COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SENATE Official Hansard

MONDAY, 22 JUNE 1998

THIRTY-EIGHTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSION—SEVENTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA CONTENTS

MONDAY, 22 JUNE

Committees— Economics Legislation Committee—Meeting ...... 3555 Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998— Consideration of House of Representatives Message ...... 3555 Managed Investments Bill 1997— Second Reading ...... 3558 Representation of The Northern Territory ...... 3573 Senators: Swearing In ...... 3573 Questions Without Notice— Gun Laws ...... 3573 Taxation ...... 3574 Native Title ...... 3575 Telstra ...... 3575 Howard Government: Policies ...... 3577 Youth Policy ...... 3578 Centrelink ...... 3579 One Nation Party ...... 3580 Youth Allowance ...... 3581 Taxation ...... 3582 Economics Legislation Committee ...... 3583 Child Care ...... 3583 IT Outsourcing ...... 3585 NSW Teachers’ Strike ...... 3585 Travel Allowances ...... 3586 Answers to Questions Without Notice— Youth Allowance ...... 3587 Centrelink ...... 3587 Condolences— Former Senator Donald Newton Cameron ...... 3592 Rev. Gilbert William Arthur Duthie ...... 3598 Petitions— Genetic Engineering ...... 3598 Gender Identity ...... 3599 Sydney Airport ...... 3599 Multilateral Agreement on Investment ...... 3599 Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme ...... 3599 SBS Television: 1998 FIFA World Cup ...... 3599 Notices of Motion— East Timor ...... 3600 Commonwealth Departments and Agencies: Campaigns ...... 3600 Consideration of Legislation ...... 3600 National Competition Policy ...... 3603 Community Affairs Legislation Committee ...... 3604 Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition ...... 3604 Education: Mr Bill Daniels ...... 3604 Indonesia ...... 3605 Pork Industry ...... 3605 Corporations and Securities Committee ...... 3605 Mining: North-West Tasmania ...... 3606 Electoral: Young Australians ...... 3606 Power Supplies: Victoria ...... 3607 Economics References Committee ...... 3607 Community Affairs References Committee ...... 3607 Consideration of Legislation ...... 3607 Committees— Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee—Extension of Time ...... 3610 CONTENTS—continued

Order of Business— Education: Questions and Reports ...... 3610 Committees— Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Committee—Extension of Time 3610 Rural and Regional Affairs References Committee—Extension of Time 3610 Order of Business— Consideration of Legislation ...... 3610 Australian Electoral Commission ...... 3610 Election of Senators ...... 3610 Committees— Economics Legislation Committee—Extension of Time ...... 3611 Order of Business— Consultancies on Waterfront Reform Committee ...... 3611 Leave of Absence ...... 3611 Order of Business— Census Forms ...... 3611 Australian Workplace Agreements ...... 3611 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee .... 3611 Health ...... 3611 Australian Conservation Foundation ...... 3611 Documents— Auditor General’s Reports—Report No. 48 of 1997-98 ...... 3612 Northern Ireland Peace Agreement ...... 3612 Committees— Treaties Committee—Report ...... 3612 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998— Report of Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund Committee ...... 3613 Budget 1998-99— Portfolio Budget Statements ...... 3615 Parliamentary Delegation to The European Institutions, April 1998 .... 3615 Assent to Laws ...... 3617 Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998, Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 3617 Second Reading ...... 3617 Social Security and Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Retirement Assistance For Farmers) Bill 1998, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1998, Comprehensive Nuclear Test-ban Treaty Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 3620 Second Reading ...... 3620 Film Licensed Investment Company Bill 1998, Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed Investment Company) Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 3625 Second Reading ...... 3625 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99, Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99— First Reading ...... 3626 Second Reading ...... 3626 Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, National Firearms Program Implementation Bill 1998, Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management Deposits) Bill 1998, Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 1998— First Reading ...... 3627 Second Reading ...... 3627 Health Care (Appropriation) Bill 1998— CONTENTS—continued

First Reading ...... 3631 Second Reading ...... 3631 Bills Returned from The House of Representatives ...... 3631 General Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998, Retirement Savings Account Providers Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998, Life Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998, Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 1998— Consideration of House of Representatives Message ...... 3631 Third Reading ...... 3632 Committees— Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee: Joint—Membership . 3632 Managed Investments Bill 1997— In Committee ...... 3632 Adjournment— Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition ...... 3674 Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition ...... 3675 Illegal Immigrants ...... 3677 Documents— Tabling ...... 3679 Tabling ...... 3681 Proclamations ...... 3681 Return to Order ...... 3681 Questions On Notice— Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet: Training or Seminars—(Question No. 1015) ...... 3682 Roads of national Importance Program—(Question No. 1081) ...... 3682 Brisbane Airport—(Question No. 1097) ...... 3682 Genetically Engineered Foods—(Question No. 1108) ...... 3683 Australia New Zealand Food Authority—(Question No. 1110) ...... 3686 Western Australia: Salinity—(Question No. 1130) ...... 3687 Drought Exceptional Circumstances Program—(Question No. 1135) . 3687 Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs: Programs—(Question No. 1136) ...... 3690 Department of Health and Family Services: Research—(Question No. 1143) ...... 3691 War Veterans’: Legal Aid—(Question No. 1146) ...... 3691 Prime Minister and Cabinet: Advertising—(Question No. 1149) ..... 3692 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Advertising—(Question No. 1150) ...... 3693 Treasury: Advertising—(Question No. 1151) ...... 3693 Department of Environment, Sport and Territories: Advertising—(Question No. 1153) ...... 3698 Department of Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts: Advertising—(Question No. 1154) ...... 3700 Department of Social Security: Advertising—(Question No. 1156) . . . 3700 Department of Trade: Advertising—(Question No. 1157) ...... 3700 Attorney-General’s Department: Advertising—(Question No. 1163) . . 3701 Department of Transport and Regional Development: Advertising—(Question No. 1164) ...... 3703 Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: Advertising—(Question No. 1165) ...... 3705 Office of Government Information and Advertising: Advertising, Public Relations and/or Research—(Question No. 1169) ...... 3706 Government Member Secretariat—(Question No. 1171) ...... 3709 Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service—(Question No. 1172) . 3730 Australia New Zealand Food Authority—(Question No. 1173) ...... 3731 Western Australia Regional Forest Agreement—(Question No. 1174) . 3731 Industrial Relations Court—(Question No. 1177) ...... 3732 CONTENTS—continued

National Forest Policy—(Question No. 1178) ...... 3733 Studies Assistance—(Question No. 1181) ...... 3733 Tobacco Research and Development Corporation—(Question No. 1185) 3735 Irian Jaya: Drought Assistance—(Question No. 1186) ...... 3736 Captioning for the Hearing Impaired—(Question No. 1188) ...... 3736 Greenhouse Gases—(Question No. 1189) ...... 3737 Environment Assessment of Surat Scheme—(Question No. 1190) . . . 3738 Nursing Homes—(Question No. 1191) ...... 3739 SENATE 3555

Monday, 22 June 1998 up in insolvency, or on the application of the Commission, the Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just, order that a company that is or has been a related body corporate The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. must pay to the liquidator the whole or part Margaret Reid) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., of the amount of a debt or liability of the and read prayers. first-mentioned company that is an admis- sible claim in the winding up. COMMITTEES (2) In deciding whether it is just to make an Economics Legislation Committee order under subsection (1), the matters to which the Court must have regard include: Meeting (a) the extent to which the related body Motion (by Senator Calvert, at the request corporate took part in the management of of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to: the company; and That the Economics Legislation Committee be (b) the conduct of the related body corporate authorised to hold a public hearing during the towards the creditors of the company sitting of the Senate today, from 12.30 pm till 1.00 generally and to the creditor to which the pm to take evidence for its inquiry into the provi- debt or liability relates; and sions of the Trade Practices Amendment (Country (c) the extent to which the circumstances that of Origin Representations) Bill 1998. gave rise to the winding up of the com- FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM pany are attributable to the actions of the related body corporate; and (AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1998 (d) the extent to which the insolvent com- pany has, at any time, engaged in one or Consideration of House of more transactions which have resulted in Representatives Message the value of the insolvent company’s assets being reduced; and Message received from the House of Repre- (e) any other relevant matters. sentatives returning the Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provi- (3) An order under this section may be subject sions) Bill 1998 agreeing to amendments Nos to conditions. 1 to 4 and 6 to 30, disagreeing to amendment (4) An order must not be made under this No. 5 made by the Senate, and requesting the section if the only ground for making the order is that creditors of the company have reconsideration of the bill in respect of the relied on the fact that another company is or amendment disagreed to. has been a related body corporate of the Ordered that the message be considered in company. committee of the whole forthwith. 49 Section 1317HD House of Representatives message— Repeal the section, substitute: Schedule of the amendment made by the 1317HD Recovery of profits, and compensa- Senate to which the House of Representatives tion for loss, resulting from contravention has disagreed: (1) Where a person contravenes a civil penalty (5) Schedule 4, page 80 (after line 2), at the end provision in relation to a corporation, the of the Schedule, add: corporation, a creditor or the Commission may recover from the person, as a debt due Part 3—Liability for debts or liabilities of a to the corporation: related body corporate (a) if that or another person has made a profit 48 After Division 6 of Part 5.7B because of the act or omission constitut- Insert: ing the contravention—an amount equal Division 6A—Liability of a company for the to the amount of that profit; and debts or liabilities of a related body corporate (b) if the corporation has suffered loss or 588YA Liability of a company for the debts or damage as a result of that act or omis- liabilities of a related body corporate sion—an amount equal to the amount of (1) On the application of the liquidator or a that loss or damage; creditor of a company that is being wound whether or not: 3556 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(c) the first-mentioned person has been to give workers greater ability to recover their convicted of an offence in relation to the entitlements when they have been unilaterally contravention; or sacked by companies that then seek to deny (d) a civil penalty order has been made paying them their legitimate entitlements against the first-mentioned person in through nothing short of a financial sham. relation to the contravention. Given the government’s wholehearted and full (2) Proceedings under this section may be endorsement of the action Patrick took to sack begun only within 6 years after the contra- vention. their work force, the opposition will use this bill to highlight the government’s anti-worker, Motion (by Senator Ian Campbell) pro- pro-sacking agenda. posed: Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) That the committee does not insist upon the amendment to which the House of Representatives (12.35 p.m.)—Before I speak to the substance has disagreed. of this motion on the Financial Sector Reform Senator COOK (Western Australia— (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Bill 1998 I wish to put a question to the Senate) (12.33 p.m.)—This message on the parliamentary secretary. Parliamentary Secre- Financial Sector Reform (Amendments and tary, in Northam on Friday Senator Ross Transitional Provisions) Bill 1998 relates to Lightfoot informed the gathering that he the Patrick amendment which was inserted would much rather work with the One Nation into the Corporations Law. It is a provision Party than with the Democrats. I would like that would allow creditors of a company, to know if that is your opinion too. including employees, to apply to the court for Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western an order to recover for a parent company Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the moneys that may have been stripped from that Treasurer) (12.35 p.m.)—I do not think that company in order to avoid paying that credi- is relevant to this debate, Madam Chairman, tor—in this case obviously being the workers. and I hope it is an entirely hypothetical The most notorious example of that has been question. where the Patrick group of companies system- Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) atically and wilfully stripped the labour hire (12.36 p.m.)—It is relevant to the debate. I companies in the group in order to avoid the record that Senator Ian Campbell has avoided obligations that companies owed to their the question. I, therefore, categorise him with respective work forces. those who would link themselves to race We in the ALP believe in the principle that rather than reason and who are afraid to come this amendment embodies. We also have out and say that they reject utterly the notion committed ourselves to the passage of the of preferring One Nation to the Democrats in Wallis related legislation. It is our belief that terms of dealings in this place. insisting upon this amendment in this bill Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western would only give the government the oppor- Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the tunity to misrepresent and to malign the Treasurer) (12.36 p.m.)—Senator Murray can Australian Labor Party regarding its position put on my response what he would like, but on the Wallis legislation. We will not give the if he listened to my response he could not government that type of opportunity. We, possibly put that interpretation upon it. I did therefore, will not be insisting upon the suggest to Senator Murray that we are at the Patrick amendment at this point in time. moment dealing with the Financial Sector The ALP believes that the change embodied Reform (Amendments and Transitional Provi- in this amendment cannot be done in isola- sions) Bill 1998. I am not aware that the party tion. This is why we are reviewing the Patrick that he referred to have a view about the bill case in the light of the need to make substan- or whether they would be capable of having tive changes to the industrial relations law. a view about the bill, quite frankly. I certainly We have also introduced a private member’s have not seen any pronouncements in relation bill, the employee security bill, into the House to this bill. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3557

The only economic pronouncement I have avoid its liabilities to either creditors or seen by that particular party, the One Nation employees. Party, in relation to economics was that the way they would solve the economic dilemmas I appreciate, Senator Cook, your remarks of Australia was basically to let us all use our concerning your continued support for the photocopiers to print money. Their views on principle of the amendment. I would advise the economy are that you can fix Australia’s you that, accordingly, I will again move that economy by printing money or giving people amendment to the Company Law Review Bill two per cent loans. Our way of giving people 1997 which is due for debate later this week. two per cent loans is to work on inflation and Therefore, I will accept the intention that is work on the economy and get interest rates here before us: that, in terms of numbers, this down to competitive levels. So I have very amendment will now not go through. I advise little in common with people who would put the Senate that, although I will not be insist- forward those sorts of things. ing on a division, the Australian Democrats would have insisted on this amendment Senator Murray, I did say that I hope your because we think it is critical. question was entirely hypothetical. If you think carefully about what I said, you will I would ask the parliamentary secretary to know exactly what I meant. consider the terms of any future rejection which the government may be considering if Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) this same amendment, now to be put to the (12.37 p.m.)—I thank the Parliamentary Company Law Review Bill, is passed. I Secretary to the Treasurer for his full re- consider that some of the reasons that have sponse. He has, in fact, picked up the rel- been provided are both inadequate and pos- evance of my question. Senator Lightfoot sibly misleading. I do not mean intentionally inferred that, whatever bill is before this misleading; I mean possibly misleading in place, he would prefer to be working with terms of a number of matters referred to in One Nation. I merely want to know whether the reasons. the parliamentary secretary would prefer to work with One Nation with respect to this The matters refer to the possibility of the bill, as Senator Lightfoot would. amendment proving a problem in that the terms and the nature of the provision give Senator Lightfoot—You stopped the little guidance to parties and their advisers as Native Title Amendment Bill from getting to permitted and non-permitted conduct. through and that is why One Nation is where Specifically the first area with which I would it is! take issue is that the Law Reform Commis- Senator Cook—Why don’t you put them sion—which principally drafted that amend- last! Why don’t you have some guts and put ment way back in 1988, except for two them last? changes made by me and by Senator Cook— deliberately wanted the courts to be the The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! arbiter of these issues because it was not Senator Cook. Order! Senator Lightfoot. We intended to be prescriptive or difficult in are debating the Financial Sector Reform relation to how companies structure them- (Amendments and Transitional Provisions) selves but merely to guide how they should Bill 1998. Senator Murray has the call. behave. If they do not go insolvent as a result of manipulating or deliberately structuring Honourable senators interjecting— their affairs in such a way that they do go The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! insolvent, then they have little to fear. I remind the government that the way in which Senator MURRAY—This amendment is a that amendment was structured was the material amendment to the Corporations Law specific consequence of a view and a recom- and deals with issues were a company to mendation by the Law Reform Commission restructure its affairs through its subsidiary to in 1988. 3558 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

The second area with which I take issue and unjustly strips assets from subsidiaries so relates to conglomerates. Once again, con- that creditors or employees do not receive glomerates have nothing to fear unless either their entitlements. Knowing your personal they or their subsidiaries are likely to go morality, I know you would not approve of insolvent. Fortunately in Australia that very that. I know you do not regard it as some- seldom happens. I do not mean it will not thing which is desirable that people artificially ever happen, but it very seldom happens, and or immorally avoid their obligations. I would I do not think that is a weighty enough reason ask you to take note of my remarks in any to reject the amendment. Frankly, if it did consideration of any future amendments in happen to some of their subsidiaries—as is this regard. the case with Patrick at present or in the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Cobar instance—then it is the court which (12.45 p.m.)—I am just standing to indicate would determine whether there had been any that the Greens (WA) feel there is nothing malpractice which would result in those that has significantly changed between now matters then coming to the consideration of and when the vote was taken to change our the court. view in relation to the amendments. The The third area relates to the issue of Minco. majority of the Senate has passed amendments For the record, I remind the Senate that not to this bill and it is quite fair and reasonable only did a number of parties, including me, for the Senate to amend legislation by repre- take issue with the Patrick arrangements and senting the community. If the government do how they were restructuring their subsidiar- not accept this they obviously have a problem ies—and, indeed, there are the Cobar and with democracy. Therefore I will be voting in Woodlawn examples—but also the govern- the same way that the Greens (WA) did on ment was advised by press release on 3 May the previous occasion. of the exact nature of the amendment which Question resolved in the affirmative. was proposed to be moved. I am aware, as is Resolution reported; report adopted. the parliamentary secretary, that if the govern- ment finds it necessary it is able to move very MANAGED INVESTMENTS BILL 1997 rapidly indeed with Minco. Somebody put the Second Reading view to me—and I cannot recall who it was— that arrangements with Minco could take up Debate resumed from 28 May, on motion to 18 months to resolve. That might be true, by Senator Ian Campbell: but, with this very bill before us, for instance, That this bill be now read a second time. the package of 39 pages of amendments was Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) realised far quicker than that following the (12.47 p.m.)—I am speaking in continuation Wallis recommendations and following the on the Managed Investments Bill 1997, government’s views as to how to do things. Madam Acting Deputy President, and I will Since this is only one page of amendment, pick up from where I left off, with your certainly it is within the ability and the very permission. My fourth test is competition. strong lobbying power of the parliamentary Australia has 22 statutory trustee companies. secretary, to which I have at times been There are an estimated 500 scheme managers victim, to get on his bike and get the appro- operating some 2,000 schemes in Australia. It priate authority and support from the neces- is expected the bill will result in market sary states. So, once again, I regard that as an rationalisation. IFSA, described by Chanti- inadequate approach. cleer in the Australian Financial Review on My view, Parliamentary Secretary—as you 19 March 1998 as representing the big fund know, I have expressed it to you privately— managers, believes that there will be ‘fewer for the record is that the government take a schemes, fewer trusts, fewer managers’. This different approach. I am open to view that certainly means fewer competitors. approach, providing the consequence of what Given the apparent diversity of the industry you do is to outlaw activity which immorally at present, rationalisation does not yet repre- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3559 sent the danger of an unacceptable level of once you suffer from a lack of confidence in your industry concentration. Nevertheless, that regulatory arrangements, then you are in trouble. danger, so real in much of Australian business The area of choice is one in which the case life, may well become greater under the bill. is clear. It seems obvious that informed, self- Rationalisation does not necessarily mean sufficient and innovative risk takers should be better competition. Economist Dr Dwyer is of able to opt for alternative products. It is ironic the opinion that the bill runs the risk of that a coalition government which makes forcing prudent Australian investors to invest much of the philosophy of choice wishes to offshore in better protected funds in the better move from one mandatory trustee single regulated markets. This would advantage choice system to another mandatory single foreign competitors. responsible entity, single choice system. Will the bill significantly affect the ability Both the present mandatory system and the of Australian funds to market their products bill’s mandatory system can be rightly criti- overseas? Under existing law we have no cised for interfering with the freedom of access to American markets but the United investors collectively to determine their own States funds do have access to our markets. prudential requirements. That is regarded as As a large capital importer, our government the price one pays for having secure invest- obviously believes that it has to put up with ment systems which enjoy international and this lack of reciprocity, which also extends to domestic approval. But limiting freedom other industries such as agriculture and should not mean no freedom or choice at all manufacturing. The Australian Securities and it should certainly not mean no consulta- Commission currently approves schemes from tion with investors, who surely have the right Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, the United to make the choice. There is no provision in States of America, New Zealand, Guernsey, this bill to oblige fund managers or the Jersey and the Isle of Man to operate in government to ask the investors in the funds Australia. Australian schemes are known by their opinion. the ASC to operate in New Zealand but Single responsible entities are already a access to other countries, if any, would be feature of Australian financial life through negotiated directly between the fund and the banks, life insurance companies and superan- foreign regulator. The ASC states: nuation funds, for instance, although each has different fiduciary regulatory constraints. The . . . does not expect that the passage of the Man- government has determined that all new future aged Investments Bill will alter the existing or potential access of Australian funds to foreign collective management schemes be single jurisdictions, or the access of foreign funds to responsible entities. The Australian Democrats Australia. do not propose to oppose that intention although, as is evident, we are fearful that it So there we have it: one side says it will be may expose some classes of investor to bad while the other side says it does not greater risk. really know but it is not going to change things much. Will the bill significantly affect The government has also determined that all the willingness of foreigners to invest in existing investment schemes will be single Australian funds? Will they see investor responsible entities subject to a transitional protection reduced by the bill? With regard to period of two years. The Australian Demo- international competitiveness, Dr Dwyer again crats do oppose that intention unless the is of the opinion that we are on dangerous investors in those funds themselves want to ground with the bill. He says: change. We believe that investors in existing schemes should have a say in whether they Here we are in Australia signing treaties, such as move to an single responsible entity environ- the World Trade Organisation, committing our- ment or not. selves to free trade and financial services, while potentially implementing a regulatory regime that There are also fund managers who oppose the Americans will be extremely fast to point out single responsible entities, as in the submis- is substandard and below theirs... sion to the committee from Fidelity Invest- 3560 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 ments, an American subsidiary, which finds There are major problems with this bill. In trustees to be a cheaper and better option than our view, it does not provide choice and it having to go in-house with all the compliance does lessen security. That view is shared by and custodial duties. A number of smaller and a number of very senior and very capable medium sized Australian fund managers hold persons in the community and it is opposed the same view and presented evidence at the by other senior and capable persons. The hearings. Indeed, this bill is characterised by Australian Democrats will be moving amend- its opponents as being designed for, and ments to this bill in the committee stage to strongly favouring, the big end of town. address the problems I have outlined. The Australian Democrats believe that the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) existing system can and should run parallel to (12.55 p.m.)—The Managed Investments Bill the single responsible entity system, if inves- 1997 is a curious bill in many respects. It is tors in existing funds wish that it do so. This especially curious as it positively works means that in existing funds, where investors against some of the government’s favourite so choose, the use of a trustee will continue. catchcries, particularly its favoured stance of The bill provides for a two-year transitional promoting domestic and international com- period for existing schemes. The transitional petitiveness and flexibility in contractual arrangements allow either the existing man- arrangements. It is absolutely the opposite of agement company or trustee to become the the theme that the government was trying to responsible entity. The government intends push during the last sitting fortnight in rela- investors will move from one mandatory tion to choice in superannuation funds— scheme to another mandatory scheme. For us, whether that choice was real or not. there is an amazing presumption here—that the government can simply alter the security This bill will leave investors with no choice enjoyed by an investor without consulting between different structures. This bill will rob them, or without requiring the funds them- investors of the choice of having the protec- selves to consult them. It has not been estab- tion of a trustee. This bill will diminish lished that the investors in each existing investors’ rights of redress against negligent scheme want to change. Whether there is a directors. The bill will leave Australia with an majority or a minority in each existing investor protection regime that is one of the scheme is unknown. Investors were largely weakest and least proactive regimes in the unrepresented at the hearing that the commit- world. The bill will leave Australia with a tee held. Small investors in particular were regime that will favour large fund managers not represented. I have seen, for example, that over small fund managers and that will make an organisation such as the Australian Con- it very difficult for small funds to even enter sumers Association, which supports this bill, the market. has not even asked the question of its own The Managed Investments Bill 1997, along members. with the related Company Law Review Bill The bill permits the ASC to appoint a 1997, will bring about significant changes to custodian, or the fund manager may voluntari- the way in which business operates. The ly appoint one. There is, however, no provi- Managed Investments Bill 1997 radically sion for investors to make the appointment. changes the structure of managed investment There will undoubtedly be investors who schemes in Australia. It alters the schemes prefer the approach taken in the bill. There from being two-tiered schemes, which include will also undoubtedly be investors who are a funds manager and a trustee in a supervi- more comfortable with the existing system. In sory and watchdog capacity, to single-tier a democracy, both should have a choice. Our schemes comprising a single responsible quarrel with this bill is not that the govern- entity. The Managed Investments Bill 1997 ment should take a view but that the govern- relates to non-superannuation collective ment has failed to allow investors to take a investment schemes. I will come back to the view. government’s inconsistent dealing with super- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3561 annuation investment schemes and non-super- other people’s money. I think the quotations annuation investment schemes later. are worth putting on record in the Senate as This bill raises serious questions on a well. The ALRC noted: number of fronts. First of all, on the investor Many investors decide to invest in these schemes— front, this bill undermines the protection that collective investment schemes— investors currently enjoy and limits the choices available. On the competition front, because they do not want the worry and responsi- in absolute contrast to the usual song sung by bility of day to day management of their money. the government the bill actually undermines The ALC also noted: competition, especially for smaller funds, as They rely on the law, rather than on their own a result of the costs involved in the new expertise, to give them appropriate protection. scheme. Considering such comments, clearly the issue On the international front, this bill under- of consumer investor protection is a crucial mines the pursuit of international best prac- one. The Greens (WA) are not convinced— tice—another favourite tune that the govern- indeed, far from it—that this bill provides ment normally prefers to whistle. On a demo- anything close to adequate investor protection. cratic front, this bill undermines the parlia- The idea which a ‘single responsible entity’ mentary process by leaving the details of this is built on is that there is legal confusion as new scheme to be determined by the Austral- to who is answerable to investors. This is ian Securities Commission at its leisure— itself a questionable argument in light of outside the scrutiny and view of citizens and joinder rules. It has been argued that the their representatives in parliament. confusion is not such a calamity in reality. Investors are the losers in this bill. This bill Nevertheless, the axing of the independent not only weakens the protection for investors trustee is not a logical response to this prob- but removes any choice for investors as to the lem. Clarification of the roles was what was level of protection they would prefer. It is a clearly required. Indeed, Standard and Poor’s, bizarre situation that the government has been the international rating agency, has noted that blowing the horn of flexibility in contractual the current structure provides greater invest- arrangements in the area of workplace rela- ment protection as the trustee and the custodi- tions and superannuation investment yet is an are clearly independent. They also recog- proposing to limit the freedom to contract in nise that an independent custodian is the the important area of investor protection and minimum standard adopted by foreign finan- consumer choice in managed investment cial centres. funds. I wonder who is pushing this line? The bill provides significant scope for the While it seems rational that professional or responsible entity to engage in fraud and informed investors should have the option to abuse their position. The safeguard under the invest in a scheme without the prudential bill is that the manager must have the support protections of a trustee, it is hard to think of either the majority of independent directors why the government wants to prohibit two- or a compliance committee. But the bill tiered investment schemes. The bill forces specifically stops the trustee from filling investors to accept a lower level of protection either of these positions. Pierpont, writing in whether they like it or not. What is wrong the Australian Financial Review, elucidates with the so called mum and dad investors the problem with this so-called ‘safeguard’ actually being able to have custodians or through the example of Trustee Executor and trustees to make sure the whiz-kids and screen Agency, which collapsed in 1983. In that case jockeys don’t blow the life savings of small all of the directors were independent but had investors? no idea about the rorting and speculation that In the lower house, Mr Rocher, the honour- the managing director was engaging in with able member for Curtin, quoted from the the company’s money. Moreover, the govern- Australian Law Reform Commission’s sum- ment is yet to outline the qualifications mary to its report, Collective investments: required for members of the compliance 3562 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 committee or how often they are to scrutinise The Australian Securities Commission has the fund. had no guarantee that its funding will be increased to account for its new role—and Under this bill, there is not a stringent set perhaps these questions can be answered in of obligations on prospective fund managers the committee stage—and would be required and on day-to-day operations. Additionally, to take an action at public expense to enforce the constitution of a scheme may be modified private rights and interests. Mr Cameron of or replaced with a new constitution by the the Australian Securities Commission fore- responsible entity as long as it considers the warned the committee by telling them that the change will not adversely affect the members’ ASC did not necessarily see itself being rights. This weak regime is in stark contrast involved in handling complaints by investors to the highly regulated superannuation indus- against fund managers. So who is going to do try. Even though there is stringent regulation it? Or is the answer ‘nobody’? in the superannuation industry, it seems that there is still room for improvement. Thinking Adequate access to mechanisms for redress of cases such as EC Consolidated Capital and after the event is an important issue. How- Sentinel, where ‘rogue fund managers’ man- ever, perhaps in this instance it is more aged to decimate the life savings of investors, important to have preventive measures than it seems that superannuation regulation has remedial ones. It is all a bit too late to recov- not gone far enough, especially when it might er your life savings when the fund assets have be compulsory. been stripped and divested overseas. The ASC has no standing to pursue a claim for antici- How can the government possibly consider pated fraud. However, where a trustee holds that the guidelines in the Managed Invest- the asset it may simply decline to draw the ments Bill are even close to adequate? Why cheque until it is satisfied that everything is is the government wanting to resile from above board. commitments to more stringent corporate governance regimes? The Managed Invest- Let us look at some international compari- ments Bill is handing over the means to sons. The coalition, as an enthusiast on global pursue fraud on a golden platter. I can imag- competitiveness and world’s best practice, has ine a future Alan Bond or Christopher Skase taken a strange and inconsistent line to put in the making if this legislation is enacted and Australia wildly out of step with the rest of then someone will say, ‘We didn’t know.’ A the world. In 1995, KPMG conducted a similar prediction has been made by the survey of 43 developed countries where investment managers Maple, Brown, Abbott public offer investment funds were marketed. Ltd in their submission to the committee In all but the British Virgin Islands and the reviewing this bill. They noted: Netherlands Antilles custodians were mandat- ed. After pursuing that road, now even the Unhappily, we predict that if the bill stays in the present form there will one day be substantial British Virgin Islands are making independent losses to investors which external custody may custodians or trustees mandatory for managed have avoided. funds. What does that say about Australia? Let us look at the issue of redress. The bill At a time when the government is contin- leaves aggrieved investors to rely entirely on ually calling for investment and claiming to the Australian Securities Commission to take be implementing measures to attract invest- legal action on their behalf. They will no ment, this bill seems to work against such longer have a trustee legally charged with the aims. It is questionable whether the UK, US duty of protecting their interests and supervis- or European pension funds will be able to ing the fund manager to protect against fraud invest in SRE schemes. The bill may also and unauthorised dealings. It diminishes the encourage Australian investors to move their likelihood of private actions by investors, as money offshore in order to receive higher most cannot afford the time or money to protection. How does this subvert the parlia- commence an action in the Supreme Court. mentary process? Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3563

The bill contains little substance on how the ty of small fund managers. As some of the legislation will operate in practice. Mr small fund managers have noted in their Cameron of the ASC describes the legislation submissions to the committee of review of the as ‘outcomes based’, which is a nice way of Managed Investments Bill, the solution seems saying that a hell of a lot of meat in the obvious; let the fund managers who wish to legislation cannot be scrutinised before the retain trustees keep them, with the proviso bill is passed. That seems to be a growing that the fund manager is responsible. That theme with this government at the moment. would clear up the buck passing worries, Important elements of investor protection while making it commercially viable for have been left to the Australian Securities smaller fund managers to have a presence in Commission to determine—for example, how the market. separation of trust property is to be achieved. At a time when the crisis in Asia’s financial Neither draft regulations or ASC policy markets is being blamed on cronyism and the guidelines exist in relation to this bill. lack of investment transparency, why would This makes it difficult to know how the law the government think it prudent to weaken will operate. This bill makes rights unduly investor protection in a manner out of step dependent on ill-defined administrative pow- with international practice and put many ers and usurps the parliamentary process. aspects of investment regulation in the un- Moreover, the government has lumped the guided ASC regulations? ASC with the onus of monitoring and regulat- I listened to the remaining contribution of ing funds. This huge increase in responsibility Senator Murray and he mentioned that amend- has not had a commensurate increase in ments will be put to this bill. The Greens funding. Indeed, the ASC has this extra would like to see changes to this bill as well burden in the face of a huge slash in its and would like to see the government re- compliance and regulation budget. sponding in a responsible way to the legiti- Why is this scheme anti-competitive? The mate concerns of not only the wider com- Managed Investments Bill positively operates munity—those who know about what they are in an inequitable manner that disadvantages doing—but also those people who are work- small fund managers. The effect is the cre- ing on a day-to-day basis with this kind of ation of an anti-competitive environment; fund management and who are issuing the something I think the government would be strongest possible warning signs that the horrified by, at least in practice. government is going in the wrong direction in The bill operates to the advantage of large this particular bill. fund managers for two reasons. Firstly, the increased compliance cost under the new Senator CONROY (Victoria) (1.10 p.m.)— arrangements will be proportionately higher I rise to speak briefly on the Managed Invest- for small fund managers. Large institutions ments Bill. I have enjoyed being a part of the may already have the accounting and legal discussions in the committee stage of this bill. resources to provide safeguards for investors, We have been swamped by information, but small funds would have to set them up material, newspaper comment and representa- from scratch. On top of that, they would have tions. It is clearly a bill about which there is to hire expensive outside directors and com- much interest in the community, although pliance committee members. Secondly, small possibly it is limited to the financial parts of fund managers have a high level of credibility the community. Certainly, the financial with investors where there is an independent journalists have been writing at length on it. trustee. Like the previous speakers, Senator Consequently, with lower confidence levels Margetts and Senator Murray, one of the coupled with increased costs, it would be very major concerns that the Labor Party has on difficult for a small fund to enter or survive this bill is the question of investor protection in the current market. These arrangements and whether or not investors—small investors severely drag on the profitability and flexibili- in particular—will be better off under the 3564 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 single responsible entity regime or better of to start buying this particular bank’s shares in by maintaining some form of trustee or large numbers and out of sequence and custodian. context. The Labor Party has looked at this bill, It is too easy in those circumstances for which commenced under our previous govern- people not to realise. It is too easy for ment when it was referred to as collective members’ funds to be put into these sorts of investment reform. We made a number of investments with these sorts of problems. The recommendations that were put into a bill outcome of the intervention of the trustees in which never made it into the parliament. The this case was that the shares in the particular government picked up the ball and has moved bank were not bought; they were held off. So pretty much with the same bill, although with the price of the shares fell dramatically the a couple of important differences. day after the close of the underwriting and it was announced that there was a large short- What has been the history of collective fall. By waiting until after the underwriting investments, or managed investments as they closed, and if the decision had then been are now called? When you look at what made to pursue the bank’s shares, they would happened to AustWide and Estate Mortgage have been purchased at a much cheaper price and the difficulties encountered under the than they could have been a few days before. existing regime, you can understand the calls over many years about the need for greater This is the sort of problem which I have reform. Many investors lost substantial concerns about. I am concerned that, by amounts. There was argument about who was moving without question towards a single responsible and whether it was the fund responsible entity, the bill as it stands does manager or the trustee. Those are the sorts of not have enough investor protection. There issues that this bill is attempting to address. are significant investor protections. There are attempts to address these sorts of issues but, Through the committee process we have if you have a situation where Chinese walls also been made aware of the shenanigans that are set up within companies and the fund can go on even if you have a single respon- manager also has pressures from above in sible entity. I would like to quote one exam- relation to investments, you can see that ple, without naming any names or the institu- investors will be much worse off. There are tion involved. It was given in evidence to us other examples regarding properties being in a confidential sense, so I need to restrict bought and sold and revalued at different that, unfortunately. It is to do with one of the rates than they otherwise would have been major banks. from an independent commercial valuer which Senator Sherry interjecting— can be rushed through the system. We were assured by those who were supporting this bill Senator CONROY—No, it is confidential, that that would not happen; that it could not Senator Sherry. One of the major banks had happen. I would like to be 100 per cent an unsuccessful share issue that was under- comfortable that that would be the case. I am written by many investment bankers in Aus- probably not at this stage. tralia. About the time that this underwriting was coming to a close, it was clear to the I am looking forward to the parliamentary market that there would be a significant secretary’s contribution to these issues during shortfall, that the shares were overpriced, and the committee stage and the debate that will that the market was not going to take up the surround Senator Murray’s amendments and underwriting. some of our own amendments, but I would have to say at this stage that I am not com- At the time, not only the trustees but other pletely convinced that those sorts of examples interest groups noticed that something unusual which were brought to the committee’s was happening. Without any previous strat- attention can be addressed adequately in the egies being announced, a number of the investor protection rules that we are going to managed funds decided to direct their funds be debating. Like Senator Margetts, I am a bit Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3565 perplexed that, on the one hand, we have a I support the concerns expressed that the bill in its situation where the government is demanding current form— choice of fund for superannuation investors. that is, the form that we have before us As the chamber has already heard on the today— choice of fund legislation, it is not a real removes sound prudential requirements. I also choice; it is a choice for employers rather support the view that the bill inappropriately limits than employees. But it is at least a choice of investor choice. I believe investors should be free sorts. So we have the government, on the one to choose and pay for the extra protection afforded hand, trumpeting that they are about the by an independent trustee. ‘democratic right to choose’ choice of super- These are very strong words from somebody annuation fund but, on the other hand, intro- who has been championed by one side of the ducing a piece of legislation that specifically debate, saying this very important, eminent mandates against choice. group of people strongly support the bill. The committee was swayed by that, and it is Senator Sherry—Choice when it suits disappointing to see before the end of the them. debate such a substantial change. Perhaps it Senator CONROY—That is exactly right, was not a change; perhaps not enough infor- Senator Sherry; choice when it suits them. mation was made available before people This should take away a large degree of the started quoting out of context the committee’s high moral ground that the government claim support for different sections of the bill. they have, though any reading of the choice This is a letter to Mr Costello, the Treasur- of fund bill shows they do not. They claim er. I am sure Senator Campbell has seen it that they have a mandate. I understand that and has possibly had some discussions about they are reintroducing the choice of fund bill it. Perhaps in his speech we may be able to for superannuation into the House of Repre- hear a little of his discussions—the toned sentatives and into the Senate. In the same down version—with any of the members of week they are introducing a bill that says, the committee. Professor Ian Harper, who was ‘You can’t have the choice of a custodian or one of the main people involved with the a trustee if you want to pay for one.’ A lot report and who is to be the chair of APRA— has been made in our own report about this one of the two key bodies that will be admin- issue. One of the opening sentences in the istering the financial sector after 1 July—is committee’s report in relation to this bill another person who has written to the govern- states: ment expressing his concern. If the head of More recently, the need for reform has been APRA is concerned about the bill, that is supported by the final report of the financial system reason enough for this chamber to have a inquiry released on 9 April. good hard think about where it is going with That was very compelling evidence and, as this bill and not just glibly brush it off. It is you can see, by leading up the committee’s not the trustees, it is not one of the two sets report the committee felt very strongly that of vested interests that have been so heavily that was something that needed to be pointed involved in this debate; these are the out. Yet, unfortunately, we have seen a government’s hand-picked members of their number of members of that committee go committee. More importantly, the head of one public. They have written to the Treasurer of the regulatory authorities is expressing (Mr Costello) and pointed out that their concern about sound prudential requirements recommendation was based on the original being removed. Labor bill that, in actual fact, is a bit differ- Notwithstanding the debate which has raged ent. on both sides, where we have seen substantial I would like to quote from Mrs Nicholls, amounts of time and effort go into this bill, who is one of the members of the committee there are genuine concerns which through the that initially supported the original bill before course of the debate I am hoping we get a the government’s bill had come to complete chance to air. I think Senator Murray is fruition. She states: moving a string of amendments about which 3566 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 we will have a chance to hear the govern- Senator Campbell will have a bit to say on ment’s position, to hear more from the that, so I am looking forward to that. government than we have heard previously, Senator Ian Campbell—You won’t put a to hear responses to Mrs Nicholls, Professor figure on it then? Carmichael and Professor Harper. Because these are opinions of people that the govern- Senator CONROY—A 10 per cent in- ment weighs very heavily. crease; there you are; 10 per cent more. We have a whole set of legislation— Senator Ian Campbell—Can we put that legislation which I think the Senate may have in your budget figures before the election? been dealing with just before this—which was Senator CONROY—Why don’t you who recommended by these individuals; their are in charge of the area put up some money? views carried the day on a whole string of The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT reforms to the financial sector. It just perplex- (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Conroy, es me as to why, when they write to the address your comments through the chair, and government and say, ‘Look, we’re a little refrain from responding to interjections. concerned that you’re going in this direction on this particular financial reform,’ all of a Senator CONROY—It would be nice if sudden their views are to be ignored. So I they were not coming. hope that the government and Senator Camp- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— bell are in a position to enlighten us on these Just refrain and continue, Senator Conroy. things. Senator CONROY—The issue of the The other issue that has been taken up resourcing of the ASC is critical. It would be strongly by the Labor Party—and I know that interesting to know the views of Professor Senator Campbell at various stages has made Harper, Professor Carmichael and Mrs a number of interjections during debates on Nicholls on whether or not there is sufficient this issue—is the resourcing of the ASC. funding for the ASC. Professor Harper, in Again, we are looking with some interest for particular, is heading up one of these two Senator Campbell’s reassurances on this. I financial regulators. He will have a very keen have to say that, following the budget— interest in the level of support that the government is prepared to put into these Senator Sherry—Is it in the legislation? regulators. Senator CONROY—No. Following the The Labor Party is disappointed—and we budget— stress this in the report—about the level of Senator Ian Campbell—L-a-w. funding in the ASC. I would like to make the point that this is not to be seen as a criticism Senator CONROY—Very good, ten out of of the ASC. The ASC is underfunded now; it ten. has been underfunded in the past. I am not Senator Sherry—Never, ever. trying to apportion partisan blame on this. We Senator CONROY—He can spell ‘law’. have seen what has happened through the He cannot spell ‘never ever’, but he can spell 1980s and 1990s. Things are a lot cleaner ‘law’. now than they used to be. But there are still a lot of shonky operators, and there is still a The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT great need for the ASC to maintain its activi- (Senator Patterson)—Order! Senator Conroy, ties in a number of areas. get on with your speech and do not respond At estimates I have raised the question of to interjections from either side. That would the checking of prospectuses and company be helpful. reports. This is an area where the ASC, Senator CONROY—Thank you. The ASC because of funding constraints, has decided to resources that were delivered in the federal reallocate its priorities and cut an entire budget are not sufficient—they are not suffi- program of auditing of company reports. It cient as they stand at the moment. I know that has taken that decision—and this is the ASC Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3567 speaking—‘on the basis that we believe it can got to have all these reforms, we’ve got to be be better done in a different way.’ It is disap- moving in this direction because the rest of pointing to see the ASC doing that. It is the world has it and we are lagging behind.’ disappointing to see the ASC walking away Then all of a sudden, when it conveniently from creating the corporate culture. But these suits the government, we are going in the are the sorts of responses it has to make when other direction. it keeps getting more and more responsibility Those are the sorts of issues on which I am and less and less funds. looking forward to hearing a response from So, as I have said, this is not an attack on the government. I am looking forward to the the ASC. The ASC is heavily worked but, committee stage with this legislation. We are unfortunately, underfunded. That is a criticism not looking to unduly slow down the process- that could probably apply fairly across the es of the Senate with what will be a very governments of both parties in the last few busy agenda in the next couple of weeks. But years. We have a situation where there is not we certainly will be raising these questions in less corporate fraud than there was before the the committee stage. We will be looking last election or in the 12 months before the forward to the answers, and we hope that last election; there is more corporate fraud. some of those answers come through and There is more need for regulators to chase up allow themselves to clarify. what has been going on in the corporate We also have a number of amendments that sector. We have seen the Crown Casino under perhaps do not go as far as Senator Murray’s the constant attention of the ASC—that is amendments. But it will be interesting to right, Senator Murray, this is one of my listen to the debate on those issues. I will favourite topics. We have seen a whole range finish there and just reiterate that we are of companies that have got away with some looking forward to the committee stage. fairly shonky practices. Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (1.29 I would like to finish up by talking about p.m.)—I acknowledge what Senator Conroy one of the strongest arguments that seems to has just said; I think it is a very important have been put forward by one of the trustees, point that the government should consider and that is this: there are few countries around very carefully. As Senator Conroy has said, the world with just the single responsible Australia should be at the leading edge of entity in this particular area. We have seen measures to protect investors. We seem to be Australia, if you like, take the leading edge at that leading edge all right. But the question with this particular debate; we are moving to we have to ask ourselves of these measures single responsible entities before others. The that are currently before us is whether we, as government is saying, ‘Well, it doesn’t matter a parliament, are being asked to pass laws what the rest of the world has done; it doesn’t which reduce and in some cases deny inves- matter that no-one else in the world has been tors the right to protect themselves, which prepared to take this jump that we are taking’. make illegal forms of business organisations But to the contrary, the government keeps which were not only formerly legal, but putting forward as one of its strongest argu- compulsory measures to protect investors. ments for tax reform that, ‘We’ve got to have I think it is even more disconcerting for the a GST because everyone else has got a GST.’ chamber to reflect on the fact that the Man- Well, everyone else also has custodians and aged Investments Bill 1997 may be described trustees—but that does not seem to be a as ‘creating new engines of fraud’. That is my convenient argument at the moment. Many opinion, but, before I am accused of not other countries have death duties; but Austral- understanding the intricate, complex and ia is not saying that, on the basis of our being sophisticated financial matters that relate to one of the few countries in the world without this question, I would like to say that that is death duties, we should reintroduce death the expressed opinion of Mr Trevor Sykes, a duties. This just seems selective to me. At one pre-eminent Australian financial journalist, point it suits the government to say, ‘We’ve who has written two histories of Australian 3568 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 financial crashes entitled Two Centuries of annuation schemes operated under the Super- Panic and The Bold Riders, the latter dealing annuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1994, with the excesses of the 1980s. I realise that the SIS. That has been alluded to during the 1980s are ancient history to some people, previous speeches in the second reading and I realise that it is even more ancient debate. I believe the bill fails to achieve these history to point out that in the United King- stated objectives in material respects and that dom, unit trusts were first regulated under the a number of substantive amendments are Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1939. required so that the proposed responsible But the prevention of fraud is of great entity structure will not seriously weaken interest to some 2.5 million investors in unit investor protection and will not deny Austral- trusts—many of whom are independent ian investors the right to contract for the extra retirees. The test to be applied to this bill is protection of their savings. whether or not it helps prevent fraud or The bill does not create a system like either facilitates it. It is the opinion of many wit- the SIS or the Corporations Law. The bill nesses from the Corporations and Securities does not give the same protection as required Commission as well as Mr Sykes and other for superannuation funds. Investors will have reputable journalists that this bill will leave neither the rights of beneficiaries of existing investors less protected—that, in fact, is my unit trusts nor the rights of company share- opinion, but it is not original. I am therefore holders. Most superannuation funds have disappointed that the majority report of the independent trustees. It is only public offer committee has not reflected the weight of superannuation funds—currently a very small evidence presented to it in that regard. proportion of total super funds—which do not, and they are closely regulated and re- In the brief time available to me, I will quired to have either minimum capital or an point out some points of deficiency in the bill. independent custodian. In the case of corpora- The bill reduces investor protection and tions, directors are elected directly by and are investor choice. The Managed Investments liable directly to investors. As Alan Cameron, Bill proposes radical changes to the laws that the current chair of the ASC said to the joint have, for the past 45 years, protected investors parliamentary committee, ‘managed funds are in unit trusts, share trusts, property trusts and quite different’. other forms of collective investment from misleading, maladministration and self-dealing It should be noted, however, that in relation by the promoters and managers of such to corporations there are now proposals to schemes. The Corporations Law currently further water down the liability of directors requires all such schemes to have an inde- and shareholders. These proposals were pendent trustee—that is, a public corporation recently announced by the Treasurer (Mr approved by the Australian Securities Com- Costello), and, in relation to them, Chanticleer mission to act as trustee—or, in limited cases, commented in the Australian Financial a related party trustee to hold the assets of the Review of 18 March, as follows: scheme in safe custody and to monitor the By comparison with the past, the new order will management, investments and operation of the also make life a paradise for company directors. scheme to ensure compliance with the Corpo- The risk of directors being sued by regulators and rations Law, the general law and the trust shareholders has been severely curtailed, with directors’ liability now limited to cases involving deed which established the scheme. evidence of criminality or gross and wilful negli- The stated aim of this bill is to create a new gence. single responsible entity structure that is Will the bill improve investor protection? Let intended to strengthen the protections for me quote again from the evidence of Mr Alan investors whilst increasing efficiency and Cameron the chairman of the ASC to the joint reducing the cost of operating collective parliamentary committee. He stated: investment schemes. The bill also aims to Whether [the Bill] ultimately brings about an harmonise the regulation of collective invest- improvement in investor protection, or the same ment schemes with that of public offer super- level, or a reduction, will depend . . . on a whole Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3569 lot of measures that I am not quite sure how you rejected as costly, unnecessary and achieving will actually construct, but, more importantly, upon no material improvement. Again, I quote what actually happens—what people do in response Attorney-General Wade. She says: to all of these provisions. I have argued . . . that the changes to the regulation The committee heard no evidence that can . . . adopted in the bill are both deficient and assure the parliament that fewer investors will unnecessary. I am not confident that the structure lose money under the proposed regime. proposed will enhance investor protection. Indeed, in her submission to the committee, Who can doubt that investor security is of the Victorian Attorney-General Wade stated: paramount importance? As Mr Kell from the There can be no doubt that under the proposed Australian Consumer Association said in regime there will be greater likelihood of loss to evidence to the joint committee: investors and less likelihood that they will recover their losses. [Investors] think security is important, that is a very important issue for consumers. . . . They do not Mrs Wade is a former Commissioner for have any particular concern, in our experience, as Corporate Affairs in Victoria, the predecessor to how that security is delivered at the end of the to the ASC with responsibility for this area of day as long as it is there. . . . They do not have the regulation. Mr Alan Cameron also stated: financial sophistication or interest to go any steps beyond that level of knowledge. I do not see this legislation as fundamentally transferring the obligation to monitor investment I entirely agree that it is very difficult for and so on to the individual investors. . . . I see this ordinary investors to fully understand how as a whole collection of remedies which, taken their security is delivered, but this is precisely together and working effectively, should look after what they will need to do if the trustee role the interests of investors at least as well as, if not is abolished. Under current law, investors who better than, they are presently looked after. invest in managed funds write their cheques He said further: to trustee companies and they have the com- The intention of the Bill . . . is to be preventative: fort of knowing that there is a creditworthy to ensure as far as one can that these problems do and responsible independent party supervising not arise in the first place. It is a matter of judg- their fund and ensuring safe custody of its ment as to whether this, on the whole, produces assets. Why should they be made to worry this result. about the details of security? By contrast, That is very tentative. This is a faint assur- under this bill they will be completely reliant ance for the parliament that the bill will not upon financial planners and others to advise diminish investor protection. Honourable them on the relative risks and security issues senators will recall the failure of the ASC to associated with different classes of managed act in the NRMA demutualisation case to funds, depending upon the array of flexible protect members from a misleading and ASC policies that will be put into place. deceptive prospectus. We all recall that, when That raises a further issue: the extraordinari- the profit results shortly after the prospectus ly wide delegation of legislative power in this differed by many millions of dollars from the bill to the ASC to modify the bill by regula- prospectus forecast, the ASC did nothing. At tion, in effect. We do not know really what the time I asked questions concerning this, we are voting for. The Standing Committee and I must say I certainly was not very on Regulations and Ordinances should be satisfied with the answers. I am still awaiting appalled by the sloppiness of the drafting answers to questions that I put forward at the style which has been put before the Senate committee dealing with the Treasury estimates here. How can a self-respecting legislative in respect of this area as well. body pass a law abdicating parliamentary At the end of the day, the ASC can only act rights and duties to frame legislation? The bill after the event at best and may be subject to is full of vague waffle words which are attempts at improper influence at worst. undefined and will end up meaning whatever Unless the Senate can be assured that the bill the ASC wants them to mean. If that is the is clearly and demonstrably better than the case, this is not law. This does not define current arrangements, the legislation should be rights and duties; this is confusion of concepts 3570 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 and confusion of legislative and executive parliament should not deny people the right roles. to take what steps they think necessary to The next point is that the bill should be protect their money from sophisticated white- amended to strengthen accountability to collar crime, especially when Internet money investors. The bill should make the directors transfers are opening up new opportunities for and officers of a responsible entity directly sophisticated crime. People have a right to liable to investors if they fail to ensure the contract for the protection of their money as proper operation of the scheme. Under current they think best. The bill should be amended law, both scheme managers and independent so as to permit investors in both existing trustees are directly liable to investors if they schemes and new schemes to choose either to breach their duty of care or trust. Directors retain an independent trustee or to register and officers of responsible entities of public under the single responsible entity structure offer superannuation schemes are directly created by the bill. The bill should require a accountable to investors under the SIS Act. resolution of the investors in existing schemes This outcome is not, however, achieved under as a precondition to conversion to the new this bill, despite it being a fundamental ration- law. ale of the bill that the protections currently The bill affects a very large number of provided to investors will not be weakened Australian investors. As many as 2.5 million but strengthened. Australians now hold investments, directly or Under the bill, only the responsible entity indirectly, in non-superannuation collective or the ASC—but not the investor who suffers investment schemes. A large number of loss—may sue the directors and officers of investors and fund managers wish to continue the responsible entity for compensation if loss to invest in and operate schemes with an is suffered due to failure to exercise proper independent trustee assuming fiduciary re- care and diligence in meeting all requirements sponsibility to them for the proper administra- of the law, the scheme constitution and the tion of the scheme. The merits of the new, compliance plan. This outcome diminishes the untried, single responsible entity arrangements effectiveness of investor protection compared created under the bill are not so powerful as to the current law. to deny investors and fund managers wishing to do so the option of operating managed Empowering the responsible entity to sue its funds with an independent trustee structure. own directors and officers, as the bill does, Such a structure is not only permitted but provides little comfort to investors, as the mandated in most major overseas jurisdic- wrongdoers are in a position to influence or tions. The reasons put forward for abandoning determine the responsible entity’s decision that structure in Australia and, what is more, whether to take action. prohibiting such a structure are neither sup- Senator Margetts—They will suit them- ported by the evidence nor compelling, as selves; of course they will. clearly demonstrated by the evidence submit- Senator HARRADINE—Yes, Senator ted to the joint committee. Margetts. The bill leaves aggrieved investors Next, the bill trespasses unduly on personal to rely entirely on the ASC to take legal rights and liberties—and I note the Scrutiny action on their behalf. This outcome is unde- of Bills Committee did not invite the minister sirable from a public policy point of view and to address some fundamental issues on disadvantages the investors. It diminishes the people’s rights. The bill denies the beneficial likelihood of private enforcement action by owners of some $85 billion of assets in investors and requires the ASC to take action collective investments the right to continue to at public expense to enforce private rights and have those assets held for them on the same interests. terms and conditions, and with the same level Next, the bill should be amended to pre- of protection that they currently enjoy. It is serve investor choice to engage an independ- clearly retrospective in that the bill seeks to ent trustee. Now, at the very minimum, overturn established contractual and equitable Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3571 rights and obligations without the consent of trustee to save them from losing money. those affected. Those investors, regardless of the money Retrospective abrogation of legal contrac- recovered from the trustees, lost millions upon tual rights has always been repugnant to this millions of dollars. Former Attorney-General parliament, as it is in other countries which Duffy referred it to CASAC and ALRC for adhere to this rule of law. I would like to see report. some detailed legal advice on the constitution- While ALRC and CASAC were reporting al aspects of this bill in relation to heads of into that, Australia was to witness the Aust- legislative power and limits on legislative Wide collapse. This was yet another invest- power. The constitution of the United States ment scheme where the investors, the mums of America, for example, expressly forbids and dads, had relied on the trustee being in any state from passing laws which impair the place to secure their assets. Those who defend obligation of contracts and generally forbids the existing two-tiered system would say that ex post facto laws. The Commonwealth with the trustee in place that makes it safe. parliament is being asked to pass a bill which But millions upon millions of small investors’ no American state would regard as a proper money was lost. Some of the funds were exercise of legislative power. recovered seven years down the track. The I will be very interested to hear discussion schedule, which I will incorporate, shows that during the committee stage. I have been even though the collapse took place at the looking at and considering Senator Murray’s beginning of the 1990s, after ASC action proposal, Senator Conroy’s proposal and against the trustees, some of the funds were Senator Margetts’s proposal, but I do urge the recovered from the trustee, its insurers and its Senate not to be rushed into passing a bill lawyers in September 1997. Certainly the which may come back to haunt its promoters investors would have been pleased to recover and, by implication, ourselves. some, but I reiterate, at the risk of boring honourable senators, that millions upon Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western millions of dollars of investors’s money was Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the lost. Treasurer) (1.49 p.m.)—I would like to start where Senator Harradine concluded, in terms That is the reason why the previous govern- of rushing this legislation. Before I do so I ment, in the early 1990s, asked CASAC and would thank all honourable senators who have the Law Reform Commission to look into contributed to the second reading debate, this. That is why CASAC, the Law Reform particularly Senator Murray and Senator Commission and, later, the Wallis committee, Conroy who have taken a very close interest recommended a single line of responsibility in this debate over many months. I would also for those people who get the investment recognise the cooperation that we have had dollars from the investors—that they be from the Australian Labor Party and former responsible to those investors for the invest- Senator Gareth Evans, now the shadow ment, for complying with the investment Treasurer, and the advisers in his and Senator scheme and for the custody of those assets. It Cook’s office in coming to a sensible under- was not for them to be able to say, ‘Sorry, the standing of how the arrangements will work. trustee is supposed to do that and if the In response to the allegation of rushing the trustee fails, bad luck’ but for that single legislation through that has been made by entity to be responsible for those funds. others, I developed a time line of the law In June 1998 the legislation is finally being reform process in this case—and I will seek debated in the parliament. There has been leave to incorporate it in Hansard at the integrated and full consultation throughout the conclusion of my speech—which outlines the proposal, starting off with the release of draft reform process and which shows it beginning legislation by Attorney-General Lavarch in in 1989 with the Estate Mortgage collapse. December 1995, followed by consultations Many of the people who were investors in with me and the Treasurer throughout 1996 Estate Mortgage relied on the existence of a and 1997. There was then the release of draft 3572 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 legislation, reference to the committee and have a scheme that has an independent custo- further consultation and discussion over a dian. They can have a scheme that has inter- period. This process will conclude, if this nal arrangements for custody. I predict that, legislation gets through after a two-year under this scheme, the trustee organisations transition period, some 11 or 12 years after themselves will act as the custodian in many the Estate Mortgage collapse. schemes in Australia for many years to come. I want to conclude this debate prior to Senator Margetts, who comes from the state question time, and I will try to cover the key of Western Australia, said that this legislation elements raised by honourable senators. All was designed by the big end of town for the of the investor representatives who appeared big end of town. I think Senator Murray may before the committee, and who have publicly have made this point as well. The reality is commented on this legislation, have supported that the small funds—with one or two excep- it almost without reservation. The Australian tions that I know well—in Western Australia Shareholders Association and the Australian all want this legislation. I believe that Prece- Consumer Association have been very vocal dent Financial Services in Western Australia supporters of this legislation. If you read Peter will have written to Senator Margetts saying, Kell’s evidence to the committee and if you ‘We need this legislation.’ In relation to the look at subsequent press releases and letters investor protection regime and the custody written by the Australian Consumers Associa- regime, the ASC has already published a tion—certainly not always supporters of what detailed policy statement. They have been this government does in the financial area— consulting with the trustee industry and the you will see that they are vigorous supporters, managed funds industry over the past six to on behalf of the shareholders and the consum- eight weeks, and any honourable senator who ers, of this legislation being passed. They wanted this could have received it from my believe, as the government does, that this office. I understand that I had offered full legislation will enhance investor protection. copies of this to every senator in this place. That is why we have spent this time develop- ing the law. That is why we have put in place In response to some points raised by Sena- the law and the structure of the single respon- tor Conroy, I understand from reading the Age sible entity. We have done so to protect article from, I think, last week that Professor investors. There is no other reason for it. Carmichael, who had written a letter to the Senator Conroy raised the point about Treasurer in relation to this legislation, made funding for the ASC. He has committed the it quite clear that, having read the Australian opposition to a further increase in funding to Securities Commission’s policy guidelines on the ASC, which Mr Evans will have to now this legislation, he had withdrawn his opposi- put into his costings for the election cam- tion. I have not spoken to Professor paign. He has said that we keep giving the Carmichael about this but, according to the ASC—soon to be called the ASIC—more and Age article, he was comfortable with the bill more responsibilities but less and less fund- and he did not see it as being inconsistent ing. The reality is that we have given the with Wallis. ASC more and more funding and more and This morning’s Financial Review makes the more responsibility. In my contribution to the point that the other person who wrote a letter, Wallis debate on the last sitting day, I went Ms Linda Nicholls, was indeed a member of into some detail as to what that funding was, the board of Perpetual Trustees. The Chair- and I will not repeat it in this debate. man of Perpetual Trustees has made it very To say that this scheme does not offer clear that this bill, if it passes, will reduce the investors choice is baloney. This scheme—the income to Perpetual Trustees. For Ms single responsible entity scheme—will offer Nicholls to oppose the bill is not that confus- investors far more choice than they have ever ing when you see that her shareholders may had before. At the moment, they have to have reduce the income to that company if the a two-tiered scheme. Under this, they can trustee’s role is reduced. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3573

