. How we as a govern- ment, those that trial new innovative technolo- ment, but particularly as a nation, approach gies, and those that involve assisting commu- these emerging challenges will be the measure nities in identifying needs for particular of how successful we are in the information telecommunications services and uses as an age. element of an overall project. They might focus on, for example, improving access by Telstra Sale: Social Bonus removing the STD charge for rural and Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Parliamentary remote access to the Internet, promoting Secretary to the Minister for Defence) (10.48 awareness of online services, providing p.m.)—Just 24 hours ago, this Senate passed training, or even providing assistance for the bill which will allow the further 16.6 per start-up or relocation and training costs of cent sale of Telstra. That will deliver, to rural establishing communication network assist- and regional Australia in particular, a $1 ance services. billion social bonus, and that is undoubtedly As I have suggested, the government have welcomed by those living in regional areas of recognised, in a number of areas, the specific Australia. In particular, my home state of needs of rural and regional Australia in regard Tasmania has received a generous, albeit to information technologies and, through much needed, contribution from that social Networking the Nation, aim to ensure that bonus. The mobile phone access and com- individual communities can reap the benefits puter access for regional areas, particularly in available through new technology. my home state of Tasmania, is most welcome. It is worth while noting briefly the breadth I believe people are entitled to ask why the of projects that have been funded under Labor senators and the Greens senator from Networking the Nation. In the latest round of Tasmania voted against these proposals— grants, announced on 1 June, a diversity of proposals which include the important upgrad- projects received funding. For example, Reach ing of the Tasmanian Athletics Centre, where 6006 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 the facilities were, quite frankly, of Third Party members and senators from Tasmania World standard. Approximately 20,000 school slavishly followed the party line rather than children per annum access those facilities, but being concerned about the best interests of the Labor and Greens senators wanted to deny people whom they are elected to represent. In those Tasmanian school children the right to recent times we have had a Labor campaign those proper and decent facilities. The Bill seeking to deflect from these excellent out- Barwick International Athletics Centre, as it comes for Tasmania by suggesting that there will be called, will receive a major boost with have been job losses in Telstra. There have a contribution of $600,000. Similarly, the been no job losses in Tasmania in relation to Tasmanian people are entitled to ask why Telstra. The numbers are pretty well even; Labor senators and the Greens senator from indeed, there may have been a slight growth. Tasmania voted against the proposal which But all that aside, the simple fact is that any delivers the sealing of the Flinders Island rearrangement of jobs within Telstra is a airstrip—an important matter for those people function of the competition policy which the living on Flinders Island. previous Labor government introduced. It has Indeed, the question has to be asked: why nothing to do with privatisation. Indeed, with did the member for Bass also vote against this our policies of pursuing privatising and proposal? The question can also be asked: seeking to make the telecommunications why did the members for Braddon and Bass industry even more efficient, there are today and the Labor senators from Tasmania seek now more jobs in telecommunications than to deny the people of King and Flinders there were when we first came into govern- Islands a proper mobile phone service? Sure, ment. So the furphy that the Labor senators they enjoy the mobile phone service, living in are trying to introduce into this debate is Launceston and Burnie in my home state, and something that they need to live with, because when they come up to Canberra they can in fact it is a function of competition that they always use their mobile phones. But the themselves whilst in government introduced people who live on King Island and Flinders into the marketplace. Island in Bass Strait do not have such a I am, along with the vast majority of my privilege, and these Labor members and fellow Tasmanians, absolutely delighted with senators would seek to deny them that oppor- the package that the federal government was tunity. able to put together in relation to the sale of The most bizarre thing of all is the Greens Telstra and the $1 billion social bonus from senator’s opposition to the $25 million boost which Tasmania benefits so greatly. Yesterday to the Natural Heritage Trust funding for I had the opportunity to put on the record, via Tasmania. If one is committed to the envi- ABC radio to listeners in New South Wales, ronment, as we are led to believe the Greens the reason that Tasmania is so deserving of senator is, one has to ask: why is it that he extra funding from a social bonus. It should would seek to deny the Tasmanian environ- be remembered in this place that, as a result ment $25 million worth of repairs? The of decisions taken by former Labor govern- reason, quite simply, is that his left-wing ments, a major power development in my ideology of government ownership is a lot home state was blocked, then the development more important to him than the bottom line of of a major pulp mill was blocked by federal fixing the environment. One could also ask: Labor and 40 per cent of our landmass has why is it that the Labor members from Tas- now been locked up as part of the world mania, the Labor senators and the Greens heritage areas introduced by Labor. senator opposed the extra coverage that will Those three decisions, designed to get be provided for SBS television to remote Green preferences on the mainland, have had areas, including areas in Tasmania? devastating social and economic consequences There is no doubt that this package will be for my fellow Tasmanians and the economy of major significance to Tasmania. It is a of my home state. Unfortunately when you major boost. But when the test came, Labor take those decisions it takes some time to Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6007 wash through, but the people of Tasmania are for my state. But I guess I, like a lot of other now suffering with population decline and the people, can be dazzled at first glance by the highest rate of unemployment in the nation. impact of the package of measures which We were told that we would never need that have been negotiated and, without thinking extra power supply. We now have a strange the matter through, come to a quick and twist of politics with the Labor Deputy Premi- probably wrong conclusion. I was startled to er coming up to Canberra seeking federal hear one of my colleagues from the other side assistance to get a gas pipeline across Bass of the chamber tonight talk about the package Strait to assist with the power needs of Tas- in terms that suggested that, within five years, mania. That is the problem of a lack of its value would be greatly diminished. Look- forward planning and short-term decision ing at that package in light of those com- making by federal Labor trying to get Green ments, I had to come to the view that that preferences at the expense of the Tasmanian senator was, to a great extent, correct. people, and it is now having a devastating I am concerned about a number of aspects impact on my home state. It is therefore of the package, and I am particularly con- appropriate, when moneys are freed up cerned about the way that it is received by through this sale of Telstra, that from that other Australians. I think it is unfortunate that social bonus an extra portion be paid to it has been suggested that this is the package Tasmania to make up for those horrendous that will make Tasmania an intelligent island. decisions taken by the Labor Party against my I was heartened by comments in the Financial home state since 1983. Review today which suggested that the island The people of Tasmania welcome this was indeed already an intelligent island. The package overwhelmingly. They are absolutely fact of the matter is that a lot of the people devastated to think that Labor senators and who have gained their qualifications have had Labor members of the House of Representa- to move to mainland Australia to obtain tives—to a man and woman—voted against employment which is commensurate with this package when they know the desperate their skills and education. That is the prob- need for Tasmania to be provided with this lem: not making Tasmania an intelligent money which has been so well targeted. island. So I say that that is an unfortunate These are initiatives that show that a lot of epithet. thought went into the package and identified I am very concerned about the way the needs and possibilities for Tasmania to be- package has been received elsewhere. The come a more self-sustaining economy. I, for editorial in today’s West Australian is edify- one, welcome the announcements that were ing, and I want to quote from that. It says, made over the weekend and the passage of under the heading ‘PM in Grubby Vote- the further partial sale of Telstra by this Buying Politics’: Senate yesterday evening, and the people of Tasmania are very pleased by the decisions The Howard Government has resorted to shabby taken by this Senate and the federal Liberal vote-buying to try to secure the passage of its Telstra legislation through the Senate. Its brazen government. inducements to Tasmanian Independent Senator Telstra: Further Sale Brian Harradine to support the sale of a further 16.6 per cent of Telstra reveal an administration Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (10.57 driven by the dangerous idea that the end justifies p.m.)—I was not intending to speak this the means. And Senator Harradine seems all too evening, but I think there should be some ready to sell his vote if the price is right for analysis of some of the comments that have Tasmania. been made by Senator Abetz and other Prime Minister John Howard says Tasmania needs government senators about the Telstra pack- a bit of help because it has the highest unemploy- ment level in Australia and not much industry. That age that was negotiated by Senator Harradine. is humbug. If Mr Howard believed that Tasmania Let me say at the outset that, when I was first needed special help, why did he not provide it given to understand the nature of the package, earlier? He left it to the eve of the Senate vote on it seemed to be a package with a lot of merits the Telstra sale to promise a special deal for 6008 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Tasmania. And he has made the extra money for manians to leave the state, temporarily or Tasmania conditional on the Senate voting for the permanently, by sea highway at no more cost sale proposal. Again, if Tasmania’s needs are so than the cost of driving on the national overwhelmingly pressing, then it should be helped regardless of what happens to Telstra. highway system from one state to another in the rest of Australia? What could have been Quite right. more valuable than that? Senator Abetz—Do you oppose the deal? Senator Abetz—We have got that. Senator O’BRIEN—Senator Abetz is Senator O’BRIEN—Senator Abetz sug- interjecting. I listened to him without interrup- gests that we have that. I wonder why the tion and I would ask him for the same courte- delegation was here today. I do not think you sy. Today in the Hobart Mercury, on page 18, know what you are talking about, because we the editorial, which supports the package, clearly have not got it, and that is why the says: delegation was here in Canberra today. Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley is abso- Senator Abetz—No, it is the passenger lutely correct. The Telstra sale deal stitched up by Tasmanian Independent Senator Brian Harradine cars. with the Federal Government is shameless pork- Senator O’BRIEN—Of course it is the barrelling. The deal will probably upset most main- passenger crossing of Bass Strait, and it is landers but it will delight the majority of Tasman- ians. clear you do not understand what you are talking about, Senator Abetz. It is the passage There are quite a number of articles in today’s of passengers across Bass Strait by sea trans- papers about the deal, and almost without port which places Tasmanians and Tasmania exception the comments from outside of at a disadvantage. I guess I am wondering out Tasmania are deprecatory about the deal, loud why that was not considered rather than particularly the proportion of the social bonus some of the issues that have been considered, that Tasmania has achieved. I do not oppose needed though they might be. It is a question any of the initiatives per se. Given that you of priorities. are going to put together a package of meas- ures, some of them, I suspect, if there was It was suggested in the debate that in lieu going to be a proportionate distribution of the of some of these measures—measures which social bonus, would have gone to Tasmania, might have a real life of only about five though obviously the proportion is in excess years—it would have been more beneficial for of its population base. Senator Harradine to have picked up Labor’s Let me ask these rhetorical questions, and proposal from the last election, which I perhaps Senator Harradine will come into the believe had the endorsement of the Tasmanian chamber and answer them. In considering this people, that the whole of Tasmania be a local package of measures, if Senator Harradine call area zone. That would have meant signifi- was to obtain consideration for his support for cant savings to business and consumers in the legislation, why was consideration not Tasmania, and it would not have run out in given, for example, to a proposal that the five years, because the use of the telephone government legislate to make Bass Strait part system will certainly continue. It has been of the national highway system? A delegation estimated that that would make an ongoing was in Canberra today, I believe—because of saving of $25 million per year for business my duties I was unable to be involved in any and the public generally in Tasmania. way in its proposal—seeking the support of I am really asking the rhetorical questions the federal government for making Bass Strait of Senator Harradine, and he may take the part of the national highway system. What opportunity to come in here and talk about could be a more enduring job creation system whether those matters were considered by him for Tasmania, strengthening its tourism or, if they were not, why they were not. I potential and giving benefits to members of really do have the concern that, whilst some the Australian public from mainland Australia of these issues appear to have merit at the to come to Tasmania and benefits for Tas- moment, they may well be issues which do Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6009 not have the life that some other measures 106, dated 31 May 1999. might have had. I do suggest that perhaps Migration Act—General direction under section getting a benefit for the state of Tasmania of 499—General Direction No. 8. the nature of either of those two initiatives The following government documents were would have been of more value and less tabled: likely to draw the criticism that there has been Advance to the Minister for Finance and Admin- around the country of the deal that Senator istration—Statement and supporting applications Harradine has made with the government. of issues—April 1999. Senator Harradine has no doubt done what he Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear thinks is right. (Time expired) Safety Agency—Quarterly report for the period 5 February to 31 March 1999 (1st). Senate adjourned at 11.08 p.m. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commis- DOCUMENTS sion—Report—Superannuation entitlements on same-sex couples: Report of examination of Tabling federal legislation (HRC report no. 7). National Health and Medical Research Council— The following documents were tabled by Grants for 1999. the Clerk: Report for 1998. Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal Nuclear Safety Bureau—Reports for the pe- No. 7 of 1999. riods— Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- 1 July to 30 September 1998 (NSB.QRM 44). tions—Civil Aviation Orders—Directive—Part— 1 October 1998 to 4 February 1999 105, dated 11 [6], 19, 21 [3], 24 [2], 25 [8] and (NSB.QRM 45). 31 [3] May 1999; and 1, 3 [4] and 4 [7] June Productivity Commission—Report—No.2— 1999. International air services, 11 September 1998. 6010 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Minister for Industry, Science and The response to this question is incorporated in Resources: Newspapers, Magazines and the response to Question No 530. Other Periodicals Department of Industry, Science and (Question No. 530) Resources: Accrual Accounting Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, (Question No. 559) on 10 March 1999: Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for What was the total cost during the 1997-98 Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, financial year of the provision of newspapers, on 10 March 1999: magazines and other periodicals to the minister’s: (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state (1) What was the total expenditure on preparing ministerial office; and (c) private home. the department for the move to accrual accounting Senator Minchin—The answer to the for the 1997-98 financial year. honourable senator’s question is as follows: (2) What was the department’s forecast for The total cost during the 1997-98 financial year expenditure in this area. for the provision of newspapers, magazines and (3) (a) In which instances were firms or individu- periodicals to Ministers within the Industry, Science als engaged to provide consultancy services associ- and Tourism portfolio was as follows: ated with the shift to accrual accounting by the (a) Parliament House office—$21,138.38. department; and (b) which firms or individuals (b) home/state ministerial office—$1,480.19. were engaged. (c) private home—$0.00. (4) (a) What was the total number of days that consultants were engaged to provide this advice or Minister for Sport and Tourism: services; (b) at what cost per day in each instance; Newspapers, Magazines and Other and (c) what was the total cost of each consultancy Periodicals in each instance. (Question No. 545) (5) (a) What is the estimated expenditure on Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister outside consultants to advise on accrual accounting for the 1998-99 financial year; and (b) how much representing the Minister for Sport and Tour- has been spent to date. ism, upon notice, on 10 March 1999: What was the total cost during the 1997-98 (6) What is the estimated total departmental financial year of the provision of newspapers, expenditure on preparing for accrual accounting for magazines and other periodicals to the minister’s: the 1998-99 financial year. (a) Parliament House office; (b) home/state Senator Minchin—The answer to the ministerial office; and (c) private home. honourable senator’s question is as follows: Senator Minchin—The Minister for Sport and Tourism has provided the following (1) $332,148 answer to the honourable senator’s question: (2) $368,000 Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6011

