COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

MONDAY, 3 MARCH 1997

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—THIRD PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—THIRD PERIOD

Governor-General

His Excellency the Hon. Sir William Patrick Deane, Companion of the Order of Australia, Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire

Senate Officeholders

President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Elizabeth Reid Deputy President and Chairman of Committees—Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston Temporary Chairmen of Committees—Senators Paul Henry Calvert, Hedley Grant Pearson Chapman, Bruce Kenneth Childs, Hon. Rosemary Anne Crowley, Alan Baird Ferguson, Susan Christine Knowles, James Philip McKiernan, Shayne Michael Murphy, Kay Christine Lesley Patterson, Hon. Margaret Reynolds, John Odin Wentworth Watson and Suzanne Margaret West Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston Leader of the Opposition—Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Deputy Leader of the Opposition—Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry Manager of Government Business in the Senate—Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate—Senator Kim John Carr

Senate Party Leaders

Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Alston Leader of the National Party of Australia—Senator Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia—Senator the Hon. David Gordon Cadell Brownhill Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party—Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry Leader of the Australian Democrats—Senator Cheryl Kernot Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats—Senator Meg Heather Lees

Printed by Authority by the Commonwealth Government Printer Members of the Senate

State or Senator Territory Term expires Party

Abetz, Eric(3) Tas. 30.6.1999 LP Allison, Lynette Fay Vic. 30.6.2002 AD Alston, Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Vic. 30.6.2002 LP Bishop, Thomas Mark WA 30.6.2002 ALP Bolkus, Hon. Nick SA 30.6.1999 ALP Boswell, Ronald Leslie Doyle Qld 30.6.2002 NP Bourne, Vicki Worrall NSW 30.6.2002 AD Brown, Robert James Tas. 30.6.2002 AG Brownhill, Hon. David Gordon Cadell NSW 30.6.2002 NP Calvert, Paul Henry Tas. 30.6.2002 LP Campbell, Hon. Ian Gordon WA 30.6.1999 LP Carr, Kim John Vic. 30.6.1999 ALP Chapman, Hedley Grant Pearson SA 30.6.2002 LP Childs, Bruce Kenneth NSW 30.6.2002 ALP Collins, Jacinta Mary Ann(6) Vic. 30.6.1999 ALP Collins, Hon. Robert Lindsay(1) NT ALP Colston, Malcolm Arthur Qld 30.6.1999 Ind. Conroy, Stephen Michael(7) Vic. 30.6.1999 ALP Cook, Hon. Peter Francis Salmon WA 30.6.1999 ALP Coonan, Helen Lloyd NSW 30.6.2002 LP Cooney, Bernard Cornelius Vic. 30.6.2002 ALP Crane, Arthur Winston WA 30.6.2002 LP Crowley, Hon. Rosemary Anne SA 30.6.2002 ALP Denman, Kay Janet(2) Tas. 30.6.1999 ALP Eggleston, Alan WA 30.6.2002 LP Ellison, Christopher Martin WA 30.6.1999 LP Evans, Christopher Vaughan WA 30.6.1999 ALP Faulkner, Hon. John Philip NSW 30.6.1999 ALP Ferguson, Alan Baird SA 30.6.1999 LP Ferris, Jeannie Margaret(10) SA 30.6.2002 LP Foreman, Dominic John SA 30.6.1999 ALP Forshaw, Michael George(5) NSW 30.6.1999 ALP Gibbs, Brenda Qld 30.6.2002 ALP Gibson, Hon. Brian Francis Tas. 30.6.1999 LP Harradine, Brian Tas 30.6.1999 Ind. Heffernan, William Daniel(9) NSW 30.6.1999 LP Herron, Hon. John Joseph Qld 30.6.2002 LP Hill, Hon. Robert Murray SA 30.6.2002 LP Hogg, John Joseph Qld 30.6.2002 ALP Kemp, Hon. Charles Roderick Vic. 30.6.2002 LP Kernot, Cheryl Qld 30.6.2002 AD Knowles, Susan Christine WA 30.6.1999 LP Lees, Meg Heather SA 30.6.1999 AD Lundy, Kate Alexandra(1) ACT ALP Macdonald, Ian Douglas Qld 30.6.2002 LP Macdonald, John Alexander Lindsay (Sandy) NSW 30.6.1999 NP McGauran, Julian John James Vic. 30.6.1999 NP MacGibbon, David John Qld 30.6.1999 LP McKiernan, James Philip WA 30.6.2002 ALP

ii Members of the Senate—continued

State or Senator Territory Term expires Party

Mackay, Susan Mary Tas. 30.6.2002 ALP Margetts, Diane Elizabeth (Dee) WA 30.6.1999 G(WA) Minchin, Hon. Nicholas Hugh SA 30.6.1999 LP Murphy, Shayne Michael Tas. 30.6.1999 ALP Murray, Andrew James Marshall WA 30.6.2002 AD Neal, Belinda Jane(4) NSW 30.6.1999 ALP Newman, Hon. Jocelyn Margaret Tas. 30.6.2002 LP O’Brien, Kerry Williams Kelso(8) Tas. 30.6.1999 ALP O’Chee, William George Qld 30.6.1999 NP Parer, Hon. Warwick Raymond Qld 30.6.1999 LP Patterson, Kay Christine Lesley Vic. 30.6.2002 LP Ray, Robert Francis Vic. 30.6.2002 ALP Reid, Hon. Margaret Elizabeth(1) ACT LP Reynolds, Hon. Margaret Qld 30.6.1999 ALP Schacht, Hon. Christopher Cleland SA 30.6.2002 ALP Sherry, Hon. Nicholas John Tas. 30.6.2002 ALP Short, Hon. James Robert Vic. 30.6.1999 LP Stott Despoja, Natasha Jessica SA 30.6.2002 AD Tambling, Hon. Grant Ernest John(1) NT CLP Tierney, John William NSW 30.6.1999 LP Troeth, Judith Mary Vic. 30.6.1999 LP Vanstone, Hon. Amanda Eloise SA 30.6.1999 LP Watson, John Odin Wentworth Tas. 30.6.2002 LP West, Suzanne Margaret NSW 30.6.2002 ALP Woodley, John Qld 30.6.1999 AD Woods, Hon. Robert Leslie NSW 30.6.2002 LP (1) Term expires at close of day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives. (2) Chosen by the Parliament of Tasmania vice Hon. Michael Carter Tate, resigned. (3) Chosen by the Parliament of Tasmania vice Brian Roper Archer, resigned. (4) Chosen by the Parliament of New South Wales vice Hon. Kerry Walter Sibraa, resigned. (5) Chosen by the Parliament of New South Wales vice Hon. Graham Frederick Richardson, resigned. (6) Chosen by the Parliament of Victoria vice Alice Olive Zakharov, deceased. (7) Chosen by the Parliament of Victoria vice Hon. Gareth John Evans, resigned. (8) Chosen by the Parliament of Tasmania vice John Coates, resigned. (9) Chosen by the Parliament of New South Wales vice Michael Ehrenfried Baume, resigned. (10) Chosen by the Parliament of South Australia to fill a casual vacancy caused by her resignation. PARTY ABBREVIATIONS AD—Australian Democrats; AG—Australian Greens; ALP—Australian Labor Party; CLP—Country Liberal Party; G(WA)—Greens (WA); Ind.—Independent; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; NP—National Party of Australia Heads of Parliamentary Departments Clerk of the Senate—H. Evans Clerk of the House of Representatives—L. M. Barlin, AM Parliamentary Librarian— Principal Parliamentary Reporter—J. W. Templeton Secretary, Joint House Department—M. W. Bolton

iii FIRST HOWARD MINISTRY

Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MP Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister The Hon. Timothy Andrew Fischer MP Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP Minister for Primary Industries and Energy The Hon. John Duncan Anderson MP Minister for the Environment and Leader of Senator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill the Government in the Senate Minister for Communications and the Arts and Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth Robert Deputy Leader of the Government in the Alston Senate Minister for Industrial Relations, Leader of the The Hon. Peter Keaston Reith MP House and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service Minister for Social Security and Minister Senator the Hon. Jocelyn Margaret Newman Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MP Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism The Hon. John Colinton Moore MP and Vice President of the Executive Council Minister for Defence The Hon. Ian Murray McLachlan AO, MP Minister for Transport and Regional Devel- The Hon. John Randall Sharp MP opment Minister for Health and Family Services The Hon. Michael Richard Lewis Wooldridge MP Minister for Finance The Hon. John Joseph Fahey MP Minister for Employment, Education, Training Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone and Youth Affairs

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

iv First Howard Ministry—continued

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP Affairs Minister for Science and Technology and Deputy The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP Leader of the House Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and The Hon. David Alistair Kemp, MP Training and Minister Assisting the Minister for Finance for Privatisation Minister for Resources and Energy Senator the Hon. Warwick Raymond Parer Minister for Small Business and Consumer The Hon. Geoffrey Daniel Prosser MP Affairs Minister for Family Services The Hon. Judith Eleanor Moylan MP Minister for Defence Industry, Science and The Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop MP Personnel Attorney-General and Minister for Justice The Hon. Daryl Robert Williams AM, QC, MP Minister for Sport, Territories and Local Govern- The Hon. Warwick Leslie Smith MP ment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games Minister for Veterans’ Affairs The Hon. Bruce Craig Scott MP Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Senator the Hon. John Joseph Herron Affairs Minister for Administrative Services The Hon. David Francis Jull MP Assistant Treasurer Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime The Hon. Christopher Gordon Miles MP Minister Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh Minchin Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade Senator the Hon. David Gordon Cadell Brownhill and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer and Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell Manager of Government Business in the Senate Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Andrew Peter Thomson MP Foreign Affairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Senator the Hon. Grant Ernest John Tambling Security Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Senator the Hon. Christopher Ellison Health and Family Services and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney-General Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for The Hon. Michael John Clyde Ronaldson MP Transport and Regional Development Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald Environment

v SHADOW MINISTRY

Leader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow The Hon. Gareth John Evans QC, MP Treasurer Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner Shadow Minister for Social Security Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Senator the Hon. Nicholas John Sherry and Shadow Minister for Finance and Superan- nuation Shadow Minister for Industry and Regional The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP Development and Manager of Opposition Business Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and The Hon. Robert Francis McMullan MP Assistant to the Leader of the Opposition on Public Service Matters Shadow Minister for Health The Hon. Michael John Lee MP Shadow Minister for the Environment, Shadow The Hon. Carmen Mary Lawrence MP Minister for the Arts and Assistant to the Leader of the Opposition on the Status of Women Shadow Minister for Primary Industries and Senator the Hon. Robert Lindsay Collins Northern Australia and Territories Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Laurence John Brereton MP Shadow Minister for Education and Youth Af- The Hon. Peter Jeremy Baldwin MP fairs Shadow Minister for Commerce and Small Senator the Hon. Peter Francis Salmon Cook Business Shadow Attorney-General and Minister for Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus Justice Shadow Minister for Employment and Training Mr Martin John Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Defence The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP Shadow Minister for Immigration and Assistant The Hon. Duncan James Colquhoun Kerr MP to the Leader of the Opposition on Multicul- tural Affairs Shadow Minister for Communications Senator the Hon. Christopher Cleland Schacht Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and Shad- The Hon. Stephen Paul Martin MP ow Minister for Sport and Tourism Shadow Minister for Transport Mr Lindsay James Tanner MP Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy The Hon. Neil Patrick O’Keefe MP Shadow Minister for the Aged, Family and Ms Jennifer Louise Macklin MP Community Services Shadow Minister for Trade Mr Stephen Francis Smith MP

vi Shadow Ministry—continued

Shadow Minister for Competition Policy, As- Mr Mark William Latham MP sistant to the Shadow Treasurer and Shadow Minister for Local Government Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Mr Daryl Melham MP Assistant to the Shadow Foreign Minister on Arms Control Shadow Minister for Science and Information Mr Martyn John Evans MP Technology Shadow Minister for Administrative Services Mr Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs and Senator Belinda Jane Neal Assistant to the Shadow Minister for Health

vii CONTENTS

MONDAY, 3 MARCH

Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1997— Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1996— Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996— Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1997— Second Reading ...... 1047 Questions Without Notice— Queensland Premier: The Constitution ...... 1063 Economy ...... 1063 High Court of Australia ...... 1064 Teleservices ...... 1065 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry ...... 1066 Exports: Travel Costs ...... 1066 Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry ...... 1067 Legislation: Gender Specific Language ...... 1067 Industrial Relations ...... 1068 Clean Up Australia ...... 1069 Gambling Advertisements ...... 1070 Schools ...... 1070 Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1996-97 ...... 1071 Australian Film Industry ...... 1072 Health Insurance ...... 1073 Youth Unemployment ...... 1076 High Court of Australia ...... 1077 Personal Explanations ...... 1084 Petitions— East Timor ...... 1084 Census ...... 1084 Industrial Relations ...... 1084 Uranium ...... 1085 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ...... 1085 Housing ...... 1085 Repatriation Benefits ...... 1085 Repatriation Benefits ...... 1086 Repatriation Benefits ...... 1087 Higher Education ...... 1087 Notices of Motion— Travelling Allowance: Senators ...... 1088 Travelling Allowance: Senators ...... 1088 Procedure Committee ...... 1088 Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee ...... 1089 Senate: Casual Vacancies ...... 1089 Senate: Pairing Arrangements ...... 1089 Department of Social Security Hotline ...... 1089 Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee ...... 1089 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee .... 1090 Order of Business— Government Business ...... 1090 East Gippsland: Reserve System ...... 1090 Telecommunications National Code ...... 1090 Genetically Engineered Food ...... 1090 Nuclear Waste Reprocessing ...... 1090 Northern Territory: Proposed Anti-Republican Convention ...... 1090 Logging and Woodchipping ...... 1090 Ngawang Choephel ...... 1090 Operation Tandem Thrust ...... 1090

viii CONTENTS—continued

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee ...... 1090 Indonesia: Nuclear Power Plants ...... 1091 Tasmania: Homosexual Laws ...... 1091 Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996— Referral to Committee ...... 1091 Greater Beedelup National Park ...... 1091 Bougainville ...... 1092 Falcon Air Crash ...... 1093 Ministerial Statements— Australian Oceans Policy ...... 1093 Documents— Finance and Public Administration References Committee— Proceedings of a Round Table Discussion ...... 1098 Committees— Membership ...... 1099 Assent to Laws ...... 1099 Financial Transaction Reports Amendment Bill 1996— Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Bill 1996— First Reading ...... 1099 Second Reading ...... 1099 Bills Returned from the House of Representatives ...... 1105 Order of Business— Discharge of Orders of the Day ...... 1105 Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996— Migration (Visa Application) Charge Bill 1996— Second Reading ...... 1105 In Committee ...... 1121 Third Reading ...... 1132 Education Services For Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Bill 1996— Education Services For Overseas Students (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996— Second Reading ...... 1132 In Committee ...... 1138 Third Reading ...... 1139 Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1997— Health Legislation Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1996— Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996— Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1997— Second Reading ...... 1139 Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 1996— Second Reading ...... 1149 Adjournment— Kokoda Campaign Commemoration ...... 1151 Edna Ryan ...... 1153 Seen and Heard ...... 1155 Documents— Tabling ...... 1156 Indexed Lists of Files ...... 1156 Questions On Notice— Woodchip Licences—(Question No. 368) ...... 1157

ix Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1047

Monday, 3 March 1997 foreshadowing them in case they had not previously been brought to the attention of the Senate. The first two bills have the major The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. effect of providing an incentive for those in Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., the community who are believed to be in a and read prayers. low income area who seek private insurance. These incentives cut in at $35,000 for singles PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE and at $70,000 for couples with an additional INCENTIVES BILL 1997 allowance of $3,000 per child. HEALTH LEGISLATION These incentives are not being opposed by AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH the opposition. We can see that these will be INSURANCE INCENTIVES) BILL 1996 extraordinarily popular and will go some way MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENT to making it a little easier for members of the BILL (No. 2) 1996 community to afford private health insurance. The major difficulty that we see with this TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT proposal and the levy on high income earners (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE is that, firstly, it does not deal with the INCENTIVES) BILL 1997 fundamental problem of the collapse of the private health insurance industry, and, second- Second Reading ly, it does nothing to offset the difficulties Debate resumed from 27 February, on being experienced in the public health system. motion by Senator Herron: In some ways, because of the way the promis- That these bills be now read a second time. es of this government are being resourced, it may well be that these proposals will make Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (12.31 the situation worse for private hospitals. That p.m.)—I rise this afternoon to discuss in some is where our major concern is in this entire detail the Private Health Insurance Incentives package. Bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Pri- vate Health Insurance Incentives) Bill, the During the election, the coalition promised Medicare Levy Amendment Bill, and the that these incentives would not be funded Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Health from the public health system and that health Insurance Incentives) Bill. It is very difficult grants to the states—other than the $50 to cover the broad scope of these bills within million that came from the better practice the time that will be allowed, but we will program—would not be reduced. This has certainly make a reasonable attempt at it. been shown in the first budget to be com- Before I proceed, I would like to foreshad- pletely wrong. We are very fearful that there ow two second reading amendments. The first will be further cuts to health funding, particu- amendment is to the Health Legislation larly in the public health system, when the Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incen- next budget comes out in only two months tives Bill); and the second amendment is to time. the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2). Those amendments have been circulated, or The fact is that the coalition has cut, in an should be in the process of being circulated. attempt to fund these unfunded incentives, In essence, they are the same as those already $1.5 billion over three years. I am sure that proposed in the House of Representatives. everyone in the community would be well aware that taking out a large hunk of funding The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT like that is not going to be insignificant, that (Senator Chapman)—The appropriate time the effect of taking out this sort of funding to move those, Senator Neal, is at the con- will mean that there will be a reduction in the clusion of your speech. level of services being provided to the com- Senator NEAL—I was not moving them, munity. The coalition has also cut $3 million Mr Acting Deputy President; I was just over four years to hospital funding. This, 1048 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 again, is going to have a major effect on the original decision to leave private health types of services that are being provided. insurance. It is not a bad thing that these One of the issues we must look at is that incentives are being provided, but it is sad although the provision of these sorts of that they will not bring about the result hoped incentives to singles, couples and families for: that they will not decline the state of the who take out private health insurance will be private health insurance industry. welcomed, will they have the effect of in- Late last week the Productivity Commission creasing the number of people who take out brought down a paper in relation to the private health insurance or will they have the private health insurance industry. It is rather effect of reducing the number of people who interesting reading but, as we are aware, it is are leaving private health insurance? I think only a discussion paper. Even though the that issue is extremely debatable. department of health put a number of propo- I suppose the incentive of $125 for singles sals in their submission to the Productivity is a reasonable amount of money. But when Commission, as we were informed at an you look at it in relation to what it actually estimates hearing last week, these could not costs you to take out private health insurance, be seen as the views of the government or the it is really rather paltry. Obviously our private minister and that any suggestion made by the health insurance varies in cost, but most health department was only of an exploratory schemes for singles will cost well in excess nature. In fact, they did not see that they of $1,000 a year. So we are looking at singles would be proceeding along those lines. being paid an incentive of about one-tenth, or possibly less, of what they will pay out of I can see and understand the caution being their own pockets in order to get health exercised by this government. One of the insurance. I think a lot of people—and I think major views being put forward by the depart- this is a fairly accurate observation—if they ment of health is that there should be a are earning less than $35,000, would think change to something that has been generally twice about spending another $900 to get considered quite sacred: the community rating private health insurance even with the incen- system. It is a fairly complicated name but, tive, particularly in light of statements that really, it is a fairly simple issue. Under have been made in the media about the lack community rating, the cost of private health of value in private health insurance at the insurance is spread across the community moment. generally so that those who are a higher By the same token, families earning less risk—the elderly, the frail, pregnant women than $70,000 are going to seriously consider, perhaps—do not have to pay greater pre- even with the additional allowance of $3,000 miums for their health insurance than those for each child, whether an incentive of up to who are maybe a lesser risk—the young, the $450 for couples with children makes taking healthy and the athletic in our community. out private health insurance worth while when Despite this government stating very clearly private health insurance may well cost them during the last election that they would not between $1,300 and $1,800 per year. As change that proposition, this issue now ap- maybe one of those rather silly people who do pears to be open for discussion as the depart- have private health insurance, I can assure the ment of health raised it with the Productivity Senate that, when you see a lot of money go Commission and it is being commented on by out of your wages every month, the small them. The department of health are proposing proportion that you may get refunded as a that we should look at changes to the way result of this bill really does not make a huge premiums are determined and possibly intro- amount of difference. duce a system of what they call life communi- The conclusion that can be drawn is that ty rating. In my view, the term ‘life communi- these incentives will not encourage a lot of ty rating’ is really a misnomer because appar- people earning low incomes to take out ently including the words ‘community rating’ private health insurance or to alter their somehow makes life community rating the Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1049 same as, similar to or only a slight variation hospitals that provide a service to patients of community rating. and, secondly, doctors. Though there has been This is entirely untrue. There will be a quite some success and quite a large number fundamental change if life community rating of contracts concluded between hospitals and is introduced in that the date that people take private health insurers, the major area where out life insurance will determine the premium there has been no success—largely as a result they will pay. For example, if a 21-year-old of coordination provided by the AMA—has joins, they will pay a lower premium if they been in the complete failure for any contracts continue with that life insurance company. If to be reached between the doctors and the a person joins when they are 65, they will pay insurers. a much higher premium. When the Senate Community Affairs I suppose if we looked at this in absolute Committee took evidence, I think there was basic terms we could say the premium we an indication that fewer than half a dozen would be paying would not be related to risk, doctors had entered into contracts. The diffi- but in fact it would be. There is very much a culty this has created is that, even though direct connection between the age at which there has been the commencement of contain- someone takes out health insurance and how ment of costs in relation to hospitals, there likely they are to get sick. In fact, the young- has been absolutely no containment in the er people are when they join, the lower the cost that patients expend outside of what they risk is of their becoming ill and costing their receive from their insurer when they use a private health insurance company a lot of doctor to treat them. That means, of course, money. As time passes people get older and that every time a privately insured patient at the same time their risk of becoming ill and goes into hospital they still have no idea what the risk of costing their insurer a large amount they may have to pay when they come out, of money go up. I just wanted to take this not to the hospital—as I have said, there are opportunity to very much put forward my many contracts in place—but to the doctor. view that the introduction of a life community A lot of people feel that, if you are paying rating is very much contrary to the original maybe up to $1,800 a year for private health community rating and to the original promises insurance, the whole point of that is to reduce made by this government about retaining your risk. If you become ill and go into community rating. hospital, you have covered yourself; you have Let us go back to the original problem transferred to the private health insurer your which this legislation is attempting to deal risk of becoming ill. But, as the scheme with: the declining membership of private presently functions, even though you have health insurance and where the industry is paid up to $1,800 or so a year for your headed. Certainly that is a major difficulty. private health insurance, when you go in and The sums have been done by those people are treated by a doctor, you may well find who fiddle with numbers, and apparently that you still have to pay a substantial amount every one per cent of people who drop their of money out of your pocket to your doctor. private health insurance cost the community, I think that is why a lot of people in the as I recall, $300 million. At the moment community feel that private health insurance participation in private health insurance is just is not worth it. declining quite rapidly, relatively unchecked. The government has sought to deal with There is a major concern in the community, what has occurred with the higher income and with this legislation the government has earners in a slightly different fashion. For attempted to deal with it. those higher income earners it is not only a We in fact attempted to deal with the carrot approach, with their incentives, but also problem in an entirely different way, and that a stick approach in that if a higher income was through legislation introduced late in our earner does not take out private health insur- government which allowed for contracting ance they will be charged an additional between private health insurers and, firstly, Medicare levy. As you can see, this can 1050 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 appear on the face of it to be quite attractive (c) is firmly of the opinion that the $1.7 billion and a lot of people would say, ‘For those who would be better spent in providing extra have an ability to pay, why shouldn’t it be Federal Government funding for public hospitals and direct subsidies for private that they pay a little more? Why shouldn’t hospital accommodation". they be providing a little bit more towards our health system?’ In respect of the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2), I move: That is where the rub is; isn’t it? The way this legislation is framed, any additional At the end of the motion, add: Medicare levy that is paid does not necessari- "but the Senate is of the opinion that all of the ly go towards our health system. In fact all it revenue raised by the measures in this bill should does is go into consolidated revenue. While be used to increase Federal Government funding for public hospitals". the high income earners are paying additional funds, the amount of money as a total going I would like to take the opportunity to read into our health system is declining, as I stated out our amendment to the Medicare Levy previously. Amendment Bill (No. 2), just to make it clear that in essence it is an attempt to try to I think if you explained that to the com- redress the problem that we see—that the munity—that, yes, certain people are going to extra money being collected will not be be paying more if they do not take out private directed to the health system. (Time expired) health insurance, but in fact the health system will not be any better funded, the amount of Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy money being provided to the states is declin- Leader of the Australian Democrats) (12.51 ing and the amount of money going to the p.m.)—Over the years the Australian Demo- states for health funding is declining—they crats have made no secret of their dissatisfac- would be a little shocked and horrified to hear tion with tax breaks, or indeed subsidies of that that is the case. I think they would see any sort for private health insurance. We went there was not really a huge point in collecting into the last federal election with an election this extra levy when it does not result, firstly, health platform called ‘Five better ways to in an improvement to our health funding and, spend half a billion dollars on health’. That secondly, in an increase in the number of was developed in direct response to the people taking out private health insurance. coalition’s election promise of tax rebates for private health insurance. In conclusion, this package of bills does not solve the problem. It does not increase the We simply suggested a better way of number of people taking out private health spending some $500 million—a far better way insurance, it does not improve the level of than subsidising the private health insurance funding provided to our health system and it industry. We suggested that the five will not give the community a better health underfunded priority areas where the money system overall. As such, we register our could be better spent were public hospitals, complete disappointment at the approach that public dental services, indigenous health, rural this government has taken. In respect of the health services and mental health services. Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill, I What we have actually seen in the last budget move: are cuts to or, in the case of the dental ser- vice, a wipe-out of these services. Presumably At the end of the motion, add: these cuts and the removal of the dental "but the Senate: health scheme were in order to pay for the (a) deplores the Federal Government cuts to measure that we are here debating today. public hospitals, pharmaceuticals and public dental services which have been made to The Democrats believe that that is an fund these incentives in direct breach of an unacceptable trade-off. We remain convinced election promise; that spending half a billion dollars on these (b) is dismayed by the inefficiency of the critical areas would be a much better way to measures which will do little to ease the spend the money than putting it into private funding pressure on public hospitals; and health incentives, such as this package does. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1051

No-one denies that the decline in private They may not even be high enough to encour- health insurance membership is having an age people to stay in private health insurance. impact on the public sector, and, in particular, A rebate of $450 a year for a family, for on our public hospitals. There is considerable example, is not necessarily sufficient incentive dispute about the extent of that impact. The for that family to take out insurance when various excuses the states are giving for they are faced with a premium of maybe taking even more money out of the public $1,700 a year. hospital system are only worsening what we I cannot see the take-up being anywhere are seeing in that area. Some claims of the near as high as many pundits are suggesting. actual extent of the impact, I think, are The Minister for Health and Family Services exaggerated. Nevertheless, there certainly is (Dr Wooldridge) is himself hoping for two an impact, and that is being felt by the states per cent over the next three years; I think the and, more especially, by the patients, who are Industry Commission is predicting around five now either waiting longer times for services per cent. Others are reading the minister’s in our public health system or are no longer comments in the lower house as around six able to access those services. per cent. But even a five per cent take-up is In some instances this is because of addi- highly unlikely, as the Industry Commission tional costs. Also, questions are beginning to pointed out in its draft report, ‘to cost effec- be asked about a range of practices, including tively relieve pressure on the public system’. early discharge in some public hospitals. But The reasons for this are, the commission said: that does not mean that throwing half a People who take up private insurance as a result of billion dollars a year at the private health the incentives are more likely to be lesser users of the public system. insurance industry is going to fix those problems. Surely it is far better to fix them Privately insured people may still make use of the directly. In fact, in terms of addressing the public system— problems facing Australia’s public hospital as they are deciding to do now— system, these incentives are likely to be, as as public patients ... Jeff Kennett put it last week, ‘money down In other words, they do not declare their the drain’. It is rare that I agree with Mr insurance status, particularly if they go in in Kennett, but on this one I think he has got it an emergency or for a major operation. right. It is hard to find anyone outside the Rebates for ancillaries will have very little impact federal government and, of course, the private on the public system as most ancillaries are not health insurance funds themselves and their available under Medicare. spokespersons, who think that these incentives In short, the overall budgetary impact of the are sound from either an economic or a health rebate will inevitably be negative, because the perspective. I point you there to recent state- savings to Medicare are going to fall a long ments by the AMA. way short of the cost of the rebate. The This is a government that talks a lot about savings we are looking at may be as little as the budget bottom line and about being $20 million a year—the commission would fiscally responsible. This is a government not go as far as to put a figure on it. So, for which abolished a dental health program for $600 million, you save maybe $20 or $30 low income earners, and pulled hundreds of million. Very strange accounting indeed. millions of dollars out of the public health A further and significant problem with these system. Yet here it is, putting up an astro- incentives is that they do absolutely nothing nomically expensive package which, com- to address those structural issues which are pared with the other options available to it, the cause of rising premiums and out-of- simply is not going to deliver a better health pocket expenses. We have already seen care system to Australians. For a start, these significant increases in premiums since these rebates are simply not going to be high incentives were actually announced. You enough to encourage a significant number of would have though that it would have been in people to take up private health insurance. the interests of the funds to try to hold off 1052 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 increases until at least this incentive measure not on the ability to pay but on the basis of was in place and until people had had an need. We have always said that we believe opportunity to feel its impact; but no, we have that ideally Medicare should simply cover had substantial increases. Indeed, if you look everyone for their choice of doctor in a at these increases, we are seeing a rise in private or public hospital bed, with private private health insurance of roughly 3½ times insurance restricted to ancillaries or luxuries. CPI inflation since 1990. We believe this is a sensible, fiscally respon- What do these incentives do to halt that sible and healthy solution but, given that such rise? The answer is: absolutely nothing. In an approach is unlikely to be accepted in the fact, it is not unfair to assume that the likely short to medium term, we can only argue for result of pumping such a massive amount of a much stronger commitment from govern- money into private health insurance will be ment, particularly this government, towards that the private sector will further increase the public system. premiums and that other costs will go up; the I now turn to look at the Medicare levy demand will increase for those at the demand surcharge. For several years now the Demo- end of the system. The obvious question is: crats have called for higher income earners to why should Australian taxpayers subsidise pay a higher Medicare levy by making it this industry when they get no or very little more progressive. We have also, I might add, control over fees, prices and costs within the called for the levy to more accurately reflect industry in return for that investment? the actual expenditure on health—in other I also have to question the notion that words, decrease general taxation and lift the private health insurance is a necessary item. levy until you balance it out so people can It is not. It is an optional extra which people actually see what it is we are putting into our choose to purchase over and above their health system. I understand the objection to Medicare contribution and entitlement. It is a this approach—that the whole idea of making product which, fairly obviously, many Aus- it progressive, some have argued, turns it into tralians are choosing not to buy. As such, it a one or maybe two or three tiered system. I is difficult to see why, other than on ideologi- believe when you have a health system that cal grounds, the majority of Australian tax- is so clearly crying out for additional re- payers are now being asked—that is, the sources it is appropriate that progressively majority who have decided to opt out of this higher income earners are asked to pay a product or who decided not to buy it in the greater share of the burden. first place—to subsidise those people who The problem with the government’s ap- have decided to buy it. Surely, if the govern- proach is threefold. Firstly, it effectively ment can find $600 million a year to spend penalises people for not buying something. on health, it is fairer all round if the money The obvious question is: why should any goes towards the system which the majority Australian be penalised by the government for of Australians are using—the public system. refusing to purchase something that they do I note here—I will explain further at the not want? If the government wants high end—that I intend to move one small amend- income earners to pay more for their health ment to the Labor Party’s two second reading care, then they should simply increase the attachments to make sure that we are not just Medicare levy. Do not link it to a failure to talking about this money going to public do anything else—in this case a failure to buy hospitals, but also into the public health health insurance. Increase the levy and put it services. In particular, I wish to re-target directly into the public system. dental health and mental health services. Secondly, the surcharge is basically an I will say again that the Democrats make no additional tax on the use of the public system apologies for supporting public funding for by a group of people who already contribute health care. It is the fairest, most efficient and to that system more than the average taxpay- most effective way of delivering health er. Just look at the levy. The higher income services to all Australians—delivering services you earn the more you pay into a system and Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1053 now those people are being penalised if they does what the government says it is going to do not pay even more. Finally, it may not be do—then this will lapse. If the government a sufficiently high penalty, given the high really believes a rebate will put a floor under price of premiums, to encourage high income the drop-out rate and is prepared, as it seems earners, particularly those with an ideological to be, to back that assertion with $1.7 billion commitment to Medicare, to take out private worth of taxpayers’ money over the next three health insurance. I think we are only looking years, then surely it will be prepared to back at about 17 or 18 per cent of people in those its judgment by letting this legislation col- high income brackets who do not already lapse if that does not happen. have private health insurance. I would argue that many of them do not have it because Finally, on one of the other bills in this they have a commitment to Medicare. These package, we will again be voting against the people may simply prefer to cop the addition- proposal to increase the medical expenses al levy rather than paying out even more to rebate threshold. As none of these so-called take out private health cover. incentives are directed at those who self- insure, it should be up to us to make the The Democrats will be proposing amend- decision to self-insure. We should not be ments to this legislation to break the link with forced into private health insurance. There- private health insurance whilst still requiring fore, it is surely more important than ever for higher income earners to make that higher this government to encourage people to be contribution. Our proposal would raise an prepared to self-insure; in other words, for additional $350 million a year, some $300 people to make a conscious decision that even million more than the government’s propo- though they do not have private health insur- sal—money which could and should be ance they will not burden the public system. directed into the public health system, into They will take themselves off to the private our hospitals, into our community health system perhaps for day surgery. services and into mental health services in particular for young people. To see this back in here is most disappoint- ing at a time when the government is suppos- Looking at the strain on our community edly concerned about the pressure on the health services, with the changes to hospital public system by people who are using it who funding, particularly in my home state, the should have private insurance—or maybe who pressure of early discharge is placing a burden do have it. Here in this very package is on our community health services that they something that is working in the other direc- simply cannot now meet. Looking at mental tion. In this package is a measure that is health services, I recently spent some time in saying, ‘No, we are not going to encourage Whyalla. For young people at least there are you to look after yourself.’ now mental health services, which is a start. But young people in that area who have I will just outline the amendments that we already been assessed as in critical need of wish to move to Senator Neal’s amendments. mental health services—many of these young I will deal first with the Private Health Insur- people have attempted suicide; they have ance Incentives Bill 1996. We simply wish to major behavioural problems—have to wait 14 add to part (c) after ‘public hospitals’ the four months to access that mental health service. words ‘and public health services’. Part (c) There are many places where the money that will now read: has been poured into private health insurance (c) is firmly of the opinion that the $1.7 billion will should be going. be better spent in providing extra Federal Govern- ment funding for public hospitals and public health In relation to the rebate, we will be moving services and direct subsidies for private hospital an amendment which sets up a sunset clause accommodation. on the legislation. Unless an increase of at least three per cent take-up in private health I move: insurance is achieved over the next three Paragraph (c), after "public hospitals", add "and years—in other words, unless this actually public health services". 1054 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

The amendment I wish to move to the are pretty rampant in disregarding the needs Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 of people with some of their pricing policies is at the very end. It is the addition of the too. same four words so it will read: Let us look at these private health insurance "but the Senate is of the opinion that all of the incentives. The amounts of money that are revenue raised by the measures in this Bill being offered to people to take out private should be used to increase Federal Government health insurance go nowhere towards the funding for public hospitals and public health services". purchasing of private health insurance. I think it would cover about a quarter—maybe less— I move: of the amount of money that people would After "public hospitals", add "and public health have to pay to take out private health insur- services". ance. Whilst you are giving people incentives Today I have outlined the urgent need in a to take out private health insurance, to do so wide range of public health services. Those they are having to expend two or three times needs are not just underfunded by this more than what they are going to get back. government but, in the case of dental services, I know the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in defunded by this government in order to pay the other place quoted Mr Kennett, the Vic- for this package that is before us today. I torian Premier, as saying late last week that think that is absolutely disgraceful. this was a good idea. It is a pity that Mr Senator WEST (New South Wales) (1.08 Howard, in his usual form, was not living in p.m.)—It is with a great deal of sadness that the future—as usual, he was living in the I rise today to speak on these four Medicare past—because about Thursday of last week, and health related bills. It is with sadness Mr Kennett described the rebates as‘ money because this is the first act of emasculation of down the drain’ and ‘good money after bad’. the health care system as we know it in this Even Mr Kennett is able to see through his country. The government is finally beginning Liberal colleagues’ shenanigans. Even Mr to implement Son of Fightback. This is a Kennett is prepared to stand up and say, ‘This great tragedy for those in this country who is not a good piece of legislation. This is have health care needs. about wasting taxpayers’ money because the The government made much during the amount of money that it is going to cost the election campaign about how wonderful this government to implement this scheme is more incentive package would be—people would than what they will actually reduce their be able to take out private health insurance— expenditure by.’ It is actually going to cost and how they were going to encourage the money to save money. They will save less low income earners to take out private health money than they are actually going to spend insurance. That is one of the nastiest things to save it. that have been perpetrated on the lower That sounds to me like more black hole income people in this country that I can think stuff. They are getting pretty good at this of, because what private health insurance buys black hole. They have been in 12 months and you is bills. they have managed to black hole something Whom have we heard that from in recent like $4½ billion or $5 billion. That is not bad times? None other than the Australian Medi- going. That is a pretty good annual rate. By cal Association. They even went as far last the end of three years, they will be up to $15 week as to urge people to drop their private billion, if not more. Pretty shocking! health insurance. I will not suggest that they We have also seen a fast one pulled be- might have some personal reasons of their cause this government when in opposition for own for that; maybe it is because they do not 13 years had more health policies than some want the private health insurance company people have had hot dinners. It has even cost insurers monitoring and lobbying against shadow ministers their positions and things some of the charging tactics of some of the like that. After they had been in for a while, members of the AMA as well, because they they thought they knew so little about it that Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1055 they had better have an inquiry, so they set up had a list of speakers a mile long—all 30-odd the Productivity Commission inquiry. of them on the speakers list—to say, ‘Hey, What about that one? We had the draft isn’t this great? Our actions are being vindi- report. We were told that there was going to cated; we’re being proven right.’ be a report out last Friday. There is every There is one person from their side on the indication that the report has gone to the speakers list. They have not released the government. Is it not funny that the govern- document publicly. What does that tell you? ment, while we are busy discussing this It tells me, or leads me to think, that it is a bit legislation, while we are debating this critical crook in Rookwood. It smells. I think they are and crucial legislation about the direction of not being totally honest with us. As I say, if health in this country, chooses to pass this everything in that commission report had legislation prior to the public release— vindicated their position, their stance, their Senator Neal—They have got it. legislation—or even half done so—what would they have been doing? Every one of Senator WEST—They have got it, but I them would have been in here with copies of am talking about the public release. They do the report; they would have been waving not want us to know what is in their Produc- those copies around and literally belting us tivity Commission report so we can debate around the ears with them. this legislation informed. They are expecting There is silence—silence. They have the us to make decisions in an uninformed man- bare minimum number of members in the ner, which raises two points. chamber, and there is silence. They are not In a legal situation, we are being asked to even raising an interjection, which is most enter into an agreement when we are not fully unlike at least one or two of the members informed of all of the facts. Out in the real opposite. world, if this were any other thing such as a Senator Ellison interjecting— contract, that would render that particular agreement null and void because it was made Senator WEST—Thank you, Senator without cognisance and understanding of the Ellison. At least I have drawn one mild full facts. But that does not bother this mob. protest—and for you, that is very mild. I rest One has to wonder why they have not re- my case on that particular issue because I leased it. I will wager they have not released know these gentlemen and ladies opposite. If it because it shows that what they are trying they believed that their position had been to do is not going to address the needs of the vindicated by that report, politically it would community and certainly is not going to be naive for them to sit there and say nothing address the needs of the budget. about it. Politically, obviously it is a bit smelly and does not agree with them. This is sloppy and slapdash work by this particular government. They obviously do not Let us look at some of the other things they have any understanding—neither do they care; have done in health. First of all, their coali- they are just ideologically driven. They will tion policy A Healthy Future contained the drive this through, come hell or high water. following promise: Too bad what we on this side of the parlia- The incentives will not be funded from the public ment might say. They will just ride over us hospital system or health grants to the States. Other than the $50 million which will be reallocated from while taking no cognisance of our amend- the Better Practice Program, the incentive will be ments. Too bad even what the inquiry they funded entirely from savings outside the Health and have set up might say. Human Services Portfolio. I do not know; maybe the inquiry agrees Go and have a look at what has happened to with everything they are doing. But I would health in the last 12 months: grants to the have thought, if that were the case, we would states have been slashed by $1.5 billion over have seen its results being published very three years, which is a cut of about $500 quickly. They would have been in here million in state health funding each year, trumpeting those results. They would have representing approximately one-third of health 1056 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 expenditure; they have made direct funding Senator WEST—Cuts to pharmaceutical cuts to public hospitals of more than $300 benefits, as my colleague says. What about million over four years; and there have been the dental health program? Really and truly, other massive cuts to health policy totalling this government puts itself up as a caring more than $3 billion over four years. All this government. It wants people to feel comfort- has been for a promise that incentives will not able. I do not know where people who are be funded out of the public hospitals system. sick are going to feel comfortable. If they are What they have done? They have taken a to feel comfortable, it certainly will not be machete—you cannot even say a razor blade, with any thanks to this government—and as that is too polite—to the health system and particularly if people do not have significant the health budget. amounts of private health insurance and We see headlines in the local papers of all significant income levels. of the states about problems in the health The cuts to public hospitals alone equate to system—and everybody keeps blaming the the closing of a thousand beds or turning states. I will tell you who is to blame for the away 66,000 people waiting for operations. problems in the health system: this federal This is a government, as I said, that just does government, because they have taken a not care about people. It is ideologically machete to everything. This Minister for driven. It does not mind having two-tier Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) systems, and I will get on to that in a minute. has tried to defend a lot of these cuts to the The government is ideologically driven and it public hospital funds on the basis that they just wants to make cuts. As I say, this will do are an attack on cost shifting. Why is it then absolutely nothing at all to assist those people that the state that suffers the biggest cut in who are low income earners to have private funding is New South Wales? Also, why is it health insurance. that, at estimates when we asked this ques- We notice that the values of the rebates and tion, the state that was into cost shifting in the benefits, since being announced by this biggest way was Victoria, although it did not government in the budget, are being eroded suffer the biggest cuts? The government is because all the health funds are putting up looking after its mates as well. their premiums. The Prime Minister got very This is an appalling situation—just appal- worried about that; he actually intervened. He ling. It ignores a lot of things. It ignores the now personally has to approve every health fact that costs were shifted the other way. It fund increase. Not too many have been ignores the fact that hospitals have been refused, I might add. forced by conservative state governments to The government even used the visit of the accept further cutbacks and to shift costs— President of the United States to hide a couple and they have done so to protect staff and of approvals for increases. Medibank Private keep beds open. Further cutting to funding and MBF managed to get some pretty large will only make things worse. cuts through that week. Recently MBF has I do not know of anybody in this country, been closing branches in rural New South particularly any doctor—with the exception of Wales. All I can say is that that is not much Dr Wooldridge—who thinks public hospitals good for the provision of private health get too much money. Nobody thinks that. The insurance out there. It is a problem. The government also have made cuts to programs government is not addressing it correctly. that were going to reduce waiting lists in I now turn to the Medicare Levy Amend- public hospitals. Also, they have made cuts to ment Bill (No. 2) and the Taxation Laws programs that cover things like palliative care. Amendment (Private Health Insurance Incen- But they do not seem to care about these tives) Bill. Again, here goes another broken things; they do not bother them—not at all. promise. We do not know whether or not it And what are we seeing? was a core promise, but it was a broken Senator Neal—Cuts to pharmaceutical promise on the part of the government. They benefits. promised that there would be no new taxes or Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1057 no increase in taxes. Those of you who have some money by taking out the minimum been around for a while well recall the ques- amount of private health insurance that has tioning of Senator Short when he was the some hospital cover in it. That will cost you minister and now Senator Kemp as the less than the one per cent surcharge. It will do minister representing the Minister for Finance absolutely nothing to increase people’s access (Mr Fahey) to try to get them to define what to hospitals and things like that. This levy is is a tax, what is not a tax, what is a levy and just the thin edge of the wedge. By refusing why a levy is not a tax. I do not know why to index the threshold, more and more people a levy is not a tax. All I know is that if there will go into this category and will be forced is a levy on something, you and I and every- to pay the penalty levy. body else still have to dig into the hip pocket I have a great deal of concern about this to pay. because I think this is the first step towards This is the second increase in the Medicare a two-tiered health system—one for the rich levy. We have no objections to one increase. and one for the poor. We have already seen We support the gun buyback program that that this government is not averse to two- this has been used for. It is a real worry. This tiered systems. We have seen it this year with proposal is a masquerade, a facade and a the introduction of being able to buy your mirage. It is designed to impose a one per way into university and being able to buy cent Medicare surcharge on individuals with your way into higher education if you have taxable incomes greater than $50,000 or the wherewithal and the means. Those who do families with combined taxable incomes not have the financial means will be penal- greater than $100,000 who do not have ised. We are also seeing it with nursing private patient hospital cover for themselves homes. They are heading towards creating a and all family members. two-tiered system. For the first time we have actually seen the As I said, these are four pieces of legisla- government attacking Defence Force families, tion that we should not be debating here because they have refused to exempt Defence today. We should be waiting until we see the Force personnel. You could well have a results of the report that the government situation where Defence Force families will commissioned. Why will you not table this be having to pay, when they should have been report so we can debate this issue in the full exempted because the personnel themselves knowledge of what the advice to you people have health cover in their job. If a single has been? You are too scared because your person has an income over $50,000, they are legislation is crook. up for the levy. A couple with a combined Senator DENMAN (Tasmania) (1.28 taxable income of over $100,000 are up for p.m.)—I am pleased to speak today in support it as well. But the government could not care of my colleagues. What seems to have es- less. caped the notice of the coalition parties is that As I said, this is a mirage. We can look at the public strongly supports Medicare. I the number of people who will be affected. supported it and I know the people of Tas- Figures from the department show that about mania did. They were under the impression 110,000 singles and 100,000 couples and that the Liberal Party did too. I was families will be affected. Less than one mistakenly under the impression that the quarter of a million of the population of this Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr country will be affected by this proposal. Wooldridge) had come to the realisation that Most of this group have private health insur- the public was strongly committed to ance. If they do not, they have made a delib- Medicare and wanted to see a viable, strong erate choice not to have private health insur- public hospital system. This is obviously not ance and to privately cover their own costs. the case. So it is a real mirage. This legislation is an attempt to encourage The other crazy thing is that it will be people to retain or obtain private health possible to get around this and save yourself insurance. As the shadow minister for health 1058 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 articulated in the other place on 24 February, When we got into government in 1983, the we will not be blocking this legislation, health system, by everyone’s assessment in because we do not want to stop contributors this country, was a shambles. It was a sham- receiving the payments that were announced bles that, sadly, we look set to return to. prior to the election. I have to say, however, Under the Fraser and Howard governments, that Australians have been sold out with this conservatives lurched through five chaotic policy. They believed that they were going to health systems in seven years with five get some support for their private health changes as they progressively dismantled insurance as a result of the subsidy. Of Whitlam’s Medibank. It would seem that the course, we already know that this is not the Howard government would like to return to case. those times. I am sure that lots of people who voted I would like to take the opportunity to point Liberal in the last election, maybe for the first out that the legislation is fundamentally time in their lives, were worried about what flawed in concept and will not achieve its might happen to health care under a Liberal objectives in halting the drift away from government. That commitment from John private health insurance. This change began Howard might have pushed them to the limit with the advent of Medicare in 1984. Since and helped convince them that the Liberal then, more and more people have voted with Party could be taken on trust with the com- their feet in favour of Medicare. The govern- mitments they made to keep Medicare. ment likes to put this fact in a negative light. I, and the Labor Party, are proud to say that The most likely effect of this legislation, of we are pleased that the people see Medicare course, is going to be the underpinning of in a positive way and that they support rises in the premiums for private health Medicare, understand what lies behind insurance, and we have already seen signifi- Medicare and want the public hospital system cant evidence of this. Some funds have strengthened. already raised their prices in anticipation of the introduction of subsidies. So individual consumers are not going to be better off and The government still does not understand, taxpayers will have to pay the additional even though on the surface it has said it costs. supports Medicare, that Medicare is supposed to offer universal health insurance. People are These latest price rises are part of an supposed to feel comfortable with universal established pattern which has seen private health insurance. They are not supposed to health insurance premiums rise by 3½ times feel guilty that they rely on the public system. the CPI rate of inflation since 1990. The That is what Medicare offers them and that is effect of rising premiums has, not surprising- what the government offered before the ly, in turn, caused lower risk members to drop election—that it would strongly support out of health funds at a greater rate than do Medicare. the higher risk members, resulting in higher costs for insurance companies and further The coalition parties have clearly mis- premium rises. understood the contract that was entered into The Industry Commission pointed out just with the Australian people when Medicare before Christmas that, even without increased was introduced. Medicare was designed to be premiums, the savings to Medicare will fall a universal system that everybody would considerably short of the costs of the rebate. share in, regardless of their wealth. It was That is yet more evidence of the conceptual deliberately designed for that purpose. It was problems of this policy. These measures do deliberately designed to reduce the number of absolutely nothing to address one of the major people with private health insurance, many of causes of the decline in private health insur- whom could not afford that private health ance, which is the high out-of-pocket costs for insurance, many of whom had no cover medical treatment provided in hospitals to because of the system that existed at that time. privately insured individuals. Due to the Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1059 complexity of the existing private health last budget. There is no doubt that this money arrangements and entitlements, many consum- could have been used more effectively to ers are unsure about the benefits of their directly assist people who need operations in insurance. public hospitals, if it had been directed None of these concerns are addressed in straight to the public hospitals. We know that this legislation. Nor does the legislation do the $1.7 billion comes from this government’s anything to reduce the cost of health care in slashing of public hospital funding by $800 the private sector, which in turn is driving the million, destroying the Commonwealth dental costs of private health insurance. It is also program—and again in my home state of likely that any impact of the subsidy will be Tasmania quite drastically—and increasing to assist people who are already privately the cost of essential medicine. All of this is insured rather than to encourage into private going to a few people to basically protect insurance those who now rely on Medicare. them against further increases in health Of course, this has been the government’s insurance. primary objective. An additional outcome of this legislation You have to think about that for a mo- will be cost shifting. In some cases hospitals ment—the length of time that Australian have had to cost shift onto the Common- families will think about this policy. A family wealth just to keep their waiting lists under is not going to pay $2,000 per annum to get control, to try to make sure that people who a small subsidy of $450 per annum. They are on those waiting lists are not in pain. Dr would rather know that, if they needed to go Wooldridge comes in and declares that cost into a public hospital, they could do so. shifting is taking place, instead of giving For Liberal Party members to suggest that more money to the public hospitals to fix the a single pensioner will magically find $800 to problem. Dr Wooldridge must be the only take out private health insurance simple to get doctor in Australia who thinks he has solved the benefit of a $125 incentive is ridiculous. the problem by giving less money to the It is the same sort of logic that has the Minis- public hospitals. ter for Health and Family Services, Dr What you are going to see with this legisla- Wooldridge, claiming that pensioners who are tion is the first of many steps from this being forced to pay an extra 50c for every government that will undermine Medicare. script will not suffer hardship. I have had a This is the first step that undermines the lot of people in my electorate office who have universality of Medicare. Once the principle grave concerns about what seems to Dr is openly accepted that Medicare is only Wooldridge a small amount of money. To intended to serve a section of the community, those people, it is not a small amount of not all Australians, it will be easy to define money. that group more and more narrowly so that in Various estimates have been given of the the end Medicare becomes a residual program likely increase in private health coverage as for those who cannot afford private health a result of the subsidies provided in this coverage. legislation. They range from the department’s Most people will remember what it was like estimate of two per cent for $1.7 billion of to line up at outpatient clinics before taxpayers’ money to the Industry Commis- Medicare and before Medibank. What you sion’s estimate of five per cent. This is hardly had to do was prove that you were poor a major achievement, particularly in view of enough to get into the public system. We do the substantial cost of $1.7 billion. This is a not support any move back to that system. huge sum and it is far greater than the amount We do not think there should be the need to the government estimates will be obtained prove you are poor just to get the charity of through the Medicare surcharge. the taxpayer. That is not what Medicare is This contrasts starkly with the government’s about. Medicare, as we already have said, is slash and burn approach to health and com- about making sure that when it comes to munity services generally, introduced in the health care we are treated as equals. 1060 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