The government believes that this proposal with Mr Russell’s assessment that the Prime will increase investor protection. We have Minister ‘rammed through the gun laws been discussing a couple of amendments with without thinking and had got involved in the Australian Labor Party. I indicate that we something he had no understanding of’? regard them as acceptable to the government, Senator VANSTONE—I thank Senator and we have been working on a set of words Bolkus for the question and the opportunity in this regard. I think with those amendments it provides to reiterate the government’s to the bill, which has a start up date of 1 July, commitment to the national gun policy—a will see a new and much brighter era for policy that was developed with the very managed investments in Australia. I commend strong initiative and leadership of the Prime the bill to the Senate. Minister and a policy endorsed by the Question resolved in the affirmative. Commonwealth government, by the Common- Bill read a second time. wealth opposition, by the Democrats and, I think, by every senator in this place—and, Ordered that consideration of the bill in the equally, to advise the Senate that at the recent Committee of the Whole be made an order of Australasian Police Ministers Council all the day for a later hour this day. ministers present, saving and except for Mr REPRESENTATION OF THE Whelan from New South Wales—making one NORTHERN TERRITORY of his now more regular attendances than in The PRESIDENT—I inform the Senate the past—voted to reaffirm their commitment that I have received, through the Governor- to this policy and to look at a means of General, from the Administrator of the North- strengthening it. ern Territory, the certificate of the choice by Turning to the specifics of Senator Bolkus’s the Legislative Assembly of the Northern question, I am not familiar with every word Territory of Patricia Margaret Crossin to fill that is uttered by One Nation, but I certainly the vacancy caused by the resignation of am familiar with the general thrust of what Senator Bob Collins. I table the documents. Senator Bolkus says as being a policy of One Nation’s. The Commonwealth government’s SENATORS: SWEARING IN response to that has been made perfectly clear Senator Crossin made and subscribed the by the Prime Minister. We stand behind the oath of allegiance. national gun policy and we will use every means available to us to see that the gun QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE policy remains intact and is supported by the Gun Laws states. That is very clear from the action only Senator BOLKUS—My question is to the recently taken by this government to amend Minister for Justice. Is the minister aware the customs regulations to prohibit the impor- that, during the Queensland election cam- tation of category C pump action semiauto- paign, the One Nation Party promised to matic weapons without the approval of the restore the right of gun owners to own and to Commonwealth to ensure that those weapons use semiautomatic weapons and to introduce would not be proliferating in Australia into lifetime unlimited gun licences? Is the the hands of people who were not licensed minister also aware of comments by the according to the national gun agreement and Queensland President of the National Party, policy. Mr David Russell, that a coalition minority As to the comments allegedly made by Mr government in that state would amend firearm Russell of the National Party as to what laws to make them—in his words—‘more would or would not happen if a minority practical and workable’? Given that any coalition government were installed as op- minority coalition government would be posed to a Labor government in Queensland, dependent on One Nation votes, doesn’t this we will have to wait and see who takes mean that these firearm laws will be signifi- government in Queensland, but Australians cantly weakened? Does the minister agree can be sure of this: whoever forms a govern- 3574 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 ment in Queensland will be certain of the reputation in this chamber for always focus- Commonwealth government’s position—that sing on the main issues, and again his ques- is, we fought hard to get a national gun tion on tax reform demonstrates that point. policy; we have consistently supported it and Yes, I have seen a number of newspaper only recently amended the customs regula- reports highlighting problems with our current tions to further back it up; and we will stand tax system. In fact, the front page of the firm for that policy against any state that Herald Sun today graphically illustrates how seeks to walk away from it. workers will be paying more and more in Senator BOLKUS—Madam President, I income tax unless something is done very ask a supplementary question. Minister, will soon to radically overhaul our tax system. the Prime Minister allow a Queensland The headline in the Herald Sun is: ‘The government to significantly weaken the great tax grab’, and the report goes on to say national firearms agreement in the way pro- that workers face a huge tax grab. More than posed by One Nation and the Queensland 2.4 million workers face being stranded on National Party president? Can you, Minister, the top tax rate unless the system is radically guarantee that the Prime Minister will not overhauled, according to the Herald Sun. The buckle on guns in order to appease the One report goes on to say: Nation Party? New analysis of the tax system shows almost one Senator VANSTONE—That question from in three workers will have been forced on to the Senator Bolkus is almost a gift to repeat the top rate early in the new millennium. earlier answer. Senator Bolkus and almost The article also says: every Australian who is vaguely interested in Figures prepared for the Herald Sun by the the national gun laws know the Prime Australian Taxpayers Association reveal that by Minister’s commitment to these laws. They 2003-4 more than 2.4 million workers will be know that the Prime Minister is not prepared paying 47 cents in the dollar, or 48.5 cents includ- to see any watering down of these bills. In ing the Medicare levy. fact, it was largely at the Prime Minister’s This and many other articles and studies have instigation that the Commonwealth’s position shown how our current tax system is hurting was strengthened by amending the customs the average working Australian. Let me make regulations recently. it very clear: the government is strongly committed to fixing our unfair, outdated and These gun laws are very much the creation inefficient tax system. of this Prime Minister. It was his leadership and determination that saw them come into Opposition senators interjecting— being. His leadership and determination has The PRESIDENT—Senators on my left not waned one millimetre. will stop interjecting. Taxation Senator KEMP—We are the only party prepared to take the necessary steps to over- Senator CRANE—My question is to the haul our current tax system in this century Assistant Treasurer. The Assistant Treasurer’s and prepare it for the next. We are the only attention would have been drawn to recent party prepared to seriously address the prob- newspaper reports highlighting the increasing- lems facing low and middle income earners. ly negative impact of the current taxation system on middle and low income earners. I In relation to Senator Crane’s question, I ask: does the government plan to address the was pleased to read a recent quote by the huge inequities and inefficiencies in our shadow Treasurer, Mr Gary Evans. This is taxation system? In particular, will the what he said. This goes a bit to the nub of minister outline the level and nature of sup- Senator Crane’s question. He said: port for fundamental reform of Australia’s We can all agree that tax reform is a good thing. unfair tax system? I think we were pleased to hear that endorse- Senator KEMP—Thank you, Senator ment from the shadow Treasurer. We wait Crane, for that question. Senator Crane has a with great interest and eagerness to see just Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3575 what the Labor Party has in mind on tax which the coalition fundamentally and com- reform. That is becoming increasingly vague. pletely rejects as improper, unfair, unworkable He went on to say, somewhat surprisingly: and untenable. If we didn’t—ie. if we weren’t in favour of tax The government’s advice is that native title reform—we would not have done so much of it should be regarded as a property right which, ourselves in office. certainly at the federal level, would trigger the I think the truth of the matter is that the provisions in the constitution which require Labor Party’s idea of tax reform was more that any acquisition of property requires the tax. Labor’s tax reform in its last term meant Commonwealth to pay just terms compensa- putting up the following taxes. Let me list tion. That requirement is extended to the them. They increased the wholesale sales tax. states by virtue of the operation of the Native They increased petrol excises. Title Act, and this is as it should be. Senator Conroy interjecting— Native title is and must be treated as a The PRESIDENT—Senator Conroy, stop property right requiring full compensation for shouting! any acquisition of that property right. We Senator KEMP—The Labor government have maintained those provisions in our increased the Medicare levy. The Labor amendments to the Native Title Act. Under government increased the company tax rate. our Native Title Amendment Bill, compensa- They increased the fringe benefits tax, and tion on just terms is required for any non- they increased departure tax. Of course, above discriminatory acquisition of native title. all they failed to deliver the l-a-w tax cuts. Certainly, with respect to Senator Chris Labor had 13 years to make the tax system Evans’s question, the legal advice to the fairer, but they really fiddled and, while they government is to that effect and we complete- fiddled, Rome burned and the tax system got ly accept it. worse and worse. (Time expired) The proposition that you can simply extin- guish native title arbitrarily across the board Native Title could involve very significant compensation Senator CHRIS EVANS—My question is claims and, potentially, payments. One of the directed to Senator Minchin, the Special many reasons the coalition rejected the propo- Minister of State and Minister Assisting the sition that we should extinguish native title on Prime Minister. Can the minister confirm that pastoral leases following the Wik decision the constitutional provision for just terms was that compensation could be quite signifi- compensation for Commonwealth acquisition cant. No-one is quite sure what appropriate of property rights applies equally to native just terms compensation is for the loss of title as it does to every right of every Austral- native title and merely in the case of pastoral ian? Has the government received any advice leases, which cover 40 per cent of Australia, as to the amount of compensation payable that could be quite significant. If you were to, should any federal government move to as the One Nation party suggests, extend abolish the common law principle of native extinguishment to the whole nation, involving title property rights? Has the government the acquisition of what the Native Title Act received any advice as to the amount of treats—and, we accept, properly treats—as compensation payable should a Queensland potentially the equivalent of freehold on state government move to abolish native title? vacant crown land, the compensation pay- Who would be liable to pay this compensa- ments for the acquisition could be immense. tion? Would the Commonwealth provide Therefore, that proposition should be, and is, financial assistance to Queensland for this rejected out of hand by the coalition. purpose? Senator MINCHIN—I presume this ques- Telstra tion is motivated by the quite extraordinary Senator BOSWELL—My question is proposition from One Nation that native title directed to Senator Alston. The minister’s be completely extinguished—a proposition attention would have been drawn to a propo- 3576 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 sal by the Labor Party to quarantine Telstra’s swoop not only would you be frightening the dividend into a special fund. Does this accord living daylights out of the up to two million with the government’s policy and what impact people who bought shares in the company, would alternative proposals have on Telstra but you would also be removing any capacity should they be implemented? Would the to pay dividends. There would not be any minister inform the Senate how likely it is dividends left after Senator Schacht had his that under Labor the flow of dividends would go. What is tragic about this is that Labor is continue to be available? doing it for all the wrong reasons. They hate Senator ALSTON—Senator Boswell asked Telstra now, with a passion, to the point a very important question which arises out of where they want to punish them for having a revelation on Channel 9 at the weekend by the temerity to be supportive of privatisation. Cheryl Kernot—remember Cheryl, the one who was much more concerned about what What Senator Schacht told the estimates Labor might do to Telstra in government? She committee was effectively that Telstra senior was much more concerned about what Labor management ought to resign because they might do to Telstra in government because were compromised by their support for they privatised everything else that moved privatisation. That is what this is about. He when they were in government. She revealed wants to cripple and kneecap Telstra by that they are going to set aside a portion of forcing them to spend billions and billions of the Telstra dividend for things like education, dollars on something that is not in the slight- regional development and high tech. Now this est an economic or commercial proposition. is a very cruel hoax; this is simply a pea and It is not something that has been requested in thimble trick because the fact is there is no rural and remote areas and it is not something new money involved. Some $996 million in that Mr Beazley is prepared to spend one red dividends was paid last year and all of that cent on and yet Senator Schacht, in one money goes to a whole raft of things like stroke, would remove any capacity to pay education, welfare, high tech and regional dividends. development, so there is not a cracker here for people in the bush. The dividend last year was less than $1 billion. Senator Schacht is prepared to wipe What Mr Beazley is really confirming is many billions of dollars off the value of that they are not prepared to spend any new Telstra and remove any capacity to pay money on people in regional and remote dividends. This is a hoax of the highest order. areas. What they are prepared to do is hood- We are the party that has been prepared to wink them and try to pretend that somehow spend real money, new money—$250 million the money that is already being spent there is for the regional telecommunications infra- going to be looking a bit better because it has structure fund. Who opposed that tooth and something marked alongside it calling it a nail, all the way? It has been a resounding special fund. I almost said it had been ring- success because it has delivered services in barked. That managed to get Senator Schacht rural and remote areas that they would not a run in the Financial Review the other day otherwise have got. to the point where someone said Senator Schacht had been ringbarking up the wrong You opposed it. What about the $1.25 tree for years. billion Natural Heritage Trust? You opposed But it is much more serious than that that too. That was new money that came from because what Senator Schacht is proposing— our policy in relation to Telstra. There will and the Hansard makes this clear—is that not be a cracker left to spend on the bush. they want the power of direction to force There will not be much left of Telstra either, Telstra to upgrade the digital data capability and it is all because of this vicious, nasty to 64 kilobits. In other words, he wants to attack led by people like Kim Il Carr who just force Telstra to spend billions and billions of cannot stand the prospect of a good Austral- dollars—which it does not have. In one fell ian company doing well. (Time expired) Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3577

The PRESIDENT—I ask you to withdraw and that this was a significant factor in the that reference to Senator Carr and refer to him Queensland result? Does the minister also by his correct name. agree that Western Australian parliamentary representatives advance constituents’ rights Senator Alston—I will delete his nickname more strongly than those from other states, and substitute his correct name. presumably including the party leadership in Senator BOSWELL—Madam President, I this place? ask a supplementary question. What does the Senator HILL—I suppose, Madam Presi- government intend to do about putting infra- dent, we will get the full story in the supple- structure into regional and rural Australia mentary. from the Telstra dividend? Senator Cook—You will. Senator ALSTON—As Senator Boswell Senator HILL—Thank you, Senator Cook. very much appreciates, the fact is that the It will not surprise you to learn that I do not RTIF has delivered unheard of benefits to agree with those conclusions. I must say that rural areas and that is— I am proud of the national leadership the Senator Schacht—He’s never heard of it, Prime Minister showed on the guns issue. It Richard. was good for Australia and the fact he has been prepared to stand his ground since I also Senator ALSTON—You don’t think so? applaud. I also believe in relation to native That is interesting. You do not think it has title that the 10-point plan is a fair and rea- been any good so, presumably, you will not sonable solution to a difficult national issue. be trying to emulate it. That is fine; you will It includes a considerable degree of compro- leave the territory to us. We appreciate that mise, I acknowledge, but in all the circum- very much. Senator Boswell is quite right. stances I think it is fair. It is fair to the Abo- There is a capacity for a social dividend to be riginal people whilst at the same time it will paid out of the proceeds of Telstra. We are provide greater certainty for investment and very conscious of the needs of people in rural growth, and therefore jobs for all Australians. and remote areas to get decent telephone I also agree with the position the government services. They are sick and tired of being adopted in relation to the diesel fuel rebate. bypassed by you and treated like dirt. You are So I am proud of what this government has never interested in upgrading quality of done in a short period of time. It took on a service or extending roll-outs. We were the $10 billion deficit that it inherited from the ones who gave an ISDN capability to 95 per Labor Party and it has put that behind us. It cent of the population. They are very real has put the books into surplus and it has benefits. Senator Boswell is right: there are a enabled interest rates to be reduced to their number of ways we can go further in assisting lowest levels for decades. That gives Austral- those people—and we will. I am delighted to ians the opportunity to invest and to prosper. hear that you could not give a damn about I am pleased also that unemployment is them. coming down under this government. Its Howard Government: Policies record in just over two years has placed Australia in a sound position to address the Senator COOK—My question is to Sena- difficulties of the region and I hate to think tor Hill, the Leader of the Government in the what the consequences would have been if Senate. Is the minister aware of comments in Labor had been elected at the last election. the West Australian newspaper last Tuesday Senator COOK—Madam President, I ask which were critical of the government’s a supplementary question. Minister, given that position on native title, on guns and on the these comments were made by your colleague diesel fuel rebate? Does the minister agree Senator Winston Crane, isn’t this an obvious that the Howard government: attempt to distance himself from the failures . . . mucked around for two years before we came of the Howard government, and just another out with a 10-point plan— example of the infighting and division within 3578 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 and between coalition parties as you head to have a say to this government. In fact, what an election? Given that you included Senator we have done is we have established a youth Winston Crane in discussions on disbursement website on the Internet called The Source. of the Natural Heritage Trust funds, will The Source, I am happy to say, is being Senator Crane now be included in cabinet visited frequently by young people and it discussions on native title, on guns and on the even has a page which says, ‘Have your say.’ diesel fuel rebate? Opposition senators interjecting—Oh! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT—Order! The PRESIDENT—Order! There are too Senator ELLISON—The opposition many people interjecting. knocks it, Madam President. That is what they Senator HILL—I can only say that Senator think of youth; they don’t want them to have Cook has obviously clearly misunderstood a direct say. Senator Crane. Senator Crane would not be The PRESIDENT—Senator Ellison, just a responsible for an evaluation of that type. moment. Order! Youth Policy Senator ELLISON—Madam President, it Senator STOTT DESPOJA—My question is obvious that the opposition does not want is addressed to the Minister representing the the youth of Australia to have access to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training Internet and access to the government of this and Youth Affairs. Why has this government country. What we have done is set up a completely defunded the national peak youth variety of mechanisms for the young people representative body, AYPAC? Is it because of this country to have a say. This round table the government cannot work with young will provide just that. It will provide a cross- people or is only prepared to meet with them section of the Australian community of youth twice a year? Isn’t it the case that the funding to have a direct input to this government. of $225,000 for the government’s new youth Can I just say that there is a variety of great policy represents a decline in funding of initiatives that this government has brought $140,000 for youth representation? I am about for young people. There are the new wondering whether the minister can tell us apprenticeships which we have funded—a how much of this money will go into research target of 200,000 new apprenticeships from into the effect of the government’s proposed May this year to the end of November next common youth allowance and the permanent year that we have contracted for. Who will be representation of young people in policy the main beneficiaries of those? Young people development, and how much of it will go into in Australia, from 200,000 positions that we the advertising campaign and selection pro- have contracted for. What about the success cess described by the minister this morning on of Green Corps? I think about 3,500 young Triple J. Australians have participated in Green Corps. Senator ELLISON—Let me say at the What about work for the dole and the outset that in the run-up to the last election mutual obligation that we have brought about we announced that we would have a minister with an opportunity for young people who in the cabinet who would be responsible for have been unemployed for more than six youth affairs. That is the importance we place months to improve their literacy skills—those on youth in this country. We have instituted young people who need to improve their a round table of 50 young people who will literacy skills so they can get a job? What have direct input into policy making for this about the work for the dole situation where government. These 50 young people will we can get young people to experience come from all over Australia, not just Mel- working in a team, to get that work ethic, to bourne and Sydney but the regional areas— help them get motivated to find a job? That the rural areas of Australia. Part of this voices is what we are doing for the young people of of youth package will provide a direct input— Australia, through you, Madam President, to which was not there—for young people to Senator Stott-Despoja, and to the opposition Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3579 that does not care about young people having which young people are using. Maybe it is access to the government via the Internet. The time Senator Stott Despoja had a chat to some Internet, I might say, is a valuable tool to young people and found out what they were make contact with the young people of thinking. Australia. Centrelink This government has a proud record of Senator WEST—My question is to the providing opportunities for employment and Minister for Social Security. I ask: can the training for young people. With this round minister confirm that since Wednesday last table it is furthering that and providing a week Centrelink has been unable to issue better means of direct communication with the payments to many of those on benefits be- government of this country whereby young cause of computer failures? Is it true that as people will be able to help formulate policy at Thursday last week there were over 800 and to have their say. unresolved problems with Centrelink’s Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Madam Newstart common platform? What is the President, I ask a supplementary question. minister going to do to rectify these prob- Does the minister honestly believe that a chat lems? When can these many clients, who did site with Dr Kemp on the Internet is going to not receive their correct payments last week, replace the permanent representation of young expect to receive them? people, the input into youth policy, that Senator NEWMAN—It is correct to say AYPAC provided? Is it the case that the that Centrelink introduced a new information minister and this government have effectively technology system early last month. It is also silenced the voice of young Australians by correct to say that it is a very significant providing a twice yearly meeting of a select improvement on the systems we inherited few? Fifty people—the minister said it him- from the previous government. It is also true self. Is it any coincidence that it has been to say that it will be year 2000 compliant. I announced in the lead-up to the implementa- know that Senator West is very interested in tion of the government’s common youth information technology being year 2000 allowance? Can the minister give us an compliant. The previous system was not. It assurance as to whether or not the government was very important, therefore, that a very will continue to fund other peak represen- much more effective and efficient system was tative bodies in this nation which protect the introduced. public interest and keep the government All such systems have their teething prob- informed, accountable and objectively assess- lems. I am advised that over the last five or ing policies and criticising them where neces- six weeks, out of an allowance population in sary—institutions and bodies like ACROD excess of one million people, around 1,300 and ACOSS? (Time expired) customers have received an incorrect payment Senator ELLISON—What this government or have been paid at an incorrect rate. All is all about is funding the means by which cases have been identified and corrective young people can communicate with it. To action is completed or under way according that end we funded $3.6 million for 41 youth to the advice I have received. Some people officers from the Department of Education, may have had payment delayed for one or Training and Youth Affairs so that they could two days. Centrelink advises that, of the total make contact with young people around the problems reported, 364 problems—not the country. What is important is that young 800 reported by the CPSU—from implemen- people have that line of communication with tation until 18 June, almost 50 per cent, have the government. If that includes having a chat been resolved. These are problems in the IT, with them, then I will have a chat with them not individual circumstances. The remainder any day because that is how you find out are being addressed through running software what they are thinking. That is how you find updates twice weekly, running software out what they want. It is not just a chat site; releases overnight where necessary, and it is a viable means of modern communication continuous assessing and revising of priorities 3580 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 to ensure that problems with high impact are Hanson will put into the Senate will be far quickly resolved. better than dealing with the Democrats and The Newstart common platform has resulted Greens’, and that she, Ms Hanson, represents in a better service provided to the customer the type of things that Australians think and due to the immediate update of the customer’s believe, which also accords with recently records, considerable processing efficiencies reported comments of the Prime Minister to in time saved, provision of a more integrated the effect that One Nation would be no more service, and the vast majority of customers damaging than the Greens or Democrats. being paid correctly and on time. The few Does this mean that, far from taking a princi- problems which have arisen are being actively pled stand in relation to One Nation, the addressed and almost resolved. The previous Howard government’s real agenda is in fact system had become unreliable and inefficient. the election of One Nation senators? Factors which were contributing to this were Senator HILL—That is a very odd thing processing taking place by overnight batching, to suggest. As for the more substantial invita- whereas as the new system provides an tion to try and compare the qualities of the immediate on-line response, and the previous newly elected One Nation members of parlia- system not being year 2000 compliant. ment in Queensland with the known qualities of our Green and Democrat parliamentarians Senator WEST—Is it true that the com- around the country, in all the circumstances puter system for the new youth allowance I should avoid that. crashed after 90 minutes when it was being tested last week? Can the minister outline Those of us who see ourselves as more in when this chaos is expected to be completed? the middle of Australian politics representing the mass of the Australian mainstream have Senator NEWMAN—The youth allowance a different view on issues from those who is based on the Newstart common platform, tend to represent more extreme views at either so the Newstart common platform had to be end of the spectrum. introduced before the youth allowance could be implemented. The Newstart common It does, however, invite the issue that does platform has replaced the previous payment cause concern, and that is the policies that system for most benefits and allowances and seem to be advocated by One Nation which it includes Newstart and the youth training would result in severe economic downturns in allowance. Youth allowance will be paid this country, to say the very least. Policies using the Newstart common platform payment that are anti-foreign investment fail to ap- system. Most of the processing requirements preciate the great benefits that have flowed to for youth allowance were already included Australians from foreign investment. Much of within the Newstart common platform when our capital growth has been funded offshore it was first released. The extra features of and, without that growth, many jobs and Newstart common platform that are needed to much of our relative affluence simply would pay youth allowance represent a relatively not exist. minor component of the Newstart common Policies that are simplistic and shallow and platform system. Testing is currently taking suggest that the public can in some way fund place. It is not implemented until 1 July, banks that would be able to lend money at under the usual arrangements. It was a testing two per cent, fail to appreciate the unrealistic system which had a problem the other day. nature of that, because of course it would have to be funded from taxpayers’ money and One Nation Party it would simply lead to further economic Senator MARGETTS—My question is to downturns. the Minister representing the Prime Minister, One can go through all of the policies that Senator Hill. I refer to recent comments by they are putting of that nature and realise that, the new publicist for One Nation, Senator in fact, the simplistic, shallow solutions Lightfoot, who stated at a recent debate in simply do not work in practice. Unfortunately, Northam that ‘dealing with the people that Ms there are not simple solutions to complex Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3581 problems. All nation states at the moment, in mention in this multi-million dollar advertis- time of very significant change, face complex ing campaign? problems and the solutions, regrettably, will be somewhat complex as well. Senator NEWMAN—I know that Senator Neal has been against the fair treatment of all I am pleased to say that we are confident young people in terms of the youth allowance. that we are on track. We have the expenditure We have had this debate over and over again now under control in this country and interest here on the legislation. But the reality is that rates down to record low levels. We have this government’s youth allowance will be given the people of Australia the chance for treating young unemployed people in exactly employment and the chance to become more the same way as young students. In other prosperous. That is what I think most Austral- words, while they are still financially depend- ians are really looking for. ent and not yet standing financially on their Senator MARGETTS—Madam President, own two feet, they must turn to their parents I ask a supplementary question. Is the before they turn to the taxpayer. government’s difficulty in dealing with me on What we have introduced with the youth complex issues a result of my level of interest allowance—and Senator Neal knows this only and involvement in a wide range of parlia- too well—is a parental income test which is mentary work compared, say, with the mem- in fact somewhat more generous than the ber for Oxley, or is this a judgment on the Austudy parental means test that we inherited. likely agreement on anti-Aboriginal, anti- But we are treating all young people in a refugee, anti-environment and anti-youth similar circumstance, whether they are stu- legislation? Do the comments of the Prime dents or unemployed, not like the previous Minister and Senator Lightfoot mean that One government which had a financial incentive Nation will be assisted into the Senate on for young people to choose to be unemployed Liberal Party preferences? sometimes, rather than choose to study. That Senator HILL—The last thing I wish to is bad for them and it is bad for the country. see are One Nation senators in this place. I do not particularly want to see Green senators as As far as getting information across to well, but that has happened. Why don’t I wish parents is concerned, yes, we have spent some that? Because their would-be solutions to the money to do that and we are still spending it, real problems facing this country are simply because we have seen what mischief a scare unreal. Senator Margetts’ solutions are unreal- campaign can do in social policy areas. I have istic in the same way that One Nation’s seen it already with Mr Duncan Kerr, who is solutions are unrealistic. It is about time we trying to describe youth allowance as started facing up to the fact, as I said, that ‘poison’. We all know that that is quite complex problems require complex solutions untrue. It is only a scare campaign starting and that is just part of life. again. Let parents be under no doubt about it at Youth Allowance all. In the print advertisements there are Senator NEAL—My question is addressed details of the web site which allows young to Senator Newman, the Minister for Social people and their families to surf the net and Security. Can the minister explain why the see precisely how they will be placed. The $3.8 million worth of taxpayer advertising circumstances that are represented in the campaign to sell the youth allowance has newspapers frequently simply give the income failed to inform families who earn more than levels for families where there is one child. In $23,400 that after 1 July they will have to most families, as you know, that is not the bear the burden of cuts to the benefits of their case and the income levels rise with the unemployed adult children? Doesn’t the number of children in the family. Of course, minister think that cutting unemployment they rise to higher levels than exist for the benefits by up to $87 a week and forcing poor current Austudy that we inherited from you. families to make up the difference warrants a There are many, many benefits. 3582 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

I was in Townsville at the weekend, and I tion that you clearly need in order to realise am sure Senator Reynolds will be pleased to how good it is. know that the young students in Townsville think youth allowance is terrific because rent As for consulting with young people, as assistance at last comes with the ability to Senator Ellison said earlier, there is much study. That is something that student organi- more to consulting with young people than sations have been campaigning for for 20 dealing with one peak lobby group. I meet years or more. I am glad that the young with young people around the country. I meet people of Townsville recognise a good, social with young people’s organisations around the policy reform when they see it, even if the country, as do Senator Ellison and Dr Kemp. ALP do not, because they had the opportunity We all do. That is a way to get a strong view to introduce it when they were in government. across all shades of political opinion—rural, ACOSS and welfare organisations asked them regional and city. The Labor Party made a to introduce a common youth allowance. That huge mistake; they believed only in consult- is what we have done. ing with peak groups. Therefore, they did not know what was really happening in the Senator NEAL—Madam President, I ask country. (Time expired) a supplementary question. Minister, why has the government failed to advise battling Taxation families of the real impact of the youth allowance? Is it that you are trying to muzzle Senator WATSON—My question is all criticism? Is it the same reason that you directed to the Minister for Social Security. cut funding for the youth coalition—because The minister would have seen the report from you want to muzzle all criticism of your latest the Institute of Chartered Accountants which attack on battling families? purports to show that a typical Australian family earning $30,000 is actually worse off Senator Abetz—Madam President, I raise than one earning $20,000 per annum. This is a point of order. Senator Neal has been very because of the combined effects of higher tax kindly assisted by this side of the chamber on brackets and withdrawal of social security several occasions suggesting that she might benefits. Will the minister outline the details like to direct her question through the chair of this report and tell us how this problem of rather than personally to the minister. She has high effective marginal tax rates can be unfortunately avoided those suggestions from addressed? my colleagues. Therefore, I am wondering whether you might like to direct her attention Senator NEWMAN—I thank Senator to the standing orders. Watson for his question. We know that he has always had a close and very detailed interest The PRESIDENT—There has certainly in taxation matters. He is a very good senator been a big improvement in the observance of for Tasmania and is a colleague of mine. I the standing orders. I am sure Senator Neal have seen the institute’s report. will attempt to comply with them. I invite her to do so. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator NEAL—Why have the government The PRESIDENT—Order! Senators on my and the minister tried to muzzle criticism of left will cease sledging! this latest attack on battling families? Senator NEWMAN—Thank you, Madam Senator NEWMAN—I do not try to President. I wonder whether the senators muzzle criticism at all. I believe that informa- opposite have also seen the report. If they tion is the surest defence against need any more convincing of the need for tax misinformation. That is why a rate calculator reform, that report is it. It is absolutely clear. is on the web site for youth allowance. For The institute’s report said that a typical family those who would like to look it up, it is on $20,000 was actually better off than a Youthallowance.Centrelink.gov.au. You can family on $30,000 after tax and social securi- go and see whether you can find the informa- ty are factored in. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3583

I have had my department have a good look Party’s policy after this time in opposition? at this report, and there was one small Still nothing. Do nothing. mistake in it. But, even on the corrected figures, the report stands as a loud condemna- Economics Legislation Committee tion of the state in which the Labor Party left Senator O’BRIEN—Madam President, my our tax and social security systems. The question is directed to you. On Wednesday, corrected figures show that a typical single 3 June, at a hearing of the Economics Legis- income family on $20,000 with a child in lation Committee, the chair of the committee, primary school and another in high school Senator Ferguson, ruled out of order questions receives a total net income of $29,000. The I asked in relation to a memorandum I quot- same family, if it were earning $30,000, ed. Can you advise the Senate on what basis would only receive $30,150 in the pocket. So, and under what rules and Senate practices for the extra $10,000 of extra work and extra Senator Ferguson could make that ruling? pay, the family gets only $1,150 more. That Senator Ferguson then directed Hansard that is an effective marginal tax rate of 88 per extracts of the memorandum I read out, and cent. which were later broadcast on the ABC, not be included in the Hansard. Senators opposite should cringe in their What Senate rules and practices would seats, because they had the opportunity over enable Senator Ferguson to direct Hansard to 13 years to do something about it. It is your remove these extracts? What action will you tax system that needs reforming. The Labor take to ensure that chairs of Senate commit- Party put one in place over 13 years, and it tees act in a fair and impartial way? What leaves battling families with marginal tax action will you take to ensure that Hansard is rates of 88 per cent. Let them cringe. We a true and accurate record of the proceedings have already started doing something about of Senate committees and is not censored by reforming this mess, with measures like the a committee chair, as happened on this occa- family tax initiative, which we introduced sion? soon after we came into government. The Institute of Chartered Accountants acknow- The PRESIDENT—Senator, I have a copy ledges this in their press release, where they of your question, and I am seeking advice as have said: to the substance of it and the issues that occurred before that committee. I will report There has certainly been a push by the government to the Senate on that and also on the other to redress the imbalance through both the taxation matters that you have raised. and the welfare systems. Families on $30,000 a year potentially have $27 more a week than they Child Care did last year. Senator WOODLEY—My question is So we are moving and fixing the problem, but addressed to the Minister representing the marginal tax rates of 88 per cent are still Minister for Family Services. Minister, going unacceptable to this government. That is why into the last election the coalition had a lot to we are committed to major and comprehen- say about its commitment to small business. sive tax reforms. It is not acceptable that in Does your commitment still apply to private five years time average income earners will child-care centre owners, who are small be on the top marginal tax rate of 47c in the business people, who employ some 50,000 dollar, just as today’s Herald-Sun has report- workers in Australia? Over the past couple of ed. It is not acceptable that toothpaste, pet weeks the Democrats have gone out and met food, watches and shampoo are all taxed with private child-care centre owners while antiques and caviar are not. And it is throughout the country. We have heard stories definitely not acceptable that a family work- of centre owners being forced to lay off staff, ing harder and earning more can lose 88 per sell their family homes and work up to 80 cent of their extra pay to the government. hours per week just to keep their businesses That is the mess we inherited. That is the afloat as occupancy rates have plummeted. mess we intend to fix. What is the Labor My question: what will the government do to 3584 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 assist these private child-care centre owners advice; and individual assistance in the form who, with occupancy rates as low as 40 per of service visits. New financial support of cent, are now on the brink of going out of $4.4 million per year is provided to rural, business? remote and isolated services to ensure conti- Senator HERRON—I thank Senator nuity of supply in these regions. Woodley for the question. It is true that Senator Woodley should take note of this: certain child-care centre owners have run into since the 1996 budget announcement to trouble—but they have run into trouble withdraw operational subsidy from community because of the policies of the previous based long day care centres, 43 have closed government. As I said in a previous answer to as at 30 April 1998; however there is a net a question from the Labor Party representa- increase of 310 centres over the same period. tives, or from the Democrats before, I thought I will repeat that for Senator Woodley: 43 they should get in touch with Senator centres have closed as at 30 April 1998; Crowley because she was the minister re- however, there has been a net increase of 310 sponsible for bring in these changes. centres over the same period. The 1997 budget allocated $270 million of ongoing funds over four years to outside The main causes of closures were ongoing school hours care; this is an increase of $11 financial and utilisation difficulties and a million. Earlier this year, an extra $8 million complete lack of planning measures, as I have was directed to assisting services. A total of mentioned, by the former government. This $20 million is now being directed towards government has introduced a new planning services to assist with the changeover to the system to direct supply to areas of greatest new arrangements. As I have said previ- need. So, inevitably, with the change to a ously, the changeover is occurring because of needs base—that centres should open in areas the different type of funding. But the alloca- with the greatest need—there will be some tion of centres is entirely up to the sector that centres that have got into difficulty. The provides them; it is not the government’s government has committed over $6 million responsibility to guarantee their funding. over two years to June this year to assist community based long day care centres obtain So, while there are some that are in trouble, financial and management advice. So I would there are others that are expanding. For suggest that those senators who are in trouble example, I saw in one of this morning’s should access that advice to assist them. papers a statement that there were closures of community based long day care centres and Senator WOODLEY—Madam President, outside school hour care services, following I ask a supplementary question. Thank you, the removal of the operational subsidy. It was Minister. I will pass on that information. Your stated in that newspaper report that 66 ser- answer raises a whole lot of further questions, vices have closed. However, it is a fact that but I perhaps should just concentrate on one places have increased under the Howard or two. I did question Senator Crowley, and government. There were 48,785 places in June she tells me that at the election of your 1995 under Labor, and now there are 78,970 government none of these small businesses places in June 1997 under this government. were in trouble; they all had waiting lists. So the number of places has actually in- creased. But let me quote to you from ‘A new deal for small business’, your election policy: The outside school hour care reforms assist low and middle income families, which is The Liberal National Coalition recognises and more important as well. The funding to appreciates the efforts of thousands of men and services equivalent to the previous operational women who make up the small business sector. Their foresight, imagination and willingness to back subsidy continues until the end of June: the their own judgment contributes 30 per cent of sum of $20 million, as I mentioned, in re- Australia’s gross domestic product and generates structuring and transitional assistance, includ- employment for approximately 3.5 million people, ing training for all services; a help line for or 45 per cent of the total work force. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3585

Many, many of these centres are going bank- would flow from sensible outsourcing—I rupt. What has happened since 1996 to make think that that is obvious to anyone—and the government stop recognising and appreci- sensible outsourcing will occur under this ating private child-care centre operators as government. If it is being suggested to me small business people? (Time expired) that it is a complex process and that it would Senator HERRON—I know it was the take some time, I am not surprised to hear Democrats who supported the Labor Party in that, but I also, equally, have no doubt that its policies that brought about the very high the benefits will flow that will reduce the cost interest rates that occurred—I think up to 23 to public expenditure—something the Labor per cent under the Labor Party. I think what Party was not prepared to face up to in we have achieved in a short period of time is government. This government, as an alterna- the lowest inflation rates for over 70 years, tive, believes that prudent control of public the lowest business interest rates for the last expenditure is important so that all benefits 10 years and the lowest home mortgage rate can therefore flow to the Australian people interest. through lower interest rates, low inflation and other ways in which the people rather than the There have been enormous benefits for government can obtain the benefit. I will seek small business that have occurred under this further information on the detail and see if I government in such a short period of time, can help you further, Senator. especially when compared with the policies that the Democrats supported that produced a Senator LUNDY—Senator Hill, I hope you $70 billion deficit over the seven years before have more luck extracting the information this government came into power. There was from the Minister for Finance than anyone a $10.5 billion deficit when we came into else. Madam President, my supplementary power. But people have forgotten that over question is: what was the cost of the failed the previous seven years there was a $70 tender process for the DEETYA-Employment billion deficit and we were running into National IT outsourcing contract, and what trouble. savings has the government forgone by with- drawing that tender? The Democrats would probably do what the One Nation Party would do—print a bit more Senator HILL—I could take a guess, but money. But we are not into doing that. Alter- I think that would be unwise. I will seek the natively, the Democrats would increase answer to that, and let you know. taxation, which seems to be their recipe. NSW Teachers’ Strike (Time expired) Senator COONAN—My question is to the IT Outsourcing Minister for Schools, Vocational Education Senator LUNDY—My question is to the and Training. The minister will, no doubt, be Leader of the Government in the Senate, aware of last Wednesday’s stop-work meeting Senator Hill. Does the government stand by by the New South Wales Teachers Federation its estimate of $1 billion in savings over five which brought government schools to a years as a result of its IT outsourcing pro- standstill. Will the minister outline why, gram? In the light of the incompetence the besides interrupting classes of thousands of government has demonstrated in the imple- students across New South Wales, the union’s mentation of this program, with only one action was ill-conceived and irresponsible? contract having been let and another with- Will the minister outline, for the parents and drawn, how does the government expect to people of Australia, this government’s com- achieve these savings? And, if the government mitment to education in Australia? has revised its savings forecast, what is the Senator ELLISON—Senator Coonan is current estimate? right: thousands of students in New South Senator HILL—I will seek some advice Wales—in fact, just under 800,000 students— from the Minister for Finance on it, but there were inconvenienced by this ill-conceived is no doubt that very significant savings strike by New South Wales teachers. In fact, 3586 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 it was an effort by the teachers’ union to start In fact, what they are really complaining up their campaign against the Howard govern- about is what the Carr government is not ment. They wanted to mislead the New South doing. They should really be concentrating on Wales community, teachers and parents as to the Carr government—let us see them attack the true position of federal funding for the Carr Labor government in New South government schools. Of course, they did not Wales. But, of course, they are attacking the tell the people of New South Wales that the federal government because that is really what federal government has increased funding for they are after. They will not tell the people of government schools by 7.4 per cent. In fact, New South Wales that we have increased for the period 1997-2000, this government funding. In fact, when you look at the 1998 would have increased funding for government figures, our funding per capita of government schools across the country by $1.9 billion. schools was $2,144—an increase of $157 per This government believes in a strong capita over Labor’s last year in power. So government school sector and a strong non- there you have it: we have increased funding government school sector. We believe in on a per capita basis since Labor was in choice. We went to the people of Australia at power. And what did the teachers union do in the last election and said that was our policy, New South Wales? It went on strike; it and they elected us on that basis. It is inter- deserted just under 800,000 students. esting to see what the Sydney Morning Herald What are we doing? We have got increased editorial of Thursday last week, headed funding of $45 million over four years for ‘School stunt’, had to say about the New literacy and numeracy initiatives; with the South Wales teachers strike. It said: cooperation of states and territories we have It is hard to imagine a more transparent political brought about national literacy benchmarks stunt than yesterday’s stopwork meeting by teachers for the first time in Australia; we are spending in New South Wales Government schools. $187 million over the period 1997 to 2000 on ...... vocational education— Clearly the Teachers Federation was firing its first Senator Sherry interjecting— shot at the Howard Government in the Federal Senator ELLISON—Vocational education, election campaign... Senator Sherry, which you should be more There you have it—it was nothing more, interested in; vocational education which nothing less, than a go at the federal govern- touches those 70 per cent of students who do ment. Even the Sydney Morning Herald not go on to university. It addresses their realised what a transparent and misleading needs, helps them get a job and puts them on action this was. the career pathways that they need. We have Let us have a look at the objectives of the also got increased funding in the areas of teachers’ union. They have got 16 objectives indigenous education, discovering civics and on the Internet; only one of them deals with a whole range of other initiatives. (Time education—only one out of 16. Do you know expired) where it ranks? Number 10 out of 16. I ask Senator Hill—Madam President, I ask that you: if they are so interested in the welfare of further questions be placed on the Notice the students and teachers of New South Paper. Wales, why don’t they at least put education TRAVEL ALLOWANCES up the list a bit; maybe one or two, but not number 10. The PRESIDENT—On 23 April 1998 the Director of Public Prosecutions was asked for The Sydney Morning Herald editorial goes advice on whether incorrect travelling allow- on to say: ance claims by senators found by the KPMG But the things upsetting them— internal audit should be investigated. meaning the teachers’ union— On 29 May 1998 the Senior Assistant have more to do with State Government policies Director of Public Prosecutions, having than Federal policies. examined relevant travelling allowance claims Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3587 and correspondence, concluded that ‘the years were well-off. Let me tell Senator Hill, material provided does not disclose matters Senator Newman and all the other senators on that should be the subject of criminal the other side that most people in Australia do investigation’. not think that a family that earns $23,000 is well-off. In fact, most people would think that ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS WITHOUT families that were earning that sort of money NOTICE were really struggling. It is quite extraordi- Youth Allowance nary that this government, which said during the election that they intended to look after Centrelink battling families, families that were really Senator NEAL (New South Wales) (3.09 having a hard time of it, are making it even p.m.)—I move: more difficult for those families by taking That the Senate take note of the answers given away $87 per week when there is an adult today by the Minister for Social Security (Senator child who is unemployed. That is what this Newman), to questions without notice asked by youth allowance legislation does. Senators Neal and West today, relating to Centrelink and the youth allowance. It seems that the rush to get this legislation This largely relates to the recent changes through and the rush to get the information occurring in the youth allowance area. I technology up might all be for nothing, suppose what always astonishes me so much because it appears, from Senator West’s about this particular government, and to some question and the response that was received, extent Senator Newman’s views of those that there are so many problems in the com- policies as they relate to youth allowance, is puter system and in the new newstart com- that they constantly state that they support puter platform that it seems unlikely to me families and they support battling families but that within such a short time before 1 July this is not in accordance with what they are they will really have it operating properly. actually doing. On every occasion when they The question that was put to Senator Newman have an opportunity, this government and this was whether the youth allowance computer Minister for Social Security in fact reduce the system had crashed after just 90 minutes of amount of money that is in families’ pockets, running. I thought it was quite extraordinary and they often take the money out of the that Senator Newman was unwilling or unable pockets of the families who are worst off. to answer that question. She managed to It was interesting that the minister noted avoid it and to talk about the difficulties of that the issue of battling families was one that the year 2000 in relation to computer pro- was raised on a number of occasions in grams. I am sure it is very interesting for debate in this chamber on the youth allow- people to discuss the issues of the millennium ance, where we discovered, much to our bug, but that was not the question that was concern, that almost 48,000 families who are directed to her by Senator West. What we are not very well-off—families earning just over trying to discover is whether this government, $23,000—would be worse off as a result of which says it is going to introduce this new the youth allowance bill introduced by this youth allowance package on 1 July, is really minister. It is interesting to me that, despite in a position to do so and whether the com- the questions that have been raised today and puter system that has been set up, at major despite numerous matters that have been cost to the government and to taxpayers, is in raised in this chamber before, this government fact in a position to operate effectively as of seems to be unable to see that a family on 1 July. $23,400 is not a family that is well-off. Despite all these difficulties and the fact I found it quite extraordinary that Senator that the government are spending $3.8 million Newman, during the debate on the youth on telling the Australian community what a allowance bill, told this chamber and the brilliant policy response they have made, they people of Australia that such families that had have failed to tell those families who are at least one adult child over the age of 18 struggling, those earning $23,400, that many 3588 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 of them—almost 50,000 of them—are in fact education and training will have better oppor- going to be worse off as a result of the youth tunities to get jobs. allowance package. It seems quite extraordi- Parental means testing of students and nary that you can expend that much money unemployed people aged up to 21 will also be over a very short period; we were told at aligned. You have heard the minister say estimates that that $3.8 million would be today that young people with the lowest spent in just one month. I think the vast income families will continue to qualify for majority of Australians would believe that maximum rates of assistance under the parent- spending that sort of money while taking $87 al means test. There is nothing unfair about out of poor families’ pockets is very much a that. Access to rent assistance for students and waste. It appears to me that the government for unemployed 16- to 17-year-olds who live are spending $3.8 million on promoting away from home for education or employment themselves in order to put themselves in a reasons is also a significant advance under better position for the election. They are this policy. Rent assistance is also available spending $3.8 million of taxpayers’ money to to independent young people who live away try and convince those battling families whose from home. What a relief it must be for pockets they are grabbing money out of that, young people who are not living at home and even though they are losing money, the who need rent assistance to actually have that Howard government is in fact helping them assistance available to them. A flexible by doing so. (Time expired) activity test allows young people to undertake Senator COONAN (New South Wales) a variety of activities without having to (3.14 p.m.)—The extraordinary thing about change payment type. Labor’s sustained attack on the youth allow- The abolition of the education leavers ance is that it is an attack on an initiative deferment period will ensure continuity of which is actually designed to assist young income support between leaving school and people. What never fails to amaze me is why commencing full-time employment. Students it would be suggested that we as the party in will have access to a higher fortnightly government would set out to deliberately income free income and an income bank of make things more difficult for young people. $6,000 designed to accommodate student It is pretty obvious that the youth allowance work patterns for full-time casual employment is actually assisting young people or else we over vacation periods. That is a significant would not have this sustained, ongoing and advance compared to the old policy, under unjustifiable attack. which casual employment actually disquali- The salient and the very good features of fied people from their benefits; they went on, the youth allowance, which it is necessary to they went off and they did not know where repeat once again, include the most attractive they were with 13 different rates. The feature of it, which is that it simplifies income changed independence criteria are, of course, support arrangements for young people by more lenient for students and tighter for some combining five payments types and by reduc- unemployed young people. All youth allowees ing 13 different rates to just five. The compli- will have access to the $500 loan advance cated previous system that Labor had pursued currently made available under Newstart. That left so many people falling between stools is a great benefit for young people. and not getting any assistance at all that it There are many winners from the youth was necessary to actually look at how this allowance. Of the 560,000 young people who youth allowance could be streamlined. It will will be covered by youth allowance, 416,000 now align both rates and qualifications for all are students and 144,000 are unemployed. young people up to the age of 21 and remove Payment for 358,600 will remain unchanged that incentive for young people to leave and payment for 153,750 young people will education early or to choose unemployment increase. All young people will benefit from over education or training. It is blindingly the simplified income support system, which obvious that those young people who get provides incentives to remain in education Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3589 and training and which has the flexibility to 1998 Queensland travel vouchers were lost. cater for a variety of activities undertaken by He had not received them. He says: young people in their transition from school In mid January I phoned the Centrelink customer to employment. Students not only gain from service office in Caloundra and told them my the availability of rent assistance but all under pensioner card had not been received. I was told 18-year-olds who have to live away from they would look into the matter and send the card home gain from the increased rates. This is a with the concessions to me in two weeks. significant advance and a superior initiative to Two weeks later I received the concession card assist young people into employment. but the Queensland travel vouchers were also stamped void. When I enquired about the vouchers Senator GIBBS (Queensland) (3.19 p.m.)— they said I must have lost my card and received a Senator Coonan has just told us about the second issue. wonderful things that her government is doing He explained that this was his first pensioner for people who have dealings with Centrelink. card and travel vouchers. He continued: Senator Neal covered quite a lot of her ques- Centrelink then told me to fill out a Statutory tion in that regard in question time. I would Declaration then send it with my documents to like to take this a little bit further with regard Queensland Rail as they cannot send any replace- to Centrelink. I have had quite a lot of com- ments. 29 April I phoned Centrelink 132300 plaints to my office in Ipswich regarding this number to make an appointment to see one of their officers for help in filling out the Statutory Declara- area. I would like the Senate to know of a tion and what it was for. Centrelink said that would couple in particular. The first is from a young not be necessary they would send me out a letter man who lives in Caboolture and I would that day. Thinking I was talking to some person at urge the minister to look at the Centrelink in the Caloundra office, the letter should be in the Caboolture to see what can be done. mail the next day. 6th May the letter arrived one week later, with Caloundra Post Box number and This man had been to Centrelink at Cabool- Caloundra Centrelink address. The letter stating I ture and had seen a job on the screen that he may not have received by W.A. free rail passes and felt he was well qualified for. First of all, he to send all my documents on to West-Rail to rang the number and was told to go all the receive new rail passes. The letter was posted from way to Chermside for an interview. When he Bunbury W.A. said that he lived in Caboolture and the job To cut it short, he phoned Bunbury, Western was also in Caboolture, he was referred to the Australia and said, ‘Well, I am sorry, that is BAVE Caboolture office. He took his qualifi- very nice of you, but I do live in Queensland. cations and one written reference. All of his I need Queensland Rail passes.’ This poor past employers had advised him that they man then rang Centrelink again and he said, were willing to provide verbal references ‘I live in Caboolture. Am I speaking to whenever they were called for. He took all of Caboolture or Brisbane or somewhere in his documents, about 10 pages in all, which Queensland?’ ‘No,’ they said. ‘This is the would have gained him jobs through the CES Adelaide office, but we will put you through in the past—he had used these in the past to the Brisbane office.’ with the CES—and went along to this BAV This is not funny. I am laughing, but I am office in Caboolture. When he presented his laughing because it is the most disgraceful resume, apparently the staff member there thing I have ever seen. This poor man finally looked down his nose at him and advised him got it all sorted out. (Time expired) that his resume was not good enough and that Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (3.24 was that. I cannot believe that public servants p.m.)—The opposition, in taking note of supposedly there to help people find employ- Senator Newman’s answer to a question on ment are looking down their noses and say- the youth allowance, criticised the government ing, ‘Your resume is not good enough.’ in a number of areas. The first that I would I have here another letter from a pensioner. address is their criticism of the government This man also lives in Caboolture. He phoned educating members of the community and the 132300 phone number and told them that explaining the new system. Senator Neal has his 1998 pensioner concession card and his addressed this issue, in particular criticising 3590 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 the government for placing some money into between payments for Austudy and for unem- the budget expenditure on this very issue. ployment benefits simply resulted in young It seems to me and to many others that it is people making the easier decision and choos- the opposition who would be the first to ing unemployment benefits rather than pursu- criticise and the first to complain if a new ing further education and training. It is this system were introduced without an effort issue which the government has addressed being made to explain its new aspects to the with the changes to the youth allowance users of that system. It seems to me that they system. would be the first to complain if it were not Let us look at issues like rent assistance. appropriately tested. Senator Neal took issue Young students from country areas in particu- with that today. lar were not able to pursue an education Senator Coonan addressed some of the because their low to even middle income changes which will be introduced. The most parents could not afford to send them away. important of the changes is a simplification of As the minister said in her second reading income support arrangements for young speech, there is now an opportunity for Australians that combines five payment types families, especially those with several chil- and reduces 13 different rates to just five— dren, to be able to afford to send their young that is, it simplifies the entire system for the people away for further education largely users and the operators and enables young because of the availability of rent assistance Australians to access the system more effec- which makes a real difference. They have a tively. chance of getting skills; they have a chance of getting an education. As I think Senator Coonan noted, this is an initiative designed to assist young people— This is merely one aspect of the and let us begin there. For years and years government’s initiatives in this area. I have there were complaints about the inequities in spent months and months in various regional the system and the lack of incentive for parts of New South Wales looking at govern- young people to take up further education and ment initiatives in relation to young people, training. I well remember, even in 1987, the particularly work for the dole, where young much vaunted Priority One program of the people have finally found some incentive and previous government—a program that was some initiative to participate in schemes and said to be the answer to the problems of all programs such as this. These are not programs young Australians. It was certainly decided that just shift numbers around as they were some years later that it was not any sort of an under the previous government—statistically answer—more like Priority None than Priority convenient, yes, but in reality doing nothing One. for the young Australians they were supposed to benefit. In addressing the question of youth allow- ance, the government has introduced positive What we are doing in the initiatives under initiatives to assist young Australians. The the youth allowance changes is making it Labor Party, over the 13 years it was in clear that those young people, particularly government in this country, had every chance under the age of 18, should focus—and so to increase the standard of living of Australian should their families—on what is valuable students, and it simply did not do so. This is from training and education. Academic educa- a social policy reform which is intended to tion, yes; vocational training, as the minister make sure that young people do not see has previously said, yes. It is all about leading unemployment benefits as the only acceptable to jobs and to greater opportunities for people alternative to study. It is intended to make to participate in the work force. It is all about sure that those aged under 18 do not just go assisting young people and providing a focus on the dole but that there is some opportunity for their activities when there are difficulties for skills acquisition and further training. It is in other areas. (Time expired) all about incentive. No matter which way you Senator DENMAN (Tasmania) (3.29 look at it, for years and years the inequity p.m.)—I also want to address the issue of Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3591

Centrelink. To start with, I want to quote Those sorts of cases are very difficult. They from an article in the Tasmanian Mercury last should not be happening. They are happening Wednesday, the 17th, headed ‘Rush to recov- to people—and particularly in this woman’s er payouts in dole bungle’. It reads: case—who are stressed and are not thinking Social Security officials are scrambling to recover clearly. She needs assistance, but it is not unemployment benefits which may have been paid forthcoming. She has had a very difficult accidentally to hundreds of Tasmanians. time. A glitch in Centrelink’s new computer system caused former social security recipients to be put The article in the Mercury also states, ‘As back on the payment list. far as customers are concerned, the problem The programming bug has also resulted in some is totally ironed out.’ As I have explained, in unemployed Tasmanians missing out on benefits two of the cases that have come to me—there and others receiving double payments. have been others, but these are two very I want to address briefly the issue of some diverse cases—the problem has not been people missing out on their unemployment ironed out. Certainly in the area where I live benefits. I have had a lass in my Ulverstone it has not been ironed out. Hopefully, it will office over the last few weeks—actually a be addressed and addressed soon. longer period than that—who has had her last The CPSU put out a media release in four cheques not go into her account on time. March warning that this new computer system The last cheque was paid in the following would fail and that staffing levels should be day. My officers work on this each time her maintained. I think they have proven their payments have not come in. They have point. This new computer system has failed. phoned Centrelink and we have been assured They go on to say that the warning was that the problem has been fixed. We will be ignored, experienced IT staff left, 1,300 jobs interested to see the next time the payment is were cut and now there is a major problem. due whether it goes in on time, but it certain- Information I have today, which is contrary to ly has not been going on in time. what Senator Newman has said, tells me that, This lass is a young woman living in as from lunch time today, there are still 827 Ulverstone. She has no family support. She faults in the system. Somewhere someone has done some casual work here and there, needs to check these facts because that was but she relies on that payment. She has what came to me today—827 faults still in the absolutely no other means of support at this system. stage. It is frightening for her to go to her Senator McGAURAN (Victoria) (3.34 bank and find nothing has been paid in. p.m.)—We just heard Senator Denman and Another case has come to my office of a the previous Labor speaker, Senator Gibbs, woman who was caring for her pensioner take their five minutes to relate a very person- husband. She lived out in the country, outside al story directly related to their electorates. Devonport. Her husband was taken ill and Not doubting that those stories have sub- hospitalised. She moved into town at the time stance, though they may have embellished of his hospitalisation and he passed on. She them somewhat as they came into the parlia- is a woman of 60 or 61. She stayed in town ment, the truth of the matter is—and every to make his funeral arrangements and those parliamentarian know this; members of the sorts of things. She went to Centrelink to tell House of Representatives and senators from them of the change in her circumstances. She both sides of the house—when there is a was told to fill in documents, which she did. genuine social security problem, a constituent She was told to wait in a queue. She waited comes to your office, inevitably that can be two hours under very stressful circumstances, fixed up by the office of the minister—from because her husband had just died. Six weeks either side of the parliament and in the previ- later she has had no acknowledgment of her ous government. When there are personal application for assistance. She is still waiting problems, the staff of the ministers will attend to hear what Centrelink are going to do to try to those directly. So to come in here and use to resolve her situation. that as an example of the utter failure of the 3592 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 new system this government is trying to I am saying this for the benefit of those introduce is wrong and adds no substance to gigglers up in there in the gallery. Youth the argument at all. allowance provides the right incentives by When the coalition first came into govern- making sure young people are not better off ment it was met with a social welfare system on the dole but are able to complete their that was riddled with fraud, that was complex, education or training. This measure targets that was totally overloaded and that was students, that is, around 70 per cent of the simply out of date. Quite frankly, in many total youth allowance population of around parts of the community it was quite resented. 560,000. That is what was allowed to be built up over Access to the youth allowance will mean the last 13 years of the previous government. that, for the first time, young people will have Senator Carr—Jeff Kennett was right. access to the same benefits available to young unemployed people: rent assistance, pharma- Senator McGAURAN—That was the ceutical assistance, a $500 interest free ad- system we came into. vance on their payment and more lenient, Senator Carr—He was right, wasn’t he? independent criteria. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! Senator Margetts interjecting— Senator Carr! Senator Stott Despoja interjecting— Senator McGAURAN—Madam Deputy President, allow me not to be baited by Senator McGAURAN—You doubt that Senator Carr with that tiresome interjection there will be more lenient, independent that he uses against me on each and every criteria? occasion. On our coming into government we The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! were met with that sort of system and no Senator Margetts and Senator Stott Despoja! other minister in the last 13 years or since Senator McGauran, would you please address Dame Margaret Guilfoyle was the Minister the chair and ignore the interjections coming for Social Security has brought such reform from down there? to the system. She has brought a discipline to Senator Faulkner interjecting— the department not previously seen and a responsibility to the department not previously The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! seen. Senator Faulkner! Senator McGauran, please continue. Quite frankly, as Senator Payne pointed out in her address, there have been years of Senator McGAURAN—Thank you, Mad- concern and complaint and the minister has am Deputy President. If students have to acted quite responsibly and aggressively to leave home to study or to train—namely, clean up those complaints within the sys- students from rural and regional areas of tem. First of all, she has clamped down on Australia—the youth allowance gives them social security fraud. That is exactly what the extra help. (Time expired) community asked for. The community had a The DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Order! The pent-up resentment against the system. We time for the debate has expired. have clamped down on fraud and we are saving some $28 million a week—a phenom- Question resolved in the affirmative. enal amount. But our reforms do not take CONDOLENCES benefits away from people who qualify for them; we have just clamped down on fraud. Former Senator Donald Newton It is important to note that the youth allow- Cameron ance is an important reform. People should The PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret have the facts before them. First and fore- that I inform the Senate of the death on 5 most, all the research shows that young June 1998 of former Senator Donald Newton people have a much better chance of getting Cameron, a senator for the state of South a job if they have at least completed year 12. Australia from 1969 to 1978. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3593

Senator HILL (South Australia—Minister was, of course, a very well known former for the Environment) (3.40 p.m.)—I move: South Australian Labor senator. I say on That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the behalf of the opposition that Labor senators death, on Friday, 5 June 1998, of Donald Newton do express our deep regret over his death and Cameron, a senator for the State of South Australia we offer our most sincere condolences to his from 1969 to 1978, places on record its appreci- wife, Colleen, and his family. ation of his public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement. As Senator Hill has indicated, Don Cameron was first elected to the Senate in Don Cameron was born at Murray Bridge, 1969 to fill a casual vacancy. He retired in South Australia on 13 January 1914. He was 1978 after serving the people of the state of educated at Gawler High School and, after South Australia with great dedication and leaving school, worked as a shearer. Before distinction for those nine years in the parlia- entering federal politics, Don was an organis- ment. He was a man of honour and character, er with the Australian Workers Union. He was and I know he really will be missed very Secretary of the South Australian Branch of much by his colleagues, particularly his the AWU from 1965 to 1969. He was also friends in South Australia. President of the South Australian Branch of the Australian Labor Party from 1967 to While I did not know Don Cameron person- 1968. ally, I certainly know members of his family. His brother, Clyde Cameron, is of course well Don was elected to the Senate in 1969 to known to many of us on this side of the fill a casual vacancy and remained in the chamber and is very well known in Australian Senate until his retirement in 1978. During his politics. His son, Terry Cameron, is someone time in the Senate Don was a member of vari- with whom I have had an association in the ous committees, including the Senate Legisla- Labor Party. He is currently a member of the tive and General Purpose Committee on Legislative Council in the state of South Health and Welfare and the Senate Legislative Australia. He has been very active in the and General Purpose Committee on Trade and Labor Party at an organisational level, includ- Commerce. ing serving in a senior role as vice-president In June 1978, valedictory speeches were of the party nationally and as a member of made in the Senate noting the retirement of our party’s national executive. several senators. In these remarks, Don was I do think it is proper to say that, as we characterised as being a quiet senator who remember the contribution that Don Cameron was an ardent worker, often adding wisdom has made, it will be in that area of his com- in contributions to debate. This was con- mitment to the trade union movement over a sidered to distinguish his speeches from the very long period of time. He was the secre- ordinary party arguments in the parliament at tary of the South Australian branch of the the time. Don Cameron was, indeed, a tireless Australian Workers Union and had a lifelong worker during his time in the Senate and will commitment to that trade union. Also, he had be remembered kindly and with the same been a very important figure in the Labor respect which he earned while serving in this Party organisationally in South Australia, place. including serving as the South Australian Madam President, on behalf of the govern- President of our party. I noted that on his ment, l extend to his wife, Colleen, and his retirement from the Senate one of his friends family our most sincere sympathy in their and colleagues, former Senator Reg Bishop, bereavement. another Labor Senator from South Australia, said about him: Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (3.43 Senator Don Cameron has been a person who has often added wisdom in contributions to debates p.m.)—I rise on behalf of the opposition to which has distinguished his speeches from the support this condolence motion that has been ordinary party arguments in the parliament. He has moved by the Leader of the Government in been able to contribute some gem of wisdom to the Senate on the death of Don Cameron, who debates on many causes which have had to be 3594 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 propounded. He has been a most distinguished that may be. He did that in his union service, member of the parliament. he did that in his parliamentary service, he I am sure that is a very accurate reflection of did that in every part of his life. the contribution that Don Cameron made. We, Don was instrumental not only in Clyde’s in the Labor Party particularly, will remember career but in the careers of a few others as the contribution and commitment that Don well. I well remember the late Mick Young Cameron has made to the labour movement. telling me a story that he turned up in Broken That is what we will never forget. We will of Hill when Don Cameron was a shearer at that course remember his dedication to our party time—and he spent quite a lot of his life as as well as his distinguished parliamentary a shearer. Mick, at the age of 18, had just career. On behalf of the opposition, can I say shown the older hands how to shear a sheep to his family—his wife of over 50 years, and Don Cameron immediately recognised Colleen, who survives him; his sons, Terry Mick’s greatness—but not for shearing a and Barry; Clyde and other members of his sheep. He said, ‘Mick, I think you ought to be family—and all his friends in South Australia: going into the union office. It is probably not we offer our most sincere condolences. a good idea for you to stay a shearer here Senator QUIRKE (South Australia) (3.47 much longer.’ The tally was getting too low. p.m.)—I want to make a few remarks in In many respects Don started Mick’s career respect of the condolence motion that has in the union movement and eventually in been moved in the Senate this afternoon. I politics. think many people know that Don Cameron Don was elected as the Secretary of the and the Cameron family have been very close AWU in 1964. It was an election that was friends of mine. I had a lot to do with Don fraught with controversy. In fact, there was Cameron in particular over a number of years. eastern states intervention in the union. Don It is with sadness today that I note his pass- found himself literally out of work in Novem- ing, not because he has not had a long life— ber 1964, with two young kids to feed. 84 years is a very long, and in Don’s case, a Indeed, it was a long legal battle before the very productive life in a whole range of democratic right and the democratic tradition different ways—but because I guess the of the AWU was upheld in the courts some moment has come now when we here in this nine months later. I draw this to the attention chamber remember someone who once served of the Senate here today because Don in here and indeed went on for another 20 Cameron, at that time, had to literally go out years of life and service to the community and get whatever work he could get. He was and the Labor Party. Particularly in the last 10 out on a broom for something like nine years or so, I think the advice he gave to months to feed his wife and kids while the many new members both in state and federal court case was going on—and Don never politics was very useful. wavered. Don was there and his friends, Mick Don Cameron did not have the flamboyance Young and Jack Wright—who were other of Clyde. Clyde, whom we all know, has officials in this union—and many of the other featured both in television programs of the era people who had been very important in the and in many publications. But make no bones Labor Party in the 1970s and the 1980s, were about the fact that Clyde would be the first at Don’s side. person to say that much of what he did was The advocate for Don’s cause, Dame Roma possible only because his brother played a Mitchell, who also went on to other things, significant and key role in the trade union took a very close interest. Eventually the case movement in South Australia. was won and Don was reinstated as the Indeed, Don was a very selfless man. Don divisional secretary in South Australia. Dame did not seek high office. Don did not seek Roma never lost interest in these fellows. anything for himself. What Don sought was When Keith Plunkett died some two years or the betterment of his members, firstly, and, so ago now—he was another one of Don’s secondly, to look after the underdog, whoever contemporaries—Dame Roma went to the Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3595 funeral and said she wanted to mark the and his other son Barry. They and Clyde and passing of one of her boys. Doris and other close members of the family When Don Cameron came into this place I all said goodbye to Don at a private ceremony think he was one of the last senators to face the other week. Don left instructions that he a state wide by-election, which is the way was to be privately cremated with only close replacements were found. He served here until family at that particular service because it was 1978. He never sought for himself high office not in Don’s nature that he would want it because he did not have the ego that demand- otherwise. ed that particular thing. Don wanted to serve I am sad at the loss of a friend and confi- his constituents as best he could. Don did dant. I would be remiss in not saying here serve his constituents the best way he knew that the last time this man took part in any how. Labor Party activity was to come to the Don was an intensely private man who had preselection convention—he was very ill at party contacts right up until the very end. the time—on 8 May last year and cast his Sadly, in the last two years his health de- vote for me. clined to such a point that he could not go Senator SCHACHT (South Australia) outside his own house. Every couple of weeks (3.56 p.m.)—I rise to speak on the condolence he would roll up on a Friday to a restaurant motion for the passing of Don Cameron. I in Adelaide’s Chinatown that many in Labor suspect I may be one of the few senators who politics in South Australia go to, but for the were aware of Don when he was secretary of last two years he has been unable to do that. the AWU in South Australia in the mid to late There were many times when we hoped that 1960s when I was first active in the Labor his health would improve, but unfortunately Party and certainly when I became an organis- it went down further and further and it be- er in the party in 1969. came impossible for him to have any quality As Senator Quirke has mentioned, Don of life. I hosted a dinner for him in that same Cameron was elected to a casual vacancy in restaurant on the occasion of his 80th birthday the Senate created by the passing of a senator. four years ago—it seems that time has flown. In those days, at the first opportunity for a There are many people in South Australia— statewide election—if the House of Represen- many members of the Labor Party—who have tatives election was out of sync with the a great deal of respect for Don and would like Senate election—an election would take place. those remarks put on the public record here At the 1969 federal election, which was a today. Indeed, Don Cameron was a person House of Representatives election with no who quite openly would give advice to Senate election, the vacancy could be voted people. In fact I noticed, in looking through on and Don Cameron had already been his parliamentary records, that when he was selected as the Labor Party half-Senate candi- retiring a number of senators made note of the date. As a non-sitting candidate, he was our fact that Don Cameron was more of a friend candidate for that by-election, if you could to them than anything else. One of those, of call it that, and he beat another Cameron— course, was ex-Senator Neville Bonner, who Martin Cameron—in that ballot. Martin made the comment about Don Cameron that Cameron is the present president of the had it not been for him he would have found Liberal Party in South Australia who, after the transition into the Senate very difficult being defeated by Don because he had been indeed. Don went out of his way, in the appointed to the vacancy, went on to become words of ex-Senator Bonner, to make sure a Legislative Councillor, a founding member that he felt at home here and showed him the of the Liberal movement in South Australia, ropes in the first critical few months of his and is now president of the South Australian service to the Senate. Liberal Party. Don beat him in that 1969 Don Cameron is survived by his wife of election. over 50 years, Colleen, his son Terry I remember it well. It was the first election Cameron, who is a Legislative Councillor, I was involved in as a party official when the 3596 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Labor Party two-party preferred vote in South number of others, such as Keith Plunkett. I do Australia at a federal election reached some- not think Keith was actually sacked by Tom thing like 54 per cent and we won five seats Dougherty in those days because I do not from the Liberal Party. Don came into the think he had been appointed or elected as an Senate at that time and, to my surprise I must official, but he certainly was an activist. I say—and many of us tried to talk him out of may have missed some other names in that it—he decided to retire in 1978 after barely celebrated group— nine years in the Senate. Many of us were Senator Quirke—Mick Young. quite surprised that he chose to retire after what was a relatively short period in the Senator SCHACHT—Mick Young wasn’t Senate. He certainly had the support of the actually sacked. Mick had already just been party to continue for a longer period, if he elected before the sacking to be the state had so chosen. But that, as Senator Quirke organiser of the Labor Party in South Austral- has said, was typical of Don Cameron; he did ia. Though socially and politically he was not seek the limelight for himself, though all very close to them, he had already just moved of us who knew him realised he was a figure on from being the AWU organiser at Port of considerable substance and calibre within Pirie to be the ALP organiser, and we know the Labor movement in South Australia, both of Mick’s celebrated career in the Labor Party as a trade unionist and as a member of the since that time. Labor Party. One cannot underestimate the success that Don Cameron and that team of people had in Don Cameron provided quiet advice to the AWU in South Australia in creating a many of us who were much younger than him climate for the Dunstan decade of the 1970s. in those days. That advice would always be Don Cameron was a very strong supporter of about the morality, the ethics and the consis- Don Dunstan and the many radical reforms tency of what one should believe in. That was that Don Dunstan introduced and put into certainly Don’s role and he had an influence place in the Labor Party in the famous much greater than most would believe. It is Dunstan decade. Though Don Cameron had true that in a most celebrated case in AWU in every way a classic working class back- history Don won election as secretary, then ground, he certainly supported Don on many was sacked by the then federal secretary of of the wider social and reform issues that he the Labor Party, Tom Dougherty. That was introduced in South Australia. That was a taken to the court. Roma Mitchell was the very important base for the success of the defender, as Senator Quirke said, of Don Labor Party in that period. Though Don Cameron and the others who were sacked at Cameron is not given much credit, he should that time. The court upheld the case that they be given a lot of credit for it. As one who should be reinstated. was an official in the Labor Party in the In the group that Senator Quirk has men- Dunstan decade, I know the role that Don tioned there was Reg Groth, who went on to played in the late 1960s and then in the early become state member for Salisbury for a 1970s as one of those influential figures. decade in the Dunstan years; Jimmy Dunford, When I worked for the Whitlam govern- who went on to become secretary of the ment for a period of time with Senator Bish- AWU and ultimately a member of the Legis- op, who was a close colleague of Don lative Council in South Australia and who, Cameron’s, I had plenty of opportunity to see sadly, died in office in the early 1980s; Alan the work that Don did in the Senate during Beggs, who went on to become secretary of that period. Don’s advice, balance and com- the AWU in South Australia; Jack Wright, ment were always sound at a time when, to who was Don Cameron’s successor as state the say the least, the Whitlam government secretary of the AWU and who then became was providing some pretty exciting times and a member of the parliament in South Austral- opportunities. Again, Don Cameron always ia; and, ultimately, Deputy Prime Minister in supported those who were in favour of re- the Bannon Labor government. There were a form, whether it was economic or social. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3597