(3)

(a) (b) FMIS Application Implementation WIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/L Methodology Study FMIS System Training WIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/L FMIS Support WIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/L FMIS Scoping Study WIZARD INFORMATION SERVICES P/L FMIS Review COOPERS & LYBRAND

(4)

(a) DAYS (b) COST PER DAY (c) TOTAL COST FMIS Application Implementation 53 1,306 69,200 Methodology Study FMIS System Training 10 1,400 14,000 FMIS Support 38 242 9,214 FMIS Scoping Study 7 2,590 18,131 FMIS Review 47 944 44,372 TOTALS: 155 154,917

(5) (a) $240,000. Christmas Islanders: Repatriation and Resettlement Compensation (b) $182,353. (Question No. 584) (6) $662,000. Senator Margetts asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Department of Industry, Science and Regional Services, upon notice, on 10 March Resources: Cost of Legal Advice 1999: (Question No. 577) (1) What has the Howard Government done to compensate and settle the claims of former Christ- mas Islanders who were re-settled and repatriated Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister for from the island to mainland Australia and South- Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, East Asia. on 10 March 1999: (2) Has the department complied with Australia’s international obligations on human rights or has it (1) What has been the total cost to the depart- discriminated against former islanders of Asian ment in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice origin in their re-settlement and repatriation from obtained from the Attorney-General’s Department; Christmas Island. and (3) Considering the compensation made to the (2) What has been the total cost to the depart- South Sea Islanders, Ocean Islanders and Nauru: ment in the 1997-98 financial year of legal advice Why has the Howard Government not compensated obtained by the department from other sources. the former islanders by government grants, full- time welfare officers, providing funds for building Senator Minchin—The answer to the temples of worship or other compensation; and (b) honourable senator’s question is as follows: why has the government not granted the former islanders the same status as that of the South Sea (1) The total cost to the department in the 1997- Islanders. 98 financial year of legal advice obtained from the (4) Why is the department spending taxpayers Attorney-General’s Department was $1,140,563. funds in defending the claims of former islanders for compensation which the Commonwealth of (2) The total cost to the department in the 1997- Australia acknowledged it owed to the islanders in 98 financial year of legal advice obtained by the 1958 (letter from Secretary, Department of Territor- department from other sources was $1,181,510. ies to the Secretary, Department of External 6012 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Affairs, 26 September 1958) and in the 1970s Senator Ian Macdonald—The Minister for (statement in the House of Representatives on 12 Transport and Regional Services has provided April 1973 by the Hon WL Morrison, MP on the the following answer to the honourable future of the Asian residents of Christmas Island and second reading speech by Senator the Hon. RG senator’s question: Withers on the Christmas Island Agreement Bill This question was originally asked of the 1976). Minister representing the Attorney-General and is (5) (a) Is the Minister aware that the repatriation substantially similar to question upon notice and re-settlement of the former islanders to main- number 583, asked on 10 March 1999. Accordingly land Australia and South-East Asia was in breach I refer the honourable Senator to the answer to that of the human rights of the islanders, contrary to the question. slavery treaties to which Australia is a signatory and in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act Community Aged Care: Subsidies 1975; and (b) what is intended to be done to (Question No. 594) correct this injustice. (6) Why did the department advise the Depart- Senator Chris Evans asked the Minister ment of Territories and Local Government not to representing the Minister for Aged Care, upon set up a scheme of compensation in response to a notice, on 16 March 1999: submission by the islanders to the department on 27 February 1996. Can details be provided of the subsidies paid by the Commonwealth on: (a) home and community (7) Why is the department continuing to waste care; (b) community aged care packages; (c) low- taxpayers funds in defending the claims of the care residential places; and (d) high-care residential former islanders of Asian origin considering the places, for the 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 international ramifications and the promises made financial years, broken down by state, on a per by the Commonwealth when Australia took over capita basis for the population over 70 years age, sovereignty of the island in 1958. in real terms (ie. 1998 dollars). (8) Why has the Government not set up a scheme of compensation for former islanders considering Senator Herron—The Minister for Aged the legal, political and public ramifications nation- Care has provided the following answer to the ally and internationally which have arisen from the honourable senator’s question: claims of the former islanders. The following table sets out actual expenditure (9) Does the Government condone racial discri- on a per capita basis in 1998-99 dollars by State. mination against persons of Asian origin in the Since high and low care places did not exist in Territories of Australia, their repatriation without 1996-97 (when hostels and nursing homes existed) compensation if such persons are Australian total residential aged care has been reported to citizens or permanent residents and the payment of allow comparison across years. It should be noted income and social security benefits substantially that home and community care expenditure is less than that allowable under federal awards and provided to the States as Specific Purpose Pay- legislation. ments to the States and is not a subsidy. The States (10) Is the Department aware of the interest that match Commonwealth funding according to indi- the claims of the former islanders have raised in vidual State agreements. South-East Asia, particularly in the ministerial It should also be noted that Community Care departments of the Governments of Singapore and Subsidies and Residential Care Subsidies are based Malaysia. on eligibility through assessed need and availability (11) For the period between 1957 and 1980 what of places through a demographic planning model. profits and surplus were received by the Common- In the case of Residential Care Subsidies the wealth of Australia as consolidated revenue or amount actually paid for each resident is dependent otherwise from the operations of the Christmas upon their care needs and the number of funded Island Phosphate Commission, the British Phos- places, and so direct comparisons between States phate Commission, their successors or assigns. are not valid. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6013

Actual Expenditure per Person aged 70+ in 1998-99 Dollars NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust 1996-97 Home and 287.12 344.24 308.26 391.88 310.13 336.19 335.67 987.60 319.68 Community Care Bill 2 Community 34.52 30.50 34.91 39.24 38.24 48.44 50.93 139.17 35.07 Care Subsidies Residential 2,028.27 1,703.56 1,694.53 2,098.30 1,500.55 2,000.82 1,452.76 2,411.05 1,837.84 Care Subsidies

Actual Expenditure per Person aged 70+ in 1998-99 Dollars NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust 1997-98 Home and Com- 289.98 351.03 323.44 389.39 312.77 338.81 350.18 1,077.91 325.53 munity Care Bill 2 Community 55.17 43.39 58.84 57.77 58.04 80.74 93.98 233.12 54.73 Care Subsidies Residential Care 2,012.93 1,785.55 1,791.72 2,192.78 1,539.91 2,040.07 1,624.52 2,681.56 1,885.01 Subsidies 1998-99 ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE Home and Com- 293.56 355.15 326.35 392.43 317.18 345.07 349.05 1,089.33 329.25 munity Care Bill 2 Community 73.95 58.12 78.60 77.10 77.93 108.88 124.04 311.93 73.29 Care Subsidies Residential Care 2,178.87 1,931.59 1,933.01 2,362.93 1,669.75 2,221.63 1,731.42 2,897.56 2,038.54 Subsidies