This government would see our private leave the system signifies the last nail in the health system strengthened at the expense of coffin of Medicare. the public system. It attacks our public system We certainly think that, in hindsight, the because of its cost. It is a fallacy to assume government should come clean and admit that that private health care is cheaper than public it would have been better for us to have spent health care. In fact, this coalition government this money directly on helping people who has demonstrated its lack of commitment to were sick, in making sure many operations elderly people in the Australian community were performed, in making sure that operating who will now have to pay money. People on theatres were operating longer and making very low incomes will now have to pay sure that all Australians got a benefit from the money for a service that they have previously expenditure of this $1.7 billion. received free of charge. In many cases, it will not be a matter of how much people can Senator FORSHAW (New South Wales) afford to pay. They will not be able to get (1.44 p.m.)—Let me at the outset congratulate into programs run by the state governments, my colleague Senator Denman for such an so they will have to wait, in some cases for excellent contribution to the debate on the years, before they get treatment. health legislation that is now before the Senate. Senator Denman has quite correctly Let us have a look at a couple of figures. In recognised that what we are witnessing here 1995, health services expenditure in Australia, is once again the ideological obsession of the with a predominantly public system, was 8.4 coalition parties with dismantling Medicare. per cent of GDP. In Britain, with an even We are witnessing the breaching of election larger public system, it was 6.9 per cent. In promises to the people made in the federal the United States, with a predominantly election campaign last March. private system, it was 14.5 per cent. If any- When people look back at past govern- thing is going to send this country broke, it ments, as no doubt they will look back at the will be its private health insurance, and its 13 years of the Labor government and the private health insurance and health care costs short period of time that this current govern- are the single greatest cause of bankruptcy. ment will occupy, they will make assessments Before Medicare was introduced in 1984, about what are the big achievements, the we had almost two million Australians with notable issues, that such governments directed no health care coverage at all and many their attention to. Amongst the many great others who were uninsured. It is incumbent on achievements of Labor governments in the all in this chamber to make sure there is no 1970s and, more recently, since 1983, was the move in this parliament that encourages a provision of universal, affordable health care recurrence of that disgraceful situation. Were for all Australians—something which sets our that to happen, the Australian community country apart from just about every other would not forgive nor forget. It would certain- country; that is, that ordinary Australians ly not forget the government that went to continue to have, and should have, access to them saying they supported Medicare but on an affordable health system. the anniversary of their first year in office What we are going to see when history began to destroy Medicare. comes to judge the performance of this The Australian community values Medicare government, as it has done in the past, is that highly; indeed, it is one of the most highly they are about undermining the public health valued Commonwealth programs. Medicare system. They are about trying to prop up and has its problems but this legislation does not give advantage to the vested interests of the address them. We need to fight to maintain private health system, particularly the insur- Medicare. We need to fight to ensure that the ance companies. public hospital system is strong enough to The election promises made last March by cope with the demands upon it. Spending $1.7 the now government, the then opposition, billion on private health subsidies and ensur- went to two specific issues. In their policy ing that wealthy people have an incentive to document A Healthy Future they promised Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1061 solemnly to maintain Medicare in its entirety. abolished. There have been changes to ben- Moreover, they promised a package of $1.7 efits and assistance for people suffering from billion as additional expenditure in order to psychiatric illnesses as well as direct cuts to enable more Australians to take out private the public hospital systems in the states. In health insurance. total, there will be a reduction in health care The Labor Party has never been opposed to funding of around $3 billion or more over the the existence of a dual system of universal next four years. health cover through Medicare on the one Yet this government promised that it would hand and a complementary system of private maintain Medicare and further fund its private health insurance on the other. What we are health insurance initiatives out of other areas, vehemently opposed to are measures which, other than cuts to overall health care funding. on the one hand, seek to undermine, to slash That is a shameful broken promise on one of funding to the public health care system in the most important, if not the most important, this country and, at the same time, provide areas of community concern for ordinary dubious benefits in terms of health care to the Australians. My colleague Senator Denman private health system. That is what we are has quite adequately covered the dangers in getting from this government. The policy this legislation and the overall approach document A Healthy Future, speaking about adopted by this government with respect to the incentives for taking out private health health funding and the continuation of insurance, states: Medicare. The incentive will not be funded from the public The people did vote for this government, hospital system or health grants to the States. Other for a change of government after 13 years of than $50 million which will be reallocated from the the Labor government, but they voted for this Better Practice Program, the incentive will be government in the belief that it would con- funded entirely from savings outside the Health and Human Services portfolio. tinue with Medicare. I do not think they are feeling terribly comfortable and relaxed about Of course, that core promise was abandoned what is in store for them in the future. by this government very shortly after. Indeed, what a misnomer to call their policy A Heal- I will now deal very quickly with some of thy Future. No Australian today feels com- the key features of this legislation that this fortable and relaxed about this government’s government is putting before the parliament. approach to health policy. If ever there is a The key feature of this whole package is the time when you would wish to feel comfort- proposal to provide a rebate to individuals able and relaxed, it is at a time when you are and families who take out private health ill and you are in hospital. This is a time insurance. A family that takes out health when you do not want to have to worry too insurance, with both hospital cover and much, if at all, about how you are going to medical cover, may receive a rebate of up to pay for these things. $450 per annum; couples may receive a rebate of up to $250 per annum; and individuals In August last year, within five months of may receive a rebate of up to $125 per the election, this government brought down a annum. budget which slashed some $1.5 billion in It has been well documented and com- financial grants to the states over three years. mented on, but I need to remind senators That represented a reduction of around $500 again, that this proposal just does not make million to the states with respect to health financial sense in terms of changing the minds funding. Ultimately, it is the states that are of people who at the moment do not believe responsible for the delivery of the public it is in their financial or health care interests health system to Australians. That is a mas- to take out private health insurance. As has sive cut in the funding to the states for health been asked: why would a family or an indi- care. vidual elect to spend up to $2,000 per year on Further, we know that there have been other health care insurance in order to get back cuts. The dental health program has been through the system a rebate of $450? If they 1062 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 are in the position, as many Australians and marked to cover health costs as they may increasingly many more Australians are, of arise in the future and rely upon the public not having private health insurance, they are health system, particularly for emergency in that position because they frankly do not treatment. Of course, whilst that is happening, believe that private health insurance is good what we see this government doing is provid- value, and I have to agree with them. It is not ing this very dubious benefit to people who good financial sense for many people to make may already have private health insurance a decision to spend $2,000 if they are only or—this is most unlikely—those who may going to get back $450 when at the present elect to take out health cover, and at the same time they are not spending any money at all time slashing hundreds of millions of dollars on private health insurance. out of the public health system. I was listening to a talkback radio program The other point I wish to make is in rela- the other day on which this issue was being tion to the surcharge. If ever we have seen a discussed. A woman rang in and said that her con trick this is it; this is the Costello con. family had had private health insurance for Here we have a proposal which, firstly, is a some years. They had been paying somewhere breach of another promise. It is the imposition between $1,500 and $2,000 per year—a fairly of a tax, albeit there may not be that many healthy family. When she finally came to people who actually have to pay it in the end. make a claim for a refund on a dental proced- But it certainly is the imposition of a new tax; ure, something available under private health that is, a tax on families who have an income insurance coverage but not covered by the of over $100,000 and who do not currently public health system, she got back in the have private health insurance, and a tax on vicinity of $75 for a procedure which cost individuals with an income of over $50,000 $500. She asked the question, quite obviously, who do not have private health insurance. ‘What was the value? I have been paying all They are going to be taxed a surcharge of one this money for all these years and when it per cent on their income. This surcharge is finally came time to make a claim on a dental supposedly designed to encourage those procedure, all I got back was $75 out of people to take out private health insurance. It $500.’ That is the situation that faces many is also designed apparently to try to recoup Australians. some revenue towards the health budget. What we have seen, of course, is the posi- We know from the Treasury’s estimates that tion where health costs, particularly for this measure is going to have very little, if surgery, whether it be medical or dental, are any, impact in turning around the decline in set at levels by the professions way in excess private health insurance coverage in this of what the funds will refund to individuals country. It will not have much impact at all, taking out insurance. Furthermore, the funds the main reason being that many people in place limits upon the number of claims that those categories are the people who can afford may be made in areas such as physiotherapy, to have private health insurance, given the dental or other procedures which are generally current cost of such insurance, and do so. So covered under optional or extra health insur- the number of people that would get caught ance coverage and which are clearly not in this surcharge net is very limited. Medicare related procedures. I know from my Moreover, this really is a spurious proposi- own experience—we all know from people tion, a tinkering at the edges, when we see the telling us—that when you go to hospital, you real problems being created by this govern- come out after an operation with a bill for, ment through its slashing, as I said, of ex- say, $2,500 and you get back a total of, say, penditure and funding for the states in the $800 based upon the schedule fee. There is no area of health care. I do not believe, and I do real value in having insurance in situations not think the Australian people believe, like that. notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s solemn People are increasingly electing to have promise at the last election, that this govern- their own bank accounts specifically ear- ment has a real commitment to universal Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1063 health care. It does not have a real commit- wealth government. We were unaware that he ment to Medicare. intended to make those comments. The third This government knows, however, that it question you asked was, if it was clear cut— cannot stand up and state publicly and clearly Senator Faulkner—Whether you repudiate that it wishes to abolish or dismantle it. Medicare. At least they were honest about Senator HILL—His view does not accord that some years ago. They learned the lesson with my understanding of the constitution. that the Australian public would never accept that so what they are doing is, through other Economy means, dismantling the excellent public health Senator WATSON—My question is system we have in this country and doing directed to my colleague and friend Senator nothing to make it any more attractive for Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, in his capacity people to take out private health insurance. as representing the Treasurer. I refer the Debate interrupted. minister to media reports which show growing business confidence and a strengthening of QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE the Australian economy—supported by the Queensland Premier: The Constitution latest business survey by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Will the Senator FAULKNER—My question is minister elaborate on the results of the survey directed to the Minister representing the Prime and indicate those factors which have led Minister. Minister, has the Howard govern- business to be more confident about the ment sought a copy of the legal advice re- future? ferred to by Premier Borbidge yesterday on the Sunday program? Has the government Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Watson sought advice from the Attorney-General’s for that question. It shows his continuing Department on the application of section 15 interest in small business, and I am sure it of the constitution? Has the Prime Minister will be of great interest to many members of contacted Mr Borbidge demanding he with- the public. The ACCI released the results of draw from his declared intention to breach its national survey of business expectations section 15 of the constitution? for the 1997 March quarter earlier today. Senator HILL—I know of no request to Senator Robert Ray—Just table the answer Premier Borbidge seeking a copy of his legal and sit down. advice. I know of no request of our Attorney- Senator KEMP—The survey, Senator Ray, General as to his views. I would have thought presents more good news for the Australian that section 15 of the constitution is pretty economy, good news for business and good clear cut. I did not know there was a lot of news for the Australian public. But, given the dispute about it. reaction we constantly get from the other side, Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, it is presumably bad news for the Australian I ask a supplementary question. Has Mr Labor Party. Borbidge explained to the federal government The survey points to another factor of what why he sought advice at this time in relation the Prime Minister has called ‘a rare conjunc- to Senator Colston’s position? Is Mr Borbidge tion of very positive circumstances as far as acting on advice from the federal government our economic future is concerned’. The ACCI relating to Senator Colston’s future? If section says the results represent ‘an unmistakable 15 of the constitution is, in the minister’s improvement in economic conditions’. It words, ‘pretty clear cut’, was Mr Borbidge furthers says: completely wrong? A strong lift in business confidence during 1996 Senator HILL—I do not know why Mr has only now translated into an improvement in the Borbidge sought advice on the matter. That is actual level of activity. obviously his business. He certainly was not The latest survey results show that not only acting on any request from the Common- is confidence improving but so too are actual 1064 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 outcomes. The improvement can be seen in a growing level of investment in plant and actual outcomes for general business condi- equipment in the last quarter, recording a tions, sales revenue, exports, overtime and balance of 10.3 per cent and a similar balance investment. Beyond the actual outcomes, the for the quarter to come. So on the investment expectations data show that the current im- front, as Senator Watson has indicated, the provement is expected to continue. The data news is very good. It is good for Australia, show expectations of an even better perform- good for business, good for jobs but bad for ance in the quarter to come for general busi- the Labor Party. ness conditions—sales, exports, profits, employment and investment. High Court of Australia Turning to the details of the survey, the net Senator BOLKUS—My question is ad- balance of sales revenue is strongly positive. dressed to the Minister representing the Prime Exports are strongly positive, with a net Minister. Minister, do you agree with the balance of plus 15.5 per cent. Profits data statements of the Chief Justice of the High show an expected increase in the next quarter Court Sir Gerard Brennan, in his letter to the and there is a positive net balance in both the Deputy Prime Minister, that ‘public confi- actual and expected series of investment in dence in the constitutional institutions of building. The good news goes on and on. government is critical to the stability of our society’? Can you explain, Minister, how the We make no apologies for putting in place continuing criticism of the High Court by the policies which are good for business, especial- Deputy Prime Minister and by the Queensland ly for small business—policies which allow Premier, including their personal attacks on these businesses to grow and prosper. These High Court judges, can in any way at all be policies are absolutely vital because better conducive to the maintenance of public business conditions are a necessary prerequi- confidence in one of our most important site for getting higher jobs growth and tack- constitutional institutions? ling unemployment. Senator HILL—I certainly do not know of Our policies tackle Labor’s budget deficit any personal attacks on High Court judges, blow-outs; take the pressure off interest rates; and I would not agree with it. It is important keep inflation low such that wages do not for the community to maintain confidence in need to continue to grow at rapid rates trying the constitution and confidence in the High to catch prices; reform the labour market and Court. But that does not mean that one is not repeal Labor’s job destroying unfair dismissal allowed to criticise particular judgments. I laws; lift the burden on small business by certainly have not agreed with every judgment giving substantial benefits through the CGT that has been given in the High Court. When rollover relief; and give business the confi- I disagree, I am happy to argue my case. In dence to invest in the future by both building this instance, no doubt those that you refer to up investment and hiring new employees. The were doing just that. government is confident about the economy. We are putting in place the policies to grow Senator BOLKUS—Madam President, I and to tackle Labor’s worst legacy—the ask a supplementary question. Minister, are legacy of very high unemployment. you trying to tell us that Mr Fischer’s accusa- Senator WATSON—Madam President, I tions of the High Court indulging in ‘unac- ask a supplementary question. I would like ceptable activism’, Mr Borbidge’s description the minister to elaborate on the March quarter of— figures, with particular emphasis on invest- Government senators—Who? ment in plant and machinery. Would the Senator BOLKUS—Sir Gerard Brennan’s minister mind outlining to the Senate the defence of the Hight Court as ‘pathetic and positive benefits that are going to flow in lamentable’ and Mr Borbidge calling some terms of investment in plant and equipment? High Court judges ‘dills’ are not criticisms Senator KEMP—I thank Senator Watson that undermine public confidence in the High again for his interest. The survey results show Court? Minister, it has been some eight weeks Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1065 since Sir Gerard Brennan’s letter to Mr Tim we were receiving about 400,000 attempted Fischer. When will the Prime Minister show calls in a day. That is a measure of what we some leadership on this issue and defend the inherited. The previous government was not High Court against some of these unwarranted prepared to recognise that or do anything attacks? about it. They did not acknowledge that Senator HILL—I think Senator Bolkus people prefer using this method of doing was referring to Mr Borbidge. That is the business if they possibly can. trouble when you read your leader’s questions Not only have we recognised the reality but without checking them first, Senator. I think we have set about trying to do something there has been nothing illegitimate in what Mr about the problem. On Friday last I an- Fischer has said. I do not think anything Mr nounced that a further 500 jobs in regional Fischer has done has had any effect to under- Australia are to be created in the teleservice mine public confidence in the court. The system. Effective telephone contact with whole issue of judicial activism is one that Social Security for people in regional and rises from time to time, and really it depends remote areas of Australia is of course of vital a little bit on your interpretation of the judg- importance. They cannot just trot down the ment. street and see their local, friendly regional office. This government recognises that that Teleservices service will be improved for regional Austral- Senator PATTERSON—My question is ia as a result of our initiative. Those 500 jobs directed to the Minister for Social Security. come on top of the 300 that we announced in My question relates to jobs and improved South Australia and Victoria late last year, services in regional and rural Australia. and they form part of an overall package and Minister, will you inform the Senate as to the strategy designed to improve telephone access benefits for regional Australia resulting from to our customers while at the same time, the government’s restructuring and expansion importantly, increasing employment in region- of Social Security’s teleservice centres and al Australia. facilities? New centres are to be established in Port Senator NEWMAN—I welcome Senator Macquarie and Wendouree outside Ballarat. Patterson’s question on this matter. As we all Over 100 jobs will be created in each of those know, she has long had a very keen interest two centres. We are also significantly expand- in improving the efficiency of the Department ing existing teleservice centres at Gosford, of Social Security and the services that it Toowoomba, Townsville and Geelong, and offers to Australians in need. She is also very each of these centres will have their employee well aware that the teleservice system that we numbers boosted to around 100 in each inherited from the previous government was centre, meaning an increase of about 200 new in a disgraceful state. Anybody who has tried jobs in those centres. to contact the department through the A further purpose-built service of 100 new teleservice network in the last couple of years jobs is currently being considered and, once will tell you that it was frustrating and time again, these jobs will go to an area with high consuming. I am sure the previous minister unemployment. That is in addition to the must have had the sort of correspondence that other improvements being made to enhance I have received from colleagues and members teleservice facilities in the Department of of the public expressing frustration at the Social Security through the better training of mess. staff, through the upgrading of technology and The previous government set up that service through initiatives such as giving customers with inadequate research and certainly without receipt numbers over the telephone so they enough people or money to make it work have proof of their call when a call is final- effectively. In December and January we ised. finalised about 60,000 calls a day, which is This government is determined to try to do pretty terrific except when you recognise that something to improve the telephone service. 1066 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

It will not happen overnight—I do not want trusting, long-term partnerships with their foreign false expectations raised—but we have recog- distributors. nised the reality of the mess that Labor It also said: created and we are determined to improve the People who enjoy travel and thrive on the challen- service to our customers. At the same time, ges of new market environments are likely to do this will provide badly needed new jobs in best. regional Australia. Given that the study highlights the primary Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry importance of visiting export markets, why has the government sought to make the cost Senator COOK—My question is directed of airfares incurred in the pursuit of export to the Minister representing the Minister for business no longer claimable under the export Industry, Science and Technology. I refer to market development grant scheme? Everyone the denial by the minister for industry, Mr knows that face-to-face contact is the most Moore, that he had had any personal involve- effective for small and medium sized busines- ment in a campaign to lobby a hit list of ses. Won’t this measure particularly hurt cabinet ministers to maintain tariffs on tex- small to medium sized businesses who need tiles, clothing and footwear. Is it true that Mr to rely more heavily on travel because they Moore hosted and chaired a meeting between do not have on-the-ground bases or contacts his departmental officials and senior TCF in other countries? industry association executives in Canberra on 13 February? Is it true that at that meeting Mr Senator HILL—It is a question of how Moore’s officials advised the lobbyists present much Australia can afford to pay in contribu- to confront key cabinet ministers with threats tion towards our exporters’ efforts in expand- of job losses in their electorates and home ing their markets. Regrettably, if you have to states if industry protection was cut? Did the meet a deficit of $8,000 million to $10,000 hit list include Mr Fahey, Mr Reith, Mr million as we had to, you have to very sig- Costello, Mr McLachlan and Mr Downer? nificantly reduce public expenditure. You Does this constitute personal involvement by cannot have it both ways. Mr Moore and is this the way Howard Senator Cook—This scheme actually government ministers go about advancing the makes money for Australia. Is that why interests of mainstream Australia? (Time you’re cutting it? expired) Senator HILL—Part of your approach was Senator PARER—The minister advises to spend more and more public money, but it that the report in Saturday’s Australian is did not work. incorrect and without substance. He also says Senator Cook—It makes money for the that there was no attempt to seek a response country, you dope. from him before the article went to press. I Senator HILL—The current account shall refer your question to the minister. If he continuously got worse. Inflation went up. has anything further to add, I will advise you Interest rates went up. Your solution— accordingly. Senator Cook—This makes profit. Exports: Travel Costs Senator HILL—Senator Cook, you had Senator MURRAY—My question is your chance and you failed. That is why you directed to the Minister representing the were thrown out of office. We have taken an Minister for Trade. Are you aware of a recent alternative approach and it is relevant for Austrade survey of 423 companies co-spon- Australian exporters. Firstly, we have tried to sored by the British Overseas Trade Board get the domestic economy into shape by and conducted by the London Business reducing interest rates, and providing a cli- School showing that determination is the key mate in which interest rates can be reduced, to export success? The study said: inflation kept down and pressure kept off High performers are likely to visit their export taxation. If you give our exporters the oppor- markets to better understand them, and build close, tunity to compete within a competitive do- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1067 mestic economy, then they have a chance. leagues are infuriated by Mr Moore’s action Secondly, we have put our effort into opening in presiding over a campaign to lobby them overseas markets through good diplomacy and to maintain assistance to the TCF industry? the like, and supporting them through organi- What has been the reaction of those on Mr sations such as Austrade and, as you have Moore’s hit list and do you agree with the acknowledged—although perhaps not to the unnamed minister who described Mr Moore’s extent that you would like to see, Senator— action to the Weekend Australian as ‘un- through direct assistance. believable’ and ‘a sacking offence’? Out of that blend—and we believe we have Senator HILL—I thought Senator Parer’s got the blend about right—exporters have the answer to that question was excellent and I best chance to succeed in markets, provided have nothing further to add. they have that ingredient that you have Senator FAULKNER—Madam President, identified as essential, and that is determina- I ask a supplementary question. Minister, is tion. In our view a lot of Australian exporters it true that Mr Alan Wood, the economics have got that. But what has held them back editor of the Australian, described Mr in the past has been primarily that they have Moore’s antics as ‘astonishing behaviour by had to compete within a domestic economy a minister of the Crown and his departmental that is uncompetitive, and secondly that they officials who are obliged to act in the interests have not had adequate access to markets. So of all Australians not narrow vested interests’? our emphasis is on those two directions rather Aren’t Mr Moore’s actions directly contrary than specifically on the one you are referring to the principles of cabinet solidarity and to in your question. collective responsibility? Why hasn’t Mr Senator MURRAY—Madam President, I Howard got the gumption to discipline Mr ask a supplementary question. Minister, I do Moore for yet more treachery on his part? understand there is a limited budget, but how Senator HILL—Senator Faulkner, for his have you prioritised industry assistance purposes, finds Mr Moore guilty first and then measures? In the list of EMDG needed assist- determines the processes that can achieve that ance, travel is one of the highest needs. What goal. In fact, as has been said, there were I would like to hear from you is the way in inaccuracies in that article and therefore the which the needs under the scheme have been premise to the question is false. prioritised and why travel does not feature better. Legislation: Gender Specific Language Senator HILL—You can argue all day as Senator MARGETTS—My question is to the priority that ought to be put before it, addressed the Minister representing the and we have had that debate in the estimates. Attorney-General. I refer the minister to the We have chosen the mix of support through fact that the Productivity Commission Bill the EMDG system that we believe can best 1996 has reverted to the use of gender specif- contribute, from a government perspective, to ic language such as ‘chairman’, and also to exporters within the budget constraints that the fact that this appears to conflict with we now face. statements made by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech to the Statute Law Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Industry Revision Bill 1996 in which he confirmed Senator FAULKNER—My question is that changes to insert feminine as well as directed to the Minister representing the Prime masculine pronouns were part of the process Minister. Given Senator Parer’s answer to of altering gender specific language in legisla- Senator Cook’s question, do you accept that, tion. I ask: does this apparent change in if Mr Moore hosted and chaired a meeting policy indicate any broader government policy between his departmental officials and senior change with respect to the use of gender TCF industry association executives, that does neutral language? If so, when can we expect not constitute personal involvement? Can you to be advised of any specific government confirm, Minister, that your cabinet col- policy in this regard? Are you, perhaps, 1068 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 considering delaying this announcement to Certainly I would be very surprised if anyone coincide with International Women’s Day this in the government sees that as the major way Saturday? of achieving labour market reform. Senator VANSTONE—Senator, your The aim of the game should be to achieve humour has lost you today. To suggest that, much greater flexibility in the workplace so were such a decision to be made, it would be that people are able to negotiate direct with announced on International Women’s Day is their employers without having your presel- hardly humorous. I have not had a look at the ection committee looking over their shoulders Productivity Commission Bill closely. I will and telling them how to call the shots. They have a look at it. I will refer the matter to the ought to be able to do it on a basis of trust; Attorney-General and, if he has got something not have your crowd undermining them and to say about it, I will give you his comments. telling them not to trust anyone, particularly Senator MARGETTS—Madam President, employers. They ought to do it on a basis I ask a supplementary question. Can you where they are able to share in the increased please confirm or perhaps take it on notice productivity that inevitably derives from much that this is verbal instruction being given by more sensible approaches to workplace rela- the Prime Minister to revert to gender specific tions than you lot were ever prepared to terminology but without a specific written contemplate. policy as yet? Would you not consider that, We do not have your baggage. We simply if this were the case, if would go against the take the view that around the world it has concept of open government? been shown time and again that, if you can Senator VANSTONE—I will take it on have genuine negotiations at the workplace notice. If anybody I refer it to has got some- that not only take account of the practicabili- thing to say about it, I will put an answer on ties of people’s working requirements but also the record for you. give them a slice of the action, the last thing you are talking about is driving wages down: Industrial Relations you are talking about increasing productivity Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is and ensuring that everyone else is able to directed to Senator Alston, the Minister benefit as a result. representing the Minister for Industrial Rela- Senator CHRIS EVANS—Madam Presi- tions. Minister, is it appropriate for the Treas- dent, I ask a supplementary question. Senator urer, Mr Costello, to undermine the Minister Alston, does this mean, therefore, that you for Industrial Relations, Mr Reith, by publicly reject the view of Mr Costello? Because disparaging his industrial relations changes by implicit in his argument is that greater labour saying that they do not go far enough? Does flexibility means the ability to have lower the government endorse the Treasurer’s view? wage outcomes if your government is to be Has the government also adopted Mr able to achieve anything in terms of reducing Costello’s view that unemployment will only unemployment. Will you be assisting in be reduced if workers’ wages are able to be rejecting Mr Costello’s view inside cabinet? driven lower? How this sit with Mr Howard’s core promise Senator ALSTON—I am not aware that about making sure that workers will not be any of that has been said. The fact is that it worse off? Surely Mr Costello is arguing for is the government’s view that the changes that the very reduction in wages that Mr Howard we negotiated through the Senate last year do said would not occur. When will the govern- go a very substantial way down the track. ment reject Mr Costello’s views and make it Certainly they honour our election promises. clear that no further industrial relations We would very much expect over time that legislation will be introduced? there will be a very significant change in the Senator ALSTON—Senator Schacht and culture of the workplace. But let me stress I had a discussion about this the other night that the last thing we would want is an ap- in the estimates committee hearings. You proach that involved the cutting of wages. simply cannot attribute something to someone Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1069 on the basis of what you infer from what is how important they are. The end result is a written in the newspaper. Either you are cleaner Australia and that is to the benefit of quoting someone or you are not. all Australians. As I understand you, you basically want to I take the opportunity to specifically con- run a line on something and attribute that to gratulate Ian Kiernan and his organisation, Mr Costello. It is not his view that higher which really started as a clean-up exercise in levels of unemployment will force wages Sydney and in the space of just a few years down and, therefore, make people more expanded to Australia and now Clean Up The amenable to cuts and to labour market re- World, led by Australia, is a campaign which forms. That is not the approach that this is being undertaken in many countries around government intends to take. We take quite the the globe. It is the community at work to opposite view that, if we get your crowd out provide a better environmental outcome. Yes, of the way and allow the workers to look at we as a government are pleased to support the what is in their best interest—not the scare community whenever we can in such under- campaigns that some union officials think takings. might be in their best interest—were much We have been pleased in recent times to more likely to have people being productive give financial support to the Clean Up Aus- on the work floor, being much more interest- tralia organisation. We are pleased, as you ed in improving the productivity of the firm know, to have called for applications from the and, as a result, increasing the levels of community for grants under our Natural employment across the board. (Time expired) Heritage Trust. We are also pleased to be Clean Up Australia working with community organisations and with industry to help reduce the level of waste Senator MacGIBBON—My question is to in our community—reduce waste going to the Minister for the Environment. Tens of landfill, for example. I refer just in passing to thousands of Australians became involved in the agreements that we are reaching with the Clean Up Australia over the weekend, includ- packaging industry to reduce packaging waste ing a number of parliamentarians. How by increasing recycling targets, reducing important is it for the Australian community unnecessary packaging and advocating light- to be directly involved in environmental weight products. matters? What plans does the government So yes, it is an example of the community have in future for a similar clean-up? working hand in glove with governments Senator HILL—I do appreciate the oppor- towards a better outcome. It is not just in this tunity to congratulate the some 500,000 area that we are engaging the community. I Australians who participated this last week in take the opportunity to remind honourable Clean Up Australia. It is an amazingly suc- senators that last Friday the government cessful community movement, and obviously published a discussion paper, Future direc- doing a great job in terms of the quality of tions for Australia’s greenhouse strategy. That the environment. In fact, I understand this is to develop the new national greenhouse time some 13,000 tonnes of rubbish was response strategy for the next few years. The collected from some 7,500 sites, which is up point I particularly wanted to make is that on previous collections. But I think that is now is an opportunity for the community to largely because more sites are being exposed engage in that debate as well as what should to it and more people are collecting. be the most appropriate domestic policies for One of the heartening things I was told Australia and Australians, because all the during the day was that on revisiting a num- community have to play a part to reduce our ber of sites collectors were finding that the greenhouse output which, again, is of benefit amount of rubbish had decreased from previ- to the community as a whole. ous years. So Australians are getting the That paper looked at a number of different message and those who participate in these options going through sectors such as the activities obviously communicate to others industry sector. It looked at the place of 1070 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 greenhouse sinks. It looked at the issue of Senator Sherry—What about cigarette clearance of native vegetation, issues of advertising? methane sources, resource developments and Senator ALSTON—I would have thought the like. The discussion paper is available to in this day and age you would understand that the community and anyone wishing to contact cigarettes are inherently dangerous. They are my department can get a copy of it. I urge unhealthy per se. I do not think gambling is Australians who are interested in the green- in that category. The problem with gambling house issue to put their views to the Austral- is that some people who cannot control ian government in order that we might themselves— continue to work together towards a better outcome in another vitally important environ- Senator Carr—It is your responsibility. mental area. Senator ALSTON—Look, if it was adver- tising everyone would be hooked, wouldn’t Gambling Advertisements they? It clearly is not advertising that causes Senator BISHOP—My question is directed these things. The fact is that some people in to the Minister for Communications and the various forms of desperation or weakness find Arts. I refer to the Prime Minister’s concern themselves attracted to gambling and develop about the adverse impact of gambling in our problems, but they are a very small proportion community. I ask: doesn’t the government of the total. So rather than blaming it all on have to bear a large portion of the blame for gambling, blaming it on the state, blaming it this situation by turning a blind eye to the on the system, blaming it on the Liberal proliferation of irresponsible and grossly coalition government, why don’t you under- inaccurate gambling advertisements? Given stand that there is a very significant differ- the Prime Minister’s concern, which I believe ence? is widely shared in the community, will the minister investigate either drawing up an Senator Robert Ray—There’s a phone call enforceable code of conduct governing such for you from John Howard. advertising or banning it all together? Senator Faulkner—Wrong number! Senator ALSTON—I would have thought Senator Sherry—It’s the TAB line. you are the last ones who ought to be preach- Senator ALSTON—I would have thought ing to us on these subjects. The fact is that Senator Ray would be keeping fairly quiet the primary and constitutional responsibility today after the ringing non-endorsement you for gambling matters lies with the state got from him at the weekend when he said in governments. Indeed, as the state premiers terms of fixing up the leadership we got it have been keen to point out, there are only a right for the most part. Quite clearly, he has limited number of areas in which they do very real concerns about the outcome. I think have growth taxes and certainly gambling has you would have to say that he knows a lot been one of them. more about what goes on in the Senate than What the Prime Minister was very rightly the House of Representatives. As we know, pointing to was the social implications that he has always been a great supporter of flow and the need, I would have thought, in Gareth Evans. So clearly, it is pretty obvious a number of situations to ameliorate any who he is pointing the finger at. Make the problems that arise. Whether that is the most of it while you can, son. You may not responsibility of the casinos themselves, have all that much longer to run. With friends whether it is the responsibility of welfare or- like that I am surprised you don’t just get ganisations in conjunction with government, back to policy because clearly you are not at the end of the day I think you have to doing terribly well on the politics. I do not accept that there are some very unhelpful think I can add any more than I already have. social consequences that flow. But that is not to say that we should be out there banning Schools gambling any more than we should be ban- Senator ALLISON—My question is ning alcohol. addressed to the Minister representing the Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1071

Minister for Schools, Vocational Education choice of parents. We say, unequivocally, that and Training. I refer the minister to comments parents should have the choice of the sort of made earlier this year by the South Australian schooling that their children go through. We minister for education, Mr Rob Lucas, that do not have a preference for government or South Australia will not allow a completely non-government, but we do want to ensure free market for the establishment of new non- that all parents have the choice of the sort of government schools following the federal school that they want their kids to go to. That government’s decision to abolish the new is why we abolished the new schools policy. schools policy. I also refer the minister to the We do not see it as a matter for the Common- recent statement by the ACT minister for wealth to be deciding what schools should be education, Mr Bill Stefaniak, that the ACT opened where. That is primarily a matter for government intends to maintain strong control the states. I am glad you have been concen- over the establishment of new non- trating on what Mr Lucas and Mr Stefaniak government schools. I ask the minister: does have been saying. she share the concerns of the South Australian Senator ALLISON—Madam President, I and ACT governments that the abolition of ask a supplementary question. I thank the the new schools policy jeopardises the respon- minister for her answer. If the states do sible planning for education services? Does introduce their de facto new schools policies, she share Mr Lucas’s concern that ‘millions will the federal government continue to fund of dollars of State and Commonwealth fund- those schools which have set up in the interim ing . . . could be wasted in such a free and which perhaps will not comply with the market’? (Time expired) new criteria? Minister, is it not clear that the Senator VANSTONE—Thank you, Senator abandonment of the new schools policy Allison, for the question. It gives me the should have been negotiated and agreed with opportunity to repeat to you yet again the the states well in advance of introducing the arguments that you have asked to have re- legislation, instead of being rushed through hearsed in front of you on several occasions, late last year? almost to the point that it is now an indul- Senator VANSTONE—If there was one gence on your behalf to waste the Senate’s bill that was not rushed through this Senate, time asking questions that you have asked it was this particular bill that you are referring again and again. You asked them when the to because you went on and on like a stuck bill went through again and again. I think record. Thank God we do not have RPM your favourite line was: ‘I just want to hear records any more. You reminded me of those you say it.’ As I responded to you at the time, days with the same question coming out again ‘In your dreams.’ and again. This was not rushed through; it got Can I assist you, Senator Allison, with perfectly adequate debate in this place. some pronunciations. You got ‘Lucas’ right. As to the funding for schools set up in the Mr Rob Lucas is the Minister for Education interim, you are asking a hypothetical ques- in South Australia. I have seen some reports tion. Should the matter arise, undoubtedly I of some comments that he has made. Mr Bill will look at it and I will ask Dr Kemp if he Stefaniak it is, however, in the ACT; I have has anything particular to say about it. But not seen comments that he has made. But the here you are setting up a potential problem gist of the comments as related by you is that that does not even yet exist. the states realise that they are responsible for these things and, yes, they are now going to Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook in some instances take a stronger interest and 1996-97 introduce more regulation. We have no Senator SHERRY—My question is to the problem with that whatsoever. Assistant Treasurer representing the Treasurer The new schools policy—the abolished new and the Minister for Finance. I refer to the schools policy—supported by those people Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 1996- over there was a policy that inhibited the 97 and to the corrigendum making 170 1072 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 corrections to the range of data. On what date Senator Kemp, you continue to evade ques- were those errors drawn to the attention of the tions and refuse to answer them. Given the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance? When delay between the discovery of these errors was the corrigendum printed? Why was there and the distribution of the corrigendum last a delay in its distribution? Thursday night, when it was tabled in the Senator KEMP—I think this is about the Senate, how does this square with the Prime fourth time we have had this question put to Minister’s now discredited code of ministerial us. Senator Sherry is showing great concern. conduct, which requires ministers to be honest We do not make complaints about that. We in their public dealings, not to intentionally have said that there were errors in the mislead the parliament or the public, and to midyear review. We have brought those errors correct any inadvertent misconception at the to the attention of the public. We have cor- earliest opportunity? rected those errors. Senator Sherry, if we had Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, I have not corrected those errors, you would have not refused to answer your questions. I have been the first up and complaining. said that I will get you the information that You have asked a number of other ques- you are seeking. That is what I have said. I tions—what was the date and so forth. I will do not know whether I can explain it any bring those questions to the attention of the more clearly to you. I am not refusing— Minister for Finance and seek a response from Senator Sherry—Why can’t you answer him. the question? Senator Sherry—You get a copy of his Senator KEMP—Why did you not ask the briefs; why don’t you know? question when we had all the officers there Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, you were from the Department of Finance? We had there on Thursday night when you had all the them all there at the Senate estimates. officers from the Department of Finance Senator Sherry—You covered it up. there. It was so important then—wasn’t it, Senator Sherry?—that you did not even Senator KEMP—You refused to ask them. bother to raise the question. It was so import- You wandered all over the track and made a ant. You had officers there from the Depart- complete dope of yourself. ment of Finance. You were being so pressed Senator Sherry—You were too embar- about it, that you never bothered to ask the rassed by it all. You covered it up. question. Senator KEMP—Senator Sherry, you had Senator Sherry, I wish to be helpful to you. your chance and you blew it, you missed it. You want some dates. You probably want So now you are coming back here. I will, as some times, I guess. Do you? I said, put those questions to the Minister for Senator Sherry—No, just the dates are Finance and seek a response. It is bad luck fine. that you did not raise them last Thursday night when you had a very good chance to. Senator KEMP—In that case, I will put those questions to the Minister for Finance. Australian Film Industry But it does raise the question why, with all Senator TROETH—My question is ad- those officers there on Thursday night, you dressed to the Minister for Communications never bothered to ask those questions. I can and the Arts. Minister, the overwhelming assume, Senator Sherry, that you did not success of our film industry has been further bother to ask them because you did not think consolidated by our recent international they were important. So you have raised them achievements at some of the world’s most here. But it is all right, Senator Sherry, I will prestigious film festivals, and I include the put them to the Minister for Finance and announcement of nine nominations for this come back and advise you. year’s Academy Awards. What light does the Senator SHERRY—Madam President, I Gonski report throw on the health of the film ask a supplementary question. Yet again, industry, and what is the role of government? Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1073