Though he might not get the credit that he know him as a union official. He was one of should have got for the Dunstan decade, he the first union officials I encountered when I was an important figure behind the scenes in started work as an industrial officer for the the Whitlam period. Clerks Union in South Australia in 1967. He As I said earlier in my remarks, many of us was then President of the Australian Labor were very surprised that Don chose to retire Party and continued as President of the ALP from the Senate in 1978. I agree with Senator for at least another year. Quirk that Don Cameron continued to have an Don Cameron was an outstanding figure, as intense interest in the Labor Party and the we have heard from my colleagues Senator labour movement. If one had to say about Quirk, Senator Schacht and Senator Faulkner, Don what would he like to be remembered in the South Australian union movement. He for, there is no doubt that he would like to be was, as the record shows, a long time secre- remembered as an outstanding trade union tary of the AWU. What the record does not official and secretary of the AWU, represent- show is that he held that position with con- ing the workers and their interests, particular- siderable distinction and great admiration and ly low paid and semi-skilled workers, which respect were accorded to him by the rank and overwhelmingly AWU members were in those file members of that organisation. He was in days and still are. many respects a union official of the old I remember being a very green 22-year-old school, who held the rank and file point of state organiser for the Labor Party in the 1969 view on all points in an argument and who federal campaign and then in the 1970s state saw it as his role to represent that point of campaign that began the Dunstan decade and view as fully, as frankly and as openly as he being taken by Don to the Riverland of South could. He did that to considerable effect. Australia to speak at factory gate meetings, if I know that he was associated with the you could call them that, that in fact were people in South Australia who were the under an orange tree outside a packing shed luminaries of the AWU at the time—people or a cannery, and to talk to workers about such as Mick Young. A number of the names those issues that we were promoting at the have been mentioned here today. There was election. The way Don handled himself in Jack Wright, Jimmy Dunford and Alan Beggs. talking—using simple but effective lan- I remember particularly the industrial officers guage—to ordinary people about the issues of of the AWU at the time, such as Ernie the day was a real lesson to me about how to Grimes. For a time John Bannon was an communicate. I have to say, he did it better industrial officer of the AWU and Barry than most. His record in the Labor Party in Kavanagh was also an industrial officer of the South Australia, in the Trades and Labour AWU at the time. Council in South Australia and in the trade The AWU and the clerks union did have union movement is very significant. one thing in common. In the late 1960s South It was with considerable sorrow that I heard Australia was a state with more federal of his passing. I pass on to his wife and awards than state awards. The industrial family, Terry and Barry, my sincere condo- organisations that had state awards were in lences and also the fact that in my very young fact the AWU, which was the biggest union days in the Labor Party Don Cameron had an as far as the state Industrial Relations Com- influence on my involvement in the labour mission was concerned, the shop assistants’ movement beyond most others. For that I am union and the clerks union. So often I found eternally grateful. myself in consultation with their industrial Senator COOK (Western Australia— officers on how matters could best be dealt Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the with by the state industrial commission. Senate) (4.06 p.m.)—I too wish to pay tribute It was in this time that four weeks annual to Don Cameron in speaking to this condo- leave came in and when annual leave loading lence motion. I did not know Don Cameron was deliberated upon and awarded by the very much as a senator, I have to say. I did commission. It was in this time, too, that 3598 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 equal pay for work of equal value was first standing. Then, when he got there, he would awarded by the federal industrial commission be a very eloquent spokesman for the interests and these standards had to be converted into of the people he represented, and usually that standards within the state jurisdictions as well. was the rank and file members of the AWU. The AWU was a leading union in ensuring I feel frankly that I am a bit privileged to be that no worker in South Australia was left able to convey my condolences to such a behind and, in fact if at all possible, led the great Australian. field this these matters nationally. Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— During all of that the eminence of Don Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (4.12 Cameron permeated the scene. I have not had p.m.)—Senator Bolkus did wish to be associ- as close a relationship with him politically as ated with this condolence motion. He is not my colleagues who have spoken in this able to be here. He was very keen that his debate, but I value what I thought was a association with this motion be made clear to generous and open friendship that he offered the Senate. to me as a young industrial officer. He did so Can I indicate that he also had a very long with a degree of decency and, I might say, relationship with Don Cameron. In the mid- sincerity that I have not really encountered 1970s Senator Bolkus was at that time a non- very much in my political and industrial life. senator and a young staffer employed by the They were the hallmarks of Don Cameron. He then Senator Don Cameron. I would like to was basically a very decent person and a very make it clear to the Senate that the same genuine Australian. sentiments that my colleagues and I expressed He was someone who always expressed, in when speaking to this condolence motion also whatever discussion he was involved in, true go to Senator Bolkus. working class values. In the period of time in Question resolved in the affirmative, hon- which he was an eminent figure in the labour ourable senators standing in their places. movement he was a person best classed as a true progressive; someone interested in pro- Rev. Gilbert William Arthur Duthie gressive reform at all times. The PRESIDENT—It is with deep regret He was the president of the party at the that I inform the Senate of the death on 13 time when the long run of the Playford June 1998 of the Reverend Gilbert William government in South Australia came to an end Arthur Duthie, a former member of the House and Frank Walsh became the first Labor of Representatives for the division of Wilmot Premier after Playford, followed by Don in Tasmania from 1946 to 1975. Dunstan. He presided as a strong figure in making sure that the ALP and the union PETITIONS movement was steered along sensible courses The Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for at a time in which massive change was presentation as follows: occurring and a huge alteration in social Genetic Engineering values was occurring, too. Petition to the Australian Senate That was the role he played in my experi- A CALL TO LABEL GENETICALLY ENGI- ence during the period of Whitlam govern- NEERED FOODS AND FOOD PRODUCTS ment when his elder brother, Clyde Cameron, was a distinguished minister. Don would We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Australia, call on all Senators to support implemen- sometimes worry too much about issues. He tation of the following: always struck me as someone who was a requirement to label with the production concerned to come to grips with what was process, all foods from genetic engineering really happening, get through all of the screen technologies or containing their products; of the language, come to the kernel of the real public participation in decisions on matter and see how it related to the working whether to allow commercialisation of foods, class values that he held. He would worry additives and processing agents produced by away at a problem until he got to that under- gene technologies; Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3599

premarket human trials and strict safety rules Multilateral Agreement on Investment on these foods, to assess production processes as well as the end products. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. Precedents which support of our petition include The Petition of the undersigned draws to the several examples of foods already labelled with the attention of the Senate, the deleterious effects of processes of production: irradiated foods (interna- the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. tionally); certified organic foods; and many conven- tional foods (pasteurised; salt-reduced; free-range; Your petitioners ask the Senate to call on the vitamin-enriched; to name only a few). Australian Government to: We ask you all to accord a high priority to 1. Make available the draft text of the Agree- supporting and implementing our petition. ment by Senator Stott Despoja (from 1,909 2. Make a public statement about its intentions with regard to the signing of the MAI, citizens). detailing the beneficiaries of the Agreement, and accountability measures for all corpo- Gender Identity rations To the Honourable the President and Members of 3. Not sign the MAI unless substantial amend- the Senate in the Parliament assembled: ment is made, including the observance of The petition of the undersigned shows: That international agreements including environ- Australian citizens oppose social, legal and eco- ment, labour, health and safety and human nomic discrimination against people on the basis of rights standards their sexuality or transgender identity and that such 4. Extend the deadline for signing the MAI to discrimination is unacceptable in a democratic enable full and proper public consultations society. to be held Your petitioners request that the Senate should: by Senator Bourne (from 361 citizens). pass the Australian Democrats Bill to make it unlawful to discriminate or vilify on the basis of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme sexuality or transgender identify so that such discrimination or vilification be open to redress at To the Honourable the President and Members of a national level. the Senate assembled in Parliament; This petition of certain citizens of Australia by Senator Bartlett (from 10 citizens). draws to the attention of the Senate, decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and Sydney Airport availability of medicines. To the Honourable the President and Members of The decision to remove (delist) a number of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme The petition of the undersigned shows: and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will (a) a proposal has been made by the Depart- disadvantage the less well off in our community ment of Transport to build a major no- who will not be able to afford the best most curfew international airport in Sydney’s suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have pre- western suburbs; scribed for them. (b) airports and attendant infrastructure are a Your petitioners therefore pray that the Senate major source of air and noise pollution; recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on (c) Western Sydney already suffers from the the Government to reverse these decisions immedi- worst air pollution in Australia; ately. (d) an additional airport in the Sydney airshed by Senator West (from 33 citizens). will only serve to greatly increase such pollution; and SBS Television: 1998 FIFA World Cup (e) an airport in Sydney’s west will harm the To the Honourable the President and Members of lifestyle and wellbeing of citizens living and the Senate in Parliament assembled. working within the Sydney airshed. The petition of the undersigned citizens respect- Your petitioners therefore request that the Senate fully shows that we, the citizens of regional not pass any bill which would lead to the construc- Australia, call on the Senate to do everything tion of any new airport within the Sydney airshed. possible to ensure that all Australian citizens have an equitable opportunity to be able to view the by Senator Bourne (from 32 citizens). 1998 FIFA World Cup from France which is to be 3600 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 broadcast via the Special Broadcasting Service (d) acquittal documentation indicating the (SBS) Network. detailed costings of the research undertaken Regional Australians proudly belong to a multi- or planned. cultural nation and enjoy a widespread interest in Consideration of Legislation international sport. We call on the Australian Senate to end the current discrimination that Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— ensures that only metropolitan centres have access Minister for Justice)—I give notice that, on to the direct telecasting of one of the great sporting the next day of sitting, I shall move: events of the world. That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (7) of And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, pray. allowing them to be considered during this period by Senator McKiernan (from 323 citizens). of sittings: Petitions received. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1998-99 Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99 NOTICES OF MOTION Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1998-99 East Timor Customs Legislation (Anti-dumping Amend- Senator BROWN (Tasmania)—I give ments) Bill 1998 notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill move: 1998 Data-matching Program (Assistance and Tax) That the Senate— Amendment Bill 1998 (a) notes the call by Xanana Gusmao for the National Firearms Program Implementation Bill Senate to reconsider its rejection of a mo- 1998 tion calling for his unhindered release and Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill for self-determination for East Timor; and 1998 (b) calls on President Habibie’s Government to Taxation Laws Amendment (Farm Management release Xanana Gusmao immediately and Deposits) Bill 1998 unconditionally, and to hold a free and fair Taxation Laws Amendment (Landcare and Water referendum on the question of independence Facility Tax Offset) Bill 1998 for East Timor. Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. Commonwealth Departments and Agencies: Campaigns I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales— during this sitting and seek leave to have the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate)—I statements incorporated in Hansard. give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Leave granted. That there be laid on the table by the Leader of The document read as follows— the Government in the Senate (Senator Hill), no APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99 later than 3.15 pm on 29 June 1998, the following APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1998-99 documents: APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY DE- In relation to all advertising, promotional, informa- PARTMENTS) BILL 1998-99 tion and/or public relations campaigns planned, commissioned or undertaken by any Common- Legislative authority for expenditure under the wealth department or agency since March 1996, annual Appropriation Bills expires on 30 June each where the estimated or final cost, whichever is year and, unless new expenditure authority is in higher, of the campaign exceeded $500 000: place by that time, activities of Government agencies funded through the annual Appropriation (a) all briefs requesting research to be carried mechanism must cease. out for the campaign by consultants, wheth- er for qualitative or quantitative research; The Appropriation Bills will provide legislative authority for expenditure in 1998-99. Passage of the (b) all scoping studies carried out in preparation Bills before 30 June 1998 is required to allow for these campaigns; funds to be made available to all agencies from 1 (c) all research reports from consultants provid- July 1998, thereby ensuring continuity of program ing results of the research of any kind; and expenditure. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3601

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Cus- and Administration) toms and Consumer Affairs)

CUSTOMS LEGISLATION (ANTI-DUMPING DATA-MATCHING PROGRAM (ASSISTANCE AMENDMENTS) BILL 1998 AND TAX) AMENDMENT BILL 1998 CUSTOMS TARIFF (ANTI-DUMPING) AMEND- The proposed Data-matching Program (Assistance MENT BILL 1998 and Tax) Amendment Bill 1998 will remove the existing sunset clause in the Data-matching Pro- The principal purpose of these Bills is to amend the gram (Assistance and Tax) Act 1990. Customs Act 1901 and the Customs Tariff (Anti- The Bill needs to be introduced and passed in the Dumping) Act 1975 and repeal Anti-Dumping 1998 Winter Sittings as the current sunset clause Authority Act 1988 to implement the Government’s takes effect on 22 January 1999 and, if it were to announced reforms of the anti-dumping and come into effect, data-matching activities which countervailing systems in response to the Willett help ensure the integrity of the social security Report. The bills also make a number of minor and system would have to be discontinued. This would technical amendments to the anti-dumping provi- result in a substantial negative impact on the sions of the Customs Act 1901, including the forward estimates. Therefore, it is important to removal of the local content rule from subsection ensure that the Parliament considers the future of 269T(2) for the purpose of determining whether the data-matching program in 1998. goods are manufactured in Australia. (Circulated by the authority of the Minister for On 24 February 1998 the Government announced Social Security) major changes to the administration of anti- dumping and countervailing investigations which will see investigations completed within a 155 day time frame. NATIONAL FIREARMS PROGRAM IMPLE- MENTATION BILL 1998 This is to be achieved by the abolition of the current bifurcated investigation process in which an At its meetings of 10 May 1996, 17 July 1996 and investigation progresses through two separate 15 November 1996, the Australasian Police agencies, Customs and then the Anti-Dumping Ministers’ Council (APMC) resolved that there be Authority (ADA). The ADA is to be abolished and uniform national controls on firearms. The APMC Customs will have the sole responsibility for also decided that there should be a buyback of undertaking a comprehensive investigation and prohibited firearms during an amnesty period of consultation process. twelve months. The buyback was funded through an additional medicare levy. Compensation was A new administrative appeal mechanism, independ- paid by the States, the Northern Territory and the ent of Customs, is to be.established which will Australian Capital Territory, which were then provide all interested parties with a right to seek a reimbursed by the Commonwealth for compensa- speedy review of final finding as to whether to tion paid out and for some of the administrative impose dumping or countervailing duties. Under costs associated with the buyback. current arrangements the only avenue open to an Norfolk Island has almost finalised its legislation interested party seeking a review of a final finding to bring it into line with the APMC resolutions. is to institute proceedings in the Federal Court. The National Firearms Program Implementation The Industry Task Force on Anti-Dumping, an Bill 1998 will make provision for the Common- informal grouping of major manufacturers and wealth to fund that buyback out of remaining related associations, has expressed its strong medicare levy funds in the same way as it did the support for the changes. The Task Force noted that States and mainland territories. the prompt implementation of the changes would The Bill will also deal with the position on Christ- remove the present uncertainty surrounding the mas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. While it administration of investigations, which has discour- is thought that there may be few or no prohibited aged or delayed significant investment decisions to weapons on these islands, provision needs to be the detriment of the efficiency and competitiveness made for an amnesty period and a buyback by the of Australian industry. Commonwealth. Introduction and passage of this package of legisla- The Bill is urgent because there should be provi- tion during the 1998 Winter sittings is desirable as sion for reimbursement by the Commonwealth it will ensure that the new amendments can begin before the Norfolk Island Administration starts by the scheduled commencement date of 1 July making compensation payments for guns handed in. 1998 to the benefit of Australian industry. The amnesty period should commence in all three 3602 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 territories as soon as possible so that prohibited Under the legislative changes the prior IED and firearms do not remain in the community for any FMB Schemes will be made more commercially longer than necessary. attractive and accessible for primary producers. The (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Justice) proposed amendments have the support of the financial community and rural sector. Expectations are high that the FMD Scheme will be available for the next financial year (1998-99). The FMD PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE AMEND- Scheme is a taxation based tool and uncertainty for MENT BILL 1998 potential investors will be increased if the Bill is The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the not passed prior to the commencement of the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase taxation year. the charge from $27 to $30 with effect from 1 The Department currently holds deposits in trust for January 1999. approximately 9,500 clients in the IED and FMB Schemes. When the FMD Scheme commences The $3 increase was announced in the 1998-99 these funds will have to be either withdrawn or Budget. transferred to financial institutions depending on the In most cases, the charge is collected on behalf of wishes of the individual client. Transfer and clarity the Commonwealth by international airlines at the for depositors would be simplified if notification time of sale of tickets for departures from Austral- could occur in line with a financial year change- ia, in accordance with arrangements entered into over. Introduction and passage should occur prior under section 10 of the Passenger Movement to 30 June 1998 to allow notification of changes to Charge Collection Act 1978. It is not uncommon depositors so transfers to the FMD Scheme could for such tickets to be sold up to 12 months in be mate for the 1998-99 financial year. advance of the intended departure date. In order for Effect of not passing airlines to be able to collect the increased amount on tickets sold between 1 July 1998 and 1 January Delaying the passage of the proposed Bill until the 1999, for post 1 January 1999 departures, it is Spring sittings would create uncertainty for necessary that the amendments, with appropriate farmers’ investment decisions in the 1998-99 transitional arrangements, be in place before 1 July financial year and reduce their ability to achieve 1998. self-reliance in managing risk It would also make uncertain conversion of existing IED deposits to (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Cus- FMD deposits for the 1998-99 financial year. It toms and Consumer Affairs) may create difficulties for financial institutions and rural stakeholders who have provided considerable assistance in the development of this mechanism. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FARM (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Primary MANAGEMENT DEPOSITS) BILL 1998 Industries and Energy) Purpose The proposed Bill implements the new Farm Management Deposit (FMD) Scheme announced in TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (LANDCARE the Agriculture—Advancing Australia package. It AND WATER FACILITY TAX OFFSET) BILL replaces and/or amends a number of Acts, in 1998 particular the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Purpose of the proposed Bill: Act 1976 and the Income Tax assessment Act This measure will implement the Government’s 1936. election commitment that a rebate may be claimed The FMD Scheme will commercialise and modify for expenditure incurred on the prevention of land the existing Income Equalisation Deposit (IED) and degradation. Farm Management Bond (FMB) schemes. The Bill contains the measure giving effect to an Reasons for urgency announcement made on 1 July 1997 by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Introduction and passage of the Bill in the 1998 Winter Sittings is sought to provide certainty to Reasons for urgency: financial markets that an investment product and The Minister announced that expenditure incurred risk management tool will be available. after 30 June 1997 would be eligible for the rebate. The FMD Scheme is a key plank of the Agricul- To give effect to this policy for the 1997-98 ture—Advancing Australia packages It progresses income year. the Australian Taxation Office needs agricultural policy by providing a mechanism for the law to be in place as soon as possible before enhancing farmers’ ability to manage risk and be the end of this financial year. financially self-reliant. Result if Bill not dealt with in these sittings: Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3603

The measure will not be implemented in the time build up the confidence of lenders dealing with the frame announced by the Government if the Bill is grower company. not passed during the 1998 Winter sitting period. Delaying passage of the proposed bill until the Until legislation is in place, taxpayers will be 1998 Spring Sittings could place unnecessary uncertain about the intended operation of the law. uncertainty over the final stage of privatisation The costs of administering the measure will which would be unsatisfactory from a commercial increase with any delay in implementation. point of view. (Circulated by authority of the Treasurer) (Circulated with the Authority of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy)

WHEAT MARKETING LEGISLATION AMEND- National Competition Policy MENT BILL 1998 Senator MARGETTS (Western Austral- The purpose of the proposed bill is to implement ia)—I give notice that, on the next day of the final stage in the restructure of the Australian sitting, I shall move: Wheat Board (AWB) as a grower owned company (1) That the Senate notes: from 1 July 1999. The first stage of this process, to allow the AWB to conduct its activities through (a) the observation expressed in the report of wholly owned Corporations Law companies, was the House of Representatives Standing implemented by amendments to the Wheat Market- Committee on Financial Institutions and ing Act 1989 last year. At that time the importance Public Administration entitled Cultivating of a two stage approach to the restructure was Competition: Inquiry into aspects of the accepted by the Senate and the need for further National Competition Policy Reform legislation was foreshadowed. Package, that there has been no major analysis of the broader socio-economic The proposed bill will terminate statutory market- costs of the National Competition Policy; ing arrangements for wheat from 1 July 1999. A and small statutory body will continue to undertake the AWB’s current functions for the administration of (b) that many voters in the 1998 Queensland wheat export controls. Ownership and control of a election indicated that they were disillu- successor company to the AWB, to undertake the sioned with the unquestioning push by the AWB’s marketing and financing functions, will be major parties for economic reforms such passed to wheatgrowers by the issue of A Class as National Competition Policy without shares and the conversion of equity in the Wheat considering the broader impacts of such Industry Fund (WIF) to B Class shares. changes. Introduction and passage for the Wheat Marketing (2) That a select committee, to be known as the Amendment Bill 1998 in the 1998 Winter Sittings Select Committee on the Socio-Economic is being sought to provide certainty to financial Consequences of the National Competition markets about the longer term changes to the Policy, be appointed to inquire into and AWB. report, on or before the first sitting day in 1999, on the following matters: Under the legislative changes agreed to last year the AWB’s wholly owned subsidiary will have the (a) the broader socio-economic consequences, opportunity to develop a track record and identity including costs, of the National Competi- as a fully commercial (rather than a Government- tion Policy, as implemented by the Com- backed body) and achieve a credit rating to enable petition Policy Reform Act 1995, includ- it to operate after Government underwriting is ing, but not limited to, the impact of the withdrawn on 1 July 1999. The sooner that the policy on: future conversion of the AWB’s subsidiary into a (i) unemployment, grower owned Corporations Law company is settled (ii) changed working conditions, in legislation, the more likely it is that the company will be accepted by financial markets. (iii) social welfare, The AWB is one of Australia’s largest borrowers (iv) equity, on short term markets to finance advance and (v) social dislocation, and related payments for pool wheat delivered to it, and (vi) environmental impacts; and it is essential that the new grower company’s access to funds for these purposes is not put in (b) the relative effect and variation in impact jeopardy. Legislation which clearly establishes the of the National Competition Policy on capital base of the new company as shares from the urban and rural and regional communities. conversion of the WIF will remove any doubt that (3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, 3 the WIF capital could be dissipated. This should nominated by the Leader of the Government 3604 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

in the Senate, 2 nominated by the Leader of daily Hansard be published of such the Opposition in the Senate, 1 nominated proceedings as take place in public. by the Leader of the Australian Democrats and 1 nominated by the Greens (WA) or Community Affairs Legislation independent senators. Committee (4) That the quorum of the committee be 3 Senator O’CHEE (Queensland)—At the members with 1 representing the Govern- request of Senator Knowles, I give notice that, ment, 1 representing the Opposition and 1 on the next day of sitting, she will move: representing either the Australian Demo- crats, the Greens (WA) or independent That the time for the presentation of the report senators. of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the continued monitoring of the operation of the (5) That the committee may proceed to the Health Legislation (Private Health Insurance dispatch of business notwithstanding that Reform) Amendment Act 1995 be extended to 10 not all members have been duly nominated December 1998. and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. Australian Youth Policy and Action (6) That the chair of the committee be elected Coalition by and from the members of the committee. Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- (7) That the deputy chair of the committee be tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian elected by and from the members of the Democrats)—I give notice that, on the next committee immediately after the election of the chair. day of sitting, I shall move: (8) That the deputy chair act as chair when That the Senate— there is no chair or the chair is not present (a) recognises the vital contribution of the at a meeting. Australian Youth Policy and Action Coali- (9) That, in the event of the votes on any tion (AYPAC) to the development of policy question before the committee being equally affecting young Australians through its divided, the chair, or deputy chair when effective and comprehensive representation acting as chair, have a casting vote. of young people; (b) deplores the Government’s short-sighted and (10) That the committee and any subcommit- mean-spirited replacement of AYPAC with tee have power to send for and examine a twice-yearly consultation with a select few persons and documents, to move from young people, in contravention of a promise place to place, to sit in public or in pri- it made in 1996 to ‘improve the effective- vate, notwithstanding any prorogation of ness of government in responding to the the Parliament or dissolution of the House needs and concerns of young Australians by of Representatives, and have leave to consulting directly with young Australians report from time to time its proceedings around the nation through formal representa- and the evidence taken and such interim tive organisations such as AYPAC’; recommendations as it may deem fit. (c) rejects the notion that a twice-yearly meet- (11) That the committee have power to ap- ing of 50 young people without funding to point subcommittees consisting of 3 or carry out vital research into the effect of more of its members and to refer to any policies on young people and advise the such subcommittee any of the matters Government on a year-round basis consti- which the committee is empowered to tutes adequate consultation of young people consider, and that the quorum of a sub- and their concerns; committee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee. (d) condemns a reduction of almost $140 000 in funding to the representation of young (12) That the committee be provided with all people in policy development; and necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons (e) urges the Government to reverse this deci- with specialist knowledge for the pur- sion and restore funding to AYPAC so it poses of the committee with the approval can continue its invaluable work. of the President. Education: Mr Bill Daniels (13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and Senator CARR (Victoria)—I give notice evidence as may be ordered by it and a that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3605

That the Senate— an unforeseen event and therefore should (a) notes yet another departure from the Depart- be treated as exceptional and justifies ment of Employment, Education, Training special Government measures, and Youth Affairs in the resignation of the (vi) the surge in imports and the collapse on First Assistant Secretary of the Schools domestic prices have been accompanied Division, Mr Bill Daniels; and by the fall in world prices for pig meat, (b) acknowledges Mr Daniels’ 28 years of (vii) a combination of all the above factors has experience and expertise in the education created a crisis in the industry which is portfolio area and regrets the loss of corpo- well beyond normal management prac- rate knowledge which his departure will tices; bring. (viii) despite: Indonesia (A) the Howard Government’s change in Senator BROWN (Tasmania)—I give the definition of exceptional circum- stances to include an unanticipated notice that, on 24 June 1998, I shall move: collapse in prices, That the Senate— (B) the fact that research undertaken on (a) notes moves within Indonesia and the behalf of the former Queensland United States of America to investigate the Government has established a link wealth and assets held by ex-president between surging imports and col- Suharto and his family and associates; lapsing prices, and (b) calls on the Australian Government to (C) the fact that pork producers incomes establish an inquiry into such wealth and have collapsed, assets in Australia; and the Minister has refused the industry (c) urges the Australian Government to take desperately needed short-term help, prudent measures to ensure that any future (ix) the Minister approved an application for request from Indonesia for such assets to be special short-term assistance to farmers in frozen or returned is not compromised in the the Monaro A district because of a range meantime. of factors, including lack of rainfall and Pork Industry pests, and Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania)—I give (x) the assistance is restricted to only 12 months because the region did not qualify notice that, on 24 June, I shall move: for drought exceptional circumstances; That the Senate— and (a) notes that: (b) calls on the Minister to: (i) a report commissioned by the former (i) immediately review his decision to reject Queensland State Government and pre- exceptional circumstances assistance for pared by the University of Queensland pork producers; and found a significant relationship between (ii) release all reports and related material on pig meat imports and domestic prices, which he based his decisions: (ii) pig meat imports doubled in 1997, (A) to reject the application for short- (iii) prices received by Australian pork pro- term help by the pork industry, ducers have collapsed to their lowest level in 30 years and are significantly (B) to reject the application for excep- below the cost of production, tional circumstances assistance to the Monaro region in December 1997, (iv) the Minister for Primary Industries and and Energy (Mr Anderson) announced after the 1996 federal election that exceptional (C) to approve the application for excep- circumstances assistance would be avail- tional circumstances assistance to able for rare and severe events not just farmers in the area known as Mon- for drought, aro A in March 1998. (v) the Minister released prior to the 1996 Corporations and Securities Committee federal election a document entitled ‘Reviving the heartland’ which stated Senator CONROY (Victoria)—I give under the heading ‘Exceptional Circum- notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall stances’ that a collapse in world prices is move: 3606 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

That the following matter be referred to the author of a study of the karsts, which Ms Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Putt incorrectly quoted, rejecting her claims; Securities for inquiry and report by 24 July 1998: (f) Mr Kiernan’s view that he did not believe Whether there needs to be reform of the law there was a conflict with mining in the area regulating industrial relations and/or corporations given commonsense, goodwill and careful so that it appropriately and adequately deals with planning; the following issues: (g) Ms Putt’s failure to apologise for misleading (a) the trend for companies to declare them- the public; selves insolvent in order to avoid paying (h) Ms Putt’s condemnation of the proposals employees their legitimate entitlements; before a pre-feasibility study is carried out; (b) the trend to use shell companies to avoid and the normal contractual obligations arising Senator Brown interjecting— from the employer/employee relationship; (c) protecting workers’ entitlements in the Senator SHERRY—She should, Senator transmission of businesses; Brown. I will take that interjection. (d) corporate avoidance or evasion of Work- Senator Brown—She hasn’t misled any- place Relations Act protections; body. (e) protecting workers’ entitlements in circum- Senator SHERRY—She has grossly lied to stances of privatisation or contracting out; the Tasmanian and Australian public—and (f) protecting against manipulation of corporate you know that very, very well, Senator structures to avoid employee rights and Brown. entitlements; (g) protections for workers employed by insol- Senator Brown—Bring this on. vent employers; Senator SHERRY—It will be a ripper of (h) the inter-relationship between the Corpora- a debate. tions Law, the Workplace Relations Act and Senator Brown—You’re the one who’ll get awards and industrial agreements; and ripped. (i) minimising the adverse effects on employ- ees of insecure employment forms. Senator SHERRY—I note Senator Brown’s constant interjection and interruption Mining: North-West Tasmania in opposing a very worthwhile— Senator SHERRY (Tasmania)—I give The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall (Senator Watson)—Order! Senator Sherry, move: you should not be making an offensive That the Senate notes: comment about a state member of parliament. (a) the two proposed magnesite mines and Senator Brown—That’s right. value-added processing by Crest Resources near West Takone and Golden Triangle near Senator SHERRY—Are you asking me to Savage River on Tasmania’s north-west withdraw the comment, Mr Acting Deputy coast; President? (b) that the north-west coast is a region of The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I Tasmania which has had significant industry think you should, yes. restructuring, high unemployment and net population decline; Senator SHERRY—I will withdraw the (c) the projects will be appropriately assessed comment that she lied, but it was a termino- for their impact on the environment under logical inexactitude and she did grossly relevant State laws; mislead the public. To conclude: (d) the attempt by the Tasmanian Greens’ State (i) Ms Putt’s admission in reference to the member Ms Peg Putt to mislead the Tas- general area that, ‘It has been quarried manian and Australian public by claiming and timber harvested in the past, but it the caves and karsts would be threatened by has regained a high quality wilderness’. any mining proposals; Electoral: Young Australians (e) the rebuttal of such claims by Mr Bevis Dutton of the Savage River Caving Club Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- and geomorphologist Mr Kevin Kiernan, the tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3607

Democrats)—I give notice that, on the next Community Affairs References day of sitting, I shall move: Committee That the Senate— Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- (a) congratulates the national youth broadcaster, ia)—On behalf of Senator Bishop, I give Triple J, on its Rock Enrol campaign; and notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: (b) encourages all young Australians 17 years and older to enrol to vote. That the Community Affairs References Commit- tee be authorised to hold a public hearing during Power Supplies: Victoria the sitting of the Senate on 25 June 1998, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry Senator ALLISON (Victoria)—I give into the impact of Government child care funding notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall cuts on families, children and child care services. move: Consideration of Legislation That the Senate— Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— (a) notes: Minister for Justice) (4.29 p.m.)—Mr Acting (i) that the Victorian Treasury recently Deputy President, I seek leave to move a overturned a prohibition on electricity motion to exempt a bill from standing order companies offering power from renewable sources at extra cost, 111. (ii) that this decision allows Victorian con- Leave granted. sumers for the first time to pay a levy on Senator VANSTONE—I move: their power bills for the proportion of their electricity that comes from renew- That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 7 of able sources, under an accredited scheme standing order 111 not apply to the Health Care administered by the Sustainable Energy (Appropriation) Bill 1998, allowing it to be con- Development Authority, sidered during this period of sittings. (iii) that four out of five electricity companies I also table a statement of reasons justifying operating in Victoria now offer green the need for this bill to be considered during power, and this sittings and seek leave to have the state- (iv) that in New South Wales, the scheme has ment incorporated in Hansard. Copies of the attracted 17 000 households and 80 busi- statement have been circulated in the cham- nesses since its inception in 1997; and ber. (b) congratulates: Leave granted. (i) the Victorian Government for its decision The statement read as follows— to allow green power in Victoria, and HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) BILL 1998 (ii) Environment Victoria and Greenpeace, The Bill will appropriate funds to make a which provided much of the momentum Commonwealth contribution for the period of 5 for the public campaign to allow green years starting on 1 July 1998 to the cost of health power to be offered to Victorians; and and emergency services provided by hospitals in (c) encourages initiatives promoting the use of the States and Territories; and to fund projects power from renewable sources in each State. designed to improve the efficiency and effective- ness of, or to reduce demand for, such services, or Economics References Committee to improve patient outcomes from such services. Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Austral- The Bill requires introduction and passage in the same sitting to ensure the continuity of Common- ia)—On behalf of Senator Jacinta Collins, I wealth funding for public hospitals ant related give notice that, on the next day of sitting, services. she will move: If the Bill is not dealt with in one sitting there will That the time for the presentation of the report be no legislative basis to allow payments for health of the Economics References Committee on and emergency services provided by hospitals in whether a new reactor should be built to replace the the States and Territories, meaning States and High Flux Australian Reactor at Lucas Heights be Territories could lose up to 10 per cent of their extended to 5 November 1998. revenue base. 3608 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(Circulated by authority of the Minister for Health statement of reasons had been circulated in and Family Services) the Senate. However, I, for one, had not The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT received it at that time; I have since. (Senator Watson)—The question is that the Senator O’Chee—It is on your desk. motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion, say aye; those against, say no. I think the Senator BROWN—Through you, Mr ayes have it. Acting Deputy President, to Senator O’Chee, it is on your desk over there; it was not over The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— here, but it was delivered consequently. It is Senator Brown, do you have some problems? quite untoward for us to have been asked to Senator BROWN (Tasmania) (4.29 p.m.)— vote on that motion without having had the by leave—Yes, I do. Which motion was just arguments put to us. I ask that the vote be put to the Senate? resubmitted to the Senate if the minister The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— would be so good as to permit that. If not, I The motion was to exempt a certain bill. ask that my vote against the motion be re- corded. Senator Margetts—I thought it was a notice of motion. Obviously, it is not a notice Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— of motion. If it is a notice of motion, then Minister for Justice) (4.30 p.m.)—by leave— we— Senator Margetts, I am advised—and it might assist you and, in particular, people reading The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— the Hansard or people listening at the mo- Leave was granted to move the motion, and ment who may think a swiftie has been we voted on the motion. pulled—that this matter was raised at the Senator Margetts—I am sorry, but that is whips meeting this morning and that you had not the way we should be dealing with these a representative at the meeting. It was indicat- kinds of motions. To incorporate the terms of ed then that the government intended to do reference of something we are actually being this at this time today. Subsequent to the asked to vote on right now is not the way to meeting, both your office and Senator put things through the Senate. I am sorry, but Brown’s office separately were rung and I certainly do not give leave to be acting in advised in relation to this matter. that way; that is not the way to get your program through at this time of the year. Senator Brown—I was not in my office. I haven’t been spoken to because I was in the The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Senate. You actually did give leave. Senator VANSTONE—As I was saying, Senator Chris Evans—Mr Acting Deputy the matter was raised at the whips’ meeting. President, I raise a point of order. While the Senator Margetts had a representative there. opposition will be voting for the exemption, Subsequent to the whips’ meeting, both I think the Senate was confused as to what senators were rung to see if there was a was put. There was some discussion between problem. One senator is now indicating in the you and the clerk, and I think it was unclear chamber by way of interjection, having to some of the senators whether we were already had the liberty to speak himself, that voting on leave to move the motion or to put he simply has not been in his office. That is the motion. I think it would be in the interests regrettable, but I am simply trying to indicate of the Senate if we actually retraced our steps that the government has had good intentions a bit and were clear what we were doing. and followed the appropriate process for when The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— this sort of change is sought to be made, and Leave was sought to move the motion and, that is, raise it first thing in the morning and once leave was granted, we then proceeded. put it on the Senate red. Senator BROWN—Mr Acting Deputy Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) President, I raise a point of order. During the (4.33 p.m.)—by leave—Mr Acting Deputy seeking of leave, the minister said that the President, I suggest it would be more useful Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3609 if this were done as a notice of motion, and you would actually ask that question before then we would have a little time. I am sorry saying, ‘No, we can’t go back to it.’ about the confusion, I was not able to go to The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—If the whips’ meeting today. Instead of just that is what you are asking to do, can you getting something in your hand and being seek leave and put it formally, and I will expected to decide on the spot, it would be accept it. more reasonable to put it as a notice of motion and then we can vote on it after we Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) have actually had time to consider it. (4.36 p.m.)—Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I seek leave for the issue to be Senator VANSTONE (South Australia— recommitted from the start. Minister for Justice) (4.34 p.m.)—by leave— One of the difficulties with that, Senator The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is Margetts, is that the reason it was raised at leave granted? the whips’ meeting this morning is that there Senator O’Chee—Mr Acting Deputy is a possibility that we will want to deal with President, I raise a point of order. The issue this tonight. That was the whole purpose of of leave for the motion has already been dealt raising it this morning. I am sorry if your with. My understanding is that if the request representative did not convey the matter back is that the motion be put to the vote— to you, but that was the purpose of early notice being given today. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Be recommitted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— The motion has been carried and, unless it is Senator O’Chee—Yes. If the actual motion the wish of the Senate that the vote be recom- itself be voted upon, we are quite happy to mitted, we stand by that. accept that. It is just that the inexactitude of the terminology used by Senator Margetts Senator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy does require me to clarify it. President, I raise a point of order. Both of us asked whether that could be traced back to its The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— first stages because of the confusion—I do not Senator Margetts, could you clarify your think that is an unreasonable thing. Because position? Are you seeking leave for the our response related to that level of confusion, motion to be put or to go right back to the we are asking, quite reasonably, that leave be beginning? asked for again so we can respond based on Senator MARGETTS—The words I used our now ascertaining what the situation is. I were that we start from the beginning. I do am suggesting that it is reasonable that this be not know how to make that any clearer. If put as a notice of motion and dealt with Senator O’Chee wants to refuse leave, that is accordingly. for him to say. I would like to seek leave that The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— the leave sought by Senator Vanstone be put Senator Margetts, I can only put the motion again because of the confusion on this side again by order of the Senate. whether we were being asked to vote on an issue on which we have only just received the Senator Margetts—I asked for leave— information in our hands. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— Senator Vanstone—Perhaps we can try to However, if you wish, you can have your vote short-circuit this. Senator Margetts, this is recorded against the motion. very difficult, especially when people are Senator Margetts—Mr Acting Deputy trying to raise things in the appropriate order. President, I wonder if you might just ask the There was a meeting this morning which you Senate if they would give leave for it to be had a representative attending and I am sorry recommitted? You have not actually asked the if your representative has not kept you in- Senate if they would do that. It is happening formed and consequently you come to this all the time in the Senate; people say, ‘Can issue, as you say, fresh—ab initio, if you we go back to that?’ I would appreciate it if like—and do not know what is going on. Will 3610 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 it assist you if we agree to withdraw what we That general business notice of motion No. 1073 have done and give notice that at a later hour standing in the name of Senator Carr for today, we will move it? That in a sense gives notice relating to the Government’s response to a question asked at an estimates hearing, be postponed till 5 of a motion but it still will allow it to come sitting days after today. on if the need we were anticipating this morning arises that we might need to discuss COMMITTEES it later today. Would that be satisfactory? Rural and Regional Affairs Legislation Senator MARGETTS—It is an improve- Committee ment. Extension of Time The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Is Motion (by Senator O’Chee, at the request leave granted for that course of action to be of Senator Crane)—by leave—agreed to: followed? There being no objection, it is so granted. That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senator Vanstone—I will seek leave at a Legislation Committee on the provisions of the later hour to move that. Are you happy, Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amend- Senator Margetts? The whole place is running ment Bill (No. 3) 1997 be extended until 23 June according to your agenda. 1998. Senator MARGETTS—I do not actually Rural and Regional Affairs References appreciate the patronising. It is the truth that Committee we have a whips’ meeting in the morning. It Extension of Time is also the truth that good government does Motion (by Senator Woodley)—by leave— not wait until you are making the vote to put agreed to: that into the hands of senators. If there was an agreement at the whips’ meeting, there was a That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport necessity, I would have thought, to provide References Committee on the commercial utilisa- this earlier than right on the time the vote was tion of native wildlife be extended to 30 June 1998; taken. I do not think the patronising is par- and the report on the effects of pricing and slot ticularly appreciated. management arrangements at Kingsford Smith Airport be extended until 12 August 1998. Senator Vanstone—That is why you were rung, Senator. ORDER OF BUSINESS COMMITTEES Consideration of Legislation Environment, Recreation, Motion (by Senator Brown) agreed to: Communications and the Arts Legislation That general business notice of motion No. 1158 Committee standing in the name of Senator Brown for today, relating to the introduction of the Constitution Extension of Time Alteration (Right to Stand for Parliament— Qualification of Members and Candidates) Bill Motion (by Senator O’Chee, at the request 1998, be postponed till 24 June 1998. of Senator Patterson)—by leave—agreed to: That the time for the presentation of the report Australian Electoral Commission of the Environment, Recreation, Communications Election of Senators and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provi- sions of the Datacasting Charge (Imposition) Bill Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the 1998 and a related bill be extended to 23 June request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to: 1998. That general business notice of motion No. 1089 ORDER OF BUSINESS (relating to the definition of associated entities in the Commonwealth Electoral Act) and No. 1121 Education: Questions and Reports (the division of senators into two classes for the purposes of rotation) standing in the name of Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the Senator Faulkner for today, be postponed till 24 request of Senator Carr) agreed to: June 1998. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3611

COMMITTEES today, relating to the reference of matters to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Refer- Economics Legislation Committee ences Committee, be postponed till 2 July 1998 Extension of Time HEALTH Motion (by Senator O’Chee, at the request Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: of Senator Ferguson)—by leave—agreed to: That the Senate— That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the (a) notes: provisions of the Trade Practices Amendment (i) estimates by the World Health Organisa- (Country of Origin Representations) Bill 1998 be tion that a bacterial infection, cancrum extended to 24 June 1998. oris, known in Africa as the ‘noma’, is killing 80 000 children a year in the ORDER OF BUSINESS world’s poorest countries, Consultancies on Waterfront Reform (ii) forecasts by Oxfam that the disease will Committee kill up to half a million children in Niger by the year 2000, Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the request of Senator Faulkner) agreed to: (iii) that the disease is entirely curable in the early stages by applications of mouthwash That general business notice of motion No. 1101 and antiseptic cream, standing in the name of Senator Faulkner for today, relating to the appointment of a select committee (iv) that the group most susceptible to the on government consultancies on waterfront reform, disease is severely malnourished children be postponed till 29 June 1998. in developing countries, and (v) Oxfam’s valuable work in drawing to LEAVE OF ABSENCE worldwide public attention the ravages of Motion (by Senator O’Chee) agreed to: this disease; That leave of absence be granted to Senator (b) acknowledges the increases of $10 million Ferguson for the period 22 June to 26 June 1998, in Federal Government funding for African on account of parliamentary business overseas. projects in 1998-99; and (c) urges the Federal Government to give early ORDER OF BUSINESS consideration to providing funding for Census Forms proposals to treat cancrum oris in Niger. Motion (by Senator Woodley,atthe AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION request of Senator Bourne) agreed to: FOUNDATION That general business notice of motion No. 1146, Motion (by Senator Allison) agreed to: standing in the name of Senator Bourne for today, relating to the retention of census data, be post- That the Senate— poned till two sitting days after today. (a) notes: Australian Workplace Agreements (i) the appointment of scientist Mr Don Henry as executive director of the Aus- Motion (by Senator Chris Evans, at the tralian Conservation Foundation, request of Senator Mackay) agreed to: (ii) Mr Henry’s credentials, which include That general business notice of motion No. 641 negotiating the world’s largest tropical standing in the name of Senator Mackay for today, forests protection package in the Amazon proposing an order for the production of documents on behalf of the World Wildlife Fund for by the Minister representing the Minister for Nature with the World Bank, and other Workplace Relations and Small Business (Sentor substantial forest conservation gains in Alston), be postponed till 10 August 1998. Papua New Guinea and Indonesia, and Rural and Regional Affairs and (iii) Mr Henry’s comment that the rest of the world listens to Australia because of its Transport References Committee past reputation with important environ- Motion (by Senator Woodley) agreed to: mental initiatives; That business of the Senate notice of motion No. (b) congratulates Mr Henry on his appointment; 1 standing in the name of Senator Woodley for and 3612 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(c) recognises that Australia does indeed have Finally we note the assurance given by the Senate an important role to play globally in show- on 31 March 1998 by the Assistant Treasurer, ing environmental leadership for the benefit Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, that the government of future generations. will not sign the agreement unless it is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so. DOCUMENTS It says: Auditor General’s Reports In summary, there are both misconceptions and Report No. 48 of 1997-98 misleading material circulating about the nature and the effect of the MAI, some of which is reflected The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT in the submissions received to date. (Senator Watson)—In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present I guess that statement in section 1.65 reflects the following report of the Auditor-General: the press release that the chair put out before Report No. 48 of 1997-98—Performance hearing evidence from the inquiry. audit—Data management in the APS. Not a lot will happen as a result of this NORTHERN IRELAND PEACE report unless there is some means by which the government can change its own negotiat- AGREEMENT ing stance, and is prepared to change its The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—I negotiating stance and listen to what the present responses from the High Commission- public is saying about public interest. If there er for Britain, Mr Alex Allan, and the Deputy is no means for or no intention of the govern- Head of Mission of the Embassy of Ireland, ment to change its negotiating stance in Mr Pat Bourne, to a resolution of the Senate relation to the multilateral agreement on of 25 May 1998 concerning Ireland. investment then this report, thin as it is, will COMMITTEES not be worth the paper it is written on. Generally governments are required to look Treaties Committee for a response within, say, three months of a Report report like this being written. That would put The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT— us just prior to the next time Australia will be Pursuant to standing order No. 38, I present asked to sign the agreement. I would obvious- the 14th report of the Joint Standing Com- ly be looking for a quick response, if pos- mittee on Treaties entitled Multilateral agree- sible, from the government to the concerns ment on investment: Interim report together that have been handled here. But, as I said, with the Hansard record of proceedings and this may not be worth the paper it is written minutes of evidence, which were presented to on; it may simply be a pre-election exercise the President on 1 June 1998. In accordance by both major parties if there is no actual with the terms of the order, the publication of means, ability or political will to change the document was authorised. anything in Australia’s negotiating stance on Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) the multilateral agreement on investment. (4.49 p.m.)—by leave—I move: Many of the concerns expressed were that That the Senate take note of the report. Australia’s stated position was not in the It is a very thin document that has been national interest, that what was left out of the presented. It has been mentioned that, up to multilateral agreement on investment in terms the date of printing, there had been 792 of exemptions left very large gaps, including submissions, making it an inquiry that has had environmental standards, wages and condi- more immediate submissions than many tions, and human rights objectives. others, considering the time that was avail- If nothing changes in Australia’s negotiating able. There are obviously some very strong position, all the nice words in the world from statements that are coming out in relation to this committee or any other committee will this report, but there are probably many more not change that situation which is causing a questions that are raised in the statements. It great deal of concern throughout local govern- states: ments and many regional and rural communi- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3613 ties in Australia. The question that needs to could be forgiven for thinking that this report be answered, and answered as quickly as pos- is indeed a One Nation policy document. Let sible, is: has the government actually heard me put it on the record that One Nation the concerns? If it has actually heard, is there policy as it stands would abolish ATSIC and any willingness whatsoever to change force indigenous communities to use main- Australia’s negotiating stance? If the answer stream services. It would extinguish native is yes, let us hear that answer quickly. Let us title and reinvigorate those policies that led to find out what role Australia might play in the the near complete genocide of one of the most future. If the answer is no, then the honest ancient civilisations on this planet. thing for the government to do before the Let there be no mistake: one of the tools of election is to say so, and the rest of the genocide is the destruction of elements of community can act accordingly. culturally significant places and artefacts so Question resolved in the affirmative. that people are isolated and alienated from those places. Surely after 210 years, and the ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT decimation that has been visited upon Abo- ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION riginal and Torres Strait Australians, it is time BILL 1998 now to say ‘enough’—enough of the destruc- Report of Native Title and the Aboriginal tion of rock paintings, enough of the forced and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund removal of children from their families, Committee enough of the paternalistic values and policies which choose not to see the pain of others The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT and enough of the racially based arrogance (Senator Watson)—Pursuant to standing that says white people simply know best. If order 38, I present the 12th report of the Joint history has shown us anything, it is that Standing Committee on Native Title and the indigenous people and their cultures have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land suffered as a consequence of disrespect and Fund entitled The Aboriginal and Torres ignorance. Surely it is time—in 1998—to say Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998, enough. together with submissions and the Hansard record of the proceedings which were present- The reason why this is such a bad report is ed to the President on 1 June 1998. In accord- because the government members are in the ance with the terms of the order, the publica- majority. The report merely reflects their tion of the document was authorised. continuing contempt towards the indigenous people of this land and, I might say, to 99 per Senator WOODLEY (Queensland) (4.53 cent of the evidence presented to them in the p.m.)—by leave—I move: two very quick hearings which were held in That the Senate take note of the report. Melbourne and Canberra. The refusal of the With some notable exceptions, the reports of government to hold hearings anywhere else joint house committees, as is the case with except in Melbourne and Canberra once again Senate committee reports, do not usually says something about those two particular attract a high level of controversy. However, places and one other capital in Australia. this particular report and the hearings which Those of us who live outside of that particular preceded it attracted a great deal of contro- triangle often have to make this complaint. versy. No-one in this parliament says that heritage I rise today to disassociate the Australian protection legislation is not in need of reform, Democrats with this report, except in so far as and the government certainly admits that. The our dissent is represented in the minority 1984 act has, at almost every turn, been view. Although there presently exists only one shown to be inadequate. However, I believe member of the parliament who belongs to that that most Australians would be aghast to organisation—I think an organisation which know that no effective Commonwealth legis- all Australians ought to despise—known as lation is in existence to protect the culturally One Nation, the average Australian punter important and significant sites of indigenous 3614 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 people. It is very difficult to fathom that under Malcolm Fraser, moved the Northern almost no act of the Commonwealth parlia- Territory land rights legislation and had it ment has been effective in protecting the passed into law. How far that coalition has ancient and precious heritage of Torres Strait come from those days. As we heard today in Islanders and Aborigines. What is even more question time, some coalition senators have difficult to fathom is that the present govern- expressed that they would prefer to work with ment, by the presentation of the bill—the One Nation in the Senate than either the basis of which forms the substance of the Greens or the Australian Democrats. Well, report—fails to protect heritage. that speaks volumes. The states and territories of this land have Despite our proud 21-year history of de- not covered themselves in glory in their fending the rights of ordinary Australians, dealings with indigenous people. In fact, not despite the fact that since the Democrats first to understate the matter, they have been took their seats in this place in 1977 supply directly responsible for implementing many has been guaranteed to both Liberal and atrocities in the past. During the Wik debate, Labor governments, and despite the fact that I put on the record many of those incidents. it was the Australian Democrats which moved They are not something that happened 200 the first legislation to save the Franklin Dam years ago or 210 years ago as people like to and that it was the Australian Democrats that say; they are incidents which have occurred helped to stymie the introduction of the right up to the present day. The incompetence Australia Card, some Liberal senators would of the states and territories was tacitly recog- prefer to work with Australia’s first experi- nised in 1967 when, in the most successful ence of a fascist political party. I say that not referendum in the history of this nation, the in a pejorative way but in an absolutely people of Australia voted to give power to the technical description. That does speak vol- Commonwealth in the area of indigenous umes. affairs. It is lamentable that that power has In closing, in dissociating ourselves from insufficiently been utilised to improve the lot this report the Australian Democrats do not of our most impoverished people. divest themselves of what we consider to be Despite this momentous change in the the national responsibility to protect all constitution, the coalition government has Australian heritage, but particularly Aborigi- argued in this parliament and the courts that, nal and Torres Strait Islander people. We will if it chooses, it should be able to make laws work with the non-racist parties in this Senate to the detriment of Australia’s indigenous to make that possibility a reality and to fulfil people. Government members actually argued the report that Justice Evatt did for the it during the committee hearings into the government, on their behalf, on this very native title Wik bill. They argued it in the matter and which the government then ig- Senate and in the House of Representatives, nored in its bill and in this report. I am and the government argued it before the High ashamed that a federal government in this Court during the Hindmarsh Island bridge country should bring down such a discrimina- case. Who will ever forget the anti- tory report and a bill which is so inadequate. contribution made by Senator Lightfoot in his Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) first speech in this place? He said: (5.02 p.m.)—I will speak briefly in relation to I, in effect, said that Aboriginal people in their the Native Title and Aboriginal and Torres native state were the lowest colour on the civilised Strait Islander Land Fund Committee’s report spectrum. on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander At the beginning of this contribution I made Heritage Protection Bill 1998. I was able to specific reference to the policies of the Lib- sit in on one hearing. Not being a member of eral and National parties and how, in effect, the committee, I could not be a participating they derive from the same philosophical member of this committee. However, I was position as One Nation. Let me underline that greatly concerned about the way the commit- this is a sad falling away from a party which, tee was going about its business in as much Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3615 as, as Senator Woodley has indicated, the Senator WEST—It is with much pleasure kinds of recommendations that have been put that I table this report. This delegation was a forward by Justice Evatt were not really on great honour to lead. This delegation was the agenda. accorded opportunities that many delegations may or may not have been accorded. We Ironically, I recall that, during discussions certainly were able to visit many of the on the Hindmarsh Island bill, I put to the important organisations within the European Senate that those recommendations should be institutions. When you start looking at what looked into and at the time Senator Collins the institutions are, it is quite mind-boggling, also agreed that that should be done. At the particularly to understand the differences time the government said it was all too between the various institutions. difficult because they would have to go to the states, it would take a long time, they would We visited the European Union and the have to talk about it, they would have to think Council of Europe. We also heard about the about it and they really could not decide on European Council. We saw the Parliamentary it in advance of doing that, but funnily en- Assembly of the Council of Europe, which ough they had enough time to put through comprises the parliamentary members of that. their own recommendations to their own We also saw the European Parliament. We amendments, which are going in the other saw the European Commission of Human direction. Rights and the European Commission. We saw the European Court of Human Rights and I have not had a chance to have a look at the European Court of Justice. We did not see this full report, but I would like to express, the International Court of Justice, which is in along with Senator Woodley, my concern The Hague. We also saw the European Invest- about the way this took place and about the ment Bank. It is important to recognise that way that the government’s agenda of reducing the European Union is our major and largest rights can be done really quickly, but in terms trading partner when you take the union as a of any decent objectives for the protection of whole. I think it needs to be remembered in rights it is all too difficult. I seek leave to Australia that, when taken as a whole, that is continue my remarks later. the case. Leave granted; debate adjourned. We were also honoured to be able to BUDGET 1998-99 observe Anzac Day on the Somme on the Western Front. For many of us, I think, that Portfolio Budget Statements was a very moving occasion. Before talking about the Western Front, I would like to say Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister that we had the honour and the privilege of for Social Security)—I table the corrigenda to being guests of the European Parliament on the portfolio budget statements 1998-99 for the day that the British minister and the Irish the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined to the Commission, the health and family services European Parliament what is now commonly portfolio and the social security portfolio. known as the ‘Good Friday agreement’—the PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO forerunner, we all hope and pray, of the THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS, resolution of the Irish conflict. The delegation APRIL 1998 thought it was a very great honour to sit and observe as these two great people outlined the Senator WEST (New South Wales)—by work they had done and paid tribute to John leave—I present the report of the Australian Hume and Jim Nicholson. Ian Paisley was parliamentary delegation to the European also mentioned. institutions—France and Belgium—between It was a very interesting time for the deleg- 20 and 30 April 1998. I seek leave to make ation to be in Europe because there was not a brief statement in relation to the report. only the occurrence I have just outlined. The Leave granted. following Saturday the meetings occurred that 3616 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 led to the beginning of the Economic Mon- The delegation would not have worked as etary Union and the beginning of the Euro. It well without the support of the delegation was a significant time for us to be in Europe secretary, Andrea Griffiths. We had some fun and to see the changes happening with the with the names ‘Anthea Griffin’ and ‘Andrea European currency. Griffiths’, but we managed to overcome that It is also significant that there are some problem. The members of the delegation want reforms going on in relation to common to record their thanks to Andrea for her work. agricultural policy. Maybe the reforms are not As can be seen in the report, we returned to moving as fast as we would like, but there are Australia after 30 April and, about six weeks certainly some reforms being discussed and afterwards, the report has hit the chamber. some major challenges being faced within The report was so promptly presented because Europe. In Australia we hear of the problems of the work Andrea did in compiling it. On of small communities and the death of small behalf of everybody in the delegation, I say communities because of the drop in commodi- a big thank you to her. ty prices. We are not the only country that is I also want to say a personal thank you to facing the problem of the drift away from the delegation. It does not appear in the rural communities to the major cities. It is report, but a great-uncle of mine is buried at also a problem which is having to be ad- Lebucquiere on the Somme. He was killed in dressed in Europe. I feel that there are a April 1915. When they heard about this, the number of issues where there is commonality. Commonwealth War Graves Commission was The delegation included some of my col- able to provide us with the exact details as to leagues from the lower house. The deputy where to find the cemetery and the grave. We leader of the delegation was the Hon. David drove across the Somme looking at the small Jull. The delegation included Senator Gibson villages a kilometre or so apart, each one of from this chamber and Mr Noel Nicks, Mr which had Commonwealth war graves. The Ted Grace and Mr Steve Dargavel from the Commonwealth war graves are signified by a other place. I give my thanks to those of my very large and imposing white cross. You can colleagues who travelled with me. It was a travel for hundreds of kilometres without ever great delegation. It was a delegation which losing sight of a large white cross. Tens of worked hard, and we worked well together. thousands of men and women gave their lives At the time we were away the waterfront in that war—it was horrific. But it was even dispute was at its peak, and the delegation more moving to stand at some of the battle was able to work together to present sites such as Beaumont-Hamel and hear the Australia’s point of view. We were able to stories of what happened. At Beaumont- respect one another’s differences of opinion Hamel, the Newfoundland Regiment put and, as I say, we worked very well together 1,000 men over the top one night and less as a group. than 100 were able to make it to roll call the next morning. I also want to pay tribute on behalf of the delegation to the Australian Embassy in Paris When you hear of those sorts of figures and for their organisation, on our behalf, of the the sorts of deeds that happened in those brief time we were in France. But a big thank battles, and when you see how close together you must go from the delegation to our the front-line trenches of the opposing sides embassy in Brussels, led by Don Kenyon, the were, you realise just what an horrific occa- Ambassador. The delegation thanks Mr sion it must have been. You also become very Kenyon and his wife, Fleur, Jane Drake- aware that this was the last war fought with Brockman, Alex Brooking, Anne Owens and old technology. We had the very great honour Anthea Griffin. Anthea Griffin is the third of being able to see the new memorial park secretary at the embassy in Brussels, and she at Le Hamel where a monument is being was responsible for the itinerary. She made it built. The monument commemorates the first work. Her tireless work and her contribution battle where Australian soldiers were led by certainly need to be noted. an Australian general, General Sir John Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3617