Department of Employment, Workplace (7) Were these contracts let through: (a) full Relations and Small Business: Public tender process; (b) selective tender process; or (c) Opinion Polling Research other (please specify). (Question No. 614) (8) Does the department or any agency in the portfolio have a contract or sub-contract relation- Senator Faulkner asked the Minister ship with the Wallis Consulting group, of King representing the Minister for Employment, Street Melbourne; if so: (a) what is the nature of that relationship; (b) what are the services being Workplace Relations and Small Business, provided by Wallis Consulting; (c) who defined the upon notice, on 24 March 1999: tasks to be performed by Wallis Consulting; (d) (1) As of 28 February 1999, does the department who produced the survey questions to be used by or any agency in the portfolio have any current Wallis Consulting; and (e) what is the expected contracts let for public opinion polling research; if total cost for these services. so, which company or companies, or individuals are Senator Alston—The Minister for Employ- these contracts with. ment, Workplace Relations and Small Busi- (2) Are these contracts for: (a) qualitative ness has provided the following answer to the polling; (b) quantitative polling; or (c) both. honourable senator’s question: (3) What are the objectives of these contracts. (1) As of 28 February 1999, the Employment Advocate (EA) had a contract with the Wallis (4) What polling methods are used. Consulting Group Pty Ltd and the department had (5) What is the budgeted cost for each of these contracts with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd and contracts. Australasian Research Strategies Pty (ARSP). Although the work under the original contract with (6) (a) Which sub-contractors are specified in the Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd had been com- contracts; and (b) who requested their inclusion. pleted at that date, the department was negotiating 6014 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 a contract variation for further work. This has now (5) Budgeted cost for Wallis Consulting Group commenced. Pty Ltd: $99,270 (2) The information provided under the contracts Budgeted cost for Worthington Di Marzio Pty is both qualitative and quantitative. Ltd: $183,450 (3) The contract with Wallis Consulting Group Budgeted cost for the ARSP project: $340,000 Pty Ltd relates to freedom of association. plus a maximum of $35,000 for travel. The contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty (6) There are no sub-contractors performing work Ltd is to provide research to assist with strategic related to the Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd or input and effective evaluation of the communica- Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd. No individual sub- tions campaign about reforms to the employment contractors are specified in the contract with ARSP. services market. However, the contract notes that ARSP may sub- The contract with ARSP is to obtain information contract fieldwork to companies which are mem- on the drivers behind public attitudes to further bers of either Interviewer Quality Control (IQCA) workplace reform. The project is based on VISTA or the Association of Marketing Research Organisa- values research methodology, ARSP being the sole tions (AMRO). Australian supplier of this methodology. (7) The contract with Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd was let through an open tender process (4) Two surveys are being conducted by Wallis Consulting Group Pty Ltd: The original contract with Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd was let through a selective tender * a survey of approximately 1000 employers process with the names of suitable polling organisa- conducted by telephone and mail question- tions supplied by the former Office of Government naire; and Information and Advertising (OGIA). * a survey of 1000 union members conducted by The contract with ARSP was let through a staged telephone. procurement process. The department, on behalf of The employer survey is in the form of a self- the Labour Ministers’ Council, has established a completed mail survey returned by mail or fax. panel of researchers who are available to undertake Prior to the surveys being mailed out to approxi- workplace relations related research projects mately 1000 employers, telephone interviewers including market research. The panel was formed called a sample of business establishments (1600 through an open national advertisement. Thirty-four employers) selected at random from the Yellow researchers submitted proposals to be part of the pages and Dun and Bradstreet’s commercial listing panel, including ARSP. to establish the most appropriate person in the (8) Yes. (a) As described above, the EA has a company to respond to the survey. Establishments contract with the Wallis Consulting Group, Mel- were chosen to fit industry and size criteria bourne for the purposes described in the answer to (ANZSIC industry codes excluding agriculture, part (3) of the question. (b) The services provided forestry and fishing; 400 small establishments, 300 are the conduct of two surveys [outlined in answer medium establishments and 300 large establish- (4)] and analysis of data to be supplied in report ments). Companies employing one or two people form to the EA. (c) The EA developed the particu- only at a site were excluded from the study. lars of the services required under the contract. (d) The union member survey was conducted by The survey questions were formulated by the telephone with employees at their homes and was Wallis Consulting Group, in consultation with the run at the same time as the employer survey. The EA. (e) $99,270. telephone survey method was selected in this instance because postal questionnaires may present Bulk Billing Medical Centres difficulties for some employees in relation to (Question No. 649) literacy and understanding of questions (eg employ- Senator Hogg asked the Minister represent- ees who are less educated or for whom English is not their first language). ing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 31 March 1999: Polling methods used by Worthington Di Marzio Pty Ltd were focus group discussions, executive (1) (a) How many bulk billing medical centres depth interviews and telephone interviews. are there located in: (i) Hervey Bay, (ii) Bundaberg, (iii) Maryborough, and (iv) Gladstone; and (b) what The ARSP project consists of four stages involv- are the addresses of these facilities. ing a preliminary focus group phase; in-depth interviewing research; conduct of a survey and (2) Do any of the centres offer 24 hour access or benchmarking of findings; and follow-up. The first provide bulk billing for locum services. two stages use qualitative methods and the third (3) (a) How many Medicare offices are located and fourth use quantitative methods. The third and in these centres; and (b) what are the addresses of fourth stages are optional. these offices. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6015

Senator Herron—The Minister for Health (1) How many staff were employed in the and Aged Care has provided the following Coastwatch Branch of the Australian Customs answer to the honourable senator’s question: Service as at: (a) June 1995; (b) June 1996; (c) June 1997 and (d) March 1998. (1) and (2)—While the Medicare system captures information in respect of individual provider (2) How many staff are currently employed in practice locations, it does not separately record activities relating to the civil surveillance program information for medical centres, nor does it record in the Coastwatch Branch. details of centres offering 24 hour access or bulk billing for locum services. As a result, the request- ed information for the nominated locations is not (3)(a) What was the appropriation for this Branch available. for the 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years and for activities relating to the civil surveil- (3) There is one Medicare office in each of the lance program in the Coastwatch Branch in the nominated locations. Relevant details of the ad- 1998-99 financial year. dresses are as follows: Hervey Bay, Shop 19, Frazer Shores Shopping (4) What was the actual level of expenditure in Centre, Cnr Boat Harbour Drive and Nissan Street, the financial years in (3). Pialba QLD 4655 Bundaberg, 47 Bourbong Street, Bundaberg QLD (5) (a) How many regional offices were operated 4670 in the financial years in (3) and (b) where were Maryborough, 385 Kent Street, Maryborough those offices located. QLD 4650 Gladstone, Shop 1, 161 Goondoon Street, Senator Vanstone—The answer to the Gladstone QLD 4680 honourable senator’s question is as follows: Australian Customs Service, Coastwatch (1) (a) June 1995 39.2; (b) June 1996 40; (c) Branch: Staff June 1997 39; (d) March 1998 39.1. (Question No. 668) (2) 41 (63 staff were involved in maritime Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for response and surveillance following the inclusion Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April of the National Marine Unit (NMU) in the 1999: Coastwatch Branch in March 1998). (3)

Financial Year Salaries Administrative Air Surveillance Total 1995/96 $2,336,755 $1,070,493 $26,850,018 $30,257,266 1996/97 $2,385,176 $1,004,600 $31,010,300 $34,400,076 1997/98 $2,531,782 $930,000 $30,760,000 $34,221,782 1998/99 $2,406,029 $1,195,007 $31,774,100 $35,375,136 1998/99* $6,468,921 $4,679,590 $31,774,100 $42,922,611 1998/99 figure includes an additional $335,000 (admin) for increased helicopter surveillance provided under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NIDS). 1998/99* includes the NMU appropriation and the additional $335,000 (admin) for increased helicopter surveillance allocated under the National Illicit Drugs Strategy (NIDS). (4)

Financial Year Salaries Administrative Total 1995/96 $2,348,653 $26,698,368 $29,047,021 1996/97 $2,417,917 $31,774,352 $34,192,269 1997/98 $2,391,258 $32,401,000 $34,792,258 1998/99* $4,445,630 $26,308,580 $30,754,210 1998/99* figure is ‘year to date’ March 1999 and includes NMU expenditure. 6016 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

(5) (a) and (b) There were 4 regional Coastwatch branch in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone offices in the years 1995/96 through 1998/99 and the Australian Fishing Zone. located in Cairns, Broome, Darwin and Thursday (2) Can the above information be provided for Island. the following categories: (a) suspect illegal entrant vessels; (b) illegal foreign fishing vessels; and (c) Australian Customs Service, Coastwatch vessels involving illicit drug importations. Branch: Illegal Foreign Fishing Vessels Senator Vanstone—The answer to the (Question No 669) honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1) The following figures represent the number Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for of sightings by Coastwatch reported to clients. Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April Sightings include Australian Fishing Vessels, 1999: Foreign Fishing Vessels, yachts, etc. AEEZ/AFZ (1) In the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 calendar years, and to date in 1999, how many vessels were locat- 1995/96—74,366; 1996/97—98,846; 1997/98— ed by the Coastwatch Branch of the Australian 125,273; 1998/99—88,043*. Customs Service or operations coordinated by that * July 1998 to March 1999

(2)

(a) SIEV (b) * FFV (c) IDI 1995/96 14 71 Nil 1996/97 12 130 3 1997/98 17 114 1 1998/99 15 #49 4

* The FFV statistics relate to apprehended FFV. # The number of FFV shown is for the period July 1998—March 1999. The figure shown for IDI represents the number of operations where Coastwatch assets have been tasked to undertake surveillance activities.

Coastal Surveillance Program: Civil (5) (a) How many aircraft does each contractor Aviation Contractors currently operate; and (b) what area is each con- tractor contracted to cover. (Question No. 670) (6) How many ocean going vessels were in the Senator O’Brien asked the Minister for Customs marine fleet in the 1995-96, 1996-97, Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 13 April 1997-98 financial years and as at April 1999. 1999: (7) How many flying hours were provided by the Royal Australian Airforce (RAAF) to the (1) How many civil aviation contractors operated Coastwatch Branch in the years in (6) and what aircraft as a part of the coastal surveillance pro- areas did the RAAF cover. gram managed by the Coastwatch Branch of the (8) How many days were provided by the Royal Australian Customs Service in the 1994-95, 1995- Australian Navy (RAN) in the years in (6) and; (b) 96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 financial years. what areas did the RAN cover. (2) What was the value of each contract for the Senator Vanstone—The answer to the above years. honourable senator’s question is as follows: (3) (a) How many aircraft did each contractor (1) 1994/95—2 (Skywest and Chopperline); operate; (b) how many hours did each contractor 1995/96—3 (Skywest, Surveillance Australia and fly; and (c) what area was each contractor contract- Reef Helicopters); 1996/97—2 (Surveillance ed to cover in each of the above years. Australia and Reef Helicopters); 1997/98—2 (Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicopters). (4) How many civil aviation contractors currently (2) 1994/95: Chopperline—$.527m; Skywest— operate aircraft as a part of the coastal surveillance $21m; 1995/96: Skywest—$17.4; Surveillance program managed by the Coastwatch Branch. Australia—$7.5m; Reef—$.9m; 1996/97: Surveil- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6017 lance Australia—$29.9m; Reef—$.985m; 1997/98: (3) (a) Skywest—14; Chopperline—1; Surveil- Surveillance Australia—$29.5m; Reef—$1.1m. lance Australia—13; Reef—1.