Senator ALSTON—Basically, the Gonski very clear that the industry is doing very well report gives the film industry a big tick and, at the present time, that it continues to need as Senator Troeth knows, it is already in a government assistance and that ought to be in very healthy condition. We have had some the form of direct funding rather than indirect magnificent achievements in recent times: funding. Shirley Barrett winning a Camera D’Or at Overall, I think one can say that the Gonski Cannes last year; Geoffrey Rush winning one report has been very well received by the of the Golden Globes this year; Sundance in industry. We are at this time having discus- Utah in January of this year; and five feature sions with them about ways in which they films and two short films all listed for awards. would like to see it implemented. Certainly In fact, I think there were more from Austral- there have been some concerns about main- ia than any other country. There were nine taining media resource centres like the Open Academy Award nominations, including seven Channel, but these are at the margin. Over- for Shine, another one for John Seal for the whelmingly the industry, I think, is very cinematography for The English Patient, and comforted by the fact that Gonski has been so for Romeo and Juliet as well, Katherine positive in his recommendations and this Martin. It has been a bumper year, and I am government is very supportive of the industry. sure it will continue to get better as a result May it go from strength to strength. of this government’s policy approaches to film. Senator Troeth and I will be there. We just Senator Cook—Rubbish! hope that some of you will come along to the odd film that is shown in Parliament House Senator ALSTON—I am not here to say on a Wednesday night. I cannot recall too that every success we have had in films in the many of your faces being there. Senator last 12 months has been entirely due to this Conroy has been there a few times; he has an government. interest in Australian culture. If you had been Senator Cook—They were made in our there, you would have been able to see Shine period in office. when it was first shown in this country. But Senator ALSTON—But I think you would the fact is that you are all too busy plotting— find that most film makers would say that the plotting against one another, no doubt. If you way in which the film industry has been want to raise your sights a bit more, if you supported over the last 12 months, and the want to try to adjust to the long hard years— way in which Gonski came in and gave a it took 10 years for Scott Hicks to get Shine very critical but constructive analysis of the off the board; you are looking at least at 10 film industry, demonstrates beyond doubt that years—you might as well come along and the film industry is in very good hands at the enjoy yourselves on occasions like Australian present time. The last thing they would want showings in Parliament House. to do is to find themselves put at risk by you Health Insurance lot. You only have to ask them what they thought of Michael Lee—knew nothing about Senator NEAL—My question is addressed the arts, not interested; could barely recite the to the Minister representing the Minister for names of a few films that he had seen recent- Health. Did the Minister for Health, Mr ly. That is not what it is about, Madam Presi- Wooldridge, receive a report on private health dent. insurance from the Productivity Commission What it is about is maintaining, currently last Friday? Does the minister agree that the $140 million worth of funding for the arts; draft of this report that was issued last coming up with some new innovations as Mr December was critical of this government’s Gonski has recommended in relation to what health initiatives? he calls ‘flicks’ to replace the 10BA system; Senator NEWMAN—I do not have any and restructuring some of the current arrange- information from Dr Wooldridge as to what ments in relation to film culture. Overall, he he might have received on Friday. In fact, I endorses the many doors policy. He makes it think I told you last week that I really am not 1074 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 responsible for everything he does—breathing, Senator Faulkner—Is this on the point of eating, sleeping, et cetera. I am very happy to order? pass your question on to him. The PRESIDENT—Senator Newman is I have had a very interesting little exercise speaking to the point of order for roughly the undertaken in the last few weeks as to the same length of time as you did. performance of the previous ministry about Senator NEWMAN—For instance, I was representational matters. It has been quite asked 100 questions last year; 17 only did I fascinating to see just who answered what. I take on notice; 83 were answered in full. think you might be interested to know— Fifty-eight questions were asked of my port- Senator Faulkner—Madam President, I folio, only two of which I took on notice. raise a point of order. We know how sensitive Senator Faulkner—Very good. Senator Newman is about the issue of her Senator NEWMAN—Forty-two questions absolute incapacity to answer any question in were asked of me in my capacity as a any portfolio she represents. minister representing ministers in the other Senator Alston—Is this a point of order? place, and 15 only were taken on notice. The PRESIDENT—Senator Newman! Senator Faulkner—My point of order is that she has been asked specifically about a Senator NEWMAN—Let me compare that question relating to her role as Minister with the record of this lot over here. representing the Minister for Health and The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator New- Family Services. man! Both the original point of order and this Senator Alston—What’s your point of discussion in relation to it have gone into order? debating the issue. Senator Robert Ray—Do it after question Senator Faulkner—The point of order is time. that Senator Newman is now embarking on some point of complete irrelevance about the The PRESIDENT—There is an opportuni- previous government and apparently the ty to debate the issue after question time. number of questions that were taken on notice There are still more than three minutes left to or given to ministers in that government deal with the answer to Senator Neal’s ques- representing other portfolios. Clearly, that is tion. I draw your attention to that aspect of out of order in answer to the question that has the matter before the Senate. been asked by Senator Neal. Madam Presi- Senator Forshaw—I rise on a point of dent, you are required under the standing order, Madam President. At the very com- orders to call Senator Newman to order and mencement of Senator Newman’s answer to not allow her to abuse the procedures of this the question from Senator Neal, she clearly place in this way—sit her down and, if she stated that she was not in a position to answer cannot answer the question, shut her up. the question and she would refer it to the minister for an answer. On that basis, I do not Senator NEWMAN—On the point of believe that she has any further right to try to order: Senator Faulkner is obviously very wax lyrical about irrelevant matters. She has sensitive to issues of this kind because of his indicated that she will take the question on own past record. But I draw your attention to notice and get back to the Senate. That is as the fact that the comments I was making, far as she should be entitled to go and I when rudely interrupted, went to the answer would ask you to rule that way. I gave to Senator Neal and that I was propos- ing to continue. It is perfectly reasonable that The PRESIDENT—The minister has four I make it very clear when I am answering on minutes to deal with the question that Senator behalf of another minister—and it is only of Neal put to her. If she has anything further to recent times that this opposition over here was add, she certainly is able to do so. on the front benches on this side—and it is Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Madam very relevant, as to the comparison between— President. I would like to draw the Senate’s Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1075 attention to what Senator Cook had to say one the Hansard or not, I do not know, but there day. He said: were interjections at that time challenging her I have absolutely no briefing on this question. on not being able to answer it now. On that basis, I can understand her responding, as she Is that not what I just told you? has, in wanting to deal with that issue. It has Senator Faulkner—I rise on a point of gone on for some considerable time, eating order, Madam President. My point of order is into question time at this stage. There are now that surely it is an abuse of question time for two minutes and 59 seconds remaining in this incompetent minister to be answering a which this matter may be dealt with and it question directed to her by Senator Neal in really ought to deal with the question asked her capacity as minister representing the by Senator Neal without interjections. Minister for Health and Family Services and Senator NEWMAN—It is also relevant to starting to canvass some answer to a question point out that I not only represent the that was given by Senator Cook in the life of Minister for Health and Family Services but the last parliament. Madam President, I put to I also represent the Minister for Family you very seriously that you ought to rule this Services, the Minister for Defence and the incompetent minister out of order and sit her Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, I am the down. Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Senator Vanstone—On the point of order, Status of Women and, in addition, I am the Madam President: Senator Faulkner’s gruff minister for one of the biggest portfolios in voice and appearance masks an extraordinary the federal government, which now includes sensitivity to personal insult. I put it to you housing as well. that the arguments he has raised with you are Senator Faulkner—If you can’t stand the non sequiturs. Senator Newman is entitled to heat, get out of the kitchen. answer the question as she sees fit and she is entitled to use whatever arguments she likes Senator NEWMAN—Senator Faulkner was to use to indicate the adequacy of that answer. an abject failure as a minister so it ill behoves That is exactly what she is doing. She is him to make those sorts of allegations. Sena- indicating the adequacy of the answer by tor Bolkus, for instance, said: reference to the adequacy of answers given in I have looked through the brief that has been made the past by those who now seek to claim the available to me and, even though a number of opposite. I think it is a perfectly respectable questions were anticipated today, one like this was argument for Senator Newman to be raising not. I would like to take the question on notice . . . as justification for the answer she has given. Senator Faulkner—Sit down and shut up, She is entitled to do that. you fool. Senator Forshaw—On the point of order, The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Madam President: I return to the point I made Faulkner, will you withdraw that comment? a moment ago. Senator Newman indicated at the outset that she was not in a position to Senator Faulkner—I withdraw the fact that answer the question. She said she would take I called Senator Newman a fool. it on notice. How is it possible for her to then Senator Alston—On a point of order, proceed to try to answer the question when Madam President: during the course of that she stated clearly that she cannot answer it? delightful little exchange, he also referred to On that basis, she has completed her answer. Senator Newman as a dope. I think you ought Her answer is that she cannot answer the to make it clear that this sort of sledging question and she will get some advice from should not be allowed to continue. It is about the minister. On that basis, I do not think she time he decided to reform himself and con- is entitled to make any further comments. centrate on real issues. The PRESIDENT—The situation is that Senator Faulkner—On the point of order, Senator Newman did indicate that she would Madam President: in relation to calling refer it to the minister. Whether it shows in Senator Newman a dope, truth is my defence. 1076 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

The PRESIDENT—From what has been a Youth Unemployment very good question time today, in the last few Senator KNOWLES—My question is to minutes it has degenerated considerably. the Minister for Employment, Education, Senator West—On a point of order, Mad- Training and Youth Affairs. Thirteen years of am President: the question from Senator Neal Labor governments gave Australia not only related to a Productivity Commission report. the recession that we had to have but also a I would ask you to ask the minister to remain shockingly high youth unemployment record relevant to that particular issue. of 34.6 per cent. What actions has the How- ard government taken to reduce youth unem- The PRESIDENT—If there is anything ployment and what are the early signs that the else to be added on the Productivity Commis- coalition government is achieving success in sion report, Senator Newman, you may do so. this area by comparison with the appalling Senator NEWMAN—As has been a prece- Labor record of 34.6 per cent? dent with successive ministers representing Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator ministers in the other place, I am very happy Knowles for her question directed at one of to get the details, such as are available, and the most important issues facing this govern- bring them to the Senate, as I said at the ment—that is, the very high unemployment beginning. levels left as an ingrained stain on the econ- omy after 13 years of Labor. I have made the Senator NEAL—Madam President, I ask point before that this ingrained stain on the a supplementary question. I am well aware of economy is not something for which there is the burdens carried by Senator Newman in a Dynamo fix. You cannot put a little on the relation to her ministerial responsibilities, but stain and the rest in the wash and out it will there is a very easy remedy for that situation. come. After 13 years of Labor, we had very I can understand that there are circumstances unacceptably high unemployment and more where issues may be raised that you may not than unacceptably high youth unemployment. be aware of, but this particular issue relates to something that was part of your health policy Before getting to the point of Senator document during the election, was canvassed Knowles’s question, it is worth noting that, in December when the draft report was despite having been elected by the people on issued— numerous occasions and having had 13 years and got it so comprehensively wrong, the big Senator Hill—Madam President, I raise a ‘s’ word can never come out of their mouths. point of order. This is an interesting little They can never say sorry. They can never speech but, if it is an attempt at a supplemen- say, ‘Sorry, we got it wrong.’ I sit in here day tary question, then it is feeble. I suggest she after day and listen to people opposite. The be invited to ask the question or to sit down. interjections from the other side lead me to The PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Neal. conclude that they actually believe that the Australian people did not know what they Senator NEAL—I think, in the circum- were doing when they kicked Labor out. They stances, an answer could be given. Given that think it has all been a nasty nightmare and the legislation dealing with private health that, at the next election, they are going to insurance incentives is before the Senate at sweep back to power. They have not con- the moment, how can this minister justify not nected that after 13 years—which is a fair issuing the Productivity Commission report enough run—they did not get it right. You before we have to vote on it? cannot bring yourselves to say that word, can Senator NEWMAN—I have already said you? You cannot bring yourselves to say that I am not aware of the minister’s situation sorry. You could not possibly manage it. with regard to receiving the report. Therefore, Senator Knowles asked me what this I am not able to answer any further comments government is doing. We were elected to fix that you might like to make by way of edi- this mess. We came into a shocking mess torial. they wanted to just turn away from. They Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1077 could not face the mess they had created and Senator KNOWLES—Madam President, we were elected to fix it. And I am asked: I ask a supplementary question. I would like what are we doing to fix it? the minister to detail further some of the other measures she has not been able to detail thus Of course, since the election of this govern- far due to the restriction of time. ment, there have been three reductions in interest rates. That has to be in the top league Senator VANSTONE—That is very kind of changes that will introduce confidence into of you, Senator Knowles. the business community and likely lead to Senator Bolkus—I raise a point of order. better employment levels. That partly comes I think Senator Knowles raises a good point about through being a responsible government there. In the interest of completeness, maybe and having a balanced budget and low infla- the minister should also address the fact that tion. We have made the workplace arrange- youth unemployment has gone up by 14 per ments more flexible with the assistance of the cent while she has been minister. Democrats. Anybody who wants to look at low unemployment levels will see a very The PRESIDENT—There is no point of flexible labour market. We were prepared to order, Senator Bolkus. tackle that with the assistance of the Demo- Senator VANSTONE—It is worth just crats. These people never did. They left us fixing in Labor’s mind just how poorly they with a straitjacket industrial relations system. did in this area. Yes, it is true that we had to We are revitalising the apprenticeships and make substantial savings because of Beazley’s traineeships that were left waning under black hole, but it is also true that, in order to Labor. protect and enhance the important programs— Do you know, Madam President, that when apprenticeships and traineeships—substantial we came to power, the number of apprentice- cuts were made to Labor’s very, very wasteful ships was roughly the same as it was 10 years Working Nation programs. I make no bones before? When we all know that apprentice- about that. They were wasteful programs. ships are one of the key ways to ensure that The key point is: under this government someone will get a job, that is a disgrace. One more kids are getting apprenticeships and of the key ways to get a job, if you are not traineeships. What does that mean? More going to university, is to get an apprentice- young Australians are in a better position to ship, and you did not provide enough of get a job. You opposite all know that if they them. We are providing individually tailored do not have appropriate training and appropri- labour market assistance to unemployed ate apprenticeships, then they are not likely to Australians. Twenty-eight thousand five get jobs. You understand that very well. In hundred apprentices and trainees have com- the time available—sadly wasted today—we menced so far this year. That is nearly double could have a dorothy dixer a day on what this the number for the same period last year and government is doing and it would exceed we will substantially exceed last year’s total anything they ever did. (Time expired) of 36,000. That increase is directly related to Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that this government’s having the guts to cut further questions be placed on the Notice Labor’s wasteful Working Nation programs Paper. and put that money more towards appren- ticeships and traineeships. We all know— High Court of Australia Senator Carr—Nonsense—that’s nonsense. Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (3.07 You know that’s not true. p.m.)—I move: Senator VANSTONE—Look at the num- That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), to bers, Senator. We have increased apprentice- a question without notice asked by Senator Bolkus ships; you just left them waning in the never- today, relating to comments made by the Deputy never. Yes, we had to find savings—(Time Prime Minister (Mr Fischer) concerning the High expired) Court of Australia. 1078 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

On 3 January this year, the Chief Justice of to consider whether the making of attacks on the the High Court of Australia wrote to the performance by this court of its constitutional Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer). It functions is conducive to good government, even if an attack can gain some temporary political was not a normal letter; it was not a run of advantage. the mill letter. It was a letter of major consti- tutional impact. One has only to check As I say, it is an unprecedented letter from through the records to find that this sort of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Aus- correspondence is without precedent. It is a tralia, a letter which reflected obviously the letter that raised legitimate concerns. It raised concern of the High Court but also reflected concerns that should be of concern not just to the concern of many Australians at the way constitutional lawyers of this country but very that Tim Fischer had gone over the top. It much to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and was not just a concern at the time. The this government. concern is being expressed even to this day, with a letter in the Australian by Mr Chris It raised concerns that the Deputy Prime Pullin QC, the President of the Australian Bar Minister had got it wrong when he com- Association. In his letter, he says: plained about the time it had taken for the Another unfortunate aspect of the recent criticism Wik case judgment to come down. It also of the court has been the personal attacks made on raised concerns that the Deputy Prime individual judges. This is quite unacceptable. Minister had undermined deliberately the He is spot on in that respect. He goes on to constitutional system of this country and had say: undermined the High Court. It is worth In the ultimate analysis, such personal attacks placing on record some specific quotations should be seen as an attempt by the executive to from that letter. The Chief Justice says: secure more power for the executive and the to say that there was any unwarranted delay in the legislature. delivery of the Wik judgment is quite unjustified. Mr Pullin is concerned about personal attacks. One has only to read the preceding page and He is concerned that those attacks reflect a a half of documentation to show that the grab for power by the executive and he is Deputy Prime Minister had got it woefully concerned that the concept of separation of wrong. powers—something quite alien to, especially, Queensland conservatives—is being blurred The other aspect of the correspondence goes by the attacks by the Deputy Prime Minister. to the campaign—the lynch squad—that has What has been the government’s response been out to destabilise and undermine the to Chief Justice Brennan’s letter? It has been High Court. In that respect, Chief Justice one monumental snub. Since that date of the Gerard Brennan makes a number of points, correspondence, 3 January, Tim Fischer has which are also important and should be maintained and continued his attacks, on 11 placed on the record. Towards the end of his January and thereafter. Queensland’s Premier letter, he says: Borbidge has continued the attacks and they You will the more readily appreciate that attacks of have become more shrill, more violent and the kind that you have made, emanating from a more strident. He calls the High Court justices Deputy Prime Minister, are damaging to this Court. ‘dills’. He talks about their being increasingly You will appreciate that public confidence in the constitutional institutions of Government is critical held in absolute and utter contempt. That sort to the stability of our society. of language is something that does not engen- der confidence in our constitutional system. He goes on to say: The Attorney-General (Mr Williams), whom members of the particular branches of government one would expect to give solid support to the do not (and certainly should not) attack the judges court, is quite equivocal when he talks about except on a substantive motion in the Parliament. the role of the High Court and the fact that I think his last sentence is quite telling. He the High Court should basically come back asks the Deputy Prime Minister—in fact he from the sort of role it is playing. They are admonishes him to bear this in mind: joined by Victorian Premier Kennett. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1079

But one person who would love to put previous Attorney-General, Gareth Evans, and himself on the court—he is just about every- all the other members of the Labor Party who where else—and who has abdicated his spoke and convinced us that native title would responsibility is the Prime Minister. He be extinguished. So, if Chief Justice Brennan should have taken action to restrain the believes that he is going to get any accolades Deputy Prime Minister. He should have taken from people who represent rural Australia for that some time ago. If respect for the constitu- his decision that plunged Australia into an tion and its institutions means anything, he abyss, certainly the people out there— should have acted quickly. But, instead of Senator Reynolds—Rubbish. defending the High Court and defending the institutions, he has actually joined in the Senator BOSWELL—Senator Reynolds, chorus. As usual, from the sidelines, he has you are an utter joke. Senator Reynolds, indulged in a debate on the High Court, please do not distract me. If Chief Justice claiming that the High Court has only one job Brennan believes that he is going to get and that is to interpret statute law. Yet any accolades from this side of parliament, when first year law student knows that the High his decision has plunged rural and mining Court, in its recent cases, has done what the Australia into an abyss of uncertainty, then he High Court has always done, and what courts can forget it. I will quote one of Chief Justice in the British system have always done: to Brennan’s judgments. Those on the other side interpret and define the common law. The should listen to this and they might under- Prime Minister is involved in trumped up stand it. In the Theophanous case, Chief charges—(Time expired) Justice Brennan said that the constitution implies freedom of speech, including a right Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader for public figures to criticise politicians. of the National Party of Australia in the So that was his decision on the Theo- Senate) (3.13 p.m.)—I rise today to support phanous case. Anyone can criticise us—we the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the are fair game—but he is up there on some National Party of Australia (Mr Tim Fischer). sort of a platform, where he is beyond criti- He has not made any personal attacks. He has cism. I am sorry, Chief Justice Brennan, but certainly criticised the judgment of the High you are not beyond criticism. The High Court Court, as many others would have done. You is not beyond criticism. This country still has can understand where the Leader of the freedom of speech. National Party is coming from when, under the Native Title Act, which the Wik decision My leader, Mr Fischer, did not personally should have been based on or held in con- attack Chief Justice Brennan. He criticised the sideration for, the High Court held that native judgment, as every right-thinking Australian title is extinguished by valid government acts criticised the judgment. It is an absolutely that are inconsistent with the continued appalling judgment. I want to tell the Senate existence of native title rights and interests, that at our meeting on Saturday there was a such as the grant of leasehold in the states. It resolution carried unanimously, 100 per cent, went on to say: supporting Tim Fischer’s criticism of the High Court. The needs of the broader Australian community require certainty and the enforceability of the acts Senator Forshaw—Mr Deputy President, potentially make invalid because of the existence I rise on a point of order. I draw your atten- of native title. It is important to provide for the tion to standing order 193(3), which states: validation of those acts. A Senator shall not use offensive words against No direction could have been clearer to the either House of Parliament or of a House of a State High Court and yet the High Court ignored or Territory Parliament, or any member of such what this parliament voted on. Every one of House, or against a judicial officer... us in this parliament believed that native title I would ask you to rule as to whether or not was extinguished by pastoral leases and Senator Boswell’s comments, with respect to mining leases. We all voted on it. We took the chief justice and to members of the High the word of the previous Prime Minister, the Court, are in order. I would suggest that they 1080 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 are, quite clearly, out of order. They are this party and everyone in this parliament offensive words being used against senior understood that native title was extinguished judicial officers of this country. by pastoral or mining leases. It said so very Senator BOSWELL—On the point of clearly. I believe 99 per cent of Australians order, I would ask Senator Forshaw to nomi- would believe that the highest court in the nate the offensive word that I have used. I land is this parliament. This parliament makes have not been offensive in the least to anyone the laws because the people elect this parlia- on the High Court. I have criticised their ment. They expect this parliament to make the judgment; I have not criticised any person in laws, and they expect the High Court to particular. interpret those laws. (Time expired) Senator Cook—You’ve attacked them Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (3.20 personally. p.m.)—I want to speak on the same matter. Senator Boswell is so completely out of his Senator BOSWELL—I have not attacked depth in considering this issue that I feel anyone personally. I have criticised the rather sorry for him. I also feel sorry for a judgment and I have merely drawn attention number of members of the National Party, to the chief justice’s ruling on the Theo- because they are not prepared to listen ration- phanous case, when he said that Australia has ally to what the High Court decision is. freedom of speech and people can be criti- It is absolutely irresponsible of Premier Rob cised. That is my explanation. Borbidge to claim that the High Court is out Senator Forshaw—Mr Deputy President, of step and to attack the High Court because, I rise on the point of order in response to in actual fact, the High Court has simply Senator Boswell’s request. Firstly, there was considered the legal issues in an international a clear imputation and, secondly, a clear context. Australia cannot live in a vacuum message within the comments made by when it comes to consideration of native title Senator Boswell. I think he used the words, issues. It will have a devastating impact on ‘Well, Sir Gerard, you are not out there on our national image. It will impact on our trade some ivory tower,’ or words to that effect. reputation. It will certainly impact on our The clear statement was that Chief Justice reputation as a country committed to human Brennan, as a member of the High Court, and rights if we are not prepared to accept a very other High Court justices presumably believe simple judgment—Senator Boswell, if you that they are on some pedestal upon which were prepared to listen—that Aboriginal they would not be subject to criticism in people and pastoral interests may coexist. terms of their judgments. I would suggest to Coexistence is the issue that the High Court you that that is an offensive assertion to put has ruled on. in the Senate in the manner in which Senator Senator Boswell said that we understood Boswell did. this in the native title debate. In the native The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I believe it title debate, we agreed to leave this issue to is very difficult for Senator Boswell to debate the court to determine; that is, whether or not this particular issue without making some native title did in fact remain on pastoral reference to the High Court. I do believe at leases and if, in fact, it could coexist. We did this stage that Senator Boswell has been not know; it was left to the court. debating points which have not carried an What really concerns me is that a premier imputation, but I will listen carefully hereon. of a state of this country does not understand, Senator BOSWELL—I merely want to or chooses to ignore—I am giving him the raise the point that Mr Fischer, at our party benefit of the doubt perhaps—the separation conference on Saturday, received unanimous of powers. He seems to think that as an support in his decision to point out what the elected representative he has the right to be Wik decision has done to rural Australia, absolutely dismissive of the High Court. He particularly the fact that the Mabo legislation clearly chooses, in a very irresponsible way, had a very clear-cut preamble. Everyone in to attack the High Court when in actual fact Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1081 he should be following the leadership of involved sexual offences. Indeed, I think someone like Jeff Kennett or the Tasmanian Senator Reynolds expressed great concern at government. They have actually sat down and one of the judges who had purportedly said talked with indigenous people. I know that that when a woman says no it does not really Senator Herron agrees with me, because he mean that. Senator Cooney, I think, chaired has made sensible comments along these that inquiry. lines. I acknowledge that Senator Herron and indeed the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) have What that committee properly looked at was spoken of the need to negotiate, to work this the question of gender bias in the judiciary decision through in the interests of both and what could be done to remedy the percep- pastoralists and indigenous peoples. tion in the community that existed at that time. That related to a number of notorious Anyway, the rights of pastoralists prevail. cases involving sexual offences. So there is In all the damaging rhetoric Premier Borbidge nothing unusual about scrutiny of the judi- has been spouting for some weeks now, he ciary by the parliament, more particularly by seems to choose to ignore that the High Court the Senate. has said absolutely clearly that where there is a dispute that cannot be resolved the interests What we have here is a simple situation of the pastoralists will prevail. So much of where the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim what we are hearing is mere political rhetoric, Fischer) inquired as to lack of progress in the but the damaging feature of political rhetoric Wik decision. The chief justice replied that is that it impacts very severely on, particular- such inquiry or criticism was unwarranted and ly, indigenous peoples. It unnecessarily he defended the court’s position, saying that worries pastoralists, who should be being told, they had a heavy workload. That is as far as ‘We can sort this out if we all learn to live it has gone. There has been no personal attack and listen together. We can resolve these on the judiciary or any member of it. In fact, issues, just as they have been resolved on the whole situation is being blown out of Cape York.’ proportion. The opposition is trying to distort the situation, saying that there is indeed a Instead, the Premier of Queensland is more personal, malicious attack on the judiciary interested in political opportunism, in grand- when none exists. standing and in attacking the High Court in an absolutely disgraceful way. He has no right The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has to abuse the High Court. All the High Court made comment in the past that attorneys- has done has been to consider the evidence general can no longer be expected to perform and look at the international precedents— their traditional role of defending the courts precedents that have existed in countries like in public. In the West Australian of 1 March the United States, Canada and Scandinavia for he was reported as saying that the Australian much of this century. Rob Borbidge, a real Judicial Conference, which recently met, estate agent from the Gold Coast, thinks he could well be an instrument to fulfil this knows better than those who have been function. For my part, I would see that as involved in these issues for nearly 100 years. being a possibility. In the Age of the same (Time expired) date, the Attorney-General pleaded for some peace in relation to this row. Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for When Senator Bolkus says that the Health and Family Services and Parliamentary Attorney-General is not doing his job, he Secretary to the Attorney-General) (3.26 ought to refer to these two particular articles p.m.)—There is nothing new about scrutiny and think again. I look at the Attorney- of the judiciary. In fact, senators opposite will General’s role in this as being completely recall the Senate Legal and Constitutional appropriate. His actions have been entirely in Committee inquiry into alleged gender bias of order. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr How- the judiciary. That inquiry looked at various ard), who has been attacked by the opposi- directions to juries by judges in trials which tion, put things quite simply when he said: 1082 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

The perception has developed that some judges from both Houses of the Parliament in the believe that it is their role to give parliament a same session, praying for such removal on hurry on and do things that they think parliament the ground of proved misbehaviour or should have done. I can understand why some incapacity... people have developed that perception. So the constitution gives the parliament a Indeed, it was the former chief justice who duty to scrutinise the High Court. That is not said that there should be some judicial activ- the issue. The issue is the process, the style, ism and, in fact, as some people would see it, the language, the mentality— some judicial legislation. When you have a Senator Sherry—The abuse. former chief justice saying that, and when you have members of the judiciary who believe Senator COONEY—And, if I can accept there should be some judicial activism, you what Senator Sherry says, the abuse that is cannot deny that the perception can reason- aimed at the High Court. That is the problem, ably grow from that that judges are hell-bent and it has obviously troubled many people— on some sort of judicial legislation. the media and the chief justice himself. What I am saying is that there should Senator Ellison would agree that the present always be scrutiny of the judiciary. That is a Chief Justice of the High Court is a man of matter of fact. It is a part of the parliamentary great reputation and great skill in this area process, part of the parliamentary role of this and one of our great judges. chamber. That was evidenced by the inquiry Senator Ellison talked about judicial activ- of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Com- ism. Of course there needs to be some judicial mittee into alleged gender bias in the judi- activism. That is part of the process that has ciary. That is a matter of record and history. developed over the history of courts here, in What we have is a situation where people England and in America—that each case have been critical of various judgments of the presents a challenge and a task for the High High Court. That is entirely appropriate. Court to deal with. In dealing with it, they Indeed, Senator Bolkus, in his former role as sometimes develop the law. That is to be minister for immigration, brought in legisla- praised. tion which was to overturn various judicial But Senator Boswell talked about what the decisions relating to his portfolio. Previous people in the country thought about how the governments have been no strangers to over- parliament would vote on these things. In turning various decisions of the judiciary. In doing that, he was treating the judges as if fact, members of the opposition have a cheek they were parliamentarians, as if they were when they say that we are trying to overturn members of that branch of government that the Wik decision. They ought to look at what deals with legislation. They are clearly not. they did in their last term of office. The need to protect judges is not a need Senator COONEY (Victoria) (3.30 p.m.)— that is dictated by trying to give them a I take this opportunity to address Senator dignity they do not deserve or to give them Ellison as the parliamentary secretary— an aura that would be pleasing to them. The because this is the first time I have been on point about having the judiciary independent my feet since his appointment—and I con- is that it goes to the very issue of our civil gratulate him on obtaining what was properly rights. his due. What has been spoken about on this Senator Carr—That’s right. side is not the sort of thing that Senator Ellison was speaking about. Of course judges Senator COONEY—And Senator Carr are not above scrutiny. Section 72 of the agrees with me. The Act of Settlement, made constitution says: at the beginning of the 18th century, is basic to the civil liberties of people in the United The Justices of the High Court...: Kingdom, has had a great influence on consti- ...... tutional theories since then and is fundamen- (ii) shall not be removed except by the tally important to the quality of Australia’s Governor-General in Council, on an address human rights. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1083

The seventh clause of the Act of Settlement able in terms of debate and criticism of a gives tenure to judges and says that they are particular issue and go to fundamentally not to be removed except, as I said before, on undermining the respect and regard that the actions of both houses of parliament. The members of the community have for the High whole purpose of that is to guarantee that Court. judges will not be placed under undue or Senator Sherry—Particularly the National improper pressure from parliament or from Party. the executive. It is to keep them clear of that so that they can then decide the law in a way Senator NEAL—That is quite correct. In that is— fact, Mr Borbidge said, ‘The current High Court, across large parts of Australia, is Senator Carr—Free of intimidation. increasingly being held in absolute and utter Senator COONEY—Yes, Senator Carr, contempt.’ I do not see that as some sort of free of intimidation so that they can do justice reasoned criticism or some sort of reasoned to everybody without party politics coming debate about the issue at hand—whether or into the affair. They are to stand above that. not native title is extinguished by pastoral They are to apply a rule of law and they are leases. I think it indicates that Mr Borbidge to be consistent with the rule of law that must and other members of the National Party have be applied. Unless we have a rule of law that no clear understanding of the fundamental stands above parliament, the executive and the division between the judiciary, parliament and courts themselves, we are all in trouble. It is the government. They seem to be unable to our civil liberties that we have to protect. We understand that, in order for the rights of do that by protecting the judges from undue Australians to be protected, the judiciary has criticism. Unfortunately, that is what has one role in interpreting legislation and the happened in recent times. The criticism of the parliament has another role in creating that judges has been undue, has been very poorly legislation. It is not the proper role of mem- presented and has been quite wrong. bers of parliament to criticise that interpreta- Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (3.35 tion, but there is a proper avenue for redress p.m.)—A major concern I have on this issue if they believe that the interpretation of the is that this is really another illustration of the legislation put forward by the High Court is adage that all that is necessary for evil to not in the best interests of Australians. triumph is that good men do nothing—and I Mr Justice Brennan, in his letter, very use the term ‘men’ to mean both men and clearly pointed out—this matter should be women. The situation here is that, once again, taken note of—that, if members are unsatis- when a member of the community has stepp- fied with the interpretation of legislation, they ed outside the boundaries of what is reason- can properly bring another bill before the able in a democratic process, this government, parliament and change the law, as is well and in particular the Prime Minister, Mr within their democratic right. So Mr Fischer Howard, has not seen fit to make a statement and other members of the National Party who which would indicate what the clear boundar- do not agree with the interpretation of the ies are. High Court should not be undermining, This has happened once before; it is not a criticising and trying to bring into contempt new matter. It happened before when that the High Court. They should be putting to woman in the other place—and ‘that woman their party members a proposal for legislation in the other place’ is all I would like to refer to be introduced into the parliament. That is to her as—made statements which, in my their proper course. opinion, were completely beyond what is But the problem is that members of the acceptable in a democratic community. I think coalition government currently do not seem to this is another example of that occurring. have a great deal of respect for our constitu- Some of the comments that have been made tion. Criticism of the High Court is not the by both Mr Borbidge and Mr Fischer clearly only issue that people like Mr Borbidge have go beyond the boundaries of what is reason- been dabbling in. In fact, Mr Borbidge seems 1084 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 to have indicated that he has no respect for 3. work for the immediate release of all Timorese the constitution in terms of the appointment political prisoners; of senators after others have resigned. In fact, 4. repeal the Timor Gap Treaty; and as indicated, he may well, if the situation 5. stop all military cooperation and commercial arises, not appoint a senator who is of the military activity with Indonesia. same party as a senator who has resigned or by Senator Bourne (from 124 citizens). vacated their position. I think this is again illustrates that Mr Borbidge and members of Census the National Party have no regard whatsoever To the Honourable the President and Members of for the constitution and the High Court. the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition I suppose, fundamentally, this comes down of the undersigned shows: to leadership. If members of the coalition— That the current practice of destroying the (Time expired) Census is denying future generations an invaluable and irreplaceable resource of data on medical, Question resolved in the affirmative. historical, social, scientific, and demographic factors. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Your Petitioners request that the Senate should: Senator BOSWELL (Queensland—Leader Request the Government to review its current of the National Party of Australia in the policy of destroying the Census; and support a Senate)—I seek leave to make a brief person- proposal to retain the census forms for release for al explanation. specific research purposes in either 70 or 100 years Leave granted. time. Senator BOSWELL—During the debate I by Senator Bourne (from 18 citizens). referred to a High Court judgment in the Industrial Relations Theophanous case and made some reference To the Honourable President and Members of the to Mr Justice Brennan making a statement Senate in Parliament assembled: that politicians were fair game and not be- We the undersigned citizens respectfully submit yond criticism and that it was a free country. that any reform to Australia’s system of industrial I have checked with my office and found out relations should recognise the special needs of that the High Court actually made that deci- employees to be protected from disadvantage, ex- sion but Mr Brennan was a minority. I wish ploitation and discrimination in the workplace. to note that. I thank the Senate. We the petitioners oppose the Coalition policies Senator Sherry—You should say you’re which represent a fundamentally anti-worker regime sorry. and we call upon the Senate to provide an effective check and balance to the Coalition’s legislative Senator BOSWELL—I am sorry. program by rejecting such a program and ensuring that: PETITIONS 1. The existing powers of the Australian The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) be presentation as follows: maintained to provide for an effective independent umpire overseeing awards and East Timor workplace bargaining processes. To the Honourable the President and Members of 2. The proposed system of Australian Work- the Senate in the Parliament assembled. place Agreements (AWAs) should be sub- The Petition of the undersigned draws to the ject to the same system of approval required attention of the Senate Indonesia’s continued denial for the approval of certified agreements of human rights to the people of East Timor. (through enterprise bargaining). Specifically, an AWA should not come into effect unless Your Petitioners ask the Senate to call on the it is approved by the AIRC. Australian Government to: 3. The approval of agreements contained in the 1. actively support all United Nations resolutions legislation should be public and open to and initiatives on East Timor; scrutiny. There should be provision for the 2. actively support the right to self-determination involvement of parties who have a material of the people of East Timor; concern relating to the approval of an Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1085

agreement, including unions seeking to 1. Coalition Senators honour their 1996 election maintain the no disadvantage guarantees. promise, namely that "The Coalition will 4. Paid rates awards be preserved and capable maintain existing levels of Commonwealth of adjustment, as is currently the case in the funding to the ABC". legislation. 2. The Senate votes to maintain the existing role 5. The AIRC’s powers to arbitrate and make of the ABC as a fully independent, publicly awards must be preserved in the existing funded and publicly owned organisation. form and not be restricted to a stripped back 3. The Senate oppose any weakening of the set of minimum or core conditions. Charter of the ABC. 6. The legislation should encourage the pro- by Senator Bourne (from 226 citizens). cesses of collective bargaining and ensure that a certified agreement within its term of Housing operation cannot be over-ridden by a subse- To the Honourable President and Members of the quent AWA. Senate in Parliament assembled: 7. The secondary boycott provisions should be We the undersigned respectfully submit that preserved in their existing form. Social Housing is a major social ‘safety net’, 8. The powers and responsibility of the AIRC crucial for all Australians. to ensure the principle of equal pay for Your petitioners therefore call upon the Senate work of equal value should be preserved in to maintain a commitment to the buying and its existing form. We oppose any attempt by building of new housing properties. The new the Coalition to restrict the AIRC from Commonwealth State Housing Agreement must dealing with overaward gender based pay provide the States with monies to buy and build equity issues. more Public and Community Housing. Dismantling 9. A ‘fair go all round’ for unfair dismissal so the ‘safety net’ of Social Housing will mean that all workers currently able to access homelessness, overcrowding and the scrapping of these remedies are able to do so in a fair public housing redevelopment plans, all of which manner, at no cost. will impact on the most disadvantaged groups in 10. Workers under state industrial regulations the Australian society. maintain their rights to access the federal Your petitioners support an increase in assistance awards system in its current form. to low income earners in the private rental market, Your petitioners therefore urge the Senate to but not at the expense of Public and Community reject the above proposed reforms to the area of Housing. industrial relations. Your petitioners thus urge the Senate to reject current plans in the area of public and community by Senator Faulkner (from 35 citizens). housing. Uranium by Senator Faulkner (from 53 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. Repatriation Benefits The petition of the undersigned strongly opposes To the Honourable the President and Members of any attempts by the Australian government to mine the Senate in Parliament assembled uranium at the Jabiluka and Koongara sites in the The petition of certain citizens of Australia, World Heritage Listed Area of the Kakadu National draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that Park or any other proposed or current operating members of the Royal Australian Navy who served site. in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the only Your petitioners ask that the Senate oppose any Australians to be deliberately excluded from intentions by the Australian government to support eligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans’ the nuclear industry via any mining, enrichment Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourable and sale of uranium. ‘active service’. Australian Archives records show that the only reason for the exclusion was to save by Senator Bourne (from 41 citizens). money. Members of the Australian Army and Air Force serving in Malaya were not excluded, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation costs associated with the land forces was one of the To the Honourable the President and Members of main reasons for the exclusion of the Navy. An the Senate in the Parliament assembled. injustice was done which later events have com- The petition of the undersigned recognises the pounded. vital role of a strong and comprehensive Australian There are two forms of benefits for ex-service- Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and asks that: men, Disability Pensions for war caused disabilities 1086 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

(denied the sailors referred to but introduced in for ‘military occupation of a foreign country’ did 1972 for ‘Defence Service’ within Australia) and not apply to Malaya. Service Pensions. Allied veterans of 55 nations involved in conflicts with Australian forces until Your petitioners therefore request the Senate to the end of the Vietnam War can have qualifying remove the discriminatory exclusion in the Act eligibility for Service Pensions under the Act. thereby restoring justice and recognition of honour- Service by 5 countries in Vietnam was recognised able ‘active service’ with the Royal Australian after RAN service in Malaya was excluded. The Navy in direct support of British and Malayan Department of Veterans’ Affairs confirms that 686 forces during the Malayan Emergency between ex-members of the South Vietnamese Armed 1955 and 1960. Forces are in receipt of Australian Service Pen- by Senator Faulkner (from 25 citizens) and sions; 571 on married rate and 115 on single rate. In effect, 1,257 Service Pensions, denied to ex- Senator Murphy (from five citizens). members of the RAN, are being paid for serving alongside Australians in Vietnam. Repatriation Benefits It is claimed that: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled (a) Naval personnel were engaged on operational duties that applied to all other Australian service The petition of certain citizens of Australia, personnel serving overseas on ‘active service’. draws to the attention of the Senate the fact that They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya and members of the Royal Australian Navy who served secretly intercepted enemy communications; in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are the only (b) Naval personnel were subject to similar Australians to be deliberately excluded from dangers as all other Australian service personnel eligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans’ serving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties, Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) for honourable none of which appear on the Roll of Honour at the ‘active service’. Australian Archives records show Australian War Memorial; that the only reason for the exclusion was to save money. Members of the Australian Army and Air (c) the Royal Australian Navy was ‘allotted’ for Force serving in Malaya were not excluded, and the operational service from 1st July 1955 and this is costs associated with the land forces was one of the documented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of main reasons for the exclusion of the Navy. An 11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to the injustice was done which later events have com- Department of the Navy. The RAN was then pounded. apparently ‘unallotted’ secretly to enable the excluding legislation to be introduced; There are two forms of benefits for ex-service- men, Disability Pensions for war caused disabilities (d) the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has said (denied the sailors referred to but introduced in it can find no written reason(s) for the RAN 1972 for ‘Defence Service’ within Australia) and exclusion in the Act. In two independent Federal Service Pensions. Allied veterans of 55 nations Court cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and Doessel involved in conflicts with Australian forces until Qld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex- the end of the Vietnam War can have qualifying members of the RAN had been ‘allotted’. Davis eligibility for Service Pensions under the Act. had served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a result Service by 5 countries in Vietnam was recognised of these cases ex-members of the RAN who served after RAN service in Malaya was excluded. The in Malaya and who had, at that time, claims before Department of Veterans’ Affairs confirms that 686 the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for benefits, ex-members of the South Vietnamese Armed had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after the Forces are in receipt of Australian Service Pen- Doessel decision the Act was amended to require sions; 571 on married rate and 115 on single rate. allotment to have been by written instrument. In In effect, 1,257 Service Pensions, denied to ex- parliament, it was claimed the amendment was members of the RAN, are being paid for serving necessary to restore the intended purpose of the alongside Australians in Vietnam. exclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, be found. It is claimed that: (e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, bound (a) Naval personnel were engaged on operational by the ‘Special Overseas Service’ requirements, duties that applied to all other Australian service introduced in the Repatriation (Special Overseas personnel serving overseas on ‘active service’. Service) Act 1962. This Act became law some two They bombarded enemy positions in Malaya and years after the war in Malaya ended; secretly intercepted enemy communications; (f) as Australian citizens serving with the Royal (b) Naval personnel were subject to similar Australian Navy they complied with three of the dangers as all other Australian service personnel four requirements for ‘active service’. The fourth, serving in Malaya and there were RAN casualties, Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1087 none of which appear on the Roll of Honour at the The various claims made in Statements to the Australian War Memorial; House and the Senate and the contents of corres- (c) the Royal Australian Navy was ‘allotted’ for pondence from various Ministers to maintain the operational service from 1st July 1955 and this is exclusion are answered as follows, the answers are documented in Navy Office Minute No. 011448 of from documents obtained under FIO and from 11 November 1955, signed by the Secretary to the public record: Department of the Navy. The RAN was then (i) ‘They were never allotted for operational apparently ‘unallotted’ secretly to enable the service’, (contained in a letter from the Hon. Con excluding legislation to be introduced; Sciacca Minister for Defence Science and Person- (d) the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has said nel 1995). A letter from the Secretary Department it can find no written reason(s) for the RAN of the Navy to Treasury dated 11 November 1955 exclusion in the Act. In two independent Federal stated ‘the date that the Navy were allotted for Court cases (Davis WA G130 of 1989 and Doessel operational service was 1 July 1955’. Qld G62 of 1990) the courts found the two ex- (ii) ‘Members of the RAN were only doing the members of the RAN had been ‘allotted’. Davis duty for which they had enlisted’, (October 1956 had served in Malaya in 1956 and 57. As a result The Hon. Dr Cameron representing the Minister for of these cases ex-members of the RAN who served Repatriation in the Senate). This applies to all in Malaya and who had, at that time, claims before Service personnel everywhere. the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for benefits, had their claims accepted. Eight weeks after the (iii) ‘They were in no danger’, (November 1956 Doessel decision the Act was amended to require The Hon. Dr Cameron representing the Minister for allotment to have been by written instrument. In Repatriation in the Senate). They shared the same parliament, it was claimed the amendment was danger as all other Australian Service personnel necessary to restore the intended purpose of the serving in Malaya at the time. exclusion, reasons for which can not, allegedly, be (iv) ‘They were not on Special Overseas found. Service’, (in a letter from the office of The Hon. (e) Naval personnel were not, as claimed, bound Bronwyn Bishop Minister for Defence Industry by the ‘Special Overseas Service’ requirements, Science and Personnel to Mrs Williams of Adelaide introduced in the Repatriation (Special Overseas dated October 1996). Requirement for Special Service) Act 1962. This Act became law some two Overseas Service was introduced in 1962 without years after the war in Malaya ended; retrospective conditions, therefore has no relevance (f) as Australian citizens serving with the Royal to events of 1960. Australian Navy they complied with three of the (v) ‘They were not on Active Service’, (in a four requirements for ‘active service’. The fourth, letter from the office of The Hon. Bronwyn Bishop for ‘military occupation of a foreign country’ did Minister for Defence Industry Science and Person- not apply to Malaya. nel dated October 1996). It is now, as it was then, Your petitioners therefore request the Senate to that Service Personnel had to comply with one of remove the discriminatory exclusion in the Act three requirements for Active Service, this group thereby restoring justice and recognition of honour- complied with two, or twice as many as is needed. able ‘active service’ with the Royal Australian The one that they did not comply with was, ‘is in Navy in direct support of British and Malayan military occupation of a foreign country’. forces during the Malayan Emergency between Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate 1955 and 1960. should remove the discriminatory exclusion in the by Senator Calvert (from seven citizens). Act, thereby giving the Australian sailors involved comparative recognition with the Army and RAAF Repatriation Benefits personnel that served at the same time, and all other Australians who have served their Country on To the Honourable the President and Members of active service overseas. the Senate in Parliament assembled: The Petition of the undersigned shows that only by Senator Calvert (from 30 citizens). one group have been excluded from eligibility for repatriation benefits in the Veterans Entitlements Higher Education Act 1986 (the Act) where such group has per- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- formed honourable overseas ‘active service’. That tralia)—by leave—I present to the Senate the group being members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 following petition, from 1,642 citizens, which which were excluded under ‘Operational Service’ is not in conformity with the standing orders at Section 6. (1)(e)(ii) of the Act. as it is not in the correct form: 1088 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