Monash. It was called ‘the turning point’. It Law Officers Amendment Act 1997 was the first Allied offensive in World War Student and Youth Assistance Amendment Act I to be a victory. It was the turning point. 1998 Monash was able to utilise all the new tech- Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Act nology that was available. He was able to 1997 utilise the artillery in conjunction with the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering tanks, in conjunction with the infantry, in Council Repeal Act 1998 conjunction with the air force. That battle Interstate Road Transport Amendment Act 1998 lasted 93 minutes—in 93 minutes it was over and won. The delegation was able to see the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment site that is being prepared for that memorial Act 1998 and, on 4 July, the memorial will commemo- Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth rate the 80th anniversary of the battle. Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Act 1998 As I said, I also had the honour of visiting Lebucquiere Cemetery where my great-uncle STEVEDORING LEVY (COLLECTION) is buried. I was able to see that cemetery and BILL 1998 that grave at first-hand. I was probably the STEVEDORING LEVY (IMPOSITION) first member of the family to actually visit BILL 1998 that particular site. It was a very moving experience. First Reading We also visited the Villers-Bretonneux Bills received from the House of Represen- memorial for Anzac Day and laid a number tatives. of wreaths at the memorial and at the local Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to: French memorial as well. We went to visit That these bills may proceed without formalities, Bullecourt and the two memorials there plus may be taken together and be now read a first time. the diggers memorial. It was a great honour Bills read a first time. to be able to participate and lay wreaths on behalf of the Australian parliament at those Second Reading ceremonies. If you have to spend Anzac Day Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister away from Australia and if you cannot be at for Social Security) (5.18 p.m.)—I table Lone Pine or at Anzac Cove, there is no other revised explanatory memoranda relating to the more moving place to be than at the Somme. bills and move: On the Sunday, the following day, we were That these bills be now read a second time. able to go to the Menin Gate ceremony at 8 I seek leave to have the second reading o’clock that night where they play the Last speeches incorporated in Hansard. Post. Every night, every day, every year the Leave granted. Last Post is played. It was of great signifi- The speeches read as follows— cance. The whole committee feels greatly honoured and appreciative of being able to STEVEDORING LEVY (COLLECTION) BILL participate in that. I would like to thank again 1998 everybody who was involved in assisting us This bill, together with the Stevedoring Levy with this very worthwhile visit. (Imposition) Bill 1998, one element in the Government’s commitment to facilitate reform of the Australian stevedoring and shipping industry. ASSENT TO LAWS The bills raise a levy on stevedoring operations to Messages from His Excellency the Gover- fund payments that may be made by the Govern- nor-General were reported, informing the ment in connection with reform or restructuring of the stevedoring industry and ensure that the indus- Senate that he had assented to the following try is responsible for such funding and not the laws: taxpayer. Ballast Water Research and Development Fund- The potential benefits of waterfront reform are of ing Levy Collection Act 1997 vital significance to our national interest. The 3618 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 present arrangements, based on union monopoly, of work at that enterprise and increased workplace are costing Australia dearly. Our waterfront is flexibility. inefficient, unproductive and unreliable by world For the first time, there are now effective remedies standards. It prevents Australia achieving not only against unlawful industrial action. The reinstate- the immediate economic benefits flowing from ment of the primary and secondary boycott provi- maximising our international competitiveness, but sions to the Trade Practices Act 1974 provide also, more importantly, the long-term improvement affected parties with redress in the event of illegiti- in the perception of our overseas trading partners mate industrial campaigns. These remedies have of Australia as a reliable supplier. been instrumental ensuring that recent industrial When the Government came into office in 1996, it action on the waterfront has not escalated into the inherited a stevedoring sector where productivity wide-ranging sympathy action that has characterised and reliability were in decline, despite a decade of waterfront stoppages of the past. direct government involvement in waterfront reform On the waterfront, the Government has reached an and commitment of some $430 million to the agreement with our two major stevedoring employ- reform process. ers, Patrick and P&O Ports, under which the Successive independent reports to the Government stevedores have agreed to adopt seven key perform- on the progress of micro-economic reform, includ- ance benchmarks as the basis for continuing ing the Productivity Commission and Industry improvement. These include: Commission, have concluded that the stevedoring An end to overmanning and restrictive work sector remains an impediment to the competitive- practices. ness of our manufacturing and primary production sectors. Business consistently expresses concern Higher productivity. We have commitments from about the high charges, low productivity and the major stevedores to achieve a benchmark for unreliability of the waterfront. container terminal cranes of 25 containers being moved per hour, as a national average across the Control over the supply of operational labour is five major container ports. been concentrated in the hands of a single union, Greater reliability through less industrial disrup- the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). Conse- tion and the elimination of outdated work prac- quently, the union has the scope to exercise con- tices. The level of industrial action on the siderable influence over how the stevedores manage waterfront should be no worse and preferably their business and it has largely dictated the terms better than the national average. and conditions under which any new entrant stevedore may operate. Improved safety. Injury and fatality levels must come back to the all industries average or better. The monopoly power wielded by the MUA, has consistently prevented or undermined changes to Lower costs throughout the logistics chain to the outdated work practices. As a result productivity waterfront gateway. and reliability remain low. Relative to our interna- More effective use of the technology available to tional competitors, our performance is getting increase productivity and ship turnaround times. worse and not better. Improved training. Australia can no longer afford to have monopoly The achievement of these reforms requires steve- labour arrangements in strategic economic sectors, dores to implement significant structural changes like stevedoring and shipping, which adversely in their operations and to manage the resultant impact on their efficiency and reliability and rationalisation of their labour force. thereby reduce our nation’s international competi- tiveness. While the means of achieving these reforms is a matter for the industry participants to determine, In line with its election mandate and public com- the Government has a vital part to play in ensuring mitments, the Government has already taken the legal framework supports any legitimate decisive action to facilitate reform of the industry. initiatives to implement more productive labour With the passage of the Workplace Relations Act arrangements including those adopted by new 1996 has outlawed union preference. The act also entrants to the industry. restores the balance in the relationship between employers and employees and encourages greater The Government also intends to facilitate access to flexibility in the labour market. funding for redundancy related payments arising through reductions in excess labour arising from Awards are being simplified to ensure they form a industry restructuring. The promotion of this genuine safety net. Increased negotiation of em- restructuring is crucial if Australia is to have an ployment conditions, both at an individual level and efficient and reliable waterfront. This bill, together collectively, is ensuring conditions applying to a with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 particular workplace promote efficient performance is intended to ensure that this funding is available Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3619 and that industry, and not the taxpayer, will meet search for documents, as outlined in section 13 of the cost. the bill. I now turn to the specific provisions of the bill to The special appropriation in section 17 will allow explain how this will be achieved. the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business to authorise payments that are in connec- The levy arrangements proposed by this bill, in tion with, or incidental to, the reform or restructur- conjunction with the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) ing of the stevedoring industry, including meeting Bill 1998, are modelled on the existing stevedoring the cost of associated financing and administration levy legislation, the Stevedoring Industry Levy Act costs. The amount of money that may be appropri- 1977 and the Stevedoring Industry Levy Collection ated is capped at $250 million. Act 1977. The bill makes no provision for a "sunset" date by However, the new arrangements are considerably which time the levy must be terminated. It includes simplified and, unlike the 1977 arrangements, they a mechanism in section 8 for the determination of will not apply to bulk cargo. The performance of the final levy month after which liability to pay the seaboard bulk cargo terminals is generally accepted levy will cease. It is not the Government’s intention as already being internationally competitive. that the redundancy funding arrangements will be This bill provides the mechanism for collection of available indefinitely. It is anticipated that it will the levy imposed by Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) take six or seven years for the levy payments to Bill 1998, on the loading and unloading of contain- meet the full cost of the redundancy benefits. ers and vehicles in Australia. The flat rates of levy A review of the levy legislation and rate of levy that will apply upon the commencement of this will be conducted within three years after its legislation are considerably simpler than the commencement. administratively complex scheme applying under the 1977 legislation. Government assistance will be available to all stevedores who take the opportunity to undertake Under section 7 of the bill, the levy is to be paid much needed reform. This legislation underpins the by the person who is responsible for the loading or administrative arrangements necessary to encourage unloading by way of contract, arrangement or the stevedoring industry to actively tackle the understanding with the owner/charterer of the ship, fundamental restructuring required to achieve the which generally means the stevedoring company. Government’s reform agenda. Reform that will The maximum rate of levy is set by section 5 of allow the industry to move away from its history the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Bill 1998 at of inefficiency, inflexibility and uncooperative $10.00 per vehicle and $20.00 per container. relations between employees and management. However, the bill provides for a lower rate of levy to be prescribed by regulations. The Government intends to set the actual rate at $6.00 per vehicle STEVEDORING LEVY (IMPOSITION) BILL and $12.00 per container. 1998 Both the major stevedores have agreed that the levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing This bill should be read in conjunction with the structure of charges so there is no overall increase Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Bill 1998. It estab- in costs to shippers. The cost of these arrangements lishes a levy on stevedoring operations consistent will be borne by the stevedoring industry itself. It with the administrative arrangements that I have is anticipated that not only will our importers and outlined for that bill. exporters not have to pay more but also, as work- Under section 7 of the Stevedoring Levy (Collec- place reforms are implemented, stevedoring costs tion) Bill 1998 the levy is to be paid by the person will progressively diminish. who is responsible for the loading and unloading of Importantly, unlike the arrangements under the shipping containers and vehicles in Australia by 1977 acts, the proposed levy arrangements will not way of contract, agreement or understanding with impose any obligations on shipping lines or ship- the owner/charterer of the ship, usually a stevedor- ping agents. ing company. The method of collection also is simplified under The maximum rate of levy is set by section 5 of this bill. As provided by section 9, this will be by the bill at $10.00 per vehicle and $20.00 per way of returns to my Department at regular inter- container. As I indicated for the previous bill, a vals on which payment of the levy is to be based. lower rate of levy is to be prescribed by regula- The Secretary of the Department can appoint tions. It is intended the actual rates will be $6.00 inspectors, who are to be employees of the per vehicle and $12.00 per container. Commonwealth, or a State or a Territory, and they Both the major stevedores have indicated that the will have various powers to access premises and levy at this rate can be absorbed into their existing 3620 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 structure of charges so there is no overall increase Second Reading in costs to shippers. Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister It is also intended to prescribe by regulation a zero for Social Security) (5.19 p.m.)—I table a rate of levy for local cargo, so that containers and vehicles shipped from one Australian port and revised explanatory memorandum relating to unloaded at another Australian port will not be the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty levied. This measure will ensure that Australians Bill 1998 and I move: who rely on sea freight because it is cheaper than That these bills be now read a second time. road or rail freight, or is the only means of trans- porting goods, will not be disadvantaged by the I seek leave to have the second reading imposition of the levy. speeches incorporated in Hansard. I already have referred to my intention to conduct Leave granted. a review of the levy legislation and the rate of levy within three years after its commencement. The speeches read as follows— The levy mechanism is well understood in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth stevedoring industry for raising funds for industry Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) purposes with a statutory levy dating back to 1947. Bill 1998 By contrast, the levy arrangements under the current bills are simpler and are directed at support- Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth ing crucial restructuring of the stevedoring sector. Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ adjourned. AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT SOCIAL SECURITY AND VETERANS’ (RETIREMENT ASSISTANCE FOR AFFAIRS LEGISLATION FARMERS) BILL 1998 AMENDMENT (RETIREMENT The purpose of this Scheme is to meet welfare and ASSISTANCE FOR FARMERS) BILL adjustment objectives by providing a three year 1998 "window of opportunity" for low income, age pension age farmers and their partners to gift the CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT farm to the younger generation without affecting their access to the age pension, and to retire from BILL (No. 1) 1998 farming with dignity. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT Madam President, this measure is targeted at those BILL (No. 4) 1998 farm families who are in hardship because their businesses are capable of supporting only one COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST- family but are being required to provide a living for BAN TREATY BILL 1998 two or more families. It will remove a significant barrier to the intergenerational transfer of the First Reading family farm in such situations. Bills received from the House of Represen- Eligible farmers will be able to gift their farm enterprises, with a net value of up to $500,000, to tatives. family members of a younger generation who have Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister been actively involved with the farm. This will for Social Security)—I indicate to the Senate allow those farmers to retire and have immediate access to the age pension. The family farm will no that those bills which have just been an- longer be required to support two or more genera- nounced are being introduced together. After tions. debate on the motion for the second reading The bill provides for the Scheme’s commencement has been adjourned, I will be moving a from 15 September 1997, although people who motion to have the bills listed separately on transferred their farms in the preceding five years the Notice Paper. I move: might also be able to benefit from the Scheme. It That these bills may proceed without formalities, is intended that the Scheme will operate for three may be taken together and be now read a first time. years only, that is, until 14 September 2000. Question resolved in the affirmative. There are several elements that need to be met for a retiring farmer to qualify for the age pension Bills read a first time. under the Scheme. I will outline some of them. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3621

The Scheme will be open to farmers of age pension line (avgas) contains a component to recover the age who owned farming property as at 14 Septem- costs of aviation terminal and enroute navigational ber 1997, and have owned a farm or farms for at services provided to the general aviation sector by least 15 years or have been actively involved in Airservices Australia. In reviewing the costs of farming for 20 years, subject to the limitations on providing these services for 1997-98, Airservices property value and income. Australia proposed a reduction in the duty of 0.6 Madam President, the net value of the family farm cents per litre on avgas, which represents a five per can be up to $500,000, not including farm debts. cent decrease in real terms. However, where a farmer wishing to retire current- This reduction in costs to aircraft operators follows ly owns a farm in partnership with an eligible the implementation of an election commitment by descendant, and wishes to transfer his or her share this government. This commitment was to freeze of the farm to that person, only the retiring the airways component of avgas duty in 1996-97, farmer’s share of the equity in the farm will be except for movements in the consumer price index, included when valuing the farm. while working towards the implementation of a The farmer’s total income over the 3 financial years fairer system of funding for the general aviation prior to the transfer can be up to the applicable age sector’s contribution to Airservices Australia. pension rate, depending on marital status. Any The component of duty on avgas payable to the losses from the farm can be used to off-set other civil aviation safety authority for the costs of income including non-farm income. Social Security aviation safety regulation remains unchanged. and Veterans’ Affairs income support payments as Madam President, the amendments contained in well as Austudy payments are not treated as income schedule three of this bill came into effect on the for these purposes. thirty-first of January 1998. The reduction in duty If a farmer decides to retain a life interest in their rates on avgas in schedule two of this bill would home on the farm or excise their home from the have been superseded by the commencement of the remainder of the farm, the value of the home and Customs Tariff (Fuel Rates Amendments) Act 1997 of any surrounding land of up to two hectares that on that date. By customs tariff notice published in is used for domestic purposes will also be deducted a Commonwealth gazette on the eighteenth of from the value of the farm being gifted. The farmer February 1998, the reduced customs rate of duty can continue to live on the farm. on avgas was reinstated. The member of the younger generation to whom The other amendment contained in this schedule is the farm is being gifted is required to have been of an administrative nature and results again from actively involved in the family farm for the preced- amendments contained in the Customs Tariff (Fuel ing three years. However, the bill also allows a Rates Amendments) Act 1997. Section nineteen to discretion to cover situations where an eligible the Customs Tariff Act 1995 contains a table of descendant has been undertaking studies relevant paired customs subheadings and excise items. This to farm management or has been forced to seek section provides the duty nexus between custom- employment off the farm due to exceptional able and excisable revenue goods by allowing circumstances such as drought. customs rates of duty to be adjusted in line with movements in the excise rate of duty. Madam President, I commend the bill to the Senate. The amendment amalgamates the table existing prior to the thirty-first of January 1998 with the new aspects introduced by the customs fuel rates Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth legislation. Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Schedule four is operative from the first of March Bill 1998 1998 and creates a new item sixty-four in Schedule Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth four to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) At its meeting on the twenty-seventh of August Bill 1998 1997, the ministerial committee on the Sydney CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2000 Olympic Games agreed to introduce certain 1) 1998 import concessions for the 2000 Olympic and paralympic games and associated test events. As a The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998, result, amendments to the temporary imports which is now before the chamber, contains a provisions have been finalised and a new passenger number of amendments to the Customs Tariff Act concession by-law for unaccompanied baggage for 1995. I will briefly outline the amendments of Olympic family members has been implemented by substance. the Australian Customs Service. Schedule two of this bill commenced on the third This amendment creates a new item in schedule of July 1997. The customs duty on aviation gaso- four to allow non-personal and non-commercial 3622 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 goods to be imported into Australia duty free by years. The benefit threshold will commence at Olympic Games family members. $5,000 for the 1996-97 FBT year. The reality of the Olympics and associated events Having established a base year, employers will not is that members of the Olympic family will bring be required to keep FBT records and will have their with them a variety of goods which are to be used FBT liability in future years determined from the in a non-commercial manner. These will include base year taxable benefits. This measure will apply give-aways, hospitality samples and other to benefits provided from the date of Royal Assent consumables that will be used for team promotion and to FBT liabilities from the 1998-99 year. and for cultural and hospitality activities. The FBT exemption for benefits arising from an It is intended that the concession will not apply to employer’ s participation in an approved student tobacco and alcoholic products or extend to any exchange program will apply from the FBT year importations of a commercial nature. commencing 1 April 1996. This exemption demon- Similar concessions were offered at the Nagano strates the Government’s commitment to reducing winter Olympics and by host countries at previous compliance costs. summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic Depreciation of plant previously owned by games. exempt entities The amendments contained in the other schedules The Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 is being of this bill are of an administrative or technical amended to set a common base for the depreciation nature and will have no financial impact on the deductions for plant that can be claimed by exempt importing public. entities which first become taxable on or after 4 August 1997 in relation to plant they already own, I commend the bill. and by taxable entities which purchase plant from an exempt entity in connection with the acquisition of a business on or after 4 August 1997. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth The depreciation deductions available to such Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) entities will be limited to a choice between the Bill 1998 notional written down value of the plant at the time Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth it enters the tax net and its undeducted pre-existing Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) audited book value at that time. Bill 1998 Arrangements treated as a sale and loan and TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT BILL (No. limited recourse debt 4) 1998 The Bill will implement a measure announced in the 1997-98 Budget to prevent taxpayers obtaining The Bill gives effect to some of the measures an- deductions for capital expenditures in excess of nounced in the 1997-98 Budget and in other their actual outlays. The measure will apply where Government statements. The Bill also contains the expenditure has been financed by hire purchase other amendments to the Income Tax Assessment or limited recourse finance and the debtor does not Act and the rewritten income tax law. fully pay out the capital amounts owing. Fringe benefits tax In those circumstances, an amount will be included The Bill will implement changes to the FBT law in the debtor’s assessable income to compensate for relating to record keeping exemption arrangements any excessive deductions that were allowed to the and provide an exemption from fringe benefits tax taxpayer. The adjustment to taxable income will for benefits arising from an employer’s participa- reflect amounts that remain unpaid when the hire tion in certain student exchange programs. purchase or limited recourse debt arrangement is terminated. The record keeping exemption completes the FBT measures proposed by the Government in response This amendment applies to debts that are terminat- to the recommendations made by the Small Busi- ed after 27 February 1998. ness Deregulation Task Force. Legislation has An associated amendment will treat taxpayers who already been introduced to deal with taxi travel, car finance assets by hire purchase as the owners of parking and the arranger provisions. All these those assets for purposes of applying the various measures will reduce compliance costs for most capital allowance deductions. Hire purchase and employers and, in particular, for small businesses. instalment sales transactions will be treated as the The record keeping measure introduced in this Bill equivalent of sale, loan and debt transactions in is specifically targeted at those employers whose assessing the taxation liability of the financier and fringe benefits in a base year do not exceed an the hire purchaser respectively. indexed threshold amount and who do not signifi- This amendment applies to arrangements entered cantly alter the fringe benefits provided in later into after 27 February 1998. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3623

Franking credit and dividend streaming Schedule 9 includes in the 1997 Act, the rewritten The Bill will implement one of the measures an- education and training payments provisions of the nounced by the Government in the 1997-98 Budget 1936 Act as amended by Taxation Laws Amend- to prevent franking credit trading and dividend ment Act (No. 1) 1997 and proposed amendments streaming, namely, the introduction of a rule to contained in the Social Security (Youth Allowance limit the source of franking credits available for Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998. It trading. also closes off the 1936 Act provisions. Subject to transitional measures explained in the Full details of the measures in the Bill are con- Bill, these amendments apply from 7.30 pm AEST, tained in the explanatory memorandum circulated 13 May 1997. to honourable senators. Sales Tax (Exemption and Classification) Act I commend the Bill to the Senate. 1992 The Bill amends the sales tax law to correct a defi- ciency in the sales tax law to the exemption for Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth goods incorporated into property owned by, or Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) leased to, always exempt persons or the govern- Bill 1998 ment of a foreign country. COMPREHENSIVE NUCLEAR TEST-BAN Access to the exemption will now be available only TREATY BILL 1998 where the property is occupied principally by an always exempt person or the government of a The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Bill foreign country or where the property is used 1998 will give effect to Australia’s obligations as principally for the provision of services to an a party to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban always exempt person or government of a foreign Treaty (CTBT), and will provide a legislative basis country. for its national implementation. Commercial debt forgiveness I would like to say how pleased I was to see such This Bill contains consequential amendments strong bipartisan support for the CTBT Bill in the arising from changes to the capital loss rules in House of Representatives. It is a reflection of the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 2) of 1997. strength of feeling held by both the Australian The technical amendments will not affect the parliament and the Australian community that we practical effect of the debt forgiveness provisions. should take a determined stand in our foreign These amendments apply to debts forgiven after the policy in support of nuclear non-proliferation. I date of introduction of this Bill. hope that we will see the same level of support for New South Wales Police Integrity Commission the CTBT Bill here in the Senate. Australia is strongly committed to the global nuclear non- The Bill amends the Taxation Administration Act proliferation regime as a key element of our 1953 to enable the Commissioner to disclose national security and we should continue to main- information acquired under a taxation law to the tain the very significant reputation that we have New South Wales Police Integrity Commission. built up over the past 30-odd years as a construc- Deductions for gifts tive player in the establishment of that regime. On 10 October 1996 the Treasurer announced, in The CTBT bans all nuclear weapons test explosions Press Release No. 102, the introduction of a tax and all other nuclear explosions for all time. It deduction nor gifts of $2 or more to the Menzies marks a watershed in international efforts to Research Centre Public Fund. As announced at the address the global threat posed by the proliferation time, this is consistent with the arrangements as of nuclear weapons, and is an indispensable apply to the Evatt Foundation, which has had tax component of the international nuclear arms control deductibility status since 1981. regime. Over the past 30 years, this regime has The Bill will give effect to the Treasurer’s an- succeeded beyond all expectations in constraining nouncement and amend the Income Tax Assess- the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Almost ment Act 1997 to allow income tax deductions for every country in the world is committed never to gifts of $2 or more to the public fund. Income tax acquire nuclear weapons, and never again to engage deductions will be available for donations made to in the type of spiralling nuclear arms race which the fund from 2 April 1998 occurred during the years of the Cold War. 186 countries, including the five nuclear weapon Technical amendments states—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom Schedules 6, 7 and 8 contain a range of technical and the United States—have signed the Nuclear amendments to the rewritten income tax law to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). 149 states have correct minor errors in translating the fine detail of already signed the CTBT. Fourteen states, including the 1936 Act. two nuclear weapon states—France and the United 3624 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Kingdom—have ratified, while many others are Treaty banning landmines. The next step is to get preparing to do so. negotiations under way in the Conference on The recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan Disarmament as soon as possible as a way of highlight the importance of the CTBT. The Treaty complementing the Ottawa Treaty and tightening provides the firmest international and political basis the clamps on the global supply of landmines. I on which to condemn India’s and Pakistan’s was pleased to see the reappointment of Australia’s actions. The Government’s response to Indian and Ambassador for Disarmament, John Campbell, to Pakistani testing has been unequivocally strong. the position of Special Coordinator for anti-person- India and Pakistan have been similarly castigated nel landmines in the Conference on Disarmament, by many countries individually and in international and we are working hard in Geneva to develop an fora, including at a Special Session of the Confer- ad hoc committee mandate for negotiations to ban ence on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva and the exports, imports and transfers of APL. United Nations Security Council. The Government On 3 February 1998, in his second address to the will be unremitting in our efforts to bring India and Conference on Disarmament since becoming Pakistan into the global non-proliferation regime. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer urged the We call again on both India and Pakistan to sign CD to begin immediate negotiations, not only on and ratify the CTBT without condition, to accede a ban on landmines transfers, but also on a Fissile to the NPT and to support the commencement and Material Cut-Off Treaty. Mr Downer has instructed early conclusion of a Fissile Material Cut-Off that Australia be active in Geneva and elsewhere Treaty. in promoting this so-called "Cut-off" Treaty as a The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, priority arms control objective for 1998 and signed the CTBT on behalf of Australia when it beyond. was opened for signature in New York on 24 In another area of the arms control agenda, Mr September 1996. Early ratification by Australia is Downer recently announced a new initiative to critical. We are one of the forty-four states whose strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention ratification is required in order for the Treaty to (BWC). The Government’s initiative is aimed at enter into force. fast-tracking the negotiations on a verification Australia is universally recognised as a key player system for the BWC, and highlights our serious in the adoption of the CTBT and we can be commitment to preventing the spread of weapons justifiably proud of the part we played in achieving of mass destruction. this outcome. We were instrumental in accelerating By signing the CTBT, Australia has aligned itself the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament with the basic obligation not to carry out any (CD) in Geneva. Following the failure to achieve nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear final consensus in the CD on a draft Treaty text explosion. Part 2 of this bill makes it an offence to which was all but agreed, the Government initiated engage in activities prohibited under the Treaty and action to take the unprecedented and courageous provides appropriately severe penalties of up to life step of submitting the Treaty to the United Nations imprisonment for offences committed under clause General Assembly for adoption in September 1996. 6 relating to the Treaty prohibitions. Following intensive work by members of the Government and Australia’s diplomatic missions, The CTBT will establish an intrusive verification the Australian-sponsored resolution attracted the co- regime. The International Monitoring System sponsorship of 127 countries, and was adopted with (IMS), which is the principal arm of this regime, the support of an overwhelming majority of the will be a worldwide network of over 300 monitor- international community from countries in all ing stations and laboratories. Australia will host 21 regions of the world. This was a truly great monitoring stations and laboratories. Part 4 of the achievement by the Australian Government. bill provides for the establishment and the operation On presenting this bill, I would like to remind the of monitoring facilities on Australian territory, Senate of Australia’s long-standing and well- including authorisation to gain access to these deserved reputation as a leading international player facilities. on arms control issues. That reputation has been Part 3 of the bill covers the arrangements which enhanced by this Government’s imaginative and would apply should an on-site inspection be called successful efforts in taking the arms control agenda on Australian territory. Part 5 of the bill provides forward. for the establishment of a National Authority to This Government’s commitment to the cause of manage Treaty implementation in Australia. disarmament is evident in our substantial contribu- I commend the bill to the Senate and present the tion to the international movement in favour of the explanatory memorandum to this bill. total elimination of anti-personnel landmines (APL) as a weapon of war. In December 1997, Australia Debate (on motion by Senator Denman) joined over 120 countries in signing the Ottawa adjourned. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3625

Ordered that the bills listed on the Notice Tax Assessment Act was introduced in 1981 to Paper as separate orders of the day. encourage a broader base of private investment for Australian films. FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT Whilst 10BA has been important in attracting COMPANY BILL 1998 private investment into the industry, there are flaws with the system. A number of films were TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT never released while others appear to have inflated (FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT budgets. COMPANY) BILL 1998 As part of his wide ranging review of Common- First Reading wealth Assistance to the Film Industry, Mr David Gonski recommended that the current 10BA and Bills received from the House of Represen- 10B taxation concessions be replaced by the tatives. introduction of a Film Licensed Investment Com- Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister pany tax concession. for Social Security)—I indicate to the Senate The Government consulted widely on the detail of that those bills which have just been an- Gonski’s proposal. We listened to industry concerns nounced are being introduced together. After about replacing 10BA and 10B with a completely debate on the motion for the second reading new and untested mechanism. As a result of these has been adjourned, I will be moving a concerns we decided not to replace 10BA until the motion to have the bills listed separately on FLIC scheme had been properly trialed. The Government will retain 10B. The FLIC scheme will the Notice Paper. I move: operate alongside the current 10BA concession for That these bills may proceed without formalities, 2 years from the 1998-1999 financial year. may be taken together and be now read a first time. The adaptation of Gonski’s FLIC model signals an Question resolved in the affirmative. innovative and exciting new approach to govern- Bills read a first time. ment support to the film industry in Australia. The FLIC scheme provides an opportunity for the Second Reading Australian film industry and the investment sector to work together in attracting more effective and Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister wide ranging private investment into the develop- for Social Security) (5.20 p.m.)—I move: ment and production of qualifying Australian films. That these bills be now read a second time. It is envisaged that the FLIC scheme will be able to tap into a part of the investment market which I seek leave to have the second reading has shown interest in the past in investing in the speeches incorporated in Hansard. film industry. As the film industry matures and Leave granted. develops, the Government believes that sophisticat- ed investors will be attracted to investing in a slate The speeches read as follows— of film and television productions across which Social Security Legislation Amendment their risk can be spread. (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related This bill enables the introduction of the Film Measures) Bill 1998 Licensed Investment Company pilot scheme. Under FILM LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY the scheme up to $40 million worth of concessional capital over the two year period will be allowed to BILL 1998 be raised for investment into qualifying Australian The Government recognises the importance of an film and television product. A Film Licensed active, innovative and vibrant Australian film Investment Company will be a commercially driven industry—both on cultural and economic grounds. company that will invest in a slate of eligible film The portrayal of uniquely Australian perspectives and television product. Companies will be selected and stories are important to us as a nation. Austral- through a competitive application process. Share- ians are proud of the high standard and successes holders will be eligible for an upfront tax deduction of our film industry, and there is increasing interest of 100% on their investment into the company. in contributing to that success through avenues such While the licence period for raising concessional as investment. capital will apply for just two years, the FLIC will We also recognise that the production of film is a have up to three years to invest the capital and up high risk business, and that it is necessary to to four years to complete production. The FLIC provide incentives for the private sector to invest will be able to start raising non-concessional capital in the film industry. Division 10BA of the Income at the end of the two year licence period. 3626 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

This represents a major commitment of Common- Full details of the measures in the bill are con- wealth funding to the film industry. The cost to tained in the explanatory memorandum circulated Government is estimated to be up to $20 million to honourable senators. over the two year pilot period. The FLIC scheme I commend the bill to the Senate. will deliver support to the industry that is transpar- ent and accountable, and afford investors an Ordered that the resumption of the debate alternative avenue for investment in film. This be made an order for the first day of the 1998 introduces a level of contestability between current spring sittings, in accordance with standing funding sources through the provision of an alterna- order 111. tive source of funds from that currently available from the Film Finance Corporation and that which APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY can be raised under Division 10BA. DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1998-99 The FLIC scheme will support and promote the ongoing development of the Australian film indus- APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99 try by facilitating the establishment of a new Australian owned and controlled company that will APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1998-99 raise capital primarily from Australian investors for investment in qualifying Australian film. First Reading Bills received from the House of Represen- The FLIC does not replace any existing funding for tatives. the industry, rather it will complement those programs. The Government recognises the vulnera- Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to: bility of the industry, especially for some of the That these bills may proceed without most culturally sensitive genres, and need for formalities, may be taken together and be now certainty for investors and producers alike. Forward read a first time. funding for the Australian Film Commission and Bills read a first time. the Australian Film Finance Corporation was confirmed in the 1997-98 Budget, and the continu- Second Reading ation of Film agencies was confirmed in the Government’s response to the Gonski report in Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister November 1997. for Social Security) (5.21 p.m.)—I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth speeches incorporated in Hansard. Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 Leave granted. TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FILM The speeches read as follows— LICENSED INVESTMENT COMPANY) BILL APPROPRIATION (PARLIAMENTARY 1998 DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1998-99 The Taxation Laws Amendment (Film Licensed The purpose of this bill is to appropriate the Investment Company) bill 1998 is a companion to Consolidated Revenue Fund for the running costs the Film Licenced Investment Company Bill 1998. and capital expenditures of the parliamentary The bill authorises a deduction for money paid departments for the year ending 30 June 1999. during the 1998-99 and 1999-2000 income years to The total amount sought is $138.1 million. Details subscribe for shares in a Film Licensed Investment of the proposed expenditures are set out in the Company (FLIC). The deduction is not allowable Schedule to the Bill. until the shares have been fully paid and issued to I commend the bill to the Senate. the shareholder. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1998-99 The legislative package comprising the two bills is intended as a pilot measure, to provide assistance This bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated to the Australian film production industry in a way Revenue Fund in 1998-99 totalling $30,864 million. that complements the existing tax concession in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) provides for proposed Division 10BA of the Income Tax Assessment Act expenditure on the ordinary annual services of 1936. FLIC shareholders will be able to effectively Government. The expenditure program of the spread their investment across a range of films, Government, to which the provisions in this bill whereas Division 10BA applies to investments in relate, was outlined in the Treasurer’s Budget individual films. Speech, on 12 May. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3627

Details of the proposed expenditure are set out in First Reading the Schedule to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. Bills received from the House of Represen- I commend the bill to the Senate. tatives. APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1998-99 Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister It is with great pleasure that I now introduce for Social Security)—I indicate to the Senate Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1998-99, which, together that those bills which have just been an- with Appropriation Bill (No.1), is one of the nounced are being introduced together. After principal pieces of legislation underpinning the debate on the motion for the second reading third budget of the Howard Liberal-National Party Government. This bill seeks appropriations of the has been adjourned, I will be moving a Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1998-99 totalling motion to have the bills listed separately on $4,172 million. the Notice Paper. I move: Appropriation Bill (No.2) provides for proposed That these bills may proceed without formalities, expenditure on: may be taken together and be now read a first time. . the construction of public works and building; Question resolved in the affirmative. the acquisition of sites and buildings; Bills read a first time. . certain advances and loans; . items of plant and equipment which are clearly Second Reading definable as capital in nature; Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister . expenditure on new policy initiatives for which legislation has not been previously approved. for Social Security) (5.23 p.m.)—I table a Provision is also made for grants to the States revised explanatory memorandum relating to under section 96 of the Constitution and for the Wheat Marketing Legislation Amendment payments to the Northern Territory and the Austral- Bill 1998 and move: ian Capital Territory. Details of the proposed That these bills be now read a second time. expenditure are set out in schedule 2 to the bill, the main features of which were outlined in the budget I seek leave to have the second reading speech delivered by my colleague the Treasurer speeches incorporated in Hansard. (Mr Costello). Leave granted. Reflecting recent experience, the provision for funding from the Advance to the Minister for The speeches read as follows— Finance and Administration contained in Appropri- WHEAT MARKETING LEGISLATION ation Bill (No.2) has been increased by $40 million to $215 million with a commensurate reduction in AMENDMENT BILL 1998 the provision contained in Appropriation Bill Madam President, this bill concerns the restructur- (No.1). There is no overall increase in the provi- ing of marketing arrangements for the export sions for the Advance to the Minister for Finance marketing of Australian wheat based on the objec- and Administration being sought from Parliament. tives of grower ownership and control, self reliance I commend the bill to the Senate. and a fully commercial approach to marketing. Industry and Government have both agreed that a Ordered that the resumption of the debate structure based on these objectives would best meet be made an order of the day for the first day the needs of industry into the next century. of the 1998 spring sittings, in accordance with In April 1997, the Government agreed to industry’s standing order 111. recommendation for the establishment of a grower WHEAT MARKETING LEGISLATION owned and controlled company to assume responsi- bility for wheat marketing from 1 July 1999, when AMENDMENT BILL 1998 the Government guarantee of the Australian Wheat NATIONAL FIREARMS PROGRAM Board borrowings ends. IMPLEMENTATION BILL 1998 The new grower company will operate under Corporations Law in accordance with its memoran- TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT dum and articles of association. It will have two (FARM MANAGEMENT DEPOSITS) classes of shares—A class shares will be issued BILL 1998 only to growers and will give control of the company; B class shares, issued on the basis of PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE Wheat Industry Fund equity, will form the capital AMENDMENT BILL 1998 base of the company. 3628 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Madam President, as a transitional step towards gains tax indexation until disposal of the asset. On these arrangements, Government agreed that the disposal of the asset, the cost base is to be reduced Australian Wheat Board establish a wholly owned by levy contributions made after 13 May 1997. company to carry out all the commercial activities In addition, the Government has decided that the of the Board. The new company AWB Ltd, with capital gains tax small business roll-over provi- separate subsidiaries to undertake pooling and sions, as announced in the 1996-97 Budget, will be domestic trading, became operational on 1 June available to growers where a wheat industry fund 1998. unit is disposed of and the proceeds applied to the In March 1998, industry put to Government, and purchase of another small business ‘active asset’. Government endorsed, the final details for the new However, this roll-over relief will cease to be arrangements to commence on 1 July 1999. available after the Wheat Industry Fund units are Madam President, the bill before the House com- converted to shares. pletes the legislation necessary for the restructure Provision of the Wheat Export Monopoly of the Australian Wheat Board. It addresses the Madam President, the bill also provides for the following key areas: retention of the wheat export monopoly from 1 July . the conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund to 1999. shares and thereby providing the capital base of Specifically, the bill provides for an independent the new company structure; statutory authority, to be known as the ‘Wheat . provision for managing the continuation of the Export Authority’, to manage the export monopoly wheat export monopoly; and on wheat. . other transitional matters to finalise the new To give growers the certainty that they have been arrangements. asking for, the bill also provides that the new Conversion of the Wheat Industry Fund to grower company pool subsidiary (called ‘company shares B’) has an automatic right to export wheat for five years. Requests to export wheat from other than the Almost a decade ago, the wheat industry com- grower company pool subsidiary (as currently menced building up funds for a capital base for a happens) will be managed by the Wheat Export future grower owned Australian Wheat Board via Authority in consultation with the grower company a levy on wheat sales. These funds were paid into pool subsidiary. the Wheat Industry Fund. The Wheat Export Authority will oversight the pool Under the bill, from 1 July 1999 the Wheat Indus- subsidiary’s use of the export monopoly to ensure try Fund will be returned to growers in the form of it is being used in accordance with the intentions B class shares. B-class shares will be issued to of Parliament. It will also examine and report on Fund equity holders on the basis of one share for the benefit to growers from the pool subsidiary’s every Fund unit and will provide the new performance in relation to the export of wheat. company’s capital base. Madam President, the Government is committed to Madam President, the issue of shares to growers to the principles of National Competition Policy. replace Wheat Industry Fund equity is a significant Continuation of these arrangements for the export financial transaction. Growers have been rightly monopoly for the full five year period will be concerned as to the taxation implications. The subject to the outcome of a comprehensive and taxation treatment to apply to the conversion of the independent National Competition Policy review in Wheat Industry Fund to shares is covered by tax 1999-2000. legislation. So there can be no doubt, I would like to reiterate the taxation arrangements agreed to by Assuming the National Competition Policy review Government. in 1999/2000 recommends continuation of the export monopoly, it is envisaged that before the As announced in November 1997, shares in the end of the prescribed five year period in 2004 an new grower company are to be treated as capital export monopoly performance review would be for taxation purposes. Automatic roll-over relief held. Specifically, the review would assess the from capital gains tax on conversion of the Wheat performance of the pool subsidiary in its use of its Industry Fund units to shares, means that capital wheat export rights and advise Government on the gains tax on the shares will only apply when they future operation of the export monopoly, including are disposed of. whether that company should continue to have For capital gains tax purposes, the cost base of the special export rights. Such a review would probably share is to include levy contributions made by be linked with a National Competition Policy growers prior to 13 May 1997, indexed for infla- review process. It would be up to the Government tion. However, levy contributions made after 13 to decide who would receive any special export May 1997 will remain immediately income tax rights beyond 2004 and for Parliament to amend deductible, and will receive the benefit of capital the legislation as necessary. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3629

Other Transitional Matters the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Madam President, the bill also provides for a Islands and Christmas Island. number of other transitional matters to finalise the The bill provides for me to authorise payments for restructure of the Australian Wheat Board includ- the purpose of providing compensation to firearms ing: owners and dealers and for purposes directly . deletion of the redundant provisions of the Wheat connected to the compensation scheme and for Marketing Act 1989; implementation of licensing and registration schemes in the territories. . the completion of the transfer of assets, liabilities and staff from the Australian Wheat Board to its The bill appropriates moneys from the consolidated wholly owned holding company prior to 1_July revenue fund for these purposes. 1999; and The National Firearms Program has received bipartisan support. I ask that that support continue. . continuation of Government underwriting for pool borrowings outstanding as at 30 June 1999, I commend the bill to the Senate and I present the until these borrowings are repaid. explanatory memorandum to the bill. Conclusion TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT (FARM This bill finalises the legislation for the restructure MANAGEMENT DEPOSITS) BILL 1998 of wheat marketing. Madam President, honourable senators, this bill Administrative and legal work, such as the transfer establishes the Farm Management Deposits of staff and assets to the new companies, will be Scheme. completed over the next twelve months. The bill introduces an important element of the The grower company of 1 July 1999 will be a government’s integrated rural policy strategy to robust, commercial company with the flexibility to build a competitive, sustainable and profitable rural meet the marketing challenges of the next century. sector. The government’s new Agriculture— Industry is to be congratulated on its success in Advancing Australia initiative is the first attempt developing this model and we now look forward to in many years to comprehensively address the industry taking control of its future as it enters this range of issues facing rural Australia. This Scheme exciting new era of opportunity. delivers on a major commitment given by the Coalition at the last election. I commend the bill to Honourable Senators. Extensive consultation with State and Territory NATIONAL FIREARMS PROGRAM governments, farmer groups, financial institutions IMPLEMENTATION BILL 1998 and the public has contributed significantly in This bill complements the National Firearms shaping the measures introduced today. The Program Implementation Acts of 1996 and 1997 initiatives in this bill have received widespread supporting a firearms buyback scheme in the endorsement from key farming bodies such as the territories of Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) National Farmers’ Federation and from the financial Islands and Christmas Island. sector, including the Australian Bankers’ Associa- tion. Following the tragic events at Port Arthur in April The Farm Management Deposit (FMD) scheme 1996 the Australasian Police Ministers’ Council enhances and expands the previous Income Equali- agreed to nationwide gun control measures. A sation Deposit (IED) and Farm Management Bond significant element of these measures was the (FMB) schemes operated by the Department of amnesty and compensation scheme for owners of Primary Industries and Energy. This bill has been semi-automatic firearms. It was agreed that people carefully designed to meet the Coalition’s long who surrendered these firearms during the amnesty standing desire to encourage increased financial self period, would be compensated and the Common- reliance among farmers, while also taking account wealth would pay the cost of the compensation of the high variability of farm income streams, and scheme. the vulnerability of farming businesses to natural The Commonwealth also agreed to pay compensa- events. tion for the surrender of other prohibited firearms Madam President, the bill takes the operation of the of a more dangerous type where the surrender is FMD scheme out of Government hands and consistent with the spirit of the national firearms commercialises it. The FMD scheme will be a tax- program. linked financial risk management tool that allows The compensation-for-surrender scheme in the farmer taxpayers to transfer income between high States and mainland territories was funded by a income and low income years. The Government’s one-off increase in the Medicare levy for the aim is to improve primary producers’ capacity to income year 1996-97. The funds raised by that one- manage financial fluctuations caused by environ- off levy will also meet the cost of the scheme in mental and market conditions. It helps them do this 3630 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 by allowing them to set aside considerable cash and not commercially attractive or tax effective. reserves earned during high income years for use Some 222 million dollars are currently invested by in low income year, in a tax effective way. Finan- more than 6600 people in IEDs and 110 million cial institutions are likely to offer a range of dollars by more than 3300 people in FMBs. Pri- products, providing farmers with more choice as mary producers with existing IED or FMB accounts well as increased flexibility in their investment will be able to transfer them to FMDs with no loss decisions. of tax benefits. I will be asking my Department and the Australian The revised conditions in the new FMD Scheme, Taxation Office to ensure reporting arrangements including its commercial nature, larger investment are in place so that the scheme retains its integrity component and flexibility of withdrawals, should and can achieve its objectives. The restriction of secure an increased uptake of the new scheme. This the scheme to prudentially controlled deposit taking is appropriate as the aim of the package is to institutions or those with government guarantees on encourage more farmers to use such deposits to the deposits will increase the security of deposits. manage risk. The key features of the enhanced FMD scheme will The Government will be closely monitoring the be: operation of the scheme; in particular the interest . A limit on holdings in the scheme of $300,000 rates offered by financial institutions and the fees per taxpayer; and charges they levy on FMD accounts. . The investment component will be set at 100 per The Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest Adjust- cent on the entire balance—this means interest ment) Act 1984 applied only to interest payments will be able to be earned on the whole deposit made under the IED scheme during the period 29 which has been made out of pre-tax income; June 1984 to 22 November 1984 inclusive. All relevant periods for amendment or appeal processes - currently the investment component is only 61 relating to that time period have expired. The bill per cent for IEDs; repeals the Income Equalisation Deposits (Interest . Eligibility will be restricted to primary producers Adjustment) Act 1984 as it has become redundant. with a taxable non-primary production income of Madam President, today is a proud day for me as not more than $50,000; Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. The . The scheme will be commercialised and deliv- Farm Management Deposit Scheme and the new ered through financial institutions, making it far financial risk management capability it offers will easier for farmers to make deposits and with- be of great benefit to the farm sector. drawals; I have great pleasure in commending the bill to . Investors will be able to elect only one institu- honourable senators. tion with which to hold deposits, however this PASSENGER MOVEMENT CHARGE institution may be changed at any time; AMENDMENT BILL 1998 . Financial institutions will pay an interest rate determined in the market; The purpose of this bill is to amend the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 to increase the rate of . Deposits will be fully tax deductible in the year the Passenger Movement Charge (the charge) by of deposit and taxable in the year of withdrawal; $3, to $30, with effect from 1 January 1999. The There will be a minimum deposit period of 12 increase was announced by the Treasurer in the months; 1998-99 Budget and will help meet the additional costs associated with the transit of people and Interest will be taxable in the income year it is goods for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. earned; The charge, which is imposed on the departure of . On withdrawal 20 per cent of the amount with- a person from Australia, is collected by airlines and drawn will be deducted for tax purposes but this shipping companies at the time of ticket sales and deduction may be exempted if the depositor then remitted to the Commonwealth in accordance demonstrates to the Department of Primary with arrangements entered into under section 10 of Industries and Energy that he or she is in serious the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act financial difficulties; 1978. These arrangements have been extremely . As with current arrangements, FMDs will not be successful and beneficial to all stakeholders, not the available to companies, trusts or partnerships, least being the passengers whose departure from although individual beneficiaries of trusts and Australia is unimpeded through a seamless process individual members of partnerships will be able which no longer requires the purchase of charge to use them. stamps. IEDs and FMBs have, to date, had a low rate of Current arrangements with airlines are due to expire uptake, mainly because they have been inflexible on 30 June 1998 and the Government is finalising Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3631 negotiations with interested parties for new arrange- Already, Queensland and the ACT have given in- ments to apply from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 2001. principle commitment to enter into Australian The increase in the charge will have no impact on Health Care Agreements. the arrangements and collection and remission Although the other States have yet to accept the procedures will remain the same. Government’s very generous offer, we will not be It is, however, desirable that the amendment to give denying the people of those States access to the effect to the increase in the charge from 1 January services they require. The Commonwealth will 1999 be in place at the earliest opportunity so as to continue to provide those States with funding for provide certainty for airlines and shipping com- their hospitals. panies in relation to ticket sales for departures after To receive funding under this bill the States will be the proposed date for the increase. required to adhere to principles ensuring universal Ordered that the resumption of the date be access to health and emergency services free of made an order of the day for the first day of charge, on the basis of clinical need and within clinically appropriate periods, regardless of the the 1998 spring sittings, in accordance with patient’s location. standing order 111. These principles are based on those applying under Ordered that the bills be listed on the the existing Medicare Agreements. Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. This bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to Medicare, and provides for fair and reasonable HEALTH CARE (APPROPRIATION) funding to the States. BILL 1998 Ordered that the resumption of the debate First Reading be made an order of the day for the first day of the spring sittings 1998, in accordance with Bill received from the House of Representa- standing order 111. tives. Motion (by Senator Newman) agreed to: BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Message received from the House of Repre- sentatives agreeing to the amendments made Bill read a first time. by the Senate to the following bills: Second Reading Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Senator NEWMAN (Tasmania—Minister Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) for Social Security) (5.24 p.m.)—I move: Bill 1998 That this bill be now read a second time. Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1998 I seek leave to have the second reading GENERAL INSURANCE speech incorporated in Hansard. SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION Leave granted. BILL 1998 The speech read as follows— RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACCOUNT This bill delivers on the Government’s commitment PROVIDERS SUPERVISORY LEVY to pay in full the offer made to the States in IMPOSITION BILL 1998 relation to health funding at the Premiers’ Confer- ence in March. LIFE INSURANCE SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998 This legislation allows the Commonwealth to continue funding to all states and territories based AUTHORISED DEPOSIT-TAKING on the fair and reasonable Premiers’ Conference offer. INSTITUTIONS SUPERVISORY LEVY IMPOSITION BILL 1998 The Government is not prepared to delay any longer in ensuring the continuation of funding for Consideration of House of hospitals. We are introducing this bill to provide Representatives Message certainty for the people of Australia, who can rest assured that Commonwealth funding for their Message received from the House of Repre- hospitals will not be stopped. sentatives acquainting the Senate that the 3632 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

House of Representatives had made the proposing that this be done by the ASC and amendments requested by the Senate to the the Treasury, and will examine in particular bills. the resource allocations of the new SRE regime—that is, single responsible entity—for Third Reading the ASC and for the Treasury. Bills on motion by (Senator Newman) read Labor hopes that this review will still occur a third time. as the resource implications for the ASC is a COMMITTEES critical issue for the successful operation of the new scheme. What is unusual about the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade review, mentioned in the explanatory memo- Committee: Joint randum, is that the government does not Membership anticipate changing the regulation of managed Message received from the House of Repre- investments at the time of the review. If that sentatives notifying the following variation in is indeed the case, why have the review at the membership of the Joint Standing Com- all? What is its purpose? What if the review mittee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade: finds that the regulation of managed invest- Mr Jull in place of Mr Bradford. ment trusts is flawed and should be changed? Would the government ignore the results of MANAGED INVESTMENTS BILL 1997 such a review? Consideration resumed. Labor’s amendment will require a review to take place before three years and that the In Committee review is to be tabled by the minister in the The bill. parliament within six months of completion. Senator COOK (Western Australia— The review should be conducted by someone Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the with enough experience in the industry to Senate) (5.28 p.m.)—I move: have a good grasp of the operation of man- (1) Page 1 (after line 9), after clause 2, insert: aged investments and an understanding of 2A Review of operation of Act how the new regime will operate. It would be preferable that the person be external to the (1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be undertaken as government. soon as possible after the third anniversa- Labor’s amendment is designed to ensure ry of the commencement of this Act. that there is greater transparency in the oper- (2) A person who undertakes such a review ation of the new scheme and that any prob- must give the Minister a written report of lems which are identified can be scrutinised the review, including any recommenda- by the public. The onus will be on the tions for changes to the regulation of managed investments. government of the day to respond to these problems with the appropriate legislative or (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the other changes that are necessary. I must say Parliament within 6 months after the third that, given the contentious nature of the anniversary of the commencement of this debate, an open and transparent review of the Act. process in our view is essential. I note that the running sheet makes the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) observation that our amendment is similar to (5.30 p.m.)—It is very important, obviously, the Democrats’ amendment No. 1 which is on that we have parliamentary scrutiny in rela- sheet 943 revised 2. Let me speak for a tion to the important issues that have been moment to my amendment. This goes to the mentioned in the second reading debate on review of the operation of the act, and the the Managed Investments Bill. I would like to explanatory memorandum of the government’s take this opportunity, having picked up on bill states that the government intends to what Senator Cook says about accountability review the new arrangements applying to and open processes, to return briefly to my managed investments after two years. We are speech during the second reading debate. In Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3633 that speech I mentioned that the draft regula- (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 25), after tions had not been made available. During paragraph (4)(b), insert: that speech the minister, by means of interjec- (ba) a copy of any resolution passed under tion, called out, ‘Rubbish, you have had them subsection 601FBA(2); for six weeks.’ I would like to clarify the (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 15), after situation, having checked in the meantime section 601FB, insert: exactly what had been around for six weeks. 601FBA Scheme members may direct respon- The policy document was around for six sible entity to appoint agent weeks. It is not unreasonable to put on the (1) Nothing in this Act prevents a majority of record that there has been no briefing offered members of a scheme from deciding that the proposed responsible entity must to the Greens (WA) in relation to the draft engage an independent agent to hold regulations of the Managed Investments Bill. scheme property. For all the guffawing, that is the reality. There (2) A resolution passed at a meeting of has not been, to our knowledge, any sight of scheme members may direct the proposed the draft regulations. So it is not unreasonable responsible entity to lodge with the regis- for people to assume, if in a speech during tration application a compliance plan that the second reading debate a senator says, ‘I provides for scheme property to be held haven’t seen any draft regulations’, and if you by a person other than the responsible have the minister yelling out ‘Rubbish!’ from entity as the responsible entity’s agent. the other side of the room, that that should be (3) A person appointed as an agent must not based on something related to the truth. But be related to the responsible entity. that is not what happened. (9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 32), at the end of section 601HA, add: I have still not seen draft regulations. A policy document was available. It was my (2) If a registration application is accompa- nied by a copy of a resolution passed staff who were being contacted about the under subsection 601FBA(2), the compli- group of bills from which the managed ance plan lodged with the application investments bills were separated. Therefore, must provide for scheme property to be I would be happy to receive an apology from held by an independent person as the the minister in relation to the impression that responsible entity’s agent. he may have left the Senate with by making Greens (WA) amendments 1, 2 and 9 relate that interjection. to the choice of funds and the ability for Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) scheme members to direct a responsible entity (5.33 p.m.)—The provision that the opposition to appoint an agent. We would insert after has put, item 1 on sheet 939, we would section 601FB a new section, that ‘Nothing in support. Legislation which generates such this act prevents a majority of members of a controversy and fears and which potentially scheme from deciding that the proposed has such a significant impact should have a responsible entity must engage an independent set period of review. We suggest in our own agent to hold scheme property’, that ‘A amendment a review after three years, which resolution passed at a meeting of the scheme would have allowed for the transition period members may direct the proposed responsible plus one year of operation under the new entity to lodge with the registration applica- system. But we would support yours since it tion a compliance plan that provides for has precedence. scheme property to be held by a person other than the responsible entity’ and that ‘A person Amendment agreed to. appointed as an agent must not be related to Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) the responsible entity.’ (5.34 pm.)—For the sake of the record I Amendment 9 adds after section 601HA, therefore withdraw item 1 on sheet 943, that ‘If a registration application is accompa- revised 2, which was the same amendment. nied by a copy of a resolution passed under Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) subsection 601FBA(2), the compliance plan (5.35 p.m.)—by leave—I move: lodged with the application must provide for 3634 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 scheme property to be held by an independent amendment is that the person appointed person as the responsible entity’s agent.’ cannot be related to the responsible entity. This relates back to the issues that were Senator Margetts—And there’s a problem mentioned during my second reading contri- with that? bution. The government seems to be reducing Senator COOK—No. All I am saying is the choice, rather than increasing the choice. that ours provides greater flexibility. Your That certainly seems to be going in the wrong amendment says, ‘A person appointed as an direction. I find it difficult to believe that agent must not be related to the responsible there could be credible reasons for wanting to entity.’ Ours enables the person appointed to reduce the real choice and stop people from be related; therefore there is a greater scope going to the stage of deciding as an entity of option available under our scheme than that they would like to do that. I am keen to under the scheme moved by the Greens hear the government’s and the opposition’s (WA). response to that. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western (5.41 p.m.)—I would just like to make the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the point that there were some strongish state- Treasurer) (5.37 p.m.)—The government will ments made before this legislation was dealt not be supporting these amendments, as I with—certainly at the end of the last sitting indicated at the conclusion of my second fortnight—and the Labor Party made some reading speech. We will be supporting opposi- strongish statements in relation to their contri- tion amendment No. 2. As I understand it, bution on the second reading. It does seem that amendment will have the effect that, that somehow a deal has been done and that where either the manager or the trustee fails they may well have gone to water on a to retire, under the existing scheme which the number of these issues, and that is very government’s legislation already has in it, a unfortunate. meeting of investors will be required and the opportunity will arise at that meeting for a Amendments not agreed to. vote of the investors on whether there would Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) be an independent, unrelated party which (5.41 p.m.)—by leave—I move: would hold custody of the assets. (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 19), at the The government will be supporting that end of paragraph (1)(a), add "as a fiduciary amendment, which we believe will not impact accountable to the members as beneficiaries of upon the crucial policy of a single entity the registered scheme". having responsibility for the management and (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 21), after custody of the funds. We believe that these "person", insert "of business". other amendments would do that by impairing (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 22), at the the single responsible entity concept which is end of paragraph (1)(b), add ", having regard pivotal to this scheme. to the circumstances of the scheme". I indicate to Senator Margetts through you, (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (after line 5), at the end of section 601FC, add: Mr Chairman, that we will not be supporting her amendments. As I foreshadowed, we will (5) A provision in a scheme’s constitution is void to the extent to which it would have be supporting opposition amendment No. 2, the effect of excluding or modifying any which would conflict with these amendments. of the duties of a responsible entity, or of Senator COOK (Western Australia— any officer or employee of a responsible Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the entity, under this Law or the general law. Senate) (5.39 p.m.)—The parliamentary These are amendments to section 601FC and secretary has accurately described the amend- they ensure the standard of care required for ment that we have foreshadowed as our a director of a responsible entity—that it not second amendment. I think our amendment is be reduced. They clarify that the standard of more flexible than what the Greens (WA) care owed by directors of the entity is that have proposed. My understanding of their required by the general law of trusts and not Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3635 some lower standard. Why should this be We are going through a debate at the mom- necessary? The standard is unclear. It may be ent in which this parliament will take part in lower than currently required under the the near future in relation to directors’ duties general law of trust. The test under the Man- as to whether or not to put some very similar aged Investments Bill roughly equates to that words into the companies law, which all man- under the Corporations Law. It is arguably agement investment schemes will be subject less rigorous than the SIS Act test. However, to anyway. All directors will be subject to the there is a degree of uncertainty because the duties as prescribed in the Corporations Law. courts, in AWA Limited v. Daniels, have I was given these amendments this morning. shown a willingness to expand the scope of They have not received any consideration by the duty depending, amongst other things, on experts in this field. All of the Corporations the nature of the enterprise in question. Law proposals that this government has dealt The standard of care required of a trustee with—and, to the credit of the previous under the general law of trusts is that of an government, that the previous government ordinary prudent man of business. That comes dealt with—were put through an extraordi- from Charitable Corporation v. Sutton. There nary, excruciating but very worthwhile pro- is little doubt that this test is higher than the cess of public consultation so that experts in test proposed by the Managed Investments the field of companies law, accounting and Bill. For the purpose of clarifying the stan- other areas were able to analyse the detail of dard of care required of a responsible entity, the effect of these changes to the law. it is reasonable to suggest amending the I cannot be assured that the proposals put provision to reflect that the standard required forward by the Greens in these amendments is that of a trustee under the general law of increase the responsibilities of directors or trusts. This basically reflects the theme of my decrease the liability by potentially constrain- contribution on second reading—that we ing the weight that a court would put on the should not, under the Managed Investments responsibility of that person. I put forward as Bill, have a standard less than other laws. It an example of that argument—and it is a very seems to be going in the wrong direction from vital one—that a court might look at the care that which it should. and diligence that a reasonable person would Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) exercise under 1(b) of the bill. If you were to (5.44 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats add, for example, the words ‘in business’— consider these amendments to be largely and this argument has been put to me by top technical but that they add to the bill, and we company lawyers in relation to a similar will therefore support them. exercise which we are going through on the company law economic reform program—it Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western diminishes the responsibility of people who Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the are not in business. Treasurer) (5.44 p.m.)—I cannot so quickly ascertain whether or not the amendments add That is the argument we have had put to us to the bill, add to the responsibilities placed in relation to a proposal to amend the on directors or diminish them. My most directors’ duties provisions of the companies recent experience in relation to these law where we were proposing to put in some directors’ duties matters is debating the fine words to make it clear that the director would detail of the words of the proposed amend- be required to have to act as a director would ments to the company laws under the corpo- who had had the experience based on that rate law economic reform program. When you director’s experience. We thought that would start fiddling with the words of how a person be a sensible reform because the court could under the companies law should be respon- look at the experience of that person who was sible as a director by adding words such as ‘a exercising that judgment or making that person in business’, you start sending signals decision in business. It was put to us by to the judges who have to ultimately deter- directors and by company lawyers of long mine these things. experience that, by trying to make a practical 3636 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 interpretation of what a director’s duty should pretty good indication of what is happening be and how the court should look at how a here. I think it is a bit of a snow job. The reasonable person might be judged as to reality is that we are asking for some clarity whether it was a reasonable decision to make for those people who do not normally get based on their experience, by putting in the clarity. At the moment the only people getting words with that person’s experience these certainty are the people who have the power directors argue that it would increase the and influence to demand it. They are the ones requirement for experienced directors but who are getting it. significantly diminish it for inexperienced Senator COOK (Western Australia— directors. Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the I would argue, with my very limited know- Senate) (5.51 p.m.)—I would like to make a ledge of these matters, that to put in the couple of points on the Managed Investments words ‘in business’ you would increase the Bill 1997. First of all, in the earlier matter requirements on a director who was in busi- Senator Margetts said that she feared that the ness. But, if you had a director of a managed Labor Party had spoken boldly in its contribu- investment scheme who was a trade union tion to the second reading debate, that a deal representative for trade union interests, that had now been done and that our position had person may not have experience in business, been watered down or words to that effect. and therefore the courts would read down that This is a terrible, disgusting reflection upon person’s responsibility. I do not give that as such a noble party as the Labor Party and, by an example of why those particular words inference, upon me. I can assure the Senate may or may not improve the scheme; I give that no deal has been done. Our view of the them to the Senate as an example of how I amendments that we have foreshadowed and cannot be convinced that these amendments intend to move to this bill have been consis- increase the responsibility of directors. I tent throughout its whole consideration. cannot be convinced that these are amend- Having disposed of that, let me now go to ments that will make the single responsible the issue that is before the chair. I find myself entity more responsible. I would not like to in a similar position to that of the parlia- make any amendments to this bill that were mentary secretary: that, considering the full so uncertain. import of what are, on the face of it, simple Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) amendments but which plumb very deeply in (5.50 p.m.)—Is it not amazing that the only terms of their complexity and inferences of people who seem to be able to demand law, this is not a matter that I feel confident certainty in Australia under legislation these to take on foot, as it were. Also, this is not a days are large corporations? They seem to get matter upon which I have obtained any it whenever they ask for it. What we are learned or considered advice in the time asking for is a greater deal of certainty and available to me since receiving these amend- clarity for ordinary people in Australia. The ments. minister has just given us a quite lengthy I am disposed though to say that the critique of my use of the insertion ‘in amendments ought to be kept in mind and, business’ but it does not actually say that. It when the review in three years time comes says ‘of business’. Experience of business is back, the amendments could perhaps be actually different from experience in business. reconsidered against the light of the experi- If you have been a union official and you ence of that review to see whether or not have been involved with superannuation funds there is a call to make them. That was my for the last X number of years, I guess that first reaction. My second reaction is to say, would be experience of business. It does not ‘Well, one ought to be a little more con- reduce it. We are talking about the duty of sidered than that perhaps,’ and I could support people working within the industry. The fact a proposition which would mean that these that the minister has just rebuffed something amendments are not proceeded with at the that does not exist in my amendments is a moment. We could take advice over dinner, Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3637 come back and then put a definitive position be a problem when you have senators in this down on the record, having given these situation of trying to review legislation when amendments more thought. I am torn between there are entire parties looking at it from their both those options, none of which satisfactori- own viewpoint which might be different in ly meet the desires of the mover. But I must terms of the accountability that you require. say that, given the notice that I have before The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- me of these amendments, I do not think my tor Hogg)—Senator Margetts, could I sug- duty requires me to do anything more than I gest, therefore, that you move the deferral of have said—prudence certainly does not. the consideration of Greens (WA) amend- So I do foreshadow to the mover, to the ments 3 to 6 on sheet 1023 revised? parliamentary secretary and to Senator Murray Motion (by Senator Margetts) agreed to: that, while I am disposed to vote against these amendments and consider them again in the That further consideration of the amendments be light of that three-year review, I am open to postponed. any suggestion, should it be taken up by the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—We Greens, to defer this matter until after I have will move to Democrat amendments 3 to 7 had some more advice over dinner, since I and 11 on sheet 943 revised 2. think we will still be going by the time the Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) dinner break comes around and could deal (5.57 p.m.)—by leave—I move: with it straight after. (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 9), at the end Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) of subparagraph (i)(ii), add "by an independent (5.54 p.m.)—I am happy to take up Senator custodian approved by the ASIC (see Division Cook’s suggestion. I just remind him that that 4)". wording comes directly from the trust law. So (4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 27 to 30), it is nothing new to law. It is nothing that to omit subsection (2) and the note. dated has caused the world as we know it to (5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (after line 18), at end. The wording is considered to bestow a the end of Part 5C.2, add: reasonable amount of clarity within law for Division 4—Appointment of custodian courts to make decisions. Senator Campbell indicated that it might influence the court, and 601FU ASIC’s approval of appointment certainly that is what we are hoping to do. (1) The ASIC must approve a company as We are concerned that, if we leave legislation custodian of a scheme’s property if: in such a form as to leave that degree of lack (a) the company is not an externally-adminis- of clarity, it will make it more and more tered body corporate; and difficult for the average punter, if things go (b) the company is not an associate of the badly wrong, to get some form of justice. responsible entity; and Whatever is possible at this particular time is (c) the ASIC has no reason to believe that worthy of consideration over dinner. the company does not have the capacity to perform, efficiently and honestly, the I would like to point out that my office has functions of the custodian of the scheme. not been slack on this issue; as everybody else has, we have used the time which has (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the ASIC may have regard to the following been available to us as well as we could. It is matters in relation to each officer of the just one of those things that, in relation to the company who is to perform duties in con- balance of power, one does as one can. You nection with the performance by the com- either stand back and look at a bill and say, pany of the custodian’s functions: ‘Okay, this has some real problems but, hey, (a) whether the officer is an insolvent under potentially I’m in the balance of power so I administration; and haven’t got time to deal with it,’ or you could (b) whether the officer has been convicted of look carefully at it and produce amendments serious fraud during the 10 years ending that try to improve the bill. That is what we on the day the application for approval of have sought to do. I suppose there will always the company as custodian is made; and 3638 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(c) whether the ASIC has reason to believe (e) ensure that scheme property is: that the officer is not of good fame and (i) clearly identified as scheme property; character; and (ii) held separately from the property of the (d) whether the ASIC has reason to believe custodian, the property of the respon- that the officer will not perform efficient- sible entity and the property of any ly and honestly the duties that the com- agent appointed as permitted by para- pany, as custodian, may require the offic- graph 601FC(1)(i); and er to perform. (f) not make improper use of its position as The ASIC may have regard to any other matters custodian to gain, directly or indirectly, that it considers relevant. an advantage for itself or for any other (3) The ASIC may, at any time, revoke an person or to cause detriment to the mem- approval given under this section if it has bers of the scheme; and reason to believe that the company: (g) if the scheme has a compliance commit- (a) does not satisfy the requirements of tee, report to the members of the compli- paragraphs (1)(a) and (b); or ance committee any breach of this Law or (b) will not perform, efficiently and honestly, the scheme’s constitution that relates to the functions of the custodian of the the scheme, as soon as practicable after scheme. it becomes aware of the breach; and 601FV Functions of a custodian (h) carry out and comply with any other duty, not inconsistent with this Law, that is (1) The functions of the custodian of a regis- conferred on the custodian by the tered scheme are: scheme’s constitution. (a) to be vested with all the scheme property (6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 11), after (either itself or through agents as permit- "scheme", insert "by an independent custodian ted by paragraph 601FC(1)(i)); and approved by the ASIC". (b) to act in accordance with the directions of (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 12), after the responsible entity in relation to the "601FC(1)(i)", insert "and Division 4 of Part property except if a prudent person in the 5C.2". custodian’s position would have reason- ably believed that the directions of the (11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 53 (lines 10 to 13), responsible entity breach Part 5C.7. omit all words after "Without limiting this,", substitute "the ASIC may exempt a scheme (2) The custodian may also perform other from the requirements of subparagraph functions that it is required to perform under 601FC(1)(i)(ii) if the ASIC is satisfied that the terms and conditions of its engagement. the need for the scheme property to be held 601FW Duties of custodian by an independent custodian is negligible.". In carrying out its functions, the custodian of a Senator Margetts, I would not claim it as a registered scheme must: virtue every time, but this time I can be a (a) act honestly as a fiduciary accountable to little bit virtuous in that these amendments the members as beneficiaries of the regis- have been previously circulated to all mem- tered scheme; and bers of the Senate. Therefore, I hope that the (b) exercise the degree of care and diligence government will not only have had time to that a prudent person would exercise if he look at them but also be thoroughly suppor- or she were in the custodian’s position; tive of them as a result. and (c) act in the best interests of the members Parliamentary Secretary, in my speech and, if there is a conflict between the during the second reading debate I did outline members’ interests and its own interests, the problems, as we saw them, with the give priority to the members’ interests; Managed Investments Bill. These related to and two critical deficiencies. Firstly, the bill, in (d) not make use of information acquired our view, does not provide millions of Aus- through being the custodian in order to: tralians with adequate choice about the man- (i) gain an improper advantage for itself or agement of their savings—and that is not only another person; or our view, of course, but the view of a number (ii) cause detriment to the members of the of the critics of elements of the bill. Secondly, scheme; and the bill does not improve the security of those Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3639 investments. In our view—and Senator they define the role of the custodian. But, Harradine quoted some very good other because the parliamentary secretary has in the authorities—it generally reduces that security. past made the good point that you need to So we have tried to redress those problems to retain flexibility whenever you can, amend- the extent that we can within the current bill. ment No. 11 of the group we are debating Both your government and the Labor here together allows for the ASIC—as it will government prior have made a laudable virtue be—to exempt a scheme from having a of international benchmarking and striving for custodian in circumstances where the ASIC commercial best practice. But in its pursuit of considers that the need for an independent the single responsible entity model the custodian is negligible. In other words, a government directly contradicts international custodian would be mandatory unless the practice. The SRE is believed by some to be regulator says it does not need to be. inconsistent with principles 2.1 and 2.3 of the We think that those particular provisions International Organisation of Securities that we have laid out in our amendments, in Commissions regulation of liquid collective fact advance the security of assets consider- investments document. Also, out of 42 count- ably. They do not detract from the bill; they ries surveyed by KPMG in 1995 only two, the do not detract from the intention of the bill. British Virgin Islands—and I do not know if They do, however, firm up the security that is part of Richard Branson’s outfit—and element. In particular, you will see that the Netherlands Antilles operated without the amendment No. 5, which is under discussion combination of manager and trustee custodian. here, covers the appointment of the custodian, As Senator Harradine said in his speech ASIC’s approval of the appointment—which during the second reading debate, Australia is critical—the functions of a custodian and clearly intends to go out on its own—and we the duties of a custodian. Those are spelt out have some concerns about that. While we in some detail, and all of those are taken from accept that to run against international opinion experience, both in law and in practice. is not necessarily always wrong, we are concerned that in the process Australians’ Parliamentary secretary, as I said earlier, in money could be put at greater risk, without our view this strengthens your bill; it does not them being asked whether it should be put at take away anything from it. We are hopeful greater risk. The amendments I am speaking that the opposition will heed these arguments of here deal with the issue of the independent since they are the ones the opposition put in custodian and really are an attempt to reduce their earlier versions of the bill. Accordingly, the risk in that area. I commend to the Senate Democrats’ amend- In an article in the Australian Financial ments 3-7 and 11. Review, Simon Hoyle reported that interna- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western tional ratings agency Standard and Poor’s Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the raised concerns that the bill would severely Treasurer) (6.02 p.m.)—The coalition govern- undermine the security of investors’ money. ment will not be supporting these amend- The article cited Standard and Poor’s as ments to the Managed Investments Bill 1997. advocating in an SRE system at the very least I do, however, thank Senator Murray for the presence of an independent custodian to providing the amendments to the government hold the funds’ assets separately. An inde- some many weeks ago and for accepting our pendent custodian was a feature of Labor’s offers of briefings and discussions on a proposed bill, as you would recall, Senator number of occasions so that we could seek to Cook, and was one of the key provisions work through where the Democrats were excised by the coalition when they produced coming from and try to explain in more detail their own bill. the government’s proposals. I think Senator The amendments I have put together require Murray also took up the government’s offer scheme funds to be held by an independent of briefings by people such as the chairman custodian where a trustee does not exist, and of the ASC. 3640 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