(b)

Skywest Chopperline Surv. Aust. Reef Total 1994/95 11,719 315 0 0 12,034 1995/96 5,697 0 6,764 469 12,930 1996/97 0 0 14,525 481 15,006 1997/98 0 0 14,337 696 15,033

(c) Civil surveillance service providers to (1-2) Coastwatch are not contracted to provide specific The Australian Government reviewed the poten- area coverage. Rather, they are contracted to tial threats identified by the UNESCO Mission’s provide a particular number of both visual and report on Kakadu and specifically addressed these electronic surveillance hours. threats in its report "Australia’s Kakadu; Protecting The exact area covered each year will depend on World Heritage" submitted to the World Heritage strategic and tactical surveillance needs identified Committee in April 1999. to Coastwatch by client agencies. In 1994/95 an The Supervising Scientist conducted a full review estimated 29 million square nautical miles were and prepared a report addressing the issue of surveilled; in 1995/96 approximately 43 million scientific uncertainty which was identified in the square nautical miles; in 1996/97 approximately 84 UNESCO Mission report. Four consultancies were million square nautical miles; in 1997/98 approxi- also commissioned by the Supervising Scientist to mately 79 million square nautical miles and in address issues of hydrometeorological analysis, 1998/99 to the end of March 1999, approximately climate change analysis, surface water storage, and 62 million square nautical miles. tailings storage. The Supervising Scientist presented (4) 2 (Surveillance Australia and Reef Helicop- his report to the World Heritage Committee in ters) April 1999. (5) (a) Surveillance Australia—13; Reef Helicop- Environment Australia was involved in a range ters—1; (b) Refer to 3 (c). of activities including developing and conducting (6) 1995/96—5; 1996/97—6; 1997/98—6; April a consultancy regarding potential impacts of dust, 1999—7. developing a consultancy on the potential impacts of vibrations, and undertaking an audit of previous (7) (a) 1995/96—233; 1996/97—255; 1997/98— anthropological work in the Jabiluka lease area 241; April 1999—208 throughout December 1998 to April 1999. (b) Refer to 3 (c). (8) (a) 1995/96—1833; 1996/97—1786; Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project 1997/98—1725; April 1999—1294. (Question No. 690) (b) Refer to 3 (c). Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 April 1999: (Question No. 689) With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the project: Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 (1) What action has the Australian Government April 1999: taken, since December 1998, to undertake an With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine exhaustive independent review and further risk project: analysis of all claims of scientific uncertainty relating to the project. (1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to review all the (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. perceived threats to world heritage and institute Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- necessary protective measures able senator’s question is as follows: (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. (1) The Supervising Scientist undertook a Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- comprehensive review of the claims of scientific able senator’s question is as follows: uncertainty relating to the Jabiluka project. The 6018 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 executive summary of the report to the World In December 1998 ERA announced that produc- Heritage Committee, which resulted from this tion levels at Ranger uranium mine would be review, provides details of the topics, process and reduced effective 31 March 1999 and that there findings of the review. A copy of the executive would be a small reduction in staff numbers at the summary has been provided to the honourable Ranger mine. As a consequence of this, and the senator and additional copies are available from the current schedule for the development of the Jabi- Senate Table Office. luka mine, it is not anticipated that ERA will need (2) (a) The Supervising Scientist undertook the to make a decision about additional housing in review, drawing on expertise available within his Jabiru until the year 2000. own organisation and expert advice from a number The Hon. Bob Collins, Chair of the Kakadu of scientific institutes in Australia. Scientists from Region Social Impact Study (KRSIS) Implementa- the Bureau of Meteorology, the University of tion Team, is having on-going discussions with Melbourne, the Commonwealth Scientific and ERA about housing in Jabiru, and the social Industrial Research Organisation and the University impacts on Aboriginal people of development in of New South Wales were commissioned to prepare Jabiru, as a part of his KRSIS work. reports on specific topics. Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project (b) The review commenced shortly after the 30 November to 5 December 1998 World Heritage (Question No. 692) Committee meeting in Kyoto. The report was Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the presented to the World Heritage Centre on 15 April 1999. Copies of the Assessment of the Jabiluka Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 Project, Report of the Supervising Scientist of the April 1999: World Heritage Committee, Executive Summary With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine are available from the Senate Table Office. project: Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project (1) What action has the Australian Government taken, since December 1998, to ensure that the (Question No. 691) Interim Cultural Management plan is subjected to independent peer review and has further consulta- Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the tion with traditional owners to protect all sites in Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 the lease area been invited. April 1999: (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine (3) Have the Mirrar people been involved. project: Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- (1) What action has the Australian government able senator’s question is as follows: taken, since December 1998, to ascertain whether any expansion of urban and infrastructure develop- (1) Since December 1998 the Australian Govern- ment in Jabiru, as a result of the mine, will be ment, through Environment Australia, has invited minimal, with the utilisation of existing stock to participation in the independent review and further cater for workers on the project. development of the Interim Cultural Heritage Management Plan from the organisations identified (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. in the recommendations of the report by the Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- UNESCO Mission to Kakadu. Environment Aus- able senator’s question is as follows: tralia developed terms of reference for the inde- pendent review and is contacting the experts (1 and 2) Plans by Energy Resources of Australia nominated by the organisations identified in the (ERA) to expand housing and other infrastructure Mission’s report. in Jabiru as a consequence of mining at Jabiluka Participation of traditional owners in the develop- are being monitored by officers of Environment ment of measures to protect Aboriginal cultural Australia based in Jabiru. heritage was discussed with the senior traditional During the period December 1998—April 1999 owner in March during a meeting with officers of ERA’s local housing needs were being met from the Office of Indigenous Policy and the Department existing housing stock and at temporary contractor of Industry, Science and Resources. Subsequently, accommodation re-established in Jabiru in 1996. Environment Australia has sought input from the Specific requirements for additional housing for the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, the Northern Jabiluka project have not been finalised and will be Land Council and the Aboriginal Areas Protection dependent on whether the Ranger mill alternative Authority in the compilation of an accurate inven- or the Jabiluka mill alternative proceeds as part of tory of cultural sites and values to assist with the the Jabiluka mine development. protection of cultural heritage places on the Jabi- Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6019 luka Mineral Lease, and to participate in reviewing (2) (a) Environment Australia the plan. (b) January—April 1999 (2) (a) Environment Australia. (3) No (b) Ongoing. (B) Expert Opinion (3) The Mirrar-Gundjehmi have not yet agreed to participate in this process. (1) Consultation with anthropological experts. (2) (a) Environment Australia Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project (b) March—April 1999 (Question No. 693) (3) No Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the (C) Consultation with Traditional Owners Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 (1) Meeting held with traditional owners to April 1999: discuss the development of measures to protect With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine Aboriginal cultural heritage. project: (2) (a) Office of Indigenous Policy and the (1) What action has the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources. taken, since December 1998, to institute dust and vibration studies to ensure the protection of rock art (b) February 1999 sites. (3) Representatives of the Mirrar-Gundjehmi (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. attended this meeting. Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- (D) Correspondence able senator’s question is as follows: (1) Letters to the Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corpora- tion, the Northern Land Council and the Aboriginal (1) The dust and vibration studies were scoped Areas Protection Authority inviting them to provide and terms of reference developed. Appropriate information on the location and values of cultural consultants were identified and engaged to under- sites on the Jabiluka Mineral Lease. take these studies. (2) (a) Environment Australia (2) (a) Environment Australia. (b) March 1999—April 1999. (b) March 1999 (3) The Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation were Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project invited to provide input on cultural sites. (Question No. 694) Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 (Question No. 696) April 1999: Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 project: April 1999: (1) What action has the Australian Government With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine taken, since December 1998, to ensure that existing project: extensive records of cultural values are comple- (1) What action has the Australian Government mented by a cultural mapping exercise along the taken, since December 1998, to engage in high lines recommended by the United Nations Educa- level discussions, commencing at the ministerial tional, Scientific and Cultural Organisation mission. level, on outstanding issues relating to joint man- (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. agement of Kakadu National Park. (3) Were the Mirrar people involved; if so, to (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. what extent. (3) What was the outcome of those discussions. Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- (4) What was the position of the parties. able senator’s question is as follows: Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- In order to ensure that existing extensive records able senator’s question is as follows: of cultural values were complimented by a cultural mapping exercise, four areas of action were carried (1) I met with traditional owner members of the out: Kakadu Board of Management. (A) Research (2) (a) I did. (1) Survey of existing available literature. (b) 2 March 1999 6020 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

(3) I considered amendments to the Environment pending the consideration and outcome of various Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Bill 1998 internal consultative processes. proposed by the traditional owners. Further discus- (B) (1) Discussions regarding the Kakadu sions at officer level have been undertaken. I have Regional Social Impact Study (KRSIS) and the agreed to a series of amendments, including the establishment of the KRSIS Implementation Team. retention of the Director as a separate statutory authority in relation to National Park management. (2) (a) ERISS (4) The Board of Management and the Northern (b) February 1999 Land Council proposed amendments to the Envi- (3) A meeting was held on 18 February 1999 ronment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation with the Djabulukgu Association at which the Bill. Association agreed to be represented on, and Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project support, the KRSIS Implementation Team. (Question No. 697) The Northern Land Council (NLC) was ap- proached seeking their agreement to a member of Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the ERISS attending a Council meeting in February to Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 discuss KRSIS and other issues relating to Jabiluka. April 1999: ERISS did not attend the meeting at the request of the NLC. With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project: Discussions with the Jabiluka Bininj Working Committee and the Hon Bob Collins (Chair, KRSIS (1) What action has the Australian Government Implementation Team). Discussions centred on taken, since December 1998, to confirm govern- plans for establishing the KRSIS Implementation ment commitment to consultation and cross-cultural Team, KRSIS-related activities, ERISS research dialogue. activities on the Jabiluka lease, and the proposed (2) (a) who conducted this action; and (b) when. relocation of ERISS to Darwin. (3) What was the outcome. (4) The Djabulukgu Association noted that their (4) What was the position of the parties. continuing participation would be dependent on a strong Aboriginal decision-making role in meetings Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- of the Implementation Team. The Bininj Working able senator’s question is as follows: Committee thanked Mr Collins and ERISS for their The Government has confirmed its commitment briefing and asked to be kept informed of other to consultation and cross-cultural dialogue through developments as they occur. a range of activities, including: (C) (1) Consultations regarding the review of (A)(1) Consultation with the Gundjehmi Aborigi- protocols for communication and consultative nal Corporation. arrangements between ERISS and the Northern (2) (a) Myself, officers of Environment Australia Land Council (NLC). and the Office of Indigenous Policy. (2) (a) ERISS (b) Ongoing (b) Ongoing (3) A meeting with the Mirrar-Gundjehmi was (3) It was noted that the NLC expected to held on 8 February 1999 in Canberra with officials formally review consultative arrangements as part from the Office of Indigenous Policy and the of the review of the Ranger (S. 44) mining agree- Department of Science, Industry and Resources. ment in mid to late 1999. It was agreed to defer the I met with the Mirrar-Gundjehmi on 9 February development of new protocols until that time, but 1999, providing an opportunity to present their in the meantime ERISS would keep the NLC fully views and raise cultural heritage issues relating to informed of any discussions and consultation with Jabiluka. traditional owners about ERISS work programs. Follow-up discussions, including a specific (4) The NLC noted recent steps being taken by meeting at Jabiru in March 1999, were proposed by ERISS to improve dialogue and communications the Government, and sought again in correspond- with Aboriginal people but sought a joint review of ence to the Corporation in April 1999. current arrangements. (4) The Government has continued to indicate its (D) (1) Continued communications with Tradi- willingness to meet with the Traditional Owners to tional Owners regarding ERISS work programs discuss the Jabiluka mine project and other relevant related to the Jabiluka Mine. issues, in Jabiru or elsewhere, at their discretion. Since February this year, the Gundjehmi have (2) (a) ERISS indicated that they wished to defer discussions (b) Ongoing Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6021