PETITION TO COMMONWEALTH Travelling Allowance: Senators PARLIAMENT Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of shall move: Australia respectfully showeth: That the Senate— That we are opposed to any moves to cut funding (a) notes that: to universities. We believe that further reductions (i) on 17 October 1995, the former Labor in university funding would have a serious impact Senate President (Mr Beahan) outlined on the quality of higher education, and on access proposals for the tabling of all senators’ to university study for the Australian community. travelling allowance details administered We emphasise that higher education has already by the Department of the Senate, absorbed substantial cuts in real funding levels over the last decade and that further reductions are (ii) on 21 August 1996, the current President unsustainable. of the Senate (Senator Reid) wrote to party leaders and independent senators Furthermore, we believe that the principle of seeking their support for a continuation of democratic access to higher education requires that this system of disclosure and accounta- undergraduate study should be provided free of up- bility, front tuition fees. We believe that any move to (iii) on 21 August 1996, the Leader of the allow universities to charge up-front undergraduate Opposition in the Senate (Senator fees would fundamentally threaten this basic right. Faulkner) replied to the President indicat- Finally, we call on the Federal Government to ing his support for the annual tabling of provide supplementation through university operat- all travel allowance details paid to sena- ing grants so that university staff are adequately tors, remunerated. We believe that the quality of higher (iv) the Opposition continues to strongly education provided by universities is dependent in support this practice, large part upon their ability to attract and retain (v) on 11 September 1996, details of all appropriately qualified, skilled and experienced travelling allowance paid to senators in staff. the 1995-1996 financial year were tabled Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you in the Senate, and will not cut university funding levels, nor allow (vi) Senator Colston has now given notice that universities to charge up-front fees to undergraduate he will move that all travel allowance students. Universities must also be funded at levels documents of all senators be tabled in the which provide adequate remuneration for their staff. Senate; and And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever (b) finds Senator Colston’s conversion to dis- pray. closure and accountability on travel allow- ances extraordinary given his earlier views, Petitions received. as evidenced by his question on notice to the President of the Senate, on 2 May 1996, NOTICES OF MOTION asking if the views of the Privacy Commis- sioner had been sought in relation to the tabling of travel allowance payments to Travelling Allowance: Senators chairs and members of committees. Senator COLSTON (Queensland)—I give Procedure Committee notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer)—I That there be laid on the table by the President give notice that, on Wednesday, 5 March of the Senate, no later than 5 pm on 18 March 1997, I shall move: 1997, details of all travelling allowances paid to current and former senators for the period 1 That the Senate adopt the recommendations January 1992 to 3 March 1997, such details to contained in the first report of 1997 of the Proced- provide places of overnight stay, the relevant clause ure Committee, which provide that: of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination under (a) paragraph (10) of standing order 26 be which the claim was made and the allowance amended to provide that the period of notice payable for each individual claim. of matters to be raised at supplementary Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1089

estimates hearings be not less than 3 work- Senate: Pairing Arrangements ing days; and Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— (b) standing order 69 be amended to provide Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I that a summary of petitions be circulated at give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I the commencement of each sitting day with a general announcement by the Clerk and shall move: that a petition not in conformity with the That the Senate— order may be presented in accordance with (a) recalls that on 6 February 1997, a motion on the order only with the approval of the pairing arrangements proposed by the Lead- President. er of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Faulkner) was agreed to; Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (b) supports the principle that a pair should be granted from the date of a senator’s death or Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— resignation until that senator’s replacement Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I is sworn in; and give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I (c) accepts that where a senator resigns and is shall move: to be replaced by a nominee of either the Australian Labor Party or one of the Coali- That the Finance and Public Administration tion parties, a pair should be granted until Legislation Committee be reconvened for the the senator’s replacement is sworn in. consideration of additional estimates, from 9 am on 7 March 1997, to consider evidence raised in the Department of Social Security Hotline Sunday Age of 2 March 1997, and on 10-Capital television news in relation to possible misuse of Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- travelling allowance. tralia)—I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Senate: Casual Vacancies That the Senate— Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— (a) notes that: Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I (i) the Department of Social Security set up give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I the Employer Contact Unit, dubbed the shall move: ‘dob-in-a-dole-bludger’ hotline, which received 13 862 calls between May 1996 That the Senate— and February 1997, of which only 200 (a) notes: were calls dobbing in so-called dole cheats, and (i) the unambiguous language of section 15 of the Australian Constitution, stating that (ii) the head of the department accepts that in the event of a casual vacancy in the there is no basis for the commonly held Senate the place of a senator chosen by belief that fraud is rampant in the social the people of a State shall be filled by a security system; and nominee of the party that endorsed and (b) expresses concern that: publicly recognised the candidate at the (i) such hotlines were set up without evi- time that he or she was chosen, and dence of rampant fraud, and (ii) that the proposed law to alter the Consti- (ii) the Government is perpetuating the myth tution confirming the aforementioned of rampant social security fraud in the arrangements was carried in 1977 by all community. six States and an overall majority of 3,484,808 votes; and Legal and Constitutional Legislation (b) calls on the States of Western Australia and Committee New South Wales to fill the vacancies Senator CALVERT (Tasmania)—At the created by the death of Senator Panizza and request of Senator Abetz I give notice that, on the resignation of Senator Woods in ac- the next day of sitting, he will move: cordance with the above provisions and in accordance with the unanimous resolution That the time for the presentation of the report of the Senate of 3 June 1992 requiring that of the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Com- Senate casual vacancies be filled as expe- mittee on the provisions of the Euthanasia Laws ditiously as possible. Bill 1996 be extended to 6 March 1997. 1090 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Rural and Regional Affairs and relating to the disallowance of the Telecommunica- Transport References Committee tions National Code 1996, be postponed till 6 March 1997. Senator BOURNE (New South Wales)—At the request of Senator Woodley, I give notice Genetically Engineered Food that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: Nuclear Waste Reprocessing That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: References Committee on the Commonwealth That general business notices of motion Nos. Government’s role in the Australian rail industry be 451, 452 (relating to genetically-engineered foods) extended to 25 March 1997. and 465 (Australian reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel) standing in the name of Senator Margetts for ORDER OF BUSINESS today, be postponed till the next day of sitting. Government Business Northern Territory: Proposed Anti- Motion (by Senator Campbell) agreed to: Republican Convention That the order of consideration of government Motion (by Senator McKiernan) agreed to: business for today be as follows: That general business notice of motion No. 466 No. 2— Immigration (Education) Charge standing in the name of Senator McKiernan for Amendment Bill 1996—Proposed today, relating to the competence of the Australian discharge of order territories to make decisions, be postponed till 20 No. 3— Migration Legislation Amendment Bill March 1997. (No. 3) 1996 Migration (Visa Application) Charge Logging and Woodchipping Bill 1996 Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: Immigration (Education) Charge That general business notice of motion No. 1 Amendment Bill 1996 standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, No. 5— Education Services for Overseas Stu- relating to the disallowance of Export Control dents (Registration Charges) Bill 1996 (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations (Amendment), be Education Services for Overseas Stu- postponed till 5 March 1997. dents (Registration of Providers and Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill Ngawang Choephel (No. 2) 1996. Motion (by Senator Bourne) agreed to: No. 1— Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill That general business notice of motion No. 427 1997 standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, Health Legislation Amendment (Private relating to human rights abuses in China and Tibet, Health Insurance Incentives) Bill 1996 be postponed till 5 March 1997. Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. Operation Tandem Thrust 2) 1996 Taxation Laws Amendment (Private Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the Health Insurance Incentives) Bill request of Senator Reynolds) agreed to: 1997—second reading. That general business notice of motion No. 454 standing in the name of Senator Reynolds for East Gippsland: Reserve System today, proposing an order for production of a Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to: document by the Minister for the Environment That general business notice of motion No. 430, (Senator Hill), be postponed till 5 March 1997. standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade proposing an order for the production of documents by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill), Legislation Committee be postponed till 19 March 1997. Motion (by Senator Lees) agreed to: Telecommunications National Code That general business notice of motion No. 343 standing in the name of Senator Lees for today, Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: relating to proposing an order for the production of That general business notice of motion No. 2, documents by the Minister for the Environment standing in the name of Senator Allison for today, (Senator Hill), be postponed till 19 March 1997. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1091

Indonesia: Nuclear Power Plants (d) notes that the decision to allow clearfelling and woodchipping in these high conserva- Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: tion value forests: That general business notice of motion No. 469 (i) completely ignores the benefits of the standing in the name of Senator Margetts for today, proposed national park, relating to the development by Indonesia of nuclear (ii) breaches the National Forest Policy State- power plants, be postponed till the next day of ment, and sitting. (iii) serves to increase community cynicism Tasmania: Homosexual Laws towards the Regional Forest Agreement process; and Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: (e) calls on the Commonwealth to offer West- That general business notice of motion No. 470 ern Australia funding from the Forest Indus- standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, try Structural Adjustment package to com- relating to Tasmanian anti-gay laws, be postponed pensate for a deferral of logging in this area, till the next day of sitting. pending an open and detailed study of the social, economic, and environmental ben- CHARTER OF BUDGET HONESTY efits of the proposed national park and the BILL 1996 options for implementing the proposal. Question put: Referral to Committee That the motion (Senator Murray’s) be agreed Motion (by Senator Sherry)—as amended to. by leave—agreed to: The Senate divided. [4.00 p.m.] That the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 be referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret for inquiry and report by 30 March 1997. Reid) Ayes ...... 34 GREATER BEEDELUP NATIONAL Noes ...... 35 PARK —— Majority ...... 1 Motion (by Senator Murray) proposed: —— That the Senate— AYES (a) acknowledges and commends Pemberton Allison, L. Bishop, M. community representatives for preparing the Bolkus, N. Bourne, V. Greater Beedelup National Park proposal Brown, B. Carr, K. covering an area of world-class old-growth Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. karri and jarrah forest near Pemberton in Conroy, S. Cook, P. F. S. south-west Western Australia; Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. * (b) notes: Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G. (i) the strong support for the proposal from Hogg, J. Kernot, C. the rapidly growing tourism industry in Lees, M. H. Lundy, K. the Pemberton region, and Mackay, S. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. (ii) that calls for the protection of old-growth Murray, A. Neal, B. J. forests within the proposed national park O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F. have been voiced for many years by Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. scientists, community organisations, Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. tourism industry operators, and conserva- West, S. M. Woodley, J. tion groups; NOES (c) condemns the Commonwealth Government Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. and the Western Australia State Government Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. for allowing clearfelling and woodchipping Calvert, P. H. * Campbell, I. G. to proceed in 1997 in the Giblett forest Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. block and other areas of high conservation Crane, W. Eggleston, A. value and the National Estate-listed and old- Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. growth karri forest within the proposed Ferris, J Gibson, B. F. national park; Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. 1092 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

NOES The Senate divided. [4.07 p.m.] Herron, J. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Reid) Ayes ...... 36 McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. Noes ...... 34 Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. —— Reid, M. E. Short, J. R. Majority ...... 2 Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. —— Watson, J. O. W. AYES PAIRS Allison, L. Bishop, M. Collins, R. L. Woods, R. L. Bolkus, N. Bourne, V. Gibbs, B. Hill, R. M. Brown, B. Carr, K. * denotes teller Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. Colston, M. A. Conroy, S. (Senator Faulkner did not vote, to com- Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. pensate for the vacancy caused by the death Crowley, R. A. Denman, K. J. of Senator Panizza) Evans, C. V.* Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G. Harradine, B. Question so resolved in the negative. Hogg, J. Kernot, C. Lees, M. H. Lundy, K. Mackay, S. Margetts, D. BOUGAINVILLE McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Motion (by Senator Margetts)—by leave— Murray, A. Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F. proposed: Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. That the Senate— Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. Woodley, J. (a) notes: NOES (i) with grave concern, reports that the Papua Abetz, E. Alston, R. K. R. New Guinea (PNG) Government has Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. contracted a force of mercenaries to Calvert, P. H.* Campbell, I. G. undertake covert military operations on Chapman, H. G. P. Coonan, H. the island of Bougainville, Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Ferguson, A. B. (ii) that Australia is the largest provider of Ferris, J Gibson, B. F. aid funds to PNG, including defence co- Heffernan, W. Herron, J. operation aid, totalling around $320 Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. million, and Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. (iii) that the war in Bougainville has cost as Minchin, N. H. Newman, J. M. many as 10 000 lives, directly and indi- O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. rectly; and Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. (b) calls on the Government to: Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. (i) conduct a comprehensive review of Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. Australia’s aid program, including de- fence co-operation, to ensure that no PAIRS further Australian aid funds go to support Collins, R. L. Woods, R. L. the continued war on Bougainville, and Faulkner, J. P. Hill, R. M. * denotes teller (ii) encourage the PNG Government to seek a just solution to the environmental and (Senator Gibbs did not vote, to compen- land justice problems on Bougainville. sate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Panizza) Question put: The motion (Senator Margetts’) be agreed to. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1093

FALCON AIR CRASH Resources and energy. Motion (by Senator Murray)—as amended Transport. by leave—agreed to: Tourism and recreation. That, recognising the principles given effect by Science and technology. the Privacy Act 1988 relating to the disclosure of The government will spend $106 million from the ‘personal information’, but acknowledging that the natural heritage trust on the coasts and clean seas identities of the principal persons who are the initiative to support the Australian oceans policy. subject of the Wheelahan Report are already in the public domain, there be laid on the table by the Today, the government will also announce some Minister representing the Minister for Transport and initiatives as a down payment on the oceans policy. Regional Development (Senator Alston), following Community consultation. questions without notice and motions to take note All Australians have a real interest in how we of answers on 4 March 1997, a copy of the report conserve and use our ocean resources. by Mr Dennis Wheelahan QC on allegations relating to conflict of interest between a Civil We want our coastal waters clean enough for our Aviation Safety Authority employee and Falcon people to safely enjoy swimming and surfing Airlines, with appropriate protection regarding Our offshore gas and petroleum industries need personal information pertaining to others who may sufficient freedom to invest in our resources and be named or identified in the report and have not so stimulate economic growth consented to the release of that personal informa- We want to ensure that the unique biodiversity tion. of our oceans is conserved for future generations MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Commercial and recreational fishers are facing the challenge of environmentally sustainable Australian Oceans Policy catches Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— We want confidence that the great barrier reef Manager of Government Business in the will remain as one of the natural wonders of the Senate) (4.13 p.m.)—I seek leave to make a world. statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr As all Australians enjoy the benefits of the oceans, so they should have a say in looking after the Howard) on the Australian government’s oceans. oceans policy, to incorporate the statement in Hansard, and to move a motion to take note A consultation paper I am releasing today will stimulate views from the full range of interest of the statement. groups Leave granted. Public comment will be sought on an options The statement read as follows— paper in the middle of this year I am delighted to fulfil another key election prom- By early 1998, the international year of the ise today by announcing the development of the oceans, the Australian oceans policy will be in coalition’s oceans policy. place. This is a policy which will balance the needs of the During 1997 the government will release specific environment with the needs of resource security initiatives as they are finalised. and jobs. A balance between conservation and resource For too long, government activity concerning our development. oceans has been ad hoc and disjointed. Numerous reports have called for integrated This has led to wastage of resources and less than decisions on marine resources across all spheres of optimal outcomes. government—commonwealth, states and territory. Lots of reports, nothing done. The government promises a fresh start. After one year in power, the coalition government We will work with state and local governments and will do what the alp could not do in 13 years. communities to put together a comprehensive strategy. We will put in place a balanced and integrated oceans policy ranging across all jurisdictions. It will cover the spectrum of issues: This will provide certainty for both industry and the Fisheries management. marine environment. Environmental management. For far too long, the environment has been used as Multiple use reserves. a political football. 1094 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

This is unnecessary, divisive and wrong. An additional $1.15 million will be provided over This government believes one can reconcile the three years. environment and development. This initiative will support south pacific fisheries There can be balance. agencies promoting the sustainable development of their marine resources. This is exactly what we are doing with the forests. In particular, the additional $1.15 million will: And this is what we will do with the oceans. strengthen the technical capacity of the forum The government supports the principle of multiple fisheries agency; resource use for our natural resources. allow the fisheries agency to draw on expertise At present, industries related to our ocean resources within Australian government agencies; are worth around $30 billion a year. However, any exploitation of the resources must be expand fisheries management training through responsible. the south pacific commission; and It is simply not sensible to excessively exploit these help pacific island countries attend regional resources. multilateral fisheries meetings Such a strategy is damaging both to the environ- This regional effort will be an important support of ment and jobs. Our own domestic efforts on oceans It would lead to a running down of stocks, reduced Sustaining Australia’s remote area fisheries:. biodiversity, reduced production and so rising We must also be able to protect our fisheries unemployment. interests in our remote waters. The best way to ensure long term growth in the Illegal fishing is a threat to the livelihood of our industry is effective management of resources now. fishermen. The multiple use of resources will combine sensible It is also a threat to the environmental sustainability exploitation of resources with environmental care. of the oceans. The oceans policy will cover issues such as im- proved fisheries management, monitoring, surveil- It is time Australia stopped tolerating these illegal lance and control. activities. It will also canvass the development of a represen- The minister responsible for fisheries, senator Parer, tative system of marine protected areas. will announce a $400, 000 program for improving the management and surveillance of our remote While we support multiple use, there will be some area fisheries. very special areas of outstanding environmental value that should never be disturbed. This new strategy will include the development of satellite-based imaging for monitoring fishing We will protect them accordingly. vessels. Regional cooperation. Fisheries management and bycatch. South pacific forum—strengthening fisheries Marine life is an important source of national management in the western and central pacific. income for Australia. Our neighbours, especially in Indonesia, Papua new Our fisheries contribute around $1.6 billion to guinea and the south pacific, share the resources of Australia each year and employ some 25, 000 the region’s oceans with us. Australians. It is simply not possible for any country to achieve We have the third largest fishing zone in the world. effective management of these resources in isola- tion. Nonetheless, we are not in the top fifty nations for fish take. Marine resources and problems do not recognise international boundaries. While our marine living resources are biologically varied, they are not plentiful. The region’s small island states rely heavily on the oceans’ resources and its bounty. In many areas they are in a delicate balance. Its long term viability must be protected. Past approaches to fisheries management have not Placing more resources in pacific fisheries manage- always recognised this. ment is an important part of this. Stocks of some valuable resources—such as I am pleased to announce that Australia will southern bluefin tuna—have been drastically significantly increase support for regional fisheries reduced. management in the western and central pacific Other marine life, such as the albatross, have been ocean. under threat from significant ‘bycatch’—the fish Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1095 and marine life caught by chance when fishing Oil and gas are not renewable resources. boats are fishing for other species. To maintain the benefits from the industry we must Albatross. continue to discover and develop new fields. Many thousands of albatross are killed each year The economic importance of offshore oil and gas by fishing practices which can be modified. exploration and development will be given due Our Australian tuna fishing industry is working recognition in the Australian oceans policy. well with the government to reduce this threat. Tourism. However, action must be global to be successful. Our oceans provide an important resource for The government has nominated eleven species of tourism and recreation. albatross to be protected internationally. Our coasts and oceans are major attractions for This will lead to regional conservation agreements tourists, who contribute some $15 billion each year to reduce the threats they face, saving them from to our economy. becoming seriously endangered. This creates considerable regional employment. Fisheries bycatch reduction initiative. Tourism must have an equal chance to grow Reduction in bycatch in Australian fisheries is alongside other uses of our marine environment. essential for sustainable fisheries management. Resource use decisions must recognise its import- This will help conserve marine biological systems ance, including the importance of recreational and protect populations of vulnerable species. fisheries. It will provide greater long term resource security The oceans policy will examine issues such as to industries and communities which rely on development of multiple use principles, current fishing. problems and ways to improve management Today, I am pleased to announce a $440,000 regimes for this important sector. fisheries bycatch reduction strategy to address this Marine science and technology plan. important issue. We also have an enviable reputation for marine The objective of the bycatch policy will be to science and technology. minimise the volume of bycatch taken by fishers, However, unless we have a well focussed marine particularly species of conservation significance. science sector, our conservation and resource The policy will develop mitigation measures such development efforts will be poorly guided. as trawl efficiency devices and bird scaring lines. The minister for industry, science and tourism is We will review management of our fisheries, so developing the marine science and technology plan that measures incorporate bycatch reduction strat- as part of the overall oceans policy. egies and do not encourage discarding. The plan will set government priorities, consolidate The Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the marine science effort, and raise options for a AFMA, will finalise the policy by the middle of the closer working relationship with those industries year. which depend on the oceans’ resources. The policy will be the starting point for action Emerging industry opportunities. plans for each commonwealth fishery. The resource base of our oceans is vast—around This will become a key component under the twice the area of the Australian land mass. Australian oceans policy In the longer term, our oceans have enormous Industry development. potential for development in ways which are only Offshore oil and gas. just emerging. Fishing is an industry with centuries of tradition. The majority of anti-cancer drugs currently being Offshore oil and gas exploration is very much a tested are derived from marine organisms. product of our times and is still in the early stages Highly effective sunscreens for humans can be of its development. derived from coral. The future of the Australian offshore oil and gas Australia’s marine biological diversity has the industry looks bright, with new developments worth potential to add great value to the pharmaceuticals several billion dollars beginning on the northwest industry. shelf and the Timor sea. The possibilities of the sea bed as a source of The industry currently contributes around $8 billion mineral wealth also remain to be assessed. to the national economy. The government will support innovative and All Australians benefit from this industry, through responsible industrial use of our oceans, which can jobs, exports and taxation payments. coexist with essential environmental values. 1096 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

In recognition of this, the oceans policy will As international trade increases we must take examine issues such as the adequacy of existing stronger action to minimise the threat from foreign data, resources survey, marine science and integra- organisms in ballast and on hulls. tion of data. The shipping industry has agreed to an industry Marine pollution and ballast water. levy to fund a strategic ballast water research programme. Pollution. We welcome this. The full benefits from commercial development of our ocean resources will only be available if the Legislation establishing the levy will be introduced marine environment is protected from pollution and into the parliament to allow its operation in 1998- pests. 99. It is too easy to focus on dramatic and obvious To bridge the gap until the industry levy comes ocean pollution such as oil spills. into effect, I am pleased to announce the govern- ment will provide $1 million in 1997-98 to fund the The greatest threat to the marine environment is programme. from the land, which is the source of approximately 80 per cent of marine pollution. This objective will be to design and implement a cost-effective system for managing ships’ ballast The oceans policy will canvass issues such as water based on risk assessment. nutrient flows from rivers, environmental perform- ance of sewage systems, oil spill responses and This will allow us to assess the risks posed by gaps in management regimes for pollutants. vessels, taking account of the port of uptake and the treatment of ballast water en route. Today senator hill will be announcing details of a This system will be based on considering risks in $6.4m coastal and marine planning programme to relation to target organisms of concern to Australia. fund integrated planning and management of coastal and marine environments. This will build on current guidelines requiring ships to exchange ballast water at sea. State and local government’s will be invited to submit proposals to reduce pollutants and minimise Community participation. the impacts of uncoordinated coastal development. This government will take the lead in putting Ballast water initiative. Australia’s oceans policy into place. The introduction of foreign pests also represents a But a partnership with other governments and the serious threat to our ocean environment. Australian people is essential if the policy is to turn words into action. The balance of ecosystems around our coasts is very easy to tip. With the benefits that come from our oceans, so comes a duty of community care. We see this when foreign organisms are brought In the last budget, the government doubled funding into our waters in ships’ ballast or attached to for community coastal projects to $3 million. ships’ hulls. This, at a time of tight fiscal discipline, is recogni- While oil spills can be dramatic, foreign marine tion of the priority the government gives such organisms are more insidious. projects. By the time they are noticed it is often too late to Senator Parer will today announce the details of the exterminate them—and they can do permanent fisheries action programme, a community based environmental and economic damage. programme that will help protect and restore We are only too well aware of the problems of Australia’s fish habitats. controlling foreign marine organisms. The fisheries action programme will provide The northern pacific seastar—now a serious pest funding, on a dollar for dollar basis, for activities threatening the Tasmanian shellfish industry— such as fish habitat restoration and protection, and was probably brought here in ship’s ballast aquatic pest control. water. The project will be delivered in partnership with Fan worms from the northern hemisphere are the state and territory governments. spreading in Port Philip Pay, threatening its $15 The government will spend $9.75 million in the million scallop industry. programme over the next five years, including In all, at least 55 foreign organisms have become $3.75 million for projects in river catchments. established in Australian waters. Conclusion. Well over 90 per cent of Australia’s trade in goods The oceans cannot provide unending bounty while is transported by ship. absorbing our uncontrolled waste for ever. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1097

With the natural heritage trust of Australia, we will I note that in relation to resource develop- start to protect and develop our oceans’ natural ment, the government’s policy will ‘range capital as a resource for all people. across all jurisdictions’ which, in relation to This government is dealing with the issues concern- by-catch action plans, will only be developed ing the environment. for Commonwealth fisheries. We can only We are doing this in a sensible manner, rather than hope that this is not another reflection of the politicising the fashionable issue at the time. government’s priorities. In recent times we Combined with other policies, we will put in place have heard of experiments to blast reefs in the an environment package ranging from air pollution Great Barrier Reef to see what will happen, to forests to rivers and now to oceans. how much you can fish off a pristine reef to This government is serious about its responsibilities see what will happen, largely to get live fish and we will continue to see them through. for the live fish markets. It seems to me that Senator CAMPBELL—I table the state- we have forgotten what ecosystems are. I will ment by the Prime Minister and move: be waiting carefully, as a lot of people will That the Senate take note of the document. be, to see what the ocean policy will say. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy (4.14 p.m.)—In reading between the lines of Leader of the Australian Democrats) (4.16 the ocean policy statement—and you have to p.m.)—I also will be brief. While we wel- do that because there is not a lot of substance come this statement, it is really a statement in it—you find that this is a statement about about producing a statement. I welcome it producing an ocean policy through 1997 for because as last we do seem to have yet the International Year of Oceans in 1998. So certainly another step, as small as it may be, it is not actually an ocean policy statement; it towards really addressing the many problems is a statement about producing an ocean that are facing our marine environment. To policy statement. actually put together a national plan to tackle the problems is certainly long overdue. The usual code words for environmental sacrifice appear in the statement such as At last count we had at least 26 reports, ‘multiple use’. It states that our coastal waters sitting on shelves gathering dust, each of do not need to be clean only ‘clean enough’, which probably had been many months in the and that the offshore oil and gas industries making, having had millions of dollars spent apparently need ‘sufficient freedom’. in putting them all together—reports on the Mr Howard promises to do with the oceans marine environment simply sitting there and what his government has been doing with our waiting for somebody to come and put them forests—and this is precisely what we are together and take up their recommendations. afraid of. Indeed, the analysis has a number At last count there were some 1,500 agencies of sinister connections. Trawling, for example, set up under 900 pieces of legislation, nation- is every bit the marine equivalent of clear- ally, that cover the coastal zone. Therefore, at felling. When a forest is wood chipped, the last we have a policy that looks like starting species and structural diversity of the subse- to bring it together. Indeed, the Democrats set quent habitat is generally reduced, and ecol- out back in December 1994 with our ogy is skewed in favour of one or two eco- Coastwatch strategy to try to do just that. We nomic species. All other plants and animals felt that the previous government, while again become by-catch and are wasted. Forests making the right noises, had waited far too become tree farms. Trawling is underwater long to do anything decisive. tree clear-felling. In taking the target econom- When we look through this statement, we ic species, such as prawns and scallops, reefs, see quite a number of positives—indeed, quite seagrass beds, sponge beds, et cetera, are a number of bits and pieces that nobody removed and with them the habitat of a host would dare disagree with. But also there are, of non-target species. The by-catch in most threaded through it, a number of statements trawl fisheries greatly outweighs the take of that are a great cause for concern. There are target species. some we have to agree with, such as ‘For too 1098 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 long government activity concerning our The oceans policy will canvass issues such as oceans has been ad hoc and disjointed; this nutrient flows from rivers, environmental perform- has led to wastage of resources and less than ance of sewerage systems or else build responses in gaps in management regimes for pollutants. optimal outcomes.’ No-one could disagree with that. Then we go on and see the state- All of those issues are currently being looked ment, ‘We want our coastal waters clean at by the Senate Environment, Recreation, enough for people to safely enjoy swimming Communications and the Arts References and surfing.’ Obviously; that is something that Committee. So perhaps this is an indication everybody will agree with. that what that committee comes up with by way of finding and recommendations will be But we see around this country stormwater taken seriously by government and will be put still as a major problem, still not being treat- in as part of the strategy. ed, still not being looked at as a waste in having it running out to sea when it should be I obviously welcome a wide range of the reused. Around our coastline we have sewer- initiatives. Indeed, as far as the albatross are age treatment works pumping out at best concerned, those initiatives have already been partially treated, and often untreated, sewer- announced. My recent visit to Macquarie age. Also, we have catastrophes such as we Island gave me some first-hand experience. I have just seen at Wallis Lake. If the gov- spoke to the scientists there who are looking ernment’s commitment is really there on some into the light-mantled sooties, the black- of these issues, it will take a lot more money browed albatross and particularly the wander- than has been suggested is attached to this. Of ing albatross as to how precarious the exist- course, we have to agree with another state- ence of these species really is. I just emphas- ment, ‘We want to ensure the unique ise here that the wandering albatross only biodiversity of our oceans is conserved for fledged three chicks this year on Macquarie future generations.’ Obviously no-one will Island. disagree with that. In closing, I would just say that what I think we have here is a statement that sounds But then we start seeing some of those great. It is exactly, of course, in line with all nasty little bits and pieces that are tucked the various promises that have been made. away such as, ‘There can be balance; this is But when you read through it, many things exactly what we are doing with the forests.’ ring alarm bells. I would describe it as prob- I noted, when the Prime Minister (Mr How- ably little more than a piranha dressed up as ard) put this down in the other place, he again a goldfish. emphasised the link between this strategy and our forest strategy. I have to say that, as our Question resolved in the affirmative. forests are being decimated, and in East Gippsland we now have an agreement to DOCUMENTS increase this rate of destruction, one really has Finance and Public Administration to wonder what the plan is for our marine References Committee environment. Proceedings of a Round Table Discussion Another problem I see is the way threaded through this we have emphasis on mining, The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT emphasis on resource extraction. In other (Senator Knowles)—Pursuant to standing words, economic rationalism creeps back order 38, I present the report of the Finance through here as a bottom line—‘Yes, we will and Public Administration References Com- try to look after the environment but we will mittee entitled Proceedings of a round table only really be worried about the environment discussion held on 7 February 1997 to con- if it is not going to interfere with short-term sider the paper: Towards a Best Practice economic gain.’ Australian Public Service which was present- ed to the President on 28 February 1997. In I note the Prime Minister’s statement on accordance with the terms of the order, the page 15: publication of the document was authorised. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1099

Ordered that the report be printed. First Reading Senator MURPHY (Tasmania) (4.22 Bills received from the House of Represen- p.m.)—by leave—I move: tatives. That the Senate take note of the document. Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (4.24 p.m.)—I indicate to the Senate that Leave granted; debate adjourned. those bills which have just been announced COMMITTEES by the Acting Deputy President are being introduced together. After debate on the Membership motion for the second reading has been ad- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT journed, I will be moving a motion to have (Senator Knowles)—The President has the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. received letters from party leaders nominating I move: senators to be members of various commit- That these bills may proceed without formalities, tees. may be taken together and be now read a first time. Motion (by Senator Campbell)—by Question resolved in the affirmative. leave—agreed to: Bills read a first time. That Senators be discharged from and appointed Second Reading to committees as follows: Finance and Public Administration References Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— Committee— Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Participating member: Senator Allison. (4.25 p.m.)—I move: That these bills be now read a second time. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee— I seek leave to have the second reading Participating member: Senator Ferris for the speeches incorporated in Hansard. committee’s inquiry into Radio Australia and Leave granted. Australia Television. The speeches read as follows— Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee— FINANCIAL TRANSACTION REPORTS Appointed: Senator Murray. AMENDMENT BILL 1996 Discharges: Senator Bourne, Senator McGauran as a substitute member. The principal object of these amendments is to give effect to several recommendations of Checking the Participating member: Senator Lundy. Cash : A Report on the Effectiveness of the Legal and Constitutional References Committee— Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (FTR Act) by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Participating member: Senator Murray. Constitutional Affairs, 1993. ASSENT TO LAWS Honourable senators will recall that the principal act was part of the Commonwealth’s package of Messages from His Excellency the Gover- legislation, developed following the Costigan Royal nor-General were reported informing the Commission into the Painters and Dockers Union, Senate that His Excellency had, in the name to combat organised crime. of Her Majesty, assented to the following It erects barriers in Australia’s financial sector to laws: discourage use of the sector by criminals and Import Processing Charges Act 1997 allows the provision of financial intelligence to law enforcement and revenue agencies. Customs Amendment Act (No. 1) 1997 It plays a major role as an intelligence tool, able to Customs Depot Licensing Charges Act 1997 expose the illicit movement of money, particularly cash, and to facilitate the following of the money FINANCIAL TRANSACTION trail, both back to its source to identify the financi- REPORTS AMENDMENT BILL 1996 ers and organisers of criminal enterprises, and outwards to locate the proceeds of crime, which TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL may then be available for confiscation under the RECOGNITION BILL 1996 provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987, 1100 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 another component of the anti-organised-crime The value of FTR information was brought home package. to States and Territories in the course of the AUSTRAC is the agency constituted under the FTR National Crime Authority task force known as Act to receive, analyse and distribute to law "Operation Quit", which involved the cooperation enforcement and revenue agencies information of the State and Territory revenue authorities. received from the cash dealers covered by the That was a task force established in 1990 following legislation. a preliminary investigation into suspect transaction The recommendations of the Senate committee reports which ultimately uncovered massive tobacco which were accepted by the Government and to licence fee fraud covering several jurisdictions. which these amendments give effect are: The recoveries by the affected jurisdictions as a Recommendation 12—State and Territory revenue result of the task force were at least $10 million up authorities to be allowed access to FTR informa- to $20 million. tion; When the task force was wound up, the State and Recommendation 15—an expanded definition of Territory revenue authorities ceased to have access ‘transaction’ to include, for the purpose of the to FTR information. reporting of suspicious transactions, preliminary Understandably reluctant to give up a source of negotiations which do not proceed to a concluded intelligence of such proven value in protecting the transaction; revenue, they made submissions to the Senate Recommendation 16—suspect transaction report Standing Committee seeking regular access. information to be inadmissible in court proceedings; The committee was persuaded that their continued Recommendation 18—to increase the reporting access was both reasonable and in the public threshold for imported and exported currency and interest. to define the point at which currency is considered Its only reservation was the concern that the to have been exported; privacy safeguards of the Privacy Act 1988, central Recommendation 19—to require bullion sellers to to the Commonwealth legislation, would not apply identify customers. to the State and Territory revenue authorities. The other main features of the bill are: As honourable senators may know, there is no equivalent State or Territory privacy legislation It establishes a regime of reporting of significant which would apply. transactions by solicitors. The proposed amendment deals with the privacy It consolidates AUSTRAC’s existing powers of concerns by requiring a revenue authority of a State inspection, that is, powers to access and examine or Territory to undertake that it will comply with the records and record keeping systems of persons the Information Privacy Principles set out in section required to keep records under the act. 14 of the Privacy Act before the Director of It updates the penalty provisions of the act in AUSTRAC may authorise it to have access to FTR accordance with current drafting practices, and information. aligns the quantum and expression of penalties with That would appear to place the revenue agencies on those in other Commonwealth statutes. a similar footing to Commonwealth agencies which It updates other specific provisions that contain are subject to the Privacy Act. superseded terminology or are otherwise in need of Failure to abide by the undertaking could result in modernising; and, finally loss of access to the FTR information. It makes minor technical amendments to correct Item 16 of Schedule 1 amends section 3 by insert- minor drafting errors. ing subsection (7), adopting the committee’s As honourable senators will have noticed, many of recommendation to make it clear that a ‘trans- the proposed amendments are of a legislative action’ includes a proposal or negotiations for a maintenance or house-keeping nature, of little effect transaction, in order to include negotiations termi- other than to improve the useability or increase the nated before completion. clarity of the principal act. ‘Transaction’ is not defined in the principal act, and I will speak in detail only about those proposed simply has its normal meaning. amendments which have a significant impact on the In some situations suspicion may actually arise only policy of the legislation. from the fact that the person did not complete the First, let me mention the background to the propo- transactions and that may occur upon learning of sal that State and Territory revenue authorities a requirement of the act. should have access to FTR information, leading to There is a clear investigative advantage in permit- the proposed amendment of subsection 27(1) by ting as wide a range as possible of suspicious Item 52 of Schedule 1. activity to be brought within the ambit of the act. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1101

Item 30 of Schedule 1 amends section 16 of the act However, I must emphasise that the admissibility to make it clear that certain material in relation to of potentially relevant evidence that may be given suspect transaction reports is not admissible in any by officers of financial institutions will not be legal proceeding other than prosecutions under affected. sections 29 or 30 for offences involving a cash Tellers, or any other officer if appropriate, may be dealer giving false and misleading or incomplete called to give evidence, and be cross-examined on information in relation to obligations under the act. it, as to the identity of a defendant or the fact that In the course of consultation in developing this a transaction occurred. proposal, its purpose has sometimes been misunderstood. The final major amendment which I propose is contained in new section 15A of the principal act, It is not possible for the defence of an accused Item 26 of Schedule 1 of the bill. person to be unfairly impaired by the proposal. That is not an amendment which was recommended Indeed, it is likely that the type of material covered by the Senate committee. by the provision would normally be held inadmis- sible in any event, failing to pass the test of The Government has decided that the Financial relevance or on grounds of public interest immuni- Transaction Reports Act should be amended to ty. require solicitors to report to AUSTRAC all transactions with their clients of $10,000 or more Suspect transaction reports, the information con- in cash—that is, in currency. tained in them, or information about whether such a report was prepared can never be evidence as to They would also be required to include in the whether or not a person committed a particular report particulars of the client’s identity, as known offence or whether an investigation was properly to them. carried out. Over a decade ago, in 1984, the Costigan Commis- That material or information is purely intelligence, sion, the Royal Commission on the Activities of the a possible trigger for an investigation to obtain Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, admissible evidence to prove a particular offence. reported that some solicitors had let their trust However, from time to time attempts have been accounts and perhaps their strong rooms be used as made by defence counsel to subpoena such material a means of parking and laundering illegally ob- and the appropriate officer of a cash dealer, usually tained funds. a bank teller. The Commission noted that, and I quote its Report Because of the nature of the material, the purpose "There is no doubt on a great deal of the evidence of such a subpoena can only be a form of fishing before me that certain solicitors have allowed their expedition, perhaps to discredit the teller in some trust account, if not their strong rooms, to be way, or to confuse the jury about the significance employed as repositories for monies, the source of of the material. which, on any rational view, could only be illegal Because such attempts have occurred, tellers are enterprises." nervous about being subjected to hostile cross The Commission’s Report goes on to say that "By examination and, for several years, financial sector depositing monies with such solicitors, some hope unions have sought protection for their members. or expectation is held that law enforcement agen- There is undoubtedly potential for any successful cies will have difficulty in locating the funds and attempt to cross-examine a teller in an aggressive in seeking explanations for them." or humiliating way to permeate rapidly throughout More recently, in 1991, the National Crime Auth- the industry. ority undertook a study into money laundering in The effectiveness of the highly valued suspect Australia. transaction reports depends almost entirely on the It found that solicitors had often played a part in willingness of front-line bank officers to observe money laundering operations by assisting in the the behaviour of clients and the nature of their purchase of property in a way that disguised the transactions. source of the funds or the identity of the owner, for If a person’s behaviour or transaction arouses instance the use of false names, or "nominee suspicion that a taxation offence or a serious companies" and through trusts. criminal offence may be involved, the teller files The NCA found that solicitors also assisted money a report under section 16 of the FTR Act. launderers by placing cash proceeds in trust ac- If tellers become intimidated it is likely that they counts, for instance before settlement of property will cease to form relevant suspicions and an purchases, or for sending overseas (by wire trans- invaluable source of criminal intelligence will dry fer) or for returning to the criminal in the form of up at its source. a loan. 1102 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Another technique the NCA reported was used by Failure or refusal to comply with the notice, or to solicitors was the arranging of false loans with comply with the reporting requirements of section other parties on behalf of criminals. 15A, constitutes an offence which attracts a penalty The loans were repaid with the proceeds of crimi- of two years imprisonment (subsection 28(3)). nal activities. The remaining provisions of the bill improve the Honourable senators may also recall that evidence effectiveness of the principal act but do not intro- presented to the Senate Standing Committee on duce new policy or make any substantial changes. Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 1993 indicated The opportunity is taken to insert a new Part VIA that solicitors in some areas of Australia (in in the act (Item 59 of Schedule 1) to consolidate particular, suburban practices in Sydney, Mel- the inspection powers of staff of AUSTRAC. bourne, Brisbane and the Gold Coast) are handling significant amounts of cash on behalf of clients. There is no substantive change to the powers. The present exclusion of solicitors from the report- The bill inserts a new Part IIIA (Item 49 of Sched- ing provisions of the FTR Act could represent a ule 1) dealing with bullion sellers. loophole capable of being exploited by criminals The amendments require any person who is in the seeking to evade those provisions for the purpose business of selling bullion to identify their custom- of evading tax or laundering the proceeds of crime. ers, in the same way as a financial institution The purpose of the anti-organised crime legislation identifies its customers who open or operate was to create an environment hostile to the success- accounts. ful commission of crime, especially those crimes, The amendments also rectify some technical such as drug offences, which generate large quanti- problems with the definition of bullion dealers ties of cash that needs to be laundered and which whereby some were able to escape the operation of are likely to be associated with organised criminal the act, hence the alteration in concept from a enterprises. bullion dealer to a bullion seller. Any identified loophole which assists those seeking The remainder of the bill makes technical amend- secretly to move or launder cash must be closed to ments to update the penalty and offence provisions, maintain the integrity of the system. eradicate superseded terminology, and correct I should make it quite clear that solicitors would minor drafting errors. not be subject to all the requirements which apply They are fully described in the explanatory memo- to cash dealers under the FTR Act. randum. They will not have to carry out the client identifi- I commend the bill to the Senate. cation requirements that apply to account opening; they will not be required to report suspect transac- TRANS-TASMAN MUTUAL RECOGNITION tions, international funds transfer instructions, or to BILL 1996 maintain the same record keeping systems as cash dealers. The purpose of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recogni- tion Bill is to establish a scheme for the mutual Their obligations will be limited to reporting cash recognition of regulatory standards for goods and transactions of $10 000 or more, providing particu- occupations adopted in Australia and New Zealand. lars of the client’s identity as known to them and, The principal aim of mutual recognition is to if requested, providing access to records and record remove impediments to trans-Tasman trade in keeping systems to authorised AUSTRAC officers. goods and the mobility of labour caused by regula- The obligations are not onerous. tory differences among Australian jurisdictions and Solicitors who never receive cash of $10 000 or New Zealand. more from a client will have no obligations. The bill implements the trans-Tasman mutual There will be no impact on such a practice at all, recognition arrangement, which was signed by the apart from the requirement to submit records from prime minister, premiers and chief ministers at the time to time for the inspection of AUSTRAC meeting of the council of Australian governments officials performing their compliance monitoring held on 14 june 1996. The arrangement was functions. subsequently signed by the prime minister of New Zealand on 9 july 1996. Those monitoring powers are set out in proposed new section 27D in item 59 of Schedule 1. The arrangement is consistent ,with the gov- ernment’s election commitment to reduce the Proposed section 27E lays down the conditions regulatory burden and compliance costs faced by which apply to an authorised AUSTRAC officer, business and to establish a protocol for the recipro- including the giving of written notice and confining cal recognition of professionals’ standing in order the inspection to business hours. to promote the objectives of the closer economic The solicitor is obliged to comply with the notice. relations trade agreement with New Zealand Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1103

The scheme is a fine example of what can be Principles achieved cooperatively by the Australian federation. The trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement The states and territories were equal partners in the is a non treaty instrument which requests and development of the trans-Tasman mutual recogni- empowers the Commonwealth to pass an act to tion arrangement and the related Australian legisla- give effect to two simple principles of mutual tion has been drafted by new south wales recognition. The government would like to acknowledge the The first is that a person registered to practise an positive contribution made by Australian heads of occupation in Australia can seek automatic registra- government in fostering and promoting this import- tion to practise an equivalent occupation in New ant development. Zealand and vice versa. The proposed scheme is based on the framework A person will only need to give notice, including of the—existing Australian Mutual Recognition evidence of home registration, to the relevant Agreement, signed by Australian heads of govern- registration authority in the other jurisdiction to be ment in May 1992. Legislation implementing the entitled immediately to commence practice in an agreement has been proclaimed by the Common- equivalent occupation in that jurisdiction. wealth and all,states and territories. The Common- wealth legislation, the Mutual Recognition Act However, I stress that a person will only be entitled 1992, commenced in 1993. to practise an equivalent occupation. Equivalence means that the activities carried out by practitioners The practical benefits of the Australian mutual registered in each country must be substantially the recognition scheme have included: same. This will be the case in most instances. Greater choice for consumers; However, if significant differences do exist between Reduced compliance costs for manufacturers; occupations, a registration authority may impose conditions on a person’s registration in order to Economies of scale in production leading to achieve equivalence. lower product costs; In essence, the scheme creates a situation similar Greater cooperation between regulatory authori- to the regime in Australia for drivers’ licenses, ties and the accelerated development of national whereby individuals do not have to re-sit a driving standards where appropriate; test when they move from one state to another. It Greater discipline on individual jurisdictions will apply to all registered occupations in Australia contemplating the introduction of new standards and New Zealand with the exception of medical and regulations; and practitioners. Increased movement of service providers and The second principle is that a good that can be freedom for service providers to practise in legally sold in a participating Australian jurisdiction jurisdictions in which they are not resident. can be sold in New Zealand and vice versa, as long as it meets the regulatory requirements for sale in At the time of signing the domestic Australian the jurisdiction in which it was manufactured or mutual recognition agreement, Australian heads of first imported. government agreed to review in due course with New Zealand the potential benefits of participation This means that goods which can be sold lawfully by New Zealand in a scheme implementing mutual in one jurisdiction may be sold freely in another, recognition principles. even though the goods may not comply with all the details of regulatory standards in the second Australian and New Zealand ministers subsequently jurisdiction. Under mutual recognition, producers agreed that the framework for mutual recognition in Australia will have to ensure that their products reflected in the Australian Mutual Recognition Act comply with the laws only in the place of produc- 1992 should be the basis for a scheme implement- tion. If they do so, they will then be free to distri- ing mutual recognition principles in New Zealand bute and sell their products in New Zealand without and Australian jurisdictions, with necessary changes being subjected to further testing or assessment of to reflect the trans-Tasman nature of the scheme. their product. The trans-Tasman mutual recognition arrangement Implementation mechanism was finalised after the release of a discussion paper in April 1995 by the Council of Australian Govern- The Commonwealth bill forms part of a larger ments and the government of New Zealand. Input legislative scheme that involves the enactment of was sought from industry, standards setting bodies bills by the states, the Commonwealth and New and the professions, and approximately 142 written Zealand. The larger legislative scheme has an submissions were received. The comments received Australian component and a New Zealand compo- during the consultation process have been taken nent. into account in deciding upon the final lists of The trans-Tasman mutual recognition bill 1996 of exemptions and exclusions from the scheme. New Zealand is concerned with the New Zealand 1104 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 component of the legislative scheme. That bill was regulate the operation of businesses or the conduct introduced into the parliament of New Zealand on of persons registered in an occupation. It is also 18 July 1996. However, passage has been delayed important to note that laws that regulate the manner by the New Zealand election. in which goods are sold, such as laws restricting In drafting the New Zealand bill every effort has the sale of certain goods to minors, or the manner been made to closely reflect the Australian legisla- in which sellers conduct their businesses, are tion, whilst also recognising New Zealand’s explicitly exempted from mutual recognition. different legislative conventions. This approach is Moreover, the scheme will not affect laws relating intended to minimise the potential for disputes to to quarantine, endangered species, firearms and arise from differences in the interpretation of the other prohibited or offensive weapons, fireworks, legislation. indecent material, ozone protection, agricultural and The mechanism for implementing the Australian veterinary chemicals, and gaming machines. Nor component of the scheme is similar to that used to will the scheme affect Australia’s or New implement the Australian mutual recognition Zealand’s international obligations, intellectual scheme. To come into effect, the scheme requires property laws, customs laws, taxation laws or at least one state to enact legislation referring the tariffs. enactment of a mutual recognition act to the The scheme incorporates a temporary exemption Commonwealth Parliament. mechanism giving participating jurisdictions the New South Wales has agreed to do so, and the right to ban unilaterally, for a total of 12 months, Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (New South the sale of goods in their jurisdiction in the inter- Wales) Bill 1996, was proclaimed on 4 December ests of protecting the health and safety of persons 1996. The New South Wales bill refers to the or preventing, minimising or regulating environ- Commonwealth parliament, using the mechanism mental pollution. Before the temporary exemption provided by Section 51 (XXXVII) of the Common- expires, the ministerial council responsible for the wealth Constitution, the power to enact an act in affected good is required to determine whether a the terms, or substantially in the terms, set out in particular standard should apply to the good, and the schedule to that bill. if so, the appropriate standard. A ministerial council determination can include whether to prohibit the The additional powers of the Commonwealth will sale of the good in question, and requires the be limited. The states and territories are not grant- endorsement of heads of government. ing extensive new powers to the Commonwealth to regulate goods and occupations. Rather, the The scheme will also set in train so-called cooper- Commonwealth is being empowered, to the extent ation programs in a number of industry sectors. to which I such powers are not otherwise included These will relate to therapeutic goods; hazardous in its legislative powers, to pass a single piece of substances, industrial chemicals and dangerous legislation that will prevail over inconsistent state goods; road vehicles; electromagnetic compatibility and territory legislation. Amendments to the and radiocommunications equipment; and gas Commonwealth act will require the unanimous appliance standards. Regulatory authorities in these agreement of participating Australian jurisdictions. areas will consider whether existing regulatory differences would be best addressed by either The Commonwealth act will provide a comprehen- applying the mutual recognition principle to the sive scheme for mutual recognition which will affected goods, permanently exempting the goods operate independently of other state laws and from the operation of the scheme, or introducing therefore will not require modification of those harmonised standards for such goods. laws to enable its implementation. This is achieved through section 109 of the Commonwealth constitu- For occupations, the legislation is expressed to tion, which provides that a Commonwealth act apply to individuals and occupations carried on by prevails over a state act to the extent of any them. Registered practitioners wishing to practise inconsistency. in another jurisdiction will be able to notify the local registration authority of their intention to seek The legislation will apply to all states that refer registration in an equivalent occupation there and power to enact the Commonwealth act or request provide the required evidence. The local registra- enactment of it, or adopt the Commonwealth act tion authority then has one month to process the afterwards under Section 51 (XXXVII) of the application and to make a decision on whether or Commonwealth Constitution. not to grant registration. Operation of the scheme Pending registration, the practitioner is entitled, The focus of mutual recognition is on the regula- once the notice is made and all necessary informa- tion of goods at the point of sale and on entry by tion provided, to commence practise immediately registered persons . Into equivalent occupations in in that occupation, subject to the payment of fees another participating jurisdiction. Mutual recogni- and compliance with various indemnity or insur- tion will not affect the ability of jurisdictions to ance requirements in relation to that occupation. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1105