We are not of a view to support these this—at the very small end it will be very amendments because they fundamentally much in the interests of the scheme manager attack the single responsible entity concept. to have an organisation, an agent, controlling The government is very keen to avoid re- the custody of the assets that is independent. building the two-tiered structure by another There will be organisations that fulfil that name. If you are to bring into the law the role, and they will have to comply with the concept of an independent, unrelated party ASIC, the licensing requirements and the law. custodian, you then start building in the You may find that very large organisations potential for a fiduciary relationship between will be able to do the custodial work by a investors and the custodian. related party, in-house, using the requirements The investor protection that is built into the under the law. Under that, they are going to regime, that has been recommended by need independent directors, they are going to CASAC and the ALRC, is that the respon- need a compliance committee, they are going sible entity will be responsible to the investor to need a compliance plan, and that is all and that the courts cannot try to lay off the going to have to be registered with ASIC. blame to some other party. So it is crucial to This scheme is flexible; it does allow an ensure that that fiduciary relationship only independent custodian, so it does give people exists between the responsible entity and the choice. They can choose to go to an existing investor. The great investor protection regime trustee organisation and say, ‘We would like that is built by this bill—and we strongly to create a compliance plan, set up a scheme, argue that it is a better scheme than the one and we would like to use a trustee organisa- that Australia has at the moment—is the tion as a custodian of the scheme assets.’ strength of that fiduciary relationship, but it They can go to some other organisation that also is built on the flexibility that can apply. offers itself out for custodial services and they Mr Temporary Chairman, as you know have to comply with the law and they will better than most, this legislative scheme is have to comply with ASIC’s policy state- built to cover every investment scheme from ments, which—as Senator Margetts has a small agricultural scheme which may be pointed out—have been published in draft worth only a couple of million dollars, right form by ASIC, have been consulted on with up to the huge funds managers such as BT the industry and will be finalised prior to 1 and AMP and everyone in between. This July. includes the small funds that are emerging in That is the benefit of this scheme. When Australia where some very successful funds you by law require an independent custodian managers are moving away from ANZ or for all schemes, you undermine the basis of Westpac or wherever and setting up their own the entire single responsible entity concept. niche market investment funds with $100 There is a difference between the so-called million, $150 million, $200 million under bare custodian that was put into the collective management, and competing against the big investments bill that was released by former funds. Attorney-General Michael Lavarch in Decem- That range of entities, structures, schemes, ber 1995 and the proposal that the Democrats will be covered by the Managed Investments put up here today. The so-called bare custodi- Bill. This includes everything from a an that was put into the Labor bill could $500,000 to a $1 million vineyard, plantation, indeed have been an internal related party ostrich farm—though that is probably not a custodian. It did not need to be independent good example—all those agricultural type and it did not need to be at arm’s length from schemes, blueberries—for Mr Hartnell’s ben- the manager; that bare custodian, as it became efit—property syndication type projects, small known, could have been a related party. and middle sized funds managers right up to The government looked at that concept and the hundreds of millions of dollars schemes. we thought that giving it a minimum assets You need a flexible scheme. No doubt—and requirement may well cost the small fund we have given the ASIC the power to do managers out of the business. If you put in a Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3641 minimum capital adequacy requirement for a sufficient argument to say that you therefore bare custodian of $5 million, someone who make it a single entity and the single entity is had funds under management of less than therefore going to make it more accountable. $100 million would get priced out of the mar- Concern is clearly expressed by several ket and you would not have any small fund senators here, including Senator Harradine, managers anymore. Of course, for a big or- that this will be less accountable and, instead ganisation like AMP or BT the bare custodian of actually fixing the problem, you actually would have been a joke anyway because $5 create a huge problem and perhaps in a million capital adequacy would have meant couple of years time we are going to have nothing in terms of investor protection, nor urgent legislation to address this. Someone would it have made much of a dint in their will say, ‘Shock, horror! We did not know accounts. That is why the government opted this was going to happen. We must do some- for a flexible scheme. It will see many funds, thing.’ We have the ability to look into the I am sure, opting to have an independent future to some extent and have some caution custodian, for a whole range of reasons, but here, and I do not think the government is it will not restrict schemes to using that form. doing that in this regard. We will be support- The government’s strong policy commit- ing the Democrats’ amendments. ment in this is to bring in a single responsible Senator COOK (Western Australia— entity and not to allow the law to be amended Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the in a way that would diminish the fiduciary Senate) (6.12 p.m.)—We, like the govern- relationship between the investor and the ment, have had these amendments for some single responsible entity by mandating inde- time and have had a chance to deliberate on pendent custodians. That is when you start them. In saying that, I do not imply any watering it down, building up a separate criticism of the Western Australian Greens. It fiduciary relationship which we believe will was a sensitive matter a moment ago but it get built up by the courts, and destroy the ought not be. We have all been in this cham- clarity of that relationship between the inves- ber long enough to know that the vicissitudes tor and the manager. We will be opposing of parliamentary life are that sometimes you these amendments and hope that the Senate cannot get your amendments in on time. will do so. Turning to this matter, the parliamentary Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) secretary has provided, I think, a long and (6.10 p.m.)—There is one major thing wrong useful analysis— with the parliamentary secretary’s contribu- Senator Margetts—Long and inconclusive. tion, and that is that he has not actually Senator COOK—That is your description. explained adequately to the Senate why the Perhaps I should apply my own to complete government is not prepared to look at whether my own sentence. It is a long and interesting a single fiduciary entity is such a good thing. analysis of the reasons why the government Various examples were given earlier that rejects this amendment. We share many of the under the current system there have been rip- views expressed by the government, I must offs and there has been money lost, but there say. has been nothing proved in any way, shape or The question has been raised—fairly, form by the parliamentary secretary that under perhaps rightly even—that, since an amend- the proposed scheme we are not going to see ment such as this was contemplated in earlier more. I just wonder whether, if we ever come Labor Party legislation when we were in to the point of reviewing this legislation, we government, why is it that we are now depart- are going to be under huge pressure not to ing from what appeared to be the position change it if it actually lets people off the then. I think that is the thrust of the criticism hook and provides an out for various fund of the likelihood of Labor Party support for managers. the government’s amendments by the Demo- The reality is that giving examples of where crats, by Senator Andrew Murray. I think that the current system may be at fault is not is a reasonable proposition to raise and I do 3642 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 not criticise Senator Murray for doing so. Can the government’s thanks to the opposition I say that in my speech on the second reading parties for their support of those measures in I made it clear where we were coming from making sure they are through this place so and that this would be our preferred approach. that scheme can be up and running, as I mentioned two things to justify a change in planned, on 1 July. our position. When you mandate an independ- I also made it quite clear in that debate, but ent custodian, we believe you raise real I reiterate for the record here, that the govern- doubts as to whether that will undermine the ment will keep under close scrutiny the role of the single responsible entity. In the implementation of the managed investment previous legislation, we did not have the same scheme as well. It is in the government’s doubts at all that that would be the case. We interests and in Australia’s interests to ensure do now have considerable doubts that you in that the implementation of the scheme is a fact undermine the role of the SRE. great success for the people of Australia and However, one of the overriding concerns we for the investors of Australia. Indeed, if it is have always had is that the funding and not a success there will be a political price to resources for the Australian Securities Com- be paid—my head may be part of that. So we mission be adequate to meet the task that will be closely examining the implementation commission will have in fulfilling its role of this scheme and I give an unequivocal with respect to this legislation. I note on that commitment that the ASIC will be appropri- front that the government in this budget has ately resourced to ensure that the implementa- provided $7.1 million over three years for the tion of this scheme is successful and that it is ASC. That would seem to meet the concerns able to implement an investor protection that we have, although I would seek, through regime, which we think is an improvement for you, Mr Temporary Chairman, of the parlia- Australia. mentary secretary an assurance that govern- Amendments not agreed to. ment funding of the ASC will be at appropri- ate levels to meet the needs of this legislation Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) and to ensure that the role is properly policed. (6.17 p.m.)—I move: If such an undertaking were not forthcoming, (7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (lines 18 to 23), it would be of considerable concern to the omit subsection (1), substitute: opposition and in fact would cause us to (1) The constitution of a registered scheme reconsider our vote for the amendment. may be modified, or repealed and re- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western placed with a new constitution, only by special resolution of the members of the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the scheme. Treasurer) (6.15 p.m.)—That makes it hard to answer. I note in the gallery the chairman of This amendment relates to the constitutional what will be the ASIC, Mr Alan Cameron. I changes and the impact that members might welcome him to the Senate. I am sure he have on constitutional changes. This is im- would like me to say that I would like to give portant. What we are asking is to ensure that him a blank cheque. That is right—he is the constitution can only be changed with the nodding. approval of members. This is an amendment to 601GC(1)(a) and (b). Why is this import- Senator Conroy—But he is not holding his ant? We believe that, otherwise, we reduce breath. the current protections. That is because, under Senator IAN CAMPBELL—He is not the bill, responsible entities are permitted, holding his breath. We made it quite clear on under section 601GC, to modify, repeal or this, particularly during the Wallis legislation replace a scheme constitution without refer- debate, which I think that Senator Cook ence to or approval by investors in certain carried as well, that we will be monitoring circumstances, depending on the sole judg- closely the performance of ASIC in its new ment of the responsible entity. Nor does the duties under the Wallis reforms, which have bill require the ASC to approve changes to now been passed in this place. I put on record scheme constitutions. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3643

By contrast, the current law requires the with a set of rules under which those people independent judgment of the trustee as to invest in the first place. In any event, such whether proposed changes to trust deeds are absolute power is repugnant to sound business prejudicial to investors. If the trustee believes management principles. that a proposed change is prejudicial, it can only be made with investor approval. That, I The safest course of action under this bill believe, is a safeguard that should be there. is to require a scheme constitution to be referred to the investors for a vote. Otherwise, We are looking at the danger of erosion of the responsible entity will have to be judge rights. The constitution is the scheme’s most and jury as we no longer have this independ- important governing document. Can you ent party. It will have to recommend and, in imagine being in a club or an organisation or itself, approve changes without reference to even a country when somebody could actually a third party. There is no notice required. change the ground rules that you have been operating on, making laws and by-laws It should be noted that there is nothing in without your knowledge? You are going this bill that requires any of the amendments along believing the by-law is read in a certain made by the responsible entity to be notified way and they can change that whole set of to the investors before the changes take place. rules. So not only do they not get to vote on them and not only is there not an independent Here we have the most important governing entity that is necessarily going to judge document specifying provisions for the man- whether they ought to have a say but they aged investment scheme’s most important also do not have to have any notice. It is a bit aspects, such as the responsible entity’s like people getting a bit hot under the collar powers of investment, powers to raise and here if they are asked to vote on something borrow money, members’ rights to withdraw that they have only just seen. from the scheme, responsible entities’ rights to be paid fees, members’ complaint mecha- Again, this seems unnecessary erosion of nisms and winding up of the scheme, and the rights of investors to have a say as to how fund managers can make changes to scheme their legal rights are to be changed. If you constitutions that in subtle and apparently were to look at each of these elements logi- innocuous ways can reduce the rights of cally, you would have to say that the logic ordinary investors. There is a real danger this should be that, if the government is absolutely will happen in some cases. Why should we let determined to have a single entity, there has it happen? In a democracy, investors should to be protection in relation to changes in the have the right to have all amendments to the constitution. I would urge support from the scheme constitution referred to them for Senate. approval. This amendment can be supported Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western in the interests of giving investors some say Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the over their investments. Treasurer) (6.22 p.m.)—The government will The bill creates the power, on the part of not be agreeing to this amendment. We the responsible entity, to change trust deeds believe that the constitution should be able to unless it takes the view itself that the matter be changed, particularly where there is no is prejudicial. This means that there is no adverse effect on members’ rights. I refer independent party, such as the trustee or the Senator Margetts to page 21 of the bill, with ASC, so who is going to say that? Who is which I am sure she will be familiar. Section going to point that out? It is going to be able 601GC looks at how a constitution can be to approve the changes which a responsible changed. Paragraph (a) provides that major entity makes to the rights of investors, as set changes would have to be made ‘by special out in the scheme trust deed or constitution. resolution of the members of the scheme’. In This is an extraordinary amount of power to many examples, schemes should be able to vest in a responsible entity that is supposed to be, and can be, changed where the changes look after other people’s money in accordance are minor and do not affect members’ rights. 3644 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

If some nasty scheme manager or single will have to go to a meeting, but if it is an responsible entity does seek to change a administrative change that cannot affect, and scheme and that affects members’ rights, then does not affect, the rights of members, then the members of the scheme have a recourse you will be able to make it. This is set out on and may recover from the manager under page 21 of the bill. You will have to lodge it 601MA, which you will find at page 44. with the ASC. Any of the modifications will 601MA (1) states: have to be lodged with the ASC—or the A member of a registered scheme who suffers loss ASIC as it will become known shortly. There or damage because of conduct of the scheme’s must be a consolidated copy of the constitu- responsible entity that contravenes a provision of tion lodged with the ASC. So there is a this Chapter may recover the amount of the loss or requirement. You cannot do it in secret—it damage by action against the responsible entity has to be lodged. There are protections there whether or not the responsible entity has been for all scheme members. We think the balance convicted of an offence, or has had a civil penalty order made against it, in respect of the contraven- is right. We think that your amendment would tion. upset that balance. So there is a remedy there if the responsible Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) entity acts against the interest of members’ ( 6.24 p.m.)—I am sure most people are rights. It is very much in line with putting actually members of incorporated bodies. I more power in the hands of shareholders and think it is reasonable that members of in- members of schemes in this circumstance. It corporated bodies should get a say in respect allows them to take action and gives them a of constitutional changes—even in the case of statutory right to take action in the case of teeny-weeny changes where there might be no that breach. money involved. If you were to require a managed invest- I believe there is a problem in that there is ment scheme to hold a meeting of scheme nobody to independently judge whether this members for every change to the scheme, you will have adverse effects on members’ rights. would put massive costs—and totally un- What happens when people do not find out necessary costs—on members of the schemes. until it is too late? Are we really saying that If you are looking at shareholders’ rights, you there is recourse if that recourse relies on have to look at why they invest in schemes in action by the managers themselves—the the first place. An important reason is to get managers who may, in fact, be bringing about a return on their investment. If a managed the changes? In reality, you cannot say that investment scheme is to be successful, one of that will be the case. You have already given the things you have to do is ensure that the us examples of legal recourse resulting in cost of managing the scheme—the administra- only a certain proportion of every dollar. We tive costs—is kept to a minimum. If you go are saying that, as a government and as a around forcing schemes to have meetings of parliament, we cannot deliberately put in members every time they need to make any legislation something that is going to leave change—as I think your amendment would people in the position of having to take legal force them to do; and I am not being frivo- recourse if we have the power to actually do lous here—it would certainly be good to be something about it. in the business of renting out large function Constitutional changes have to be done in centres, if not the MCG. If this amendment this way because there is no independent were to go through, you would actually be person who is legally required to advise required to send out notices of meetings to members on adverse effects. If you have not possibly hundreds of thousands, if not given people the ability to have a say in any millions, of investors on a regular basis. It constitutional changes and you do not have an would be very expensive and unwieldy. independent adviser, the reality is that you We think the structure in the bill actually have left those people in double jeopardy. strikes a neat balance. It ensures that, if you That is why this amendment is necessary. I do have a big change to the constitution, you am sure that, in most people’s minds, it does Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3645 not come down to simply management costs. trust deed was to be amended, it would As a responsible parliament, there are more simply be administratively impossible and it important things for us to be looking at. We would be highly costly. are looking at certainty for investors. Individ- I think we have to balance the practicality ual mums and dads, the people who have put of the Greens amendment—and I think I their money into such funds, do not know would be impractical; it would be extremely how to fight this when they do not know what costly in its implementation—with the checks is going on. That is a reality. There is nothing against capricious action in respect of amend- to ensure that they will know that these ments of the constitution of a registered changes are going on. Are we going to rely scheme. As Senator Ian Campbell has said, on the managers to tell their members that there are two checks. One is that the respon- they might be doing something against their sible entity must lodge with the ASC a copy interests? Surely we should be dealing with of the modification or the new constitution. this with our eyes open and surely we need to Then he referred us to page 44 of the bill take some action. Recourse may take a long where there is a second check, if we like— time. Recourse may not bring any great civil liability of responsible entity to mem- benefits in the end if the changes that have bers. Labor believes that, on balance, the taken place mean that people have already government’s approach is correct on this been damaged because they have not found matter. out until it was too late. Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (6.29 Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) p.m.)—I think Senator Campbell is correct in (7.32 p.m.)—I have just two points. Parlia- striking the balance between practicality and mentary Secretary, I appreciate your remarks the need to have some check in the interests that a remedy is there within the bill whereby of members. I do not think the situation is those who are defrauded or who have a that— problem can take action to recover their moneys. But as far as possible this Senate Senator Margetts—You don’t really should avoid circumstances where people believe that, do you? have to pursue the remedy, because prevent- Senator SHERRY—No, Senator Margetts. ive action is far cheaper, far quicker and far I do not think the analogy, for example, with less damaging to the financial or physical trustee law in respect of superannuation is a health of investors than having to pursue the good example of striking a balance between remedy at law. I make that as a general point. practicality on the one hand and sufficient supervision on the other—in the case of My second point really refers to your superannuation trusts, the ISC and members. remarks about Senator Margetts’s amendment forcing compliance with a particular course of Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to action. I would have been prepared to accept 7.30 p.m. your view if within that approach you had Senator SHERRY—Prior to the dinner mandated that the funds were required to have adjournment I was commenting that Labor got approval from their investors for a consti- will not be supporting Greens amendment No. tutional provision which allowed the fund 7 and that, on balance, Senator Ian manager to change the rules even if those Campbell’s argument should be supported and rules were, as you pointed out, not serious or the Greens amendment should be opposed. I material. If somebody or an investor knowing- was commenting briefly from my experience ly agrees to a constitution which delegates in trust law relating to superannuation, which their rights to the responsible entity in whose is not dissimilar in principle to the issue we interest it may be appropriate to conceal their are dealing with here with the Greens amend- motives or the reasons for their actions, if ment. Certainly, in trust law in regard to somebody in full knowledge makes that superannuation if the trustees had to convene decision, then let the buyer beware. That is a meeting and consult with the members of a their problem. But clause 601GC of your bill superannuation trust each and every time the actually says: 3646 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(1) The constitution of a registered scheme may affect much, but it might allow the moneys to be modified be moved around in a totally different manner ...... from which they were moved before. (b) by the responsible entity if the respon- Whilst I understand your criticisms of sible entity reasonably considers the Senator Margetts’s approach, I am not sure at change will not adversely affect all that your alternative is better. If I had to members’ rights. toss up between the two, I know which one The investor can have nothing to say about it. I would choose—and that is Senator Whether the investor likes it or not, you are Margetts’s amendment because it guarantees telling them they have to lump it or like it. I that the members themselves have the say think that is the reverse end of the stick. You over what happens to the constitution, which were criticising Senator Margetts’s amend- is the instrument which governs the way in ment for trying to improve investor security which their moneys shall be dealt with. On by requiring that constitutional changes be that basis, I would be inclined to support mandated by special resolution and yet at the Senator Margetts’s amendment. same time you are supporting a mandated Senator COONEY (Victoria) (7.37 p.m.)— position whereby the responsible entity can There is one issue I want to raise, and that is disregard members’ interests or views even the provision that the Parliamentary Secretary where those members themselves may not like referred us to on page 44: the ability of a it and may not want to accept that approach. person affected by a responsible entity going I would have thought from your point of amiss to take legal action. That leaves it open view that the appropriate approach if you did to the person who holds an interest in the not want to mandate would be just to mandate fund to take legal action. This has been raised that any constitution that had such a provision on a couple of occasions. would in the first place have to be approved Why that should be of some interest to you, by the members. That is how constitutions are Mr Temporary Chairman, is that it raises the approved, aren’t they? They are approved issue of what legal funds are available for a originally by members of the scheme. That is person to take action. He or she would be at the heart of the flawed thinking about this taking action against a responsible entity bill because you have here a situation where which would be able to use the funds of the you are giving constitutional carte blanche to responsible entity to pay the legal expenses people in whose interest it may sometimes be against the member who is taking the action. to defraud, mislead or interfere with The member might be refused legal aid members’ rights and interests in a manner because he or she holds interests in the fund which will result in loss. which take he or she above the level that Yes, there is a remedy, but then people would entitle him or her to legal aid, even if have to go through the agonies of the courts. legal aid was available for a civil action. Then again there is the problem that the It seems a most awkward thing that the way definition here in the bill is, shall we say, we are going to give sanctions to members of incomplete because it says: these funds is by allowing them to sue, at (1) The constitution of a registered scheme may their own cost, their fund, which is able to be modified, or repealed and replaced with a use their money which is put in the fund to new constitution: defend their action and to pay for any damag- ...... es out of the funds to which the person suing (b) by the responsible entity if the respon- them has contributed. It just seems to be a sible entity reasonably considers the very awkward way—one could almost say it change will not adversely affect is an unfair way—of allowing the members to members’ rights. try to force the fund to work as it should. The entity may reasonably consider a change Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) of the registered office from Sydney to Hon- (7.40 p.m.)—I could not have said it better. duras entirely appropriate. It does not really I only wish Senator Cook had been in here to Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3647 hear that very interesting question: is it really large amounts of money and such very large recourse if there are not necessarily funds for bodies and that we are suggesting that it is people to access justice or even for them to beyond the realms of possibility that they can have any guarantee that they will be able to organise to change their constitution in any get their funds back if something of that sort of order that enables their members to be nature has happened? advised. I have something that I want to add while Senator SHERRY (Tasmania) (7.42 the minister is thinking of an answer to that p.m.)—I just want to explain to Senator very good question. I know of organisations Margetts, through you, Mr Temporary Chair- which literally cannot afford stamps. But we man, that this is not an easy process. I think are not talking about organisations which the analogy that I used of a superannuation theoretically cannot afford stamps; we are trust is a good one. Firstly, I know about this, talking about multihundreds of millions of having sat as a trustee on a superannuation dollar organisations which presumably can fund and been faced with having to change afford the stamps. We are talking about trustees quite frequently. I am not saying organisations which, if there were teeny weekly or every second day or anything like changes to their constitutions, might do as that, but maybe three or four times a year. other small organisations do: put the changes Three or four times a year you say, ‘Well, together when they are having an annual 45c a throw. Maybe 100,000 members.’ You meeting. I would think that there would have are looking at a significant cost. to be some regular communication with Secondly, in respect of this legislation it is members. I would think that the organisations not necessarily the fault of the custodian or, could probably even save stamps if they in the case of superannuation, the trustee. advised their multiple members at the same Unfortunately, government legislation changes time they were doing other mail-outs of the very frequently, and that is not a criticism of constitutional changes that were being pro- this government or our government. The fact posed. of life is that I know that in respect of super- I do not believe we are talking about a annuation—having sat as a trustee when there ridiculous situation. If a fund changed its was a Labor government—there were frequent constitution willy-nilly every five minutes, I changes every year. It has been the same would think that would be a very poorly under this government: frequent changes managed fund. I would think that the directors every year. Trustees do require alteration, and would find themselves in legal hot water often, to make matters worse, retrospectively. because they themselves would not know Often you wait months for the legislation. where they were at, let alone their members. That is not a criticism of this place; it is just Are you suggesting that funds will and should a recognition of the facts of life in dealing change their constitutions every five minutes with legislation. Often these changes are or every few days or every two weeks be- retrospective. It is annoying for the people cause they do not know how to manage who manage and are custodians of people’s themselves better than that? funds. I would suggest that, throughout history, I have listened closely to the comments you organisations have worked out how to amend made, Senator Margetts. I can say that, from their constitutions in ways that meet their the experience I have had, the practical time deadlines and financial and other restric- concerns reinforce my conviction that it is tions. Quite frankly, even small organisations extremely difficult to agree to your amend- which need to change their constitution for ment. If there were no other balances in the some reason between annual general meetings legislation we would have to do something, could organise a special general meeting or but there are other balances in the legislation something—a mail-out or some other kind of and I have commented on those. I just think communication with their members. I cannot we have to balance practicality against the believe that we are dealing with such very checks and balances that are proposed—the 3648 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 level of legal scrutiny. I do not think it is you do not know it is not performing its duty perfect, but I think it is the only practical way until after the case is over. That is quite clear. through. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) (7.48 p.m.)—I will respond to that, Treasurer) (7.45 p.m.)—Senator Cooney asked but I am not going to take any more time on me a question, and the core of it was about this. We have spent nearly one hour on one who pays if the responsible entity does act in line of the bill, but that is not to say that this a way that is deemed to be against the inter- is not an active, positive and constructive ests, in changing the constitution. The respon- review of a complex piece of legislation. It sible entity would pay, and the person would makes it quite clear at (2)(b) under 601GA not be able to be indemnified out of scheme that the funds are only available in relation to property. If you go to 601GA(2)(b) at page the proper performance of those duties. If the 20, you will see that the entity can only be manager has not properly performed those indemnified if it is ‘in relation to the proper duties and he is found to be in breach of performance of those duties’. If it is not in the 601MA, then the money is going to have to proper performance of the duties, which come out of the manager’s pocket. would obviously be the case there, the scheme Senator Cooney, this reinforces something property would not be available. I read from an independent commentator on Senator COONEY (Victoria) (7.46 p.m.)— the bill. I gave a speech recently in Sydney at I notice that 601GA(2) says: a law firm called Freehill Hollingdale and Page, who have written an independent If the responsible entity is to have any rights to be analysis of the director’s duties changes that paid fees out of the scheme property, or to be we are bringing in under the corporate law indemnified out of scheme property for liabilities or expenses incurred in relation to the performance economic reform program. They are warning of its duties, those rights: their clients that they need to look at these directors’ duties—particularly for directors of (a) must be specified...— managed investment schemes—under the and so on. I take it that that would normally government’s proposed Managed Investments be done. What I am saying is that you do Bill. not know whether the person running the I cannot quote them, because I do not have scheme has acted in the performance of his or their newsletter in front of me, but I para- her duties until after the case is over. In any phrase them as saying, ‘the onerous new event, the court might well say, ‘It was a responsibilities placed on directors under this responsibility of yours, as the manager of the bill.’ In other words, they are saying, ‘If you scheme; as the responsible entity, the person are a director of a managed scheme, beware, in charge, it was your duty to fight that because you have onerous new responsibilities action. Even though you have lost, it was over and above what you would have if you your duty to do it and therefore you get your managed an existing scheme.’ That is from an funds out of the scheme.’ independent commentator who has looked at I understand what you are saying, but you the director’s duties under this bill, looked at have to look at it at the time the issue arises, it under the corporate law economic reform when the costs have been incurred. What is program and said, ‘If you are a director and going to happen is that, if a person is faced you are a client of Freehill Hollingdale and with the possibility—as anybody is who goes Page, beware, because you have onerous new into a court case—that they might lose the responsibilities placed on you by the govern- issue, they are not going to go ahead: first of ment in Canberra.’ all, they cannot afford the expense of the Senator COONEY (Victoria) (7.50 p.m.)— case, whereas the responsible entity can— I say this in the kindest way: it would be very because, at that point, the responsible entity helpful if advisers and lawyers actually ran a is performing its duty. It must be, because few cases and understood what it was like to Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3649 litigate from the start. What he has put in the not going to be particularly successful with act does not necessarily convey what it is like the Greens WA amendment No. 7. More is in the conference room and what it is like the pity, but I think we are going to be back when you are trying to run cases in the court. in this chamber in a couple of years time— It would be helpful if, at times, those that providing we are all still here and are not advise us had some practical experience of dealing perhaps with parties who do not put what it is like to run a court case. in this kind of work—to check legislation and Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) deal with it again, to try to clear up the mess. (7.50 p.m.)—Perhaps what the minister was Amendment not agreed to. describing, in relation to the law firm that he was talking about, might be a law firm which Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) actually takes its responsibility seriously. To (7.53 p.m.)—I move: make themselves feel that they have done (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (lines 1 to 6), everything they are supposed to under law, omit subsection (4), substitute: there may well be things that directors have (4) The responsible entity must send a copy to do under this legislation that they would of the scheme’s constitution to a member consider onerous. However, the argument that of the scheme within 7 days if the mem- we are making is that human nature, experi- ber asks the responsible entity, in writing, ence, the law courts and the media all say that for the copy, and must not charge the there are people who will use other people’s member any fee for the copy. funds unscrupulously. Those people are not We are now dealing with the next stage. potentially going to have seminars with the Having clearly found what the majority in the minister to find out exactly what they should Senate were saying in relation to Greens be doing: they may well find out what they (WA) amendment No. 7, this gives another can get away with. That is the reality of life. opportunity for some level of notice in rela- I wonder: if there were an expose in a couple tion to members. This ensures that members of years time, with very large amounts of have access to the constitution of the fund—it money and very large numbers of ordinary only requires a request in writing. It deletes mums and dads in Australia affected, would the previous requirement in the bill that we come back and say that we did not know? allowed access to the constitution only if the Senator Sherry said that, under superannua- member paid for it. We are saying that people tion funds, there can be a situation where will know and people will be able to get trustees turn over up to four times per year. funds back—or may be able to get funds That may well be the case, but there is a back. Senator Cooney has clearly indicated difference under managed investment funds. that if you cannot prove in advance that a I understand that, whereas under super funds manager has broken the law then you have you may have a say in who your trustees are got to take the risk of taking them all the way by electing your trustees, managed investment down the line—if you can afford the risk—to funds have people appointed without your try to get your funds back or try to get re- say-so. Once again, you have something that course. super funds do not have. We are suggesting We are asking that members have guaran- that, if there is that hands-off situation in teed access to the constitution of their funds relation to managed investment funds, there by putting it in writing. Why do we need needs to be some kind of quid pro quo. That this? Members should not have financial is not being given, we believe, in terms of limitations on access to such important infor- this legislation. mation that outlines important features such I can read the numbers. I also see that as voting rights. Knowledge of the constitu- Senator Cook is back. I hope he has had a tion and people’s rights under it are important really nice dinner and has had time to con- to investor protection. As there is no trustee, sider my previous amendments. From what members will have to take more initiative to Senator Sherry said, it looks as though I am ensure their rights are not abrogated. They 3650 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 should not have impediments to having access If you would like the industry that will be to their rights. affected by these changes to be able to look at them—and they go into a whole range of If, as the government and the opposition areas to do with managed investments—I have indicated, and the opposition has indicat- suggest that it would certainly be a more ed, this recourse is fair and available, then normal process to allow industry to have a surely people need to have some information view and a say on all of these amendments upon which they can judge whether or not the rather than us having to second-guess the action taken by their managers has been impact they might have on managed invest- according to the fund’s constitution. We know ment schemes which, as has been pointed out this is going to be more difficult if the consti- by all honourable senators who have contri- tution can be changed without their know- buted to the debate, affect the lives of ledge, but at least there should be some basis millions of investors across Australia. I ask by which members can be guaranteed access, Senator Margetts to give consideration to if they require it. referring these amendments to the Corpora- tions and Securities Joint Committee. I would Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western undertake that when they are referred, as part Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the of the committee’s current reference in rela- Treasurer) (7.55 p.m.)—I was going to sug- tion to the CLER legislation, that the govern- gest to the Greens (WA) a couple of courses ment would look at the report of that commit- of action. I do have concerns—having spent tee and it would remain open to any senator the last 18 or 19 months of my life consulting to move amendments to that bill. with industry, investors, shareholders, people who manage funds and people who act as I really have trouble with legislating com- trustees for funds, on the fine detail of this pany law reform and managed investment legislation—that to make decisions not just on reform when I do not know whether the foot, as I think Senator Cook said earlier, but industry has even seen these. Surely someone on the run, is not a sensible way. This bill has, but today is the first time that the was referred to a committee. Quite frankly, government has seen these amendments. I these amendments, at least for the govern- reiterate that, after 18 or 19 months or longer, ment, appeared today. in discussing the fine detail of this legislation, I find it a little bit of an insult to the industry I was going to suggest that perhaps a con- and the investing public to be trying to structive process—if we want to proceed redesign a piece of legislation with about six down a constructive path—may well be to hours notice. refer these amendments for consideration by the joint parliamentary committee. If the gov- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) ernment and the parliament find merit in them (7.59 p.m.)—I find it a bit of an insult having through an inquiry, they can be incorporated. to deal with legislation that has been so The government would have to give consider- firmly criticised by those who know during ation to their incorporation, but certainly it the inquiry and the government did not take would be open to the Greens or any other any notice themselves, quite frankly. We are senator to move them as amendments to the responding to the kind of information that Corporate Law Economic Reform Bill which was thrown up in that inquiry and through we expect will be introduced into the parlia- people who we know who are experts in that ment next week and debated in the next sitt- field as well. I do not think simply going to ings of parliament. That bill contains a signi- the industry now and saying, ‘What do you ficant number of amendments to the Corpora- think? How about you do this review on tions Law. It certainly would be an available Senator Margetts’s amendments?’, is necessa- vehicle to the Senate within a matter of days rily what is required. Maybe what there will in terms of its introduction, and a matter of need to be, and if I take some of the com- only weeks in terms of its debate in this ments that Senator Cook made earlier, is a chamber. firm commitment from both sides of the Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3651

Senate that there will be a set time by which and bind its members. In order to discharge these arrangements under which the legisla- one’s responsibility as a member, one ought tion is dealt with are reviewed. to be well advised about the rules. Not know- ing ought not to be an excuse. Knowing I can take advice and I can get give you should be within the reach of everyone. So I some ideas by the end of this debate as to take a plain man’s view of this amendment. when, I might suggest, that review could take place, but I do not think simply giving it to I would be grateful if there were some industry and saying, ‘Can you tell us what guidance from the Parliamentary Secretary. you like and what you do not like?’ gives the When we say that ‘a responsible entity must potential problems with investors time to send a copy of the scheme’s constitution to a emerge. We are being asked to take a lot of member of the scheme within seven days if what the government is saying here on trust. the member asks the responsible entity in During the speeches in the second reading writing for the copy and pay any fee up to the debate three senators here said that the prac- prescribed amount required by the responsible tice the government is talking about is not entity’, one presumes that the member will be carried out in just about any country with made aware of this entitlement at the relevant these kinds of investments. So it is not we point and can therefore exercise their right who are suggesting something that is un- and that the fee they would be required to pay known; the unknown is coming from the is not a userious fee; it is a fee that simply government side. What we are trying to direct covers the cost of the transmission and print- you to is some certainty for investors amongst ing of the document. structures that are known, that do have some Could the Parliamentary Secretary confirm track record, rather than what the government with me that that would be the intention of is proposing. The cautious ones here are the how this provision would operate and indicate Greens and the Democrats, and some within whether he has anything to say on what the the opposition who probably are not in the level of fee might be or on how one ought to chamber at the moment. It is not we who are regard what is a fair charge—whether the fee leaping; it is you who are leaping. The cost just pays the cost of printing and postage or will be to those people who are being put at whatever. ‘Up to a prescribed amount’ means, risk. I can see what your intention is. I will I think, that in the regulations an amount will still be arguing my amendments as they come. appear. If there is any advice you can provide I will count the numbers as I go and if it is to the chamber as to what that might be at obvious that it is not going through, at least this stage, I would appreciate it. those arguments are on the record. When the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western expose is done eventually on Four Corners or Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the on the Sunday program or whatever, at least Treasurer) (8.04 p.m.)—The government’s I will be on the record as saying that you view is that it would be a cost recovery could have done it another way. operation. If people do want to know their Senator COOK (Western Australia— rights and obligations they would want to get Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the a copy of the relevant legislation. If they want Senate) (8.01 p.m.)—My riding instructions to do that, they will have to buy it either from are that we do not support this amendment. I a Commonwealth government bookshop or might say, though, that I am inclined to take from CCH or some other supplier of the a view that the constitution of an entity ought legislation. If they want a copy of the consti- to be available to the members of the entity. tution of a scheme, that will be available on The provisions of the bill do make it available the ASIC database. They are required to pay upon the payment of a fee up to the pre- a fee for accessing it there. Furthermore, if scribed amount required by the responsible they want a copy of a company’s constitution, entity. When we are talking about the consti- it is open for companies to pay for that. tution of some body we are talking about the Finally, I do not know what current practice rules and procedures of that body that cover is. I have not inquired into this. It is the sort 3652 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 of thing that could be inquired into if you to the compliance plan, or of a new allowed it. And I did not say, Senator compliance plan, 21 days before lodging Margetts, ‘industry’. I said industry might like the proposed changes with the ASC under subsection (1). to comment on all these amendments. I said that a joint parliamentary inquiry into the (4) The responsible entity must send a copy effect of these amendments would certainly of the scheme’s compliance plan to a member of the scheme within 7 days if give the government more information on the member asks the responsible entity, in their effect. I do not know whether it is done writing, for the copy, and must not charge at the moment, but certainly in the current the member any fee for the copy. legislation there is no requirement that mem- (5) A summary of the compliance plan of a bers of a scheme be provided with a copy of managed investment scheme: the constitution for free. So to that extent it (a) must be contained in every prospectus would be a departure from the existing legis- issued in respect of the managed in- lation, I am informed. vestment scheme; and Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) (b) must set out the main provisions of the (8.06 p.m.)—Basically what we are saying is compliance plan. that members will have to pay to access What we are looking at here is access to the knowledge of their rights. Those are the rules compliance plan. Greens (WA) amendment that they are supposed to abide by and that No. 10 relates to approval—that approval by other people are supposed to abide by in the ASC is required for all changes to the relation to them. If it is cost recovery, I guess compliance plan. Amendment No. 11 requires we are back to the position of who is going that members must be given notice of changes to determine what the cost of putting together to the compliance plan, that they will have those changes are. It could be that one of access to the compliance plan and that new their managers decided that they would have members should be able to inspect the com- to have a conference in Europe in order to pliance plan. I find it amazing to think that change some particular elements. This is a there should be some concept that this should far-flung example, but who is going to change not happen. that? You were invited to give an idea of whether or not in these unseen regulations Why do we think this should happen? It is there would be some kind of ceiling limit and a document of fundamental importance for cost recovery. It could mean almost anything, investor protection. The bill replaces compli- depending on where the managers might have ance supervision by an independent trustee gone to have their conference in order to with supervision by either a majority of decide what the changes to the constitution independent directors—that means a minority might be. So we are still left none the wiser could object—or by a compliance committee. on the basis that you have user-pays. The In either case, the compliance plan is the people whose money is being used in order blueprint for compliance with the Corpora- for the managed funds to make their money tions Law and the scheme’s constitution. Like are going to have to pay for their rights as the scheme’s constitution, the compliance plan members. Terrific. is a document of fundamental importance for the scheme, including provisions for the Amendment not agreed to. manner in which scheme property is to be Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) identified and held, when assets are to be (8.07 p.m.)—by leave—I move: valued, ensuring adequate record keeping and so on. It also provides notice of information (10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 24 (line 21), after "may", insert ", with the approval of the of investors. ASC,". Under the bill, changes to this document (11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 8), may be made without notice to investors, like at the end of section 601HE, add: the constitution. Investors should have notice (3) The responsible entity must give notice in of changes to the compliance plan to be able writing to members of any modification to assess any potential implications of the Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3653 change. This amendment requires 21 days the corporate law standing committee and notice to members of any changes. It requires have them dealt with by that committee, have access and members should be able to receive them report back to the parliament and the a copy of the compliance plan free of charge, government and to make decisions on these similar to what we said under the constitution. matters in six or seven weeks time when that The scheme exists for the benefit of members, bill comes back before this Senate. and members should face no impediments in I cannot see merit in changing the compli- receiving information about their investment ance plan in this way. I have had a look at scheme. It should provide access for new the Greens (WA) amendments as much as I investors to free and informed choice. Why have been able to do in the last five or six not? Because the compliance plan is of hours, and I do not propose to be voting for fundamental importance to the running of the them tonight. It is a bad way to legislate. scheme and to investor protection. A summa- ry of the plan should be attached to the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) prospectus so that investors may judge for (8.12 p.m.)—How annoying. Fancy people themselves whether or not the scheme is coming into the Senate wanting to make something they would wish to invest in. Such changes to improve legislation to protect a requirement promotes free and informed investors. What an annoyance. I can see why choice. I commend this amendment to the it would be easier for this government to deal Senate. with One Nation, because they are unlikely to do that. How annoying. Fancy people taking The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The legislation seriously. Fancy people wanting to question is that the amendment moved by come in and protect those people you are Senator Margetts be agreed to. Those of that legislating against. Fancy wanting to do that. opinion say aye; against— What an annoyance. Yes, I can see that. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator COOK (Western Australia— (8.10 p.m.)—It is hard to understand that we Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the have no response at all from either side. I Senate) (8.12 p.m.)—I wonder whether the know the government seems to be digging parliamentary secretary could tell the Senate their heels in, but I think it is not unreason- where or how members can get access to the able—considering that large amounts of compliance plan. people’s money may be involved here—that Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western they at least give some reason why this is not Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the the case. Treasurer) (8.12 p.m.)—It is lodged with the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australian Securities Commission and it is Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the available on their database for anyone in the Treasurer) (8.10 p.m.)—I made it quite clear world to see. earlier on that I believe it is entirely inappro- Amendments not agreed to. priate to make these sorts of changes to legislation on the run. The compliance plan Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) provisions were drafted by Attorney-General (8.13 p.m.)—I move: Lavarch and his team. They have been the (12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 26 (line 4), after subject of consultation and discussion since "scheme,", insert "and every 3 months December 1995, and they are designed to thereafter,". perform a key role in the investor protection This amendment requires the auditor of the regime. I have made it clear that the govern- compliance plan to audit quarterly. The ment—unless, on the absolute face of it, there reasons are to facilitate early detection of any is some overwhelmingly meritorious provision problems, inconsistencies or fraudulent prac- that cannot in any way undermine the provi- tices. Once per year, in our opinion, is insuffi- sions of the bill—will not be supporting these cient. It gives the auditor the ability to moni- amendments. I have suggested a positive and tor on an ongoing basis, and perhaps that constructive route and that is to refer them to makes the annual audit a lot quicker. Even 3654 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 minor breaches may be an early warning sign believes that the audit provisions and the of more serious non-compliance in the future compliance plan provisions are thorough and or serious but latent problems within the are designed to protect investors and to ensure scheme. It also gives the SRE regular feed- that there are sound, sensible third party back on the compliance plan and allows the audits of compliance with compliance plans. SRE to make the necessary changes. It is an We believe that to require three-monthly incentive to be vigilant because regular audits audits would add massive new expenses to give the SRE incentives to maintain their schemes that would be to the detriment of compliance with the plan. investors—not to their benefit. It is possible, under the bill as it exists now, Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) for there to be no external audit or compli- (8.17 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats have ance for up to 15 months after the commence- some doubts about this amendment on the ment of a scheme, given that the audit would grounds of cost. It is unusual for auditors to only need to take place within three months audit more frequently than annually, although after the end of the financial year of the I would have liked to have seen a provision scheme. So basically people would not know which would require the auditor, if they are for some time that something had gone very concerned that a compliance plan may need wrong. more frequent audit because of potential Serious operational and compliance prob- problems, to advise ASIC accordingly. I lems frequently show up in the early stages would hope that they would feel free to do when a new scheme is developed. It is ex- that anyway in case there is a problem. I am tremely important that there be frequent third afraid that on the grounds of cost and usual party reviews of compliance in the absence of practice we cannot support this amendment. an independent trustee. These reviews should Senator COOK (Western Australia— be carried out quarterly. An example of a Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the problem that could arise with the inadequacy Senate) (8.18 p.m.)—For very much the same of the annual audit as opposed to quarterly reasons the opposition will not be supporting audits is that of the payment of fees or reim- this amendment either. bursement of expenses to the responsible entity. Amendment not agreed to. Under section 601GA of the bill, a Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) scheme’s constitution must provide that a (8.18 p.m.)—I move: responsible entity is entitled to be paid fees or (13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), be reimbursed for expenses only in relation to at the end of section 601HG, add: the proper performance of its duties. Once In this section: again, like the managers who potentially put their constitutional changes together on some books includes financial records. overseas posh holiday—that was just an This amendment clears up any potential example—no independent party signs off on confusion as to what constitutes books, given the fees or expenses claimed by the respon- that the government, the opposition and, in sible entity. It effectively pays itself. A this case, the Democrats believe that once a dishonest responsible entity could easily abuse year will be enough, and sometimes up to this power unless truly independent compli- once in 15 months, for a scheme. This allows ance audits are carried out fairly frequently. the auditor of the compliance plan access to In the absence of the independent trustee, original financial records as opposed to the surely this would be something that could mere recording of financial information on the make people feel more at ease with the books of the scheme. Why is this necessary? scheme that the government has set up. The auditor needs access to the original Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western financial records in order to be thorough. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN— Treasurer) (8.16 p.m.)—The government Senator Margetts, I think there is a question Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3655 of clarification from the parliamentary secre- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) tary. (8.21 p.m.)—I was just wondering whether, Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western considering that the minister is giving us his Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the reason for not considering my amendments Treasurer) (8.18 p.m.)—by leave—I would more carefully, he has had a chance to look like to make a statement because it may save at them. I would like to know whether or not time going through that. The answer to the I can move that the committee report progress amendment is that under section 9 of the and we can go on to some other piece of Corporations Law as it exists there is a legislation to give him a chance to have a definition of books which includes ‘a register; look at the amendments, rather than dismiss any other record of information; accounts or them out of hand on the basis that I have not accounting records, however compiled, re- got the right to move them. corded or stored; and a document.’ So there The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—If it is an all-inclusive definition of books which is your wish to move that way, you can do so, I think you are seeking to put in which is Senator. already in the Corporations Law under man- aged investments legislation. We are dealing Senator MARGETTS—I do so. I move: with this part of the Corporations Law and it That the committee report progress. is subject to the Corporations Law. It would Motion not agreed to. make the amendment unnecessary. I am happy to bring this over to Senator Margetts Senator MARGETTS—It just goes to if she would like. prove that it is not a matter of not having the time but not wanting to and how dare I put Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) them. (8.19 p.m.)—That was not a point of order from the parliamentary secretary; that was just Amendment not agreed to. an interruption of what I was saying. I The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- thought it was quite rude. The parliamentary tor McKiernan)—Now, Senator Margetts, we secretary says that this is covered by the move to No. 15. current legislation. Perhaps it would not hurt if it had been restated, but I shall check this Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) in the meantime and find out whether or not (8.22 p.m.)—I move: there are potential problems in relation to this. (15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (after line 7), Can the parliamentary secretary guarantee that at the end of Part 5C.4, add: there will not be auditors who in this case 601HJ Members’ right to information on will feel or be restricted to the financial scheme held by ASC information in the books of the scheme? Is (1) A member of a registered scheme is this a guarantee that you are giving us? entitled, during normal business hours of the ASC, to inspect and take copies of Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western any document that relates to the affairs of Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the the scheme. Treasurer) (8.20 p.m.)—I am advised that the (2) Subsection (1) applies to any document answer is that there will be no problem, lodged with the ASC by: having regard to the definition of law which I read out in my rude interruption. (a) that scheme; Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) (b) that scheme’s compliance committee; (8.20 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats think (c) that scheme’s supervising trustee; that the parliamentary secretary in this in- (d) that scheme’s responsible entity; or stance is correct. (e) another person. Senator COOK (Western Australia— (3) The right under subsection (1) to inspect Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the and take copies of documents is an addi- Senate) (8.20 p.m.)—We will not be support- tional right and does not limit subsection ing the amendment. 601FC(2). 3656 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(4) The Freedom of Information Act 1982 inspect documents after giving one month’s does not limit a member’s right to gain notice in writing of their wish to do so. access to information under this section. Inspection shall be subject to the absolute (5) An action for defamation does not lie discretion of the single responsible entity, and against any person in respect of the the single responsibility entity shall be under publication by any person of a document no obligation to give reasons for the exercise to which a member has been granted access under subsection (1). of this discretion. This amendment provides investors with Obviously, in terms of accountability, the access at a reasonable price to documents threat of publicity is all very important. The lodged with the Australian Securities Com- most potent inducement to compliance is to mission or its new form. It protects them from ensure that investors in managed funds have defamation proceedings if it makes these a clear and unqualified statutory right to any documents public. It ensures that the Freedom information held by the ASC—and, remem- of Information Act exemptions do not limit ber, the parliamentary secretary has just said this right of access. that documents lodged by the ASC could be accessed. In relation to the fund, financial Why is this necessary? This is necessary in transparency is assured, and the markets are terms of access because access to information better insulated from potential abuses of trust is a key aspect of enforcing compliance. or conflicts of interest—for instance, respon- Remember, the parliamentary secretary said sible entities using investor funds to bolster that people will have recourse if they can take the profits of an associated underwriter facing their managers to court. Of course, to be able a shortfall. to take their managers to court, they would have to have some idea about what has gone Potential publicity is a powerful inducement wrong in relation to documents lodged with for responsible entities to avoid such conflicts the ASC. of interest. Since defamation law is frequently used to suppress reporting of financial irregu- It is a basic principle of trust law that larities, it is desirable that publication of beneficiaries are entitled to information about documents be privileged and that the law not the management of their property and to be allowed to be used to draw an opaque inspect trust documents—and for that, I refer screen over questionable actions of fund to re Londonderry settlement. The right of managers. beneficiaries to inspect trust documents flows It should be noted that defamation law is logically from their ownership of what they never available to hinder free press reporting have paid for. It ensures that the right of in the financial markets of the United States. access cannot be modified or abolished. Overseas analysts have commented unfavour- However, this right can be modified or cut ably on how, in some countries in the region, down by the trust instrument, or it may be such as Malaysia, legal threats have been used adversely affected by contracts binding the to suppress adverse economic or investment responsible entity to commercial secrecy. commentary. Are we going to have that in Thus, the responsible entity could limit here to be competitive with the region? investors’ normal rights to inspect trust In terms of transparency, much has been documents by entering into a commercial made recently of how the Asian financial agreement with confidentiality clauses. For crisis owes much to lack of financial transpar- instance, a responsible entity may sign such ency—and haven’t we said a lot to the region contracts with its parent company to shield about how this should be avoided—and how documents from investors. crony capitalism has masked underlying As the bill stands, there is also nothing to weaknesses in investment. It could be most stop a scheme’s constitution prohibiting—I unfortunate if the bill were to proceed without repeat, prohibiting—a member’s access to any measures to ensure full transparency to inves- information. For instance, the constitution tors on how their funds are managed. It is could say that members may be entitled to hardly necessary to state how such an omis- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3657 sion would damage Australia’s financial What we are saying is more than reason- reputation. able. Basically, we are saying that we should have some transparency with people’s money. One expects this amendment to have the Honourable senators may remember that, support of the government, which is at pains when the Greens (WA) asked that people to differentiate Australia’s financial system have access to information about their super- from some of those in Asia and to dispel annuation funds originally—that is, where overseas ideas that our markets are rigged by their money was going—shock, horror, the insiders, like some Asian financial markets. world was going to fall apart. Now we are This amendment should provide early warn- proudly told by the insurance industry that ing, because investors raising queries on this is part of normal practice; all good documents with the ASC may well act as an insurance companies do it—and, of course, early warning system for spotting potential there are legal requirements in there. We were problems of fund mismanagement, and it does part of the process which required that to not affect strategic decision making. happen—and the world did not end. In fact, This right of investors to know does not cut it is considered to be quite good commercial across fund managers’ strategic decision practice for people to be able to tell others making or prejudice beneficial investment where their choices are within superannuation. opportunities for investors since the docu- So I do not believe that the world will end ments and reports would normally go to the here either. We are talking about people’s ASC after investment decisions have been basic right to know what is being done with made and implemented. It would only be in their money—not anybody else’s money. We a rare case of dispute over legality or propri- are not protecting some commercial in confi- ety of disposed investment that reports might dence relating to otherwise unknown entities; become public in advance. But that is proper we are talking about people being able to and appropriate, as investors ought to know access what is happening to their own money. if there are serious questions over proposed Hence, I would commend this amendment to investments. the Senate. In relation to avoiding exemption in the freedom of information, as the Freedom of Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Information Act applies to the Australian Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Securities Commission, it is necessary to Treasurer) (8.30 p.m.)—A few points that ensure that the intention of this section is not Senator Margetts makes demand a response. thwarted by claims of exemption under the Firstly, the information must be lodged with act, such as client privilege or commercial in the ASC, will be entered on the database and confidence. It is simply not appropriate that will be accessible by the public. Secondly, the an investor seeking information as to what has ASC is entirely funded by levies on corpora- been done with his or her money be met with tions. Even though corporations are taxpayers, any ground of refusal by an administrative it is not funded from the consolidated revenue body charged with a duty of monitoring the in the normal way; it is actually entirely investment scheme. funded by fees charged to companies and it is entirely self-funded. There should be a cap on price. Investors are free to take copies of documents with Finally, even if you were overseas on a their own equipment, such as portable scan- junket fiddling with your constitution, you ners, without being charged, or to have the could not put in your constitution that mem- ASC provide copies for them at not more than bers had to give three months notice or 20c per page. This figure is reasonable in whatever in writing and charge them an light of the fees and taxes paid by investors exorbitant fee, because 601GC(4) requires that towards the ASC’s running costs—otherwise, the constitution be provided to a member the government would be getting us to pay within seven days for a fee which is limited twice. by regulation. 3658 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Senator COOK (Western Australia— The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—That Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the is correct. Senator Margetts can take that into Senate) (8.31 p.m.)—This amendment would account. put a new clause—clause 601HJ—after the Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) existing clause 601HI entitled, ‘Members’ (8.33 p.m.)—If the government is saying that right for information on scheme held by it is going to say no to all of them, it is really ASC’. Quite clearly, the reason why certain up to the rest of the Senate, if I ask that materials have to be made available to the amendments 16 to 23 be dealt with cognately, ASC—or the ASIC, as it will now become— whether that will affect the rights of others. is that they are matters that ought to be So I am happy to seek leave to deal with available to the public and on the public amendments Nos 16 to 23 cognately, provid- record, and they are lodged there for that ing that does not interfere with the rights of purpose. I think to pretend there is some sort anybody else in the chamber. of veil of prevention to access those docu- ments, as this seems to suggest, is wrong. In Leave granted. fact, it is quite counter to the purposes of the Senator MARGETTS—I move: provisions within the ASIC itself. For those (16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 16), at the reasons, I do not support the amendment. end of paragraph (a), add "and the ASC". Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) (17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 17), after (8.32 p.m.)—I remind the Senate that basi- "entity", insert "and the ASC". cally the problem occurs when those docu- (18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (lines 23 to 26), ments are withheld, and there might potential- omit paragraph (c). ly be some reason for the ASC to withhold (19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 28), after them which might not be fair on the actual "entity", insert "and the ASC". investor, the holder of money. The concern (20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (line 30), after was not that it was not lodged with the "entity", insert "and the ASC". ASC—we know it is—but there are a number (21) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (after line 31), of reasons why information about a person’s at the end of section 601JC, add: own investments are, in fact, withheld by the (2) In carrying out its functions, the compli- ASC. We are saying there should be a right ance committee may commission inde- of access, and there is no good reason I can pendent legal, accounting or other profes- think of why a person does not have a right sional advice or assistance, at the reason- of access to their own documentation lodged able expense of the responsible entity. with the ASC. (22) Schedule 1, item 1, page 33 (line 15), at the end of subsection 601JD(1), add: Amendment not agreed to. ; and (e) act solely in the best interests of the members of the registered scheme. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sena- tor Chapman)—We now move to Greens (23) Schedule 1, item 1, page 33 (after line 21), at the end of section 601JD, add: (WA) amendments 16 to 20. (3) A member of the scheme’s compliance Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western committee has the same duties as an Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the auditor of the compliance plan under Treasurer) (8.33 p.m.)—I do not want to be subsection 601HG(4) and has qualified privilege under section 601JE in respect rude and interrupt—genuinely; I try not to be of a notification made to the ASC under rude—but can I suggest that Senator Margetts subsection 601HG(4). might give some consideration to moving (4) A member of the scheme’s compliance amendments Nos 21, 22 and 23 while she is committee has the same rights of access moving amendments Nos 16 to 20. They all to all information provided to the auditor deal with the functions of the compliance of the compliance plan under subsections committee, and it might be natural to cognate 601HG(5) and (6). debate on those. I understand that we are now (5) A member of the compliance committee moving to amendments Nos 16 to 20. is liable to the members of the scheme in Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3659