(3) The Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation, the Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project Djabulukgu Association, the Northern Land Coun- cil, and the Jabiluka Bininj Working Committee (Question No. 699) received regular reports on the activities of ERISS Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the relating to the Jabiluka mine. Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 (4) Reporting from ERISS has received positive April 1999: feedback from recipients. With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project: (E) (1) Other consultation and cross-cultural activities related to this question are provided in the (1) What action has the Australian Government responses to the Honourable Senator’s Questions on taken, since December 1998, to seek the views of Notice No. 692 and 696. the Northern Land Council, traditional owners, and the mining company, on potential options for the (2) (a) See above. Koongarra mineral lease pending the outcomes of (b) See above. negotiations with traditional owners on the lease. (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. (3) See above (3) What were their responses. (4) See above. Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- able senator’s question is as follows: Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project (1) The Minister for Industry, Science and (Question No. 698) Resources wrote to the Chairman of the NLC seeking his advice on Traditional Owners’ views on Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the potential options for the Koongarra Mineral Lease. Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 The Minister also wrote to the Managing Director April 1999: of Koongarra Limited and the Northern Territory Minister for Resource Development seeking their With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine views on the matter. project: (2) (a) The Minister for Industry, Science and (1) What action has the Australian Government Resources. taken, since December 1998, to confirm an ongoing (b) April—May 1999 presence of the Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist in Jabiru (3) No response has been received to date. (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project (Question No. 700) (3) Can an assurance be given that these bodies will stay in place for the duration of the mine; if Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the not, at least for the next 5 years. Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- April 1999: able senator’s question is as follows: With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project: (1-3) (1) What action has the Australian Government In our response to the UNESCO World Heritage taken, since December 1998, to ensure that mecha- Committee report regarding Kakadu National Park nisms in place will effectively limit the expansion of April 1999, the Government has confirmed that of Jabiru to prevent any threat to the World Heri- the Environmental Research Institute of the Super- tage property. vising Scientist (eriss) will maintain a presence in (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. Jabiru. The Institute will maintain a field office and laboratory in Jabiru. Staff will be required to Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- maintain strong communication links with Aborigi- able senator’s question is as follows: nal people in the region. (1-2) The position of the Supervising Scientist and the No action has been taken to implement new Institute are established by the Environment Protec- arrangements to control the development of the tion (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. The Gov- township of Jabiru (within Kakadu National Park), ernment has no intention of varying the intent or as there has been no need to do so. statutory responsibilities prescribed in the legislat- The township of Jabiru has been developed in ion. line with the recommendation of the Ranger 6022 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999 uranium environmental inquiry that the town be Kakadu National Park. Under the Plan of Manage- established within Kakadu National Park and be ment, there are a number of ongoing actions to subject to planning principles set out in the Kakadu maintain best practice management, including: plan of management. The inclusion of the town in * Mimosa and Salvinia program; the park was a specific measure taken so that the Director of National Parks and Wildlife could * Paragrass programs; and ensure that the impacts of the town and its residents * Ongoing information exchange between ERA on the surrounding park environment are as small Environmental Services and Parks Australia in as possible. relation to feral pests in the Park. On 9 March 1999 a new Kakadu plan of man- Specific actions relating to the Jabiluka mine agement came into effect. This plan details the site, include: steps that have to be taken before the Director of National Parks and Wildlife can approve any * Ongoing training for ERA staff and technical amendment to the town lease, the implementation advice to ERA on weed management provided of a new or amended town plan, any change in land by Parks Australia; tenure or land use and any construction or expan- * Site inspections in February and March 1999 sion of tourism or other infrastructure development by Parks Australia North dealing with weed in the town. management issues on the Jabiluka mine site; The plan requires that the Director make an and assessment of the expected positive and negative * A review of the Draft Weeds Management impacts of any proposed change on the park Plan for the Jabiluka mine site by Parks environment and consults with relevant traditional Australia North. The review is presently under owners and the Northern Land Council about the way. proposed changes. The Director is also required to take account of the findings of the Kakadu Region Reeves, Mr John QC: Appointment Social Impact Study. (Question No. 711) Proposals also have to be referred to the Kakadu Board of Management for consideration in accord- Senator Ferris asked the Minister for ance with the Board’s statutory decision-making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, functions. A majority of the members of the upon notice, on 29 April 1999: Kakadu Board of Management are Aboriginal people representing the traditional owners of With reference to the appointment of John Kakadu National Park. Reeves QC in October 1997 to conduct a review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) The Kakadu plan of management specifically Act 1976 and the subsequent report in August provides that the Director can only approve changes 1998: to Jabiru where these are consistent with the wishes of Aboriginal people and where the net benefit of (1) Is the Minister aware that, in the report, Mr any change outweighs any detriment to the cultural Reeves identified as Royalty Associations incorpo- and natural environment of the park. rated Aboriginal associations that receive monies from mining operations and other such sources as Jabiluka Uranium Mine Project park entrance fees. (Question No. 701) (2) Is the Minister aware that, on p.347 of the Senator Bolkus asked the Minister for the report, Mr Reeves states, ‘the requirements for Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 23 royalty Associations to account for their expendi- April 1999: ture are wholly inadequate for the purpose of revealing the ultimate purposes to which these With reference to the Jabiluka uranium mine project: monies have been put’. (1) What action has the Australian Government (3) Is the Minister aware that one such royalty taken, since December 1998, to ensure that the Association is Gundjehmi Aboriginal Corporation impact of introduced species on the wetlands of which at March 1999 had 27 members and is Kakadu National Park continues to be managed incorporated under the Aboriginal Councils and using best practice approaches. Associations Act and receives monies as a result of (2) (a) Who conducted this action; and (b) when. the royalties paid by the Ranger uranium mining operations at Jabiru in the Northern Territory. Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- able senator’s question is as follows: (4) Is the Minister aware that Mr Blacker, an auditor with KR Blacker and Associates, qualified (1-2) his audit of the 1996-97 financial year accounts of The Australian Government supports the ongoing the Gundjehmi Corporation by expressing concern best practice management of introduced species in about inadequate documentation for travel expenses Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6023 which together with travel allowances totalled over of Management and Taxation Consultants, contain $59 000. a minor qualification with respect to travel expens- (5) Is the Minister aware that Mr Blacker was es. The auditor expressed his qualification in the unable to verify the distribution of members’ following terms: entitlements, which totalled $626 000 in the "travel expenses need to be better document- 1995/96 financial year and $87 000 in the 1996/97 ed...." financial year. The auditor also commented in relation to the (6) Is the Minister aware that the financial qualification that he: statements for the year ended 30 June 1998 reveal "accepted assurances from the executive that the following features: (a) although the association system changes have been adopted". received over $600,000 in royalty receipts and Ranger rental and has over $760,000 in liquid The Registrar has confirmed that the audit report assets, there was no distribution of member entitle- for the corporation for the following year (ie ments; (b) the association of 27 members in 1998 1997/98) did not contain any qualification relating paid wages of over $270,000 and incurred travel to travel expenses. expenses of almost $100,000; and (c) advertising (5) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has expenses increased 30 times to $37 000, consul- advised that the corporation’s financial records for tancy fees increased 30 times to $73 000, motor 1995/96 record $626,300 as being distributed to vehicle expenses increased five times to $30 000 members. The corporation’s auditor commented and repairs and maintenance increased 60 times to that: $43 000. "the trading records declare a substantial amount (7) Will the Minister call on the registrar ap- of funds were distributed to members of the pointed under the Aboriginal Council and Associa- corporation. While it would appear that most of tions Act to investigate the affairs of the these distributions are well documented it is not Gundjehmi Aboriginal corporation to ensure that practical for the auditor to verify the entitlement or the corporation is applying its funds to their proper receipt of those distributions". I accept the exec- purposes and complying with the law and its rules utive offices (sic) assurance that there are no and constitution. disputes or discrepancies relating to these distribu- Senator Herron—The answer to the tions". honourable senator’s question is as follows: In the view of the Registrar, the comments by the auditor do not constitute a qualification with (1) Yes, I am aware that Mr Reeves did indeed, regard to the distributions to members. in his report, identify incorporated Aboriginal bodies receiving mining royalty equivalents and With regard to the corporation’s distributions to revenue from other activities as Royalty Associa- members in 1996/97 of $87,001.94, the auditor tions. qualified his report by stating that: (2) Yes, Mr Reeves did make that finding. "the scope of the audit did not verify distribution However, it should be noted that this finding is not of entitlements and I accept the assurance of the necessarily supported by the government and that executive that there are no disputes or discrepancies the review conducted by Mr Reeves is currently regarding these matters" being inquired into by the House of Representatives The Registrar has advised that the auditor’s Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres qualification relates primarily to the coverage of the Strait Islander Affairs. Any Government decisions audit that did ". . . not verify distribution..." about the findings and recommendations of Mr rather than the auditor being ". . . unable to verify Reeves will await the completion of that inquiry. the distribution..."asasked in your question. (3) I am advised that the Gundjehmi Aboriginal (6) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has Corporation was incorporated on 14 July 1995 advised me that the corporation’s audit report for under the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1997/98 confirms that: 1976. Financial records lodged by the corporation with the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations also (a) the corporation received $603,279.64 in confirm that it has received income derived from royalty and rental receipts. There was no record of mining royalty equivalents. Those royalty equiva- monies distributed to members. lents were derived from the Ranger uranium mine (b) The corporation paid $272,806.57 in wages in the Northern Territory. and expended $99,876.72 on travel expenses and (4) The Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations has allowances. advised that audited financial information for (c) The Corporation expended $37,076.15 on 1996/97 provided by the corporation, prepared by advertising. The corporation also expended KR Blacker and Associates—a Darwin based firm $30,921.09 on motor vehicles expenses. 6024 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

The Registrar also advises that the increases in National Land and Water Resources expenditure incurred by the corporation over those of the previous year, although substantial, did not Audit attract any adverse comment by the auditor. (Question No. 714) Senator Brown asked the Minister repre- (7) I have noted the Senator’s question and point senting the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries out that it is the Registrar’s prerogative to discharge and Forestry, upon notice, on 29 April 1999: his obligations under the Aboriginal Councils sand For all the work funded from the $30 million Associations Act 1976. The Registrar has advised allocated through the Natural Heritage Trust to the that the Corporation is in compliance with its National Land and Water Resources Audit, can the reporting obligations under the Aboriginal Councils following information be provided: (a) the title of sand Associations Act 1976. Furthermore, the audit the project; (b) the aim of the project and a brief report contained only one qualification that would description, including the geographical area to appear to be unrelated to the questions asked. which it relates; (c) the organisations or individuals carrying out the project; (d) the amount allocated The Registrar has advised that having regard to to the project and its starting and finishing dates; the most recent audit report, and in particular the and (e) references to any published reports or absence of significant qualifications, the current outcomes from the project. compliance by the corporation with its reporting Senator Alston—The Minister for Agricul- requirements, and in the absence of recent or ture, Fisheries and Forestry has provided the specific allegations against the corporation, the following answer to the honourable senator’s Registrar advises that there is insufficient cause to question: justify an investigation of the corporation’s affairs. Attached is a list of current and proposed Audit projects provided by the National Land and Water The Registrar has given me an assurance that, Resources Audit Secretariat which addresses should any allegations or specific concerns relating questions (a) to (d). With regard to part (e) of the to the affairs corporation be forthcoming, he would question, ‘references to any published reports or take appropriate action consistent with his statutory outcomes from the project’, the Audit is due to responsibilities under the Aboriginal Councils and deliver its final report by 30 June 2001. No Audit Associations Act 1976. projects have yet been published.