To avoid costly and lengthy appeals processes in MIGRATION LEGISLATION the courts, the Commonwealth Administrative AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1996 Appeals Tribunal will hear appeals against deci- sions of Australian registration authorities, and a MIGRATION (VISA APPLICATION) newly-created New Zealand tribunal will hear appeals against decisions of New Zealand registra- CHARGE BILL 1996 tion authorities. The tribunals are required to cooperate to the maximum extent possible so as to Second Reading ensure consistency in their determinations. Debate resumed from 25 February, on Conclusion motion by Senator Campbell: The trans-Tasman mutual recognition scheme builds That these bills be now read a second time. on the mutually beneficial economic and trade Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- framework which has developed under the Aust- ralia-New Zealand closer economic relations trade tralia) (4.26 p.m.)—I believe that I am in agreement, and is a logical extension of that continuation. Just to recap, when I spoke on agreement. It is also expected that the scheme will the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill contribute to the development of the asia pacific (No. 3) 1996 last Tuesday, it was clear that region by providing a possible model of cooper- this particular bill had four aspects to it. My ation with other economies in respect of product understanding is that just a moment ago the standards, including those in the South Pacific and APEC. government withdrew its intention to charge massive fees for newly arrived migrants to The scheme reflects the high degree of confidence learn English. That measure would have seen which exists between Australia and New Zealand in respect to each other’s regulations, regulatory more than a doubling of the cost to migrants systems and decision-making processes. It is to learn English. We approve the discharge of expected to remove regulatory barriers to the that particular provision. movement of goods and service providers across the Tasman, and to enhance the international Last week—I believe it was on Tuesday—I competitiveness of Australian and New Zealand made note of the Australian Democrats’ enterprises by encouraging innovation and reducing policy platform and the fact that with our compliance costs. population and immigration policy, we seek I commend the bill to the Senate. to balance the competing objectives of and responsibility for environmental sustainability, Debate (on motion by Senator Conroy) social justice and a sustainable sovereign adjourned. economy. In this regard we distinguish our- Ordered that the bills be listed on the selves from all other parties in this place and Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. perhaps all other senators in this chamber, but particularly the coalition government in both BILLS RETURNED FROM THE policy and substance. It is a position which I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES am particularly proud to represent today. The following bill was returned from the The Australian Democrats’ position has House of Representatives without amendment: been clear and consistent in regard to the Marine Personnel Legislation Amendment Bill family reunion categories. Unlike the govern- 1996 [1997] ment, we believe that spouse, children and even aged parents, with all the fees and ORDER OF BUSINESS charges they have to pay to come to Austral- Discharge of Orders of the Day ia, add value to our society. We do not believe in some kind of socially engineered Debate resumed from 25 February, on immigration program or some kind of eco- motion by Senator Campbell: nomically rationalised intake of immigrants. That the government business order of the day We believe that individuals should be valued relating to the Immigration (Education) Charge on their merits and that being wealthy in itself Amendment Bill 1996 be discharged from the is neither meritorious nor a particularly Notice Paper. sophisticated social view. That said, this Question resolved in the affirmative. schedule seeks to give the government an- 1106 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 other dimension of power that I believe it hensive and sophisticated discussion of already has. population issues in this country. I mentioned the Democrat position in regard If we are to speak about population in this to the capping powers, which the government country, we must also speak about the rural asserts are necessary to enable it to manage decline that is occurring in Australia. We all parts of its migration program. I can assure need to speak about the people already here the Minister for Immigration and Multicultur- in Australia who are increasingly moving to al Affairs (Mr Ruddock) and the department our already overburdened eastern seaboard. today that should your government choose a And—Senator Harradine should be here for path in regard to capping that is harsh, op- this—we should begin to talk about birthrates pressive or discriminatory, we will be watch- as well. This underlines our commitment to ing closely and will certainly bring you up to environmental sustainability, so any popula- speed and scrutinise that particular path if that tion discussion must have regard to the is chosen. impact on our natural heritage. Schedule 3 of the bill proposes to imple- Since the quite shaky start we have had to ment an exemption from the Sex Discrimina- this debate, the government has indicated that tion Act 1984 in relation to the making of their sole objective in enacting schedule 2 is certain regulations which will discriminate to usher in a more flexible and compassionate between de facto and de jure couples. It is a administrative regime—capping and cuing provision which seeks to socially engineer the instead of capping and killing, which is types of relationships that are important in considered more compassionate. Indeed, it is. Australia. This amendment was initially aimed A closer scrutiny of the effects of this bill, at implementing a two-year cohabitation as well as the minister’s assertions, have period for de facto couples before they could persuaded us that, on balance, the government apply for Australian citizenship. Although I of the day should possess such flexibility in understand that the proposal will now be for determining the immigration program in this a one-year period, this does not necessarily country. The question is not whether the change the original policy concerns we had government is going to cap but how they will regarding this proposal. do it. I have made that very clear in all the The government are attempting to develop migration or immigration debates we have had regulations which discriminate on the ground in this place—not so much the numbers that of marital status. Thus, it is necessary for have been brought in but how we are treating them to amend the Migration Act to allows its people before they get here and once they regulation making powers to override the Sex come into this country. The Australian Demo- Discrimination Act. The government recently crats will be supporting a more humane way introduced the Sex Discrimination Amend- of managing the migration program. ment Bill 1996, which aims to limit the What seems to have been left out of this number of exemptions for legislation in entire debate is the total population picture, relation to the SDA. At the time, the govern- the whole policy issue of population. It is ment stated that the bill ‘reflects the clear the Australian Democrats’ policies speak government’s commitment to equal opportuni- very clearly of sustainable population levels. ty and the prevention of discrimination’. The population debate, as opposed to the Both the Australian Labor Party and the immigration debate, is a discussion we are yet Democrats noted, during debate on this bill, to have in this country. I am glad to see that the inconsistency of this ostensible policy in recent months the Australian Labor Party position with the proposed exemption from have begun discussing the issue of population migration regulations, in certain circum- policy. I would wish to acknowledge that the stances, from the SDA. The fact that the Democrats have had such a policy almost proposed exemption is placed in the since our inception and I look forward to the Migration Act makes any understanding of government coming forward with a compre- the anti-discrimination regime extremely Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1107 confusing for anyone in the Australian public. Even more seriously, there has been signifi- It could be said that, if the government wishes cant research recently that there is a dispro- to introduce discriminatory legislation, it portionate amount of violence against migrant should do so by explicitly amending the Sex women in Australia. Examples are research by Discrimination Act, not via a backdoor at- Dr Patricia Esteal of the Australian National tempt. University and by the Australian Law Reform The underlying policy objective of the Commission in their report Equality before proposed amendment is that de facto mar- the law. Women without independent residen- riages are more likely to be unstable or less tial status in Australia are particularly vulnera- likely to be as strong and long as perhaps ble to such violence. The threat of a de facto other types of marriages. It is strongly argu- relationship being broken can always be used able that this view is antiquated and out of to force them not to seek the intervention of step with current Australian society. In fact, the law in an abusive relationship. I note that nearly all submissions to the Senate the coalition law and justice policy stated: committee’s inquiry into this bill put this The prevalence of violence against women and view. Several noted that it reflected the views family violence in our community is of deep concern and will not be tolerated by a Liberal and voiced in 1960 by the then minister for National government. immigration, the Hon. A.R. Downer, who said: Finally, the migration regulations currently contain extremely detailed definitions of what An immigration policy that smiles on illicit unions would not be in the interests of the Good Life of constitutes a ‘spouse’ for the purposes of the the Australian community. Those who wish to live Migration Act. The focus of this definition is in such a way should not expect an easy entry into on ensuring that the relationship is bona fide this country. via a series of well-established tests, including A rather outdated view, I should think. The joint bank accounts, letters, phone bills and proposed cohabitation rules are almost impos- other well-established indicators. We consider sible to fulfil if one’s partner is not an Aus- that there are already appropriate mechanisms tralian citizen and the non-citizen partner and definitions within this bill and, for that cannot easily get temporary visas either in or reason, are greatly concerned about the out of Australia. attempts to seek exemption from the SDA in this case. Besides explicitly discriminating on the ground of marital status, the proposals also In regard to the issue of capping and queu- significantly discriminate against women. ing, the Democrats will be supporting the Firstly, in many countries, divorces are either government’s measure. Our main concerns extremely difficult to obtain for women or now relate to the exemption from the SDA. impossible for women to initiate. Therefore, Finally, I think the issue of the population a de facto relationship is the only option a debate—as opposed to the immigration woman will have for forming a new relation- debate—is a debate that we have to have in ship if the old marriage has failed. this country. We are yet to have it. I com- The National Council of Churches in mend the ALP on their efforts recently in Australia made a similar point in their sub- regard to establishing a policy in this area. I mission to the Senate inquiry when they look forward to seeing similar objectives and stated that, in many communities, a two-year work undertaken by the government. cohabitation period prior to marriage was Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (4.37 impossible. Therefore, it would be impossible p.m.)—By way of background to this debate for those people who exercised their right to on migration legislation, I am sure senators live in de facto marriages to enter Australia. will know that when this bill was last before In the council’s view, ‘The government the Senate the opposition opposed it strongly. should be primarily concerned with the couple It is worth reflecting now that when the rather than the couple’s community,’ which debate came on last week, indication was prohibited de facto marriages. given by the government that there had been 1108 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 some significant discussions between the recognise, for instance, that family migration government and the opposition spokesperson, has been and continues to be important; that Duncan Kerr. Those discussions have led to a lot of people with skills come into Australia significant and welcome concessions from the as part of the family migration program; and government. Of course, there do remain some that, though English is desirable, people who fundamental differences between both sides of do not speak English have made and continue parliament. Although a number of issues have to make a massive contribution to this coun- been addressed in this legislation and we have try. I think those sorts of recognitions and a sought to find some suitable middle ground in recognition of the continued importance of respect of most of them, there are still some migration to Australia, particularly in the areas in dispute. global environment, are something that need I think it is important to recognise that to be stressed, not just by one in five discussions have led to an accommodation of speeches by the Minister for Immigration and different points of view in respect of most Multicultural Affairs or not just under his parts of the government’s proposals in this breath by the Prime Minister. They need to be area. For instance, as was noted just before stressed consistently and continually so that this legislation was called on, the government there is informed debate in the community. has agreed to separate the English education We do not have that. To the contrary, we charge from the bill in order that the remain- have claims that the skilled component of the der of the Migration (Visa Application) migration program is at an all-time low. If Charge Bill may proceed, and as a conse- one were to look at the overall migration quence we find our way through to overcom- program and look at the levels of skills that ing some of the problems in that area. I also people who come in under the family reunion should note at this particular stage that the part of the migration program bring with government undertakes that the regulations them, one would find, as I was advised which need to follow the passage of the bill consistently by officials, that we have at the will set the English education charge at the moment levels of skills which are at an all- current rate, including the concession rate, time high. That is something that needs to be and that the ceiling will also be set at its stressed by this government and something current level. that needs to be picked up, I think, by com- I think what this bill does and what the mentators who look at this issue with blinkers recent history on this bill does is show the on. I think the responsibility is on government difference in attitudes on this side of the to stress the reality, the facts, the fundamental parliament as opposed to the other side. We characteristics of a program which delivers, have seen the measures that were rejected by not just in the skilled part of the program but the Senate at the last debate bandied around also in the family reunion part, high levels of by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the skill concentration. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural The other point that needs to be made is Affairs (Mr Ruddock). In a sense, we have that this bill is not about levels of migration. seen them using the immigration stick to try We have made it very clear from this side of to belt the Senate around. And they have done the parliament—Duncan Kerr has stated it so in a way which I think has been ill in- often—that the opposition does not take issue formed and dishonest in terms of the debate with the government on the size of the pro- and quite inappropriate in terms of the way gram it announced for 1996-97. In fact, when immigration really needs to be discussed, he announced the program, Minister Ruddock especially in Australia. took the trouble to say in his media release On our side of parliament we believe that that the size of the program was about the the best way to discuss immigration is not to average of the previous four years of Labor use it as a political tool in the way that it has government. You cannot say that and then say been used but to use it as the basis of and as that Labor allowed the program to get out of a result of informed debate. We should control, as the minister says. If it is out of Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1109 control, where are the massive cutbacks? If it language, and it really does this country no is out of control, why are we still talking service in the short term or the long term for about levels the average of those of the that to continue. previous four years of Labor government? So I say that this legislation does reflect a The reality is that the minister has been different attitude to migration. On our side we talking in code in this area and wants to give would rather recognise the contribution of the impression to people in the community migration; we would rather recognise all those that he is going to wind back enormously on things I mentioned earlier. We do not think migration when, as I said, he says that the there is value in the technique of dog whist- program is about the average of the previous ling. four years of Labor government. A key issue in this bill is the measure that So the language is language which is would allow the minister to limit or cap the designed to tap into a reactionary vein in the number of spouse, aged parent and dependent community and I think it is something which children visas that can be granted in any one is quite unfortunate in this debate. If the year. We on this side of parliament are program was out of control, why didn’t the concerned about a minister having introduced coalition say so explicitly before the election? that sort of measure. They could have looked If it was out of control in the family reunion at alternative ways if they were concerned part, why before the election did the coalition about the numbers coming in, but they have commit itself to specifically providing priority not chosen to do so. The approach taken by to family reunion within a program of similar the government is one that is objectionable in size to the one that we had managed? Those that it has the direct impact of breaking up who have taken an interest in this debate families. know that there were some direct effects of Let there be no mistake about the issue of the 1 November decision of just a few years capping the spouse visa. It is not one of ago and those effects were always going to be immigration alone. It is all to do with the felt for a short term in the program. To the violation of the rights of every Australian. extent that there is a blip in the program, we Whether the Australian has been a citizen for ought to recognise that that has been the case. one day or for six generations, whether that As I say, we on this side of parliament Australian is of Chinese, Greek, Vietnamese, would rather get into the reality of the ben- Lebanese, African or English descent, it is all efits of migration and not indulge in what one about violating that person’s right to have a public commentator on the broader racism family and to be with that family. debate put quite aptly as dog whistling. Dog This legislation makes a mockery of the whistling is a technique where the message is Prime Minister’s commitment to families. It coded and is pitched at a certain frequency—a undermines any capacity that people in these frequency at which a certain audience is circumstances have to be together. In essence, expected to be tuned in; a frequency that is it produces two sorts of families. You can directed to that audience but can be denied have two sorts of families living in the same whenever necessary. street: those who have a right to be together It is regrettable that any member of this and those who, under this legislation, would parliament should indulge in such practice; it be separated because of the government is despicable that some government members taking a deliberate measure to either cap and have done so. But let me say two things. kill or cap and queue. Whilst some are doing it, many, I think, If this legislation were to be passed by the however silently, would join us in rejecting parliament, it would mean that any such some of these measures, as well as the con- Australian would have his/her right to choose cept of dog whistling. I think it is really to marry restricted. The government has unfortunate that those involved in dog whist- already made it clear that it intends to set a ling include the Prime Minister. It is all about limit on the number of spouse visas that can playing to racist sentiments with sugar-coated be issued in each year. This will mean that, 1110 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 if you are a long-term resident and citizen of to the statements he made in 1989, where he Australia and are travelling or working over- said that it was unconscionable for a govern- seas—as it is increasingly more common for ment to say halfway through the year, ‘We’ve people to do so; I think we find tens of had spouses now. We’re going to close off thousands of Australians doing it every year that category. No more people in that catego- these days—and you meet a person whom ry can come to Australia.’ you decide to marry and to bring back with Senator Harradine—And who was in you to start a family, you can be lucky if you government at that time? make the decision early enough in the life of the program when there are still some visas Senator BOLKUS—He was talking then of to be granted. But too bad if you meet that a proposal that the previous government did person towards the end of the program. In not proceed with. He said at the time that he those circumstances, ‘try again and good luck was pleased to see that the government had for next year’ is the attitude that the govern- not chosen that course. Senator Harradine, we ment is taking. were in government at that time, and I am pleased to say that I did not resort to meas- It is objectionable enough in respect of ures like this over the last three or four years spouses. It is equally unthinkable in the case when I was responsible for immigration. of dependent children. There are many scen- So if you look at the migration program— arios that will arise and do arise. The parent look at the minister’s claim that it is out of may be in Australia and their children are control, look at the figures over recent years, overseas, or the relationships are born over- look at planning levels, look at outcomes and seas, as are the kids. What we are going to look at the points that people need to obtain have here is the situation where we will have to migrate—you can very quickly come to a parents in Australia who, year after year, will conclusion that there are other alternatives be unable to have their dependent children in that this government could have taken. But their care. There are cases, for instance, the government wanted to play politics with involving broken marriages. There are cases this issue, and that is what they have done. where the child may be the subject of abuse. There may be one parent overseas and the In the interim period, since this legislation parent in Australia is unable to bring that was last debated in this place, Duncan Kerr child to Australia simply because this govern- has had discussions with the government in ment is setting the maximum number of an endeavour to find a reasonable way to dependent children that can be sponsored. remove the heat from this debate. I think it is You are simply playing lottery with the lives fair to say that Mr Kerr thought that we had of families in this respect, and that magic reached agreement whereby the government number may have been reached. would be able to cap and queue the aged parent category but not proceed with the other These scenarios are not hypothetical. There capping arrangements in terms of spouses and are already cases where people need to bring children. We do have a responsibility for their dependants and their spouses here caring for our elderly parents. That is one we quickly. The sorts of barriers that the minister should respect. The opposition has, in discus- is putting in place are barriers that will call sions between the minister and Mr Kerr, come the immigration policy into public disrepute. to what we think is an arrangement whereby When the minister says, ‘These measures are the government would proceed with one, but crucial to restoring public confidence in we will oppose the introduction of capping immigration,’ I think he may have that objec- and killing, particularly killing, when it comes tive, but there is no doubt that the sorts of to the rest of the family, spouses and children. measures he is continuing to propose will I could go on at length in respect of these have a directly contradictory effect. issues, but I think I should address the issue We do not need to forever quote what the of the Sex Discrimination Act and the ar- current minister said about policies that keep rangement that was reached there. Senator families separated. We do not need to go back Stott Despoja talked about that, both today Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1111 and last week. I think one of the clear objec- The opposition welcomes the supplementary tives of the discussions between the shadow explanatory memorandum, which Minister minister and the minister has been to recog- Ruddock has tabled in the House. It is one nise that we really cannot dictate an outcome that was brought forward at the opposition’s from our side. We would like to have some request. It clarifies what the government influence in terms of the policy that finally means by its action. The government intends gets through this parliament. to act in cases where there is an intention to Although we have had in principle objec- defraud. That being the trigger point in terms tion to amendment to the Sex Discrimination of implementation of the amendments to the Act, the arrangement that was finally reached citizenship provisions, it is clear that the is one where, at the end of the day, the opposition can support the government with impact of the government’s measures is much respect to amendments that cover citizenship. less than it would have been had they got We have concerns about the question of what they set out to get, and had what they statelessness. A person, by accepting Austral- set out to get went through this parliament. ian citizenship, may have found themself to The impact is minimised by the fact that we be without citizenship of their former country. are not talking here about discrimination as There is a capacity under these provisions against one sex in terms of the letter of the that, maybe 20 or 30 years later, they might law, but I do take the point that we need to even lose Australian citizenship. This question monitor closely the operation of this law to needs to be addressed. There are international ensure that, in practice, women are not affect- conventions in place to avoid persons becom- ed and disadvantaged in the way that some ing stateless. Minister Ruddock was asked in people have feared. the House to come back to parliament on this Once again, I think the full impact of the issue when the bill came before the Senate. overall operation of this exemption from the We would like to hear something of the Sex Discrimination Act that the government government’s position in respect of this before is seeking needs to be closely monitored—and we take a vote on this particular proposal. I am sure it will be—to ensure that people are There have been extensive discussions in not disadvantaged in the way that many the last few weeks in respect of this legisla- witnesses before the Senate committee process tion. The government has amended the legis- fear they might be. lation quite substantially. As a consequence We are talking here of a proposal which the of this, I think we will find much more of it government has agreed to tone down—to getting through the Senate today. radically reduce the cohabitation period from Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.55 p.m.)— two years to one year. As a consequence of While this legislation merges fees so that that government undertaking to reduce the there is a single application fee for immi- cohabitation period from two years to one grants to Australia, it has the massive impact year, the opposition has felt able to support of limiting the number of spouse, aged parent the amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act and dependent children visas by ministerial in the belief that the legislation would not in discretion. This is what the Minister for practice have the negative effect that has been Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr feared. Ruddock) himself calls ‘cap and kill’ when I turn finally to the question of citizenship. referring to the queues of people waiting to In this particular area we have been on the come into Australia. The term could also record as saying that the opposition could adequately refer to the aspirations of people give in principle support for the measure but wanting to join their families under sometimes that we did have concerns about its open- very emotive and distressing circumstances. endedness in respect of the proposed citizen- This legislation also enables the minister to ship provisions and about the capacity to prescribe a two-year cohabitation period in make some people, particularly children, respect of applicants who apply offshore for stateless as a consequence. migration on the basis of a de facto or inter- 1112 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 dependency relationship with an Australian table effort to separate those who have under- citizen. taken the marriage process to come into the The problem with this legislation is that it country from those who have equally legiti- is really scapegoating immigrants to this mate relationships—so-called de facto or country on the altar of a change in direction interdependent relationships. There is a by the government with regard to immigration separation of the requirements instead of a policy. This is in response to well-versed convergence, as we have seen in recent years. concerns about multicultural Australia, about Interdependent relationships can be seen as the make-up of this country and about unem- a grab bag, but they do include people who ployment in the country. The problem with have a great reliance upon each other for one the response the government is making is that reason or another. I am told that a majority of the rich and powerful, and their families, will these people are in same sex relationships. be able to get to the front of the queue. Those The question that immediately arises is: why who are not in that position and who are do those people find that there are more wanting to be united with their families will onerous conditions placed on them to come stay out, in many cases, under this new into the country? I would have thought we legislation. were past the age of discriminating on those By keeping migrants from accessing ben- grounds. Yet this legislation has a very strong efits in times of hardship—we have seen that tenor of increased discrimination on those legislation recently in this place—the govern- grounds. ment began a process of divisiveness in the It is remarkable that the government, in community, I believe. This legislation accen- tightening the rules in respect of people in tuates that process. It is a divisiveness which heterosexual de facto relationships, is chip- says that it is going to be more difficult than ping away at the sex discrimination legisla- it was in the past, under a policy that most tion. It is certainly recreating some of the Australians were relaxed about, for people to difficulties that partners in a heterosexual de come to this country, not least those with facto relationship have experienced in the aspirations for family reunion. When they do past. The barrier is going to be higher for get here, it is going to be more difficult for them than it is for people who have married. them to survive. The hardship is put before So, for those reasons, the bill is not one that the barrier and after the barrier. I find acceptable. It is going to save the When you look into the reasons behind this government some money—$5 million this legislation, you will find that there is a fa- year and $19 million next year. But that, of vouritism emerging towards the rich, particu- itself, is neither here nor there. I think the larly business migrants. For $12,500, a rich government itself would say that—although person can enter into the race to come into any measure that saves it money and cuts Australia, while family reunions are being so- down on the public welfare bill seems to it to called capped and killed. There is no doubt, be a welcome measure, whatever the conse- whatever figure is put on the amount required quences. for business immigrants, that in relation to There are very strong arguments as to why whether or not you can get into this country this legislation should not be accepted as it is. we are going more towards a policy of ‘it There will be amendments seeking to improve depends on what you’ve got, not what your it. But, ultimately, I have to say that we relationships are or what your need is’. The would be better staying with the legislation proposed amendments are going to make we have. We would be better trying to main- coming to Australia more difficult for the tain the current level of immigration. The spouses, children and aged parents of people temporary increase in applications on the already here. basis of family reunion have resulted because There is also the real effort here to make it of the extra people, particularly young people, more difficult for people who are not married who stayed in this country as a result of the to come into the country. There is an inevi- Tiananmen Square massacre and because of Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1113 the fears that 10,000 Australians had about That happened way back in November last returning to China at that time. year. Definitely there was a sense of urgency The arguments for this legislation are weak. about the matter, but here we are in March They echo arguments of the past. The argu- 1997 actually debating it. As one of the ments against it are strong and humanitarian. players in the committee at that time, I some- They are under the banner of ‘a fair go for times wonder about the schedules and time all’ and across the doormat of ‘welcome’ to frames that we are asked to work under from this country, particularly for those who have time to time. That was brought to mind in a a humanitarian need or are in distressing different reference that is before the same circumstances. The government is taking the committee. We discussed that issue at length wrong direction with this legislation. It can be this morning after quite elaborate inquiry and patched up, it can be ameliorated, but it consultation with the community. But that is would be better if it were not here. something for a different debate. I put on the record the sorts of time frames under which Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) Senate committees are required to report and (5.04 p.m.)—Had the Migration Legislation present their deliberations. Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996 come on for debate at the end of last year, I suspect the It is also worth noting that, when the second reading debate the chamber is taking committee’s report was presented to the part in now would have been completely and parliament, the bill that was before the com- utterly different. I make that point—and make mittee did not receive unanimous support of it very strongly—not to score any political committee members and indeed the participat- points but merely to put on the record the fact ing members of the committee. Despite the that the major players in the parliament on attractiveness of it, I will not try to score matters to do with immigration have actually cheap political points about my colleagues on had the opportunity to sit down and talk and the committee, some of whom who signed the reach some understanding and agreement minority report now find themselves, as a about where we go. result of the negotiations that have taken I think it is important to put a bit history of place between the government, the opposition the bill on the record and, in doing so, to and indeed the Democrats—I understand they, make a point about the workload that is from too, were involved in them—agreeing to some time to time imposed upon committees of the changes. Some changes have satisfied some parliament. It has been mentioned by previous of the concerns some members who signed speakers in this second reading debate that the minority report have, including one of the this bill was referred to the Senate Legal and previous speakers, Senator Stott Despoja. Constitutional Legislation Committee for It is on the record that we can—I think this inquiry and report in the latter part of last is a welcome approach—with maturity, sit year. That committee, under the then chair- down and talk about these things. The govern- manship of Senator Ellison, undertook that ment and the opposition certainly sat down inquiry and reported only a matter of days and talked about them after an extensive after its original reporting date. debate in the House of Representatives just That happened at a time when the Senate before parliament rose for the Christmas was sitting for four weeks continuously. Prior break. In preparing for this contribution this to that we had what was supposed to be, and afternoon it had been my intention to refer to what people outside see as, a one-week break some government members’ comments in that from the parliament when parliamentarians do debate. However, to do that now might bring not do anything. Before that we had two further division into this debate, and I do not weeks of sitting. So, out of seven weeks, the believe that anybody in the Australian com- parliament sat for six weeks. In the seventh munity needs further divisive debate on week, the Senate Legal and Constitutional immigration in this country. There are too Legislation Committee had to address itself to many players out there seeking and playing a matters contained in this bill. spoiling role in the affairs of this country and 1114 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 unfortunately using the immigration debate I have been active in the area of migration and migrants to fuel their own points of view. legislation since I entered parliament. Because I do not believe they are operating for the of that, and because of particularly my en- benefit of Australia in offering those views to hanced activity in immigration debates in the community. recent years, I was very surprised when the current Minister for Immigration and Multi- We are debating Migration Legislation cultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) made the Amendment Bill (No. 3) and not indeed, as comment in his second reading speech to this Senator Stott Despoja mentioned, population bill that ‘Labor had allowed immigration to or population issues per se. Certainly this bill get seriously out of control’. When we look relates to populations, and she acknowledged objectively at the facts, we see they do not that my party, the Australian Labor Party, stand up to that statement the minister made embarked on a debate about population issues. in his second reading speech. The facts just It is not all that recently that we did embark do not stand up at all when we analyse them. on that debate. It has been the subject of Indeed, the minister, by his own words, debate within the parliamentary party ever contradicted himself. When he offered the since I became a member of this parliament statistics he drew attention to the fact that and it is a debate which I wholeheartedly what was being proposed for this current welcome and have participated in. I welcome financial year in the intake of migrants the enhanced measures that the current matched pretty neatly and closely what had spokesperson for my party has introduced to happened in the latter years of the Labor it in recent months. Party administration. This debate is ongoing, and I hope that it can be much more constructive than some of So I think comments such as ‘Labor has the debates we have had surrounding immi- allowed immigration to get seriously out of gration. I think that, as the debate progresses, control’ should not be made by any minister people in our community and indeed our who claims to be a responsible minister for parliament will seek to play a spoiling role on immigration. I hope that the minister notes the the issue of population just as they have on fact that he has not sought to substantiate the issue of migration. It is very unfortunate those claims and that he should take the that many of the people who have played that opportunity to refute and back away from spoiling role are indeed migrants who have remarks like that. In the current climate in forgotten that they have been blessed with the this country, where some people are trying to opportunity of coming here. Maybe it was not whip up a racist debate, comments such as the their decision; it may have been a parental one the minister made do not help the situa- decision. Nevertheless, they are the ones tion at all. He should be adopting a much taking advantage of the fact that Australia is more constructive and responsible role in an open society that does allow and indeed parliamentary utterances rather than making invites migrants into its community. comments such as the one he made. Being able to migrate to a country such as I want to make a few points on the matters Australia is a very great privilege. I am one currently under issue in the bill and the of the beneficiaries and one of the people who arrangements and understandings that have have taken a very strong line on immigration. been reached between the government and I have done so in the time I have been in this other parties in the Senate. My colleague parliament and certainly before I entered Senator Bolkus in his contribution canvassed parliament. I, like many others in this cham- the issues very thoroughly. I am not going to ber and the parliament, support a migration use all of the time allocated to me in this program. In doing so, we are supporting—I debate this afternoon to further those com- acknowledge this—in part a population issue, ments. I think the comments stand on the although migration and migration legislation record to speak for themselves. However, I are not the exact place to start with it. am disappointed with the position the Austral- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1115 ian Democrats have taken on the issue of ‘cap the ability to set criteria—different from those and kill’. they set for a married person—for a de facto Senator Bolkus—I think they are work- spouse to meet before he or she obtains a ing—don’t go too heavy. visa. That people have a genuine personal and persisting commitment to each other can often Senator McKIERNAN—I will not go too be more readily demonstrated when they are heavy. I was very pleased to have an under- married than when they are in a de facto standing prior to this debate and indeed last relationship. week of what the Democrats’ position was on that issue, because it certainly was one of the The evidentiary issues involved in proving matters that were the subject of intense the two relationships are distinct, and accord- negotiations between the parties in recent ingly there is a good reason for having dis- weeks. When I heard Senator Stott Despoja crete tests for each of them. But it is not good on her feet making her comments that the enough to justify the passing into law of Democrats’ support would go to the govern- proposed section 507 of the Migration Act ment when it came to a vote on the matters, 1958 as set out in schedule 3, because to do I was disappointed. But, if there are further so would empower the makers of subordinate issues being debated, I think the safest thing legislation to override the operation of the for me to do would be to pass over this issue Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Were this to and perhaps come back to it if necessary happen, it would place too great a strain on during the committee stage of the bill. the meagre mechanisms that presently exist to protect human rights in Australia. One final point I want to make with regard to the bill, and drawing attention to the The certainty that fairness permeates its committee’s report of December last year in social institutions, that everyone is equal the— before the law and that fundamental rights are held inviolable is essential to a decent society. Senator Cooney interjecting— To ensure this certainty some countries—for Senator McKIERNAN—Yes, indeed it is example, the United States of America and No. 3, Senator Cooney. The minority report Canada—have a bill of rights. Australia does by a number of senators, including me, drew not. Many of its people consider it should attention to the exemption of the Migration have one. Others hold the contrary view and Act from the Sex Discrimination Act. We had maintain that the common law, appropriate some real concerns about that which we conventions and discrete statutory provisions itemised on the third page of the minority are the best safeguards for the liberties and report. We did draw attention to that. entitlements of its citizens. In any event, most The other objection we have is that it would Australians believe that there must be effec- discriminate against nationals from countries tive mechanisms in place to enable them to where it is not possible to obtain a divorce, vindicate their civil rights. such as Irish nationals. I am very pleased to The Commonwealth parliament has re- record that the passage of time has caught up sponded to this belief by enacting a limited with that issue. Only last week it became but vital body of legislation. Included in this lawful in the Republic of Ireland for Irish are the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the nationals to get a divorce. So if you wait long Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Disabili- enough it will happen. I hope, in the passage ty Discrimination Act 1992. So essential are of this bill through the second reading stage these to the wellbeing of the community that and the committee stage, we will record their operation should be suspended, if ever, progress such as I have just drawn attention in only the most exceptional circumstances. to in Ireland. No such circumstances exist to justify the Senator COONEY (Victoria) (5.18 p.m.)— passing of schedule 3 of the Migration Legis- Schedule 3 of the Migration Legislation lation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996. Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996, if enacted, If we as federal parliamentarians pass would provide subordinate law makers with proposed section 507 as set out in schedule 3, 1116 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 we demonstrate not only our readiness to evidence. People say, ‘Look, that is a fairly interdict the operation of the Sex Discrimina- sensible thing to do,’ and so it would seem. tion Act ourselves but also our willingness to But the consequences of doing that, as pro- delegate that power to the makers of subordi- posed section 507 says, is that provision has nate legislation. This bodes ill for the strength to be made to set aside the Sex Discrimina- and standing of Australia’s human rights law. tion Act 1984 in so far as it would interfere There is much to be worried about where the with the making of these regulations. Commonwealth parliament is prepared to see I think there are some real problems that we the operation of one of its own civil liberty as a parliament face at the moment. We had statutes suspended to make it easier for a debate earlier in the day about the position government to administer applications for of the High Court and where it enters into the visas. field that people allege is a legislative field. What vice does schedule 3 seek to remedy? They say it should not do that: that it should How many migrants are coming to Australia keep out of that field; that we as parliamen- under the guise of being de facto spouses tarians should be the only ones to legislate. when in fact they are not? Indeed, how many Our position in saying that would be much people come here under that description in better if we were to be more jealous, I think, any event? How difficult is it for the Depart- of issues of human rights. In this case it is not ment of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to a dramatic attempt to suborn the human establish whether a relevant person is or is not liberties that we enjoy. But it is, nevertheless, a de facto spouse? Whatever the answers to an instance where for what is, no doubt, seen these questions, they are most unlikely to as a good reason, but is an insufficient reason, justify what is, in effect, either the rescission this act is set aside. of human rights legislation or the delegation The message that goes out is that we would of the power to do so to subordinate law suspend the Sex Discrimination Act fairly makers. readily if we thought there was a need. If we A seemingly good reason is often advanced are ready to do that, then why have the act at to legitimise the setting aside of civil liberties. all? Perhaps we ought to leave our civil rights But each time that happens the quality of to the attention of the common law—in other Australia’s regime for protecting human rights words, the common law-maker; the court is put at risk. This is the case in the present system, at the pinnacle of which is the High instance where, no doubt with the best of Court. Perhaps the High Court has got a intentions, the government seeks to prevent greater sense of justice—a ‘feel’ for those the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act rights that we all consider are the rights any in certain circumstances. It wants to render decent society should enjoy. I think that this ineffective legislation the purpose of which is particular provision is an occasion when we to further people’s rights and liberties. This is should pause and work out what we are hardly a good thing. doing. I also would like to comment on Although proposed section 507 may make schedule 4. There are some concerns with good administrative sense, the legislature that, but I think I will leave that to the com- should not embrace it. Over a period parlia- mittee stage. ment can, for a succession of reasons, each of Senator REYNOLDS (Queensland) (5.26 which appears compelling at the time it arises, p.m.)—I would like to contribute briefly to whittle away the regime of civil rights in this debate. I feel my colleague, Senator Australia. The problem with this legislation is Cooney, has raised the area of concern that I that it tries to do something that seems emi- have with this bill. I first of all would like to nently sensible: that is, provide for a position put on the public record that it concerns me where a stable relationship can be proved, but that the government has given a number of in different ways. In one case it can be indications, in respect of some of the elements proved by producing a marriage certificate, that are contained in the Migration Legislation and in another case by introducing other Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1996, that it is Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1117 responding to some of the myths and preju- be challenged is something that we will have dices that have come out in the past year’s to wait and see, I suppose. race debate. While I acknowledge that the It is not just the Human Rights Commis- Minister for Immigration and Multicultural sioner. The Australian section of the Interna- Affairs (Mr Ruddock) and the shadow tional Commission of Jurists also commented minister for immigration, Mr Duncan Kerr, saying that the Sex Discrimination Act is a have negotiated and that some of the impacts piece of fundamental human rights legislation. are less—of course, compromise is always By admitting the need for a piece of legisla- welcome—nevertheless, I have grave concerns tion to be exempted from the operation of a about meddling with the Sex Discrimination law, such as the Sex Discrimination Act, the Act. If it is good enough to tinker with the government is admitting the legislation it Sex Discrimination Act in this instance, it sets proposes is discriminatory and breaches a precedent. This government can ill afford a Australia’s international undertakings. The precedent in this area. Over the last 12 Australian section of the International Com- months there have been too many occasions mission of Jurists sees no reason why this when the government has not maintained its should be done. commitment in regard to equal opportunity and gender issues. If, indeed, it is the policy of the government to resile generally from the principles con- I would like to put on the record the view tained in the Sex Discrimination Act, then it of the Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Chris should openly announce such a policy and Sidoti, who said the commission has major seek to amend the act generally. I do not even concerns with the amendments proposed in want to suggest that option. I am too con- schedule 3. Schedule 3 represents a significant cerned that it could in fact be somewhere on withdrawal from the lawful commitment made the government’s agenda. Senator Cooney, in by Australia in the ratification of the conven- his usual way, was very generous in his tion on the elimination of all forms of sex comments and said that probably the govern- discrimination, as implemented through the ment had the best of intentions in setting this Sex Discrimination Act. The first part of requirement for two years. Of course it has schedule 3 proposes the insertion of a section been renegotiated to a one-year cohabitation in the Migration Act. The insertion of this period. section would permit differentiation between Having worked as minister assisting in the applicants for immigration on the basis of de areas of both the status of women and immi- facto or de jure relationships, according to the gration, I would concede that the department law’s status. The commission is most con- of immigration has always tried to assist cerned that the introduction of this kind of women in relationships to ensure that those discrimination represents a significant retreat relationships are genuine, that those relation- from the commitment made in the enactment ships will be particularly in the woman’s best of the Sex Discrimination Act that there interest. I am looking at a number of fairly should be no discrimination on the basis of controversial discussions that have been marital status. taking place over a number of years now in Australian law has dealt for some time with relation to Filipino relationships. the criteria for the acceptance of the existence The goal of the immigration department of a genuine de facto relationship. Those was to give women every opportunity to criteria have been spelt out most particularly ensure that the relationship was as it seemed in social security law. They have also been and was not going to result in the woman enacted in the past and developed in relation regretting that she had made such a choice. to immigration law. As a non-lawyer, I do not So there are some reasons for setting a period. know whether this criteria will be challenged It used to be six months. I understand it was at some stage. The immigration department not legally binding. It was simply that the has had to contend with a number of challen- department set that as a period to be demon- ges over the years. Whether or not this could strated as the cohabitation period. Senator 1118 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Stott Despoja said that she was concerned making on women. The Office of the Status about violent relationships. There can be a of Women is very poorly resourced at the need for certain protective measures in this moment. It is understaffed and has recently regard. So I can accept some of Senator lost its senior officer. Cooney’s comments about best intentions. It is quite clear that this particular amend- But if we have been operating for a number ment bill, and I am speaking specifically of of years with a six-month period seen as schedule 3, seems to have got past. It certain- mandatory, why change? Why do we have to ly cannot have had any input from the Office enshrine it in legislation, particularly when it of the Status of Women. I cannot believe that means going against the provisions of the sex the Office of the Status of Women would discrimination legislation? I know that we have recommended setting aside the funda- have an indication from the minister that it mental principles of the Sex Discrimination will be closely monitored. There will be Act. If that is the case, I would certainly like exemptions but it is the principle of changing to see the evidence. the compliance of the migration legislation with the sex discrimination legislation that Whatever agreements have been negoti- sets a precedent. I think that is a very risky ated—and when you are in opposition you do precedent. have to negotiate and get the best of a bad situation—I think the fundamental principle On perhaps a lighter note, it interesting to of tinkering with the Sex Discrimination Act, note the double standards that apply when we setting aside the Sex Discrimination Act, is talk about family reunion as distinct from like what is being recommended in relation to business migration. We seem to be at pains to race discrimination in the government’s set a period of time in which the spouse can response to the Wik decision. It sets a very indicate a stable relationship but we do not do bad precedent. that for business, do we? We do not have any period of time in which business has to In considering this bill, we should keep that indicate that it is in fact a stable reputable very much to the fore. Whatever inevitably business. We do not have a two-year period. goes through this chamber, we must insist that I see an officer is nodding. I would be inter- community, government and the opposition ested at a later stage in this debate to compare monitor the impact to ensure that there is not how we treat family reunions with how we the kind of discrimination that the Sex Discri- treat business. It seems to me that some pretty mination Act is there to protect us from. creative business practices can get past and Senator O’CHEE (Queensland) (5.38 those practices will continue in this country. p.m.)—I wish to make a few remarks in We do not adopt the same standards of relation to some of the comments that have ensuring stability in the business community been made, particularly in the area of sched- as we are insisting on in terms of establishing ule 2 and in relation to the mechanisms by appropriate relationships. Also the obvious which it is proposed in these migration bills double standard is that if we did that domesti- that the government could deal with migrants cally, if one had to prove stability in a rela- in certain categories, most particularly aged tionship to proceed in any number of areas parents and spouses. These bills set out to domestically, would it not be interesting? I create a more flexible regime for dealing with did want to put on the record my concern. applications than is currently available. I note that Senator Newman now has a There is a mechanism—there has been for parliamentary advisory committee looking at a long time—by which it is possible to cap how Australian women get their message the number of migrants in particular catego- through. I would like to recommend to Sena- ries. That is known as the cap and terminate tor Newman that she take a close look at the mechanism. For the benefit of honourable processes of this government in terms of how senators, let me explain how that works. the Office of the Status of Women is able to Where a cap has been set in a particular report on the impact of government decision category, when that cap is reached all applica- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1119 tions are terminated. That means that those previous government. So I say to those who applications have to be made again. have an argument about capping: this is not It is within the discretion of the minister the place to have the argument. under the cap and terminate procedure to Those who want to ensure fairness for choose to refund the application money, but applicants and want to ensure a system that the minister is not obliged to refund the recognises that people who fail to get in application money. I think it would be very simply because of the cap in one year should peculiar if a minister chose not to refund the be given some priority of assessment the application money, but there may be particu- following year must support schedule 2 as it lar circumstances where that would be the exists in this bill. A failure to support sched- case. ule 2 will mean that the government will be The essence of the cap and terminate forced very reluctantly to utilise the cap and mechanism is that the application is dead. terminate mechanism if applications in certain What we are seeking to do in this bill is to categories exceed the target. The government introduce cap and queue mechanisms. The does not want to do that. difference between cap and queue and cap This bill is not, in so far as schedule 2 is and terminate is simply this: under cap and concerned, a sign of an authoritarian, dictator- queue, applications which are not accepted ial or harsh government. Schedule 2 is part of because the cap has been reached get carried a commitment by this government to make over into the following year and they get the mechanisms for dealing with migration dealt with at the top of the queue in the applications fairer, simpler and more reason- following year. That means that a person who able. It would be an enormous shame if the meets the criteria but fails to get accepted or Senate, to make some sort of other ideological fails to get the visa issued because the cap has point, were to knock back a more reasonable, already been reached keeps their place in the flexible and fairer system as is proposed in queue relative to people who apply in the schedule 2 of this bill. following year. That is very important. I know as I speak that there are honourable Under the cap and terminate mechanism, senators from a number of parties who are there is no guarantee that somebody who undecided as to how schedule 2 should be meets the criteria but fails because the cap has dealt with. It has been suggested by the already been reached will be dealt with at the opposition that schedule 2 should be deleted top of the queue in the next year. It may well in its entirety. I am rising at this late point in be that there is a flood of people at the the debate to argue as forcefully as I can that beginning of the next financial year and that honourable senators wanting to see a fair flood of people ensures that the bona fide processing of applications should support applicant who failed to get accepted because schedule 2 as it stands or at least support of the cap the previous year does not get schedule 2 in part if they believe that parts of accepted in the second year. That is the it should be dealt with. danger of the cap and terminate mechanism. I firmly believe that, if any honourable What the government is seeking to do in senator believes that the cap and queue schedule 2 is quite simply say, ‘We want a mechanism should apply to, for example, mechanism that is simpler and we want a aged parents, then that logic also flows mechanism that is fairer to the applicant.’ through that it should also apply to spouses. There is the possibility that schedule 2 may It would be wrong to suggest that a fair be deleted by amendment during the commit- mechanism should apply in one category and tee stage. I am merely rising at this point in not in another. Acceptance of it in one cate- time to say to honourable senators who have gory means that you should accept the princi- some concerns about capping generally that ple in the other categories for which schedule this is not the place to address those concerns. 2 seeks application. The cap and terminate mechanism is already In conclusion, I beg honourable senators in place. It was in place during the life of the who are undecided as to how they will vote 1120 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 on schedule 2 to consider, between now and minimise inconvenience to applicants and the vote in the committee stage, the fact that reduce costs and inefficiencies. I note that voting against schedule 2 makes the system Senator Stott Despoja has indicated that the more harsh, and that this bill is part of a Democrats will be supporting all these meas- package of reform aimed at making the ures, which are contained in schedule 2 of the system less harsh and more flexible. For that bill. I welcome that support and trust it will reason, I beg honourable senators to support be forthcoming, particularly given the policy the bill and schedule 2 as it stands. commitments of the Democrats to lower Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— migration levels. Minister for Employment, Education, Training The government obviously will be opposing and Youth Affairs) (5.45 p.m.)—I thank the opposition’s amendment which would honourable senators for their consideration of omit schedule 2. As senators would be aware, this package of legislation. In particular, I the bill itself does not seek to specify the thank Senators Stott Despoja, Bolkus, Brown, actual limits on the number of visas issued to Cooney, McKiernan, Reynolds and O’Chee spouses, dependent children or aged parents for their contributions to this debate. in any one year. In fact, the government can The package of bills now before the cham- already use the existing cap and terminate ber is designed to achieve several important provisions of the act in respect of spouses, policy initiatives which were outlined in the dependent children and aged parents. second reading speeches. Senator Kemp, in a However, use of these powers means that, statement to the Senate on behalf of the once a cap is reached, all outstanding applica- government, announced how we intend to tions are taken not to have been made. This pursue regulations relating to the cohabitation means that affected applicants must be con- requirement for de factos, and the English tacted, advised of the impact of the decision education charge. There is no need to repeat and refunded their fees. If those applicants those statements here, other than to note still wish to continue to seek to migrate to Senator Bolkus’s advice that the opposition Australia, they will have to reapply in the will support schedules 1, vis-a-vis visa new year with a new form and a new applica- charges, and 3, vis-a-vis the cohabitation tion fee. Consideration of their applications requirement, of the Migration Legislation would then start afresh. Amendment Bill (No. 3) on the basis of those The Minister for Immigration and Multicul- understandings and explanations. tural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, has made it plain I am also advised that the opposition will that in future if he must use the existing cap be supporting schedule 4, vis-a-vis deprivation and terminate powers to deliver a balanced of citizenship, subject to clarification about migration program he will do so. What this the issue of statelessness. I will come to that bill seeks to do is to ensure that, if there are issue later, and I certainly can reassure Sena- insufficient places compared to demand, the tor Bolkus on that matter. length of time applicants have to wait for a I would make particular reference to the visa and any inconvenience associated with measures contained in the No. 3 bill relating the process are minimised. The amendments to placing limits on visas. The government is would enable the government to establish an determined to restore balance in the migration orderly queue for migration to Australia in all program in 1996-97 and future years. We are migration classes such that inconvenience to doing this through an integrated, sensible and applicants would be minimised. reasonable range of measures which include Senator O’Chee—A fairer system. placing limits on the number of visas which Senator VANSTONE—As Senator O’Chee may be issued in some categories. says, it is a fairer system. Under the arrange- The purpose of the capping amendments ments we propose, once a cap is reached, which are before the Senate is to enable processing would continue, and those appli- government to manage all parts of the cants who reach visa grant stage would be migration program in a manner that would queued for visa grant in the next program Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1121 year when places become available. The ment Bill and the effects of the arrangement length of time that applicants wait may be reached between the opposition and the only a few weeks, depending on demand and government in respect of that. Given that the number of places that become available. arrangement, we will not be opposing the Turning to the provisions in schedule 4 of government’s schedule 1. That may facilitate the bill relating to Australian citizenship, I what the minister wants to do at the moment. note that some concerns have been raised Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— regarding statelessness. I wish to emphasise Minister for Employment, Education, Training to honourable senators that the power to and Youth Affairs) (5.53 p.m.)—Perhaps, deprive a person of Australian citizenship is Senator Bolkus, you can give me some advice a discretionary power which may only be as to what you would be prepared to do. We exercised if it would be contrary to the public would like to consider government amend- interest for the person to remain a citizen. ments 1, 2 and 3 together, albeit we might Honourable senators are assured that stateless- vote on them separately. You may prefer to ness is one factor that will continue to be simply get rid of the first government amend- taken into account in exercising the discretion ment now and get that out of the way. Then of whether or not to deprive a person of we would like to deal with the remaining Australian citizenship. The power is therefore government amendments. exercised sparingly and only in appropriate Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.54 cases. p.m.)—Minister, I think you will find that I I can also inform the Senate that the was looking at the schedule. If we move to government has been advised that the provi- government amendments 1 and 2, they do sions of schedule 4 are not contrary to relate to the Immigration (Education) Charge Australia’s obligations at international law. Act. I have no problem in dealing with both Indeed, the Convention on the Reduction of of those together. I think you will probably Statelessness provides that a person may be find that there is some discussion about deprived of a nationality which was obtained government amendment No. 3 and the Sex by misrepresentation or fraud. I thank all Discrimination Act. Some parties will have senators for their contributions to this debate. different views in respect of that. I suggest that we put 1 and 2 together and then move Question resolved in the affirmative. to 3. Bills read a second time. The CHAIRMAN—We will consider In Committee amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together and then 3 separately. MIGRATION LEGISLATION Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1996 Minister for Employment, Education, Training The bill. and Youth Affairs) (5.54 p.m.)—by leave—I Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— move: Minister for Employment, Education, Training (1) Title, page 1, (line 3), after "1971,", insert and Youth Affairs) (5.52 p.m.)—I table a "the Immigration (Education) Charge Act supplementary explanatory memorandum 1992,". (2) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 28), after clause relating to the government amendments to be 17, insert: moved to this bill. This memorandum was Immigration (Education) Charge Act 1992 circulated in the chamber on 24 February 1997. I seek the indulgence of the chamber. 17A Paragraph 5(a) After "1993", insert "and before the commence- I see a schedule of amendments. ment of the Migration (Visa Application) Charge Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (5.53 Act 1996". p.m.)—I see the schedule as well. The sched- 17B After paragraph 5(a) ule has listed on top of the agenda ‘govern- Insert: ment schedule 1’. I note that that relates to (aa) any visa application fee payable in rela- the Immigration (Education) Charge Amend- tion to the application has been paid 1122 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