respect of the duties set out in this sec- Why is it necessary? In carrying out its tion. functions in an independent fashion, the Amendments Nos 16 to 20 ensure that the compliance committee may need this advice. compliance committee reports any breaches to It should have the right to acquire such advice the Australian Securities Commission as well independently and at the expense of the as to the SRE. They also require the compli- responsible entity so that it can perform its ance committee to report its assessment of the functions thoroughly. One wonders what they adequacy of the compliance plan to the ASC might be forced to do if they did not have as well as to the SRE. Currently, this bill only that right. requires the compliance committee to report Amendment No. 22 increases duties on to the Australian Securities Commission if it compliance committee members. Compliance is satisfied the SRE has not taken or will not committee members are required to act solely take appropriate action. Currently, the Aus- in the interests of members. Why? Because tralian Securities Commission is not privy at under the bill the duties of compliance com- all to the comments on the adequacy of the mittee members are significantly less strict compliance plan. than those of the board of directors. Because Why is it necessary? It increases the inde- the compliance committee members stand in pendent watchdog role. It is not enough to tell the place of independent directors and have the responsible entity what it, itself, has done the role of scheme watchdog in the absence and only report to the Australian Securities of an independent trustee, the members of the Commission if the responsible entity has compliance committee should have at least taken no action to remedy those breaches. If the same scope of responsibility as the direc- the compliance committee has to wait until tors of the responsible entity. Compliance the responsible entity takes action—if it takes committee members should act as fiduciaries action—before informing the regulator, the solely in the interest of investors; they should compliance committee’s role as independent not be the servants of two masters. watchdog is severely weakened. Amendment No. 23 relates to new section In terms of timing, significant damage may 601JD(3). This requires that each member occur to members’ investments in the mean- report any compliance breaches to the ASC. time through improper dealings and possibly Why not? It requires that compliance commit- fraud. It facilitates early detection of prob- tee members are given qualified privilege lems. Although it seems a routine matter, a regarding notification of breaches to the report on these matters to the ASC will serve Australian Securities Commission so that they as an early warning mechanism that there may have some protection and thus will not be be problems with the quality or level of reluctant to perform their duty to notify the compliance required of the responsible entity Australian Securities Commission. It is neces- and, thus, larger, more serious problems can sary to create a positive duty. Although it is be averted. If the SRE knows that all breaches stated to be a function of the compliance will be reported to the Australian Securities committee itself, placing a positive duty on Commission, they have an incentive to ensure each member of the committee ensures that that they are following the compliance plan to breaches must be reported. the letter. It is not an onerous requirement; Arguably, a statement of function is not the this extra requirement will require no more same as a positive duty to do something, nor than a postage stamp or the electricity re- is it as strong an indication of the importance quired for a fax or an e-mail. of the requirement. Thus the committee Greens (WA) amendment No. 21 relates to members should have a positive duty to report independent advice available to the compli- breaches of the constitution, of the compli- ance committee. It allows the compliance ance plan and of the Corporations Law of committee to have independent legal, account- which they become aware as soon as possible ing, computing or other specialist professional to the ASC. Remember that we have heard advice to assist it in making assessments. that there is no guarantee that the members 3660 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 are going to know that these things are to have their say. We are trying to build happening. These are the same requirements structures within managed investment organi- as those placed on the auditor of the compli- sations that create a culture of compliance, ance plan. and the compliance committee is part of that. Amendment No. 23 also has a new subsec- It has functions as defined in the law, and in tion 601JD(4), which gives compliance many respects the Greens’ amendments say committee members access to documents. For that they have quite specific duties and try to compliance committee members to be effec- set out those duties in a check list sort of tive, they must have access as of right to the approach. I guess members of compliance records, documents and offices of the respon- committees could, if they had ticked the sible entity. How would they report other- boxes, say, ‘I have been a good compliance wise? This amendment gives them the same committee member,’ just by ticking that box rights of access to information enjoyed by the that the law places in front of them, and then compliance plan auditor under section forget the other duties and responsibilities 601HG(5) and 601HG(6). they might owe. Amendment No. 23 also inserts a new The bill seeks to adopt what we consider subsection 601JD(5). This makes compliance the more correct position, the one that will committee members directly liable to inves- maximise investor protection. Under this tors for failure to perform their statutory position, the compliance committee must duties. It enables greater accountability, and report any breaches to the responsible entity a high level of responsibility and accountabili- and it also must report the breaches to the ty such as this strengthens investor protection ASC if it believes that the responsible entity and, should I say, investor confidence. Com- is failing to act. In other words, if the respon- pliance committee members will take their sible entity has had a report made by the responsibilities seriously and remain vigilant compliance committee and the responsible regarding compliance by the responsible entity fails to act on that report, the ASC entity if this is the case. must be advised. We think that seeks the right Considering that I have put all my argu- balance. It is encouraging internal redress ments together, I will be very pleased to hear before you run off to the ASC. The ASC the details of why the government this time certainly does not need to be made aware of does not like them. Of course, I am still each and every breach, no matter how minor happy to see that there will be some review or inadvertent. But, if there is failure to act, of this later if all of them are knocked back. certainly it becomes a responsibility of the compliance committee to inform the ASC. Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the We also note that under section 601FC(1)(l) Treasurer) (8.40 p.m.)—I can assure Senator the responsible entity is under a duty to report Margetts that this scheme will be kept under to the ASC any breach of the law that has had review by the parliament and also by the or is likely to have a materially adverse effect government, and most definitely on a day-to- on members’ interests as soon as practical day basis by the ASIC. after it becomes aware of the breach. I will respond specifically to the amend- Greens’ amendment No. 21, together with ments moved by the Greens (WA), firstly Nos Greens’ amendments Nos 22 and 23—these 16 to 20. These amendments attack, not in an comments relate equally to those now aggressive way but in a philosophical way, cognated amendments—would probably create the concept of the responsible entity. We are a situation where the members of the compli- trying to build here a culture of compliance ance committee owed fiduciary duties directly within managed investment schemes, where to investors in the scheme. As I have said a the responsibility is placed on the directors. couple of times, this begins to undermine the That is different to the concept of having an foundations of the single responsible entity outside trustee looking over the shoulders of concept, and once you do that you then the directors and other third parties all trying undermine the move that the Managed Invest- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3661 ments Bill sets up—that is, creating a direct and the manager, owing separate fiduciary fiduciary responsibility, uninterrupted, be- responsibilities to investors. This one tries to tween the responsible entity and the investors. build a different culture; it tries to build a Once again, the amendment—I do not think culture of compliance within the organisa- it is doing so intentionally—seeks to under- tions. mine this concept. It seeks to set up an array Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) of fiduciary obligations to members which (8.47 p.m.)—The parliamentary secretary says may well conflict with those of the respon- that we should be able to trust those people sible entity or confuse members as to the who have the role of carrying out those responsible entity’s duties. This is the prob- responsibilities. The simple question here is: lem. If you are all of a sudden whittling away if what we are trying to do in our amend- at the responsible entity concept by setting up ments is to make sure that culture is an auto- fiduciary responsibilities around that entity to matic one—that people know there are a the extent that those bodies, compliance number of people who also have a statutory committees and other parts of the structure, obligation to advise if they are doing the owe fiduciary responsibilities directly to wrong thing—does not what we are doing investors, you reduce the responsibility of the ensure a greater level of compliance? Are directors of the responsible entity. your actions and your changes going to, or That is what is at the core of the concept. are they designed to, increase the level of You want to keep the directors of the respon- compliance or maintain the level of compli- sible entity wholly and fully responsible to ance, or is it crossing your fingers and hoping the investors. Sure, you can contract out for the best? managerial type responsibilities within the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western scheme, but they cannot, and cannot be Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the allowed to by the law, contract out their Treasurer) (8.48 p.m.)—I guess that is more fiduciary responsibility to the investors, which of a second reading, philosophical type is paramount in this scheme. question, but it is an important one. The Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) government is setting up this scheme, which (8.45 p.m.)—If we get a situation where puts in place onerous responsibilities on perhaps the whole of the committee knows directors and members of compliance commit- that a director is doing the wrong thing and tees, because we believe very strongly, as the they are not required by law to say anything, former Attorney-General Mr Lavarch did, that what will be the legal comeback after that? you cannot stand by and allow a legislative Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western and regulatory structure to remain in place Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the that allows investors to be so destroyed as Treasurer) (8.45 p.m.)—They are required to. they were in the Aust-Wide and Estate Mort- If the responsible entity has been informed of gage collapses. That is what caused the that breach and they have not taken action on CASAC and ALRC review to take place. it, they are required to report it. Furthermore, Multimillions of dollars worth of investors’ there is another internal redress, which we money went straight down the tube because have already covered, and that is the inde- there was this false sense of protection under pendent third party audit of compliance with the existing legislation. That is why Mr Duffy the compliance plan. So, even if the compli- appointed the review, that is why Mr Lavarch ance committee are not fulfilling their duties, brought the legislation in and that is why this the auditors will pick up on that. We believe government took its responsibility very it is an integrated structure that offers the best seriously and spent the last 18 months looking protection for investors and protection of the at the failure of the existing legislative re- investors’ funds. It is also a different ap- gime. We made a decision, as a government, proach to that which is built into the existing as the previous government did, that we could scheme, where you are relying on a number not stand by—and that we would be negligent of different organisations, primarily the trustee to stand by—and allow this legislative scheme 3662 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 to stay in place and not proceed down this Senate) (8.52 p.m.)—Do I understand that path. We take that responsibility extremely answer to mean that, if this amendment were seriously and that is why we are here tonight. not carried, nonetheless, the compliance Senator COOK (Western Australia— committee could, if it felt the need, commis- Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the sion independent legal, accounting or other Senate) (8.49 p.m.)—I can agree with the professional advice or assistance at a reason- government on the first tranche of what we able expense of the responsible entity in order are dealing with cognately—amendments 16 that it discharge its obligations under the to 20—and on amendments 22 and 23. How- provisions of this bill? ever, I have a question about amendment 21. Senator Ian Campbell—That assumption Amendment 21 relates to the function of the is quite correct. compliance committee. It is proposed that Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) there be an extra clause added to the provi- (8.52 p.m.)—The parliamentary secretary is sions in the bill which would say: quite right. What he is experiencing here is In carrying out its functions, the compliance indeed a philosophical clash, and the clash is committee may commission independent legal, between those who think that the bill has accounting or other professional advice or assist- inadequate investor protection and the govern- ance, at the reasonable expense of the responsible ment which thinks that their bill improves entity. investor protection. What Senator Margetts Prima facie, there is a point here which goes has been seeking to do is assist elements of to what qualifications and background might the bill to help protect investors to a greater the compliance committee have. Can the degree. parliamentary secretary enlighten me on that That same clash is evident in the parlia- and foreshadow where this question heads? If mentary secretary’s interpretation—and, they do not have available to them, within indeed, the government’s interpretation—of their committee, the necessary professional the collapse of Aust-wide and other funds qualifications, what is to prevent them from some years ago. Those on the side of the accessing this type of advice anyway within trustees having a role to play in fund manage- the bill as it stands without this amendment? ment were acquainted at the hearings by Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western extensive evidence, including in camera, that Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the the presence of trustees enabled greater Treasurer) (8.51 p.m.)—The compliance recovery of moneys to occur than if the committee is a creature of the responsible trustees had not been there. entity and it is very much in the interests of What we are talking about here, parlia- the responsible entity to ensure that the mentary secretary, is not a perfect system as compliance committee fulfils its roles and it exists, and I would doubt that you would functions under the compliance plan. If it fails claim that your proposed system would be to do so then it is going to be in breach not perfect. You are merely, I hope, proposing only of its own plan but also of the law. It is that it would be better. Nevertheless, since it a function of the responsible entity. The entity is a clash of views, I think you should accept is required by the law to ensure the compli- that the evidence is there to support both ance committee works properly and complies sides of the argument. You obviously put with the law. So it is in the interests of the your side and Senator Margetts and others scheme, in the interests of the responsible will put theirs. entity and in the interests of the investors to I, as you know, have long campaigned on ensure the compliance committee is given the this bill to enhance investor security. I believe resources and information it requires. There that these particular sets of amendments do is nothing to prevent that happening; in fact, not take away from the bill but that they add it is all designed to encourage that to happen. to the protections that investors might look Senator COOK (Western Australia— for. In particular, if Senator Cook, on behalf Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the of the ALP, is inclined to separate out item Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3663

21 and support it, I would support that course Since I raised that matter, I note that the of action as well. Australian Democrats have also expressed an interest in this. Whilst accepting your advice, Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) parliamentary secretary, would you mind (8.55 p.m.)—I would like to ask the parlia- pointing to the section of the bill which states mentary secretary a question in relation to the how they may exercise that responsibility? investigation by the ASC into the Crown Casino. What was the basis upon which the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Crown Casino’s management was actually Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the investigated? Treasurer) (8.58 p.m.)—I would point out two things. Firstly, there is nowhere in the bill Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western that says that they are allowed to do that, but Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the certainly they are not prohibited from doing Treasurer) (8.56 p.m.)—That question is it. Paragraph (b) of section 601JD(1), which entirely irrelevant to this area because that deals with duties of members, states that a happened under the continuous disclosure member of a scheme’s compliance committee regime, under ASX listing rules and under the must: corporations law. Managed investment . . . exercise the degree of care and diligence that schemes are quite different creatures from a reasonable person would exercise if they were in that. That is why we have this piece of the member’s position; and legislation. They are very different creatures. Paragraph (c) states: Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) not make use of information acquired through being (8.56 p.m.)—The parliamentary secretary has a member of the committee in order to... chosen not to answer. A board member To not seek that advice, to not get that profes- actually had to resign in this particular case sional assistance, could in fact be contrary to in order to pass on to the Australian Securities their duties. I do not think any reasonable Commission information which would not person could say, ‘Sorry, that wasn’t avail- have reached them otherwise. That is the kind able. I am going to lock myself in a glass of message that I am trying to give. In the cage and I cannot get the information.’ That case of Crown Casino, just requiring the is unreasonable, and I am sure any court management to do the right thing obviously would find that. did not work by itself, and there needed to be that backup to make sure that the ASC actual- In terms of members of the compliance ly did take action and investigate. committee giving information to ASIC—or ASC as it is at the moment and, I think, will Senator COOK (Western Australia— be until 1 July—there are two matters that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate should be aware of. I am sure Senator Senate) (8.57 p.m.)—I am sure the parlia- Cook, Senator Margetts and all senators mentary secretary has answered this fully, but would be interested in this. A member of the I am struggling to keep up. If I may indulge compliance committee under subsection the Senate for a moment, I would like to go 601JD(2) is required to take all reasonable back over it. When I talked about amendment steps to assist the ASC—so it is quite a 21 of the Greens, I asked whether it was positive duty there—in carrying out a check possible for the compliance committee to do under subsection 601FF(1). these things without there being this amend- In terms of providing information to the ment carried, and I understood the answer to ASC, which is a matter Senator Margetts has be yes. In that case, it would seem to me that just raised in relation to the Crown matter, the need to carry this amendment is removed. 601JE states: Obviously if it is within the competence of A member of a scheme’s compliance committee the committee to do so and they do not has qualified privilege in respect of a statement breach any law or other provision, then they concerning the operation of the scheme made by or can have access to outside professional on behalf of the committee, or a member of the accounting, legal or other advice. committee, to the responsible entity or to the ASC. 3664 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

So they have quite significant protection there them and then assisting but perhaps not in making reports. I think that covers one of saying anything or lying doggo until they are the issues that you raised earlier. asked and maybe then and only then telling My attention has just been drawn to page the truth. We are suggesting that that may 23 of the bill. Paragraph (b) of section well be too late. 601HA, the contents of compliance plan If you are suggesting that a member of a requirements, states: committee could have given information (b) if the scheme is required to have a compliance without being sued earlier, I do not know if committee . . . ensuring that the compliance that is correct because it depends whom they committee functions properly, including were giving it to. In relation to the committee adequate arrangements relating to: members, it is a qualified privilege between (i) the membership of the committee; and committee members and the ASC. So, basi- (ii) how often the committee meetings are to cally, they are not entirely covered to make be held; and that information public. (iii) the committee’s reports... Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Subparagraph (v) states: Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the the committee’s access to information that is Treasurer) (9.04 p.m.)—I am informed by relevant to the responsible entity’s compliance with this Law... greater legal minds than mine that it is quali- fied to the extent that, firstly, it must be So I think it is making it quite clear that they provided to the ASC; it cannot be provided to have access to that and resourcing to that other people. Secondly, it is qualified to the extent. It would be obviously unreasonable for extent that, if the information that was being that not to occur. provided was malicious or not in good faith, Senator COOK (Western Australia— then the privilege would not apply in that Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the respect. Senate) (9.01 p.m.)—I am grateful for that explanation. Would I be right in assuming Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) that, if a compliance committee wanted to (9.04 p.m.)—I was just asking the parlia- commission some outside advice and were mentary secretary what the ASC can do with advised, for example, by the single respon- that information. Do they themselves have sible entity, then under section 601JD, duties privilege to be able to provide that to the of members, they could then rely on the wider public arena or do they themselves not points you have referred to as being their have privilege? responsibility in seeking that advice and, if Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western there were still some obstruction, the logical Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the course of action for them then to take would Treasurer) (9.05 p.m.)—The ASC does indeed be to go to the ASC or the ASIC? have a qualified privilege to do that. Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Senator Margetts—To do what? (9.02 p.m.)—Committee members, I believe, have qualified privilege so that allows them Senator IAN CAMPBELL—To provide to speak only between themselves and the that information to the public if it so chooses. ASC. The parliamentary secretary mentioned That was the question, was it not? If the ASC that the committee members had a require- received this information to say that the ment to assist the ASC in an investigation. I Margetts trust funds management is stuffing do not think anyone is disputing that that up and not complying with their plan and that could be the case. I am suggesting that there is provided by Andrew Murray, who is on the needs to be some point by which that infor- compliance committee who gets his qualified mation is naturally put to the ASC if there is privilege, then Mr Cameron can say, ‘This is a compliance fault. It is all very well people information that is in the public interest,’ and virtually waiting, feeling they need to wait or they have privilege in relation to that informa- waiting for some reason until the ASC asks tion. That is something the ASC does fairly Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3665 regularly in relation to breaches of the Corpo- the reply being included in the Hansard. The rations Law now. reason why I have just sought affirmation is Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) to get the reply in Hansard. (9.05 p.m.)—The compliance committee ‘may Senator Ian Campbell—You have got a commission independent advice’. Is that nod in the Hansard. basically a right that they have? There is nothing in the legislation which says they Senator COOK—I have got a nod in the may not or cannot do that. But basically it Hansard. But I think the Hansard would says, if it is in legislation, somebody will show that you have said yes. assist them, I guess. If someone went to a tax Senator Ian Campbell—I understand adviser or a financial lawyer and said, ‘What someone gave a wink last night and it is not can I do here?’, then at least there would be good enough for me to give a nod tonight, so something that said, ‘You have the right to I will say yes. commission other professional advice.’ That Senator COOK—A wink and a nod to- may well be of assistance. gether might be a more compelling affirma- If it is not said that it cannot be done, I am tion. This is a problem that I am trying to not sure that that means necessarily that they wrestle with. I think the functions of the will have access to that or that information compliance committee are quite important. I that is provided to them will actually be able do not gainsay for one moment any of the to be used in the way they would like it to be. explanations made by the parliamentary So I do agree with Senator Cook—at least secretary, and I think all of them are true. that is what I think Senator Cook was saying. Therefore, if one took a rigid reading of If we were to vote on that, then perhaps we legislation—the reading I am prone to always might get a reasonable outcome. It is a highly take, I must say—then there is no need to reasonable that people should be able to unnecessarily clutter the bill with explanatory access that kind of advice in order to benefit amendments which are not needed when one from reasonable outcomes. That advice should can read into this the normal rights and be there potentially as a right and should be responsibilities of a body such as a compli- considered to be part of the proper process. ance committee or the rights, responsibilities Senator COOK (Western Australia— and duties of members. Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the The question now, though, however sums Senate) (9.07 p.m.)—Just for the record, I down in my mind to whether I ought to vote think the parliamentary secretary said yes in for amendment 21 on the grounds that it answer to my earlier question. I see him provides a signpost in the legislation which nodding in the affirmative and I take that to may direct people in doubt as to what their be affirmation that my statement is now true. rights are to, in fact, what their rights might Senator Margetts—What—that they can be. So that we are not taking things as under- do it? stood or read within the legislation; it is Senator COOK—No, earlier I asked: if the clearly stated in there. As I say, my normal compliance committee wanted to exercise approach to this is not to clutter legislation their rights under duties of members and unnecessarily. From time to time I have voted somehow or other they were told by the against amendments which simply restate single responsible entity that that person provisions that are written in the law every- would not pay for the outside consultations of where in the bill and make it a cluttered and professionals, then could they exercise their unreadable document. I often vote against rights under section 601JD, duties of mem- amendments which set out general statements. bers? And if there were still some obstruction, This is an amendment which sets out a gener- could they then go and approach the ASC or al statement. the ASIC? They were my questions and I I am tempted to vote for it, but I must say think for the Hansard record they were that I think I am talking myself into not doing overtaken by a subsequent question without so on the basis that, to anyone who is in any 3666 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 doubt about this debate, the Hansard must man, I have been cogitating on the remarks of surely be a fairly clear guide as to what the the Australian Democrats. I must say that the rights and obligations are and what the parlia- remark that does persuade me in this case is ment thinks is the appropriate way of han- that the type of people concerned here may dling them. While it is appealing to put a not be the type of people who are familiar signpost amendment in, I think it is better to with reading the Hansard record. I am in- keep the legislation as clean and as unclut- clined, therefore, to reverse my earlier expres- tered as possible. sion of opposition to this amendment. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Senator Ian Campbell—I can give you (9.11 p.m.)—I was hoping to be able to help some other reasons, if you like. Senator Cook, but I think he has persuaded Senator COOK—Nothing is worse than a himself otherwise. I would say this to you procrastinator. I disdain procrastination—I about amendment 21, Senator Cook: we all in prefer to be decisive. If there are other rea- this room have probably sat on committees. sons, Parliamentary Secretary, I do not want Some of us have sat on boards. A few of the to delay the debate unnecessarily, but I would lucky ones have been ministers or parlia- be silly not to listen to them. I will not insult mentary secretaries. We are aware that, if you by not doing so. there is doubt, generally speaking you look Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western for black letter. You either go to your consti- Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the tution—or your memorandum and articles, as Treasurer) (9.14 p.m.)—I appreciate that. It they used to be—or you go to the act. This was a point that I made when I was putting specific area is an area in which, in my view, it all together. It is very much making it clear a compliance committee may be populated by that creating a special right in the law that people who may not be aware of the forceful these members can go out and do this—as approach that they might be entitled to take. opposed to leaving it as something that they Let us assume that they have some fund would do in the normal course of their busi- managers who are in turn rather forceful. ness—does create the potential and the per- Those fund managers may persuade them that ception that members of the compliance to go in this direction would exceed their committee, or the compliance committee as a brief or what they are allowed to do. I think whole, owe a separate and different fiduciary it highly unlikely that, in those circumstances, responsibility to the investors. That is what they are going to refer to the Hansard record. the government is trying to avoid. I think it highly likely that they will refer either to the act or to the constitution. As a government, in considering any amendments made by the Senate, we will If there had been a note in the act that look very closely at anything that impinges would, I think, have met your hope, Senator upon the fiduciary relationship or that even Cook. Senator Margetts has not designed it as alludes to a separate relationship between a a note. I think its explicitness does not take particular part of the responsible entity and away from the intention of the bill. I think it the investors. Our legal advice is that there is adds to the independent powers of the compli- a risk in making this explicit in the bill when ance committee. It is, I think, Parliamentary you are not making a whole lot of other Secretary, your intention that the members of things explicit. the compliance committee exhibit both inde- Even though I have made it quite clear that pendence and determination to ensure that there is no reason that a member of the investors’ funds are appropriately protected. committee could not, in reasonably carrying I may have been too late to intervene, but that out their duties, go out and get that advice— is my view, for what it is worth, Senator and we have gone through all of the areas that Cook. make it clear that they can do so, and no-one Senator COOK (Western Australia— can point to where they cannot get that Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the advice—the risk that the government sees in Senate) (9.13 p.m.)—Mr Temporary Chair- this is that, by putting such a signpost in the Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3667 legislation, you are creating a signpost that (24) Schedule 1, item 1, page 36 (after line 3), the parliament is saying that there is owed by at the end of Part 5C.5, add: these people a special fiduciary duty that is 601JK Members to approve removal of not in place for other members of the respon- external directors and compliance commit- sible entity. That is why we are concerned tee members about that. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the responsible entity may, with the ASC’s consent, I have just been handed another note, which remove an external director or member of reinforces the fact that they may be forced to the compliance committee of the respon- go out and get some independent advice. If sible entity. they do not have legal, accounting, investment (2) An external director of a responsible management or whatever other advice, you entity or a member of the compliance may actually require them to go out and get committee may not be removed before this sort of advice. It is not simply a matter of the expiry of his or her term of office ‘Let’s put this in the law and make a little without a special resolution of members note’: it creates a serious concern for the of each scheme registered by the respon- sible entity approving the removal of the government, and I would ask Senator Cook to external director or compliance committee think seriously about it. I alert you to the fact member at a meeting called by the re- that the government does take this amendment sponsible entity under Division 1 of Part quite seriously and that we will look at it in 2G.4. terms of the impact it has on the single Amendment No. 24 requires members to responsible entity concept, because that is approve removal of external directors and where the government sees the main risk. compliance committee members. It requires a Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) special resolution before external directors (9.17 p.m.)—I guess the inevitable question and members of the compliance committee to the parliamentary secretary is: what on can be removed. Currently, there is nothing to earth is the point of having this committee? stop directors from removing these independ- What on earth do they do, if they do not have ent watchdogs at will. It is necessary because guaranteed access to original data and they do there is no security of tenure. not have any guaranteed requirement that they The bill does not prevent the arbitrary must actually report if something is going removal of external directors from the board wrong? I can imagine there must be dozens of the responsible entity, nor of compliance of ex-parliamentarians who would be putting committee members from the compliance their hand up gleefully to be members of committee. In other words, if they give out these committees, because they will be paid information that some members of the board a nice little sum of money and they will not do not want known, they can be removed. have any responsibility. What you have done There is no security of tenure, and no notice is create a nonsense of a committee that does of removal is required to be given to investors not have any real role to play. Mr Temporary of the removal of an external director or of a Chairman, I would like you to put amendment compliance committee member. That does No. 21 first. compromise the independence of these people, The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The and the performance of their functions and question is that amendment No. 21 be agreed duties is thus severely compromised. to. Under the bill, these people are appointed Question resolved in the affirmative. by the responsible entity, are paid by it and The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN—The can be dismissed by it without cause or due question is that the remaining amendments process. There is nothing in the bill to prevent moved by Senator Margetts be agreed to. a responsible entity from dismissing a truly independent external director or compliance Question resolved in the negative. committee member who may be asking too Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) many probing questions and replacing them (9.19 p.m.)—I move: with somebody more compliant, nor perhaps 3668 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 from continuing to replace them until they get and felt that his or her removal was perhaps the right answers. unjustified or for the wrong reasons, they Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western would be able to complain to the ASC, could Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the they not, and advise the ASC that they were Treasurer) (9.20 p.m.)—We will be opposing concerned as to the motives? this amendment because, already under the Senator Ian Campbell—Yes, they could. law, the responsible entity is under an obliga- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) tion to have either a board with a majority of (9.23 p.m.)—Could the parliamentary secre- independent directors or a compliance com- tary advise where in the act it is stated or mittee with a majority of independent mem- even assumed that a majority vote is neces- bers. As long as the responsible entity com- sary to remove an external independent plies with that requirement, the law should director? not be overly prescriptive about the mecha- nisms followed to achieve that result. There Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western can be no doubt, certainly in the Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the government’s mind, that these amendments Treasurer) (9.23 p.m.)—You would need a could result in extremely long delays in resolution and to pass a resolution on a board changing the composition of boards or com- it is like this place; you need 50 per cent plus pliance committees, where that is required, or one. even where the relevant board member or Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) committee member wishes to resign. (9.24 p.m.)—Is it not likely that a number of Senator COOK (Western Australia— those people on the board are, in fact, em- Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the ployees and they put themselves at risk by Senate) (9.21 p.m.)—I wonder whether the perhaps dobbing in, if that was not the case? parliamentary secretary can tell us what They might find their own positions at risk if provisions prevent the arbitrary removal of they were to dob in, if those conditions were external directors. not met in any way and those kind of dismiss- Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western als did not take place properly? Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western Treasurer) (9.22 p.m.)—It would presume Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the that, where you have a board of external Treasurer) (9.24 p.m.)—You do have a directors, there would have been a majority majority who are external directors, firstly. vote for that to be achieved. It depends on Secondly, the directors have a duty under the what you call ‘arbitrary’. If you mean that Corporations Law. They have additional you want to get rid of a director merely duties under this to act in good faith and to because you do not like the colour of his suit act honestly. or whatever, you would have to have a Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) majority on the board; and there is a require- (9.24 p.m.)—I want to make one further ment that the directors would have to act comment. We are talking about the majority honestly and in good faith, as well. of a board and in fact it means it has nothing Senator COOK (Western Australia— to do with the investors at all. In the end, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the decisions might be seen to be in the best Senate) (9.22 p.m.)—If a member of the interest of the board, if they have got things compliance committee or an external director they do not want to be made public, but is to be removed, is that something that would perhaps the investors might be the ones losing go to ASIC for notification? out here and the board might be protecting Senator Ian Campbell—It is. themselves or their director. Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Amendment not agreed to. (9.23 p.m.)—I have a question for Senator Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) Campbell. If an external director was removed (9.25 p.m.)—I move: Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3669

(15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 58 (lines 6 to 22), subsection 601FC(2) and Part 5C.5 will omit section 1457, substitute: not apply to the proposed responsible 1457 What happens if neither of the bodies entity. gives a retirement notice (8) A supervisory trustee of a registered scheme (1) If neither of the bodies gives a retirement must: notice during the first year after the com- (a) be approved by the ASIC to act as the mencement, the management company must: supervisory trustee of the scheme; and (a) as soon as practicable after the end of (b) act honestly; and that year, convene a meeting of the hold- ers of the prescribed interests to: (c) hold scheme property on trust for scheme members; and (i) choose a proposed responsible entity for the purpose of making a registration (d) ensure that scheme property is: application; or (i) clearly identified as scheme property; (ii) decide that the undertaking is to be and wound up; or (ii) held separately from property of the (iii) decide that the undertaking is to be responsible entity and of the supervi- registered as a managed investment sory trustee; and scheme with a proposed responsible (e) not comply with the directions of the entity and a supervisory trustee; and responsible entity to deal in scheme (b) lodge a notice with the ASIC setting out property: the outcome of the meeting. (i) if a prudent person in the position of (2) Before the meeting referred to in subsection the supervisory trustee would have (1) is held, the fund managers and trustees formed the view that the proposed must prepare cases, in a form approved by dealing: the ASIC, for and against retaining a trustee (A) is not authorised by the constitution in respect of a particular scheme, for joint of the scheme; or submission to all holders of prescribed interests. (B) is inconsistent with the investment strategy set out in the prospectus (3) Any decision by holders of prescribed issued by the responsible entity in interests under paragraph (1)(a) must be by relation to the scheme; or ballot. (ii) if the direction involves a transaction (4) The result of the ballot will be determined which is prohibited by Part 5C.7; and by a simple majority of holders of pre- scribed interests voting in the ballot. (f) monitor compliance by the responsible entity with the Corporations Law and the (5) The result of the ballot is binding on the scheme’s constitution; and scheme. (g) report breaches by the responsible entity (6) If, at the meeting, the holders of the pre- of the Corporations Law and the scheme’s scribed interests do not choose a proposed constitution to the ASIC and the auditor responsible entity, decide that the undertak- of the compliance plan; and ing is to be wound up or decide that the undertaking is to be registered with both a (h) provide a half yearly report to members proposed responsible entity and supervisory of the scheme of the responsible entity’s trustee, the management company may compliance with the Corporations Law apply to the Court for an order directing it and the scheme’s constitution; and to wind up the scheme. (i) bring civil proceedings (funded from (7) If, at the meeting, the holders of the pre- scheme property) on behalf of members scribed interests decide that the undertaking of the scheme when directed to do so by is to be registered as a managed investment an ordinary resolution of members or with scheme with a proposed responsible entity leave of the Court; and and a supervisory trustee: (j) not make use of information acquired (a) the supervisory trustee will have the through being the supervisory trustee in functions and duties set out in subsection order to: (4); and (i) gain an improper advantage for the (b) on registration of the scheme, the provi- supervisory trustee or another person; sions of paragraph 601FC(1)(i), and or 3670 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(ii) cause detriment to the members of the of choice: that where investors’ own money scheme; and is at stake, they should have the right to (k) not make improper use of his or her determine in existing schemes whether the position as the supervisory trustee to gain, existing format continues or whether they directly or indirectly, an advantage for move to the government’s new format. We himself or herself or for any other person are not talking about future schemes, we are or to cause detriment to the members of the scheme; and talking about existing schemes. (l) take all reasonable steps to assist the This amendment refers to the situation ASIC in carrying out a check under where the two bodies presently existing have subsection 601FF(1). the opportunity to give a retirement notice. It (9) A supervisory trustee of a registered scheme refers to what happens if neither of the bodies has qualified privilege in respect of a state- ment concerning the operation of the gives a retirement notice. What the Democrats scheme or the operations of a responsible have recommended here is that after the first entity made to the members of the scheme, year, if neither the manager nor the trustee the auditor of the scheme’s compliance plan has retired, transitional period fund manag- or the ASIC. ers—and the transitional period, as you know, (10) A member of a registered scheme who is two years—and trustees must separately suffers loss or damage because of conduct devise the for and against cases for their of the scheme’s supervisory trustee that scheme, have their cases approved in a form contravenes subsection (8) may recover acceptable to the ASC which would ensure the amount of loss or damage by action therefore that they are objectively and truth- against the supervisory trustee whether or not the supervisory trustee has been fully put, and put them to the vote of inves- convicted of an offence, or has had a civil tors in that existing fund. We have proposed penalty order made against it, in respect that a simple majority should determine the of that contravention. outcome. (11) An action under subsection (10) must be begun within 6 years after the cause of If, as the proponents and the supporters of action arises. the bill argue, and as the government argues, Parliamentary Secretary, you would probably the case for single responsible entities is so have guessed that, of all our amendments, this overwhelming, then investors will surely is the most important for us, because I know plump for them. We are suggesting to you, you read our minority report with great care. Parliamentary Secretary, and to the govern- The essence of our argument has been that we ment, that if this is your belief you should accept that the government has the right to have faith in it and not be afraid to offer the pursue a different direction with this bill. We investors choice in case they do not go with accept that the government may have the right your model. to determine that future schemes should be Especially when you have majors such as shaped in a manner which is determined by the AMP, recently launched on the Stock the government, and which all investors Exchange with an immense thump, when you would know is the law, because that would be have the Bankers Trust, when you have these the basis on which they first enter those huge corporations like Lend Lease or very schemes. smart market operators like Macquarie, they Our problem has consistently been with should be able to show investors that their investors who are in existing schemes, who capital, legal and accounting resources make are going to find their funds changed as a it possible for them to do without a trustee. result of this law, without them having any But not giving investors a choice implies a say in that whatsoever. We have consistently fear by the government and the proponents argued that it is contrary to the coalition’s and the supporters of this bill that investors in own belief in choice, and it is contrary to existing funds—not in future funds—may in good and ethical practice, for that to occur. fact disagree. I say to you, if they do dis- So Democrat amendment 15 goes to the heart agree, that is their right; it is their money. It Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3671 is their right to disagree. It is their right to investors in existing schemes because the choose to retain the existing set-up. alternative—to paraphrase or to badly quote The trustees are independent from the somebody else—is too ghastly to contemplate. managers of the funds, are presently licensed If as a result of the choice here you end up in by the ASC and are paid from trust assets. a situation where investors are not given that They are in a fiduciary relationship with choice, and if by some chance that none us members of the fund scheme. They hold the can foresee, particularly the government, legal title to trust assets as custodian. They whose heart is wholly behind this, some monitor compliance with the manager’s major fund goes belly-up and one of the obligations under the trust deed and they take problems is that people lose their money enforcement action on behalf of fund mem- because a scheme is changed without regard bers where the manager is in breach of the to their own interests and their own wishes trust deed. and their own needs as to how they deal with their money, I am not sure how we in this I have had enough conversations with you, place would feel, but the government may Parliamentary Secretary Campbell, and I have find itself in serious legal trouble. heard enough from you in the hearings and on the Senate floor to know that you can point I would certainly institute a class action if to deficiencies in that relationship. I accept I were such an investor, or I would get other that there are deficiencies. What I do not people to institute one with me, because I do accept is that investors should not be able to not think the government should take unto choose whether they stay with a system that itself the legislative right to change the they are familiar with even if it does have existing ways people are investing their deficiencies and warts. That is my problem. money without their having the opportunity to My problem is not that we disagree philo- say yes or no as to whether they agree. So sophically; my problem is that existing inves- that is the purpose of this amendment. I tors are going to be compelled to change from commend it to the Senate. a set-up where they may indeed find them- Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) selves more secure. (9.34 p.m.)—I do not know if we will be Much better informed people than any of us raining writs of mandamus. I guess we have senators in this place have said there is to look in the future to see if that is going to greater risk from this scheme. I am quite be the case and whether the government has aware, too, that much better informed people left it open, if losses do result from that, for have said there is less risk in the scheme. people to be able to take action by way of There are two sides to the coin. But why take class action on them for having helped to the risk? Why not allow investors to make the cause that situation. The embarrassment may choice? If we are to allow trustees a role in be fairly severe, but I guess I would need these cases in which they are desired by further legal advice to find out whether or not investors, desired by people—it is their there will be any recourse to government in money—then we felt that in this amendment terms of their responsibility and others who that role needs to be spelt out. If you go voted for it. through the amendment—it is a fairly lengthy Honourable senators would realise that I one but it does have the virtue of having been have been desperately trying to insert precau- pre-circulated—you will see that we have tions, desperately trying to put in some spelt out, both in common law and in statu- fallbacks, desperately trying to provide that tory law, the understood functions of a trus- which was not provided in the first concept tee. the government has come up with in relation I am pretty certain, because I have had long to the single entity. Senator Murray from the conversations with the Parliamentary Secre- Democrats has indicated that he would like to tary, that he will stand up and say no to my provide that choice for the investors them- amendment. But my plea is to the remainder selves to make. The Greens WA would be of the Senate to pay attention to the needs of prepared to support it, of course. 3672 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western The committee divided. [9.37 p.m.] Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the (The Chairman—Senator S. M. West) Treasurer) (9.35 p.m.)—The government will Ayes ...... 10 not be supporting it, so I will not disappoint Noes ...... 45 Senator Murray there. I regard it as being —— fundamentally in conflict with opposition Majority ...... 35 amendment 2, which we have indicated we —— will support. Can I say for the record that AYES CASC and the Law Reform Commission did Allison, L. Bartlett, A. J. J. look at this concept of grandfathering existing Bourne, V.* Brown, B. schemes. I looked at it as well, when I was Harradine, B. Lees, M. H. doing my consultations. It would have been Margetts, D. Murray, A. a very neat way for me to have assuaged the Stott Despoja, N. Woodley, J. concerns of my friends in the trustee industry. NOES It would have been very easy for me and very Bishop, M. Calvert, P. H. personally pleasant for me to say, ‘It is okay; Campbell, G. Campbell, I. G. we are going to grandfather you all and we Chapman, H. G. P. Conroy, S. can all be friends.’ That would have been a Cook, P. F. S. Cooney, B. Crossin, P. M. Crowley, R. A. very easy policy decision to make. But CASC Denman, K. J. Eggleston, A. and the Law Reform Commission looked at Ellison, C. Evans, C. V. it. I didn’t know until today that they had, Ferris, J. Forshaw, M. G. quite frankly. They looked at the concept of Gibbs, B. Gibson, B. F. grandfathering and said that it was the wrong Heffernan, W.* Herron, J. thing to do because you would end up with Hill, R. M. Hogg, J. two different regulatory regimes for two Kemp, R. Knowles, S. C. Lundy, K. MacGibbon, D. J. different sorts of schemes. Mackay, S. McKiernan, J. P. I came to that decision. The Treasurer and Minchin, N. H. Murphy, S. M. the government came to the decision that to Neal, B. J. Newman, J. M. effectively end up with two different forms of O’Brien, K. W. K. O’Chee, W. G. Parer, W. R. Patterson, K. C. L. collective investment in Australia, a dual legal Reid, M. E. Reynolds, M. system, additional regulatory costs and the Schacht, C. C. Sherry, N. ASC having to administer two sets of laws Tierney, J. Troeth, J. would be a great risk. We can debate forever Vanstone, A. E. Watson, J. O. W. whether we are better to have one system, the West, S. M. old system or the new system. Can I suggest * denotes teller to honourable senators that to have both Question so resolved in the negative. would be a severe risk. That is the fundamen- tal reason we are opposing this amendment. Senator COOK (Western Australia— Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senator COOK (Western Australia— Senate) (9.45 p.m.)—by leave—I move: Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (9.37 p.m.)—I agree with the last (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 32), at point by the parliamentary secretary, and I the end of section 601HA, add: believe that the amendments that I will later (2) If: move, opposition amendments Nos 2 and 3 on (a) a registration application is made as a sheet 939, are an appropriate further change result of a resolution passed under to this legislation. The opposition believes it subparagraph 1457(1)(a)(i); and is offering members in existing schemes a (b) the resolution included a direction choice in relation to custodial arrangements. under subsection 1457(1A); Question put: the compliance plan lodged with the appli- cation must provide for scheme property to That the amendment (Senator Murray’s)be be held by a person other than the respon- agreed to. sible entity, or a person that is not related to Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3673

the responsible entity, as the responsible Under the government’s bill, if after 12 entity’s agent. months neither the fund manager nor the (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 58 (after line 18), trustee of a scheme have left the field and after subsection 1457(1), insert: allowed the other party to become the SRE, (1A) A resolution passed under subparagraph there must be a meeting of scheme members (1)(a)(i) may direct the proposed re- to determine what is to be done with the sponsible entity to lodge with the scheme. At the meeting of members, the registration application a compliance members can choose to either wind up the plan that provides for scheme property scheme or they can choose which entity—the to be held by a person other than the responsible entity, or a person that is funds manager or the trustee—they would like not related to the responsible entity, as to become the SRE. However, under Labor’s the responsible entity’s agent. amendment, scheme members will be able to direct not only which entity they would like These amendments refer to allowing members to become the SRE but also how they would of existing managed investment schemes to like the SRE to hold the scheme assets. That choose preferred custodial arrangements in is, investors will be able to determine whether certain circumstances. Together, these Labor they wish the SRE to engage the services of amendments will allow investors in existing a third party to hold the scheme’s assets. The managed investment schemes the opportunity third party may or may not be related to the to exercise a choice in the way that the assets SRE. of their scheme will be held in the event that the scheme becomes a single responsible Labor’s two amendments intend to provide entity. that, if neither the manager nor the trustee of an existing scheme retires in the first year of After the new SRE regulatory scheme transition, then at the subsequent meeting of comes into effect, investors in new managed investors they may decide whether or not investment schemes will be able to exercise custody shall be undertaken by a third party. a choice by voting with their wallets and The provision is not, however, intended to choosing a managed investment scheme restrict investors’ choice in this regard to a which best suits their individual investment party unrelated to the SRE, nor is it intended preferences. For example, an investor may to require a resolution appointing a specific wish to invest in a scheme which will be party to hold scheme assets. The third party using the services of a custodial agent which agent employed by the SRE will still have to is not related to the SRE. To other investors be approved by the ASC as part of the licens- the way the scheme assets are held may not ing arrangements. SREs will have the right to be a deciding factor in which scheme they appoint any custodial agent they see fit as invest in. long as it is in the boundaries of the direction The custody of a scheme’s assets may not provided by investors at the meeting of be a big issue for some investors. Other members. However, the agent must still be futures of the scheme may be more important, approved by the ASC. Labor’s amendment such as returns and fees and charges, but for gives investors in existing schemes a choice others the custody may be the crucial issue, of custodial arrangement. Given that much of and it is for these investors that Labor is the debate on managed investments has been moving its amendment, particularly investors about custodial arrangements, these are in existing schemes. Existing investors in important amendments. managed investment schemes can, under Labor’s amendments, have a choice in the Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western way that that scheme’s assets are held. The Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the way that the government’s bill is currently Treasurer) (9.48 p.m.)—The government will framed, the investors in existing schemes have support these amendments. only one option in this area, and that is to Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) withdraw from the scheme, which will in- (9.48 p.m.)—The Australian Democrats volve transaction costs. support both amendments. 3674 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) Australian Youth Policy and Action (9.48 p.m.)—That makes it unanimous, unless Coalition anybody else says so. The Greens WA will Senator O’BRIEN (Tasmania) (9.50 also support these amendments. p.m.)—I rise tonight to speak on a matter Amendments agreed to. which is of great importance to young people Senator MURRAY (Western Australia) in Australia: the abolition of funding for the (9.49 p.m.)—by leave—I move: Australian Youth Policy and Action Coalition, AYPAC. This organisation has effectively (8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (line 26), omit "for the benefit of the members", substitute represented the views of young people for "and the interests of members in the scheme many years, and it has received government property". funding since 1991, enabling it to provide a (9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 41 (lines 28 and 29), voice for young people throughout Australia. omit "that come out of the scheme property, Unfortunately, this voice is now telling the or that could diminish or endanger the scheme Howard government what it does not want to property", substitute "that could diminish or hear. This is a diverse group and they speak endanger the scheme property, or that could as they find the issue. Recently they have adversely affect the interests of members". found that their members were concerned These amendments assert clearly the interest about issues such as work for the dole and the of investors as being essential to the purpose youth allowance. It is unfortunate that the of the section, which is about related party reaction of the Howard government has not transactions by managed investment schemes. been to heed these views; it has been to Senator IAN CAMPBELL (Western attempt to silence them. Australia—Parliamentary Secretary to the The Howard government apparently cannot Treasurer) (9.49 p.m.)—We will not be take constructive criticism on these issues. It opposing these amendments. is apparent that the government is not pre- Senator COOK (Western Australia— pared to listen to the views of the people most Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the affected by its policies or those that represent Senate) (9.49 p.m.)—We will be supporting them. So the decision to cut funding to this these amendments. key body reflects poorly on the government but particularly on Minister Kemp. It seems Senator MARGETTS (Western Australia) that this is a spiteful decision by the govern- (9.49 p.m.)—The Greens (WA) will be sup- ment. AYPAC is—perhaps soon I will be porting these amendments saying was—a diverse coalition of youth Amendments agreed to. organisations and networks. Their members Amendments (by Senator Margetts)—by include such radical bodies as rural youth, the leave—proposed: scouts, the guides, YMCA, Fusion, the youth (25) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 7), after affairs council and networks in each state and "entity", insert "or an officer of the respon- territory. sible entity". Senator Chris Evans interjecting— (26) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 9), after Senator O’BRIEN—Terrible, Senator "against", insert "the officer or". Evans! These are hardly radical organisations. (27) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 10), after AYPAC represents some 750,000 young "not", insert "the officer or". Australians through over 400 organisational (28) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44 (line 11), after and individual members. Full membership "against", insert "him, her or". was open to non-government national youth Progress reported. organisations and to state youth affairs coun- cils from each state or territory. These groups ADJOURNMENT combined to make up a national representa- The PRESIDENT—Order! It being 9.50 tive board of 19 members. p.m., I propose the question: With such a membership base, AYPAC That the Senate do now adjourn. truly represented the views and interests of Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3675 young people from all walks of life and from seen as a slap in the face for all young Aus- all over Australia. AYPAC’s role was as an tralians. umbrella group, and that allowed a coordi- If Minister Kemp and Mr Howard are nated response from youth and youth organi- serious about understanding the issues affect- sations to government on government initia- ing young people, then they will reconsider tives. It has been a mechanism to encourage their decision, they will reinstate funding for greater coordination and cooperation among AYPAC and they will allow that organisation youth groups by bringing together diverse to continue on with the good work that it has organisations to identify problems and discuss been carrying out. It is AYPAC that will solutions. provide, that can provide and that would, AYPAC has also participated in a wide given the opportunity, provide an impartial range of policy and program advisory com- voice for young Australians. mittees, including the national youth affairs research scheme; the youth task force of the Australian Youth Policy and Action Ministerial Council on Employment, Educa- Coalition tion, Training and Youth Affairs; the partner- Senator STOTT DESPOJA (South Aus- ship subcommittee of the Council for Aborigi- tralia—Deputy Leader of the Australian nal Reconciliation; and various telecommuni- Democrats) (9.56 p.m.)—I rise on the same cations forums. When the Minister for Pri- matter and perhaps begin where Senator mary Industries and Energy, Mr Anderson, O’Brien has left off—at the axing, if you like, sought young Australians to travel to Rome of the Australian Youth Policy and Action to represent Australia at the International Coalition. Not only are we asking or urging Food Summit and Youth Forum, AYPAC the government to reconsider this decision, we provided them. are demanding that Dr David Kemp, the It is not surprising, however, that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training government has sought to silence this group. and Youth Affairs, reverse this incredibly We are on the eve, I must say, of the intro- negative and regressive decision. duction of the youth allowance. This policy We have condemned in this place today, has been met with great concern from young and last week after the announcement was people all over this country. No slick advertis- made, the decision of the government to shut ing campaign will change the fact that it down—that is, to defund—this nation’s discriminates against young Australians. In a national peak representative body for young climate of rising youth unemployment, appar- people, AYPAC. It was last Thursday, 18 ently the best that this government can come June, that the Minister for Employment, up with is a youth round table that will meet Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr twice a year with 50 participants who have David Kemp, announced—having told or been hand-picked by the minister. While this effectively given the organisation a fortnight’s discussion group will be dealing with issues notice only 20 minutes before the announce- such as youth suicide, employment and ment was made publicly—that the govern- training, there is unfortunately no follow-up ment would not be renewing AYPAC’s mechanism. contract for this year, and that contract is now Minister Kemp apparently is bent on setting due to expire on 30 June. up a committee that will tell him only what That is a bit suspicious really, considering he wants to hear. Unfortunately, he ignores what starts on 1 July—and that is, the the views of young Australians at his peril— governments’s common youth allowance. I and, of course, at the peril of this government. just wonder exactly how bad the government It gives the appearance that this government expects its CYA legislation or policy to be, in does not really want to listen to young people, that it has effectively banned any dissenting to young Australians; it gives the impression or consultative voice from young people. At that this government does not want to hear a time when introducing its common youth their views. This is a decision which will be allowance—effectively, the day before its 3676 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 introduction—the government has chosen to ing, health, education, unemployment, incar- throw away the expertise and networks that ceration, et cetera, are all worsening. AYPAC have been amassed since AYPAC’s inception is one organisation which has been well in 1991. placed to ensure the issues of those most Instead of an expert, well resourced, perma- disadvantaged are addressed. I remind this nent youth body, the government has stated chamber that the first budget brought down that the only input young people will have on by this government cut ATSIC’s funding by youth policy will be through twice yearly $470 million, forcing ATSIC to abolish its meetings of a select few—basically, 50 young community and youth support program. This people. There is no indication whatsoever that has left organisations like AYPAC as the only these people will be given adequate resources advocate— to support the development of policy and to Senator Heffernan—Didn’t stop them advise the government. paying Sugar Ray Robinson $1 million. The defunding of AYPAC is yet another Senator STOTT DESPOJA—Hang your broken promise, another non-core promise, head in shame, Senator, through you, Madam from this government. In fact, this coalition President. I think many young people today actually acknowledged the important role that are not interested in your interjections, Sena- AYPAC played in its 1996 federal election tor Heffernan, because they know that organi- document, ‘Giving hope to our young’— sations like AYPAC have been left to pick up which, of course, was released before the the pieces. They are one of the few advocates election. It promised that the Howard govern- for young indigenous people in this nation ment would ‘improve the effectiveness of today. AYPAC has held two national confer- government in responding to the needs and ences, the Youth Gatherings of 1996 and concerns of young Australians by consulting 1994. These conferences provided training for directly with young Australians around the youth workers and young people, publicised— nation through formal representative organisa- yes, publicised—government programs, and tions such as AYPAC.’ developed policy. AYPAC is uniquely placed AYPAC has been an invaluable resource for this sort of role. not only in the provision of policy advice to In the last few weeks AYPAC has been successive governments but also in assisting working with DEETYA’s coordinator of the those who work with young people, providing 41 new youth officers in order to link them information through newsletters, holding into existing youth affairs networks. This is conferences on youth issues and as a forum exactly the sort of liaison between govern- for national youth organisations throughout ment and non-government organisations that the country. AYPAC has hosted wide ranging we all should be encouraging and that projects, such as a non-English speaking AYPAC was perfectly placed to provide and background youth project and an indigenous assist with. Now Dr Kemp, the minister, is youth project. The latter was funded by the proposing that DEETYA will consult directly reconciliation council for three years and with peak bodies representing young people resulted in, among other things, a document across Australia. called Compact—a publication that gives AYPAC is an organisation of peak bodies, valuable guidance on how to be part of the and Senator O’Brien has just referred to a process of reconciliation. It is a document I number of bodies included in AYPAC, such was glad to quote from during Democrat as the Scouts and the Girl Guides. Yes, contributions to the Wik debate. Senator O’Brien, through you, Madam Presi- Through the indigenous youth project, dent, they are not exactly the most subversive AYPAC assisted organisations to improve organisations in Australia, yet this government their networks and work better to help in- is still pretty scared of the concept of an digenous young people, and advocated for umbrella, united organisation representing their needs. The circumstances that young young people. Other groups include the indigenous people are in, in regard to hous- YWCA, the YMCA, the Society of St Vincent Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3677 de Paul, the Australian Association of Adoles- ian young people to claim that their concerns cent Health, the National Union of Students, can be addressed in this way. Is the govern- Australian Rural Youth, as well of course as ment intending to defund the Australian the state and territory youth affairs bodies. Council on the Ageing? Will they claim that These organisations, through the AYPAC perhaps flying in 50 older Australians to a board, have already formulated policy and function twice a year serves as a sufficient advice for government and the youth sector. means of consulting with them? No—because The rationale of the minister is that he wants this is a political decision. They are not to give young people more direct input into cutting AYPAC’s funding because they have government. It actually seems to deliberately to; it is because they want to. As Michael ignore the range of activities that AYPAC is Raper of ACOSS commented: already responsible for—the kind of activities This is not the first time the government has that they already conduct, that they facili- withdrawn funding at short notice from an organi- tate—that do provide direct input to govern- sation that was publicly critical of some of their policies. The Government should recognise that ment policy for young Australians. silencing voices in opposition does not reduce the I am not intending to criticise the govern- negative impact many of their policies are having ment’s voices of youth initiatives—the round on low income and disadvantaged groups. table and, apparently, support for the YMCA It makes no sense to create such a valuable youth parliaments, an event that has been resource for young people in government and going on for a number of years with, I be- then disband it. There has been a peak nation- lieve, minimal government assistance— al body in this nation for 20 years. The because I am not suggesting that these are not predecessor of AYPAC was the Youth Affairs potentially incredibly worthy endeavours. But Council of Australia, established in 1979, and Dr Kemp purports that the round table will every government since then has been able to replace AYPAC’s wide-ranging functions. work with it. They may not always agree and This is comparing apples with apple orchards, like what they say, but they have worked with if you like. Why not complement the work of it—except this government. It is a mean- AYPAC, or add to, or perhaps value add to, spirited and nasty move by the federal with this so-called twice yearly round table government to destroy a long-established that the government seems to prefer? organisation through which the major youth Is this government afraid of meeting with organisations around Australia are able to young people? Or is it that it just does not liaise and develop policy on the issues facing want to deal with young people, that it re- young people. This can only be seen as a stricts its meetings with young people to two political decision—a nasty, regressive decision meetings a year? I was astounded in question designed to silence the voice of young people time today to hear Senator Ellison, the in this country. minister representing the minister, in this Illegal Immigrants place suggest that one of the opportunities being made available for young people to Senator McKIERNAN (Western Australia) input into government policy and discussion (10.06 p.m.)—I want to return to one of my was an Internet site. Great—let’s go to a chat well versed themes that I have used in this room with Dr David Kemp; I can’t think of place on a number of occasions, that is, anything more exciting. This government migration matters, particularly dealing with seems to be very cyber friendly, what about illegal migration. contacting and dealing with young people and On Saturday, 13 June of this year the West consulting with young people directly, face to Australian newspaper, under the headline face, not just twice a year? ‘Fishermen in migrant racket’, reported on the Fifty individuals on this round table, with- sentencing of a number of Indonesian fisher- out resources or research facilities, meeting men who were convicted in Australian courts twice a year, does not constitute a policy in Broome and in Darwin of landing illegal formulation process. It is an insult to Austral- migrants in Australia. The group of four 3678 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Indonesians in Broome were given sentences per week—for somebody who is sentenced to of seven months and those in Darwin were 12 months, that is pretty close to the equiva- given sentences of eight months—they were lent of the salary they would be receiving for mainly young men. The people who brought carrying out their normal occupation back in the illegal immigrants into Broome by boat Indonesia, and generally that is fishing. So it were paid the equivalent of $508, which is could actually be an incentive for people to around one year’s salary for the fisherpeople, keep coming here. and the ones in Darwin did much better I have mentioned the people smuggling, but because they got paid the equivalent of I am equally disturbed to note, from my visit $1,000—this is information that was given to to the Willie Creek detention centre in the respective courts. Seventeen Bangladeshis Broome on Friday last, that the fisheries were brought in through Darwin, so it is no authorities, the people who patrol our fisheries small problem. zones, have apprehended 50 fishing boats The Federal Police agent who investigated illegally fishing in Australian waters so far it is quoted in the newspaper as saying that it this year. That is a record number of appre- was a big worry that the lure of easy money hensions. One individual in the detention would prompt a spate of Indonesian fishermen centre is there for his eighth visit; it is the to take part in illegal immigration rackets. eighth time that he has been apprehended, in The newspaper report continues: some instances has served time in prison and He said federal police were mounting a crackdown then was sent back at enormous expense to to send a clear message to the fishermen that it was the Australian taxpayer. There are the deten- not worth the risk. But this was hard because the tion costs and then the repatriation costs as money was better and easier than fishing. If they well. were caught, they at least knew their families were taken care of while they enjoyed three good meals It appears, because of the situation in a day in an Australian jail. Indonesia, that there is a real incentive for Racketeers approached fishermen to transport the these people to risk coming to fish illegally in immigrants because they knew the way, were Australian waters. If they come down and get experienced ocean-goers and many were poor and a reasonably good catch and are not appre- desperate enough to cooperate. "They are very easy hended by our authorities, they have made targets at the moment, with the situation over there, because the money’s ripe," Agent Curtis said. "Our money. Even if they are apprehended, charged information is that it’s fairly organised. Indonesia with illegal fishing and then sentenced, they seems to be the launching place." can still go back home with a significant The article continues: amount of money. There is a catch, however. Our Migration Act has a clause in it which Last month, in the Northern Territory, another eight Bangladeshi men were found wandering near Gove, says that money can be taken from them in Arnhem Land, after being dumped by an Indo- when they are removed from Australia to be nesian fishing boat crew. put towards the detention costs. It appears that In sentencing the four Indonesians in these well-travelled individuals are quite Broome to seven months gaol on the Wednes- aware of that. So, after earning their money day of the week preceding this article, Magi- in the prison—usually Broome prison, which strate Col Roberts said that a deterrence I suppose is not the nicest place in the world, policy was needed. I would certainly agree but you can be imprisoned in worse parts of with the magistrate. But from a visit to the world—they transfer the money into Broome I made last week I found that perhaps goods, such as colour TVs, CD players and a sentence to prison is not in itself a deterrent. on one occasion gold watches. They bring I found out something that particularly dis- them out of Australia back to their fishing turbed me: the individuals who are appre- village or wherever they have come from and hended and sentenced could actually be they sell it and they have made the money for making money out of it. Even though they are the trip. only paid a pittance by our standards—whilst That is very disturbing for a number of they serve time in prison they are paid $13.44 reasons. Our fisheries in that region of the Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3679 world need protection, otherwise we would duty of care on the authorities, in my opinion, not be protecting them to the degree that to ensure that they are not wandering Australia is protecting them. If they are not unsupervised, as it would appear, through the protected, they will be fished out in a very streets of Broome. quick time, I am told. I do not pretend to be I hope that my words here, brief though an expert on this particular subject, but I did they may be on this occasion, will spark some receive a very detailed briefing from some action. I know our immigration officials are fisheries officers in Broome on Friday last. I already concerned about this and I would did appreciate that, and I commend them and hope, perhaps in the near future, that our Joint the people at Coastwatch and at other organi- Standing Committee on Migration might be sations who are involved in the protection of able to have a look at it. I would like to, at a our fisheries. different time, say something about that I hope that my raising this subject here committee because there is a recommendation tonight will encourage some people, be it the before the other place that the committee be immigration department, the Australian wound up. That is not a decision or a recom- fisheries authorities or the authorities in the mendation that I would support. Western Australian government, to take some Senate adjourned at 10.16 p.m. action on this. I do not think it is good en- ough that we in Australia are offering an DOCUMENTS incentive to people to break our laws and to Tabling have them benefit from the breaches of our laws. I think something has to be done about The following documents were tabled by it. We have had 50 fishing vessels breach our the Clerk: borders and illegally fish in our waters. You Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commis- see the photographs of the catch they have sion Act—Torres Strait Regional Authority taken and you hear some of the horrific Election (Casual Vacancies) Rules 1998. stories of them taking sharks, for example. Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules They just take the fin; they do not take any 1998 No. 118. other part of the body any more because the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Proposal fin is the most important and expensive part No. 12 of 1998. of the animal. We cannot allow this to con- Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act and tinue. I would hope that our Western Austral- Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (Repeals ian government might also look at this prob- and Consequential Provisions) Act—Regula- lem as well and look at the policy of payment tions—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 107. to individuals while they are serving time in Australian Postal Corporation Act—Regula- prison. tions—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 99. Beef Production Levy Act, Cattle (Exporters) I am further disturbed to be told—and this Export Charge Act, Cattle Transactions Levy is second-hand information, no stronger than Act, Live-stock (Exporters) Export Charge Act, that—that these individuals, the Indonesian Live-stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, fishermen who have been apprehended, have Live-stock Slaughter (Processors) Levy Act, been sentenced and are being released on Live-stock Transactions Levy Act and Primary parole to do work around the town of Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act— Broome. That work can be pruning, it can be Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 106. sweeping the streets or it can be just generally Charter of the United Nations Act—Regu- tidying up. But it can also be working in the lations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 102 and 123. homes of some of the aged people in the Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regula- community. I was told that some of the tions—Civil Aviation Orders— people have been approaching the residents of Exemptions Nos CASA 20/98 and CASA Broome, seeking cigarettes and money from 21/98. them. These people are not legally in Austral- Instruments Nos CASA 175/98, CASA 202/98, ia, even though they are in prison. There is a CASA 204/98 and CASA 207/98. 3680 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Commerce (Trade Descriptions) Act—Regula- Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) tions—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 100. Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. Commonwealth Authorities and Companies 130. Act—Notice pursuant to paragraph 45(1)(a)— Maternity Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Establishment of— Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Maritime Industry Finance Company Limited. Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. Sydney Airports Corporation Limited. 113. Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 109 and 128. 1998 No. 104. Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 101. 1998 No. 120. Defence Act—Determinations under section Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth 58B—Defence Determinations 1998/21-1998/23. Employment) Act and Productivity Commission Export Market Development Grants Act— (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amend- Determination of the balance distribution date for ments) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 grant year 1996/97—Determination 1/1998 BDD. No. 115. Family Law Act— Primary Industries and Energy Research and Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 121 Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 105. Rules of Court—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 117. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and National Residue Survey (Ratite Slaugh- Financial Management and Accountability Act— ter) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules Financial Management and Accountability 1998 No. 127. Orders Amendment 1998. Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 122. Act, Live-stock Transactions Levy Act, Live- Financial Management and Accountability Act stock (Producers) Export Charges Act, National and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transi- Residue Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats tional and Consequential Amendments) Act— Transactions) Levy Act and National Residue Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 112. Survey (Sheep, Lambs and Goats Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. Freedom of Information Act and Productivity 126. Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Conse- quential Amendments) Act—Regulations— Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional Statutory Rules 1998 No. 111. and Consequential Amendments) Act— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 110. Health Insurance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 125. Public Service Act— Health Insurance Commission Act—Regula- Locally Engaged Staff Determinations tions—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 103 and 124. 1998/19-1998/22. Higher Education Funding Act—Determination Public Service Determinations 1998/10- under section 15—T11-98. 1998/14. Income Tax Assessment Act 1936— Senior Executive Service Retirement on Benefit Determinations 1998/35-1998/42. Heritage Conservation Rebate (Recognised Heritage Register and Recognised Heritage Radiocommunications Act—Radiocommunica- Body) Declaration No. 1 of 1998. tions (Trading Rules for Spectrum Licences) Determination 1998. Notice under section 159UD—Heritage Con- servation Rebate Maximum Approval Limit. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act— Notices of Declaration—Notice— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 129. No. 3 of 1998—Medibank Private Limited. Life Insurance Act—Insurance and Superannua- tion Commissioner’s Rules made under section No. 4 of 1998—Australian Rail Track Corpo- 252—Commissioner’s Rules— ration. No. 31—Variation of Commissioner’s Rules Student and Youth Assistance Act— No. 25—Annual Statistical Returns. Determination No. 1998/1—Determination of No. 32—Variation of Commissioner’s Rules Courses for the Purpose of Paying AUSTUDY. No. 26—Collection of Statistics. Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 132. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3681