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Water Availability Theme 1: Surface and groundwater 263052 Project availability—This theme will charac- Devel- terise and then categorise in terms of opment, water availability, allocation and use, Man- Australia’s surface and groundwater agement resources. Opportunities for further and Ev- water resource development and man- aluation agement requirements, including envi- ronmental flows will be identified. 1 Characterisation, This project aims to characterise Australia-wide Partnership 2350000 Dec 98Apr 00 Project Categorisation, Allo- Australia’s surface water and with State in pro- cation and Use groundwater management areas in and Terri- gress terms of water availability, alloca- tory agen- tion and use. The degree of resource cies commitment will be assessed. Man- agement requirements to ensure sustainability will be identified. 2 Demand and Poten- This project provides a State and Australia-wide Partnership Single Dec 98Apr 00 Project tial for Development Territory agency overview of the with State contract in pro- opportunities and challenges for and Terri- covering gress water resource development, con- tory agen- Project 1 servation and management including cies and 2 environmental flows. 3 Coordination, Data This project provides technical sup- Australia-wide Tender won 400000 Dec 98Jun 00 Project Management and Re- port to the State and Territory agen- by Sinclair in pro- porting cies and delivers the database and Knight gress final reporting outcomes of this Na- Merz tional Water Resources Assessment. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6025

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Implementation Project This project aims to trial the work Tasmania Partnership 273000 Dec 98Apr 00 Project plan outputs for Water Availability. A with Tas- in pro- database and range of information mania De- gress products to underpin the development partment of of the Tasmanian State Water Plan Primary In- and provide a context for the proposed dustries , State Water Legislation will be pre- Water and pared. Environ- ment Dryland Salinity Theme 2—Dryland salinity—This 266704 Project theme will quantify Australia wide Devel- the extent, risks and cost of dryland opment, salinity and identify the most ap- Man- propriate management actions for agement various types of catchments. Chan- and Ev- ges required in farming operations aluation and land use patterns for some case study catchments will be assessed based upon water balance and the level of salinity within that catch- ment the community is prepared to live with. 1 Current Extent Evaluate existing groundwater and Australia-wide Partnership 500000 Dec 98Jun 00 Project related biophysical and landuse with State in pro- dataAssess current national and Terri- gress extentEvaluate trends and predict tory agen- risk of salinity extent and devel- cies opment in 2020 and 2050Biodiversity 1b—Infrastructure Show impacts and costs to infra- Australia-wide 50000 Jun 99Jun 00 Tender structure from salinity development being let 1c—Biodiversity Evaluation of impacts on natural Australia-wide Partnership -May 00 (?) Project vegetation and wetland fauna and with Envi- subject flora ronment to Australia— Minister to be final- ial ap- ised proval 2 Catchment Classi- Maps, reports and database showing Australia-wide Partnership 200000 Jan 99Oct 99 Project fication catchment classification distribution with Bureau in pro- and giving process models and of Rural gress mitigation options.Identification of Sciences drivers and processes—spatial distri- bution of conceptual process modelsClassification of catchment types and risk assessment optionsManagement options in each type 3 Catchment Water Characterisation of catchments— Representative Partnership 760000 Jan 99Jul 00 Project Balance and Land Use hydrologic behaviorWater balance case studies:Lake with Bureau in pro- Impacts and imbalance distribution ev- Warden , of Rural gress aluation1. Evaluation of different WAWanilla, Sciences, land uses on water balance & devel- Eyre Pen , SA* CSIRO and opment of scenarios2. Implications Upper Billabong, State and analysis—link to Capacity for NSW* Kama- Territory Change (Theme 6)Monitoring, im- rooka or Burkes agencies plications and recommendations Flat 3b—Biodiversity Biodiversity requirements in catch- As above in Pro- Partnership -Nov 00 Project ment repair ject 3 with Envi- subject ronment to Australia— Minister to be final- ial ap- ised proval 4 Monitoring Systems Review of the current monitoring Australia-wide Partnership 150000 Jan 99Jul 00 Project systemRequirements for national with Bureau in pro- strategic decisionsInformation of Rural gress managementRecommendations for a Sciences monitoring framework, implementa- tion and management 5a Implications of Recommendations on:Intervention Australia-wide 150000 Dec 98Dec 00 Tender Dryland Salinity for mechanismsMonitoring, data man- yet to Australia agement, R&D require- be let mentsFramework for decision mak- ingLinkages with other land deg- radation issues 5b coordination and * Technical Coordination of all pro- Australia-wide Tender won 100000 Dec 99Dec 00 Project reporting jects, related initiatives* Final Re- by Webbnet in pro- port Services gress 6026 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Implementation Project Groundwater level trends—statistical Great Southern, Partnership 290000 Jul 98Feb 00 Project analysis method and recommendations WA with CSIRO in pro- for salinity management as a frame- MIS and gress work for improved monitoring and Ag WA. land management. Vegetation Theme 3: Vegetation cover, condi- 152243 Project tion and use—This theme will col- Devel- late and present Australia wide opment, vegetation data within a National Man- Vegetation Information System. The agement system will build upon the National and Ev- Forest Inventory and incorporate aluation information requirements for report- ing from a forestry [Montreal proto- col], Greenhouse and nature con- servation / vegetation management perspective. 1: Develop core at- A core set of attributes for mapping Australia-wide Partnership 159000 Jan 99Jun 99 Project tributes for the NVIS vegetation will be agreed to by the with Envi- in pro- Commonwealth, State and Territory ronment gress agencies. This will then enable exist- Australia, ing data from a range of sources, pe- Bureau of riods and scales to be aggregated to a Rural Sci- consistent sub-national and national ences, and classification for vegetation and condi- State and tion. Data will be aggregated without Territory compromising the integrity and quality agencies of the original data. 2: Access, audit and This project will collate and audit all Australia-wide Partnership 1128000 May 99Oct 99 Project compilation of digital vegetation type and condition data, with Envi- in pro- vegetation data identify major gaps in the vegetation ronment gress and condition data and develop and Australia, implement from existing data an Bureau of information system providing quick Rural Sci- and easy access to vegetation infor- ences, and mation to government and the pub- State and lic. Territory agencies 3: Fill gaps—new To fill the gaps in spatial, temporal Australia-wide Partnership AS YET Jul 99Apr 00 AS mapping and survey and vegetation and condition attrib- with State UNFUND- YET utes in the National Vegetation and Terri- ED UN- Information System identified tory agen- FUND- through Task 2. cies ED 4: Product Specifica- Define decision support needs of pol- Australia-wide Partnership 100000 Oct 99Feb 00 To start tions, Development icy makers and develop and deliver with Envi- 1999- and Delivery vegetation and condition information/ ronment 2000 products required by theese policy Australia, makers across Government and com- Bureau of munity. Rural Sci- ences, and State and Territory agencies Implementation Project Extension of MDBC vegetation M305 Walgett Shire, Partnership 258000 Jul 98Dec 99 Project which concentrated on woody vegeta- NSW with NSW in pro- tion to cover non woody vegetation, State agen- gress particularly, native grasslands.Pilot cies will develop methods that could be used to update the Basincare (M305) database in terms of native grasslands and other non woody vegetation. Rangelands Monitoring Theme 4: Rangelands monitoring— 357687 Project This theme will collate background Devel- data and put in place systems to opment, monitor Australia’s Rangelands. Man- Monitoring systems will cover at- agement tributes defining productivity, land- and Ev- scape function, biodiversity, social, aluation economic and cultural attributes and institutional arrangements. 1.1—Ecosystem Func- Identify regional indices of change Australia’s Tender won 28000 Oct 98Mar 99 Project tion Analysis— in ecosystem function of rangeland Rangelands by CSIRO in pro- framework monitoring site data as a framework Wildlife gress for more natural resource based and Ecol- management of rangelands. ogy Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6027