before the commencement of the which is well short of the current full cost Migration (Visa Application) Charge Act recovery figure of $5,500. The government 1996; and announced in the 1996-97 budget that it There are quite a few points that I want to would move to amend the Immigration (Edu- make with respect to these amendments. I cation) Charge Act 1992 to increase the think I had better put these on the record ceiling for the maximum of the charge pay- quickly. As I have said, the package of bills able under the regulations to $5,500. At the was designed to achieve several important same time the government moved to amend policy initiatives. They have already been the regulations to remove concessional rates outlined. The government has decided not to of charge that were payable by some proceed at this time with its planned changes migrants. Those regulations were disallowed to the existing English education charge. The by the Senate on 7 November 1996. It is government has also decided to address apparent therefore that a majority of senators concerns raised by the Senate Legal and do not currently support increased charges for Constitutional Legislation Committee in English language tuition or the removal of relation to aspects of the proposed exemption concessional rates. Accordingly, the govern- of the Sex Discrimination Act. As a result of ment has decided at this time not to pursue these decisions, the government is now the proposed increases in English education moving three amendments, of which we are charge, even though this creates a greater dealing with the first two. We will not be burden on the Australian taxpayer. proceeding with the Immigration (Education) With the action now proposed by the Charge Amendment Bill. government, the amount of the English educa- I would like to bring to the attention of tion charge will remain at the same level as honourable senators my only discrepancy at 1 January this year, subject to any changes between the order of the amendments and the flowing from the indexation procedure that order in which they appear in the supplemen- has been in place for some years. In view of tary explanatory memorandum. This discre- this, the government will not now be proceed- pancy only became apparent after the expla- ing with the Immigration (Education) Charge natory memorandum had been printed and Amendment Bill. This means that visa appli- lodged with the Table Office. The first cations that are made before the commence- amendment—that is, item 3 in the explanatory ment of the Migration (Visa Application) memorandum—changes the long title of this Charge Bill will be subject to the existing bill. This is consequential to the second legislative provisions for calculation of the amendment and is purely technical in nature. English education charge. Visa applications The second amendment—that is, item 1 in that are made after commencement of the visa the explanatory memorandum—concerns the application charge will, of course, be subject mechanism for introducing the proposed visa to a new charge instead of the existing application charge. The Migration (Visa charges. The new charge will contain a Application) Charge Bill 1996 introduces a component that is based on lack of English single visa application charge to replace the language proficiency. existing complicated system of visa applica- Consistent with the government’s decision tion fees, the health services charge and the not to increase the English education charge English education charge. This new charge above current levels at this stage, the compo- will include a component equivalent to the nent of the visa application charge that corres- current English education charge, a charge ponds to the English education charge will be which is only paid by some migrants who do set by regulation at the same level as applied not have functional English. Payment of this at 1 January this year. That will also include charge entitles a person to up to 510 hours of maintaining the concessions that applied on English language tuition. that date. The amendments proposed by the Under existing legislation and subject to an government ensure that people who apply for indexation formula, the maximum amount of permanent visas after the introduction of the English education charge is $4,405, a figure visa application charge will only pay the new Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1123 charge and that people who are already liable I draw the committee’s attention to the fact to pay the existing English education charge that the amendments circulated in the cham- will not have to pay the visa application ber said ‘Schedule 1, item 18,’ when they charge. should read ‘Schedule 1, item 19’. The two items in the second amendment are The aim of these amendments is to take identical to items 1 and 2 of the schedule to from the regulations and place into the legis- the Immigration (Education) Charge Amend- lation the government’s proposal that people ment Bill, the bill we are not now proceeding who are in the refugee and humanitarian with. These items are largely technical in categories will not be faced with the visa fees. nature and are designed to prevent the possi- It is an amendment to simply put that into the bility of double liability for both the English legislation while we are here in committee. I education charge and the visa application would also draw the committee’s attention to charge. No-one who has made a valid visa the definition of ‘spouse’ at the end of the application within the meaning of the amendment which states: Migration Act before the commencement of . . . spouse includes a defacto spouse or an interde- the visa application charge will have to pay pendent partner. a visa application charge and no-one who Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- makes a valid visa application after that date tralia) (6.02 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats will be liable for the English education are quite happy to support these amendments. charge. It is in line with our policy which gives Amendments agreed to. priority to refugee and humanitarian cases. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.01 p.m.)— But I ask the minister: are these groups not by leave—I move: already exempt? (1) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 11), omit "A Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— non-citizen", substitute "Subject to section Minister for Employment, Education, Training 45AA, a non-citizen". and Youth Affairs) (6.03 p.m.)—In comment (2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (after line 13), on that, I could say that the bill is seeking to after section 45A, insert: provide enabling legislation and not dealing 45AA Exemptions from visa application with particular categories. That is the bill we charge are dealing with. As a general principle, fees (1) A non-citizen who makes an application for are not payable, as Senator Stott Despoja a refugee and humanitarian class of visa is says, by applicants in the refugee and humani- exempt from liability to pay visa application tarian categories. This bill does not affect charge in respect of that application. that. However, for reasons of integrity and (2) A person who makes an application for a simplicity of the overall scheme, we oppose visa and who is an immediate family mem- the program. The bottom line is that Senator ber of a person who is the holder of a Stott Despoja is right: as a general principle, refugee and humanitarian class of visa is people do not pay fees. For that reason we exempt from liability to pay visa application oppose this. It is simply going to complicate charges in respect of that application matters. In this section: Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.03 immediate family member of a person in- p.m.)—The opposition has just been given cludes: Senator Brown’s amendments and we are (a) a spouse of the person; and looking very closely at them. One aspect we (b) a dependent child, adult child, parent, are looking at is that, obviously, they embody grandparent, grandchild or sibling of the in legislation what otherwise the parliament person or of a spouse of the person; has the capacity to protect in being able to spouse includes a defacto spouse or an interde- deny regulations. It has been suggested to me pendent partner. that maybe the definition of ‘immediate (3) Schedule 1, item 19 page 6 (line 13), after family member’ in this amendment is a bit "make", insert "further". broader than what is currently used in other 1124 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 parts of the act. I wonder if the minister or members’ those persons who have been her advisers can help us on that. outlined, including grandparents and siblings, Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— for goodness’ sake. Minister for Employment, Education, Training If they are not immediate family, who is? and Youth Affairs) (6.04 p.m.)—Senator If that is not in the definition of immediate Bolkus, I am advised that the term ‘immediate family, the words ‘immediate family’ need family member’ generally means spouse or changing or the definition needs changing. It dependent child. You can see that this defini- seems that it is so proscriptive that it belies tion quite markedly extends that meaning the term ‘immediate family’ if these people quite dramatically from spouse and dependent are not included. One should stick to the term children to include an adult child, parent, ‘spouse or child’ if that is all that one means grandparent, grandchild, sibling and so on. So by immediate family, because grandparent, you are quite right. This definition is at odds grandchild and siblings are commonly thought with the general definitions in the bill. of as immediate family. They are immediate Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.05 in every sense of the word of relationship as p.m.)—The principle is one that the opposi- far as the public is concerned. However, that tion has always supported in order to exclude being the case, I can see that we are not refugees and humanitarian entrants from some going to get support from the major parties on of these changes that the government has this matter. I am glad that I brought it up proposed. Given that the amendments are at because it was an effort to weight things a a late stage and there are those questions of little bit in the opposite direction from the one definition of ‘family member’ and so on, we which the government is taking overall with would rather continue with the situation immigration policy. where the parliament has capacity to reject Amendments negatived. any such fees, if and when the government Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.09 chooses to bowl them up, rather than to be p.m.)—We are dealing now with the prescriptive at this stage. opposition’s proposal that schedule 2 be It is probably something we can look at in opposed. The opposition has some very strong terms of future legislation. It is something we views about this particular proposal put by the need to have a close look at because the issue government. These views relate to what could of the definition of ‘immediate family probably best be described as two particular members’ is not an easy one. It does change points. First of all, the overall impact of from background to background, culture to schedule 2 will be to enable the minister—not culture. It is important for us to ensure that by regulation and in no way accountable to we do not create a precedent here that we the parliament but by a notice in the Ga- have not foreseen the consequences of. We zette—to have the unfettered power to cap are attracted to the principle, but not attracted and kill off applications in those areas of to the legislation at this stage. close family. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.06 p.m.)— We are talking here of spouse, dependent I think the consequences are foreseeable in child and aged parent visas. It is important for that they are wholly good as far as we are us that any power that is exercised in this area concerned. Senator Bolkus has said that we is one that is exercised under the scrutiny of can deal with this maybe by looking at the parliament and with accountability to it. government regulations further down the line. It is also important for us to ensure that The problem there is that we cannot regulate. families are not kept separate because of an I can amend the legislation here and now, but arbitrary unaccountable exercise of power by I cannot regulate later down the line to add to way of gazette by government ministers. or change the import of the legislation. So As I said earlier, the opposition was pre- this is the one chance the Greens have of pared to enter into an arrangement with the giving the definition we have, to include government to allow the government to be within the ambit of ‘immediate family able to cap and queue in respect of aged Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1125 parents. We had introduced a number of of cases—day after day and week after week measures in government to try to get the in the media—of kids who cannot join their balance right in respect of aged parents. We parents, or of spouses who cannot join the could see that the government was insistent other spouse. That sort of procession will drag on trying to reduce the number of entrants in the law into disrepute because that sort of the family program and we were prepared to procession is indefensible. contemplate capping and queuing in respect You cannot defend keeping parents sepa- of aged parents. rate. The direct impact of these proposals will The government, I am informed, was be that, for instance, some 1,500 spouses a prepared to contemplate dropping off their year would be kept separate from their spouse proposals in this area as they affected spouses living in Australia and a large number of and dependent children. I think that would young children would also be kept separate. have been a fair outcome in the circum- In terms of fiancees that would be separated, stances, although one in principle that would we are talking of 1,300 offshore, 670 offshore have still caused problems in respect of aged preferential family. In terms of dependants, parents. That was the proposal that was we are talking about 210 dependent children around the place, one that in a sense was who would be kept separate from their par- agreeable to the government. But I am told ents. We are not talking about big numbers that the government is not agreeing to that here. Let us face it: we are talking about, in and now it wants to test this particular propo- the whole scheme of things, something like sal over schedule 2 on the floor of the Senate. two or three per cent of the migration pro- I am further advised that, if in fact schedule gram. For a government to be proposing such 2 does not survive in this place, the govern- draconian legislation to fix up something ment will look at further proposals in the which only needs tinkering with at the edges House of Representatives which would, in is something that the opposition cannot effect, reflect the spirit of the discussions that support. So the opposition will oppose sched- have been taking place between the Minister ule 2. for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Ruddock, and the opposition spokesperson, Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Duncan Kerr. tralia) (6.14 p.m.)—Senator Vanstone, the Democrats will not be supporting schedule 2 The government is indulging in a bit of a in its current form. We were under the im- try-on here. For the government to ask for a pression that a negotiated settlement—the one power to actually act in this area in a way that Senator Bolkus referred to—had been that involves no accountability at all to the reached between the shadow minister and the Senate and in a way that would allow the minister on this issue. I said in the second minister to make a decision here to cap and reading debate that, if the government chose kill by an announcement by notice in the a path that was oppressive or harsh or discri- Gazette is something that we should not be in minatory, we would seek to monitor it closely the business of agreeing to. That would be the but we would not, as I said in my speech last impact of the amendments in respect of the week, be supporting such wide discretionary proposed section 39. powers in relation to the family reunion We also, of course, have problems in category. respect of keeping families separate. The So our indication of support for schedule 2 proposals here would give a minister a capaci- was that a discussion had taken place between ty to keep children from parents and to keep the opposition and the government and that a one spouse away from another. Those sorts of least worst arrangement had been arrived at interventions by government are totally in relation to the intake of aged parents in the unsavoury and unhelpful and should not be family reunion category. I am sorry that so- supported by the parliament. If anything is called negotiated position has fallen through, going to bring the migration program into because it was a position that the Democrats disrepute, it will be a continuation of the flow indicated that they were prepared to support. 1126 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Obviously, as there are no amendments before more complex, particularly as they relate to us in this regard—and I have had it confirmed unfettered power for the minister and in many from advisers on both sides—there will be no ways abrogate the supervisory role of the qualification to schedule 2. We felt that the parliament. negotiated settlement had, in fact, alleviated In relation to the issue of capping and some of the harsher measures of the bill. In queuing, as opposed to capping and killing, line with our policy, though, we were still we had some sympathy for the government very strongly in favour of family reunions or attempts to try to provide a more compassion- at least allowing spouses and children— ate system. But we find that schedule 2 in its Senator Vanstone—Senator, you want current form is too harsh and too oppressive everything, but you also want reduced immi- and will not be supported in that form. I again gration numbers. lament the fact that the government apparent- Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Minister, we ly is no longer supporting a settlement. I am are not discussing numbers. We are talking happy to be corrected on this if there is a about how we determine who is coming into different story as to why this has fallen the country. I say again that the Democrat through. Again, we were prepared to support policy is not inconsistent in this regard. We that negotiated settlement at least as one way recognise, and our policy recognises, a need of alleviating the harshness of schedule 2 in for a population policy. We also, in relation its original form. The Democrats will not to immigration, acknowledge that a reduced support it in its current form. However, we immigration intake is not an unreasonable were prepared to support it with the changes policy suggestion. But how we determine to aged parents. those people who come into this country and Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— how they are treated once they are here are Minister for Employment, Education, Training matters that are yet to be debated in a fair and and Youth Affairs) (6.19 p.m.)—I apologise, appropriate way by this government. Senator Stott Despoja, that I was not able, The Democrats reiterate that we acknow- because I was otherwise occupied, to be here ledge that spouses and other people eligible for, or listen to, the speech you gave during under family reunions, such as children and the second reading debate. As I am advised, even aged parents, have a valuable role to during the second reading debate you indicat- play in our society. We believe they value ed that you would be supporting schedule 2 add to our society. We reiterate that we are and did not make reference to agreed amend- not in favour of some kind of social engineer- ments to it. You simply said you would be ing in relation to inter-reunion and immigra- supporting schedule 2. Is it the case that you tion intake in this country. now come in and say that you only said that The government’s objective that has been because you thought there were some changes touted in relation to schedule 2 is to provide that were going to be made, or did you give more flexibility and so-called fairness in that qualification in the second reading de- relation to the system. What I can see from bate? the broad ranging nature of schedule 2 is that Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- it simply offers the minister wide discretion- tralia) (6.19 p.m.)—If you take the in continu- ary and unfettered powers, certainly with ation comments that I made today along with uncertain scrutiny arrangements. For that the comments that I made on Tuesday in this reason, all of my colleagues have expressed place, it is clear that the Democrats had their concerns regarding the wide discretion- concerns in relation to the family reunion ary powers that this particular schedule gives category and the consequences of schedule 2. the minister. I perhaps should have qualified more strong- My colleagues have listened to the debate ly; in my comments today I acknowledged the and have given consideration to the arguments condition on which we were prepared to proffered on all sides of the chamber and support the capping and queuing mechanism, have decided that the issues are significantly but I did take for granted—incorrectly so—the Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1127 idea that the schedule was to be amended. So this, because that had been said. I advanced I apologise for causing any confusion in that the arguments then and I do not propose to regard. If you look at the Hansard from last advance them now, because they are the same Tuesday, I made clear that we were very arguments. In short, just so that the committee concerned about schedule 2 in its original knows where I am standing, I am supporting form. the amendment that is being proposed by the Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— opposition. Minister for Employment, Education, Training Question put: and Youth Affairs) (6.20 p.m.)—I will not That schedule 2 stand as printed. delay the Senate on this matter. I will indicate that, when you are trying to manage a pro- The Committee divided. [6.26 p.m.] gram, it is very difficult when an indication (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret of support is given for a particular schedule— Reid) with a few concerns expressed but, nonethe- Ayes ...... 33 less, support—and then we have a senator tell Noes ...... 35 us that that was only said because she was —— counting on some amendment getting through. Majority ...... 2 She was not, as I understand it, told that by —— the government. In fact, that came from AYES Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. discussions that other non-government parties Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H.* might have had. This really does not seem Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. any way to run the show. Coonan, H. Crane, W. Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Nonetheless, I want to talk briefly on this Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J and indicate that this amendment will have Gibson, B. F. Heffernan, W. the effect of entirely negating our proposals Herron, J. Hill, R. M. to have a visa cap and queue extended to Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. those areas where it is currently unavailable; Macdonald, I. Macdonald, S. that is, to aged parent visas, to spouse visas MacGibbon, D. J. McGauran, J. J. J. and to dependent children visas. We obvious- Minchin, N. H. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. ly oppose the amendment. We believe the Reid, M. E. Short, J. R. measures are essential for orderly manage- Tambling, G. E. J. Tierney, J. ment of the program. Troeth, J. Vanstone, A. E. It is important to understand that the previ- Watson, J. O. W. ous government had, and this government has, NOES cap and kill mechanisms already. What we Allison, L. Bishop, M. Bolkus, N. Bourne, V. are asking for is, yes, some enhancement of Brown, B. Carr, K. that but, more particularly, cap and queue, Childs, B. K. Collins, J. M. A. which seems much more orderly and much Colston, M. A. Cook, P. F. S. more sensible and much fairer. If senators are Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. not of a mind to support that, be it on their Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V.* heads to answer for it. Foreman, D. J. Forshaw, M. G. Gibbs, B. Harradine, B. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (6.22 Hogg, J. Kernot, C. p.m.)—The problem is that you have a very Lees, M. H. Lundy, K. important principle here, and it relates to the Mackay, S. Margetts, D. bonds of marriage and family being the McKiernan, J. P. Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. Neal, B. J. foundation of any civilised society. I do not O’Brien, K. W. K. Ray, R. F. propose to go over the matters that I raised on Reynolds, M. Schacht, C. C. the previous occasion when there was a Sherry, N. Stott Despoja, N. disallowance motion on Migration Regula- Woodley, J. tions (Amendment) Statutory Rules 1996, No. PAIRS 211. I do not propose to delay the chamber on Alston, R. K. R. Conroy, S. 1128 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

PAIRS discrimination to occur in relation to the Newman, J. M. Faulkner, J. P. marital status of persons dealing with visa Woods, R. L. Collins, R. L. applications from persons in de facto relation- * denotes teller ships. (Senator West did not vote, to compensate for The government wants to make it clear that the vacancy caused by the death of Senator we could never contemplate this. However, Panizza) we are prepared to move an amendment to Question so resolved in the negative. put the issue beyond doubt. The third amend- Amendment (by Senator Vanstone) pro- ment, therefore, directly addresses the posed: committee’s concern by putting beyond doubt that the Sex Discrimination Act continues to (3) Schedule 3, item 1, page 13 (after line 21), at apply in relation to the marital status of the end of clause 507, add: persons making or administering the relevant (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not regulations. prevent the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 from applying in relation to the marital In addition, the explanatory memorandum status of persons making or administering has been amended to make it absolutely clear regulations covered by subsection (1). that the Sex Discrimination Act applies except Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.32 p.m.)— to the extent required to administer those The purpose of this amendment is to ensure regulations. As the government indicated in that the people who will actually administer the statement foreshadowing this amendment, this act are protected by the Sex Discrimina- another area of consideration has been the tion Act. Why is it that we are concerned government’s intention to require a mandatory about one group of people but are not con- period of cohabitation for people seeking cerned about another group of people? Why visas on the basis of de facto and interdepend- can the Sex Discrimination Act be made non- ent relationships. operable for one group but is left to operate Honourable senators can be assured that the for another group? Does the minister concede government intends that the period of cohabi- that this particular proposal does two things: tation that will be required under the regula- one, that it does see to the non-operation of tions in de facto and interdependency cases the Sex Discrimination Act in certain circum- will not exceed 12 months and that there will stances; and, two, that it gives subordinate be provision to waive this requirement if there law-makers the ability to pass regulations are compelling circumstances to do so. which would be in conflict with the Sex For example—and without intending to be Discrimination Act 1984 if in fact it was able prescriptive about the content of future regu- to operate? lations—the regulations might make provision Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— for waiver of the cohabitation period where a Minister for Employment, Education, Training de facto couple has a child of the relationship and Youth Affairs) (6.33 p.m.)—Senator or where cohabitation by interdependent Cooney, this amendment basically implements applicants is contrary to the law of the coun- an election commitment. As you know, it try in which they reside. In conclusion, the relates to schedule 3 of the Migration Legisla- government moves these amendments with tion Amendment Bill (No. 3) and addresses some reluctance. As a matter of principle, we concerns raised by the Legal and Constitu- are committed to the user-pays principle. tional Legislation Committee in relation to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.36 p.m.)— aspects of the proposed exemption. The The minister might just clarify something for committee recommended that proposed me. She said that there is no concern about section 507(b) of the migration legislation be the Sex Discrimination Act. I thought the redrafted to limit the field of operation of the changes the government was making were, on provision. The committee’s concern was that the face of it, infringing the Sex Discrimina- administrative practices could be authorised tion Act—that is, that de facto couples are under section 507, with the effect of allowing going to be treated differently from married Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1129 people when they put an application before Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- the government to come into this country— tralia) (6.38 p.m.)—I acknowledge that the and that that is why you had to do something amendment before us deals with a 50 per cent about it. reduction in the original cohabitation period Senator Vanstone—Yes, the government that the government wanted. It still does not treats married and cohabiting couples differ- fully address the concerns that the Australian ently. Democrats have with regard to this area and in relation to the sexual discrimination legisla- Senator BROWN—That is where I take tion. We recognise the will of this chamber umbrage at the legislation. No doubt the on this one, but we still have concerns over statistics can fly, but if you want to make an the one-year period as well. analysis of married couples under the head- ings of couples with one, two, three, four, five Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.39 children or no children, their age groups or p.m.)—With respect to the opposition’s where they got married, you will find there position, one of the things I was really are different statistics as to how long those pleased to do as minister in this area was marriages last. streamline the area with respect to particularly The government’s notes say that it wants to interdependency cases. So I have been con- make it harder for de facto couples to come cerned that the government is imposing these to this country because their rate of staying sorts of measures and in fact overriding the together is not as good as it is for people who operation of the SDA with respect to this. have a marriage certificate under their arm. The opposition’s position has evolved But that is discriminatory. The minister through discussions with the government, and should be able to say why it is that she has I must say it has been made a lot easier not broken down into subgroups the biggest because of the government’s preparedness to group in this category coming into the coun- cut back the period from two years to one and try, married people, to see which sorts of also to invest a discretion in the minister or marriages will last the best and apply the two- delegated officer to waive such a requirement year test to the sorts of marriages which do in circumstances where, for instance, a not last as well as others. country’s laws prohibit such cohabitation. The point of the Sex Discrimination Act That was one of the concerns raised before was to stop this sort of thing happening. The the Senate committee and reflected in the point of this amendment is to allow the report of the committee on this bill. So those government to get around an act which has two measures make it somewhat easier for us been on our statutes for 13 years to prevent to accept a measure which, in principle, we discrimination. As we all know, once we would have enormous difficulty in accepting. allow a bit to be chipped away, the govern- Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.40 p.m.)— ment will be back to have more chipped away The difference that is being defined here is further down the line. So, as far as I am one on the basis of discrimination. I think the concerned, I oppose this move by the govern- minister accepts that the measure is discrimi- ment. I think it is fraught with difficulties. natory and that it would be, as it stands, an Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— infringement of the Sex Discrimination Act Minister for Employment, Education, Training 1984. I oppose it vehemently. and Youth Affairs) (6.38 p.m.)—Senator, we made it abundantly clear that we thought Amendment agreed to. there would need to be a time test. We origi- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- nally wanted two years. We have made tralia) (6.41 p.m.)—I move: concessions in that respect and come down to Schedule 3, item 1, page 13 (lines 5 to 21), omit 12 months as a consequence of representa- the item, substitute: tions made by the opposition. This might be a situation where you and the government 1 At the end of the Act simply have a different view. Add: 1130 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

507 Marital status compromises which often have the effect of (1) For the avoidance of doubt, it is expressly allowing safe havens for some people to declared to be the intention of the Parlia- discriminate against other people. The Aus- ment that the terms of the Sex Discrimina- tralian Democrats strongly believe that racial, tion Act 1984, to the extent that it applies to sexual and disability discrimination are the status or condition of being married or being the de facto spouse of another person, equally abhorrent and should be given equal prevail over the provisions of this Act. weighting and equal concern. So I have moved an amendment which is a modified (2) Nothing in this Act is to be taken to author- ise: version of what the ALP moved in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (a) the making of any regulations that, for the purposes of dealing with an application (Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Periods for a visa, specify: and Other Measures) Bill 1996—I believe that (i) the nature and incidents of the relation- was accepted by the government—and in ship between a person and another relation to the Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill person; or 1996. (ii) the period for which a relationship of Senator Bolkus—It was not accepted by a specified kind must have existed the government. between a person and another person; Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Which was before the person is taken to be the de facto not accepted by the government; that is right. spouse of the other person; or This same idea is proposed by the shadow (b) any conduct that is inconsistent with the minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. Islander affairs, Mr Daryl Melham, in regard to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the In my second reading comments I expressed Native Title Act. I invite Senator Bolkus and our concern in relation to the changes that his colleagues to show their support for an affect sexual discrimination law in this coun- initiative that was arrived at by one of their try. The amendment—and I apologise for its colleagues and for equal opportunity and late circulation—is one which government human rights by supporting our amendment. and opposition members would be familiar with anyway, given it has been moved in a Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— rather similar form in relation to bills in Minister for Employment, Education, Training previous debates. and Youth Affairs) (6.43 p.m)—The govern- ment opposes the amendment for two reasons. We do not support amendments to the Sex Firstly, it would simply overturn the amend- Discrimination Act, and we are proposing an ment we have just passed, which would make amendment which essentially affirms the us all look like a bunch of dills. It is com- primacy of the SDA as it presently exists. Just pletely inconsistent with what we have just as Senator Reynolds objected strongly to any done. Secondly, it is very hard to look at attempts to tone down the SDA, we are things on the run. Senator, I know the bottom making a commitment to that in amendment line of the amendment circulated in the form. chamber with today’s date reads ‘6.26 p.m.’, We certainly believe in equality, and on at but the one you have given me was sent to least five separate occasions our national the Democrats on 25 February—that is a parliament has spoken in favour of equality. week ago. I do not know whether other In recent times these have been with regard parties had it earlier, but we certainly would to the Racial Discrimination Act, the Disabili- have appreciated it earlier. ty Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Senator BOLKUS (South Australia) (6.44 Act, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity p.m.)—We do have a problem which in a Commission Act and the Human Rights sense emanates from the fact that this amend- (Sexual Conduct) Act. ment was circulated only some 20 minutes We believe that exemptions do not further ago. We have not really had enough time to human rights in this country but are political consider it at all, let alone in full. The objec- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1131 tive is desirable. The implications are such, the last amendment. That is why I spoke so though, that one has to consider the whole strongly against the committee allowing the diversity of migration law, and that is some- government to get away with writing into thing that worries us at this particular stage. legislation that the Sex Discrimination Act The principle is a good one. But, for instance, will come second. I had thought that that was how does it affect married couples and how one of the flagships, if you like, of Labor’s does it affect de facto couples in so many social justice innovations of the last decade or areas of migration law? That is not before us two. For goodness sake, let us not hear the at the moment. For that reason, rather than Labor Party saying, ‘But here’s an exception.’ objecting to it on the basis of principle, we do not at this stage support this amendment. In particular, Senator Stott Despoja has come forward with a very clear defence of the Senator Vanstone made a telling point. Sex Discrimination Act in this legislation. She Having passed what we just did in terms of has pointed to the fact that she is being the SDA, how do we then pass this at this incited to do this, if you like, by the fact that particular stage? That is something we really in the last few weeks Labor has been defend- need to dwell on. I would like to see, though, ing through this same mechanism other acts the government give full consideration to the which protect our citizens from discrimina- operation of the Sex Discrimination Act in tion. So how could Labor not support this? relation to migration law. It is something that over recent years we did pay some attention You cannot get away with saying, ‘We to. But we think it would be quite useful to haven’t had time to look at it.’ Let us move have a review into the migration law and its to give you more time, if that is the case. But consistency with the SDA. That could be I appeal to the Labor Party to look at this done, for instance, by the joint committee of amendment again. It is a very important the parliament on migration or maybe the Sex principle and the government should not get Discrimination Commissioner could be asked away with pulling the first strings to undo the to look at this area. But it is an important Sex Discrimination Act lightly. It is a very issue and one which is diverse in its ramifica- important matter. Those of us who are con- tions. For that reason, not having had a cerned, and I think everybody in this place is chance to test those ramifications at this stage, concerned about discrimination, ought to look we are not inclined to support the amendment, to the legislation that this parliament has though we support the principle. passed—very often hard fought for and hard Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (6.46 p.m.)— won—and not take it lightly at all. To say, That is a really dangerous point of view to ‘We haven’t had time to look at this,’ is to take. What we know from the passing of the fail to give it the seriousness that it ought to last amendment is that the authority of the have. Sex Discrimination Act is being put secondary Maybe I should not reflect on past votes—I to the government’s intentions in this legisla- do not know what the rule is—but we ought tion. The minister knows that. She just said not in this place be passing specific infringe- that, having passed that amendment five ments of the Sex Discrimination Act. The minutes ago, you would be a dill if you now committee did that in a way. Here is our supported this. The opposition needs to look chance to recover. Here is our chance to make further than that because, if it does not sup- good that last vote if we, in consideration, do port this, it is effectively saying that it is not think it was a good one. Making it legal putting the Sex Discrimination Act second to to infringe the Sex Discrimination Act is not the government’s new policy of limiting much different from infringing it in an illegal immigration and categories of people who can fashion. We have the opportunity here to come to the country. think about it and we ought to be supporting I reiterate: it is a very dangerous precedent Senator Stott Despoja’s motion. It is clear cut, to be allowing the government to get away it is simple and it says, ‘Let’s stand by the with. That is why I spoke so strongly against Sex Discrimination Act.’ We should do that. 1132 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— much the fact that there is going to be a 12- Minister for Employment, Education, Training month period to test whether or not people are and Youth Affairs) (6.51 p.m.)—One might in a de facto relationship; the real problem make a mistake if one thought the reason for throughout all this is that schedule 3 specifi- not supporting it was simply a matter of cally refers to the Sex Discrimination Act and timing. It is a matter of courtesy that one does uses language quite akin to section 6 of the not waltz in here with amendments that one act. It goes ahead and puts aside the operation has been sitting on for a week, spread them of that act. I think that is what has got every- around and say at the last minute, ‘Let’s think body concerned. It is not so much that you about this.’ That was the point that was being need rules as to evidence, but that this sched- made. ule 3 itself specifically sets aside the Sex Whether you see merit in this or not is Discrimination Act. That, I think, has people another matter. I have seen plenty of amend- worried, and justifiably worried. It has been ments that have come in with quite set aside to allow evidentiary provisions to meritorious intentions that on greater reflec- operate. That, I think, has people concerned. tion have had flaws in them. It is all very Amendment negatived. well to say that you are satisfied, in whatever Bill, as amended, agreed to. period you have had to look at this, there are no flaws in this. That may be the case in MIGRATION (VISA APPLICATION) terms of Senator Stott Despoja’s intention. It CHARGE BILL 1996 may not be the case. We have not had the Bill agreed to. opportunity to consider whether it simply Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. does what she wants to do and nothing else, 3) reported with amendments and an amend- because we got it only a short time ago. And ment to the title, and Migration (Visa Appli- that is not the way to run a parliament. cation) Charge Bill reported without requests; Additionally, you might have seen, I think, report adopted. the 1990-91 report by the Joint Standing Third Reading Committee on Migration Regulations, chaired by Mr Theophanous. I have not read this Bills (on motion by Senator Vanstone) report, but I am informed that it recommend- read a third time. ed a 12-month cohabitation period for de Sitting suspended from 6.56 p.m. to 8.00 facto couples. So let us not pretend that p.m. parliament is doing something now that it has not understood and that it has not been EDUCATION SERVICES FOR considered by a whole range of people. It has OVERSEAS STUDENTS and they agree. They might disagree with (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL you, but other people nonetheless have a 1996 different view. That may be difficult to accept, but the longer we are here the more EDUCATION SERVICES FOR we all have to swallow it every now and then. OVERSEAS STUDENTS We disagree. That is what the place is about. (REGISTRATION OF PROVIDERS But a joint standing committee chaired by the AND FINANCIAL REGULATION) previous government in 1991 recommended AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1996 a 12-month cohabitation period for de factos. Second Reading It is not as if this issue has not had a decent airing. Debate resumed from 9 December 1996, on motion by Senator Campbell: Senator COONEY (Victoria) (6.52 p.m.)— That these bills be now read a second time. On that, I am voting according to the speech—a good speech, may I say—given by Senator CARR (Victoria) (8.00 p.m.)—Is Senator Bolkus. To be fair, I think the point the minister coming? being made by Senator Stott Despoja is not so Senator O’Chee—Keep going, Senator. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1133

Senator CARR—Senator O’Chee, I would of it was undertaken earlier this year by Ernst not, if I were you, pursue that line. The and Young. In a climate of general deregu- opposition has considered the issues in rela- lation it is interesting to note that the review tion to the Education Services for Overseas found no stakeholder in favour of industry Students (Registration Charges) Bill and self-regulation at this time. Concerns centred associated legislation. Given that since 1995 on Australia’s international reputation in the almost 81,000 overseas students have studied provision of education services and whether in Australia, some 15.6 per cent more than a the industry currently had sufficient maturity year earlier, quite clearly the measures under- to self-regulate. In addition, there was a taken in this bill are important to Australia’s stakeholder agreement that the Common- international reputation and protection of the wealth should continue to have a regulatory integrity of its overseas educational programs. role and that regulation entirely by state and The international student education industry territory governments was not desirable. brings a net benefit to the Australian economy The sunset clause in the ESOS Act will of some $600 million annually. We believe it now take effect from 1 January 1999. Given is likely to grow. that there seems to be a genuine agreement Legislation to ensure the financial and about the appropriateness of the current quality assurance of the provision of educa- arrangements and that it is vitally important tion to overseas students was first introduced that we ensure that such a very substantial in 1991 in the form of the Education Services export industry is protected by effective for Overseas Students (Registration of Provid- financial and quality safeguards, the opposi- ers and Financial Regulation) Act, the ESOS tion believes that it is not unreasonable for Act. This follows the development and con- the Commonwealth to seek to recoup some of cerns in the late 1980s about the credibility of the costs incurred in the process. much that was then on offer from the non- The government proposed that a charge be formal parts of Australia’s education and levied on the basis of the number of students training system; that is, not including the enrolled by institutions in the previous year, universities, schools or the TAFE colleges but with the charge amounts ranging from $300 essentially other providers. Some major for up to 10 students, increasing to $5,000 for concerns emerged as to the financial viability more than 400 students. The charge would and the quality of courses offered by many of apply for all enrolments of people in Australia these institutions. on student visas. A framework was established whereby the I know that Senator Margetts had planned states and territories were responsible for to move two amendments to take account of primary accreditation of institutions and the length of courses as well as the number of courses while the Commonwealth maintained enrolments at each institution. This is quite a register of providers and their courses. It important, given the vast differences in course required non-exempt providers to operate trust length—they vary from a period of weeks to accounts for prepaid course fees; to submit to years. It was Labor’s initiative that encour- the Department of Employment, Education, aged the government to reconsider their ap- Training and Youth Affairs, as it then was, an proach to these regulations and as a result this annual return relating to the operation of these has led to a discussion between various trust accounts; and to be members of a tuition parties within the Senate. The way the legisla- assurance scheme. There seems no doubt that tion was previously framed discriminated these arrangements have contributed signifi- against the providers of shorter courses many cantly to the stability in the industry in the of whom are members of the English Lan- period since their introduction and have been guage Intensive Courses to Overseas Students a major factor in the growth of the industry Association. during that time. According to the information supplied by In view of the fact that the ESOS Act was the Department of Employment, Education, due to expire at the end of this year, a review Training and Youth Affairs, the median 1134 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 course duration of students enrolled at the Education Services for Overseas Students ELICOS institutions in 1995 was 40 weeks. (Registration of Providers and Financial In other words, around half the students were Regulation) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996. enrolled in courses shorter than 40 weeks. The ESOS act, as many of us are aware, Also according to DEETYA, around 20 per allows for the regulation of the overseas cent of ELICOS enrolments were people education industry in this country. Many will doing courses of less than three months recall that this arose from a situation in 1991 duration who could therefore have been where the government was forced to refund eligible for visitor rather than student visas, the fees of 12,000 international students thus excluding them from the calculation of affected by the closure of private educational the provider registration charge. services in this country. That means, however, that 80 per cent of ESOS also provides for quality and fairness enrolments were not eligible for such exclu- within the industry. These bills establish the sion, yet many were still doing relatively administrative arrangements required of short courses. To take account of this and to providers under the ESOS act. These bills try to treat such providers on an equitable also extend the sunset clause for a further two basis with other providers such as universities, years while consultation continues with we are pleased to note that the government industry regarding service provision for listened to the concerns put forward by the international students. opposition parties and has sought to amend its One million dollars per annum of the bill in a way which counts people doing estimated $1.9 billion in export revenue is courses of less than 26 weeks as half an expected to result from the passage of these enrolment for the purpose of the charge, with bills. I note that an article appeared in the students in longer courses counting as one Australian last year—I think it coincided with enrolment. We will therefore be supporting the original timetabling of this legislation, this amendment. I note that the minister has when we were first due to debate it—in the yet to arrive. higher education supplement entitled ‘Educa- Senator O’Chee—The minister is here. tion top in export growth’. In that article I Senator CARR—Where is the minister? learnt that Steven Kemp had conducted the research for a report which found that more Senator Minchin—Here. export dollars come into this country from Senator O’Chee—He is the minister on overseas higher education than from wheat. I duty. believe the figure stated was around $1.9 Senator CARR—You are the minister on billion this year alone. duty, are you? I understand that Senator This is obviously an incredibly huge indus- Vanstone has coverage of this bill. So, Sena- try. It is little wonder that people involved in tor Minchin, you have coverage of this bill, that industry as well as people involved in the do you? higher education sector generally were very Senator O’Chee—You cannot pick and concerned about the impact, both economical- choose. This is not a smorgasbord. ly and academically, of comments made last year by a certain Independent member in the Senator CARR—The opposition will be other place and were very worried that export supporting the amendments, but it would be education and its expected revenue might be easier for this bill to proceed if the minister somehow harmed in that way. who had coverage of this bill was in fact Between 1988 and 1995, the number of present. overseas students in Australia increased nearly Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- fourfold to more than 800,000. Mr Kemp also tralia) (8.07 p.m.)—I rise today to discuss the observed this and further observed that uni- education services for overseas student bills, versities were increasingly nervous that their both the Education Services for Overseas funding would become more dependent upon Students (Registration Charges) Bill 1996 and overseas student income. As a result of his Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1135 research, he says, ‘If there were to be any the mainstream press, but media in different abrupt changes in policy or fall off in student countries. It is a simple premise: if you cut numbers, they would really feel it’—‘they’ resources to a university system which is being the higher education institutions, which already feeling the strain of 13 years of are increasingly reliant on independent fees chronic underfunding, you will undermine the and charges these days that they secure not quality of the sector. only from overseas students but also from domestic students in this country. I remind honourable senators that we have seen the closure of campuses already in this To date Australia has captured a larger nation: the St George campus of the Universi- market share than either the US or the UK, ty of New South Wales and the Salisbury but this could change obviously if there are campus of the University of South Australia detrimental or negative changes policywise in in our home state, Madam Acting Deputy this country but also if they realise—and I am President. We had news only last week that sure they do—the potential export earnings. that same institution is considering closing the I think Australia should not lose the hard doors of its regional campus in Whyalla, work put in by universities. There has been a obviously in the face of the harsh budget cuts lot of effort put in by institutions around this that have been undertaken by this coalition country over the last decade, certainly in government. regard to providing bridging courses, orienta- tion courses or what have you for overseas We have seen other universities merging students. Certainly that should not be sacri- their departments. They have retrenched staff, ficed for the sake of short-term measures, be and I am sure they will continue to do so. Of those measures to slash and burn or what course we are all familiar with the up-front have you. fees proposals that have been rammed through by this government. The University of Mel- Each international student is estimated to bourne is considering $110,000 for a dentistry spend around $23,000 per annum in education degree. All of these will impact upon the on a range of expenses—obviously living quality offered in institutions. The quality and expenses as well as education expenses. In the reputation of these institutions will deter- 1995, there was $1.88 billion in direct ex- mine whether or not they can attract overseas penditure by international students—a huge students and overseas student dollars. amount—and, I believe, $125 million gener- ated by other education export earnings from The Howard government has cut universi- offshore programs. ties by 4.9 per cent over the next three years. Mr Steven Kemp said that the only limita- These cuts are compounded by a failure to tion to this growth is the potential of the maintain an election pledge by this govern- higher education sector to cope. That brings ment—that is, to address the NTEU wage into debate a whole range of issues regarding claim. Basically, this means that the cuts to changes and reform in the higher education the higher education sector, to universities sector generally. Obviously, the impact of specifically, are around 10 per cent. If the budget cuts to operating grants, cuts to discre- resources and budgets are already strained and tionary funding arrangements and the resultant the government continues to cut further, then cuts to programs, schools, departments, staff the reality is that international students will and resources have seen the first dominoes look to other places. They will look to count- fall. ries such as the United States and the United Kingdom to pursue their study. I note—and many in this chamber would be aware of this—that international students have Around this country we are losing academ- been calling meetings. They have been con- ics with expertise in many fields. Once they cerned and they have spoken with vice- have gone, their experience will no longer be chancellors. This has been reported in the available to the minds of future, up and media which has filtered through—not only coming students. The university funding cuts in domestic papers around this country and in this nation are as short-sighted in an 1136 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 economic as well as academic sense as they have the right to believe that, once they enrol are unpopular. in an Australian university, they will receive This weekend the Sydney Morning Herald a quality education; that the government will printed the results of an AGB McNair poll ensure that, within those universities, the which failed the performance of the Howard buildings are not falling down, the libraries government on higher education. Forty-six per are well stocked and there are sufficient staff, cent of those surveyed disapproved of the resources and infrastructure; that the com- coalition’s treatment of higher education. But puters will be adequate for the number of I am sure that many of us on this side of the students in those institutions; and that the chamber could have told—indeed, have told— campus environment will be a safe one. the government that, as every debate regard- Students who come to these shores, who pay ing higher education has come to this cham- up-front fees—full cost fees, in many cases— ber. have a right to expect such arrangements. It is worth noting that this was the highest Yet many international students, overseas disapproval rating of the entire survey. It students—not just their formal organisation— probably reflects similar surveys which have have been contacting my office with com- been conducted recently showing that the plaints about the animosity they receive when minister’s performance is considered I think referring to administrators, be they vice- the bottom or the equal bottom rating with chancellors, registrars or what have you, when that of Alexander Downer, the Minister for they bring up issues such as a shortage of Foreign Affairs, when it comes to the public’s resources, and so on. Ultimately, any shortage perception of performance of ministers in this of resources is the responsibility of the country. It is worth noting also that that government. approval rating, which did rate Senator This government has been particularly quick Vanstone more highly than Mr Downer, was to slash education budgets and boast of its taken before the means test debacle—and I budget cuts but very slow to recognise that am sure that Mr Downer is taking comfort education is not a cost. Education in this from that but certainly minister Vanstone is country is an investment, an investment in our not. future. Also, economically speaking, it is a Certainly the electorate could have expected good investment. When we talk about the to be able to put some faith or hope in the revenue from export education creating more government holding true to some of its money in this country than wheat, then policies—certainly its pre-election promises obviously that investment is giving a very that it would not cut funds to this particular quick return. sector, that it would not cut operating grants, The funding cuts in many institutions will that it would maintain Austudy, that it would rebound on overseas students. It seems that not change fees and charges and that it would many institutions will be forced to make strengthen rural and regional institutions. I tough decisions as a result of the budget cuts. would be very interested to see the overseas Those tough decisions include offering no student take-up rate in regional and remote counselling; cutting back on assistance regard- campuses around this nation, especially when ing English skills, bridging courses and many of those campuses are facing the threat orientation courses; cuts to child-care centres of closure. The population had a right to and accommodation—again, issues that affect believe that they would not be facing up-front overseas students; and lack of resources, fees and charges of the magnitude they now library and other education materials. The expect, just as they believed that this govern- proposed cuts could make these resources ment really did have a commitment to educa- virtually non-existent, especially on those tion, as stated in its pre-election policies. campuses already suffering from chronic But there is a litany of broken promises underfunding. Our international reputation from this government in regard to higher depends on these resources and services being education funding. International students also of a high and competitive quality for all Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1137 students—another issue which threatens tolerant society. Again, the Democrats lament Australia’s reputation as an international those particular changes—not only lament education provider. them but find them absolutely shameful. We International students have been hurt not believe that we must start acting more respon- only by government attacks on the higher sively towards international students—in fact, education sector but also by the needless, towards all students in our society. This bill inciteful and ill-informed race debate. Many will go some way towards that goal. of those students—and this is shown in However, I urge the government to reflect surveys and polls that have been conducted in on the impact of its funding cuts to the higher institutions around the country—do fear education sector, and to assess the social increased racism. They believe that it is of deficit its zealous pursuit of its budget black increased proportions on campuses. This hole has created. I would hate to think that belief—this idea—that is and has been per- we are creating some kind of intellectual, petuated by the government that somehow moral or what have you range of deficits in overseas students have been displacing, or this country in a bid to address the so-called taking the places of, domestic students is a budget deficit. furphy. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.22 p.m.)— Perhaps the minister on duty, Senator I am replacing Senator Margetts essentially in Minchin, might want to explain the rationale responding to this legislation on behalf of the that was put forward during the higher educa- Greens. I will refer to her excellent notes in tion debate by the minister for higher educa- doing so. The Senate is debating two bills tion, Senator Vanstone: this idea that we are which deal with education services for over- offering up-front full-cost undergraduate fees seas students. The first bill—the Education now because they were previously offered to Services for Overseas Students (Registration overseas students and thus, if not displacing of Providers and Financial Regulation) domestic students, somehow domestic stu- Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996—is a non- dents should be offered that ‘choice’. I use controversial bill which extends the current that term loosely because I think the choice act until 1999, due largely to the failure of the debate in this whole issue is a complete states to implement their own regulations by furphy. the existing expiry in 1997. It should be noted It is not the case that overseas students have that this is not the first time that we have had taken places from domestic students. As I and to extend the act for this reason. Senator many of my colleagues have expressed in this Margetts trusts that it will be the last. place on many occasions—be it during the The second bill—the Education Services for immigration and ethnic affairs debates we Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Bill have had or on a range of issues—again, we 1996—is more of a problem because of the express our concern that the government did manner in which education service providers not instantly, wholeheartedly and entirely are being charged to cover the costs of main- repudiate many of the comments made by Ms taining the Commonwealth register of institu- Hanson, the Independent member for Oxley. tions and courses for overseas students. As In fact, the government has allowed, almost the bill currently stands, English language encouraged, this urban myth, if you like, of intensive courses for overseas students’ the displacement of places to be perpetuated colleges which run English language intensive in our community. It certainly is the responsi- courses for students from elsewhere around bility of this parliament, this government and the world, will bear a large burden of this certainly of the minister—be it the minister on cost because of the structure of the charges, duty or Senator Vanstone—to correct that which do not acknowledge the reality of short particular issue and set the record straight on intensive courses. racism. Senator Margetts originally circulated an Yet the government’s budget has also cut amendment which attempted to rectify this campaigns to combat racism and build a more situation. The government has now moved 1138 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 some of the way to acknowledge the issues (4) When working out the enrolments for a which she raised by means of their own course for a year: amendment. Senator Margetts, therefore, will (a) for a course of a least 26 weeks dur- not proceed with her amendment. The govern- ation—each student who is enrolled in the ment amendment is not ideal, but it does at course at any time during the year counts least go some of the way to overcoming the as one enrolment; and burden that was being placed on the English (b) for a course of less than 26 weeks dur- language intensive courses for overseas ation—each student who is enrolled in the course at any time during the year counts students’ colleges. The Greens will support as 0.5 of an enrolment. both the amendment and both of the bills. (Quorum formed) The government proposes an amendment to clause 5 of the Education Services for Over- Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— seas Students (Registration Charges) Bill by Minister for Employment, Education, Training substituting a new subclause 5(4). Currently, and Youth Affairs) (8.26 p.m.)—I would like subclause 5(4) sets the basis for determining to take this opportunity to thank all speakers total enrolments for a provider in a year for for their contribution to the debate. the purposes of the ARC to be calculated by Senator Carr—Oh! counting each student who is enrolled for the Senator VANSTONE—I ask that Senator course at any time during the year as one Carr’s last remark not be included in Hans- enrolment. The amendment provides for ard. students enrolled in courses of less than 26 weeks duration to be counted as 0.5 of an Senator Carr—Which one was that? enrolment and students enrolled in courses of Senator VANSTONE—You heard; you 26 weeks or more duration to be counted as said it. one enrolment. Total enrolments will be determined by adding together the figures Senator Carr—What remarks should not calculated in that way. be included in Hansard? The amendment recognises the different Senator VANSTONE—They are too circumstances of short course and long course brazen for me to put them in. I decline the providers and the desire of all providers for opportunity to do so. equity across industry sectors. It might be The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT appropriate to say that the matter was raised (Senator Crowley)—I do not know which with us by the Western Australian Greens. remarks you are referring to. If you are We had very useful discussions with the referring to remarks made to me by Senator opposition, who recognised the problem Carr, I am sorry that they are on the public highlighted by the Greens and were prepared record, but they had absolutely nothing to do to work constructively towards what we hope with the bills at hand. is a very sensible resolution of that problem. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- Bills read a second time. tralia) (8.29 p.m.)—I would just like to note that the Australian Democrats support the In Committee change in the manner in which the student EDUCATION SERVICES FOR load of a registered education provider is OVERSEAS STUDENTS assessed. As the minister said, this takes into (REGISTRATION CHARGES) BILL 1996 account the many short course providers who would be forced to carry a proportionately The bill. greater financial burden than other providers Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— who run longer courses but have the same Minister for Employment, Education, Training number of students. By recognising the needs and Youth Affairs) (8.28 p.m.)—I move: of these providers, we are supporting an (1) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 6 to 8), omit subclause industry which provides enormous benefit to (4), substitute: all Australians. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1139