Superannuation Act 1976—Declaration— Treaty—Bilateral—Revised national interest Statutory Rules 1998 No. 131. analysis—Agreement on Mutual Recogni- Superannuation Contributions Determinations tion in relation to Conformity Assessment, SCD 98/3-SCD 98/6 and SCD 98/4 (Addendum). Certificates and Markings, between Austral- Superannuation Guarantee Determination SGD ia and the European Community [Revised 98/1. version of national interest analysis tabled Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act— in both Houses of Parliament on 26 May Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 108. 1998][Received on 3 June 1998] Superannuation (Productivity Benefit) Act and Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional Committee to Examine the Use of the Term and Consequential Amendments) Act— ‘Drug Free’— Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 114. Interim report on the use of the term Sydney Airport Curfew Act—Dispensation ‘drug free’ in relation to presentation and granted under section 20—Dispensation No. 4/98. advertising of therapeutic goods, 8 May Sydney Airport Demand Management Act— 1998. [Received on 4 June 1998] Determination of Sydney Airport Compliance Government response to the interim Scheme 1998. report on the use of the term ‘drug free’ Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 119. in relation to presentation and advertising Taxation Determination TD 98/12. of therapeutic goods. [Received on 4 June Taxation Ruling— 1998] SST 10 and SST 11. PROCLAMATIONS TR 97/2 (Addendum). TR 98/7-TR 98/9. Proclamations by His Excellency the Gover- nor-General were tabled, notifying that he had Telecommunications Act— proclaimed the following provisions of Acts Determination under section 51—No. 1 of 1998. to come into operation on the dates specified: Telecommunications Numbering Amendment Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act Plan 1998. 1997—Act, except for Part 1—1 July 1998 Telecommunications (Numbering Charges) Act— (Gazette No. GN 22, 3 June 1998). Telecommunications (Amount of Annual Charge) Wheat Marketing Amendment Act 1997— Determination 1998 (Amendment No. 1). Divisions 5 and 6 of Part 2, and Part 2 of Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act—Regula- Schedule 1—1 June 1998 (Gazette No. GN 21, tions—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 116. 27 May 1998). Veterans’ Entitlements Act—Instruments under RETURN TO ORDER section 196B—Instruments Nos 37 and 38 of 1998. A return to order relating to a review of the first two years of operation of certain amend- Tabling ments to the Corporations Law by the First The Acting Deputy President tabled the Corporate Law Simplification Act 1995 was following documents received since the last tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of sitting of the Senate: 28 September 1995 3682 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Prime Minister and occurred outside Canberra since March 1996; and Cabinet: Training or Seminars (b) Where has the training taken place. (Question No. 1015) Senator Hill—The Prime Minister has Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister provided the following answer to the honour- representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, able senator’s question: on 5 December 1997: The following table gives details of the training (a) What training or seminars for Canberra-based courses which were organised by the Department public servants employed by the department have held outside Canberra since March 1996:

No of Course Course Title People Duration Course Venue Provider Middle Management Development Pro- 16 5 days Sutton, NSW People and Strategy gram People Management and Development 19 2 days Binalong, NSW Kieran O’Callaghan Section Team Building & Associates Middle Management Development Pro- 18 5 days Batemans Bay, People and Strategy gram NSW Senior Officer Manager Program 11 5 days Bowral, NSW People and Strategy

Roads of national Importance Program (1) No. A formal proposal has not yet been re- ceived. However officer discussions have been (Question No. 1081) under way for some time to develop a satisfactory Senator Denman asked the Minister repre- proposal. senting the Minister for Transport and Re- (a) No. gional Development, upon notice, on 6 March (b)Not applicable. 1998: (2) Until a Project Proposal Report is received by (1) Has the Tasmanian Government responded to the Minister for Transport and Regional Develop- the offer from the Commonwealth in providing a ment, no indication can be given on the likely third of the funding for construction of an access commencement and completion of construction of road to the port area of Devonport, Tasmania, the project. under the Roads of National Importance program; if not, (a) has a counter offer been put to the Brisbane Airport Commonwealth by the Tasmanian Government for (Question No. 1097) construction; (b) what are the terms of the counter offer. Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- (2) If an agreement has been reached between the senting the Minister for Transport and Re- State Government, Local Government and the gional Development, upon notice, on 12 Commonwealth, when is the physical work of March 1998: construction set to commence and when is it With reference to the Brisbane Airport: planned to be completed. (1) (a) What arrangements are there governing Senator Alston—The Minister for Trans- the minimum allowable altitude for aircraft passing port and Regional Development has provided over residential areas during take off and landing the following answer to the honourable on each runway; and (b) have these arrangements senator’s question: been altered since 2 March 1996. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3683

(2) For each month since January 1996, on how (4) What public health factors were relied on by many occasions has each runway limit been ANZFA to justify its decision that it was not breached. necessary to prescribe mandatory labelling of foods that are substantially equivalent to their conven- Senator Alston—The Minister for Trans- tional counterparts. port and Regional Development has provided (5) How is it ‘more restrictive than necessary to the following answer to the honourable achieve a legitimate outcome’. senator’s question: (6) What are Australia’s obligations to the World (1) (a) The operation of aircraft in Australia is Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreements with covered by the Civil Aviation Regulations. How- respect to foods containing new or altered genetic ever, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) material. advise that the Regulations do not prescribe (7) Is the draft standard prescribing mandatory minimum altitudes during take-off and landing over labelling for foods containing new or altered residential areas. Altitude limitations during take- genetic materials necessary to comply with the off and landing are not feasible because of the minimum requirements of the WTO Agreement; if nature of the activity. so, how; if not, why not. However, CASA requires aircraft departing and (8) How would the draft standard be inconsistent landing at airports, including Brisbane, to follow with Australian policies if it was not implemented. published procedures for minimum gradients. Aircraft departing from airports are required to (9) Why is labelling of foods containing new or comply with a minimum climb gradient of 3.3% altered genetic materials which are substantially from the departure end of the runway, unless a equivalent not useful information for consumers. steeper gradient is necessary for obstacle clearance. (10) Is all information currently required to be Aircraft approaching to land are required to follow included on labels useful information for consum- a 3 degree approach path to the runway, beginning ers; if so, how. from an approach altitude which is dependent on (11) Is there any information currently required whether the aircraft is following visual or instru- to be included on labels which is not useful infor- ment procedures. mation for consumers. (b) No. (12) Does ANZFA prescribe other standards (2) Not applicable. which cannot be enforced; if so, which ones; if not, why not. Genetically Engineered Foods (13) Are there any other circumstances where (Question No. 1108) ANZFA has decided not to prescribe a standard because it is regarded as not practicable; if so, what Senator Stott Despoja asked the Minister are these circumstances; if not, why is food label- representing the Minister for Health and ling for foods containing new or altered genetic Family Services, upon notice, on 26 March materials a special circumstance. 1998: (14) Is there any data available to ANZFA which (1) Has the Australia New Zealand Food Auth- shows consumer preferences for labelling of foods ority (ANZFA) recommended to the Australia New containing new or altered genetic materials; if so, Zealand Food Standards Council a draft standard what is it; if not, does ANZFA intend to obtain this to the Food Standards Code for the labelling of data. foods using gene technology; if so, does the draft (15) How is ‘substantial equivalence’ determined standard prescribe mandatory labelling for foods when used to describe foods containing new or containing new or altered genetic materials; if not, altered genetic materials. why not. (16) Is a food derived from a plant or animal (2) (a) What does the term ‘substantial which contains new or altered genetic materials the equivalence’ mean when used to describe foods same as food derived from a plant or animal which containing new or altered genetic materials; and (b) does not contain new or altered genetic materials. what does ‘conventional counterparts in a character- (17) Does genetic engineering have the same istic or property of a food’ mean as it relates to outcome as traditional breeding techniques for food ‘substantial equivalence’. crops and animals; if so, what procedures would be (3) What are the scientific principles relied on by undertaken to introduce genes from one phyla into ANZFA to justify its decision that it was not another phyla using traditional breeding techniques. necessary to prescribe mandatory labelling of foods (18) Is genetic engineering a precise manner for that are substantially equivalent to their conven- transferring genetic material from one genome to tional counterparts. another for food crops and animals. 3684 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(19) Where genetic engineering is applied for A determination of substantial equivalence can transferring genetic material from one genome to be carried out at the level of the food source or at another for food crops and animals, is the level of the level of the specific food product. This involves expression of the inserted genetic material predict- a consideration of the molecular characterisation of able. the new food source; phenotypic characteristics of (20) Where genetic engineering is applied for the new food source in comparison to an appropri- transferring genetic material from one genome to ate comparator already in the food supply; and the another for food crops and animals, does this compositional analysis of the new food source or procedure occur at low frequencies; if so, what is the specific food product in comparison to the the range of frequencies. comparator. The comparison may be made to the parental line/strain and/or other edible lines/strains (21) (a) Where genetic engineering is applied for of the same species, or it can build on a compari- transferring genetic material from one genome to son of the derived food product (eg, protein, another for food crops and animals, are all integrat- carbohydrate, fat) with a comparable conventional ed genetic materials stable; and (b) how is this food product. determined. The application of the principle of substantial (22) Where genetic engineering is applied for equivalence to safety assessment enables the public transferring genetic material from one genome to health and safety risks of the food to be character- another for food crops and animals, are marker ised by reference to the known public health and genes included in the new or altered genetic safety characteristics of its conventionally bred materials; if so, are all these genes harmless to counterpart. All relevant effects are taken into humans and are there any other environmental account in determining ‘substantial equivalence*. consequences. (5)—(6) Australia is party to two World Trade (23) (a) Where genetic engineering is applied for Organisation (WTO) Agreements which are rel- transferring genetic material from one genome to evant to foods. The Agreement on Sanitary and another for food crops and animals, are any of Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) addresses measures these marker genes antibiotic resistance genes; and necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or (b) is this important. health. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to (24) Where genetic engineering is applied for Trade (TBT) addresses technical regulations and transferring genetic material from one genome to standards to ensure the quality of exports; protec- another for food crops and animals, is there any tion of human, animal or plant life or health, or the possibility of horizontal gene transfer into the environment; or for the prevention of deceptive genome of humans. practices. These agreements oblige Australia to ensure that its regulations and standards are applied (25) Are there some pleotropic effects of genetic consistently, are based on sound data and are no engineering of food products which are not con- more trade restrictive than is necessary to achieve sidered in determining ‘substantial equivalence’. a legitimate objective. Senator Herron—The Minister for Health (7) The draft standard is consistent with the and Family Services has provided the follow- requirements of the WTO SPS and TBT agreements ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- in that it provides a level of consumer protection tion: for safety and deception, consistent with other existing food standards, without imposing undue (1) Yes. The draft standard prescribes mandatory restrictions on the movement of goods in trade. labelling for any food that is or contains compo- nents produced using gene technology containing (8) There is currently no specific regulation of new or altered genetic material and not substantial- foods from gene technology. If the draft standard ly equivalent in any characteristic or property to a is not implemented then consumers would not be conventionally consumed food. assured that foods from gene technology had been assessed and found to be safe before they were sold (2)—(4) and (15)—(25) In the context of the and that where these foods were compositionally or draft standard, substantially equivalent in regard to nutritionally different they would be informed. a characteristic or property of the food means that the nutritional and compositional value of the food (9) The issue of whether the labelling of foods falls within the normal range for similar foods that containing new or altered genetic material which is are or contain foods derived by conventional substantially equivalent is, or is not, useful informa- breeding methods. This includes that the food does tion for consumers has been assessed by ANZFA not contain higher levels of anti-nutritional factors in the context of all potential sources of informa- or natural toxicants or introduced allergenic factors tion likely to be available to consumers. ANZFA and does not lead to the food having a different is concerned to ensure that a comprehensive pattern of dietary exposure. approach is taken to ensure consumers have access Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3685 to adequate information which would allow them information which has been assessed as necessary, to make informed choices. having regard to voluntary labelling and to the In regard to the value of mandatory labelling, other sources of information available to consum- ANZFA has given particular attention to the ers. ANZFA will also ensure that standards are comprehensive labelling requirements enacted in enforceable and that any standards which cannot be the European Union. This regulation allows "may enforced are deleted. contain" labelling statements where the presence of (14) ANZFA is aware of a number of surveys a genetically modified component is uncertain. undertaken in Australia and overseas in which a ANZFA has questioned whether the statement "may majority of consumers have expressed a desire for contain" is of value as it has the potential to be re- foods produced using gene technology to be quired on a very large number of foods. Such a labelled. ANZFA considers that it is the primary statement may be of value to the extent that a responsibility of industry to provide consumers with consumer totally opposed to the processes of gene information on such foods where these are sub- technology could avoid any food bearing the appro- stantially equivalent to their conventionally bred priate label. However, for a consumer wishing to counterparts and is committed to working with make a choice on the basis of perceived relative industry and consumers to facilitate the provision benefits of a food produced using gene technology of such information. compared to a conventional counterpart, or between two foods produced using gene technology, the (16)—(17) There is no intrinsic reason why a statement "may contain" is of little value. In food derived from a plant or animal which contains addition, it is likely that a number of foods bearing new or altered genetic material should not be the this label would in fact contain no genetically same as food derived from a plant or animal which modified component and, in that respect, such does not contain new or altered genetic materials. labelling has the potential to be deceptive. There- Any differences will result from the specific fore, to introduce full mandatory labelling, resulting genetic material present and the way in which it is in the proliferation of such "may contain" labelling expressed. Traditional breeding techniques would statements, could in fact distract a consumer from not normally result in the introduction of genetic making an informed choice. material from one phyla to another, although, wide- crossing and similar techniques can be used to (10)—(13) ANZFA is currently undertaking a transfer genetic material between species which do comprehensive review of the Australian Food not normally interbreed. Standards Code. In developing or reviewing food standards, the ANZFA must have regard to the (18)—(19) Genetic engineering provides a means objectives outlined in section 10 of the Australia for introducing a precise sequence of DNA into a New Zealand Food Authority Act 1991. genome. The exact position of each insertion and the level of expression will vary from insertion to Consistent with these statutory objectives, the insertion. Screening is used to determine which review will, where possible: reduce the level of insertions are then selected for further commercial prescriptiveness of standards to facilitate innovation development. by allowing wider permission on the use of ingredi- ents and additives, but with consideration of the (20) The frequency of successful transfer of possible increased need for consumer information; genetic material from one genome to another will develop standards which are easier to understand depend upon the techniques used, the species to and make amendment more straight forward; which the technique is applied and the level of replace standards which regulate individual foods expression of inserted genetic material desired. with standards that apply across all foods or a (21) Inserted genetic material is not necessarily range of foods; consider the possibility of industry stable. Stability in a commercial product is ensured codes of practice as an alternative to regulation; by screening prior to approval for release of a and facilitate harmonisation of food standards genetically modified organism. Only organisms between Australia and New Zealand. containing material found to be stable are approved The review will also be carried out in accordance by the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Committee with the competition policy principles which have (GMAC) for release into the environment. been adopted by the Council of Australian Govern- (22)—(23) The use of marker genes and the ments. These principles require the review of all types of marker genes selected will depend upon business regulation to remove unnecessary obstacles the techniques used and the organisms involved. to competition, and an assessment of the social, The ANZFA draft standard will ensure that any environmental and economic impacts as well as the food that is or contains components produced using impacts on health of proposed regulation on all gene technology will be assessed for safety before affected sectors of the community. it can be sold. This assessment will include con- Through this review ANZFA will ensure that sideration of any marker genes present, including mandatory food labelling is only required for possible antibiotic resistance marker genes. The 3686 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 assessment of any implications for the environment There are currently two special projects: (1) is undertaken by GMAC prior to release. participation in regional activities relevant to food (24) Although there is a theoretical possibility of standards; and (2) review of the Model Food Act horizontal gene transfer from foods into the genome 1980, review of State and Territory Food Acts and of humans, in practice such transfers do not occur. to develop a (new) nationally uniform Food Act. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the proba- (2) Initial development of the Australian Food bility of such transfer from a food made from or Safety Information Network (AFSIN) on behalf of containing a genetically modified organism would the State and Territory health authorities. be any greater than from food made from conven- (3) During the 1995-96 financial year, $96,800 tionally bred organisms. was provided to ANZFA for the initial development of AFSIN. Australia New Zealand Food Authority During the 1996-97 financial year, $51,000 was (Question No. 1110) provided to ANZFA for the initial development of AFSIN—this funding remained outstanding in the Senator Stott Despoja asked the Minister previous financial year; $126,126 was provided for representing the Minister for Health and the regional project; and $160,000 was provided for Family Services, upon notice, on 30 March the Model Food Act project. 1998: (4) (a) AFSIN funding was provided by the With reference to page 67 of the 1996-97 annual States and Territories in the 1995-96 financial year. report of the Australia New Zealand Food Authori- Participation in regional activities was provided by ty (ANZFA): AusAID and Model Food Act project funding was (1) Does ANZFA undertake ‘special projects’; if provided by the Commonwealth Department of so, what special projects are currently being Health and Family Services in the 1996-97 finan- undertaken. cial year. (2) What ‘special projects’ were undertaken in (b) The AFSIN funding was used to develop the the 1995-96 financial year. architecture of an ORACLE database. Each State and Territory Health Authority was provided with (3) What monies were provided to ANZFA for a stand alone computer which connected to the these ‘special projects’ in the financial years 1995- database. The State and Territory Health Authority 96 and 1996-97. users were encouraged to enter test data into the (4) (a) Who or what provided these monies; and database and were provided with technical advice (b) what did they receive in return for these and assistance centrally from ANZFA. monies. The regional project funds were used to under- (5) What does ‘other’ in ‘other revenues’ mean. take a study of regional product standards initia- tives and to develop a regional development (6) What ‘other’ are currently being undertaken. program under the auspices of The APEC Stand- (7) What ‘other’ were undertaken in the 1995-96 ards and conformance sub-committee. financial year. Model Food Act funding was used to develop a (8) What monies were provided to ANZFA for model for a nationally uniform food legislation. these ‘other’ in the financial years 1995-96 and (5) ‘Other’ in ‘other revenues’ is comprised of 1996-97. small differing types of income, individually (9) (a) Who or what provided these monies; and immaterial to disclose separately. ‘Other’ includes (b) what did they receive in return for these the following specific items: public register access monies. charges—the public can request access to certain Authority records; car parking fees—recovery of Senator Herron—The Minister for Health costs for staff who park their private vehicles in and Family Services has provided the follow- ANZFA leased parking bays; Comcare reim- ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- bursements; refunds/recoveries from various organi- tion: sations for travel and salary costs for staff who (1) The term ‘special projects’ refers to one-off speak at conferences and seminars; and Memoran- tasks that ANZFA is required to undertake, how- dum of Understanding with the Department of ever, these ‘special projects’ are directly relevant Health and Family Services for the provision of a to the core business activities of ANZFA. Both Nutritional Analysis—this accounts for 9% of internal and external auditors, together with the 1996-97 ‘other revenue’. Authority’s finance staff, agreed that a separate (6) ‘Other’ for the 1997-98 financial year in- revenue category be developed due to the materiali- cludes Comcare reimbursements, car parking fees, ty of the revenue involved. public register access charges and refunds/recover- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3687 ies from external bodies for travel and salaries for sents in cents per hectare, based on 1,804 million staff attending seminars and conferences etc. hectares being salinity-affected. (7) ‘Other’ for the 1995-96 financial year in- Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- cludes Comcare reimbursements, car parking fees, able senator’s question is as follows: public register access charges and refunds/recov- eries from external bodies for travel and salaries for (1)—(2) I agree that it is a serious problem. I staff attending seminars and conferences etc. understand the increase in areas affected in WA to be from 264,000 hectares in 1982 to 1,804,000 (8) In the 1995-96 and 1996-97 financial years hectares in 1996, not an increase to 1,804 million the ‘other’ in ‘other revenue’ comprised immaterial hectares. I understand the potential area in WA amounts of differing types of recovery payments vulnerable to dryland salinity degradation is for services provided. These items included the 6,109,000 hectares, not 6,109 million hectares. following specific items: (3) The Western Australian State Salinity Action . Public register access charges (1995-96— Plan is an agreed priority in the Natural Heritage $1,713; 1996-97—$2,045); Trust Partnership Agreement between the Common- . Car parking recovery from staff (1995-96— wealth and Western Australia. $8,180; 1996-97—$9,016); (4) (a) and (b) In 1997-98 the Commonwealth . Comcare reimbursements (1995-96—$39, 258; Government committed over $23 million of Natural 1996-97—$50,365); Heritage Trust funds from programs such as Bushcare, Landcare, Rivercare and Farm Forestry . Speakers fees (1996-97 only—$11,046); and to WA. These funds are being expended on projects . Refunds/recoveries from external bodies for and activities predominantly in the south west of staff attending conferences and seminars and WA where the Salinity Action Plan is targeted. accounting transfers make up the remaining Given that funding available under the Natural funds. Heritage Trust has been significantly increased for 1998-99 I would expect that the level of Common- (9) (a) The ‘user’ of the service provided these wealth commitment to addressing salinity problems monies. in WA will be even greater in the next year. (b) In return for monies paid the ‘user’ received Drought Exceptional Circumstances various outcomes ranging from utilisation of a car parking space to access to the public register. Program (Question No. 1135) Western Australia: Salinity Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- (Question No. 1130) senting the Minister for Primary Industries Senator Murray asked the Minister for the and Energy, upon notice, on 15 April 1998: Environment, upon notice, on 7 April 1998: (1) When did the New South Wales Government (1) Is it a fact the salt-affected areas of Western first apply for drought exceptional circumstances Australia the worst affected region for salinity in (DEC) assistance for the Monaro district. Australia, increased from 264,000 hectares in 1982 (2) (a) When did the Rural Adjustment Scheme to 1,804 million hectares in 1996. Advisory Committee (RASAC) inspect the region; (b) when was the RASAC report provided to the (2) Does the Government agree that, if no action Minister; and (c) when did the Minister advise the is taken, future estimates of the potential areas in New South Wales Government of his decision. Western Australia vulnerable to salinity degradation are as high as 6,109 million hectares, according to (3) If the application was rejected, what was the the Australian Magazine of 21 and 22 March 1998 basis of the rejection. quoting State and Federal Government documents, (4) Were subsequent applications made by the National Dryland Salinity Program and Western New South Wales Government if so: when were Australian salinity statement. they lodged; (b) when did RASAC inspect the (3) What resources are being allocated, and what region; (c) when did it report to the Minister; and policies and programs have been adopted, by the (d) when was the New South Wales Government Federal Government to combat the problems of advised of the Minister’s decision. salinity and land degradation in Western Australia. (5) What was the basis of the decision in respect (4) (a) How much money has the Federal of the application. Government allocated to spend on combating the (6) (a) What area was covered by the New South problems of salinity and land degradation in Wales Government’s successful application for Western Australia; and (b) what does this repre- DEC for the Monaro district; and (b) how many 3688 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 farm families were in the area covered by the (c) Minister Anderson advised the New South application. Wales Government of this decision in writing on 31 December 1997. (7) (a) What percentage of the area covered in the application was approved for DEC assistance; (3) The government accepted RASAC’s findings and (b) how many farm families are in that area. that the specified area of the Cooma region did not meet the criteria for EC as (8) (a) How many farm families have qualified . overall rainfall for the last three years had for farm household assistance and business support; been near average; (b) how many families failed to qualify for family and/or business support; and (c) on what basis was . pasture is naturally of poor quality but could each application rejected. be improved; (9) With reference to a statement by the Minister, . weed infestation was similar to that in the in answer to a question without notice on 7 April Greater Monaro Region; and 1998, that more people receive more assistance . livestock numbers had declined but no more than was possible under the arrangements in place so than in other areas of New South Wales. under the previous Government, with the exception (4) (a) On 30 January 1998, the New South of the extension of the recovery period, to what Wales Government provided Minister Anderson other variations to the previous DEC arrangements with supporting information for the reassessment of was the Minister referring. the Monaro region. (10) (a) How many people are currently in (b) RASAC inspected the Monaro Region on 2 receipt of DEC assistance; and (b) what is the February 1998. On 5 February, the New South average value of that assistance. Wales Government amended the boundaries of the (11) (a) How many people would have been in Monaro Region application area (henceforth known receipt of DEC assistance under the program as Monaro Region A), increasing its area by administered by the previous Government; and (b) approximately one third. In addition, on 9 February what would have been the average value of the 1998 it was requested that an additional area assistance. (known as Monaro Region B) to the south of the original Monaro application area be considered for Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary EC assistance. Industries and Energy has provided the (c) RASAC reported to Minister Anderson on 18 following answer to the honourable senator’s February 1998 for Monaro Region A and 3 April question: 1998 for Monaro Region B. (d) The New South Wales Government was (1) The New South Wales Government first advised of the Commonwealth Government’s wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries and decision in relation to Monaro Region A on 3 Energy on 6 August 1997 to request DEC assist- March 1998 and for Monaro Region B on 8 April ance for the Monaro district. 1998. (2) (a) RASAC inspected the Monaro region on (5) Conditions in Monaro Region A were con- 15 September 1997. sidered to have deteriorated since RASAC’s (b) On 19 September 1997, the New South previous visit. An EC was declared based on the Wales Government requested that the Monaro impact of a succession of adverse climatic and application no longer be considered under DEC, biotic events. Monaro Region B was declared in and instead be assessed under general exceptional DEC as it met all criteria including the threshold circumstances (EC). On 16 October 1997, Minister meteorological criterion. Anderson wrote to the New South Wales Minister (6) (a) Monaro Region A is bound on: for Agriculture requesting clarification of the event . the east from Cooma to Numeralla Road to the for which EC assistance was being sought and Numeralla River; requested that additional information to support the application be provided promptly. RASAC provided . the south along the Numeralla River to the its report to Minister Anderson on 21 October Kydra Nimmitabel Road. East to the junction 1997. On 11 November 1997, the New South with the Snowy Mountains Highway at Nim- Wales Government provided additional information mitabel; for consideration in the assessment of their applica- . the west to the Monaro Highway junction; tion. On 15 December 1997, the Government decided not to provide EC support to the Monaro . west down to the Monaro Highway to Bibben- Region but requested that RASAC reassess the luke; region in early 1998. . west on Bukalong Road to Bukalong Creek; Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3689

. south and west downstream of Bukalong Creek Relief Payment (ECRP) in Monaro regions A and to Bombala River to the Delegate River to the B. Of the 12 applications received for DEC Interest Snowy River to the eastern boundary of Kosci- Rate Subsidy (IRS) there is only one approval to usko National Park, following the Kosciusko date. National Park north west to Pot Hole Creek; (b) As at 27 April 1998, there had been 3 . north up Pot Hole Creek to the watershed on unsuccessful claims under the ECRP. No DEC IRS Beloka Range. Following the watershed along applications have been rejected to date; eleven are the Beloka and Barney’s Ranges to the Berri- still under consideration. dale Rocky Plain Road at the Gap east along the road to Wullwye Creek; (c) All ECRP applications which have been . north up Wullwye Creek to Berridale unsuccessful failed due to the off-farm assets test. Middlebank Road, at Growlers Gully then (9) In addition to Drought Exceptional Circum- north to Middlebank; and stances, the Government gives recognition to . east on road from Middlebank to Cooma. Exceptional Circumstances that are beyond the Monaro Region B: scope of normal risk management, and that in these . extends south along the Monaro Highway from circumstances it is in the national interest for the Bibbenluke (the boundary of Region A) to Government to provide assistance. Bombala, continuing south along the Monaro A new Exceptional Circumstances Relief Pay- Highway to Little Plains River; ment (ECRP), equivalent to the previous Drought . continuing south downstream along the Little Relief Payment, has been established and is avail- Plains River to the NSW border at Bendoc able to eligible farmers in declared Exceptional Upper; Circumstances. In assessing Exceptional Circum- . north west along the NSW border to the stances there is no meteorological trigger criterion. boundary of Kosciusko National Park; and This is in addition to an extension of the recov- . north along the east boundary of Kosciusko ery period for Drought Exceptional Circumstances, National Park to the junction of the Snowy from six to 12 months. River (the boundary of Region A). (10) (a) As at 1 May 1998, there were 2,743 (b) It was reported by the New South Wales farmers across Australia in receipt of ECRP. As at Government that there are approximately 150—160 31 March 1998, there were 1,093 DEC IRS recipi- landholders in Monaro Region A and 78 land- ents. holders in Monaro Region B whose land has a carrying capacity of 1 500 DSE or greater. (b) During April 1998 the average value of (7) (a) 100 per cent of the areas covered in the ECRP assistance paid to each farm family was two applications were approved for either EC or $1,010 per month. DEC assistance. (11) (a) Income support (Drought Relief Pay- (b) See answer to 6 (b) above. ment) under the previous Government from Oct (8) (a) To date, there are 39 applications which 1994 (the commencement of DRP) to Feb 1996 is have been approved for Exceptional Circumstances shown in the following table:

Total $m Oct 94— approx $ average monthly State Feb 96 Average No clients per month payment Queensland 86.94 5,250 1,000 NSW 79.266 4,500 1,000 Vic 0.156 20 1,000 SA 3.196 300 1,000 Tas 1.231 100 1,000 Total 170.789 3690 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(b) Business Support Assistance in the form of DEC IRS provided by the previous Government from 1993-1994 to February 1996.

Total Number of Ap- State/Territory $m proved Grants Ave. $ per grant per year NSW 50.545 3,422 14,771 QLD 67.369 6,318 10,663 VIC 0.892 50 17,840 SA 1.171 225 5,204 WA Nil Nil Nil TAS 1.565 83 18,855 NT Nil Nil Nil Total 121.542 10,098 12,036

Department of Employment, Education, (1) What are the names of the organisations Training and Youth Affairs: Programs "associated with the NFF". (Question No. 1136) (2) (a) What level of funding was provided to each of the above organisations; (b) from which Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- program did each organisation receive assistance; senting the Minister for Employment, Educa- (c) what was the level of funding; and (d) for what tion, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, purpose was the funding provided. on 15 April 1998: With reference to the answers provided to Senator Ellison—The Minister for Employ- question 622 from the recent estimates hearings of ment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs the Employment, Education and Training Legisla- has provided the following answer to the tion Committee which states that payments were honourable senator’s question: made "to organisations associated with the National Farmers Federation (NFF)"; and that the programs The requested information is provided in the through which payments were made were identified attached table. The organisations "associated with as Regional Assistance Program, New Work Oppor- the National Farmer’s Federation (NFF)" were tunities, JobStart and Training for Aboriginals identified from a list of members included on the Program: NFF’s Internet website.

Organisation 1996-97 1997-98 Purpose of Payments $$ Qld Farmers’ Federation JobStart 600 Wage subsidy for employing disadvan- taged job seeker Regional Assistance Program 347,000 Drought Project—in- come support and training costs Aust Macadamia Society JobStart 750 Wage subsidy for employing disad- vantaged job seeker Cotton Australia Ltd JobStart 1,595 Wage subsidy for employing disad- vantaged job seeker Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3691

Organisation 1996-97 1997-98 Purpose of Payments $$

NSW Farmers’ Association Regional Assistance Program 263,000 Drought Project—in- come support and training costs Vic Farmers’ Federation Regional Assistance Program 28,920 41,920 Payments for Farm Employment and Training Co-ordinator SA Farmers’ Federation New Work Opportunities 4,660 Broker Fees and In- come Support Pay- ment Aust Dried Fruits Association New Work Opportunities 56,391 Broker Fees Training for Aboriginals Program 9,650 Traineeship for Abo- riginal or Torres Strait Islander job seeker

Department of Health and Family Senator Herron—The Minister for Health Services: Research and Family Services has provided the follow- (Question No. 1143) ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- tion: Senator Robert Ray asked the Minister (1) The decision was taken as it would have representing the Minister for Health and required considerable money, time and resources to Family Services, upon notice, on 17 April provide a full answer to the question and, in the 1998: interest of efficient utilisation of departmental (1) Given that nine departments have now resources, I was not prepared to ask my Depart- answered in full the questions placed on notice on ment to divert staff from existing priorities. 16 October 1997 (questions on notice 902-916, (2)—(5) Some information concerning research Senate Notice Paper of 21 October 1997) relating undertaken by my Department since 3 March 1996 to qualitative and quantitative research, on what is available in the Department of Health and basis was it decided that the department would not Family Services’ Annual Report for 1996-97 which authorise the money, time and effort involved to was tabled in October 1997. assemble the information required to provide and answer to the question. War Veterans’: Legal Aid (2) What qualitative or quantitative research has (Question No. 1146) been undertaken by the department and its agencies Senator Colston asked the Minister repre- since 3 March 1996. senting the Attorney-General, upon notice, on (3) (a) What was the nature of the research 17 April 1998: undertaken, (sample sizes, questionnaire length, (1) What was the system used for providing legal evaluation); and (b) to whom were the results of aid for veterans’ appeals to the Administrative the research available. Appeals Tribunal (AAT) prior to 1 July 1997. (4) In each instance, which firm or firms have (2) How has the system been changed since 1 been engaged to undertake this work. July 1997. (5) In each instance what has been the cost of the (3) Is the Attorney-General satisfied that the work undertaken. amount of legal aid now available for veterans’ 3692 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 appeals to the AAT allow legal practitioners to Prime Minister and Cabinet: Advertising conduct sound cases for veterans. (Question No. 1149) Senator Vanstone—The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the Senator Faulkner asked the Minister honourable senator’s question: representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, (1) A special legal aid scheme for war veterans on 23 April 1998: was established by the Commonwealth to enable (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: war veterans with eligible or operational war (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the service, or their next of kin, to have access to legal Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis aid which is means test-free, in order to pursue since March 1996. reviews of war-caused disability pension entitle- (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the ment or assessment claims. This scheme was, and department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 continues to be fully funded by the Commonwealth. has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- (2) Under the former legal aid agreements, legal sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms aid commissions obtained reimbursement from the of advertising used. Commonwealth on a quarterly basis for war (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by veterans matters they administered under this the department or portfolio agencies since March scheme. Under new legal aid funding arrangements 1996 has been placed through the Office of war veterans funding is included in the global legal Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); aid funding amount paid quarterly in advance to and (b) what mechanism has been used for that each commission. advertising not placed through OGIA. (3) I am satisfied that the amount of legal aid under the new legal aid Agreement will enable Senator Hill—The Prime Minister has eligible war veterans to obtain appropriate advice provided the following answer to the honour- and representation to pursue their war-caused able senator’s question: disability pension and assessment claims in the AAT. (1) (a)—

April 1996 $7,207 May 1996 $14,801 June 1996 $1,029 October 1996 $2,027 December 1996 $4,770 January 1997 $4,235 February 1997 $555 March 1997 $6,367 April 1997 $1,398 May 1997 $1,862 June 1997 $1,268 July 1997 $2,207 August 1997 $2,710 September 1997 $5,012 November 1997 $586,117 (Of this amount $583,051 was for adver- tising placed by the Constitutional Conven- tion Secretariat) December 1997 $2,258 February 1998 $945 March 1998 $4,486 April 1998 $3,490 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3693

Months not included in the above breakdown represent nil expenditure. (b)—

April 1996 $237 August 1996 $32 October 1996 $565 November 1996 $2,902 December 1996 $144 January 1997 $11,183 April 1997 $45 June 1997 $11,509 July 1997 $7,364 August 1997 $90 February 1998 $380

Months not included in the above breakdown Senator Hill—The Minister for Foreign represent nil expenditure. Affairs has provided the following answer to (2) (a) 98%; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) 2%— the honourable senator’s question: Commonwealth of Australia Gazette. (1) Accounting systems do not permit provision (3) (a) 85%. of a comprehensive month-by-month breakdown of (b) Since March 1996 the department and some advertising expenditure for the department and portfolio agencies have placed non-campaign adver- portfolio agencies. The value of advertising placed tising with the following organisations: by DFAT in Australia from Mar 96—May 1998 is . TMP Worldwide; $210,718. The value of advertising placed by Austrade in Australia from March 1996—May 1998 . Neville Jeffress; is $569,673. The value of advertising placed by . Grey Advertising; AusAID in Australia for financial year 1995-96 was . AGPS; and $198,234, and $307,245 for financial year 1996-97. AusAID advertising expenditure in financial year . Public Eye newspaper. 1997-8 was $598,514 to the end of May 1998. Notices relating to state funerals and memorial (2) All expenditure has been for print media services were placed by various funeral directors. advertising. Department of Foreign Affairs and (3) With the exception of $5310 spent on news- Trade: Advertising paper and periodical advertising placed directly with the journals involved, all advertising by the (Question No. 1150) department and portfolio agencies was placed Senator Faulkner asked the Minister through TMP Worldwide, (previously Neville representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jeffress Advertising), which is the Common- wealth’s master agency for non-campaign advertis- upon notice, on April 23: ing, and which forms part of the central advertising (1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) system managed by OGIA. the department; and (b) agencies within the Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis Treasury: Advertising since March 1996. (Question No. 1151) (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the Senator Faulkner asked the Minister department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms April 1998: of advertising used. (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the the department or portfolio agencies since March Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis 1996 has been placed through the Office of since March 1996. Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the and (b) what mechanism has been used for adver- department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 tising not placed through OGIA. has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- 3694 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms Senator Kemp—The Treasurer has provid- of advertising used. ed the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by The information sought is provided for each the department or portfolio agencies since March agency in the portfolio. Amounts for months not 1996 has been placed through the Office of shown are nil. Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that Treasury Department advertising not placed through OGIA. (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ October 1996 9,734 November 1996 18,223 December 1996 20,408

(2) Print media: 100% (3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. Industry Commission (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ June 1996 1,669 July 1996 1,033 August 1996 6,861 September 1996 14,443 December 1996 1,663 January 1997 11,186 February 1997 1,687 May 1997 3,941 July 1997 5,858 August 1997 1,341 September 1997 5,658 November 1997 671 December 1997 1,495 January 1998 1,741 February 1998 1,864 March 1998 5,426 April 1998 1,572

(2) Print media: 100% (3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. Insurance and Superannuation Commission (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ May 1996 6,232 June 1996 13,004 July 1996 1,100 August 1996 4,944 October 1996 1,662 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3695

$ February 1997 70 April 1997 1,732 July 1997 814

(2) Print media- 100% (3) Most advertisements (98.12%) were placed through OGIA, with the balance being booked directly with publications. Royal Australian Mint (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ March 1996 3,382 April 1996 12,171 October 1996 7,608 November 1996 203 January 1997 515 February 1997 277 April 1997 34,979 May 1997 3,907 June 1997 6,483 August 1997 5,367 September 1997 412 November 1997 1,200 December 1997 207,895 January 1998 38,478 March 1998 5,522 May 1998 19,244

(2) Print media 90.8%; radio 1.41%; television 7.79%. (3) Most advertisements (98.55%) were placed through OGIA, with the balance being booked directly with coin publications. National Competition Council (2) Value of advertising by month:

$ November 1996 1,442 December 1996 Nil January 1997 4,516 February 1997 2,271 March 1997 2,524 April 1997 3,426 May 1997 2,488 June 1997 2,548 July 1997 NZ August 1997 1,438 September 1997558 March 1998 558 3696 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(2) Print media: 100% (3) None of the advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. All advertisements were placed directly with the publications. Australian Securities Commission (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ April 1996 12,213 May 1996 126,588 June 1996 91,200 July 1996 25,544 August 1996 7,718 September 1996 30,449 May 1997 1,218 June 1997 62,034 July 1997 2,873 August 1997 2,438 September 1997 3,143 December 1997 252 February 1998 947

(2) Print media: 100% (3) All advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ May 1996 8,182 June 1996 2,610 August 1996 1,049 September 1996 125 October 1996 160 November 1996 150 December 1996 11,527 January 1997 377 February 1997 72 April 1997 1,421 May 1997 1,472 June 1997 6,743 July 1997 202 August 1997 274 September 1997 9,437 October 1997 202 November 1997 202 January 1998 9,206 February 1998 1,950 March 1998 1,929 April 1998 10,329 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3697

(2) Print media: 100% (3) Most advertisements (96.6%) were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA, with the balance being placed directly with specialist business or professional journals. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ March 1996 12,303 April 1996 11,137 May 1996 19,983 June 1996 2,012,108 July 1996 5,720 August 1996 1,685 September 1996 496 October 1996 36 November 1996 840 January 1997 869 February 1997 1,272 March 1997 2,320 April 1997 2,351 May 1997 20,474 June 1997 76 July 1997 40 November 1997 2,350 December 1997 3,964 January 1998 240 February 1998 2,934 March 1998 16,097 April 1998 560

(2) Print media 48%; radio 1.3%; television 50.7%. (3) Most advertisements (96%) were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA, with the balance being negotiated directly with newspapers, magazines, and journals. Reserve Bank of Australia (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ March 1996 5,249 April 1996 39,933 May 1996 4,995 June 1996 713,750 July 1996 11,066 August 1996 500 October 1996 56,321 November 1996 1,969 December 1996 2,400 March 1997 390 April 1997 500 May 1997 6,675 July 1997 7,862 3698 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

$ August 1997 8,782 September 1997 13,859 October 1997 7,740

(2) Print media 38.4%; television: 52%; other 9.6%. Other forms of advertising included educational material in the form of posters and leaflets, and a promotional video for Note Printing Australia. (3) None of the advertisements were placed through the central advertising system administered by OGIA. All advertising was placed following competitive tendering processes. Australian Taxation Office (1) Value of advertising by month:

$ March 1996 4,790 April 1996 10,076 May 1996 9,406 June 1996 26,442 July 1996 69,812 August 1996 50,160 September 1996 33,860 October 1996 7,154 November 1996 153,724 December 1996 177,433 January 1997 891,986 February 1997 974,681 March 1997 62,106 April 1997 87,109 May 1997 29,863 June 1997 110,346 July 1997 33,469 August 1997 30,918 September 1997 324,350 October 1997 678,499 November 1997 360,979 December 1997 163,560 January 1998 223,995 February 1998 20,650 March 1998 19,159 April 1998 17,617 May 1998 640

(2) Print media 58.41%; radio 3.76%; television Department of Environment, Sport and 37.5%; other 0.3%. Other forms of advertising Territories: Advertising included display stands and a range of brochures. (Question No. 1153) (3) Most advertisements (97.65%) were placed through the central advertising system administered Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for by OGIA, with the balance negotiated directly with the Environment, upon notice, on 23 April the provider, or through competitive tender pro- 1998: cesses. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3699

(1) What is the value of advertising placed by: ernment Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the (b) what mechanism has been used for that adver- Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis tising not placed through OGIA. since March 1996. Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the able senator’s question is as follows: department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- (1)—(2) Included in the table below are figures sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms for advertising placed by my department and of advertising used. portfolio agencies since March 1996, but excluding figures for the Bureau of Meteorology which has (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by not been readily able to extract figures on a month- the department or portfolio agencies since March by-month basis. Year-by-year figures for the 1996 has been placed through the Office of Gov- Bureau are provided separately beneath the table.

Month Print Media Radio TV Other* Total Mar-96 $6,426 $3,558 $205 $1,620 $11,809 Apr-96 $12,712 $1,180 $0 $1,525 $15,417 May-96 $12,133 $1,180 $3,132 $1,525 $17,970 Jun-96 $27,454 $1,000 $9,664 $1,525 $39,643 Jul-96 $74,922 $0 $0 $6,878 $81,800 Aug-96 $10,705 $0 $0 $190 $10,895 Sep-96 $6,912 $590 $0 $348 $7,850 Oct-96 $4,767 $0 $0 $285 $5,052 Nov-96 $15,896 $0 $0 $127 $16,023 Dec-96 $1,951 $0 $0 $960 $2,911 Jan-97 $3,001 $0 $2,096 $896 $5,993 Feb-97 $48,002 $0 $0 $987 $48,988 Mar-97 $56,623 $0 $0 $1,113 $57,736 Apr-97 $7,498 $0 $0 $1,587 $9,085 May-97 $6,201 $0 $0 $10,860 $17,061 Jun-97 $22,432 $9,000 $0 $860 $32,292 Jul-97 $84,893 $0 $22,321 $13,569 $120,783 Aug-97 $41,975 $0 $2,081 $2,205 $46,261 Sep-97 $20,047 $0 $2,000 $2,300 $24,347 Oct-97 $29,694 $0 $0 $2,616 $32,310 Nov-97 $37,446 $0 $1,099 $2,205 $40,750 Dec-97 $23,574 $1,220 $6,809 $6,350 $37,953 Jan-98 $3,854 $0 $3,782 $4,292 $11,928 Feb-98 $39,791 $0 $2,501 $2,225 $44,517 Mar-98 $46,423 $0 $300 $2,903 $49,627 23 Apr-98 $810 $0 $0 $2,060 $2,870 Total $646,143 $17,728 $55,990 $72,010 $791,871

* Other forms of advertising used were: • Gazettal advertising; and • Roadside Billboards; • Direct delivery of cards through letter box • Bus shelter signs; drop. • Cinema advertising; In regard to the Bureau of Meteorology, all advertising over the period was placed with the • Airport advertising; Print Media. The following are year-by-year figures • Brochure distribution; for the Bureau: • Datatrax touch screens; • 1995-96—$18,489 • Promotional videos; • 1996-97—$33,818 3700 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

• 1997-98 to 23 April 1998—$47,276 (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by • Total over the period—$99,583 the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of 3 (a) Nil. Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); 3 (b) Advertising is placed through TMP World- and (b) what mechanism has been used for that wide or AIS Media, both of which are appointed by advertising not placed through OGIA. OGIA, or in a limited number of cases, direct with Senator Newman—The answer to the media outlets. honourable senator’s question is as follows: Department of Communications, the (1) (a) and (b) The value of advertising, other Information Economy and the Arts: than classified advertising, placed by the Depart- Advertising ment of Social Security and Centrelink from March 1996 is as follows: (Question No. 1154) March 1996 to December 1997—Nil advertising. Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for January 1997 Communications, the Information Economy Print advertising—$154,466; Radio advertising— and the Arts, upon notice, on 23 April 1998: $88,344. (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (2) (a) Of the print advertising placed in January (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the 1997, $47,810 was placed through OGIA as part of Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis a campaign for the Family Tax Initiative. The since March 1996? remaining $106,656 for the announcement of new (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the Extended Deeming rates, was placed through AIS department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 Media. has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- (b) All radio advertising placed in January 1997 sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms was to announce new Extended Deeming rates, and of advertising used. was placed direct through AIS Media. As this was (3) What proportion of advertising placed by the not campaign advertising, OGIA was not involved. department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 (3) (a) and (b) September 1997 has been placed through the Office of Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what Print advertising—$325,000; Radio advertising— mechanism has been used for that advertising not $58,380; Television advertising—$1,470,168. placed through OGIA. All advertising placed in September 1997 was Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- placed through OGIA. able senator’s question is as follows: November 1997 To collect and assemble the information request- Print advertising—$64,000. ed would be a major task for my Department, and All advertising placed in November 1997 was statutory and other bodies under my portfolio, and placed through OGIA. I am not prepared to ask them to commit consider- able human resources to obtain the information to Department of Trade: Advertising answer these questions. (Question No. 1157) Department of Social Security: Senator Faulkner asked the Minister Advertising representing the Minister for Trade, upon (Question No. 1156) notice, on April 23: (1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) Senator Faulkner asked the Minister for the department; and (b) agencies within the Social Security, upon notice, on 23 April Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis 1998: since March 1996. (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- since March 1996. sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the of advertising used. department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- the department or portfolio agencies since March sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms 1996 has been placed through the Office of of advertising used. Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3701 and (b) what mechanism has been used for adver- Attorney-General’s Department: tising not placed through OGIA. Advertising Senator Hill—The Minister for Trade has (Question No. 1163) provided the following answer to the honour- Senator Faulkner asked the Minister able senator’s question: representing the Attorney-General, upon (1) Accounting systems do not permit provision notice, on 23 April 1998: of a comprehensive month-by-month breakdown of (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: advertising expenditure for the department and (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the portfolio agencies. The value of advertising placed Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis by DFAT in Australia from Mar 96—May 1998 is since March 1996. $210,718. The value of advertising placed by Austrade in Australia from March 1996—May 1998 (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the is $569,673. The value of advertising placed by department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 AusAID in Australia for financial year 1995-96 was has been for: (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- $198,234, and $307,245 for financial year 1996-97. sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms AusAID advertising expenditure in financial year of advertising used. 1997-8 was $598,514 to the end of May 1998. (3) What proportion of advertising placed by the department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 (2) All expenditure has been for print media has been placed through the Office of Government advertising. Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what (3) With the exception of $5310 spent on news- mechanism has been used for that advertising not paper and periodical advertising placed directly placed through OGIA. with the journals involved, all advertising by the Senator Vanstone—The Attorney-General department and portfolio agencies was placed through TMP Worldwide, (previously Neville has provided the following answer to the Jeffress Advertising), which is the Common- honourable senator’s question: wealth’s master agency for non-campaign advertis- I am advised by my department and agencies ing, and which forms part of the central advertising within the portfolio of the following details in system managed by OGIA. relation to advertising placed since 2 March 1996:

Attorney-General’s Department (1)—

$ 1996 March April - May - June 3,376 July 2,002 August 2,591 September - October 5,658 November 514,046 December 192,124 1997 January 3,315 February 1,353 March 22,707 April - May 118,321 June 650,014 July 22,085 August 304,755 September 527,088 October - 3702 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

$ November - December - 1998 January - February 1,988 March 992 April 7,608 Total $2,380,023*

The figures above do not include advertising for (2) (a) Print media: 30%; (b) radio: 9%; (c) staff-related gazettals, other recruitment activity, television: 58%; (d) other: 3%—cinema and out- tender notices and legal notices. door advertising. * 98.76% of the department’s total advertising (3) (a) 100% of the advertising placed by the expenditure (ie $2,350,501) relates to advertis- department has been placed through the Master ing involved in the Australian Firearms Buy- Agency, TMP Worldwide (formerly Neville Jeffress back Public Education Campaign. It should be Advertising); and Advertising Investment Services noted that an additional $1,382,730 was Pty Limited, both of which have been contracted by expended in this campaign, by way of adver- the Office of Government Information and Adver- tising on-costs which included production, tising (OGIA) to handle advertising for the dubbing, distribution, studio time, and trans- Commonwealth. portation costs. (b) Not applicable.

Portfolio Agencies (1)—

$

1996 March 500 April 1211 May 922 June 300 July 3,890 August 32,666 September 6,651 October 755 November 980 December 400 1997 January 400 February 145 March 482 April 200 May 2,431 June 5,333 July 860 August 7,042 September 22,023 October 3,633 November - December 2,359 1998 January 2,334 February 3329 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3703

$

March 698 April 680 Total $100,224

(2) (a) Print media: 100%; (b) radio: not applic- • Victorian Bar Council able; (c) television: not applicable; (d) other: not • University of NSW applicable. • Australian Public Sector Union Northern (3) (a) 17% of the advertising placed by portfolio Territory. agencies was placed through the Master Agency, TMP World Wide (formerly Neville Jeffress Department of Transport and Regional Advertising), which has been contracted by the Development: Advertising Office of Government Information and Advertising to handle advertising for the Commonwealth. (Question No. 1164) (b) Advertising not placed through the Office of Senator Faulkner asked the Minister Government Information and Advertising has been representing the Minister for Transport and placed through the direct purchasing of advertising Regional Development, upon notice, on 23 space in: April 1998: (i) local, state and national newspapers; and (1) What is the value of advertising placed by: (ii) the following publications: (a) the department; and (b) agencies within the • Milli Milli Wungka Minister’s portfolio, on a month-by-month basis • South Australia Country Woman since March 1996. • National Farmers’ Federation (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the • Victorian Institute Journal department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- • QLD and NSW Law Society Journal sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms • Business Queensland of advertising used. • Australian Conference Diary (3) What proportion of advertising placed by the • Commonwealth Club Magazine, Darwin department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 has been placed through the Office of Government • Ethnic Communities Council of NSW Information and Advertising (OGIA) and (b) what • Federation of Ethnic Communities mechanism has been used for that advertising not • NCOSS Publication Sales placed though OGIA. • Queensland Council of Social Service Senator Alston—The Minister for Trans- • Australian Government Publishing Services port and Regional Development has provided ACT the following answer to the honourable • Tasmanian Parent senator’s question: • Union Publicity Service Pty Ltd 1 (a)—

Month Totals $ Mar 96 $8,399.49 Apr 96 $5,298.32 May 96 $3,860.70 Jun 96 $6,587.34 Jul 96 $4,031.16 Aug 96 $9,334.46 Sep 96 $1,708.20 Oct 96 $62,746.03 Nov 96 $203,035.63 3704 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Month Totals $ Dec 96 $1,125,245.33 Jan 97 $53,062.02 Feb 97 $73,350.64 Mar 97 $38,451.28 Apr 97 $527,327.94 May 97 $456,097.84 Jun 97 $489,054.43 Jul 97 $139,186.12 Aug 97 $7,687.80 Sep 97 $10,734.32 Oct 97 $22,114.04 Nov 97 $10,687.76 Dec 97 $76,237.98 Jan 98 $107,546.66 Feb 98 $83,351.44 Mar 98 $17,864.72 Apr 98 $3,361.41 May 98 (to 15 May) $5,890.00 Total $3,552,253.06

1 (b)1—

Month Totals $

Mar-96 $1,110.00 Apr-96 $2,237.00 May-96 $20,974.20 Jun-96 $19,485.16 Jul-96 $3,595.58 Aug-96 $2,717.50 Sep-96 $250.00 Oct-96 $0.00 Nov-96 $36,737.75 Dec-96 $3,170.50 Jan-97 $2,803.00 Feb-97 $5,000.00 Mar-97 $2,061.80 Apr-97 $7,023.40 May-97 $2,412.20 Jun-97 $2,225.00 Jul-97 $25,720.00 Aug-97 $14,143.00 Sep-97 $39,341.00 Oct-97 $7,820.00 Nov-97 $14,417.00 Dec-97 $58,407.60 Jan-98 $68,701.10 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3705

Month Totals $

Feb-98 $8,087.00 Mar-98 $2,218.00 Apr-98 $23,012.00 May 98 N/a Total $373,669.79

1 The Commonwealth is in the process of selling Department of Immigration and the above-rail operations of the Australian Multicultural Affairs: Advertising National Railways Commission and transfer- ring rail infrastructure into the recently-estab- (Question No. 1165) lished Australian Rail Track Corporation. The process has left AN with insufficient resources Senator Faulkner asked the Minister with which to provide the level of detail representing the Minister for Immigration and sought by the Parliamentary Question, nor in Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 23 the case of the above-rail operations, ready to April 1998: access material from which to draw the data. Bankstown Airport has participated in local (1) What is the value of advertising placed by (a) sponsorship programs such as Remembrance the department; and (b) agencies within the Day and Constable Care. Minister’s portfolio on a month by month basis since March 1996. (2) (a) $1,167,254.93; (b) $1 086 987.51; (c) $1,109,241.44; and (d) $562,438.97. (2) What proportion of advertising placed by the Other forms of advertising were flyers and department or portfolio agencies since March 1996 leaflets, Variable Message Signs, Convenience Ads has been for (a) print media; (b) radio; (c) televi- (Drink Driving), Cinema and a Web Site, and sion; or (d) other, and give details of other forms advertising in AGPS Special and General Gazettes. of advertising used. (3) (a) The Federal Office of Road Safety placed (3) (a) What proportion of advertising placed by $2,772,238.06 or 98% of advertising through the department or portfolio agencies since March OGIA. No other departmental and portfolio adver- 1996 has been placed through the Office of tising was placed through OGIA. Government Information and Advertising (OGIA); and (b) what mechanism has been used for that (b) The mechanisms for placement of advertising advertising not placed through OGIA. not through the OGIA were placement by PPK Environment & Infrastructure, direct contact with Senator Vanstone—The Minister for media supplier, the engagement of contractor to Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has design a web site, placement through TPM World provided the following answer to the honour- Wide Company (formerly trading as Neville able senator’s question: Jeffress—an OGIA-endorsed supplier), placement through Executive Media Pty Ltd, placement (1) The value of advertising placed by the through the Government’s contracted agencies for Department for the period March 1996 to April non-campaign press advertising, gazette notices 1998 is shown below: placed direct with AGPS, and placement direct with (a)— media sources.