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

1.2—Ecosystem Func- Provide regional summaries and im- South Australia Partnership 50000 Nov 98Nov 99 Project tion Analysis—SA ages of indices of change in eco- Rangelands with SA in pro- Application system function for northern South Department gress Australia from 1989 using Landsat of Environ- satellite data as a framework for ment Heri- extension of the ecosystem based tage and management approach to temperate Aboriginal rangelands.. Affairs 1.3—Indices if eco- Provide regional summaries and im- Australia’s Tender won 127000 Apr 99Aug 00 Project system function using ages of indices of change in eco- Rangelands by Environ- in pro- NOAA data system function for Australian mental Re- gress rangeland using NOAA satellite data sources In- from 1982 as a context for assess- formation ment of change in condition as Network Australia wide monitoring is imple- within De- mented.. partment of Environ- ment and Heritage 1.4—Incidence of ex- Provide seasonal characteristics Australia’s Tender won 16000 Apr 99Dec 00 Project treme climatic events (drought average or exceptional) of Rangelands by Environ- in pro- using NOAA data each year since 1982 within 8 km x mental Re- gress 8 km pixels and summaries within sources In- agreed regions as a context for as- formation sessment of change in condition as Network Australia wide monitoring is imple- within De- mented.. partment of Environ- ment and Heritage 1.5—Land use Intensity Develops an information set on total Australia’s Tender won 140000 Mar 99Oct 00 Project grazing pressure as part of the as- Rangelands by QLD in pro- sessment of change in rangeland Department gress condition. of Natural Resources 2.1—Socio Economic Identify key indicators that depict Australia’s Tender won 195000 Mar 99Mar 00 Project indicators social economic and institutional Rangelands by Centre in pro- factors affecting the sustainable for Inter- gress management of rangelands and rec- national ommend how these attributes can be Economics incorporated within an Australia wide monitoring program.. 2.3—Socio—Economic Assemble trend data on identified Australia’s 100000 Apr 00Dec 00 Tender data management attributes and develop routines to Rangelands yet to produce summaries as part of the be let Australia wide monitoring program. 2.2—Change in land Provide ongoing on-line access to Australia’s Tender won 60000 Apr 99Mar 00 Project use change in land use since 1957 for Rangelands by QLD in pro- the Australian rangeland as part of Department gress the assessment of grazing pressure of Natural and change in rangeland condition. Resources 3—Biodiversity Provide and recommend a frame- Australia’s 125000 -Aug 00 Tender monitoring framework work for biodiversity monitoring Rangelands yet to within the proposed Australia widel be let rangeland monitoring and reporting framework. 4—Information products Provide systems and methods that Australia’s Partnership 210000 Jan 00Dec 00 To start compile monitored information Rangelands with State 2000 across the issues of production, eco- and Terri- system function, biodiversity, social, tory agen- economic and cultural to facilitate cies policy/management decision making. 5—Coordination and Provide Australia wide region based Australia’s Tender won 210000 Jan 99Dec 00 Project Reporting reports and information on a web- Rangelands by Ag WA in pro- site detailing trends in the condition gress- of the rangeland and providing a Coordi- shell for the continual entry of infor- nation mation annually as the proposed compo- Australia wide monitoring program nent proceeds. Implementation Project Rangelands condition monitoring NT WA and Partnership 200000 Jul 98Mar 00 Project (Tropical Savannas) extending Landsat QLD Rangelands with Q in pro- techniques across WA NT and Qld— DNR; NT gress developing and applying the landscape DLPE; Ag functional ecology concepts to tropical WA and rangeland condition monitoring. CRC Tropi- cal Savan- nas 6028 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Agricultural Produc- Theme 5: Productivity and 264521 Project tivity and sustainability—This theme will con- Devel- Sustainability centrate on Australia’s cropping lands, opment, cost the impacts of degradation on Man- Australia’s soils and production and agement assess their health, productive capacity and Ev- and development opportunities. Key aluation issues including soil erosion nutrient balance and acidification will be addressed in detail. 1: Land use change This project will provide spatial and Australia’s crop- Partnership 500000 Jun 99Jul 00 Finalis- productivity and enter- temporal trends (1975—1996) in land ping and inten- with Bureau ing con- prise diversification use change productivity and enterprise sive agricultural of Rural tract diversification within Australia’s areas Sciences intensive agricultural areas. The rela- and State tive contributions that technical ad- and Terri- vances markets and socio-economic tory agen- factors have made to these trends will cies be provided as an input to understand- ing the role of governments in foster- ing sustainability.. 2: Benchmarking cur- . This project will prepare a sum- Australia’s crop- Tenders 20000040 Jun 99Dec 00 Finalis- rent rural industry mary of recent industry practice ping and inten- being ev- 0000 ing con- practices and produc- benchmarks in terms of farming sive agricultural aluat- tracts tivity performance and practices, environmental impact, areas ed;Partnersh assessing the capacity productivity and the capacity of ip with to implement sustain- regional industries to implement sus- horticulture able management prac- tainable management practices as a and dairy tices framework for Government industries involvelement in fostering further and R&D advances in sustainability. . . Corps. 4A: Regional water This project will provide a quantifica- Australia’s crop- Partnership 400000 Apr 99Feb 01 Project and nutrient budgets tion of national and regional water ping and inten- with CSIRO in pro- balances for different land use systems sive agricultural Land and gress and climates as an input to assessing areas Water and net primary productivity.The move- State and ment of nutrients (nitrogen and phos- Territory phorus) through Australian farming agencies systems and landscapes will be char- acterised and the delivery to water- ways assessed as an input to deter- mining waterway and estuary health.. 4B: Soil erosion and Water-borne soil erosion will be as- Australia’s crop- Partnership 600000 Apr 99Feb 01 Project sediment delivery to sessed across Australia’s landscape. ping and inten- with CSIRO in pro- rivers and estuaries Ranking of Australia’s catchments in sive agricultural Land and gress terms of soil erosion risk sediment areas Water and delivery and particulate phosphorus State and transport to rivers and estuarine envi- Territory ronments will be undertaken.A catch- agencies ment-based characterisation of the dominant regional factors contributing to soil erosion sediment yield and particulate phosphorus transport will also be undertaken. 4C: Distribution of This project will: collate data on soil Australia’s crop- Partnership 220000 Jun 99Mar 00 Finalis- acid soils predicting acidification—its extent and rate with- ping and inten- with Ag ing con- risks and rates of soil in an Australian farming systems sive agricultural Wa, State tract acidification spatially framework And predict rates and risks areas and Terri- and the benefits costs of induced acidification and practical tory agen- and options related to corrective options.Undertake a region- cies and alleviating acidification al benefit-cost analysis for ameliorat- CSIRO risk in ILZ regions ing soil acidity 4D: Nutrient balance This project will: prepare spatial and Australia’s crop- Partnership 320000 Jun 99Sep 00 Finalis- in regional farming temporal trends in on-and off-site N & ping and inten- with State / ing con- systems and soil nutri- P balances for regional farming sys- sive agricultural Territory tract ent status tems (linked to Projects 4A and 4B) areas agencies in- and compile data and maps on soil dustry and fertility status. CSIRO Land and Water Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6029

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

5: Integration and This project will: develop methods for Australia’s crop- Partnership 400000 Jan 00Jun 01 To start interpretation of spatial producing and delivering integrated ping and inten- with State 1999- and temporal trends in information products. These products sive agricultural and Terri- 2000 land use change pro- will draw on the outputs of many of areas tories agen- ductivity enterprise di- the Audit’s projects and Theme cies and versification resource areas.Develop techniques for assessing selected condition and socio- and methods for reporting where tenders— economic attributes for sustainable land use is occurring and yet to be ILZ regions of rural where it is not. Forecasting where fully de- Australia future risks exist.Provide a framework fined for integrated Government and indus- try action in developing more pro- ductive and sustainable rural land uses? 6: Land Resource This project will develop a monitoring Australia’s crop- 100000 Sep 99Dec 00 To start Monitoring for Agri- protocol for reporting changes in con- ping and inten- 1999- cultural Systems dition and trend of Australia’s land re- sive agricultural 2000 sources. This protocol will be de- areas signed to assist community industry and government initiated programs and provide a framework for more rigorous investment in sustainability. Implementation Project This project will develop a land use Mount Lofty Partnership 313000 Jul 98Aug 99 Project planning framework to support inte- Ranges with South in pro- grated natural resource management Australian gress for this intensively used area. State agen- cies. Implementation Project Develop and provide to the regional West Gippsland Partnership 325000 Jul 98Sep 99? Project Catchment Management Authority Victoria with Vic- in pro- an integrated assessment of land use, torian State gress including natural resource, social agencies. and economic components as a basis for regional development and man- agement. Regional data compilation and assessment techniques for natu- ral resource management Capacity for change Theme 6: Capacity of and opportunity 322223 Project for farmers and other resource manag- Devel- ers to implement change—This theme opment, will develop a full set of resource Man- accounts for our natural resources. agement Social and economic benefits of rural and Ev- land uses will be determined and the aluation capacity of resource managers to implement sustainable practices will be assessed. Audits of the Australian dairy and horticulture industries from a productivity and sustainability per- spective will provide information and suggested actions at the industry level. 1.1—Returns to re- This project aims to assess the value Australia’s crop- 525000 Jun 99Jul 00 Finalis- source of the natural resource base and will ping and inten- ing con- serve as a basis for measuring the sive agricultural tract costs of degradation. This will provide areas a framework and identify where Government and industry action needs to focus attention to return the greatest net benefit from a community per- spective. 1.2—Cost of degrada- This project will develop and apply a Australia’s crop- 435000 Jun 99Nov 00 Finalis- tion method to estimate the costs of land ping and inten- ing con- degradation to agriculture and provide sive agricultural tract a framework for more targeted invest- areas ment in mitigation and control. 1.3—Degradation costs This project will prepare estimates of Australia’s crop- 200000 Jun 99Sep 00 Finalis- to infrastructure costs of degradation to non-agricultu- ping and inten- ing con- ral infrastructure. The impacts of sive agricultural tract salinity, nutrient loads, erosion, tur- areas bidity (water quality) will be assess on a range of infrastructure types includ- ing transport, roads, bridges, railways; buildings water supply infrastructure and water treatment for rural and urban areas and private industry. This will provide a better appreciation of the off site costs of rural land use and assist in targeting investment and interventions. 6030 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

1.4—Non Market Costs This project focuses on non-market Australia-wide 170000 Jun 99Nov 00 Finalis- values placed on various attributes ing con- of the natural resource base. Such tract attributes may have both use and conservation value. The emphasis is on private recreational and amenity use values. 2.1—Analytical This project will define socioeconomic Australia-wide 50000 Jul 99Sep 99 Tender framework: Communi- attributes relevant for use in natural being ty and Individual moti- resource management decision making let vations and methods for their incorporation in policy making.. 2.2—Social and eco- This project will develop an integrated Australia-wide 300000 Oct 99Dec 00 Tender nomic database System socioeconomic and biophysical natural being resource database, on a GIS platform. let A range of information products will be development including social and economic community profiles for re- gional Australia. 3.3—Dryland Salinity This project focuses on gaining a bet- Representative 200000 Jul 99Jul 00 Tender ter understanding of the decision-mak- case studies:* being ing processes and capacity of individ- Lake Warden let ual resource managers, particularly WA* Wanilla farmers, and communities. Eyre Pen SA(* Upper Billabong NSW* Kama- rooka or Burkes Flat 3.4—Structural Adjust- The socioeconomic factors influen- Australia-wide In partner- 80000 Jun 99Sep 00 Finalis- ment cing the rate and type of farm struc- ship with ing con- tural adjustment will be studied for Victorian tract the agricultural regions of Australia Department using ABS data at a fine scale. This of Natural will extend the work which has been Resources recently completed for the MDBC and Envi- (Barr and Ridges 1998). ronment 4—review and frame- This project addresses resource man- N/A 150000 Sep 99Aug 00 Tender work of institutional agement issues at the institutional yet to responses and capaci- level, primarily federal and state gov- be let ties and effectiveness ernments but also other public institu- of intervention tions and local governments. Particu- larly the project will focus on the management of common property resources and suggest improvements to the way in which agencies manage these public assetts. Estuaries, often an area of institutional inefficiency will be used as the case study 5—an overview of . This project is designed to take a Australia-wide Tender yet 180000 Jun 99Dec 00 Finalis- findings on the capaci- leadership, coordination and final to be let ing con- ty and opportunities to reporting role in ensuring that the tract implement change in overall objectives of Theme 6 are met. natural resource man- The project has two distinct compo- agement. nents. One (5.1) is a coordination task while the other (5.2) involves drawing together, in a concise report, the key findings of the investigations con- ducted for this theme together with recommendations. Implementation Project This project was established to de- Fitzroy Basin In partner- 375000 Jul 98Feb 00 Project velop socio-economic attributes that Qld ship with (Jointly in pro- characterise community capacity to Queensland funding gress embrace change in a regional plan- Dept of Theme 7 ning context. The work is based in Natural Re- Implemen- the Fitzroy Basin in Queensland. sources. tation Pro- ject) Ecosystem Health Theme 7: Waterway estuarine catch- 387682 Project ment and landscape health—This Devel- theme will assess the condition and opment, trend of our catchments rivers estu- Man- aries and landscapes, particularly agement from the public resource perspective. and Ev- The theme will provide a report card aluation on the aggregate impact of land uses on our natural resources and recom- mend priorities for remedial works protection and management. Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6031