Senator CARR (Victoria) (8.30 p.m.)—The I table a supplementary explanatory memo- opposition initiated this process to get agree- randum relating to the government request for ment. It was here, Minister. We did so be- an amendment to be moved to this bill. The cause we acknowledged that there were memorandum was circulated in the chamber difficulties in the legislation. We were pre- in February this year. pared to support the Greens’ amendments. We Request agreed to. did propose, as a consequence, that it would be better if there was discussion outside the Bill agreed to, with request. chamber to reach agreement. EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVER- In terms of the concerns raised, particularly SEAS STUDENTS (REGISTRATION OF by the ELICOS association, it has to be PROVIDERS AND FINANCIAL REGU- acknowledged that the Labor Party played a LATION) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) critical role in ensuring that there was a much 1996 improved position, which we now see in this current bill. As a consequence, the opposition The bill. is supporting the government’s amendment. Bill agreed to, without amendment or request. Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.31 p.m.)— Education Services for Overseas Students In the second reading debate, I commented, (Registration Charges) Bill 1996 reported with on the same matter, that Senator Margetts had a request; Education Services for Overseas been concerned. She withdrew the amendment Students (Registration of Providers and from the Greens (WA) because she was able Financial Regulation) Amendment Bill (No. to get a very welcome shift from the govern- 2) 1996 reported without amendment or ment. It is not everything that Senator request; report adopted. Margetts would have desired, but it is a good move in the right direction. She is unable to Third Reading be here at the moment because she is in a committee hearing on uranium mining. I just Education Services for Overseas Students want to conclude by saying that it has been a (Registration of Providers and Financial good move by Senator Margetts. It has drawn Regulation) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996 (on positive results and the government and motion by Senator Vanstone) read a third opposition are to be congratulated for their time. role in it as well. PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— INCENTIVES BILL 1997 Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs) (8.32 p.m.)—In conclu- HEALTH LEGISLATION sion, I hope, of that debate it might be worth AMENDMENT (PRIVATE HEALTH admitting that these matters were not initially INSURANCE INCENTIVES) BILL 1996 raised with me; they were raised with my office. I cannot say whether it was the MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENT Greens, the Democrats or the opposition. I BILL (No. 2) 1996 was certainly led to believe that Senator TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT Margetts first raised it. In any event, we can (PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE all conclude that this is a prime example of INCENTIVES) BILL 1997 how all sides can—on a number of issues; they cannot always—where there is a com- Second Reading mon intent, work sensibly behind the scenes Debate resumed. to come back with an amendment to which everyone agrees. I thank everyone who was The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT involved, at whatever stage they became (Senator Crowley)—The committee is con- involved. sidering the motion for the second reading of 1140 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 the bills to which Senator Neal has moved The cause of declining membership of those two amendments and Senator Lees has moved funds, besides Medicare being as popular as two amendments to the amendments. it is, has been pointed to by earlier speakers. Firstly, there is a high level of out of pocket Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (8.35 p.m.)— payments for doctors’ fees during hospital The aim of the government in this bill is to treatment, and then there is the rapidly in- reverse the decline in the private health creasing premiums themselves. I think anyone insurance system by giving a subsidy to low who has got an acquaintance with this system and medium income earners towards the cost can instance some stories like those referred of private health insurance and by penalising to by Senator Carr. People have gone to their high income earners without private health health fund expecting to get 70, 80 or 90 per insurance by a one per cent surcharge on the cent of their money back, thinking that they Medicare levy. There are some problems at would be covered under private health insur- the outset with the implementation of this ance for doctors’ services, and they have scheme. found they were getting less than 20 per cent of the amount of money expended. So they Firstly, income thresholds are not graded immediately throw their hands up in the air and this will lead to significant marginal tax and say, ‘What is the point? I am paying rate effects. Secondly, income thresholds are $250 or $300 a quarter’—that is for single not indexed, so the numbers of lower income people; it is much more for families. ‘Where earners eligible for the subsidy will decrease is the benefit in paying $1,000, $2,000 or over time and those higher income earners $3,000 a year if I am not going to get most of subject to the surcharge will increase. Thirdly, the cost of my health care returned?’ people who self-insure are not eligible for the subsidy or to be exempted from the surcharge. There is a fear that as more people drop out That is, the bill pushes people from self- of the private health funds they will place an insurance into the private health funds. increasing burden on public hospitals. But that fear is not well founded and certainly has not What is the likely effect of this? Currently been well tested. While everybody agrees that about 33.3 per cent—one in three—of the public health systems are creaking and groan- population is covered by private health insur- ing in most areas of the country, the change ance. Significantly, as other speakers have in the percentage of people with private said, this is a halving of the percentage, two- health cover has not led to the end of the thirds of the Australian populace having been world as far as our health systems are con- covered in 1983 before Medicare was intro- cerned. A significant number of people are duced. choosing to self-insure: 15.6 per cent of patients who go to private hospitals, for What will be the effect of this stimulus for example, and 42.7 per cent of those using people to join private health insurance? It is private day surgery. I reiterate that those folk estimated that it will be very limited. The are going to face a heavy disincentive as a coverage due to these bills may be increased result of the legislation now before the Sen- by two per cent or three per cent, or, accord- ate. ing to the Productivity Commission, at the high range, 5.2 per cent in the percentage of To the extent that declining levels of private people who have private health cover. health insurance are a problem for public hospitals, this ad hoc package of incentives Some points need to be made about the and penalties will not solve the problem issues in this legislation. Firstly, Medicare is because it does not solve the structural issues popular, that is very clear, and the declining which are causing such pressure on public membership of private health funds is not hospitals in this country. Direct and explicit necessarily a problem—except, of course, to subsidies for private health insurance are new the profit line of the private health funds and and the money could be better spent on other to the wellbeing of those funds themselves. more urgent priorities in the health care field. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1141

The cost of the subsidy inherent in this We oppose the private health insurance legislation is over $600 million per annum subsidy. So there it is. On the final summary, once the scheme is fully implemented; it will we oppose the subsidy because it is good be $1.7 billion over four years. That compares government money basically being given with a total expenditure on health of $38 across as a stimulus to the private health billion, of which $4 billion is through private system instead of going into the public health health funds. They are a pretty small compo- system. Let me say that again. We oppose the nent of overall expenditure. So the govern- subsidy— ment is now proposing to contribute directly Senator Neal—I think you got it right. a sum which amounts to 15 per cent of current health expenditure through the private Senator BROWN—Yes, I did. Thank you, system. Senator Neal. We oppose the subsidy and we believe that the Medicare levy surcharge is The $600 million per annum could be better the wrong way to be going. directed to community based health improve- ment programs rather than directly subsidising Senator CROWLEY (South Australia) the private system. That will be very clear to (8.45 p.m.)—Mr Acting Deputy President people who have had much to do with the Ferguson, I appreciate your assistance in health delivery system in this country. Main- taking the chair to enable me to contribute to taining and strengthening the public health this debate. These private health insurance system allows the government to directly bills introduce this change by the coalition address causes of ill-health. If you look at the government to very significantly alter the example of air quality, you see that in Mel- funding arrangements of health care in this bourne 20 per cent of asthma attacks are country. They do so directly breaking a related to ozone from traffic, as are a signifi- number of election promises. cant proportion of the 300 deaths from res- Firstly, there were promises that there piratory problems associated with particulates would be no new taxes. The people who earn which are generated from traffic, basically more than the specified income level and who coming out of the exhausts of vehicles in the do not have private health insurance will inner city region. certainly be enjoying, as the expression What could $600 million per annum or $1.7 sometimes goes, a new tax. That is breaking billion over four years do to ameliorate those a promise, deliberately and directly. Secondly, statistics? A heck of a lot. There are so many there were promises that Medicare and fund- ways in which primary health care could be ing to public hospitals would be preserved. boosted by this huge amount of money which That is exactly counter to what this govern- instead the government is using to try to ment have done. They have done it in a most boost the private health insurance industry. wasteful and ineffective way. I would like to In summary, the Greens support the spell out some of those points in the time Medicare levy surcharge. We oppose the link available to me. to private health insurance, which cuts out I note that it is very interesting to recollect self-insuring people. I need to just say here what Premier Kennett had to say on this that it is a tax—a tax on higher income matter. I notice that the best defence that the earners. I do not cavil at that, but I think the coalition government can mass against what money is being hypothecated across to the Premier Kennett has had to say is that some- private health system and it ought not be. It times Premier Kennett gets it right, which is is stimulating the private health system. The a pretty feeble defence. Premier Kennett has government would be better putting the said that this is good money after bad and money from the surcharge, as well as the that it is a very ineffectual contribution incentive from the levy, into generating a towards private hospitals. The best the Treas- better public health system and into taking urer (Mr Costello) or the Prime Minister (Mr some of the pressure off the public health Howard) can do is find other quotes where system that we currently have. Mr Kennett said differently. 1142 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

So what this clearly shows is that Mr introduction of Medcare, suddenly all those Kennett is confused and the coalition govern- people who had no health insurance were free ment, Mr Howard’s government, is embar- of the worry of big health costs. The only rassed. They ought to be. They have offered people who still have big health costs are incentives to people to take out private health those with private health insurance. insurance. These incentives total $1.7 billion How long is it going to be before this over four years. What the evidence already government recognises that this is a really shows is that people are continuing to leave daft product? Firstly, if you want to get a private health insurance in the face of the health bill, get private health insurance. It promise just around the corner that will help does not protect you; it guarantees you get a them stay there. bill. Secondly, the premiums that people have Why are people leaving private health to pay just continue to rise. In the face of insurance? It is very simple. Senator Brown promises that those premiums would be kept said it: the only way you can get a bill in this down, we have seen this government dealing country is if you have private health insur- with the embarrassment of—having given a ance. If you are covered when you go to promise that they would assist people with the hospital under Medicare, you get no extra bill cost of their private health insurance—seeing or costs. The only way you get a bill is if you that promise eroded before it was even deliv- have private health insurance. You would ered, with the cost of the private health fund think that the coalition government—which premiums very significantly rising in the last claims to be very au fait with the free market 12 months. and the importance of small business and So we have a product that fewer people what goes on out there in the real world of want to buy. We have a product that is economics and so on—would understand that, terribly expensive and getting more so. We if you are trying to sell a product that is have a product that does not do what it is set directly and deliberately doing counter to up for, which is to protect people from big what it is set up for, people would not want bills. Of course the citizens of this country are to buy it. And people do not want to buy it. saying that that is a very silly thing them for As Senator Brown said, many of us can them to be pursuing. Of course people are come in here and give examples, as I have leaving in droves. done before and I will do again. Many a time What this is doing is giving some people a people have written to me and said, ‘Look, worry. Now that the coalition is in office, it Senator, I’ve been paying my private health might find that it has to change the language insurance premiums for 30 years. After all and the fear and the loathing that it spread for this time I suddenly need to use them. I have 13 years while it was in opposition. The been to hospital. What do I have? I have a coalition kept frightening people about what bill for $3,000, and I do not know how I am would happen if they did not have insur- ever going to pay it. Senator, what can be ance—that there would be very long waiting done?’ lists and so on. They kept avoiding the fact The answer is, ‘Well, private health insur- about waiting lists and they kept insisting on ance is no longer delivering what it was set frightening people so that some people still up to do.’ It was set up, way back, to protect feel it is essential to have private health people from high health costs, from signifi- insurance to avoid long waits. cant health bills that would put them into For very few conditions do people have to financial straits. Worse still, for people who wait very long at all. The conditions for did not have health insurance, those bills were which people have to wait are the same so worrying and frightening that they refused conditions that they had to wait for during the to go and see the doctor. We know that 1980s, 1970s, 1960s and 1950s. You can go because of the millions of people who were right back and see that the longer waiting lists without insurance prior to the Labor Party have always been in orthopaedics; ear, nose coming into government in 1983. With the and throat; and with eye specialists. That still Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1143 the case. Of course, that is no reason to be have never been so large. At a time of falling complacent, but it is also a reason to assure private health insurance coverage, there has a lot of people that their fears about the need been increased use of private hospitals for for private health insurance are probably increasing private procedures. Many of them largely unfounded. are done in day surgery, but it is a measure of In the end, if you were trying to assist how many procedures are being done in the many of those people you would actually be private sector through private hospitals. This doing what you promised to do in the run-up certainly runs counter to any scaremongering to the election and maintain your funding for that says that private hospitals were under the public health system, because that is threat by Medicare, which was one of the where so many people are turning for the claims made by the coalition. elective surgical procedures that their doctors Consider: there are approximately six judge or diagnose that they need. Please do million Australians eligible for health care not misunderstand that or come back at me by concession cards. About six million Austral- saying that I really said that doctors are ians currently have private health insurance. making people have surgery that is not neces- This policy takes funding away from the sary. I am not saying that at all. If a person’s health care concession card holders and give general practitioner makes a diagnosis that it to the privately insured people. This policy they need this specialist care or specialist is going to force pensioners to wait longer for procedures, then that is what they will seek. elective surgery in public hospitals, pay more But in elective surgery people are now for their essential medicines and pay up to turning, more and more, to the public hospital $200 for dentures in order to subsidise people system, just in time to find a coalition govern- with private health insurance. ment which has actually slashed grants to the To suggest that people who are not insured states by $1.5 billion over three years. That is at the moment will actually be encouraged to a cut of about $500 million to the states’ buy private health insurance—that is, to find, health funding, about one-third of health for a single person, about $800 necessary to expenditure. They have also made direct cuts buy private health insurance so as to be to public hospitals of more than $300 million eligible to get the government’s $125 incen- over four years and they have taken other tive—is really flying in the face of the evi- massive amounts out of health totalling more dence. This incentive may encourage people than $3 billion over four years. This is a already with private insurance to stay in direct contradiction of what people were insurance, but it certainly is not going to promised by the coalition in the run-up to the encourage people who have decided not to election. find $800 to move into private health insur- Not only have they decided to put $1.7 ance. That is what people might have thought: billion over four years through private health at least it will stop the drain. But, indeed, the insurance subsidies, but those subsidies are evidence is already counter to that. going to be funded by those cuts to public Private health insurance figures continue to hospitals of $800 million over four years, cuts fall. The incentive that is there for people is to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme of $500 not persuading anybody to make that decision. million over four years and the abolition of The evidence is counter in terms of the the Commonwealth dental program, saving numbers of people in private insurance, and $400 million. the premiums for private health insurance The cuts to the public hospitals alone are continue to rise very significantly. This equivalent to closing 1,000 beds or turning incentive is really $1.7 billion straight down away 66,000 people who are waiting for the plughole. It is doing nothing for private operations. It is interesting that, at a time of health, it is doing nothing for public health bolstering private health insurance with these and it is doing nothing for any of those incentives, private health insurance and the people who are so dependent on our public use of private hospitals for private procedures hospitals for all their care. 1144 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

Senator Brown and, I am sure, others have people would once again take a decision to said—the government may not want to say it; desert private insurance. Premiums are just they might choke on it—that the people of too much and they do not give people the Australia really value Medicare. They really security, assurance and comfort against big like it, to the point where those policy-free bills. As I said in opening my comments, the zones opposite actually adopted the slogan, only way you get a big bill is by having ‘We too like Medicare. We too will not private health insurance. change Medicare. We too have become Last month’s private health insurance believers.’ Well, if you believe that, as the figures showed that people continued to drop community is beginning to discover, you out despite the fact of the imminent incen- would believe anything. But not for long. tives. Last quarter, over 150,000 people You say that you support Medicare, but you dropped out of private insurance. Now we are not serious. You have actually pulled have the AMA, or some parts of it, urging billions of dollars out of the public sector, people to give up private health insurance, to counter to what Medicare is about, and the set aside some money or make private ar- community will not thank you for that. To rangements so that if they do have outlays in take money from the public hospitals and health they can pay for it themselves. They from health care card holders and patients to are saying that buying private health insur- put it into our private hospitals—not even into ance is no good judgment of how best to the private hospitals but into reducing private protect yourself against those costs. In other health insurance premiums—is already prov- words, what they are saying is that premiums ing to be ineffective and is certainly not going are far too much and that people would be to win you votes. much better putting those premiums aside and I suspect others have listed the increases in spending them, if they need to, on any health premiums. In August, the HBA in Victoria charges they might incur. announced increases of six per cent and One of the things I wanted to ask the Australian Unity announced increases of 8.6 minister goes to the administration and the per cent. After these increases, as the coalition understanding of definitions. Clause 3-3 of the saw its incentives effectively wiped out, the explanatory memorandum is headed ‘Income Prime Minister intervened and set up an test—policies covering only one person’. industry inquiry—a new approval process in Clause 3-3(2)(b) states: which he took personal responsibility for This subclause provides that the persons whose future increases and requested that funds not taxable incomes are to be taken into account when have further increases until the inquiry report- determining eligibility for the scheme in respect of ed. a policy covering one person are: The funds paid not the slightest attention to ...... the Prime Minister’s plaintive call. We saw if the person covered under the policy is a Manchester Unity announce increases of 17.5 dependant child, the incomes of each parent per cent shortly afterwards. HBA in Western who is paying premiums for the policy or Australia, South Australia and the Northern arranging for a third party to pay premiums for Territory announced premium increases of the policy and of any partner of each such around nine per cent in October. In Novem- parent. ber, Australia’s two largest funds, Medibank I would like an assurance that the words in Private and MBF, announced passive increas- this clause do not allow for the incomes of es of 12.9 per cent and 15 per cent respective- the partners of two separated parents with a ly. dependant child, who are both contributing to So the funds, even in the face of the coali- health insurance for that child, also to be tion government’s intervention and the Prime involved in the income assessment. Can I Minister’s personal intervention, continued to have that assurance? As it stands, the clause raise their premium prices by very significant reads: amounts. In the face of that, they knew that . . . and any partner of each such parent. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1145

As I read the bill and the explanatory memo- notwithstanding the government’s opposition randum, I believe that two separated parents to a great deal of what they have said. contributing to the cost of private health At the outset, let me say to Senator Neal insurance for a child, both of whose incomes that the government will oppose those second were taken into account, may under this reading amendments put by the opposition wording find that each of their new partners and by the Democrats. We on this side make may have their income taken into account for no bones about fostering and supporting the the purposes of this assessment. I would like private health system. This is not simply an assurance that that is not what these words because we believe the private sector offers mean or at least that these words are not open Australians choice and flexibility in their to that interpretation. health care but because the services, infra- I believe the administration of this whole structure and financing of the private sector area will be a real nightmare. People are actually complement the efforts of govern- going to have to complete a 15-page form. I ment through the public hospital system. wonder whether it is the same 15-page form While it is only an indicative measurement that they had to complete in order to get of this contribution, I note figures released Austudy, or is it a slightly different form? recently by the private health industry which Can we be assured that this 15-page form will show that private health benefits injected over not cause the same trouble, confusion and $4 billion into the Australian health care anxiety we have seen caused in the area of system even while the number of contributors Austudy? continues to decline. This clearly is a signifi- Previously, you could pay your contribution cant contribution. for Medicare at the end of the year or out of Indeed, there has been some revived debate your tax through PAYE. You were covered of late about the efficacy of private health then, all your bills were paid and you did not insurance in the late 1990s, including com- have to worry when you went to hospital. ments by leading members of the Australian Now, to even get the incentive, you have to Medical Association and some others. It has roll up and fill out a 15-page report. This is been suggested that fostering private health a nightmare! It is a total policy disaster. fund membership is a waste of money. The Senator Heffernan, you can say that I am government rejects this entirely. At the end of getting wound up. But I do not really have to. the day, private health insurance remains the You have actually committed the greatest path of affordable choice for most Austral- balls-up in Medicare history since you were ians, particularly for those members of the last in office. You had seven years in govern- community for whom a large medical and ment and five different health policies under hospital bill is hardly something which can Prime Minister Fraser. You are at it again. easily be absorbed from their savings or other The people of Australia are already walking assets. and telling you that they do not like this This does not take into account the pivotal incentive at all. The premiums are going up. role that the private sector plays in easing the Their costs and their protection are not there pressure on strained public hospital resources. at all. (Time expired) The Department of Health and Family Ser- Senator ELLISON (Western Australia— vices has estimated that people who dropped Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for private health insurance between July 1993 Health and Family Services and Parliamentary and September 1994 actually used the capaci- Secretary to the Attorney-General) (9.06 ty equivalent to two metropolitan public p.m.)—I want firstly to thank senators who hospitals for one whole year; that is, for every participated today in the debate on the Private day of one year they could fill two met- Health Insurance Incentives Bill and associat- ropolitan hospitals. To reduce such stress and ed bills. The contributions from various strain on the public system the government is senators have been considered and thoughtful, firmly committed to its policy strategy to irrespective of the views they have taken and better spread demand across the whole hospi- 1146 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 tal system, public and private, and maximise without compromising their leader and their the totality of the community resource rather record. than build otherwise unnecessary new public In their own offer to the Australian people, hospital capacity. Labor recognised the coalition was right in Let me now turn to the Democrat position, identifying that what people want is choice which was put forward by Senator Lees. We and that what the system needs is a safety understand the point of view underlying valve that relieves the pressure on public Senator Lees’s foreshadowed amendments and hospitals, particularly in relation to elective that they reflect Democrat policy that is well procedures that are at the core of waiting lists. established and on the record. But, clearly, we I am sure the opposition cannot begrudge us differ with the premises that she has put making the assistance of the incentives avail- forward. We look forward to seeing the able to a great many Australians, including Democrat amendments and considering them some 80 per cent of Australian families as in the committee stage. I restate that the well as aged pensioners and fixed income government believes that its proposed meas- retirees, who will benefit from the fact that ures actually do what the Democrats have they do not have to be an income tax payer always stood for: actively encouraging those to be eligible. who can most afford to do so to make a more The opposition also talks of the government appropriate contribution to covering the cost undermining Medicare and the public hospital of health care for themselves and their fami- system. What we are doing is in the wider lies. national interest. I say again: the public hospital system is in disarray because of the With respect to the position of the opposi- extra demand placed on it by people leaving tion, let us look at what they have had to say. private health insurance. We have before us now Labor’s second reading amendments to the Private Health Senator Neal—Your cuts haven’t helped Insurance Incentives Bill and the Medicare either. Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2). These amend- Senator ELLISON—Only recently, Senator ments encapsulate the differences between the Neal, we heard Bob Carr, the Premier of New government and the opposition, who, for all South Wales, complain about these pres- their posturing now, had 13 years presiding sures—after having kept his mouth shut when over the health system of this country and left his federal Labor colleagues were in power it breaking at the seams. and when his factional ally Senator Graham Let me say something about this second Richardson sought to do something to put a reading amendment and the opposition’s view floor under private health insurance member- that the commitment to these incentives is at ship in 1993. What did he say then? the expense of the public system. Firstly, I am To say that we have shifted money into the pleased to see that the opposition will not pockets of private insurers at the cost of oppose the passage of these incentives. Sec- public hospitals, of PBS outlays and the like ondly, this at least recognises that this is a is another furphy. The fact is the budget commonsense approach to a community’s required decisive measures to deal with the mandate for the greatest range of flexibility unconstrained growth in Medicare and phar- and choice when it comes to the medical and maceutical benefits scheme outlays. We have hospital system. But finally I would add: acted to ensure that Medicare, public hospitals given that Labor in the last election was and the PBS remain capable of meeting the offering low and middle income families up needs of the community. We have acted to to $350 towards their private health insurance ensure that they will not in a few years time costs, saying ‘many families who would like fall over under their own weight of both to take out health insurance to better manage demand and cost. These measures will not their health care would find the premiums too only complement Medicare but keep it strong high’, Labor can hardly say anything else and healthy. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1147

Let me now turn to the Medicare levy The opposition amendment should be seen surcharge. I actually thank the opposition for for what it is: a base political stunt. The their second reading amendment for, while opposition stance on this matter is discredited they put strings on the surcharge, they do not by their record of 13 years in government and actually reject the concept, nor the need to what they did, or did not do, for the public encourage higher income earners to make a health system. In conclusion, today is an contribution to their health care through important day for Australian health consumers private health insurance. This will free up as for it is a milestone on the road to greater many public hospital waiting list places as choice, greater quality of care and greater possible for those for whom private health quality of health insurance protection against care is a far less affordable proposition. illness and injury. We believe that the surcharge is an integral In summary, I want to take up one other and essential component of the whole package point raised by the shadow minister for the which cannot be treated or, as the other side opposition in that other place, and that was an would prefer, knocked off in isolation. What implication that these incentives were in fact we on this side cannot understand is why the a benefit for the wealthy and that the roughly Labor Party and others are so actively against six million-odd pensioners and concessional this measure. We are not talking about a two- card holders would be mutually excluded by tier Medicare system. The surcharge does not the health fund contributors of roughly the undermine the universality of Medicare. All same number. The government’s reply to that eligible people will continue to pay the basic is that they are not mutually exclusive groups. levy. The surcharge will be asked of only As we stated in our policy statement ‘A those who can afford it yet still opt not to Healthy Future’, which was based on ABS provide themselves with even the most basic data, over one million Australians in 1992 on private cover. As the Treasurer (Mr Costello) incomes under $20,000 to $21,000 per annum, said at the time of the last budget, ‘this is a which included some 600,000 singles, had surcharge that we prefer no-one has to pay’. private health insurance. This proportion What is more, we are not stopping those probably has not changed. In fact, it is prob- affected by the surcharge from accessing ably even greater today. Medicare or public hospitals if that is their These are the battlers, many of whom made choice. I thought that the Labor Party stood great sacrifices to keep up their private health for battlers, for the people who struggle—not insurance because they are frail, ill or old. the truly wealthy. Their opposition to this They are the ones who most deserve these measure shows just how much the political incentives. Because we have ensured that landscape has changed since March last year. people do not have to become an income tax In relation to the opposition’s second payer to get the incentive, they will benefit. reading amendments which I have mentioned, We do not intend to let them down. I hope the government rejects the opposition’s those opposite, in considering their position contention that any revenue raised from the on these bills, have turned their minds to surcharge should be hypothecated to public these people, the people who deserted them hospitals. I remind the opposition that, when in March last year. they set up the Medicare system in 1984, These measures are not the whole answer from day 1 all receipts from the levy were to the health problem we face as a nation, but paid into consolidated revenue, not a the government sees them as an integral part Medicare account. The levy contribution of a strategic approach to solving them. They roughly equates to about one-quarter of these will go a long way to creating greater stability outlays. Proportionally, the levy pool would in our health care system by halting the be slightly augmented by the surcharge. But, exodus from private health funds. Hopefully at the end of the day, we will continue to they will encourage some growth in member- honour our obligations to Medicare and to the ship of private health funds. They will also nation. enable services to be planned and delivered 1148 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 on the full range of capacity available, both NOES public and private. I commend the bills to the Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. Senate. Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Coonan, H. Crane, W. (Senator Knowles)—The question is that Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. Senator Lees’s amendments to Senator Neal’s Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. amendments be agreed to. Heffernan, W. * Herron, J. Senator Neal—I just indicate that the Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I. amendments proposed by the Australian Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. Democrats are accepted by the opposition. McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. Amendments (Senator Lees’s) agreed to. Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. The question is that Senator Neal’s amend- Tierney, J. Troeth, J. ments, as amended by Senator Lees’s amend- Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. ments, be agreed to. PAIRS Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. Senator Neal—I ask that the two amend- Collins, R. L. Woods, R. L. ments proposed in the second reading debate Cook, P. F. S. Parer, W. R. be put separately—the first one being to the * denotes teller Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill and Question so resolved in the negative. the second one being to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2). (Senator Faulkner did not vote, to compen- sate for the vacancy caused by the death of Question put: Senator Panizza) That the amendment (Senator Neal’s) to the Question put: Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 1996, as amended, be agreed to. That the amendment (Senator Neal’s) to the Medicare Levy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1996, as The Senate divided. [9.23 p.m.] amended, be agreed to. (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret The Senate divided. [9.26 p.m.] Reid) Ayes ...... 33 (The President—Senator the Hon. Margaret Reid) Noes ...... 34 —— Ayes ...... 33 Majority ...... 1 Noes ...... 34 —— —— AYES Majority ...... 1 Allison, L. Bishop, M. —— Bourne, V. Brown, B. AYES Carr, K. Childs, B. K. Allison, L. Bishop, M. Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. Bourne, V. Brown, B. Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. Carr, K. Childs, B. K. Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. Collins, J. M. A. Conroy, S. Foreman, D. J. * Forshaw, M. G. Cooney, B. Crowley, R. A. Gibbs, B. Hogg, J. Denman, K. J. Evans, C. V. Kernot, C. Lees, M. H. Foreman, D. J. * Forshaw, M. G. Lundy, K. Mackay, S. Gibbs, B. Hogg, J. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Kernot, C. Lees, M. H. Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. Lundy, K. Mackay, S. Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Margetts, D. McKiernan, J. P. Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. Murphy, S. M. Murray, A. Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. Neal, B. J. O’Brien, K. W. K. Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. Ray, R. F. Reynolds, M. Woodley, J. Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1149

AYES parties who may be involved in the supply of Stott Despoja, N. West, S. M. goods and services to which protected indicia Woodley, J. and images have been applied by an un- NOES authorised user. Abetz, E. Boswell, R. L. D. Brownhill, D. G. C. Calvert, P. H. In other words, this bill will make it easier Campbell, I. G. Chapman, H. G. P. for the organisers of the Sydney 2000 Olym- Coonan, H. Crane, W. pics and Paralympic Games and licensed users Eggleston, A. Ellison, C. to take action against those persons who are Ferguson, A. B. Ferris, J engaged in ambush marketing. Ambush Gibson, B. F. Harradine, B. Heffernan, W. * Herron, J. marketing is the unauthorised association of Hill, R. M. Kemp, R. a business with the marketing of an event Knowles, S. C. Macdonald, I. such as the Sydney Olympics. The ambush Macdonald, S. MacGibbon, D. J. marketeer seeks to gain some benefit by McGauran, J. J. J. Minchin, N. H. suggesting an association with an event Newman, J. M. O’Chee, W. G. without paying for the marketing rights or the Patterson, K. C. L. Reid, M. E. Short, J. R. Tambling, G. E. J. licensing fee. Tierney, J. Troeth, J. The amendments contained in this bill will Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. enable games organisers and the licensed PAIRS users to take action against retailers, distribu- Bolkus, N. Alston, R. K. R. tors or other parties in the supply chain rather Collins, R. L. Woods, R. L. than having to pursue through the supply Cook, P. F. S. Parer, W. R. * denotes teller chain the unauthorised person who applied the indicia or images to the goods or services. Question so resolved in the negative. Secondly, this bill will provide that action (Senator Faulkner did not vote, to compen- may be taken against those who aid, abet, sate for the vacancy caused by the death of counsel or procure breaches of the principal Senator Panizza) act. This will enable the Sydney organising Original question resolved in the affirma- committee and the Sydney Paralympic Organ- tive. ising Committee and licensed users to take Bills read a second time. action against persons whose involvement in Ordered that consideration of the bills in the contravention of the legislation is in the committee of the whole be made an order of nature of assisting the unauthorised applica- the day for the next day of sitting. tion of indicia and images rather than in their direct application. These measures will help SYDNEY 2000 GAMES (INDICIA AND ensure the preservation of the games market- IMAGES) PROTECTION ing revenues. AMENDMENT BILL 1996 As well as protecting the revenue of the Second Reading games against ambush marketing, they help Debate resumed from 10 February, on ensure that the interests of legitimate retailers motion by Senator Campbell: are protected from less scrupulous compe- tition. Retailers, distributors and other parties That this bill be now read a second time. will need to check to ensure that persons who Senator CARR (Victoria) (9.33 p.m.)—The applied the indicia or images to the goods or opposition supports the amendment to the services are licensed. To do this, they need to Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) check the register of licensed users located at Protection Act 1996. The amendment to the the Sydney Olympics organising committee principal act has two main purposes. Firstly, office in Sydney or the state offices of the this bill seeks to enable the Sydney Organis- Australian Industrial Property Organisation to ing Committee for the Olympic Games and ensure that the person is entered on the the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee register. The Sydney organising committee and licensed users to take action against all proposes to provide easy access to the register 1150 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 of licensed users of the indicia and images Asia, giving the false impression that these and to provide a sophisticated identification are genuinely made in Australia. The kanga- system for genuine products. roo can be seen perhaps on Korean goods or The Sydney organising committee will also those made in India, again giving the false conduct a public awareness campaign and will impression that these goods are Australian be advertising in the various media. Retailers made. and other industry associations have agreed to I commend the government for this move cooperate with the Sydney organising com- tonight. But I ask them to look again at the mittee in the dissemination of information so issue of Australian labelling so that we may that the public is aware of and understands protect our national symbols, our national the legislation as it relates to the licensing of logos, and give Australians greater confidence users of the protected indicia and images. that when they see them they are buying The provisions contained in this bill, to- Australian products. gether with those in the principal act, will Senator CAMPBELL (Western Australia— cease to operate after 31 December 2000, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) following the completion of the games. The (9.37 p.m.)—in reply—The Sydney 2000 Olympic Games is going to be a substantial Games (Indicia and Images) Protection event in Australia’s history and the benefits Amendment Bill 1996 is an important part of which will flow to Australia because of it will what the Commonwealth government and the be outstanding. Commonwealth parliament have power to do I again indicate that we have absolutely no to ensure that the Sydney 2000 Olympic objections to the proposals contained in the Games are a success. The coalition when in amendment. I commend the government for opposition did take the initiative in this matter taking the necessary action to protect those when it became clear, particularly to me as retailers and others who have paid consider- the shadow minister for sport at the time, that able sums of money for the rights to produce the previous government had not gone far material for the Olympics that contain the enough to protect the games from ambush appropriate logos and images. They deserve marketing. the protection of this legislation. The Senate, on my motion, referred this Senator LEES (South Australia—Deputy matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Leader of the Australian Democrats) (9.36 Legal and Constitutional Affairs for investiga- p.m.)—I will also be brief tonight as the tion. That committee took evidence from the Sydney 2000 Games (Indicia and Images) New South Wales government—the then Protection Amendment Bill 1996 is non- Liberal government as it was—SOCOG, a controversial legislation. I think all of us in number of private enterprise organisations this chamber agree that legitimate retailers, associated with the Olympics, and a number legitimate licensed businesses, should be of other groups. To the credit of the Senate protected in this way. We should be making committee, it came down with a unanimous sure that unauthorised use of logos, motives report urging legislation to effectively give or images for gain is not allowed at whatever the ownership of the name, symbols, indicia stage of the retailing system that illegal and images of the Olympics to SOCOG so unauthorised use occurs. There should be the that, if a corporation, business entity or even ability to prosecute; in other words, to give a private individual were to choose to become greater security to those people who are sup- associated with the 2000 Games, then they porting the Olympic insignia for both the would need to be licensed accordingly. Sydney 2000 Games and also for the On the other side of the coin, if someone Paralympics. chose to associate themselves with the games, I will go one step further and say: if only to make profit from that association and to do we could protect some of our unique national so without that licence and approval of logos. Symbols of our native animals—for SOCOG, the games organising committee, example, the koala—turn up on goods from then they would be in breach of this legisla- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1151 tion and could be pursued under this legisla- bogus Olympic t-shirt, for example, and to tion. use the full powers of the act against that The coalition as part of its election platform person and to then chase the culprits up the promised to introduce legislation to give supply chain. proprietorial rights to the Sydney 2000 images In these matters, as was very clearly dem- and indicia when it came into government. onstrated at the Atlanta Games I am informed, Indeed, I remember being asked by SOCOG you need to be able to move quickly because people at functions during the election cam- people who are coming in to sell hats, t-shirts paign if we could write to the IOC ensuring and all the other paraphernalia that go with that they were reassured that the coalition major sporting events, can often import would proceed with this legislation. I am materials, set up a stall near one of the proud to say that this certainly made it into games’ venues and start flogging off the the core promise section of the coalition’s material, to use a colloquialism. You do need election manifesto. As I recall, it was certain- very quick and flexible legislation and laws ly one of the first five or six bills passed to be able to catch these culprits. through this parliament. I am sure all Australian citizens wish the I thank the opposition and Democrats who Sydney organising committee all the very best have made this non-controversial. I welcome in the coming couple of years. It is crucial the comments of Senator Carr, who I did not that those people who put up money, particu- know had an interest in the Sydney 2000 larly from the private sector, by way of Games. He is clearly a man with a wide range sponsorship have that sponsorship protected of interests. Anyone who reads this Hansard by this sort of legislation. This amending bill will see that Senator Carr has made a very will ensure that the coalition’s promise to constructive contribution to this very import- deliver this protection is honoured in full. I ant debate. conclude by again thanking all honourable I would also like to thank Senator Lees, senators for their contribution tonight. who throughout the period of this legisla- Question resolved in the affirmative. tion—the introduction of the principal bill and Bill read a second time, and passed through the development of this amending bill—has its remaining stages without amendment or been supportive. It would not have been debate. possible to legislate so effectively and so quickly without that sort of cooperation. I do ADJOURNMENT thank Senator Lees and the Democrats for Motion (by Senator Campbell) proposed: that. That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator Brown did raise some concerns he had with an aspect of this legislation, but Kokoda Campaign Commemoration those concerns have been put to rest. I do Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (9.45 thank all honourable senators for their contri- p.m.)—This morning in the other chamber my butions. colleagues Michael Cobb, the member for The amending legislation, as Senator Carr Parkes, and Jackie Kelly, the member for has quite accurately said, gives the games Lindsay, moved and seconded a motion, organising committee a far more effective under private members business, of profound instrument for tracking down people who significance to Australia’s war history. The would seek to ambush market in relation to motion calls for a greater historical recogni- the Sydney 2000 Games. It ensures that the tion of the importance of the Kokoda Track games organising committee can go to anyone campaign in World War II, and pays tribute in the chain of supply of a good or service to and seeks recognition for the Koiari people related to the 2000 Games. The original known as the fuzzy wuzzy angels. principal bill made it a little bit tortuous to This evening I lend my support to that find the correct culprit. This gives them broad motion and the endeavours embodied in it. I powers to be able to go to a retailer selling a do so because I, along with some of my 1152 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 political colleagues, joined a group just some nights when they were required to stand awake and four weeks ago to walk that historic Kokoda alert but still and silent. Trail. Anyone who saw the very high rating The reward for the intrepid trekker, the mod- television show last year in regard to the ern day trekker, was to stop at these historic celebrities who walked the Kokoda Trail will sites and be lectured on their significance— recall that very famous scene where Angry such sites as Isurava, which has been dubbed Anderson ‘lost it’—where that very tough guy Australia’s Alamo. It was here that the Aust- Angry Anderson embraced his Australian ralians made an epic stand against the full on- guide and was unable to go on, so difficult slaught of the Japanese army. Although they was the trek. were ungunned and outnumbered, they held up and inflicted massive casualties upon the I must say that in our endeavours to walk Japanese army. It was here that Private the track it was evident very early just how Kingsbury was awarded Australia’s first tough it was going to be. As the plane hov- Victoria Cross to have been awarded on ered over the Owen Stanley Range preparing Australian territory. to land—looking for a gap in the clouds so that it could land—at Kokoda, I started to The Australians were still in retreat when have great empathy with Angry Anderson they made another stand which became because those mountains, the Owen Stanley known as the Brigade Hill battle where some Range, looked merciless. 1,000 diggers faced a force of 6,000 Japanese. With great courage, the diggers were able to Everyone in the group—and it was a group hold up the Japanese long enough to exhaust of some 23—had a different reason for taking their supply lines. Eventually this tactic turned on the trek of a lifetime—and, indeed, it was the campaign into an Australian victory. the trek of a lifetime. Some members of the But what we trekkers felt we had in com- group had fathers who had fought in Papua mon most with the World War II veterans as New Guinea and were making the trek in we retraced their steps was the bond that they their memory. By the end of the ordeal, they personally forged with the local Papuans said that they understood and appreciated far whom they nicknamed the fuzzy wuzzy greater their fathers’ lives and what they had angels because of the help they had given in had to endure in World War II. a time of great need. At many of the villages For the politicians, who usually get front where we camped, we were greeted by the row seats at Anzac Day ceremonies, this was original fuzzy wuzzy angels. It was a very a chance to get a better feel for the Anzac moving experience to know that these quiet tradition by retracing the steps of our troops. old men had at one time extended the hand of From the very first day it was obvious that friendship and help to our embattled soldiers. the land would live up to its very harsh The gratitude felt for the fuzzy wuzzy angels reputation of unforgiving hills and drenching was beautifully put in a poem by Bert Beros: rains, and the trekker was given some idea of Many a mother in Australia and insight into the conditions under which When a busy day is done the soldiers had had to fight. Sends a prayer to the Almighty For the keeping of her son, But really it was Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Asking that an angel guide him Honner, a commanding officer at the time, And bring him safely back— Now we see those prayers are answered who best set the scene: On the Owen Stanley track. Worn out by strenuous fighting and exhausting For they haven’t any haloes movement, and weakened by lack of food and sleep Only holes slashed in the ears, and shelter, many of them had literally come to a And with faces worked by tattoos, standstill. Practically every day torrential rains fell With scratch pins in their hair. all through the afternoon and night, cascading into Bringing back the wounded, their cheerless weapon-pits and soaking the clothes Just as steady as a hearse, they wore—the only ones they had. In these they Using leaves to keep the rain off shivered through the long chill vigil of the lonely And as gentle as a nurse. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1153