Advertising Expenditure by Month for the Period March 1996 to April 1998 Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

March-96 April-96 May-96 June-96 July-96 August-96 September-96 $238,901.96 $8,438.29 -$867.81 $30,702.37 $4,971.50 $28,502.51 $1,470.18 October-96 November-96 December-96 January-97 February-97 March-97 April-97 $49,426.83 $7,599.20 $3,771.08 $27,686.21 $8,409.66 $10,151.02 $34,262.04 May-97 June-97 July-97 August-97 September-97 October-97 November-97 3706 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

$94.07 $107,775.67 $1,757.50 $5,979.51 $70,623.72 $49,108.95 $4,830.08 December-97 January-98 February-98 March-98 April-98 $620.38 $27,873.23 $42,065.94 $135,689.5 $17,270.70

(b)— Advertising Expenditure by Month for the Period March 1996 to April 1998 Refugee Review Tribunal

March-96 April-96 May-96 June-96 July-96 August-96 September-96 $0.00 $0.00 $39.60 $0.00 $50.80 $0.00 $0.00 October-96 November-96 December-96 January-97 February-97 March-97 April-97 $720.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $720.00 $0.00 $0.00 May-97 June-97 July-97 August-97 September-97 October-97 November-97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $4,145.82 $0.00 $0.00 $4,285.24 December-97 January-98 February-98 March-98 April-98 $0.00 $0.00 $2,013.90 $0.00 $4,388.68

All advertising expenditure incurred by the Office of Government Information and Immigration Review Tribunal involved recruitment Advertising: Advertising, Public action and is therefore excluded. Relations and/or Research The above table excludes expenditure on adver- tising in the Commonwealth gazette but may (Question No. 1169) include advertising related to recruitment or tender Senator Faulkner asked the Special processes placed outside of the Commonwealth Minister of State, upon notice, on 23 April gazette as the structure of the Department’s chart 1998: of accounts has no provision to identify these items separately. (1) What is the value of : (a) advertising; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market research, placed March 1996 expenditure reflects a nationwide by, advised on or otherwise handled by the Office television promotion encouraging immigrants to of Government Information and Advertising take-up Australian citizenship. (OGIA) on a month-by-month basis between March An amount of $91335 was paid in both June 1996 and April 1998. 1997 and March 1998 to distribute migration (2) On behalf of which departments or agencies information via publications sent out by the Aus- did OGIA place, advise on or handle: (a) advertis- tralian Taxation Office. ing; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market research, (2) (a)-(d) The Department’s chart of accounts on a month-by-month basis between March 1996 has no provision for identifying advertising ex- and April 1998. penditure by the type of media employed. A spot (3) What is the monthly average value of: (a) analysis of expenditure patterns suggests expendi- advertising; (b) public relations; and/or (c) market ture by the Department was about 70% for print research, placed by, advised on or otherwise media and 30% for television over this period. handled by OGIA between March 1993 and April (3) (a) Thirty five per cent of the Department’s 1996. (including its agencies) advertising has been placed (4) With reference to all advertising, public through the Office of Government Information and relations and/or market research placed by, advised Advertising. on or otherwise handled by OGIA between March (b) The balance has been placed through the 1996 and April 1998, has all advertising copy and agreed service provider in the relevant period artwork been prepared by professional advertising contract. agencies under consultancy contracts; if not: (a) Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3707 which campaigns were handled otherwise; (b) who Senator Minchin—The answer to the performed the work; and (c) what was the total honourable senator’s question is as follows: value of each campaign. (1) (a) Advertising

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

199 - - 2,573,925 4,405,455 4,277,002 6,485,277 3,637,290 2,264,089 2,193,349 3,229,656 2,705,843 2,412,28 6 7 199 2,715,016 1,971,735 2,175,093 2,672,848 2,498,620 5,539,034 7,783,767 7,663,234 9,431,253 7,700,565 6,922,413 1,828,14 7 7 199 2,931,383 2,727,065 3,021,658 Not available Note: Contracts for advertising agencies are held by OGIA. The amounts shown for advertising are the amounts spent through the Central Advertising System for each month. (b) Public Relations and (c) Market Research Contracts for public relations and market research companies are held by the departments and agencies. OGIA is aware of the proposed budgets for these activities when they are considered, but does not hold details of actual expenditure. These are held by individual departments and agencies. (2)—

March 1996 Advertising AEC, Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DFAT, DH&FS, DIMA, DWRSB, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, A-G’s Public Relations Nil Market Research Questacon, Defence April 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DFAT, DHFS, DIST, DAS, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, A-G’s Public Relations Nil Market Research ABS May 1996 Advertising: Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DIR, DIST, DAS, DEST, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, ASC. Public Relations DoF, DVA Market Research ANSTO, Federal Office of Road Safety (FORS), DHFS June 1996 Advertising Defence, DoF, DFAT, DHFS, DIST, DAS, DEST, ABS, ATO, ASC Public Relations A-G’s Market Research DoF, A-G’s July 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DEST, DoCA, Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM), Treasury, ABS, Commonwealth Loans Office (CLO) Public Relations Nil Market Research DEETYA, DHFS, DAS August 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DFAT, DHFS, DPIE, DAS, AEC, ANMM, Treasury, ABS, CLO, ASC Public Relations Nil Market Research DoCA September 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, PM&C, DPIE, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, CLO Public Relations DHFS Market Research A-G’s, Defence October 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DFAT, DHFS, PM&C, DPIE, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, DVA Public Relations Nil 3708 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Market Research DPIE, DIMA, A-G’s, ATO November 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G’s, DVA Public Relations Nil Market Research A-G’s December 1996 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treas- ury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s Public Relations AUSTEL, Treasury Market Research ATO, DHFS, DWRSB, A-G’s January 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treas- ury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s Public Relations DIST, ATO Market Research ATO, DHFS, DIST February 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treas- ury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s Public Relations DoCA Market Research DHFS, DAS, DoCA March 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, AEC, DTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G’s, ANMM Public Relations DHFS, Defence Market Research AEC, DHFS, DVA, DIST April 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DPIE, DSS, AEC, DoTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s, ANMM Public Relations DHFS, DoF Market Research Nil May 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s, ASC Public Relations Nil Market Research DoF, AEC, DHFS, DAS, A-G’s, AUSTEL, DEST June 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DIST, DPIE, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DoTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s, ASC Public Relations ATO, DSS, A-G’s, DHFS, DoCA, DoF Market Research DPIE July 1997 Advertising Defence, DoF, DHFS, HIC, DSS, DAS, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ATO, A-G’s, ASC Public Relations Nil Market Research ATO, DoF, DHFS August 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DOCA, DHFS, DSS, ANMM, DTRD, Treas- ury, ATO, A-G’s, ASC Public Relations PM&C Market Research DoF, DSS, Questacon, DIST, ATO, DAS September 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, DSS, DAS, ANMM, Treasury, ATO, A- G’s Public Relations DIST, DEETYA, DPIE, DVA, DHFS Market Research DIST, DHFS, DVA, Australian Communications Authority October 1997 AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DoF, DHFS, Health Insurance Commis- sion (HIC), DSS, DAS, Environment, ANMM, DTRD, DIST, Treasury, ATO, A-G’s Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3709

Public Relations Nil Market Research Office of the Employment Advocate, DHFS November 1997 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DoFA, DHFS, HIC, PM&C, DSS, ANMM, DIST, Treasury, ATO, ASC Public Relations DHFS, PM&C, DEETYA, DSS Market Research Defence, DHFS, DWRSB, DEETYA, DSS, ATO, DoFA December 1997 AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, HIC, PM&C, DSS, DoFA, ANMM, DTRD, Treasury, ABS, ATO, A-G’s, ASC Public Relations ATO Market Research DoCA, DIST January 1998 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DSS, DoFA, ANMM, DIST, Treasury, ASC. Public Relations DPIE Market Research ATO, ABS, Defence, DWRSB February 1998 Advertising Defence, DEETYA, DHFS, DPIE, ANMM, DIST, Treasury Public Relations DHFS, DTRD Market Research A-G’s, Treasury, DSS, DHFS March 1998 AdvertisingDefence, DEETYA, DHFS, PM&C, DPIE, DSS, AEC, DIST, Treasury, ANMM Public Relations Defence, DHFS Market Research HIC, DHFS, Questacon April 1998 Advertising Details for April not available Public Relations Worksafe Australia, DHFS, DWRSB Market Research DHFS

(3) (a) $4,165,113. (1) When was the Government Members Secre- (b) and (c) As noted in the answer to (1) (b) and tariat established. (c), OGIA does not hold details of expenditure on (2) (a) How many employees did the secretariat these activities. They are held by individual depart- have at that time; (b) were all positions at the ments and agencies. secretariat advertised; if so, when and where were (4) No. advertisements placed; (c) what position did each employee hold; and (d) what salary range applied (a) (i) Indigenous Programs Public Information to each position. campaign; (ii) Aged Care campaign. (3) (a) What salary level applied to each employ- (b) (i) Various; (ii) Royce Communications. ee at the time of his or her appointment; (b) how (c) (i) Campaign did not proceed; (ii) $166,238— was that salary level determined; and (c) by whom media budget. was it determined. From time to time advertorial material is pro- (4) (a) How many appointments have been made duced that does not require the services of a to the secretariat since it was established; (b) were creative agency. This material often involves using the positions advertised; (c) when were the appoint- the media outlet eg, magazine, newspaper, televi- ments made; (d) what salary range applied to any sion station, rather than a creative agency, in close new appointments; (e) what actual salary was consultation with the client department. Recent applied within that range; (f) who determined the examples include the Greenhouse Emissions, Aged actual salary level applied; and (g) are all employ- Care and Child Care campaigns. ees based in Canberra. Government Member Secretariat (5) (a) Have all secretariat employees always been located in Canberra; if not, where were they (Question No. 1171) located; (b) how long were they located there; (c) Senator O’Brien asked the Special were they paid any special allowances; (d) to what Minister of State, upon notice, on 27 April did those special allowances relate; and (e) how 1998: long were they paid. 3710 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(6) (a) What variations have occurred to salaries which agency or agencies actually signed the paid since the appointment of each employee; (b) contracts. when did those variations occur; and (c) what was (16) (a) Which of the contracts in (15) related the basis for the variation. exclusively to the operation of the secretariat; and (7) (a) How many employees have left the (b) which contracts related in part to the operation secretariat since it was established; (b) when did of the secretariat and in part to the operation of they leave; and (c) why did they leave. other agencies or departments. (8) (a) How many employees have a mobile (17) Where the value of a contract was allocated phone, a computer or a motor vehicle provided by between the secretariat and another agency or the Government; and (b) what percentage of the department, to what extent did the secretariat costs associated with this equipment and motor benefit from the contract. vehicles is met by the Government and what (18) (a) What was the value of each contract; (b) percentage is met by the employee. what was each contract for; and (c) were tenders (9) (a) How much money has been spent on called for each contract. renovations or refits to the secretariat office in (19) (a) What consultancies have been let by, or Parliament House since March 1996; (b) what was on behalf of, the secretariat since March 1996; and the exact nature of the work undertaken; (c) when (b) which agency or agencies actually signed the did it commence and what was the completion contracts. date; and (d) were tenders called for the work. (20) (a) Which of the consultancies in (19) (10) (a) How much money has been spent on related exclusively to the operation of the secretari- equipment for the secretariat since March 1996; (b) at; and (b) which consultancies related in part to what are the details of the equipment purchased; (c) the operation of the secretariat and in part to the when was it purchased; and (d) were tenders called operation of other agencies or departments. for the supply of equipment; if not, why not. (21) Where a consultant was required to work for (11) Why was the equipment purchased by the the secretariat as well as another agency or depart- secretariat. ment, to what extent did the secretariat benefit from (12) Is any of the equipment located in a place the consultancy. other than the secretariat’s Parliament House office; (22) (a) What was the value of each consultancy; if so: (a) what equipment is located outside the (b) what was each consultancy for; and (c) were office; (b) where is the equipment located; and (c) tenders called for each consultancy; if not, why not. why is it at that location. (13) How much money has been spent on Senator Minchin—The answer to the stationary, by month, by the secretariat since March honourable senator’s question is as follows: 1996. (1) 12 April 1996 (14) (a) How much travel has been undertaken (2) (a) An establishment of ten positions was by secretariat employees since March 1996; (b) approved. Nine positions were initially filled. which officers travelled; (c) where did they travel to; (d) when did they travel; and (e) what was the (b) No advertisements were placed by the purpose of the travel. Department. (15) (a) What contracts have been let by, or on (c) The initial employees and the positions they behalf of, the secretariat since March 1996; and (b) held were:

Schuller, A Adviser Reynolds, L Adviser Warren, S Adviser Galilee, S Assistant Adviser Oakeshott, R Assistant Adviser Wiessner, A Assistant Adviser Best, Y Assistant Adviser Woolcock, V Assistant Adviser Cooper, B Personal Secretary Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3711

(d) The salary ranges applying to the positions Ministers and other Government office holders, the at that time were: commencing salary for appointees to Adviser Adviser—#$49,932- $67,154 pa; Assistant positions and below is set by the employing Adviser—#$40,618- $46,658 pa; Personal Secre- Minister or Office holder. Accordingly, the Minister tary—*$23,469—$39,877 pa. or Office holder responsible for the Government Members Secretariat sets the salaries for appoint- # Also paid Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) ees. of $11,200 pa * If paid annual salary of $33,717 or higher, (4) (a) In addition to the staff detailed in the occupant could elect to be paid MSA instead response to Question 2(c) above, there have been of overtime. eight appointments have been made and three temporary employees engaged. (3) (a) The salary ranges are given above. It is inappropriate for privacy reasons to provide indi- (b) No advertisements were placed by the vidual salaries. Department. (b) and (c) Under the employment arrangements (c) The dates of the appointments were as approved by the Prime Minister for staff of follows:

Blyth, K 6 January 1997 Buitendam, R 20 January 1997 Crosby, D 3 February 1997 Archer, T 22 September 1997 Beer, J 13 October 1997 Kohls, L 16 February 1998 Chamberlain, R 23 February 1998 Fryar, C 9 April 1998

The temporary employees engaged were: Garton, J—27 May 1996; Sharp, P—11 June 1996; Schmidt, S—29 September 1997. (d) The salary range (there was a general salary increase on 17 October 1996) applicable to the new appointments were:

Blyth, K $50,931—$68,497# pa Buitendam, R $23,938—$40,675* pa Crosby, D $50,931—$68,497# pa Archer, T $41,430—$47,591# pa Beer, J $23,938—$40,675 * pa Kohls, L $23,938—$40,675* pa Chamberlain, R $41,430—$47,591# pa Fryar, C $68,228—$90,580# pa Garton, J $23,469—$39,877* pa Sharp, P $23,938—$40,675* pa Schmidt, S $23,938—$40,675* pa # Also paid Ministerial Staff Allowance (MSA) mines the salary for appointees to Senior Executive of $11,424 pa Service equivalent positions. * If paid annual salary of $34,391 or higher, (g) No. occupant can elect to be paid MSA instead of (5) (a) No. Ms Wiessner is based in Sydney and overtime. Mr Blyth is based in Adelaide. (e) See answer to 3 (a). (b) They have been based at those locations since their appointment. (f) See answer to 3 (c ) above. In respect of Mr (c) No. Fryar, the Special Minister of State, on the recom- mendation of the Secretary of the Department of (d) Not applicable. Workplace Relations and Small Business, deter- (e) Not applicable. 3712 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

(6) (a), (b) and (c) Variations to commencing Apart from those increases, there were two other salaries have occurred because of the National salary variations. Mr B Cooper was promoted from Wage Increase of 17 October 1996 and/or by Personal Secretary to Assistant Adviser on 19 annual increments. Staff generally progress one pay December 1996. Ms L Kohls’ salary was adjusted point within the relevant salary range after 12 in April 1998. months satisfactory service at a particular pay point (7) (a) (b) and (c ) The employees who have left (except staff who are appointed to positions to the secretariat, their dates of cessation and reasons Senior Executive Service equivalent positions). for leaving are:

Garton, J 7 June 1996 End of temporary contract Oakeshott, 9 August 1996 Resigned to contest by election for a New South Wales state seat R Warren, S 11 November Transferred to position with Senator the Hon Robert Hill 1996 Galilee, S 22 November Transferred to position with the Hon Michael Ronaldson MP 1996 Sharp, P 24 December End of temporary contract 1996 Buitendam, 21 September Transferred to position with the Hon Peter Reith MP R 1997 Cooper, B 3 October 1997 Resigned to take up position with the office of the Premier, WA Schmidt, S 10 October 1997 End of temporary contact Best, Y 11 January 1998 Transferred to position with the Hon John Fahey MP

(8) (a) 8 employees have mobile phones, 10 (b) The work undertaken comprised the alteration employees have desktop computers, and 1 person of the former office and conference room layout to is provided with a private-plated vehicle. The provide additional office accommodation. The Joint secretariat has five laptop computers which are House Department made minor alterations to the available for staff use off site. exterior of the office to bring it into line with the original design. All changes were approved by the (b) The above equipment is totally funded by the Presiding Officers. Commonwealth. The vehicle is provided on the same terms and conditions as those supplied to the (c) The work commenced in mid August 1997 Senior Executive Service in the Australian Public and completed in early October 1997. Service. The Commonwealth pays the leasing and (d) Yes. running costs for the vehicle and the employee (10) (a) $54,466. Equipment for the initial setup contributes $711 pa. was supplied from surplus departmental stock. (9) (a) $39,960.00 (b) and (c)—

Equipment Purchased Mobile phone and pouch Jun 96 4 x SCSI CD Rom , speaker kits Aug 96 4 x NEC CD Rom kits Aug 96 2 x Seagate 4.2Gb Hard Drive Nov 96 Disk Drive Kit Dec 96 Computer Hardware Jan 97 Nokia 2110 Mobile phone and accessories Jan 97 Nokia 2110 Mobile phone and accessories Feb 97 2 x Seagate 4.2Gb Hard Drives Feb 97 HP Laser Jet Printer May 97 Latitude Laptop Computer June 97 Disk drive Kit June 97 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3713

Equipment Purchased Latitude CD-Rom June 97 Iomega Zip Drive Dec 97 3Gb HDD, Monitor and Video Card Oct 97 Panasonic Television Dec 97 Grundig Video Recorder Dec 97 Epson Stylus Colour Printer Mar 98 2 x Nokia 8110 mobile phones, extended batteries, Hands free kits and Desktop Mar 98 stand 2 x Dell Laptops with accessories Apr 98 1 Dell Laptop Apr 98

(d) The department has advised that purchases were arranged by competitive quotes or through suppliers under Government contract. (11) The equipment was purchased to enable the efficient day-to-day running of the Secretariat. (12) No, apart from equipment that could be located at home under standard staff entitlements of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. (13)—

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 1996 ------329--2,150 - 1997 6,181 5,032 4,291 2,654 5,615 994 871 1,614 971 778 2,357 2,106 1998 1,263 2,989 1,356 1,430 ------

(14) (a), (b), (c) and (d) The total costs for travel undertaken by staff of the secretariat (airfares and car transport) to 31 May 1998 were $185,259. Details of individual car transport usage is not readily available in a format to answer all parts of this question. Details of airfares follow: Linda K Reynolds

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Townsville 17/07/1996 Townsville Canberra 19/07/1996 958.00

Canberra Sydney 22/07/1996 Sydney Canberra 25/07/1996 296.00

Canberra Brisbane 28/07/1996 Brisbane Canberra 01/08/1996 604.00

Canberra Melbourne 05/08/1996 Melbourne Adelaide 07/08/1996 Adelaide Perth 09/08/1996 Perth Canberra 15/08/1996 1576.00

Canberra Sydney 27/08/1996 Sydney Canberra 27/08/1996 308.00 3714 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Brisbane Cairns 22/09/1996 Cairns Brisbane 23/09/1996 842.00

Canberra Brisbane 23/09/1996 Brisbane Sydney 24/09/1996 Sydney Canberra 26/09/1996 759.40

Canberra Launceston 29/09/1996 Launceston Canberra 01/10/1996 606.00

Canberra Adelaide 03/10/1996 Adelaide Canberra 04/10/1996 638.00

Canberra Hobart 15/10/1996 183.00

Hobart Melbourne 21/10/1996 Melbourne Canberra 23/10/1996 450.00

Canberra Perth 16/11/1996 Perth Canberra 04/12/1996 1247.40

Canberra Brisbane 23/11/1996 Brisbane Canberra 01/12/1996 626.00

Canberra Brisbane 13/02/1997 Brisbane Canberra 14/02/1997 642.00

Canberra Melbourne 19/02/1997 Melbourne Canberra 21/02/1997 809.00

Canberra Darwin 12/03/1997 Darwin Canberra 14/03/1997 1392.00

Canberra Perth 26/03/1997 Perth Adelaide 03/04/1997 Adelaide Canberra 04/04/1997 1522.00

Canberra Rockhampton 28/04/1997 Rockhampton Sydney 29/04/1997 Sydney Canberra 01/05/1997 962.40

Canberra Brisbane 14/07/1997 Brisbane Canberra 18/07/1997 642.00

Canberra Sydney 21/07/1997 Sydney Canberra 25/07/1997 316.00 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3715

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Melbourne 27/07/1997 Melbourne Canberra 02/08/1997 444.00

Canberra Adelaide 02/08/1997 Adelaide Perth 10/08/1997 Perth Canberra 23/08/1997 1552.40

Canberra Gold Coast 08/09/1997 Gold Coast Canberra 09/09/1997 611.40

Sydney Canberra 02/10/1997 Canberra Sydney 04/10/1997 316.00

Canberra Melbourne 07/12/1997 Melbourne Canberra 10/12/1997 444.00

Canberra Perth 16/12/1997 Perth Sydney 26/12/1997 Sydney Canberra 27/12/1997 1483.00

Canberra Sydney 06/02/1998 Sydney Canberra 08/02/1998 316.00

Canberra Sydney 09/03/1998 Sydney Brisbane 10/03/1998 Brisbane Canberra 17/03/1998 782.00

Canberra Tamworth 02/04/1998 Tamworth Canberra 03/04/1998 701.40

Canberra Perth 10/04/1998 Perth Canberra 17/04/1998 1276.00

Canberra Sydney 20/04/1998 Sydney Canberra 24/04/1998 316.00

Canberra Melbourne 28/04/1998 Melbourne Canberra 30/04/1998 444.00

Canberra Adelaide 19/05/1998 Adelaide Canberra 21/05/1998 702.00

Total 24767.40 3716 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Timothy Archer TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Sydney 23/09/1997 Sydney Canberra 23/09/1997 316.00

Canberra Perth 29/09/1996 Perth Canberra 02/10/1996 1276.00

Canberra Melbourne 03/11/1996 222.00

Canberra Sydney 11/11/1996 Sydney Canberra 14/11/1996 316.00

Canberra Sydney 09/12/1996 158.00

Sydney Tamworth 09/12/1996 142.50

Port Macquarie Sydney 12/12/1996 Sydney Canberra 12/12/1996 343.25

Canberra Brisbane 16/12/1996 Brisbane Canberra 17/12/1996 642.00

Canberra Cairns 27/01/1997 Cairns Brisbane 28/01/1997 Brisbane Canberra 30/01/1997 1179.00

Canberra Melbourne 10/02/1997 Melbourne Canberra 11/02/1997 444.00

Canberra Brisbane 10/03/1997 Brisbane Canberra 17/03/1997 642.00

Canberra Sydney 23/03/1997 Sydney Canberra 24/03/1997 316.00

Canberra Perth 14/04/1997 Perth Canberra 19/04/1997 1279.40

Canberra Adelaide 21/04/1997 Adelaide Brisbane 22/04/1997 Brisbane Canberra 24/04/1997 1193.00

Canberra Melbourne 27/04/1997 Melbourne Canberra 30/04/1997 444.00

Canberra Adelaide 19/05/1997 Adelaide Canberra 21/05/1997 702.00

Total 9615.15 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3717

Andrew Schuller

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Adelaide 21/04/1996 Adelaide Canberra 24/04/1996 641.00

Canberra Brisbane 12/06/1996 Brisbane Canberra 14/06/1996 604.00

Canberra Brisbane 10/10/1996 Brisbane Canberra 13/10/1996 629.40

Canberra Hobart 15/10/1996 Hobart Canberra 20/10/1996 498.00

Canberra Brisbane 18/12/1996 Brisbane Canberra 21/12/1996 642.00

Canberra Brisbane 11/03/1997 Brisbane Canberra 13/03/1997 642.00

Canberra Brisbane 09/06/1997 Brisbane Canberra 13/06/1997 642.00

Canberra Brisbane 17/12/1997 Brisbane Canberra 26/12/1997 642.00

Total 4940.40

Brendan Cooper

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Adelaide 21/04/1996 Adelaide Canberra 24/04/1996 641.00

Canberra Brisbane 14/05/1996 Brisbane Canberra 17/05/1996 607.40

Canberra Sydney 21/05/1996 148.00

Canberra Mackay 04/06/1996 Mackay Brisbane 05/06/1996 Brisbane Canberra 07/06/1996 1030.00

Canberra Perth 13/06/1996 Perth Canberra 15/06/1996 1203.40

Canberra Sydney 23/06/1996 148.00 3718 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Canberra Sydney 02/07/1996 Sydney Canberra 02/07/1996 296.00

Canberra Sydney 09/07/1996 Sydney Canberra 12/07/1996 296.00

Canberra Brisbane 15/07/1996 Brisbane Rockhampton 17/07/1996 Rockhampton Brisbane 17/07/1996 Brisbane Canberra 18/07/1996 1590.00

Canberra Brisbane 15/07/1996 Brisbane Rockhampton 17/07/1996 Rockhampton Brisbane 17/07/1996 Brisbane Canberra 18/07/1996 1590.00

Canberra Rockhampton 22/07/1996 Rockhampton Canberra 22/07/1996 792.00

Canberra Sydney 24/07/1996 Sydney Canberra 26/07/1996 296.00

Canberra Adelaide 30/07/1996 Adelaide Pt Lincoln 31/07/1996 Pt Lincoln Adelaide 01/08/1996 Adelaide Canberra 02/08/1996 821.00

Canberra Sydney 26/08/1996 Sydney Brisbane 28/08/1996 Brisbane Canberra 29/08/1996 756.00

Canberra Perth 04/09/1996 Perth Canberra 06/09/1996 1244.00

Canberra Melbourne 16/09/1996 Melbourne Canberra 16/09/1996 432.00

Canberra Sydney 17/09/1996 Sydney Canberra 18/09/1996 308.00

Canberra Sydney 17/09/1996 Sydney Canberra 18/09/1996 308.00

Canberra Brisbane 23/09/1996 Brisbane Sydney 26/09/1996 Sydney Canberra 27/09/1996 1742.40 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3719

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Adelaide 30/09/1996 Adelaide Darwin 30/09/1996 Darwin Brisbane 02/10/1996 Brisbane Canberra 02/10/1996 1358.00

Canberra Hobart 14/10/1996 Hobart Canberra 21/10/1996 366.00

Sydney Canberra 24/10/1996 154.00

Canberra Perth 25/10/1996 Perth Canberra 31/10/1996 Canberra Perth 03/11/1996 Perth Sydney 08/11/1996 Sydney Canberra 09/11/1996 2494.80

Canberra Perth 10/11/1996 Perth Sydney 13/11/1996 Sydney Canberra 14/11/1996 1247.40

Canberra Perth 16/11/1996 Perth Sydney 28/11/1996 Sydney Canberra 29/11/1996 1247.40

Canberra Perth 26/11/1996 Perth Brisbane 28/11/1996 Brisbane Perth 29/11/1996 Perth Brisbane 05/12/1996 Brisbane Sydney 06/12/1996 Sydney Perth 09/12/1996 Perth Canberra 12/12/1996 4982.04

Canberra Albury 16/12/1996 Albury Canberra 16/12/1996 244.00

Canberra Brisbane 17/12/1996 Brisbane Sydney 19/12/1996 Sydney Canberra 20/12/1996 779.40

Canberra Brisbane 07/01/1997 Brisbane Canberra 08/01/1997 642.00

Canberra Sydney 11/01/1997 Sydney Canberra 16/01/1997 316.00

Canberra Adelaide 21/01/1997 Adelaide Perth 22/01/1997 Perth Canberra 24/01/1997 1552.40 3720 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Adelaide Pt Augusta 22/01/1997 Pt Augusta Adelaide 22/01/1997 220.00

Canberra Melbourne 30/01/1997 Melbourne Canberra 30/01/1997 444.00

Canberra Sydney 03/02/1997 Sydney Canberra 06/02/1997 316.00

Canberra Adelaide 10/02/1997 Adelaide Canberra 12/02/1997 654.00

Canberra Sydney 18/02/1997 Sydney Canberra 21/02/1997 316.00

Canberra Brisbane 11/03/1997 Brisbane Sydney 12/03/1997 621.40

Canberra Melbourne 25/03/1997 Melbourne Canberra 25/03/1997 444.00

Canberra Sydney 09/04/1997 158.00

Canberra Perth 16/04/1997 Perth Canberra 18/04/1997 1276.00

Canberra Townsville 29/04/1997 Townsville Cairns 30/04/1997 Cairns Brisbane 01/05/1997 Brisbane Canberra 02/05/1997 1972.00

Canberra Adelaide 05/05/1997 Adelaide Canberra 09/05/1997 654.00

Canberra Melbourne 20/05/1997 Melbourne Canberra 21/05/1997 444.00

Canberra Brisbane 10/06/1997 Brisbane Canberra 11/06/1997 645.40

Canberra Perth 18/06/1997 Perth Adelaide 19/06/1997 1195.00

Canberra Hobart 27/06/1997 Launceston Canberra 28/06/1997 652.00

Canberra Mackay 01/07/1997 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3721

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Mackay Brisbane 01/07/1997 Brisbane Canberra 04/07/1997 1095.00

Canberra Perth 08/07/1997 Perth Canberra 10/07/1997 1276.00

Canberra Sydney 06/08/1997 158.00

Canberra Perth 11/08/1997 Perth Canberra 13/08/1997 1276.00

Canberra Sydney 18/08/1997 Sydney Canberra 20/08/1997 316.00

Canberra Sydney 25/08/1997 Sydney Canberra 26/08/1997 316.00

Canberra Launceston 03/09/1997 Launceston Melbourne 03/09/1997 Melbourne Canberra 04/09/1997 747.00

Canberra Sydney 05/09/1997 Sydney Canberra 06/09/1997 316.00

Canberra Alice Springs 09/09/1997 Alice Springs Canberra 10/09/1997 1063.40

Canberra Brisbane 15/09/1997 Brisbane Adelaide 16/09/1997 Adelaide Canberra 19/09/1997 1210.00

Canberra Sydney 23/09/1997 Sydney Canberra 23/09/1997 316.00

Canberra Melbourne 29/09/1997 Melbourne Perth 29/09/1997 638.00

Total 48371.84

Jane Beer

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Brisbane 11/03/1998 Brisbane Canberra 16/03/1998 642.00

Total 642.00 3722 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Susan Warren

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Adelaide 02/07/1996 Adelaide Canberra 06/07/1996 786.40

Canberra Hobart 17/10/1996 Hobart Canberra 20/10/1996 664.00

Total 1450.40

Stephen J Galilee

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Brisbane 29/07/1996 Brisbane Canberra 01/08/1996 $604.00

Canberra Melbourne 05/08/1996 Melbourne Adelaide 07/08/1996 Adelaide Melbourne 09/08/1996 Melbourne Canberra 09/08/1996 $785.00

Total $1,389.00

Keith A Blyth

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Adelaide Canberra 29/04/1997 $327.00

Adelaide Canberra 04/05/1997 Canberra Adelaide 09/05/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 11/05/1997 Canberra Adelaide 17/05/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 01/06/1997 Canberra Adelaide 06/06/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 15/06/1997 Canberra Adelaide 20/06/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 22/06/1997 Canberra Adelaide 27/06/1997 $654.00 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3723

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Adelaide Canberra 22/07/1997 Canberra Adelaide 25/07/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 28/07/1997 Canberra Adelaide 31/07/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Perth 10/08/1997 Perth Adelaide 13/08/1997 $1,002.00

Adelaide Canberra 24/08/1997 Canberra Adelaide 29/08/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 31/08/1997 Canberra Adelaide 04/09/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 06/01/1997 Canberra Adelaide 09/01/1997 $711.40

Adelaide Sydney 21/01/1997 Sydney Adelaide 22/01/1997 $751.40

Adelaide Canberra 29/01/1997 Canberra Adelaide 31/01/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 02/02/1997 Canberra Adelaide 06/02/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 09/02/1997 Canberra Adelaide 14/02/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 23/02/1997 Canberra Adelaide 27/02/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 02/03/1997 Canberra Adelaide 06/03/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 16/03/1997 Canberra Adelaide 20/03/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 23/03/1997 Canberra Adelaide 27/03/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 06/04/1997 Canberra Adelaide 10/04/1997 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 18/04/1997 $327.00

Sydney Adelaide 24/04/1997 $374.00 3724 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Adelaide Canberra 10/09/1997 Canberra Adelaide 13/09/1997 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 26/10/1997 Canberra Melbourne 01/11/1997 Melbourne Adelaide 01/11/1997 $681.00

Canberra Adelaide 14/11/1997 Adelaide Sydney 16/11/1997 Sydney Canberra 16/11/1997 $681.00

Canberra Melbourne 21/11/1997 Melbourne Adelaide 21/11/1997 Adelaide Canberra 23/11/1997 $681.00

Canberra Adelaide 28/11/1997 Adelaide Canberra 30/11/1997 $654.00

Canberra Adelaide 28/11/1997 $327.00

Canberra Sydney 06/12/1997 Sydney Adelaide 06/12/1997 Adelaide Canberra 09/12/1997 $708.00

Adelaide Melbourne 06/01/1998 Melbourne Canberra 06/01/1998 Canberra Adelaide 09/01/1998 $708.00

Adelaide Melbourne 12/01/1998 Melbourne Canberra 12/01/1998 Canberra Adelaide 16/01/1998 $708.00

Canberra Sydney 19/01/1998 Sydney Perth 19/01/1998 Perth Adelaide 23/01/1998 $1,195.00

Adelaide Canberra 02/02/1998 $354.00

Canberra Melbourne 06/02/1998 Melbourne Adelaide 06/02/1998 Adelaide Canberra 08/02/1998 $681.00

Canberra Adelaide 13/02/1998 $327.00

Canberra Adelaide 06/03/1998 $327.00

Adelaide Canberra 08/03/1998 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3725

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Brisbane 13/03/1998 Brisbane Melbourne 20/03/1998 Melbourne Adelaide 20/03/1998 $1,183.00

Canberra Melbourne 12/03/1998 Melbourne Brisbane 12/03/1998 Brisbane Melbourne 20/03/1998 Melbourne Adelaide 20/03/1998 $1,198.00

Adelaide Canberra 22/03/1998 Canberra Adelaide 26/03/1998 $681.00

Canberra Adelaide 27/03/1998 $327.00

Adelaide Canberra 29/03/1998 Canberra Adelaide 03/04/1998 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 05/04/1998 Canberra Adelaide 09/04/1998 $654.00

Canberra Melbourne 09/04/1998 Melbourne Adelaide 09/04/1998 $354.00

Adelaide Perth 13/04/1998 Perth Adelaide 17/04/1998 $1,114.00

Adelaide Melbourne 29/04/1998 Melbourne Canberra 29/04/1998 Canberra Adelaide 01/05/1998 $708.00

Adelaide Canberra 03/05/1998 Canberra Adelaide 08/05/1998 $654.00

Adelaide Canberra 10/05/1998 Canberra Adelaide 15/05/1998 $681.00

Adelaide Canberra 24/05/1998 Canberra Adelaide 29/05/1998 $674.00

Total $32,367.80 3726 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Vincent R Woolcock

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Sydney 13/05/1996 Sydney Hobart 13/05/1996 Hobart Melbourne 15/05/1996 Melbourne Canberra 15/05/1996 $409.00

Canberra Melbourne 08/07/1996 Melbourne Hobart 08/07/1996 Hobart Melbourne 09/07/1996 Melbourne Canberra 09/07/1996 $640.00

Canberra Melbourne 01/09/1996 Melbourne Hobart 01/09/1996 Hobart Melbourne 03/09/1996 Melbourne Canberra 03/09/1996 $664.00

Canberra Hobart 10/09/1996 Hobart Canberra 11/09/1996 $664.00

Canberra Hobart 13/10/1996 Hobart Canberra 22/10/1996 $366.00

Canberra Sydney 08/12/1996 Sydney Canberra 10/12/1996 $316.00

Canberra Brisbane 10/03/1997 Brisbane Canberra 12/03/1997 $642.00

Canberra Adelaide 20/04/1997 Adelaide Canberra 23/04/1997 $681.00

Canberra Brisbane 09/07/1997 Brisbane Canberra 11/07/1997 $645.40

Canberra Launceston 28/08/1997 Launceston Canberra 29/08/1997 $622.00

Canberra Brisbane 08/09/1997 Brisbane Canberra 10/09/1997 $642.00

Canberra Brisbane 24/11/1997 Brisbane Canberra 27/11/1997 $642.00

Canberra Sydney 26/01/1998 Sydney Brisbane 26/01/1998 Brisbane Canberra 27/01/1998 $642.00 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3727

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Brisbane 17/02/1998 Brisbane Sydney 18/02/1998 Sydney Canberra 19/02/1997 $785.40

Canberra Brisbane 06/03/1998 Brisbane Canberra 17/03/1998 $642.00

Canberra Melbourne 20/05/1998 Melbourne Canberra 20/05/1998 $464.00

Total $9,466.80

Robert J M Oakeshott

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Canberra Sydney 05/07/1996 $148.00

Sydney Brisbane 08/07/1996 Brisbane Rockhampton 08/07/1996 Rockhampton Mackay 10/07/1996 Mackay Brisbane 12/07/1996 Brisbane Canberra 12/07/1996 $969.00

Sydney Canberra 08/07/1996 $148.00

Total $1,265.00

Leander Klohs

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Brisbane 18/05/1998 Brisbane Cairns 18/05/1998 Cairns Canberra 22/05/1998 $615.00

Total $615.00 3728 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Christopher C Fryar

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Melbourne 22/05/1998 Melbourne Canberra 22/05/1998 $628.00

Total $628.00

Aileen Wiessner

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Sydney 03/05/1996 $148.00

Canberra Sydney 09/05/1996 $148.00

Sydney Canberra 20/05/1996 $148.00

Sydney Canberra 17/06/1996 $148.00

Canberra Sydney 20/06/1996 $148.00

Sydney Canberra 24/06/1996 $148.00

Canberra Sydney 22/08/1996 $148.00

Sydney Canberra 09/09/1996 Canberra Sydney 12/09/1996 $308.00

Sydney Canberra 09/12/1996 $158.00

Canberra Sydney 14/12/1996 $158.00

Sydney Canberra 17/03/1997 Canberra Sydney 20/03/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 12/05/1997 Canberra Sydney 14/05/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 26/05/1997 Canberra Sydney 29/05/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 02/06/1997 Canberra Sydney 05/06/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 16/06/1997 Canberra Sydney 19/06/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 25/08/1997 $158.00 Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3729

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $

Sydney Canberra 01/09/1997 Canberra Sydney 04/09/1997 $316.00

Canberra Sydney 25/09/1997 $213.00

Sydney Canberra 29/09/1997 $158.00

Canberra Sydney 02/10/1997 $158.00

Canberra Sydney 23/10/1997 $158.00

Sydney Canberra 27/10/1997 Canberra Sydney 30/10/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 17/11/1997 Canberra Sydney 20/11/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 24/11/1997 Canberra Sydney 27/11/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 01/12/1997 Canberra Sydney 04/12/1997 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 13/02/1998 $158.00

Sydney Canberra 02/03/1998 Canberra Sydney 05/03/1998 $316.00

Sydney Brisbane 11/03/1998 Brisbane Sydney 15/03/1998 $609.40

Sydney Canberra 23/03/1998 Canberra Sydney 26/03/1998 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 30/03/1998 Canberra Sydney 02/04/1998 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 06/04/1998 Canberra Sydney 08/04/1998 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 11/05/1998 Canberra Sydney 13/05/1998 $316.00

Sydney Canberra 25/05/1998 Canberra Sydney 28/05/1998 $326.00

Total $8,338.40 3730 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Reginald Chamberlain

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Canberra Sydney 11/03/1998 Sydney Brisbane 11/03/1998 Brisbane Canberra 16/03/1998 $642.00

Total $642.00

Yvonne Best

TRAVEL FROM TRAVEL TO DATE COST $ Sydney Canberra 09/09/1996 154.00

Canberra Sydney 09/11/1996 Sydney Perth 10/11/1996 1665.40

Canberra Sydney 21/07/1997 Sydney Canberra 24/07/1997 284.00

Canberra Melbourne 28/07/1997 Melbourne Canberra 31/07/1997 400.00

Canberra Adelaide 04/08/1997 Adelaide Canberra 07/08/1997 616.40

Total 3119.80

(e) The staff of the secretariat have the same Australian Quarantine and Inspection entitlement to travel as do all other staff employed Service under Part III of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 including the staff of the Opposition (Question No. 1172) Office holders. This entitlement is to travel on Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- official business in Australia as directed by the senting the Minister for Primary Industries Minister or Office holder responsible for the Government Members Secretariat. and Energy, upon notice, on 28 April 1998: (1) (a) What role did the Australian Quarantine (15) (a) Nil. and Inspection Service (AQIS) have in the approval (b) N/A. of an application from PowerBar Australia to (16) (a) & (b) N/A. import a sports food product; (b) when was that approval given; (c) what was the life of the approv- (17) N/A. al; and (d) what was the scientific basis on which (18) (a), (b) & (c) N/A. the approval was granted. (19) (a) Nil. (2) (a) Did AQIS advise the above company on 22 January 1998 that a shipment of PowerBar (b) N/A. products were being held at the docks because the (20) (a) & (b) N/A. product did not conform with any food standard; and (b) what changes occurred from the initial (21) N/A. approvals by AQIS for PowerBar products to the (22) (a), (b) & (c) N/A. blocking of the above shipment. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3731

(3) (a) What role does AQIS have in the devel- Senator Herron—The Minister for Health opment of food standards; and (b) has AQIS been and Family Services has provided the follow- involved in the development of a sports food ing answer to the honourable senator’s ques- standard; if so, what was that role. tion: Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary (1) No, ANZFA did not and cannot approve food Industries and Energy has provided the for importation into Australia. ANZFA develops following answer to the honourable senator’s food standards which are contained within the question: Australian Food Standards Code (FSC), and these food standards have effect through adoption by (1) AQIS has not issued an approval for reference into States and Territory legislation. PowerBar Australia to import a sports food product. The Imported Food Control Act 1992, which is (2) (a) No; however AQIS did advise PowerBar administered by the Australian Quarantine Inspec- Australia on 28 January 1998 that a shipment of tion Service (AQIS), also adopts the FSC by product held at the importers did not comply with reference and this is the basis for inspection and Standard S1 of the Food Standards Code. (b) There clearance of imported food at the customs barrier. was no initial approval by AQIS. As no application from Power—Bar Australia has (3) AQIS has the opportunity to comment to the been received to amend the FSC, ANZFA has no Australia New Zealand Food Authority during the information on the analysis of this product. public comment phases of the development of food standards; as the details of the sports food standard (2) As ANZFA has no authority to approve foods did not directly impact on AQIS’s core responsibili- for importation this question would be better ties AQIS had minimal input to the development of directed to the AQIS. AQIS is responsible for this standard. assessing the compliance of imported food with the FSC and appropriate quarantine requirements. Australia New Zealand Food Authority (3) See answer two. (Question No. 1173) (4) No. However, ANZFA has recently gazetted a new food standard—Standard R10—Formulated Senator O’Brien asked the Minister repre- Supplementary Sports Foods. The development of senting the Minister for Health and Family this standard was commenced in 1993. The stan- Services, upon notice, on 28 April 1998: dard was developed through ANZFA*s statutory processes which, in summary, it requires: (1) Did the Australia New Zealand Food Authori- ty (ANZFA) approve an application by a company - a proposal to develop the standard to be raised called Power Bar—Australia to import a sports by ANZFA; energy bar; if so, what analysis of the product was - a round of public consultation; undertaken before its importation was approved. - full assessment of the proposal by ANZFA, (2) (a) When was approval granted and under with an associated draft amendment to the what authority was permission given to import the Food Standards Code; bar; (b) was there a time limit placed on the - a further round of public consultation; approval; if so, what was the life of the approval and how was that determined; and (c) was the - a recommendation from ANZFA to the Aus- importer required to renew the permit; if so, how tralia New Zealand Ministerial Council; often was the renewal required and what process - gazettal and bringing into force of the amend- was the importer required to follow. ment to the Food Standards Code. (3) (a) Has approval for the importation of the Gazettal of this standard occurred in March 1998 Power Bar been suspended; if so, when was that and it came into force immediately. suspension imposed and what was the basis of the suspension; and (b) how long will this suspension Western Australia Regional Forest remain in force. Agreement (4) (a) Has ANZFA determined a standard for (Question No. 1174) the importation of sports food products; if so: (i) Senator Margetts asked the Minister for when was the process of determining the standard commenced, (ii) what procedures were followed, the Environment, upon notice, on 29 April and (iii) when was the standard finalised; and (b) 1998: if the development of such a standard is underway: (1) Has the Minister corresponded or communi- (i) when did the process commence, (ii) at what cated with the Western Australian Minister for the stage is the process, and (iii) when does ANZFA Environment, the Hon. Cheryl Edwardes, in relation expect the standard to be finalised. to the Western Australian regional forest agree- 3732 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 ment; if so, can copies be provided of the corres- (1) (a) On what date was the jurisdiction of the pondence or communication. Industrial Relations Court transferred; and (b) to which body was the court’s jurisdiction transferred. (2) Has Environment Australia been involved in any correspondence or communication with any (2) Were Industrial Relations Court judges State or Federal Government department or transferred to another court; if so, which one; if minister, the Forest Industries Federation of West- not, what happened to those judges. ern Australia, Alcoa Australia, the Forest Protection Society, or Wesfarmers Limited or any of its (3) How many:(a) Judicial Registrars; and (b) subsidiaries including the Bunnings group of com- other staff, remain employed in their former panies, Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited and positions with the Industrial Relations Court. Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd, in relation to the (4) What is the unexpired period of the contracts Western Australian regional forest agreement; if so, under which these staff remain employed. can copies be provided of that correspondence or communication. (5) How many cases have been dealt with by the Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- Court Registry since the transfer of jurisdiction. able senator’s question is as follows: (6) What is the total annual cost for the re- maining Industrial Relations Court; (a) Judicial (1) Yes. No copies can be provided as the corres- Registrars; (b) other staff; (c) accommodation; and pondence relates to sensitive negotiations between (d) other costs. the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government in developing the Regional Forest Senator Vanstone—The Attorney-General Agreement in Western Australia. has provided the following answer to the (2) Yes. Environment Australia has corresponded honourable senator’s question: and communicated with State and Federal Govern- ment departments and ministers, the Forest Indus- (b) The jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations tries Federation of Western Australia, Alcoa Court was transferred to the Federal Court of Australia, the Forest Protection Society, Australia. Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited and Bunnings Forest (2) All the judges of the Industrial Relations Products Pty Ltd, in relation to the Western Aus- Court already held commissions as judges of the tralian Regional Forest Agreement. Federal Court of Australia. Copies of correspondence between Environment (3) I am advised that as at 13 May 1998 there Australia and State and Federal Government are: departments and ministers cannot be released as these documents cover sensitive negotiations be- (a) 13 Judicial Registrars (of which S are part- tween the Commonwealth and the Western Austral- time); and (b) 17 former staff of the Industrial ian Government in developing the Regional Forest Relations Court now designated as employees of Agreement in Western Australia. the Federal Court. Copies of correspondence between Environment (4) I am advised that the terms of the Judicial Australia and the Forest Industries Federation of Registrars expire on a number of different dates Western Australia, Alcoa Australia, the Forest ranging from 26 July 1998 to 19 December 1999. Protection Society, Wesfarmers Bunnings Limited 16 of the other 17 other staff are not employed and Bunnings Forest Products Pty Ltd, in relation under individual contracts, the other staff member to the Western Australian Regional Forest Agree- is a statutory appointee whose term expires on 18 ment, have been forwarded to the honourable July 1999. senator. This correspondence dates from the signing of the Scoping Agreement for a Western Australian (5) I am advised that 379 cases were transferred Regional Forest Agreement on 3 July 1996. to the Federal Court on 26 May 1997, 383 partially cleared cases remained with the Industrial Relations Further copies of the correspondence are avail- Court and 246 new cases have been filed with the able from the Senate Table Office. Federal Court in the period 26 May 1997 to 8 May 1998. Of the total cases, 667 have been finalised Industrial Relations Court and 341 are still current. (Question No. 1177) (6) I am advised that the total estimated expendi- ture in 1997-98 is $6,762,811: (a) salaries for Senator Faulkner asked the Minister judicial registrars $1,389,736; (b) salaries for other representing the Attorney-General, upon staff $905,387; (c) accommodation $1,286,000; (d) notice, on 29 April 1998: other costs $3,181,688. Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3733

National Forest Policy NFPS, which has included the development of Regional Forest Agreements; the endorsement of (Question No. 1178) the Plantations 2020 Vision; a national Farm Senator Margetts asked the Minister Forestry program including as an element of the representing the Minister for Primary Indus- Natural Heritage Trust; the development through tries and Energy, upon notice, on 1 May international processes of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management; support for an 1998: active program through the Forest and Wood With reference to the 1992 national forest Products Research and Development Corporation; policy statement, and in particular to the implementation of a Forest Industry Structural commitments relating to wood production, Adjustment program and the establishment of a wood products industry development and Wood and Paper Industry Forum. plantations: Details on these policies, programs, research studies and legislation, and the financial support (1) What legislation and/or delegated legislation provided, are contained in Annual Reports, pub- has been passed and proclaimed, or gazetted, in lished project reports and other statements available order to implement the commitments referred to to the Senate from my Department and other above. Commonwealth Departments involved, especially (2) What government agencies have been estab- the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, lished or persons employed to implement these the Department of the Environment and the Depart- commitments. ment of Industry, Science and Tourism. (3) What inquiries have been conducted by the Studies Assistance Government in relation to these issues. (4) What research projects have been conducted (Question No. 1181) in relation to these issues. Senator Faulkner asked the Special (5) What Commonwealth funds have been Minister of State, upon notice, on 5 May provided for each item in paragraphs (2) to (4). 1998: Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary Can a list be provided of all employees, whether Industries and Energy has provided the full-time, part-time or casual, of ministers/members/ following answer to the honourable senator’s senators who have received assistance for their studies over the period 1 January 1994 to the question: present, together with the aggregate total of that The 1992 National Forest Policy Statement assistance; individual amounts are not required. (NFPS) was endorsed by the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments. It established Senator Minchin—The answer to the an agreed framework for forest policy covering honourable senator’s question is as follows: such areas as conservation, industry development, Under the studies assistance guidelines, an plantations, tourism and research and development. approved student may be reimbursed course fees This was followed by a Wood and Paper Industry upon successful completion of approved units. The Strategy designed to encourage increased forest names of the staff members who received assist- resources, investment, value adding and employ- ance in the period concerned are shown against the ment growth in the forest industries. financial year the payment was made. In some The current Government has pursued a deliberate cases the fees relate to courses completed in a and energetic forest policy, consistent with the previous financial year.

Year Name 94/5 Colman J 94/5 Crane G 94/5 McKerihan M 94/5 McMicking A 94/5 Metcalfe A 94/5 Palaszczuk A 94/5 Sheaves K 94/5 Tait B 94/5 Young D 3734 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

Year Name

95/6 Bampos E 95/6 Bubikova A 95/6 Colman J 95/6 Colston D 95/6 Craige L 95/6 Ford D 95/6 Griffiths C 95/6 Irving B 95/6 Madden M 95/6 Marques A 95/6 McMicking A 95/6 Milligan M 95/6 Nockles Z 95/6 Plibersek T 95/6 Poletti F 95/6 Radford P 95/6 Scanlan A 95/6 Senise S 95/6 Sutterby B 95/6 Tait B 95/6 Tilly J 95/6 Young D 95/6 Zavaglia L 96/7 Beasley M 96/7 Booth P 96/7 Brauer C 96/7 Colman J 96/7 Mc Micking A 96/7 Pilbersek T 96/7 Radford P 96/7 Reynolds L 96/7 Tait B 96/7 Yates J 97/8 Beasley M 97/8 Best Y 97/8 Brassil K 97/8 Chesher M 97/8 Colston D 97/8 Dick M 97/8 Foster D 97/8 Griffiths C 97/8 Holloway L 97/8 Hopwood J 97/8 Lindwall P 97/8 McConnell L 97/8 Moran I 97/8 Phillips P 97/8 Power M Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3735

Year Name 97/8 Shields R 97/8 Simmons A 97/8 Tait B 97/8 Talbot J 97/8 Verlander H 97/8 Wagner J 97/8 Witt M Total paid $69,639.08

Tobacco Research and Development (2) The operations of the TRDC are funded from Corporation industry levies and the matching Commonwealth contribution. The Commonwealth does not make (Question No. 1185) any direct contribution to the administration of the Senator Brown asked the Minister repre- TRDC. senting the Minister for Primary Industries (3) (a) The Directors of the TRDC are Mr Eddie and Energy, upon notice, on 12 May 1998: Gilbert, Mr Laurie Hunt, Mr Barry Dare and Mr Des Naughton. The Parliamentary Secretary to the With reference to the recently advertised posi- Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, Senator tions on the Tobacco Research and Development Judith Troeth, is currently considering candidates Corporation (TRDC): for the appointment of a new Chairperson. (1) How much Commonwealth money will the (b) The TRDC’s core functions are to: investigate TRDC receive in the financial years 1998/99, and evaluate R&D requirements; prepare five year 1999/2000, 2000/2001. strategic plans and annual operating plans for (2) What is the cost to the Commonwealth of tobacco R&D; ensure R&D activities are consistent administering the TRDC in each of these years. with TRDC plans; monitor and evaluate R&D progress; and facilitate the dissemination, adoption (3) (a) Who is currently on the TRDC; and (b) and commercialisation of R&D outcomes. what are its functions. (4) In general, the Commonwealth provides (4) What is the Commonwealth’s policy on assistance for primary industries R&D by matching, supporting and promoting the tobacco industry. dollar for dollar, expenditure for industry research (5) How much money will be spent by the and development levies up to a maximum of 0.5% Department of Health and Family Services in each of the gross value of production. The broad objec- of the next 3 years on countering the impacts of tive of this policy is to develop competitive and smoking and running anti-tobacco campaigns. sustainable rural industries. (6) Why is the Commonwealth actively support- The Government’s dollar for dollar matching ing the TRDC to carry out research and develop- contribution is designed to provide an incentive for ment for the tobacco industry, whose adverse the primary sector to increase its R&D funding and impacts on health are imposing huge costs on the to become more involved in R&D priority setting community and the Government. and the adoption of outcomes. This policy also recognises that activities funded by R&D Corpora- Senator Parer—The Minister for Primary tions generate a mix of public and private benefits. Industries and Energy has provided the The tobacco industry, which provides significant following answer to the honourable senator’s social benefits to the Mareeba and Myrtleford question: communities, is treated on the same basis as other industries. (1) The Commonwealth provides matching, dollar for dollar, expenditure for the tobacco (5) The Department of Health and Family research and development levy up to a maximum Services has advised that: of 0.5% of the gross value of production. It is The Public Health program includes a number of estimated that Commonwealth expenditure in national strategies including the National Drug 1998/99 will be around $270,000 with similar Strategy. Allocations under the National Drug amounts expected in the following 2 years. This Strategy cover all drugs including alcohol, tobacco compares with expected industry contributions in and illicit drugs and it is not possible to provide a 1998/99 of around $660,000. breakdown of specific allocations on a drug by 3736 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998 drug basis as many of the initiatives funded under million was provided to the ICRC emergency the National Drug Strategy do not relate to individ- appeal. ual drugs but impact on the harm caused by drugs (3) ADF assistance was not offered in 1997. in general. (4) ADF assistance with the relief effort was not The Government has, however, announced in the offered until a Government to Government ap- recent Budget that it will allocate $6.1 million to proach for assistance was received from Indonesia. tobacco harm minimisation activities over the next In April 1998, Indonesia provided the first formal three years. Those funds will allow the National advice that they would accept an Australian offer Tobacco Campaign to continue as well as imple- of assistance with the relief operation. Following mentation of a number of policy initiatives. his discussions with the Indonesian Defence and (6) As per question (4). Security Minister, Minister McLachlan announced on 15 April 1998 that Australia would increase its Irian Jaya: Drought Assistance assistance to the humanitarian relief effort and this (Question No. 1186) would include the use of ADF assets to increase airlift capacity. The first ADF personnel were Senator Brown asked the Minister repre- deployed in early May 1998. This additional senting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon Australian assistance to Irian Jaya from the aid and notice, on 13 May 1998: defence budgets is expected to be worth up to $10 million. With reference to the Australian drought assist- ance to West Papua: (5) Official estimates indicate that at least 600 (1) Was West Papua given top priority for people may have died as a result of the drought assistance when the Australian Defence Force conditions. However it is likely that some deaths (ADF) first evaluated the need in 1997. in more remote villages have not been reported to the authorities. As well, the incidence of malaria (2) Was West Papua subsequently downgraded has significantly increased as a result of displace- by AusAID officials, as claimed in a Radio Nation- ment of populations with low natural immunity. al interview; if so, when was this done; and why. Recent tests carried out by medical teams from the (3) Did Indonesian authorities such as the Irian NGO, Medecins Sans Frontieres, indicate that the Jaya Co-ordinating Bureau refuse ADF assistance mortality rate may be as high as 30 deaths per when it was offered in 1997. 10,000 cases. (4) What caused the 8-month delay in getting Captioning for the Hearing Impaired ADF personnel into West Papua. (Question No. 1188) (5) How many people are estimated to have died from the drought in West Papua. Senator Brown asked the Minister for Senator Hill—The Acting Minister for Communications, the Information Economy Foreign Affairs has provided the following and the Arts, upon notice, on 13 May 1998: answers to the honourable senator’s questions: (1)What are the current rules regarding the (1) In late 1997, staff at the Australian Embassy captioning of television programs so that deaf and in Jakarta reported information from United Nations hearing-impaired people can enjoy them. organisations, the International Committee of the (2) Is it the case that America and Britain have Red Cross (ICRC) and non-government organisa- laws in place to ensure that programs are captioned. tions (NGOs) indicating that famine was causing (3) Will similar laws be introduced in Australia. deaths in the highlands of Irian Jaya. With the concurrence of the Government of Indonesia, the Senator Alston—The answer to the honour- Australian Government immediately provided funds able senator’s question is as follows: to support the relief effort being mounted by these (1) Under the self regulatory arrangements agencies. There was no request at this stage from contained in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Indonesian Government for ADF assistance and the broadcasting industry is encouraged to develop no ADF evaluation of the need was therefore codes of practice which relate to the captioning of conducted. programs for the hearing impaired. Commercial (2) AusAID officials did not downgrade the free to air television broadcasters are responsible situation in Irian Jaya. As indicated above, once the for deciding whether their programs are closed extent of the problem became known, the Austral- captioned, in accordance with the Federation of ian Government immediately provided $1.3 million Australian Commercial Television Stations for the relief operations of the United Nations (FACTS) Commercial Television Code of Practice Development Program (UNDP), ICRC and World (the Code). The Code requires FACTS members to Vision Australia. In January 1998, a further $2 endeavour to increase the amount of closed cap- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3737 tioned programming in consultation with organisa- will come into effect from 1 January 2001 (the date tions representing hearing-impaired and deaf of commencement of digital television services in viewers. Australia). Open and subscription television narrowcasting Greenhouse Gases services are covered by the relevant Australian Subscription Television and Radio Association (Question No. 1189) (ASTRA) Codes of Practice, which require Senator Brown asked the Minister for the narrowcasters to identify captioned programs in Environment, upon notice, on 12 May 1998: their program schedule information, and to consult organisations representing hearing-impaired and (1) (a) Why has the National Greenhouse Advis- deaf viewers when introducing or extending the ory Panel (NGAP) not met since October 1997; (b) provision of captioned programming. Codes for when is it next scheduled to meet; and (c) what is subscription television broadcasting (pay television) its ongoing role now that Australia has signed the and community television are being developed. Kyoto protocol. There are currently no legislative requirements (2) (a) What proportion of homes in Queensland, for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) New South Wales, South Australia and Western or the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) to Australia, respectively, have solar hot water; (b) provide captioning of their television programming. what quantity of greenhouse gas emissions would However, the ABC is required by both its Code of be saved if the proportion of homes with solar hot Practice and Editorial Guidelines to endeavour to water in Queensland was increased to the level of increase the amount of closed captioned program- Western Australia. ming as funds permit. (3) What quantity of greenhouse gases will be The Government has implemented other meas- emitted by the Nambour coal-fired power station ures to increase the level of captioning on free to planned as part of Queensland’s Surat scheme. air television. In the 1996/97 Budget, the Govern- (4) Will the Government require an assessment ment allocated $7 million over four years to caption of this proposed power station under the Environ- the ABC and SBS early evening news services. mental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (2) Yes. (5) Which ‘national environmental significance’ (3) The Government has recently announced its criterion in the Government’s proposed ‘reform’ of policy framework for the introduction of digital environmental legislation would trigger television broadcasting services in Australia. The Commonwealth involvement in the assessment of Government will require existing commercial and the Nambour power station. national (ABC and SBS) free-to-air broadcasters to (6) (a) How will the Commonwealth restrict in- commence digital television services in metro- creases in greenhouse gas emissions to the 8 per politan licence/coverage areas on 1 January 2001 cent limit set by the Kyoto protocol; and (b) will and in regional areas from that date, so that digital the Commonwealth assess all projects with large transmission has commenced in all regional scale emissions, including land clearing, or will it licence/coverage areas by 1 January 2004. simply allow projects to proceed on a first-come As part of its policy framework, the Government first-served basis until the limit is reached. will require commercial and national free-to-air broadcasters to provide a closed captioning service Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- for all prime time programming as well as for news able senator’s question is as follows: and current affairs outside prime time. (l) (a-c) The National Greenhouse Advisory Bills to give effect to the Government’s decisions Panel (NGAP) has made a valuable contribution to on digital television were introduced into the House the National Greenhouse Strategy which is now of Representatives on 8 April 1998. Provisions in being finalised by governments. A further meeting these Bills require the development of regulations of NGAP is not currently scheduled. Following en- to determine standards which are to be observed by dorsement of the National Greenhouse Strategy commercial and national broadcasters for captioning NGAP may be reconstituted as a peak consultative of television programs transmitted in prime viewing council on greenhouse policy. hours and news and current affairs programs (2) (a) The most recently available data from transmitted at other times. ABS (June 1994) on domestic hot water systems The captioning standard will apply to both analog shows the following percentages for the use of and digital transmission of television programs and solar energy: 3738 SENATE Monday, 22 June 1998

State Percentage of total in state Queensland 5 New South Wales 4 South Australia 3 Western Australia 21

(2) (b) The extent of greenhouse gas emissions Strategy is currently being finalised by the saved through the installation of a solar hot water Commonwealth and the States and Territories. system is dependant on a number of variables (6) (b) The Government will address the Kyoto including the type of heating unit replaced and pat- target through a broad range of measures, and will terns of use. However, emissions savings in excess be evaluating progress towards the target on a of 250,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum could be an- regular basis. Projects with significant greenhouse ticipated. gas emissions will be assessed by State govern- (3) The Nambour power station proposal has not ments in accordance with State legislation. been referred-to Government and I am not aware of the details of the planned power station. Emis- Environment Assessment of Surat sions from the power station will among other fac- Scheme tors depend on the type of coal used, the efficiency of the coal firing and steam raising process, and the (Question No. 1190) size of the plant. Senator Brown asked the Minister for the (4) Current Commonwealth legislation for Environment, upon notice, on 12 May 1998: environmental impact assessment only applies to (1) Will the Minister order a full Commonwealth proposals requiring a Commonwealth decision or environment assessment of Queensland’s Surat action. scheme, comprising coal mines, dams, power sta- Projects within the Surat/Dawson region are tions, irrigation, port development and dredging. subject to environmental impact assessment in (2) Will the total impact of this integrated re- accordance with Queensland legislation. Power gional development on the World Heritage listed station developments in the region have the poten- Great Barrier Reef, and on Australia’s capacity to tial for significant greenhouse emissions and green- meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, be assessed; house implications will be assessed by the State if not, why not. Government in accordance with State legislation. Any project proposal requiring Commonwealth Senator Hill—The answer to the honour- decisions or actions will be examined under the able senator’s question is as follows: Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. (1) Current Commonwealth legislation for envi- ronmental impact assessment only applies to pro- (5) Current Commonwealth legislation for posals requiring a Commonwealth decision or ac- environmental impact assessment only applies to tion. No such decision or action is needed for the those proposals which require a Commonwealth Surat/Dawson scheme as a whole. Decisions decision. Reform of Commonwealth environmental relating to specific projects, such as under the legislation is currently underway and not yet final- Commonwealth’s foreign investment policy, may ised. However, it is not the intent of the Common- trigger assessment action under the Environment wealth to include greenhouse issues as a trigger for Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Impact Commonwealth involvement in the assessment or Act) for individual proposals. approval of individual proposals. (6) (a) The Government is committed to meeting (2) Projects within the Surat/Dawson region are the target for greenhouse gas emission reductions subject to environmental impact assessment in established under the Kyoto Protocol. The Austral- accordance with Queensland requirements. I am ian Greenhouse Office (AGO) will evaluate pro- concerned to ensure that impacts of projects on the gress towards the target and report to Government Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property are on a regular basis. The Government, through the fully considered and have written to the Queensland AGO, is progressing towards full implementation Minister for Natural Resources in regard to the of the package of measures, representing $180 Comet and Dawson Dam proposals. million investment, announced in November 1997. Power station developments in the region have The National Greenhouse Strategy is another the potential for significant greenhouse emissions. important vehicle through which Australia’s actions Greenhouse implications will be assessed in will be implemented and reported against. The accordance with State requirements. Those requir- Monday, 22 June 1998 SENATE 3739 ing Commonwealth decisions or actions will be evidence considered by the Panel, that is set out in examined under the Impact Act. the report. Insofar as some of the documents belong to the Commonwealth, the Department is willing Nursing Homes to provide copies to the honourable senator at his (Question No. 1191) request. Other documents considered by the Panel were the property of the service provider, Jadwan Senator Brown asked the Minister repre- Pty. Limited, and it would not be appropriate for senting the Minister for Health and Family the Department to release those documents without Services, upon notice, on 14 May 1998: the service provider’s consent. With reference to the answer to Senate (2) (b) The matters raised in the question, namely question on notice no. 955 (Senate Hansard, complex factual issues which, for the most part, involve expert opinion are currently before the 1 December 1997, p. 9969): Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review under (1) With reference to paragraph 6(c): on which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1977. It dates, and with whom, were the discussions be- would therefore not be appropriate to comment. To tween February and July 1997 held. the extent that these complex factual issues relate (2) With reference to paragraph 7(a): (a) Can any to a current action before the Federal Court of evidence and any report written to, or by, the Australia, referred to in more detail in the response Standards Review Panel of Tasmania by Dr Penelo- to the next part of the honourable senator’s ques- pe Flett be provided; (b) specifically, what was tion, it would also not be appropriate to comment. unacceptable in the quality of care at Derwent (2) (c) If, by this question, the honourable Court and what suggested the proprietor’s inability senator is referring to the decision of the delegate to understand how to adequately address the of the Minister to revoke the approval of the problems; and (c) who reviewed the decision and nursing home under section 44 of the National is that review available. Health Act 1953 (the Act), that decision was Senator Herron—The Minister for Family reconsidered by Mr Robert Griew, State Manager, Services has provided the following answer to New South Wales of the Department of Health and Family Services as the delegate of the Minister for the honourable senator’s question: Family Services for the purposes of s.105AAB(4) (1) The discussions took place between Mr of the Act. Mr Griew affirmed the decision to Stephen Dellar, then State Manager, Tasmania and revoke the approval of the nursing home. Mr the Chief Executive Officer of Southern Cross Griew’s decision is currently the subject of an Homes Inc, Mr Richard Sadek as well as some application for review under the Administrative board members. Some meetings also involved other Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and is to be senior staff of Southern Cross Homes. Discussions considered by the Federal Court of Australia. It took place on the following dates: 5, 6 and 21 would therefore be inappropriate to comment. February 1997; 6, 7 and 13 March 1997; 28 April If, however, the honourable senator is referring 1997; and 21 July 1997. The discussions on 6 and to the finding of the Standards Review Panel of 7 March took place by telephone. Tasmania chaired by Dr Penelope Flett that the (2) (a) The Report of the Standards Review Panel submissions of the proprietor would not result in of Tasmania was published and distributed by the sustainable improvements in the quality of care Department on 21 July 1997. I am informed that a being provided, then that finding is not a review- copy was delivered to the honourable senator’s able decision within the terms of the National office in Hobart on 20 May 1998. As to the Health Act 1953.