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

1: Surface water Provide a national picture of surface Australia-wide In partner- 370000 Jul 99Mar00 Finalis- quality water quality (Electrical Conductivi- ship with ing pro- ty pH Total Nitrogen Total Phos- State and ject plan phorus and turbidity) and recom- Territory and mend development of Australia wide agencies con- standards and reporting systems.. and the SoE tracts Unit of Environ- ment Aus- tralia 2: Waterway Con- Develop a national approach for Australia-wide In partner- 705000 Jul 99Dec 00 Finalis- dition waterway classification report on the ship with ing pro- condition of waterways in Australia State and ject plan and identify waterways where re- Territory medial or protective actions are of agencies high priority. and the National River Health Pro- gram man- aged by Environ- ment Aus- tralia 3: Estuaries inventory, Provide the first Australia-wide Australia-wide In partner- 675000 Aug 99Dec 00 Finalis- Trends; guidelines and baseline data set on estuary condi- ship with ing pro- implications for estu- tion and recommendations for im- CRC ject plan ary management proved protective management, CZEWM priority remedial actions, works, UQ CSIRO policy development and R&D re- Land and quirements.Develop and apply a Water rigorous approach to the assessment CSIRO Ma- of the condition of Australia’s estu- rine AGSO aries and the setting of priorities for FRDC activities such as works policy de- velopment remedial actions and protection 6: Landscape health Assess the status trends condition Australia-wide In partner- 25000 Jul 99Dec 00 Finalis- assessment and management requirements of ship with ing con- each of Australia’s IBRA bioregions the National tract providing recommendations from a Reserves nature conservation protection and Systems management perspective. Group of Environ- ment Aus- tralia and State and Territory agencies and the 7: Riverine vegetation Identify the integrity of riparian Australia wide 50000 Jun 99Aug 99 Finalis- scoping study corridors across the Australian land- ing con- scape and identify key areas requir- tract ing revegetation or improved man- agement. 8: Integration and Provide assessments of catchment Australia-wide 200000 Mar 01 Tender Catchment scale re- condition ensure that appropriate yet to porting and useful products are put in the be let. hands of users (in particular States and the catchment management community) and provide a ready means of monitoring catchment condition post Audit. Implementation Project Catchment Health in the Fitzroy Fitzroy Basin In partner- See Project Basin.Developing methods to assess Qld ship with Theme 6 in pro- catchment condition building on Queensland Impl. Proj. gress waterway and estuary condition and Dept of linking water quality to catchment Natural Re- land use sources. 6032 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Natural Resource In- Data management—This set of 714454 Project formation Management activities will negotiate institutional Devel- arrangements for the sharing of and opment, access to natural resource data Aus- Man- tralia-wide and build an Australian agement Atlas by which Audit and related and Ev- natural resource information can be aluation displayed and interrogated. Land use mapping Australia-wide as a frame- work for resource accounting and mapping and modelling of Australia’s soil properties will com- plete the fundamental data sets developed by the Audit. Australia-wide land Develop a spatially consistent land Australia-wide In partner- 960000 Nov 98Jan 00 Project use mapping use data set based on the Australian ship with in pro- Bureau of Statistics Agricultural Bureau of gress Census. Cconsistent land-use infor- Rural Sci- mation datasets at the national level ences in will enable interpretations of a wide collabor- range of land degradation ation with sustainability and productivity is- CSIRO sues. Wildlife & Ecology and State and Terri- tory agen- cies. Coordination of de- Provide scientific coordination of Australia-wide In partner- 406364 Nov 98Jan 00 Project tailed land use map- detailed land use mapping projects ship with in pro- ping projects geocoding of the Gippsland region Bureau of gress by ABS and development of specifi- Rural Sci- cations for mapping land-use type ences in co- commodities and land management operation practices which can be applied con- with the sistently across the continent. This Australian will provide a framework for land Bureau of use mapping Australia wide at the Statistics resource allocation and management and State scales required by Local Govern- and Terri- ment. tory agen- cies Land use map- Develop and pilot geographically- Gippsland region In partner- 135000 Apr 99Jan 00 Project ping—Gippsland re- referenced land-use type commodity Victoria ship with in pro- gion Victoria and land-management-practice Victoria gress datasets across the East and West Department Gippsland CMA areas. of Natural Resources & Environ- ment Land use map- Develop digital land use datasets Fitzroy River In partner- 200000 Mar 99Mar 00 Project ping—Fitzroy and supporting databases for the Catchment area ship with in pro- Catchment Queensland Fitzroy River Catchment according Queensland Queensland gress to nationally agreed specifications. Department The detailed land use mapping will of Natural complement the national-scale map- Resources ping project and demonstrate methods for local government re- quired scale of mapping. Land use and vege- Develop pre-1750 vegetation and Western Austral- In partner- 535000 Jan 99Aug 00 Project tation map- present vegetation maps of Western ia ship with in pro- ping—Western Aus- Australia attributed according to Western gress tralia agreed national standards. Prepare a Australia land-use map for Western Australia Department compatible with agreed national of Agricul- standards for land use mapping. ture and Department of Conser- vation & Land Man- agement Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6033

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Australian Soil Re- Compile soil resource properties Australia’s crop- In partner- 1359400 Jan 99Oct 00 Project sources Information information for the more intensively ping and inten- ship with in pro- System used agro-ecological zones of Aus- sive agricultural Bureau of gress tralia using the best available infor- areas Rural Sci- mation. ences in collabor- ation with CSIRO Land & Water and State and Territory agencies. On-line Natural Re- Develop the first phase of a web- Australia-wide In partner- 70000 Oct 98Jun 99 Project sources Atlas of Aus- based system to display fundamental ship with in pro- tralia data layers and Audit products. Environ- gress ment Aus- tralia Specify framework List and describe fundamental NSW NSW In partner- 7000 Jun 98Mar 99 Infor- database—NSW datasets. To facilitate access to ship with mation datasets required by Audit projects. NSW De- being partment of used for Land & deci- Water Con- sion- servation making in rela- tion to data ac- cess for Audit projects. Specify framework List and describe fundamental South South Australia In partner- 17000 Jun 98Jan 99 Infor- database—SA Australia datasets. To facilitate ac- ship with mation cess to datasets required by Audit South Aus- being projects tralia De- used for partment for deci- Environ- sion- ment Heri- making tage & in rela- Aboriginal tion to Affairs data ac- cess for Audit projects. Specify framework List and describe fundamental Queensland In partner- 20000 Jun 98May 99 Infor- database—Qld Queensland datasets. To facilitate ship with mation access to datasets required by Audit Queensland being projects Department used for of Natural deci- Resources sion- making in rela- tion to data ac- cess for Audit projects. Specify framework List and describe fundamental ACT Australia Capital In partner- 10000 Jun 98Apr 99 Infor- database—ACT datasets. To facilitate access to Territory ship with mation datasets required by Audit projects ACT De- being partment of used for Urban Ser- deci- vices sion- making in rela- tion to data ac- cess for Audit projects. 6034 SENATE Tuesday, 22 June 1999

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Specify framework List and describe fundamental West- Western Austral- In partner- 10000 Oct 98May 99 Infor- database—WA ern Australia datasets. To facilitate ia ship with mation access to datasets required by Audit Western being projects Australia used for Department deci- of Land sion- Administra- making tion in rela- tion to data ac- cess for Audit projects. Specify framework List and describe fundamental Australia wide In partner- 23000 Jul 98Dec 98 Infor- data- Commonwealth datasets. To facili- ship with mation base—Commonwealth tate access to datasets required by Australian being Audit projects Surveying used for & Land deci- Information sion- Group De- making partment of in rela- Industry tion to Science & data ac- Resources cess for Audit projects. Miscellaneous com- Carry out miscellaneous computing In partner- 10000 June 99June 00 puting tasks database and product generation ship with tasks in support of Audit Manage- Bureau of ment Unit and Audit projects. Rural Sci- ences Data Library, Data Definition, design and implemen- Australia wide 1343000 May 99Jun 01 YET Licencing and Atlas tation of data Library, data licensing TO BE development and Australian Natural Resources ALLO- Atlas CATED Communication The Communication sub-program Australia-wide promotes and reports on the pro- gress of the Audit to stakeholders by undertaking planning, product devel- opment and promotional activities and encourages feedback on Audit initiatives to:* Inform and report* Promote* Facilitate integration and collaboration between other relevant initiatives Planning and evalu- The Audit Communication Strategy Australia-wide Project Sup- 12738729 Nov 97-June 7 con- ation (November 1997) and Implementa- portConsult 613 01Nov 97- sultants tion Plan (March 1998, reviewed ancies June 01 used to and updated February 1999):* Iden- date. tified key Audit stakeholders and Con- their information needs* Identified tracts information products-electronic, awarded print and aural to fulfill stakeholder via needs* Identified review, evaluation LWRR and monitoring processes and pro- DC ducts* Planning and evaluation tools Consult- ant Regis- ter; com- petitive tender- ing Products To create a range of innovative, Australia-wide Project Sup- 10000022 Nov 97-Jun 8 con- timely and readily available Audit portConsult 18703001 01April 98- sultants information products to inform anciesAudit 30129000 June 30 used to stakeholders regarding the progress WebSite- 1999July 99- date- and outcomes of the Audit Program. Phase 1 & Jun 01Mar LWRR 2Phase 3— 98—Jun 01 DC Tender won Consul- by tants EarthWare Regis- Sys- ter; temsProduct com- ion of print- petitive ed/ elec- tender- tronic pro- ing ducts Tuesday, 22 June 1999 SENATE 6035

Start/Finish Project Aims and Brief Description Geographic Area Contractor Budget $ Date Status

Promotion To promote knowledge of, commit- Australia-wide Project Sup- 57897991 Dec 97Jun 01 9 con- ment to and additional collaborative portConsult 03 sultants opportunities via targeted promo- ancies used to tional campaigns using the media, awarded via date- electronic mailing lists, printed LWRRDC LWRR mailouts, briefings and seminars and Consultants DC conference programs. Regis- Consul- ter:Photogra tants phy:Distribu Regis- tion:Media ter; Monitoring: com- petitive tender- ing PROGRAM AD- MINISTRATION Program Implemen- tation and Decision Support Program initiation Preparation of Audit Strategic Plan; 438445 Sep 97Oct 98 methods papers; initiation work- shops and Audit Management Unit establishment Water Infrastructure Preparation of a guideline to assess 120000 Jul 99Jun 99 Draft water infrastructure development report proposals pre- pared. Decision Support Working with agencies to ensure 223928 On going Audit information products are ap- plied in a policy framework.

Program Reporting and Evaluation Coordination—Advisory Advisory Council, Technical Working 510757 Council Technical Group and Reference Group meetings Working Group and Reference Groups Strategic Plan Annual Preparation of Strategic Plan Annual 146994 Operational Planing and Operational Planing and Annual Re- Annual Reporting porting Program Evaluation Program Evaluation—mid term and 782339 final program evaluation; Preparation and publication of Audit final report

Administration LWRRDC Service Office services, accommodation and 614086 Agreement equipment. Audit Management Unit Non project related expenses 1011241 TOTAL