Slow and careful in bad places Edna Ryan On the awful mountain trace Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital The look upon their faces Territory) (9.54 p.m.)—Today I would like to Makes us think that Christ was black... add my condolences to the family and friends of Edna Ryan. In doing so, I also extend this Before it is too late and the last ‘angel’ dies, to the Australian community, which has lost we must recognise their efforts by at least such a remarkable woman. striking a remembrance medal. The medal would be a great source of pride to the fuzzy The effect that this woman has had on my wuzzy angels who are still alive—and, really, life is tangible. She was one who opened that is all they ask for. many doors. I believe her life exemplifies the very real contribution she has made to all of After the 10-day walk along the track we our lives. The death of Edna Ryan has given felt like giving the fuzzy wuzzies a medal many Australian women reason to contem- because they truly deserved it for the number plate feminism and what it means to be an of times they helped us ragged and exhausted activist on behalf of women in 1997. It trekkers. Because of what happened on the certainly has provided a stark and timely Kokoda Track, every Australian should regard reminder to me that the position that women it as sacred ground. This story really does currently hold in our society has not evolved rival the legend of Gallipoli. We were then naturally but has come about because people defending our own territory and, indeed, our like Edna stuck their necks out. country. We were in command, they were our Edna Ryan was a woman who demonstrated tactics and we ultimately won. Against the an enthusiasm, drive and commitment for odds, we won by nothing more than raw, women’s rights and social justice principles awe-inspiring courage, with the help of the that have left many of us reeling in her wake. fuzzy wuzzy angels. That is why it is sacred She has been described as a visionary who ground. That is why I support the motion remained a contemporary—a strange juxtapos- moved in the House of Representatives today. ition, but one that suits a woman who has It is a story waiting to become a legend for inspired so many women, including me, and generations to come. who has also remained one of the most informed and relevant contributors to femi- I believe that the motion moved by Michael nism in the women’s movement in Australian Cobb and seconded by Jackie Kelly does have history. the private support of the minister, for he knows only too well what a spartan effort the Her commitment was born of life experi- Australian soldiers carried out in World War ence. It was not acquired through extensive II. What is embodied in that motion, in formal qualifications but it was academia and particular, is the striking of a medal for those influential Australians who turned to Edna for fuzzy wuzzy angels whom we met along the inspiration and advice. Recognition of this track and who are still alive today. As I said contribution came in the form of an honorary before, it was a most emotional occasion to doctorate from Sydney University in 1983. meet these quiet men who we know at one Edna Ryan had a knack for being able to stage had lent a hand to our soldiers. anticipate where the barriers to women’s equality were going to emerge. This foresight I should add that Senator Jim Short’s enabled her to get in early to inspire others brother served on the Kokoda Track. I believe into supporting her campaigns. that Trish Worth’s father served in Papua As Australian women and men collect on 8 New Guinea and her uncle served on the March 1997 to celebrate International track. It is surprising how many of that gener- Women’s Day, we should do so remembering ation are still alive today. As I said, this leg- that it was a 24-year-old Edna Ryan who first end rivals Gallipoli, and we won. It deserves joined the International Women’s Day demon- to be put to the forefront of Australia’s stration in Sydney’s Domain in 1928. This history. rally was for equal pay, and it fuelled the fire 1154 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 in the belly of a woman who continued to played by our parents, or if this is how it demonstrate on behalf of all Australian happens regardless of your life span or your women for almost all of her full and extra- experiences. Here’s looking towards the day ordinary 92 years. She was a feminist when when dawning realisations are nothing but feminism was not a mainstream movement. In conspiracy theories. I do wish it were so. 1997 she was a feminist when it is still not Edna Ryan knew it was not so. Many other considered a part of mainstream Australian Australian women and men know it is not so. society. Or is it? Edna Ryan, during periods of her life, could The relevance of feminism today is an issue not vote, was not paid half of what her male explored by many recently. So, without being counterparts were paid, was on a pittance as too philosophical or complicated, in Edna’s a single mother raising children, had limited memory, I would like to make a small contri- educational opportunities and fought her way bution to the commentary on the issue. For into local politics in the trade union move- me, when I was growing up I did not know ment, despite public perceptions of these that there was any difference between gen- professions being dominated purely by men. ders. As far as I was concerned, there were no Many years on, there is still gender inequity barriers. That was how my parents raised me. in Australian society and women of all ages I was employed in a non-traditional area for are experiencing these dawning realisations, women at a comparatively young age and was whether or not they think of themselves as paid equal pay and was expected to do equal feminists. In paying tribute to Edna Ryan, I work. No problem! I coped with varying want to say that, despite whatever label is degrees of success, like everybody else, and attributed to any type of political activity I did not see much in the gender equity thing designed to progress the status of women to at that time. a genuinely equitable position in our society, Imagine then the dawning realisation that I we need to recognise this contribution for did not really get this job because of me but what it has achieved and what it can achieve because there happened to be a union cam- in the future. paign to encourage more women into the I choose to call myself a feminist because building industry. Imagine the dawning this embraces the thoughts and feelings that realisation that I did not get paid the same I have. I hope to continue to convey these because I did the same work but because so sentiments as they evolve because I know that few women had ever worked in the industry the quest for equality is a dynamic pursuit. that there had never been the need to insert a I am proud to say that in this country we clause to differentiate rates of pay or, perhaps have had the privilege of knowing, despite her more poignantly, never the opportunity for modesty, a woman that can only inspire inequitable wage parity to evolve. Imagine the people—in particular, young women—to dawning realisation that I was not valued as become more politically aware and, hopefully, greatly as my male colleagues when I was politically active. I feel proud that many made redundant before them, even though I women can use the channels of change that had heaps more experience. Imagine finally Edna helped dig and constantly clear through- realising, after all that happened, that there out her life, including those involving the was substance in gender equity and that formal parliamentary process. The women’s genuine equality for women, despite being a movement, led and encouraged by Edna, has reality in my mind and the minds of many in demonstrated the impact that the movement my generation, was still something to be can have on spreading these messages and sought—and, in the current political environ- building even more channels of change. ment, something to be defended. My feminism is as I interpret it. I have no I often wonder if the experience I have illusions as to the massive challenges that described is specific to my generation, which existed when Edna Ryan sussed out her lot can be loosely described as our having distant in life, as I have no illusion now as to the lot echoing memories of I am woman being in life in which we find ourselves under this Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1155 conservative government. I will continue to book that celebrates the wit, diversity, hu- draw from the strength provided by women mour, and talent and skills of young people, like Edna and hope that I am also inspired by specifically in South Australia. the sight of the light at the end of the tunnel These young people were asked to pretend that inspired Edna to fight for equality. they were ministers and say what they would I would like to close by reading the last do if they were a minister, be it the minister words of Edna Ryan, which profoundly say so for the environment, the minister for love or much about her. They were: the minister for economics. They were also I would like to thank all the men and women, asked what they thought of politicians. Some people in all walks of life who gave me help and of their responses as to how young people see information. politicians are worth noting. The words they I found the formerly unknown circles of academia used were: ‘get rich,’ ‘mud slinging,’ ‘have and the very much maligned bureaucracy and long holidays,’ beef themselves up,’ ‘mostly government institutions very responsive. male,’ ‘tell lies,’ ‘make promises,’ ‘get to the I consider myself lucky to have worked with top and then get toppled,’‘stress out,’ ‘are excellent colleagues, particularly in Women’s boring,’ ‘act like kids’ and ‘their travel Electoral Lobby who put so much trust in me. allowances are too high’. Don’t mourn but rejoice as I’ve had a good innings I think no-one in this chamber would deny as my mother would say. Not able to work, I prefer to leave. the fact that young Australians, and perhaps Australians generally, view politicians with a Thank you all for brightening my life, especially degree of scepticism and perhaps disillu- my children and Margaret. I love you all very much. sionment. That is something, of course, we all should be working to counter, along with Seen and Heard families, teachers and parents. On that note, Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- I do express my concern that civics education tralia) (10.02 p.m.)—It is quite an honour to funding has been frozen under this govern- follow Senator Lundy’s speech. It was great ment, albeit, I acknowledge, with a promise and I would like to think that many more that a new program will start. Certainly, we people in this place would be willing to stand will not start to redress the lack of electoral up and assert themselves as feminists in this awareness in our community, and especially chamber, especially on the conservative side among young Australians, if we do not have of politics. Hear us roar. such programs operating in schools. It was also quite interesting to listen to The Seen and Heard project mostly used Senator McGauran’s speech but, unlike the visual medium of cartoons and some Senator McGauran, I will not be quoting drawings. These were displayed in the Port poetry. What I do rise to speak about tonight Adelaide Community Youth Centre. They is a book that I had the honour to launch two were over six feet high, beautifully and weeks ago with a colleague from the House wonderfully coloured. I would like to think of Representatives, Rod Sawford, the member that perhaps that exhibition could be a travel- for Port Adelaide. It is entitled Seen and ling one and we could see it here in Parlia- Heard and nicknamed ‘A foolproof guide to ment House at some stage. the youth vote’. Undoubtedly, this has been I seek to leave to table this booklet because targeted at politicians, both state and federal. I think it says much more than I could about It is a project undertaken by young Austral- it. Of course, that is the idea of it. I imagine ians aged 15 to 26. It took over six months to all politicians in this place will be receiving compile a list of their responses to issues a copy from the Youth Affairs Council of affecting them. South Australia. This book is a wonderful counter to some I do ask politicians in both houses to of the negative stereotypes we have recently acknowledge some of the comments that these seen perpetuated in the media, and in this young people have made in relation to partici- place, of young Australians. It certainly is a pation. Some of the comments include: 1156 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

‘young people are not acknowledged on a Copyright Act— political level;’ ‘many of us feel that we do Declaration under section 10A, dated 5 February not know enough about our choices when it 1997. comes to voting;’ ‘a lot of us just tick any old Revocation of declaration under section 10A, box.’ I appeal to many colleagues to read the dated 5 February 1997. document. I end my contribution this evening Crimes Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1997 with a quote from a voice bubble in one of No. 14. the cartoons in the book. Someone says: Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1997 No. 22. ‘If I had the chance to be a politician, I wouldn’t. Fisheries Management Act—Regulations— I would go and play basketball. Statutory Rules 1997 No. 19. I seek leave to table this booklet. Horticultural Levy Act, Horticultural Export Leave granted. Charge Act and Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act—Regulations—Statutory Senate adjourned at 10.07 p.m. Rules 1997 No. 18. Lands Acquisition Act—Statement describing property acquired by agreement under section 40 DOCUMENTS of the Act for specified public purposes. Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Tabling 1997 No. 17. The following documents were tabled by National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1997 No. 16. the Clerk: Public Service Act—Public Service Determina- Air Force Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules tions 1997/4, 1997/5, 1997/7 and 1997/8. 1997 No. 15. Trade Practices Act—Regulations—Statutory Banking Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Rules 1997 Nos 20 and 21. 1997 No. 24. Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- Indexed Lists of Files tions— The following documents were tabled Civil Aviation Orders— pursuant to the order of the Senate of 30 May Directive—Part— 1996: 105, dated 8, 9[4] and 10 January 1997; and Indexed lists of departmental and agency files for 3[2], 4[4], 5, 12[9], 13[4], 14[2] and 17[9] the period 1 July to 31 December 1996— February 1997.106, dated 16 and 29 January Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Com- 1997; and 3 and 14 February 1997. mission. 107, dated 12, 14 and 17 February 1997. Department of Administrative Services. Exemptions—13/FRS/1997 and 14/FRS/1997. Department of Veterans’ Affairs, including Statutory Rules 1997 No. 23. portfolio agencies. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1157

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Woodchip Licences Question Nos. 277, 369, 370 and 371, all of which were asked by Senator Brown: (Question No. 368) (a) Refer to Column A of Attachment A. Senator Brown asked the Minister repre- senting the Minister for Primary Industries (b) Refer to Column B of Attachment A. and Energy, upon notice, on 23 December (c) and (d) Refer to Column C of Attachment A. 1996: (e) Refer to Column D of Attachment A. With reference to each licence to export unpro- (f) All licences were granted under the Export cessed wood issued since 7 November 1996, what Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations (the ‘UW was the: (a) name of the company; (b) export Regulations). volume; (c) type of wood (hardwood or softwood); (d) form of wood (whole logs, woodchips, other); (g) Refer to Column E of Attachment A. (e) source of wood (native forests or plantation, (h) Refer to Column F of Attachment A. public or private land, residues or thinnings); (f) (i) There are no regions specified under the UW type of licence; (g) date of issue of licence; (h) port Regulations. of export; (i) region from which the wood can be taken; (j) duration of licence; (k) conditions apply- (j) Refer to Column E of Attachment A. ing to the licence; and (l) a copy of the licence. (k) and (l) Copies of licences attached. Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary There were also a number of licences issued for Industries and Energy has provided the the export of small quantities (less than a container following answer to the honourable senator’s load) of sandalwood over this period. question: ATTACHMENT A The following answers should be read in con- Table: Unprocessed Wood Export Licences Issued junction with my answers provided in response to From 7 November 1996 to 31 January 1997.

A B C D E F Volume (t=tonnes Company/Licence cm=cubic Wood Duration of (MEPWOOD) No metres) Type/Form Wood Source Licence Port of Export Radiata Exports Pty 24,000 cm Softwood logs Public and private 10/11/96— Geelong and Ltd/1452 plantations 31/12/96 Burnie Auspine Ltd/1469 750,000 t Softwood Private and public 21/11/96— Portland wood chips plantations (including 31/12/97 sawmill residues) North Forest Products 250,000 t Softwood Private and public 21/11/96— Burnie and Ltd/1472 wood chips plantations 31/12/97 Longreach North Forest Products 200,000 t H’wood Private plantations 21/11/96— Burnie and Ltd/1473 wood chips 31/12/97 Longreach SPE (Management) Pty 400,000 t Softwood Private and public 1/1/97+— Geelong Ltd/1474 wood chips plantations (including 31/12/97 sawmill residues) Minister for Primary In- 380,000 t Softwood Private and public 1/1/97^— Portland dustries (South Austral- wood chips plantations (including 31/12/97 ia)/1475 sawmill residues) Canterwood Pty 450,000 t Softwood Private and public 13/12/96— Gladstone Ltd/1483 wood chips plantations 31/12/97 Bunnings Forest Pro- 60 t H’wood logs Plantations and 5/12/96— W. A. ducts Pty Ltd/1484 State forests 30/6/97 1158 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

A B C D E F Volume (t=tonnes Company/Licence cm=cubic Wood Duration of (MEPWOOD) No metres) Type/Form Wood Source Licence Port of Export The General Manager 40,000 t H’wood Public plantations 1/1/97*— Tas. (Commercial) Forestry billets and/or native forests 31/12/97 Tasmania/1485 Queensland Commodity 400,000 t Softwood Private plantations 1/1/97#— Brisbane Exports Pty Ltd/1486 wood chips (including sawmill 31/12/97 residues) Radiata Exports Pty 70,000 cm Softwood logs Private and public 20/12/96— Geelong and Ltd/1487 plantations 31/3/97 Burnie Keon Cargo & Stevedor- 50,000 cm Fire-damaged QDPI log storage 18/12/96— Brisbane ing Pty Ltd/1488 softwood logs facility, Donnybrook 30/6/97 TQ Timbers Pty 30,000 t Fire-damaged QDPI log storage 21/12/96— Brisbane Ltd/1490 softwood logs facility, Donnybrook 30/6/97 W.A. Chip & Pulp Co 70,000 t H’wood Private and public 2/1/97— Bunbury Pty Ltd/1492 wood chips plantations 31/12/97

Notes: PRICING + Licence issued on 21/11/96. 2. A minimum fob price of $US38.00 per cubic * Licence issued on 21/12/96. metre applies to all softwood logs exported under this licence. except with the prior written approval # Licence issued on 18/12/96. of the Department. ^ Licence issued on 21/12/96 EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1452 3. This licence is for a maximum of 24,000 cubic metres of softwood logs. LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD 4. The exporter shall not export softwood logs (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT produced from wood harvested in an area (includ- 1982) ing an area on the Register, or on the Interim List I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary of the Register, of the National Estate), except with Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- the prior written approval of the Minister. tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Regulations, hereby grant RADIATA EXPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 059 465 879) a licence to export 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- SOFTWOOD LOGS during the period commencing ducted in association with activities approved under on the date of the signature below and ending on this licence are undertaken so as to minimise 31 DECEMBER 1996 Pursuant to Regulation 9 of impacts on places on the Register, or on the interim the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regula- list of the Register, of the National Estate. tions, this licence is subject to the conditions and 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- restrictions specified below. ations conducted in association with activities John Anderson (Signature of Minister) approved under this licence do not threaten with extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, 10/11/96 (Date of Signature) a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- DEFINITIONS cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- gered Species protection Act 1992. 1. In this licence: DOMESTIC PROCESSING "exporter" means Radiata Exports Pty Ltd, the 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic registered office of which is at Level 2, 123 High processors who seek to purchase the softwood logs Street, Prahran, Victoria 3181, or any other person at a price that is equivalent to the export price net or company acting by, or on behalf of, or under the of export handling costs and charges, unless other- authority of Radiata Exports Pty Ltd; wise approved by the Minister. "softwood logs" means pulplogs and sawlogs COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION derived from trees of the genus Pinus; 8. The exporter must comply with all Common- "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for wealth, State and Local Government laws. Primary Industries and Energy; and 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the ment of Primary Industries & Energy. Victorian and Tasmanian Governments of any area Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1159 where operations conducted in association with ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION activities approved under this licence are being 5. The exporter must comply with the requirements carried out. of the Victorian, South Australian and NSW NOTE: Governments and all relevant local authorities. Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions 6. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- in an export licence is an offence under the Export ducted in association with activities approved under Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the this licence are undertaken so as to minimise Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in impacts on places on the Register, or on the Interim certain circumstances. List of the Register, of the National Estate. END OF LICENCE 7. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1469 ations conducted in association with activities LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD approved under this licence do not threaten with extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- 1982) cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- I, BRUCE SCOTT, Acting Minister for Primary gered Species Protection Act 1992. Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- DOMESTIC PROCESSING tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, hereby grant AUSPINE LIMITED 8. The exporter shall give priority to domestic (ACN 004 289 730) a licence to export PINE processors who seek to purchase the pine at a price WOODCHIPS during the period commencing on that is equivalent to the export price net of export the date of the signature below and ending on 31 handling costs and charges, unless otherwise DECEMBER 1997 approved by the Minister. Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control INSPECTION (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by subject to the conditions and restrictions specified officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the below. Victorian, NSW or South Australian Governments, Bruce Scott (Signature of Minister) of any area where operations connected with the export of pine under this licence are being carried 21/11/96 (Date of Signature) out. DEFINITIONS NOTE: 1. In this licence Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- in an export licence is an offence under the Export ment of Primary Industries and Energy. Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the "exporter" means Auspine Limited, of Penola Road, Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in Tarpeena, South Australia, 5277; or any other certain circumstances. person or company acting on behalf of, or under END OF LICENCE the authority of, Auspine Limited; Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1472 "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industries and Energy; and LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD "pine" means woodchips derived from trees of the (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT species Pinus radiata and Pinus pinaster; 1982) PRICING I, BRUCE SCOTT, Acting Minister for Primary 2. A minimum price of US $110 per bone dry unit Industries and Energy, acting under Regulation 8 f.o.b. applies to all pine exported under this licence, of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regula- except with the prior written approval of the tions, hereby grant NORTH FOREST PRODUCTS Department. LIMITED, ACN 004 208 904 a licence to export PINE WOODCHIPS during the period commencing EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS on the date of signature of this instrument and 3. This licence is for a maximum of 750,000 green ending on 31 December 1997 metric tonnes of pine. Under Regulation 9 of the Export Control (Unpro- 4. The exporter shall not export pine produced from cessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is subject material harvested in an area (including an area on to the conditions and restrictions specified below. the Register, or on the Interim List of the Register, Bruce Scott (Signed by Minister) of the National Estate), except with the prior written approval of the Minister. 21 Nov 1996 (Date of signature) 1160 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

DEFINITIONS in connection with the export of pine under this 1. In this licence— licence. "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- NOTE: ment of Primary Industries and Energy Failure to comply with the conditions or restric- "exporter" means North Forest Products Limited tions in an export licence is an offence under the whose registered office is at 7-9 Franklin Wharf, Export Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations Hobart, Tasmania 7000 the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in certain circumstances. "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for END OF LICENCE Primary Industries and Energy; Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1473 "State" means the State of Tasmania LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD "tonnes" means green metric tonnes (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT "wood" means fibrous materials between the bark 1982) and pith of a tree or shrub I, BRUCE SCOTT, Acting Minister for Primary "pine" means woodchips produced from wood of Industries and Energy, acting under Regulation 8 the genus pinus. of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regula- QUANTITY tions, hereby grant NORTH FOREST PRODUCTS 2. The quantity of material exported under this LIMITED, ACN 004 208 904 a licence to export licence shall not exceed 250,000 tonnes. HARDWOOD WOOD CHIPS during the period commencing on the date of signature of this PRICING instrument and ending on 31 December 1997 3. The minimum price for pine under this licence Under Regulation 9 of the Export Control (Unpro- shall be SUS 100 per BDU, or such price as cessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is subject otherwise approved in writing by the Minister or to the conditions and restrictions specified below. the Department. Bruce Scott (Signature of Minister) SOURCE MATERIAL 21.11.96 (Date of signature) 4. The exporter shall not export under this licence DEFINITIONS wood harvested in any area (including an area on the Register of the National Estate or the Interim 1. In this licence— List of the Register of the National Estate), except "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- with prior written approval of the Minister. ment of Primary Industries and Energy COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS "exporter" means North Forest Products Limited 5. The exporter shall comply with all Common- whose registered office is at 7-9 Franklin Wharf, wealth, State and local government laws including Hobart, Tasmania 7000 those concerning protection of the environment "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Primary Industries and Energy; 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- "State" means the State of Tasmania ations conducted in association with activities "tonnes" means green metric tonnes approved under this licence do not threaten with "wood" means fibrous materials between the bark extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, and pith of a tree or shrub a native species listed in Schedule 1, or an ecologi- cal community listed in Schedule 2, of the Endan- "hardwood woodchips" means woodchips produced gered Species Protection Act 1992. from the genus eucalyptus. DOMESTIC PROCESSING QUANTITY The quantity of hardwood woodchips exported 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic under this licence shall not exceed 200,000 tonnes. processors who seek to purchase the wood at a price that is equivalent to the export price net of PRICING export handling costs and charges, unless otherwise 3. The minimum price for hardwood woodchips approved by the Minister. under this licence shall be $A165 per tonne, or INSPECTION such price as otherwise approved in writing by the Minister or the Department. 8. The exporter shall take all steps within its power to facilitate the inspection by officers of the SOURCE MATERIAL Department, and of the Government of Tasmania 4. The exporter shall not export under this licence of any area where operations are being carried out hardwood woodchips harvested in any area (includ- Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1161 ing an area on the Register of the National Estate DEFINITIONS or the Interim List of the Register of the National Estate), except with prior written approval of the 1. In this licence: Minister. "exporter" means, SPE (Management) Pty Ltd, the COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS registered office of which is at Cnr. Corio Key Road & Langdon Street, Geelong North, 3215, or 5. The exporter shall comply with all Common- any other person or company acting by, or on wealth, State and local government laws including behalf of, or under the authority or SPE (Manage- those concerning protection of the environment. ment) Pty Ltd; ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION "softwood" means softwood woodchips derived 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- from trees of the genus Pinus; ations conducted in association with activities approved under this licence do not threaten with "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, Primary Industries and Energy; and a native species listed in Schedule 1, or an ecologi- "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- cal community listed in Schedule 2, of the Endan- ment of Primary Industries & Energy. gered Species Protection Act 1992. PRICING DOMESTIC PROCESSING 2. The exporter shall not export softwood under this 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic licence without prior written approval from the processors who seek to purchase the hardwood Department as to the proposed minimum export woodchips at a price that is equivalent to the export price. price net of export handling costs and charges, EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS unless otherwise approved by the Minister. 3. This licence is for a maximum of 400,000 green INSPECTION metric tonnes of softwood woodchips. 8. The exporter shall take all steps within its power 4. The exporter shall not export softwood produced to facilitate the inspection by officers of the from wood harvested in an area (including an area Department, and of the Government of Tasmania on the Register, or on the Interim List of the of any area where operations are being carried out Register, of the National Estate), except with the in connection with the export of hardwood wood- prior written approval of the Minister. chips under this licence. ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION NOTE: 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- Failure to comply with the conditions or restric- ducted in association with activities approved under tions in an export licence is an offence under the this licence are undertaken so as to minimise Export Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations impacts on places on the Register, or on the interim the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence list of the Register, of the National Estate. in certain circumstances. 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- END OF LICENCE ations conducted in association with activities Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1474 approved under this licence do not threaten with LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- 1982) gered Species Protection Act 1992. I, BRUCE SCOTT, Acting Minister for Primary DOMESTIC PROCESSING Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) processors who seek to purchase the softwood at a Regulations, hereby grant SPE (MANAGEMENT) price that is equivalent to the export price net of PTY LTD (ACN 070 030 410) a licence to export export handling costs and charges, unless otherwise SOFTWOOD WOODCHIPS during the period approved by the Minister. commencing on 1 JANUARY 1997 and ending on 31 DECEMBER 1997 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control 8. The exporter must comply with all Common- (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is wealth, State and Local Government laws. subject to the conditions and restrictions specified 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by below. officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the Victorian Government of any area where operations Bruce Scott (Signature of Minister) conducted in association with activities approved 21.11.96 (Date of Signature) under this licence are being carried out. 1162 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

NOTE: ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- in an export licence is an offence under the Export ducted in association with activities approved under Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the this licence are undertaken so as to minimise Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in impacts on places on the Register, or on the Interim certain circumstances. list of the Register, of the National Estate. END OF LICENCE 7. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1475 ations conducted in association with activities LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD approved under this licence do not threaten with extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- 1982) cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary gered Species Protection Act 1992. Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) DOMESTIC PROCESSING Regulations, hereby grant MINISTER FOR PRI- 8. The exporter shall give priority to domestic MARY INDUSTRIES (SOUTH AUSTRALIA) a processors who seek to purchase the woodchips at licence to export PINE WOODCHIPS during the a price that is equivalent to the export price net of period commencing on 1 JANUARY 1997 and export handling costs and charges, unless otherwise ending on 31 DECEMBER 1997 approved by the Minister. Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is subject to the conditions and restrictions specified 9. The exporter must comply with all Common- below. wealth, State and local Government laws. John Anderson (Signature of Minister) 10. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by 21.12.96 (Date of Signature) officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the Victorian or South Australian Governments, of any DEFINITIONS area where operations connected with the export of 1. In this licence woodchips under this licence are being carried out. "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- NOTE: ment of Primary Industries and Energy. Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions "exporter" means the Minister for Primary Indus- in an export licence is an offence under the Export tries (South Australia). representing a consortium Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the comprising Softwood Holdings Limited and the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in Department of Primary Industries in the State of certain circumstances. South Australia, of 25 Grenfell Street, Adelaide SA 5000, or any other person acting on behalf of, or END OF LICENCE under the authority of, the Minister for Primary Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1483 Industries (South Australia); LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industries and Energy; and (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT "woodchips" means woodchips derived from trees 1982) of the species Pinus radiata; I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary PRICING Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) 2. A minimum price of US $112 per bone dry unit Regulations, hereby grant CANTERWOOD (ACN fob applies to all woodchips exported under this 054 548 506) a licence to export PINE WOOD- licence, except with the prior written approval of CHIPS during the period commencing on the date the Department. of the signature below and ending on 31 DECEM- EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS BER 1997 3. This licence is for a maximum of 380,000 green Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control metric tonnes of woodchips. (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is 4. The exporter shall not export woodchips pro- subject to the conditions and restrictions specified duced from pine harvested in an area (including an below. area on the Register, or on the Interim List of the John Anderson (Signature of Minister) Register, of the National Estate), except with the prior written approval of the Minister. 13.12.96 (Date of Signature) Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1163

DEFINITIONS NOTE: 1. In this licence Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- in an export licence is an offence under the Export ment of Primary Industries and Energy. Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in "exporter" means Canterwood Pty Ltd, of 160 Kent certain circumstances. Street Maryborough, Qld, 4650, or any other person or company acting on behalf of, or under the END OF LICENCE authority of Canterwood Pty Ltd; Licence Number MEPWOOD 1484 "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industries and Energy; and LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD "pine" means woodchips derived from trees of the (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT genus Pinus. 1982) PRICING I, STEPHEN O’LOUGHLIN, delegate of the 2. A minimum price of US $110 per bone dry unit Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, acting f.o.b. applies to all pine exported under this licence, pursuant to Regulation 8 of the Export Control except with the prior written approval of the (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, hereby grant Department. Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd (ACN 008 665 EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS 898) a licence to export HARDWOOD LOGS during the period commencing on the date of the 3. This licence is for a maximum of 450,000 green signature below and ending on 30 JUNE 1997 metric tonnes of pine. Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control 4. The exporter shall not export pine produced from (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is material harvested in an area (including an area on subject to the conditions and restrictions specified the Register, or on the Interim List of the Register, below of the National Estate), except with the prior written approval of the Minister or the Department. S. O’Loughlin (Signature of delegate) ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 5 Dec 96 (Date of Signature) 5. The exporter must comply with all Common- DEFINITIONS wealth, State and local government laws. 6. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- 1. In this licence— ducted in association with activities approved under "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- this licence are undertaken so as to minimise ment of Primary Industries and Energy. impacts on places on the Register, or on the Interim List of the Register, of the National Estate. "exporter" means Bunnings Forest Products Pty 7. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- Ltd, of 2 Adams Drive, Welshpool, WA, 6106, or ations conducted in association with activities any other person or company acting on behalf of, approved under this licence do not threaten with or under the authority of Bunnings Forest Products extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, Pty Ltd, a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- Primary Industries and Energy; and gered Species Protection Act 1992. DOMESTIC PROCESSING "hardwood logs " means logs derived from trees of the genus Eucalyptus. 8. The exporter shall give priority to domestic processors who seek to purchase the pine at a price EXPORT AND SOURCING Limitations that is equivalent to the export price net of export 2. This licence is for a maximum of 60 green handling costs and charges, unless otherwise metric tonnes of hardwood logs, sourced from approved by the Minister. plantations and State forests in Western Australia. INSPECTION 3. The exporter shall not export hardwood logs 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by produced from material harvested in an area officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the (including an area on the Register, or on the Queensland Government, of any area where Interim List of the Register, of the National Estate), operations connected with the export of pine under except with the prior written approval of the deleg- this licence are being carried out. ate of the Minister. 1164 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION "Interim Forest Agreement" means the Interim 4. The exporter must comply with the requirements Forest Agreement between the Commonwealth of of the Western Australian Government and all Australia and the State (executed by the State on relevant local authorities. 16 January 1996), as amended and notified in writing by the Commonwealth to the exporter from 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- time to time; ducted in association with activities approved under this licence are undertaken so as to minimise "Interim Forest Area" means the area that may be impacts on places on the Register, or on the Interim required for a future comprehensive, adequate and List of the Register, of the National Estate. representative reserve system, as specified and referred to in the Interim Forest Agreement; 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- ations conducted in association with activities "Interim Forest Assessment" means the document approved under its licence do not threaten with entitled "Interim Forest Areas Tasmania Report of extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, the Interim Forest Assessment Process December a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- 1995", a copy of which has been provided to the cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- exporter; gered Species Protection Act 1992. "Department" means the Department which is INSPECTION responsible for advising the Minister in respect of 7. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by administration of the Export Control Act 1982; officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the "exporter" means the General Manager (Commer- Western Australian Government, of any area where cial) Forestry Tasmania, the office of which is operations connected with the export of material located at 199 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, under this licence are being carried out. or any person authorised to act on his behalf; NOTE: "hardwood" means wood derived from trees of Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions native Australian species that are botanically in an export licence is an offence under the Export hardwoods; Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in "Minister" means the Minister responsible for certain circumstances. administration of the Export Control Act 1982; END OF LICENCE "old growth forest" means a forest that is ecologi- Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1485 cally mature and has been subjected to negligible unnatural disturbance such as logging, roading or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA clearing; EXPORT CONTROL ACT 1982 "Regional Forest Agreement" means a Regional EXPORT CONTROL (UNPROCESSED WOOD) Forest Agreement within the meaning of the REGULATIONS Regulations covering the region to which this UNPROCESSED WOOD EXPORT LICENCE licence relates, which has been entered into be- I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary tween the Commonwealth and the State; Industries and Energy, acting under Regulation 8 "residue wood" means hardwood derived from of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regula- sawmill residues or silvicultural thinnings; tions, hereby grant THE GENERAL MANAGER, (COMMERCIAL) FORESTRY TASMANIA a "sawlog-driven harvesting" means timber harvesting licence to export HARDWOOD BILLETS during operations for which the primary purpose is the the period commencing on 1 JANUARY 1997 and production of sawlogs or the maximisation of the ending on 31 DECEMBER 1997 sawlog production potential of a forest; Under Regulation 9 of the Export Control (Unpro- "sawlogs" means logs graded as sawlogs, or where cessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is subject logs are not subject to a grading process means to the conditions and restrictions specified below. logs that are suitable for economic use for sawing, veneers, poles, girders and other products of higher John Anderson (Signature of Minister) value than pulpwood and wood chips; 21/12/96 (Date of Signature) "sawmill residues" means waste material resulting DEFINITIONS from: (a) the production of squared timber in sawmill operations; or (b) rejection by a veneer 1. In this licence:— mill, sawmill or other processing plant (other than "agricultural clearing" means clearing of native a wood chipping plant) of a log found to be defec- forest for the purpose of undertaking agricultural tive for the purposes of producing a commercial development excluding plantation establishment; timber product, where the defect could not have Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1165 been found on any reasonable inspection of the log ever is applicable, in Schedule 1 to the Interim before its arrival at the plant for processing; Forest Agreement. "silvicultural thinnings" means waste material ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND ENDAN- resulting from the thinning of a regrowth forest for GERED SPECIES the purpose of improving the production potential of the forest; 9. The exporter shall take all reasonable steps to ensure it does not export under this licence hard- "Tasmania Region" means the Tasmania Region as wood billets produced in operations not conducted defined in the Regulations; in accordance with the requirements of the Interim "State" means the State of Tasmania; Forest Assessment and Interim Forest Agreement "tonnes" means green metric tonnes; and or Regional Forest Agreement in effect at the time the operations are conducted. "wood" means fibrous materials between the bark and pith of a tree or shrub. 10. The exporter shall ensure all of its operations for the production of hardwood billets for export QUANTITY under this licence do not threaten with extinction, 2. The quantity of material exported under this or significantly impede the recovery of, a species licence shall not exceed 40,000 green tonnes of listed in Schedule 1 or an ecological community hardwood billets. listed in Schedule 2 of the Endangered Species SOURCE MATERIAL Protection Act 1992, and that the operations comply with any measures in the Interim Forest 3. The exporter shall not export under this licence Assessment and Interim Forest Agreement or hardwood billets unless those billets are produced Regional Forest Agreement in effect at the time the from wood harvested from the Tasmania Region. operations are conducted, concerning such species. 4. The exporter shall take all reasonable steps to COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ETC ensure it does not export under this licence hard- 11. The exporter shall: wood billets produced from wood harvested in an area (including an area on the Register or on the (a) comply with all Commonwealth, State and Interim list of the Register of the National Estate) local government laws; and which is at the time the wood was harvested: (b) take all reasonable steps to ensure that all (a) in an Interim Forest Area (except for any operations for the production of hardwood billets areas in relation to which the Commonwealth has for export under this licence comply with the approved completion of timber harvesting relevant codes of forest practice and management pursuant to clause 6 of the Interim Forest Agree- plans. ment); or INSPECTION (b) in an area not available for timber harvesting 12. The exporter shall take all steps within its under a Regional Forest Agreement. power to facilitate the inspection by officers of the Department, and of the Government of Tasmania 5. The exporter shall take all reasonable steps to of any area where the exporter is carrying out ensure it does not export under this licence hard- operations connected with the export of hardwood wood billets produced from wood harvested in old billets under this licence. growth forest, unless produced from sawlog-driven harvesting operations. REPORTING 13. The exporter shall provide the Department with 6. The exporter shall not export under this licence a report, by 31 March 1998, in relation to compli- hardwood billets produced from wood harvested ance with the conditions and restrictions of this from agricultural clearing unless it has taken all licence. reasonable steps to ensure that such wood is harvested in accordance with State and Local NOTE: Failure to comply with the conditions or government laws relating to agricultural clearing. restrictions in an export licence is an offence under the Export Control Act 1982. Under the Regula- 7. The exporter shall take all reasonable steps to tions the Minister may also suspend or revoke the ensure it does not export under this licence hard- licence in certain circumstances. wood billets produced from sawlogs, other than as sawmill residues. END OF LICENCE 8. (a) The exporter shall not export under this Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1486 licence hardwood billets derived from residue LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD wood from areas of rainforest on Crown Land. (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT (b) In this condition ‘rainforest’ has the same 1982) meaning as the term has, for the purpose of the I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary 1996 harvesting operations, if item 6 or 7, which Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- 1166 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) at a price that is equivalent to the export price net Regulations, hereby grant QUEENSLAND COM- of export handling costs and charges, unless other- MODITY EXPORTS PTY LTD (ACN 010 906 wise approved by the Minister. 331) a licence to export PINE WOODCHIPS during the period commencing on 1 JANUARY COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION 1997 and ending on 31 DECEMBER 1997 8. The exporter must comply with all Common- Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control wealth, State and Local Government laws. (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by subject to the conditions and restrictions specified officers of the Commonwealth, or officers of the below. Queensland Government of any area where oper- John Anderson (Signature of Minister) ations conducted in association with activities approved under this licence are being carried out. 18/12/96 (Date of Signature) DEFINITIONS NOTE: 1. in this licence Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions in an export licence is an offence under the Export "exporter" means Queensland Commodity Exports Control Act 1989. Under the Regulations the Pty Ltd, PO Box 348, Wynnum Central, Brisbane, Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in Queensland, 4178, or any other person or company certain circumstances acting on behalf of, or under the authority of Queensland Commodity Exports Pty Ltd; END OF LICENCE "woodchips" means pine woodchips derived from Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1467 trees of the genus Pinus; LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- ment of Primary Industries and Energy; (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT 1982) "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary PRICING Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) 2. The exporter shall not export woodchips under Regulations, hereby grant RADIATA EXPORTS this licence without written approval from the Pty Ltd (ACN 0059 465 879) a licence to export Department as to the minimum export price negoti- ated. SOFTWOOD LOGS during the period commencing on the date of the signature below and ending on EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS 31 March 1997 3. This licence is for a maximum of 400,000 green Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control metric tonnes of woodchips. (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is 4. The exporter shall not export woodchips pro- subject to the conditions and restrictions specified duced from wood harvested in an area (including below. an area on the Register, or on the Interim List of the Register, of the National Estate), except with John Anderson (Signature of Minister) the prior written approval of the Minister. 20/12/96 (Date of Signature) ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION DEFINITIONS 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- ducted in association with activities approved under 1. In this licence: this licence are undertaken so as to minimise "exporter means Radiata Exports Pty Ltd, the impacts on places on the Register, or on the interim registered office of which is at Level 2, 123 High list of the Register, of the National Estate. Street, Prahran, Victoria 3181, or any other person 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- or company acting by, or on behalf of, or under the ations conducted in association with activities authority of Radiata Exports Pty Ltd; approved under this licence do not threaten with extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, "softwood logs" means pulplogs and sawlogs a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- derived from trees of the genus Pinus and cal community listed in Schedule 2 of the Endan- Pseudotsuga; gered Species Protection Act 1992. "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for DOMESTIC PROCESSING Primary Industries and Energy; 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic "department" means the Commonwealth Depart- processors. , who seek to purchase the woodchips ment of Primary Industries and Energy. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1167

PRICING Victorian, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmanian Governments of any area 2. The following minimum fob prices apply to where operations conducted in association with softwood logs exported under this licence, except activities approved under this licence are being with the prior written approval of the Department. carried out. $US38 per cubic metre for all pulp grade Pinus NOTE: radiata sawlogs; Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions $US42 per cubic metre for all HS grade Pinus in an export licence is an offence under the Export radiata sawlogs; Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the $US46 per cubic metre for all KS grade Pinus Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in radiata sawlogs; certain circumstances. $US55 per cubic metre for all K grade Pinus END OF LICENCE radiata sawlogs; Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1488 $US60 per cubic metre for all KL grade Pinus LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD radiata Sawlogs. (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT $US120 per cubic metre for all IS grade 1982) Pseudotsuga sawlogs; I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- US$100 per cubic metre for all SC grade tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Pseudotsuga sawlogs; Regulations, hereby grant KEON CARGO & $US80 per cubic metre for all China grade STEVEDORING PTY LTD ACN NO 059 233162 Pseudotsuga sawlogs. a licence to export SOFTWOOD during the period EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS commencing on the date of the signature below and ending on 30 JUNE 1997 3. This licence is for a maximum of 70,000 cubic Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control metres of softwood logs. (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is 4. The exporter shall not export softwood logs subject to the conditions and restrictions specified produced from wood harvested in an area (includ- below. ing an area on the Register, or on the Interim List John Anderson (Signature of Minister) of the Register, of the National Estate), except with the prior written approval of the Minister. 18/12/96 (Date of Signature) DEFINITIONS ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION 1. In this licence— 5. The exporter shall ensure that operations con- ducted in association with activities approved under "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- this licence are undertaken so as to minimise ment of Primary Industries and Energy; impacts on places on the Register, or on the interim "exporter" means Keon Cargo & Stevedoring Pty list of the Register, of the National Estate. Ltd, C/o DRB Sales and Marketing (Aust) Pty Ltd, 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- 38 Goenoeng Drive, Tanah Merah Qld 4128, or any ations conducted in association with activities other person acting on behalf of, or under the approved under this licence do not threaten with authority of the company; extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for a native species listed in Schedule 1 or an ecologi- Primary Industries and Energy; cal community listed in schedule 2 of the Endan- and "softwood" means logs derived from trees of gered Species Protection Act 1997. the genus Pinus. DOMESTIC PROCESSING EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic 2. This licence is for a maximum of 50,000 cu m processors who seek to purchase the softwood logs of softwood. at a price that is equivalent to the export price net of export handling costs and charges, unless other- 3. The exporter shall export only softwood drawn wise approved by the Minister. from the irrigated log storage facility established by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries COMPLIANCE WITH LAW AND INSPECTION (Forestry) at Donnybrook, Qld. 8. The exporter must comply with all Common- DOMESTIC PROCESSING wealth, State and Local Government laws. 4. The exporter shall give priority to domestic 9. The exporter must facilitate the inspection by processors who seek to purchase the softwood at a officers of the Commonwealth or offices of the price that is equivalent to the export price net of 1168 SENATE Monday, 3 March 1997 export handling costs and charges, unless otherwise DOMESTIC PROCESSING approved by the Minister. 4. The exporter shall give priority to domestic COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION processors who seek to purchase the softwood at a 5. The exporter must comply with all Common- price that is equivalent to the export price net of wealth, State and Local Government laws. export handling costs and charges, unless otherwise approved by the Minister. 6. The exporter must facilitate the inspection, by officers of the Commonwealth or Queensland COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND INSPECTION Governments, of any area where operations con- 5. The exporter must comply with all Common- nected with the export of softwood under this wealth, State and Local Government laws. licence are being carried out. 6. The exporter must facilitate the inspection, by NOTE: officers of the Commonwealth or Queensland Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions Governments, of any area where operations con- in an export licence is an offence under the Export nected with the export of softwood under this Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the licence are being carried out. Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in NOTE: certain circumstances. Failure to comply with the conditions or restrictions END OF LICENCE in an export licence is an offence under the Export Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1490 Control Act 1982. Under the Regulations the Minister may also suspend or revoke the licence in LICENCE TO EXPORT UNPROCESSED WOOD certain circumstances. (COMMONWEALTH EXPORT CONTROL ACT END OF LICENCE 1982) Licence Number: MEPWOOD 1492 I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, acting pursuant to Regula- COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA tion 8 of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) EXPORT CONTROL ACT 1982 Regulations, hereby grant TQ TIMBERS PTY LTD EXPORT CONTROL (UNPROCESSED WOOD) a licence to export SOFTWOOD during the period REGULATIONS commencing on the date of the signature below and ending on 30 JUNE 1997 HARDWOOD WOOD CHIP EXPORT LICENCE Pursuant to Regulation 9 of the Export Control I, JOHN ANDERSON, Minister for Primary (Unprocessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is Industries and Energy, acting under Regulation 8 subject to the conditions and restrictions specified of the Export Control (Unprocessed Wood) Regula- below. tions, hereby grant WA CHIP & PULP CO PTY LTD (ACN 008 720 518) a licence to export John Anderson (Signature of Minister) HARDWOOD WOODCHIPS during the period 21/12/96 (Date of Signature) commencing on THE DATE THIS APPROVAL DEFINITIONS BEARS and ending on 31 DECEMBER 1997. 1. In this licence— Under Regulation 9 of the Export Control (Unpro- cessed Wood) Regulations, this licence is subject "Department" means the Commonwealth Depart- to the conditions and restrictions specified below. ment of Primary Industries and Energy; John Anderson (Signature of Minister) "exporter" means TQ Timbers Pty Ltd PO Box 97 of Berowra Heights, NSW 2082, or any other 2/1/97 (Date of Signature) person acting on behalf of, or under the authority DEFINITIONS of the company; 1. In this licence "Minister" means the Commonwealth Minister for "Department" means the Department which is Primary Industries and Energy; and responsible for advising the Minister in respect of "softwood " means logs derived from trees of the administration of the Export Control Act 1982; genus Pinus. "the exporter" means WA Chip & Pulp Co Pty Ltd. EXPORT AND SOURCING LIMITATIONS the registered office of which is at 2 Adams Drive, 2. This licence is for a maximum of 30,000 tonnes Welshpool, WA or any other person or company of softwood. acting by, or on behalf of, or under the authority of, Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd; 3. The exporter shall export only softwood drawn from the irrigated log storage facility established by "Minister" means the Minister responsible for the Queensland Department of Primary Industries administration of the Export Control Act 1982; and (Forestry) at Donnybrook, Qld. "tonnes" means green metric tonnes. Monday, 3 March 1997 SENATE 1169

QUANTITY DOMESTIC Processing 2. The quantity of hardwood wood chips exported 7. The exporter shall give priority to domestic under this licence shall not exceed 70,000 tonnes. processors who seek to purchase the hardwood PRICING woodchips at a price that is equivalent to the export price net of export handling costs and charges, 3. The minimum price for hardwood woodchips unless otherwise approved by the Minister. under this licence shall be $A165 per bone dry tonne, fob or such price as otherwise approved in INSPECTION writing by the Minister or the Department. 8. The exporter shall take all steps within its power SOURCE MATERIAL to facilitate the inspection by officers of the Department, and of the Government of Western 4. The exporter shall not export under this licence Australia of any area where operations are being hardwood woodchips harvested in any area (includ- carried out in connection with the export of hard- ing an area on the Register of the National Estate wood woodchips under this licence. or the Interim List of the Register of the National REPORTING Estate), except with prior written approval of the Minister. 9. The exporter shall provide the Department with a report as soon as possible after shipment and no COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS later than 3 months after expiry of this licence, in 5. The exporter shall comply with all Common- relation to: wealth, State and local government laws including (a) compliance with the conditions and restric- those concerning protection of the environment. tions of this licence; and ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION (b) the quantities of hardwood wood chips 6. The exporter shall ensure that any of its oper- exported under this licence and the prices re- ations conducted in association with activities ceived for those wood chips. approved under this licence do not threaten with NOTE: Failure to comply with the conditions or extinction, or significantly impede the recovery of, restrictions in an export licence is an offence under a native species listed in Schedule 1, or an ecologi- the Export Control Act 1982. Under the Regula- cal community listed in Schedule 2, of the Endan- tions the Minister may also suspend or revoke the gered Species Protection Act 1992. licence in certain circumstances.